UKH

Referenda fatigue, or is this the time?

Personally, last time I voted yes. If there is another referendum I will vote to remain. Two main reasons for my change. The drop in oil price, and leaving one union is quite enough for me.

I'm going the opposite way. The union is broken and I now firmly believe Scotland will be better out of it.

And even if Scotland isn't better off out of it I still think we should leave because I want no part in the direction the UK is going.

Echo this - I was yes to Scottish Independence before, and in the light of the last few years my position hasn't changed.

And next time round I'm going to engage with it actively. I'm going to campaign and cajole and convince because the current clusterf*ckingomnishambles has boiled my piss and turned me into an angry activist.

The Tories won't allow another ref. so your best bet is voting labour in a general election, after striking a deal ... good luck with that. Or have one anyway and UDI, that would be *interesting*. 

I voted no last time as I don't believe in breaking up political unions in our ever globalizing world. However, since we are being dragged out of the EU now, I would now vote for indepence. I don't want to be stuck in a union with such an inward looking country. 

You know what we need after years of brexit-uncertainty putting off investment and making long-term planning hard? Another looming political upset to put off investment and mess up long term plans!

I run a small company, manufacturing scientific equipment, where it's critical to be able to work easily with suppliers all over the UK. Without customs paperwork, tax differences, and the currency exchange faff that the SNP want. So I'll be voting to stay.

you'll have to let all of us Remainers in from S of the Border

I was vehemently No last time, but, if Brexit happens, I might vote Yes if there is a clear path back into the EU and if some of the big questions which the Yes campaign avoided last time are honestly addressed. I would also want either some sort of super-majority requirement or confirmatory referendum (or both); without this, a narrow Yes vote would be just as destructively divisive as the EU referendum has been.

Don't you think the economy is important? Scotland exported more to the rest of the UK than all of Europe combined? The UK may be inward but I think the last thing we need are more potential barriers and borders for business. When you see the potential impacts and disagreements of Brexit it makes me wary of any more splits. It would be possible for the UK to rejoin the EU in future.

There is little appetite for a second referendum for the most obvious of reasons and the polls haven't moved at all really. That's why Sturgeon has been so reluctant to commit to anything.

On top of that her own Growth commission stated that Scotland would be very significantly worse off outside the Union than in it. Why vote for poorer public services etc, etc..

Thirdly of course she knows that the UK government won't sanction a second referendum and nor should they until Brexit is settled which, if we do actually leave, won't be for another decade or so when we will have completed trade deals and know where we are. This is as much posturing and pressurizing the government into a better Brexit settlement as much as anything else.

While things European make it tempting to stick two fingers up at the Little Englanders and go our own way I really don't want to put up another border in the world and then be poorer as a result. 

Anyway, I'm still optimistic that we can avoid Brexit and therefore avoid another bitter and divisive constitutional debate.

The tories have a lot to answer for.

I can agree with your final point.

I do think the economy is important, so we therefore need to leave the sinking ship that is the UK so the we are not dragged down with them! Scotland is already struggling to source the workers we need for our businesses to run due to the drop in the pound and if freedom of movement ends then we are screwed. The economy is going to tank either way, but if we aren't tied to the insular Westminster politics then we might have a chance of climbing out of it

Of course, you are very welcome 

I'd echo this. It accords with what I've heard from berry farmers, who are really worried. I'd also add that the NHS is already in real trouble because of significant workforce deficits. Losing freedom of movement will be disastrous unless there is a wholesale improvement in recruitment involving better visa rules that currently inhibit recruitment of trainees as well as money spent on a recruitment drive.

If they enter legally then absolutely.

If Scotland secedes and joins the EU, it is certainly something I would consider if an option.  I reckon Scotland will try to engineer a "brain drain".

The question of what currency to use (and the corresponding economic implications of that choice) hasn't gone away.

A brain drain towards what? 

It’s a rather more general point - but do you not think we should be changing our economies so that they do not rely on immigration?

In what way? Stop producing seasonal produce? Stop providing seasonal tourism infrastructure outside of population centres? Reverse our declining birth rate?

Of people in e.g. tech jobs to Scotland.

If Sturgeon does get a second referendum on Scottish independence, and thereby break the Union, can the rest of the Union vote in the referendum too?

of course not-if they choose to leave it's entirely a matter for them alone.

Why reverse the decline if birth rate? It’s the best way to cut our Carbon footprint

There is certainly a role for transient labour, and I’m very keen on labour being free to move internationally, but If the countries economic/social model is based on importation of labour to survive then it seems to me there is a problem in how it’s economy is structured. 

This is especially so in the field of healthcare - why can we not make these jobs sufficiently attractive to the U.K. or Scottish population?

As I have said  many times before, a pointless question because Westminster will simply not allow a new indyref.

I think I can just about remember them. Were they something back in the 20th century?

The OIL PRICE? 

Who cares? A high oil would just be icing on the cake. It's not a major factor. What you need to look at economically are comparable countries and how they are fairing. 

Look at countries in Northern Europe with less than about 10 million people. Look at their government structures, education systems, agriculture, food industry, energy, natural resources, infrastructure, research, manufacturing, and services. 

None have as broad-based an economy combined with highly developed supporting elements as Scotland and yet several of them are amongst the richest countries in the world. Others, emerging from generations of Soviet domination, demonstrate outstanding growth and innovation which has propelled them near to the standards of living of the larger established economies. In that environment, and knowing how Scotland has faired in resisting the English model of social and economic self-destruction, WE CANNOT FAIL. 

Utter b0110cks. It hasn't arrived. 

One of the best laughs I have had during the last few years, because it's the kind of joke that gets funnier the more often you hear it, has the been the repeated displays of unionists talking down sterling.

Even ex-chancellors of the exchequer have been doing it. Can it be that such people really do not know how currencies work? Of course, they do know but they are so bound to the current political structures that they will recite any pathetic fantasy in an effort to buttress those structures. 

If somebody wants to use your currency, they do not need your permission and IT'S A GOOD THING for your currency. 

Towards what? IBM in Greenock gone. Compaq in Erskine gone. Motorola in Bathgate gone. These were major employers in the Central belt that no longer exist. What and where are these hundreds and thousands of jobs that highly qualified ambitious people will flock towards. 

There's no doubt an independent Scotland can *use* sterling I think the issue was that to join the EU Scotland would need it's own currency (under EU treaties as they are today), although right now I think Scotland would get in without, just to p1ss the little Englanders off.

So that stuff about oil was just a big lie from Salmond at the last referendum then?

Yes, but without any control over it. This inconvenient truth was dishonestly stepped over by Salmond last time round; I have a lot more respect for Stugeon and am expecting  honest answers to the big questions if she is to have any chance of getting my vote.

Do the people of Scotland have any control over their currency now?  Sure we have 13 tory mps but does that mean currency is managed with benefits for Scotland or for London and the far South East? 

There are still plenty of hi-tech jobs in Scotland particularly in fields like biotechnology and renewable energy.  There's also a flourishing arts scene and some amazing research centres and universities.

I'm done with swallowing the lie that Scotland is a dead duck, it's a fantastic place to live and genuinely attractive to highly qualified people looking for a great quality of life. 

There is no doubt that Scotland is in an unenviable position economically because of Brexit but I still think scottish independence is a pre-emptive move with massive consequences, not least of which will be it will be an expensive country to live in with repetition of everything structurally that we now share with UK . Also population increases required to fuel independent economy-that will take years and years- and also not sure if demographic increases are truly green or greener together [if a few surprising political scenarios emerge as part of UK politics.]

Those other scenarios are those of a reform of UK politics- I know you think it is shot now, but I am not convinced of that. I still believe we have within our democratic structure the means of change, now stimulated even more  because of the current  chaos and indecision. It is still possible for our collective political system to adapt and create new political mechanisms which will emerge to create reform and a better UK. The present situation could be the very catalyst for radical change.

So, you could read the present situation as pure proof of failure or you can see the seeds of change to a better system which would make independence look like the most extreme and most disruptive move to alter the situation at the present time. I think I see those seeds of political change now

or you may choose  to say we have not the capacity to change to meet the needs of the separated, under represented regions of the UK

Currently, I would vote again not to leave the UK and become independent. I still have faith in the democracy of the UK to adapt for the better but it is not a fast process.

At least as much as we'd have over the Euro once an independent Scotland is back in the EU.

MP wise Scotland has more per capita than England. But, this is irrelevant as the Bank of England is independent. Politicians don't sit on the interest rate panel and so forth. 

What Scotland would lose is influence in treasury policy, than might cause interest rates to go up and down, impact borrowing  etc.. the Scottish pound would be very much controlled by Westminister. 

To enter the euro Scotland would have to produce accounting records that meet euro entry requirements. That might be challenging. 

I don't disagree with any of that Dave and having lived on the west coast for over 20 years and having 2 children born in Scotland and having married 2 Scottish women and still being a frequent visitor to friends and family and the mountains I don't need convincing of the advantages of living there. Having said that, I can also see that Scotland is not some kind of fledgling utopia and had its problems and disadvantages as does every other country. Nor can I see how being independent is going to make it better.  If Brexit is going to be a bad for the UK then independence will be doubly bad for Scotland.

Brexit is a nationalist mistake that's shown is colours, Scottish independence would be the same.

Pity we can't focus on climate change instead, independence relies on Scotland becoming an oil state.

And for everyone that is saying the brexit bollocks is a reason for independence, it's not just a Scottish thing, the reason we aren't out yet, and the reason there isn't a second brexit referendum is that the majority now want to remain.

But the bank of England is still expected to act in the National interest and, after independence, a Scotland using the pound would no longer be part of that nation.

Yeah. Much like the countries who use the US dollar. They have the advantage of using a known currency, but no control over it's supply, rates etc.. 

Which is a roundabout way of saying you were wrong in the first place!

Not necessarily. Of course there will be difficulties in independence but I'm willing to thole them for two reasons:

The hope and belief that we can build something better than what we currently have and

An utter revulsion for the current state of affairs, both Brexit and wider UK policy.

Thanks for that genuine LOL moment there Margie!

I guess I was thinking policy influence at the moment we have 60% (ish) SNP mps, who as far as I can tell have no real influence other than vocal opposition at Westminster as the two 'main' parties wont deal with them - even when they had all bar 3 seats in the whole country... 

The labour/Tory MPs (and MSPs) in Scotland  seem to echo the party line from down south where understandably they have to accommodate the zillions of people that live there.  This leaves a choice between voting for a party that wants what England wants or voting for a party that has little to no influence.  Either way the Scottish get policy makers/government that doesn't have Scotland as a priority. 

Are we that different to the rest of the UK? Do you look at someone and, once you know where they're from think "I'm different to you?"

Or are we fairly similar, with similar differences. The city liver in Glasgow the same as Liverpool or Newcastle? The country town in the borders the same as the country town in Leicestershire? The Highlands with Cornwall?

I think we're similar and there's the same amount south of the border pissed off with the politicians as there is North of it. (And some of us can see that politicians will say anything if it gains support and gives them more power...) Leaving just makes us more vulnerable, and it's so unecessary, especially in this day and age, a real "1st world problem."

Nah, the reason is the ruling class of Britain.,the EU, the USA and the world want Britain to stay in the EU. This has nothing to do with the plebs. 

Phyiscally different? - not really, but no-one is saying that its about that.  As a nation maybe we are maybe a bit fatter and unhealthier   City living differences - I dont know, never lived in English cities but lived in a few throughout Scotland.  Living in Edinburgh is different from Aberdeen, which is different from Glasgow which is different from Dundee.  They are not all the same.

We vote for different politics - 2015 saw one Tory MP go south with one Lib dem = we get a tory/lib dem government.  62% voted to stay in EU, yet we are leaving... maybe.  We have elected parties for holyrood that have kept free presciptions, no fee uni education, banned fracking and the NHS is still different.  We have different laws, speed limits, history, weather, language (heh) etc, etc.  Geographically very different - almost 5.5 million people spread across a third of the UK land mass with 55.5 million in England over less than the remaining two thirds. 

I'm sure there are as many folk pissed of with politcians south of the border, as is there is in the US or any country that has politcians... thats not a reason to remain is it?  Scottish independence would indeed give more power to Scottish politicians but would also make them much more accountable.  If I'm (really really) not happy there is absolutely no way in the world I'm driving to London with my burning torch and pitchfork.  I mostly quite enjoy the drive to Edinburgh though...

Which rather makes me wonder why you'd want to risk f*cking all that up by leaving the union.

Edit: put another way..."My home is a fantastic place to live, my wife is genuinely attractive and I have a great quality of life. But I want a divorce".

Perhaps they are the problem? They don't want the relationship to work because their whole stance is devolution? 

the UK wide parties need every seat they can get. So gaining ten more seats in Scotland would benefit them hugely. 

And as I said before but you ignored, per capita Scotland is over represented in London compared say Yorkshire, Wales, Cornwall..  

Because Scotland is straining at the leash. The Scottish Government has made real improvements in Scotland but what they can do is limited by the things they don't have control over.

That's a great analogy if you just add on at the end that you've got an even better model waiting in the wings.

Public spending in Scotland is 20% higher than in England and yet after 12 years of SNP rule Scotland still trails England in key areas such as literacy, life expectancy, social mobility and suicide rates.

That's a great analogy but the 'better model' in this case is a Ukrainian mail order bride who you've never actually met.

"That's a great analogy if you just add on at the end that you've got an even better model waiting in the wings. "

because that always works out.....lol

Errr.  No we don't.

Yes, I voted no last time for a very similar reason.  I would consider voting yes this time because I don't like the direction the UK is taking, but there would have to be a clear and feasible path for an independent Scotland to join the EU in order to persuade me to switch.

I can't tell if it will work out and neither can you so it's pointless arguing over it. My point is that I'm now absolutely convinced that having a crack at it is the right thing to do. 

except....

UK speed limits for goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes in England and Wales:

• Restricted road: 30mph

• Single carriageway: 50mph

• Dual carriageway: 60mph

• Motorway: 60mph

UK speed limits for goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes in Scotland:

• Restricted road: 30mph

• Single carriageway: 40mph

• Dual carriageway: 50mph

• Motorway: 60mph

I only included that because I discovered to my horror that I'd dropped marks on my LGV theory test...

Including improvements in education that Nicola has staked her reputation on and failed to achieve, especially as it's the most important thing for the future of Scotland?

But there's areas of the rest of the UK with low population, their cities are different too, I don't see that Scotland is much more than a historical border as the borders are very different to the Highlands and both are different to the central belters. 

Do you really think a voice or of 5 million is going to be heard anymore than a voice in 55 million? Using that arguement, I'd prefer an independent Highlands! All that tourist cash! All that space! And why not? Surely that's better for my representation than an independent Scotland. What do I care about the borders farming, or the central belt?

If u leave the UK, that'll mean you will have to start a new climbing website SC and leave this one.

We could spend all day in a link battle quoting stats that show Scotland is outperforming England in this and England is out performing Scotland in that. Plenty of people fell into that black hole the last time and it is a complete waste of time and energy because all anyone is doing there is propping up their pre-existing notions with stats in the hope that it lends an emotional decision some sort of rational creedence.

Let's be honest, nobody can predict based on the state of play now how Scotland will perform post independence and I am not even inclined to try. I am perfectly happy to admit that my switch to be pro independence is an emotional one based on disgust with the direction the UK is taking and hope that an independent Scotland can do better. 

Whats a little extra representation (per capita) if it means less less influence than a MP south of the border?  Scottish people want devolution - their MPs should deliver.  The SNP have said they would be open to coalition but Labour and Tories arent.. at least with each other and SNP

Yeah, why let 'facts' get in the way of how we 'feel' about an issue.

Hope is an admirable thing. Hope shorn of experience and common sense, not so much.

Except that's not what's happening here is it? It's exactly the same as last time where everyone scrabbled about to find 'facts' to shore up something that was an entirely emotional decision for most. Confirmation bias in full flow.

Hope doesn't need those things. Stop pretending you're being rational about this.

It would be fantastic for your representation!  You could probably even get to first name terms with your elected leader fairly easily.  If the highlands gained independence from Scotland/UK, do you think that being far less populated, with different human and physical geography would warrent different policies, trade agreements, defence arrangements, immigration policies and the way budgets are allocated  or would the Highland nation be better following the Westminster model?

It's a funny one, isn't it?

Anything Scotland is currently doing well at is taken as evidence that the union is working well for it, and anything it's underperforming at as evidence that we can't run our own affairs well.

To be fair, ask the SNP and anything Scotland is doing well at is evidence that we can run our own affairs better, and anything we're underperforming at is proof that the union doesn't work for us.

It seems pretty obvious that there would be a short term hit from independence, with some additional ongoing costs, and that Scotland would then have the opportunity to remould things to better suit us.

If the UK offered the Republic of Ireland the "opportunity" to rejoin, what would the reaction be, do we think? Is Iceland keen to rejoin Denmark? Belgium the Netherlands? Small independent countries, within the modern European framework, do very well - and are able to maintain their own identities and directions while benefiting from the larger, looser unions of countries they're part of. I can see no reason at all why Scotland would be unable to do so, too, and thrive.

I don't know whether you include the Trump administration in your definition of 'ruling class' but they very definitely want to separate UK from EU and to avoid us having a customs union.  Significantly, so does Putin. 

Project Fear - The Trilogy?

My apologies - I hadn't considered HGV.  However, it's still not a good enough reason to leave the UK.

So disgust over one emotional nationalistic vote is to be followed by support for another emotional nationalistic vote?

Aye, makes loads of sense.

Well yes, that's my point. The Highlands are alike enough to benefit from different policies. Scotland is diverse enough that it doesn't make a difference. 

FREE THE HIGHLANDS FROM LOWLAND SHAME!!!! CULLODEN WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN LOST IF THE LOWLANDERS STAYED AT HOME! KEEP THE BELTERS IN THE CENTRAL BELT! (We want to keep bits of Glasgow though.)

Trump is a big player in the business world so is of excellent use for big business in the USA and attacking socialist policies and countries from Venezuala to Cuba,putting down China etc. To that same business community -ruling class and their deep state mobs in the USA Putin is used as the big enemy to fund their military and expansions right up to the Russian border and their desire to Balkanise the Russian Federation into lots of regions they can take over and put Russia on its knees like they did when their stooge Gorbachev and then Yeltsin was doing their work for them.
Trump who the deep state (for want of a better term) have tried to kick out and completely smear is not a part of the deep state or the globalists agenda so no i don't include him in wanting the UK (soon to be Un-UK) to be a part of the ruling classes that want the UK to stay in the EU. 

Ah, that old chestnut. Scottish Nationalism and British Nationalism are two completely different beasts.

Suggestions that they are the same invariably come from people who haven't bothered to actually investigate the thing they are objecting to.

Wow, I never knew Scot nats had put so much effort into trying to show how they were different to Brit nats. Good that Scot nats can identify so well that they all speak with the same voice and opinions.

Well now you do. Perhaps you missed the stories like the Scottish Government campaigning against unfair deportations, offering to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in Scotland and being very pro-active in welcoming refugees. All policies that are quite different to those espoused by most of the British Nationalists I have encountered.

In fact I would say building an image as an open, welcoming, progressive and outwards looking movement has been the main thrust of what the SNP has been up to under Nicola Sturgeon. Again, not things that British nationalists would tend to identify with.

If the BBC top 10 read stories are anything to go by you are correct. 2nd referendum barely crawled into the no5 slot while two James Bond film release pages have both made it to no1. 

That is somewhat unfair given that those are presumably UK rankings.

Contrary to no doubt what the Nationalists would have you believe, Sturgeon's speech featured prominently on UK wide radio and TV news as well as being the lead item on Newsnight.

I didn't miss a Palestinian friend getting stabbed near the armadillo for being foreign. As I said, good that the Scot nats have the same voice and outlook.

That's sad to hear but I'm not really sure what it has to do with Scottish nationalism? I'd say what your friend met with was racism not nationalism. I don't know if it's official policy but many SNP MPs and MSPs are supportive of Palestine there's even a group called SNP Friends of Palestine.

Aye Scotland isn't perfect. But it seems to me, an EU residents for 16 years and a British citizen for the last 3 months, significantly more welcoming than England. I have to admit I have never lived in England, but know many people of my ilk (pesky Johnny foreigner) who does.

I voted yes to independence last time round because despite only having a BA in English as Foreighn language I can count: 55 millions English People, 5 millions Scots, 5 millions Welsh folks and 1.5ish millions in Norn. Whatever suits the South of England, where most of the 55 millions live, will democratically be enacted. 

That was fine and dandy as long as this "national will" went in a similar vein as what people in "the North" (quoted directly fromroad signs north of the M25) wanted. It turns out that it either no longer goes in the same line, arguably never has gone in the line.

I am not English, I am not Scottish. I do not particularly like the SNP. I am not a nationalist. I really do not agree with policies coming from Westminster. I am ready to suffer some hardship and difficult years to make the life of my Scottish children (born and being raised in the North of Scotland by a Scottish mother and myself) a life that seems [there is a caveat here] more equitable and egalitarian.

I will campaign in favour of an Independant Scotland when that is put on the table. Whenever that is. Timing is everything for success as us all climbers know from moving on rock. I am not a great politician and will wait cues on timing from people more informed than me.

The Westminster Government has been slowly and surely moving to the right. I do not like its views on immigration, on taxation, on banking and on international affairs. I think a Hollyrood Government might (not will, mind!) represent my view and beliefs better and for that I am willing to take the plunge. The status quo is an enexorable slip to the right which at currently I can but constitutionally accept/suffer.

However Jonnie, you are unfortunately correct... Scotland does also possess a good smattering of arseholes. I am very sorry for your Palestinian friend. i would be if s/he were English, French or Martian.

So sort out the brexit shambles, see what type of government we have after and take it from there? Agreed that the current government are appalling (though I admire her gall in sticking in there when anybody else would have resigned months ago....) and a definite shift away from what we've got is needed, just not willing to abandon Newcastle, Bideford and Royston just yet.

They probably vote for independence? 

I get the first half of your first sentence and the second half of your final sentence but, frankly, not much of the bit between.

Unless you have some evidence that's a pretty massive assumption.

When I say the Scottish independence movement is open and welcoming etc. I'm talking about the mainstream / official versions of it, not fringe nutters.

It's a bit of a shame that the SNP have that word 'national' in their name as it is has become tainted by association with other types of nationalism. It's important to understand that the kind of nationalism espoused by the SNP is very different to that espoused by the BNP or the Nazis. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism

That's where I was last time and two things pushed me over the edge. Brexit etc and talking to many able, intelligent friends and colleagues who were convinced that it was time for Scotland to go it alone. Calm, thoughtful, moderate people not ranting nationalists or fringe nutters.

Who have even less of an arguement for an independent economy after the oil price crash. My take before was that even if I supported independence, we didn't have a strong enough economy. To fix that we'd need to really make our education world class, once that was done we should have another look (and it ain't yet.) I don't see the point in trying if we can't afford it.

I'm certainly not the person to convince you on economic grounds believing as I do that it is fundamentally unknowable. For every expert who says it would work you can find one who says it wont.

Sounds to me like you're saying that if our economy was much stronger you might consider independence but I wonder how it would be possible for the Scottish government to do that with the limited set of powers they have? Catch-22 isn't it?

You won't find experts saying it will work, there aren't any. If there are, they aren't experts....

Not really, better education, i.e. world class, would lead to world class students, therefore world-class businesses. Nicola has staked her reputation (hopefully for a good reason,) on education, let us all hope she delivers.

Having said I wouldn't enter a link battle it took me all of 30 seconds to find this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nobel-economist-backs-snp-case-for-indep...

Not that I necessarily believe him either, just to illustrate my point that there are respected economists who hold both views.

and then

I'm really sorry your friend got stabbed.

Unless there's something you aren't telling us, you appear to have decided that the thug must support independence because they don't like foreigners; independence supporters don't like foreigners, as demonstrated by this thug...

No true Scotsman, right?

A 2003 article from an American university professor? I take my country more seriously than that.

My bad, just lifted the first link and didn't check the date.

Almost sounds to me like you want to believe though.

Fixed that for you. Their argument that Scot nats are different to Brit nats is that "it's a different type of nationalism," which the SNP encourage, regardless of whether their supporters stab foreigners or not. You can't quote the SNP dream and apply it to all independence voters.

In the same vein you can't apply a random racist attack in Scotland to the independence movement either.

No, but my job often makes me choose between what I know is the right thing to do, and what idiots higher up in the business decide to do. I am therefore accustomed to compromising, hence my stance here; I don't approve of independence, but if you're going to do it, make sure there's enough cash for it to work.

You can't say nationalist loonies don't support nationalism. Extremists from that lot are the ones I hear mutter about white settlers up here.

Why don't you answer the point skog and myself have made? The one about why you've linked racist violence to voting for independence with seemingly no evidence?

And I'm not saying there are no extremists in the Scottish independence movement of course there are. I was quite clear that I was referring to the mainstream of the movement.

It remains entirely circular-argument nonsense - you've no idea about the thug's leanings regarding independence. There are certainly plenty of Unionists who don't like foreigners, and some who stab them for being foreign, but I'm not going to try to tarnish those who think the UK is 'better together' by pretending that's what most are like. Please stop this!

But it is. There is no British nationalism devoted to establishing the UK as an independent, sovereign nation to build a better country, because the UK already is an independent sovereign nation.

Well of course not. And you can't take the 'better together' dream and apply it to everyone who opposes Scottish independence. You're on the same side of this as Nick Griffin and the EDF, and it would be equally ludicrous to try to suggest that's what UK unionists are like.

Who do do racist Scots vote for?  Tory, labour, or SNP? 

I imagine it varies, with a tendency for more of the English-hating racists to vote SNP (FREEEEDOOOM! and all that), and the racists who hate people with dark skin or, say, Eastern Europeans to vote Tory or Labour (the parties with strong anti-immigration and pro-Brexit elements).

I'm not really sure where you think you're going with this - any major political party or issue will be supported by a range of people, some of whom will be thoroughly unpleasant.

I'm not sure I ever met a Scot who actually hated English people.  What they hate is being governed by the English, and when said Government is such an almighty s**tshow can you blame them?

Trump is a big player in the business world .....so is of excellent use for big business in the USA and attacking socialist policies and countries from Venezuala to Cuba,putting down China etc.

Which means he is good for the US bourgeoisie in their class war there and good for the global bourgeoisie in the global class war.

To that same business community -ruling class and their deep state mobs in the USA Putin is used as the big enemy to fund their military and expansions right up to the Russian border

The US bourgeoisie and their deep state use Putin as their bogey man to get extra funding,of which some is used to further their geo-political strategy.

and their desire to Balkanise the Russian Federation into lots of regions they can take over and put Russia on its knees like they did when their stooge Gorbachev and then Yeltsin was doing their work for them.

Which is to balkanize the Russian Federation into smaller pieces that it can more easily take over and to see the RF as a completely wrecked nation just like it was when their 5th columinsts gorbachev and Yeltsin were in power.

Trump who the deep state (for want of a better term) have tried to kick out and completely smear is not a part of the deep state or the globalists agenda

Trump was not the deep state candidate for president (that was the war criminal Clinton)and the deep state have done their best to smear him and get him removed from office.

.......so no i don't include him in wanting the UK (soon to be Un-UK) to be a part of the ruling classes that want the UK to stay in the EU. 

No worries take it easy its not your fault, i rushed it.

I suspect there are racist Scots across the political spectrum.

You can try and justify your position but it's just plain prejudice. Which is sad and ironic given that it seems to have risen out of a prejudiced attack on your friend.

I have. You get racist arseholes everywhere, that one's pretty much just a Scottish variant of people who, in England, might hate the French instead.

My point there is that it's not mainstream, and it absolutely is not supported or encouraged by the SNP or by the independence movement.

I take it you’ve been lucky enough to entirely miss out on coverage of UKIP North of the border?

You can't have spent much time in west Lothian then.  Plenty English haters here with no interest in politics.

First, thanks for the taking the trouble to clarify what you meant, and for not taking offence at my somewhat brusque dismissal.  I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what you say but I've been rather impressed by the friendly and reasonable way in which you say it. 

In that spirit, let me take issue with a couple of points.

Maybe in your world terms like 'global bourgeoisie' and 'deep state' have a specific definition and are uncontroversial.  Whilst I absolutely agree that there are vested interests and deeply entrenched inequalities in US society as there are in all developed countries (and undeveloped ones, come to that), I don't think the uncritical use of these terms without qualification helps your arguments with anyone not already convinced by them.  And, however much I despise Trump and as you concede, his election does at least prove that the deep state and entrenched bourgeoisie (at least, my understanding of what that might be) is not as all-powerful as you might fear.  

Similarly, describing Clinton (which one?) as a war criminal because you sincerely believe they are immoral and ignorant is lazy and incorrect, and possibly libellous on a public forum. 

On Russia, I'm with your general point that the US has often demonised it in order to justify its actions, and has missed several crucial opportunities to respond to reasonable Russian behaviour over the last 30 years.  In my view, these deliberate snubs are largely responsible for Putin's current attitude, and to imply that Gorbachev and Yeltsin were '5th columnists' (for whom?) is simply not supported by the way events were allowed to play out.  

However, I'm puzzled by your apparent support for Russian control over neighbouring states and your contention that anything less than a Russian hegemony (is that more the word you'd use?) will bring it 'to its knees'.  Russia is still the largest country in the world and more than 1.7 time the size of the USA.  The idea that the USA or anyone else seriously wants to 'take over' the ex-Soviet states is fanciful and plays into the myth of an even greater Russia that Putin is keen to promulgate.  Invading neighbouring states like Ukraine does little to defuse US paranoia about Russian intentions.  

If the Russian administration focused more on exploiting its impressive scientific, technical and entrepreneurial resources in a responsible way, based on a civilised, democratic, transparent and law-abiding way, and less on populist expansionism, cynical manipulation of religion and paranoid extra-territorial murder, it could genuinely become a respected international economic superpower.  

And yes, the west could help by occasionally showing some respect, in return for an improvement of domestic human rights.

Mostly, to be honest. But the UK is a sovereign nation, Scotland isn't.

UKIP can rant all they want, but, for example, the UK can call a referendum any time it wants on leaving an international treaty or union. If Holyrood does so without that power being granted from Westminster first, the referendum has no legal weight.

That's the difference between devolution (power retained centrally and lent to the region) and independence. The UK is not a devolved region, it is a sovereign nation; Scottish nationalism is about achieving that for Scotland.

Despite being an English resident in the 'new' gorbals in the 00s, I never felt the need to visit my local pub, the Brazen Head.

I understand the desire for self determination, I just don’t understand the parameters for wanting to carve Scotland out of the UK. The SNP have been explicit that it’s not blood. It’s hardly history, given that the UK has existed as a single entity longer than most of the World’s sovereign nations. Geography? We’re a small country, I can jump in the car and be over the border in less than 2 hours (a border that’s been historically fluid in any case). Culture then? I can assure you that most in England’s North West have a closer affinity to the far North than the Southeast. So is it just population size? The Northwest of England’s population is 50% greater than Scotland’s. Should we seek independence? Political difference then? The Scots are far from politically homogeneous, take the Southeast out of the equation and there’s very little difference across the UK. Practicality then? You’ve seen the unholy mess Brexit is causing disentangling 50 years of partial union. Imagine separating after 300 years of far closer union and dividing every institution and organisation with the word National or Royal in the title (everything from the Royal Navy to the National Portrait Gallery). This is without consideration of hard borders and separate currencies.

So what are you left with? Same story North of the border as the world over. Self serving politicians doing what politicians always do...seek ever more power for themselves. In the case of the SNP they’ve just harnessed parochial nationalism to further that end.

You are perfectly correct and have identified that my opinion is solely based on that stabbing and nothing to do the living in Scotland for 38 years. 

And I love that I'm being called predjudiced by an SNP supporter going for it just based on emotion! The SNP and independence campaign are pretty good at distancing themselves from England hating, but I've 38 years of enjoying jabs at those down south and suspect that just a little is involved.

Anyway, what a first world problem. Do you not think there is a more pressing issue with climate change than wasting money trying to recreate stuff we have already just so we can say it's Scottish? I really cannot believe how important people think independence for Scotland is. They blatantly have too much time on their hands and little interest in other campaigns that help more (red cross, etc.)

what i don't like is a government that doesn't bring itself around to looking after the interests of the country beyond the M25 and the lives and welfare of ordinary citizens. there are many people up and down the country that don't like where we currently are but can't so easily attach a label to it and call it the fault of their other: "the english" 

the snp play the same card as ukip: blame the other and claim that if only "we" could wrest back control from "them" then the land of milk and honey awaits. all the while completely ignoring the fact that whatever political agenda they're driving; left, right, or more commonly unstated/ambiguous, could easily be achieved. the only lack of control is that they don't personally have it.

taking separation from westminster as a easy quick way back into Europe; I'm not convinced it'll be either quick or easy. quicker than the uk reaching some arrangement; single market (inevitable imhp), norway +/++/-/-- whatever? (ok, this is definitely moot.) but a whole bunch of executive and legislative bodies will need to be brought into being very quickly (i.e bodged together) before being able to join the EU.

it just look like another fantasy of manna from afar while ignoring the near neighbors with whom we share the most.

if you don't like the current situation there are many people from yorkshire, lancashire, englandshire, wales and NI (remember them?) who think the same.

I may misunderstand you, but you see the EU as a threat to Russia? So is this a Russian perspective looking in towards Europe? Seems  to be an over-exaggerated view on the EU as a profound threat to Russia  It seems close to paranoia which is encouraged in Russian politics? Excuse me, I mean not to offend but merely find out.

Our current focus on the EU does not focus on its effect in bringing down Russia. It is an inward european identity that is a reaction to the destruction of national european wars in the 20th century, an identification of common economic and environmental and social causes in the hope to better them. The current Uk discussion on Brexit is whether these issues are better served inside or outside the EU structure. Having a go at Russia doesn't feature in the discussion as that is not its purpose.

What are the criteria for any country existing, really? They're all a bit silly when you examine them, but countries are still useful things to have, for a whole host of reasons.

I've talked about my reasons ad-nauseum on here. There are certainly arguments both ways, and I can't really be bothered rehashing things just now - I just wanted to be clear that the current brand of Scottish nationalism is nothing like the current brand of British nationalism.

Nationalism is dangerous, but it isn't just one thing. It can be utterly awful, but it can also be a positive force for change. But it should always be watched, and we should always be wary of it.

If you could list any of those reasons as regards Scottish independence?

I respect your position. I'd respect it more if you could address any of the points I've raised.

Nationalism as a force for good? Not the experience of the vast majority over the 20th and 21st centuries.

It depends what you mean by nationalism.  The "patriotic" end of it (i.e. "we love our country and culture and want to do things to keep it nice") is definitely good in my book.  It becomes less so very quickly when it heads towards "let's bomb other countries" or "let's keep those nasty foreigners out".  I think the key thing is that just because one thing is seen as good doesn't mean it's good to the exclusion of anything else.

I've never been quite sure why patriotism is a dirty word in England- it's not in France, for example, yet that isn't to the exclusion of a wider world view and a generally pro-EU stance.  It's also not in Scotland or Wales!

Yes. I, for one, believe that Brexit must be at least properly started. It will not be sorted easily. 

This is a point that a few people are referring to: a split between Scotland and the rest of the UK will not be easy and will not be painless but it is possible. The SNP made light of some points but never claim it would be easy and they at least had some sort of plan. Something that cannot be said about Westminster and their frictionless "getting out". 

In my mind, there is a fundamental difference in attitude and approach between Westminster and the 52% who want out of the EU, and Holyrood and the 45% who want out of the UK. That is more frank, less arrogant, and for reasons that are more easily explained. I wouldn't go as far as more rational because as DaveHK said further up the thread, most people seem to vote in an emotive manner (which I think is rather normal).

So a proper Brexit process starts in earnest. For F£$% S%*&! it hasn't even started yet despite spoiling my life for 3 years, costing me personally almost £2K- to put myself outside the clutches of opportunistic politicians- and seeing EU residents who were happy to live in the UK leave (it's not huge amounts but these were people who added value to the UK).

Once the process starts, we face the reality of what that really means. No-one knows, it could be bad (my opinion) it could be good (ERG's opinion). Once we know what life under that new regime is, then we can make a decision on whether or not we want to stay (normal phrase should be remian but...) in the same boat or not.

What has be initiated cannot be second guessed and can only be experienced. I predict that pain there will be. I'll take as stoically as I can. However, once the pain really bites, I also want to have a real say, and that say is probably going to be:

Westminster, you have taken decisions in my name that where poor and probably very partially took me- a Scottish resident- into account. You probably never even thought about me outside tight elections. I understand the reason why you did this: I represent less than 10% of your population and thus I probably only are in your thoughts only about 10% of the time, at best. Thus, from now on Westminster, I believe that you do not represent my best interests. I am sorry but I want someone nearer to me geographically, culturally and economically (Scotland's budget) to take decisions for me- this will make them more accountable to me. It is a parting of the ways then. The split will be fairly difficult but I will be happier. I am sorry to see you go Newcastle, Bideford and Royston but you'll have to get going without me (although to be fair I am sorrier to see The County, The Lake District, The Pennines and the The Peak District go, if I am honnest).

The bottom line is that a small country like Scotland needs to be part of a larger economic unit.  But we we don't need to be at the bottom of a two-level hierarchy of economic units.   The EU is far larger, far more modern and far more competent than the UK and it provides its services at far less cost to sovereignty than the UK.  Also, the EU does not favour the region around the capital city over every other in the way that the UK does with London.  Brussels is a relatively minor European capital compared to e.g. Paris and Berlin.

Staying in the EU is a far better option for Scotland than the post-Brexit UK.   The way things are looking the UK is just going to get worse both economically and socially as time goes on.  Neither of the main UK parties is at all competent and the antiquated Westminster system is locking in their duopoly.  

Glad you've recognised that. I was beginning to think you were seriously trying to link support for independence and racist violence based on a single violent event with zero evidence of a link.

I completely agree but in the context of the discussion with Skog I was considering nationalism when harnessed to explicitly political ends.

Honestly, sorry, another time. I've posted thousands of words on it on here which if you're genuinely interested you can find very easily, I really just don't have the time or the energy to repeat it just now. Critically, though, they include that I think that small countries work very well within larger unions of countries such as the EU (or at least the EEA), and that Scotland is much more inclined that way than the UK is. Your point about the North of England falls down a bit there, but is otherwise valid - but the thing is, Scotland is already half way to being a country. (If Yorkshire wanted to join us, I'd be delighted!)

I posted on this thread mostly because someone was trying to portray Scottish nationalism as racist and violent, and while we certainly do have racist and violent people in Scotland they're at least as likely to be British nationalists, or for that matter apolitical. It's deliberate misrepresentation or deep prejudice of the Scottish independence movement to suggest, apparently in the absence of any evidence at all, that someone stabbing someone for being foreign is likely to be an independence supporter!

I think you're just looking at the blood-and-soil stuff. Naturally, I suppose - quiet nationalism isn't very interesting to outsiders; Czech and Slovak nationalism doesn't seem to hve been a horror show; Iceland doesn't appear to have any regrets, the Catalans don't seem to be up to anything awful, and in parts of the world it can be a force for liberation from oppressors. It isn't just one thing.

I will say, though, that the 'national' in the SNP's name really isn't good branding!

An independent Scotland couldn't "stay" in the eu post brexit because Scotland isn't currently an eu member, however much you might like to pretend otherwise.

The views you expressed around the attack on your friend make it quite clear that it's an emotional decision for you too. 

Can you really not see that assuming the person who attacked your friend is an independence supporter and suggesting racists in Scotland predominantly vote SNP is absolutely based on prejudice?

We know it is not in the EU. Scotland will have to ask to be let back in. 

During the 2016 referendum Scottish people voted against leaving the Eu with a good majority (well above 60%). 

This vote suggested we wanted to be part of the EU block. The noises heard from the 27 EU block seem to suggest that they would not make it too difficult for Scotland to come back in (a price we will absolutely have to pay). But nothing is for certain on Scotland being an EU Member.

The only certainty is that by remaining in the UK we will be out of the EU club. That is a definite when the Brexit process finally starts (whenever that is!).

Tell that to Tom.

I'm not saying an independent Scotland wouldn't want to be an eu member, merely that it wouldn't be a case of staying in.

It isn't a certainty yet, we might still stay. But if the UK does leave, and Scotland goes independent, it will be interesting to see how keen the eu would be to gain another member with a land border with rUK. 

Funnily we think the same think both Jonnie! The fundamental difference is that I don't believe Westminster is serious about tackling these issues and is firmly sticking its head in the sand. I believe that as a small block we would tackle it more head on. So as long as my country of residence is led bt Westminster, it is my opinion that Environmental issues will be largely ignored. On the other hand, I believe that I can presurise a smaller Government based in Hollyrood more efficiently. 

Thus, my logic is 1st, secession from the block that will ignore my cries, 2nd, pressure on the smaller block that represents me better and seeks my vote more actively.

I intend to be more active this time round, I will discuss thing with Tom, Paul and jerry. I intend on being more informed so that I can say things that as close to the truth as I can. I accept my responsibility on being way too complacent on the previous referenda.

I need to make as much noise as the people on the opposite side of the divide- the old saying going "it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease" ring incredibly true to my ears!

1st, we haven't the economy to afford it.

2nd, we don't tick the boxes to get into the EU. (Did you see the shenanigans over the border in Northern Ireland; how on earth would the Scottish /English border work? That's how we get to the EU.) 

I think everyone's gone mad. Where's the sanity gone? 

Scotland already is part of a larger economic unit and has been successfully part of that unit for over 300 years.

If you think the big 2 don't get preferential treatment in the EU then you're deluded. Consider the 3  languages all EU business is translated into; English, German and French. Virtually everyone speaks English and German is so hideously cumbersome that many German companies will conduct meetings in English. German is not one of the 3 languages for any reasons of practicality. Ditto France's insistence on maintaining Strasbourg as the seat of parliament.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-eu/european-parliament-not-moving-...

Scotland would be swapping a political union in which England dominates (but in which it punches above it's weight) for a political union dominated by France and Germany (but in which it's influence will be tiny, especially so given the antipathy of other EU nations with devolution issues)

Scotland exports twice as much to the UK as to the other 27 EU member states combined. Scotland currently receives a greater share of the UK tax take than it generates (if Scotland joins the EU do you think it will be one of the 11 net contributors or one of the 17 net beneficiaries?). How many Scots do you reckon work in the rest of the UK as opposed to the rest of the EU? 10 times as many? a hundred? (I wouldn't think the latter figure at all outlandish). The EU has made clear it's position on new member states adopting the Euro and the backstop issue makes clear what their attitude would be to a hard border.

Economically the SNPs arguments make no sense. Socially, who knows? but the fact that Scotland under the SNP trails the rest of the UK in life expectancy, literacy, suicide rates and social mobility, wouldn't exactly fill me with confidence. Just what are the SNPs big triumphs after 12 years of Scottish rule?

We will probably have to agree to disagree. I don't think you are insane, I don't think that most Leavers (out of UK) are insane. I just don't agree with them, in the same way I disagree with many Westminter's policies.

On your first point- I am not convinced that our economy is too frail. It will not be easy, but we have to think of our assets in a different way. Other countries our size can do it so why not us? I does need a complete rethink though.

On your second point. The Shenanigans over Northern Ireland are mostly due to people on both side of the divide wanting their acke and eat it! You are correct that a frictionless hard border between Scotland/England is probably not possible. 

To come back about sanity- the moment money is involved, someone gains and someone loses, but both sides can be brought to insanity. The person who gains can spiral out of control through greed (That is how I view those leading Brexiting figureheads- no matter what mess it becomes, those guys will gain financilally which is why they drive it). The person who loses can spiral out of control through working all hours to barely scrape a living (that is the unenviable position of many people in the UK- some of whom will try anything to get better standards of living like voting in very illogical ways).

Hi

The global bourgeoisie are the powerful players who in Marxist terms own the means of production. They are the heads of central banks, private banks, transnational corporations, energy companies, military manufacturers and private members of the capitalist class who shape policies globally. 

The deep state are the heads of security forces, intelligence forces, military forces, and the old establishment as in ex - members. The heads of private contractors and special forces. The think tanks set up to plan ahead strategically like PNAC and certain foundations. All of the above from allied countries and private capitalists as well as input from the bourgeoisie (1st paragraph) and many others. 

Imo and it is just my opinion Trump was not meant to end up as presidential candidate for the Republicans and certainly wasn't expected to win. Its a bit like the brexit vote insomuch as none of the top bourgeoisie thought the British would vote to leave the EU .So it's more of a shock rather than an expression of any weakness in the capitalist class. 

You are quite right it was wrong and I take it back, she is not a war criminal. She did however have great input into a US coup in Honduras, spreading fake stories about Gaddafi and have a right old laugh about him getting murdered by her thugs. "we came, we saw, he died". She also sent a private email something about needing to attack Syria to help Israel (I'm paraphrasing but yes she is not a war criminal,i take that back. 

It is refreshing to hear this on ukc, very refreshing.

It is a well known fact amongst old Russians that Gorbachev was Germanys man and Yeltsin was Americas.Gorbachev stated how he wanted to change the USSR into a capitalist social democracy just like Scandi countries and Yeltsin well its all IMF  shock therapy and over 7 million excess deaths during the sarcastically named golden nineties. And the first of the Clinton clan got him re-elected in 1996 when the Communist Party were about to be voted back into power. 

Sorry again my poor communication. I was writing about regions within the Russian Borders not outside. 

I'm sure you won't refute the fact that the USA creates conditions anywhere it wants in order to do whatever it wants. The USA has attacked nearly 60 countries in the past 60 years that's nearly one a year. If it doesn't invade them it bombs them or threatens their leaders or assassinates their leaders or organises opposition or military in a target country to start a coup. It organises riots, protests, economic warfare (sanctions)  it brings together all opposition parties and merges them into one. All to get regime change in any country they want. They even organise international proxy armies of islamist throat cutters to attack target countries. They use fascists for the same purposes. 

You must agree that any wise leader would study the methods used by the USA and take measures to mitigate the ability of the US bourgeoisie being able to do that to their country. An example of that is when Putin capped the foreign ownership of news media in the RF to 20% and is why many threatened countries boot out certain western ngos. 

Russia is surrounded with US military bases and missiles all pointing there and the USA probably spends more on military logistic support than the RF does for entire military expenditure . There are no Russian military bases in Mexico, Canada and Cuba but there are US ones right on the Russian border and now with US occupying Kiev and pushing for UA to be in NATO missiles could be just a few hundred miles from Moscow. On Ukraine, the oligarchy there have been filling their boots and the people have been suffering since the dismantling of the Ukrainian SSR but the maidan was a US creation promoting fascists to attack the democratically elected government and then attacking and murdering leftists and Russian speaking Ukrainians. Crimeans wanted none of that and nor did the Donbas. 

I have to disagree with some of your points there I'm afraid, for example the RF does have democratic elections of the western model and to say it is not civilised is a betrayal of your sensibilities as Russia has given the world so much and continues to. The Russian folks are either strong atheists or deeply religious so to say they manipulate religion I don't quite understand how, perhaps you can explain to me. 

The capitalist classes from the USA and its client states only want Russia to be another subservient country to them. They achieved much of that by getting their 5th columnists to make it capitalist but when the Russians woke up to the plunder of their nation and the Western support for the islamists in Chechnya they halted this and the USA etc have not forgotten. 

 > And yes, the west could help by occasionally showing some respect, in return for an improvement of domestic human rights.

The Russians need to do work on their attitudes to lgbt I nearly wrote kgbt there lol which stems from an old outdated study done in the early 50s which concluded that lgbt is a pathology and must be treated as such. Unfortunately the effects of this study resonate today and they need to get that sorted but they will, I try all the time when I encounter any outdated Russian attitudes online to correct them. 

​​​

When people voted to Leave Eu were they expecting a Boris Johnson view of the world or just wanting to control immigration? Who defines the Leave UK vote in a second Scottish referendum......... pause for a thought. 

The EU vote is probably undo-able, largely because we have the co-operation of the EU itself to counter the zealots.

Tell that to Guy Verhofstadt.

https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1009473000918470656

This is why there should be a confirmatory referendum. Sturgeon said she wanted to learn from the mistakes and divisiveness of the Brexit Vote, so a second vote should go without saying.

Yeah, no great impediment to Scotland joining.... unless you include reducing the budget deficit from the current 7.9% to the EU required 3%. Reducing national debt ratio from Scotland's current share of 62% to the EU required 60%. Agreeing to adopt the Euro and putting into place a hard land border with England.

Should be a piece of piss.

Would one of those mistakes be Cameron's ridiculous acceptance of the 50.1% threshold? Where would you like to see the threshold for independence set at?

Sweep away everything and start again. I'd rather reform fromthe inside  but I think the losses  of separation are greater then would be anticipated, the division difficult and almost culturally impossible to manage. I'm voting in the elections to come for parties that want P.R. and have a federalist approach to politics to meet Scottish needs. Sorry, can't see the idealism of your position.

Oh behave, he explicitly refers to an independent Scotland joining the eu https://www.scotsman.com/news/eu-negotiator-simple-fact-independent-scotlan...

Scotland isn't an eu member, your insistence that it is is quite peculiar.

FWIW I see true federalism as something that could work for the UK - London as a city state capital, England as a state (capital and Parliament in Birmingham or maybe Manchester), Wales, Scotland and NI as states.

Hi

Yes and no. Germany is Americas appointed manager of former socialist countries in the EU. As such the EU is used by the USA for geo-political purposes and one of those is to weaken and surround the Russian Federation with a view to it being another subservient vassal state or of it being Balkanized into many separate regions that can be easily occupied by the US. 

The US have done this throughout the world and are currently waging an economic and propaganda war against the RF as well as a proxy war in Syria and Ukraine. This is a very serious situation indeed however the EU has been used by the USA in the past and is right now as it continues to expand NATO by using EU membership as the two have gone hand in hand in its eastward expansion. 

The EU on its own is not a threat to the RF but as long as you have a NATO then the EU is a threat. 

Define success and clarify who succeeded the most of this 300 years in this "success". When you take the period as a whole, including the famous Highland clearances it is easy to see that Scotland did not benefit as much as some people want to believe.

Being the main driver behind and initiators of the European project, Britain only came in in the 70s, it is only right that the 2 languages are prominent. English has only recently become the Lingua Franca. One of the question I get asked by self-centred teenagers all the time is "why don't we all speak the same language?" My standard answer is "what language should it be? I vote for Flemish!". Why should it be English? just because it is convenient?

I think that this is one of the most irritating point I see repeatedly used. Britain is NOT punching above its weight, neither is France or Germany. We have become pretty small fries to be honest and we should stop "deluding", to use one of your phrases, ourselves.

On that point, I have to say that you are speaking sense. Main economic partner of Scotland is England. It does not seem to bother Brexiteers that the main economic partner of the UK is the EU, so I should probably not let it bother me too much (this is very much tongue in cheek BTW).

Not entirely sure what to say about this... it strikes me that such poor outcomes could be attributed to a poor deal for Scotland during the 300 years+ of the Union? But that would be being facetious, wouldn't it?

Now, I do think however that each of the point your raised are pertinent and need discussed and taken into account. Dismissing sticky outright, as our Tory Government has been known to do regularly during this mandate is really detrimental to our still Unionised nation and its parliamentary democracy.

edited to improve some punctuation and correct a few typos...I apologise for my hesitant English.

I think anyone that thinks Scotland isn't a really lucky country to be born and brought up in should try living elsewhere. There are few that can hold a candle to it.  I suppose it's like glass half full/ glass half empty. I think it's pretty good, others think more improval is needed. 

Oh how true.

True, but no-one in their right mind want to compare themselves to failed states like Eritrea or the DRC.

To be born in most of Western Europe is lucky. To be born in a well-off Family in Oxford is luckier than a single-parent family barely managing in the same city limit!

I am not great on details, but I seem to recall that many landowners responsible for the clearances were nominally Scottish but really lived in London!

Scotland was bankrupt when it joined the Union and the clearances were mostly carried out by Scots on the orders of Scots.

German has never been the lingua franca (I could be pedantic and point out that only French has).

Err...I never said Britain was punching above it's weight.

It may be tongue in cheek but it's also debatable. The UKs biggest single trading partner is the USA. It's true that 44% of our exports went to the EU. Hardly surprising since the EU is on our doorstop and we've spent the last 50 years in a trading partnership with them.

You could say 'good point' or even attempt to put a counter argument?

I'd go as far as saying the Tory government is really detrimental to our still Unionised nation and its parliamentary democracy.

No apologies needed. Your English is better than mine and light years ahead of my French.

What idealism? All I'm saying is that if there is a second independence referendum, we should learn form Brexit and build in a confirmatory vote to avoid divisiveness,

You couldn't be more wrong.

Yes

50% of the electorate or, say, 2/3 of votes cast would seem reasonable.

Oh I could (and often am).

The SNP are pretty much a bogeyman for many people. I'm happy to hear genuine criticism of their policy and have been a vocal critic of some of it myself. What I find odd and infuriating is this criticism of them based on a ridiculous caricature that only exists in the mind of the critic.

Edit: to be fair, plenty of folk on the left do this with the Tory party too. 

England was bankrupt in far more recent history until Thatcher and successive Westminster governments ripped off Scotland's oil.

Westminster classified the official report on the amount of oil in the north sea so they could lie that it was worth almost nothing before the first devolution referendum, then they stole it.   Scotland could have been as rich as Norway if it wasn't in thrall to Westminster.  Even the original union of the parliaments was only achieved by bribery.

The main problem with Scotland is a lack of the backbone and self confidence to stand on its own feet.  Little countries like Latvia can meet the criteria to join the EU and the Euro: there's no way Scotland will have a problem.

England was bankrupt? Don't you mean the UK? and please, North Sea oil wasn't even discovered until 262 years after the act of Union came into effect. It's a bit like if Russia started bleating about being robbed of the Alaskan oil fields cos the Yanks only paid 7 million dollars for the entire territory in 1862.

Stole it? See above. and if you think the Scots would have been greedy enough to abandon the UK just cos they'd found a bit of cash in their back pocket then how would you have reacted to the Shetland islanders abandoning Scotland and all becoming instant millionaires? After all, half of Scotlands oil actually 'belongs' to them?

I'm sure Scotland could meet the criteria. The question is, that since that criteria would wreck the Scottish economy, what would you actually gain?

It is all conjectures what will happen in the future. We can barely agree about what happened in the past!!!!

Will we or not leave the EU? On what conditions?

Will we or not have an indyref2 validated in Westminster?

Will we or not  try to join the EU again in the event of a resounding yes (I am with Robert Durran on this, it cannot be a 51% majority!)?

Will Scottish economy flourish or flounder as an independant country?

Will joining the EU, ruin the newly independant Scotland?

NOONE can give a clear answer to this. At best they can give fairly educated guesses. So it boils done to whether or not Scottish people have the backbone to go it alone or not!

If it wasn't for Brexit, I would have said that Indyref1 put paid to the independance question. IMO the only thing that makes another referendum  acceptable is the results of the 2016 referendum on leaving the EU. If that 2nd referendum happens, if it ever happens, and that Scottish residents say no to it (again with a clear percentage) than British we should remain and make it work!

And the city of London alone contributes 50% more tax to treasury than the whole of the UK oil and gas industry. So it's those evil English bankers who are keeping the Barnett formula ticking along which sees scotland get more money than the counties to the south. 

No it wouldn't be like Norway. The mentality isn't the same. Norwegians are content to pay high taxes and invest the oil money for a rainy day. Politicians of any UK persuasion, would just waste the money on vanity projects and be left with nothing when the oil runs dry. 

Estonia is probably a better fiscal example. But that doesn't mean Scotland can simply copy them. 

To be fair many of the vocal SNP supporters are almost religious in their fanaticism. Much like any other nationalistic group. Almost to the point where debate is impossible. Maybe these are the people who are caricatured? You know, the ones who wear face paint and old fashioned kilts etc. You could also swap 'SNP' in your comment for Tories, Corbyn, Abbott, etc. 

I'll tell you what most people can agree on, Scotland is a wonderful country full of beautiful countryside, world class cities and fantastic people, most of whom have close familial and cultural ties with the rest of the UK. Our history of fighting together has long eclipsed our history of fighting each other and every Commonwealth war cemetery around the Globe will attest to this. The only likely worse political disaster than Brexit would be Scotland leaving the UK, which I could well see as a precursor to a rise in calls for English independence and the dissolution of the entire Union. If such came to pass, we'd all be much the poorer for it.

In the case of the Tories, currently, there is no requirement for the invention of a ridiculous caricature.

Really. Fascinating. 

Well for reasons that I wouldn't guess at,  nobody keeps a regular check on these numbers but at various times across the last few decades the GDP per capita PPP for Edinburgh has been equal or greater to that of London and percentage earned through the business and finance sector is around the same. The empire desires that we all believe that London is so bl00dy special and we are all dependent on it and must bow down before it. Well it can f9ck off.

Would that not in part be because of the higher state funding flowing into it through the Barnet formula? Plus that's one city, what's the scottish average, or compare the funding per capita of a northern English city. Scotland currently has a cake and eat it position, the best of both worlds. 

Plus, higher GDP doesn't actually mean more tax was paid into the treasury. Or as the business saying goes, turnover is vanity, profit is sanity. 

It's a bit like the claim that Scotland is producing X percentage of renewable energy and how awesome Scotland is for doing it. Which is true, what isn't mentioned is that it's been funded by all the UK households by the addition of green subsidies to their bills.

While I appreciate the sentiment that London can F off, the fact that the GDP per capita of Edinburgh has equaled or exceeded London's rather pales in significance when you factor in that London's population is 20 times that of Edinburgh's.

and that what is sad about it all. if you’d asked me whether I would want an Independent Scotland when I first arrived in 2002 I would have answered why? Mainly through not knowing anything about the League of Nations that the UK was...very difficult for aFrench person. Add another 5 years to 2007 and I’d answer the same. By then I am more informed, I see the problem of difference of mentality and policies but I’m mostly okay with it. Westminster is roughly centre politics (I never thought Blair was much of a socialist, and despite Iraq think he did fine and no more).

My wife’s father is English and a staunch Unionist, my mother in law is Scottish and also a unioniste. Back then I perceived  the Uk as a slightly imbalanced country in terms of population and thus political power. I could see all that shared history within the family and thought that the good outweighed the bad. In hindsight I can see it was because I had only known the country led by Labour.

Fast forward to 2010 onwards, and I see the ideology promoted by a more right leaning majority and I started to feel that the country was heading in a direction I did not much like. As a foreigner, I considered going home, but home was not any better!

It is the politicies I object to and that leads me to weigh all the shared history with the direction of travel and make me want a parting of the ways.

The problems were always there but it took me time to perceive them, understand them...

People far south live in a different place, and thus have different expectations and opinions. I don’t live there, and don’t want to see those ideas put into play here. I am ready to suffer from the separation in order to avoid the spread of those ideologies more prominent down south (I am aware some people here may want the contrary). I also did not like the lie about « staying in the UK is the only way to stay in the EU ».

I am happy to debate it, and put it to the vote when the time is ripe, and provided we have a clear mandate (not some awful 49/51 divide) I will put my weight behind making it work whichever way it goes. But all the beautiful years of shared history do not diminish my opinion that the UK is institutionally dysfunctional and therefore I would prefer an independent Scotland and will campaign for it.

I understand that you are of different opinion and really appreciate that you took the time to share that with me. I accept that you have very valid points for your current opinion. You haven’t, however, swayed me. I still think I am willing to pay a decade of pain so my kids as young adults can enjoy a fairer society within an independent Scotland.

Proper slave of the empire stuff this. What's wonderful for England and London is so wrong for Scotland and Edinburgh.

Barnett? Barnett is a fudge created to overlay another fudge and in no way does it represent the real situation. It simply make adjustments to an unequal relationship. To see the true picture, you need to go back to basics and ask questions about other similar economies. Scotland has a similar developed infrastructure and broader economic base when compared to most of the northern European countries of similar size.  It is inconceivable that a country with its advantages would not have the ability to thrive. 

As for energy, that doesn't really compare with the funding for low carbon new nuclear in the panic to keep the lights on in England and Wales.

Fast forward to 2017, you see the Tories gain 12 seats in Scotland and lose 22 in England. If you don't count the SNP vote (which of course doesn't exist in England), the percentage of Tory/ Labour votes was roughly the same in both countries. So yes, if one can truly claim that all SNP voters are left- leaning, then you have a point.

And this argument that the English are more racist than the Scots is really starting to grate too. England has a larger population and (the south in particular) higher amounts of recent immigration, so unfortunately it's going to have more examples of the negative effects such as racism. It's also going to have more of the positive examples of being a welcoming, multicultural nation. But they're not newsworthy (why should they be).

Largely because the Labour party in Scotland collapsed and the Tories became the Unionist opposition to the SNP.  It wasn't the Scottish electorate moving to the right wing like happened in England with UKIP.    There's a fringe element of course tied to Ulster Unionist politics but mainly Scottish Tory voters are pro-EU, well educated, middle class people with moderate views and comfortable living standards that don't want to take a chance on independence.   The Tories screwed this support base by becoming a right wing Brexit party and the polls are showing they are about to have a disaster in Scotland.

A lot of the problems in England are self inflicted and caused by centralising everything of value in the South East.   That's what's drawing in a disproportionate amount of immigrants to one region and depressing the economy of other parts of England.   Scotland doesn't have the same issues and the nasty policies the Tories are developing to pander to the UKIP vote are absolutely harmful to Scotland.  We aren't overcrowded, our population is actually falling, we don't the racial issues because we never had the same level of ethnic immigration and we need policies which reflect that.  The EU single market and freedom of movement is a great asset to Scotland.

Empire? It's 2019 move on. Nothing is wrong with Scotland and Edinburgh, but they are doing much better than say Yorkshire and Leeds, or the north and Manchester, out of the UK treasury. 

Unequal in the sense that Scotland per capita has more given to it from the treasury than England, yeah I agree. 

I don't suppose you'd be keen to get by on the same funding as England, given that they are struggling to stay in budget any way? 

No one is thriving or growing much in Europe just now. 

It's a national grid. Unless you propose cutting the wires and standing snp MPs in front of wind turbines, what happens elsewhere in the UK is also key to keeping scotlands lights on. 

Err... UKIP vote went down in England 2015-2017.

So you want immigration but not "ethnics"?! And it's the English that are racist of course. 

(Edited to remove medieval dates)

Haha, yeah, you can probably make almost any comparison you feel like if you selectively ignore major parties until it suits you! The reality is that the SNP vote in Scotland includes a huge chunk of what was once the Labour (and for that matter Lib Dem) vote - left-leaning and centrist people who either support independence, or are not strongly against it - and the Tory vote includes some more of them (those who put their opposition to Scottish independence before left or right wing politics, plus many of those who are pro-Brexit). The parties don't really mean the same in Scotland as they do in England, it's a different political environment.

Can you point me at who made that argument, please? I missed that.

England is presently significantly more anti-immigration than Scotland, and yes I think that's to a considerable extent down to the reason you give yourself. This, of course, is an illustration of the different needs of these regions, and can easily be used as an argument for independence!

Because the Tories became UKIP. 

I didn't say anything about what I wanted, I made a comment about what had happened.   It is likely that if Scotland had had the same population density as England and the same level of immigration and sources of immigration as England it would have as much racial tension as England.   But it doesn't.  We have low population density, parts of Scotland are being depopulated, most of our immigration has come from the EU and has integrated well.  We don't need bullsh*t xenophobic policies imposed by Westminster to deal with a problem we don't have.

Can you point to any democracy in the entire world with a universally homogenous political environment? 

Most of the pro independence arguments presented on here seem to boil down to "socially and economically, we'd be better off if we ditched the rest of you", a particularly selfish argument which could be presented by the more blessed regions in the majority countries (right wing parties in the Northern parts of Belgium and Italy spring to mind). Historically, it's generally seen as tragic when countries become divided; Korea, China, Ireland, USA, Germany, Palestine, Poland, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Italy, etc. And most have cheered when some of those same countries reunified. Someone above mentioned Iceland as an example of a small country who'd never looked back from independence and certainly wouldn't want reunification. Fair point, but unlike Iceland and Denmark, Scotland and England aren't separated by different languages and 1100 miles of ocean.

Your argument was that the Tories lost seats because of UKIP. But UKIP lost too because the Tories became UKIP? I'm confused. 

No, of course not. The poster I was replying to was trying to say that Scotland was as right wing as England, and I was saying it isn't and they had misunderstood the voting pattern.

I don't think so. It's just that on the economic side there are quite a few people saying Scotland would be much worse off out of the UK (even some still saying, remarkably, that it couldn't cope!) - so people who disagree try to counter that by showing what advantages Scotland has (e.g. hydrocarbons, water, huge wind, wave and hydro energy potential). And socially, if the average political stance is further left in Scotland than it is in the rest of the UK, and more pro-European, then Scottish independence can let both parts get more of what they want.

Sometimes. That depends on the circumstances and details, though; you've selected a particular list.  And I think you'll find the situation in many is a bit more nuanced that your post suggests!

Hi, "someone" here! I also mentioned the Republic of Ireland...

I support Scottish independence within the EU (yes, we'd have to rejoin) or at the least the EEA. That changes the context entirely; I'd much prefer if the rest of the UK stayed in (or rejoined) too. I don't support the sort of mad isolationism that is gaining ground so quickly elsewhere in the UK (and a bit slower in Scotland).

If you look at the changing voting patterns in England and Scotland between 2015 and 2017, Scotland moved considerably to the right and England considerably to the left. Who Knows where the intervening 2 years has brought us?

See above. Attitudes and voting patterns are fluid. Perhaps more significantly, the electorate as a whole is increasingly pissed off at the mainstream parties. The resulting desire to register a protest vote has a viable party in the SNP, not so in England with only a bunch of deeply unimpressive UKIP loons to vote for. I don't buy the Scotland Vs England, Left Vs Right argument in any case. It would be accurate to describe it as North=Left, South=Right...just look at the map!

http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/UKGE2017_mapswinn...

Well argue your point then. Which countries are generally considered to have been better off apart?

Yep. How much Ocean and what language differences separate the North and the Republic of Ireland?

Most polls would suggest that mad isolationism is receding in England, not gaining ground.

Because you are ignoring the time dimension.  The Tories were losing to UKIP before the Brexit referendum.  Then they changed to become like UKIP and they got the UKIP supporters back.

I'm not ignoring the time dimension. I was quite specifically referring to the loss of Tory seats in 2017 (after the referendum; the previous GE being 2015, before it). You said that's because of UKIP.  But UKIP also lost their seat in 2017. So while the Tories may have got some of their UKIP support back, both Tory and UKIP lost in 2017 so I'm still not entirely sure what your point is. 

No, I don't think that's true. I've already said why not far above, but you aren't interested so I won't bother repeating myself!

I agree re the protest vote, yes. And pretty much on the North v South on Left v Right (although the rejection of the EU splits at the Scottish border). But we aren't going to see the North of England + Scotland forming an independent country any time soon; Scotland maybe has a chance (though I don't really think it'll take it, to be honest).

None and not a huge amount? I mentioned that in response to you saying "Fair point, but unlike Iceland and Denmark, Scotland and England aren't separated by different languages and 1100 miles of ocean" - you seem to be getting a bit tied up in your own argument here!

I already have. As above, you aren't actually interested what I think - your mind is pretty solidly made up and you just fancy an argument. That's fine, and I've often indulged in this on here myself, but it isn't actually constructive in any way. So, as I have nothing much new to say, I won't repeat myself. I've been pro-Scottish independence for a long time, and about the only thing that has changed recently is that the UK has become significantly worse; you aren't going to convince me it hasn't!

Well, I was sort  of moving on to the idealism of the economics for independence after one considers if the Westminster System is shot and /or unreformable.

The opening statement referred to oil and independence would involve costs, large to  get up and running {new admin systems, investment in industrial base} and that is predicated on oil and only oil as  far as I could see. That leaves us very vulnerable as oil not only varies in price but hugely varies in price.Imagine if we had a yes vote last time,We started the transition period and then wham the oil price went through the floor didn't it. Where. on having committed to costs of  change would that shortfall come from, suddenly? { and to boot we are noy even in control of that oil price}. Ok, maybe shortfall from higher taxes but that is where the balance becomes deeply unstable as taxes also condition the environment to create business, keep business and create jobs. That a higher tax system may have become necessary in a sudden short fall could trigger a cycle of economic conflict because you start to have tax increases that actually undermine the businesses who leave to more favourable places. It is a very economically unstable predication of the economy, a one trick pony with very little to fall back on  Thus not attractive to go fully independent. And to boot to dig for more oil is now a CO2 conflict and the transparency of what we produce now is not actually there but indications are of a decline in production.

The conditions for independence were in the 70s but a missed opportunity and disappointment doesn't change what the situation is now.

Another pointless, devisive, damaging referrendum?!

Bunch of racist, insular Scottish nationalists failing to learn from the clusterflip caused by a bunch of racist, insular English nationalists.

The SNP and Sturgeon are a mirror image of UKIP and Farage.

you can say it ain’t so, but the fact remains that in 2017 the Tories gained 21 seats in Scotland while South of the border, UKIP was decimated and Labours share of the vote leapt up by 10% despite being the worst opposition party in living memory.

Fair.

You misunderstood me. Ireland is a good example of the problems arising from unnaturally separating a small island nation, largely united in language and culture. Iceland is a good example of where independence makes sense, separated as it is, by language and a vast space of ocean.

My mind is pretty well made up. Perhaps you could change it by listing any examples of countries joined by geography, culture, language and centuries of history, that have turned out to be far better apart? After all, I’ve listed plenty of examples for you where the reverse is true.

I've explained above why this doesn't represent a shift to the right (or at least contains other shifts too). You either haven't read it, weren't interested, or disagree but haven't said why.

I'm pretty sure you have that back to front and the separation resulted from the problems. I was offering it as an example of where proximity and mostly shared language were not enough to make it worth staying as one country.

Of course, it, and Iceland, are quite different from Scotland. My original point, when I first posted on this above, was simply to say that nationalism comes in different types, and it isn't all the same thing; if nothing else, our continuing discussion does at least demonstrate that.

From what you've posted, I agree with a lot of your sentiment, and I can at least see where you're coming from with the rest. I posted to counter the ignorant posts comparing the Scottish independence movement to far right nationalists and thugs, which I see is still continuing above.

It's a bit pointless, as every case is different, it doesn't happen all that often, and it's more or less impossible to demonstrate whether they're 'far better' without a time machine and the means to divert history. However, I can offer some where it's clearly not a problem:

Czech Republic and Slovakia

Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Denmark

Spain and Portugal

Belgium and the Netherlands

America from the UK

Australia from the UK

New Zealand from the UK

Canada from the UK

The problem here is history and circumstance - Scotland in the UK is quite different from most of these, and from those in your list. Going back to that, can you instead offer a version where they separated peacefully, without war or widespread violence, yet it turned out badly?

I can offer Denmark and Iceland, and Czech Republic and Slovakia, as fairly recent, fairly local, fairly relevant examples; looking at the rest of Scandinavia I don't buy that the distance between the first two was what stopped their separation being some sort event to be mourned.

Also was 12 mps gained not 21

Apologises, SNP lost 21 seats. Tories won 13, their best performance in Scotland since 1983. Though Skog insists that this in no way represents a shift to the right.

OK, sorry, I'm out - you're just pretending to want a discussion while ignoring what I've said if it's inconvenient, and as you aren't even bringing any new ideas to make it interesting, it's a complete waste of my time. I'm off for a walk; enjoy your day!

No, I genuinely do want the discussion, it’s just we view things differently!

Enjoy your walk you lucky sod (stuck at work).

I'm not convinced any mirror Scotland's position. 

Arguably a line wrongly drawn after ww1 and should never have been merged as one nation in the first place. 

They went their own way in a different era, long before trade was so global and currencies so intertwined. 

The one common factor which is many had independent currencies and governers etc. Apart from the USA change had been very slow.

I think Scotland needs to perhaps cut financial ties from the UK first, stage by stage and then see how they fair. 

Have you been listening to Boris and Jacob?

OECD about the Euro area:

"Economic growth is set to moderate"

"The labour market is strengthening"

"Favourable finance conditions support investment"

Or just consider that Germany and Italy are borderline recession. They just stopped QE and there is already talk of how they might start it again by the end of the year. First quarter result not fully out yet, but it's not looking hopeful. 

None of them are. But that wasn't the question.

It would be great if Scotland could cut/loosen ties finacially and economically first but that would require influence at westminster. Not going to happen voting in uk general elections...

I too have flipped but in the other direction. The UK is no longer a safe option, it's reputation for pragmatic and non ideological decision making has gone.

And what polls would that be ? 

Simply because we might want to keep it a fantastic place to live as much as we can. Brexit is doing a huge amount of damage to Scotland's attractiveness to talent and investment at the moment. And it is only the start.
Scotland is far more vulnerable to Brexit than other parts of the UK. In no small parts due to its reliance on a steady inflow of EU talents which has now pretty much dried up, if not already reversed.

I don't really want Scottish independence for the sake of it, but if Westminster keeps refusing categorically to devolve immigration policy then I think we have no choice.

But it's all a moot point since I don't really think Westminster would ever allow another independence referendum to occur in the foreseeable future, not matter how much support there might be for it.

Thank goodness Nicola has jumped on the bandwagon with the climate emergency. That should put independence to bed once and for all as people realise that we cannot use the oil that's left to prop up the economy shortfall, and that climate response is better from large nations than small ones.  

I just hope that the Scottish government got the message that the best thing for Scottish future is a really smart workforce and that we should be exporting it, not importing, so that we can potentially afford independence in the future. (Don't care about independence, care a lot about education.)

Don't be so lazy, just google it. There's loads out there and the vast majority are in agreement.

https://pollofpolls.eu/GB/23/post-brexit-eu-membership-polls

England has a far higher percentage of foreign born workers than Scotland, so why's Scotland uniquely vulnerable?

Who's the we? You got a vote in indy ref 2 now?

Latest poll in The Scotsman. 40% determined to stay, 24% determined to leave.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/brexit-new-poll-giv...

So just how much support is there? If the polls were showing a clear majority wanting to leave, I'd support another vote, but that isn't currently the case.

Precisely because of its demographics. It’s more difficult for Scotland to attract foreign talent than London so add to that a regressive immigration policy and an end to free movement and that’s the nail in the coffin.

Hopefully yes, since I lived there for 15 years and still live there half of the time.

Sure, not aware of the polls, I’m just saying that there could be 70% of support I don’t think the UK gov would give a referendum.

They don’t show what you claim they show. Looking at this chart I see no statistically significant movement in opinion on Brexit for the pas few years. 

My link is from a website which claims to aggregate all the Brexit polls they can find. Since the chart shows support for leave falling from 47% to 42% and remain support rising from 46% to 52% (over the last 2 years), this certainly supports my original claim that..."Most polls would suggest that mad isolationism is receding in England, not gaining ground." Further, a 6% swing is statistically significant since 5% is the commonly accepted threshold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

I'll just leave this here. Seems the right place for people who like debating polls.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/poll-reveals-sharp-rise-in-opposition-to...

Just to be clear, a six percent swing may or may not be statistically significant.

The 5% referred to for statistical tests refers to the chance that the result is correct, not to the magnitude of the result. So a 50% swing in a small poll could be a chance finding, and a 0.5% swing could be statistically significant in a sufficiently large poll.

Yeah, but if you'd read the link you'd have seen that they're claiming to have aggregated all the Brexit related polls they could get they're hands on over the last couple of years. Given the number of polls that have been commissioned, I take it that'd count as a sufficiently large poll?

It might do - I’ve not read the link.

polling organisations/ the media are dreadful at reporting their statistics - what they should really report is the result and the 95% confidence interval - ie the spread of reasonably possible results, so for support for a referendum that might be presented as 18(+/-2)%.

its depressing how badly reported stats are, and how poorly politicians and journalists interpret them.

The problem is that confidence interval misleads people even more.

In the context of political polling a 95% CI just means that if you were to repeat the same polling experiment many many times, the result of the polling experiments would fall within the range provided 95 times out of hundred.

But it does not mean that there is a 95% chance that the actual vote result will be in the range provided.

Somehow people never get this, and even if they get it, they still get fooled by it as soon as you put the number in their heads.

I don’t think it’s more confusing - as long as you recall that the poll is asking people what there intentions are rather than what they actually do in the polling booth.

id expect polling organisations to be able to model likely outcomes from a poll based on similar polls past performance.

I am afraid that is incorrect as well.
As I've said most people misinterpret it even when they think they understand it !

The 95% CI does NOT mean that there is 95% chances people voting intuition actually are within the range provided. It only means that if you were to repeat the polling experiment many times, you'll get a result within this range 95% of the time.

The CI is a measure of precision, not of accuracy.

Sorry but you can't use Czechoslovakia being ripped apart without asking the people of Czechoslovakia as a good example of Czechoslovakians being happy with that as they were given no say in the matter. 

Interesting - not how most sources I can find define it:

“Confidence intervals are constructed at a confidence level, such as 95 %, selected by the user. What does this mean? It means that if the same population is sampled on numerous occasions and interval estimates are made on each occasion, the resulting intervals would bracket the true population parameter in approximately 95 % of the cases. A confidence stated at a 1−α level can be thought of as the inverse of a significance level, α.”

https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section1/prc14.htm

seems to be the formal statistical definition - and people like Altman seem happy to use it as a ready estimator of the likely real value of something in the population:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1339793/?page=2

It seems to me implicit in the first definition that there is a reasonable probability that the true population value is within the CI calculated from a poll - do you have a source that explains your point of view?

Yes this is correct and exactly what I've said. 

You should have read better : "Confidence intervals convey only the effects of sampling variation on the precision of the estimated variable and cannot control for non-sampling errors such as bias in design, conduct, or analysis"

Exactly what I've been telling you.

Now when it comes to election polling with large samples, the effects of sampling variation are very small, but the effect of errors in design, conduct or analysis can be very large.

So to me it makes absolutely no sense to show these CI in this context. They serve no useful purpose and are just misleading people into a false sense of certainty.
A better thing to do would be for the pollster to publish the historical accuracy of their polls but of course none of them do, because if they did, people would realise that their taxi driver or their grandmother have similar or better accuracy and don't charge a penny for it.

Your own link and the above does the job.

Here is a simple example to demonstrate that this is not the case :
Say I decide to measure a child with a ruler that has 5 missing centimetres, a 100 times.
I get a mean of 1 meter with a standard deviation of 1cm. That give me a confidence interval of 1 ± 1.960 * 0.1 /√(100) which is [0.98 1.02]. Now what the fool would say is that there is a 95% probability that the child's height falls within that range. As you can tell this is completely wrong because the ruler was biased by 5cm.

Anyone who doesn't understand why I've switched to support independence should just have a look at the 'home office hostile environment' thread.

Hi Rom, thanks for the detailed explanation - I did try to allow for the difference in stated intention vs actual action in an earlier post

”... as long as you recall that the poll is asking people what there intentions are rather than what they actually do in the polling booth”

but realise it’s dropped out later on, and the fallacy you identify creeps back in.

 The sampling variation vs design/procedure problem seems to apply to any sampling process or test - clearly if your experiment is so badly done then the results are garbage and any statistical testing is invalid and give a false sense of confidence in the outcome.

Although, migration is not the only aspect of political direction I disagree with:

1. Despite Scottish Education taking a proper battering over the last decade. I still view it as more egalitarian than the English one. From my view point (not living in England), it's everyman for himself. Parental choice=rich people get the best, the rest is for the poor. It unfortunately does exist north of the border, but to a much lesser extent.
2. Fracking and forging ahead with "business as usual" despite our climate catastrophe looming. SNP is admittedly not strong on this with relying on North sea oil, but at least there is a willingness to use money to instigate change.
3. selling arms abroad (France does it too...I have nowehere else to turn too!)

These 4 at the main ones of a string of policies.

It is my view that UK wide change in a direction I agree with is not going to happen, so in desperation, I am giving up the ghost and leaving my English friends to fend for themselves... in the spirit of Aron Ralston deciding to part with his own arm! It will not happen by default north of a border but my say into it has more weight. 

That just sounds like wishful thinking to me. What in detail do you mean by 'a much lesser extent'?

Unless they get sent to private school most children in Scotland attend their closest primary then local secondary school. Going to a different school from your local one is actively discouraged and pretty rare unless there are serious issues. Is that the case in England or is there more freedom of choice?