Scottish independence

First Up · 17-09-2020 10:37am

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Many people in Scotland are now coming around to the latter choice. Both choices will involve hardship

Agree.

First Up · 17-09-2020 10:43am

Sam Russell wrote:

Why would Scottish people be content with this?

All political choices involve some give and take. If you think eroding the power of councils justifies the disruption of leaving the UK, then vote for it.

I think it would be easier to resist the intrusion into the role of councils than to rebuild the entire government and economy but each to his own.

pixelburp · 17-09-2020 11:04am

First Up wrote: »

In 2014 being in the UK included EU membership. That's part of the convergence the Scots chose over independence.

I remember the "Better Together" narrative very well and yes, the main thrust of those speaking to No was that leaving the UK would mean leaving the safety net of the EU - and that Scotland would be at the back of the economic queue in an instant. Of course, every utterance along those lines has proven obscene within 2 years of the 2014 result thanks to Brexit; as the very thing Gordon Brown and his ilk warned of to Scots is now happening regardless of their intentions or desires. The new narrative speaks differently, that London politics doesn't give a fig what Scotland thinks, and this is solidifying in majority support for independence.

Independence is always a stab in the dark - be it Scotland, North Macedonia, Catalonia or whoever - there's simply no two ways about it and ultimately becomes as much emotive as it does pragmatic. The yearning for self-determination in the face of an increasingly manic "master" nation is a tonic. And no greater national psyche for pragmatism than the Scottish but there's a compelling rationale that says the longer another referendum takes to happen, the more Scotland becomes dragged down by the inevitable two-hit combo of a probable Hard Brexit & yet another recession brought about by CoVid.

Independence is, to pull a Rumsfeld, a Known Unknown, but if there has been one interesting facet of CoVid it has been to watch Scotland carry itself as a sovereign nation, often ignoring London or actually leading the way in "right decisions" (such as with the school results scandal). There's simply never going to be the "Right time" for independence, as both poverty and wealth bring warnings of potential losses. Brexit however has changed the nature of the game, and the nature of what the UK is. Arguably, the entity is becoming moribund if allowed to fester like this.

As to Ireland, well sure. Who knows, because while an independent Scotland could be an economic rival to ourselves, within the EU they would automatically become an ally by dint of there now being two English speaking, small countries with shared history and culture. It'd be a bit weird if we WEREN'T if not allies, then willing collaborators in shared interests. Short term we might be rivals, but longterm might speak to a different shape.

First Up · 17-09-2020 11:16am

pixelburp wrote:

As to Ireland, well sure. Who knows, because while an independent Scotland could be an economic rival to ourselves, within the EU they would automatically become an ally by dint of there now being two English speaking, small countries with shared history and culture. It'd be a bit weird if we WEREN'T if not allies, then willing collaborators in shared interests. Short term we might be rivals, but longterm might speak to a different shape.

Scotland outside the UK would be less of a rival for FDI. They would lose unfettered access to the English market and even if/when back in the EU would have to deal with England's borders and queues to get to continental customers.

But yes. we would align on some stuff and Scotland would get sympathetic support from the EU.

A Dub in Glasgo · 17-09-2020 11:54am

Will always remind folk that the Better Together campaign was a pack of lies

https://twitter.com/UK_Together/status/506899714923843584

Fr Tod Umptious · 17-09-2020 12:06pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Will always remind folk that the Better Together campaign was a pack of lies

https://twitter.com/UK_Together/status/506899714923843584

Well it's factually true for the time of writing, 2014.

UK were still in the EU.
And independent Scotland would not, initially at least, been a member.

A leave vote in an EU referendum was still two years away.
The EU referendum it's self was not even scheduled, actually it was not even a guarantee to happen as it was contingent on the Conservative Party winning the next election which was scheduled to happen in 2015.

A Dub in Glasgo · 17-09-2020 12:13pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well it's factually true for the time of writing, 2014.

UK were still in the EU.
And independent Scotland would not, initially at least, been a member.

A leave vote in an EU referendum was still two years away.
The EU referendum it's self was not even scheduled, actually it was not even a guarantee to happen as it was contingent on the Conservative Party winning the next election which was scheduled to happen in 2015.

The Better Together campaign was all about being valued within the UK as an equal member of a union, their concerns and voices would be considered. Once the UK got the result they wanted, they put all that in the bin and Brexit is the clearest example of what kind of 'union' the UK is

pixelburp · 17-09-2020 12:17pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Better Together campaign was all about being valued within the UK as an equal member of a union, their concerns and voices would be considered. Once the UK got the result they wanted, they put all that in the bin and Brexit is the clearest example of what kind of 'union' the UK is

IIRC there was also the carrot dangled at the 11th Hour of even more autonomy via a "Devo Plus" option as I believe it was called & promised. That probably got a few more holdouts to better the devil you know and vote "no". There my knowledge of Hollyrood politics dries up as I presume this "Devo Max" was never properly implemented - assuming I haven't just imagined an otherwise hypothetical talking point from the time.

McGiver · 17-09-2020 12:30pm

listermint wrote:

Your analogy breaks down when one thinks for a second.

Hey wait , what. Clare isn't a country.

Irrelevant. There's no better example from Ireland. It's about a much smaller devolved administration overriding much larger state level administration.

If the sizes are similar or if the constituent parts are many then it's fine and such federal or quasi federal arrangement could work. Like in Spain, Canada or Switzerland.

It's never going to work with the UK "nations" because they are so tiny compared to England and they are only three of them - 1.8M, 3.0M, 5.3M and 53M is such a huge difference that it's unworkable.

If UK had 10 smaller nations with 3M population each and then England with 30M then it could work.

McGiver · 17-09-2020 12:31pm

fash wrote:

Common law is derived from Norman law actually

In fact, civil law in Scotland is derived from French (and indirectly Norman law).

BonnieSituation · 17-09-2020 12:33pm

pixelburp wrote: »

IIRC there was also the carrot dangled at the 11th Hour of even more autonomy via a "Devo Plus" option as I believe it was called & promised. That probably got a few more holdouts to better the devil you know and vote "no". There my knowledge of Hollyrood politics dries up as I presume this "Devo Max" was never properly implemented - assuming I haven't just imagined an otherwise hypothetical talking point from the time.

Ah the "Vow".

Imagine, all it took was one poll for independence, two days before the vote to get them all up to Edinburgh to make it!

Consistent polls for independence now are being met with ignorance and downright hostility.

Better the devil you know, doesn't really wash anymore.

A Dub in Glasgo · 17-09-2020 12:37pm

The Vow

THE man behind ‘The Vow’, the cross-party pledge of greater devolution credited with securing the No vote in 2014, has come out in support of independence.

Former Daily Record editor Murray Foote, who organised the paper’s famous front page on the eve of the referendum, said he could no longer put up with Tory contempt for devolution.

The Smith Commission (included all the political parties) was set up to look at the powers and some were passed to the Scottish Parliament (mainly income tax raising powers), nothing like the kind of powers banded about during the referendum campaign. The commission also signed this

Now the UK govt want to drive a tank through all of this whilst still clinging onto the 'once in a generation' defence

Sam Russell · 17-09-2020 12:46pm

First Up wrote: »

All political choices involve some give and take. If you think eroding the power of councils justifies the disruption of leaving the UK, then vote for it.

I think it would be easier to resist the intrusion into the role of councils than to rebuild the entire government and economy but each to his own.

I do not think you read the post of mine you quote from.

My reference to councils was that the UK Gov (the Tories) want to reduce the assemblies of Scotland, Wales and NI to less than (local authority) councils.

If let to their own devices, I'm quite sure that the Scottish Assembly would quickly expand their remit to ably control the full governance of an independent Scotland. However, if they did vote for independence under the current administration in Westminster, they would have imposed on them punitive arrangements, including a huge share of the national debt.

They really need to leave this corrupt government that hands out whopping contracts to their friends whose only qualification is the size of their donation to the Tory party.

jem · 17-09-2020 12:50pm

IF BJ and the tories can and do break international law and treaties what is to stop the Scottish parliment doing the exact same and take independance using Westministers own precident.

Sam Russell · 17-09-2020 1:25pm

jem wrote: »

IF BJ and the tories can and do break international law and treaties what is to stop the Scottish parliment doing the exact same and take independance using Westministers own precident.

The nuclear subs stationed in Her Majesty's Naval Base, Clyde sited at Faslane on the Gare Loch. I am sure a salvo from them could settle the issue quite quickly. It is quite local to them as well.

Then of course they could send in the SAS, or the Marines, or mabe a few tank regiments.

To quote Stalin, 'How many divisions has the Pope Scottish Assembly?

listermint · 17-09-2020 1:31pm

McGiver wrote: »

Irrelevant. There's no better example from Ireland. It's about a much smaller devolved administration overriding much larger state level administration.

If the sizes are similar or if the constituent parts are many then it's fine and such federal or quasi federal arrangement could work. Like in Spain, Canada or Switzerland.

It's never going to work with the UK "nations" because they are so tiny compared to England and they are only three of them - 1.8M, 3.0M, 5.3M and 53M is such a huge difference that it's unworkable.

If UK had 10 smaller nations with 3M population each and then England with 30M then it could work.

It's completely relevant. Your equating the two is ludicrous. A country has every right to self determination. You going off on tangents about population sizes is you walking away from your initial poor analogy.

Easily spoiled.

fash · 17-09-2020 1:43pm

McGiver wrote: »

In fact, civil law in Scotland is derived from French (and indirectly Norman law).

I was talking about common law - i.e. the law of England and Wales

McGiver · 17-09-2020 3:56pm

fash wrote:

I was talking about common law - i.e. the law of England and Wales

I know my comment was for the OP.

McGiver · 17-09-2020 3:58pm

listermint wrote:

It's completely relevant. Your equating the two is ludicrous. A country has every right to self determination. You going off on tangents about population sizes is you walking away from your initial poor analogy.

How about replying to my post instead. Why is it ludicrous? Why is it a tangent? My explanation is clear. The UK arrangement can never work - England is too large. And the 3 "countries" aren't really countries at all. Only on paper. Spanish regions have higher autonomy and clout then these "countries".

listermint · 17-09-2020 5:06pm

McGiver wrote: »

How about replying to my post instead. Why is it ludicrous? Why is it a tangent? My explanation is clear. The UK arrangement can never work - England is too large. And the 3 "countries" aren't really countries at all. Only on paper. Spanish regions have higher autonomy and clout then these "countries".

I took exception to the silly analogy about county Clare. I engaged with you on that. I've no interest in anything population related . You saw my point you replied it was a terrible analogy. Then end.

briany · 17-09-2020 7:06pm

McGiver wrote: »

Yes but Wales, Scotland and NI are mere attachments to England and don't matter. Westminster would never ever agree to this nor would the English. The population/gdp ratio of England:UK is just too high. It's 80% population wise and probably more GDP wise.

That's why any sort moderation effect of Scotland which has less than 10% UK population is never going to be allowed by the English, and it's a laughable proposition and absolutely unrealistic, especially with the current regime. And I wouldn't disagree with it either, if I was English.
Analogy - Would you be happy if Co Clare was overriding decisions on what happens with the whole Ireland or Dublin?

And the above is also the reason why any sort of devolution or federal arrangement wouldn't work in the UK either unless England was broken down to multiple regions (Cumbria, Cornwall, Anglia, Mercia etc).

England is just too big to merge with others, basically the Union should have never happened, the English were always going to have the upper hand.

Scotland, Wales and NI do matter to England, but not in the sense of being dear partners, more that England (or more specifically, their political establishment) likes having them and their resources and their territory.

If England truly didn't care about Scotland, then you'd figure Westminster wouldn't be so cold toward the idea of another IndyRef, and at least acknowledge the case for another one, given the massive looming change in the UK's direction.

The problem with the UK, unlike Ireland, is that the UK is hugely and historically regional - it's a state, but not a true nation. It's 3 and a bit countries welded together, and not all the joins are sound. Put enough stress on them and they break, and we're seeing that stress in real time with Brexit. The UK government ignoring the fractious nature of their state, and the differing opinions found throughout the constituent countries was totally boneheaded, and they're paying for it now.

A Dub in Glasgo · 17-09-2020 8:01pm

A little graphic that might give an insight into why the UK might not let Scotland go independent. Oh and the thorny problem of where in rUK to replicate Coulport and Faslane

Charles Babbage · 17-09-2020 8:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Then there is something for everyone in the audience of NI. So many people, particulary ROI "Free State" Shinners, seem to forget that at least half the population of NI identifies as British, to an extent that make Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson look like bleeding heart liberals.
Having an independent Scotland with a good chunk of Protestants and Presbyterians in it would assauge their fears somewhat.

Those ROI "Free State" Shinners probably looked at the 2011 census which showed 40% in NI identifying as British and reckoned that this number had gone done since then.

Peregrinus · 18-09-2020 1:57am

First Up wrote: »

There is no happiness associated with Brexit, just varying degrees of unhappiness. Scotland has been shafted and faces hard choices.

That's why I think a better outcome would be keeping the UK together but with changes that would preserve most of what they have as both a UK and EU member.

It might well be a better outcome, but it doesn't seem to be an outcome currently on offer. And there's nothing the Scots can do to bring it about. The problem here is England.

First Up wrote: »

That would suit Ireland too.

It certainly would. But see above.

Peregrinus · 18-09-2020 2:03am

Sam Russell wrote: »

The nuclear subs stationed in Her Majesty's Naval Base, Clyde sited at Faslane on the Gare Loch. I am sure a salvo from them could settle the issue quite quickly. It is quite local to them as well.

Then of course they could send in the SAS, or the Marines, or mabe a few tank regiments.

To quote Stalin, 'How many divisions has the Pope Scottish Assembly?

Yeah, 'cause that approach worked so well to keep Ireland within the United Kingdom.

First Up · 18-09-2020 7:18am

Peregrinus wrote:

It might well be a better outcome, but it doesn't seem to be an outcome currently on offer. And there's nothing the Scots can do to bring it about. The problem here is England.

No doubt about where the problem lies but with the government in disarray, I wouldn't rule anything out. That's part of the problem too of course, because the uncertainty is destroying UK business and investment.

But I am mostly advising those cheering on the break-up of the UK to think about it a bit deeper.

Winters · 18-09-2020 6:02pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhPkHP8eCRo

Angus MacNeil, SNP MP, asked Boris why Ireland has more autonomy in the EU than Scotland does as part of the UK.

Sam Russell · 18-09-2020 7:07pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, 'cause that approach worked so well to keep Ireland within the United Kingdom.

Didn't work for India or Kenya either.

BonnieSituation · 18-09-2020 7:07pm

Winters wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhPkHP8eCRo

Angus MacNeil, SNP MP, asked Boris why Ireland has more autonomy in the EU than Scotland does as part of the UK.

Surely at some point Boris' bumbling is gonna have to be paid. No one else would have gotten away with it this long.

18-09-2020 7:20pm

Winters wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhPkHP8eCRo

Angus MacNeil, SNP MP, asked Boris why Ireland has more autonomy in the EU than Scotland does as part of the UK.

Could it be the same reason Malta has more autonomy than Westphalia or Slovakia does than Catalonia maybe?

18-09-2020 8:02pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Didn't work for India or Kenya either.

Let’s hope that if/when the Acots leave the UK, they don’t leave in the same member they left Aden. Then it really could kick off.

A Dub in Glasgo · 19-09-2020 12:04am

Acots? Leave in the same manner?

Peregrinus · 20-09-2020 3:05am

Aegir wrote: »

Could it be the same reason Malta has more autonomy than Westphalia or Slovakia does than Catalonia maybe?

That's the point, Aegir.

bob mcbob · 03-10-2020 1:19pm

Interesting speech by the new Scottish Tory leader to the Tory party conference.

In his first major speech since he replaced Jackson Carlaw, Mr Ross said: "The case for separation is now being made more effectively in London than it ever could in Edinburgh.

Mr Ross added: "Many, including some who govern our country, want to see a UK government focused on England.
"We pretend these are the views of only a small minority, but I hear them far too often.

And he warned Scottish independence would replace a "Global Britain" with a "Little England."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54399616

Imagine the outrage there would be in the English Tory press if an SNP MP gave this speech.

4068ac1elhodqr · 03-10-2020 1:52pm

There's more talk today of either underground or oversea bridges Scot to NI.
Sounds a bit like desperation, a £20bn+ vanity gamble on securing future unities.

Sam Russell · 03-10-2020 2:01pm

Harvey Quick Typo wrote: »

There's more talk today of either underground or oversea bridges Scot to NI.
Sounds a bit like desperation, a £20bn+ vanity gamble on securing future unities.

Are they aware of the Beaufort dyke? It affects both a bridge and a tunnel.

Are they aware of how remote that bit of coast is from a population centre? From landfall is nowhere near Glasgow (100 km) or Manchester (300 km). What is it supposed to connect to? and why? And the bridge would be an additional 40 km long, assuming is goes straight across.

4068ac1elhodqr · 03-10-2020 2:16pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Are they aware of the Beaufort dyke? It affects both a bridge and a tunnel.

Are they aware of how remote that bit of coast is from a population centre? From landfall is nowhere near Glasgow (100 km) or Manchester (300 km). What is it supposed to connect to? and why? And the bridge would be an additional 40 km long, assuming is goes straight across.

Indeed the £20bn quote, would most likely be a HS2 £100bn+ elephant.
Talk in the meantime is completly free, and free from the constraints of civil engineering.

Sam Russell · 03-10-2020 2:29pm

Harvey Quick Typo wrote: »

Indeed the £20bn quote, would most likely be a HS2 £100bn+ elephant.
Talk in the meantime is completely free, and free from the constraints of civil engineering.

Or even logic.

Capt'n Midnight · 03-10-2020 3:16pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Are they aware of the Beaufort dyke? It affects both a bridge and a tunnel.

Are they aware of how remote that bit of coast is from a population centre? From landfall is nowhere near Glasgow (100 km) or Manchester (300 km). What is it supposed to connect to? and why? And the bridge would be an additional 40 km long, assuming is goes straight across.

On the NI side it looks better at first thanks to the Motorways. But they only run through DUP strongholds.

The A6 to Derry is single lane in a lot of places with lots of private entrances. Build that and Derry port becomes more relevant.

Upgrading the A1 from dual carriageway to Motorway would improve transport links both ways. Improving the A75 or A77 in Scotland would be more expensive and have lower returns.

As both Northern Irish and Scottish politicians have said there's more important infrastructure projects than an a vanity bridge that only exists to divert attention from the Boris Johnson Garden Bridge fiasco where he was given bridge plans and then wasted £53m with nothing to show for it, even though a similar bridge built nearby was completed for less than half that including costly overruns.

pixelburp · 03-10-2020 3:29pm

If ever there was a case of "qui bono?", Whatever about the political benefits of making the DUP feel wanted, seems more likely given this Tory government that someone is going to make away like bandits from the consultancy phase.

Mr.Nice Guy · 11-10-2020 7:38pm

More encouraging news for those that are pro-independence:

https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1315243967617929220

This follows a recent Savanta ComRes poll with 53% in favour of independence. There have been several such results now in these polls. A Survation poll also shows 56% of Scots believe a majority of pro-independence candidates returned at the Holyrood elections next year should be a mandate for another referendum.

Hard to see how Johnson and the Tories can keep rebuffing another one in light of this. I wonder though does Johnson care less about Scotland leaving and more about not being the PM who presides over it happening, in which case he'll just reject it out of his own self-interest?

eire4 · 12-10-2020 6:20pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

More encouraging news for those that are pro-independence:

https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1315243967617929220

This follows a recent Savanta ComRes poll with 53% in favour of independence. There have been several such results now in these polls. A Survation poll also shows 56% of Scots believe a majority of pro-independence candidates returned at the Holyrood elections next year should be a mandate for another referendum.

Hard to see how Johnson and the Tories can keep rebuffing another one in light of this. I wonder though does Johnson care less about Scotland leaving and more about not being the PM who presides over it happening, in which case he'll just reject it out of his own self-interest?

I tend to think you on the money with that last observation. But that approach will IMHO only further increase support for independence and probably push it past the 60% mark from where it seems to be now about 55%.

Water John · 12-10-2020 6:48pm

I do see 60% as a super majority and no question that triggers in anyone's mind an Indy Ref with very high odds it would pass. That bar may even be too high and anything approaching it should be enough.

cameramonkey · 12-10-2020 7:17pm

In Ireland in the 1918 election about 68% of the vote was cast for nationalist candidates. SF got aboout 47% and the IPP got about 22%. If you look at the 26 counties then there must have been an overwhelming vote for nationalist candidates upwards of 90% in most consistences. The danger for Scotland is having a large and unhappy Unionist rump if there is a vote for independence. Has a study been done on those who are not Scottish and voted to remain in the UK, is there a large English resident Unionist vote?

eire4 · 12-10-2020 7:22pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

In Ireland in the 1918 election about 68% of the vote was cast for nationalist candidates. SF got aboout 47% and the IPP got about 22%. If you look at the 26 counties then there must have been an overwhelming vote for nationalist candidates upwards of 90% in most consistences. The danger for Scotland is having a large and unhappy Unionist rump if there is a vote for independence. Has a study been done on those who are not Scottish and voted to remain in the UK, is there a large English resident Unionist vote?

I think the difference here is economically it is going to be very clear the UK outside the EU is worse off economically and Scotland out of the UK and back into the EU is going to be much better off. Sure there will be naysayers but I think the idiocy of the English driven brexit changes the paradigm.

L1011 · 12-10-2020 7:25pm

FPTP prevented there being any significant number of Unionists elected in what became ROI - just one outside the University constituencies - but if there'd been STV there would have almost certainly been a Unionist elected in Monaghan as well as more in South Dublin than the one that was returned. And that's at the very least.

There were areas with non-negligible Protestant populations that didn't have a Unionist candidate so ended up with SF vs IPP races, or just SF; but in a larger STV constituency could easily have returned a single Unionist also - Cork for instance. Remember that in the 6 seat days there was a single Unionist MLA in West Belfast!

If Scotland retains its hybrid system they could easily end up with close to no Unionists in their FPTP section but plenty via the regional seats.

BonnieSituation · 12-10-2020 7:29pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

In Ireland in the 1918 election about 68% of the vote was cast for nationalist candidates. SF got aboout 47% and the IPP got about 22%. If you look at the 26 counties then there must have been an overwhelming vote for nationalist candidates upwards of 90% in most consistences. The danger for Scotland is having a large and unhappy Unionist rump if there is a vote for independence. Has a study been done on those who are not Scottish and voted to remain in the UK, is there a large English resident Unionist vote?

I suppose for those Unionists partition could be an answer.

Sam Russell · 12-10-2020 7:31pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I suppose for those Unionists partition could be an answer.

Yea, Hadrian's Wall.*

*I do of course mean the southern border - not sure about Berwick on Tweed.

listermint · 14-10-2020 1:48pm

Latest surveys show 58% support for independence. Movement is growing.

pixelburp · 14-10-2020 3:19pm

listermint wrote: »

Latest surveys show 58% support for independence. Movement is growing.

Which surveys are these? I was only going to say the other day that the numbers seemed to have stalled around the 53, 54% but if the above is from reputable sources it certainly changes things by closing in on the magic 2/3s majority...

Scottish independence

Comments