Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Labour in Scotland make a big point about their Unionist credentials. Despite 30-40% of the membership being amenable to independence.
It is a difficult question to answer, what Labour in Scotland stand for. The SNP policies are decidedly left of centre, yet receive very limited, scant, support from the Labour party in Scotland.
As rightly pointed out above, Labour are far keener to go into coalition with the Torys than support a party that is as left leaning, if not more so, than themselves.
One can only conclude from this that Labour in Scotland are Unionists first, and anything else second.
Which explains why Labour and Tory trade vote share, but don't dent SNP support by much, to the deep irritation of a London centric political commentariat whom unfailingly view Scottish politics through the prism of English political principles. Namely, if you dont vote Labour, you must vote Tory.
Half, and arguably more, of the Scottish electorate, now wish to end Dependency, which one would think would make Labour a little softer on the subject. Apparently not.
When it goes wrong for the SNP is probably right after the next referendum. One way or another, the matter will be settled, and the party will begin to divide out into its respective polarities. Again, another thing that is too often missed. The SNP is a broad church, unified by one predominant ambition. If only more would understand this, conversations around the party and Scotland would be a lot more informed.
That is not entirely accurate; Just over half of those asked, that number being a tiny fraction of the total electorate, expressed support for independence in opinion polls. Despite what the National newspaper, and the SNP, believe, that does not automatically translate to a majority of the Scottish electorate having a desperate burning desire for separation. Besides, what people say in opinion polls, with no repercussions in real life, and how they vote in an actual referendum or election are not necessarily the same.
No it won't, if Yes was to lose the matter would not be settled in any shape or form, just as it was not settled despite a decisive No vote in 2014. If Yes was to win of course, that would be an entirely different thing, no more referendums, ever.
To answer the orginal title thread, I think things will go wrong for the SNP inevitably. If there's no referendum, and the SNP narrowly lose the popular vote and the next election, what then? Sturgeon resigns and a new leader stands on the 2026 Holyrood election on a legal referendum ticket, to be held in, when? 2028? What happens if that's a No vote? What happens if a sizeable faction of the SNP doesn't want to risk another referendum defeat after over 10 years of campaigning for a second referendum? UDI?
Or, as increasingly likely, what will happen after a Yes vote? There are still no answers to some of the major questions surrounding independence, and I think that Sturgeon, if she wins a referendum, will end up in the same position the country was in after Brexit - face the awkward reality check of independence whilst being pushed towards a "no-deal" by zealots. The whole thing could come crashing down, and I don't say that with any gloating, it's genuinely very concerning.
This I don't understand. As Wynd noted, the SNP are a broad church. If I lived in England, I would say that I'd most likely vote Lib Dem, but as living in Scotland and supporting Independence, I often lend my vote to the SNP (but have also voted for Lib Dem, Green and Independent at different times depending on the election at hand)
In a similar way to how UKIP campaigned for many years for an opportunity to overturn a referendum that had happened many years earlier, then those who wish for Scotland to be part of the United Kingdom would be able to campaign for that to happen. Should Scotland become an independent country, then like UKIP now being a busted flush, I would expect to see similar happen to the SNP.
Whilst we often see rhetoric of Scotland being a 'one-party state', "No more referendums, ever" would require Scotland to abandon democracy which given the desire of the SNP to rejoin the EU feels exceptionally unlikely to all but the most swivel-eyed on either side of the debate.
The problem is that Labour won't do it, the Lib Dems are too reliant on the English part of the party, and the Tories obviously won't. That leaves only the Greens, who came 4th in the regional vote and took 8 seats in the process. Even if people move away from the SNP, then they will switch to the Greens.
Realistically the only one of the UK major parties that was ever going to go pro Indy was the Lib Dems. However, Ming Campbell firmly nailed the Lib Dems to the Unionist mast as federal leader, a large section of their heartland vote and the membership simply went across to the SNP in the subsequent period.
Had Charles Kennedy defected to the SNP during the Tory / Lib Dem coalition years he would have been returned on around 70 to 80% of the vote in 2015 and maybe he’d have still been here and Scotland would be a better place if he was.
Realistically the only one of the UK major parties that was ever going to go pro Indy was the Lib Dems. However, Ming Campbell firmly nailed the Lib Dems to the Unionist mast as federal leader, a large section of their heartland vote and the membership simply went across to the SNP in the subsequent period.
Had Charles Kennedy defected to the SNP during the Tory / Lib Dem coalition years he would have been returned on around 70 to 80% of the vote in 2015 and maybe he’d have still been here and Scotland would be a better place if he was.
I still very much miss Charles Kennedy; he wasn't just a loss to the LibDems, but UK politics as a whole. I also wonder whether he'd eventually have leaned towards independence eventually.
I'm more willing to respect the LibDems' position as they've consistently advocated for federalism, which I'd probably have settled for a few years ago. I'd probably settle for it now if there was a chance of it happening, but it would have to involve England having regional assemblies, otherwise we're no further forward; unfortunately there seems to be no appetite for this south of the border. Let's face it, federalism would only be a stepping-stone towards independence anyway.
In my opinion, should there be Indyref2 and a majority, however small, for Yes, the SNP would take that as decisive and binding, and no matter how difficult and costly the transition to actual independence might subsequently transpire to be, the SNP would not in any way be amenable to a third referendum with the aim of cancelling independence, in complete contrast to their incessant demands since 2014's decisive No vote. 'Scotland' (which in the SNP's eyes is independence supporters only) would have spoken!
In my opinion, should there be Indyref2 and a majority, however small, for Yes, the SNP would take that as decisive and binding, and no matter how difficult and costly the transition to actual independence might subsequently transpire to be, the SNP would not in any way be amenable to a third referendum with the aim of cancelling independence, in complete contrast to their incessant demands since 2014's decisive No vote. 'Scotland' (which in the SNP's eyes is independence supporters only) would have spoken!
I get that, but that would be only the SNP take on it. UKIP would never support a referendum on rejoining the EU, but they only get to exercise that position if they are in government.
Should independence happen, many people, who currently lend their vote to the SNP, are going to vote for different parties.
If an independent Scotland turns out to be a basket case, then it's likely a government who wish to have a referendum on rejoining the UK would be elected.
I agree, but the problem (well it's a problem for me anyway!) is that there is no sign of the SNP losing their grip on power any time soon. But of course, none of us can know exactly what would happen post Indyref2, should it happen.
I agree, but the problem (well it's a problem for me anyway!) is that there is no sign of the SNP losing their grip on power any time soon. But of course, none of us can know exactly what would happen post Indyref2, should it happen.
The SNP would, in a normal democracy, be well past their sell-by date having been in government for 15 years now.
Using Occam's Razor, I don't see a reason why a normal functioning democracy wouldn't return particularly if Scotland wishes to join the EU (my perception is this would be the popular choice). Even without the desire to join the EU, it would be extremely unlikely that anything other than a typical liberal western democratic structure would be adopted.
Falcon, it might be worth considering the thought that Scotland could be a successful economic, democratic, independent state.
There is little evidence at hand to suggest this would not be the case. Scotland is an economically developed, westernised, democratic European country. Its people are well educated, highly skilled and economically productive. The country has resources, both human and capital, considerable exports, and ready markets in its immediate vicinity. Anyone, and I'm not pointing at you or anyone in specifically here, suggesting that it would be a basket case either has a poor handle on Scotland, or has not done their homework. Or is buying in to heavy rhetoric on one side of the debate.
The primary faultline in this space is that people transpose Scotland's current economic position on to that of being an independent state, which is a fatal error in these discussions. We cannot know the future decisions of a future independent government of a new Scottish state, what colour it may be, and what objectives it would set for the economy.
As we sit here today, it can be argued that we don't have a comprehensive handle on Scotland's balance of trade by lieu of being in an economic and political partnership with Ruk.
We wouldn't have comprehensive, factual data, until that state exists.
The current estimations of Scotland's economic position are a direct function of it being a dependent state where over half of its spending is not controlled within its borders.
If an independent Scotland turns out to be a basket case, then it's likely a government who wish to have a referendum on rejoining the UK would be elected.
That seems pretty implausible to me. You might well get a majority of people regretting independence, but a majority regretting independence isn't the same as a majority wanting to reverse it. Remember, independence will involve huge negotiations, and a major upheaval that will cause a lot of disruption spanning several years as laws get changed and businesses and the economy adapt to the new situation. Once that has happened, very few people are going to want to have to undergo the same disruption again in order to reverse independence, even if independence turns out a lot worse than the SNP are predicting. If independence happens, it will be basically irreversible.
(Same thing with Brexit: Opinion polls seem to be showing a majority of the UK population regretting Brexit, but those same opinion polls also show a strong majority against rejoining the EU now that we have actually left).
For what it's worth by the way, I do not believe an independent Scotland would be a basket case - I'm not sure where that phrase came into this discussion. But I am equally sure that it wouldn't work out nearly as well as the utopian picture nationalists seem to be imagining - simply because real life is messy and is almost never utopian in practice. The grass is always greener on the other side...
Actually, I do not dispute that. What I do believe however is that getting to that position would be a long, disruptive and extremely expensive process, and that there are many, many, unanswered, and possibly unanswerable, questions. For example:
EU membership; This is a major reason for the SNP's continuing demands, and it is therefore certain that should Indyref2 happen with a Yes vote, EU membership would be requested. So; Would the EU agree, what conditions would Scotland have to meet, how long would the process take, what happens in the interim, would Scotland be a net recipient of or contributor to EU funds, and if the latter, how much? Not to mention what arrangements would be in place for an extremely busy and at present totally uncontrolled border between an EU Scotland and a non-EU UK; Northern Ireland has already shown the huge difficulties this presents, on a much smaller scale, with no resolution anywhere in sight.
Currency; Pound, Euro, Scottish Groat, currency reserves, interest rates, etc, etc? The SNP could not answer those questions in 2014 and I doubt they can now!
Pan-UK organisations; One example occurs to me, Driver and Vehicle licensing which at present is carried out in Birmingham and Swansea; Presumably independent Scotland would either have to pay to continue the arrangement (if indeed acceptable to the EU, and if the UK agreed) or set up its own organisation. I am sure there are many other similar examples, one of which would affect me personally;
Pensions; My sole income is from the UK wide Network Rail section of the Railway pension fund. How would this be divided up, fairly, so that Scots pensioners would not lose out? The process would be long, and would divert time and money better spent on looking after the pensioners.
Representation abroad; Post independence, Scots would no longer be able to receive assistance from British embassies and consulates - What would be Scotland's solution?
Personally I cannot see many, if any, ways that Scotland would really be better off separated from its major trading partner with whom we share so many links over such a long period.
The SNP are paradoxically benefitting from a system that was designed to stop them winning a majority. Now it's going to be very difficult to dislodge the SNP, because the Greens don't have the strength in depth and pro-Indy supporters are not going to vote for Unionists.
Representation abroad; Post independence, Scots would no longer be able to receive assistance from British embassies and consulates - What would be Scotland's solution?
The SNP are paradoxically benefitting from a system that was designed to stop them winning a majority. Now it's going to be very difficult to dislodge the SNP, because the Greens don't have the strength in depth and pro-Indy supporters are not going to vote for Unionists.
Are the SNP benefitting? How are they benefitting from the system, as compared to that if Scotland had had FPTP, the SNP would have pretty much every seat in the Scottish Parliament?
Also, what makes you believe the system was designed to specifically stop the SNP winning a majority? That seems an unlikely motive if you consider that the system was designed after the 1997 referendum - a time when Labour was completely dominant in Scottish politics and there was no realistic possibility of anyone other than Labour getting a majority. (I could on the other hand believe that the system may have been motivated by a desire to prevent any party - not specifically the SNP - from getting an unfair overwhelming majority).
Are the SNP benefitting? How are they benefitting from the system, as compared to that if Scotland had had FPTP, the SNP would have pretty much every seat in the Scottish Parliament?
Also, what makes you believe the system was designed to specifically stop the SNP winning a majority? That seems an unlikely motive if you consider that the system was designed after the 1997 referendum - a time when Labour was completely dominant in Scottish politics and there was no realistic possibility of anyone other than Labour getting a majority. (I could on the other hand believe that the system may have been motivated by a desire to prevent any party - not specifically the SNP - from getting an unfair overwhelming majority).
The system was apparently designed to prevent any party gaining an overall majority of seats, and I don't think @Cloud Strife was actually suggesting that it was designed to stop the SNP specifically.
Are the SNP benefitting? How are they benefitting from the system, as compared to that if Scotland had had FPTP, the SNP would have pretty much every seat in the Scottish Parliament?
They are, because under a pure PR system, they would probably get around 40%-ish of the vote right now, and they (along with the Greens) would probably fall just short of a majority in the Scottish Parliament. Yes, FPTP would give them a huge majority, which is one reason why the devolved administrations work better than Westminster. But as it is, the system adopted has allowed the SNP+Greens to put together a
Also, what makes you believe the system was designed to specifically stop the SNP winning a majority? That seems an unlikely motive if you consider that the system was designed after the 1997 referendum - a time when Labour was completely dominant in Scottish politics and there was no realistic possibility of anyone other than Labour getting a majority. (I could on the other hand believe that the system may have been motivated by a desire to prevent any party - not specifically the SNP - from getting an unfair overwhelming majority).
The general view from that time is that the curious system used in Scotland was specifically designed to prevent the possibility of an SNP majority at a later date, as it was recognised that they would be the other big party under FPTP. The Scottish Constitutional Convention produced a blueprint for devolution (available here: https://paulcairney.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/scc-1995.pdf ), but the SNP didn't take part in this process.
It is interesting to read the blueprint in hindsight, because much of what was written there formed the basis of devolution.
Of course, no-one in 1995 would have predicted that Yes would rise to the levels seen today.
The outcome of the High Court case has raised some interesting things.
As you rightly point out, no one was credibly taking seriously this very prospect. However, in hindsight, that was unwise.
However, however, we also know that some were. In 1999 the maritime border was moved rather dramatically to the north, so some in Whitehall were clearly cognisant of some level of risk of "losing Scotland" like so many buttons or coins.
Secondly in 1998 Westminster decides that the Constitution is reserved. By what means or method did it presume as such, and further, by what authority does it maintain that position? It isn't though the consent of popular majority at the ballot box which has now stopped electing Unionists, as a majority, to the two components of Scotland's government.
As the motion in UK parliament proved last week, there is no means by which the 1998 Act, which refers very directly to Scotland, can be amended by the parliamentarians that Scotland elects, because they will always be outvoted in that place, Westminster.
Some of you may appreciate the irony in that, that Scotland cannot enact legislation, (in Holyroood) nor amend legislation, (in Westminster) that refers directly to Scotland, by use of the standard parliamentary majority method.
And yet some claim, without a hint or irony, that there is no democratic deficit or problem. It can be argued that those folks just don't look hard enough.
Secondly in 1998 Westminster decides that the Constitution is reserved. By what means or method did it presume as such, and further, by what authority does it maintain that position?
The authority by which Westminster decides that the Constitution is reserved is the fact that the Westminster Parliament is long established as the ultimate source of law in the UK. Given that the 1998 devolution settlement was designed to enable devolution in Scotland, not to create a separate country, that seems an eminently sensible decision based on the circumstances at the time.
It isn't though the consent of popular majority at the ballot box which has now stopped electing Unionists, as a majority, to the two components of Scotland's government.
But it is (indirectly) by consent of the popular majority at the ballot box. You seem to be forgetting that elections to the UK Parliament take place across the entire UK, not only in Scotland, and people across the UK voted in parties that agreed the current constitutional situation. Scotland is part of the UK (a fact that I might remind you was confirmed just 8 years ago in a referendum, so it's certainly not undemocratic) and therefore contributes (in proportion to its population) to decisions across the UK that are made by all MPs - not just Scottish MPs.
Actually, I do not dispute that. What I do believe however is that getting to that position would be a long, disruptive and extremely expensive process, and that there are many, many, unanswered, and possibly unanswerable, questions. For example:
EU membership; This is a major reason for the SNP's continuing demands, and it is therefore certain that should Indyref2 happen with a Yes vote, EU membership would be requested. So; Would the EU agree, what conditions would Scotland have to meet, how long would the process take, what happens in the interim, would Scotland be a net recipient of or contributor to EU funds, and if the latter, how much? Not to mention what arrangements would be in place for an extremely busy and at present totally uncontrolled border between an EU Scotland and a non-EU UK; Northern Ireland has already shown the huge difficulties this presents, on a much smaller scale, with no resolution anywhere in sight.
Currency; Pound, Euro, Scottish Groat, currency reserves, interest rates, etc, etc? The SNP could not answer those questions in 2014 and I doubt they can now!
Pan-UK organisations; One example occurs to me, Driver and Vehicle licensing which at present is carried out in Birmingham and Swansea; Presumably independent Scotland would either have to pay to continue the arrangement (if indeed acceptable to the EU, and if the UK agreed) or set up its own organisation. I am sure there are many other similar examples, one of which would affect me personally;
Pensions; My sole income is from the UK wide Network Rail section of the Railway pension fund. How would this be divided up, fairly, so that Scots pensioners would not lose out? The process would be long, and would divert time and money better spent on looking after the pensioners.
Representation abroad; Post independence, Scots would no longer be able to receive assistance from British embassies and consulates - What would be Scotland's solution?
Personally I cannot see many, if any, ways that Scotland would really be better off separated from its major trading partner with whom we share so many links over such a long period.
To start, the Union is not free for Scotland, it too comes with costs.
Some questions are going to be tough to answer whilst Scotland is Dependent.
Its not the SNP alone, the Scottish Electorate have made themselves crystal clear on how they feel about EU membership, and has thus elected one of the only pro EU party to Holyrood.
Before EU membership, a new Scottish state could almost immediately get an EFTA style deal, remediation much of the damage. Full EU membership comes later, and as you point out, would require clarity to be added to the conversation. The border probably being the worst of it.
Currency, there is nothing stopping Scotland using the pound and transitioning to a new currency of its own. The recent paper on this issue addresses most of the concerns around the subject, although more granular detail is required if setting up a currency is what Scotland wants to do. There is a lot of heavy rhetoric in this space, some academics have been unhelpful in muddying the waters also, by presenting a-symmetric arguments that do not take a comprehensive view of the facts. Ronald Macdonald recently published a body of work that was missing some very pertinent facts, which is disappointing as it makes things less clear than they could or should be. Namely, looking at a Scottish devaluation, without considering any subsequent devaluation in Sterling as a result of Scotland leaving. It was crude, and left much to be desired. There needs to be a body of work, a credible one, assessing what the value of a Scottish currency would look like.
As a significant exporter it makes a lot of sense for Scotland do have its own currency, as at present, we have no idea if the price of the pound is what best serves Scotland's economy. If Scotlands pound is cheaper, does that improve export flows in to Ruk? Does it improve tourism, which are like exports in that money arrives as an inflow. If its more expensive with a higher rate, does that attract capital from Ruk in to Edinburgh, chasing higher returns on investment?
Pan UK stuff is largely comperable to what we have seen on taxation devolution, id imagine similar would happen.
Pensions are another area where much unhelpful heavy rhetoric has been promoted. There are already a number of existing pension arrangements between UK and other States. Those of us who have worked half our working life in the current UK and say another half in an independent state would see part of the pension effectively funded by the UK, and the other part funded by the Scottish state. Please dont patronise saying there is no pot of money, I'm well aware of the functioning of the non-funded ongoing contingent liability of UK pensions, but that aside, there remains a liability on the UK side, that would be honoured with a reciprocal tax arrangement with the Scottish state, as happens in Ireland as one example. Scotland and the UK would be working together to ensure that those who retire in Scotland or England have a pension to fall back on. Any suggestion that there will be no pensions is as disingenuous as it is factually inaccurate.
SG has already setup a number of outposts, it would folow that these would become embassies in time.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The authority by which Westminster decides that the Constitution is reserved is the fact that the Westminster Parliament is long established as the ultimate source of law in the UK. Given that the 1998 devolution settlement was designed to enable devolution in Scotland, not to create a separate country, that seems an eminently sensible decision based on the circumstances at the time.
But it is (indirectly) by consent of the popular majority at the ballot box. You seem to be forgetting that elections to the UK Parliament take place across the entire UK, not only in Scotland, and people across the UK voted in parties that agreed the current constitutional situation. Scotland is part of the UK (a fact that I might remind you was confirmed just 8 years ago in a referendum, so it's certainly not undemocratic) and therefore contributes (in proportion to its population) to decisions across the UK that are made by all MPs - not just Scottish MPs.
The problem with this is firstly parliamentary sovereignty is an English, not Scottish principle, and secondly democracy is government by consent. Westminster can't just declare that is us ultimately in charge of Scotland without the consent of the people of Scotland, and that consent is gained though elections.
This is the entire central point of this subject, who governs and under what consent.
To make the point, the only way these acts can be changed is if representatives from outside Scotland deem it so and form a majority in support of changing the act, beacuse Scotland's MPs are always out-vote-able on weight of numbers. That is the antithesis of government by consent.
To start, the Union is not free for Scotland, it too comes with costs.
Some questions are going to be tough to answer whilst Scotland is Dependent.
Its not the SNP alone, the Scottish Electorate have made themselves crystal clear on how they feel about EU membership, and has thus elected one of the only pro EU party to Holyrood.
Before EU membership, a new Scottish state could almost immediately get an EFTA style deal, remediation much of the damage. Full EU membership comes later, and as you point out, would require clarity to be added to the conversation. The border probably being the worst of it.
Currency, there is nothing stopping Scotland using the pound and transitioning to a new currency of its own. The recent paper on this issue addresses most of the concerns around the subject, although more granular detail is required if setting up a currency is what Scotland wants to do. There is a lot of heavy rhetoric in this space, some academics have been unhelpful in muddying the waters also, by presenting a-symmetric arguments that do not take a comprehensive view of the facts. Ronald Macdonald recently published a body of work that was missing some very pertinent facts, which is disappointing as it makes things less clear than they could or should be. Namely, looking at a Scottish devaluation, without considering any subsequent devaluation in Sterling as a result of Scotland leaving. It was crude, and left much to be desired. There needs to be a body of work, a credible one, assessing what the value of a Scottish currency would look like.
As a significant exporter it makes a lot of sense for Scotland do have its own currency, as at present, we have no idea if the price of the pound is what best serves Scotland's economy. If Scotlands pound is cheaper, does that improve export flows in to Ruk? Does it improve tourism, which are like exports in that money arrives as an inflow. If its more expensive with a higher rate, does that attract capital from Ruk in to Edinburgh, chasing higher returns on investment?
Pan UK stuff is largely comperable to what we have seen on taxation devolution, id imagine similar would happen.
Pensions are another area where much unhelpful heavy rhetoric has been promoted. There are already a number of existing pension arrangements between UK and other States. Those of us who have worked half our working life in the current UK and say another half in an independent state would see part of the pension effectively funded by the UK, and the other part funded by the Scottish state. Please dont patronise saying there is no pot of money, I'm well aware of the functioning of the non-funded ongoing contingent liability of UK pensions, but that aside, there remains a liability on the UK side, that would be honoured with a reciprocal tax arrangement with the Scottish state, as happens in Ireland as one example. Scotland and the UK would be working together to ensure that those who retire in Scotland or England have a pension to fall back on. Any suggestion that there will be no pensions is as disingenuous as it is factually inaccurate.
SG has already setup a number of outposts, it would folow that these would become embassies in time.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The problem with this is firstly parliamentary sovereignty is an English, not Scottish principle, and secondly democracy is government by consent. Westminster can't just declare that is us ultimately in charge of Scotland without the consent of the people of Scotland, and that consent is gained though elections.
This is the entire central point of this subject, who governs and under what consent.
To make the point, the only way these acts can be changed is if representatives from outside Scotland deem it so and form a majority in support of changing the act, beacuse Scotland's MPs are always out-vote-able on weight of numbers. That is the antithesis of government by consent.
I find it pretty contradictory that you talk of a democratic deficit with regards to Westminster, but at the same time make it clear you want to rejoin the EU. Assuming that an independent Scotland were to rejoin the EU, the six or so Scottish MEPs could all be easily outvoted in the European parliament. Likewise, although all EU countries have a veto in the biggest policy decisions, is it democratic that a single country (say Hungary) can outvote all the other countries? On the other hand because of this the EU is seriously considering removing the veto, swapping the so called deficit deficit from one side to the other.
The fact is all political unions are imperfect and messy. The UK, the EU, the US, I could go on. But political unions, however messy and however much nationalistic politicians like to blame the ‘other’ rather than dealing with the actual issues at home, also come with great economic benefits. IMO the UK made a massive mistake when it left a union with its nearest and greatest neighbour. Personally I don’t think it’s wise for Scotland to make the same mistake.
I find it pretty contradictory that you talk of a democratic deficit with regards to Westminster, but at the same time make it clear you want to rejoin the EU. Assuming that an independent Scotland were to rejoin the EU, the six or so Scottish MEPs could all be easily outvoted in the European parliament. Likewise, although all EU countries have a veto in the biggest policy decisions, is it democratic that a single country (say Hungary) can outvote all the other countries? On the other hand because of this the EU is seriously considering removing the veto, swapping the so called deficit deficit from one side to the other.
The fact is all political unions are imperfect and messy. The UK, the EU, the US, I could go on. But political unions, however messy and however much nationalistic politicians like to blame the ‘other’ rather than dealing with the actual issues at home, also come with great economic benefits. IMO the UK made a massive mistake when it left a union with its nearest and greatest neighbour. Personally I don’t think it’s wise for Scotland to make the same mistake.
Dont confuse the player and the game. These are arguments, not necessarily my own view.
Indeed, but what's important to remember is that the EU is made up of independent member states, and in that regard, is not a perfect comparison with the UK Union.
The act you speak of, leaving the EU, is ironically enough rooted in a British version of Nationalism. If Scotland does become independent, the mood music appears to suggest it is seeking to reverse much of the error of Brexit by becoming more aligned to the EU, in many ways emulating what Ireland has done economically.
As a significant exporter the majority of whose trade is with the rest of the UK; Does anyone seriously believe that having a different currency would not have a detrimental effect on Scottish exports to the UK?
I was referring to my company pension, paid from a pan-UK organisation, one of many; I cannot seen how separating out Scottish liabilities and funding from the rest of the UK would be anything other than extremely complex and costly.
I find it pretty contradictory that you talk of a democratic deficit with regards to Westminster, but at the same time make it clear you want to rejoin the EU. Assuming that an independent Scotland were to rejoin the EU, the six or so Scottish MEPs could all be easily outvoted in the European parliament. Likewise, although all EU countries have a veto in the biggest policy decisions, is it democratic that a single country (say Hungary) can outvote all the other countries? On the other hand because of this the EU is seriously considering removing the veto, swapping the so called deficit deficit from one side to the other.
The fact is all political unions are imperfect and messy. The UK, the EU, the US, I could go on. But political unions, however messy and however much nationalistic politicians like to blame the ‘other’ rather than dealing with the actual issues at home, also come with great economic benefits. IMO the UK made a massive mistake when it left a union with its nearest and greatest neighbour. Personally I don’t think it’s wise for Scotland to make the same mistake.
Regarding your first sentence rejoining the EU, [as I mentioned a while ago in the Brexit thread] remember that Scotland alongside with Northern Ireland and Gibraltar all voted to remain.
They have been dragged out against their will being as it was only England and Wales that voted to leave, and by a government that Scotland, NI, and Gibraltar did not vote for.
As a significant exporter the majority of whose trade is with the rest of the UK; Does anyone seriously believe that having a different currency would not have a detrimental effect on Scottish exports to the UK?
I was referring to my company pension, paid from a pan-UK organisation, one of many; I cannot seen how separating out Scottish liabilities and funding from the rest of the UK would be anything other than extremely complex and costly.
If Scotlands currency is cheaper than Sterling, which is what so many on the Unionist side seem to think, then yes, Scotlands exports may well go up!
Scotlands economy has been badly damaged by Brexit, and increased trade to RUK is not offsetting those losses.
No one can now credibly claim that the Union is at present an economic bonanza for Scotland. The Uk economy is in a very bad place due to the massive failure of Brexit and how Westminster and Whitehall have handled it. Yes, global factors are playing a part, but there is a reason the Uk is bottom of the G7.
Reciprocal pension agreements are in place with a number of states. Its not that unusual.
They have been dragged out against their will being as it was only England and Wales that voted to leave, and by a government that Scotland, NI, and Gibraltar did not vote for.
And by that logic, Greenwich and Lambeth also got dragged out of the EU against their will, so perhaps they should demand independence.
And it's even worse - for a full 13 years between 1997 and 2010, much of Surrey and Hampshire - and indeed a whole swathe of Southern England outside London - got lumbered with a Labour Government against their will, so I guess they should've demanded independence.
And within London, Bexley and Bromley have since 2012 had a Labour Mayor of London and a Labour-run London assembly foisted on them against their will, so I guess they should demand to be separated from London.
Or maybe we could get real, and try understanding that in a democracy, not everyone wins every election. There will always be geographical areas within whatever authority you are voting for, that voted for the losing side (or for a referendum, voted against the majority decision). This ridiculous 'dragged out against their will' with an implied 'so they should get independence' trope that we keep hearing from the nationalists may well sound emotionally appealing, but it only makes sense if you conveniently forget how democracy works and don't bother to think through the logic.
This ridiculous 'dragged out against their will' with an implied 'so they should get independence' trope that we keep hearing from the nationalists may well sound emotionally appealing, but it only makes sense if you conveniently forget how democracy works and don't bother to think through the logic.
But this ignores the fact that Scotland is culturally and politically distinct from England. It's exactly this dismissive attitude that is driving the push for independence, because the voters in Scotland see that they don't have genuine democracy while Westminister controls them.
Bromley is culturally very similar to the rest of London, but there is a distinct difference between Gretna and Carlisle.
But this ignores the fact that Scotland is culturally and politically distinct from England. It's exactly this dismissive attitude that is driving the push for independence, because the voters in Scotland see that they don't have genuine democracy while Westminister controls them.
Bromley is culturally very similar to the rest of London, but there is a distinct difference between Gretna and Carlisle.
The SNP would be well advised to continue their cultural campaign then because it’s the only part of the independence matrix that actually matters. “We are a distinct intact nation and we think we deserve control over our own affairs” is the only really persuasive Indy argument. Everything else is window dressing.
No one can now credibly claim that the Union is at present an economic bonanza for Scotland. The Uk economy is in a very bad place due to the massive failure of Brexit and how Westminster and Whitehall have handled it. Yes, global factors are playing a part, but there is a reason the Uk is bottom of the G7.
Is the UK ‘bottom of the G7’? Yes it is forecast to be the worst in 2023, which seems to have generated some cheap headlines. But that may change. Yes it was the worst in 2020 when it left the EU. But it was also the highest performing in 2021 and the joint second highest this year. Brexit has undoubtedly caused harm to the UK economy, but I say again if Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU no amount of increased trade with the EU will offset the damage caused by decreased trade with rUK.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
