UKH

What's going to be left when this is all done? Seems a fair chance we'll lose Scotland from the union and a unified Ireland (or a new flare up of fighting) is now looking more inevitable than impossible.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/second-scottish-independence-...

Is this really 'the will of the people'?
jk

In reply to jkarran:
It's the will of the Daily Mail and Telegraph and their readers which is all Theresa May cares about. Unless someone with real gravitas forms a new pro-Europe centre ground political party which can actually challenge what should be the crazy right wing fringe of the Tory party then Scotland will most likely leave.

This time it won't be about Scotland wanting to leave but Scotland having no choice but to leave. If there is a second referendum and it is lost the Scottish Government and SNP will be neutered and Theresa May will tear up the devolution settlement. Scotland will be treated like an unimportant region of England. That's what the Mail and Telegraph and their readers will insist on. Every time the Scottish Government does something different from Tory policy in England their blood pressure goes through the roof.

The Tories are going to set out to gerrymander the terms of the referendum for sure if they don't try and block it outright. They'll try and push back the date until it is too late or take it forward early enough they can oversell the EU deal. Most likely they'll try and rule out EU citizens in Scotland getting a vote and they'll use their control of the BBC and England based press to put out daily scare and hate stories. With Ireland in play as well we will quite likely start getting sectarian overtones in the independence debate with the right wing fringe of Unionism turning nasty.

In reply to jkarran:

Nightmare scenario is that Scotland leave the UK, then join the EU and we end up with a hard land border from Carlisle to Berwick.

God alone knows what will happen in Ireland.

In reply to jkarran:

Ms Sturgeon can hold as many referendums as she wants. Unless the UK government sanctions it it's nothing more than a popularity contest. I suspect that the UK government have somewhat lost the will for referendums right now.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


There's two big ifs there, but you do wonder whether that would more-or-less force the rUK to have a rethink on the single market / free movement thing.

In reply to jkarran:

I don't think that there is any scenario in the current circumstances that is too far fetched to contemplate. It would have been enough with Clinton or Sanders in the White House, as it is the lunatics have taken over the asylum almost across the board.

As George Orwell remarked about the Battle of Britain, some people find it difficult to realise that we are living through an historically significant period. Well, we are. And I hope I'm wrong.

In reply to jkarran:

There's less of an argument for it than there was before, 15 billion hole in the economy; the EU won't let us join with that, and a border with our biggest trading partner, which is also between us and the rest of the EU.

I hope they rephrase the question to "should Scotland stay in the UK," so the nats have to fight a negative campaign this time and have to throw their banners out...

In reply to jkarran:

I can't really blame them, the Scots voted against Brexit and now have to sit on the sidelines as Westminster blindly drives us over Beachy head.

In reply to GrahamD:


They can't, it has to be agreed with Westminster.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/13/scottish-independence-why-...


No, the cat's out the bag. If it becomes clear through polling that there is a majority of Scots in favour of independence, then it will happen.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


It will be closer but I suspect not in the end. The economic case is much weaker than the last time, and all the other points about currency, EU membership etc are still valid. A more optimistic case might be that a vote to stay results in a political realignment that you outline actually beginning in Scotland - the SNP would be redundant in its current form but there would be a lot of common ground possible between its former voters, and Scottish libdem and labour voters.

In reply to pasbury:


We voted against brexit as part of the UK, we didn't vote to leave the UK and stay in the EU.

In reply to pasbury:

If I was Scottish I'd vote to leave.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Hence the need for another referendum?

In reply to jkarran:

And what about the folks like me who live less than a mile from the border (English side). Do trade over the border... have my GP in Scotland, and would be set to be part of the whole situation, and yet would have to sit on the sidelines without any voice.

Maybe I could get a job as a border guard?

In reply to jonnie3430:


I remember "call me" Dave telling the Scots that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote no to independence. I think many pro-EU Scots will think the quickest way to re-join the EU is to vote yes (whether or not it *is* the quickest way remains to be seen) Not to mention the way that TM is totally ignoring any of Sturgeon's points, around access to the EU post wrexit.

In reply to pasbury:


Once in a generation I was told, no second chances I was told. I've heard that brexit proved that referendums are a really bad idea too...

As I said even less economic justification than before and none of the original issues resolved.

I really hope this doesn't happen, business investment goes on hold for about 6 months before, so there is lots of kicking about waiting for an answer on whether your project will be funded (and you have a job,) after. It splits the population, I lost friends after the last one.

A sensible answer would be to see how the UK gets on outside the EU and then decide. Going for it now suggests to me that it is independence of bust (and bust?) And the SNP are firmly nailing their colours to the wall.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

I'd be tempted, to be honest. If I'm going to be screwed anyway then I'd rather be screwed on my own terms than on someone else's.

In reply to Ramblin dave: Wasn't that part of the gist for Brexit - "on my own terms"?

In reply to Andy Hardy:


At the moment it is impossible for Scotland to join the EU, we don't meet the entry criteria, a lot of development of our economy is needed first. Even then we may not get in as Spain may say no. I don't think Dave was wrong. I'd like to see Scottish economy improve, regardless of the party in power, but it's a huge change that is required.

The situation has changed with an independent UK, the pro EU Scots need to figure out if it is best to be pro your biggest trading partner (used to be EU, now will be UK,) or whether it is to be pro EU with the UK in between.

Sturgeon points around brexit smell like fishy point scoring to her supporters to me. How many negotiators do we want and the table? Seems to me that sturgeon would only be happy if she was in charge of the negotiations... The Scottish politicians elected to the UK parliament have had as equal say as any other UK politician. Since when did devolved governments speak over them? Don't see how that works.

In reply to jkarran:

I think there is a demand for it. However, there are a lot of staunch Nationalists that do NOT want to be part of Europe either. I'm finding myself almost siding with independence by default as I want to be in Europe and, since the Brexit vote, I am also becoming aware that, despite my previously held views about being a united kingdom, there are large parts of the UK that do not share my views, aspirations, hopes, e.t.c and I find myself aligned with other countries in Europe.

In reply to jkarran:
The Scots should have the right to determine, as best they can, the destiny of their country.
If that involves a new referendum and the breakup of the UK then so be it.
The same applies to Wales and Northern Ireland.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


To help muddy things, I heard on R4 that there's a (from a political/statistical point of view) significant number of people in Scotland who voted for Scottish independence who also voted to leave the EU, making things more complex for the SNP who might be wanting to use Brexit as a reason for Scotland to seek independence from England/the UK.

In reply to jkarran:

I personally cannot wait for the resurrection of Saor Alba on these boards and searching hard through the forum to try and find a discussion on the topic.

In reply to PeterM:

Sorry, I missed the bit where Scotland is joining the EU? The budget deficit is 15 billion, 9.5 ish percent of our GDP. EU requirements are less than 3 percent. How do we get in?

"Hello, we'd like to join so you can give us 15 billion a year to prop up our economy."

In reply to jkarran:

It isn't going to happen for several reasons.

Most people in Scotland don't want another referendum on independence.

Scotland isn't and never has been in the EU. The UK is in the EU, Scotland is part of the UK, if it leaves, it becomes its own country and would have to apply to join regardless of the UK's membership status.

Scotland probably wouldn't be accepted into the soon to be depleted EU given the last thing they want right now is another leech country sapping funds while contributing nothing.

With oil prices vastly down and its by far main trading partner being the soon to be non EU country of the UK the hit to the Scottish economy would be huge.

Scotland isn't allowed to hold one unless May grants them permission to do so.


Given that I really don't know why you think it's so likely to happen, there is far less in it for Scotland than there was last time and they lost by 5%. Scotland would be leaving the UK and leaving the EU, it makes Brexit look small fry as far as isolationism goes.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Because if May turns sturgeon down, it increases sturgeon's support. Read the news "she will ask for permission," and what will happen if permission isn't granted? I assume the majority still don't want it, but the minority will cry foul even louder.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Amazing that the unionists and actually the UK 'Secretary of State for Scotland' are already speaking for the EU and laying down the law to Scotland. Perhaps they haven't noticed that Theresa May is about to trigger Article 50. This time round nobody is going to care what the UK government's interpretation of the EU position is. The EU decides on EU policy and allowing Scotland to stay in strengthens the EU's hand by adding a land border which vastly complicates the hard Brexit scenario.

If the EU had any sense they'd also back putting in a bridge or tunnel between Scotland and Ireland if Scotland stays in the EU to start linking up the EU presence in the British Isles.

looks like Sturgeon has decided its time for another referendum -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/13/nicola-sturgeon-fires-star...

wonder if I'll be allowed to vote this time ? (been out of the UK for >15 years but still consider Scotland as home)

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


So land border with UK from a country on the opposite side from the EU for 15 billion a year? And the hand is strengthened how?


This makes about as much sense as Scottish independence...

In reply to jonnie3430:


What about if they want to join the single market, with a view to full membership at some future date?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

No issues from me, what's the cost? It's just more debt to be added to the 15 billion a year, if we can find a lender.

In reply to jkarran:


It's politics. Sturgeon is leaning on TM in the most attention-grabbing way possible to achieve one of two ends: a better settlement for Scotland out of the Brexit negotiations or independence. It's win/win for her.

What it ought to do for all of us is soften Brexit as no referendum could come logically before the end of those negotiations.

In reply to jonnie3430:


An independent Scotland that's in the single market would make it much harder for the rest of the UK to stay outside of it. We'd have to implement a hard border, potentially apply tariffs and so on. That prospect might be bad enough that Westminster decide that EEA membership, or something like it, is actually the least worst option. This would also please people who actually thought it was the least worst option if you're going to leave the EU anyway.

On the other hand, there's a whole lot of "ifs" here, and it could be pretty grim for everyone concerned if someone doesn't swerve first.

In reply to jkarran:

Maybe SNP have insight into the rude health of the Euro that others don't ... or maybe they're aiming for a currency tie with rUK?

In reply to jonnie3430:
Jonnie - maybe the reason you fell out with people last time is because of the way you approach the debate? You've already got a pretty hardline stance and are stating opinions as facts.

1. E.G. Spain: No Veto youtube.com/watch?v=XYIMvEvmwSs& yes, probably re-joining, maybe no fast tracks, but no veto.

2. GERS figures. Scotland is not an independent country. GERS is not an annual budgetary breakdown. Please read this and comment on any inaccuracies. http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-six-key-facts-about-gers/ Even if Scotland does have a larger deficit than it would like, there are 2 ways out of this:
a) Austerity. As you know, this is is highly effective and great for equality...
b) by increasing GDP. You do not need to reduce a deficit in real terms, only in percentage to GDP. In times when government bonds are at historically low levels, the best way out of deficit is to spend your way out. Borrow cheap, invest in important things (NHS, Sustainable post-oil economy, education, research) grow the GDP, watch the deficit shrink. https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austeri...

Don't get me wrong, there are some BIG decisions that need made: Currency (I'd favour a new one. Euro is too restrictive, Pound would be madness), Footing the bill for North-Sea decommissioning. The UK have just decided that around 50% of decom costs will be footed by the UK government (basically clawing back tax spent since 2001) - who would foot this will be an interesting debate, the border. Decom is an interesting one as it's both a liability, and an asset - there's a hell of a lot of work to be done which, if GDP is something you really care about (I don't, there's much more important things that indicate the true well-being of a country), is a huge "income" stream as Aberdeen will still be the hub for this.

Let's not make this process more painful than it needs to be. Base arguments on facts (feel free to challenge anything I've said) and we'll all come out the other end more informed having made an honest decision.

In reply to jonnie3430:

I'm not sure why and independent Scotland in the EU, or EEA, couldn't be both Pro-EU and pro free trade with England/rUK?

England, sorry, I mean the UK are constantly stating how "open" they are to trade agreements alla round the world. I think a Scotland/England free trade agreement would be very high on the list of priorities for both.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:


Becuase in the EU you couldn't have a Scotland/rUK agreement, only an EU/rUK agreement.

In reply to jonnie3430:


No idea what the cost would be, maybe the EU could let Scotland in for cheap, just to p1ss on English chips? The benefits are a bit more tabgible - access to ~500,000,000 well stocked wallets being the primary one. If it's worth doing it should be self sustaining anyhow.

In reply to MG:

Fair point. Thank you.

In reply to Loughan:


Last time I was in Germany the Germans looked amazingly happy and prosperous for a country on the verge of economic calamity. Maybe because their currency didn't just drop 20%.

http://www.x-rates.com/graph/?from=GBP&to=EUR&amount=1

In reply to MG:


And realistically there, you'd be needing the rUK to accept something like EEA membership in order to avoid needing a hard border. Which gives you, essentially, a bit of a prisoners dilemma. Both countries being the the EEA is probably better for Scotland than neither, but if the rUK decided to suck it up stay out then Scotland would have serious problems.

I mean, we could also just reset back to when we weren't trying to decide which particular garbage fire we'd prefer to live in. Except that we can't, because will of-the-people.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Because Scotland in the EU gavis English voters with relatives/business interests in Scotland a compelling reason to push Theresa May to go for a soft-Brexit which preserves free movement and the single market.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=USD&view=5Y

What's that all about then?

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

The easiest way to make this process less painful is not to have a 2nd referendum. Unfortunately, the narrow self interest of the SNP prevents that (the only way the party can hold together is another referendum. Sturgeon is struggling to hold together the hardliners who believe everything they read in wings over Scotland would hold one every week, and the pragmatists who understand that in terms of economics this is a very bad time to go for independence, and that they probably only have one more shot. What is now happening is that the pragmatists are looking at the failing education system, the growth figures which consistently show Scotland lagging behind England and coming to realise the sands of political time are running out and that the last shot has to be now. So (much like Cameron, in the interests of party unity) there has to be a referendum the country neither wants not needs.

The blog you link to is distraction spin - seeking to find an excuse to discredit figures which tell a story that goes against the preferred narrative. To take one point. It talks about all countries running deficits, so a £15bn deficit is immaterial. what matters, it says, is the percentage versus GDP. So far so good. But here's what's missing. The EU target is 3%. That's what is needed to joint the EU. The tipping point, the point at which countries can't afford this, is seen as around 6% - look at where the Uk was ta the time of the crash and you can understand the cuts. Greece is now around 9%. And Scotland would start at 12%. With a brand new currency, and (according to you) a desire to borrow above and beyond this deficit to invest.

In reply to Lusk:


It's the wrong chart, no idea how it got switched in the link from the Euro to Pound chart I was looking at.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Which could be pretty useful were our government not just stuck on transmit.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Does anyone remember when Ed Milliband eating a bacon sandwich awkwardly was the worst thing that anyone could imagine happening to the UK?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Given there are 18 other countries using the Euro it might be worth noting their satisfaction with the currency?
I presume you're not comparing Scotland in Europe to Germany so maybe more Finland, Ireland or Denmark?

In reply to PeterM:

I feel exactly the same. Was a no voter, would now vote yes. We have been royally screwed over by rural England and Wales. The whole situation has left me fed up with politics, but feeling like I have no choice but to vote yes (or out, or leave, or whatever the question is!)

In reply to mav:

You might be right that now is a bad time, economically, to hold a referendum. It's also a bad time to sit and do nothing and follow England off the cliff. As someone else has said, she's played a smart card for Scotland - either TM backs down and goes for soft Brexit, which would probably be enough to cancel the referendum, or she doesn't, and we have one.


Where does this come from? First, if this happens it will be a few years from now, so clearly your crystal ball is better than mine. Secondly, yes, Scotland's GDP is growing more slowly than England. However, you do realise that in real terms, the majority of people in the UK are poorer year-on-year (wages going down, while GDP crawls up and inflation is on the increase). GDP growth is not the be-all and end-all.

In reply to Loughan:


As difficult as the current somewhat flawed implementation of the Euro has proved not even Greece has shown much appetite for actually leaving it.
jk

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

England and Wales heading over the cliff if I recall correctly.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

This is where we probably have to agree to differ. My reading of what the UK Govt is going for is that they are aiming for a soft brexit but preparing for a hard one (eg, negotiating new agreements to replace the old, but willing to walk away). The alternative strategy is to ask for a soft brexit, and pay the best price we can get. you will, I'm sure, say I'm wrong. But with a referendum 18-months to 2 years away, we will know for sure by the time it happens. A lot of things can happen in that time. Whatever happens, in economic terms, Scotland's wagon is tied 4 times more closely to rUk's than the EU's.

Where does this come from? First, if this happens it will be a few years from now, so clearly your crystal ball is better than mine. Secondly, yes, Scotland's GDP is growing more slowly than England. However, you do realise that in real terms, the majority of people in the UK are poorer year-on-year (wages going down, while GDP crawls up and inflation is on the increase). GDP growth is not the be-all and end-all.
Ok, fair enough, our deficit is 12% now, but I'm wrong to apply that to 2021 levels (likely year of separation in a Leave vote). But your second sentence is, I think, out-dated. Wages are growing now, so year on year the majority of people are better off (not yet back to pre-crash levels, which may be what you are saying. But the way to fix that is to increase GDP, and pull wages up and shrink the deficit. GDP growth is pretty damn important, as you said earlier. 'Grow the GDP, watch the deficit shrink'

In reply to jkarran:


No - but is that not because leaving will be very painful? - at least according to that nice biker jacketed ex-finance minister.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:


Ach, Ally, do you not see this is exactly what I'm talking about? And for the record, I didn't fall out with them, I didn't even mention it after. I wouldn't describe myself as hardline either, I'm happy to be convinced either way, is just that the SNP haven't managed to do it yet and what I class as pretty fundamental issues haven't been addressed. And if you think it harsh that I want solid facts from the SNP, it's because they want the vote, they need to produce the reasons.

There is an unhealthy undercurrent of English scorn (to put it politely,) in the country, the SNP play to this with Tory and Westminster almost used as insults and I want to be clear that the independence supporters aren't voting based on that.

You've questioned gers results, if there is an alternative that shows the defecit for Scotland I'd be glad to see it. I class that as fundamental to getting my vote. I'd also class some logic to the EU decision for letting Scotland join as fundamental too, and not staying in the economic union we have with our neighbour.

As for misquoting facts, gers is a fact, you say it may not be representative, but it is a fact, just as Spain may say no. I'd like to ban alternative facts from the campaign as much as I'd have liked to the last time around, but they get trotted out by both sides.

As far as borrowing goes, I can't comment on whether I'd borrow it I was a government, but personally I try to limit it as much as possible, and when I am in debt, limit my spending and work hard to pay it off as quickly as possible. It may be naive to expect my country to do this, but personal experience leads my vote.

This is going to be painful, because I am just getting in a position where I want a quiet life and the SNP are asking us to take a huge gamble on the future of our country and my future life for what? Another set of untrustworthy politicians promising great things? It changes my Scottishness not a bit either way.

If the SNP had produced the goods and Scotland was punching above it's weight in education, NHS, business, etc. Then I might have changed my mind already, they haven't, they seem to be one trick ponies and just as untrustworthy as any other politician out there.

In reply to jkarran:

Shrewd move by her, to throw her hat in the ring. It's win win for her. She might be the one who has their name in history and either way she now has months or years of referendum in fighting, to stop people noticing their deficit, or the state of Scottish schools, hospitals etc.. a good decade to bury bad news.

In reply to jkarran:
After Scotland has its referendum can the rest of the UK have a vote about Scottish independence?

In reply to Dorchester:

Did you want the rest of the EU to have a vote on Brexit?

No, I didn't think so.

In reply to jkarran:

Theresa May:



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/mar/13/article-50-commo...

F*cking hypocrite.

In reply to jonnie3430:

I don't think it's at all harsh that you want solid facts from the SNP - so do I, and most people I know.

Re: GERS figures. It's a tricky one, as it's all we have. I am not going to dispute that Scotland is in a difficult economic situation. I'll have to do some more thinking on this one.

Re: borrowing. I'm not an economist, but when someone like the IMF (who are a long way from what anyone would consider socialist) come out and say "austerity was the wrong approach" I take heed. Countries finances are not households budgets. If you spend on a credit card it doesn't "create" wealth. If a government borrows to invest, the money goes into the system, creates jobs & tax receipts. It then has to service the cost of the debt. At the current borrowing rates this is very feasible.

Re: the SNP on education, NHS, business. You have a point. Indyref#1, Brexit etc. have all shifted the focus away. Austerity hasn't helped. I'd like to see them do better. I'm cautious of falling in the "blame Westminster" trap but I really don't think austerity has helped. There will be no NHS in England within 10 years - so far Scotland has kept the bulk of privatisation at bay.

B.T.W. I don't vote SNP! I was green last time and they've done a sterling job of being an effective opposition, pressuring the SNP to protect vital services from cuts. I' have Patrick Harvie as FM any day of the week.

In reply to DougG:
You can't be surprised by this reaction. Repeatedly asking for referendums for independence is a rejection of the union. No different from one partner in a marriage saying 'I'm thinking of getting a divorce', every couple of years to which there is an obvious reply.

In reply to Dorchester:

We could try I suppose but I suspect we might find ourselves in breach of resolution 1514 (XV) of the UN GA. Of more interest: what would be the point?
jk

In reply to jkarran:

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

The IMF continually alters its position. One report says Brexit will trigger recession and a year later IMF says Uk will be fastest growing economy... read of that what you may.

So no doubt there is tucked away in the IMF somebody saying exactly the opposite on austerity

It does not make it easy for anybody!

It would be great if they were right on everything.

Either way I would not be pushing an IMF message out.

In reply to DougG:


If we had voted no to Brexit and two years later asked for a second referendum then yes I'm sure the rest of The EU would be thinking exactly the same thing.

In reply to BnB:

That's what I've been thinking, Sturgeon could be using an Indy Reff possibility as a way of softening Brexit.

In reply to jkarran:

It seems clear that there is a need for a further referendum in Scotland. Not least because 56 SNP ( out of 59 ) MP's were elected on the basis that they would have another referendum if circumstances changed in a material way. That's a clear mandate. Whenever the referendum is held and on whatever terms it's then a matter for Scottish voters. Of course it's up to Westminster to behave responsibly and allow a free and fair referendum. It will be interesting to see how those that defended the union last time around frame their arguments. Leaving now seems like a much safer and less politically toxic option than staying. And ultimately I think more and more of us just want to govern our own country and believe that we'll be able to make a pretty of good job of it. Particularly having our hands on the levers that directly affect economic growth. Something that Westminster has mismanaged and neglected for many years.

In reply to jkarran:

Bit of an unnecessarily strong reaction to the rugby on Saturday I'm guessing...

In reply to alastairmac:

56 snps might have been voted in because they disliked the other candidates, you can not prove it was all about independence.

In reply to jkarran:

Oh...and if we could get a united Ireland at the same time then that would be grand.

In reply to gribble:


Guess if they break away entirely they can win the one nation and the wooden spoon every year.

In reply to neilh:

Again, fair point. I'm just doing what I said I wouldn't do and getting all excited about it! One difference is the austerity comment was a reflection on what has happened, the comments about Brexit were guesswork.

IMF was probably a poor choice for framing my point - but the point still stands. Austerity is not the only path, and the wrong one in my opinion.

In reply to gribble:
This all started after the Film Braveheart, which could hardly be described as historically accurate.

In reply to alastairmac:


You'd just go round in circles. 55 per cent of Scots don't want independence, but support a variety of parties, 45 per cent of Scots want independence and support the same party, so they will always be voted in, but the majority still don't want independence.

To the person who compared it to someone asking for a divorce, please remember that the majority of Scots don't want, and did not want independence. Sturgeon and the SNP don't speak for the majority of Scots.

In reply to alastairmac:

"Leaving now seems like a much safer"

Really? Is the case for leaving now, safer than it was before?

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

I can understand that. The only thing you really need to think about is whether with already declining oil revenues and what appears to be a very large deficit, you would have the financial clout to spend. You have already 4 of your largest companie looking to merge - Standard life/aberdeen asset - Wood/Amec- so the number of companies you have are shrinking before your very eyes.

In reply to jonnie3430:

The majority didn't want independence at the time. I don't think you can state the latter. I'm not refuting it. It might be true, but we won't know until it's asked. Latest opinion polls (trust them as far as you can throw 'em) have it about 50/50.

Jonnie - don't forget there are 6 Green MSPs, who all support independence - in fact, it is only because of them that Nicola Sturgeon knows she has a parliamentary majority.

In reply to neilh:

I think the economic case has to stand up without oil. Anything else is madness - there will be no more oil tax receipts due to decommissioning. There will be plenty of "economic activity" - just not windfall tax form oil sales.

Time will tell if the numbers work out.

In reply to jkarran:
I'd say Nicola Sturgeon is doing a grand job of keeping herself in one of the highest paying jobs in UK politics. Championing her parties main priority to her core supporters. She'd be out if she didn't.

If 'I' was a Scottish voter, I'd rather her focus all of her efforts on education, the police and the Scottish NHS. What happened to leading by example - rather than blaming every problem on somebody else. I guess part of it is down to the fact that no politician seems capable of taking any kind of responsibility for their mistakes (Tory,Labour,SNP,whoever). Quite understandably, with our baying media ready and waiting, like baited sharks to devour any scent of weakness. Shame.

In reply to summo:


They were voted in with about the same number of votes as there were for Yes in the last referendum. I seem to remember the popular vote was for No.

In reply to jonnie3430:

That's not the full picture is it? When campaigning started prior to the last referendum support for independence was at around 30%. It rose to over 46% during the course of the campaign. According to the latest polls the starting point this time is pretty much 50/50 and the momentum arguably is with independence. Objectively I think that an increasing number of Scots will be influenced by the thought of the economic dead end of "Brexit Britain", an increasingly right wing Tory government that will be around for some time. There's also a visibly growing hostility in Westminster to more self determination for Scotland. And it's important to remember that those of us that might choose to vote for independence are not all SNP supporters. Over 30% of Labour voters in Scotland support independence as well as the vast majority of Green Party supporters. For me a complex choice can be simplified.... do we want to choose our own path and make our own decisions like any other country. Or have our decisions made for us by politicians and a government that we didn't vote for and that is increasingly antipathetic to the interests of Scotland.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Yes, but just because a person voted SNP, doesn't mean they voted for independence. Matching or closely matching figures, proves correlation, but not causation unless you interview a reasonable proportion of them.

Does every Tory want Brexit. Does every Labour voter follow corbyn's ideals etc..

In reply to alastairmac:
Contrary to the line 'Scotland isn't listened to' there were enough uncast votes in Scotland to swing the brexit vote. Unfortunately, that vote went against some people as it did in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. People voted to stay in the UK by a bigger margin than those in the UK voted Brexit so what gives?

If Scotland gets another referendum I want another on Brexit in two and a bit years. Viva referenda!

In reply to jonnie3430:

The SNP campaigned last May on the basis of having a referendum if circumstances changed. The example they used was being taken out of the EU when Scotland voted to remain. They remain the largest party at Holyrood and on this issue the Greens support them and create a majority.

I think you have to accept Nicola Sturgeon's right to call a referendum.

I like that as much as I enjoyed the EU referendum result but as in that case there is a democratic mandate.

In reply to alastairmac:

Arguably? The vast majority of polls say no: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence

Economic dead end? For some reason Britain is doing better post brexit vote than before: https://ig.ft.com/sites/numbers/economies/uk

Can you show the link for the Labour and green supporters? I couldn't find any evidence.

Also I'm a bit confused why you didn't vote in the last general election? Or feel that you didn't vote? And if it's because the party you voted for didn't get in, then surely I feel the same way about the current Scottish government because they weren't the party I voted for?

In reply to rogerwebb:

I think sturgeon put that out there so they could get another referendum and got lucky.

I hope the referendum isn't fifty fifty, and something like sixty forty, so it's a clear majority and there's no potential to leave half the country with something they don't want.

In reply to jonnie3430:


Agreed.

There's enough bitterness already, I am really not looking forward to this.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Sounds like a crock of shit to me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095210/Alex-...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I am curious as to why you think EU, or for that matter any non British citizens should get a vote.

A vote on nationality should surely be confined to those whose nationality is liable to change?

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
So what is the economic case? What are you going to do with RBS for example?

In reply to jonnie3430:


Of course it is 'doing better' than before *when you measure things in pounds* because the pound is worth a lot less. If you did the measurements in Euro or US Dollars the numbers would look like crap.

The UK could have got exactly the same effect by doing something far less drastic than leaving the EU to cause a devaluation of the pound - like printing a bunch of money and spending it on something useful.

In reply to jkarran:

This time can England and Wales have a vote on whether they want Ms Sturgeon et al. to remain as part of the UK?

If Scotland leaves they can have the Bank of Scotland back and the Euro. That should be enough of a deterrent.

P.S. Heard the one about Ms Sturgeon wanting the England / Scotland game re-played – as she didn’t like the result?

To the OP, there’s a unified Ireland now? Must have missed that news story.

In reply to jkarran:

As much as I'm devastated that we voted to leave the EU, I will not be voting to leave the UK. As a famous poster on here said during the last Scottish referendum debate, all nationalists need a bogeyman. Sturgeon and her SNP supporters are clearly making the posh Westminster tory party their bogeyman and I see first hand a rise of anti-English sentiment even from people you wouldn't expect it. You only have to look to Europe to see the rise of the far right to see this "lets find a bogeyman" in action. 5 years ago in Scotland there was no real great sense of division, now there is. I know who I blame for this.

On another point, the SNP better be campaigning for full EU membership if they force another referendum on us on the premise that is why we are having one.

In reply to jonnie3430:

If you feel positive about how the UK economy will do following what promises to be a dismal Brexit settlement then I admire your optimism. The Greens policy in Scotland is to pursue independence and the numbers on Labour supporters are from the latest IM poll.

As for democracy and representation the current government have one MP in Scotland. That's not a mandate for government in a nation of five million people. We have a long history of being ignored, exploited and undermined by politicians and parties that Scotland flatly rejected. You might disagree but many of us want our children and grandchildren to grow up in a country that makes its own decisions. The UK is not a country it's a political construct that requires the consent of those that are governed. Let's see if that consent exists.

In reply to coachio:
I'm English, if I were Scottish I would not vote to leave for a number of reasons;
Nicola Sturgeon I think is brutally ambitious and with this has totally lost sight of what is best for the country. I'm not sure what her real end game is in her proposal for a second referendum. I think she is playing a dangerous game. I think she is hoping to negotiate around Brexit arrangements.
I don't think Scotland will prosper economically, in fact I think independence would be a financial disaster given the subsidies it currently gets.
I think despite what ms Sturgeon says Scotland would lose the Pound and the monarchy.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


There would be no requirement for the rUK to implement a hard border and apply taffifs, etc, that responsibility -- and the cost -- would be on Scotland. The rUK could simply say we want to trade border-free and tariff free with Scotland (just as we want to do with the EU). So this would not put any pressure on the rUK to join EEA, though what it does to Scotland is unclear.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

And when Scotland joins Schengen, as it must as a new EU member, do the foreign hordes suddenly become acceptable again to Brexiters?

In reply to rogerwebb:


Could someone answer this question rather than just disliking it?

I am actually interested in the answer.

In reply to alastairmac:


But they did get 15 per cent of the vote. The SNP only got 50 per cent, but won 56 seats, so you can see how messed up the system is, democratically speaking and how they aren't representative of the Scottish people. Democratically, the SNP should have about 30 seats and there would be better representation of the Scottish people, the tories would have about 9.

In reply to rogerwebb:
I guess bit depends how far you take it? Can I have a household referendum and declare independence? If not, you have to decide down to what level referendums can be called. The boundary seems to be right at constituent at parts of sovereign states - some think they can, some don't.

In reply to rogerwebb:
Maybe they are more likely to vote yes?

Same with the 16 year old vote too. (I disagreed with that, of they are old enough to vote responsibly, they can drink, drive and smoke too.)

In reply to rogerwebb:
That's just the Scottish electoral roll, possibly the same across the whole UK - includes EU citizens for everything except westminster.

That seems to be the case, see below.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-el...

In reply to rogerwebb:

A little rude to be demanding others explain why they feel one way, without explaining why you feel a different way, no?

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
I think you will find I already have;

'A vote on nationality should surely be confined to those whose nationality is liable to change?'

I am however open to persuasion, hence the question.

I do like to know why people think the way they do and simple dislikes to a question take one no further and seem rude to me. (no problem with dislikes to statements though!).

If I was a little precipitate in asking for a reply, I apologise.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Their nationality would only change once Scotland became independently recognised and then that person applied for Scottish citizenship. So presumably any person in Scotland now, plus anyone with a Scottish ancestry as far back as grand parents ( if they took a similar rule as Ireland)

In reply to summo:


The previous white paper on independence made a change of citizenship automatic for all British citizens living in Scotland.

In reply to rogerwebb:

So if I said something like "surely a vote that will affect how a country is run and interacts with other countries should be open to the people that live there?" would that be explaining why?

In reply to rogerwebb:


It can't have - country A can't remove nationality bestowed by country B!

In reply to rogerwebb:


So all eu nationals are not eligible at all? Even people might have spent almost their entire lives there but were born elsewhere? Or the pensioner who crossed the border to his retirement home in Berwick etc... sounds like some far right nationalist policy.

In reply to MG:

Chapter 3, part 7, White paper for independence

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Not really, it is a superficially attractive argument but still leaves the conundrum that person A has a vote upon the rights and status of person B without person A's rights and status being affected.

What would your residency qualification be?

In reply to rogerwebb:

I think it was established in the last referendum that all those that choose to live, work and pay tax in Scotland should qualify to vote regardless of their nationality or country of origin. It would be wrong and unfair to bar somebody from voting because they had moved to Scotland from another country in the UK or another country elsewhere. Something that's particularly important in Scotland as we seek to attract people from all over the world that want to settle here.

In reply to rogerwebb:



7,3
...Doesn't say anything about *changing* citizenship...

"We plan that British citizens habitually resident296 in Scotland on independence will be considered Scottish citizens. This will include British citizens who hold dual citizenship with another country. Scottish born British citizens currently living outside of Scotland will also be considered Scottish citizens. "

In reply to MG:


' will be considered Scottish citizens'

That is pretty unequivocal

In reply to alastairmac:


Well put, I think I am persuaded but see my answer to Sebastian Dangerfield for the doubts that linger on.

In reply to rogerwebb:

That is an additional citizenship, not removing another. Huge, huge difference.

Edit: Even adding a citizenship to some one is pretty presumptuous - there are all sorts of implications regarding tax and possibly national service etc.

In reply to rogerwebb:

I think that in the case of independence all those that wanted to retain their British citizenship could do so, or apply for Scottish citizenship. Just as many nationals from non UK countries vote in Scotland but keep their primary nationality. I would hope that there will be an opportunity to have dual citizenship given all the generational ties and the vast number of cross border relationships. If it's done in the right spirit then I'm sure most of the practical questions raised by independence could be resolved sensibly if not easily. And make sure that all of the UK countries stayed as friends, allies and trading partners. Anything else would be crazy.

In reply to MG:


I think we will have to disagree on the interpretation of that. I don't think it was the Scottish Government's intention to set up a country where 100% of citizens would have dual nationality and neither would it have been wise whichever side of the fence you were on before independence.

In reply to rogerwebb:
It not really a question of agreeing - you are just objectively wrong. They wouldn't have had the power to strip people of citizenship of other states. In the case of UScitizenship, for example, it costs £2000 and requires a statement signed by a US official. They could, like India, have insisted on Scottish citizenship requiring other nationalities to have been rounounced, but that seems improbable and certainly not in the white paper,

In reply to alastairmac:


I hope that you are right.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Because we are all EU citizens in Scotland, as citizens they get to vote in referendums and elections. Scotland rejected this Brexit crap.

I'm sure whether EU citizens get to vote will be a huge issue. The Tories are bound to try and push the referendum until after Brexit and use that to change the rules on who can vote. We might see EU citizens in other parts of the UK registering to vote in Scotland to push things the other way. With only a few percent in it the EU votes could swing things.

My prediction is it is going to be a lot nastier this time round because nobody can afford to lose. Its going to be a choice between becoming a modern European republic or going with David Davis' Tory pensioner utopia of Empire 2.0, royals, imperial measurements and most likely bringing back national service and hanging.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I like the first paragraph!

In reply to rogerwebb:

You miss my point. I was simply putting the opposite position in the same form that you had put yours, to demonstrate you hadn't explained why EU citizens shouldn't get a vote anymore than others had explained why they should. That is to say, hardly at all.

In reply to MG:



No one has suggested that they would have the power to strip people of citizenship of other states. It is (was) an issue of what happens to UK citizens on the break up of the UK.

Do you to know what happened to the British citizenship of inhabitants of the Irish Republic upon independence? (I don't but it would settle the point)

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

fair point!

In reply to rogerwebb:


The UK would be another state.

.Do you to know what happened to the British citizenship of inhabitants of the Irish Republic upon independence? (I don't but it would settle the point)

They kept it (although things rather different then with "British subjects" still existing)

In reply to jkarran:

It's OK. The union is safe. Boris Johnson has announced that he wants us all to pay for a Royal Yacht Britannia Mk II. I think he intends to fit it out as a gunboat and send it up the Clyde to subdue us.

In reply to alastairmac:
Once upon a time you could have built it on the Clyde, what chance now?

In reply to MG:


looks like I'm wrong then!

(twice in a night)

Remarkable frenzy today, the best of the lot being from stoltenberg saying an independent Scotland would have to apply to join NATO...

Well Mr Stoltenberg, please arrange for your f'ing trident nuke submarines to be picked up from the firth of Clyde, pronto! And don't let the door slam their toxic arses on the way out!

In reply to baron: actually, civilian shipbuilding is making a come back on the lower Clyde thanks to one of Scotland richest men

In reply to Erik B:

Ohhh touchy touchy. I think you will need to toughen up a bit. There's a lot more disappointing news heading your way and if this little snippet gets your hackles raised how will you cope when your told you can't have Sterling, or a joint armed forces or the EU tells you to piss off...again.... and that your subsidy / Barnett formula has come to an end. But never mind. Blaming the English and Westminster will make everything so much better.

In reply to Erik B:

I'm not sure Nato membership would even be necessary.... the protection is there by default due to being attached to the uk mainland.

More of a worry would be the loss of jobs from the closure of the base, supply chains etc I'm not sure how quickly that could be replaced.

There are many areas of the uk that could do with those jobs.... ex-steel areas for example.

The boost Portsmouth is getting from the new carrier being stationed there is quite noticeable throughout the area

In reply to Gone for good: it doesn't raise my hackles at all, I find it hilarious how the UK state machine just shoots from the hip and kick starts the media frenzy with the same old shite.

Scotland would have to apply to join to nato! That's actually a compelling reason for independence! And just shows their complete disdain for a country that has played a pivotal role in NATO from the start.

Total fannies

In reply to balmybaldwin: the plan is to make faslane a naval base, for a Scottish navy, with even more jobs.

As an aside, It's a pretty moronic argument that a few hundred jobs is a compelling reason to keep nuclear subs and a nuclear weapons storage facility 30 miles from Scotland biggest city/conurbation

In reply to Erik B:


few hundred? thousands more like - it's not just the naval staff... it's all the specialist support and usual comunity based services that depend on the demand that goes with them

If Scotland builds a navy then great it can negate these losses, but it seems its unlikely to be nuclear given Scottish sentiment so at least some of the specialist roles and support will go elsewhere.

I'm not that sure what an independent Scottish nation's armed forces would look like as in many ways I can't see how they're really required other than in a coastal defence, anti smuggling & search and rescue capacity - therefore I'm not sure it would be top of the shopping list

Not saying it can't work but it requires a lot of talking and money first.

I guess it's the same choice as Brexit (although with a bit more uncertainty on both sides.)

On one hand we have for an independent scotland:
More Direct democracy/ability to set laws/set immigration policy (for open this time)
Firmly held belief that as an independent country all will be good with the economy, except perhaps for a minor bump after the immediate split. (this is purely belief...there is no way to know what will happen in the future for good or bad, and additionally there is no history of this state to look at to compare)
Oil
A reasonably held belief that Scotland can join the EU as a independent country and benefit from and suffer from every thing that goes with it (and follow the yes EU vote in Scotland)
Finally breaking away from English oppression

For the Union:
Common Strength (Military and economic) with a proven track history (If not ideal - but a very uncertain/risky future)
Follow the UK and bring power back from Brussels (just not to Scotland) and benefit from everything that Brexit brings (for good or bad)
Standing side by side with our Beloved English Allies

Who knows what''s going to happen. We have an Orangutan in the Whitehouse, a NF favourite for the first round in France, Some bonkers bloke in the Netherlands, Turkey Calling Netherlands Nazis, Diplomatic spat between N. Korea and Malaysia, S.Korea ejecting their leader. I'm currently expecting a vote of "sod this we're joining a (sort-of)unified Ireland"

In reply to jkarran:

Classic example by Ms Sturgeon of; "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

In reply to Trevers:

When I heard May spouting that garbage that was my thoughts exactly.

An as an Englishman, I hope the Scots get their referendum and wave a not so fond adieu to the UK. Hopefully, I can use my paternal grandparents ethnic origins to gain a new nationality, especially if the French kick me out of their country.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Did you mean to write this? You want people from outside Scotland to come and vote to win it for you? What's wrong with just listening to the majority of Scots?

It's really disturbing that you want to win even if the majority disagrees with you.

In reply to baron:


Why did you get a like for that? Anyone​ going to partick on the train sees the new destroyers/frigates getting built in the yard there.

In reply to balmybaldwin: so youre still suggesting the protection of a small number of specialist jobs is a reason to keep the nuclear subs and weapons at faslane which is 30 miles from Scotlands largest concentration of people?

I absolutely love the sound of the Scottish navy you mention - coastal (and fisheries) defence, anti smuggling and search & rescue - sounds perfect to me

In reply to Erik B:


And you still think proximity of the base to Glasgow relevant?

In reply to jkarran:

It's nice to see we can just pick this up where we left it off last time, acrimony, dogma, division and questionable economic arguments. Guess that's just the nature of the beast.

In reply to jkarran:

I'm telling you already there is zero chance this referendum will happen any time soon, and certainly not before brexit.

In reply to jonnie3430:
Indeed, but you won't be building ships for the Royal Navy when you're independent.

In reply to MG:


yes, and I also dont want them in Scotland full stop

In reply to baron: ill be glad to see the back of the Royal Navy work, nothing but a political pawn used by successive westminster governments which has decimated the clyde

there is more to shipbuilding than the Royal Navy!

In reply to RomTheBear:

I have to agree. Nor, being dispassionate, is there any logic in calling one before the Brexit negotiations are concluded if we are to avoid facing another binary question prejudging a nuanced outcome.

Sturgeon on the other hand seeks to profit from the Brexit uncertainty by forcing an early referendum. In that event, it would be much easier for her to prey on fears of the outcome of Brexit and counteract the original Project Fear. Once our deal with the EU is concluded there may not even be a case for Indyref2 (we might still have market access and UK citizens a degree of free movement). At the very least it would be a battle between uncertainty and a new reality. We'll all have had plenty of the former to cope with by then.

I don't see how the pressure for a second vote can be ignored in perpetuity but it would be a miscalculation on a level with Cameron's disastrous decision to grant the SNP the opportunity of one while the UK is in the dark over Brexit. Will TM repeat his mistakes?

In reply to BnB: everyone keeps forgetting that the Scottish people voted for another referendum, its not a 'sturgeon' or 'SNP' decision, the scottish government have merely announced when it will happen. If anything 'sturgeon' has delayed it more than she should have, but I guess she is trying to please everyone.

In reply to Erik B:

Do you actually believe that Sturgeon isn't playing politics? I'm reasonably sympathetic to the independence cause, but I don't see how Scotland's (as opposed to the SNP's) interests are furthered by holding a referendum before Brexit can be defined. Wouldn't you personally prefer to understand what you are choosing between?

In fact let's not beat about the bush. Sturgeon knows full well a competent opponent will deny a referendum until Brexit is safely behind us. She's counting on that so that the campaign can kick off with "Scots denied their reasonable request by heartless Westminster toffs" before the referendum is even timetabled. No doubt we'll hear this a thousand times while the UK government is distracted by Brexit negotiations. Will the SNP tend to their own obligations of government over the same period? I wonder.

In reply to BnB:

The argument is something along the lines of if a Scottish referendum happens before we leave the EU there is a chance that Scotland could negotiate continued membership from within the EU under similar terms to the ones we currently enjoy. Negotiating from outside and your into adopting the Euro and a whole load of other issues currently being sidestepped. Whether you believe that position is another matter.

In reply to BnB:

I learnt this morning that when the last referendum was agreed, all the Scottish parties supported it. Also that in the current Scottish Green party ( which has 6 MSP's) in their manifesto) they will only support a referendum if they can collect a 1million person pettion to support it.

So imho the SNP needs to tidy things up in Scotland first and gain support across all parties.

In reply to GrahamD:

It's an argument that rUK should actively acquiesce in facilitating an outcome that a significant majority of Scots recently rejected in the only poll that can be trusted.

I'm aware that in another poll an even larger pool of Scots proclaimed their support for EU membership. And for that reason a second referendum might be justified. But, if Brexit has taught us anything, let the people vote between two relative "knowns".

In reply to RomTheBear:


I don't think Sturgeon can afford to let Westminster dictate the timetable. If she does that she will lose and she can't afford to lose two of them. It needs to be before Brexit so the EU citizens in Scotland get to vote and there is a chance of continuous membership of the EU. If Westminster tries to stall Sturgeon should go ahead unilaterally on the schedule that suits her. A Yes from a referendum not approved by Westminster would be a better outcome for independence in the medium to long term than a No from an approved one.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Voting before all the facts are known?


Dreaming, that idea has never even been hinted or supported by the eu. Doesn't mean SNP supporters won't believe it though, they will hear what they want to.

In reply to baron:


Building ships specifically for the Royal Navy doesn't make sense as a business in the medium term anyway. Every generation the technology gets more complex and the number of units the Royal Navy buys gets smaller. The future is a consortium designing and building a class of ship and selling to multiple countries so as to get a market large enough to justify the R&D expense.

In reply to summo:


When do you ever vote on anything after all the facts are known.


Different parts of the EU have said different things, the parliament has been noticeably pro-Scotland. The UK press only quotes the statements it likes and is already dredging up statements from 2014 by people no longer in office as if putting in Article 50 made no difference. Last time keeping Scotland in the UK was in the EU's interest, this time it's not.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I agree with you on one point, an indyref before brexit happens and once the terms are negotiated is the best timing for Scottish people.

However this is just NOT going to happen.
You can forget as well the idea of a referendum not approved by westminster, the Scottish government just doesn't have the legal power to hold one, and even if they decided to hold one staffed by volunteers, as they have done in cataluna, it would have no more legitimacy than a biased opinion poll.

The reality of it is that Scotland is ruled by a much more powerful foreign power, and the only way they'll get out of it is if the UK government is kind enough to give it the opportunity. And they won't.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And the support from the other Scottish parties, where does that fit in. Just remember they all supported it last time.

You need consensus across your political parties.

Sturgeon's worse move could be to totally go it alone.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Many have complained about Brexit being a leap into the unknown, Scottish independence has even more unknowns, the SNP supporters seem to be ignoring them.



As far as i recall no nation or commissioner said Scotland could step direct from the UK into eu membership. Countries like Spain will veto it as it fuels their Catalan problem.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


If its that simple why have they not done that already? Can Scotland be competitive with 'commodity' ships against SE Asian countries?

In reply to summo:


I think EU membership is not necessarily on the cards here.
The SNP could well put furawrd the idea that they'll seek to keep freedom of movement and the single market with a view to rejoin the EU.
In essence they would be negotiating a soft brexit instead of leaving it to the uk government to negotiate a hard brexit.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It's nothing to do with business- its a security issue.

In reply to RomTheBear:

But we won't know what brexit we have until we've negotiated, that's why it's strange to have a referendum on the middle of the negotiations...

In reply to RomTheBear:


The reality is that Scotland are a fully represented part of a bigger union which currently takes precedent over their national parliament.

In reply to jonnie3430:


As far as I understand the timetable is to have it at the end of the negotiations.

In reply to GrahamD:

True, but the critical point is that Scotland cannot leave this union without the permission of the UK government.

In reply to neilh:


It's got nothing to do with security, military aircraft are built by consortia for multiple countries, it's still BAe, Lockheed Martin etc getting the work. Ships will go the same way for the same reasons. The UK is clinging to the past and using shipbuilding to pay off political bribes but the economics make no sense. We'd get more ships and better ships for our money if we let an industry consortium define a spec they could sell to several countries and then bought off the shelf.

In reply to summo:


The SNP Supporters? You mean, the majority of the Scottish electorate? If the Scots don't want a referendum, as Westminster insists, then repeatedly voting in a party whose raison d'etre is Scottish Independence is a strange way to express that preference.

In reply to RomTheBear:


If countries couldn't get independence from London without permission Theresa May would be running the United States.

In reply to jkarran:

If a majority of democratically elected MSP's vote to trigger a referendum then it would be undemocratic to take measures to prevent that. Ultimately, the choice of whether or not to stay in the current political union must be a decision for Scottish voters alone. If a Westminster government rejected by Scottish voters stands in the way of a vote then it will trigger a constitutional crisis and demonstrate more clearly than anything else that the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK is based on exploitation and inequality. The First Minister is doing what we elected her to do.... look after our interests and respond to a government that is arrogant, deluded and completely without a mandate in Scotland. I suspect this "car crash" of a right wing government will also have to fight a strong move for a United Ireland at the same time. I hope that a mature and democratic approach by all those involved will characterise what appears to me to be an inevitable realignment of the political map of the UK.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Whilst I understand your busines logic, in defense/security logic ( giving away your hard eared knowledge)never comes into it.How you build a naval ship is quite a skill you do not give away- its why the Chinese had to buy a clapped out aircraft carrier- to figure it out.

In reply to alastairmac:
Its a minority SNP govt.

So when you say a majority of democratically elected MSP's- who do you mean- Greens, Labour, Liberal and Tories as well?

The others can gang up and outvote the SNP as long as they all agree.SNP 63 MSP's, all the others 66.

In reply to neilh:

SNP appear to have the backing of the Greens on this issue so their minority matters not a jot, the numbers stack up for now at least.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

In my opinion "The will of the people" can no longer be considered as being the driving force within the context of representative democracy in central government, especially when those who are elected to do the representing clearly are no longer acting in the interests of those who are supposed to be represented. Ten seconds of democracy in the polling booth moves quickly and inexorably towards the will of the moneyed elite from that point on, and stays there in various forms of austerity until there's another election on the horizon.

It isn't really surprising then, that such abdication of accountability and responsibility by politicians towards the electorate results in subsequent electoral and referendum outcomes that feel like collective forms of madness and stupidity - when really it is probably more like an attempt to wrest back regional (and personal) control from the bloated, self-serving coerciveness of central government.

Despite the deficit, an Independent Scotland would get my support, if only to send a strong message to those who cynically bend and shape 'democracy' to suit their own ends, that the entire parliamentary process is in dire need of change.

In reply to jkarran:

As long as the greens have 1 million signatures in support....do you know if that is the case?

In reply to neilh:


Surely that's a piece of cake? Just put it on t'internet and let the Nats sign away. No one said they all had to be Greens!!

In reply to AllanMac:

So where's all the money coming from to get rid of austerity after independence?

In reply to BnB:

Fair point .

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

An idiotic answer to a very astute point.
Sturgeon may have fired the starting pistol but May will decide when the race reaches the finish line. The indyref is in the control of the UK Government, not it's devolved assembly.

In reply to jkarran:
I wonder if we'll see a revival of the Tartan Army?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12628984.Fringe_terror_with_a_tartan_tin...

(I had to poke about as Google searching doesn't produce the history I'd hoped for)

In reply to RomTheBear:


So, no-one really has a clue when it might happen.

In reply to Gone for good:

Technically it is, but politically speaking as far as shaping the sentiment of people living in Scotland goes, it could go against what May wants to happen if she doesn't agree to any kind of time table set out by Sturgeon, possibly something along the lines of 'They're taking us out of the EU, and now they're saying when we can start to control our future'.

Remembering Alex Salmond looking happy at the Brexit result, it's possible that things could be different this time around, too, with the prospect of Scotland not being taken out of the EU against it's will being a reason for people to vote for Scottish independence, not forgetting the Indy voters who also voted Leave.

Looking at how effectively (and easily) sentiment was shaped by Vote Leave, I personally wouldn't be surprised if Indy Reff 2 has a different result. Immigration was used by Vote Leave to good effect, but the amount of change which results because of the economic needs we still have for it, it might leave some feeling disappointed.

Time will tell I guess.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Planning a revolutionary war?

More seriously, if Scots can't accept that unless you leave you're a region of the UK, just like every other region, and not entitled to superior status, then it might be better for everyone if Scotland left. This includes all those who voted SNP and voted to stay in the UK - you're doing harm to the UK by voting for them, whether you want to stay in or not. Sturgeon (who is the head of a regional government, and should get no more say in national issues than Bristol's mayor) has announced this now to damage the UK, and if it's a choice of Scotland staying in and this sort of stuff carrying on or Scotland leaving I'd rather the latter.

In reply to tony:


We know when the deadline will be. Two years after art 50 is triggered.

In reply to thomasadixon:
But Scotland has a long history as another country, you can't compare Sturgeon to the mayor of Bristol.

I'm part Scottish, Irish and English, so I'm probably a unionist as far as the UK staying together goes, I like how it generally works and that we're a mongrel race.

I instinctively support the underdog, and the idea of the Kashir region and the Kurds having independence from other people shaping their futures, but I'd like the UK to stay together.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Well unless you want a war of independence, the only realistic way to get independence is to get the permission from the uk government to organise a binding referendum.
And of course they have no interest on giving one.

In reply to Timmd:


Yes, you can, they're both regions of the UK, even if one is smaller than another. They chose to be a region of the UK (just like England, Wales, etc, are) a long time ago. Either accept with that, or go. We're not a federal country and never have been.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No, we don't know that. There's a two year period, and then there may be further negotiations beyond that. Given that no-one (other than idiots like Gove, Johnson and Fox) imagine the negotiations will be concluded within two years, no-one knows how long exit negotiations may take. And then beyond that, no-one knows how long trade negotiations may take.
Trying to pretend there's any certainty with any of this is daft.

In reply to Gone for good:


Sturgeon isn't going to let May control the schedule.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/nicola-sturgeon/scotlands-referendum-must-be...

In reply to neilh:

The SNP and Green Party have a majority and both actively support independence for Scotland. Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems will work together again but won't be able to outvote the measure. I think it is likely that the First Minister and Patrick Harvie have discussed how their MSP's will vote.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Calling Scotland a region is ill informed at best. Scotland is a millennium old nation that joined a union with England. The UK isn't a country but a political compact. Scotland on the other hand is very much a nation. Trying to belittle the status of Scotland does little to promote the union and frankly it's that kind of attitude that underlines the fact that this union may very well have had its day.

In reply to alastairmac:
Of course both England and Scotland are regions. They may (or may not) be countries too, but one doesn't preclude the other. Region is just a geographic terms than can be something smaller to much larger than a country.

In reply to alastairmac:

Also Scotland isn't a nation (the Scots might be).

In reply to alastairmac:
I think you might have hit the nail on the head.
The UK is an outdated idea that, while it might survive, should only do so if all its countries wish to remain.
Let Scotland vote.

In reply to alastairmac:
Calling Scotland a region of the UK is simply accurate, currently. It was an independent country hundreds of years ago, it's not been for a long time. I'm never sure why some people take it as some sort of insult. Is calling England a region of the UK an insult to the English? They/we don't seem to take it as one.

In reply to tony:

Of course no, the negotiations will Be quite limited in two years, and Britain will crash out of the EU on anything that couldn't be negotiated during the two years window.

And that is exactly why Scotland should decide where to go before that happens. Bit as I said before there is no way on earth they'll ever get it.

My advice to all Scots : expatriate yourselves in another EU country whilst you still can.

In reply to alastairmac:


Over 300 years ago (and sharing a monarchy for longer still) ! that's a lot longer established than most European borders. Since then we have been Great Britain.

I blame the Braveheart re-runs.

In reply to GrahamD:

It strikes me that anybody not wanting the UK to break up, might do well to not raise the hackles of anybody on here who has a say in the matter by likening Sturgeon to the mayor of Bristol and calling Scotland a region.

In reply to MG:


That might be the case. But Brexit, Trump, and no doubt more over the next two years shows people that tipping up the apple cart and taking brazen risks isn't something to be feared. When others around you are storming off in to the unknown, doing it yourself seems less scary.

In reply to Timmd:

Quite right. The mayor of Bristol may be effective and try and govern.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Sturgeon is,figuratively speaking, a little fish in a big pond and needs put in her place. She may flex her vocal chords but someone will wrestle her into submission regarding timing.

In reply to GrahamD:

'And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days - from this day, to that - for one chance, just one chance ... '

Okay, maybe not just one chance.

Funnily enough I can still quote this whole speech word for word.

In reply to thomasadixon:

That's probably because England is the biggest part of the UK, because it's in charge if you like, which means the English can't have any reason to feel talked down to?

If I was from a country with a long history, which had been part of a union of countries for a small part of it, I'd possibly bridle at my country being called a region too?

In reply to Gone for good:

They won't (quite so easily) be able to do the same to the population of Scotland though, to do with what they think (and feel) about how Sturgeon is responded to by West Minster, and influencing how she frames what happens as part of her case of Scotland leaving the UK, and that's what will matter in the end, what people in Scotland feel about what takes place. As far as Scotland goes she's arguably a big fish. If West Minster forces Sturgeon to follow timing that is different to what she wants, it's easier for her to argue for independence for Scotland, to argue a case of self determination on the world stage, and for Scotland to be a global country away from the ties of the UK, in the end pretty much what Vote Leave said about leaving the EU perhaps.

In reply to alastairmac:

Last time all the parties supported the referendum. Is there the same support this time?

In reply to jkarran:
i'm Scottish, and i'll come out as a yes in indyref and a remain in brexit

however, while I've not changed my mind on either issue i'd like to see a few things being clarified BEFORE another referendum on both issues.

1) no vote for anyone over 70 (no offense, but what happens to the country (UK or Scotland) after your gone is none of your business. i know... this sounds harsh... but this isn't a 5 year plan)

2) can we have a clear majority before the vote is accepted as "the will of the people" please?
i'd like to see (for example) 2/3 of the eligible population (not 55% of the 85% who did vote)

In reply to Timmd:


I'd say a region would be like 'the north', as in the North of England. Within the North are the various counties of Yorkshire, which have roughly the same population as Scotland (many more Olympic champions though ).

So in a relative sense where does that leave Scotland? In electoral terms with proportional representation it is over represented in Westminster. Scotland does better in terms of political clout than anywhere in England. That's before you even consider the Barnet formula where it has more money per capita than England too. I really don't grasp why the SNP are so focused on complaining rather than the task of governing its population.

In reply to summo:
You'd have to ask them.

I almost see Indy Reff 2 being vaguely like 'groundhog day' or 'Brexit number 2', with national pride and emotion being used a lot in the build up to voting, as well as logic and reasoned debate too. I reckon people voting in favour of Scotland leaving have a patriotic desire for it to leave which may be similar to that of Leave voters, for the UK to be in charge of it's own boarders, and laws and trading relations etc, but for Scotland now after it voting to stay in the EU and seemingly not being able to. If the 'project fear' term could be used during our referendum, for reasons to stay, I dare say it may be during Sotland's too to do with reasons to stay in the UK. Interesting times.

I think I've just gone and vaguely worried myself. Oh well, it's not up to me.

In reply to GrahamD:

I think it's generally a good idea to respect the right of people to self identify as belonging to a nation or a culture. I don't want to speak for others but personally I have never considered myself to be British. Only Scottish. And when you have to force "Britishness" on an increasingly reluctant population I think you may have already lost the argument. Particularly when "Britishness" now seems to be evolving into something unrecognisable. I sense that if you read between the lines what some Westminster politicians and the London based media really want to say to Scottish voters is "you should know your place and do as you're told". But that arrogance and lack of respect for Scotland and its right to self determination will ultimately be counter productive. So...fill you boots as you might say!

In reply to alastairmac:

More than happy to off load the £45 billion of UK tax payers liabilities onto you for RBS of 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, EH2 2YB.

When can you start?

In reply to neilh:

That's what we need....a mature and non adversarial approach to dealing with a sensitive and complex situation!

In reply to Timmd:
So what your saying is the SNP can call all the shots whilst everybody else stands in meek submission. Politics dont work like that though Tim as I'm sure you are well aware. Westminster holds executive power over the component parts of the UK and so ultimately decide if and when the indyref goes ahead. The SNP can decry the decision on timing as much as they want but it is not in their power no matter the threats and ultimatums. Many Scots see through her bluster anyway and it is far from a foregone conclusion that independence will win the day.

In reply to summo:

You've just hit the nail on the head. Holyrood can't govern at the moment because many of the meaningful powers it should have are reserved to Westminster. Specifically but not exclusively, the levers required to direct and generate economic growth and fund key public services. If Westminster had been grown up enough to devolve everything to Holyrood other than foreign policy, monetary policy and defence then the current political situation might be very different. I think that was what was understood by the promises made in the run up to the 2014 referendum....which of course have been broken or forgotten. And as for comparing Scotland to Yorkshire.....what can I say.....

In reply to alastairmac:


Well quite but not what was displayed last time by the bullying threatening and violent attitude of many SNP supporters against anyone who dated raise an objection against independence. I don't see it getting more civilised this time round.

In reply to alastairmac:

Unfortunately RBS is a big issue in the scheme of things and it is best to make it lighthearted!!! But the point still stands. In your plans what are you going to do about this ?where does it fit in? Or are you going to say it's not our problem?

In reply to Timmd:


Isn't that part of the issue in the UK these days in that we have gone down the lines of Us and them? and don't think of the UK as just all of us. We seem to have forgotten that The British Government and Westminster as a whole is not about England or Scotland etc. it is made up of constituency MPs. When you vote at the General Election you are not voting for who to represent Scotland or England or Wales you are voting for an MP to represent and fight for the best deal for their little part of the country. A constituency in Aberdeen is represented just as much as a constituency in Manchester.

In reply to Gone for good:


It is in their power to bolster support for another indyref and independence, which is what Sturgeon is attempting to do. As I said higher up, if it becomes clear independence is the popular choice in Scotland, it will happen (big IF though).

In reply to Gone for good:

the problem i personally have with this statement is that you don't recognize that BOTH sides of the debate last time round used this kind of behavior.

i agree it needs to be more civilized but i also recognize that's unlikely... even the winning side in brexit calling people "remoaners" is indicative of lack of empathy to other peoples view points.

In reply to neilh:

RBS was not a Scottish issue. It was an international bank and plc. I think it's reasonable to assume that when political unions come to an end then hopefully fair agreements are reached on the division of assets and liabilities. There are precedents. It's in the interests of all those involved to engage with that process in a positive way.

In reply to Gone for good:

What utter nonsense. The last referendum was a model of civic democracy working. The level of engagement was unprecedented. The scale of violence and bullying reached an apex when an egg was thrown? Show me another country anywhere that has held a referendum on such a significant matter with so little discord. I wish I could say the same for the Brexit debate which helped to create an atmosphere that caused real violence and a massive upswing in racially motivated incidents. Cancel your subscription to the Daily Mail.

In reply to alastairmac:

Plenty of edging of bets there.....

You would be better waiting until its liabilities are off loaded back into the market, then its a clean sheet for your economy.

Less of a hot potato.

In reply to alastairmac:


Don't be silly. Of course it's a Scottish bank. It had it's company headquarters right outside of Edinburgh. It might be international in its business dealings but it's a Scottish bank as much as Deutche bank is German or BNP Paribas is French. Even Fred the shred was Scottish as were roughly half of the board members at the time.

In reply to Gone for good:

It was a plc for goodness sake. Where it is based is irrelevant. It was owned by a complex cocktail of shareholders to whom the Directors were responsible, paid taxes to HM Treasury and is currently owned in part at least by HM Govt.

In reply to alastairmac:

You need to remove your SNP tinted sunglasses.
There was violence and threatening and intimidating behaviour a plenty. You delude yourself by denying as much.

I see your insults have started already tame as they may be.

In reply to alastairmac:


Yes with its elaborate headquarters, it's senior management team and it's decision and policy making taking place in Edinburgh. Why you are in denial I don't know. Embarrassment maybe?
It's like saying Manchester United aren't an English football club because they are a PLC owned by a cocktail of ....blah blah blah

In reply to Gone for good:

I have no allegiance to the SNP. I don't know if you live in Scotland but quite a few of us are open to the idea of self determination and are actually members of other political parties...or are unaffiliated. I didn't see or hear of any political violence reported during the 2014 referendum or the run up to it. Can you perhaps provide us with some specific examples or evidence? Either of violence or intimidating behaviour? If not it's a pretty nasty accusation to be flinging around.

In reply to Timmd:


Sturgeon has deliberately chosen a a window for the referendum that is impossible for the rUK both on account of the demands of a yet to be concluded Brexit and because its imminence would prevent rUK from demonstrating the benefits of our eventual deal with the EU. Her intention is that rUK's inevitable rebuttal can be framed exactly like that of the Brussels apparatchiks who repeatedly "thwarted the UK's sovereignty". It's a nakedly obvious move (if also a good one) and the question is how many people see her pursuing a strategy of provocation as opposed to the number who perceive her as an nation builder.

In reply to alastairmac:

I can't copy and paste for some reason but read the press reports around about the 15th 17th September 2014. Start with the Huffington Post on the 17th then the STV news reports.
Admittedly both sides were engaged in acts of threats and intimidation but the Nats were particularly agitated towards the press so much so that the NUJ came out calling for the hostility and intimidation towards its members to end.

In reply to jkarran:

And this just now from Laura Kuenssberg:

"Do a deal behind closed doors: This isn't the official position and no one on either side would acknowledge such a thing. But there are whispers that this has already happened. The theory goes that the UK government has accepted the inevitable and will allow the referendum to go ahead, but only on the basis that the agreement to do so includes a "sunrise clause" - so Nicola Sturgeon wins the right to hold the vote but in law, can't do so until the UK has left the EU."

In reply to BnB:

Sounds sensible. That way May can always rein in the Hardliners within the exiters to soften their stance..., otherwise they will lose Scotland. Ticks everybody's boxes.

deals done in smoke filled rooms springs to mind

In reply to neilh:


Exactly.

In reply to Gone for good:

Not exactly.


What I'm saying is, that though it's a far from foregone conclusion, it would be very handy for the SNP to be able to link being taken out of the EU together with 'They won't let us decide when to have our own referendum', as a way of making their case. It's probably true that voting Remain and losing has coloured my outlook, but it might be what May is alluding to about playing politics, and the need to keep the UK together?

People thought Farage and UKIP were full of bluster and a bit of a joke too.

Edit: Making that kind of fuss is what I'd do in Sturgeon's position.

In reply to BnB:
Her intention is that rUK's inevitable rebuttal can be framed exactly like that of the Brussels apparatchiks who repeatedly "thwarted the UK's sovereignty".

With the important difference that the U.K. was always a sovereign country, this is not the case of Scotland.


No, it's the only rational move.
The best time to have a referendum for Scotland is before the UK exits, but after the term of the "deal" (let's have a little laugh here) are clearer.

Of course this is the worst time for rUK (England ?), so it won't happen during that timeframe anyway, and we all knew it, I've said so for the past year.

In fact I would be very surprised if one is ever granted at all, it will be kicked in the long grass ad vitam eternam, and that'll be it. if the SNP becomes too much of an annoyance they can always tear up the Scotland act and make the Scottish parliament meaningless or scrap it altogether. Easy.

In reply to alastairmac:


despite the Barnet formula being overly generous, the UK treasury agreeing to cover the Scottish benefits Bill for a few extra years and Holyrood is still running a deficit, so maybe it's a good thing the treasury has some control. How will it work if Scotland was truly independent now?

In reply to alastairmac

What can you say?

In reply to summo:

The deficit you refer to is based on GERS figures produced by the UK treasury. They ignore the debt placed on the Scottish economy for things Scotland neither wants nor needs. Essentially infrastructure, tax advantages for the funders of the current government and defence. It also ignored the "dead hand" of Westminster with reference to the levers required to stimulate and fund the Scottish economy. And the Barnett Formula doesn't even scratch the surface of the £400bn absorbed by Westminster from Scotland's energy sector since the early 1970's. Even a passing acquaintance with the modern economy of Scotland would convince you that is diversified, focused and well positioned to grow.

In reply to alastairmac:

No point bleating about the 70s. Right now Holyrood knows what money it will have coming in, but it has over spent. Dress it up how you like, but Scotland is currently being funded by the UK treasury more per capita than anywhere in England or Wales. Only NI has a better treasury deal.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Incomparable.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Well it's just silly. Scotland is a 1,000 year old nation with its own institutions, legal infrastructure, education system, culture and language. The Scottish enlightenment led practical, scientific and philosophical thought across significant parts of the world for centuries. Our influence has, for better or worse, touched every part of the globe. And you won't find any part of that globe where Scotland is not recognised as a nation. Each and every English region has its own distinctive and unique strengths but they are not nations. To suggest otherwise is just being mischievous.

In reply to alastairmac:
Yorkshire has a history of similar duration, it has its own institutions, education system, culture and language. It's influence has been felt all over the world - for better. It's population is larger than Scotlands, it's GDP bigger. Within the current U.K. Political settlement its less well represented than Scotland and less well supported.

I don't think it's a silly comparison. Rather an interesting one.

In reply to alastairmac:


Yorkshire from 300ad (after Romans left) until 700/800 was split into two independent kingdoms. After the Vikings it all became the kingdom of jorvik, extending beyond into Northumbria and a little further south and west. Independent but under Danish rule of sovereignty and their laws. So not unlike Scotland being a country, but also in the UK.

Scotland's position or history isn't so unique or special.

In reply to summo:

That is just wrong and based on politically influenced and selective HM treasury data. Things will be tough for Scotland following independence. But not half as tough as they'll be in an isolationist and austerity driven UK that puts Scottish interests behind those areas that vote for the Tory party. And the lesson from the 1970's for Scotland is still an important one to learn. When our pockets are full they'll be emptied and spent on things other than the long term prosperity of the Scottish people, as long as we don't own and control those assets.

In reply to summo:

This is just getting far too surreal for me. Over and out from Planet Earth to Planet Brexit.

In reply to alastairmac:

The concept of nations isn't really a millennium old, so of course people have lived in geographic Scotland for much longer, but not as a nation in anything close to the modern sense.

In reply to alastairmac:


Of course any data that is negative must be wrong and data that supports indref2 is correct.

It's only going to get tougher for any country in the West in the next half century, it is simply a question of what you blame it on that differs.

In reply to alastairmac:


Perhaps; but you need realise that much of England has a history and a separate identity too. Prior to the house of plantagenet in the 1100s, england was really separate nations and had been that way for a very long time.

In reply to alastairmac:

The population of Scotland in 2015 was 5.3 million. The total amount given to Scotland from Westminster was £12,800 per head, totalling £67.8 billion. The total total tac receipt was £41.17 billion. Is Scotland gets its independence and you loose the money from Westminster how will you make up the shortfall? For a start free university tuition fees will end for Scottish and EU citizens. Scotland will have to raise taxes.

In reply to icnoble: not everything in life can simply be reduced to money. Perhaps national pride as well? Scotland is ruled by a parliament in Westminster it has little to zero influence on, by a ruling party that has little to zero interest in Scotland unless the oil price goes up. They may as well be governed by autocrats in Brussels.

Or doesn't that argument work any more?

In reply to wbo:


But Scotland will be bankrupt.

In reply to icnoble:

Scotland will be a bit of pickle but mostly because of it's borrowing costs being higher than the UK's, and oil receipts being low. Both of which are fairly uncertain (not that they will be higher and that they will be low - how much higher and how low). Proportional tax receipts to spending wise I don' think Scotland's particularly bad - they spend more and take more tax.

In the long run, small countries tend to do a bit better. No reason I can see why Scotland should be that different. If we stayed in the EU, which I expect we would, we'd probably do quite well out of it.

All very uncertain, and a big short term risk which could affect a lot of lives.

In reply to Timmd:


I don't like Alan M's post is the answer - we are UK citizens, the English as a group have no democratic voice and largely don't want one, we're happy with being part of that 'we' and having national decisions taken on that basis. Some Scots aren't, a minority as the referendum showed, but a large vocal one and one referendum was never going to be enough for them (they'll keep going til they get the 'right' result if they can).


Like England? Things change, Scotland's just not an independent country, those who get upset at having this pointed out aren't going to change their mind. Accepting their narrative isn't something we should do out of politeness, and there's no insult and no rejection of Scotland's history in noting reality.

In reply to wbo:

Doesn't work. Scotland has the same representation in the UK government as anywhere else in the UK. 15% of Scots voted for the ruling party. Blair and brown were both Scottish.

With the uncertainty to come it makes far more sense to be part of a solid, established country than starting from the beginning with nothing.

An independent Scotland will be a risk for lenders, which means the cost of borrowing will be higher than it is for the UK. We'd have to set up the governance for a country in Scotland, instead of it being shared throughout the UK, which will cost a lot, right at the time we need to be pumping as much into our economy as possible.

The right time for independence for Scotland is when we have a booming economy and one of the best educated populations. I don't think we're there yet, and until we are, they are what needs focused on.

Business knows this though, hence why one of the major donors to the SNP is a lottery winner.

I'm British (born and brought up on the island of Britain,) Scottish (born and brought up in Scotland,) and European, that can't change, it's geographic.

I really think a lot of this is trouble caused by politicians out for their own ends, sturgeon has chosen a really awkward moment for this referendum, not just for the UK (incl Scotland,) trying to conduct a delicate negotiation, but for the Scots too, as there will be so much uncertainty facts will be few on the ground, never a good decision making position.

No idea what romthebear is on about advising Scots to get EU citizenship though...

In reply to thomasadixon: thats because the UK parliament is effectively the english parliament , so theres no need for an independence movement. Recent Evenes have shown that when the english are not the biggest boy in the playground you go home

To icnoble : no they won't. Read my last post

In reply to wbo:


The UK parliament could function much better if Labour got its act together. And the lib dems.

The other oddity, is sturgeon wants her name in history so much, the elected SNP MP who is also the senior Scottish representative in Westminister never gets heard, never gets media time. 99% won't even know their name.

If sturgeon focused on doing her elected job of running Scotland and leaving her elected Westminister MPs to represent Scotland in london, then Scotland might be more influential overall.

In reply to summo:

That is why the SNP chairs all the HoC committees on Scotland? Its a Westminster recognition of their voice.

BNot sure your argument really stands upto scrutiny.Angus Robertson is often quoted.

In reply to jkarran:

Could the wheels are falling off the SNP's wagon already?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/snp-offers-abandon-independence-referendum-005000...

Perhaps Sturgeon is taking the Galtieri approach to distract from her domestic performance as her approval ratings nose dive from this 2 years ago
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13211668.Poll_shows_Sturgeon_is_now_the_...
to this 6 months ago
https://reaction.life/nicola-sturgeon-popular-ruth-davidson/
to this 3 days ago
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/top-tories-prove-popular-with-older-voters-as...

In reply to alastairmac:

GERS is produced by statisticians and economists in the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government's Chief Statistician takes responsibility for it.


GERS also includes the costs of things that Scots get, that people in the rest of the UK don't get, mostly with regard to health, social care and education.

Simply dismissing numbers because you don't like them isn't very helpful. As has been said, both sides last time were irresponsible in their use and abuse of numbers. I'm fed up with hearing blank assertions with little basis in fact from both sides, and the lies and half-truths from both sides do nothing to help anyone reach an informed understanding.

In reply to rallymania:


Re 1. No chance, this is just the same as saying that people that disagree with you can't vote. I'd like to deny under 25s a vote due to their lack of life experience and expected emotional vote, but it's not going to happen.

Re 2. The vote is to leave the UK, so as long as 2/3rds vote to leave I think that fine, I don't think it fair that 2/3 need to vote to stay in.

From sturgeon's latest, we'll probably just end up with whatever the SNP think is most likely to let them win.

In reply to rallymania:
1) no vote for anyone over 70 (no offense, but what happens to the country (UK or Scotland) after your gone is none of your business. i know... this sounds harsh... but this isn't a 5 year plan)
>
Nobody under the age of 30 can understand this issues properly and frankly most people are not educated sufficiently to make a sound judgement. This is a serious long term issue so voting should be restricted to people between the age of 30 and 70 with a university education in a sensible subject (ie.excluding "surfing studies" etc).

In reply to rallymania:

even Andrew Marr on "Start the week" gratuitously referred to "Remoaners" without any reason and without any balancing insult to the BreakShitters. The BBC is propagating casual unbalanced repetition of the "R" word without justification or challenge, even its own presenters

In reply to summo:


If May would focus on competently managing the public services rather than f*cking about with Brexit we'd all be a lot better off.

Scotland is never going to be influential in London. I was watching Sadiq Khan on the Marr show a few weeks ago and he was on about all the meetings he had to push London's interests with government. He was meeting with senior ministers and senior shadow ministers several times a week and the people he met with were generally supportive and constructive towards projects for London. That's because all those decision makers live in London, they have a personal knowledge of and interest in the city where they live and they can meet with someone whose office is a mile away for an hour without any problem. Nicola Sturgeon needs to spend an entire working day for a couple of hours meetings in London and the decision makers are unfamiliar with Scotland and have no personal benefit or interest in spending money in Scotland. She has b*gger all access to senior Tory ministers or Labour shadow ministers: labour hate her even more than the Tories. As long as the big decisions are made in London by people who live in London they will be made for the benefit of London and many of them will be completely wrong for Scotland which has a very different set of problems and opportunities to London.

In reply to tony:

Try reading Richard Murphy on tax and the economy in Scotland. He explains in understandable terms that the statistics you refer to are unreliable because much of the data for Scotland is unobtainable. The statistics are based on estimates from the Treasury and and are therefore open to misinterpretation, bias and political influence. Something that is widely accepted in Scotland by independent economists and increasingly by internationally recognised economists like Murphy. But obviously not by the London based mainstream media who most certainly have clearly stated interest in influencing opinion in this matter. There is no doubt that like the rest of the UK ( particularly since David David apparently hasn't even done the desk work on what no deal would mean for the UK) Scotland would find the early years of independence challenging. But like other small and well equipped national economies in Europe then there is every reason to think we would thrive. Even after decades of neglect by Westminster. At the end of the day whether you like it or not Scotland is a nation being governed by another nation that doesn't have its best interests at heart. That's unhealthy and unsustainable in my opinion.

In reply to alastairmac:


That's a lie or 'alternative truth,' in mine. Scotland is quite clearly governed by a representative government of the UK. Two of the last four prime minister's have been Scottish as well.

In reply to alastairmac:


I'm sure it's true that some of the figures are open to interpretation. But we have a Scottish Budget, prepared by Derek Mackay, so we know what the Scottish Government plans to spend. We also know that Scottish social provision is more generous than that south of the Border, so it would seem fair that this needs to be paid for somehow. Doubtless some savings would come from reduced defence spending for example, but I haven't seen this quantified.


This is the same tiresome 'blame someone else' we've had for years. It's past boring. One of the major weaknesses of the last IndyRef campaign from the SNP was the inability to engage in a meaningful way with the economic challenges. I hope this time round they manage something more convincing than 'a big boy done it and ran away' and crossing all fingers and toes.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Well he is representing the London population, what else would talk about? Using PR Scotland is currently over represented in Westminister.


That's because she is devisive, good at blowing up bridges, couldn't build one on time & to budget if she tried.


The same can be said for the rest of England too. But how far do you devolve politics out? Scotland or Edinburgh has far more say and control over their part of the UK than say Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool etc.. But that's democracy, the elected representatives have to meet somewhere and the capital city seems a logical location.

I bet many on the outer isles say the same about Scottish politics only benefiting the voters in Edinburgh and Glasgow?

In reply to summo:


From what I see out the car window when I go to Ratho the Scottish Government aren't that bad at building bridges:

http://www.forth-bridges.co.uk/queensferry-crossing.html

In reply to pec:

to this 3 days ago https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/top-tories-prove-popular-with-older-voters-as...

I'm willing to believe that Sturgeon has become less popular, but I don't think a poll of pensioners is necessarily representative of public opinion as a whole...

In reply to jkarran:

While the economic arguments that have dominated this thread are important, as has been widely pointed out reliable figures are not available meaning that both sides can manipulate them to their heart's content - something that we've already seen with the Brexit referendum.

The other side of the coin is that Scotland is a very different place politically from the rest of the UK. I see a government in Westminster with incompetent and divided opposition, embracing policies that lead it ever closer to our neighbours across the Atlantic, rather than those across the channel.

Scotland, on the other hand, is the home of the progressive left, where there is a desire for key socialist policies such as free education and healthcare. Whether Scotland can actually afford these things is another matter, but it doesn't change the fact that Scottish identity is fundamentally different from the rest of the UK, and surely that, and not accountancy, is what Independence is about?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Would appear only one part of the consortium building it are Scottish(although galliford is technically a ftse250 company registered on an evil London exchange), is that who she works for?

Let's hope the project fairs better than building Holyrood(yes I know you blame labour), the trams or her dabbling in prestwick.

Ps you have to admit she is dire at making allies ?; )

In reply to planetmarshall:

The figures are reliable, that's not questioned, what the SNP are questioning is whether they are representative. Again, the SNP would be expected to provide representative figures to justify their cause if they are unhappy with gers.

I also don't believe Scottish politics or identity is different to the rest of the UK, the SNP haven't settled down enough to deliver a performance that can be judged in comparison to other parties in the UK. Though they do promise a lot and, as yet, have failed to deliver. Sturgeon's performance on education hasn't shown here justification in setting her performance benchmark on it.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Whilst many things are free for the end user in Scotland, they aren't free overall, somebody is paying for them somewhere.

The question would be is the English user paying for their education, then through taxation and the Barnet formula also paying towards Scotlands?

In reply to planetmarshall:

"Scotland, on the other hand, is the home of the progressive left, where there is a desire for key socialist policies such as free education...."

Not if you're an English student who doesn't have Scottish or Irish connections

In reply to planetmarshall:

>... Scotland is a very different place politically from the rest of the UK. ... Scotland, on the other hand, is the home of the progressive left, where there is a desire for key socialist policies such as free education and healthcare. Whether Scotland can actually afford these things is another matter...

We all want free education and healthcare, and many other things as well, but we can't have everything - sooner or later you have to pay the piper.
I seem to remember that we used to have a "Socialist Republic of Sheffield" where a council spent money that it principally obtained from the UK kitty - they were rather left wing as well.

There's a history in this country of left wing councils or governments spending more than their income for a period, followed by right wing councils/governments reining in the spending and paying the bills - we then repeat.
What we have had in Scotland has been a left wing "government" for some time that hasn't had to answer to the electorate for the fact that they have been spending far more than their income, and whenever any cutbacks have occurred they have always blamed the "Mr Nasty" in Westminster.
If Scotland had to balance its own books I respectfully suggest that the situation would be quite different.