Scottish independence

First Up

Scotland's biggest problem is geography. It's trade route to the EU has always been through England and the channel crossings. There are other options (including through Ireland) but they are longer and more expensive and Scottish ports are ill-equipped to deal with them.

I expect Scotland will seek EU membership and I expect the EU to handle it sympathetically. But the unavoidable challenge for Scottish business is trade routes. Brexit has already made that much harder. If Scotland leaves the UK, I doubt England (or Wales) will be inclined to help solve the problem for them.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Scotland's biggest problem is geography. It's trade route to the EU has always been through England and the channel crossings. There are other options (including through Ireland) but they are longer and more expensive and Scottish ports are ill-equipped to deal with them.

I expect Scotland will seek EU membership and I expect the EU to handle it sympathetically. But the unavoidable challenge for Scottish business is trade routes. Brexit has already made that much harder. If Scotland leaves the UK, I doubt England (or Wales) will be inclined to help solve the problem for them.

But, again, this isn't a problem that is avoided by voting against independence. Scottish trade with the EU is stuffed because of Brexit. This is only partly due to the fact that trade routes go through England. Independence followed by EU membership can't solve the problem that trade routes go through England, but it can solve barriers to trade imposed by Brexit.

As far as Scottish trade with the EU goes, independence followed by EU association/membership will definitely put them in a better position than they are in today. But it will cannot them in the position they were in when the whole UK was an EU member state.

But so what? The question in the indepence referendum is not whether independence will create an ideal situation for Scotland; it's whether it will create a better situation than they will be in if they stay in the UK. And, if we look at the question of trade with the EU in isolation, it certainly will.

murphaph

Surely our own geography is even more disadvantageous than Scotland's yet we manage. A new port would be required in South East Scotland but they'd have a clear run over to many larger centres of population in a shorter time than us.

rock22

I appreciate that Brexit has made sovereignty a dirty word but Scottish independence has to be about 'sovereignty', about making your own decisions.. While the economics of independence cannot be ignored it cannot be the only driving force. . An independent Scotland would be free to apply for membership of the EU and almost certainly would do so.

The path to independence will almost certainly be marked by economic instability/uncertainty which could disrupt the economy. And independence will not be a single day event but rather a process stretching over many years. So the people of Scotland will need to be happy that that disruption, in the short term, is a price worth paying for final independence. That argument, I believe, cannot be won ( or lost) on simple economic terms, it must be argued in terms of sovereignty . But even to return to economic arguments, Ireland can be held up as a success post independence from UK.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

But so what? The question in the indepence referendum is not whether independence will create an ideal situation for Scotland; it's whether it will create a better situation than they will be in if they stay in the UK. And, if we look at the question of trade with the EU in isolation, it certainly will.

I agree Scotland is behind the 8 ball and several factors are outside their control - geography being one and Fortress England being another. Brexit is a sh*t show with no winners.

The point I am trying to make is that the Scottish sovereign government (presumably SNP to start) needs to be quick and decisive about lots of things both commercial and economic. It cannot allow flag waving, political stand-offs or point scoring to distract or delay them.

ancapailldorcha

rock22 wrote: »

I appreciate that Brexit has made sovereignty a dirty word but Scottish independence has to be about 'sovereignty', about making your own decisions.. While the economics of independence cannot be ignored it cannot be the only driving force. . An independent Scotland would be free to apply for membership of the EU and almost certainly would do so.

The path to independence will almost certainly be marked by economic instability/uncertainty which could disrupt the economy. And independence will not be a single day event but rather a process stretching over many years. So the people of Scotland will need to be happy that that disruption, in the short term, is a price worth paying for final independence. That argument, I believe, cannot be won ( or lost) on simple economic terms, it must be argued in terms of sovereignty . But even to return to economic arguments, Ireland can be held up as a success post independence from UK.

The problem with putting sovereignty before economics is that you're ultimately disregarding the damage to people's livelihoods to suit your own political agenda.

We see this with Brexit where you have the sheltered elites who'll benefit and then there's everyone else. Not everyone is equally vulnerable but such upheavals tend to focus their effects on the poorest demographics.

It's ultimately a call for the people of Scotland and they should be afforded a referendum in my opinion but the debate needs to be of a better standard than the one about Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem with putting sovereignty before economics is that you're ultimately disregarding the damage to people's livelihoods to suit your own political agenda.

We see this with Brexit where you have the sheltered elites who'll benefit and then there's everyone else. Not everyone is equally vulnerable but such upheavals tend to focus their effects on the poorest demographics.

It's ultimately a call for the people of Scotland and they should be afforded a referendum in my opinion but the debate needs to be of a better standard than the one about Brexit.

Exactly. Whether you are unionist or nationalist, all facts should be on the table.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. Whether you are unionist or nationalist, all facts should be on the table.

To clarify, I'd find it hard to choose a side if I lived in Scotland and was permitted a vote. I sympathize with the independence idea a great deal but I'd be reluctant to impose another economic shock on Scotland's economy.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

To clarify, I'd find it hard to choose a side if I lived in Scotland and was permitted a vote. I sympathize with the independence idea a great deal but I'd be reluctant to impose another economic shock on Scotland's economy.

To just change the point of view slightly - using a phrase from Amanda Gormans speech/poem at Biden's inauguration.

Post independence: Our blunders are our children's burdens.

Without independence: Their blunders are our children's burdens.

It is better to live with one's own blunders than to live with imposed blunders from another government. Think of the famine where food was exported passed starving people in the street. Or the penal laws imposed on us. Think of the WW I deaths in a futile war over the egos of grandsons of Queen Victoria - for what? We should have no part in that.

No, a nation needs to be able to make its own decisions and live with the consequences. It has taken us a century to achieve (more or less) what was promised in the 1916 declaration. [Cherish all the children of the nation equally].

If Scotland goes for independence, let us hope it will not take as long.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

To just change the point of view slightly - using a phrase from Amanda Gormans speech/poem at Biden's inauguration.

Post independence: Our blunders are our children's burdens.

Without independence: Their blunders are our children's burdens.

It is better to live with one's own blunders than to live with imposed blunders from another government. Think of the famine where food was exported passed starving people in the street. Or the penal laws imposed on us. Think of the WW I deaths in a futile war over the egos of grandsons of Queen Victoria - for what? We should have no part in that.

No, a nation needs to be able to make its own decisions and live with the consequences. It has taken us a century to achieve (more or less) what was promised in the 1916 declaration. [Cherish all the children of the nation equally].

If Scotland goes for independence, let us hope it will not take as long.

This is, frankly, an absurd and unhelpful comparison on the same level as Jeremy Hunt comparing the EU to the USSR or any other daft Brexitism.

What's done is done and being on the receiving end of an upheaval because of insipid nationalism, I have no desire to inflict the same on anyone else.

It's ultimately for the Scots to decide and if they're consistently electing the SNP then they should get another chance to do so but independence needs a much better argument for it than a silly list of atrocities.

pixelburp

To reduce to a simpler equation: does independence afford the nation of Scotland and its government enough latitude to chart its own economic or social course? And does Westminster continue to serve all 4 nation's equally towards that purpose? Brexit threw a grenade into that conversation that kinda says, no. When push comes to shove Westminster will override regional (sovereign?) desires, to a detriment of democratic principles. Arguably the higher emotions are in Whitehall now, trying to make an emotive, jingoistic and thinly defined referendum work in the face of pragmatism. Scotland might be better served being with an institution with a more pronounced federal footprint (the EU) than an archaic, lopsided structure incapable of reform (Westminster)

First Up

murphaph wrote:

Surely our own geography is even more disadvantageous than Scotland's yet we manage. A new port would be required in South East Scotland but they'd have a clear run over to many larger centres of population in a shorter time than us.

Not on any map I'm looking at.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is, frankly, an absurd and unhelpful comparison on the same level as Jeremy Hunt comparing the EU to the USSR or any other daft Brexitism.

What's done is done and being on the receiving end of an upheaval because of insipid nationalism, I have no desire to inflict the same on anyone else.

It's ultimately for the Scots to decide and if they're consistently electing the SNP then they should get another chance to do so but independence needs a much better argument for it than a silly list of atrocities.

My point was that basically a nation should be responsible for their own destiny. If the UK is the nation, their decision to Brexit was a decision made by the English part of that nation, and not Scotland nor NI. Citing past wrongs was perhaps clumsy, but they are held deep in the Irish psyche.

However, Scottish nationalists have a view Scotland are a nation that should decide Scotland's future and should therefore be allowed to do so. Since the referendum they have been completely ignored, and the particular form of Brexit has gone in completely the wrong direction from their point of view.

What drives Scottish nationalism is the desire to be the master of their own destiny, just as Brexit is an attempt to regain sovereignty - even if that is misguided since they already had sovereignty.

Scotland does not have any meaningful sovereignty at present. While life goes on without too many bumps, that is OK, but Brexit is a massive bump in the road, with many more to be endured. These bumps are not of Scotland's choosing.

Lumen

Sam Russell wrote: »

Scotland does not have any meaningful sovereignty at present.

Is that really true though?

https://www.gov.scot/about/what-the-government-does/

The Scottish Government runs the country in relation to matters that are devolved from Westminster.

This includes: the economy, education, health, justice, rural affairs, housing, environment, equal opportunities, consumer advocacy and advice, transport and taxation. The power to set a Scottish rate of income tax is a new addition to our responsibilities and further powers will be devolved to Scotland over the coming years.

I realise I'm inviting a Python-esque response, but which elements of "sovereignty" are missing from a practical, day-to-day perspective? Other than the big trading stuff, which could be simply fixed by the UK rejoining the SM and CU. :pac:

First Up

Lumen wrote:

Other than the big trading stuff, which could be simply fixed by the UK rejoining the SM and CU.

Simply?

A Dub in Glasgo

Lumen wrote: »

Is that really true though?

https://www.gov.scot/about/what-the-government-does/



I realise I'm inviting a Python-esque response, but which elements of "sovereignty" are missing from a practical, day-to-day perspective? Other than the big trading stuff, which could be simply fixed by the UK rejoining the SM and CU. :pac:

The following are not the responsibility of the Scottish govt and are reserved to the UK govt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_and_excepted_matters#List_of_reserved_matters

The Scottish govt are lambasted by unionists for not improving the lives of those that live in Scotland when they ignore that the decision making of the UK govt determines the block grant that the Scottish govt spend

This demonstrates it quite well

https://twitter.com/cairnstoon/status/850665759655292928

Peregrinus

Lumen wrote: »

Is that really true though?

I realise I'm inviting a Python-esque response, but which elements of "sovereignty" are missing from a practical, day-to-day perspective? Other than the big trading stuff, which could be simply fixed by the UK rejoining the SM and CU. :pac:

By that argument Leitrim County Council is a sovereign body, at least in certain respects.

Sovereignty is not a question of who actually runs schools, regulates buses, etc, but who has the right to do these things. The Scottish administration does these things because Westminster has enacted a law that says so; Westminister could amend or repeal that law tomorrow. Therefore the Scottish administration is not sovereign; Westminster is.

(This is why, incidentally, the UK was always sovereign as a member state of the EU. The EU could exercise certain powers within the UK because the UK had made a treaty, and Westminister had enacted legislation, given the EU the capacity to do so. The UK could withdraw from that treaty at any time, and Westminster could repeal that legislation (both of which events happened, of course) and this meant that the UK continued to be the sovereign power.)

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

I agree Scotland is behind the 8 ball and several factors are outside their control - geography being one and Fortress England being another. Brexit is a sh*t show with no winners.

The point I am trying to make is that the Scottish sovereign government (presumably SNP to start) needs to be quick and decisive about lots of things both commercial and economic. It cannot allow flag waving, political stand-offs or point scoring to distract or delay them.

I'd agree with that.

But, again, I think it implies an argument in favour of independence; right now Scotland is trapped in a Union whose positions and policies are wholly driven by flag waving, political stand-offs and point scoring. Independence offers the possibility of escape from that.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

But, again, I think it implies an argument in favour of independence; right now Scotland is trapped in a Union whose positions and policies are wholly driven by flag waving, political stand-offs and point scoring. Independence offers the possibility of escape from that.

I'm not arguing against independence. I am highlighting the challenges that the government of an independent Scotland will need to address - and with great urgency.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

I'm not arguing against independence. I am highlighting the challenges that the government of an independent Scotland will need to address - and with great urgency.

Well, yes. But, the more urgent addressing them is, the more pressing the need for independence. They can't be addressed until independence is acheived. So in fact I think you're implicitly arguing for independence.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Well, yes. But, the more urgent addressing them is, the more pressing the need for independence. They can't be addressed until independence is acheived. So in fact I think you're implicitly arguing for independence.

No, I see it differently. Independence has obvious potential benefits but it also makes Scotland vulnerable in ways that didn't apply before.

These are not arguments against independence but they show the importance of anticipating them and having policies and plans ready. That will need a strong government and a supportive opposition. There is certainly no time for the SNP to squabble among itself and give the opposition ammunition.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

No, I see it differently. Independence has obvious potential benefits but it also makes Scotland vulnerable in ways that didn't apply before.

These are not arguments against independence but they show the importance of anticipating them and having policies and plans ready. That will need a strong government and a supportive opposition. There is certainly no time for the SNP to squabble among itself and give the opposition ammunition.

That is obviously true.

One might question why it is happening at this time.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

One might question why it is happening at this time.

And if it is happening now, how much worse might it become after the party's raison d'etre has been achieved.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

And if it is happening now, how much worse might it become after the party's raison d'etre has been achieved.

Assuming that this attack on NS is being orchestrated by forces outside the SNP, then who benefits?

After independence, who would benefit from such an attack?

Surely the second group are not the same as the first. Internal party disagreements are different from the action now being pursued by Salmond. Post independence, there will be groups who want a better this or more action on that, and usual political rules and resolutions will apply. Party unity may be called into question, but not instantly.

This current spat is a completely different squabble designed to disadvantage the SNP before the May elections.

bob mcbob

Now that the Scottish Tories are demanding probity in public life at Holyrood, the question is being asked does this also apply to Westminster.

According to the Scottish Tory leader, responded that they were not compatible. In this he was absolutely correct -

But hitting him full square between the eyes was the legitimate request that his demands apply in Westminster. Rather than demanding parity, with probity in office applying in Westminster as in Holyrood, he simply said that the two weren’t comparable.

Well in one way he’s right, as whatever’s found to have happened or not in Scotland, it’s as nothing to what has been going on in London.

There it’s not just the Ministerial Code that’s been broken, but Parliament and public being misled and even unlawful actions being carried out. Public funds are being channelled into the private profit of a few.

That Home Secretary Priti Patel remains in office without a by your leave and Johnson and Gove can give out misleading information, without even an apology, is simply unacceptable.

Probity in office is essential for trust in democracy everywhere. Douglas Ross must realise that also means Westminster.

With all that going on double standards and hypocrisy are barely worth mentioning

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/alex-salmond-inquiry-scottish-tory-leader-douglas-rosss-call-for-nicola-sturgeon-to-resign-just-highlights-the-scandal-in-westminster-kenny-macaskill-msp-3161013

TheHouseIRL

SNIP. No snide comments please.

Kermit.de.frog

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'd agree with that.

But, again, I think it implies an argument in favour of independence; right now Scotland is trapped in a Union whose positions and policies are wholly driven by flag waving, political stand-offs and point scoring. Independence offers the possibility of escape from that.

They (and Wales) are also treated with utter contempt.

Take the Brexit vote, neither Scotland or Wales had any meaningful input afterward. Granted Wales voted for.


What perplexes me most is when people say "it was a UK vote" because the practical outworking of that is ultimately England decides everything on sheer numbers and no one else counts.

I don't regard Scotland as a "nation" or "country" because it is not. It is a region of a nation/country called the United Kingdom whose capital is London and Parliament is Westminster.

I'm willing to give them one more chance to show they are a nation and vote for independence.

Most countries have to fight wars for independence. It's hard earned.

Scots might get not one but two votes.

Time to assert their rights, vote to run their own affairs or get off the stage in my opinion and accept the status quo.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

And if it is happening now, how much worse might it become after the party's raison d'etre has been achieved.

Oh, it's likely to become better. If Sturgeon is the Scottish First Minister who actually delivers independence, her short- to medium-term position in the party becomes impregnable. I think the concern for the SNP is that the current ructions will make it more difficult to achieve independence but, if it is achieved, that accomplishment dwarfs the current ructions.

Just look at the fillip Johnson got for delivering a farcical and dishonest Brexit. His personal probity, character and standards are as low as ever, but electorally it doesn't matter a bit. You can multiply that by ten for a Scottish government that delivers genuine independence.

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, it's likely to become better. If Sturgeon is the Scottish First Minister who actually delivers independence, her short- to medium-term position in the party becomes impregnable. I think the concern for the SNP is that the current ructions will make it more difficult to achieve independence but, if it is achieved, that accomplishment dwarfs the current ructions.

Just look at the fillip Johnson got for delivering a farcical and dishonest Brexit. His personal probity, character and standards are as low as ever, but electorally it doesn't matter a bit. You can multiply that by ten for a Scottish government that delivers genuine independence.

And that's putting it lightly.

I've even seen flitted around the nether regions of the twitternet about how such a scenario makes Sturgeon act like "she's the Queen already".

The SNP and the independence movement are in a massive bind. There is NOBODY around with the intelligence, charisma or political nous to bring independence across the line outside of Sturgeon.

She has a very able supporting cast, but she's out there on her own.

Hence, the efforts to bring her down are unlike anything I've seen since Major stalked Thatcher.

To be a bit of a homer, the only other politician on these Islands that comes close to her to my mind is Coveney. And even then, he's not got that je ne sais quoi that she oozes.

Kermit.de.frog

The SNP are also ideologically too diverse in my opinion (left, right, center) to survive outside of the front of the independence movement.

Only strong independence movement holds it together.

Lose the leadership with Sturgeon and there is every prospect of those ideological strings being pulled and the whole deck of the party collapsing and splitting on contradictory bread and butter policy objectives.