Scottish independence

[Charliebear322]

Can someone explain to me like I’m stupid why Scotland can’t have independence from England

@celticnations

Just one "point". We are not "One Nation" or a "Sovereign Nation" nor even "Ine Country".
We are four Nations in a consensual political union united under a single Crown. Hence the Act of Union was a union of Crowns.

Yes, of course you are technically right; but to all intents and purposes, we are one country/nation on the world stage.

Does the United Nations treat us as four nations or as one nation? Do other countries make four separate treaties and trade agreements with us or just one? Do we issue four different passports or just one?

Lots of countries have a large degree of independent rule and decision-making amongst their different states, provinces, or other constituent parts; but whether they technically are or not, they are treated internationally as one entity - commonly referred to as a 'country' or 'nation'.

A bit like the fact that Switzerland doesn't technically have a capital city, but Bern is universally accepted as such internationally.

There's always going to be a cut-off with all important decisions, though. Even if you somehow made a law that newborn babies could vote - and miraculously they were actually able to do so - there would be more babies born the day after the election or referendum who would have missed the boat.

In my opinion - and others will disagree - it isn't really the case that each individual gets a say for themselves, but rather that the country (or home nation/constituency/city etc.) as a whole makes a decision on a pre-determined day and this is done by asking each adult (or soon to be everybody over 16) for their input. It may sound like the same thing, but I see a subtle nuance.

Yes, if there's a groundswell of support for a reconsideration and there's been a sea-change in the political atmosphere across the land, laws can be voted on to be changed; but practically, we have to trust that the demographic of adults (or nearly-adults) made a representative and enduring decision on behalf of everybody.

What about the old laws that have been in force for decades or even centuries? I'm nearly 50 and I've never been given a chance (nor will I probably ever get a chance) to have my say by voting on the death penalty or lobbying my MP (should I wish to change it, which I personally happen not to) - and countless others? In fact, look at the outcry over the fact that people aged under 60 were given a vote as to whether or not we stayed in the EU, when only those aged over 60 had previously had a chance to vote to enter - and even then it was a decision about a relatively simple trade agreement and nothing really resembling what the EU had developed into.

What about laws that are voted on by all MPs at one point in time, on behalf of the whole country: ones that can't easily or realistically be repealed or undone at a later date? Why don't we make all laws to be valid only until the next election, and then make all of the newly-elected MPs vote on every single existing law to see whether it is kept, scrapped or amended? In fact, you could ask why people who turn 18 (soon to be 16) may have to wait five years before they can have their vote in a general election. That's nearly a third of your life if you're 16!

All excellent points. And further proof that using a phrase "once in a generation" as more than rhetoric wasn't really a good idea.

The bottom line is if you want civilisation, you pay the price. And that is a tacit agreement between the state and the citizen (or subject in the UK). And the state breaks that at it's peril.

@SprayWhiteDung Your points are all spot on. And also aptly underline the disquiet that at least 45-58%% of Scots & 45% Northern Irish have with an overly London centric Union.

We get that the English are the largest Nation but being the biggest kid on the block does not give them a mandate to say "we speak for you and as One Nation, One Voice". Because they don't & we are not. Take Farage & Reform, or Johnson & Conservatism. Utterly loathed in Scotland & Northern Ireland. Yet Farage might become the UK PM. As unpopular & probably as incompetent as Johnson was.

@NotEnoughKnittingTime

Re "To be fair was 1603 democratic when many English didn't want James VI as their King? It has been both ways undemocratic".

A bit like a Dutchman being invited to invade England & impose his Protestant Monarchy.

I think that's far too simplistic, though - and unnecessarily divisive.

You're assuming that all of the Scottish are A and all of the English are B. Many, many people in England hate Farage and Reform, whilst there seem to be plenty of Scots who support them.

Just like with Brexit: do you think that a Scottish person who voted for Remain automatically had far more in common with all the Scots who voted for Brexit - just because they share the same nationality - or maybe more in common with the English people who voted Remain? And vice versa? Is it fair enough if the 38% of pro-Brexit Scots are furious and feel 'betrayed' by the rest of the Scots who 'tried to force them to stay in the EU' - or is it just democracy?

I do think there's a tendency amongst a lot of Scots to see England and the English as one big bad homogenous aggressor; completely different from them in many, many ways, and thoroughly politically incompatible because they happen to be English.

To listen to many of the Scot Nats, ALL of the English love Farage and Reform, ALL of the English wanted Brexit; ALL of the English (who don't prefer Reform) are die-hard Tories; and NONE of the Scots do/are.

It's almost as though the thinking goes that, because a slim majority - or indeed a vocal minority - of the UK voted for or supports something deeply unpalatable, and because the majority of the UK population are English, that somehow means that those two majorities automatically correspond with each other.

They voted against it.

Because we voted decisively no when we had a democratic referendum on the issue.

The polls do not indicate any significant change in the appetite of the Scottish public for independence.

And whenever we vote in elections and the SNP talk about a de facto referendum they lose seats.

Did the SNP ever give a clear idea of what Scottish currency would be in an Independent Scotland?

I think they tried to claim we’d keep the pound, they also said Independence didn’t mean leaving the EU because Scotland was already a member 🤔🤔🤔🤔 They’ll say anything basically - the levels of craven idiocy best exemplified by their claim that a man is a woman if he says he is. Thank god Westminster saved us from that.

What was that in reference to, please? Was it a response to my post directly above yours or to a different post?

The currency debate as very low on facts.

My tip to any future independence campaigners is to ensure you have the currency issue sewn up before you start.

And if you plan on keeping the pound then you really need to accept that you will be an independent country using a currency you do not have any control over. Which isn't the end of the pier - however it does limit the fiscal position regardless of political independence.

And FFS whatever you do, make sure the "It's our pound" mob are kept busy elsewhere. As soon as that started doing the rounds I knew it was going to be a no.

August 2025 polls put Farage & Reform way ahead of Labour& LibDems & Cons. In England.

August 2025 polls quote nearly 60% (!) of Scots voters wanting independence IF Farage became PM on the back of English voters.

The UK is not united & something constitutionally must surely alter to reflect our diverging viewpoints?

To be entirely fair, there was an EU precedent for a 2nd referendum. When the Netherlands voted the ‘wrong way’ on the Maastricht treaty first time, they were given a 2nd go.

As an English Brit, as far as I am concerned, Scotland can have independence. Self determination is important.

Scotland had a vote in 2014 and chose not to leave the union. The referendum cost £16m. Maybe there should be a set period for repeat, perhaps every 25 years, then it would save all the arguing, and avoid wasting money. It would also allow for proper planning.

Having said that, I can't imagine Scotland's economy would be very healthy.

August 2025 polls quote nearly 60% (!) of Scots voters wanting independence IF Farage became PM on the back of English voters.

It's already established that Scotland doesn't get to react to what England does.

@SerendipityJane And right there is the problem.

Scotland doesn't get to react to what England does. If England votes in Farage, then that is the PM that we must endure. Like Thatcher, Johnson & Truss.

It's not democracy if you take the UK as four equal Nations. But if you ignore national differences & take it as "we are One UK" then it is democratic. Except that it's not. The biggest kid gets their way. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️

@Meadowfinch For Northern Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement defines, in writing as "generation" being every 7 years ie the Northern Irish can have a Border Poll on Reunification every 7 years. If they wish.

Because Scotland would end up a third world country if they did! Where do you think all the money for schools comes from? Nicola sturgeons leaked plans for independence already showed that Scotland couldn’t afford to keep schools open and they would expect parents to have children at home while they had online teaching classes like in lockdown!

That would make sense if it were literally four people deciding, with one of them 10 or more times the size of the other three, using their physical presence to demand their own way.

Have you seen any of the numerous threads on here about Nigel Farage? The vast majority of posters really don't like or support him in any way - and I'm sure they can't all be Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish posters. Presumably there are far more English posters on MN than Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish posters - because there are far more English people than the others.

To listen to some posters on here, you'd think that everybody in England voted one way and everybody in Scotland voted a different way. Even the complaints about "England taking us out of the EU" conveniently ignore the 38% of Scots who voted for Brexit and all of the English (including a majority of Londoners) who voted to remain.

The only way we could maybe make it 'fair' for the four home nations to have an equal say would be to give the English one vote each, the Scots ten votes each, the Welsh 19 votes each and the Northern Irish 29 votes each. Is that really how we think democracy should work in what is (currently) one united country?

At least, that way, we English wouldn't be constantly blamed simply for having a much bigger population.

It’s not surprising London were in favour of remaining, many have UK passports but little connection to being British, not just first generation migrants. Just as Brits abroad feel more English or Scottish than for example, Spanish or French or South African.

I agree. And I'm in England.

Now what to do about it ?

I feel that because remaining the EU was pushed as a reason for rejecting independence, then changing that changed the entire premise of some peoples votes.

If it had happened 10, 15 years after the Indyref then maybe you could say "that['s the way the cookie crumbles". but 2 years after ?

It's hard not to feel Scots were conned.

And for all the SNP bollocks, they should have insisted that there were some ground rules for the Indyref and refuse to have it imposed on Scotland.

The sad truth is the UK doesn't and shouldn't do referendums. They are a charlatans dream, and the tool of the oppressor.

Personally, I feel if Scotland wants to be independent, then that's for them to decide. Because if it isn't then who is it up to ? The English ? Yes, let's have a UK referendum on whether Scotland should be independent shall we. 100% of Scotland votes for independence, and 30% of England votes against so it's a no ?

Again personally, and knowing the history of the Union, I think Scotland should remain within the UK. But I have no say in that.

Which publication is the source of this utter tripe then?

This is absolutely crazy.

Of course there may well be a lean period whilst everything is established and plenty of one-off front-loaded costs, and changes in the infrastructure - that's usually what happens to any country that gains independence - but it's ridiculous to suggest that Scotland wouldn't manage perfectly well as an independent sovereign nation.

Ireland has managed very well for themselves; why would Scotland be any different?

As an English person, I believe that we're stronger together, and I would really like Scotland to remain in the UK; but only if a majority of Scots actually want that. If the majority definitely wants to go for independence - as in actively voting for it when it comes to the crunch - then they should have it.