The Scottish Government has indicated that it may call a second independence referendum as a result of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. Richard Rose writes that the SNP are already establishing the foundations for a new independence campaign and Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, may quickly propose legislation for another referendum once the UK triggers Article 50.
While Westminster politicians await the day next year when Theresa May will trigger Article 50, beginning a two year negotiation over the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, the countdown is different in Scotland. The big question is when Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, will announce a date for holding a second referendum on Scottish independence. This is a necessary first step to achieve the Scottish National Party’s twin goals of keeping Scotland in the EU and making it an independent state.
The timing of an independence referendum depends on two conditions. First, the SNP leader needs a good reason to call another vote so soon after Scots rejected independence by a 55 to 45 per cent margin in September 2014. Secondly, Sturgeon needs to believe that a new referendum will lead to a majority for independence.
The first justification for another referendum is that leaving the European Union is a major change for Scotland’s position in the world. As of today, there is an inconsistency between the majority of Scots voting to stay in the UK while 62 per cent voted to remain in the EU. If nothing is done, by 2020 Scotland will be outside the EU as a necessary condition of remaining part of the UK.
The prospect offered by the ‘double remainers’, who would like Scotland to remain in both the UK and the EU, is a unicorn vision. The EU does not allow devolved governments to be members, and it is doubly unthinkable that it would give membership to a devolved body that is not even part of a member state.
Last month Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon agreed to have further consultations about what Brexit would mean for devolved governments. This satisfies both because it can lead to opposite conclusions. At the Chequers Cabinet meeting on Brexit at the end of August, the Prime Minister assured her Cabinet colleagues that no devolved government would be allowed to delay the invocation of Article 50.
After losing the previous referendum, the cautious SNP leader does not want to call a second ballot until she has grounds for expecting victory. Since July, Scottish opinion polls have averaged 47 per cent of Scots against independence and 42 per cent in favour if a referendum were held now. The undecided are numerous enough to tip the result either way and the SNP is now starting to campaign to change the poll figures.
The party’s members are canvassing what two million Scots think of the idea of another independence referendum. This target number is equivalent to the number of votes cast against independence in 2014. This target is realistic because the SNP now has one member for every 33 registered Scottish voters. The First Minister plans to announce the results of the canvassing operation on 30 November, St. Andrews Day.
The timing of the next step in Scotland will depend on when Theresa May formally notifies the EU that it wants to withdraw, by triggering Article 50. Whereas expert opinion favours doing so in autumn 2017, ministers in charge of negotiating Brexit would like negotiations to begin in January or February. This is also the expressed wish of the President of the European Commission and the European Parliament’s chief negotiator with the UK.
As soon as negotiations to leave the EU start, Sturgeon can announce that further consultations with the UK government have failed to protect Scotland’s interests, and that a second independence referendum is justified. A referendum bill will quickly be enacted by the Edinburgh Parliament and Westminster will lack grounds to oppose it, given its acceptance before the 2014 vote of Scotland’s right to withdraw from the United Kingdom. Besides, the Prime Minister will have bigger problems to deal with on both sides of a very English Channel.
If Downing Street delays triggering Brexit until autumn 2017, Sturgeon will have an additional six months to mobilise support for the SNP’s cause. This would allow more time for the Conservative government to hit a mid-term slump. It would also allow more time for the fissiparous Labour Party, the historic bulwark of support for Scotland to be governed from Westminster, to show Scots that the only alternative to having a Tory government supported by one-fifth of Scots is to have an SNP government in an independent Scotland.
The second referendum act is likely to leave the date of the referendum open. The official justification will be that time is needed to clarify the terms of the UK’s departure from the EU. The unstated reason will be that time is needed to make sure that the SNP can secure a majority for independence.
By the time a Scottish independence referendum is held, the economic costs of Brexit may be visible and Theresa May’s honeymoon with the electorate will be over. Moreover, the problems of immigration and by-election risks may be around. The growing awareness of the compromises required to achieve any agreement with Brussels will reveal cracks in the facade of Cabinet unity.
No expert can predict what the outcome of an independence vote will be before the date is set. In the EU referendum, pre-campaign polls were misleadingly reassuring to the Remain campaign. Once the previous Scottish independence campaign began, the SNP campaign boosted the vote for independence by ten percentage points. Compared to the 2014 referendum outcome, the SNP needs a swing of five per cent to tilt the balance.
To call a second referendum the First Minister needs confidence that the case for independence can be successful in a contest with a divided and demoralised opposition. She may well choose to rephrase the slogan that brought victory to the Brexiteers: Let’s take back control of our nation.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: A version of this article originally appeared at UK in a Changing Europe. It gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. Featured image: England / Scotland border British Railways sign board by the east coast mainline, marking the border. Credits: Callum Black (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/2dmXcwa
_________________________________
Richard Rose – University of Strathclyde
Richard Rose is a Professor and Director of the Centre for the Study of Public Policy at the University of Strathclyde Glasgow. He is also a commissioning grant awardee from The UK in a Changing Europe.
Scots not actually living in Scotland were denied the vote in the previous referendum; I guess the logic for that was Scots living in other parts of the UK were more likely to vote for the Union. This time it might pay to reverse that decision; Scots living in other parts of the UK might be more inclined to value EU membership over the Union.
NS should research this possibility and make results known. We already know there are 6.5 million UK citizens entitled to claim Irish citizenship. If a significant number can claim Scottish citizenship (and all do, whether Irish or Scottish) that must be a significant embarrassment (and problem) for any UK PM.
I also suspect that if Scottish citizenship is granted to anyone residing in Scotland on ‘Independence Day’, Scotland might have an immigration problem as some UK residence move north of the border to preserve their EU status.
No the logic of that is if you don’t live in the country why should you have a say on what goes on there ? Stop making up nonsense in your head to justify your actual ignorance of what is going on in Scotland.
Our community in Scotland is the people that actually live there who want a better life than being told what to do by an unelected far right wing Prime Minister in a post brexit fascist state, not some nationalistic flag waving lol this is real and about the people of Scotland in Scotland
Logic behind keeping the franchise in Scotland was very clear. It is about where you live, not where you come from. People sneer at the SNP’s philosophy of civic nationalism but its a sound concept and as a party they stick to it even when it does not suit them politically. Something they deserve credit for.
1. Scotland leaving the UK? Is England that bothered ??
2. “As of today, there is an inconsistency between the majority of Scots voting to stay in the UK while 62 per cent voted to remain in the EU.”
“As of today ….. ” ….. dire predictions of economic doom are proving unfounded.
So reluctant Remainers (i.e. those scared into voting Remain) are seeing less to worry about
(Has anyone met a reluctant Leaver ???)
In a year or two, how many Scots will still be strong EU fans?
3. “By the time a Scottish independence referendum is held, the economic costs of Brexit may be visible ….”
Oh dear … wishful thinking from another Remainiac more concerned with being proved right than the welfare of this country.
Stop talking us down !
4.” …will trigger Article 50, beginning a two year negotiation over the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union”
Have you read Article 50?
The “two years” is not fixed – it can be shorter or longer by agreement.
More importantly …. it is not even certain that the UK has to invoke Art.50.
Credible academics have cited that the UK could:
a) get agreements directly with national Govts
b) repeal the European Communities Act 1972
c) bypass EU (and its obstructive officials)
With 22,000 EU laws embedded in UK law, there is plenty of continuity (and “certainty”) for most cross-border trade.
There are some EU laws, currently in the Treaties, which a UK Govt. may want to enact into UK law (preferably with sunset clauses).
“Have you read Article 50? The “two years” is not fixed – it can be shorter or longer by agreement.”
This is just picking holes in an article for the sake of trying to appear “right” about something. It’s pretty obvious what Article 50 says – it’s two years, but in theory if all of the European Council vote to change the timing unanimously then they can (though why they would do so to help the UK is beyond me). As such what you’ve called the author out on here makes absolutely no difference to the point being made and just comes across as a bit petty.
You also seem to think anyone who assumes Brexit will damage the economy (i.e. the vast majority of people working in the field professionally, from the Bank of England to economists up and down the country) should be branded “remainiacs”, that discussing obvious threats to the economy like our financial service companies (who are reporting poor prospective employment figures already) losing their financial passport is “talking the country down”, and broadly you’re clearly more interested in grandstanding about the issue than discussing it seriously. I’d suggest we should all be approaching the subject like adults rather than engaging in silly political point scoring. People will lose their jobs if we get this wrong, public services will suffer, and lives will be ruined. It’s not a joke.
Dear Burns
Reading and interpreting Art. 50 is not merely “picking holes”.
It is a rebuttal to the (Remoaning) commentators who keep trotting out ” 2 years of uncertainty”. (if they say it often enough it will become “true”!)
“….anyone who assumes Brexit will damage the economy (i.e. the vast majority of people working in the field professionally…(etc)”
“majority”? “vast”?
When the Euro was being peddled by the “experts” (mainly FTSE100 bosses), I was working in the City for a German bank.
Hardly anyone outside the boardroom thought the Euro was a good thing.
I distinctly recall a eurobond forum (not €) where a Dutch economist said (roughly) .. “the Euro may work for a few countries such as France, Benelux and Germany – but many more and there would be risks. Italy may not qualify.”
“obvious threats to the economy like our financial service companies”
i) Please spell out these threats.
ii) Please explain how the City of London managed to remain the pre-eminent world financial centre (now that the empire has receded into history) – before EU integration.
“losing their financial passport”
Before passporting, London had thousands more foreign financial institutions than the rest of the EU put together.
a) We must have been doing something right (not putting them off)
b) Getting tax revenue
Since passporting, how many UK financial businesses have decided to operate elsewhere in the EU?
I don’t think many. Is that because:
a) business opportunities are fewer ?
b) locals retain a semi-veto ?
Also, the UK needs to be able to control passporting with bi-lateral agreements.
Have you heard about the Polish organisations which will hand out certificates for electricians and gas engineers without them being qualified?
“Since passporting, how many UK financial businesses have decided to operate elsewhere in the EU?”
Virtually all the large financial companies headquartered in the UK have operations in the EU and the figure that’s been released is that losing the passport would affect around 5,500 separate UK based firms who use it to do business in Europe. A reasonable adult who cares about the effect of Brexit on people’s lives would be concerned at that, acknowledge the point for what it is, and think about solutions.
You’ve chosen to pretend the problem doesn’t exist and then raise a point about Polish electricians which has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with passporting in the financial services sector.
—
“When the Euro was being peddled by the “experts” (mainly FTSE100 bosses), I was working in the City for a German bank.”
This is literally the only response you ever hear from Eurosceptics. It’s an utterly ridiculous argument to suggest that because some experts once supported the euro we should therefore ignore economists forever. It’s been deconstructed so many times that if you’re still trying to use this line in an argument today you’re either incredibly ill-informed or stubborn to the point of absurdity.
And frankly I couldn’t care less which is true. We’ve been listening to this rubbish for months. You and your political heroes have had their day in the sun. It’s time for the adults to start sorting out the mess – if you want to gibber away about “remainiacs” in your spare time then that’s your problem.
Dear Burns,
Methinks you are conflating somewhat unrelated matters with…….
“Virtually all the large financial companies headquartered in the UK have operations in the EU and the figure that’s been released is that losing the passport would affect around 5,500 separate UK based firms who use it to do business in Europe.”
“Virtually all the large financial companies”… have been doing business in Europe for decades – many (of not most) under local regualtion/approval.
But then you move to “5,500 separate UK firms”.
Either many of these are Special Purpose Vehicles for those “large companies” – or they are a myriad of small financial businesses – such as the one that I am a Director of.
I can tell you we are NOT wringing our hands in horror.
Best case scenario ? The Germans continue to recognise FCA/BofE approval.
Worst case scenario ? We have to sign up with BAFIN – under the same rules anyway
“A reasonable adult who cares about the effect of Brexit on people’s lives .. ” ….is a poor appeal to emotion.
Surley a “reasonable” adult would consider the impact of uncontrolled migration on house prices, (and quality of life from increased density), school places, queues at the doctors, journey times etc – and then compare that with a possible bureaucratic inconvenience for a few financiers (like us).
“Polish electricians (for example) … Are you deliberately missing the point????
Passporting is fine when the issuing authority can be trusted (like Germany’s BAFIN).
But what if it can’t be trusted?
What if Language (lack of ) has potentially damaging outcome?
What about passporting of Doctors?
They may be well qualified and brilliant medics – but what if their foreign language skills are lacking?
AFAIK foreign language skills are NOT a requirement for Doctors in any country (except maybe Canada !)
[This is not a theoretical “fear”. Cases exist of foreign language doctors mis-communicating or mis-understanding with unwelcome results.)
“experts” and “economists” in the same sentence?
I must be very “ill-informed” as I was under the impression (from my economics training) that economists often have different interpretations or forecasts from the same facts !
You are the very essence of a deluded brexiteer busy trying to juggle logic, truth and reality in a bid to justify such a stupid decision
1 of course England are bothered do you think Westminster holds on to Scotland because they like us? Don’t be ridiculous it’s because we generate far more money than we cost it’s that simple
2 The independence movement is way bigger than just the SNP or those wanting to remain, there are those that voted No based on promises that we’re made and not fulfilled, were lied to and will not make the same mistake twice, pensioners who were scared out their wits by project fear and their pensions being effected , now devastated, EU nationals that were scared in to thinking Scotland would have problems with the EU which is just ridiculous etc etc Scotland only needs a 6% swing I think you’ll find there is way more than that.
3 oh yes we will see the mess of brexit as the EU makes the UK suffer, they have to it is in their interests to let other EU nations not to get any stupid ideas or this will happen.
4 Article 50 can take as long as it likes but as soon as it’s triggered and that fundemental lie is enacted Scotland will set a date for our independence, when brexit is complete makes no matter.
And finally thanks for showing up your ignorance and the ignorance Scotland wants to get away from by stating the absolutely stupid made up lying delusion of brexit that somehow the EU tells us what to do by and with “obstructive officials” lol like we had no say in creating EU laws and directives and standards lol or that thay were debated and amended and voted on and ratified all by the UK like somehow they appeared by magic nobody told us and we are now being imposed upon hahaha your made up delusions have no bounds, keep lying to yourself keep the faith lol ?
Lawrence
“deluded Brexiteer”
OK so abuse “wins” a debate !
“….juggle logic, truth and reality in a bid to justify such a stupid decision”
I cannot think of a single Remain argument that was based on “truth and reality”.
So called “evidence” was speculation and crystal-ball gazing.
By contrast, all Leave had to repeat were known facts e.g.
i) The EU makes most UK laws
ii) Inside the EU we cannot build enough houses and plan public services to meet unknown numbers of migrants – or preserve quality of life
iii) Plenty of non-EU countries trade with European countries without being EU members
iv) The Single Market is about more than just trade,it includes mandatory EU law and people’s right to settle abroad.
These are FACTS.
How these facts affect our future may be uncertain – but the probabilities were clear to many based on recent evidence..
“lying delusion of brexit that somehow the EU tells us what to do by and with “obstructive officials” lol like we had no say in creating EU laws etc”
You clearly have little understanding about how EU laws are made and how they affect the UK – or that Norway can “influence” EU law – but can still reject a law if its “influence” fails.
A longer rebuttal in this (already long) reply will have to wait.
Hahahaha no wait hahaha is all I can really say to thatno wait there’s more hahaha .
What planet are you on lol
The EU has a say in about 15% of UK law mostly covering trade, with some rights, like human rights ( now going to be rewritten by the far right conservatives) workers rights etc and that’s it, all of which we agreed to none of them imposed, I’m struggling not to call you an idiot hahaha lol
The point is free trade not if we can trade ? Actually I don’t even know where to begin everything you’ve said is wrong in fact wrong in reality and just nonsense and I already know that no amount of truth or reality or genuine fact is going to make a blind bit of difference you are a classic brexit nut that’s been told these lies and so wants to believe them that it’s like a religious fervour, damn that’s funny, you’ve got to laugh haha
“1. Scotland leaving the UK? Is England that bothered ??”
The English might say that they aren’t bothered, but it will leave a big hole in the good ship United Kingdom. The UK seat on the UN Security Council will be questioned; Trident will be sent down to Devon (or wherever); businesses will head north to a nice English-speaking country that is an EU member; the UK monarchy will be reassessed and put in doubt; the Westminster parliament will finally have to get modern, in the light of the thoroughly modern and European parliament in Edinburgh; and so on, and so on.
Support for independence went from 28% to 45%….. 17points, not 10.
The whole point of obtaining independence is not to have an SNP government in ?Holyrood, it’s to have a government who we vote for in Holyrood…..subtle difference there, for that subtle difference to be brushed over is to regard the SNP as some dictatorship,mehichbuts ckearly not..there’s slot more to the independence side of the last campaign and the next campaign. What that is will be in the national yes registry
“Support for independence went from 28% to 45%….. 17points, not 10.”
I think that could be contested pretty strongly. The very first polls you’ll see on the What Scotland Thinks tracking site using the actual referendum question were from February 2013. There were three polls at that point (which is quite some time before the campaign really got into full flow). The results when you exclude Don’t Knows (as you should) were:
Yes: 41% / No: 59%
Yes: 38% / No: 62%
Yes: 39% / No: 61%
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-country#table
So actually it’s probably more accurate to say there was a relatively small shift, about the same as what is required for Yes to win in a second referendum from the current polling position. Whether Yes can win from there is an open question though as it’s reasonable to think the impact of campaigning in the second referendum would be a bit more limited as people have already lived through the first campaign.
In some cases you could argue the Yes case is now a stronger one. Brexit has undeniably, absolutely, 100% strengthened the SNP’s hand in arguing that Scottish voters are forced to go along with decisions they disagree with. It’s an open and shut case.
On the other hand, the economic case for independence is much, much weaker than it was in 2014. The oil price drop makes a massive difference. Most Yes campaigners either aren’t aware of that or deliberately try to hide the fact, but you can be sure the No side would put the GERS figures front and centre of the campaign in a way that wasn’t possible in 2014 when there was a more nuanced picture. It also might be the case that there’s a bit of referendum fatigue setting in – Brexit will cause a huge amount of upheaval and some people might simply not want to throw any more chaos on to the pile.
I would find it very hard to predict how that referendum would actually go. It could swing enough to Yes to tip the balance, but current polling suggests it’s far from a certainty. And before you go off on one about Unionists, I think I would probably vote Yes this time because of Brexit, but I’d do so with my eyes wide open and with an awareness that it would very likely damage the economy and create a large bout of short-term uncertainty (even more so than Brexit where it’s at least possible to get a kind of Brexit-lite fudge to minimise the damage). I’d also do so despite having absolutely no love at all for the SNP and their style of politics.
“The very first polls you’ll see on the What Scotland Thinks tracking site using the actual referendum question were from February 2013.”
Yes Scotland’s official launch was on 25th May 2012, itself months after the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement. Opinion polling for the time period was 37%
“On the other hand, the economic case for independence is much, much weaker than it was in 2014. The oil price drop makes a massive difference.”
And yet according to GERS, even with this apparently cataclysmic fall in oil revenues, Scotland’s GDP fell by less than half a percentage point. It does make a massive difference, in that it caused a massive redistribution of wealth and funds as the lower oil price led to greater growth & investment elsewhere in the economy.
Nonetheless, the “economic case for independence” was always secondary to the democratic case – that of having the government of Scotland being defined by the people of Scotland. Countries don’t become independent to make themselves richer.
” I think I would probably vote Yes this time because of Brexit, but I’d do so with my eyes wide open and with an awareness that it would very likely damage the economy and create a large bout of short-term uncertainty (even more so than Brexit where it’s at least possible to get a kind of Brexit-lite fudge to minimise the damage). I’d also do so despite having absolutely no love at all for the SNP and their style of politics.”
The problem with Brexit so far hasn’t been the vote itself, or even the prospect of leaving the EU at all – it’s the absolutely stunning incompetence and indecision of the UK government in its aftermath. As a result, we’re going to be seeing massive uncertainty regardless of what happens, because of who’s currently running the government.
I think a lot of damage-control has been put in place since the vote, both to settle down the Remain voters and also to prevent independence support rising. A number of polls showed a significant jump to Yes in the immediate aftermath of the EUref: you could argue that to be the shock factor, but considering nobody’s actually said what Brexit is, or what it will entail, perhaps those polls will return once the reality of Brexit is laid before us.
“And yet according to GERS, even with this apparently cataclysmic fall in oil revenues, Scotland’s GDP fell by less than half a percentage point.”
The line that was used consistently during the 2014 referendum (by the SNP and their affiliated organisations like Business for Scotland) was to cite the 2011-12 GERS report and state that Scotland generated 9.9% of UK revenue but only received 9.3% of UK spending. See here for an example: http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/breaking-news-9-3-is-a-smaller-number-than-9-9-indyref/
The comparable figure from the latest 2015-16 GERS report, in large part due to the oil price drop (but also reflecting other factors), was that Scotland generated 7.9% of UK revenue and received 9.1% of UK spending. That’s a catastrophic deterioration in the relative fiscal position of Scotland within the UK. It was possible in 2014 to claim Scotland was subsidising the rest of the UK, that isn’t even close to the situation today. As such I really can’t see how it’s arguable that the economic case isn’t significantly worse than it was in 2014.
And as I said above, the political case is arguably stronger in the sense that Brexit entails Scotland unambiguously being forced to go along with a major decision (Scottish citizens losing some of their rights in the process) that it explicitly voted against. However both elements (politics and economics) were important in 2014: the Yes side didn’t just argue independence was justified on political grounds, but that it would make us richer and more prosperous in the process (while the No side focused almost exclusively on the economy). As such it’s difficult to see how that referendum would go at this point.
Finally, on the opinion polls, the question you ask makes a very large difference to the response you receive. The SNP only agreed to the Electoral Commission’s new question (Should Scotland be an independent country?) in January 2013 so I think it’s pretty reasonable to take polling from there. Either way I think it would be an extreme exaggeration to claim support for independence increased by the level suggested by the commenter above.
Let’s take a look at oil, I’m sick to death about people going on about it as if Scotlands entire economy depends on oil and that has never been the case Scotland could do more than survive with out oil its entire infrastructure and business assets are more than sufficient oil is a bonus.. Scotland the only country on the planet that’s been told it’s worse off for having oil. Lol
Scotland and oil for dummies.
Oil at its peak of $120.00 a barrel.
Tax take = 70% to Westminster .
70% of $120.00= $84.00.
Scotland’s share of that $84.00 is per capita which = 8.4%
Scotland share of the $84.00 = $7.05.
Westminster’s share of that $84.00 = $76.95.
Oil price as it now stands at $47.54 Tax take still 70%.
Tax take to Westminster $33.27
Scotland share of that $33.27 is per capita which =8.4%.
Scotland’s share of the $33.27 = $2.79
Westminster’s share of that $33.27 = $30.48.
So in Summary even at its lowest price Scotland would be far better off with its oil wealth in its own hands than with Westminster even at its peak..
As you can see from the simple sums above an independent Scotland would not now be worse off because of the fall in the oil price because at its peak we can see from the figures when oil was at $120.00 a barrel under the current arrangement we only get $7.05 per barrel .
Hope that clears that up. 🙂
Tax is on the profit on the oil not on the actual oil itself, so you need to deduct the cost of production from your calculations.
What you’ve demonstrated here is that if Scotland had a geographic share of its oil resources as an independent country then it would get more of its oil revenues than it currently does/did as part of the UK (if we take that revenue as presently being distributed on a per capita basis) even after the oil price fall. This approach is actually quite wrong for a number of reasons.
What you’re essentially doing here is arguing that the revenue Scotland receives *per barrel* would be higher now in a geographic share than the per capita share we received when oil was at its peak (which is hardly surprising, a geographic share is about 78% while a per capita share is just over 8%). But the number of barrels being produced isn’t a constant and in reality the low price makes it far less viable to extract the oil that’s still there, causing overall revenues to tumble.
The per capita share of oil revenue in 2011-12 (the “peak” that the SNP used in all their campaigning literature) was £942 million. The geographic share in 2015-16, however, is only £60 million. The price per barrel might be higher, but that doesn’t mean overall revenues are higher because production has dropped off a cliff.
Although remaining in the EU is an important factor for unlike England and their delusion of empire, the Scots feel Scottish and European and very little feel anything British but there is also the lies and broken promises from 2014 which people don’t forget.
Vote NO to secure our place in Europe (LIE)
Vote NO to save 2000 HMRC Income Tax jobs (LIE)
Vote NO or companies like Scottish Widows will leave, now based in London (LIE)
Vote NO to secure the building of Frigates on the Clyde, now reduced and delayed indefinitely (LIE)
Vote NO to save British Steel jobs, it took the Scottish Government to save the plant (LIE)
Vote NO or subsides for Scotland’s renewable energy sector will stop, now stopped (LIE)
Vote NO because only the broad shoulders of the UK could save the OIL Industry, now mass unemployment (LIE)
Vote NO Cameron promised a 200 Billion North Sea Oil boom with investment (LIE)
Vote NO and lose the HS2 planned for Scotland, now we are told ‘no business case’ for taking fast train service to Scotland (LIE)
Vote NO and lose the £1 billion to develop “carbon capture and storage” technology on power stations, now cancelled (LIE)
Vote NO Cameron said “Scotland should lead the UK not leave” on the same day as the NO vote EVEL is introduced making it impossible for a Scot to become a Prime Minister ever again… (LIE)
As I said above I would consider voting Yes this time around, but I find this list both objectionable on factual grounds (e.g. the line about HS2 is incredibly misleading, the oil industry collapsed because of the global oil price falling and despite tax breaks provided by the UK government… I could list about 20 other things misleading about what you’ve written here) and completely self-defeating from a campaigning perspective.
To elaborate on the second point, if the Yes side wants to secure independence it has to realise that the only way to do it is to win over No voters. Yet everywhere you look online you see people still stuck in trench warfare mode – the Wings Over Scotland approach of pretending every No voter is some kind of braindead Unionist and the No side only won because of rampant lying. All of that stuff is just going to harden opinions on the No side. You can’t win a campaign by insulting the people you need to win over. The best thing the Yes side could do if they want to change opinions is confiscate Stuart Campbell’s laptop for a few years and start embracing some diverse voices – people who don’t believe everything the SNP says and are willing to present a pragmatic, critical case for independence.
I would appreciate you actually listing the things that are misleading about the comments: it wouldn’t do to spread misinformation, and I’m sure Lawrence would appreciate the corrections.
I don’t know where you get this idea that Stuart Campbell pretends every No voter is “some kind of braindead Unionist,” given the Wee Blue/Black Books have been immeasurably useful for undecided voters.
We have plenty of diverse voices across the movement, none a greater example than Eric Joyce, former Labour MP who’s started “From No to Yes.” The Greens have started a similar campaign. So I guess we’re taking your advice!
“I don’t know where you get this idea that Stuart Campbell pretends every No voter is “some kind of braindead Unionist,” given the Wee Blue/Black Books have been immeasurably useful for undecided voters.”
He’s openly accepted in the past that his core strategy is to create an “us vs them” mentality between Yes and No voters. You just need to look at the word cloud on his blog to see that – the vast majority of his content is about trashing Better Together/Unionists, not making an inclusive case for independence. It plays incredibly well with those who are already converted to the cause and alienates virtually everyone else. It’s a terrible strategy for trying to win a second referendum in my view but a great strategy for getting hits on his website.
As for the Yes movement being diverse, I completely disagree. It claims to be diverse but there are large sections of society which are completely overlooked. To give just the most obvious example, the basic underlying feature of the Yes movement in 2014 is that it operated largely from a left-wing basis: independence was a way to solve inequality, to become more environmental, to move toward pacifism (bairns not bombs), to get rid of Trident and so on. I personally don’t disagree with a lot of those sentiments, but there was never any real attempt made to try and bring in those on the right of the political spectrum. Business for Scotland was about as close as it got and it was unsurprisingly limited due to its origins as a quasi-independent spin off from people who were affiliated to the SNP. The strategy appeared to be to simply keep repeating the words “diverse” and “grassroots movement” over and over without actually bringing in those on the opposite side of the political spectrum in practice.
And if Yes wants to win another referendum it has to be both inclusive and diverse – that is, it has to put aside bitterly fighting the battles of 2014 all over again, approach every voter with an open mind, and try to make the independence movement about far more than the SNP’s own policy agenda (something it never really managed to do in 2014 despite countless claims to the contrary from Yes supporters). I think Sturgeon is probably more capable of doing that than Salmond was, but I have my doubts as to whether this will happen in practice.
An interesting insight if not convoluted when apart from the lies broken promises and deception of the last referendum, the question is really simple, ask a unionist in what way is brexit better than independence? It’s them that need to be answering questions not us defending our choice, in what way is being told what we can and can not do by an unelected far right wing Prime Minister in a post brexit fascist state better than an independent Scotland in the EU and on the British Isles? Explain to me how brexit is better ?
Well to be fair I’ve found the unionist approach to be exactly the same project fear 2 the sequal, starting with the Scottish people don’t wanr a referendum? When clearly they do, to the same old , too small, too poor, too stupid rhetoric.
The hs2 quote is factual and the oil prices falling I wouldn’t call a collapse just a market fluctuation which I’m not entirely convinced was not created by Westminster as part of the oil cartels that control oil prices? But the point was his promised investment that never materialised , everything there is factual and not even a complete list of broken promises used to convince you and others to vote No, why you are not furious at these proven liars, lying to you, conning you and fooling you is a bewilderment?
I know it’s difficult to admit that but it is a fact x
But I do agree there is more than the lies and broken promises of the last one, the pulled out of Europe against our will and vote, to having an unelected far right wing Prime Minister in a post brexit fascist state none of which we voted for as our vote and opinion never counts, I’d much rather focus on what we can do, what we could do, to have a better more open and more together future for our children, one where our businesses are actually allowed to be competitive against the rest of the UK, to actually be the competition to be an independent country in the EU and on the British Isles wow what a USP what an opportunity Scotland would flourish in such an environment
The referendum has to be put on the table and Scottish people must understand that by not being an independent state they will be in conflict with EU’ s bylaws!!! This cannot be understated and the Scottish people must understand the consequences of not voting for independence!!! 2020 is only three years away, Scotland needs to be apart of the EU!!The British have made their bed and should sleep in it, but I have a feeling that they will not go down without a fight, namely they will try and persuade the Scottish people to not vote for independence and discredit party members that are for it!!! The benefits of independence for the Scottish people outweighs the negatives!!! Scotland will become a major/integral part of the EU!!!
“The benefits of independence for the Scottish people outweighs the negatives!!! Scotland will become a major/integral part of the EU!!!”
Please help me (and many others)…
How is becoming a “major/integral part of the EU” “independent”?
Any rational/logical/reasoning would note that the EU is (currently) our ultimate government in a whole swathe of “competences” handed over to Brussels.
In which universe is Scotland having a tiny handful of votes (in a non-English speaking political world) MORE independant?
In short, many of us “get” Scottish independence.
We just don’t “get” swapping a nearer government (which has had many Scots in positions of power) for a much more remote government (where Scots will be in a tiny minority).
Please explain.
Thank you
The “how can you be independent in the EU” thing is pretty silly as far as these soundbites go. The limited areas where states cooperate with the EU are a drop in the ocean in comparison to being a constituent part of a unified state – where the central parliament makes all major decisions, from going to war, to tax and spend policies, to criminal laws, to the rate of pensions, and everything else. The two things aren’t even remotely comparable.
What I find is that UKIP voters seem to think the EU somehow had far more power than it actually did in practice. They think that because there was an agreement on VAT bands the EU was making up our taxation policies, or because the Common Foreign and Security Policy (which is largely voluntary/reliant on unanimity) exists somehow we no longer had a foreign policy anymore. That’s just a case of people not really understanding what the EU actually is or how it works. In reality cooperating through the EU is a completely different thing from being part of a state like the UK. There is no contradiction for people who understand the issues.
Steven
I should say “please answer the question” – but it seems obvious that someone has deluded you into thinking that inside the EU Scotland would be “independent”.
The phrase “limited areas where states co-operate” sums up a tragic (for Scotland) and potentially dangerous misreading of the EU.
“Co-operation” with neighbouring countries is to be welcomed – and already occurs outside the EU (e.g. Interpol, Prem Convention etc) – but co-operation is amongst equals.
The EU creates a “master-servant” relationship such that while “co-operation” may be “limited”, imposition becomes the norm.
The loss of the national veto means that any country can find EU laws imposed without any ability for the elected Reps of that country to prevent that law.
The UK has tried to resist an EU law over 70 times – and has lost every time !
There are around 22,000 EU laws within UK law. While many are about cross-border trade (standards, safety, paperwork) and are quite reasonable – quite a few are not, but the UK Govt decided they were not important enough to resist.
We want to co-operate – just not “through the EU”.
I did answer your question by explaining that your conception of the EU is completely inaccurate. It’s part of the Eurosceptic narrative to overinflate how important the EU is. We’ll take QMV voting (something that is a basic necessity to allow the single market to work because it would be impossible to legislate if every state had a veto) and pretend it removes all traces of sovereignty from nation states. Your discussion of a “master-servant” relationship is alarmist claptrap: all of the main decisions are made using unanimity (the epitome of an “equal” relationship) most notably treaty amendments. I suspect you are either not aware of this or happy to pretend the kind of stereotypical tripe Eurosceptics post all over the internet is accurate, and that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean those in Scotland or any other country are obliged to make the same mistake.
For those of us who understand what the EU is, there is no contradiction between advocating independence from the UK and membership of the EU. It means, for instance, that Scotland would have control over key policy areas (foreign policy, all tax and spend and criminal justice policies for a start) that it doesn’t have control over now. It’s not a difficult concept – Holyrood controls some policy areas as it is, it would control more if it were independent from the UK while still remaining in the EU. If you can explain what it is you don’t get about that then go ahead, but having a discussion about what you think the word “independence” means is completely pointless. It means leaving the UK, end of.
Yawn. She’s just flapping her gums and trying to stay relevant. Even the SNP’s old guard are cautious about a second referendum and the possibility of losing it for a second time. It would be a much harder sell without membership of the EU, with the current low oil price and likely without the positive psychology choice of ‘yes’ (a mistake by Cameron that won’t be repeated).
I repeat “without membership of the EU”.
The UK voted to leave (unfortunately) the EU and Scotland is still part of the UK despite Sturgeon’s attempts to ignore the fact. An independent Scotland would need to apply for entry to the EU and would most likely face a veto from Spain, scuppering her plan.
Then how do you account for the several EU ministers, MEPs, and officials saying Scotland would not need to apply for entry? Guy Verhofstadt, Thomas Oppermann, Manfred Weber, Sigmar Gabriel, Jean-Christophe Lagarde, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Hans Schelling, Robert Fico, all have said they would either support or expect an independent Scotland within the EU.
As for Spain, the Spanish Foreign Minister has repeatedly stated that as long as Scottish independence was done constitutionally and recognised by the UK, they would have nothing to say. But since Scotland would be remaining in the EU while the rest of the UK left, there wouldn’t be an option for a veto, only a simple majority of member states.
And where do you get this information?
Let me give you a lesson on actual EU process rather than parroting unionist propaganda.
The first , very first port of call will be the European Courts where European Judges will decide Scotlands position, no permission required from any other nation no reapplication necessary but a determination and interpretation under EU law for a situation that the EU has no precedent for.
Where there is an international solution under ordinary contract law that will allow Scotland to continue with the contract it already has removing the rUK to be the soul remaining member on our EXISTING contract, the court also has to decide if the EU can legally and rightfully abandon 5 million already EU citizens, I would say Scotland has a very strong case, and that’s what it is a court case and any other nonsense you hear about Scotlands position is made up lies or at best guesses to the outcome of a court case, European Judges in the European Courts will decide Scotlands future there not made up unionist propaganda of some mysterious people who want to get at Scotland like boogey-men lol I think we can safely say the EU has and will warmly embrace Scotland as it finds more and more ways of making life difficult for Westminster and brexit
While a devolved entity can’t join the EU, why shouldn’t a devolved entity join the single market on a Norway basis?
The EU would like not to shrink the single market, and even the Tories mostly would like to stay in it knowing the benefits. But the feeling in Engkand seems to be determined to leave it and to cry foul on the ref unless they do leave it. The way they anounced that the devolved govts woukd be involved in the process seemed like actively trying for the possibility of keeping Scotland in the single market as Britain’s toehold connection with it.
If Englandandwales have to leave the single market then here is a solution which I wish there was a route to suggest to the negotiators. Scotland and NI stay in, as a result we have to put a hard border on the Scottish border, but we do this inside the UK so British citizens are equally citizens on both sides of the line and won’t experience it as a hard border. It will be just an irritant checkpoint we can cross freely – so this should not be unpopular the way an indy hard border rightly is. The only folks who it will be a hard border for are those who Scotland + NI let in but Englandandwales does not., including the free movement Europeans.
Scotland can have the autonomous power for a more liberal border regime than England, without separating from British citizenship. NI can choose whether to have its own border regime or join with Scotland’s or with the Republic’s, and in all 3 cases it keeps the important open border in Ireland. Isle of Man would have to choose which part of UK to have its border union with.
As it was the English Eurohostlity that had always kept the British Isles out of Schengen, under this idea we could even imagine Scotland and Man and both parts of Ireland joining Schengen.
The big question is about how hard the Yes and No votes are.
It’s fascinating that more than 50% of Scots voted for pro-independence parties. In fact all the SNP need to do to win the referendum is to convince SNP voters to vote for independence. I would suggest that SNP voters must be fairly open to independence.
I know a lot of No voters from when I campaigned with Better Together. If you were the sort of person who would campaign against nationalism then you tend to be the sort of person who is pro-EU. I think I would probably now vote Yes if there is another referendum for that reason and I’m certainly not alone on that.
The final question is who would lead the No campaign. The smart money is on Ruth Davidson and while I do admire her I think it would be tricky for a Conservative to win a vote in Scotland.
“It’s fascinating that more than 50% of Scots voted for pro-independence parties. In fact all the SNP need to do to win the referendum is to convince SNP voters to vote for independence.”
There’s a turnout issue here. The actual number of votes for the SNP/Greens in 2015 was lower than the number of Yes votes in the referendum. It was only 50% because fewer people voted overall. In 2016 the total number of votes for the SNP/Greens was substantially lower again than in 2015.
That isn’t surprising as turnout was very high in 2014, but it does show they need to do more than simply get those who voted SNP/Green in 2015/16 to vote Yes. They need to appeal to the large body of No voters and don’t knows (we can expect the latter will again come out in a referendum and could decide the outcome).
Very true. In particular they really do need to win over at least some of the business community. Having a sensible policy on currency would be a step towards doing that.
Also as Pete Woodhouse says above they would need to get Spain to sign-off on Scotland’s EU membership. I know that these negotiations are underway but I’m a bit more positive than he is. They already have German backing and I think French backing is on the way. If they do get German and French support then I think that would help with Spain.
Totally agree what a USP for Scotland any banks, financial institutions, businesses or companies that want to continue trading in the EU don’t need to relocate to Frankfurt they just need to drive up the road to Scotland ?
HM Treasury put the jobs that would need to be transferred from the UK to the EU at about 3.3 million under a hard Brexit scenario. Coming from the other side of the argument Economists for Brexit had it about 2.5 million jobs. So the range 2.5 million to 3.3 million sounds about right.
The total Scottish workforce is about 2.1 million. So in reality we probably would struggle to take more than about 5% of the relocating jobs. However that would still be enough to help balance out some of the Scottish jobs that would need to go to England following Scottish independence.
The EU has already stated categorically that Scotland cannot inherit membership from the UK. It will have to apply, and Spain has already said they would veto the application. Secondly, an independent Scotland doesn’t meet the economic criteria to join. Oil revenues were £66 million last year, leaving Scotland with a £15 billion hole in it’s finances – poorer than Greece. It would have to agree to Schengen and adopting the Euro – there would be no choice in this. And there would be a hard border – we could hardly stop immigrants at Calais while letting them in through Scotland.
What amuses me is that the SNP want independence from unelected foreigners governing their country, so want to leave the UK to join the EU. Sorry, but if that’s the argument, what’s the difference between government from Westminster and government from Brussels?
Who is this imaginary EU that states things ? Is it like the wizard of Oz for I can assure you no person, employee or commissioner can forecast or foretell the outcome of a judicial procedure or court case and yes Scotland can inherit our current contract under ordinary contrat law whether the courts will accept that is up to the judges not you or your imaginary person that speaks for the EU
You are the epitome of a deluded unionist troll lol
I wont repeat myself in eu process for that is what will happen Spain has no say no nation has any say you unionists have no say it’s the European courts that will decide
Your idiotic made up in your mind that the EU tells us what to do is partially what’s got us in this sorry mess, everything with the EU has been established with uk input, debated, amended, voted on a ratified by the uk at every stage everything we agreed to idiot why can’t you nutters get that in to your head ?
There is no15 billion deficit in made up gers figures, drop trident, drop hs2 get all our whisky duty and 100% of our oil revenue rather than 8.6 % then we’ll be doing really well thank you, but it astounds me that you copy and paste unionist trolls can’t deal with the basic fundemental fact and reality, why do you think Westminster holds on to Scotland? Is it because they like us? Is it because they like giving money away lol haven’t you worked out that it’s because we generate far more income than we cost, it’s that simple wake up to yourself, you don’t get to con or fool the Scottish people twice xxx
“You are the epitome of a deluded unionist troll”
Surely Lawrence is the “unionist” ?
Wow see what I mean about delusion how thick and deluded do you need to be to come to that conclusion lol
“Surley a “reasonable” adult would consider the impact of uncontrolled migration on house prices, (and quality of life from increased density), school places, queues at the doctors, journey times etc – and then compare that with a possible bureaucratic inconvenience for a few financiers (like us).”
They do and they produce studies like this one, showing that immigration doesn’t push up house prices in the UK (it’s actually been shown to reduce house prices): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12158/abstract
There we go using facts and evidence again, though – no doubt this author supported the euro and can be safely ignored.
And for the record, dropping in painfully embarrassing personal references to your apparent “finance career” and “economics training” isn’t an argument. Virtually everything you’ve written in this comment section could have been copied and pasted off a UKIP website. You don’t even seem to know what passporting is given your continued rebuttal is a lifted story about Polish electricians that has absolutely nothing to do with the effect of Brexit on the UK’s financial services sector. You can pretend you’re Mark Carney for all it matters, you’ve presented absolutely nothing of substance in this discussion that I can see.
If Scotland organizes for its independence in good time it could very well be the beneficiary of UK businesses needing to relocate to the EU.
What better place to relocate than another clean, progressive, English-speaking city such as Edinburgh?
But this window of opportunity will only be available for a limited period of time.
There is a Joker in the pack. Shetland has a strong group, Wir Shetland, wishing to be independent from the Scotish Government, especially an SNP Independent Scotland. In the event of Sturgeon going for Indyref2, Shetland will definitely request its own referendum for a split from Scotland.
Will they ? Well one step at a time then lets see xxx
Independence for Scotland first it is then
No Lawrence that’s devious. As you know there are still states in the democratic world, e.g. Spain, who deny that their parts are entitled to secede. We should not take the chance that Scotland will be such a state towards Shetland, so not “one step at a time”, you have to be tied in unrattably to let Shetland go before Scotland goes.