Scottish Independence 2016?

[Eol Sha]

I'm honestly surprised the Tories opposed Scottish independence. It would of gotten rid of a lot of safe labour voters.

Don't most Scots vote SNP these days?

[Paredonia]

I'm honestly surprised the Tories opposed Scottish independence. It would of gotten rid of a lot of safe labour voters.

Don't most Scots vote SNP these days?

I'd hardly say most. More often than not, most Scots vote for a party OTHER than the SNP.

[Eol Sha]

Don't most Scots vote SNP these days?

I'd hardly say most. More often than not, most Scots vote for a party OTHER than the SNP.

Didn't SNP get a majority of the vote in Scotland last year and in the municipal(?) elections?

[Herargon]

Don't most Scots vote SNP these days?

I'd hardly say most. More often than not, most Scots vote for a party OTHER than the SNP.

Parties, you mean.

And besides, the SNP actually was the second biggest party from the beginning of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, until after the election in 2011, from which on the SNP is the biggest one.

During 1999-2011, the Labour Party was the biggest, and after that the second biggest, until the Conservatives took over the role of second biggest one in 2011.

Source

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

Spoilered to prevent massive wall of text.

Why local elections? Is the integrity of the country a minor issue that should be treated with the widest possible franchise, allowed for the weakest of our elected institutions?

Per the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended, there are two rolls, Parliamentary & Local. The Local roll is used to vote for the Scottish Parliament & European elections. Should a brand new electoral roll have been created (at significant public expenses) merely for the referendum? That really would open up charges of gerrymandering from both sides.

Why 16 and 17 year olds, an entirely new innovation, except that 16 and 17 year olds were more pro-independence than other age groups?

I did mention that was the only peculiarity. Of course data for 16 & 17 year olds was already held by the Electoral Registers (maintained so that they were able to vote from 18th birthday onwards without waiting for an updated roll). Also as I mentioned, the Lib Dems have had as policy for years that they want to reduce the franchise age. Plus in Scotland, the age of legal capacity when one can enter into contracts, marry, etc is 16. While both sides may have hoped 16 & 17 year olds would vote for them, there was AFAIK no polls conducted to evidence that prior to the decision to include them.

The United Kingdom. Obviously people who were not citizens of the UK should not have been allowed to vote in a constitutional referendum. EU citizens voting whether to break up the UK was pathetically bizarre.

So you are a British Nationalist. Should Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland resident in the UK have their parliamentary votes removed too? Resident EU citizens only get a Local Vote, but Commonwealth & Irish residents get Parliamentary Votes too- Section 4 of the 1983 Act. Removing all of them would make your position logically consistent: make the vote purely down to citizenship. But what about those with dual citizenship. Or a British citizen absent from the country for 20 years? Can non-citizens be exempted from UK tax: after all "no taxation without representation". And takes us back to the original dilemma: what then if one section of the citizenship does not wish to retain UK citizenship but have their own national citizenship?

We didn't vote to remain in this united kingdom, we voted to remain in an EU referendum. Once again however, we're being forced to do what England wants, yet they still claim we're in no way oppressed. If the majority of polls show Scots are in favour of the union, why is another referendum bad then? Let us have it, if we lose it, we lose it. If the people of Scotland don't want independence then, we may as well never try again. But let me make it clear, we will gain our independence, one way or another, Alba will be free.

Actually the majority of Scotland did vote to remain in the UK. Then the majority of Scotland voted to remain in the EU, and that is where Scotland is being "forced to do what England wants" (don't forget Wales too!). The legislation for the Scottish Parliament contains entrenched provisions for EU law, and amendment of that requires Scottish Parliamentary consent. Also, Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU, and the Peace Agreement there is underwritten by the EU so there is significant constitutional & international law issues if NI is removed from the EU too.

But enough of the rhetoric about "Bho Alba Saor". Scotland is free. To date the majority of Scotland has elected to remain in the UK, it's not being kept in by force. The EU referendum, another exercise of democracy, shows the majority of England and Wales wish to leave the EU, the majority of the remainder of the UK do not. If Westminster chooses to proceed with leaving the EU, and the majority people of Scotland and/or NI then decide they would rather leave the UK to remain in the EU, and Westminster does not accept the decision of that nation then and only then can you start legitimately talking about oppression.

But I have to say that, as much as it would grieve me to see Britain divided, Scotland has very good reason to leave. I am inclined to think that the Brexit vote can rightly be regarded as a betrayal of Scotland by the rest of the UK, and in this case, while they would be leaving Britain, they'd be doing it at least in part to remain in the EU, meaning that the action could be regarded, paradoxically, as anti-sepparatist.

You can't call it a "betrayal" of Scotland by the rest of the UK. The majority in England & Wales decided, rightly or wrongly, that they felt their best interests are served by being outside the EU. Scotland and NI decided on the same basis that theirs were best served remaining in the EU. The problem is that the EU referendum was a quick bodge by David Cameron to maintain party unity, and didn't fully consider the ramifications of anything other than an overall "remain" vote. Anyone paying attention will realise that Scottish & English political cultures have been separating since the 1980's, and that divergence has only increased in the last decade. The EU result is heading to a constitutional crisis caused by a socio-political difference between the constituent nations of the UK that the current structures cannot contain.

I'm sure that's exactly what the English said when the Scots imposed a Labour government on them for 13 years, with two Scottish Prime Ministers no less. As well as Scottish MPs imposing tuition fees on England and Wales but not Scotland, and Scottish MPs blocking the alteration of Sunday trading laws in England and Wales, despite that very law being in place in Scotland already.

It's a myth that Scots imposed a Labour govt on England. The only elections since 1945 where the Scottish results changed which government got into power was 1964 when the Labour majority of 4 would have been a Conservative majority of 1, and 2010 when there would have been a Tory majority of 19 instead of a coalition govt. As to the rest, if the UK is one single entity, one cannot object to the MPs as a block passing laws. Interestingly the SNP, which of course does not consider the UK should be treated as a single entity, had a policy of not voting on legislation which did not apply to Scotland.

Because referendums cost a hell of a lot of money and you already had one not even two years ago?

Democracy is too expensive? By the same argument one could say we only need General Elections every 20 years. Historically the UK did not hold referendums at all. In the 1975 EU referendum as well as "yes" and "no" there was the "Don't know" campaign which argued it was Parliaments job to make the decision, not pass it to the people. But Blair implemented a framework for calling referendums, and Cameron presided over 2 all UK referendums, so it would appear that they are now accepted as a necessary means to deal with consitutional dilemmas. Certainly cheaper than civil wars.

Their opinion certainly DOES matter. You see, Scottish independence if by some miracle it ever happened, is something that would affect the entire United Kingdom, not just Scotland. Therefore, EVERYONE in the United Kingdom is entitled to an opinion, and the opinion of EVERYONE in the United Kingdom on this issue is valid, not just the opinion of the Scots.

To a degree I would concur. Everyone in the UK is entitled to their opinion, because they would all be affected. However, one nation of the UK is not entitled to force another part to remain in against its will. So, if there is Indyref2, the rest of the UK may certainly campaign for Scots to remain, or indeed to leave, but it is for the electorate in Scotland to make the decision. In just the same way if people in England decide "we've had enough of all this, we think we're contributing more to the UK than we get out of it, we're leaving" then England can leave the UK. Or they could campaign for an English Parliament dealing with English only matters, with the UK Parliament dealing only with all UK issues.

[Paredonia]

Didn't SNP get a majority of the vote in Scotland last year and in the municipal(?) elections?

They didn't. The SNP got exactly 50% of the overall vote (in Scotland anyway) which should warrant only about 27 seats maximum but got 56 instead because of a terrible voting system, and this year in the Scottish Parliament election, they got 46% in the constituency vote and 41% in the regional vote, FAR from a majority.

Parties, you mean.

And besides, the SNP actually was the second biggest party from the beginning of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, until after the election in 2011, from which on the SNP is the biggest one.

During 1999-2011, the Labour Party was the biggest, and after that the second biggest, until the Conservatives took over the role of second biggest one in 2011.

Yes you're right, I did mean parties instead of just party. That was my mistake. You are also correct in the SNP being the second biggest party until the became the biggest party, but even still, the SNP have NEVER managed to get a vote from the majority of Scots. Granted neither have any of the other parties by they aren't claiming to speak for every single Scot despite the fact they don't, like the SNP does.

[Paredonia]

Democracy is too expensive? By the same argument one could say we only need General Elections every 20 years. Historically the UK did not hold referendums at all. In the 1975 EU referendum as well as "yes" and "no" there was the "Don't know" campaign which argued it was Parliaments job to make the decision, not pass it to the people. But Blair implemented a framework for calling referendums, and Cameron presided over 2 all UK referendums, so it would appear that they are now accepted as a necessary means to deal with consitutional dilemmas. Certainly cheaper than civil wars.

Difference being that a government only lasts for five years. If you don't like the government you can just vote them out in five years time. But something like this is NOT something that most people are just going to change their minds about in such a short space of time. Plus, it's a LOT more permanent. If Scotland voted for independence, that is not just something that can be reversed in five years time if people decide they don't like it. It is a MUCH bigger choice than a general election, it's not just something that can be repeated willy-nilly every two years.

[Herargon]

Didn't SNP get a majority of the vote in Scotland last year and in the municipal(?) elections?

They didn't. The SNP got exactly 50% of the overall vote (in Scotland anyway) which should warrant only about 27 seats maximum but got 56 instead because of a terrible voting system, and this year in the Scottish Parliament election, they got 46% in the constituency vote and 41% in the regional vote, FAR from a majority.

Parties, you mean.

And besides, the SNP actually was the second biggest party from the beginning of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, until after the election in 2011, from which on the SNP is the biggest one.

During 1999-2011, the Labour Party was the biggest, and after that the second biggest, until the Conservatives took over the role of second biggest one in 2011.

Yes you're right, I did mean parties instead of just party. That was my mistake. You are also correct in the SNP being the second biggest party until they became the biggest party, but even still, the SNP have NEVER managed to get a vote from the majority of Scots. Granted, neither have any of the other parties, but they aren't claiming to speak for every single Scot despite the fact that they don't, like the SNP does.

Aye. Not a big mistake, though.
That is true, the SNP has not managed to get more than 50% of the votes. I want to add though, that the largest parties also get to have the biggest role in parliament. In that sense it does matter if you become the biggest party — but indeed only if you get many votes.

If there were to be ten parties, and if nine of these had like just 9.5% of the votes except the biggest one (which would then have 14.5%), then it does not really matter if a party is the biggest one.

But when you get like 46.72% of the votes - again, not a majority, that is correct, - and the second biggest has only ~22.67% of the votes, less than half of the biggest one! - and all or many of the others are minor and/or fractured ...

... then I reckon that it matters that SNP has reached an exceptional result. Even if you or I were to disagree with some of their policies, we cannot dispute that, I think.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Hell yea

#Balkanizetheworld

[Jochizyd Republic]

In all seriousness though, not entirely sure.

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

Difference being that a government only lasts for five years. If you don't like the government you can just vote them out in five years time. But something like this is NOT something that most people are just going to change their minds about in such a short space of time. Plus, it's a LOT more permanent. If Scotland voted for independence, that is not just something that can be reversed in five years time if people decide they don't like it. It is a MUCH bigger choice than a general election, it's not just something that can be repeated willy-nilly every two years.

Except it's not the lapse of time, it's the change of circumstances. Staying in the EU was one of the three main planks of "Better Together": people took them at their word, and are now being told "oops, our bad", so understandably consider they've been persuaded to stay with the UK under false pretences.

If people vote for independence (or leaving the EU) and afterwards don't like it, then that's their problem. They could try to go and beg to get back in on whatever terms might be dictated; but on the other hand not a single nation which elected to leave the British Empire ever decided to give back their sovereignty.

[Vassenor]

I still say going down in history as the party that broke up the Union would do wonders for the Conservatives.

[Geilinor]

Difference being that a government only lasts for five years. If you don't like the government you can just vote them out in five years time. But something like this is NOT something that most people are just going to change their minds about in such a short space of time. Plus, it's a LOT more permanent. If Scotland voted for independence, that is not just something that can be reversed in five years time if people decide they don't like it. It is a MUCH bigger choice than a general election, it's not just something that can be repeated willy-nilly every two years.

Except it's not the lapse of time, it's the change of circumstances. Staying in the EU was one of the three main planks of "Better Together": people took them at their word, and are now being told "oops, our bad", so understandably consider they've been persuaded to stay with the UK under false pretences.

If people vote for independence (or leaving the EU) and afterwards don't like it, then that's their problem. They could try to go and beg to get back in on whatever terms might be dictated; but on the other hand not a single nation which elected to leave the British Empire ever decided to give back their sovereignty.

The "Better Together" campaign didn't take the UK out of the EU. It can't be considered a betrayal because the people of England and Wales never made a commitment to stay.

[Paredonia]

But on the other hand not a single nation which elected to leave the British Empire ever decided to give back their sovereignty.

But no-one apart from Ireland has been part of the United Kingdom like Scotland is. Everyone (apart from Ireland) that has declared independence from us has always just been OWNED by the United Kingdom, whereas Scotland actually makes up PART of the United Kingdom. It's quite a bit different. And that's true, not one has. BUT, apart from the USA, not one single country that declared independence from us has managed to be as powerful or economically prosperous as we still are, neither have they managed to grow their economy as big as us, apart from the USA. I fail to see why Scotland would be even remotely different. An iScotland probably would never want to give back its sovereignty, but I know for a fact that an iScotland would NEVER, EVER have an economy as strong as the UK's, neither will it ever be as prosperous as the UK is.

And that's not very democratic is it? "If people vote for independence but decide they don't like it that's their problem" You're basically saying that if you and others like you get the result YOU want, screw what everyone else thinks. You do realise that that is EXACTLY what Scottish nationalists have been doing since 19th Sept 2014, don't you? They didn't get the result that THEY wanted so have been doing everything they can to get a do-over. Funny how they haven't just said "oh well, it's our problem. There's nothing we can do about it" isn't it?

[Kingdoms of Cal]

Don't most Scots vote SNP these days?

I'd hardly say most. More often than not, most Scots vote for a party OTHER than the SNP.

Aye just under 50% voted non-snp, so correct but misleading in tone....bout 50% vote in the uk general though.

Note: getting anywhere near a majority in a PR parliament means you have to be in the high 40s atleast.

[Herargon]

I still say going down in history as the party that broke up the Union would do wonders for the Conservatives.

Secretly I would smile at that thought — just for the shitstorm that it brings and how future Conservatives will not only facepalm but also headpalm 'why did we do this?'.

In the meantime, I hope that the UK will return soon into the EU -- and if that happens, that then the Scottish get back together with the UK, provided that England also gets its own parliament (and maybe London gets merged back into England to reduce border gore).

I'd understand it if the Scottish no longer want to be part of the UK.
Nevertheless, the devolution practically already resulted in a paradoxical situation where Scotland has more autonomy than England does.
In a sense you could already say that Scotland is an independent country — the only reason aside from being part of the UK is that they do not outline their own foreign and defence policy nor maintain independent international relations.

What I think would be interesting is how we Dutch have the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and within that, the Netherlands itself as most people refer to.
Within the Kingdom you have a set of different systems: see this picture.

(Holland and the other provinces don't really have a different status. They're pictured there just to show the difference between Holland, the Netherlands, and how Holland makes up two of twelve provinces).

As you can see, Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Netherlands (the last includes its provinces and the other Carribean islands) all are somewhat independent countries. They all maintain their own international relations, foreign relations, etc. The only thing that is different is their citizenship law and their defence policy; these are a common one, because since the islands are too weak to protect themselves, they are being protected by the Netherlands. And they all count as Netherlanders (like British citizenship for Scottish, Welsh, English, North Irish etc).

That is how it works, effectively.

I think that such a system would work well.

Devolution at this moment has been at the expense of England, and if England gets its own parliament, then maybe they won't be angry anymore. I think that it is the reason why the UKIP exists - along with Euroscepticism.

[Angleter]

Except it's not the lapse of time, it's the change of circumstances. Staying in the EU was one of the three main planks of "Better Together": people took them at their word, and are now being told "oops, our bad", so understandably consider they've been persuaded to stay with the UK under false pretences.

If people vote for independence (or leaving the EU) and afterwards don't like it, then that's their problem. They could try to go and beg to get back in on whatever terms might be dictated; but on the other hand not a single nation which elected to leave the British Empire ever decided to give back their sovereignty.

The "Better Together" campaign didn't take the UK out of the EU. It can't be considered a betrayal because the people of England and Wales never made a commitment to stay.

People (and especially the media, who are mostly responsible for pushing this misconception) really ought to realise the difference between elections and referendums. The Scots didn't elect Better Together in 2014, and the British people as a whole didn't elect Vote Leave this June. Neither group had any authority to make promises or guarantees about what governments would do in the future (except perhaps Better Together, which had the support of what would be the UK government for all of eight months after the vote). Both campaigns were incessantly asked to have A PLAN, or told whenever they dealt in hypotheticals that YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE THIS, by their rival campaigns, who did have the support of incumbent governments (the governments that called the referendums in the first place, for that matter), and thus probably could make what were electoral promises; and a media class that's totally unused to dealing with referendums like these bought into it completely, both times.

[Jankau-Helmutsberg]

I'm against, seeing the reasons. The previous referendum was fair and showed that a majority of Scots don't want independence. This meant they also agreed to accept the outcomes of all future nationwide referendums, even if they disagreed with England or Wales. If a hypothetical second referendum is held, and results in Scottish independence, I can only be sad that it's all because of pledging allegiance to a corrupt international entity and not a byproduct of strong national identity. I would also see it as an example of immaturity and inconsequence, as it would require a 5.4 percentage point swift in public opinion in just 2 years time.

[Herargon]

I'm against, seeing the reasons. The previous referendum was fair and showed that a majority of Scots don't want independence. This meant they also agreed to accept the outcomes of all future nationwide referendums, even if they disagreed with England or Wales. If a hypothetical second referendum is held, and results in Scottish independence, I can only be sad that it's all because of pledging allegiance to a corrupt international entity and not a byproduct of strong national identity. I would also see it as an example of immaturity and inconsequence, as it would require a 5.4 percentage point swift in public opinion in just 2 years time.

A small majority of 55%, yes. Of whom a lot voted against independence because it was unsure if the British would vote for Brexit or not, and thus they wanted to stay, since that seemed like the most likely choice — because none thought the Brexit really would happen.

[Paredonia]

A small majority of 55%, yes. Of whom a lot voted against independence because it was unsure if the British would vote for Brexit or not, and thus they wanted to stay, since that seemed like the most likely choice — because none thought the Brexit really would happen.

55% is hardly small. The result of the EU referendum was a small majority. But 55% is quite a sizeable majority. That's 10% more than what Yes got. In a UK wide referendum, 10% would be the equivalent of almost 5 million people, hardly small by any stretch of the imagination! I'm not being funny, but we all knew there was a chance a majority of Brits would vote to leave. We all know that in the referendum, that was planned since 2013, there was a 50% chance of Remain winning and a 50% chance of Leave winning. Therefore, this whole "we never thought Leave would win" malarkey is just complete nonsense. When there only two choices, people have to anticipate that either one could win. People are just using this as an excuse to call for a second indyref.

[Jankau-Helmutsberg]

A small majority of 55%, yes. Of whom a lot voted against independence because it was unsure if the British would vote for Brexit or not, and thus they wanted to stay, since that seemed like the most likely choice — because none thought the Brexit really would happen.

Dependless, if they voted against independence, they should have taken the risk of Brexit happening into account. If they didn't, well, it's their own fault and these Scots should take responsibility for basing their vote on predictions and not beliefs.

[Herargon]

A small majority of 55%, yes. Of whom a lot voted against independence because it was unsure if the British would vote for Brexit or not, and thus they wanted to stay, since that seemed like the most likely choice — because none thought the Brexit really would happen.

Dependless, if they voted against independence, they should have taken the risk of Brexit happening into account. If they didn't, well, it's their own fault and these Scots should take responsibility for basing their vote on predictions and not beliefs.

Fine then, if self-determination doesn't mean anything.
But what if Texas gets Texas Republic feelings? Or what if Canada becomes part of the US and wants to get independent? Are they not allowed to because it is 'their own fault' they were part of the US and because they should have taken the risk of (okay, the next one is a bad example but I don't know anything to come up with that compares well with the Brexit) the US dollar crashing for 20 years?

[Jankau-Helmutsberg]

Fine then, if self-determination doesn't mean anything.
But what if Texas gets Texas Republic feelings? Or what if Canada becomes part of the US and wants to get independent? Are they not allowed to because it is 'their own fault' they were part of the US and because they should have taken the risk of (okay, the next one is a bad example but I don't know anything to come up with that compares well with the Brexit) the US dollar crashing for 20 years?

The difference is that Texas' last desire to show D.C. the most meaningful finger was in 1865, not 2014. I won't even comment on the Canada part.

[Irona]

They can have a second vote, I'm just worried this is going to become the perpetual referendum thing.

[Deep Ones at Dunwich]

The "Better Together" campaign didn't take the UK out of the EU. It can't be considered a betrayal because the people of England and Wales never made a commitment to stay.

Well, by the same argument the people of Scotland never made a commitment not to have another Indyref. The "betrayal" though wasn't the people of England & Wales voting to leave the EU, it was the govt. supported argument during the Indyref that a "No" vote in that referendum was a vote to stay in the EU. When the govt. brought forward the EURef legislation, they were asked to include a double affirmative, that both the majority of voters AND majority of nations had to support any leave decision and that was rejected.

But on the other hand not a single nation which elected to leave the British Empire ever decided to give back their sovereignty.

But no-one apart from Ireland has been part of the United Kingdom like Scotland is. Everyone (apart from Ireland) that has declared independence from us has always just been OWNED by the United Kingdom, whereas Scotland actually makes up PART of the United Kingdom. It's quite a bit different. And that's true, not one has. BUT, apart from the USA, not one single country that declared independence from us has managed to be as powerful or economically prosperous as we still are, neither have they managed to grow their economy as big as us, apart from the USA. I fail to see why Scotland would be even remotely different. An iScotland probably would never want to give back its sovereignty, but I know for a fact that an iScotland would NEVER, EVER have an economy as strong as the UK's, neither will it ever be as prosperous as the UK is.

Actually Ireland was owned too, and didn't get any say on it's own Parliament being closed and replaced with representation at Westminster. Scotland and England are the only parts of the UK which voluntarily decided to be parts of it.

True, an independent Scotland is unlikely to have as prosperous an economy was the whole continuing UK would. But likewise the UK is unlikely to have an economy as prosperous as the whole continuing EU would. But an independent Scotland might in time be more prosperous than a Scotland remaining in the UK, and a UK outside the EU might be more prosperous than a UK remaining in the EU. Or in both cases they might not. The question is if the people believe that less financial prosperity (or the risk of such) is a price worth paying for sole control of their affairs? Anyone in England & Wales who voted to leave the EU cannot legitimately complain about Scots voting to leave the UK.

And that's not very democratic is it? "If people vote for independence but decide they don't like it that's their problem" You're basically saying that if you and others like you get the result YOU want, screw what everyone else thinks. You do realise that that is EXACTLY what Scottish nationalists have been doing since 19th Sept 2014, don't you? They didn't get the result that THEY wanted so have been doing everything they can to get a do-over. Funny how they haven't just said "oh well, it's our problem. There's nothing we can do about it" isn't it?

Democracy doesn't mean you get a second chance to change decisions you've already made. You make a decision, you're stuck with the consequences, whether you did so by voting or tossing a coin. As to the Scottish Nationalists, I don't know where you've been talking to them, but the majority were settling down to wait until 2020 for any Indyref2 and it is only the Brexit vote which has sparked the demand due to the large numbers of former No voters who want to stay in the EU deciding that changed their views on Scottish independence. But certainly a number of prominent Brexit campaigners did indeed take the position that they got the result they wanted screw what everyone else thinks.

This meant they also agreed to accept the outcomes of all future nationwide referendums, even if they disagreed with England or Wales.

No, it meant that they didn't want Scotland to leave the UK at that time. A vote in a referendum or election now doesn't mean you will always for the rest of your life vote the same way in any future one.