Scottish Independence: Round 2

[Vendetta]

Other Brexit shoe due to drop.

This, of course, surprises nobody at all given the Tories seem to be meandering towards a hardline brexit but are also being amazingly vague about it (almost as if they put a bunch of incompetents in charge of negotiating for it).

[Crazedwraith]

Things seem to be unravelling in ways Remainers predicted. Only for Leavers to say everything's fine and stop doomsaying.

I doubt Sturgeon will have a lot of luck. Oil price has crashed and not everyone who wanted to remain in the EU will vote to the UK.

[Bedlam]

Personally I hope this is doomed.

She's wording it all around avoiding Britexit but there's no way any independence would be voted for and sorted out before the UK leaves the UE. Once that happens, well I don't see the rest of Europe deciding to make it easy and simple for Scotland to remain / join. Scotland wants to stay in for mostly the practical reason that we got quite a bit out of it and I suspect rather more than we'd put in.

I don't see any practical way of there being a Scotland in the EU, the rest of the UK out like she's also mentioned.

I think she's mostly working on the (previously rather successful) tactic of saying that everything's England's fault to avoid any actual review of what her government have actually been doing (or not doing) while in power.

[Zaune]

Scotland might not get full EU membership fast-tracked, true, but what about Single Market membership? As long as they could keep free movement and no trade tariffs they could manage without the rest for a few years.

[madd0ct0r]

Scotland's only risk is Spain vetoing them to scare the Basques. Accepting them adds a useful naval base, oil rigs and a major node of the European north Sea supergrid to get more out of the best wind resource in the world.

[Zaune]

It's also been suggested that this is simply a negotiating tactic, and that if Westminster reins in the hardliners and accepts they're stuck with free movement if they don't want tariffs then the SNP will back down. And if said hardliners refuse to accept that (which I honestly doubt they will) and push for hard Brexit and bugger the consequences, it's a useful backup plan for insulating Scotland from the worst of what happens next.

Assuming of course that Westminster doesn't do something silly like refuse to hold the referendum because they're afraid they might get a result they don't like, or worse, get a result they don't like and decide to ignore it.

[Vendetta]

Scotland's only risk is Spain vetoing them to scare the Basques. Accepting them adds a useful naval base, oil rigs and a major node of the European north Sea supergrid to get more out of the best wind resource in the world.

I think, and this is almost certainly part of the SNP's thinking as well, that Spain will be far less worried about a refugee Scotland fleeing the UK to stay in the EU than they were about a breakup of the UK whilst all parts of it were still in the EU.

Assuming of course that Westminster doesn't do something silly like refuse to hold the referendum because they're afraid they might get a result they don't like, or worse, get a result they don't like and decide to ignore it.

It'll be Holyrood holding the referendum, not Westminster.

[Patroklos]

Scotland's only risk is Spain vetoing them to scare the Basques. Accepting them adds a useful naval base, oil rigs and a major node of the European north Sea supergrid to get more out of the best wind resource in the world.

I assume you mean Faslane? There is no way that remains open. Not only because Scotland couldn't aford it, its designed for the use and support of vessels Scotland won't have.

[madd0ct0r]

Nah. Not talking about trident subs, I'm talking about good old deep water ports for shipping and sticking boats in. The northern passages are only going to get more important as trade routes as climate change chews up the sea ice.

[Zaune]

It'll be Holyrood holding the referendum, not Westminster.

Huh. I thought actually organising and monitoring elections and referenda was firmly reserved...

Either way, if Scotland clearly expresses a wish to leave and Westminster refuses to let them then the consequences won't be pretty.

[Iroscato]

It'll be Holyrood holding the referendum, not Westminster.

Huh. I thought actually organising and monitoring elections and referenda was firmly reserved...

Either way, if Scotland clearly expresses a wish to leave and Westminster refuses to let them then the consequences won't be pretty.

I'm really wondering what those consequences would be, to be honest...

[Zaune]

I'm really wondering what those consequences would be, to be honest...

Best case? (In the very loosest sense of the word 'best'.) Respect for and confidence in the democratic process in this country sinks even further, taking voter turnout with it, and increasing numbers of people start turning to various shades of extremism that make Momentum or UKIP look mild by comparison.

Worst case? And I do mean absolute, "every way Westminster could fuck up they do fuck up" worst that even I think isn't that likely? The SNP rebrand themselves as the Scottish Republican Army, and we get to find out whose side the Royal Regiment of Scotland come down on when their chain of command and their fellow Scots are at odds.

[Tribble]

Well according to the Remain group's logic, unless an overwhelming majority of Scots voted to leave (say 2/3 in favour of leaving), Westminster should ignore it "for the greater good" and all that. Right? Because that would be an even bigger fundamental change to the status quo than leaving the EU, seeing as Scotland and England have been united since the 1600s.

[Simon_Jester]

Most of the Remain group opposed Britain's leaving the EU because it would be disadvantageous to do so. The Scots may reasonably conclude that Scotland's leaving Britain would be very much to their advantage, under the circumstances. Especially since (against their will) Britain as a whole is leaving the EU after all.

Moreover, the Scots themselves were not consulted in the union of England and Scotland. The king of Scotland inherited the English throne, and for a while the monarchies were united in the same person... but when a new dynasty of monarchs took the throne and attempted to press their claims to Scotland, there were repeated rounds of uprisings and revolts that didn't end until the British brutally suppressed the last of them in the 1740s.

At no time did any duly elected representatives of Scotland get to decide whether Scotland rightly belonged to the same government as England. Whereas an elected government did decide to join the EU; the people had a say.

[Zaune]

And in any case, if a mere 2% majority of Scots vote to leave the UK and 25% don't bother to vote at all then no, that doesn't constitute much of a mandate.

But there's a difference between taking a long while to work out the full details of how to implement it and what the impact will be and generally allowing the swing voters a cooling-off period, which is a charitable interpretation of what's currently happening, and just sweeping the whole thing under the rug.

[Flagg]

I'm against Balkanization in general, but all of the Scott's I know want to remain in the EU more than the U.K., so if they vote for independence I can't say I think it's a bad thing.

[Tribble]

Most of the Remain group opposed Britain's leaving the EU because it would be disadvantageous to do so. The Scots may reasonably conclude that Scotland's leaving Britain would be very much to their advantage, under the circumstances. Especially since (against their will) Britain as a whole is leaving the EU after all.

Most of the Leave group opposed Britain's remaining in the EU because it would be disadvantageous to do so, and yet Remainers complain that a 52% mandate to leave is insufficient. Whether or not they are right is a separate issue so what point are you trying to make, apart from the obvious implication that the standard required to change the status quo should be changed according to when it fits your viewpoint?

Moreover, the Scots themselves were not consulted in the union of England and Scotland. The king of Scotland inherited the English throne, and for a while the monarchies were united in the same person... but when a new dynasty of monarchs took the throne and attempted to press their claims to Scotland, there were repeated rounds of uprisings and revolts that didn't end until the British brutally suppressed the last of them in the 1740s.

That doesn't change the fact that the UK status quo has been in existence for a very long time, far longer than the EU itself, and that Scotland is far more interconnected with the UK than with the EU. One of the main arguments I've seen from Remainers is that fundamentally changing the status quo should require a far higher standard than 50% +1 vote. I'm not surprised to see that they immediately drop that higher standard the moment they think it would be to their advantage.

At no time did any duly elected representatives of Scotland get to decide whether Scotland rightly belonged to the same government as England. Whereas an elected government did decide to join the EU; the people had a say.

Not with the Lisbon Treaty as the people elected a government with a mandate to hold a referendum, not sign off on it the moment they got into office. There was no democratic legitimacy on that. Oh, but I forgot - from the Remainers' perspective there didn't need to be a referendum on that issue because anything Pro-Eu must be the "right thing to do" and those who oppose the EU must be ignored. You know, its that kind of elitist attitude which drove Brexit in the first place.

And in any case, if a mere 2% majority of Scots vote to leave the UK and 25% don't bother to vote at all then no, that doesn't constitute much of a mandate.

I agree with that, and it's the naked double standard I see on display here that I find rather sickening. 52% of the UK voted to leave, but according to Remainers the results must be ignored because it is too close to call. It should take a much higher majority (60% - 2/3) in order to change the status quo. Yet if 50% +1 of Scotland votes to leave the UK, that must be respected and they must be allowed to leave!

[Thanas]

I agree with that, and it's the naked double standard I see on display here that I find rather sickening. 52% of the UK voted to leave, but according to Remainers the results must be ignored because it is too close to call. It should take a much higher majority (60% - 2/3) in order to change the status quo. Yet if 50% +1 of Scotland votes to leave the UK, that must be respected and they must be allowed to leave!

OTOH it is hardly fair to argue for a British exit then, yet you do not seem to be holding the opinion that brexit should be stopped?

[Crazedwraith]

I agree with that, and it's the naked double standard I see on display here that I find rather sickening. 52% of the UK voted to leave, but according to Remainers the results must be ignored because it is too close to call. It should take a much higher majority (60% - 2/3) in order to change the status quo. Yet if 50% +1 of Scotland votes to leave the UK, that must be respected and they must be allowed to leave!

What double standard? Whose double standard? You're arguing against something no-one in the thread seems to have said.

[Zaune]

I agree with that, and it's the naked double standard I see on display here that I find rather sickening. 52% of the UK voted to leave, but according to Remainers the results must be ignored because it is too close to call. It should take a much higher majority (60% - 2/3) in order to change the status quo. Yet if 50% +1 of Scotland votes to leave the UK, that must be respected and they must be allowed to leave!

Fair point. (Though as other people have pointed out, neither myself nor anyone else in this thread actually said that.) But it's not as if it's the EU telling us we have to have a bigger margin before we're allowed to leave, is it? Suppose the original Yes vote had gone the other way, but Nicola Sturgeon had made a public statement to the effect of "Whatever my personal feelings on the matter, I cannot in good conscience commit to independence on a mandate this small and become interim Prime Minister of a country that 48% of its own population don't want to be part of. We will not commit to anything until and unless the SNP are still in power after the next election,"* would that be anti-democratic?

* And if that seems unlikely, I would point out that the SNP originally asked for Full Fiscal Independence aka "Devo Max" as a third option on the ballot; making it a straight Yes/No was at the insistence of the Conservatives.

[Tribble]

I agree with that, and it's the naked double standard I see on display here that I find rather sickening. 52% of the UK voted to leave, but according to Remainers the results must be ignored because it is too close to call. It should take a much higher majority (60% - 2/3) in order to change the status quo. Yet if 50% +1 of Scotland votes to leave the UK, that must be respected and they must be allowed to leave!

OTOH it is hardly fair to argue for a British exit then, yet you do not seem to be holding the opinion that brexit should be stopped?

I believe that the Brexit vote should be followed. And I also believe that a Scottish vote to leave should be followed.

What I don't believe in is ignoring the Brexit referendum, then going ahead with a Scottish referendum and treating that result as binding, especially if the result is similar to Brexit. To me that would be a hell of a double standard.

What double standard? Whose double standard? You're arguing against something no-one in the thread seems to have said.

Sorry, my mistake.

What I meant was that IMO Remainers should be treating a Scottish Referendum the same as Brexit. If 52% of Scots vote to leave I would expect the Remainers to argue that 52% is not a strong mandate to leave, parliamentary sovereignty, for the greater good to stay etc etc. I have my doubts that would happen though.

Fair point. (Though as other people have pointed out, neither myself nor anyone else in this thread actually said that.) But it's not as if it's the EU telling us we have to have a bigger margin before we're allowed to leave, is it? Suppose the original Yes vote had gone the other way, but Nicola Sturgeon had made a public statement to the effect of "Whatever my personal feelings on the matter, I cannot in good conscience commit to independence on a mandate this small and become interim Prime Minister of a country that 48% of its own population don't want to be part of. We will not commit to anything until and unless the SNP are still in power after the next election,"* would that be anti-democratic?

IMO yes it would be undemocratic, and Scotland should leave even if in my opinion that would be a mistake. If a referendum is called and the rule is that 50% +1 vote is what is required to pass it, then that referendum should be followed. IMO Ignoring the referendum results and/or moving the goal posts afterwards is undemocratic.

And for those who argue for parliamentary sovereignty, then technically speaking all the SNP has to do is pass legislation stating that they intend to leave, right? If we are going to run with the argument that we elect representatives to make our decisions, and Scotland votes in a party that wants to leave the the UK, then shouldn't it just be allowed to pass legislation or hold a vote to leave? Why bother with the referendum at all, if at the end of the day it should be the representatives' decision? The same could be said for groups like UKIP.

[Crazedwraith]

What double standard? Whose double standard? You're arguing against something no-one in the thread seems to have said.

Sorry, my mistake.

What I meant was that IMO Remainers should be treating a Scottish Referendum the same as Brexit. If 52% of Scots vote to leave I would expect the Remainers to argue that 52% is not a strong mandate to leave, parliamentary sovereignty, for the greater good to stay etc etc. I have my doubts that would happen though.

You are probably right. And conversely if they get a simple 52% of the vote and Theresa May doesn't let them go with you decry her hypocrisy with equal fervour? I consider that as likely an scenario if not more so.

[Tribble]

What double standard? Whose double standard? You're arguing against something no-one in the thread seems to have said.

Sorry, my mistake.

What I meant was that IMO Remainers should be treating a Scottish Referendum the same as Brexit. If 52% of Scots vote to leave I would expect the Remainers to argue that 52% is not a strong mandate to leave, parliamentary sovereignty, for the greater good to stay etc etc. I have my doubts that would happen though.

You are probably right. And conversely if they get a simple 52% of the vote and Theresa May doesn't let them go with you decry her hypocrisy with equal fervour? I consider that as likely an scenario if not more so.

Naturally I would decry her hypocrisy on that issue just as much as I would decry her hypocrisy if she ultimately refuses to honour the Brexit results, even if I feel that Scotland would be better off remaining. If the majority of Scotland votes to leave, then IMO they must be allowed to leave. IMO its the inevitable crowd of "the UK should not be allowed to leave on a slim vote, but its ok for Scotland to" that I will have issues with. I'm running with the assumption that those people already exist, though at least on this board I have been proven to be mistaken.

IMO the real question is whether or not public referendums should be binding. IMO they should, unless the government explicitly tells voters beforehand that the referendum is consultative only and the government is free to ignore it (in which case one wonders why they would hold the referendum at all, but I digress). Yes I know legally speaking referendums in the UK are not binding, but IMO holding a referendum while claiming to be bound to the results, then backtracking on that referendum and ignoring it is very undemocratic and a bad precedent setter.

[Zaune]

The problem here is that neither of these issues are something that can be undone easily. If it turns out that leaving the EU caused the UK more harm than good -and there's mounting evidence that it will- then getting readmitted would be a very slow and difficult process; the same goes for Scotland leaving the UK.

And then there's the issue of which age groups voted for what: To be perfectly blunt, if everyone who will probably be dead or as good as by the time anyone born after July the 23rd of this year is eligible to vote were excluded, Remain would have won. But they are the ones who'll be left with the job of cleaning up the mess long after the Leave voters cease to be in a position to care one way or the other. I don't know what the breakdown by class was like but I expect you could make a similar argument there.

And the people who are going to personally suffer as a result of this: Those who've been living and working here for years who now have no idea if they have a future in this country, or whose livelihoods depend on free movement of people and goods and money throughout Europe, or depend on EU funding and legislation for their quality of life. Has a British government that's supposed to represent the interests of all its citizens got the right to just say, "Sorry, your side lost the vote, you'll just have to put up with it" and let them suffer?

There's more to representative democracy than the number of votes.

[Tribble]

The problem here is that neither of these issues are something that can be undone easily. If it turns out that leaving the EU caused the UK more harm than good -and there's mounting evidence that it will- then getting readmitted would be a very slow and difficult process; the same goes for Scotland leaving the UK.

And then there's the issue of which age groups voted for what: To be perfectly blunt, if everyone who will probably be dead or as good as by the time anyone born after July the 23rd of this year is eligible to vote were excluded, Remain would have won. But they are the ones who'll be left with the job of cleaning up the mess long after the Leave voters cease to be in a position to care one way or the other. I don't know what the breakdown by class was like but I expect you could make a similar argument there.

And the people who are going to personally suffer as a result of this: Those who've been living and working here for years who now have no idea if they have a future in this country, or whose livelihoods depend on free movement of people and goods and money throughout Europe, or depend on EU funding and legislation for their quality of life. Has a British government that's supposed to represent the interests of all its citizens got the right to just say, "Sorry, your side lost the vote, you'll just have to put up with it" and let them suffer?

There's more to representative democracy than the number of votes.

You seem to be arguing for a few things here:

First, that referendums should not be held in countries with representative democracies. While there is certainly a strong argument to be made for that position, what happens in the scenario where a party gets elected that doesn't support your viewpoint? For example if UKIP formed government and simply enacted legislation to leave the EU and not bother with a referendum, would you be fine with that? After all parliament is sovereign, and under the idea of representative democracy the government has the final say.


Second, if referendums are held, they should never be binding. Again, if that's the case, why bother holding the referendum at all? And why do you feel its ok for a government to lie by telling its voters it will follow the results, then ignore them? I know politicians lie all the time, but isn't that a little excessive, even for them?

Also, isn't there a danger of it working in the way you don't want it to? For example, if a majority had voted to remain in the UK but the Conservative Party was determined to leave and enacted legislation to do so on the belief that its best for the UK to leave, would you be ok with that? After all, one could make the argument that parliament was doing its job by doing what it felt was best, regardless of voters opinions.

In addition, if Parliament is sovereign why are you objecting to the Conservative Party deciding to uphold Brexit? They held a referendum, viewed the results, and decided that Brexit was the best option (so their narrative says, though I strongly doubt Brexit will actually happen). The referendum wasn't binding, and they simply decided that following the results was in the best interests of the UK in the long run. What is the problem with that? Isn't that exactly how you want representative democracy to work?

Third, unless I am mistaken you seem to be implying that voters should not be treated equally, and that older voters should not count as much as younger ones. One could just as easily make the argument that it should be the other way around - that older voters should count more because they have more experience and younger voters simply do not have the experience necessary to vote properly and know what's good for them, but I digress. Perhaps the most fundamental principle in a democracy is that everyone is given an equal vote, that everyone's opinions matter just as much as the next person, and I strongly object to the idea that older people should be ignored simply because the majority of them voted the opposite of what you wanted them to.