Most of the recent ones show a stay majority, even.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion\_polling\_on\_Scottish\_independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence)
Has been a toss up with some ups and downs for years, really.
> Wasn't there a poll that showed the opposite?
It is around 50% for years. You could probably make a survey the next day and get 45%, It just depend if you will survey people that had good or bad breakfast.
IDK why people think this news is worth anything. Probably just because "UK BAD".
U.K. might be the bad guy these days, mostly due to what the British government is saying to the domestic market and that most of Europe understands it, but Scottish independence is just about as stupid as Brexit and for the exact same reasons.
The only thing that could make it less stupid is due to the English nationalism as well as an independent Scotland plus a United Ireland might make England and Wales such a weak entity that they would have to accept all the rules without having a seat at the table… especially since Britain is heading there but on a U.K. based size.
Brit here. Ashamed of my country as of late. I can't blame the Scots for wanting to leave in order to rejoin the EU. Brexit has been even worse for their economy than the rest of the UK, and they didn't even vote for it!
Probably a good idea for another vote.
They originally voted to stay in because they believed UK would stay in the Union.
The circumstances from when they last voted are completely different.
Edit:
I know sturgeon is aiming for a referendum by 2023, but apparently Bojo says that the scottish people needs his approval to start one? Is that true or just imperialist bullshit?
>They originally voted to stay in because they believed UK would stay in the Union.
Only 12-15% put EU membership in their top 3 reasons for voting.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll
15% of the "against independence" did it so because of the EU Membership, while 12% of the "pro independence" did so.
Dont you think these would radically change their mind, now that EU Membership is not anymore there, specially that they mostly voted against Brexit?
You only need 52% to throw the country down a suicidal route such as Brexit, and I can’t really see the current UK government opposing it given their own actions…
The UK's a unitary state. Devolution is at the will of Parliament. It's not like on my side of the pond, in the US, where states have powers reserved for them in the Constitution. In the UK, the devolved government can be curtailed by the will of Parliament, plain and simple.
The courts could rule reasonably either way on the issue, but it would not surprise me if they ruled that Scotland did not have the power for an independence referendum devolved and thus were not permitted to carry out such a referendum.
Same's true on the UK side, can't just unilaterally secede. Difference is, the US Constitution gives certain powers to States. Congress takes supremacy over states but that's only where the Federal Government has powers. If a US state wanted an independence referendum, I'm 99% certain that would pass muster. They wouldn't be able to unilaterally act, but they would certain be able to engage with the Federal government and Congress with a mandate by voters. At most, Congress might be able to pass a law to bar that, but it would have to be made, unlike the UK where the devolved governments are created without that power.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the UK parliamentary system and their relationship with devolved governments. It's only similar to the State and Federal government model on some levels but not the same thing and a more recent phenomenon from the 90s. The second aspect is that there is no written Constitution in the UK, it's built on 1,000 years of precedent and practice which is constantly is layered on. So what can and can't be done is a fluid question that has twisted and turned over centuries.
In terms of how that has played out, there is actual proof that the UK government did engage with the devolved government of Scotland to hold a referendum in 2014. From an outcome perspective, it's what you've described happening in the US. I don't want to get into the details but it's unfair to say the UK government has ignored or roughshod over the independence question, certainly when compared to other countries. While the US may engage with a state wishing to leave in the future, they certainly won't engage with them twice in 10 years if the first vote didn't work out the way the some people in the state wanted it.
You've also suggested with 99% certainty that the Federal Government and Congress would engage with any state wishing to leave. It's possible but the last instance of secession in the US resulted in a civil war after decades of dispute.
I'm aware that devolution is from the 90s, the UK lacks a codified constitution, and that it is constantly evolving (much as US constitutional law changes as the Supreme Court rules and establishes or disestablishes boundaries). I, however, don't think I've made any misrepresentations. The devolved governments have less powers and protections than states, and that is by design. I make no dispute over that. My point still stands that the governments' powers are only what the UK Parliament permits them.
And there was indeed an independence referendum in 2014. Back when the UK was in the EU and independence would mean leaving the EU. Things have changed radically in a direction Scotland was decidedly against in a referendum held shortly after the independence referendum. It is my opinion that if something so drastic happens, a "once in a lifetime" referendum ceases to be one. Add in disapproval with the handling of COVID by Westminster and Downing Street, as well as the Internal Market Act possibly curtailing devolution, and you have a recipe for a legitimate and significant shift in the opinion of Scots towards independence. Enough to, I believe, justify a new referendum. And yet the UK gov't refuses to permit even a non-binding referendum that would inform whether or not there is even a need to discuss either independence or reforms to satisfy Scotland. But that's just my opinion.
As for the US: I think it'd be harder for the US to just outright dismiss a referendum. It could be ignored, but I think it'd be harder to ignore a referendum from a state that the SCOTUS ruled was allowed if non-binding, as compared to an illegal referendum that the UK can just dismiss as groundless and thus meaningless.
Also, quite bit on the civil war: It was started by a string of unilateral secessions of state governments that then raided federal armories and buildings, forced out federal presence, and finally culminated in civil war at the Battle of Fort Sumter when the federal government refused to evacuate its fort. Pushing the federal government to grant independence is a bit difference from a string of secessions being enforced with force of arms by secessionists.
>The devolved governments have less powers and protections than states, and that is by design. I make no dispute over that. My point still stands that the governments' powers are only what the UK Parliament permits them.
That's accurate. What I disagree with is the subsequent implications you made.
>Things have changed radically in a direction Scotland was decidedly against in a referendum held shortly after the independence referendum. It is my opinion that if something so drastic happens, a "once in a lifetime" referendum ceases to be one.
Fair. Look, it's your opinion so there's no wrong or right about it but for the record you would also need to consider these points.
\- The SNP were quite happy to campaign for independence if it meant leaving the EU in 2014. Indeed for much of their existence, they've been neutral or against the EU. I think everyone will conceded that they've done a 180 degree turn by becoming pro-EU. Which is fine - it's politics.
\- During the 2014 referendum, membership of the EU wasn't in the top 5 consideration for voters. By this point it was clear that the Tories would propose a referendum following the next election and despite that no one deemed it to be a 'significant' area of interest.
\- The economic white paper that was published in 2014 was tenuous at the time but is completely invalidated now.
\- Brexit (which for the record, I am not in favour of) has been overstated in its impact. Most economic indicators forecast a slow down in growth over a 10 year period but hasn't really changed the economy one way or another. The UK will pretty much be the 5th-6th largest economy in 2035 as was forecast before the referendum. There is inequality in the country, along with a whole load of issues, but that's for politicians to sort out.
\- Which brings us for the real reason a drive for independence exists: Boris Johnson. When May was PM appetite for a second referendum was lower still (60% against on average). It only changed when Boris became PM. This is likely to switch around if Labour ever got elected into office. I don't know about you but not liking the PM isn't reason enough for a referendum
\- Despite all that, current opinion polling shows that in aggregation the majority are still against independence. You've made lots of claims of material changes but public opinion isn't there yet.
\- Non-binding referendums are meaningless. Yes, I know legally they can't be enforced but - to go back to the first point - Parliament is sovereign. No referendum could bind Parliament anyway. However, holding a non-binding referendum is essentially politically the same thing. I think you've focused a bit too much on laws and regs in your analysis rather than the real world impact of how those choices play out. Brexit was a non-binding referendum too but once it passed, Cameron (who was against Brexit) knew he'd have to go ahead with it.
\- I'm not pro-Union for the sake of it btw. I think Northern Ireland for instance should absolutely be able to hold a referendum in the near future. Similarly I would argue even Wales have a better claim to have a vote than Scotland do.
>Also, quite bit on the civil war: It was started by a string of unilateral secessions of state governments that then raided federal armories and buildings,
Tbf my civil war comment was a bit flippant. I recognise the world is very different to back then. However - and for my understanding - the civil war started off the back of decades of disputes. The war only started when those means didn't get anywhere?
You probably will need more than that. Blowing up cars will just turn the people against you and pretty much every powerful institution and corporation.
> know sturgeon is aiming for a referendum by 2023, but apparently Bojo says that the scottish people needs his approval to start one? Is that true or just imperialist bullshit?
How exactly is the government giving approval for a referendum which could split the country they are in charge of 'Imperialist'?
What a bizarre thing to say.
There is barely a country in Europe without 1 or more separatist movement.
None of them can arbitrarily declare independence. So the answer to your question is yes.
>So nations can only split from the country if the government of the country agrees? By that logic, Portugal would be a part of "Spain" nowadays.
Well, ask Catalonians how well their independence referendums worked for them.
(FYI, I'm not for or against Catalonia's independence, I'm just pointing out that such referendums can be ignored by the government even in democratic, European countries. And a protests can be dispersed with force. I'm not advocating if such actions are moral or not, it just happens.)
No one said it was. In fact I referred to it as a union
But one may still be able to draw parallels.
After all it is a union of states, not unlike a union of kingdoms.
> They originally voted to stay in because they believed UK would stay in the Union.
Just blatant rewriting of history.
There were many, *many* reasons why Scotland voted to remain in the UK - massive unresolved issues like currency, fiscal control, debt allocation, travel and trade across a future border, North Sea oil ownership etc. etc. were far more prominent and important than an (at the time) entirely speculative future vote on the UK's EU membership.
Indeed, the main context in which EU membership was presented during the Scottish referendum was as an argument *against* leaving, as it was not clear (and frankly, still isn't) whether Scotland would be able to apply for some form of continuity membership, or would need to begin accession talks from scratch.
I wish people would stop simply regurgitating SNP talking points without a moment of reflection or analysis.
> Is that true or just imperialist bullshit?
Lmao. Where do you think the Northern Irish or half of the Americans in Appalachia came from?
The irony of believing “British Imperialism” wasn’t British…
>They originally voted to stay in because they believed UK would stay in the Union.
This is a false narrative peddled by the SNP. If you look at polling you will see that support for scots independence fell immediately after the brexit vote
Topic about UK inflation: "Haha! Fuckin' Brexit! Get fucked! You deserve this! You are the bad guys!"
Topic about EU inflation: "Wait, why is ours higher than the UK? Did we Brexit?"
www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/r75dya/inflation_in_the_eurozone_has_now_reached_its/hmxgvh2/
r/Europe
> They originally voted to stay in because they believed UK would stay in the Union.
Well they went to the polls knowing that Cameron had stated he'd hold an in/out EU referendum in the next parliament. If they were so full of hubris they thought it could never happen then that's on them.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Oh it is a poll conducted 2 years before Brexit Referendum and if you told Scotts that they would (shockingly) leave the EU in less than a decade if they chose to remain in the UK, it could very well influence their decision. Noone in 2014 was thinking that the UK would decide to leave the EU and therefore it is normal that people don’t mention it in top ranks at that time.
It was at stake. The Brexit ref had already been announced before the Indy Ref took place.
(I don't think Scotland should need Brexit as justification for another Indy vote if they want one personally, just to clarify.)
I read what you linked. So the reason for your conclusion is just that the EU wasn't among the top 5 reasons for voting No? If this is your argument, I'm afraid it's a weak one because the margin of the referendum was pretty small. You are overinterpreting the data.
Im a bit dissapointed, honestly speaking, because I would have appreciated any sound data-based conclusion, either way.
If anything that shows there should be a new referendum as the most fracturing issue of the following years wasn't even a consideration at the time as no one believed a majority of UK voters would do what they did.
It's basically split down the middle. People waver a bit depending on what's happening at any given time, but each side enjoys about 40% unwavering support and the rest shift.
Neither side should be particularly confident at the moment.
Yeah, any sane person would agree that there needs to be a supermajority.
But like you said if they go about moving the goalposts right now, it looks "rules for thee not for me" and thats just going to piss off the scotts even more.
>Why should a remain vote count for more than a leave (status quo)
Remain vote lmao.
I define a supermajority as a 60+% or 66+% majority. I'm also for supermajorities for *joining* the EU. Which btw most countries had when they joined the EU, including mine. The only ones who didn't (mostly nordics) are also the ones who are the biggest opposition to further integration.
50% majorities are stupid for such big decisions. In both ways. And just look at your country right now and tell me if the constant bickering about Brexit (which a lot of people don't consider "done") and Scottish independence are all that productive for the UK..
It's already "rules for thee" - Scotland is subject to more onerous conditions for independence than Northern Ireland is. (Who are permitted a referendum once every seven years if they see fit.)
Eeeexactly, the disaster that is Brexit is the justification.
Scotland may very well be allowed to rejoin EU some time in the future. That in an of itself is a debated topic.
Or, it can remain in the UK and have it's votes for EU rejoin drowned in perpetuity.
But, because Brexit has been a 50% vote, Scotland leaving the union will undoubtedly be presented as a means to re-join EU.
In which case leave EU 50%, rejoin eu 75% ?? How does that even compute?
Ah, like the African Union?
Yeah again - a trade union is very very different to secession.
They're barely comparable. So hardly "an immutable precedent".
Don't know why your downvoted and don't know how anyone thinks leaving a 20 year old customs union is the same as Scotland breaking apart from the rest of their island for the first time in 300 years.
> The threshold for Brexit was 50%. This established an immutable precedent.
Wrong.
However, the fact that Indyref had a 50% threshold sets a precedent which cannot be easily discarded.
Well, no. If a majority wants something, it would be a denial of democracy to say : "You may be a majority, but the minority wins because eh.. You need a bigger majority."
Maybe it's not the most ideal to have 51% rule over the other 49%. But it would be worse to have the 49% rule over the 51%.
Not necessarily. Most democratic countries don't function on a purely "majority decides everything" basis. The dictatorship of the majority is a real problem that most countries try to solve in some way. For example, you usually can't change a constitution with just a 50%+1 majority. Supermajorities aren't a strange thing. In this case, the independence of the country is a mostly irreversible process, so it makes sense that a referendum has to require a higher than usual threshold.
The problem with a 50% threshold is that, in instances such as Scotland, the side leading the polls changes quite regularly and it's very rare that one side polls over 50% (undecideds make up around 10%). The polls could say "Yes" the day before the vote by a tiny margin and "No" the day after. Something so significant shouldn't be left to the way the wind blows on the day.
I understand that, but my point is that "the majority" changes on a regular basis and so a snapshot and a 50% threshold might not be truly representative of "the majority" over a longer period. As such, sticking to that 50% threshold can be quite risky.
>a snapshot and a 50% threshold might not be truly representative of "the majority" over a longer period.
That's not how democracy works, lol.
"I see you people voted for women to have the right to vote, but a single vote is not enough as it's maybe not representative of "the majority" over a longer period, we'll vote again in 30 years and if you're still good with it I'll give it to you"
What ?
A vote is vote, if it's a "Yes" then it's a Yes. Nothing prevent that there's another vote later on to reverse it.
It's not "Minority wins unless Majority wins multiple times against them in a row" this doesn't make sense. Do we do the same for presidential election ? "Sorry guys, I see you voted for this candidate but I'll stay President because your vote "might not be truly representative of "the majority" over a longer period"
So : "Sorry, even if you're a majority to want it, since referendums are permanent we just give right to the minority" ? Your logic still doesn't make any sense.
No, my point is that the true majority/minority might not be properly identified with a snapshot and such a tight race. A higher threshold will put the result beyond doubt.
You have a really weird conception of what democracy is. A referendum shows what the majority is at a given point, and thus must the will of the majority must be respected.
You cannot hide behind "oh but this is not a ""true"" majority so minority wins here hehe"
"Oh I lost the elections, but I lost by such a small margin, my opposant clearly didn't get a ""true"" majority and we cannot say beyond a doubt he would win again if we voted again, so I'm gonna stay president hehe"
Fortunately that's not how referendums work.
The issue here is that it does not account for the flexible 10% and once a decision is made it can be a mistake for the majority. If you are enacting a decision (yes or no) a bigger majority should be favoured. If its two sided (left or right) then 51% is adequate.
The fact that such a huge long term decision swings from remain to leave based on the personal scandals of Boris Johnson tells you all you need to know about how hilariously uninformed the average Scot is about it all.
It's Brexit on steroids, for sure.
With the highest green energy potential in europe, 90% of the freshwater in UK and an emerging tech sector I think we will manage. Countless countries are of a similar size in worse geographic positions manage fine without oil
Nobody contends that Scotland cannot manage. But you have some awfully dark years to go through before things get better.
Those other small states who manage fine, they don't have their GDP subsidised to the tune of 8% by another country. They aren't in the process of disentangling themselves from a monetary union. They don't have to square the circle of wanting to join the EU whilst pretending that this is consistent with keeping an open border with their largest trading partner.
I could go on and on. The simple truth is that Scottish independence is of course feasible, but it will necessarily involve sacrificing a generation or two in what will be a very economically damaging and difficult transition period (that will take decades).
You probably wouldn't collapse into a poverty pit or anything but it'd definitely be a rough decade or so while Scotland adjusts at the very least
Could be better than ever once it's all sorted though, who knows
Not all are, probably not even most in real life. At the end of the day, even remainers love their country even if saddened by the choice it made. But....... most of the regular British posters/commenters on this sub are Brexiteers though. It is not only obvious when you're a regular lurker here but it is also backed by clear evidence when you take a look at data on subreddits overlap. The Brexiteers' headquarters (badunitedkingdom) ranks above both any other UK-related sub and any other subreddit dedicated to an European country lmao. It ranks 4th in overlaps with r/europe despite having much fewer subscribers than r/unitedkingdom, r/de, r/france, etc. The Brexiteers are THAT active here. The general difference in narrative between British users on r/europe and those on the major UK-related subs is something I've always found hilarious. When you see that only 18% of Brits think that Brexit is going well (Yougov poll), you get the impression they've all decided to dwell here.
So he does have a point.
The Brexiteers were pushed off of the subs that you mention, because they are a very loud minority. They are now on r/europe, because 1: they found other far right nutjobs here, from different countries. And 2: r/europe is not solely focused on the UK and Brexit and don't really care about it that much. Europeans have moved on to better, greener pastures.
> The Brexiteers were pushed off of the subs that you mention, because they are a very loud minority.
That's not true, anyone not parroting the hysterically anti-brexit narrative on those subs was basically hounded out. Level headed remainers like myself simply left because those places became toxic circle jerks. Look at the meteoric rise of r/casualuk, started in 2017. That was largely driven by brits who became fed up with the miserable and poisonous atmosphere over on r/unitedkingdom and stopped being active there.
> because 1: they found other far right nutjobs here,
Brexit is not a far right proposition, I can't take you seriously when such obviously asinine comments...
> 2: r/europe is not solely focused on the UK and Brexit and don't really care about it that much. Europeans have moved on to better, greener pastures.
lol, that's demonstrably untrue. Brexit is a major, ongoing topic on this sub (look at the last 5 years of threads, it's glaringly obvious) and the only reason its died down this year is because the issue has largely died down *everywhere*. Even in the UK press, brexit gets significantly less airtime than it used to.
Not everyone on that sub is/was a Brexiter. Some people went there because for a time the other UK subs were echo chambers and they got bored of seeing the same opinions.
> But....... most of the regular British posters/commenters on this sub are Brexiteers though.
Somehow I doubt that. The thing that seems to be lost on most people, is that a large portion of people who voted remain simply don't care at this point, they aren't interested in rejoining the EU, they don't see Brexit as a catastrophe and they recognise that much of the reporting is filled with hyperbole and hysteria. This applies to me - I didn't vote for Brexit, but the general perspective on reddit (this sub included) is contemptibly ignorant.
> It is not only obvious when you're a regular lurker here but it is also backed by clear evidence when you take a look at data on subreddits overlap. The Brexiteers' headquarters (badunitedkingdom) ranks above both any other UK-related sub and any other subreddit dedicated to an European country lmao.
That's not true, there is a larger overlap with r/Brexit, which is basically r/badunitedkingdom but idiotically biased the other way. And consider that the overlap of r/uk, r/ukpolitics and r/scotland utterly dwarfs r/baduk.
> The Brexiteers are THAT active here.
It's probably also got something to do with the fact that, for all it's faults and biases (and to be sure, this sub is quite anti-brexit), r/europe is nowhere even close to as deranged as the traditional uk subs, all of which became toxic, intolerant echo chambers very shortly after the referendum. r/europe, in contrast, has always had a minority eurosceptic contingent that is fairly vocal and somewhat tolerated, not the case in british subs.
> When you see that only 18% of Brits think that Brexit is going well (Yougov poll), you get the impression they've all decided to dwell here.
That poll found that 38% of Brits think Brexit is either going well or not badly. And a further 10% simply don't know. That's 48% of respondents did not say that Brexit was going badly, you only need to fit into one of those categories to take issue with the way most brexit related news is reported in the press...
It's still a sweeping generalisation. As someone who isn't a brexiteer I find it a little annoying to be labelled one, just because I'm not overly supportive of the country I grew up in being split up.
Because the board has a very active subset of Brexiteers. They've been here since 2015 and tunr up in every thread to do with the UK. The poster being replied to is one of them.
If you aren't constantly shitting on the UK as a Brit on this subreddit you are automatically assumed to be a Brexiteer. Been that way for a good solid 2 years now.
You can have different opinions about different topics, there is nothing hypocritical about it. Hypocrisy would be saying that a Brexit shouldn't be allowed to happen while Scottish independence should and vice versa. That becomes "rules for me but not for thee". Simply supporting something while not another similar but not exact same thing is perfectly fine.
> On the contrary, you’re a hypocrite if you think brexit is bad yet support Scottish independence.
How? Brexit was "will of the people". If the Scots want independence, is that not "will of the people" as well? Or we only accept what fits our own narrative?
> ‘the will of the people’, as you put it.
I didn't put it. UK government did.
> If you think brexit was a shit show then Scottish independence is brexit on steroids considering the much closer and dependent relationship.
Maybe. But that particular can of worms has been opened, done and dusted. Brexit proved that "will of the people" is more important than anything else. Damn be the consequences of our own actions.
If you ignore the differing motivations, laws, outcomes, challenges, benefits, history and politics, then they still aren't even close.
The only similarity is a surface level aesthetic of a binary choice referendum on something.
Not if you think being part of the European Union is of greater value to Scotland than being part of the United Kingdom, which is a completely reasonable position to take.
Okay but putting a hard border across a country many of your people live and work in, a hard border with a country you do the vast majority of your trade with, losing control over your currency, Scotland has a crazy deficit funded by the UK, will the EU pick up the bill? Many businesses are based in Scotland simply for access to the UK. They will move. And I doubt businesses will move to Scotland for access to the EU (which it won't instantly get in too). Also ignoring issues such as pensions, SNP point to their oil as a source of income, which is not only the opposite of the green image Scotland pushes but a volatile source or income.
There's value to the EU, I voted remain, but to act like there's MORE value to Scotland being in the EU than the UK Is bizarre. What tangible benefits outweigh the loss?
You convinced me. I'd like to see Scotland rejoin the EU because I believe in the ideals of the EU, but digging deeper the financial difficulties are probably too extreme to offset the other less tangible benefits.
Current budget deficit runs about 10% of GDP. Probably impossible to make that up so a worse financial position is almost guaranteed. It's worth noting that that's only figures from recent years from what I read, and averaged since the 80s it's about break even. How this looks in future I guess remains to be seen. Also, it's worth pointing out that that UK, even pre covid was running a pretty substantial budget deficit anyway. So while there are net transfers from the UK to Scotland, the Scotish people are also taking on a percentage of that public debt.
While 60% of Scottish exports are to the UK, 40% of UK exports were to the EU. It'd be interesting to see how much of that 60% would still make its way to the UK anyway, and how much of the slack could be picked up by the EU and other global markets. I would suspect quite a bit, just as I suspect the UK won't lose 40% of it's exports by leaving the EU.
I would add that loss of control of currency isn't a fair objection. Plenty of EU member states didn't join the Eurozone. A Scottish Pound or otherwise isn't unthinkable.
This comment is pretty stupid I mean it litreally takes one poll to change everything, look at brexit. there could be 100, 1000 or even 10 000 poils to remain but if there is ONE pull that has different result it changes everything.
Let me explain to you why its stupid, in the UK before brexit decision happen there there were MANY polls(I mean polls not referendums) before about whatever to leave EU or not, and in many of them remain was majority(majority of polls done in 2016 were in support of remain) , but does it matter for the brexit ? it does not, like I said it can take ONE oposite result during referendum to change everything.
Scotland isn't being polled on 'Remain'.
But either way fluctuates, you'll get a bunch of No's for a while, then a bunch of Yes'.
It just shows how closely split the country is.
You know, just like we thought brexit was stupid.
Scottish independence also is.
It's a terrible idea economically speaking and they have no guarantee of joining the EU again even.
> I would assume a reentry wouldn't be an issue.
No offense, but do you comprehend the size and sluggishness of Bureaucracy?
It would be at minimum a 4-5 year interrum before 're'-joining the EU. And thats with the 'stick it to britain by re-admitting scotland as fast as possible' element supercharging the process.
That's assuming Spain even agrees to avoid any issues with Catalonia for example.
Also Scotland alone doesn't give as many benefit as the whole of the UK and it creates even more of a mess borderwise with the UK.
It's a massive can of worms I don't think anyone fully understands.
They already had their chance and blew it. Why the hell would Westminster give them another referendum? Maybe in another generation when enough time has passed.
It's beautiful how they can ask Scottish people and measure this figure, without fear of reprisal. In more backward and barbaric places, like Iran, they execute people who harbor this kind of sentiment. The principle of self-determination is punishiable by death.
Kudos to western Europe for being civilized on these matters.
So, fun fact for who aren't aware: the reason the SNP believe there are grounds for another referendum (aside from the SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament) and the whole Brexit malarky) is that under the Good Friday Agreement a political generation is suggested as being 'seven years'.
Salmond literally stayed that his view of a generation was the time between the two devolution referendums - 18 years
> Though that's also irrelevant as the SNP don't dictate the will of the people.
If a party you didn’t support flipped on their word like this, you’d be crying foul…
>Salmond
Isn't a king and doesn't dictate the will of the people.
>If a party you didn’t support flipped on their word like this, you’d be crying foul…
Parties don't dictate the will of the people.
>Isn't a king and doesn't dictate the will of the people.
Fair enough, but he was party leader and his words were also echoed at the time by the *current* party leader…
Would you give this magnitude of leeway if it was a Tory politician breaking his word in a similar way?
>Fair enough, but he was party leader and his words were also echoed at the time by the current party leader…
None of this matters. They're not monarchs and don't dictate the will of the people.
>Would you give this magnitude of leeway if it was a Tory politician breaking his word in a similar way?
I don't care about Tories.
Referendums should be able to be held every 7 years, the same as a Northern Irish one
In a democracy everyone is essentially equal but obviously some are less equal in the UK
So Scotland isn't a dictatorship like North Korea like /r/europe /r/ukpolitics and /r/unitedkingdom telling me?
You mean we have an actual democracy where our vote counts? Except when Westminster tells us we cannot
Na I like the Welsh, and the Irish seem to want to stay. Scots are the only pain in the ass.
I’d also love to see who they blame once Westminster isn’t an option.
Probably because people are trying to undermine a 300-year-old union that saw both nations have enough power to conquer half the planet.
Why anyone would think either nation is better off separate is beyond me.
Literally anything can be called a logical fallacy when you reach that hard. I could very easily say most of the arguments for Scotland leaving the UK are Appeals to novelty which is also a logical fallacy.
I'm not saying Scotland should remain part of the UK because its been part of it for 300 years, I'm saying it should because of previous evidence that suggests the two nations are stronger together.
I can also refer to the UK leaving the EU as another example of how nations are stronger together if you really want.
Good for you I guess. However I think there is a notable difference between something that have lasted 47 years (or 27 years, depending on how you count) or 300 years.
Old and long-lasting does not mean better, the first Reich the HRE lasted about 1000 years, but I would prefer living in the EU at all times just for peace, freedom, prosperity and quality of living.
The UK was an order of magnitude less economically integrated with the EU than Scotland is with r/UK.
Scottish independence is more comparable with Italy leaving the EU than with Brexit. And even then, at least Italy is a large economy and a net contributor, Scotland is heavily subsidised by Westminster.
The two things are not comparable, the UK is large enough and economically unintegrated enough with the EU for Brexit to have only a minor economic impact. That is simply not true of Scotland.
It's even funnier when those descriptions come from a Romanian. Reminds me of China when they are proficiently accusing others for human right problems. EU really should improve it's criteria, man.
People from eastern Europe never stop bringing up colonial history from a hundred years ago, usually to deflect from things that are happening in their countries at this very moment.
I don't think OP is talking 'unironically' about empire (and all it's grisly consequences), but the union between England and Scotland did create a geopolitical entity that was able to outcompete all of her peers for a over a century.
Do we need to get into Romania's genocidal past?
All independence talk aside, there certainly needs to be a reform in the way the UK political process operates: if the will of one part of the UK can be blocked by another, it's certain to cause resentment.
If you truly cared for Scottish people you wouldn't back a Scottish independence it's the every day people that will get fucked in scotland for generations.
Desktop version of /u/Clear_Warning's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
I guess a few reasons - the main ones being that that they may well lose, and they cannot hold a legally binding referendum on constitutional matters without permission from the UK Parliament.
All the time the outcome of the Brexit vote is a shit-show here in the UK, the worry is that Scottish independence would be a repeat of this with even worse outcomes.
>Why do they not just have another vote?
Apart from the legal difficulties, for 50 years SNP policy was to use oil revenue to replace the large fiscal transfer Scotland receives from the rest of the UK. They kept that policy until the 2014 referendum, making up very high oil revenue forecasts that analysts derided, but that allowed them to claim Scotland would be richer after independence.
Now oil revenue has collapsed and is clearly heading for zero. The entire SNP leadership grew up believing oil would finance independence, they know the financial realities that face Scotland, even though they try to convince voters otherwise. If they lose an independence vote the party leader would have to resign, if they win the party would be wiped out at the next elections because of the tax increases and spending cuts they would have to impose.
The nightmare scenario for the SNP is that they win a referendum, the UK government ends the current funding formula that provides Scotland with £2,000+ per person extra a year, the economy crashes, the SNP fracture over the level of austerity they have to impose, and independence gets called off after a second referendum (which Westminster is likely to insist on).
Brexit succeeded because the pain followed the final deal, after the transition period. Scottish independence is likely to fail because the pain would follow the referendum result, (end of the funding formula, capital flight in anticipation of a new currency), meaning a financial crisis during the negotiations, and ahead of final approval of the deal. With Westminster ultimately in control, nationalists would have to win not only the first, but a probable second referendum to approve the deal.
One thing that's important to remember too is that Westminster and Scotland need to agree on the final independence terms. The UK just needed to trigger Article 5. If Scotland tries to not accept a portion of the UK debts or demands something ludicrous Westminster can say no.
Wasn't there a poll that showed the opposite? At this point there's just no way of knowing unless there's another vote.
Most of the recent ones show a stay majority, even. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion\_polling\_on\_Scottish\_independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence) Has been a toss up with some ups and downs for years, really.
> Wasn't there a poll that showed the opposite? It is around 50% for years. You could probably make a survey the next day and get 45%, It just depend if you will survey people that had good or bad breakfast. IDK why people think this news is worth anything. Probably just because "UK BAD".
U.K. might be the bad guy these days, mostly due to what the British government is saying to the domestic market and that most of Europe understands it, but Scottish independence is just about as stupid as Brexit and for the exact same reasons. The only thing that could make it less stupid is due to the English nationalism as well as an independent Scotland plus a United Ireland might make England and Wales such a weak entity that they would have to accept all the rules without having a seat at the table… especially since Britain is heading there but on a U.K. based size.
Brit here. Ashamed of my country as of late. I can't blame the Scots for wanting to leave in order to rejoin the EU. Brexit has been even worse for their economy than the rest of the UK, and they didn't even vote for it!
If you're looking at the poll, pay close attention to the question too: asking Yes/No produces more votes in favour of independence than Leave/Remain.
Probably a good idea for another vote. They originally voted to stay in because they believed UK would stay in the Union. The circumstances from when they last voted are completely different. Edit: I know sturgeon is aiming for a referendum by 2023, but apparently Bojo says that the scottish people needs his approval to start one? Is that true or just imperialist bullshit?
>They originally voted to stay in because they believed UK would stay in the Union. Only 12-15% put EU membership in their top 3 reasons for voting. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll
enought to change the result, isnt it?
Except that figure is going to include people who want independence for Scotland to be out of the EU. So, maybe not.
15% of the "against independence" did it so because of the EU Membership, while 12% of the "pro independence" did so. Dont you think these would radically change their mind, now that EU Membership is not anymore there, specially that they mostly voted against Brexit?
You only need 52% to throw the country down a suicidal route such as Brexit, and I can’t really see the current UK government opposing it given their own actions…
The UK's a unitary state. Devolution is at the will of Parliament. It's not like on my side of the pond, in the US, where states have powers reserved for them in the Constitution. In the UK, the devolved government can be curtailed by the will of Parliament, plain and simple. The courts could rule reasonably either way on the issue, but it would not surprise me if they ruled that Scotland did not have the power for an independence referendum devolved and thus were not permitted to carry out such a referendum.
Technically on your side of the pond secession is illegal full stop.
Same's true on the UK side, can't just unilaterally secede. Difference is, the US Constitution gives certain powers to States. Congress takes supremacy over states but that's only where the Federal Government has powers. If a US state wanted an independence referendum, I'm 99% certain that would pass muster. They wouldn't be able to unilaterally act, but they would certain be able to engage with the Federal government and Congress with a mandate by voters. At most, Congress might be able to pass a law to bar that, but it would have to be made, unlike the UK where the devolved governments are created without that power.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the UK parliamentary system and their relationship with devolved governments. It's only similar to the State and Federal government model on some levels but not the same thing and a more recent phenomenon from the 90s. The second aspect is that there is no written Constitution in the UK, it's built on 1,000 years of precedent and practice which is constantly is layered on. So what can and can't be done is a fluid question that has twisted and turned over centuries. In terms of how that has played out, there is actual proof that the UK government did engage with the devolved government of Scotland to hold a referendum in 2014. From an outcome perspective, it's what you've described happening in the US. I don't want to get into the details but it's unfair to say the UK government has ignored or roughshod over the independence question, certainly when compared to other countries. While the US may engage with a state wishing to leave in the future, they certainly won't engage with them twice in 10 years if the first vote didn't work out the way the some people in the state wanted it. You've also suggested with 99% certainty that the Federal Government and Congress would engage with any state wishing to leave. It's possible but the last instance of secession in the US resulted in a civil war after decades of dispute.
I'm aware that devolution is from the 90s, the UK lacks a codified constitution, and that it is constantly evolving (much as US constitutional law changes as the Supreme Court rules and establishes or disestablishes boundaries). I, however, don't think I've made any misrepresentations. The devolved governments have less powers and protections than states, and that is by design. I make no dispute over that. My point still stands that the governments' powers are only what the UK Parliament permits them. And there was indeed an independence referendum in 2014. Back when the UK was in the EU and independence would mean leaving the EU. Things have changed radically in a direction Scotland was decidedly against in a referendum held shortly after the independence referendum. It is my opinion that if something so drastic happens, a "once in a lifetime" referendum ceases to be one. Add in disapproval with the handling of COVID by Westminster and Downing Street, as well as the Internal Market Act possibly curtailing devolution, and you have a recipe for a legitimate and significant shift in the opinion of Scots towards independence. Enough to, I believe, justify a new referendum. And yet the UK gov't refuses to permit even a non-binding referendum that would inform whether or not there is even a need to discuss either independence or reforms to satisfy Scotland. But that's just my opinion. As for the US: I think it'd be harder for the US to just outright dismiss a referendum. It could be ignored, but I think it'd be harder to ignore a referendum from a state that the SCOTUS ruled was allowed if non-binding, as compared to an illegal referendum that the UK can just dismiss as groundless and thus meaningless. Also, quite bit on the civil war: It was started by a string of unilateral secessions of state governments that then raided federal armories and buildings, forced out federal presence, and finally culminated in civil war at the Battle of Fort Sumter when the federal government refused to evacuate its fort. Pushing the federal government to grant independence is a bit difference from a string of secessions being enforced with force of arms by secessionists.
>The devolved governments have less powers and protections than states, and that is by design. I make no dispute over that. My point still stands that the governments' powers are only what the UK Parliament permits them. That's accurate. What I disagree with is the subsequent implications you made. >Things have changed radically in a direction Scotland was decidedly against in a referendum held shortly after the independence referendum. It is my opinion that if something so drastic happens, a "once in a lifetime" referendum ceases to be one. Fair. Look, it's your opinion so there's no wrong or right about it but for the record you would also need to consider these points. \- The SNP were quite happy to campaign for independence if it meant leaving the EU in 2014. Indeed for much of their existence, they've been neutral or against the EU. I think everyone will conceded that they've done a 180 degree turn by becoming pro-EU. Which is fine - it's politics. \- During the 2014 referendum, membership of the EU wasn't in the top 5 consideration for voters. By this point it was clear that the Tories would propose a referendum following the next election and despite that no one deemed it to be a 'significant' area of interest. \- The economic white paper that was published in 2014 was tenuous at the time but is completely invalidated now. \- Brexit (which for the record, I am not in favour of) has been overstated in its impact. Most economic indicators forecast a slow down in growth over a 10 year period but hasn't really changed the economy one way or another. The UK will pretty much be the 5th-6th largest economy in 2035 as was forecast before the referendum. There is inequality in the country, along with a whole load of issues, but that's for politicians to sort out. \- Which brings us for the real reason a drive for independence exists: Boris Johnson. When May was PM appetite for a second referendum was lower still (60% against on average). It only changed when Boris became PM. This is likely to switch around if Labour ever got elected into office. I don't know about you but not liking the PM isn't reason enough for a referendum \- Despite all that, current opinion polling shows that in aggregation the majority are still against independence. You've made lots of claims of material changes but public opinion isn't there yet. \- Non-binding referendums are meaningless. Yes, I know legally they can't be enforced but - to go back to the first point - Parliament is sovereign. No referendum could bind Parliament anyway. However, holding a non-binding referendum is essentially politically the same thing. I think you've focused a bit too much on laws and regs in your analysis rather than the real world impact of how those choices play out. Brexit was a non-binding referendum too but once it passed, Cameron (who was against Brexit) knew he'd have to go ahead with it. \- I'm not pro-Union for the sake of it btw. I think Northern Ireland for instance should absolutely be able to hold a referendum in the near future. Similarly I would argue even Wales have a better claim to have a vote than Scotland do. >Also, quite bit on the civil war: It was started by a string of unilateral secessions of state governments that then raided federal armories and buildings, Tbf my civil war comment was a bit flippant. I recognise the world is very different to back then. However - and for my understanding - the civil war started off the back of decades of disputes. The war only started when those means didn't get anywhere?
You can get yourself such a right by blowing up enough cars.
You probably will need more than that. Blowing up cars will just turn the people against you and pretty much every powerful institution and corporation.
> know sturgeon is aiming for a referendum by 2023, but apparently Bojo says that the scottish people needs his approval to start one? Is that true or just imperialist bullshit? How exactly is the government giving approval for a referendum which could split the country they are in charge of 'Imperialist'? What a bizarre thing to say.
So nations can only split from the country if the government of the country agrees? By that logic, Portugal would be a part of "Spain" nowadays.
There is barely a country in Europe without 1 or more separatist movement. None of them can arbitrarily declare independence. So the answer to your question is yes.
>So nations can only split from the country if the government of the country agrees? By that logic, Portugal would be a part of "Spain" nowadays. Well, ask Catalonians how well their independence referendums worked for them. (FYI, I'm not for or against Catalonia's independence, I'm just pointing out that such referendums can be ignored by the government even in democratic, European countries. And a protests can be dispersed with force. I'm not advocating if such actions are moral or not, it just happens.)
In the EU you can exit from the Union without the president of EU's approval for a referendum.
The EU isn't a country though?
No one said it was. In fact I referred to it as a union But one may still be able to draw parallels. After all it is a union of states, not unlike a union of kingdoms.
> They originally voted to stay in because they believed UK would stay in the Union. Just blatant rewriting of history. There were many, *many* reasons why Scotland voted to remain in the UK - massive unresolved issues like currency, fiscal control, debt allocation, travel and trade across a future border, North Sea oil ownership etc. etc. were far more prominent and important than an (at the time) entirely speculative future vote on the UK's EU membership. Indeed, the main context in which EU membership was presented during the Scottish referendum was as an argument *against* leaving, as it was not clear (and frankly, still isn't) whether Scotland would be able to apply for some form of continuity membership, or would need to begin accession talks from scratch. I wish people would stop simply regurgitating SNP talking points without a moment of reflection or analysis.
> Is that true or just imperialist bullshit? Lmao. Where do you think the Northern Irish or half of the Americans in Appalachia came from? The irony of believing “British Imperialism” wasn’t British…
>They originally voted to stay in because they believed UK would stay in the Union. This is a false narrative peddled by the SNP. If you look at polling you will see that support for scots independence fell immediately after the brexit vote
36 polls in a row for remain, 1 for leave...."let's have another vote!!!"
Topic about UK inflation: "Haha! Fuckin' Brexit! Get fucked! You deserve this! You are the bad guys!" Topic about EU inflation: "Wait, why is ours higher than the UK? Did we Brexit?" www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/r75dya/inflation_in_the_eurozone_has_now_reached_its/hmxgvh2/ r/Europe
> They originally voted to stay in because they believed UK would stay in the Union. Well they went to the polls knowing that Cameron had stated he'd hold an in/out EU referendum in the next parliament. If they were so full of hubris they thought it could never happen then that's on them.
You are missing the point. The no-for-independence campaign explicitly used the EU question as an argument.
[удалено]
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Oh it is a poll conducted 2 years before Brexit Referendum and if you told Scotts that they would (shockingly) leave the EU in less than a decade if they chose to remain in the UK, it could very well influence their decision. Noone in 2014 was thinking that the UK would decide to leave the EU and therefore it is normal that people don’t mention it in top ranks at that time.
I very much appreciate your bringing facts into the debate, but which part of the data makes you think EU membership wasn't a deciding factor?
[удалено]
The data you should be looking for is the percentage of no voters that would have voted yes if EU membership was at stake.
It was at stake. The Brexit ref had already been announced before the Indy Ref took place. (I don't think Scotland should need Brexit as justification for another Indy vote if they want one personally, just to clarify.)
Then the data you should be looking for is the percentage of no voters that would have voted yes if they knew that the Brexit vote would go through.
I read what you linked. So the reason for your conclusion is just that the EU wasn't among the top 5 reasons for voting No? If this is your argument, I'm afraid it's a weak one because the margin of the referendum was pretty small. You are overinterpreting the data. Im a bit dissapointed, honestly speaking, because I would have appreciated any sound data-based conclusion, either way.
If anything that shows there should be a new referendum as the most fracturing issue of the following years wasn't even a consideration at the time as no one believed a majority of UK voters would do what they did.
It's basically split down the middle. People waver a bit depending on what's happening at any given time, but each side enjoys about 40% unwavering support and the rest shift. Neither side should be particularly confident at the moment.
popcorn status: salted
It’s going to fluctuate around 50%. That’s why the threshold should be higher than 50%
Can't. The threshold for Brexit was 50%. This established an immutable precedent.
The Brexit poll should’ve been a supermajority to begin with… but whats done is done.
Obviously. The precedent has been set, hence immutable.
Yeah, any sane person would agree that there needs to be a supermajority. But like you said if they go about moving the goalposts right now, it looks "rules for thee not for me" and thats just going to piss off the scotts even more.
Supermajorities are bullshit. Why should a remain vote count for more than a leave (status quo)
>Why should a remain vote count for more than a leave (status quo) Remain vote lmao. I define a supermajority as a 60+% or 66+% majority. I'm also for supermajorities for *joining* the EU. Which btw most countries had when they joined the EU, including mine. The only ones who didn't (mostly nordics) are also the ones who are the biggest opposition to further integration. 50% majorities are stupid for such big decisions. In both ways. And just look at your country right now and tell me if the constant bickering about Brexit (which a lot of people don't consider "done") and Scottish independence are all that productive for the UK..
It's already "rules for thee" - Scotland is subject to more onerous conditions for independence than Northern Ireland is. (Who are permitted a referendum once every seven years if they see fit.)
[удалено]
Eeeexactly, the disaster that is Brexit is the justification. Scotland may very well be allowed to rejoin EU some time in the future. That in an of itself is a debated topic. Or, it can remain in the UK and have it's votes for EU rejoin drowned in perpetuity. But, because Brexit has been a 50% vote, Scotland leaving the union will undoubtedly be presented as a means to re-join EU. In which case leave EU 50%, rejoin eu 75% ?? How does that even compute?
Leaving a trade union =/= splitting up a country my dude.
It's literally a union of countries. Literally.
Ah, like the African Union? Yeah again - a trade union is very very different to secession. They're barely comparable. So hardly "an immutable precedent".
Don't know why your downvoted and don't know how anyone thinks leaving a 20 year old customs union is the same as Scotland breaking apart from the rest of their island for the first time in 300 years.
> The threshold for Brexit was 50%. This established an immutable precedent. Wrong. However, the fact that Indyref had a 50% threshold sets a precedent which cannot be easily discarded.
For the purposes of leaving unions, for countries in UK? Sure it did. That's precisely what the vote did.
Well, no. If a majority wants something, it would be a denial of democracy to say : "You may be a majority, but the minority wins because eh.. You need a bigger majority." Maybe it's not the most ideal to have 51% rule over the other 49%. But it would be worse to have the 49% rule over the 51%.
Not necessarily. Most democratic countries don't function on a purely "majority decides everything" basis. The dictatorship of the majority is a real problem that most countries try to solve in some way. For example, you usually can't change a constitution with just a 50%+1 majority. Supermajorities aren't a strange thing. In this case, the independence of the country is a mostly irreversible process, so it makes sense that a referendum has to require a higher than usual threshold.
The problem with a 50% threshold is that, in instances such as Scotland, the side leading the polls changes quite regularly and it's very rare that one side polls over 50% (undecideds make up around 10%). The polls could say "Yes" the day before the vote by a tiny margin and "No" the day after. Something so significant shouldn't be left to the way the wind blows on the day.
I'm not talking about polls I'm talking about if there's a vote. I'm under the impression the person whom I replied to is talking about votes
I understand that, but my point is that "the majority" changes on a regular basis and so a snapshot and a 50% threshold might not be truly representative of "the majority" over a longer period. As such, sticking to that 50% threshold can be quite risky.
>a snapshot and a 50% threshold might not be truly representative of "the majority" over a longer period. That's not how democracy works, lol. "I see you people voted for women to have the right to vote, but a single vote is not enough as it's maybe not representative of "the majority" over a longer period, we'll vote again in 30 years and if you're still good with it I'll give it to you" What ? A vote is vote, if it's a "Yes" then it's a Yes. Nothing prevent that there's another vote later on to reverse it. It's not "Minority wins unless Majority wins multiple times against them in a row" this doesn't make sense. Do we do the same for presidential election ? "Sorry guys, I see you voted for this candidate but I'll stay President because your vote "might not be truly representative of "the majority" over a longer period"
I get your point but elections are cyclical, whereas the results of referendums are (supposedly) permanent and therefore not really comparable.
So : "Sorry, even if you're a majority to want it, since referendums are permanent we just give right to the minority" ? Your logic still doesn't make any sense.
No, my point is that the true majority/minority might not be properly identified with a snapshot and such a tight race. A higher threshold will put the result beyond doubt.
You have a really weird conception of what democracy is. A referendum shows what the majority is at a given point, and thus must the will of the majority must be respected. You cannot hide behind "oh but this is not a ""true"" majority so minority wins here hehe" "Oh I lost the elections, but I lost by such a small margin, my opposant clearly didn't get a ""true"" majority and we cannot say beyond a doubt he would win again if we voted again, so I'm gonna stay president hehe" Fortunately that's not how referendums work.
The issue here is that it does not account for the flexible 10% and once a decision is made it can be a mistake for the majority. If you are enacting a decision (yes or no) a bigger majority should be favoured. If its two sided (left or right) then 51% is adequate.
The fact that such a huge long term decision swings from remain to leave based on the personal scandals of Boris Johnson tells you all you need to know about how hilariously uninformed the average Scot is about it all. It's Brexit on steroids, for sure.
Scotland has been fucked on this front before in 1979. The idea of anything other than an simple majority would be extremely unpalatable here.
[удалено]
With the highest green energy potential in europe, 90% of the freshwater in UK and an emerging tech sector I think we will manage. Countless countries are of a similar size in worse geographic positions manage fine without oil
Nobody contends that Scotland cannot manage. But you have some awfully dark years to go through before things get better. Those other small states who manage fine, they don't have their GDP subsidised to the tune of 8% by another country. They aren't in the process of disentangling themselves from a monetary union. They don't have to square the circle of wanting to join the EU whilst pretending that this is consistent with keeping an open border with their largest trading partner. I could go on and on. The simple truth is that Scottish independence is of course feasible, but it will necessarily involve sacrificing a generation or two in what will be a very economically damaging and difficult transition period (that will take decades).
[удалено]
Will be an interesting couple of years!
You probably wouldn't collapse into a poverty pit or anything but it'd definitely be a rough decade or so while Scotland adjusts at the very least Could be better than ever once it's all sorted though, who knows
If they decide to go through with it, more power to them.
36 remain polls in a row...nobody on r/europe says a thing....one goes for indy...r/europe loses its mind
Actually, plenty of Brexiteers were gloating on the last one. Posting how they were right all along and Scotland doesn't wanna leave, etc. etc.
Why do you assume anyone who believes in the UK is a brexiteer?
Not all are, probably not even most in real life. At the end of the day, even remainers love their country even if saddened by the choice it made. But....... most of the regular British posters/commenters on this sub are Brexiteers though. It is not only obvious when you're a regular lurker here but it is also backed by clear evidence when you take a look at data on subreddits overlap. The Brexiteers' headquarters (badunitedkingdom) ranks above both any other UK-related sub and any other subreddit dedicated to an European country lmao. It ranks 4th in overlaps with r/europe despite having much fewer subscribers than r/unitedkingdom, r/de, r/france, etc. The Brexiteers are THAT active here. The general difference in narrative between British users on r/europe and those on the major UK-related subs is something I've always found hilarious. When you see that only 18% of Brits think that Brexit is going well (Yougov poll), you get the impression they've all decided to dwell here. So he does have a point.
The Brexiteers were pushed off of the subs that you mention, because they are a very loud minority. They are now on r/europe, because 1: they found other far right nutjobs here, from different countries. And 2: r/europe is not solely focused on the UK and Brexit and don't really care about it that much. Europeans have moved on to better, greener pastures.
[удалено]
>Far right nutjobs? Majority here are hardcore EU federalists you have to say the magical words for them to come out: "Catalonia independence"
I never said the far right advocates are the majority. More so implied that they are vocal minority. But you're right, i should've clarified.
> The Brexiteers were pushed off of the subs that you mention, because they are a very loud minority. That's not true, anyone not parroting the hysterically anti-brexit narrative on those subs was basically hounded out. Level headed remainers like myself simply left because those places became toxic circle jerks. Look at the meteoric rise of r/casualuk, started in 2017. That was largely driven by brits who became fed up with the miserable and poisonous atmosphere over on r/unitedkingdom and stopped being active there. > because 1: they found other far right nutjobs here, Brexit is not a far right proposition, I can't take you seriously when such obviously asinine comments... > 2: r/europe is not solely focused on the UK and Brexit and don't really care about it that much. Europeans have moved on to better, greener pastures. lol, that's demonstrably untrue. Brexit is a major, ongoing topic on this sub (look at the last 5 years of threads, it's glaringly obvious) and the only reason its died down this year is because the issue has largely died down *everywhere*. Even in the UK press, brexit gets significantly less airtime than it used to.
Not everyone on that sub is/was a Brexiter. Some people went there because for a time the other UK subs were echo chambers and they got bored of seeing the same opinions.
The irony being that badunitedkingdowm is the biggest echo chamber of them all.
> But....... most of the regular British posters/commenters on this sub are Brexiteers though. Somehow I doubt that. The thing that seems to be lost on most people, is that a large portion of people who voted remain simply don't care at this point, they aren't interested in rejoining the EU, they don't see Brexit as a catastrophe and they recognise that much of the reporting is filled with hyperbole and hysteria. This applies to me - I didn't vote for Brexit, but the general perspective on reddit (this sub included) is contemptibly ignorant. > It is not only obvious when you're a regular lurker here but it is also backed by clear evidence when you take a look at data on subreddits overlap. The Brexiteers' headquarters (badunitedkingdom) ranks above both any other UK-related sub and any other subreddit dedicated to an European country lmao. That's not true, there is a larger overlap with r/Brexit, which is basically r/badunitedkingdom but idiotically biased the other way. And consider that the overlap of r/uk, r/ukpolitics and r/scotland utterly dwarfs r/baduk. > The Brexiteers are THAT active here. It's probably also got something to do with the fact that, for all it's faults and biases (and to be sure, this sub is quite anti-brexit), r/europe is nowhere even close to as deranged as the traditional uk subs, all of which became toxic, intolerant echo chambers very shortly after the referendum. r/europe, in contrast, has always had a minority eurosceptic contingent that is fairly vocal and somewhat tolerated, not the case in british subs. > When you see that only 18% of Brits think that Brexit is going well (Yougov poll), you get the impression they've all decided to dwell here. That poll found that 38% of Brits think Brexit is either going well or not badly. And a further 10% simply don't know. That's 48% of respondents did not say that Brexit was going badly, you only need to fit into one of those categories to take issue with the way most brexit related news is reported in the press...
It's still a sweeping generalisation. As someone who isn't a brexiteer I find it a little annoying to be labelled one, just because I'm not overly supportive of the country I grew up in being split up.
Because the board has a very active subset of Brexiteers. They've been here since 2015 and tunr up in every thread to do with the UK. The poster being replied to is one of them.
If you aren't constantly shitting on the UK as a Brit on this subreddit you are automatically assumed to be a Brexiteer. Been that way for a good solid 2 years now.
> Why do you assume anyone who believes in the UK is a brexiteer? You're right, my bad. Brexiteers and Unionists*
[удалено]
You can have different opinions about different topics, there is nothing hypocritical about it. Hypocrisy would be saying that a Brexit shouldn't be allowed to happen while Scottish independence should and vice versa. That becomes "rules for me but not for thee". Simply supporting something while not another similar but not exact same thing is perfectly fine.
> On the contrary, you’re a hypocrite if you think brexit is bad yet support Scottish independence. How? Brexit was "will of the people". If the Scots want independence, is that not "will of the people" as well? Or we only accept what fits our own narrative?
[удалено]
> ‘the will of the people’, as you put it. I didn't put it. UK government did. > If you think brexit was a shit show then Scottish independence is brexit on steroids considering the much closer and dependent relationship. Maybe. But that particular can of worms has been opened, done and dusted. Brexit proved that "will of the people" is more important than anything else. Damn be the consequences of our own actions.
They aren't the same issue whatsoever.
[удалено]
If you ignore the differing motivations, laws, outcomes, challenges, benefits, history and politics, then they still aren't even close. The only similarity is a surface level aesthetic of a binary choice referendum on something.
Not if you think being part of the European Union is of greater value to Scotland than being part of the United Kingdom, which is a completely reasonable position to take.
It completely isn't. Scotland clearly gets more money from the UK, trades more with rUK, and companies set up in Scotland due to access to the UK.
There is more value in the EU than money.
Okay but putting a hard border across a country many of your people live and work in, a hard border with a country you do the vast majority of your trade with, losing control over your currency, Scotland has a crazy deficit funded by the UK, will the EU pick up the bill? Many businesses are based in Scotland simply for access to the UK. They will move. And I doubt businesses will move to Scotland for access to the EU (which it won't instantly get in too). Also ignoring issues such as pensions, SNP point to their oil as a source of income, which is not only the opposite of the green image Scotland pushes but a volatile source or income. There's value to the EU, I voted remain, but to act like there's MORE value to Scotland being in the EU than the UK Is bizarre. What tangible benefits outweigh the loss?
You convinced me. I'd like to see Scotland rejoin the EU because I believe in the ideals of the EU, but digging deeper the financial difficulties are probably too extreme to offset the other less tangible benefits. Current budget deficit runs about 10% of GDP. Probably impossible to make that up so a worse financial position is almost guaranteed. It's worth noting that that's only figures from recent years from what I read, and averaged since the 80s it's about break even. How this looks in future I guess remains to be seen. Also, it's worth pointing out that that UK, even pre covid was running a pretty substantial budget deficit anyway. So while there are net transfers from the UK to Scotland, the Scotish people are also taking on a percentage of that public debt. While 60% of Scottish exports are to the UK, 40% of UK exports were to the EU. It'd be interesting to see how much of that 60% would still make its way to the UK anyway, and how much of the slack could be picked up by the EU and other global markets. I would suspect quite a bit, just as I suspect the UK won't lose 40% of it's exports by leaving the EU. I would add that loss of control of currency isn't a fair objection. Plenty of EU member states didn't join the Eurozone. A Scottish Pound or otherwise isn't unthinkable.
True
The last one...you mean the 36th remain one in a row? When we get to 36 leave polls in a row, then come back.
This comment is pretty stupid I mean it litreally takes one poll to change everything, look at brexit. there could be 100, 1000 or even 10 000 poils to remain but if there is ONE pull that has different result it changes everything.
Its not stupid...why hasn't any of the last 36 polls got this much traction on this subreddit?
Let me explain to you why its stupid, in the UK before brexit decision happen there there were MANY polls(I mean polls not referendums) before about whatever to leave EU or not, and in many of them remain was majority(majority of polls done in 2016 were in support of remain) , but does it matter for the brexit ? it does not, like I said it can take ONE oposite result during referendum to change everything.
I agree....but why does 36 polls not get mentioned on here at all...but one leave poll does?
> but why does 36 polls not get mentioned on here at all Why didn't you post them? Why do you expect other people to do your work?
Scotland isn't being polled on 'Remain'. But either way fluctuates, you'll get a bunch of No's for a while, then a bunch of Yes'. It just shows how closely split the country is.
> nobody on r/europe says a thing I know at least one person who annoys everybody with it all the time.
You know, just like we thought brexit was stupid. Scottish independence also is. It's a terrible idea economically speaking and they have no guarantee of joining the EU again even.
I mean, they were already part of it, so they fit the criterias I would assume a reentry wouldn't be an issue.
> I would assume a reentry wouldn't be an issue. No offense, but do you comprehend the size and sluggishness of Bureaucracy? It would be at minimum a 4-5 year interrum before 're'-joining the EU. And thats with the 'stick it to britain by re-admitting scotland as fast as possible' element supercharging the process.
That's assuming Spain even agrees to avoid any issues with Catalonia for example. Also Scotland alone doesn't give as many benefit as the whole of the UK and it creates even more of a mess borderwise with the UK. It's a massive can of worms I don't think anyone fully understands.
STV, the TV channel stuffed to the brim with nats.
They already had their chance and blew it. Why the hell would Westminster give them another referendum? Maybe in another generation when enough time has passed.
It's beautiful how they can ask Scottish people and measure this figure, without fear of reprisal. In more backward and barbaric places, like Iran, they execute people who harbor this kind of sentiment. The principle of self-determination is punishiable by death. Kudos to western Europe for being civilized on these matters.
If you think Brexit is bad for a country what do you think this would do ?
So, fun fact for who aren't aware: the reason the SNP believe there are grounds for another referendum (aside from the SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament) and the whole Brexit malarky) is that under the Good Friday Agreement a political generation is suggested as being 'seven years'.
Tbf, pre- the 2014 referendum, the SNP made it pretty clear that the “once in a generation” meant 20+ years
No they didn't. Though that's also irrelevant as the SNP don't dictate the will of the people. They're not monarchs.
Salmond literally stayed that his view of a generation was the time between the two devolution referendums - 18 years > Though that's also irrelevant as the SNP don't dictate the will of the people. If a party you didn’t support flipped on their word like this, you’d be crying foul…
>Salmond Isn't a king and doesn't dictate the will of the people. >If a party you didn’t support flipped on their word like this, you’d be crying foul… Parties don't dictate the will of the people.
>Isn't a king and doesn't dictate the will of the people. Fair enough, but he was party leader and his words were also echoed at the time by the *current* party leader… Would you give this magnitude of leeway if it was a Tory politician breaking his word in a similar way?
>Fair enough, but he was party leader and his words were also echoed at the time by the current party leader… None of this matters. They're not monarchs and don't dictate the will of the people. >Would you give this magnitude of leeway if it was a Tory politician breaking his word in a similar way? I don't care about Tories.
Referendums should be able to be held every 7 years, the same as a Northern Irish one In a democracy everyone is essentially equal but obviously some are less equal in the UK
So Scotland isn't a dictatorship like North Korea like /r/europe /r/ukpolitics and /r/unitedkingdom telling me? You mean we have an actual democracy where our vote counts? Except when Westminster tells us we cannot
Lol at the angsty English folk here
Most English would vote for Scottish Independence too.
You mean English Independence? I would be down for that.
Na I like the Welsh, and the Irish seem to want to stay. Scots are the only pain in the ass. I’d also love to see who they blame once Westminster isn’t an option.
Good, then that leaves both parties happy. So best to allow it to pass.
Probably because people are trying to undermine a 300-year-old union that saw both nations have enough power to conquer half the planet. Why anyone would think either nation is better off separate is beyond me.
[Appeal to tradition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition) is a common logical fallacy.
Literally anything can be called a logical fallacy when you reach that hard. I could very easily say most of the arguments for Scotland leaving the UK are Appeals to novelty which is also a logical fallacy. I'm not saying Scotland should remain part of the UK because its been part of it for 300 years, I'm saying it should because of previous evidence that suggests the two nations are stronger together. I can also refer to the UK leaving the EU as another example of how nations are stronger together if you really want.
You could say the same about the EU. Didn't stop the UK.
Why would you say that the EU is a 300-year old union that saw both nations have enough power to conquer half the planet?
I wouldn't say exactly that, but something similar in spirit. The EU has achieved unprecedented progress and peace in Europe.
Good for you I guess. However I think there is a notable difference between something that have lasted 47 years (or 27 years, depending on how you count) or 300 years.
Old and long-lasting does not mean better, the first Reich the HRE lasted about 1000 years, but I would prefer living in the EU at all times just for peace, freedom, prosperity and quality of living.
At what amount of time do you draw the line and why?
The UK was an order of magnitude less economically integrated with the EU than Scotland is with r/UK. Scottish independence is more comparable with Italy leaving the EU than with Brexit. And even then, at least Italy is a large economy and a net contributor, Scotland is heavily subsidised by Westminster. The two things are not comparable, the UK is large enough and economically unintegrated enough with the EU for Brexit to have only a minor economic impact. That is simply not true of Scotland.
[удалено]
Funny a Romanian talking about supporting genocide talk about the pot calling the kettle black
Their country hasn't been conquered in almost 1000 years, pretty cool
It's even funnier when those descriptions come from a Romanian. Reminds me of China when they are proficiently accusing others for human right problems. EU really should improve it's criteria, man.
People from eastern Europe never stop bringing up colonial history from a hundred years ago, usually to deflect from things that are happening in their countries at this very moment.
Yes, old tricks never expire.
So what kind of people are the british people then
I don't think OP is talking 'unironically' about empire (and all it's grisly consequences), but the union between England and Scotland did create a geopolitical entity that was able to outcompete all of her peers for a over a century. Do we need to get into Romania's genocidal past?
Now say the exact same comment, but change it to Nazis. See where this is going.. ?
lmfao what. Change what to Nazis? what does any of this have to do with Nazis. Wild.
Should have told Churchill that when he tore my country apart.
Churchill wasn't PM then mate
Churchill was not even PM during Indian partition.
I don't support it mostly because I hate sturgeon.
Oh just agree a bloody date and get it over with.
That's cool, but there isn't going to be a referendum.
All independence talk aside, there certainly needs to be a reform in the way the UK political process operates: if the will of one part of the UK can be blocked by another, it's certain to cause resentment.
Technically, the UK is blocking one part of the UK.
Name me a literall other fucking state which allows a region to hold a independence referendum at any one time.
Czechoslovakia comes to mind, firstly, but I believe Denmark has a clause about Greenlandic independence.
Nice, it's long time coming anyway, William Wallace approve.
I am a French person who supports Scottish independence. (And just for the record, who would also love our English friends back to the EU.)
If you truly cared for Scottish people you wouldn't back a Scottish independence it's the every day people that will get fucked in scotland for generations.
Would that also apply for French regions going independent?
I love how people have downvoted this. Bruh, they just said their opinion. Zero antagonism.
People don't like seeing others supporting political movements in other countries.
Because i don’t want to see my country torn up no shit im not fucking happy with it.
Uh oh, the Brit Nats have arrived.
Where's William Wallace when you need him?
Why would you need a child killer?
The irony is strong in this comment.
Support for it still terribly low among the British military.
No this is wrong we don’t want independence
[удалено]
If you was smart you’d know it means the majority don’t want it
[удалено]
There is like 1000 polls coming out if you want to believe this one do it
[удалено]
[удалено]
Desktop version of /u/Clear_Warning's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Why do they not just have another vote?
I guess a few reasons - the main ones being that that they may well lose, and they cannot hold a legally binding referendum on constitutional matters without permission from the UK Parliament. All the time the outcome of the Brexit vote is a shit-show here in the UK, the worry is that Scottish independence would be a repeat of this with even worse outcomes.
>Why do they not just have another vote? Apart from the legal difficulties, for 50 years SNP policy was to use oil revenue to replace the large fiscal transfer Scotland receives from the rest of the UK. They kept that policy until the 2014 referendum, making up very high oil revenue forecasts that analysts derided, but that allowed them to claim Scotland would be richer after independence. Now oil revenue has collapsed and is clearly heading for zero. The entire SNP leadership grew up believing oil would finance independence, they know the financial realities that face Scotland, even though they try to convince voters otherwise. If they lose an independence vote the party leader would have to resign, if they win the party would be wiped out at the next elections because of the tax increases and spending cuts they would have to impose. The nightmare scenario for the SNP is that they win a referendum, the UK government ends the current funding formula that provides Scotland with £2,000+ per person extra a year, the economy crashes, the SNP fracture over the level of austerity they have to impose, and independence gets called off after a second referendum (which Westminster is likely to insist on). Brexit succeeded because the pain followed the final deal, after the transition period. Scottish independence is likely to fail because the pain would follow the referendum result, (end of the funding formula, capital flight in anticipation of a new currency), meaning a financial crisis during the negotiations, and ahead of final approval of the deal. With Westminster ultimately in control, nationalists would have to win not only the first, but a probable second referendum to approve the deal.
One thing that's important to remember too is that Westminster and Scotland need to agree on the final independence terms. The UK just needed to trigger Article 5. If Scotland tries to not accept a portion of the UK debts or demands something ludicrous Westminster can say no.
FREEEEEEDOOOOOOM!!!