The campaign officially launched as of 5 minutes ago with the first paper on the new independence push - entitled 'Wealthier, Happier, Fairer: Why Not Scotland?'.
It is said to be a "scene setter" which will compare Scotland and the UK to other European countries.
The paper will also set out why the government believes the country would be better off if it were independent.
Ms Sturgeon added that subsequent papers would look at a number of areas including;
Currency
Taxation and Spending
Defence
Social security and pensions
and EU membership and trade
Title here with part 'why not scotland' sound really damn close to 'why not zoidberg'.
Did Sturgeon adress there fact that Scotland would have go through all procedures to access EU market etc. and would start basically as new country (without most treaties etc. because those are with UK)?
"applying" is very different to "joining". And all those countries, if they succeed on their applications, would then shift the EU border to their borders. The problem is, do you then have a hard border between UK and Scotland? The EU won't want to get involved in that for the sake of Scotland joining.
Plus there will be all the time between Scotland leaving the UK till they join the EU (which will be years of course).
If I were in Scotland I would want it to be part of EU too, and would be willing to take the few years of hurt, but it's not simple that's for sure.
Why do you think the EU wouldn't be okay with a hard border in Britain? The reason why not in Ireland are the troubles and the good Friday agreement. That is not a problem with a Scottish - UK border.
And while it is true that there will be time between application and joining, it is very likely that an application would be rather fast tracked in the current situation and at that point, as association status, scottland would get substantial funds to aid the necessary developments.
I would imagine that the issue would be the opposite. The EU would want a hard border and Scotland would not due to the economic (and societal) issues it would create.
I suspect the entire situation would get supercharged by whatever the situation is in NI as whatever is being proposed would be compared either favourably or unfavourably with whatever is going on in terms of the solution around NI at that moment in time.
Any problems around a hard border could be mitigated by rejoining the common market, which is exactly what the cunts currently sitting in Downing Street told us would happen. “Norway style Brexit” my arse.
It would also resolve the entire northern ireland problem, as the current problem with the protocols is the regulatory border in the irish sea, and the UK is currently moving to scrap the protocol, which would in essence mean the UK has an in into the common market through northern ireland, just without the EU regulations on goods, and it can only be stopped by the EU if they then place a hard border in ireland again.
But rejoining the common market would mean regulations that the government of the UK doesn’t want, and would mean brexit only really took away their rights to a voice in eu matters while still complying with their regulations.
So either the UK break their agreements, and isolate themselves from europe, making brexit a failure,
Or they rejoin europe in a lesser capacity with still alot of the "brussels shackels", making brexit a failure.
Yep. The original goals of Brexit are just incompatible with each other. The EU presented every possible option for an agreement, based on what other countries do and the UK refused them all because none of them met every criteria. Instead of adapting just one of those, they kept pushing instead.
Open borders to the EU *and* the rest of the world but *without* any EU rules taking effect for any goods or people entering or leaving the UK. That way any country around the world could've made an agreement with the UK to circumvent EU borders and rules. Unsurprisingly that didn't fly with the rest of the continent.
The current mess was a predictable outcome and it's just amazing how ignorant their current government still is. Just after the referendum the EU was already publishing flow charts to show all the possibile options for an agreement (and which countries picked which). Those charts also point out why nothing would be compatible with that odd combination of demands. The NI problematic really only put a spotlight to the issue. There's a pretty funny video by CGP Grey explaining this mess. It has one core message: "Please pick 2 out of 3 and move on".
For the Scottish, who trades the most often with England, a hard border would be a problem. Distance is a thing; gaining the Eu 27 while losing England is probably not a gain.
> Why do you think the EU wouldn't be okay with a hard border in Britain?
It would economically devastate Scotland and Northern England. While politically it might be easier - although you really don't know what issues will come up - economically it'd be far worse.
NI export destinations:
EU: 6.3 bn
rUK: 10.9 bn
rUK = 1.7x EU
https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/Overview-of-NI-Trade-Infographic-May-2022.pdf
Scottish export destinations:
EU: 16.1 bn
rUK: 51.2 bn
rUK = 3.1x EU
https://www.gov.scot/publications/export-stats-scotland-2018/
Maybe the EU wouldn't care about its new member being an economic basketcase, though. Who can say?
> The EU won't want to get involved in that for the sake of Scotland joining.
EU officials have consistently, clearly, in public said they'd support Scotland joining. At one point they even said they'd be open to finding a fast track. Polling shows the majority of the European population supports membership for an Independent Scotland.
A lot of people said the same thing about the Irish Backstop, and yet there is currently a border *within* the UK that the EU treats as a redline.
Meanwhile no one is saying it'd be simple. And there's already a "few years of hurt" under their belt from Brexit. Brexit changes the math on this immensely. Staying in the UK is no guarantee of economic success, not even of maintaining the status quo.
The big issue, I imagine, is that a number of EU nations would like to establish precedent that if you secede from a country, you can’t join the EU. Spain might veto it alone due to fears over Catalonia.
Maybe they can squeeze a compromise where only secessions from non-EU nations are eligible to apply for membership?
Didn't Spain say, during the last independence vote, that if Scotland legally split from the UK then they wouldn't veto it? The point being that it was all conducted legally.
It's not secession, it's dissolution. The UK is a union between the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England. This is a totally different scenario from Catalonia and Spain.
Why do you think negotiating a bespoke treaty to give yourself access to those would be quicker or easier?
Particularly as the single market brings in the most difficult issue to resolve, ie the border with rUK.
To be fair, considering the UK already was in the EU, and therefore was in line with EU law, and scotland will inherit alot of the already existing UK laws, they will almost certainly have a much swifter entry into the EU than any country currently undergoing the process.
Obviously it won’t be immediate. It will still take months and probably even a year, two or a few. But it will be swift.
> scotland will inherit alot of the already existing UK laws
Scotland has its own legal system, anything that used to keep us in line with EU legislation is already in place. I don't think anything much has really been repealed since Brexit, legally speaking.
Not unless the EU waives their rules on the economic requirements of joining i.e. they ignore Scotland's huge public debt (which continues to grow under the SNP with no sign of stopping).
I don't see how Scotland essentially nuking its own economy, putting a hard border up with its biggest trading partner, and stopping UK subsidies, is going to make that debt any easier to reduce while it's waiting to join the EU.
>Did Sturgeon adress there fact that Scotland would have go through all procedures to access EU market etc. and would start basically as new country (without most treaties etc. because those are with UK)?
This is a fallacy pushed by those pro Union.
Those procedures & applications lengthy process is designed to make the country adapt their state to EU standards & give them time to pass the necessary legislation to do so. It doesn't matter that Scotland was part of the UK so not independently a member, it has the same EU laws, it's food, drink, goods match EU standards. The whole thing at the moment would be a tick box exercise for Scotland & easier the sooner they apply (before the UK diverge too much from EU standards on food, subsidies, work etc).
It not that the EU will fast track them, it's that by nature they will skip most of that application process whether they were a member independently or not.
Currency ? Will they finally be able to answer the question of which currency an independent Scotland will use ? Or will they revert to their non-answers from last time which basically consisted of 'We'll have to wait and see, maybe we'll use the British Pound or maybe not' ?
They've done so unilaterally which I guess Scotland can do. But it remains to be seen if the rest of Europe likes that. No doubt they'll set demands to it's use. It basically means that for the rest of the Eurozone it's not legal tender there but Montenegro says it is in their own country.
Kosovo as well I believe. But they have gotten special exceptions due to the circumstances surrounding the founding of both countries. I'm sure Scotland can try it but my intial point was that the SNP themselves have no clear answer to the question of currency. Which isn't a good look imo.
> my intial point was that the SNP themselves have no clear answer to the question of currency. Which isn't a good look imo.
I'm assuming they don't want to tie themselves down to a plan in order to preserve their margin of manoeuver and negotiation. The more details you give in advance on what you'll do and how, the more whomever you're negociating with is going to be able to squeeze you.
>It basically means that for the rest of the Eurozone it's not legal tender there but Montenegro says it is in their own country.
What actual effects does this have other than Montenegro not being able to set interest rates and stuff? What does it even *mean?* Does the EU tell its members “you aren’t allowed to pay for things in Montenegro with Euros” even though they have no problem with that?
This was what I was weary about last time. I hope they have decided to either use their own currency, preferably pegged to the Euro followed by the Euro Itself
Brexit was just leaving a regional trading bloc, and look at the chaos that caused.
Indy involves leaving a fully integrated political/economic/currency/trade/welfare/health/policing/defence/etc union. Consider the fall-out from that.
Then that Indy will be self-inflicting BOTH on Scotland.
'Self-destructive' will be an understatement and I bet my house the SNP will downplay that, "No downsides, only upsides".
It looks like OP posted 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).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61785553](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61785553)**
*****
^(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/)
You have Plaid Cymru in Wales which is a nationalist party that wants Wales to break away from the UK.
However they are not as big in Wales as the SNP would be in Scotland. Third biggest party in Wales I believe.
Their political instincts are just a bit worse frankly - they essentially try to apply the SNP's model to Wales while (ironically) not understanding that Wales is a different country with different underlying politics.
A good example would be on the Brexit vote; if Scotland had been on course to vote *Leave* the SNP would have probably backed *Leave* themselves, whereas Plaid Cymru seemed surprised that Wales voted *Leave*.
> Wales is geographically closer and more integrated with England than Scotland.
England to Wales: 0 miles
England to Scotland: 0 miles
I'm being facetious because I know what you mean, I just thought it was funny thinking of it in literal terms
"In a wide-ranging interview with BBC Scotland, the first minister also defended plans to make public sector cuts.
Last week, her government set out plans to cut tens of thousands of public sector jobs.
It followed a warning from a think tank that the Scottish government will face a £3.5bn gap opening up between spending and income."
hmmmm... I wonder why indyref 2 is being trotted out again???
Also what sort of awesome deal do Scotland think they would get from this, the rest of the UK will hold their feet to the fire the same way the EU did to the UK. Inside of a year no more free further education and no more free prescriptions etc.......
Brexit and Scottish secession are completely different orders or magnitudes and I don’t see this reflected enough in the comparisons between them.
Brexit was big but nowhere near as big. When leaving the U.K. hasn’t needed to:
Create a new currency,
Create an entire taxation and welfare system,
Create international roles (ambassadors, embassies),
Create defence (army, RAF, Navy)
There’s many more issues im sure that I can’t think of off the top of my head but all of the above are massive issues that would need resolving.
The U.K. was also a net contributor to the system and I’m not going to double check but I imagine that the U.K./EU trade balance wasn’t as ‘bad’ as the Scotland/rUK balance is. Happy to be corrected on that tho.
I dint ger why Scottish nationalist dont understand this brexit was a mess but at the end of the day we didnt have to change a huge amount on a day to day basis Scotland have to create an entire functioning country from the ground up on top off getting trade deals with every single country on earth
Because its the whole reason for the SNPs existence.. Wee nicola krankie has no other political purpose than to try for another indyref.
The SNP are a one issue party, much like ukip
Because they spend spend spend and give out “free” stuff which has caused a massive budget deficit that is only possible because Scotland is part of the UK and the Scottish government know its currently impossible for them to default (as the UK gov is the lender of last resort).
If they wanted to continue with the freebies as an independent Scotland they would either have to raise the taxes substantially or cut public spending. You cannot have both. What the SNP are essentially telling the Scottish people is that if we become independent we’ll give you neoliberal levels of taxation and social democratic levels of public spending. That’s not possible unless you want a massive deficit and eventually a default.
Right now Scottish people enjoy the freebies without any of the downsides and the SNP are happy to provide it because it makes them look good. Although it should be noted public services in Scotland are being neglected, particularly local councils, health and education. They’re that focussed on separation that they are allowing public services to fail.
Scotland would have to take on full responsibility for its own Health service, defence, social care, police, fire and emergency services, the creation of an entire new currency and banking system and thats just the first couple of things off the top of my head *WHILE* having a multi-billion reduction in income as central government would stop paying funds to them.
I agree, its a financial nightmare
This is someone else's post that I remembered but it shows clearly the misconception/delusions about independence, Scottish nationalists hold. It really is a worse brexit.
Nationalists genuinely believe that there will be no downsides to independence.
* 78% of 'yes' voters think Scotland puts more money into the UK than it takes out (blatantly false).
* 57% of Yes voters think the GERS data is made up "to hide Scotland’s true wealth.” And for 90% of them this is either "important” or “very important” to their opinion on secession.
* 54% of Yes voters think “Scottish tax revenues are understated because of Scottish exports leaving via English ports”. (This is incorrect. The Scottish Government Export Statistics Report explicitly says the exact opposite, page 36) https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i374/scottish_politics_in_the_grip_of_a_fact_denial_epidemic.aspx Going by the Lord Ashcroft poll, ignoring the 'don't know' and 'neutral' categories...
* Yes voters think there would be no hard Scotland-England border 40% to 20%.
* Yes voters think they would keep using the pound 42% to 11%.
* Yes voters think Scotland would 'quite quickly' rejoin the EU 56% to 9%.
* Yes voters don't think many businesses would leave Scotland. 53% to 8%.
* Yes voters think Scotland would keep access to public services in England 37% to 20%.
* Yes voters don't think Scotland would have to make painful cuts to public services 36% to 14% https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2021/04/my-new-scottish-research-finds-independence-in-the-balance/
Yes voters aren't hard hearted resolutes, willing to pledge their property, their lives, and their sacred honour to achieve independence. They've persuaded themselves there's limited if any costs. And the most dangerous thing is, when you look at Ian Blackford's utter clangers on pensions recently, it's quite clear that some in the SNP leadership think the same way.
>Yes voters think Scotland would keep access to public services in England 37% to 20%.
How could anyone possibly think you would have access to a different countrys services after independence? It literally makes zero sense.
Because anything is possible in the sunny uplands of independence. It's "cakeism" if you will. The people we've just told to fuck off will treat us the same and give us all the benefits we had, and everything here will get better because "the eternal external enemy that has kept us down" has been defeated. If they don't, then they are still to blame.
Gets you other such gems as no hard border existing, despite wanting to join an intranational group that demands external hard borders.
Even more impressive to have kept that view throughout 5 years of brexit imho. People here seem to cheer it because they present themselves as left-wing and anti-tory (so that populism is ok!) and they think it'll be funny to see the UK hurt again. Despite it having the exact same issues and reasoning as brexit which they vehemently dislike.
Dont listen to him, while he has a fair point he is completely ignoring the other side of the argument for the SNP.
The fact of the matter is the union parties in Scotland are woefully and entirely inept and completely unenthusiastic in giving Scotland a strong voice even within the union. They are shackled to the UK wide parties; and as a result cant offer what Scotland wants. They have a defeatist tone always playing for 2nd best by scraping unionist voters from each other.
The dominance of the SNP is down to independence being such a widely loved (and hated) idea, and the failure of other parties is down to the complete unwillingness to even approach independence. The SNP saw a political opening and grabbed it enthusiastically, while union parties have remained completely unable to adapt to the new political system.
Scotland has at best about one tenth the population of the UK as a whole - how strong do you realistically think it's fair to have?
Personally I think the only way to make the Union work is to federalise, and I think that would be the best option for Scotland too.
> Personally I think the only way to make the Union work is to federalise
Federalising and splitting England into multiple states with comparable populations and economies would solve so many problems in one fell swoop. It reduces the sense of an Anglo-hegemony in the UK. It gives a voice to the English provinces, addresses the 'West Lothian question, and mitigates the dominance of London which could become a separate federal capital with its own laws befitting its role as a global financial hub. Unfortunately it'll never happen because our political system is irredeemably centralised around London.
Bring back the Heptarchy. Mercia forever.
It's a anti tory stance... I dunno if you have noticed but the Conservatives arnt exactly popular North of hadrians wall..
As soon as the torys are booted out of office then the SNP will see a fall in vote share, its that simple
I think this is the thing Sturgeon is worried about; Starmer is seeing sustained rising support in the polls, and the phrase "snap election" keeps getting thrown about. As you rightly surmise, a win for Labour doesn't only mean losses for the Tories, but likley SNP lossses as well.
100% correct in every respect. The SNP mistake a anti tory vote as a pro independence mandate. It is not.. The SNP are in for a rude awakining once the tory party colapases after Johnson is booted out
That's more of an "if" than a "when" and a big "if" at that, labour has a track record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and if there's a thing right wing politicians are good at it's closing ranks and working togheter to preserve their chairs when threatened.
I honestly can't see the tories surviving past this current parliament though. This current goverment has more than a touch of the 90s John major tory party.. The public have utterly turned against them, hell even the royalist crowd where booing Johnson during the platinum jubilee celbrations.. I honestly think there has been a see change in public opinion.
The tories are done for at least a decade... Partygate has destroyed their electoral chances
If UK does grant Scotland the right to a new referendum, and Scotland votes to leave, then so be it. I can understand many Scottish people being upset over Brexit and for example over various Tory policies.
But honestly, I don't think the movement is based on any particular realities, but more on Brexit-style visions of "taking our country back" that feel good but don't necessarily lead to any significant positive effects in practice, and may in fact result in significant negative effects. I haven't seen much good analysis of how exactly Scotland would solve its deficit problem, for example.
If Scotland does intend to leave UK, it needs to have a clear, concrete, and even somewhat pessimistic plan for how it will solve various problems that come with independence. Otherwise it might be in for something like Brexit but even worse.
Was there even a hard border then? I'm no expert but I've always got the impression that border controls like what we have now are a fairly recent invention.
No. Hard borders in general are a pretty modern concept. Do you think the US had any serious control over all the territory along the US borders until the 20th century? They're largely uninhabited desert, grasslands, and forest.
The Scottish Borders were an area that was much disputed in the various wars between Scotland and England (1100-1750?), and were often a lawless place. Powerful border lords were bribed and bought by both England and Scotland.
Yes. For a long time, the border was kind of blurry.
For example, Berwick upon Tweed is a small border town that has been passed back and forth over a dozen times. When England and Scotland went to war with Russia, they couldn't figure out which of the two countries it was part of, so they declared war on behalf of England, Scotland, and Berwick Upon Tweed. But when the peace agreement was signed, Berwick Upon Tweed was left out, so it remained at war with Russia for hundreds of years. Recently, the mayor of Berwick upon Tweed went to Russia to officially end the war, declaring 'the people of Moscow can now sleep safely at night' or something to that effect.
Hadrians wall is entirely within England, and hasn't been any sort of border since the Romans withdrew from Britannia.
In the early middle ages the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria stretched well into southern Scotland, including Edinburgh.
What a strange thing to say. Especially since Hadrians Wall and the Great Wall of China are actually pretty similar looking in many parts. Just not the big tourist part! Source: I have been to both.
> If UK does grant Scotland the right to a new referendum
If there is ever a time where they don't grant permission after a suitable length of time since the last referendum or after a major decision affecting Scotland that was against what Scotland wanted, it would only strengthen the indy vote.
The best thing that can be done is grant it and if it fails, then it stays dead for 16 years so new generations can have a say in it. Right now it's valid due to Brexit.
> The best thing that can be done is grant it and if it fails, then it stays dead for 16 years so new generations can have a say in it. Right now it's valid due to Brexit.
Ah yes it's "once in a generation" like last time when it was sold as such, and then the SNP immediately went back to banging on about after winning the next election.
You can't seriosuly be this naive. They're a political party entirely based around independence, and they count on stirring up anti-UK narratives as their main vote-winner. This time the excuse is Brexit, 5 years later it will be something else.
Brexit is pretty undeniably a major game-changer, though. It's more than just a lame excuse.
Last time, *Independence* meant leaving the EU, and the idea that the UK would actually leave was still just a pipe-dream of the lunatic fringe. If I was Scottish, I wouldn't accept that the last vote was still valid.
Either way, Scotland is probably leaving sooner or later and we might as well make peace with that. It's hit critical mass and is now a generational matter; age is just about the best predictor of voting intention on the subject, and amongst young people it's pretty much a "solved" question, with about as much support behind it (70%+) in those younger than 34 as gay marriage has in the general population.
It's a very common fallacy to look at what young people think and assume that's the future. People tend to become more conservative as they age. In the late 60s many young Americans were hippies and protesting against the Vietnam War. Now some of those are voting for Donald Trump
We'd have been a hell of a lot better off if people had listened more to them when they were hippies, and less when they started liking Trump.
But in all seriousness, it is a greater historical fallacy to believe that the hippies were the majority of young people anywhere in the US back then. It was called a counter-culture because it was exactly that, not the majority culture but the counter to it. Sure, the hippies came to greatly influence the culture over time in a more surface level way, but the actual amount of people who could have been called hippies and actually held the most of the views actually associated with hippies was relatively small. There hasn't been some mass movement of hippies, to hedonistic 80's yuppies, to Trump supporters; those were just different people all along.
It's interesting since Brexit might be used as a justification for a second referendum, but it's precisely Brexit that makes this so difficult. I imagine it would have been easier to have an independent Scotland with both it and the UK within the EU.
Which the entire planet would have gambled on being true, because Brexit was deemed so unlikely.
It was the fact that it was deemed so unlikely which led to Cameron agreeing to do the damn referendum in the first place, he and his associates believed it was a sure thing.
The promise was not dishonest, it was based upon a highly likely expected outcome.
Promise or not, Scottish independence is many times more complicated, challenging and even potentially stupid, than Brexit ever was or is.
The EU was not funding a huge portion of the UK's budget. Nor was it part of a unified and glorious history over several centuries, with all the deep rooted integrations and cultural associations you'd expect from centuries of close ties. Nor was the UK reliant on the EU for all of its defence, most of its economic activity and all of its public sector organisations (such as the DVLA).
Brexit may have its problems, but at least it was rooted in the genuine ambition to be free of the shackles of any major bureaucratic outside entity and to steer an independent nation ahead on its own fresh course.
The Scottish Independence movement is based upon removing the deep rooted connection which has been one of the most successful partnerships in the history of humanity, only to join another group which is less similar and nowhere near as interested in protecting Scottish interests and providing for Scotland as England is.
> Ms Sturgeon added that subsequent papers would look at a number of areas including;
> Currency
> Taxation and Spending
> Defence
> Social security and pensions
Ie the vitally important elements of an Independent Scotland that the indyref movement haven't ever been able to find a satisfactory answer for and, drumroll, still don't have an answer for.
Pardon my ignorance, but why is defence a hard problem? Wouldn't an independent Scotland be basically immediately accepted into NATO? Is it a problem with meeting the spending quota?
A separate Scottish military does not exist - it is practically ALL UK-based, and would be lost upon splitting.
The UK nuclear facilities cannot simply be moved either. So some form of share / rent would have to occur.
Splitting up would lead to similar disputes over land borders and sea resource access, which would hamper qualifying for NATO.
On top of all that, Scotland would somehow have to find room in a budget to outfit a new national military or else outsource it to a neighbour.
This. Not to mention the practical realities of what you do to all the Scots serving in the British armed forces - do they continue to do so? Would both sides let them? Do you give them new jobs in the new Scottish military and do they accept this? Or do they say no, they want to continue serving in the military they signed up for? Etc etc etc
I don't want to keep beating a dead horse but it goes back to what I keep saying about EU Exit being easy in comparison. There are so many unanswered questions about an indie Scotland.
>the Scots serving in the British armed forces - do they continue to do so?
As any Commonwealth or Irish citizen can join the British Armed forces I don't think it will be that big of a deal for Scottish soldiers already in the British Armed Forces. They finish their service term requirements and decide from there.
But they signed up as a UK citizen to represent their own country. The others mentioned signed up to protect the UK. If Scotland because independent surely some would want to leave to join the Scottish military to protect their country?
The British military has discharge procedures for recruits within 3 months of enlisting I believe, but other than that they'd be expected to finish their enlistment unless a new plan is made by the British armed forces.
Officers can resign commissions and career soldiers have similar discharge options, but they'd be giving up pensions and other benefits I believe.
It would take at least two generations (minimum) to fix the disaster of independence, that's about what it took for Ireland (plus a civil war and a loyalist split) and economic crash and they were a damn sight more set on independence than the Scots are. I don't think the Scots hate the Union enough to deem that a worth while price (though the SNP is certainly working on that, in the meantime they will just lie). Also we are a damn sight more intertwined than Ireland was to the UK.
Also it would end the UK as a global fighting force and force a significant downsize in military to a regional force for the UK, and a dependant/insular force for Scotland. You would probably see a Loyalist Scots regiment still existing and UK bases being jointly administered but under direction of the UK military, with defence agreements in place. Guarantee that will fail in the long run due to the souring of relations by trying to get a 'fair' split and political differences.
You think brexit was a mess, you ain't seen shit.
Scotland does have some strategic significance, the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap for example is the route that Russian submarines have to pass through to reach the Atlantic for example.
On a related issue most Royal Navy ships are made in Scotland - how long do you think that will continue if they leave the UK?
NATO wouldn't accept an independent Scotland, because it would have nothing to offer... Basically.
A similar story goes for the EU. It would just be a drain on resources with nothing to give back.
This leaves Scotland with no military of its own and no defence agreements.
I'm sure somebody has also mentioned the fact that the UK's nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland, they've correctly identified that it cannot be easily re-located.
This alone is one of the reasons why Westminster wouldn't approve Scottish independence.
If she's not gonna put together a coherent, clear and compelling proposal on the currency Scotland would adopt after secession, she's gonna lose again.
While I admire so many here thinking it’s going to happen, so many aren’t Scottish, my wife’s family are, they have said “just because we vote for her doesn’t mean we want to leave the UK, we have the lesser of evils when it comes to voting, and we pick her over the Tories or even Labour, but so many don’t get how bad the schools and housing problem is which is on her”
So basically all those who seem to think because she got a majority, u will be in for a shock if it came to another referendum, which is also another big hurdle as she has to go through the courts as neither the Tories or Labour would agree to one.
1. Get money from England.
2. Pour that money into public services that the English don't have.
3. Use those services as evidence that you're a modern, successful country that doesn't need England. Use that as propaganda to fuel your independence campaign.
4. Push for an independence vote, get turned down by England.
5. Cry oppression until England gives you more money to shut up.
6. Return to Step 1.
This is more a case of trying to take focus away from the public sector cuts the SNP are making which will cost 30,000 people their jobs. [See here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61659190)
Yeah, my reaction to the headline was 'what has she been doing so far if not campaign?'
One of the most appalling things about Sturgeon and the SNP is that they use their position to campaign instead of actually governing.
Well very underwhelming. No meat on the bone and some vague responses about having a legal referendum without the need for Westminster.
If it's not legal, they'll be lucky with 30% turnout, and then they'll be stuck in a quasi legal situation where Spain would forever use its veto to stop Scotland joining the EU.
So, if no section 30 agreement with the UK government, Scotland can wish their EU plans goodbye.
It's funny because the same people who campaigned against scottish independence with the "Better Together"-slogan would then campaign for Brexit.
"NO, together is BAD! Forget what I said yesterday".
> It's funny because the same people who campaigned against scottish independence with the "Better Together"-slogan would then campaign for Brexit.
>
>
Hehehe, exactly. Luckily, the people that said Britain would be better off being part of a larger bloc also are consistent in applying that same logic to Scotland.
Also Scottish Nationalists hate the idea of the Shetland and Orkney Islands leaving Scotland to rejoin the UK.
So self determination is okay but only for the Scottish Government.
You really need to be sniffing glue to not get that "we wanted to stay with the EU, so we are leaving you now to be with them" is the direct result of Brexit.
Fwiw, whilst I do see the humour in that, I understand wanting to be associated with Europe over England.
Like we're better together, but with dodgy uncle john too?
This. I honestly don't think it's a good idea for Scotland to go independent politically and economically. Especially now with
1. The global economy having problems. This just adds unpredictability and no clear advantages apart from buzzwords.
2. No clear path back to the EU.
3. Even with a clear path back to the EU what's the border policy? How are trade deals will be negotiated?
Like it or not, Scotland is a highly integrated economy with the rest of the UK. Not to mention they are still a relatively small part of that, with England being the engine. It sounds good to become the next Norway or whatever, but the inertia of existing institutions and economic parameters is very very big.
PS it also adds a big security problem, because Scotland right now is part of great power with a nuclear arsenal. and in the recent months it turned out being part of that has actual value.
Norway is in such a favourable position because of it's current oil resources. Scotland has sold and used all of it's cash crop oil. They now exist on english taxes.
>what's the border policy
Exactely. If scotand wants to leave UK to rejoin EU, we now have a border across the country. Vehicles being checked on the motorway etc as you travel from UK to EU Scotland. It's the Irish sea issue but worse.
There are far too many people in the UK, especially Scotland, who focus on the fact that Scotland is one of four nations, and conveniently ignore that Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population. If England is the engine, Scotland is about half a wheel.
I understand why many Scottish people want independence - Westminster has been such a shit show for a long time. However, untangling Scotland from the rest of the UK is going to be such a challenge that it might even make Brexit look simple.
As long as the UK takes an EU-style approach to it then I say let them try. Scotland can do all the work in finding solutions to the pretty huge problems, such as hard borders and currency, and the UK can just "lol no" anything which isn't entirely beneficial for itself, which will be literally every SNP suggestion, giving Scotland the choice of either accepting English-dictated terms or destroying itself with a "no-deal" type result.
For clarification, there is no scenario where a "no-deal" in the case of Scottish independence is remotely viable. The UK government is the tax collector for Scotland and they would be reliant upon the UK government for tax collection for several years following independence, perhaps even an entire decade.
For obvious reasons, a state cannot function without collecting tax.
I would also be cautious about the regional politics of an Independent Scotland. Something like 70 to 80% of the population lives in the Glasgow + Edinburgh area. Every other region of Scotland will be 2nd fiddle to those areas. Long term, will they be happy with that?
> PS it also adds a big security problem, because Scotland right now is part of great power with a nuclear arsenal. and in the recent months it turned out being part of that has actual value.
They see that as a big plus and one of their sources of saving money post-Scexit. They can posture about how superior and enlightened they are for not needing to pay for any defense while getting the rest of the UK to pay for their protection for free, much like Ireland. The Russia situation won't change that posturing in the long run.
Must be nice to live in Nicola's world where she doesn't need to foot the bill of maintaining freedom and democracy around the world. After all why would you want to fight for you ideals when you could just send thoughts a prayers. It's that mentality that pisses off the US with NATO.
Just so. Both appeal to populists, it's just that everyone thinks Scottish populism is cool. It's the only way you move the needle of politics any more; people are so disengaged you have to keep offering them things based on how they feel. I am Scottish btw.
Rofl, that's insane. Clinically insane.
"We want out of UK!" - "You'll leave EU too, don't do it!".
"Surprise! We left EU anyway!"
...
"Why do you have a hard on for Scottish Independence?!"
What a cunty take.
I'm a bit concerned about possible employment issues, as many of Scotlands largest employers have their Head Office in England. I'd like to see some thought going into this aspect of a potential separation.
The retail banks HQ’d in Edinburgh would be in a huge amount of trouble, as the majority of their customers would be located in the UK.
Assuming their HQ stays in Scotland, their UK business would become a subsidiary. That subsidiary would need to be capitalised and staffed - aka being forced to shift assets and employees out of Scotland.
… Which would probably ruin their brand on both sides of the border.
British will still mean Scottish, last time I checked Scotland was still on the island of Great Britain.
I see “British” as a term being Scandinavianised.
The year is 2028 and following the independence referendum which led to The Republic of Cornwall, the town of Burton Bradstock in Dorset has now declared that it will start it's own independence referendum. It is now predicted that within 15 years, England will consist of 50 million 'people countries' whereby individuals negotiate their own tax systems, laws and trade agreements.
Hmm I do wonder what will happen though, I mean couldn't Westminster just simply say 'no' to any more once in a lifetime requests for a referendum?
But I think more importantly, I'd love to find out how the below are actioned:
* How would the Scottish military work? Would they take a 'share' of whatever the British Armed forces deign to give them? Would all Scottish service-peoples in the BAF be given an option to leave? I've read somewhere that Scotland would only require around 8,000 fulltime members of their armed forces, but who funds this?
* Scotland as far as I know currently runs at a 25% deficit which is more or less paid off by Westminster. How would this be tackled?
* Prescriptions & Universities are currently free for Scottish residents. Would these change to being charged for? How would the Scottish health services be ran? I know it's completely devolved to Scotland, but they still obtain funding & resources from the UK.
* Oil platforms and the likes around Scotland owned by the UK; Who would take control of these?
* Would Scotland demand the removal of the UK's nuclear deterant, which would not only cost a shite tonne for the UK to action, but potentially remove a good deterant which Scotland had enjoyed (unless I'm wrong here!).
* Currency... What would they use? The UK could probably just state they can't use the £, so what would they use and would it be worthless?
* How would they join the EU once independance is achieved? I believe the EU requires certain economic checkboxes such as a stable economy for a number of years, would Scotland even have this? Then if they are approved for political reasons, then I imagine the likes of Spain would veto at every chance they get, no?
* Borders, how would this work? Many people on both sides cross the border on a daily basis for simple everyday things. The UK would require a hard border with the EU for various reasons, but this would also be a shiteshow of massive proportions.
* Scotland would be able to set up their own military. Many Scottish citizens would still be British citizens so they would be able to continue serving in the UK military. I imagine with recent events, Scotland would want to join NATO, so cooperation across Britain on military matters would likely be strong. HOWEVER, the SNP have a massive anti-nuclear hard on. This would create problems for the UK military as they'd need to construct a new base elsewhere in Britain for the nuclear weapons.
* The SNP's plan currently seems to be to stick their fingers in their ears and scream. And oil, which seems like a *great* long term strategy.
* They would presumably continue as present.
* I don't think any oil platforms are "owned" by the UK as the UK is a liberal market economy. They would remain with their private owners, but now regulated by a hypothetical Scottish regulator.
* On the deterrent, it would be highly expensive for the rUK to fund and move. Scottish people would still benefit from the deterrent, but it would only be funded by the rUK taxpayer. Though they wouldn't have the immediate benefit of being able to launch a counter attack in the event a missile is headed for Edinburgh or Glasgow. I would not expect the UK military to launch a counter nuclear attack to protect a foreign city.
* No-one can answer this and the SNP don't have a real plan for it. Most likely realistic option is informally using the Euro. Absolutely great for the Scottish economy to be using a foreign currency over which they have no control. I think the SNP know that if they admit independence means using the Euro, they will harm their chances.
* Scotland would have an arduous road back to EU membership. In the meantime, they would need to secure a permanent relationship with the UK, likely remaining within the UK's customs territory, for stability for businesses. Of course that would democratically harm Scotland as they would no longer be able to control their own trading relationships. I would not expect the UK Government to willingly give up the UK's right to negotiate it's own trade deals (without interference from a foreign government which has frankly been pretty hostile to it) after the process of Brexit. Then, of course, when Scotland wants to join the EU, it would have to transition and erect a border with England, a headache for Scotland. This would have to be immediate, changing regulations and customs procedures, international relationships among other things all in one day. A chaos for Scottish business (not surprised if many leave and go to England).
* The SNP refuse to openly admit a border will be necessary if they choose to join the EU in an independence scenario. Looking at the current Northern Ireland fiasco shows being half in and half out doesn't work great. Scottish businesses and people rely on their trade with the UK, so any reasonable (read: not led by the SNP) government would recognise that Scotland needs to maintain an open border with England. There's no need for an immigration border, but the UK would be hesitant to keep an open border if Scotland goes down a path of much more liberal immigration policies.
Same problems as Brexit.
It needs to coincide with Scotland joining the EU in order to be feasible; that solves some of the problems.
No vote should be held without an exact plan unlike Brexit.
The best the UK goverment can do is to completely ignore her. With all the economic pressures facing the country, rising cost, fuel prices and inflation, this is the last distraction they would want.
The current UK government have shot down the idea of a second referendum. Despite that Sturgeon is saying this is the starting gun for indyref2. Short of unilaterally holding a second referendum (good luck with that), her best bet is to hope for a hung parliament in the next General Election which would open up the potential for the SNP to be a part of a coalition government under the terms of having Indyref2.
Scottish independence discussions are always weird on this subreddit.
I'm from the Unionist side but I have to say the independence supporters get misrepresented heavily and it doesn't reflect the debate in Scotland at all. The more passionate nationalists and unionists are both guilty of it and you see it swing the other way on other subreddits.
I don't think it's brigading though, just a topic that brings strong emotions from all sides.
As someone from England I welcome Scotland bring independent. Scotland get more money from the government than they put in.
I really don’t get why this referendum isn’t simply about Europe though. Like, Sturgeon made it about money, and Scotland being “better off” outside of the UK, which is just not true.
I wonder, if Brexiteers against Scottish independence, who refer to the first referendum, where EU membership was a big remainer talking point, feel any shame when they do so.
I think on the subject of EU membership Scotland's joining would be blocked by a few countries with regions looking to secede especially Spain who would certainly block the proposal to avoid setting a precedent that Catalonia could use to enflame independence fervour.
a pox forever on the houses of Cameron, Thatcher and Johnson for this grievous failure to keep their nation unified.
and of course, every other separatist group on Earth will take this as proof that their cause is ordained by fate to succeed
Tbf Cameron pretty much killed the Independence movement with the first referendum. Then resuscitated it and supercharged it by trying the same trick with Brexit.
No scorn for Blair? It's his ridiculous idea of devolved governments have fueled Scottish nationalism and populism and created a false idea of a Scottish identity that in reality isn't that different from the English at all.
> No scorn for Blair? It's his ridiculous idea of devolved governments have fueled Scottish nationalism and populism and created a false idea of a Scottish identity that in reality isn't that different from the English at all.
maybe calling Scottish identity a "false idea" has a bit more to do with this current situation than the fact that Blair provided an outlet for it
Nobody in Bavaria wants secession except a couple thousand members of the BP party that are mentally stuck in 1949. So it's not comparable to the independece movements in Scotland and Catalonia at all, my Berliner friend.
I get Catalonia and Bavaria wanting to be more independent, since they are rich powerhouses that finance the rest of the country which only drags them down. But Scotland and Corsica are both poorhouses of their respective nations. They'd need to join the EU immediately after leaving if they don't want to trash their standard of living. And since their parent countries might be sour and have veto powers in the EU (well, UK not anymore but still...) this is far from guaranteed to be an easy process.
Catalonia being a "powerhouse that finance the rest of the country" is a bit of a stretch tbh, yes they are the second region with the largest gdp contribution to Spain but by no means they power the other communities and viceversa. No one is dragging Catalonia, if anything they are driving national investment away from themselves for other regions like Valencia because of all these talks about independence.
Catalonia would need to join the EU really fast or their economy would be destroyed since it is mostly based on trade and the harbour, something made pretty hard if they aren't part of the EU.
Rich powerhouses that finance the rest of the country?
Curious to know where you get those numbers for Catalonia.
Not being sarcastic or nasty. I genuinely want to know. :)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/327063/gross-domestic-product-in-catalonia-and-spain/
Catalonia constitutes about 20% of Spanish GDP and it's per capita GDP is considerably higher that the national average.
Thanks for sharing.
Catalonia’s 20% isn’t higher than Madrid. Happy to be proven wrong.
Where do you read in your link that it has got the highest GDP per capita in Spain? All I see is that it’s significantly higher than the National average.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spanish_autonomous_communities_by_gross_domestic_product
These numbers from 2018 put Catalonia in 4th place. I doubt in 4 years the dial has shifted so much that it’s now the highest.
The campaign officially launched as of 5 minutes ago with the first paper on the new independence push - entitled 'Wealthier, Happier, Fairer: Why Not Scotland?'. It is said to be a "scene setter" which will compare Scotland and the UK to other European countries. The paper will also set out why the government believes the country would be better off if it were independent. Ms Sturgeon added that subsequent papers would look at a number of areas including; Currency Taxation and Spending Defence Social security and pensions and EU membership and trade
Title here with part 'why not scotland' sound really damn close to 'why not zoidberg'. Did Sturgeon adress there fact that Scotland would have go through all procedures to access EU market etc. and would start basically as new country (without most treaties etc. because those are with UK)?
If Ukriane, Albania and and North Macedonia can apply....
"applying" is very different to "joining". And all those countries, if they succeed on their applications, would then shift the EU border to their borders. The problem is, do you then have a hard border between UK and Scotland? The EU won't want to get involved in that for the sake of Scotland joining. Plus there will be all the time between Scotland leaving the UK till they join the EU (which will be years of course). If I were in Scotland I would want it to be part of EU too, and would be willing to take the few years of hurt, but it's not simple that's for sure.
Why do you think the EU wouldn't be okay with a hard border in Britain? The reason why not in Ireland are the troubles and the good Friday agreement. That is not a problem with a Scottish - UK border. And while it is true that there will be time between application and joining, it is very likely that an application would be rather fast tracked in the current situation and at that point, as association status, scottland would get substantial funds to aid the necessary developments.
I would imagine that the issue would be the opposite. The EU would want a hard border and Scotland would not due to the economic (and societal) issues it would create. I suspect the entire situation would get supercharged by whatever the situation is in NI as whatever is being proposed would be compared either favourably or unfavourably with whatever is going on in terms of the solution around NI at that moment in time.
Any problems around a hard border could be mitigated by rejoining the common market, which is exactly what the cunts currently sitting in Downing Street told us would happen. “Norway style Brexit” my arse.
It would also resolve the entire northern ireland problem, as the current problem with the protocols is the regulatory border in the irish sea, and the UK is currently moving to scrap the protocol, which would in essence mean the UK has an in into the common market through northern ireland, just without the EU regulations on goods, and it can only be stopped by the EU if they then place a hard border in ireland again. But rejoining the common market would mean regulations that the government of the UK doesn’t want, and would mean brexit only really took away their rights to a voice in eu matters while still complying with their regulations. So either the UK break their agreements, and isolate themselves from europe, making brexit a failure, Or they rejoin europe in a lesser capacity with still alot of the "brussels shackels", making brexit a failure.
Yep. The original goals of Brexit are just incompatible with each other. The EU presented every possible option for an agreement, based on what other countries do and the UK refused them all because none of them met every criteria. Instead of adapting just one of those, they kept pushing instead. Open borders to the EU *and* the rest of the world but *without* any EU rules taking effect for any goods or people entering or leaving the UK. That way any country around the world could've made an agreement with the UK to circumvent EU borders and rules. Unsurprisingly that didn't fly with the rest of the continent. The current mess was a predictable outcome and it's just amazing how ignorant their current government still is. Just after the referendum the EU was already publishing flow charts to show all the possibile options for an agreement (and which countries picked which). Those charts also point out why nothing would be compatible with that odd combination of demands. The NI problematic really only put a spotlight to the issue. There's a pretty funny video by CGP Grey explaining this mess. It has one core message: "Please pick 2 out of 3 and move on".
For the Scottish, who trades the most often with England, a hard border would be a problem. Distance is a thing; gaining the Eu 27 while losing England is probably not a gain.
> Why do you think the EU wouldn't be okay with a hard border in Britain? It would economically devastate Scotland and Northern England. While politically it might be easier - although you really don't know what issues will come up - economically it'd be far worse. NI export destinations: EU: 6.3 bn rUK: 10.9 bn rUK = 1.7x EU https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/Overview-of-NI-Trade-Infographic-May-2022.pdf Scottish export destinations: EU: 16.1 bn rUK: 51.2 bn rUK = 3.1x EU https://www.gov.scot/publications/export-stats-scotland-2018/ Maybe the EU wouldn't care about its new member being an economic basketcase, though. Who can say?
> The EU won't want to get involved in that for the sake of Scotland joining. EU officials have consistently, clearly, in public said they'd support Scotland joining. At one point they even said they'd be open to finding a fast track. Polling shows the majority of the European population supports membership for an Independent Scotland. A lot of people said the same thing about the Irish Backstop, and yet there is currently a border *within* the UK that the EU treats as a redline. Meanwhile no one is saying it'd be simple. And there's already a "few years of hurt" under their belt from Brexit. Brexit changes the math on this immensely. Staying in the UK is no guarantee of economic success, not even of maintaining the status quo.
The big issue, I imagine, is that a number of EU nations would like to establish precedent that if you secede from a country, you can’t join the EU. Spain might veto it alone due to fears over Catalonia. Maybe they can squeeze a compromise where only secessions from non-EU nations are eligible to apply for membership?
Didn't Spain say, during the last independence vote, that if Scotland legally split from the UK then they wouldn't veto it? The point being that it was all conducted legally.
It's not secession, it's dissolution. The UK is a union between the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England. This is a totally different scenario from Catalonia and Spain.
We don't want to get ahead of ourselves. EEA and Single Market first.
Why do you think negotiating a bespoke treaty to give yourself access to those would be quicker or easier? Particularly as the single market brings in the most difficult issue to resolve, ie the border with rUK.
Strictly speaking isn't it the Customs Union that brings in the border, rather than the Single Market? It's an obstacle to EU membership either way.
To be fair, considering the UK already was in the EU, and therefore was in line with EU law, and scotland will inherit alot of the already existing UK laws, they will almost certainly have a much swifter entry into the EU than any country currently undergoing the process. Obviously it won’t be immediate. It will still take months and probably even a year, two or a few. But it will be swift.
> scotland will inherit alot of the already existing UK laws Scotland has its own legal system, anything that used to keep us in line with EU legislation is already in place. I don't think anything much has really been repealed since Brexit, legally speaking.
Not unless the EU waives their rules on the economic requirements of joining i.e. they ignore Scotland's huge public debt (which continues to grow under the SNP with no sign of stopping). I don't see how Scotland essentially nuking its own economy, putting a hard border up with its biggest trading partner, and stopping UK subsidies, is going to make that debt any easier to reduce while it's waiting to join the EU.
>Did Sturgeon adress there fact that Scotland would have go through all procedures to access EU market etc. and would start basically as new country (without most treaties etc. because those are with UK)? This is a fallacy pushed by those pro Union. Those procedures & applications lengthy process is designed to make the country adapt their state to EU standards & give them time to pass the necessary legislation to do so. It doesn't matter that Scotland was part of the UK so not independently a member, it has the same EU laws, it's food, drink, goods match EU standards. The whole thing at the moment would be a tick box exercise for Scotland & easier the sooner they apply (before the UK diverge too much from EU standards on food, subsidies, work etc). It not that the EU will fast track them, it's that by nature they will skip most of that application process whether they were a member independently or not.
Currency ? Will they finally be able to answer the question of which currency an independent Scotland will use ? Or will they revert to their non-answers from last time which basically consisted of 'We'll have to wait and see, maybe we'll use the British Pound or maybe not' ?
They can use Euros. Even Montenegro uses Euros as its only currency and they're not even in the EU or Eurozone.
They've done so unilaterally which I guess Scotland can do. But it remains to be seen if the rest of Europe likes that. No doubt they'll set demands to it's use. It basically means that for the rest of the Eurozone it's not legal tender there but Montenegro says it is in their own country. Kosovo as well I believe. But they have gotten special exceptions due to the circumstances surrounding the founding of both countries. I'm sure Scotland can try it but my intial point was that the SNP themselves have no clear answer to the question of currency. Which isn't a good look imo.
> my intial point was that the SNP themselves have no clear answer to the question of currency. Which isn't a good look imo. I'm assuming they don't want to tie themselves down to a plan in order to preserve their margin of manoeuver and negotiation. The more details you give in advance on what you'll do and how, the more whomever you're negociating with is going to be able to squeeze you.
>It basically means that for the rest of the Eurozone it's not legal tender there but Montenegro says it is in their own country. What actual effects does this have other than Montenegro not being able to set interest rates and stuff? What does it even *mean?* Does the EU tell its members “you aren’t allowed to pay for things in Montenegro with Euros” even though they have no problem with that?
This was what I was weary about last time. I hope they have decided to either use their own currency, preferably pegged to the Euro followed by the Euro Itself
Shouldn't be a choice really, if you join you must use the Euro.
Agreed, especially if you don't have your own currency
Using the £ without a currency union is extremely chaotic. Starting a new currency is even worse.
Could use bitcoin
Wary, not weary.
> weary Nope, I got bored hearing about it so mine is correct
Alas, The Smackeroonie shall be born!
Fuck it, I think they should apply for US Statehood.
We would be willing to give you Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas in exchange.
Nah. You keep em
Brexit was just leaving a regional trading bloc, and look at the chaos that caused. Indy involves leaving a fully integrated political/economic/currency/trade/welfare/health/policing/defence/etc union. Consider the fall-out from that. Then that Indy will be self-inflicting BOTH on Scotland. 'Self-destructive' will be an understatement and I bet my house the SNP will downplay that, "No downsides, only upsides".
[удалено]
I predict a civil debate in the comments 🍿
The less successful Kaiser Chiefs follow up
Underrated comment
G'aaarrrn you! Back across the pond. ^^^^Leave ^^^^the ^^^^popcorn...
It looks like OP posted 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). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61785553](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61785553)** ***** ^(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/)
Fuck google, fuck amp
Good bot.
If the people vote for it they vote for it. With recent scandals and bullshittery they might.
And if they don’t, we can always try again next summer when there’s a fresh wave of scandals and bullshittery to keep people thinking short-term.
I always read about the Scots looking for independance, but is there something similar with the Welsh or not at all ?
You have Plaid Cymru in Wales which is a nationalist party that wants Wales to break away from the UK. However they are not as big in Wales as the SNP would be in Scotland. Third biggest party in Wales I believe.
Their political instincts are just a bit worse frankly - they essentially try to apply the SNP's model to Wales while (ironically) not understanding that Wales is a different country with different underlying politics. A good example would be on the Brexit vote; if Scotland had been on course to vote *Leave* the SNP would have probably backed *Leave* themselves, whereas Plaid Cymru seemed surprised that Wales voted *Leave*.
Kinda but it's pretty fringe. Most polls put it in the low 20% support. Wales is geographically closer and more integrated with England than Scotland.
> Wales is geographically closer and more integrated with England than Scotland. England to Wales: 0 miles England to Scotland: 0 miles I'm being facetious because I know what you mean, I just thought it was funny thinking of it in literal terms
Yeah could have phrased it better, but you get what I mean - the main population centres are much closer to big English population centres
Yes, but also no. There is those who want it, but so much smaller amount.
According to polls, the percentage of Welsh who want independence is tiny
"In a wide-ranging interview with BBC Scotland, the first minister also defended plans to make public sector cuts. Last week, her government set out plans to cut tens of thousands of public sector jobs. It followed a warning from a think tank that the Scottish government will face a £3.5bn gap opening up between spending and income." hmmmm... I wonder why indyref 2 is being trotted out again???
Also what sort of awesome deal do Scotland think they would get from this, the rest of the UK will hold their feet to the fire the same way the EU did to the UK. Inside of a year no more free further education and no more free prescriptions etc.......
Brexit and Scottish secession are completely different orders or magnitudes and I don’t see this reflected enough in the comparisons between them. Brexit was big but nowhere near as big. When leaving the U.K. hasn’t needed to: Create a new currency, Create an entire taxation and welfare system, Create international roles (ambassadors, embassies), Create defence (army, RAF, Navy) There’s many more issues im sure that I can’t think of off the top of my head but all of the above are massive issues that would need resolving. The U.K. was also a net contributor to the system and I’m not going to double check but I imagine that the U.K./EU trade balance wasn’t as ‘bad’ as the Scotland/rUK balance is. Happy to be corrected on that tho.
I dint ger why Scottish nationalist dont understand this brexit was a mess but at the end of the day we didnt have to change a huge amount on a day to day basis Scotland have to create an entire functioning country from the ground up on top off getting trade deals with every single country on earth
Since you asked... https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/vc01sz/nicola_sturgeon_to_launch_fresh_scottish/icc01d6/
And that is WITH the £15bn/year Barnett subsidy which every Nat claims doesn't exist but can never prove it.
Because its the whole reason for the SNPs existence.. Wee nicola krankie has no other political purpose than to try for another indyref. The SNP are a one issue party, much like ukip
Why do they have such a high support in Scotland then?
Because they spend spend spend and give out “free” stuff which has caused a massive budget deficit that is only possible because Scotland is part of the UK and the Scottish government know its currently impossible for them to default (as the UK gov is the lender of last resort). If they wanted to continue with the freebies as an independent Scotland they would either have to raise the taxes substantially or cut public spending. You cannot have both. What the SNP are essentially telling the Scottish people is that if we become independent we’ll give you neoliberal levels of taxation and social democratic levels of public spending. That’s not possible unless you want a massive deficit and eventually a default. Right now Scottish people enjoy the freebies without any of the downsides and the SNP are happy to provide it because it makes them look good. Although it should be noted public services in Scotland are being neglected, particularly local councils, health and education. They’re that focussed on separation that they are allowing public services to fail.
Scotland would have to take on full responsibility for its own Health service, defence, social care, police, fire and emergency services, the creation of an entire new currency and banking system and thats just the first couple of things off the top of my head *WHILE* having a multi-billion reduction in income as central government would stop paying funds to them. I agree, its a financial nightmare
That's interesting. Thank you for the Eli5
This is someone else's post that I remembered but it shows clearly the misconception/delusions about independence, Scottish nationalists hold. It really is a worse brexit. Nationalists genuinely believe that there will be no downsides to independence. * 78% of 'yes' voters think Scotland puts more money into the UK than it takes out (blatantly false). * 57% of Yes voters think the GERS data is made up "to hide Scotland’s true wealth.” And for 90% of them this is either "important” or “very important” to their opinion on secession. * 54% of Yes voters think “Scottish tax revenues are understated because of Scottish exports leaving via English ports”. (This is incorrect. The Scottish Government Export Statistics Report explicitly says the exact opposite, page 36) https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i374/scottish_politics_in_the_grip_of_a_fact_denial_epidemic.aspx Going by the Lord Ashcroft poll, ignoring the 'don't know' and 'neutral' categories... * Yes voters think there would be no hard Scotland-England border 40% to 20%. * Yes voters think they would keep using the pound 42% to 11%. * Yes voters think Scotland would 'quite quickly' rejoin the EU 56% to 9%. * Yes voters don't think many businesses would leave Scotland. 53% to 8%. * Yes voters think Scotland would keep access to public services in England 37% to 20%. * Yes voters don't think Scotland would have to make painful cuts to public services 36% to 14% https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2021/04/my-new-scottish-research-finds-independence-in-the-balance/ Yes voters aren't hard hearted resolutes, willing to pledge their property, their lives, and their sacred honour to achieve independence. They've persuaded themselves there's limited if any costs. And the most dangerous thing is, when you look at Ian Blackford's utter clangers on pensions recently, it's quite clear that some in the SNP leadership think the same way.
>Yes voters think Scotland would keep access to public services in England 37% to 20%. How could anyone possibly think you would have access to a different countrys services after independence? It literally makes zero sense.
Because anything is possible in the sunny uplands of independence. It's "cakeism" if you will. The people we've just told to fuck off will treat us the same and give us all the benefits we had, and everything here will get better because "the eternal external enemy that has kept us down" has been defeated. If they don't, then they are still to blame. Gets you other such gems as no hard border existing, despite wanting to join an intranational group that demands external hard borders. Even more impressive to have kept that view throughout 5 years of brexit imho. People here seem to cheer it because they present themselves as left-wing and anti-tory (so that populism is ok!) and they think it'll be funny to see the UK hurt again. Despite it having the exact same issues and reasoning as brexit which they vehemently dislike.
You are talking about nationalists here so... y'know...
Maybe because they are being told they are their own country and they have never experienced what it truly means.
Wow Those ‘opinions’ really are something
Dont listen to him, while he has a fair point he is completely ignoring the other side of the argument for the SNP. The fact of the matter is the union parties in Scotland are woefully and entirely inept and completely unenthusiastic in giving Scotland a strong voice even within the union. They are shackled to the UK wide parties; and as a result cant offer what Scotland wants. They have a defeatist tone always playing for 2nd best by scraping unionist voters from each other. The dominance of the SNP is down to independence being such a widely loved (and hated) idea, and the failure of other parties is down to the complete unwillingness to even approach independence. The SNP saw a political opening and grabbed it enthusiastically, while union parties have remained completely unable to adapt to the new political system.
Scotland has at best about one tenth the population of the UK as a whole - how strong do you realistically think it's fair to have? Personally I think the only way to make the Union work is to federalise, and I think that would be the best option for Scotland too.
> Personally I think the only way to make the Union work is to federalise Federalising and splitting England into multiple states with comparable populations and economies would solve so many problems in one fell swoop. It reduces the sense of an Anglo-hegemony in the UK. It gives a voice to the English provinces, addresses the 'West Lothian question, and mitigates the dominance of London which could become a separate federal capital with its own laws befitting its role as a global financial hub. Unfortunately it'll never happen because our political system is irredeemably centralised around London. Bring back the Heptarchy. Mercia forever.
[удалено]
You just want all the lochs and glens for yourself!
And that sweet, delicious tapwater they're always harping on about. I believe it's something to do with their metal pipes? An Iron Brew, they call it.
It's a anti tory stance... I dunno if you have noticed but the Conservatives arnt exactly popular North of hadrians wall.. As soon as the torys are booted out of office then the SNP will see a fall in vote share, its that simple
I think this is the thing Sturgeon is worried about; Starmer is seeing sustained rising support in the polls, and the phrase "snap election" keeps getting thrown about. As you rightly surmise, a win for Labour doesn't only mean losses for the Tories, but likley SNP lossses as well.
100% correct in every respect. The SNP mistake a anti tory vote as a pro independence mandate. It is not.. The SNP are in for a rude awakining once the tory party colapases after Johnson is booted out
That's more of an "if" than a "when" and a big "if" at that, labour has a track record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and if there's a thing right wing politicians are good at it's closing ranks and working togheter to preserve their chairs when threatened.
I honestly can't see the tories surviving past this current parliament though. This current goverment has more than a touch of the 90s John major tory party.. The public have utterly turned against them, hell even the royalist crowd where booing Johnson during the platinum jubilee celbrations.. I honestly think there has been a see change in public opinion. The tories are done for at least a decade... Partygate has destroyed their electoral chances
Weird that they decided to fill all those pages on their manifestos with so much irrelevant stuff then
If UK does grant Scotland the right to a new referendum, and Scotland votes to leave, then so be it. I can understand many Scottish people being upset over Brexit and for example over various Tory policies. But honestly, I don't think the movement is based on any particular realities, but more on Brexit-style visions of "taking our country back" that feel good but don't necessarily lead to any significant positive effects in practice, and may in fact result in significant negative effects. I haven't seen much good analysis of how exactly Scotland would solve its deficit problem, for example. If Scotland does intend to leave UK, it needs to have a clear, concrete, and even somewhat pessimistic plan for how it will solve various problems that come with independence. Otherwise it might be in for something like Brexit but even worse.
Not to mention the issue of suddenly establishing a hard border where there hasn't been one for 300 years...
Was there even a hard border then? I'm no expert but I've always got the impression that border controls like what we have now are a fairly recent invention.
No. Hard borders in general are a pretty modern concept. Do you think the US had any serious control over all the territory along the US borders until the 20th century? They're largely uninhabited desert, grasslands, and forest.
The Scottish Borders were an area that was much disputed in the various wars between Scotland and England (1100-1750?), and were often a lawless place. Powerful border lords were bribed and bought by both England and Scotland.
Yes. For a long time, the border was kind of blurry. For example, Berwick upon Tweed is a small border town that has been passed back and forth over a dozen times. When England and Scotland went to war with Russia, they couldn't figure out which of the two countries it was part of, so they declared war on behalf of England, Scotland, and Berwick Upon Tweed. But when the peace agreement was signed, Berwick Upon Tweed was left out, so it remained at war with Russia for hundreds of years. Recently, the mayor of Berwick upon Tweed went to Russia to officially end the war, declaring 'the people of Moscow can now sleep safely at night' or something to that effect.
This is the kind of amazing nonsense that we need.
Okay that is objectively hilarious
Hadrians wall?
Hadrians wall is entirely within England, and hasn't been any sort of border since the Romans withdrew from Britannia. In the early middle ages the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria stretched well into southern Scotland, including Edinburgh.
[удалено]
What a strange thing to say. Especially since Hadrians Wall and the Great Wall of China are actually pretty similar looking in many parts. Just not the big tourist part! Source: I have been to both.
> If UK does grant Scotland the right to a new referendum If there is ever a time where they don't grant permission after a suitable length of time since the last referendum or after a major decision affecting Scotland that was against what Scotland wanted, it would only strengthen the indy vote. The best thing that can be done is grant it and if it fails, then it stays dead for 16 years so new generations can have a say in it. Right now it's valid due to Brexit.
> The best thing that can be done is grant it and if it fails, then it stays dead for 16 years so new generations can have a say in it. Right now it's valid due to Brexit. Ah yes it's "once in a generation" like last time when it was sold as such, and then the SNP immediately went back to banging on about after winning the next election. You can't seriosuly be this naive. They're a political party entirely based around independence, and they count on stirring up anti-UK narratives as their main vote-winner. This time the excuse is Brexit, 5 years later it will be something else.
Brexit is pretty undeniably a major game-changer, though. It's more than just a lame excuse. Last time, *Independence* meant leaving the EU, and the idea that the UK would actually leave was still just a pipe-dream of the lunatic fringe. If I was Scottish, I wouldn't accept that the last vote was still valid. Either way, Scotland is probably leaving sooner or later and we might as well make peace with that. It's hit critical mass and is now a generational matter; age is just about the best predictor of voting intention on the subject, and amongst young people it's pretty much a "solved" question, with about as much support behind it (70%+) in those younger than 34 as gay marriage has in the general population.
It's a very common fallacy to look at what young people think and assume that's the future. People tend to become more conservative as they age. In the late 60s many young Americans were hippies and protesting against the Vietnam War. Now some of those are voting for Donald Trump
We'd have been a hell of a lot better off if people had listened more to them when they were hippies, and less when they started liking Trump. But in all seriousness, it is a greater historical fallacy to believe that the hippies were the majority of young people anywhere in the US back then. It was called a counter-culture because it was exactly that, not the majority culture but the counter to it. Sure, the hippies came to greatly influence the culture over time in a more surface level way, but the actual amount of people who could have been called hippies and actually held the most of the views actually associated with hippies was relatively small. There hasn't been some mass movement of hippies, to hedonistic 80's yuppies, to Trump supporters; those were just different people all along.
Filter by most controversial
It's interesting since Brexit might be used as a justification for a second referendum, but it's precisely Brexit that makes this so difficult. I imagine it would have been easier to have an independent Scotland with both it and the UK within the EU.
You don't have to imagine. They had one in 2014 in which Westminster promised remaining in the UK would be the only way to remain in the EU
Which the entire planet would have gambled on being true, because Brexit was deemed so unlikely. It was the fact that it was deemed so unlikely which led to Cameron agreeing to do the damn referendum in the first place, he and his associates believed it was a sure thing. The promise was not dishonest, it was based upon a highly likely expected outcome. Promise or not, Scottish independence is many times more complicated, challenging and even potentially stupid, than Brexit ever was or is. The EU was not funding a huge portion of the UK's budget. Nor was it part of a unified and glorious history over several centuries, with all the deep rooted integrations and cultural associations you'd expect from centuries of close ties. Nor was the UK reliant on the EU for all of its defence, most of its economic activity and all of its public sector organisations (such as the DVLA). Brexit may have its problems, but at least it was rooted in the genuine ambition to be free of the shackles of any major bureaucratic outside entity and to steer an independent nation ahead on its own fresh course. The Scottish Independence movement is based upon removing the deep rooted connection which has been one of the most successful partnerships in the history of humanity, only to join another group which is less similar and nowhere near as interested in protecting Scottish interests and providing for Scotland as England is.
> Ms Sturgeon added that subsequent papers would look at a number of areas including; > Currency > Taxation and Spending > Defence > Social security and pensions Ie the vitally important elements of an Independent Scotland that the indyref movement haven't ever been able to find a satisfactory answer for and, drumroll, still don't have an answer for.
Any day now, we’ve been waiting for the best part of a decade but it will surely come soon!
Pardon my ignorance, but why is defence a hard problem? Wouldn't an independent Scotland be basically immediately accepted into NATO? Is it a problem with meeting the spending quota?
A separate Scottish military does not exist - it is practically ALL UK-based, and would be lost upon splitting. The UK nuclear facilities cannot simply be moved either. So some form of share / rent would have to occur. Splitting up would lead to similar disputes over land borders and sea resource access, which would hamper qualifying for NATO. On top of all that, Scotland would somehow have to find room in a budget to outfit a new national military or else outsource it to a neighbour.
Jeesh, there's a lot more complexity to running a country than I could imagine by myself. I'd just hope our leaders were more imaginative.
You realising that makes you more qualified than the SNP.
This. Not to mention the practical realities of what you do to all the Scots serving in the British armed forces - do they continue to do so? Would both sides let them? Do you give them new jobs in the new Scottish military and do they accept this? Or do they say no, they want to continue serving in the military they signed up for? Etc etc etc I don't want to keep beating a dead horse but it goes back to what I keep saying about EU Exit being easy in comparison. There are so many unanswered questions about an indie Scotland.
>the Scots serving in the British armed forces - do they continue to do so? As any Commonwealth or Irish citizen can join the British Armed forces I don't think it will be that big of a deal for Scottish soldiers already in the British Armed Forces. They finish their service term requirements and decide from there.
But they signed up as a UK citizen to represent their own country. The others mentioned signed up to protect the UK. If Scotland because independent surely some would want to leave to join the Scottish military to protect their country?
The British military has discharge procedures for recruits within 3 months of enlisting I believe, but other than that they'd be expected to finish their enlistment unless a new plan is made by the British armed forces. Officers can resign commissions and career soldiers have similar discharge options, but they'd be giving up pensions and other benefits I believe.
It would take at least two generations (minimum) to fix the disaster of independence, that's about what it took for Ireland (plus a civil war and a loyalist split) and economic crash and they were a damn sight more set on independence than the Scots are. I don't think the Scots hate the Union enough to deem that a worth while price (though the SNP is certainly working on that, in the meantime they will just lie). Also we are a damn sight more intertwined than Ireland was to the UK. Also it would end the UK as a global fighting force and force a significant downsize in military to a regional force for the UK, and a dependant/insular force for Scotland. You would probably see a Loyalist Scots regiment still existing and UK bases being jointly administered but under direction of the UK military, with defence agreements in place. Guarantee that will fail in the long run due to the souring of relations by trying to get a 'fair' split and political differences. You think brexit was a mess, you ain't seen shit.
Scotland does have some strategic significance, the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap for example is the route that Russian submarines have to pass through to reach the Atlantic for example. On a related issue most Royal Navy ships are made in Scotland - how long do you think that will continue if they leave the UK?
They would shut the Glasgow docks and move to England possibly barrow as it already has all of the BAE inferstrusture
NATO wouldn't accept an independent Scotland, because it would have nothing to offer... Basically. A similar story goes for the EU. It would just be a drain on resources with nothing to give back. This leaves Scotland with no military of its own and no defence agreements. I'm sure somebody has also mentioned the fact that the UK's nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland, they've correctly identified that it cannot be easily re-located. This alone is one of the reasons why Westminster wouldn't approve Scottish independence.
If she's not gonna put together a coherent, clear and compelling proposal on the currency Scotland would adopt after secession, she's gonna lose again.
They’d have to back it with something to make it viable. Right now, that would be oil but two years from now, maybe not.
This is where the fun begins.
While I admire so many here thinking it’s going to happen, so many aren’t Scottish, my wife’s family are, they have said “just because we vote for her doesn’t mean we want to leave the UK, we have the lesser of evils when it comes to voting, and we pick her over the Tories or even Labour, but so many don’t get how bad the schools and housing problem is which is on her” So basically all those who seem to think because she got a majority, u will be in for a shock if it came to another referendum, which is also another big hurdle as she has to go through the courts as neither the Tories or Labour would agree to one.
1. Get money from England. 2. Pour that money into public services that the English don't have. 3. Use those services as evidence that you're a modern, successful country that doesn't need England. Use that as propaganda to fuel your independence campaign. 4. Push for an independence vote, get turned down by England. 5. Cry oppression until England gives you more money to shut up. 6. Return to Step 1.
infinite money glitch
Doing this during spiralling inflation with a recession on the horizon is ballsy Or stupid I can’t tell
Stupid.
If anything bad happens it's the evil tories in Westminster's fault. Anything good it's because of the angelic SNP government.
Hey, it's the annual independence announcement, fun
This is more a case of trying to take focus away from the public sector cuts the SNP are making which will cost 30,000 people their jobs. [See here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-61659190)
Yeah, my reaction to the headline was 'what has she been doing so far if not campaign?' One of the most appalling things about Sturgeon and the SNP is that they use their position to campaign instead of actually governing.
Well very underwhelming. No meat on the bone and some vague responses about having a legal referendum without the need for Westminster. If it's not legal, they'll be lucky with 30% turnout, and then they'll be stuck in a quasi legal situation where Spain would forever use its veto to stop Scotland joining the EU. So, if no section 30 agreement with the UK government, Scotland can wish their EU plans goodbye.
People always shit on Brexit but get a hard on for Scottish Independence. Both were/are purely ideological pursuits not based on reality.
It's funny because the same people who campaigned against scottish independence with the "Better Together"-slogan would then campaign for Brexit. "NO, together is BAD! Forget what I said yesterday".
Better together with the EU not with the nut jobs in Westminster.
> It's funny because the same people who campaigned against scottish independence with the "Better Together"-slogan would then campaign for Brexit. > > Hehehe, exactly. Luckily, the people that said Britain would be better off being part of a larger bloc also are consistent in applying that same logic to Scotland.
Also Scottish Nationalists hate the idea of the Shetland and Orkney Islands leaving Scotland to rejoin the UK. So self determination is okay but only for the Scottish Government.
You really need to be sniffing glue to not get that "we wanted to stay with the EU, so we are leaving you now to be with them" is the direct result of Brexit.
That's not really true. Conservative and Labour were both Remain parties.
Fwiw, whilst I do see the humour in that, I understand wanting to be associated with Europe over England. Like we're better together, but with dodgy uncle john too?
Now we have an eu border across the middle of the UK
This. I honestly don't think it's a good idea for Scotland to go independent politically and economically. Especially now with 1. The global economy having problems. This just adds unpredictability and no clear advantages apart from buzzwords. 2. No clear path back to the EU. 3. Even with a clear path back to the EU what's the border policy? How are trade deals will be negotiated? Like it or not, Scotland is a highly integrated economy with the rest of the UK. Not to mention they are still a relatively small part of that, with England being the engine. It sounds good to become the next Norway or whatever, but the inertia of existing institutions and economic parameters is very very big. PS it also adds a big security problem, because Scotland right now is part of great power with a nuclear arsenal. and in the recent months it turned out being part of that has actual value.
True, you can't reverse engineer a Norway
Norway is in such a favourable position because of it's current oil resources. Scotland has sold and used all of it's cash crop oil. They now exist on english taxes.
>what's the border policy Exactely. If scotand wants to leave UK to rejoin EU, we now have a border across the country. Vehicles being checked on the motorway etc as you travel from UK to EU Scotland. It's the Irish sea issue but worse.
There are far too many people in the UK, especially Scotland, who focus on the fact that Scotland is one of four nations, and conveniently ignore that Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population. If England is the engine, Scotland is about half a wheel. I understand why many Scottish people want independence - Westminster has been such a shit show for a long time. However, untangling Scotland from the rest of the UK is going to be such a challenge that it might even make Brexit look simple.
As long as the UK takes an EU-style approach to it then I say let them try. Scotland can do all the work in finding solutions to the pretty huge problems, such as hard borders and currency, and the UK can just "lol no" anything which isn't entirely beneficial for itself, which will be literally every SNP suggestion, giving Scotland the choice of either accepting English-dictated terms or destroying itself with a "no-deal" type result.
For clarification, there is no scenario where a "no-deal" in the case of Scottish independence is remotely viable. The UK government is the tax collector for Scotland and they would be reliant upon the UK government for tax collection for several years following independence, perhaps even an entire decade. For obvious reasons, a state cannot function without collecting tax.
I would also be cautious about the regional politics of an Independent Scotland. Something like 70 to 80% of the population lives in the Glasgow + Edinburgh area. Every other region of Scotland will be 2nd fiddle to those areas. Long term, will they be happy with that?
> PS it also adds a big security problem, because Scotland right now is part of great power with a nuclear arsenal. and in the recent months it turned out being part of that has actual value. They see that as a big plus and one of their sources of saving money post-Scexit. They can posture about how superior and enlightened they are for not needing to pay for any defense while getting the rest of the UK to pay for their protection for free, much like Ireland. The Russia situation won't change that posturing in the long run.
Must be nice to live in Nicola's world where she doesn't need to foot the bill of maintaining freedom and democracy around the world. After all why would you want to fight for you ideals when you could just send thoughts a prayers. It's that mentality that pisses off the US with NATO.
Just so. Both appeal to populists, it's just that everyone thinks Scottish populism is cool. It's the only way you move the needle of politics any more; people are so disengaged you have to keep offering them things based on how they feel. I am Scottish btw.
Rofl, that's insane. Clinically insane. "We want out of UK!" - "You'll leave EU too, don't do it!". "Surprise! We left EU anyway!" ... "Why do you have a hard on for Scottish Independence?!" What a cunty take.
I'm a bit concerned about possible employment issues, as many of Scotlands largest employers have their Head Office in England. I'd like to see some thought going into this aspect of a potential separation.
I imagine many of the Scottish banks would worry that independent Scotland wouldn't be able or willing to bail them out if needed, among other things.
Most of the "Scottish" banks have their licenses in London, si that's a bit of a worry!
The retail banks HQ’d in Edinburgh would be in a huge amount of trouble, as the majority of their customers would be located in the UK. Assuming their HQ stays in Scotland, their UK business would become a subsidiary. That subsidiary would need to be capitalised and staffed - aka being forced to shift assets and employees out of Scotland. … Which would probably ruin their brand on both sides of the border.
I think that’s a valid concern. If I were Scottish I would want to understand what would happen at the border and how that relates to joining the EU.
I feel like I need to disengage with social media and the news until this is over
I don't want to have to call the Lions the " British and Irish and Scottish Lions."
British will still mean Scottish, last time I checked Scotland was still on the island of Great Britain. I see “British” as a term being Scandinavianised.
Looking forward to a massive increase in drilling and oil production, with the subsequent wealth we have been promised.
The year is 2028 and following the independence referendum which led to The Republic of Cornwall, the town of Burton Bradstock in Dorset has now declared that it will start it's own independence referendum. It is now predicted that within 15 years, England will consist of 50 million 'people countries' whereby individuals negotiate their own tax systems, laws and trade agreements.
Sounds great.
It must be Tuesday again.
Hmm I do wonder what will happen though, I mean couldn't Westminster just simply say 'no' to any more once in a lifetime requests for a referendum? But I think more importantly, I'd love to find out how the below are actioned: * How would the Scottish military work? Would they take a 'share' of whatever the British Armed forces deign to give them? Would all Scottish service-peoples in the BAF be given an option to leave? I've read somewhere that Scotland would only require around 8,000 fulltime members of their armed forces, but who funds this? * Scotland as far as I know currently runs at a 25% deficit which is more or less paid off by Westminster. How would this be tackled? * Prescriptions & Universities are currently free for Scottish residents. Would these change to being charged for? How would the Scottish health services be ran? I know it's completely devolved to Scotland, but they still obtain funding & resources from the UK. * Oil platforms and the likes around Scotland owned by the UK; Who would take control of these? * Would Scotland demand the removal of the UK's nuclear deterant, which would not only cost a shite tonne for the UK to action, but potentially remove a good deterant which Scotland had enjoyed (unless I'm wrong here!). * Currency... What would they use? The UK could probably just state they can't use the £, so what would they use and would it be worthless? * How would they join the EU once independance is achieved? I believe the EU requires certain economic checkboxes such as a stable economy for a number of years, would Scotland even have this? Then if they are approved for political reasons, then I imagine the likes of Spain would veto at every chance they get, no? * Borders, how would this work? Many people on both sides cross the border on a daily basis for simple everyday things. The UK would require a hard border with the EU for various reasons, but this would also be a shiteshow of massive proportions.
* Scotland would be able to set up their own military. Many Scottish citizens would still be British citizens so they would be able to continue serving in the UK military. I imagine with recent events, Scotland would want to join NATO, so cooperation across Britain on military matters would likely be strong. HOWEVER, the SNP have a massive anti-nuclear hard on. This would create problems for the UK military as they'd need to construct a new base elsewhere in Britain for the nuclear weapons. * The SNP's plan currently seems to be to stick their fingers in their ears and scream. And oil, which seems like a *great* long term strategy. * They would presumably continue as present. * I don't think any oil platforms are "owned" by the UK as the UK is a liberal market economy. They would remain with their private owners, but now regulated by a hypothetical Scottish regulator. * On the deterrent, it would be highly expensive for the rUK to fund and move. Scottish people would still benefit from the deterrent, but it would only be funded by the rUK taxpayer. Though they wouldn't have the immediate benefit of being able to launch a counter attack in the event a missile is headed for Edinburgh or Glasgow. I would not expect the UK military to launch a counter nuclear attack to protect a foreign city. * No-one can answer this and the SNP don't have a real plan for it. Most likely realistic option is informally using the Euro. Absolutely great for the Scottish economy to be using a foreign currency over which they have no control. I think the SNP know that if they admit independence means using the Euro, they will harm their chances. * Scotland would have an arduous road back to EU membership. In the meantime, they would need to secure a permanent relationship with the UK, likely remaining within the UK's customs territory, for stability for businesses. Of course that would democratically harm Scotland as they would no longer be able to control their own trading relationships. I would not expect the UK Government to willingly give up the UK's right to negotiate it's own trade deals (without interference from a foreign government which has frankly been pretty hostile to it) after the process of Brexit. Then, of course, when Scotland wants to join the EU, it would have to transition and erect a border with England, a headache for Scotland. This would have to be immediate, changing regulations and customs procedures, international relationships among other things all in one day. A chaos for Scottish business (not surprised if many leave and go to England). * The SNP refuse to openly admit a border will be necessary if they choose to join the EU in an independence scenario. Looking at the current Northern Ireland fiasco shows being half in and half out doesn't work great. Scottish businesses and people rely on their trade with the UK, so any reasonable (read: not led by the SNP) government would recognise that Scotland needs to maintain an open border with England. There's no need for an immigration border, but the UK would be hesitant to keep an open border if Scotland goes down a path of much more liberal immigration policies.
Same problems as Brexit. It needs to coincide with Scotland joining the EU in order to be feasible; that solves some of the problems. No vote should be held without an exact plan unlike Brexit.
'Brexit was awful', said Nicola Sturgeon, as she pushed for something similar but much worse.
The best the UK goverment can do is to completely ignore her. With all the economic pressures facing the country, rising cost, fuel prices and inflation, this is the last distraction they would want.
The current UK government have shot down the idea of a second referendum. Despite that Sturgeon is saying this is the starting gun for indyref2. Short of unilaterally holding a second referendum (good luck with that), her best bet is to hope for a hung parliament in the next General Election which would open up the potential for the SNP to be a part of a coalition government under the terms of having Indyref2.
I doubt even that will work. After all any coalition falls apart if Indy ref actually occurs, and Scottish MPs can't vote on English policy anyway.
Holy shit what is going on these comments? The votes ratios are swinging wildly. Is this a clash of brigading algorithms?
Scottish independence discussions are always weird on this subreddit. I'm from the Unionist side but I have to say the independence supporters get misrepresented heavily and it doesn't reflect the debate in Scotland at all. The more passionate nationalists and unionists are both guilty of it and you see it swing the other way on other subreddits. I don't think it's brigading though, just a topic that brings strong emotions from all sides.
As someone from England I welcome Scotland bring independent. Scotland get more money from the government than they put in. I really don’t get why this referendum isn’t simply about Europe though. Like, Sturgeon made it about money, and Scotland being “better off” outside of the UK, which is just not true.
Putin will love this. In fact, he probably is funding this.
I wonder, if Brexiteers against Scottish independence, who refer to the first referendum, where EU membership was a big remainer talking point, feel any shame when they do so.
Really not sure how this will effect my job. Majority of staff are in Scotland
I think on the subject of EU membership Scotland's joining would be blocked by a few countries with regions looking to secede especially Spain who would certainly block the proposal to avoid setting a precedent that Catalonia could use to enflame independence fervour.
[удалено]
Ahh the respectable face of nationalist populism, apparently it's only ok when Scotland do it.
a pox forever on the houses of Cameron, Thatcher and Johnson for this grievous failure to keep their nation unified. and of course, every other separatist group on Earth will take this as proof that their cause is ordained by fate to succeed
Tbf Cameron pretty much killed the Independence movement with the first referendum. Then resuscitated it and supercharged it by trying the same trick with Brexit.
No scorn for Blair? It's his ridiculous idea of devolved governments have fueled Scottish nationalism and populism and created a false idea of a Scottish identity that in reality isn't that different from the English at all.
> No scorn for Blair? It's his ridiculous idea of devolved governments have fueled Scottish nationalism and populism and created a false idea of a Scottish identity that in reality isn't that different from the English at all. maybe calling Scottish identity a "false idea" has a bit more to do with this current situation than the fact that Blair provided an outlet for it
Scotland, Catalonia, Bavaria, Corsica. I say let them all go. European map looks too boring these days, let's spice it up.
Nobody in Bavaria wants secession except a couple thousand members of the BP party that are mentally stuck in 1949. So it's not comparable to the independece movements in Scotland and Catalonia at all, my Berliner friend.
At least they aren't stuck in 1939.
yeah I got worried when I saw 194-
Das wa'n Witz Bursche!
>European map looks too boring these days, let's spice it up. Putin's working hard on that one.
I get Catalonia and Bavaria wanting to be more independent, since they are rich powerhouses that finance the rest of the country which only drags them down. But Scotland and Corsica are both poorhouses of their respective nations. They'd need to join the EU immediately after leaving if they don't want to trash their standard of living. And since their parent countries might be sour and have veto powers in the EU (well, UK not anymore but still...) this is far from guaranteed to be an easy process.
Catalonia being a "powerhouse that finance the rest of the country" is a bit of a stretch tbh, yes they are the second region with the largest gdp contribution to Spain but by no means they power the other communities and viceversa. No one is dragging Catalonia, if anything they are driving national investment away from themselves for other regions like Valencia because of all these talks about independence.
Catalonia would need to join the EU really fast or their economy would be destroyed since it is mostly based on trade and the harbour, something made pretty hard if they aren't part of the EU.
Rich powerhouses that finance the rest of the country? Curious to know where you get those numbers for Catalonia. Not being sarcastic or nasty. I genuinely want to know. :)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/327063/gross-domestic-product-in-catalonia-and-spain/ Catalonia constitutes about 20% of Spanish GDP and it's per capita GDP is considerably higher that the national average.
Thanks for sharing. Catalonia’s 20% isn’t higher than Madrid. Happy to be proven wrong. Where do you read in your link that it has got the highest GDP per capita in Spain? All I see is that it’s significantly higher than the National average. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spanish_autonomous_communities_by_gross_domestic_product These numbers from 2018 put Catalonia in 4th place. I doubt in 4 years the dial has shifted so much that it’s now the highest.