Scotland: Unilateral Declaration of Independence

[veravista]

Still the once in a generation shite I see. And I quote...

Mr Salmond’s foreword to the government’s independence White Paper in 2013 read: “The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”

Not really a binding policy document.

[Zelot]

At the time of the original Indy Ref I was a "remainer" because I felt that there were too many unanswered questions about currency etc. Since then of course we have had Brexit and the continuing sh.t-storm that is Westminster under the Conservatives which has just made the case for self determination stronger.

Now I feel that we would be better off leaving the rUK and joining the EU in some capacity, but then we have the whole border issue with England to consider. Although looking at the arrangements in Northern Ireland would lead you to believe that it will be fudged and fudged and fudged.

[TopBadger]

At the time of the original Indy Ref I was a "remainer" because I felt that there were too many unanswered questions about currency etc. Since then of course we have had Brexit and the continuing sh.t-storm that is Westminster under the Conservatives which has just made the case for self determination stronger.

Now I feel that we would be better off leaving the rUK and joining the EU in some capacity, but then we have the whole border issue with England to consider. Although looking at the arrangements in Northern Ireland would lead you to believe that it will be fudged and fudged and fudged.

Having gone through the Brexit fudge I can't see the EU repeating that by agreeing to Scotland joining without a border in place. Indeed they may insist it is in place before membership is granted.

I think those that vote to leave the UK should be prepared for at least 10 years as a 3rd party country to both rUK and the EU.

[IvanV]

At the time of the original Indy Ref I was a "remainer" because I felt that there were too many unanswered questions about currency etc. Since then of course we have had Brexit and the continuing sh.t-storm that is Westminster under the Conservatives which has just made the case for self determination stronger.

Now I feel that we would be better off leaving the rUK and joining the EU in some capacity, but then we have the whole border issue with England to consider. Although looking at the arrangements in Northern Ireland would lead you to believe that it will be fudged and fudged and fudged.

Do you really think that a temporary factor, such as having a really horrible government in charge in the UK just now, is a good reason to leave the UK?

It worries me that such temporary factors would have a large effect on the outcome of a vote.

Is this a reason Sturgeon wants a vote right now, before a less toxic UK government might be voted in?

[dyqik]

At the time of the original Indy Ref I was a "remainer" because I felt that there were too many unanswered questions about currency etc. Since then of course we have had Brexit and the continuing sh.t-storm that is Westminster under the Conservatives which has just made the case for self determination stronger.

Now I feel that we would be better off leaving the rUK and joining the EU in some capacity, but then we have the whole border issue with England to consider. Although looking at the arrangements in Northern Ireland would lead you to believe that it will be fudged and fudged and fudged.

Do you really think that a temporary factor, such as having a really horrible government in charge in the UK just now, is a good reason to leave the UK?

Brexit isn't a temporary factor, nor are the effects of the past 12 years of Tory rule and the decades long power of the far right press and emphasis on London's financial markets.

[discovolante]

At the time of the original Indy Ref I was a "remainer" because I felt that there were too many unanswered questions about currency etc. Since then of course we have had Brexit and the continuing sh.t-storm that is Westminster under the Conservatives which has just made the case for self determination stronger.

Now I feel that we would be better off leaving the rUK and joining the EU in some capacity, but then we have the whole border issue with England to consider. Although looking at the arrangements in Northern Ireland would lead you to believe that it will be fudged and fudged and fudged.

Do you really think that a temporary factor, such as having a really horrible government in charge in the UK just now, is a good reason to leave the UK?

It worries me that such temporary factors would have a large effect on the outcome of a vote.

Is this a reason Sturgeon wants a vote right now, before a less toxic UK government might be voted in?

I think that is a good reason for a supermajority and it worried me as well. I suppose the sad thing is that in general, English politics diverges from Scottish politics regardless of who is in power, on immigration and welfare for example (or at least, that's the case with the SNP in power, and they keep getting voted in).

I don't really trust the SNP that much as a party. But they have openly stated values that are much more closely aligned to mine than either of the other major political parties have done for a long time. And those values often relate to reserved matters, particularly immigration for example. Of course its easy to do that when you cant be held responsible for those policies, but its also not really fair to assume theyd throw them all out of the window if they did gain control. So I don’t think it's that straightforward.

[Gfamily]

Do you really think that a temporary factor, such as having a really horrible government in charge in the UK just now, is a good reason to leave the UK?

It worries me that such temporary factors would have a large effect on the outcome of a vote.

Is this a reason Sturgeon wants a vote right now, before a less toxic UK government might be voted in?

One of the more significant (in my view) arguments in the original indyref discussion was that an indy Scotland would probably have to lose its membership of the EU (ETA - at least for a while) and that would be a significant drag on its economy.

I don't know how much of that was a deciding factor in the indyref outcome, but it's certainly true that Scotland did not vote to leave the EU.

With the outcome of the Brexit vote forcing Scotland out of the EU against the expressed will of the Scottish people, I can see that the claim by the Westminster govt that 'it was a generational vote' is a spurious claim to avoid the Westminster govt's responsibility for f.cking up the union.

[Zelot]

At the time of the original Indy Ref I was a "remainer" because I felt that there were too many unanswered questions about currency etc. Since then of course we have had Brexit and the continuing sh.t-storm that is Westminster under the Conservatives which has just made the case for self determination stronger.

Now I feel that we would be better off leaving the rUK and joining the EU in some capacity, but then we have the whole border issue with England to consider. Although looking at the arrangements in Northern Ireland would lead you to believe that it will be fudged and fudged and fudged.

Do you really think that a temporary factor, such as having a really horrible government in charge in the UK just now, is a good reason to leave the UK?

It worries me that such temporary factors would have a large effect on the outcome of a vote.

Is this a reason Sturgeon wants a vote right now, before a less toxic UK government might be voted in?

It was more the Brexit shambles that anything else. It's changed the whole landscape for me. We are not in the same position in the world as we were when the original indy ref was run. I think if the SNP explicitly go on an "independence and joining the EU" ticket in some form or other that will tempt a lot of people.

Having said all that, my wife hates Sturgeon and would never vote SNP, so balances me out.

[plodder]

I’d imagine Scotland would negotiate a new deal with the EU before formally pulling the plug on England.

People who think it’s hasty to see the medium term of UK politics as dominated by free market interests focussed on London and right wing policies need their heads examined.

Finally, although brexit has been a shambles, it’s also been a useful learning curve for all sorts of people.

I don’t see many sensible reasons why Scotland wouldn’t be able to make a decent fist of it as an independent country and I can’t understand why England thinks it can or should stop them.

[sTeamTraen]

I’d imagine Scotland would negotiate a new deal with the EU before formally pulling the plug on England.

I think it's reasonable for potential voters to ask whether an independent Scotland would commit to adopting the Euro as its currency. My understanding is that all new EU member states are required to make a good-faith commitment to do so (as opposed to those that obtained opt-outs 20 or so years ago).

Personally I would like to see an independent Scotland, if one came about, in the EU and using the Euro, and also in Schengen (Ireland might well be united by then, and presumably a firm-ish border at Hadrian's Wall would not have the implications of the NI/Ireland border). But it seems that a good chunk of the Yes vote is contingent (or at least, the pro-independence people seem to think it is) on either keeping the GBP, or adopting a Scottish variant that would presumably be closely tied to Sterling. The unionists understand that the Euro is, for some reason, a bogeyperson, even though Ireland seems to be doing just fine. A truly confident programme for independence would say "Yes, EU, Euro, Schengen, the works".

[plodder]

I’d imagine Scotland would negotiate a new deal with the EU before formally pulling the plug on England.

I think it's reasonable for potential voters to ask whether an independent Scotland would commit to adopting the Euro as its currency. My understanding is that all new EU member states are required to make a good-faith commitment to do so (as opposed to those that obtained opt-outs 20 or so years ago).

Personally I would like to see an independent Scotland, if one came about, in the EU and using the Euro, and also in Schengen (Ireland might well be united by then, and presumably a firm-ish border at Hadrian's Wall would not have the implications of the NI/Ireland border). But it seems that a good chunk of the Yes vote is contingent (or at least, the pro-independence people seem to think it is) on either keeping the GBP, or adopting a Scottish variant that would presumably be closely tied to Sterling. The unionists understand that the Euro is, for some reason, a bogeyperson, even though Ireland seems to be doing just fine. A truly confident programme for independence would say "Yes, EU, Euro, Schengen, the works".

Nah, truly confident is to say "we'll get independence, then we'll call an election, and Scottish parties can canvass on whatever approach they think is best (Euro vs pound, hard vs soft Skegzit etc) and we'll play it by ear

[dyqik]

Steamy, you do know that the border isn't anywhere near Hadrian's Wall, right?

[Grumble]

Steamy, you do know that the border isn't anywhere near Hadrian's Wall, right?

It’s quite close on the left hand side, near Carlisle.

[Millennie Al]

Nah, truly confident is to say "we'll get independence, then we'll call an election, and Scottish parties can canvass on whatever approach they think is best (Euro vs pound, hard vs soft Skegzit etc) and we'll play it by ear

I hope the electorate would not be twice fooled by that approach.

[plodder]

Nah, truly confident is to say "we'll get independence, then we'll call an election, and Scottish parties can canvass on whatever approach they think is best (Euro vs pound, hard vs soft Skegzit etc) and we'll play it by ear

I hope the electorate would not be twice fooled by that approach.

twice?

[EACLucifer]

Nah, truly confident is to say "we'll get independence, then we'll call an election, and Scottish parties can canvass on whatever approach they think is best (Euro vs pound, hard vs soft Skegzit etc) and we'll play it by ear

I hope the electorate would not be twice fooled by that approach.

twice?

A vote based on (empty) promises that things would be sorted out after the fact was exactly how Brexit went.

And Sturgeon knows the EU position - knows that EU membership won't be remotely easy, or really on the table at all unless a referendum is done properly and with the consent of the national government - it's just too easy for politicians in her position to promise what isn't available in the knowledge that most people won't realise until it's too late. Just like Brexit.

[plodder]

Oh I see, you haven’t read and / or understood my posts. Thanks for your thoughts.

To clarify: the referendum could be held on the specifics “we will become a self governing nation” and the details will be left up to democracy. Brexit was the opposite, with the detail very much part of the debate about whether we should leave. In the end it does eventually boil down to manifestos and elections, no?

[discovolante]

So, section 30 is primary legislation that was passed through proper parliamentary procedure, fair enough to that extent (although actually I'm ignorant about the debates that took place then about what exactly should be reserved and devolved and so on, or what was discussed during the preceding referendum, a massive gap i know). But the question being discussed here seems to be dancing around the issue of whether Westminster knows what's better for Scotland than the Scottish government does. It's totally fair to have reservations about how an independence referendum should be held, and perhaps even to question whether most of Scotland wants one, but that's not the same thing as saying the Westminster government is better placed to decide that than Scotland is.

[EACLucifer]

Oh I see, you haven’t read and / or understood my posts.

Or I've thought about the implications of what you suggest which you clearly haven't.

To clarify: the referendum could be held on the specifics “we will become a self governing nation” and the details will be left up to democracy.

And yet an example you gave (euro vs pound) would be utterly moot in a UDI scenario, as in that scenario, Scotland wouldn't have any remotely realistic hope of joining the EU or adopting the Euro. Smugly declaring "Oh, just do X then Y", or "Just do X then choose between Y and Z" when doing X makes Y impossible isn't as clever as you think it is.

[EACLucifer]

So, section 30 is primary legislation that was passed through proper parliamentary procedure, fair enough to that extent (although actually I'm ignorant about the debates that took place then about what exactly should be reserved and devolved and so on, or what was discussed during the preceding referendum, a massive gap i know). But the question being discussed here seems to be dancing around the issue of whether Westminster knows what's better for Scotland than the Scottish government does. It's totally fair to have reservations about how an independence referendum should be held, and perhaps even to question whether most of Scotland wants one, but that's not the same thing as saying the Westminster government is better placed to decide that than Scotland is.

The obvious counterpoint is that Scotland had an independence referendum quite recently and the nationalists lost. Now they want another one, and presumably if they lose that one, they'll want another and another until however narrowly one goes their way, at which point of course they will declare the settled will of the people means there can be no going back.

They want, in effect, to utterly disregard the results of the previous referendum, which ought to have been regarded as settling the matter for some time.

And of course they particularly want one now, as having an exceptionally unpopular national government would shift opinion in their favour - but whether it would still do that after a general election is another matter entirely.

[plodder]

Oh I see, you haven’t read and / or understood my posts.

Or I've thought about the implications of what you suggest which you clearly haven't.

To clarify: the referendum could be held on the specifics “we will become a self governing nation” and the details will be left up to democracy.

And yet an example you gave (euro vs pound) would be utterly moot in a UDI scenario, as in that scenario, Scotland wouldn't have any remotely realistic hope of joining the EU or adopting the Euro. Smugly declaring "Oh, just do X then Y", or "Just do X then choose between Y and Z" when doing X makes Y impossible isn't as clever as you think it is.

Can you take the “smugly” and “isn’t as clever as you think it is” stuff out of your conversations on here please?

[plodder]

So, section 30 is primary legislation that was passed through proper parliamentary procedure, fair enough to that extent (although actually I'm ignorant about the debates that took place then about what exactly should be reserved and devolved and so on, or what was discussed during the preceding referendum, a massive gap i know). But the question being discussed here seems to be dancing around the issue of whether Westminster knows what's better for Scotland than the Scottish government does. It's totally fair to have reservations about how an independence referendum should be held, and perhaps even to question whether most of Scotland wants one, but that's not the same thing as saying the Westminster government is better placed to decide that than Scotland is.

And this is the crux of it. It’s a fundamental debate about what Westminster is for (and whether people want to keep it that way). Current position is clearly that the Scots are trapped in the union.

[discovolante]

So, section 30 is primary legislation that was passed through proper parliamentary procedure, fair enough to that extent (although actually I'm ignorant about the debates that took place then about what exactly should be reserved and devolved and so on, or what was discussed during the preceding referendum, a massive gap i know). But the question being discussed here seems to be dancing around the issue of whether Westminster knows what's better for Scotland than the Scottish government does. It's totally fair to have reservations about how an independence referendum should be held, and perhaps even to question whether most of Scotland wants one, but that's not the same thing as saying the Westminster government is better placed to decide that than Scotland is.

The obvious counterpoint is that Scotland had an independence referendum quite recently and the nationalists lost. Now they want another one, and presumably if they lose that one, they'll want another and another until however narrowly one goes their way, at which point of course they will declare the settled will of the people means there can be no going back.

They want, in effect, to utterly disregard the results of the previous referendum, which ought to have been regarded as settling the matter for some time.

And of course they particularly want one now, as having an exceptionally unpopular national government would shift opinion in their favour - but whether it would still do that after a general election is another matter entirely.

And why is it up to the Westminster government to decide how many referendums is too many (I'm ignoring Brexit here by the way which is the biggie as far as I'm concerned)? Normally if a government does something the electorate doesn't like, the answer is to vote them out at the next election*.


*Obviously we currently live in times where democracy of that kind is quite fragile, but although there is plenty to criticise the Scottish political parties for, I'm not sure that those issues can be extended to the way Scotland governs itself just yet.

[plodder]

And why is it up to the Westminster government to decide how many referendums is too many (I'm ignoring Brexit here by the way which is the biggie as far as I'm concerned)? Normally if a government does something the electorate doesn't like, the answer is to vote them out at the next election*.

I think it's something to do with Kings and Queens and Catholics. It's certainly a good enough reason for any sensible person, I know that much.

[IvanV]

Personally I would like to see an independent Scotland, if one came about, in the EU and using the Euro, and also in Schengen (Ireland might well be united by then, and presumably a firm-ish border at Hadrian's Wall would not have the implications of the NI/Ireland border). But it seems that a good chunk of the Yes vote is contingent (or at least, the pro-independence people seem to think it is) on either keeping the GBP, or adopting a Scottish variant that would presumably be closely tied to Sterling. The unionists understand that the Euro is, for some reason, a bogeyperson, even though Ireland seems to be doing just fine. A truly confident programme for independence would say "Yes, EU, Euro, Schengen, the works".

The Euro seems to work fine for small members of the EU, or at least OK in comparison to trying to run your own currency as a small country that can be buffeted by markets. The limit of "small" seems to be about 5 million population. Denmark, which is about 5 million, but very well off, is the edge case.

The specific case of Scotland, which is so integrated into the UK economy, is perhaps different.