SNP to launch fresh Scottish independence campaign

[DustyBin]

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.

I alluded to the same in my post above.... It's rather ironic really!

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

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

But Scotland doesn't?

 

[johncrossley]

But Scotland doesn't?

Of course, but the UK treats Scotland like sh*t. 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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

Of course any settlement must be acceptable to the English. And Welsh. And NI (if that stays, though that's a different game entirely, because integrating it into Ireland will be nowhere near as difficult as forming a totally independent state of Scotland).

TBH I think you'd find overall support for Scottish independence within England as well, because it will save England money. (Yes, oil, but oil is not the fuel of the future; once North Sea oil fades into insignificance Scotland would be a major financial drain on England). I don't think potentially having to show your passport to go to Scotland is going to bother many people down South who hardly go there if ever (and that's really worst-case), while the level of cross border commuting is negligible (unlike Wales, where the North Wales Coast and down to about Wrexham are effectively extended suburbs of Liverpool and Chester).

Scotland would have the choice to make a UDI, of course, though if it did the diplomatic implications may be severe.

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

Of course, but the UK treats Scotland like sh*t. 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.

I will not apologise for Brexit because I didn't vote for it. Nor did 48% of the rest of the English electorate that voted.

If you could provide evidence of the treaty signed in 2014 that required the UK to stay in the EU, though, I'd like to see it. I'd agree with you if a treaty was breached (and I do think breaching the Withdrawal Agreement on NI is unacceptable behaviour). Soundbites in the Press don't count as a binding treaty, and anyone who thought they did really was quite silly in doing so. And if the soundbite came from one of the campaigns, then of course it was misrepresentation - that's what political campaigns - all of them, pretty much without exception - do.

 

[johncrossley]

I will not apologise for Brexit because I didn't vote for it. Nor did 48% of the rest of the English electorate that voted.

If you could provide evidence of the treaty signed in 2014 that required the UK to stay in the EU, though, I'd like to see it. I'd agree with you if a treaty was breached (and I do think breaching the Withdrawal Agreement on NI is unacceptable behaviour). Soundbites in the Press don't count as a binding treaty, and anyone who thought they did really was quite silly in doing so.

I expect the Johnson government to apologise, not the people.

Of course there was no treaty, but there was a clear message sent to wavering voters that voting against independence was required to stay in the EU. The Scots were deceived. If they knew that Brexit would happen, and how it would turn out, there would likely have been a different result in 2014.

 

[GusB]

Of course any settlement must be acceptable to the English. And Welsh. And NI (if that stays, though that's a different game entirely, because integrating it into Ireland will be nowhere near as difficult as forming a totally independent state of Scotland).

TBH I think you'd find overall support for Scottish independence within England as well, because it will save England money. (Yes, oil, but oil is not the fuel of the future; once North Sea oil fades into insignificance Scotland would be a major financial drain on England). I don't think potentially having to show your passport to go to Scotland is going to bother many people (and that's really worst-case), while the level of cross border commuting is negligible (unlike Wales, where the North Wales Coast and down to about Wrexham are effectively extended suburbs of Liverpool).

Funny how it doesn't take too long for the nastiness to surface in threads like this. It's impossible to have a grown-up debate about the subject while there are comments like this, and it's very difficult to respond while adhering to forum rules.

Oh, Scotland, don't go. We'll miss you. But we'll be glad to see the back of you if you do go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Funny how it doesn't take too long for the nastiness to surface in threads like this. It's impossible to have a grown-up debate about the subject while there are comments like this, and it's very difficult to respond while adhering to forum rules.

I don't see what is nasty about any of that - it's just how the land lies - and if you think it is necessary to respond to it in a manner that may breach Forum rules then that speaks absolute volumes.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

That's democracy!

I live in Greenwich, a borough that has no Tory MPs, and in the recent council elections elected over 50 Labour councillors and just 3 Tories (and no-one else). Does that mean it's a good idea for Greenwich to secede from the UK because most people here clearly don't like the UK Government?

Now clearly there are other factors in Scotland behind the desire for independence there: A feeling of Scottish identity for example. But the point here is that simply not liking the colour of the current Government is not a good reason for wanting to break away. Becoming an independent country is a very long-term thing that will change things for generations to come - so it looks to me like any rational basis for the decision has got to be from consideration of long-term things, not things that could easily change as soon as the next general election comes round.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I expect the Johnson government to apologise, not the people.

Of course he won't. But many English people will agree that the Johnson Government is the worst Government England has had in a very long time, possibly forever. I would certainly be with you in wanting a general election ASAP in order that he can be removed, just as Trump was in the US. Or as a minimum a new Tory Leader - I don't vote Tory, but he is the worst leader the party has ever had, yes, including Thatcher whose politics I strongly disliked but who was at least honest in her convictions.

 

[XAM2175]

I wasn't in the UK at the time of the 2014 referendum, and wasn't keeping very closely abreast of the issues, and as a result I didn't form any solid opinion beyond slightly favouring no as an indefinite preservation of the status quo.

Since coming to live full-time in Scotland though, and in light of the Brexit referendum and subsequent events, I've converted to firmly supporting independence. It is not out of any fervent passion for the European Union, or any dislike of England and its people, but rather a growing feeling that the political and constitutional arrangements underpinning the United Kingdom cannot support the idea of the UK being a union of equal partners, and that by their inherent nature they favour English interests far above those of the other nations. (Please note that whenever I use English as an adjective I am referring to people or voters (as appropriate) who live in England, rather than to all people who identify as English, or to English people as an ethnic grouping.)

My fundamental belief is that the Scottish Parliament should be elected by the people of Scotland and that it should not exist at the whim of the Parliament of the United the Kingdom, and that its powers should not be checked or revised by the Parliament of the United the Kingdom, and that it should be able to exercise all the normal powers and prerogatives of a sovereign parliament. The Scottish Government, with the confidence of the Parliament and with reference to the people as appropriate should be allowed to set its own domestic and foreign policy, and to conclude international treaties, and to participate or not participate in international and intergovernmental organisations as it feels appropriate - and I specifically note here, for the avoidance of doubt, that the likes of the UN, EU, and NATO are included in this point.

I do not see any realistic way of achieving this other than by means of independence, but I do remain prepared to consider proposals that would deliver greater autonomy to all nations within the UK.

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.

Regardless however, what makes you think an independent Scotland would be less authoritarian? I'd argue that over the course of the covid pandemic the Scottish government demonstrated their own penchant for authoritarianism, and seemed to very much enjoy placing restrictions on peoples everyday lives. The warning signs are there....

I think leaving the Union on the grounds of disliking the present government would be a bit short-sighted. Governments come and governments go.

However I hope it doesn't come to this. At some point the country will have to come to it's senses and get rid of Johnson. Voting to be independent because of him would be foolish, many people have more constructive reasons than that and I respect it, but this isn't something to use your protest vote on.

These are all valid points, as are others like them that I haven't quoted. Forming an opinion for independence based purely on the actions and ideology of the current Westminster government, or its recent predecessors, is risky short-termism - but as Berliner notes...

The same could also be said to those who oppose independence. Why base your opinion on the SNP? They are merely a vehicle to get independence. An independent Scotland run by wholly independent Scottish Labour, Liberal or Conservative parties, for example, is entirely possible and may turn out to be extremely prosperous. It would be nice if these parties gave us their plans on how they would run Scotland rather than just trot out tired excuses as to why we have to remain in the union.

... so is forming an opinion against independence based purely on the actions and ideology of the SNP. I consider however the a significant difference lies in the fact that Scotland is more exposed the actions and policies of the Westminster government - regardless of its leanings - and that this introduces the possibility of those policies and actions differing from those that would be chosen by the Scottish electorate. The people in other parts of the UK are not exposed to the potentially-differing choices of the Scottish electorate in anywhere near the same way.

Spain will veto any attempt for Scotland to join the EU if they get independence, solely to prevent Catalonia from having similar ideas.

Scotland joining the EU is now completely different from the Catalan question as the UK is no longer an EU member. Scotland joining the EU would not set a precedent for Catalonia.

@najaB has it correctly - the main thrust of Spain's objection was to the briefly-floated notion that Scotland could have "inherited" its figurative portion of the UK's EU membership and thus skipped the process of acceding as a new state. The EU, quite reasonably, was not prepared to accept this. Beyond that the Spanish position will be satisfied so long as independence is achieved through due process of law, as such a process sets no precedent for Catalonia or any other region of Spain.

It should be at most a once in a generation thing ie every 30 years. It’s a referendum not a neverendum.

I would vote No again in Indyref 2 (and 3, 4, 5 etc - They will never give up)

This is a particularly tired trope, I'm afraid, as presumably when people tire of referendums they will stop voting for parties offering referendums, no?

The only way the SNP would go into coalition with anyone at Westminster is for a guarantee of a second independence referendum which makes it politically dangerous for Labour to even give the vaguest hint of a possible coalition running up to a GE.

The SNP have previously offered to provide confidence and supply short of a coalition, and there's no reason to assume that they wouldn't offer to do so again - but yes, Labor do have good cause to be weary of the association given how even the suggestion of it has been portrayed in the past.

Once we've negotiated what Scottish waters are, yes.

The Blair Government took care of this already in Section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998, and there's an exact definition of the Scottish land and sea border given in the Civil Jurisdiction (Offshore Activities) Order 1987. The 1998 act was then tweaked by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, the Wikipedia article for which includes a basic diagram.

I have seen unofficial statements to the effect that there is no obstacle in principle which would prevent Scotland from joining the EU, and that while we would need to (in theory) have a plan in place to adopt the Euro they wouldn't put any time limits on the process.

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.

Yes, an acceding state is required to commit to adopting the euro, and is obliged to go through with the adoption when it satisfies the convergence criteria. There is no fixed timeframe in which this process occurs. A loophole exists in that one of the convergence criteria is completing a period of stable participation in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II); since non-eurozone states are responsible for deciding when they start participating in ERM II they can simply remain outside it indefinitely (which is the route that Sweden has taken).

I feel that independence in the modern world is just a pipe dream, it is essential that you are part of a larger group, beit the UK or the EU, and being a member of either means giving up part of your so called independence to abide by the group rules

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.

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

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....

With respect, I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept - perhaps not helped by various notions of 'independence' appearing in discussions of Brexit. The core belief is that Scottish sovereignty should be vested in the people and Parliament of Scotland (even if exercised on behalf of the Crown, etc etc) and that it should be up to the people and Parliament to determine whether elements of it are, for instance, pooled with the EU or any other supranational body.

That said, I can admit freely that the idea of Scotland being some piratical Braveheart nation beholden to no others is quite an amusing joke.

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.

They formed government. That's been the measure of a mandate at Westminster for quite a long time now. Of course the exact numbers of seats and votes are still of note if you want to assess the proportionality of parliament and the 'representativeness' of a government, and if we do that with the 2021 Scottish election we find that the SNP won 49.6% of seats on the back of 47.7% of constituency votes, while the Conservatives won 24% of seats on 21.9% of constituency votes, and Labour 17% of seats on 21.6% of constituency votes - so the SNP unquestionably took the largest single-party block of votes, and by some measure.

If we repeat the exercise for Conservative mandate arising from the 2019 general election, we see that they won 56.2% of seats on the back of 43.6% of the votes while Labour trailed with 31.1% of seats on 32.1% of votes. And Blair's 1997 result is even more fun - 63.4% of seats from 43.2% of votes, while the Conservatives scraped with 25% of seats from 30.7% of votes.

With regard to how strong support for independence is within the SNP and Greens, yes, it's quite fair to say that you can't assume a 1:1 match - but by that same measure, you can't automatically assume that 100% of Labour and Conservative votes are inherently opposed to it. Plus the usual caveats of elections not being readable as direct plebiscites apply.

And as an aside - in the spirit of keeping a reasonably civil atmosphere, would you please avoid phrases like "little Green helpers"?

Was there not a monetary union of eire & uk (a while ago)?

There was a fixed peg between the Irish pound and the pound sterling from the establishment of the Irish pound in 1927 until early 1979, when it joined the European Monetary System, but not an official monetary union.

Also, for information (and not in any way meant as a criticism), use of the name 'Eire' is now generally discouraged in English - 'Ireland' is preferred, or 'Éire' in Irish.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Now clearly there are other factors in Scotland behind the desire for independence there: A feeling of Scottish identity for example. But the point here is that simply not liking the colour of the current Government is not a good reason for wanting to break away. Becoming an independent country is a very long-term thing that will change things for generations to come - so it looks to me like any rational basis for the decision has got to be from consideration of long-term things, not things that could easily change as soon as the next general election comes round.

To be fair an emotional vote is also fine, and it's an emotional vote that swung Brexit (because there were very few rational reasons to vote for it). But if you do make an emotional vote - basically, determining that the pain is worth it for Scotland to be an independent country - then it is necessary to accept that that will most likely mean Scotland has a very, very bad time of things financially for a decade or two (because English financial support will cease), but then potentially it turns the other way as the new country is built, probably ending up looking very much like the Republic of Ireland which does fine for itself. One thing I can't abide is the way Brexiteers are now whining about effects of Brexit. If you made an emotional vote, that's your right (it's not really mine to question how anyone else decides how to vote), but then you put up and shut up.

 

[johncrossley]

That's democracy!

That's first past the post, not democracy.

 

[DustyBin]

Of course, but the UK treats Scotland like sh*t. 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.

If you look beyond the freedom of movement issue, which doesn't directly affect the majority of people, this isn't really true is it? They enjoy plenty of "perks" in Scotland, for example student grants, free prescriptions etc. that the English don't get.

 

[ainsworth74]

If you look beyond the freedom of movement issue, which doesn't directly affect the majority of people, this isn't really true is it? They enjoy plenty of "perks" in Scotland, for example student grants, free prescriptions etc. that the English don't get.

I actually occasionally detect a certain anti-Scottish sentiment usually built around the jealousy that Scotland has those perks. I suspect we'll soon be able to add another one. A fairer benefits system if the reality matches the good noises coming out of Social Security Scotland.

 

[johncrossley]

If you look beyond the freedom of movement issue, which doesn't directly affect the majority of people, this isn't really true is it? They enjoy plenty of "perks" in Scotland, for example student grants, free prescriptions etc. that the English don't get.

Those are policy decisions made by the Scottish Government. England could have those things too, if the UK Government decided to offer them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course there was no treaty, but there was a clear message sent to wavering voters that voting against independence was required to stay in the EU. The Scots were deceived. If they knew that Brexit would happen, and how it would turn out, there would likely have been a different result in 2014.

No, no-one was deceived. When you vote in any election, you vote based on the information that you have available at the time the election happens. In 2014, basically no-one believed that the UK would vote to leave the EU, and various politicians made statements based on that common understanding at the time. Subsequent events proved to be very different from what people were expecting, but that doesn't mean that anyone was deceived.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I actually occasionally detect a certain anti-Scottish sentiment usually built around the jealousy that Scotland has those perks. I suspect we'll soon be able to add another one. A fairer benefits system if the reality matches the good noises coming out of Social Security Scotland.

Those are policy decisions made by the Scottish Government. England could have those things too, if the UK Government decided to offer them.

The question of funding is why they are resented, and that resentment is in my view not entirely unreasonable. One benefit of going fully federal would be that federal taxes would only fund federal matters (and the rights would be the same for every UK citizen, so if university funding was federal every UK citizen would get the same rights to finance for attending university (or not) ), and each state would have to have its own taxes to fund their own matters. Thus if there was free university in Scotland, it would be paid for wholly by the Scottish taxpayer, and if England didn't offer that then their taxes might be a little lower.

This is actually a good example of why many English support Scottish independence.

The other is the West Lothian question, i.e. the issue of Scottish/Welsh/NI MPs voting on issues solely or primarily affecting England, e.g. where that matter has been devolved in Scotland/Wales/NI.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I actually occasionally detect a certain anti-Scottish sentiment usually built around the jealousy that Scotland has those perks. I suspect we'll soon be able to add another one. A fairer benefits system if the reality matches the good noises coming out of Social Security Scotland.

Well I guess it depends a bit on who pays for any decision on social security in Scotland. If changes are made within Scotland that benefit Scottish residents, and are paid for by Scottish taxpayers, then there will not be any grounds for resentment from the rest of the UK.

On the other hand, if (not too implausibly) the Scottish Government uses subsidies provided by the UK Government to pay for enhanced social security in Scotland, and the SNP also claims credit for it all while neglecting to mention who paid for it (and the SNP do seem to have some form for claiming credit for stuff that the UK Government pays for), then it wouldn't be unreasonable for people in the rest of the UK to feel unhappy about it.

 

[johncrossley]

No, no-one was deceived. When you vote in any election, you vote based on the information that you have available at the time the election happens. In 2014, basically no-one believed that the UK would vote to leave the EU, and various politicians made statements based on that common understanding at the time. Subsequent events proved to be very different from what people were expecting, but that doesn't mean that anyone was deceived.

After the 2016 vote there should have been special provision for Scotland, because of the understanding that was given in 2014.

 

[DustyBin]

With respect, I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept - perhaps not helped by various notions of 'independence' appearing in discussions of Brexit. The core belief is that Scottish sovereignty should be vested in the people and Parliament of Scotland (even if exercised on behalf of the Crown, etc etc) and that it should be up to the people and Parliament to determine whether elements of it are, for instance, pooled with the EU or any other supranational body.

That said, I can admit freely that the idea of Scotland being some piratical Braveheart nation beholden to no others is quite an amusing joke.

That's fair enough, but is also why I said:

or more to the point what Sturgeon et all would like you to think is being offered.

There is a very real danger that EU influence over an independent Scotland surpasses that of the of the Westminster government under the current arrangement. That probably won't bother those whose primary motivation is a seething dislike of the English, but it should concern those who simply want more control over how their country is ran. If were an undecided voter I'd be seeking clarification is all I'm saying.

 

[johncrossley]

There is a very real danger that EU influence over an independent Scotland surpasses that of the of the Westminster government under the current arrangement.

There's a huge divergence of policies in the EU, and even within the same country (for example states of Germany).

 

[DustyBin]

I actually occasionally detect a certain anti-Scottish sentiment usually built around the jealousy that Scotland has those perks. I suspect we'll soon be able to add another one. A fairer benefits system if the reality matches the good noises coming out of Social Security Scotland.

I've no doubt that some people do genuinely resent it (I don't). There is however the issue of funding which I've just noticed others have raised already. As for fairer benefits, I'm all for that (but note that fair doesn't simply mean more). Again, will this be subsidised by Westminster? (Genuine question, I've not seen the proposal).

Those are policy decisions made by the Scottish Government. England could have those things too, if the UK Government decided to offer them.

As above.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've no doubt that some people do genuinely resent it (I don't).

I don't resent it provided the cost of it over and above what English people have is covered entirely from Scottish money, i.e. either by way of higher local taxation or by another service being reduced or more efficient compared with England to find that money. Scotland has the right, legal and moral, to offer improved public services compared with England, but they should cover the cost of the enhancement.

I oppose postcode lotteries generally; every British citizen should have the same rights and privileges when it comes to matters paid for by general taxation. (For instance if urban areas offer upgraded free travel facilities e.g. including local rail rather than just bus, that upgrade should be funded wholly from local taxation).

 

[DustyBin]

There's a huge divergence of policies in the EU, and even within the same country (for example states of Germany).

Of course there is, I wouldn't deny it. But you must play by the rules (unless you choose to ignore them, which I doubt Scotland would get away with). Again, the point I'm making is that people need to go into this with their eyes wide open.

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

I don't resent it provided the cost of it over and above what English people have is covered entirely from Scottish money, i.e. either by way of higher local taxation or by another service being reduced or more efficient compared with England to find that money. Scotland has the right, legal and moral, to offer improved public services compared with England, but they should cover the cost of the enhancement.

I oppose postcode lotteries generally; every British citizen should have the same rights and privileges when it comes to matters paid for by general taxation. (For instance if urban areas offer upgraded free travel facilities e.g. including local rail rather than just bus, that upgrade should be funded wholly from local taxation).

Agreed.

 

[Wynd]

More facts.

This subject pre-dates Brexit by quite a margin.

The EU is made up of independent states. Scotland would have drastically more control than under the WM system.

One of the motives for this is to go back in to the EU, it is there fore the opposite of Brexit in that regard.

Scotland is not England, and so Scotland running itself does not "break up" England.

The emotive argument appears not to be on the Unionist side. Look at yesterdays report from SG, the graphs alone show beyond any doubt that Scotland would be wealthier, fairer and far more prosperous if following the comparitor countries.

Scotland has been ignored, sidelined and mismanaged by successive WM governments, its not about Boris, he is just the latest in a long line.

Scotland isn't a full democracy. That is the No.1 reason for this. Scotland does not get the governments it votes for.

Scotland wont go broke as an independent nation. This is gas-lighting of the highest order. Scotland is in the top 10% of wealthy countries in the world.

Condescension, patronising, falsehoods, these are not the ways to win arguments.
Doing so against others only highlights your own self-entitled view of supposed superiority and suggests you see Scots as 2nd class citizens. Then in the same breath wonder why they have the temerity to want to run their own affairs. This isn't pointed at anyone in particular, but is coming across in the wider debate.

Look at Lammy this morning, 10 years, an arbitrary dictat from an un-elected Westmintser rep, determining in one fell swoop what Scotland gets or how it should be treated. The audacity. How dare he. Scotland determines Scotland's future, no one else, and certainly no one single individual.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Scotland is not England, and so Scotland running itself does not "break up" England.

It would break up the UK but I don't think anyone suggested it would break up England. Where that came up was with the suggestion that a federal solution could only work if England was to be broken up, which many English people including myself find unacceptable, and would prefer Scotland did secede fully than to concede to that.

The emotive argument appears not to be on the Unionist side. Look at yesterdays report from SG, the graphs alone show beyond any doubt that Scotland would be wealthier, fairer and far more prosperous if following the comparitor countries.

The Scottish Government (i.e. the SNP) isn't biased at all, then?

Scotland wont go broke as an independent nation. This is gas-lighting of the highest order. Scotland is in the top 10% of wealthy countries in the world.

In the end I'd expect an economy very similar to the Republic of Ireland, but with a lot of short to medium-term pain to get there. However your guess is as good as mine.

Look at Lammy this morning, 10 years, an arbitrary dictat from an un-elected Westmintser rep, determining in one fell swoop what Scotland gets or how it should be treated. The audacity. How dare he.

David Lammy? He's a Labour MP, what power does he have?

If you don't mean him, can you clarify?

 

[Wynd]

It would break up the UK but I don't think anyone suggested it would break up England. Where that came up was with the suggestion that a federal solution could only work if England was to be broken up, which many English people including myself find unacceptable, and would prefer Scotland did secede fully than to concede to that.



The Scottish Government (i.e. the SNP) isn't biased at all, then?



In the end I'd expect an economy very similar to the Republic of Ireland, but with a lot of short to medium-term pain to get there. However your guess is as good as mine.



David Lammy? He's a Labour MP, what power does he have?

If you don't mean him, can you clarify?

You are saying you mistrust the work of Civil Servants in outlining OECD data?

Emulating the success of Ireland's economy would be the highest success for the new Scottish State going by yesterdays publication. Why do you see that as a bad thing?

Independence in the modern world. Wealthier, happier, fairer: why not Scotland?

This paper sets out a detailed analysis of the UK’s performance across a range of economic and social indicators relative to that of ten European countries. It is the first in the 'Building a new Scotland' series, focusing on independence.

www.gov.scot

I do mean Lammy, he was on Sky news this morning making claims he has neither the authority nor credibility to make.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Emulating the success of Ireland's economy would be the highest success for the new Scottish State going by yesterdays publication. Why do you see that as a bad thing?,

I don't.

I have no problem with Scotland succeeding as an independent country whatsoever, if that it its choice.

My fundamentals are simply that:

1. I am unhappy with any "keep the UK" solution that does not give equal right and privilege to each individual citizen of the UK without regard to the constituent country in which they live, with the exception that if constituent countries (or local Councils, or any other political construct) wishes to upgrade rights/privileges they wholly fund any such upgrade from increased local taxation. That is, all federal matters are to be dealt with entirely seperately to the constituent states.

1a. Any such settlement must not involve a political breakup of England, with the exception that I would find the idea of a London "city state" federal capital acceptable; in such case England's capital could be in Birmingham or Manchester, or perhaps (let's be adventurous) copy Malaysia's approach and build a completely new eco-city (like a modern day Milton Keynes, but designed for public transport, cycling and pedestrianism rather than the car) somewhere right in the middle of England for it.

2. If Scotland does choose to be independent, it does not receive any ongoing funding from rUK, nor enter into any political or financial union with it other than if both countries join the EU, with the exception of the continuation of the Common Travel Area.

I do mean Lammy, he was on Sky news this morning making claims he has neither the authority nor credibility to make.

He can say what he likes as an individual, it's up to you whether to believe him or not. All it is is his opinion.

 

[Wynd]

I don't.

I have no problem with Scotland succeeding as an independent country whatsoever, if that it its choice.

My fundamentals are simply that:

1. I am unhappy with any "keep the UK" solution that does not give equal right and privilege to each individual citizen of the UK without regard to the constituent country in which they live, with the exception that if constituent countries (or local Councils, or any other political construct) wishes to upgrade rights/privileges they wholly fund any such upgrade from increased local taxation. That is, all federal matters are to be dealt with entirely seperately to the constituent states.

2. If Scotland does choose to be independent, it does not receive any ongoing funding from rUK, nor enter into any political or financial union with it other than if both countries join the EU, with the exception of the continuation of the Common Travel Area.



He can say what he likes as an individual, it's up to you whether to believe him or not. All it is is his opinion.

Great to see you see you think Scotland would be an economically successful independent nation state.

Regardless of how you feel, you wont get to determine the arrangements between Scotland and its neighbors post independence. That will be a matter of negotiation and co-operation between the respective representatives. Any spiteful sentiment of "cutting them off" will hopefully be discounted for what it is, immature and imprudent.

The hectoring of Scotland by people who Scotland didn't elect is, hopefully, drawing to a close. Democracy it seems, is a popular thing. Even in a nation as old as Scotland.

Is it any wonder Scotland wants to return to Independence. It was independent for many centuries before 1707.

Cue the condescending "300 years was a long time ago, things were different" diatribes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Great to see you see you think Scotland would be an economically successful independent nation state.

If it secedes I very much hope it is successful. I think it's a beautiful country, and I will visit it whether it is independent or not. Though I do dislike the anti-English sentiment of a vocal minority of its inhabitants based largely around a dislike of the Westminster Government which I happen to share.

That I think independence should mean independence (e.g. no ongoing monetary union) doesn't detract from any of that.

Regardless of how you feel, you wont get to determine the arrangements between Scotland and its neighbors post independence. That will be a matter of negotiation and co-operation between the respective representatives.

Other than that, as with any other political opinion, my vote can be used to influence the matter.

 

[najaB]

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.

Most Scots I know see their identity as Scottish first, European seconds and British third.