SNP to launch fresh Scottish independence campaign

[43096]

We have absolutely no influence in the running of the UK as a part of it,

You’ve never heard of “the West Lothian question” then?

 

[GusB]

Because you are independent or you are not. I am utterly steadfast in this view.

You either work with us as part of the Union (which I'm happy to modify, e.g. to become more formally federalised), or you take full, and complete independence as a third country, to whom we should relate as if you were France, Germany or similar.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. Do you want independence or not? I don't think a lot of Scots have a clue what it actually means.

Independence means you are a third country. A trade deal would certainly be on offer, but no form of political union whatsoever other than if we both rejoined the EU, in which case we would relate as per any other EU country.

I think we're sensible enough to know what independence means, and I'll thank you not to insult our intelligence.

I imagine that a currency known as the Scottish Pound would be the most likely currency in the event of an independent Scotland. It already has it's own notes. That said, should the SNP further wish to pursue EU membership that would mean adopting the Euro as outlined by the EU website itself.

In theory, yes. In practice, no; look at the EU countries which have yet to join the Euro. The ultimate goal would be for an independent Scotland to join the Euro, and I don't really have an issue with that, but it wouldn't have to happen right away. A Scottish Pound would probably be the best way forward. How it would work in practice is something that any pro-independence campaign will have to have nailed down before the referendum, as it was far too much of a grey area the last time around.

here is also a considerable Civil Service in Scotland, contributing to the UK government's work. Currently, 10 percent of all UK civil servants work in Scotland (source: https://www.civil-service-careers.gov.uk/scotland/), including HMRC, DWP, Cabinet Office, Ministry of Defence, Home Office, Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, Operational Delivery Profession, Human Resources Profession, Policy Profession, Legal Profession and Counter Fraud Profession.(same source). It would be inconceivable that the English, Welsh and NI Government would allow their Civil Service to work outside its country, which would lead to many redundancies or displacements.

Scotland will need a Civil Service too. The idea that all those jobs will suddenly vanish is nonsense.

 

[duncanp]

You’ve never heard of “the West Lothian question” then?

Which was brought into focus on the occasion that SNP MPs derailed the Conservative government's attempt to reform England's Sunday trading laws so that they were the same as, er, Scotland.

Why would they object to having the same Sunday trading laws in England as in Scotland, unless it was an act of pure bloody mindedness?

 

[Berliner]

Which was brought into focus on the occasion that SNP MPs derailed the Conservative government's attempt to reform England's Sunday trading laws so that they were the same as, er, Scotland.

Why would they object to having the same Sunday trading laws in England as in Scotland, unless it was an act of pure bloody mindedness?

They voted as they did to protect what they saw as a threat to wages In Scotland. I was all for normal Sunday trading in England, having lived there for many years, I never understood any arguments against it, so I was annoyed the SNP stepped in to stop it at the time.

 

[duncanp]

They voted as they did to protect what they saw as a threat to wages In Scotland. I was all for normal Sunday trading in England, having lived there for many years, I never understood any arguments against it, so I was annoyed the SNP stepped in to stop it at the time.

Can't see why liberalising Sunday trading laws in England would be a threat to wages in Scotland.

The Scottish government would have been able to introduce legislation in the Scottish parliament to protect wages in Scotland if they genuinely believed the law change in England would threaten the terms and condtions of Scottish workers.

 

[Sorcerer]

In theory, yes. In practice, no; look at the EU countries which have yet to join the Euro. The ultimate goal would be for an independent Scotland to join the Euro, and I don't really have an issue with that, but it wouldn't have to happen right away. A Scottish Pound would probably be the best way forward. How it would work in practice is something that any pro-independence campaign will have to have nailed down before the referendum, as it was far too much of a grey area the last time around.

I know that the UK and Denmark were given a permanent opt-out as a condition of signing the Maastricht Treaty, but the others seem to be a position where it's a matter of just getting around to it. Sweden previously opted not to adopt the Euro through a referendum, Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania are working through the fulfilments for it, and the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland simply haven't done so yet. But I think that the ultimate goal is for all members without an opt-out to adopt the Euro, and this in itself sort of raises a question as to whether Scotland would be fully independent if it adopts a foreign shared currency rather than it's own. It's not something that I feel I can comment on though.

 

[duncanp]

I know that the UK and Denmark were given a permanent opt-out as a condition of signing the Maastricht Treaty, but the others seem to be a position where it's a matter of just getting around to it. Sweden previously opted not to adopt the Euro through a referendum, Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania are working through the fulfilments for it, and the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland simply haven't done so yet. But I think that the ultimate goal is for all members without an opt-out to adopt the Euro, and this in itself sort of raises a question as to whether Scotland would be fully independent if it adopts a foreign shared currency rather than it's own. It's not something that I feel I can comment on though.

The bit in bold is something that the SNP needs to explain to voters it is hoping to persuade to vote Yes to independence.

 

[Wynd]

The bit in bold is something that the SNP needs to explain to voters it is hoping to persuade to vote Yes to independence.

Do you see any substantive, evidence based reason that Scotland could, or would, not develop its own currency?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you see any substantive, evidence based reason that Scotland could, or would, not develop its own currency?

It might seek to join the Euro, but if not I can't see why it'd not want to, as if the Pound was to be used England would still control things and so it wouldn't be, er, independent.

 

[Berliner]

It might seek to join the Euro, but if not I can't see why it'd not want to, as if the Pound was to be used England would still control things and so it wouldn't be, er, independent.

In the event of a currency union, England may control the currency, but it would be entirely up to Scotland to spend all of its own money on anything and everything it wants. Not like the current situation where England controls the money and Scotland can only spend its share on specific policy areas...as dictated by WM.

Not that I advocate a currency union with the UK (I Simply do not trust the rUK to look after our interests), I'd prefer a stand alone currency or the Euro, no one would argue that eurozone countries are not independent nations. I'd still vote for independence regardless of the currency option put forward. There are more important things to focus on in my view, such as having a modern democracy, with a proper representation for its citizens and a constitution which would never allow the likes of this WM government to get away with the things it does.

 

[uglymonkey]

Why not just declare UDI at midnight and have done with it?, symbolically blowing thr railway bridges at the same time

 

[Falcon1200]

A second IndyRef by December 2023. As someone who voted "No" in 2014 and "Remain" in 2016 it's difficult to decide which way to vote now.

That was how I voted too, but I would vote No again in Indyref 2 (and 3, 4, 5 etc - They will never give up). Given that one of Nicola's justifications for Indyref 2 is the 'material change in circumstances' since 2014, ie Brexit, can we assume that, after a Yes vote in Indyref 2, should there be a similar 'material change in circumstances', eg the EU refusing Scotland membership, she will be amenable to UniRef 1 to cancel the process of division ?

I'm glad she's finally getting on with this, she's had mandate after mandate, won election after election

What mandate ? Despite the best efforts of Boris and his pals the SNP still could not win a majority, either of seats or percentage of votes, in the last Scottish Government election, and depend on the support of their little Green helpers; Which assumes that every Green voter also supports independence, despite it not being their raison d'etre. And I know for a fact that not even every SNP voter supports independence, but vote for them as the least worse option, and as an anti-Boris protest.

I think leaving the Union on the grounds of disliking the present government would be a bit short-sighted.

Indeed, Boris will not be PM for ever, neither will the Tories be in power for ever.

Acceptance of irish & scottish pound notes in england always was & is a problem.

Part of the reason for that is surely unfamiliarity rather than anti-Scottish sentiment, not helped by there being three varieties of Scottish notes, meaning that (especially the further south one gets) people will rarely encounter the money. And, except for when I visited Belfast in 2020, I cannot even recall the last time I saw an Irish note.

IMHO the ties between England and Scotland are so strong and deeply embedded that, regardless of economics, currencies, borders, etc, severing them would be a huge, expensive, protracted and disputed task, and would leave both Scotland and the remaining UK far worse off.

 

[MotCO]

In the event of a currency union, England may control the currency, but it would be entirely up to Scotland to spend all of its own money on anything and everything it wants. Not like the current situation where England controls the money and Scotland can only spend its share on specific policy areas...as dictated by WM.

I think you are missing the point of what not having your own currency actually means. Of course Scotland can spend money on what it what it likes. But if it adopts the Pound, or indeed Euro, it will have no control over monetary policy, e.g. reducing interest rates in Scotland if it is in a depression, when England, Wales and NI want to increase (and in fact do increase) interest rates to stave off inflation. Nor will they be able to devalue the Pound, since they don't control it. Quite simply, without your own currency, there is no independence.

 

[najaB]

Quite simply, without your own currency, there is no independence.

Yet there are many successful independent countries around the world who either use a foreign currency informally, have a fixed exchange rate with a foreign currency or are part of a currency union.

It isn't as big an issue as many make it out to be.

 

[MotCO]

Thats Scotland's civil service, which would still be required and which we pay for presently. Do you think there is no need for the CS in Scotland? We do have administrative affairs to attend to here you know...

I accept that, but Scotland does not account for 10% of the population of the rest of the UK. The Counter Fraud, Policy Profession and Legal Profession servicing Westminster, for example, could not be located in a 'foreign' stae. There will inevitably be fewer Civil Servants in Scotland post Independence than now.

And I forgot to mention the naval bases which would have to relocate to England, Wales or NI.

 

[AlterEgo]

Scottish Independence is Brexit plus plus as the orange fella who used to be President would say.

I've nothing against Scotland deciding to leave, in fact in principle I support it - I have Irish nationalist opinions - but many key questions need to be asked and answered, solidly, and with guarantees.

- Border arrangements with the rUK, both after independence and upon any potential accession to the EU.
- Accession routes to the EU
- Who the head of state will be, and what relationship, if any, Scotland has with the Crown.
- The monetary policy and currency of an independent Scotland
- The composition and allegiance of the Armed Forces
- Passport and visa issues
- Trade arrangements cut as an independent nation
- Whether the SNP are likely to run the place as a de facto one-party state, given they are the only explicitly independence-oriented major party.

There seem to me to be far more unresolved questions about Scottish independence than Brexit, and Brexit has not exactly been plain sailing, to put it lightly.

 

[MotCO]

Yet there are many successful independent countries around the world who either use a foreign currency informally, have a fixed exchange rate with a foreign currency or are part of a currency union.

It isn't as big an issue as many make it out to be.

Yes, I accept that. But what tools would an independent Scotland have available to them if they wanted to boost their economy, or tackle inflation, if their economic cycle is not in tune with the rest of the UK. And if Scotland has to address a deficit budget without support from Westminster, their economic cycles could well be out of sync. (As I said earlier, the spend per capita of Westminster subsidies is higher in Scotland than elsewhere, which presumably helps pay for free prescriptions, free university tuition etc. Without that funding, the Scottish Parliament will have some immediate issues to address.)

I should add that I don't mind if Scotland does achieve Independence or not; my concern is that I would want the people of Scotland to enter into this with their eyes open, and with a fair chance of being able to survive as an independent country. I do not want to stand back and witness a calamity unfold.

 

[najaB]

Who the head of state will be, and what relationship, if any, Scotland has with the Crown.

That one is easy to answer - Queen Elizabeth (or Charles if he has ascended to the throne at the time). Why would it be anything other? Naturally, Scotland might want to progress down a republican route at some later date.

 

[AlterEgo]

There are more important things to focus on in my view, such as having a modern democracy, with a proper representation for its citizens and a constitution which would never allow the likes of this WM government to get away with the things it does.

Sounds great, are those proposals part of the SNP's independence drive? What exactly do they propose?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2022 ==

That one is easy to answer - Queen Elizabeth (or Charles if he has ascended to the throne at the time). Why would it be anything other? Naturally, Scotland might want to progress down a republican route at some later date.

So the bills of the Scottish independent legislature would be signed into law by the monarch, via a Governor General? Like Canada? Is that the SNP's proposal? (Genuine Q as I am not based in Scotland and get a different diet of news)

 

[najaB]

So the bills of the Scottish independent legislature would be signed into law by the monarch, via a Governor General?

No. They would be signed into law by the Monarch as they are today.

 

[AlterEgo]

No. They would be signed into law by the Monarch as they are today.

You would really need a GG, to ensure the monarch, when acting solely in the interests of Scotland as King or Queen of Scotland, takes advice only from that country's ministers. It's part of the constitutional framework of Canada and Australia and many other countries for exactly that reason - it is a guarantor of independence.

 

[najaB]

You would really need a GG, to ensure the monarch, when acting solely in the interests of Scotland as King or Queen of Scotland, takes advice only from that country's ministers. It's part of the constitutional framework of Canada and Australia and many other countries for exactly that reason - it is a guarantor of independence.

The difference there is that the Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland pre-dates the Acts of Union. Were the latter to be repealed then it makes sense that the situation would revert to the 1603 to 1707 position - the Queen would be the monarch of Scotland and so wouldn't need a GG.

Governors General replaced pre-Independence role of Governor, of which Scotland has none.

 

[Yew]

You either work with us as part of the Union (which I'm happy to modify, e.g. to become more formally federalised),

Now that's the sort of solutions that I feel bring benefits to all.

 

[JamesT]

Can't see why liberalising Sunday trading laws in England would be a threat to wages in Scotland.

The Scottish government would have been able to introduce legislation in the Scottish parliament to protect wages in Scotland if they genuinely believed the law change in England would threaten the terms and condtions of Scottish workers.

The argument was that Scottish workers are paid a premium for working on Sunday compared to England and Wales. Whereas if conditions were equalised then UK-wide employers would understandably seek to equalise rates of pay.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I think there are still a lot of questions left unanswered by the SNP with regards to the Scottish economy.

This article offers some useful insight into whether an independent Scotland can sustain itself, economically. Some key takeaways are:

• Scotland runs at steady 10% defecit in a 'good year'.
• This alone would prevent EU membership, their limit is 3%.
• Scotland would therefore be faced with a period of either hard austerity or absurdly high taxes (a view shared by this article).

Another article notes:

• Calculated from the loss of trade with the UK/increased costs on remaining trade, the Scottish economy would contract by about £11b annually (£2000-ish per capita/yr).
• Benefits to Scottish EU membership are marginal compared to remaining outside.
• Broadly two-thirds of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK.

Scotland could afford independence but it would more than likely leave Scotland much worse off than before, while noting the bias of the sources.

 

[GusB]

Now that's the sort of solutions that I feel bring benefits to all.

Once upon a time I felt that federalisation would have been beneficial. When devolution was mooted back in the 90s, I was in favour. I would probably still be in favour of "devo-max", but the problem is that there's no devolution for England, and there seems to be no consensus about how England should be devolved. We could have the four constituent parts of the UK as devolved nations, but there's a huge imbalance when it comes to population size. When it comes down to any "federal" decisions, there would be one part which was much bigger than the others. There seems to be very little appetite for England to be divided up into federal chunks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once upon a time I felt that federalisation would have been beneficial. When devolution was mooted back in the 90s, I was in favour. I would probably still be in favour of "devo-max", but the problem is that there's no devolution for England, and there seems to be no consensus about how England should be devolved. We could have the four constituent parts of the UK as devolved nations, but there's a huge imbalance when it comes to population size. When it comes down to any "federal" decisions, there would be one part which was much bigger than the others.

You speak as if England was a single political whole. It very much isn't - the politics of the urban North are probably much closer to Scotland than London. As such, the idea that you'd devolve some things to the federal states (including England) but others would just be voted, as now, on a whole-UK basis, doesn't strike me as a particular issue.

My personal view is that England should be a federal state with its own parliament, probably in Birmingham, and London a city state and federal capital.

 

[GusB]

This article offers some useful insight into whether an independent Scotland can sustain itself, economically. Some key takeaways are:

• Scotland runs at steady 10% defecit in a 'good year'.
• This alone would prevent EU membership, their limit is 3%.
• Scotland would therefore be faced with a period of either hard austerity or absurdly high taxes (a view shared by this article).

Ah, the lovely Fraser Nelson quoting GERS figures. There is much on the internet that debunks the GERS figures, but I can't be bothered looking or quoting because inevitably it ends up with me being accused of using biased sources.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Ah, the lovely Fraser Nelson quoting GERS figures. There is much on the internet that debunks the GERS figures, but I can't be bothered looking or quoting because inevitably it ends up with me being accused of using biased sources.

I'm sure any source has a bias to some extent. My sources in that post are hideously one-sided, but it does provide for interesting food for thought.

 

[GusB]

You speak as if England was a single political whole. It very much isn't - the politics of the urban North are probably much closer to Scotland than London. As such, the idea that you'd devolve some things to the federal states (including England) but others would just be voted, as now, on a whole-UK basis, doesn't strike me as a particular issue.

I know England isn't a single political whole.

I also said:

there seems to be no consensus about how England should be devolved

My preference, if we were to remain as a federal UK, would be for there to be regional governments across the whole island. My point is that there seems to be very little agreement on how this would work south of the border, but that's not for me to decide.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2022 ==

I'm sure any source has a bias to some extent. My sources in that post are hideously one-sided, but it does provide for interesting food for thought.

Hideous is a word that I'd definitely ascribe to that muppet!