UKH

Long post ahead!

Getting rather tired of https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we... from 04:04 

I am a pro independence but anti-SNP résident of Scotland. I am neither English nor Scottish and have acquired British citizenship over a year ago.

I am not a rabid nationalist but find policies chosen by the British electorate ( 84% of whom are English according to 2011 census!) in Westminster not to my taste. I accept that a not insignificant minority of the electorate in England does not particularly agree with Westminster policies. I also accept that a not insignificant minority of the electorate in Scotland agree after a fashion with the policies aforementioned.

I don’t have a chip on my shoulder. And I understand the way democracy works. You don’t get what you want, but what the majority wants. Therein is the crux of the matter for me. Whatever people want in England they will get. An idea, ideal or concept, however correct/wrong, progressist/backward, financially viable or not, holds sway in England will become British policy.

Now people in England are perfectly entitled to this. Their needs, quirks and aspirations are their own and that’s ok if they are not too different from the ones I sense around me in Scotland.

I would like to see the needs, quirks and aspirations of Scotland to be put to the vote again. I feel that the circumstances have changed significantly enough that it warrants another chance to get to decide. I am not in a hurry as to when this happens as long as it does within the next 5 years.

if I may try to make an analogy: We agreed to travel in the same vehicle on the assumption that our perceived/real understanding of the safety of said vehicle was sound. It turns out that we were using the same words with a different meaning when we assessed in theory (we’re not mechanics) about how good suspensions, break pads... were. And then we hit a proper big pothole at speed and now I don’t feel safe in that shared vehicle anymore. I want to have the right to decide to disembark ! Yes I may reach my destination in vehicle, but I am not willing to take that risk. Yes I may only make the destination at a later stage (economy) but I prefer to take that risk. The English driver is just telling me that under no circumstances they will stop the vehicle because of the way I feel and instead puts the foot to the floor! Meanwhile, I am bricking it more than ever and frantically wondering why this driver won’t stop- is it in an even worse condition than I thought that it cannot stop? Is the driver trying to kidnap me? Have lost it- as I have to say the driving feels pretty erratic.

If that were a real life situation, anyone would agree that I would be allowed to have doubts and that I should be granted the right to set foot on land and walk the rest, even if this might be wetter, longer and more tiring. No matter what the driver says, they have have lost my trust... I simply do not wish to be there anymore without a good thorough assessment of all the parameters - I am the population of Scotland (some of whom is perfectly happy to continue the ride whilst other have their hands on the door handled ready to open it at speed come what may) and the assessment is the referendum. 
 

We stop, we check that all seems in order. We have a wee chat with the driver fully focusing on my fears and doubts as opposed to only looking at the road ahead. I decide to be in that vehicle after until another significant event happens (we stop at a garage and get the whole clear MOT, we lose a wheel and import/export goes to shit/£crashes).
Whichever way, one things is for certain, the driver cannot keep me in that car just because I agreed a while back (2014) on my understanding of the situation then that it was fine. I had noticed then that the breaking distance was a bit longer than I would have liked but ok on a dry road, and the wipers looks like they’d seen better days.

In 2020, it’s pishing down, and windy has in storm Johnson and I have serious misgivings about my drivers abilities which they do not assuage by muttering to themselves and looking at me in the rearview mirrors with mutterings of « pesky Northerners! Not trusts in British cars! Good of me to have them in the car( forgetting I have put a bit towards petrol and maintenance money)...

let’s stop calling each other names, let’s stop unearthing old gripes ( Last century I told you I wanted to spray the car yellow and without asking me you got it in red...), let me stop speaking to myself in hushed angry undertones full of resentment! 
 

Let us reassess how long I am willing to share a ride with this driver!

So what are you actually saying? That you blame the English for your perceived woes? How very French of you 😆

Hi Erick, I think it’s a fair point - and for me the time frame you suggest is a sensible one as it should allow for some clarity about the Brexit fallout. One of my strongest reasons for voting remain was the clear significant change in national direction which might have made some ‘passengers’ nervous.

The one  thing I would take issue with, and I appreciate you caveat it, is the use of English/ Scottish as monoliths, whilst also not including the significant chunk of folk who would consider themselves as British primarily and see no real distinction between, say, the fact that Bristol voted differently to North Somerset on this issue and Scotland voted differently to Wales. 

Change must come.

youtube.com/watch?v=YpYAdFyb1gc&

Not quite, since the English are often divided on the matter, and Scotland can then hold the balance. 

For example, after the 2010 election, David Cameron went into coalition with the LibDems because the Tories did not have a majority.  But in England alone they did have a majority.  Thus if it had been England-only, there would have been a Tory-majority government not a coalition.

Similarly, in the 1964 and 1974 elections a Labour-majority government was elected.  But, the Tories had a majority of English MPs; Labour only had a majority in Westminster owing to Scottish MPs.   

Also bear in mind that Scotland is over-represented in Westminster in terms of MPs per population.   Also bear in mind the Scottish-born or Scottish-bred prime minsters (Tony Blair and Gordon Brown being the most recent, there have been many others including Alec Douglas-Home, Ramsay McDonald, Bonar Law, and Arthur Balfour).

Taking the long view, the overwhelming reason why Scotland went into union with England and Wales was because the country was broke. Famine stalked the land in the 1690's and Darien was a financial disaster. 

The British Empire brought the Scots immense benefits. Since its decline, it was only a matter of time before Scots sniffed the air and looked around. Could Scotland do better outwith the union? Would it be better off? It would certainly have more local control and would create policies that suited it's needs better.

Not, ironically,  unlike the argument for the UK to leave the EU. 

Except that the Tories and Labour refuse to collaborate with the SNP on principle: unionism comes first. 

I think that's a pretty good summation. I think an independent Scotland is pretty much a foregone conclusion, as is a merged, (I hesitate to say united...), Ireland. Not sure what would then happen with England and Wales. Interesting times.

Nice tongue in cheek comments. Let’s leave it at that level of banter.

you are correct in that I was born and bred in France, I have however now lived almost my entire adult life, which just about half my life too, here in Scotland. I feel I have made my home here, I have planted roots my kids were born and are being educated here. I have jumped through the hoops, paid for a right that I previously had by default before. I have earned the right to express myself. The fact that I am a French National should have no effect on what I have to say. 
 

People have the right to take apart my reasoning but not on the grounds that I am French. I actually don’t really have it in the nose like the older generations and I have no interest in football or rugby.

What happens in England is entirely up to the residents of that nation. I just would like to beg to differ and have an actual real chance that my voice be heard. 
Someone talked about Scotland over-representation in Westminster- it doesn’t count for very much because even if all those seats were in direct opposition to the general direction of governance (which is almost the case) the voice of Scotland is still drown in relation to the other vote (something entirely normal under the % of the population).

Westminster should let Scotland decide to hold a legally recognised referendum. This would not be a done deal anyway. 
 

Then it is up to me an other people to make the case for an independent Nation breaking away from the union.

I am almost willing to give everyone in the uk the right to vote for this. So many people seem to think that Scotland is not pulling its weight ( an argument I do not agree with, being of the school of we break even). Those people seem to think that Union isn’t working for them either! Probably not feasible and warranting more thoughts then some Tinternet musings.

Someone else although think that I was thinking in terms of English vs Scottish. I am not entirely sure this is the case more along the lines of a majority (meaning just over half as a minimum) of residents of both nations. 
 

I do prefer the tone of the conversation so far more courteous with less name calling (I am ok with the mild French thing going on and take it in good cheer)

Too patriotic and simplistic to me but there is truth in it

Most of that was before my time. Whilst nobody should ever overlook history, I think that most of that is no longer relevant. Also a Scottish person who decided to live in England has put their eggs in that basket. 
I know exactly how that feels as I am no longer au fait about this things in France and I have now chosen to only vote for one thing in French affaires - there is a speacial députés for French people abroad. That gives me as much representation as I deserve in my country of origin.

That is the point I would make. To me one of the tragedies of nationalism, of whatever kind, is it requires people to choose sides. It sees complex issues through a simplistic binary lens. Yes some things in some parts of Scotland would benefit from a different approach from that used in some parts of England and Wales. Equally some things in some parts of Scotland would benefit from a similar approach to that used in some parts of England and Wales. 

At the moment we do not know what the UK will look like in 5 years, neither can we forsee what the EU will look like. I think before any changes are made, which will be far more fundamental, disruptive and expensive than brexit we should have a better understanding of the choices. 

Something the Tories have already noticed and will no doubt address.   They're bound to try and redraw constituency boundaries to reflect population movement towards SE England.  Which means less influence for Scotland within the UK.

Scotland continuously loses talented and ambitious people because if you want power/wealth in the UK you need to go to London.    Once they make their career there and buy houses and have their kids in school there they're not really looking out for advantage for Scotland within the UK.  They're just London politicians same as MPs from England.

Who ends up as prime minister has nothing to do with representation - its decided by party members.  To win enough seats to form a UK governement even a Scottish PM would have to produce policies for an English electorate, if it benefits north of the border then its a bonus...  How does EVEL work when it comes to Scottish MP's in cabinet or the PM seat? Can they develop policies but not vote for them? If thats the case can we ever have another Scottish MP become PM?

As things stand it seems inevitable there will be another Scottish referendum and obviously likely that the result will be independence. I don't see Johnson allowing another referendum in this UK parliament, he stated so during the election which he easily won. That may well last the next five years due to the fixed term between elections (though I don't think that has ever been reached!). The Tories may well get yet another term and so I would suggest 10+ years is the  possible wait for a referendum. That does seem unfair and perhaps Sturgeon will call an advisory vote to give her some moral backing (I think she has said that is being considered).
The longer the wait the more agrieved Scotland may become and the more likely a vote for independence. At least the cons and pros (if any) of leaving the EU will be known. I see difficulties for both sides when there is a border on the mainland which will probably have to be Schengen, and if Scotland has to adopt the Euro (both of which are probably obligatory for nations joining the EU). Sorting out the assets between rUk and Scotland may well be contentious.
Scotland would do fine after independence though personally I would prefer the union to be maintained.
I'm from London, we voted to Remain but have no realistic option for independence. Selfishly I'm upset that losing the Scottish Westminster MPs would leave a "natural" Tory majority in rUK.
 

I appreciate that you dont want to be seen as French in this, French Erick, but I wonder how you would contrast the qualities of the UK with that of Franch in terms of the amount of devolution to the consituent states that encompass both countries (eg Savoy, Languedoc , Brittany, Normandy for France).

Arguably England is a nation, but it is not a nation-state. Technically, what happens in England is up to the citizens of the UK, not "the residents" of England, which to a limited degree is what happens to the other constituent nations of the UK that all have some devolved powers.

It is up to English MPs what happens in England.  EVEL is bit like ultralight-devolution in all but name.  Scottish MPs cant vote on English only policy, but English only policy affects budgets and therefore barnett formula consequentials, therefore Scottish budgets and devolved policies...

Really constructive initial post producing the usual range of responses. You lift an interesting corner of the duvet by commenting that you’re not an SNP fan...part of the problem just now is that Scotland is starting to look ( quite mistakenly) like a one party state. We need Labour to jump ship and say they support indy2 and that they have a vision for an independent Scotland. But they can’t because they’re tied to the Unionist Labour Party. 

I'm pro independence for Scotland but only an SNP voter by default - once devolution comes I doubt I will continue to vote SNP as other parties will emerge that will (once again?) be worth voting for

That's the weakness of FPTP, it produces results like SNP getting 47 to 56 out of 59 MPs.

I TOTALLY agree- hence a longer time-scale for some dust and high feeling to settle. It would also dull the edge of this “once in a generation” argument. A decade can see so much change! 

I know that you still have a lot of faith in the Union. I would love to discuss it around a good pint of ale. Your vision of Unionism I am very ready to listen to explore and be persuaded by if my fears are assuaged indeed.

I hope that I do not come across as too bigoted or extreme in my view. I have come to my conclusion by default and unfortunately not necessary through positive steps. I should hope that I could be made to change my mind with sane arguments pointing to benefits. At present, I will admit that looking south of the border I see nowt that brightens my day. All be it dramatic, and in Susan Cooper’s words about a very English adventure, when looking south all I want to say is: the Dark is rising.

A fascinating question which has little sense in the French context. A tenet of my Country is “la République, une est indivisible”. That means that in the past, there was an extreme brand of centralisation that has, generations down the line, almost managed to completely level everything down. It was mostly a cultural genocide Chinese style which has wiped out most things. It took me years to understand the concept of the United Kingdom, it was so alien to me coming from such a unified block as France (forcibly so  but almost completely beyond living memory now).

Paris is a brain drainer for the rest of France and most ambitious people gravitate there, the well kenned phrase being “monter à la capitale”. 

As I no longer live there, I haven’t much of an opinion on the matter. Corsicans are a bit of a pain in the arse as they do detonate bombs on folks just doing their jobs (police and judges). I will admit to having never delved into it and thus I have to confess that I am more knowledgeable to the Scottish situation.

I am exactly in the same position. I do see what the end game is, but do not particularly like the way to get there- ignoring all else to obtain this. I suppose it’s the means to an end? Not sitting well with me however. 

FFS, can winter conditions reliably materialise so that I get away from this keyboard hero role .... I cannot believe that yet again shite weather interferes with my time off!

This has got to be BJ’s fault. The winter of discontent! Have the Tories claimed all seasons yet

I'm coming up on Wednesday for a few days climbing. Tell the weather to behave itself for a few days!!!!! 

Sorry to disappoint but my track record is pretty poor. Any worse and I may start talking about bridge projects! You may well strike gold however, as I see the mid week being pretty good thus far! I’ll have a stab at it myself on Tuesday (this being a long weekend for Highlands teachers).

I have successfully managed to derail my own thread.... back on track.

STATE OF THE UNION

Perhaps a route and a pint? If the weather improves...

(took your thread off track again) 

Indeed - that was my understanding. What I'm trying to get at is the question is the UK style of constructing a state of many nations better or worse (or just different) than the French style. is a strength of the Union the fact that difference does exist  or is it its weakness?

If the Dark is Rising is a very English adventure then you may need to let the Tir na n-Og Awards guys know they need to ask for two back!

If the Tories keep us locked up behind bars for another 5 to 10 years before they let us have the freedom of self determination then that gives them a great opportunity to use up as much of our oil and gas as they can get their hands on before then. So that by the time independence happens - if it does- then a huge amount of our most valuable resources will be gone.

I don't see why English MPs get to decide when we can and can't have self determination. I know it's rigged to keep the union but this is blatant. 

What you describe isn't a democracy, it's a tyranny of the majority. Democracy is about compromise and strong individual rights, it's not about a majority sticking it up the arse of the minority.

This is the problem of analogies for discussing politics, they normally are picked to show whatever point the writer is trying to make.

You want the constituent nations of the UK to be different individuals in one vehicle. But all of us are citizens of the UK, not of England or Wales or Scotland or NI. If we are one demos, there's only one person in the car. Asking how one part of that person leaves the car makes it sounds a bit more complicated!

Please also note than even in just England, still less than half of the electorate (let alone of the population) voted Conservative in 2019 - this in a very good election for the Tories.

That's the question - "are we one?". The answer isn't clear.

Or rather the answers are clear, but not uniform.

Most of it is about an English lad in the Thames valley. He does go on a holiday to Wales admittedly !

I'm no so sure it's a Scotland Vs England thing, it's more a most of the UK Vs the South East thing. As a Yorkshire man I feel far more at home visiting and having friends in Scotland than I do heading south. 

If people are looking for independence how about the SE keeps the parliament they already have and the rest of the UK does its own thing together. 

Agreed. Which is why the UK should pass legislation that major constitutional issues (such as the break-up of the kingdom) can only be implemented after a 67% majority has voted in favour. This should be done before indyref2 is called. Cameron's referendums to decide the future of the nation on a simple majority on one specific day were madness.

.....and its riddled with English, Norse and Welsh mythology - much more British than English

The result of a crazy, unachievable criterion like that would be that people who want constitutional change would immediately skip to more direct methods to achieve it rather than waste their time pursuing a referendum.  The point of a referendum is to provide a legal way to effect change.

The UK parliament should actually have f*ck all say in how an indyref is organised and the criteria for YES: it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.  If somebody said the EU should decide the criteria for the UK's Brexit referendum the Tories would have had kittens.

We already had one gerrymandered referendum in Scotland with a criterion designed by the unionists not to be fulfilled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Scottish_devolution_referendum

Well, we aren't one demos.   Scotland is a nation that will one day become independent again.

Awww. Diddums!

How on earth have you come to the conclusion that the UK government has gerrymandred the outcome of the  Independence referendum? You become more incoherent by the day. It may have escaped your attention but the EU is not a sovereign state whereas the UK Goverment is sovereign and as such exercises the right to govern across the UK as it sees fit.

Blood and soil eh?

Have you read "Imagined Communities" by Benedict Anderson? If you haven't, you should. It's an interesting book.

I was referring to the 1979 devolution referendum, as was pretty clear from the link I gave.

More than 50% of the votes cast were for devolution but it failed due to a second criterion about proportion of the electorate which was stuck in by the unionists.   The second part of the gerrymandering was that the electoral roll was out of date and unreliable with duplicates where people had moved and dead people who had not been removed making the percentage of the electorate criterion far harder to hit than it should have been.

I was enjoying the mature and good natured vibe on this thread, sadly it seems to be slipping away.

Im also pro independence and view the SNP as merely a vehicle as do many of my friends including one who has been an SNP member for many years.

One of the things that sealed the decision for me last time around was that there didn't seem to be a decent positive case for remaining the in union other than staying in the EU. It got me thinking if Scotland were already independant would I want to join the UK?

Id genuinely like to see this pro union argument made by  folk of that persuasion rather than the "playing the man" type denigration tactics which often occur.

Hmm, interesting view - and I’d agree that I would not wish to join the U.K. as it’s currently set up if I was a citizen of a separate state. Something more like the EU? Yes.

Of course that does not mean breaking up the U.K. makes sense - the pieces are fairly well joined, and prising them apart will have some negatives, which may or may not overcome the perceived benefits.

So - a pro union argument.

Membership  of the Union gives Scotland:

Unfettered access to a population some 10 times its own, in which it can freely trade with common rules.

free movement within these isles 

A say in the governance of the Union roughly equivalent to its population.

the population of the Union has broadly similar social views to the population of Scotland, limiting friction which might otherwise arise.

The pooled resources of the nations of the Union are greater than the resources of any one member, allowing the Union as a whole to achieve things the individual nations could not.

When one section of the Union struggles, those pooled resources may be used to aid that area.

The Union allows significant level of devolution - in education, social policy, healthcare, agriculture policy, taxation, policing, legal system - in contrast to other states formed of multiple previous states (waves to Erick). This allows expression of the differences that do exist between nations, and allows for experiments in policy within the Union.

The Union is flexible and evolves - look at the last 30 years for clear evidence of this. It’s constitution has evolved massively over the last century and a half.

Unlike some other states made up of multiple previous states, the Union can countenance members leaving, and has provided mechanisms by which this could occur in the past.

In reply to NERD:

Some of them - I guess the question is what’s the dislocation cost of leaving one Union to join another. Also until we know the state of the U.K. EU relationship it’s going to be hard to judge where Scotland’s future best lies.

Thanks Dr S. that’s what I am after. Broad principles with sound logic behind them. Let’s not try to pull too much sway on figures as there’s so much out there that it’s now possible to prove the unprovable. I need to reflect on your reasons to join the UK but It will have to wait the morrow. Thanks for a good contribution- even if we may have to agree to disagree (which remains to be seen...pun intended)!

and it removes unfettered access to 390 million people in the EU with whom it could trade freely if England hadn't voted to leave.

The Irish have that under the Common Travel Area and are still in the EU. 

Which is useless because our SNP MP's are ignored at Westminster.  Even when the Tories had a very narrow majority successive Labour leaders refused to form an alliance with the SNP to defeat them.  

We've been in a position where logically the SNP should have held the balance of power but to make that happen it needs an alliance with Labour or the Tories.  They know this, and they won't do it.  Labour and the Tories both hate the SNP worse than each other.

Maybe in the past.  Doesn't look that way now.

Yes, but the pooled resources are used for things that Scotland actively does not want.

Doesn't happen.   When a major industry in Scotland struggles Westminster is happy to let it fail.  Steel, shipbuilding, mining, electronics.   Every industry will encounter tough times and face state backed competition at some point.  Every nation has its champions that it will fight for - cars for Germany, computer/internet for the US, electronics for Taiwan.   The UK government protects banking.  Any other industry is screwed as soon as push comes to shove.   They'll collect taxes when times are good and pay unemployment benefit when they are bad but they won't fight for regional industries to survive through tough times.

They take back powers when it suits the e.g. to overrule devolved governments on Brexit related issues.  They don't give real power.  In theory Scotland has power over the police but it can't refuse to send Scottish cops to London to fight Extinction Rebellion or refuse to allow English cops to come to Scotland if there were Indy protests.  It can't have a different policy on drugs e,g, safe consumption rooms.  The tax powers are a trap designed to make the SNP unpopular if they are used.  What is needed is the ability to have different taxes, not bump up income tax by a percent. 

It's still stuck in the past and the devolution settlement is illogical and unbalanced.  There's no English parliament.

The UK has crazy relics of the past like the House of Lords and the monarchy and one constituent state which is 10x the size of the others and effectively makes all the decisions.

Fundamentally, Scotland does not need both the UK and the EU.  The EU offers a larger market, and a better set of external trade deals for far less loss of sovereignty and far lower contributions than the UK. 

Hi Tom, I think as ever you make some good points, re the influence of Scottish MP’s, I think the overt wish of the SNP MP’s to break up the Union inevitably weakens their ability to exert influence. Replace them with an equal number of Lib Dem’s and you probably get a very different picture.

Re: current structures - you know I agree completely that the current U.K. structure is not right - but it is an evolving structure and I’d prefer it to continue to evolve into a better one than to be broken apart.

See upthread as to which Union I would join now as an already independent entity. However that’s not the position Scotland finds itself in which changes the game.

In reply to NERD:

I guess if you're happy with the direction the EU are going and want to join in, then yes it makes sense for Scotland to join the EU.

But there are dangers.  Scotland would a much smaller part of the EU than it is of the UK. It's not going to have that much influence within the EU, it will just have to go along with the big boys (though, as I say, you might be fine with that).  The EU is quite happy to put EU ideology above the interests of small nations (e.g. Greece).  

And they're already trying to grab a large chunk of Scottish fishing waters. One might think that the UK doesn't have that strong a hand in current negotiations with the EU, but an independent Scotland would have a weaker one (it would be "Just agree to all our policies, no opt-outs or lee-way, and your fishing waters are now communal EU property").

The North Sea would always add to cost of trade with the EU (and Ireland isn't big enough to be a significant trade partner, and there's the Irish Sea), which means that if there came to be a hard border with trade barriers between England and Scotland, then the Scottish economy could lose out.

That last bit is not true.  *Labour* hates the SNP, yes, because in order to form a Westminster majority they likely need their traditional 40 Scottish seats, but the SNP have now taken all of those; and so the idea of a pact is dangerous to Labour.

But as for the Tories, the idea of a Tory--SNP pact is ruled out by the SNP, not by the Tories, surely?   Hasn't Sturgeon declared flat against that?    The SNP would fear a Labour resurgence in Scotland if the SNP were perceived to be aiding the Tory party.

You have had access to the EU market to sell to for the last few decades. Has it made any difference to the Scottish economy?Or is it wishful thinking that the economy will grow because you have access to all these 490 million people ( to whom you already have had access to).

you overlook that most trade in Scotland is with England , not Europe. 
 

whilst I have no issue with you having another referendum, you do seem to be in denial of where your true markets are based.

“Scottish MPs can’t vote on English only policy.”

This is incorrect. In the House of Commons all bills, including bills deemed to affect only England, have to pass the Third Reading. All MPs, including MPs from Scotland, are allowed to vote in the Third Reading. Here are a couple of links to articles by the Lallands Peat Worrier, Andrew Tickell, a Scottish independence supporter. The articles explain in detail how EVEL works.

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2015/10/what-does-evel-actually-do....

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2016/01/evel-is-milquetoast.html

Here is a link to show that Andrew Tickell is an expert on constitutional legal matters.

https://www.gcu.ac.uk/gsbs/staff/tickellandrew/

But presently and for the foreseeable future prevents the right of self determination when one part that wants to leave the UK, right after a huge change with reference to England and Wales voting to leave the EU when Scotland voted to stay in the EU.

So where are your "mechanisms" now?

There are mechanisms in place now to deny the freedom and desire of a small part of the union to suit one bigger part. There is nothing equal in that relationship in fact it is tyrannical. 

It seems our old Norse friends in Scandanavia are more than happy to welcome Scotland into their bloc within the EU. Which makes complete sense as we share so much more political and social values with them over Tory England.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18234456.fed-brexit-britain-come-part-sca...

Thanks

In reply to NERD:

Yes, agreed. But only once it's a lot clearer what Scotland would be voting on.  E.g. would there be a hard trade border between England and Scotland?   And to answer that we need the future relationship between the EU and rUK to be a lot clearer.    What deal would the EU offer Scotland? Would Scotland join the Euro?   Etc.

Once there is clarity on what is being voted on, then yes, have another referendum.  But, by recent precedent, having a vote where the shape of the resulting deal is entirely unclear does not seem wise.

Given that we're not that long after indyref1, isn't that rather melodramatic wording?    Especially as the polls in Scotland are close to 50:50 on whether Scots want independence. 

If we wait then we are also locking in Brexit and making it hard to reverse.  The time to jump off a sinking ship is before it actually sinks.

You are never going to have certainty on anything that requires negotiation before you commit because you can't tell what the other sides bottom line is until the negotiation is for real.

It isn't up to the UK government or the English to tell us when we can have an independence referendum just like it wasn't for the EU to tell the UK when it could hold a Brexit one.    There's a mandate for a referendum.   It comes from the Holyrood election that put the SNP in Government based on a manifesto which said they would hold a referendum if there was a material change in circumstances.  Brexit is a material change in circumstances.  The Scottish Parliament then passed the legislation to hold a referendum. 

If the UK government tries to prevent a referendum being held it is giving Scotland the status of a colony rather than a nation in a voluntary union formed by a treaty. 

Once in a generation.

Do the other Scottish parties agree with another referendum like in the last one in 2014? Just remember that there are people in Scotland who did not vote for the SNP.

Your Norse friends.How much trade does Scotland do with them compared with the rest of the UK?

I'm sure if one of our geopolitical goals was to remove one country/region from a bigger country and all our corporate press/military/Intel were screaming about this bigger country preventing self determination then you would be happy to call it tyrannical but when that big country is England then its 'how dare you'. 🙂 Oh your comment gives me so much room to branch out into many related issues but I'll refrain from that and stick to the subject at hand. 

England and Wales have dragged Scotland and NI out of the EU against our will which isn't fair.The least we can do now to give the people in these countries a say is to give them a say which is a fresh independence referendum free from English and Welsh interference. 

Edit--Now and not when it suits the Tories. 

So if there were indyref2 this year, as Sturgeon wants, then I guess the indy campaign would be saying "yes, we will join the Euro", and "yes, there would have to be a hard border with England if it comes to that" and "yes, there would be trade barrier with England, if Brexit ends up with trade barriers between rUK and EU generally", along with "yes, we admit, we'd be in a weak bargaining position if the EU demanded large swathes of fishing waters and whatever else they want".     (OK, so they'd avoid saying the last, but they would say the others, right?)

I suspect you might then struggle to win the referendum, once people have had a hard think.  

If you think -- as I suspect you do -- that you think Brexit will be an utter disaster, then it's likely in your interests to wait until the "disaster" is more apparent and widely accepted.   

Those arguments haven't been enough for the uk to  cancel or delay Brexit. It's the way  the UK works now, we vote blind.

The constitution relies on good chaps* doing the right thing but that's looking shakier. Particularly as we have a pm willing to discuss beating up journalist, prorogue parliament and talking about shake up of judiciary & BBC. The lack of constitution+ to protect judiciary and parliament is looking less like a good idea.

Those factors mean UK lost the reputation for the safe non-ideological stability it had at the time of indyref1.

*https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/31/world/europe/uk-johnson-constitution-bre...

+a constitution is not really a constitution if you can't put it in an email

Well we did once, yes. Do you think that doing it blind was a good idea?

Thankfully we have a parliament that reflects views far better than FPTP. 

No. But nor is it worth blindly following when that's the other option.

Arguments for economic continuity and political stability of the UK within the EU were convincing in 2014. Not anymore.

The economy will shrink for sure if we have tariffs and border delays imposed between us and the EU.

The economy will shrink for sure if we couple ourselves to England and get messed up by all the other idiocies Boris and the Brexiteers want to perpetrate.

Unionists keep talking about how much Scotland exports to England but we import even more.  There's leverage in any negotiations.   

Quite possibly we will be able to charge more for some of the things (e.g. electricity) we sell to England after independence because we won't be stuck with Westminster regulations and can play hardball.   

The EU are a rational trading partner with a reasonable set of processes.  Brexiteer England is not, it will continually use its scale to bully us.  If it comes to a choice, and I don't think it will, we should take the short term hit and go with the EU.

If you replace England withe EU and EU with The World, these sound remarkably like the arguments that Brexiteers made for leaving the EU!

You sound like a brexiteer talking about regulations and the trade imbalance.

This is Scotland's brexit. It's all the same arguments on a smaller scale. Some people just want to be the same size fish in a smaller pond. 

Edit: Too slow!

My friend , you personally voted for Brexit!
 

You have said so on other posts !

your own will was to leave the EU. 

There are many parallels in sovereignty, economics and representation. The difference is that the alternative  of continuity (Scotland/UK/EU) not available, there is general acknowledgement of difficulties, a plan of sorts rather than a slogan and no claim that it will be the easiest deal in history.

Nothing that Scottish independence requires hasn't been done before by Ireland/UK, Czechia/Slovakia and Sweden/Norway and countless others.

We all make mistakes and that was one of mine. 

In a Soar Alba there is no reason to suppose Scots won't want English stuff and the other way around so we can keep the mutually beneficial trade status quo and all other links between us as we are the same people, same history and language. But we will be in complete control of all of our affairs and you will be of yours though we can maintain a special relationship through our shared emotional and cultural ties. I mean we love England and fully respect you but we want to control our bit instead of having people who are so removed from us politically (Tories) ruling over us because a majority of daft English vote them in continually. 

"we love England and fully respect you" and later in the same sentence, "a majority of daft English". Do you see the problem here? and in a thread titled "discussion on the union WITHOUT mud slinging". 

Perhaps the UK would have a better chance of escaping the Tory quagmire if the Labour vote hadn't been split by three broadly left of centre Nationalist parties. 

Post Brexit I think it's a foregone conclusion TBH.

I'm not sure the argument is similar to Brexit. 

Scotland wants to be part of a wider Union, the rest of the UK didn't. There's also an element of opportunitism though I'd have thought. How many companies now in perilous situations will watch Scotland and simply up and move if they go independent. Again though a lot depends on the EU, which you'd have thought would welcome Scotland with open arms.

Put simply Scotland seems to think it will be in a better position outside the UK but inside the EU. England (and Wales), thought it better to leave the EU.

That's a bit simple, they want to jump from a small pond into a big pond again..

Having been bitten once I would ha e thought you might have reflected a bit more. 
 

Trust your job hunting is going OK. 

As a member of the EU? 

Far more so than as a member of the UK.

In reply to NERD:

What is it called?

And whatever you do, don't mention there is a plan to join a wider union out loud!

In reply to NERD:

That's a strange way of looking at it, the EU has slowly negotiated to be part of wider unions.

The UK is now years off being part of any thing similar. It takes years and years to develop wider free trade agreements. the best we can hope for is to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU which will undoubtably contain guarantees on free movement and regulatory cooperation.

The Government say "we aim to have 80% of UK trade covered by free trade agreements within the next three years, starting with the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Japan”. That is very very ambitious... 

Well yeah if you buy the whole argument that we're leaving Europe to be more involved with the rest of the world.

Time for an unpopular opinion

I think the statement that Scotland is pro EU and is taken out of it by England which is pro-Brexit to be exaggerated. Scotland voted 60% remain and 40% leave. Thereby an independent Scotland would be by far the most EU-sceptic country in the EU. Most members are above 80% pro-EU*. The EU referendum was basically a coin toss because both England and Scotland are quite ambivalent about the EU. In England the coin fell to leave, in Scot land it fell to remain.

*https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-irel...

In reply to NERD:

You'll have to explain that one, I'm felling thick (as a brick)!

In reply to NERD:

You don't always get what you want...

The issue for Scotland is the EU has more clout and is likely get a better deal than the UK. That means less compromise (or more sovereignty) for Scotland than if UK represents our interests. Maybe.

Under FPTP parties have very little interest in most of the seats they don't hold. Hence under FPTP they can prosper whilst ignoring swathes of the UK and swathes of opinion.

I'm English, with a pro-Scottish Independence bias because I really don't feel that we in England get a decent return for the money we send north.

That said, I don't accept the suggestion that things will be any better from a political stand-point when you finally achieve emancipation.

Just as you feel that the Tories don't represent the best interests of people north of the border, many people in England don't feel that they represent us either.

And that's the problem..independence doesn't mean you'll get a government who will represent you any better than the Tories. You'll get whoever you get...probably the SNP, of whom you are not a fan.

Do you feel that your fight will have been worthwhile if, after independence, the political party you end-up with isn't the one you wanted?

I mean, what's the point if all you do is swap the Tories (who don't represent you) for the SNP (who also don't represent you).

Or better still, you end-up with the Scottish Tories!

That'd be a bitter victory!

Not a fair comparison.  You can't compare a referendum in 2016 with an opinion poll in 2019.

First because by 2019 the disaster of Brexit was totally apparent so it isn't surprising that attitudes in the EU were more positive.

Second because an opinion poll is a completely different sampling method to a referendum.  The 2016 referendum was a non-event in Scotland.  Not a single major political party campaigned to Leave and everybody thought Remain would win by miles.   In an opinion poll you don't have to get off your backside and walk to a polling station.

So a 60-40 win wasn't enough? I'd say that's not ambivalent. 

In reply to NERD:

Why do you want 'trade deals' with all these countries, and what do you mean by 'trade deal'?  Completely free trade?

EEA = European Economic Area - I think the EU probably have a deal with them.

How is this all going to work?  For example the Tories want to buy 5G network equipment from China and immediately the USA and Australia start pressuring them not to.  USA say it could threaten the chance of a trade deal with them.   It's naive to think you can get a great deal with everyone.  Every time you sign a deal you agree terms which limit what you can offer on the next one.

Why do we want a free trade deal with countries which will undercut our industries and offer very little opportunity to our exporters?   What about non tariff barriers like food hygiene standards or banking regulations, are you going to scrap them as well?

That's FPTP for you, a party can neglect areas where they're not popular and suffer no consequences for beyond not getting the seats they never get.

It's not FPTP, it's much closer to vote share. SNP are in coallition with Greens, Tories are official opposition and previously we've had Brexit & Solidarity parties in Holyrood when they had the vote share.

It's not the FPTP stupidity that gives SNP a silly 47 seats out of 59 at Westminster with 45% of the vote. At Holyrood SNP has 47% of the MSPs, SNP are likley to be the biggest party but other parties also have representation matching vote share.

The turnout in Scotland, at 67%, was only a bit behind that in England (72%).  It does seem that the 38% of Scots who voted Brexit are one of the more overlooked sectors of the population in these debates.

Equally, a party can neglect seats it perceives as safe, and another party can target and grab them - see Labour Party (formally party of Scotland, formally party with a nice red wall). It will be interesting if BJ does pivot more to the concerns of the North of England.

That's the other side of my contempt for how FPTP works to divide the UK.

yep its a shit system right enough.

When I'm God-Emporor the first thing I will do will be to adopt the system used for AM and MSP elections for Westminster.

Absolutely. Although I can see good arguments for independence, it is clear that die-hard nationalists are completely blinkered to how horrribly and destructively divisive a narrow vote for independence would be. If we can learn one thing from Brexit it is that independence should require a super-majority or a confirmatory vote - sadly, I'm not sure I could bring myself to vote for independence without that safeguard.

Certainly that is the continuing imperialist view.

Economically, the biggest problem was that the English couldn't keep their noses out of other people's business and kept getting involved in wars. Wars which they could barely afford and wars with some of Scotland's main trading partners.

It was either union or war essentially. The war would have been over differences in the laws of royal succession. 

And of course, then as now, you have to ask, if Scotland were as dreadfully useless as English say then why would they want anything to do with it?

As are the 48% across the UK but in Holyrood the 38% have Brexit supporting parties to support and representing them.

A good reason for independence is that Holyrood is far more representative and ditches the political ossification of Westminster.

Super-majority. That might suit me if it applied to Brexit too since I was previously pro UK and pro EU. Although still leaves us with FPTP.

True. But UK was always lowest in terms of support for EU before 2016. Do you have a poll of Scotland before 2016?

Complacency or simply not caring one way or another? Most EU politicians thought a leave victory reasonably likely and argued with Cameron not to hold a referendum...

Yes. Being part of the EU has far-ranging consequences on how your state is run. It is a constitutional issue and should therefore by supported by a super-majority.

An equally good reason to stay in an reform.

Was not the primary driver for the Darien scheme the lack of access to English trade, the monopolies of the East India company and so on?

One of the positives of the Union at that time being the creation of a common market where Scottish merchants had equal rights to English ones.

A good reason. But not equally good reason. There is no will to reform. Idiots like JRM think Westminster is the sacred mother rather than the laughing stock of parliaments.

Isn't 62 - 38 enough? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supermajority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#Three-fifths,_or_60_percent

They got the 3/5ths? Are you now deciding that only 2/3rds counts? Some even count 55% as a supermajority.

I agree it should have been but that's a big majority. It just seems odd to class a 52-48 decision in the same light as a 62-38 decision.

So, if you get rid of FPTP the party you voted for will always get in? 

The method of deciding who wins isn't the point, here.

The point is that if you think independence will mean that you get you the masters you want, many of you will be disapointed. That's democracy for you. 

Which poses the question; what's the point in fighting for independence if all that actually happens is you replace one party you don't want (the Tories) for another party you don't want (The SNP)? As would be the case for the IP, who, rather understandably, professes to dislike both.

a 60% supermajority is new to me. My reference is the Dutch one which is 2/3. Probably because there are 150 seats in parliament....

In reply to NERD:

I want a hovercraft but that's not going to happen either. 

Parties are far more likely to ebb and flow with support than under the ossified system of FPTP where the youngest party to form a government is 120 years old. So no. 

SNP are a minority coalition government which is a fair reflection of their support.

It's a major point.

The disappointed should be a force in parliament in reflection of their support. FPTP fails to do that.

It's not about party. It's about parties. More than two of them. And the birth and death of parties - Solidarity and Brexit have both done that (in terms of MSPs). The biggest party went to third place.None of that happens in FPTP.

England (90% of the Union) represented by MPs of just two* parties.

*half a dozen lib dem mps and 1 green MP represent the entirety of non-labour/Tory English opinion in Westminster.

Scotland is even stupider under FPTP, the SNP have reduced other parties to fringe groups. Note the contrast with Holyrood.

In reply to NERD:

You're not going but be popular with Mrs BB.... :P

Sounds to me like the issue you have is more to do with the method used to weight the votes, than the union.

There's no panacea at the end of this, you know. Just a different bunch of dickheads representing their interests, rather than yours.

It may be that you're more comfortable being shat on by someone with a Scottish accent from Holyrood than an Eton accent from Westminster....but the end result is the same; a great big steaming turd.

Hardly seems worth it, to me.

I suspect our descendents will wonder what all of the fuss was about.

And I slung the mud at myself in that instance nearly as much as the equally but more daft English who continually vote for Tories. 

And perhaps if the English didn't require a Labour Party to become Thatcherite before they would vote them into power then none of this mess would have happened in the first place. 

Eh? Have we just lost any sense of truth in political discussions these days?

Yes. 

As much as you will have being a part of America. 

I don't like to waste time on asking for explanations as there should be no need for any on a forum so why have you not explained why there is no truth in what I wrote? 

You believe the labour party were thatcherite to win elections? New Labour were center left. Exactly what they said. They were a long way from Thatcherite. The Human Rights act? So much we wouldn't have had under Thatcher. Yes some policies continued and they spanned the spectrum, hence their success, but they were far from a Thatcherite party.

Peace in Nothern Ireland, sitting down with Adams? She'd have never done that. Reform and investment in Public Services? Introduced civil partnerships?

Putting cameron and Bojo's leadership battles on them is also a tad strange.

And you never explained why you thought either of two, you just threw them in. So if you explained your thnking I'd not have to question you..

Because Thatcher was so far to the right that she supported the fascist Pinochet,racist SA and the islamist throat cutters of the Mudjahideen doesn't mean to say Blair wasn't Thatcherite. Indeed economically he was by expanding privatisation, in fact by fully embracing it and privatising more than the old witch herself did. 

Didn't Thatcher negotiate with the Provos at one point? Didn't she keep the NHS and welfare state going? Yes Blair made some social reforms like civil partnerships and also the introduction of the minimum wage which you forgot to mention but his economic model was Thatcherite and neo-liberal. 

I didn't. 

I am going back to why the English voted in Blair and that was because Murdoch told them to as he was acceptable to his ilk. 

Of course he did, he was openly center left. So naturally he would have middle ground with the tories.

And no I didn't mention all his achievements, but he wasn't a right wing politician.

He convinced Murdoch he wasn't a traditional labour leader. And yes that was acceptable. But that was Blair's strategy. Move labour central and win successive elections. 

In reply to NERD:

And we voted for Kinnock to and Foot and the Labour Party in general which is what we continued to do with Blair that is my whole point. 

In reply:

Don't blame the Scots for this push for independence btw, blame English Tories as they voted for it. They knew this would happen if they voted for Johnson and brexit but they did it anyway so let's put the blame where it lies which is on the people who have become that extreme and divisive that they have divided the UK and they are Tory voters who voted for Thatcher all the way through to Major, May and now the Trumplet.

You have split this island not us. 

Do you see nothing attractive about the union for Scotland? Is there no positive case?

Hi Coel, just catching with the thread. I would like another referendum towards the end of the current parliament, unlike Tom who would like it now, and I would precisely like those terms to be openly discussed. I would sooner lose the referendum with the truth then win it with a lie.

This is potentially why people like Boris Johnson or Donald Trump, lead by masterful liars and manipulators such as Dominic Cummings win, yet I cannot bring myself to even consider using the same techniques, or condone them. It is also why I am no politicians.

The euro is vilified by many people, is there real truth behind such mistrust? I am not naive enough to say it’s perfect but it’s not that bad surely.

The hard border between Scotland and England would definitely happen, in my opinion this is inevitable if Scotland decides to go it alone.It is worth remembering that had rUK, really mostly England, taken into the wishes of the majority of the residents of Northern Ireland, Scotland, London and latterly Wales. This border would have not been necessary.

I accept that that Scotland’s most common customer is England&Wales. However, I deem many of the policies emanating from its seat of power no longer to my taste and would rather get some cut on my earnings, work harder, for longer for a more aspirational and socialist future. It would hurt me financially in the short to mid term and whilst I do not particularly look forward to it, I am ok with this if it offers a future for my kids that seems more progressive on many grounds. I cannot guarantee it will work.

What I can guarantee is that the direction of travel of politics of Boris Johnson is not very palatable: it appears intolerant, inward looking, financially skewed towards corporations to a degree I do not accept. 

Yes those will still happen in an Independent Scotland but to a lesser extent with a population likely to be more reluctant towards these sore points... or so I hope anyways.

You voted Leave, so you need to accept responsibility. You split this Island, not me.

It is all very true. And it is a risk I am willing to run. Thankfully I am not the sole decision maker on whether to run it out on that seemingly blank slab (let’s refer to climbing as this site is full of climbers). I have ability, trust my feet and whilst the rubber of my boots isn’t in its prime I have confidence in them. I accept the challenge despite a rather dismal fall opportunity. If anything, it will get me away from the other party on the ledge discussing and airing views I disagree with. I would abseil but it would seem the gear is too shoddy for that. What I am supposed to do? Remain on the ledge?

I still needs to discuss it with my partner though. We both need to be clear on the consequences of my eventual fall for both of us (referendum). I am also willing to stay a bit longer (wait the length of this Parliament) on the ledge to see if I utterly misunderstood the chat of the other party and if there is a chance that we could agree on join forces (their chosen route looks pretty blank too tbh) if we settle some principle first.

But you are correct though. There could be a Scottish Tory Government. They would probably be nearer to us and have closer concerns to mine.

SNP would die out, having done its job. What cement the broad-ish church together having been achieved.

Agreed, this an economic advantage that I am not too happy to decide to damage. However, rUK doing it alone would try to strike a deal with China, America and Brazil but not try the people nearest? Seems unlikely. So this becomes a moot point and thus does not any grist to our mill (is that an expression that I made up or is it the blend of a few???). No goal for either Union/Scotland

Which is my main gripe about the union. It doesn’t matter what Scotland thinks, for every 1 Scotland resident, there are 10 England&Wales residents. I accept that neither the Union nor Scotland are homogeneous blocks but latest elections confirms that there are trends within each of them. One goal for iScotland.

This is attached to the previous point made. How “broadly similar” are they truly? No goal for anyone

I tend to find Tom-in-E’s arguments extremes at times, but I agree with him that London’s gravitational force seems o disown this theory. I’ll be magnanimous and agree to disagree and award no side a goal.

If the political will of England will allow- if doing so was annoying the electorate I have every confidence that Boris Johnson (Tory) or any later Prime minister of any party (Labour hasn’t got a great track record in Scotland since 2014) would quiet happily forgo that kind of assumption. Not willing to commit political suicide for the sake of the right thing to do. I will award myself a goal here.

You are correct here and this a clear and clean ball in the net for you.

I do not perceive it as being as flexible as you do. Is it a question of opinion? It seems to me that any change has been won through time. 30 years out of 300 is only 10% of its time. Can we assure that the rate of change will keep apace of the last 3 decades? Boris and his successor may just say no continuously. Or be ready to compromise? No goal for either of us because this is unknown quantity.

I am not sure I understand that one. If it refuses another referendum, then it is not providing the mechanism.

2 all and a few good opportunities. Seems no-one has a clear victory and each sides desperately try to claim the victory and spinning stuff to their disappointing supporters. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

But would the Indy campaign win a referendum if they were campaigning on "we'll have a hard trade border with England and a different currency from England"?

From central-belt Scotland, the English border is really not that far away.   (Whereas Rotterdam is over an ocean.)   It's hard to see the economy of Scotland benefiting from disengagement from England.

In the first Indyref, the Indy campaign knew this and clearly campaigned on "we'll keep the same currency as England and of course we'll maintain free trade with England".

Jeezo, and I thought I was rather defeatist with my default mode of going for independence stance in the face of my perceived/correctly accessed failure of the union (/ is for you to decide where YOU think I sit with this regard)!

The turd will most likely smell of haggis, irn bru, black pudding, potato scones, whisky, salmon... this might make it more fragrant?! I have never got on the scat fetish train

As stated in my 8:51 post this am

I would like another referendum towards the end of the current parliament, unlike Tom who would like it now, and I would precisely like those terms to be openly discussed. I would sooner lose the referendum with the truth then win it with a lie.

I almost did no vote for independence because I thought this was too conveniently suggested, too often in 2014. But at least, in their defence SNP had a plan! Not like the Tories, and Boris, in 2016.

Their plan was flawed admittedly, in the same way that it is spurious to say that It will be easier to trade with Australia than it is to trade with Rotterdam.

The only reason in the end that I voted for independence in 2014 was that we already knew about Cameron’s intention about 2016. Whilst I do not claim I saw in a crystal ball, the future, as an EU citizen I feared the outcome of 2016 more than the one of 2014. I said so to my unionist step-family and they all told me that my fears were unfounded!

2014- remain in Union. My reaction: ok let’s make it work then.

2016- leave the UK. My instant reaction: don’t trust this woman. Start process of becoming British because I am being used as a negotiating chip and I did not like it one bit.

2018- Windrush scandal. My reaction to my colleagues and some acquaintances who thought me a fool for experiencing financial and holidays inconvenience in the process of becoming British. My position is vindicated. Governance will not look after people like me. Overall agenda is driven by people in the South who seem to have it in the nose for normal foreigners (as opposed to rich ones).

This timeline says why I am wanting Scotland to go it alone. It is my view that the erosion of open-mindedness, and progressive views makes me think that unfortunately Scotland is probably going to have a more benign  atmosphere if it goes it alone. It’s not because of Braveheart, kilt and bagpipes. It’s just the way I have seen things change since I first arrived in Scotland in 2002. That is as a spectator from Scotland about happenings in England&Wales. I have ”continental” friends that felt the brunt of this change in various cities in England and decided to leave.

I have decided to stay and decided to softly make a case for iScotland with my acquaintances, my step family, those of my fiends who are unionists (of which there aren’t as many now) and on UKC (I don’t do it on FB.... because I only really lurk in there for winter nick and family news from home).

Just reading the WTO thread too.

For me all of what is happening does not just boils down to economics.

I accept that when times are harder people get twitchy but there are ethical principles too.

Well, the advantages and disadvantages of the union FOR SCOTLAND have been debated ad-infinitum on this thread and many others like it.

I've seen very little discussion regarding the benefits FOR ENGLAND. There appear to be very few.

As far as I can tell, we send a mountain of money north of the border, affording a far higher per-person spend than we get ourselves in terms of education and healthcare etc. 

In return for which, we get sneered at by Salmond, sniped at by the one who looks like Jimmy Crankey and loathed by a sizable proportion of the population.

So, no, I see few advantages to the union. I whole heartedly support Scottish independance. Go!

Be very careful of believing your own propaganda.

The British Empire claimed it was subsidising India and India could not stand on its own but now Indian economists are calculating it actually robbed India of trillions of dollars.  They also claimed to be subsidising the US and that the US colonies couldn't stand on their own - clearly they could.   The people doing the accounting have an agenda and the GERS numbers for Scotland are in no way indicative of the outcome after independence.

There are plenty of counterviews to that. I had not realised until recently how much the UK had invested in India during the days of the Empire. It was colossal.The investment for example in the railways, ports, telegraph and postal systems were eyewatering for the time.( it is easy to look back and criticise). Most done on the back of private investment, which is even more startling.

But that is the subject of another post.

I think that debating the activities of the East India Company would be going off mission...even for an SI thread.

That said, of all the pro-SI arguments out there, the economic one is by far the least compelling. I don't believe that Scotland is a Celtic financial tiger...just waiting to escape the cruel yoke of English imperialism.

It'd be wise to avoid believing too deeply in the propaganda pumped out by the SNP. 

I hope I'm wrong. Strong trading partners are good for everyone.

Good to see you choosing the neutral sources. Although, of course, you do need to separate the British Empire and the British East India company. The former having to take over after one too many expensive screwups by the latter.

A major source of tension was, the not unreasonable belief, that the US colonies should contribute to their defence after the rather expensive 7 years war. Was a fair amount of mismanagement related to that again see the East India company.

There was a ridiculous tit-for-tat battle of trade restrictions going on. Rather Trump-like in fact.

indeed - something cut out by the formation of the union.

Probably we are both a bit daft worrying about events 300 years ago - especially when "the English" and "the Scottish" who actually made decisions at the time were largely drawn from the same bunch of Artistocratic Norman descendants who were all squabbling to make their personal power as great as possible, often at the expense of the peoples they wished to govern.

Something to consider is what happens when the golden future claims of the Scottish independence movement don't happen.  As we are already seeing with the Brexit movement's claims turning to dust, the blame is just directed elsewhere.  Once "Westminster" can't be blamed, there is a significant danger of internal division.  I'd be very careful about what you wish for with nationalism.

It's still a turd, bro! Is it really worth the fight?

I am not sure that "Westminster" will be removed from the blame list. At the minimum you get a few years of "we are undoing the damage done by them" and more likely just keep the blame flowing anyway.

I think the next vote should wait until we know what Brexit means. Then people can make an informed choice between what they have and what they want.

i think that may change people’s views, Brexit in name only or a hard Brexit and severe economic restrictions. Right now we still don’t know.

I don't see many 'golden claims'.  People are claiming the GERS numbers are crap, have a unionist agenda behind how they are calculated and do not reflect the economics of an independent country.  That's realistic, in fact the GERS numbers explicitly state they don't reflect the economics post independence although that's how they are always used.

Scotland is very like Ireland except with better mountains and oil.  The Irish are doing really well as an independent state within the EU when you take the medium/long term perspective although you wouldn't know it from the UK press.  GDP per person in the south is 2x that in Northern Ireland despite the fact that at the time of independence the north was more prosperous.

I have yet to see any convincing argument at all as to why Scotland with the advantage of oil can't do at least as well as Ireland.   Scotland is an extremely well educated country with a long track record of innovation.  If we sort out our economy and get money behind our businesses we can do well.  They key is stopping talent and money leaking away, set our economic and social policies according to our own needs and start attracting entrepreneurial Scots back home.

Substitute UK and EU, and you have the brexiteers arguments pretty much precisely.

Here's some interesting maths about where Scotland would be now if it had got independence in 1980.  The answer is £943 Billion better off than it is now as part of the UK.

https://www.businessforscotland.com/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hide...

Yes, the oil money is gradually falling off but oil is not the last economic opportunity Scotland will have.  If we stay in the UK the next one will be f*cked up for us in exactly the same way as the previous ones. 

A pretty naive qualitative argument.  When you look at the details it is a completely different scenario.

EU takes 1% of UK GDP as contributions.  the UK takes ALL of Scotland's taxes, gives us half of them back and calls it a grant.

EU - UK can leave.   UK - Scotland is told it has to get permission and it is refused.

UK - FPTP England with 90% of population can do whatever it likes.  EU - PR, all kinds of checks and balances, veto on many issues.

UK - drags us into wars.  EU - doesn't

UK - soon to have f*ck all trade deals.  EU - best set of trade deals of any economic block in the world.

UK - freedom of movement to England  EU - freedom of movement to 27 countries.

Are you suggesting that public spending in Scotland is half the tax take?   I'd be surprised, can you back that up?

The Irish are doing really well? Did I dream the financial crash and recession, or did it actually happen?

Here's a copy / paste from the Irish Independent, may help with those rose-tinted independence specs you're wearing!

SNAPSHOTS OF THE RECESSION

In the years following the crash, u­nemployment rose from 5pc to 15pc.

* Between 2007 and 2013, property prices fell by 54pc

* Calls to St Vincent De Paul doubled in the two years after the crash

* A survey by the Irish League of Credit Unions in 2011 showed almost a quarter of Irish people had less than €20 per week to live on once essential bills were paid.

* New car sales plummeted by 62pc in the year after the crash

* Alcohol consumption fell significantly from 13.2 litres of alcohol in 2007 to 11 litres in 2009

* A Bord Bia survey showed the average household spent €600 less on groceries two years after the crash

* Over 80,000 people gave up private health insurance between 2008 and 2011.

I'm saying the Scottish Government gets roughly half the tax take. 

The UK government also spends money 'for the benefit of Scotland' on whatever it feels like billing to that account.  For example 5 million quid worth of advertising the benefits of the union, a large new office in central Edinburgh for their 'Viceroy' the Scottish Secretary, a 20 billion Boris bridge or 'our share' of HS2.

No it happened and we had one too.  We handled them differently, the Irish experience was more intense and the UK one is going to be longer drawn out.

The UK press will give you wall to wall coverage of how bad things got in Ireland after the crash.  They don't show how good they were for years before the crash or the overall outcome looking back from today over 20 or 30 years.

I'd read up on some basic economics before making any connection between GDP and how well the population is thriving, especially in a country relying in part on the revenue for intellectual property rights belonging to outside countries.

That was from the Irish press, dude. 

Just tried to google if rUK gains from Scotland and gave up getting a simple answer.

 However Dec 2019 link:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-has-scotland-subsidised-t...

"the overall balance was close, according to one detailed analysis: even making concessions to nationalist arguments about Scotland’s likely historic debt, higher UK public spending on Scotland almost completely cancelled out any surplus created by “Scottish” oil."

"The fact that the Scottish government has not updated or revised these figures since 2013 makes it impossible for us to stand up Mr Blackford’s claim at the moment."

"The lack of directly comparable data for the most recent years is particularly important, because oil prices crashed after these experimental figures were published, weakening the fiscal position of a notional independent Scotland."

Apologies as these paragraphs are only my selection. But from above it does seem that any rUK claim that it significantly subsidizes Scotland is probably wrong, as would be an opposite claim.

I spent years doing due diligence work for VC firms.  One of my main customers was an Irish VC in Dublin.   It was completely apparent to me that the tech startups in Ireland had similar access to capital as tech startups in Cambridge but massively better access to capital than tech startups in Scotland.  

Money from London was going into Cambridge, money from Scotland was going to London offices and then into Cambridge.  Scottish start ups were fighting for scraps from angel investors and looking for a couple of hundred K where the English and Irish companies were trying for and getting millions.   If Scotland was independent we'd be putting our money into Scottish companies and developing our own tech ecosystem like the Irish have done.

You "I don't see many 'golden claims'." 

Also you. 

"If Scotland was independent we'd be putting our money into Scottish companies"

"The answer is £943 Billion better off than it is now as part of the UK.​​​​​​" 

Our share of HS2 is 2% of the cost, as negotiated between the Scottish and UK governments. This was done because, as I'm sure you know, transport is devolved and HS2 should have totally come out of English money. The reason that the Scottish Government agreed to this was that both governments agreed that Scotland benefited to a small extent from HS2. This is a notional contribution and the Scottish Government gets 8% of the cost of HS2 back due to Barnett consequentials. Therefore, the Scottish Government actually benefits financially from HS2. This is all explained in GERS, produced by the Scottish Government. - The GERS used in the White Paper as an economic justification for Scottish independence.

The idea that the finance sector in an independent Scotland would invest/loan money to Scottish companies isn't a 'golden claim' it is totally obvious.

Why not read the link and see how that figure was arrived at.  It isn't a 'golden claim', it isn't really a claim at all because its based on historical data rather than speculation.  If the oil money had stayed in Scotland rather than being used to cover Englands deficit and loan interest and we'd invested it as effectively as Norway did with its oil money we'd have be £943 billion better off.

Agreed not great but 15% is not atrociously bad 

That only matters if you play the anglophone game with houses. I have one house my forever home and as I have no intentions to sell it, it’s value is not relevant beyond the fact that I pay monthly instalments for it. I don’t intend to remortgage for any vanity projects. I would only do it to pay for saving the life of one of my kids... at which point everything will have become irrelevant !

i am assuming it’s some sort of Charity ? A bit like food bank increased use here. Agreed not good.

there’s probably a good deal of folks like this already here. Agreed not good.

probably a good thing in order to change our habits.... clutching at straws here.

That has to be good.

that has to be bad

That’s bab too.

 I think Ireland is doing fine enough. Tom is over optimistic presenting it as a great example but considering how low it started I would ok with results.

The other thing is that the UK government will be borrowing the money to finance all these Tory projects increasing the national debt and Scotland gets handed a share of the national debt interest based on relative population.    One of the biggest line items in Scotland's budget is interest on our share of the UK national debt.  

Apparently when student loans default and can't be sold to private companies that too results in an increase in the national debt.  Which means Scotland is funding a share of the broken English student loan system.

If a crisis hit, economic train-wreck in which the populous can barely afford a pint of Guiness (let alone medical care) is your view of a bright future for an independent Scotland, you may need to have reassess your priorities.

Sounds like Independence at all costs, rather than Independence because it's a good idea, to me. 

    One of the biggest line items in Scotland's budget is interest on our share of the UK national debt.  

Not according to the latest GERS figures.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-g...

I'm bowing out now. Life's too short. - A lot shorter for me than for you I suspect.

Well, yeah - its 6th on that list (ignoring 'Accounting Adjustments' which isn't a real expenditure) and its not far off what we spend on 'Defence' and 'Transport'.

The only line items which are a lot larger than debt interest are 'Social Protection', 'Health' and 'Education'.

Not at all costs. I want to wait and see what happens with this Parliament first so give it a few years before we get to have a referendum. However a referendum is to my mind absolutely essential and cannot be denied.

once people know what the direction of the Uk is, then they can decide with a better understanding. I don’t want it blind as what happened in 2016.

I am ready to feel some pain and put my mouth where my purse is though, if people choose to break the Union. If they don’t, then I’ll have to participate and make it work.

 I would like to re-iterate: had we not been dragged out of something against the will of the region( Scotland) then bar gross injustice I would have continued with the Union. It might have been grudgingly and probably without a say as I wouldn’t have become British.

 I think that you may view me as a diehard nationalist. I don’t feel that I am. Circumstances made me into a mild one... I am very close to the fence and may still change my mind? May be the world will heal itself, glacier grow back or even less likely , the Boris Johnson contingent might come up with decent, possible and equitable policies? I am ready to eat humble pie and apologise if that were the case

I think there are a lot of people in Scotland in a similar position - I know I am. I was undecided in the 2014 referendum right up to the point of marking my ballot paper. I am now slightly more likely to vote positively for independence, I think for similar reasons as yourself. The current situation is not a happy one, with a Scottish electorate with no representation in government, little apparent sympathy from Westminster, and divergent political paths. I have lived in England and Scotland in almost equal measure through mos of my life, and while there have always been cultural differences, the overall direction of travel has generally been the same, until the last 10 years or so. It does now feel that the people of Scotland have significantly different aspirations to those of England. 

As you say, the Johnson government may surprise us and reveal a hitherto unknown consideration for the aspirations of Scots. Sadly, I am not optimistic. 

Well, there are difficult decisions ahead.

Accept the status-quo - unacceptable to a sizable minority, but probably the safest bet. Increasingly unpopular on both sides of the border.

Leave, with aspirations to join the EU - and swap one union for a rather more expensive alternative; one whose mantra of 'ever closer unity' is at odds with Scottish aspirations of independence and self governance. 

Go-it-alone as a small nation - outcome uncertain, and impossible to predict.

In my opinion, the independance-at-all-costs brigade are gaining traction and will ultimately win the day, regardless of the success (or otherwise) of Boris Johnsons government.

Next, I predict a huge scrap over EU membership. 

What will happen after that is anyone's guess. It'll certainly make for interesting viewing.

When you say there is no Scottish representation in government are you not ignoring the tory MP's?

I appreciate they are a small proportion of the Scottish MP's, but they are in government.

Well that depends where iScotland ends up - in the EU then it looks like a fairly hard border at the moment with rUK.

This is the real point of cognitive dissonance - I see these people as British voters, so the vote of a scot is equal to the vote of a Yorkshire man, I dont really understand the 'Scotland has no say' line in this context as every seat has an equal say. If you want power vote for a party that can win power. If you want that party to reflect your views join  it (cf momentum).

Clearly the pace of change has varied overtime, but a review of the history of the UK over the last 300 years will show it has changed consistently as its institutions evolve.

The mechanism is clear in law - it just needs consent from the UK govenrment which has been given twice in the past, not to mention the devolution referendum. Now I would tend to agree with you that it would be better if this final decision rested at holyrood - but the recent history shows the UK has allowed referenda on this point. compare and contrast to Spain, and also consider the likely response of france or germany in a similar position.

I'm not trying to claim victory - i was trying to give you some pro union points. You will note I've avoided much 'emotional/identity' stuff - but i do think this is important - as depressingly evidenced by the brexit fallout.

To be honest, I must admit I'd quite forgotten about them. Having been through times when you could count the number of Scottish Tory MPs on the fingers of one hand, I have rather got into the habit of assuming they have no meaningful presence. You're quite right, they are there. 

Thanks for your measured answer. I hope I come across as measured too. I will have to chew and digest the cognitive dissonance claim however. I’ll come back to you later.

E

Not a criticism of you, just an attempt to highlight the real difference in view on how the U.K. is constituted - 4 nations with 4 people’s, or 4 nations with one people. 

Of course the reality is a bit of both - but that’s a pretty confusing headspace!

It’s truly amazing that there are now more pandas in Scotland than labour MP’s!

When the independence referendum happens, it would be good if northern England also had a referendum to see if they’d like to rejoin Scotland. If Cumbria Yorkshire and Northumberland rejoined Scotland it would make a logically and historically better split based on 12th c precedent 

Hmmm, I think Yorkshire, Cumbria and Northumberland combined have a bigger population than Scotland - who would be joining who, and would Scotland welcome so many Tory voting brexiteers?

or even earlier: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernicia

not sure how would pan out as it has a rather big population compared to Scotland. They also seem to have voted with a majority to leave the EU- it raises the question of similarity of thought and mentality ? Joking apart, I am already talking about splitting the Union... not sure I would lightly propose to split England 😉

That's a topic of bitter debate within The Scottish Government between the rather paternalistic Scottish Colonial office and the more robust Department of Border Reivers.

As a descendant of the Black Douglas with a few Scotts in the family mix, I'm firmly in the Border Reiver camp

Also why not split England? Most of the issue is that England has no national identity binding the nation together which has encouraged the xenophobia of the brexiteers by providing a vacant space for the growth of identity by focusing on the "we don't like them" rather than the more positive "wha's like us".

Which 12th century precedent?

The boundaries of England have been established give or take Berwick and some debatable bits since the mid 10th century. 

Going back to 12th century borders might be more beneficial to Norway than anyone else. 

from wikopedia:

David I of Scotland[edit]

With the death of Henry I in 1135, England fell into a civil war, known as The Anarchy. Stephen of Blois contested the English crown with Henry's daughter, Matilda (or Maude). David I of Scotland, who was Prince of the Cumbrians (1113–1124), and Earl of Northampton and Huntingdon, had been King of Scots since 1124. Having been brought up in the court of his mentor and uncle, Henry I, as very much a Norman prince, he supported the claims of Matilda over those of her cousin, Stephen of Blois.

Professor Barrow asserts that, even at the beginning of his reign, David was thinking of the lands of Carlisle and Cumberland, believing, as he did, that "Cumbria" (that is, the previous entity of Strathclyde/Cumbria, covered by the diocese of Glasgow) was under the overlordship of the King of Scots, and stretched as far as Westmorland and possibly down to north Lancashire or even to the River Ribble.[145] The (first) Treaty of Durham (1136) ceded Carlisle and Cumberland to David.

St Mary's Church, Abbeytown : all that is left of Holmcultram Abbey, founded by David I, King of Scots, and his son, Earl Henry, in 1150

David may have been intending to enlarge his control of northern England when he fought at the Battle of the Standard, some of the soldiers of David's force being Cumbrians (from south of the Solway-Esk line, that is). Despite losing the battle, David kept his Cumbrian lands, and his son Henry was made Earl of Northumberland at the (second) Treaty of Durham (1139). This arrangement lasted another twenty years, during which David minted his own coins using the silver from the Alston mines, founded the abbey at Holm Cultram, kept the north largely out of the civil war of Stephen and Matilda, and, by the "Carlisle settlement" of 1149, obtained a promise from Henry of Anjou that, upon the latter's becoming King of England, he would not challenge the King of Scots's rule over Carlisle and Cumberland. David died at Carlisle in 1153, a year after his son Henry.

Interesting, but really a description of an ultimately unsuccessful attempt by the ruler of one state to take advantage of turmoil in the neighbouring state to take possession of part of it. Rather similar to Edward 1st taking advantage of  turmoil in Scotland to try to take it over a century later.

Or another way of looking at it is just more inter Norman feudal squabbling with lethal results for ordinary people. Behaviour that happily has gone out of fashion on this island. 

Problem with that is that the main places that wanted to stay in the EU were London, Scotland and (less decisively) N Ireland. While I agree that Yorkshire and points north feel less foreign than the south of England, and in other ways there’d be a lot of economic and social benefit from a northern axis,  we’d struggle to set an overall direction that folk could get behind.

No Lancashire and Manchester?
The greatest city in the North.  Your loss!

Definitely Lancashire and Manchester. Took that as being part of the "old" Cumbria We can maybe donate Liverpool to the Irish and they can build a big bridge via the IoM

I'm not trying to be provocative, sorry if it comes across that way, this is a question I’ve struggled to get a clear answer on:

Why do non-Celtic unionists want to maintain the union?

I understand the concerns Celtic unionists have with independence, I was one until recently, but I don’t understand why non-Celtic brits hold on to the union so hard.

Around half of Scotland and almost a third of Wales want independence. While those numbers may vary over time they will never ever go away, ever!

Tensions in Northern Ireland as part of the UK will also be there forever, if Ireland re-unifies those tensions will be gone within 100 years.

The UK has a close relationship with Ireland, a similar relationship could be had with independent Scotland and Wales.

Freedom of movement etc. could be maintained, if you want to go climbing in Llanberis or Glen Coe on the weekend it would be just as easy as it is today to go to Fair Head.

Norway, Sweden and Denmark were once one kingdom, they now have a great relationship with each other, we could do the same, along with the other 62 nations that have achieved independence from the UK over the past 80 years.

So, why do non-Celtic brits want to maintain the union?

What the hell is a non-celtic Brit!?

A brit who is not Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, I'm trying not to say English. 

If I ask "why do the English want to maintain the union so bad?" it pisses people off and I get crappy answers. This is a genuine question that I'd like to understand. I don't intend to confuse or provoke.

Someone who is fluent in Gaelic.
I wonder how many Scottish Nationalists actually have the slightest inkling of their country's true language?

Well I for one don't particularly. 

NI is only a source of trouble and expense.  If they want to unify then fine. 

Scotland: it would definitely lead to a more grown-up attitude in Scottish politics (as oppose to a rebellious-teenager attitude) if they were independent.

Wales: That's trickier, in that in practical terms independence makes less sense. 

Your logic doesn't really work. Not all Scots (or Welsh or N Irish) are Celtic. It's perfectly possible to be a non-Celtic Scot who supports independence. Some English are Celtic. Some of these may or may not have an opinion on Scottish independence. 

I don't really know many people who identify as Celtic ahead of their nationality. 

I think it's commonly understood that Celtic nations are primarily Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

Please, can we not get hung up on my quirky way of avoiding saying English. When I do, for some reason it offends. 

This was my view until 6 months ago. Now after extensive researching I firmly believe Wales would benefit from independence.

Yes, for some reason people find ethno-nationalism offensive. 

Some selective history there, Norway, Sweden and Denmark were soveriegn states under a common king. Until 1523.

Norway and Denmark were under one king until a plebescite in Norway in 1905 led to independence. The vote was 368,392 for, 184 against. Do you think the SNP  will get that sort of vote?

Well I'd like to continue to have one country for historic, geographic, linguistic, economic, cultural, diplomatic and defensive reasons.  A pretty compelling case, I'd say.  Against this, currently, is politics but on balance I think divergence here is short-term.

Another crucial reason we need an updated new independence referendum is the latest immigration rules spewed out from No10-

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/19/uk-immigration-plans-prompt...

Unrelated but it contains the best quote of the year so far-

He said: “The average salary in the sector is £17,000 and the UK government refuses to designate our sector in Scotland as experiencing a skills shortage.

But I am deeply offended by equating social care as low skilled, when frontline care requires great skill, empathy and compassion. The UK government says it should be possible to encourage the long-term unemployed to do these jobs, but we don’t want just anybody looking after our most vulnerable people.”

So English when Scottish officials are asking and vice versa?

Dismisses an entire country as being childlike then wonders why we don't want anything to do with them and their "grown-up" politics that make 14 million of their people in poverty of which 34% are children and 4 million are in absolute poverty. 

They did say politics not "entire country". Although admittedly it seems a flawed statement even at that level given the childlike politics on display in westminster.

He was probably just trolling Scottish people. 

Only some of the political attitudes, not the entire country!

... and it's all the fault of those wicked Tories, who eat working-class babies for breakfast. 

Don't you think that the term "poverty" is losing any meaning these days through activist-pushed concept creep?    (Just like many other terms, such as "misogynist", "racist", "Nazi", "harm" and "violence")

Oh do grow up!

😎

Again, I don't intend to offend.

Historic – For many Welsh and Scottish, British history is not great. In Wales we have many castles, known as the iron ring to keep us in control. This is just one example of historic persecution towards Celtic nations.

Geographic – We won’t be going anywhere.

Linguistic – We speak Welsh in Wales. Have you ever heard of the Welsh Knot?

Economic – My opinion is each constituent nation would be economically better off on their own.

Culturally nothing would change.

We can still be diplomatic.

Defence – The UK has a history of wanting to be a military power. As an independent nation, I would like to see Wales be more like Switzerland.

Eh?

So what were the castles in England for?

Wait until Johnson finds his bridge wont work and comes up with a big ditch instead.

Several hundred years of exporting mercenaries to unstabilise other parts of the world before switching to just providing dubious financial services to the dicators it used to provide troops for. I guess thats one goal in life but personally I would aim higher.

Yeah, but that was the French!   Or at least the Norman-French, and those same people oppressed the English (Anglo-Saxons) just as much as the Welsh.   

I am a 'brit' (I used to be a European as well) but I am non, or all, of the above.

One of the objections I have to nationalism is that requires people to make such choices without which it cannot prosper.

If they decline to do so it makes the choice for them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Iron

No they weren't. They were built by Edward 1 also known as Edward Longshanks and the Hammer of the Scots, King of ...

A) they werr to control Wales not the other way around. 

B) they were 800 years ago

Who was Norman (its a bit unfair blaming the French). Whilst it was under the Plantagenets the royal house did become truly English that was only after being booted out of their continental possessions (a process started when the Plantagenet name after giving up on getting Anjou back and so Angevin started sounding silly).

The King of England does not have to be English, just ask everyone since Harold Godwinson

Yes, exactly!

You raised history. And as I mentioned, it was one example. There are many others, plenty from more recent times too - Tryweryn.

Well that wasnt what you wrote

Dredging up 800 year old power struggles as a reason for independence seems odd to me. The last 200 or more years of history show E+W working very well as a unit, overall. 

No, not at all true. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relationship_between_the_Welsh_and...

Whatever. Enjoy your little bubble. 

"French was the mother tongue of every English king from William the Conqueror (1066–1087) until Henry IV (1399–1413)." (wiki)

Just to clarify your original point here, you are talking about ethnicity right? Not country of residence? So an English person living in Scotland would be a "non-Celtic Brit", right?

If so, why is it understandable that a Scotsman living in Scotland would have concerns about independence, but not an Englishman living in Scotland?

Not to mention the wider implication of your comment that someone in Saltash should be able to comment on Scottish independence, but his neighbours in Plymouth should STFU.

So are you saying England wasn't England until 1413 because the English language wasn't spoken by the monarch of England?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England

Can we get back on topic now? 

What's your opposition to Welsh and Scottish having the freedom to choose independence?

I'm more saying that the King of England (who ordered those castles built) was a French-speaking nobleman of Norman-French descent. 

Yes, do carry on, just ignore me. 

MG I find your contribution rather interesting. You make very valid points and raise some great questions but then you just do this thing which I find easy to spot but extremely hard to explain.

I shall try to describe my perception of it. In many ways it’s symptomatic of why some people from the 3 other nations of the Uk get annoyed at the Union: you bring things back to England and how these things are perceived there. We all do (bring things to what we know best-home) but we also see it the way of the majority (England) because we don’t have a choice.

Anglophones do this all the times with regards to Anglophone culture and Global culture. Recently, on a failed pub evening- shockingly decided to close at 20:30 on a Friday!- a few of us get together in a kitchen. 4 Brits and 2 long-standing residents of Britain. I am French and the other is Slovakian, and we both speak good English. At some point someone refers to the expression: Hearing through the grapevine which I knew but not my Slovakian friend. Trying to explain it the others make reference to Marvin Gaye- leaving the Slovak utterly confused and me slightly bemused. The other cannot believe we don’t know MG well. To slagging to the tune of “surely everyone knows of MG”!

After a while, I point out that inevitable in the English speaking world doesn’t mean it is truly global.

All that to say that England does not equates the UK even if it makes up for most of it!

It's most easily explained by me baiting Catat10's, perhaps childishly

You are making some assumptions here I think - I have lived most of my adult  life in Scotland and will shortly return, and I have other connections there..  I think my perspective is pretty balanced between English and Scottish.

Sorry, I am completely lost here too!

You've got the wrong end of the stick. I think those who identify themselves as Welsh or Scottish (or Cornish or Manx) i.e. Celtic, should have the freedom to pursue independence if they choose. Wales shouldn't have a say on Scottish independence an vice versa. If the north of England wanted to be independent it would be up to them not me. I'm not from there, don't live there as such don't identify myself as a northern Englishman, I don't have a say on it. I've never considered Ireland being any further away than Scotland, yet Ireland are an independent nation.

When you go abroad and meet people do you say you are from Britain or from England?

Identify, f*ck me, I don't think I can express how much contemt I have for that word.

I'm a hetrosexual male, who is part Lancastrian, part Yorkshire, a fair bit of Scottish, and God help me, there maybe some Irish in there somewhere.

Who the f*ck am I?

Oh yes. People who class carers have no skills haven't got a f*cking clue.
Could bore you senseless about, but I'd be preaching to the converted with you.
£66 a week, certainly gets you the skills of squeezing every nanogram of value from cash!

Whatever you want to be! Where is "home" to you?

I’m a mix of Celtic, Anglosaxon,Viking, Norman just like most of us

I dontthinkthatsthetopic, and most of the pro union folk who have so far posted have supported the right of the inhabitants of any given area to choose. There are quibbles about sensible timing I think, and arguments about what may be best, but that’s all.

But the people who live in those places are equally affected, irrespective of ethnicity or personal identity. I live in Cornwall. I'm not Cornish, but my wife's as pure-blooded a Celt as you can get. Nevertheless, should Cornwall get a devolved assembly, it would affect us both equally hence we would each get an equal vote on the matter. That's how it should be isn't it?

What about Welsh people who live in Scotland? What about non-Celts who live in Scotland?

Again, it's living there that would affect your say on it, not your identity or ethnicity. Why bring these things into the debate (the SNP don't).

Fine. Doesn't challenge anything I've said. 

Depends on context. If I'm speaking to a Frenchman who likes rugby, then I'm definitely English. If I'm talking politics with an American, I'd probably say I'm from the UK. I never say I'm a Saxon, or an Anglo-Norman, you understand. I'm a mongrel, mostly English but no ancestral region so to speak*; they're all over the place. Czech surname from my father's side. Bit of Belgian and French thrown in if you go far enough back. Mongrel and proud.

*Fortunately they let us vote in the constituency of residence and not ancestral home. If they did the "census of quirinius" thing every time we voted, I'd just have to sit it out. 

In all seriousness, I think the main issue with politics in the UK is the FPTP system which perpetuates the two party elected dictatorship system. It is not a breeding ground for smaller parties as peopel see their vote as wasted when they do vote for them and certainly does not encourage consensus politics which is where most of us want to be.

‘Again, it's living there that would affect your say on it, not your identity or ethnicity. Why bring these things into the debate (the SNP don't).’

Agreed. I think you have misunderstood catat10s arguments. Everyone campigning on Welsh, Scottish indy believes it is down to everyone who lives in those countries. 

I assume one reason is that dismantling it will be a "can of worms", and a lot worse than exiting the European Union.

Using Erick's illustration, even though he wants to get out of the car, I don't think he will be able to just step into a nice new one provided by the EU!

That qualifies you as a true (insert any, some or all UK nationality or identity here).

As an island we've been a convenient place to invade, raid, or colonise for 2000 years. Then we industrialised and urbanised early so there is three hundred years of population shifts within the UK. I would also expect most urban families have a sprinkling of immigration from Europe into 19th century industrialised UK.

PS for an early example, see crew nationalities of HMS Victory at Trafalgar (the pinnacle of Britishness!) .

https://www.hms-victory.com/restoration-log/hms-victory-and-her-crew-battle...

So "non-celts", later explained to mean "English", does in fact mean "people who don't live in Scotland (and that includes Welsh people in Wales)." Can you see where my misunderstanding has come from?

Independence means being responsible for your own car. Nobody provides one, although it would be rude to reject a freebie....

I want to stop the car look at it and from that assessment decide whether I am climbing back onboard or walk the rest. "Better late than never" is the way I see it, even though walking might be long unpleasant and even maybe entirely unnecessary (the car might have made it to the destination without any issues). I don't expect anyone else to come pick me up but I might try some hitch-hiking. I have done a fair bit of the latter and remember turning a ride down because the dude looked drunk!

Good effort folks!

Only a couple of tangents here: history, ethnology, musicology, economics and mechanics. We, I feel, managed to stay clear of racism and general unpleasantness. The thread has probably run its course now?

It depends....

Countries grant citizenship based on a mixture between bloodline (jus sanguinis) or location of birth (jus soli). America is on one side of this, Europe on the other. Creating a new country forces the new country to choose some criterion for citizenship. Residence at the time of the creation of the country is simply one possibility, ethnicity another.

It won't be trivial to decide who becomes a citizen of an independent Cornwall...

It is a general problem of independence movements. You need to define boundaries that weren't necessary before, thereby creating misery.

Britain.

and that’s one reason why folk who live in England would want to maintain the Union, because they culturally associative with it. My family is very much a product of the Union, until recently I’ve felt at home across Britain, some of the mood music from Scotland now makes me feel less at home there.

The other reasons relate to the fact that Scotland adds a huge amount to the Union in terms of people and resources - Scotland leaving does not make the rUK any better, and probably worse.

"culturally associative" - agree with that - sentiment not logic or economics determines affiliations.

Sorry you feel less welcome in Scotland.

I think that, whatever some proponents believe, is an inevitable consequence of nationalism. To prosper it must differentiate between people on the basis of labels or identities that they would not necessarily choose for themselves. That differentiation is necessary to provide the impetus for the division required to achieve separation from the original state. Once 'us' and 'them' have been created alienation of not only 'them' but those who decline to choose is an almost certain outcome.

How deep and how wounding that alienation becomes depends greatly on the attitude of 'us' but alienation there will be.

I'm a Scot with an English wife and children. I have noted the difference in attitude in Scotland when meeting people if I'm the first to speak or they are. There are certainly some very rude nationalist people in Scotland who do their cause no favours.

There are very rude nationalist people everywhere...

It's hard to avoid mudslinging at times when a bunion causes an awkward gait

my grandad suffered much in this way

The blame for this should be directed at the Brexiteer Tories in Westminster.   They took the UK on a diametrically opposite path to that desired by the people of Scotland and then they asserted colonial rule by refusing an s30 order for an independence referendum. 

I  want to develop your point about evolving politics a bit more  because it seems relevant to the trajectory towards Scottish independence or not.

The failure of the last GE was the failure to evolve the Labour and Lib Dem parties into an effective opposition, either by policy or coalition.

Their future failure or success in this area will have the knock on effect on the Scottish independence debate. At the moment this position is in flux.

Of course the other influential  factor is the economic impact of the Brexit situation on Scotland and that is currently in flux. 

 I don't think any nationalism can escape the necessity to define, differentiate and divide. How damaging that is to the society within which it exists largely depends upon how its proponents conduct themselves. That conduct is their affair and theirs alone. 

I am not convinced that blaming others for our own conduct is ever wise. 

So what you are saying is that the SNP would have given up their desire for an independent Scotland if the referendum vote had of been " yes" to staying in the EU?

Some how I think not, you would have still wanted another independence referendum, otherwise SNP may as well have given up and folded.

I think this approach is a fundamental flaw in the arguments of nationalists like yourself. Simply blaming everything on Westminster fails to acknowledge the very wide range of views in Scotland. Scots and Scotland have to take responsibility for their actions. If some people in Scotland feel alienated as a result of the actions of nationalists, those nationalists have to look at themselves and look at what they are doing to cause such alienation. That has nothing to do with England or Westminster or the Tories. It's why yours is a particularly unpersuasive brand of nationalism. 

Of course the SNP wouldn't have given up their desire for an independent Scotland, they are never going to do that, the clue is in the name.

However, they would not have pushed for a second indyref.  Firstly, because their mandate to call the second indyref is based on Brexit being a material change in circumstances.  Second because there would be no point, before Brexit happened there wasn't a majority for YES.

Without Brexit it would be clear that there was no chance of an early indyref and everyone would have got behind the 'gradualist' long term path to independence by incrementally growing the power of the Scottish Parliament.  

Well it is persuading more than 50% of voters and growing.   The unionist parties are scared of indyref2 and because they can't get elected to Holyrood using their influence with England to block it.  When you block the legal path to independence via a referendum and come out with sh*t like 'not in your lifetime' or 'Catalonia Solution' you are stirring up alienation and confrontation.

Basically the SNP wants another  referendum , any political opportunity to bring it forward is snatched at and dressed up accordingly. The driver is an indpendent Scotland , simple as that.

If the next one referndum produces another " no" to independence, the SNP will want another one and so on.

I disagree. If people feel alienated as a result of something said or done by nationalists, it's the responsibility of the nationalists. Take responsibility for the consequences of your words and deeds. 

What other manifesto would they try to implement other than the one they are elected on with a mandate from the voters?

That alienation of EU citizens by UKIPers seems to be less of a factor here in Scotland.

Totally agree. I just find it perverse that SNP voters blame everyone else for a reason to push for another referendum. A bit of brutal honesty would help.But that is only imho.

Brexit is just a politcial excuse to get the referendum. It could easily be somethign else,the death of the Queen will be another at any time soon.

There are probably a few reasons for that. For a start, there are, thankfully, fewer UKIP supporters in Scotland. Between them, UIP and the Brexit party only mustered 16500 votes in the 2019 election.

I do think there is a different opinion towards EU citizens and migrants generally in Scotland, and I wonder if it relates to the fact that there are proportionally fewer migrants, and there are few distinct areas with high levels of migration. We don't have places similar to Boston, Lincs, or many of the deindustrialised areas where migrants are blamed for all the woes of the world as is the case south of the border. 

It seems legit to blame those who have disregarded the indyref promise of Scotland in UK to remain in EU. 

Fair points but compare images of SNP & UKIP ads. The contrast is striking.

https://www.google.com/search?q=snp+ad&tbm=isch

https://www.google.com/search?q=ukip+ad&tbm=isch

And I agree to a certain extent!

I do not recollect any such formal promise in the indy ref.

Can you point me to a written political declaration from say the House of  Parliament or all the various Political Leaders at the time of the last Referendum stating that this was the case.

There is no 'excuse' to hold a referendum, it was in the SNP manifesto for the last Holyrood election.  It explicitly states that being taken out of the EU against our will was a change of circumstances that would justify a second indy referendum.  The SNP got elected based on that manifesto.  The Scottish Parliament passed the relevant legislation.  Since then the SNP have been elected in both Euro and Westminster elections.   

"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."

I understand that is the SNP's argument.

Quite frankly its unimpressive, I would expect them to say that.

But where is the political declaration from the other partys or even the H of P that they are in agreement and that was what was the agreement in place at the last independence referendum.

A major argument in the last indie referendum was that Scotland would have to leave the Eu. Two years on that changed, and I agree that there has been a material change in circumstances. Eg last time I was vehemently opposed to independence, next I would not be.

Where's the declaration from the other parties that they are in agreement with all the sh*te the Tory government is trying to do?

The SNP put it in their manifesto and they won the election.   

Well get the other Scottish partys to change their view on it. It is what has always happened in previous referndums. Unanimous agreemt. Then it has political clout.

Meanwhile it wll just bewishfull thinking and stalemate.

The only time the unionist parties will agree to an indyref is if they are sure they can win it.  Otherwise they'll do what they are doing now and play for time by getting Westminster to block it.

The unionist parties do not get a veto on independence.  If they want to run Scotland they need to get elected.

The Tories can't stop the 2021 Holyrood election.  If they keep blocking an s30 for an indyref the next Holyrood election will turn into a proxy for one.

The no campaign made it clear that yes to independence the route to exiting the EU. 

The no campaign did not campaign on no to independence being the route to exiting the EU.

This is an interesting point.

It's rather duplicitous for the SNP suggest that that their dissatisfaction at Brexit is reason enough to demand another referrendum.

And yet, they were more than happy to be forced to leave the EU as consequence of a successful 2016 referendum.

Lends weight to the suggestion that any old excuse will do.

If that's what they make it, then they would need to get at least 50% of the popular vote to have a mandate for it.

There is absolutely nothing duplicitous about a political party putting their policy in their manifesto and then working to carry it out when they get elected.

The duplicitous thing is for MSPs from unionist parties to use their friends in Westminster to block a decision of the Scottish Parliament.  

The actual way to do this is with indyref2, but if Westminster blocks it then there needs to be a credible alternative, if only as a negotiating position to get leverage for indyref2.   The SNP could e.g. put in their manifesto that if elected they will request an s30 for indyref2 and if it is denied then it is UDI.

I could see the '50% of the popular vote argument' applying to an 'unofficial' referendum which was boycotted by the unionists.  I wouldn't agree with it but I could see where it was coming from and it is one reason why I'm dubious about an 'unofficial' consultative indyref even if a court ruled it was legal.

I don't see the argument applying in a Holyrood election.   If unionists choose to boycott an official Holyrood election that's their problem. 

If UDI were declared with, say, 40% of the popular vote, it would be a recipe for a level of divisiveness which would make Brexit look like childs play. An absolutely appalling prospect. It is absolutely essential for the future of the country that the proper channels to independence are followed however obstructive Westminster is - it may be a longer game than some would wish for, but if there is a majority for a referendum and independence, then it will come eventually.

How can you explain that nationalists sudden aversion to the UK leaving the EU, given that 4 years ago, they would have been happy to leave, if leaving came as a consequence of Scottish independence.

It's absolute duplicity. And the tears of departing MSP's from their Brussels offices were absolutely laughable, given that they would have been delighted to leave a few years previously.

You're an extremist - Independence at all costs!

And it's extremely disingenuous to blame Boris Johnson for the clamour for independence, when you'd be demanding a referendum regardless of the political climate in London.

Nonsense. I was very strongly No in 2014. As a result of Brexit and the course the UK now seems to be taking, I am now very much on the fence. Of course Johnson had got a lot to do with that.

Actually, that comment was aimed at Tom, in reference to the SNP's tendency to blame whichever prime minister is in power, and whichever political proclivities are in play, as a reason for the increasing demand for Independence. 

When, in reality, they'd be demanding Independence regardless of Westminster's political meanderingly.

They'd be better-off admitting that, come-what-may, they'll insist in on referendum-after-referendum until they get what they want, regardless of the political climate at Westminster.

I have no objection to Scottish Independence, and I think that ultimately it will happen. I do object to the scapegoating of the English by radical members of the SNP.