SNP to launch fresh Scottish independence campaign

[MotCO]

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.

We've had a previous thread on this. My view is that there are no natural divisions, unlike Scotland and Wales which are separate nations, and no affinity to a particular man-made division of the country. When you are asked where you come from,you usually say the town or country; you do not say I come from Wessex, for example.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Nicola Sturgeon to launch fresh Scottish independence campaign

Scotland's first minister says she still plans to hold a referendum by the end of next year.

www.bbc.co.uk

So, it's officially back on the table. 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. I was very staunchly in the "No" camp in 2014 but I'll be honest, I could be convinced to vote "Yes" this time around. The devil will, as always, be in the details but the current trajectory of the UK government towards more authoritarianism (e.g. attempting to stifle protest, break the Unions, sending asylum seekers halfway around the world, etc.) is very much against my personal beliefs and values.

As a general point, you seem to be saying that you're changing your mind because of the policies the UK Government happens to be following at the moment. Is that really a wise choice on which to base a decision about independence? It is after all unlikely that the Tories will remain in power in the UK for ever (and equally unlikely that the SNP will remain in power in Scotland forever). How would you feel if Scotland gained independence and then 5 years later you found that it was now the Scottish Government was pursuing policies that you found distasteful, while the rest-of-UK Government was doing stuff that you completely approved of?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2022 ==

I think the supreme Court will have to decide one way or another. To be honest this PM and these tories won't ever authorise what they see as a legal vote (not sure how it can ever be deemed illegal to ask a population a question mind you) and it doesn't sit right with me that a whole country can be denied a say on its furue just because of the attitudes of the current PM. That man simply doesn't do democracy or follow due process, so why should anyone dealing with him expect to get anywhere if they choose to play by the rules he constantly ignores?

Yet the Tories did authorise a legal vote in quite recent memory.

You seem to be making out that the Tories are somehow opposed in principle to letting the people of Scotland have a say. I don't believe that's the case at all. They are opposed to allowing another referendum simply because Scotland has already had a referendum, and it's not particularly democratic to keep having referendum after referendum until you get the result that one side wants (which seems to be the position of the SNP).

 

[Blindtraveler]

My reply to this is simply going to be a case of how many times can I get away with typing the word NO


Whilst I'm sure this is not the intention of the larger party or the larger objective, back in the 2014 campaign far too many supporters used it as an opportunity to bash the English and and make us feel extremely uncomfortable in some cases despite living here since we were worse too young to even speak. What sort of divisive culture does that create especially if they are going to rely heavily on tourist revenues to prop up there economy?

Furthermore, set against a backdrop of a recent pandemic that is still not officially over, I find it deeply hurtful that they have money to blow on this when n-back during the worst of the restrictions which were far more authoritarian and dictatorial here than in in the land of borris there was absolutely no support of any kind whatsoever available for those of us who were self-employed and therefore not eligible for the furlough scheme and and come to think of it I wonder how many people who took advantage of Westminster furlough money will now now.com by voting for independence, and what would happen I wonder in an independent Scotland if we had a similar situation? Somehow I don't think it would be 80% of the wages

 

[Yew]

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.

I was suggesting exactly, to divide bits of the UK up into Scotland-and-Wales sized chunks, so that the regions can take actions to benefit themselves, rather than being shackled to the whims of the Home Counties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was suggesting exactly, to divide bits of the UK up into Scotland-and-Wales sized chunks, so that the regions can take actions to benefit themselves, rather than being shackled to the whims of the Home Counties.

Nobody seems to want that. I think there would be support for England as a federal state.

With regard to federal matters it makes no practical difference how big England is if federal matters were decided based on the whole UK as one entity ignoring the states, which is the only sensible way to do it. If some Scots, as I think they may be, are suggesting that they'd want "one state one vote" that can be forgotten; the English are rightly not willing to accept a smaller population getting a disproportionate vote. If that is the only settlement Scotland would accept, there is no viable settlement, and in that case independence is the only option, but must, as I said, be full independence where Scotland is a third country to rUK and is treated the same as we would treat France or Germany.

 

[najaB]

As a general point, you seem to be saying that you're changing your mind because of the policies the UK Government happens to be following at the moment. Is that really a wise choice on which to base a decision about independence? It is after all unlikely that the Tories will remain in power in the UK for ever (and equally unlikely that the SNP will remain in power in Scotland forever). How would you feel if Scotland gained independence and then 5 years later you found that it was now the Scottish Government was pursuing policies that you found distasteful, while the rest-of-UK Government was doing stuff that you completely approved of?

By way of an analogy, your spouse didn't used to beat you, they might stop beating you in the future - is that a reason to stay and let them beat you now?

If some Scots, as I think they may be, are suggesting that they'd want "one state one vote" that can be forgotten; the English are rightly not willing to accept a smaller population getting a disproportionate vote.

Yet that is precisely how most Federal States work - to some degree at least. Using the USA as an example, the House of Representatives apportioned by population, but the Senate is two senators per state.

 

[johncrossley]

How are Scottish people supposed to get back into the EU without independence? That is more important that being in the UK union. Probably quicker than waiting for the UK to get back into it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

By way of an analogy, your spouse didn't used to beat you, they might stop beating you in the future - is that a reason to stay and let them beat you now?

Yet that is precisely how most Federal States work - to some degree at least. Using the USA as an example, the House of Representatives apportioned by population, but the Senate is two senators per state.

The USA is an utter mess and nothing should ever be based on it. The electoral college is the classic.

If Scotland wants more influence per head on the Union than England, that is unacceptable. If that is a red line for Scotland, then sadly independence is the only option and preparations for full, unsupported independence should start forthwith.

 

[DustyBin]

How are Scottish people supposed to get back into the EU without independence? That is more important that being in the UK union. Probably quicker than waiting for the UK to get back into it.

Out of interest, what makes you say this?

In regard to the UK rejoining, I think it’s extremely unlikely to happen. One of the perceived problems with the EU was that it’s essentially an uneasy alliance/block of very different countries, some with far more influence than others, most of which will act in their own self-interest when push comes to shove. The response to both covid and the war in Ukraine have done nothing to dispel that perception. I’d be very surprised if there would much appetite to rejoin the EU, outwith a relatively small number of diehard remainers/rejoiners.

 

[johncrossley]

Out of interest, what makes you say this?

Because of free movement. Scots have lost that. They have to move to Ireland for five years if they want it back.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because of free movement. Scots have lost that. They have to move to Ireland for five years if they want it back.

It's more important that you have free movement to/from mainland Europe than the rest of the UK? Really?

The CTA is likely to continue, I'd think, but there is a chance of a hard customs border.

 

[johncrossley]

It's more important that you have free movement to/from mainland Europe than the rest of the UK? Really?

The CTA is likely to continue, I'd think, but there is a chance of a hard customs border.

As you say, the CTA is likely to continue, so there's no worry on that front anyway.

 

[najaB]

The USA is an utter mess and nothing should ever be based on it. The electoral college is the classic.

Okay then. How about Australia? The House of Representatives is apportioned by population and the Senate has 12 members from each state (plus 2 each from the internal territories).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Okay then. How about Australia? The House of Representatives is apportioned by population and the Senate has 12 members from each state (plus 2 each from the internal territories).

No reason it can't all be done by population for federal matters. A desire from Scotland to break up England is purely anti-English and political and is not to be tolerated. It is not happening - as I said if it's a red line then full, unsupported* independence is the only thing that is on offer to Scotland as far as I am concerned.

I would vote against, if offered a referendum, any proposal to break up England other than possibly having London as a city state federal capital. England is a great, historic country just like Scotland is.

* That is, we will treat Scotland the same as we do any other third country e.g. France/Germany, which means yes to a trade agreement and yes to the CTA continuing provided you don't join Schengen (in which case a hard border would be unavoidable) but no to any kind of political integration, in particular no to any form of financial integration.

 

[DustyBin]

Because of free movement. Scots have lost that. They have to move to Ireland for five years if they want it back.

Is it really that important though? Perhaps it is for some. There’s no right or wrong answer I suppose, it depends on individual circumstances and priorities.

What I certainly would not want to see is Scotland leave the CTA. On the face of it this appears unlikely as already stated, fortunately.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What I certainly would not want to see is Scotland leave the CTA. On the face of it this appears unlikely as already stated, fortunately.

We could end up with a hard customs border as Switzerland has/had with France. Though by the time this is all settled I reckon England, under a new Government, may well have joined EEA or EFTA anyway, which would render that unnecessary.

 

[GusB]

No reason it can't all be done by population for federal matters. A desire from Scotland to break up England is purely anti-English and political and is not to be tolerated. It is not happening - as I said if it's a red line then full, unsupported* independence is the only thing that is on offer to Scotland as far as I am concerned.

I would vote against, if offered a referendum, any proposal to break up England other than possibly having London as a city state federal capital. England is a great, historic country just like Scotland is.

* That is, we will treat Scotland the same as we do any other third country e.g. France/Germany, which means yes to a trade agreement and yes to the CTA continuing provided you don't join Schengen (in which case a hard border would be unavoidable) but no to any kind of political integration, in particular no to any form of financial integration.

Right, so basically a federal UK is out if the question and the only option for us is independence.

Your attitude stinks, if I'm being honest. This constant banging on about FULL independence and reinforcing the fact that we'll be a third country is unnecessary because that's what independence is all about, after all. Do you think we're too stupid to realise this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Right, so basically a federal UK is out if the question and the only option for us is independence.

It seems so if Scotland wants disproportionate influence on a federation (i.e. any influence beyond the proportion of population in each constituent country), yes, or to break up England. Those are "red lines" to me.

Your attitude stinks, if I'm being honest.

The political attitude of many Scots to English people also does. I dislike the present Westminster Government as much as you no doubt do!

This constant banging on about FULL independence and reinforcing the fact that we'll be a third country is unnecessary because that's what independence is all about, after all. Do you think we're too stupid to realise this?

I think some people clearly are, yes. I doubt the average reader of the Daily Record (the Scottish equivalent of the Sun/Mirror) is intelligent enough to realise what independence actually means, just as most people who voted for Brexit were not intelligent enough to realise what it actually meant, else there's little chance they'd have voted for it. If you think every Scot (or English person for that matter) is as intelligent as most people on here then that's pure nationalist delusion.

Many people think you'll get to keep the Pound and influence on monetary policy around it. No. That's not independence.
Many people think you'll get financial support from England's larger economy in the event of something bad happening like COVID (other than what we'd do for a third country like we are for Ukraine). No. That's not independence.
etc.

 

[GusB]

It seems so if Scotland wants disproportionate influence on a federation (i.e. any influence beyond the proportion of population in each constituent country), yes, or to break up England. Those are "red lines" to me.

But it would be okay for England to have a disproportionate influence? Yeah, that's fair.

I think some people clearly are, yes. I doubt the average reader of the Daily Record (the Scottish equivalent of the Sun/Mirror) is intelligent enough to realise what independence actually means, just as most people who voted for Brexit were not intelligent enough to realise what it actually meant. If you think every Scot (or English person for that matter) is as intelligent as most people on here then that's pure nationalist delusion.

Thank you for telling me what the Daily Record is; I had no idea.

Keep going - this condescending nonsense is ultimately what's driving the case for independence. We've had enough of the sneering "you don't know what's good for you" mentality.

Too wee, too poor, too stupit!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Because of free movement. Scots have lost that. They have to move to Ireland for five years if they want it back.

What % of the population of Scotland do you reckon are planning to move to Europe and therefore need freedom of movement?

(And what % of the population of Scotland do you think would be willing to risk losing freedom of movement to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, if independence results in a hard border?)

 

[johncrossley]

What % of the population of Scotland do you reckon are planning to move to Europe and therefore need freedom of movement?

(And what % of the population of Scotland do you think would be willing to risk losing freedom of movement to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, if independence results in a hard border?)

In all western European countries, that percentage would be low. But would they want to lose free movement? I doubt it.

Ireland didn't lose free movement to the UK so losing free movement between Scotland and England isn't an issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it would be okay for England to have a disproportionate influence? Yeah, that's fair.

No. On federal matters, it wouldn't be "England" doing anything, it would be a separate structure based on British people each having an equal influence. One person one vote and all that. That a larger number of them would live in England than Scotland is irrelevant; England isn't politically unified in the way Scotland is, and many would vote with Scotland, not with London, on federal matters.

On state matters, each state would fully control its own decisions.

If you've got a problem with being in any way considered "British", then full independence is the right choice for you. You've made up your mind anyway, clearly.

Thank you for telling me what the Daily Record is; I had no idea.

This is a discussion forum and a post is not to a specific individual alone but rather discussing the points made in the post being replied to; if I wanted to do that I would PM. Of course you know what the Daily Record is; others on here in England/Wales/NI or further afield may not.

Keep going - this condescending nonsense is ultimately what's driving the case for independence. We've had enough of the sneering "you don't know what's good for you" mentality.

Too wee, too poor, too stupit!

This sounds rather like Brexit. Brexit hasn't gone well. It is very, very clear that most people who voted for Brexit genuinely didn't know what was good for them.

I don't think the Scottish population is on average more intelligent nor politically astute than the English population. It's about the same. It'd be mostly voting on emotion - which is fine, but one does need to accept that that, like Brexit, will have strong downsides. You might understand them, many won't.

 

[Falcon1200]

How are Scottish people supposed to get back into the EU without independence? That is more important that being in the UK union.

Seriously ? Given that Scotland is part of the same land mass as England and Wales, shares centuries of history, not to mention a common language and currency, plus the 75% of Scottish trade which is with the rest of the UK, not the EU, I would say being in the UK union is actually considerably more important than being in the EU.

Because of free movement. Scots have lost that. They have to move to Ireland for five years if they want it back.

I live in Scotland and the loss of free movement to the EU is of no consequence to me whatsoever.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In all western European countries, that percentage would be low. But would they want to lose free movement? I doubt it.

The point isn't so much whether they would want to lose free movement. It's whether they want free movement AND care enough about it to be willing to risk losing other things to get it.

After all (and rather comparable): I suspect most people would in principle love to not have to ever pay any taxes again... until the consequences of no-one paying any taxes become apparent.

Ireland didn't lose free movement to the UK so losing free movement between Scotland and England isn't an issue.

I think you're being over-optimistic. Free movement (the Common Travel Area - CTA) between the UK and Ireland was negotiated in very different times a full 100 years ago, and its continuation depends in part on the Irish Government being willing to follow UK immigration policy in some respects - which so far they have been willing to do. There is no guarantee that similar arrangements would be negotiated in the event of Scottish independence (although political imperatives would mean both sides - and particularly Scotland - would have a strong incentive to come to suitable arrangements).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2022 ==

By way of an analogy, your spouse didn't used to beat you, they might stop beating you in the future - is that a reason to stay and let them beat you now?

That's a pretty questionable analogy. Claiming that the UK Government is in any sense 'beating' Scotland seems pretty far-fetched to me, but setting that aside: Even if you think that the UK Government is currently in some way oppressing the people of Scotland, then that would be the *current British Government* doing that, not *England/Wales/Northern Ireland* doing that. The appropriate response is therefore to try to vote out the current Government.

 

[najaB]

A desire from Scotland to break up England is purely anti-English and political and is not to be tolerated.

So nothing at all to do with national identity and a desire for self-determination. It's all about the English.

And they wonder why support for independence is up!

That's a pretty questionable analogy. Claiming that the UK Government is in any sense 'beating' Scotland seems pretty far-fetched to me, but setting that aside: Even if you think that the UK Government is currently in some way oppressing the people of Scotland, then that would be the *current British Government* doing that, not *England/Wales/Northern Ireland* doing that. The appropriate response is therefore to try to vote out the current Government.

We've been trying!

There are only six Tory MPs north of the border (out of 59) and of those six, four voted against BoJo last week. Yet, here we still are.

 

[johncrossley]

I live in Scotland and the loss of free movement to the EU is of no consequence to me whatsoever.

@Berliner seems to care about it

The UK chose not to implement measures which meant people could only stay for a limited time without a job and could have, but also chose not to, restrict access to state benefits. We could and did ban criminals from entering from the EU and we could and did deport EU citizens who committed crimes. We also had the ability to control our non EU borders in whatever way we so chose.

Freedom of movement worked both ways, but the tories decided to strip their own citizens of a right many of us were born with. This was a fundamental right that directly affected citizens on a human level. Not bumf about borders, trade or currency, but an actual, tangible right that millions of UK citizens used throughout lives until this lot said no more.

They said in 2014 that you had to vote against independence to stay in the EU. The UK didn't honour that. The UK doesn't even try to mitigate the loss of free movement, or even apologise. They just say "Tough sh*t, get over it" to the Scots.

 

[DustyBin]

So nothing at all to do with national identity and a desire for self-determination. It's all about the English.

And they wonder why support for independence is up!

Two of the main arguments made in support of Brexit as I recall. And yet having broken free from the rest of the UK, the Scottish Government will pursue EU membership. If I were in your position (i.e. undecided) I'd think very carefully about what is being offered here, or more to the point what Sturgeon et al would like you to think is being offered....

 

[AlterEgo]

But it would be okay for England to have a disproportionate influence? Yeah, that's fair.

Well, yes, it is fair, because England is by far the largest part of the UK. That is hardly disproportionate, quite the opposite in fact.

Keep going - this condescending nonsense is ultimately what's driving the case for independence Brexit. We've had enough of the sneering "you don't know what's good for you" mentality.

Too wee, too poor, too stupit!

Spoken like a true Brexiteer. Scottish Independence in its current state is just Brexit on a smaller, tartan-covered playing board, playing to many of the same bases.

"condescended to by the big Union, they think we are too small, they are so smug, don't worry about planning it all out beforehand, let's just go ahead and do it, big parliament in another place doesn't act in our interest" etc etc.

 

[johncrossley]

Two of the main arguments made in support of Brexit as I recall.

Which were obviously lies. The 27 remaining members of the EU still have their own national identity.

 

[AlterEgo]

Which were obviously lies. The 27 remaining members of the EU still have their own national identity.

So does Scotland, it is one of the most distinctive and unique countries on the European continent.