Scottish Independence

[najaB]

Sturgeon came up with her own Brexit plans which was to remain in the Customs Union and Single Market.

Which was, IIRC, pretty the "soft Brexit" that we were promised during the referendum campaign. Or did I imagine all those "just like Norway" comments?

Personally, I believe that whatever caused Scottish nationalism to rise is the same reason that caused Brexit.

I've only been in Scotland for 15 years so can't speak to events before that time but, to my mind at least, the 'rise' of the SNP isn't so much a thing as the fall of the UK-wide parties. The feeling I get speaking with friends and colleagues is that they don't feel that Labour or the Liberal Democrats speak for them any more, so they've turn to the SNP as the only pro-Scotland party. I know a few SNP voters who voted No in the Indyref.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Why? I was fairly happy with the way things were re the EU. Latvia can engage in many things Scotland can't. Independence is way bigger than the issues I am mentioning here. As an ex social worker, I can't see why Scotland should not have the power to set up consumption rooms but Westminster blocks it. There is no merit in that.

Your p'd off that Scotland's voice is not being heard in a Union of 66 million. Scotland's voice won't be heard in a union of 500 million, that concentrates its intelectual and political power on the Franco-Germanic axis. Unless you intend to be "good Europeans" like Ireland. Which you won't, because you would have become a nation of nationalists and would quickly feel uncomfortable with encroaching European power.

The UK isn't directly preventing you from doing that, bare in mind almost 40 percent of Scotland voted to leave. Your right, Scotland has legitimate concerns about leaving and these rightly must be addressed. We should have a friendly enough social links with the Continent for those who feel "European" to do so.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Which was, IIRC, pretty the "soft Brexit" that we were promised during the referendum campaign. Or did I imagine all those "just like Norway" comments?

Nope you didn't. I well remember reading them too. But as the referendum campaign went on, people seemed to realise all the indeological gripes they had with the EU would continue in a Soft Brexit.

 

[najaB]

Your p'd off that Scotland's voice is not being heard in a Union of 66 million.

By that logic, God help Wales and Northern Ireland, it really is The England Show.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Which was, IIRC, pretty the "soft Brexit" that we were promised during the referendum campaign. Or did I imagine all those "just like Norway" comments?
I've only been in Scotland for 15 years so can't speak to events before that time but, to my mind at least, the 'rise' of the SNP isn't so much a thing as the fall of the UK-wide parties. The feeling I get speaking with friends and colleagues is that they don't feel that Labour or the Liberal Democrats speak for them any more, so they've turn to the SNP as the only pro-Scotland party. I know a few SNP voters who voted No in the Indyref.

But this sentiment is throughout England too. The last election is the best example-look how the Brexit Party and Change UK surged when they came into being-there is room for political change across this country but breaking up the country out of fustration of our collective leadership is a complete waste of a nation.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

By that logic, God help Wales and Northern Ireland, it really is the England show.

That's clearly not my full point.

 

[najaB]

That's clearly not my full point.

As far as Scotland's voice in the Union goes, it was. The rest of your post was about the EU.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think you've misunderstood what I said, I was paraphasing his own comment, not stating that that is what is actually happening.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Which was, IIRC, pretty the "soft Brexit" that we were promised during the referendum campaign. Or did I imagine all those "just like Norway" comments?
I've only been in Scotland for 15 years so can't speak to events before that time but, to my mind at least, the 'rise' of the SNP isn't so much a thing as the fall of the UK-wide parties. The feeling I get speaking with friends and colleagues is that they don't feel that Labour or the Liberal Democrats speak for them any more, so they've turn to the SNP as the only pro-Scotland party. I know a few SNP voters who voted No in the Indyref.

I would be very interested to know in why they think that about Labour and the Lib Dems.

 

[Camden]

The Scottish referendum was held at a time when it was known that shortly thereafter there would be a similar referendum on UK independence from the EU.

At the time, a common observation (and indeed campaigning point) was that Scotland voting to remain in the UK could subsequently result in Scotland leaving the EU.

The result of the Scottish independence referendum was to remain in the UK, and consequently accept the possibility of leaving the EU, should the following vote be a Yes for independence.

It would seem to me that the Scottish voice has been heard, and with all its nuances, and things are planning out exactly according to the preferences of the majority (a preference to remain in the EU, but apparently not so strongly enough to do so if that means leaving the UK - else Scotland would have voted for the only way to guarantee that, and left).

I do find the "pro-EU anti-UK" stances rather obvious. It's all simply using division identity politics to cobble power, and the same sort of rhetoric that Brexiteers were oft criticised for. Just with added irony/hypocrisy!!

 

[najaB]

I think you've misunderstood what I said, I was paraphasing his own comment, not stating that that is what is actually happening.

Okay, but in doing so you (either deliberately or accidentally) perpetuated the idea that somehow this is a union of 5 million, 3 million, 0.6 million and 57 million - it's a union of four.

 

[najaB]

It would seem to me that the Scottish voice has been heard, and with all its nuances, and things are planning out exactly according to the preferences of the majority

Actually, the majority were fine with the way things were. The majority wanted to be in the UK and in the EU.

I post again: we were told, repeatedly, the that only way to guarantee our EU membership was to vote to stay in the Union.

 

[Gooner18]

does make me chuckle when people say England this , the English that or it’s the English show, we ain’t even got our own parliament.
Also , would Scotland not have been leaving the EU anyway if you got what you clearly so badly want?

 

[najaB]

I'm slightly confused. This:

does make me chuckle when people say England this , the English that or it’s the English show, we ain’t even got our own parliament.

makes it seem that you're replying to my post, but this

Also , would Scotland not have been leaving the EU anyway if you got what you clearly so badly want?

bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything I've ever posted.

As to England not having a parliament, that sounds like a matter that the English people need to take up with the UK government.

 

[Highland37]

does make me chuckle when people say England this , the English that or it’s the English show, we ain’t even got our own parliament.
Also , would Scotland not have been leaving the EU anyway if you got what you clearly so badly want?

Yes you do. There is not a single power not available to England that is available to France for example. As there is no constitution in the UK, no terms of membership or leaving and no framework for a union, plus the sheer difference in population, means that England gets what the majority there want.

 

[Highland37]

Okay, but in doing so you (either deliberately or accidentally) perpetuated the idea that somehow this is a union of 5 million, 3 million, 0.6 million and 57 million - it's a union of four.

On that technicality, is it a union of four? I think it's Scotland and England. The Act of Union for Wales made it a principality and Northern Ireland is an entirely different kettle of fish....

 

[Camden]

I post again: we were told, repeatedly, the that only way to guarantee our EU membership was to vote to stay in the Union.

I can't imagine who told you that, but it would take a fairly big common sense gap to believe it. How could remaining in a country about to have a referendum on leaving the EU guarantee staying in the EU.

It may well be the case that Scotland might have been kicked out of the EU as a result of leaving the UK (but also quite possibly not), but complaining about that would also be a case of wanting things both ways. Remaining in the UK might have been Scotland's best bet of remaining in the EU uninterrupted but far from any guarantee, unless you also believe a coin toss is guaranteed to come up heads every time.

Sovereign entities negotiate treaties with sovereign entities. Scotland voted to not become a sovereign entity, and so must go along with what the sovereign entity it does belong to decided.

 

[Gooner18]

Yes you do. There is not a single power not available to England that is available to France for example. As there is no constitution in the UK, no terms of membership or leaving and no framework for a union, plus the sheer difference in population, means that England gets what the majority there want.

As far as I am aware and I have not researched this so I am more than happy to be corrected, however is it not so that Scottish, Welsh and NI MP’s can vote in what would be an “ English “ matter but “ U.K.MP can not vote is Scottish, Welsh and NI matters ?

 

[Enthusiast]

That was the UK Government's position as well, yet here we are.

It wasn't the UK government's position following the referendum and it most certainly wasn't its position following the 2019 General Election (aka "The Second Referendum" or "The People's Vote).

we were told, repeatedly, the that only way to guarantee our EU membership was to vote to stay in the Union.

You should beware of anything told to you by politicians.

 

[najaB]

On that technicality, is it a union of four? I think it's Scotland and England. The Act of Union for Wales made it a principality and Northern Ireland is an entirely different kettle of fish....

Yes, technically it's more complex, but for ease of understanding I'm giving the four home nations equal standing.

 

[najaB]

It wasn't the UK government's position following the referendum

Exactly. Things change.

the 2019 General Election (aka "The Second Referendum" or "The People's Vote).

It was far from either of those things. A referendum asks a simple question, usually formulated as a binary choice. I don't know about your constituency, but mine had seven candidates standing.

 

[najaB]

I can't imagine who told you that, but it would take a fairly big common sense gap to believe it.

The EU and the UK government both made it clear that there was no guarantee that Scotland would be an EU member on becoming independent.

How could remaining in a country about to have a referendum on leaving the EU guarantee staying in the EU.

When the Indyref process started the EU referendum wasn't even a manifesto commitment yet.

 

[Enthusiast]

I don't know about your constituency, but mine had seven candidates standing.

Of whom probably only two - or maybe even only one - had a realistic prospect of success. Very similar to most places where, of those two, one would have represented a party intent on seeing the UK's departure from the EU and one would have represented a party that either wasn't so intent or was "undecided" (to put it kindly).

 

[GusB]

I can't imagine who told you that, but it would take a fairly big common sense gap to believe it. How could remaining in a country about to have a referendum on leaving the EU guarantee staying in the EU.

It may well be the case that Scotland might have been kicked out of the EU as a result of leaving the UK (but also quite possibly not), but complaining about that would also be a case of wanting things both ways. Remaining in the UK might have been Scotland's best bet of remaining in the EU uninterrupted but far from any guarantee, unless you also believe a coin toss is guaranteed to come up heads every time.

Being told that voting "no" was the only way to retain EU membership was one of the sticks that the Better Together/No Thanks side consistently used during the indyref campaign, along with other myths such as not being able to use the pound as currency.

Indeed, if Scotland had voted to become independent there was no concrete guarantee that it would have been able to join the EU immediately and we'd have to go through the formal process, but considering that we're fairly well aligned (or were) as part of the UK, it wouldn't have been a massive hurdle to overcome.

 

[Meerkat]

Indeed, if Scotland had voted to become independent there was no concrete guarantee that it would have been able to join the EU immediately and we'd have to go through the formal process, but considering that we're fairly well aligned (or were) as part of the UK, it wouldn't have been a massive hurdle to overcome.

The total renegotiation of your membership might have been a bit painful though!

 

[Camden]

Being told that voting "no" was the only way to retain EU membership was one of the sticks that the Better Together/No Thanks side consistently used during the indyref campaign, along with other myths such as not being able to use the pound as currency.

Indeed, if Scotland had voted to become independent there was no concrete guarantee that it would have been able to join the EU immediately and we'd have to go through the formal process, but considering that we're fairly well aligned (or were) as part of the UK, it wouldn't have been a massive hurdle to overcome.

I agree that it was debatable whether or not Scotland would have just been allowed to carry on as an EU member. The UK wouldn't have objected, only the Spanish might have felt it necessary to block. To that end, voting for independence would have been a better bet even for continuous EU membership, let alone the only way to guarantee future choice.

I'm afraid if you feel people lied to get you to vote one way or another, you'd have to take that up with them. The country can't upend itself because some claim they believed these things and therefore voted to stay. These aren't subtle ambiguities, but things which people really ought to have been able to work out for themselves.

Same with the other thing you quote, about the Pound. No there was nothing to stop an independent Scotland creating its own Pound, or even using the UK Pound in the same way as some non EU/US countries use the Euro or the Dollar. But in the former there was no guarantee of parity with the UK Pound, and definitely no underwriting from the UK treasury without UK consent (aka monetary union, which wouldn't be in the UKs interests, being as it would then act as guarantor for Scotland's economy as today minus any semblance of oversight and governance). In the latter you've got no control over fiscal policy and effectively no central bank. You'd have to use the Pound and just hope that UK monetary policy worked out Ok for you - hardly "independence" (although funnily enough that's what Scotland would get in joining the Euro...). There was no other option than those two. Anyone who suggested the UK would be compelled to share its currency and underwriting with a third country doesn't understand that "independence" is something which goes two ways.

As I say, the UK was due an EU referendum and it was openly stated a vote to remain in the UK could result in leaving the EU. I don't see how that could have been misread no matter what anyone said.

 

[Highland37]

The total renegotiation of your membership might have been a bit painful though!

Certainly a lot simpler than brexit. Pointless anyway, Scotland voted for irrelevance and it's certainly got what it voted for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Same with the other thing you quote, about the Pound. No there was nothing to stop an independent Scotland creating its own Pound, or even using the UK Pound in the same way as some non EU/US countries use the Euro or the Dollar. But in the former there was no guarantee of parity with the UK Pound, and definitely no underwriting from the UK treasury without UK consent (aka monetary union, which wouldn't be in the UKs interests, being as it would then act as guarantor for Scotland's economy as today minus any semblance of oversight and governance). In the latter you've got no control over fiscal policy and effectively no central bank. You'd have to use the Pound and just hope that UK monetary policy worked out Ok for you - hardly "independence" (although funnily enough that's what Scotland would get in joining the Euro...). There was no other option than those two. Anyone who suggested the UK would be compelled to share its currency and underwriting with a third country doesn't understand that "independence" is something which goes two ways.

Certainly as an English person I am not opposed to Scottish independence if this has majority support, but I agree that "independence means independence", and I would most strongly oppose any suggestion of retaining a fiscal bond (e.g. currency) of any kind. Having the same level of common travel area as we do with the Republic of Ireland is the only "union" I would be happy to retain in that case - indeed, I would see an independent Scotland as being economically very similar to the RoI, and I would see a relationship with it being very similar too.

If Scotland wishes to retain any level of economic union with the UK it needs to remain a part of it, possibly in a different way (you'll note above I would be in support of full federalism for the UK, with London (city state bounded roughly by the M25), rest of England, Wales, Scotland and NI[1] as federal states). The Channel Islands and IoM could also be offered to become federal states if they wished, though they may of course not wish.

[1] I also don't object to NI seceding either as an independent or part of RoI if a majority of its population want that. Wales won't secede as its economy is too dependent on England; federalism would be ideal for it.

 

[Highland37]

I know it's probably not intentional but talk of being "offered" something by the UK does make it seem very colonial. One of the major principles behind the independence of Scotland and any other country, is self determination.

I would see an independent Scotland as a cross between RoI, Norway, Denmark, Wales and England.

 

[Camden]

I agree, a change of that sort cannot be offered. If the UK wished to reform itself along those lines, it is effectively abolishing itself and replacing itself with a different type of entity. Arguably that would need confirmations in all four countries plus parliament in order to prevent competing claims to be the true UK. Any country can leave (bar England perhaps!), but to abolish speaks for others.

I don't in any case see the point in federation. That seems to have been an EU ambition, rather than anything designed to benefit the UK. Crappy 70s borough councils with arbitrary borders show where federation would head.

Much better to beef up city region devolution, strengthen (or introduce!) democratic safeguards, and legislate for equality of treatment. That stands to give people a sense of place and empowerment wherever they are in the UK.