Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Scottish independence

111 replies

Charliebear322 · 17/06/2025 19:27

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

OP posts:
citygirl77 · 31/08/2025 19:38

MrsMattSantos · 18/06/2025 09:21

How is Scotland a financial millstone?
My understanding has always been that public spending is highest in the south east/London

Don’t be ridiculous. The South East props up the rest of the UK, providing 25% of all revenue
Meanwhile Scotland gets more than the rest of the UK with the Barnet formula. Scotland is racking up far more debt, versus economic output, per person, which goes into the central debt fund. Stop kidding yourself that you put in more than you take. Scotland is a drain.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 31/08/2025 23:18

citygirl77 · 31/08/2025 19:38

Don’t be ridiculous. The South East props up the rest of the UK, providing 25% of all revenue
Meanwhile Scotland gets more than the rest of the UK with the Barnet formula. Scotland is racking up far more debt, versus economic output, per person, which goes into the central debt fund. Stop kidding yourself that you put in more than you take. Scotland is a drain.

Don’t be ridiculous. The South East props up the rest of the UK, providing 25% of all revenue

Well if you are going to break it down like that, there is also the pertinent fact that Scotland, as the second most economically productive "region" of the UK, is "propping up" every single other part of the UK outside of the SE of England.

Scotland is racking up far more debt

Show your working please.

Scotland can not "rack up debt" as it has no borrowing powers. The UK is racking up debt, entirely because the UK government has systematically mismanaged the UK economy for decades.

Stop kidding yourself that you put in more than you take. Scotland is a drain

And yet despite this, the UK is absolutely desperate for Scotland to remain a constituent part, almost as if the UK would somehow be worse off without it. But no, we're a "drain" apparently, and the rUK wishes us to remain purely for altruistic reasons despite being in an economic crisis of it's own making.

It's almost as if that narrative is a pile of laughable shite, and the UK knows damned fine it would be even further up shit creek without access to revenue from Scots exports which are shipped out of UK ports and labelled "UK" goods, Scots Oil and gas (although that supposedly ran out 10 years ago hence why no licences have been granted since, oh wait...), Scots tourism, and the ability to exploit Scots energy surplus, use Scots basing locations for subs, and the remoteness of Scots locations for building yet more nuclear power stations to service non-Scots energy needs.

Aye, what a burden we are. Any sensible State would have dropped us eons ago.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 01/09/2025 02:47

SprayWhiteDung · 31/08/2025 13:25

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.

Edited

The problem with this "union of equals", as it is consistently described by those who favour it, is that there are four constituent parts, but the power is not divided four equal ways, hence why it is in no way, shape, or form "equal".

Whenever the discrepancy in elected representatives is highlighted, this is brushed off as a natural consequence of one constituent nation being far, far larger than the others, and therefore, the citizens of that nation require a far, far larger number of representatives in order to maintain the "per capita" balance across the UK. This is absolutely fine and perfectly democratic, however, this does not remedy the very real, demonstrable fact that more often than not, regardless of how one of these "equal" partners expresses itself, it is subject to the whims of its much larger "equal" partner. This can not in any way credibly be described as equality.

There is a falsehood at play here. Yes, technically speaking the Union is a joining of four legally "equal" partners, but it is in no way a democratically "equal" union.

It is also frequently claimed that as we are all citizens of the UK, the UK decides as a whole, and therefore, all that matters is the expressed wish of UK elected representatives, namely, the MP's who sit in the HoC.

OK, let's take that "UK as a whole" concept and throw it around a bit.

The assertion is that one UK MP is much the same as any other UK MP since they all represent roughly the same number of UK citizens. All fair and democratic, right? Well, if you contend that one UK MP is much the same as another, it should be entirely immaterial who elects them, who they represent, and where they represent, so people espousing this view should have no issue whatsoever with, for arguments sake, the UK being governed from Cardiff, with a House consisting of 500+ Northern Irish MPs, and a smattering of Welsh, Scots, and English. After all, they are all UK MP's and as UK citizens we are all much the same, so it's all immaterial because they are interchangeable and all working in the best interest of the UK, right?

Well obviously not, but as Scots, Northern Irish, and Welsh, this is what we are expected to buy as "equal", and entirely fair and democratic, when 543 English MP's dictate what is happening in Scotland, NI, and Wales irrespective of what our 107 elected members think, and irrespective of what the citizens of those three "equal" nations think.

suitcasesarepacked · 01/09/2025 10:16

This is fine and absolutely democratic …”

Your words … which sum it up perfectly.

If you took away the borders then the fact the majority vote differently to those in Scotland is irrelevant and something you’d just have to suck up. There are a minority in Scotland who are as reform supporting etc as those in the South - many of them voted for Independence (analysis of Brexit voters). People in London vote differently to those in rural England. Too bad too sad.

But borders plus nationalism creates this idea that a small sector of a large group of people on a small island are entitled to something different to the rest.

Scottish people, as a group, are not unique special humans because they live in the North. If you believe this then you’re going to have to explain ‘why’ they’re unique, and that will inevitably drift towards red hair, porridge, whiskey, history and culture. (I do suspect this is what most believe - and I think it’s a kind of parochial racism).

This excludes everyone who does not conform to this (including me and my children). The SNP are aware of this, which is why they tried to brand their nationalism as ‘civic nationalism’ - which ostensibly accommodates everyone.

But if it accommodates everyone, it should be capable of accommodating the differences England, Wales and NI bring to the mix too. It can’t cope with the politics of the rest of the UK because deep down the SNP are classic nationalists - the type that history shows are ugly and always damaging.

I did not support Independence but my argument at that time was purely economic.

Since then I’ve experienced the education system, and it is not good.

My opposition to Independence has really grown after seeing how a small country with a small pool of talent can get such a stranglehold on politics and dominate and control a population.

Thank god for the diversity of Westminster and the checks and balances. Because the fucking SNP fought bitterly, using tax payers money, to strip women of their rights and dignity. This was a stonking unforgivable attack on human rights.

That was a pivotal moment for me in profoundly realising that having a ‘sanity check’ from a parliament which represents a wide diversity of views - strong because it stems from a wide diversity of people - is important.

That parliament is Westminster.

SerendipityJane · 01/09/2025 10:50

If Scotland requires the "consent" of Westminster to leave the union then there isn't any equity.

However it's worth noting that by the same token "England" can't really secede either.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 01/09/2025 19:29

This is fine and absolutely democratic …” Your words … which sum it up perfectly.

Not only have you misquoted, but you have completely ignored the rest of that statement which lends context. I'm not saying what you appear to think I'm saying, or at least, what you are implying I'm saying.

It's a perfectly democratic way to decide the parliament of an individual state or nation, but not when that parliament then dominates and controls the affairs of other nations which did not elect the vast majority of its members, and often fundamentally oppose the politics and policies of the presiding government.

If you took away the borders then the fact the majority vote differently to those in Scotland is irrelevant and something you’d just have to suck up. There are a minority in Scotland who are as reform supporting etc as those in the South - many of them voted for Independence (analysis of Brexit voters). People in London vote differently to those in rural England. Too bad too sad

if you took away the borders

Well that isn't going to happen, because the borders mark the boundaries of Sovereign States, States whose Sovereignty is not diminished or invalidated by dint of being part of a political union.

But borders plus nationalism creates this idea that a small sector of a large group of people on a small island are entitled to something different to the rest

It's not merely an "idea", it's reality. We have Devolved government because people recognised the democratic deficit without them, i.e., we are absolutely entitled to "something different". Again, it's not just a disparate "large group of people" you are referring to, it's the citizenry of Sovereign States.

Scottish people, as a group, are not unique special humans because they live in the North. If you believe this then you’re going to have to explain ‘why’ they’re unique, and that will inevitably drift towards red hair, porridge, whiskey, history and culture. (I do suspect this is what most believe - and I think it’s a kind of parochial racism)

Nobody has made any claim Scots are "unique and special humans", and certainly not because they "live in the North". The fact remains though, Scotland is a Sovereign State in the same way as any other, and this is not diminished by being part of a non-incorporating union. It might suit some other people's purposes to contend otherwise, but they're wrong.

This excludes everyone who does not conform to this (including me and my children). The SNP are aware of this, which is why they tried to brand their nationalism as ‘civic nationalism’ - which ostensibly accommodates everyone

Well this is just nonsense. You are choosing to self-exclude. Nobody is telling you you can not participate, or that you are unwelcome, or that they do not wish to also include you in the event Scotland becomes an independent country.

But if it accommodates everyone, it should be capable of accommodating the differences England, Wales and NI bring to the mix too. It can’t cope with the politics of the rest of the UK because But if it accommodates everyone, it should be capable of accommodating the differences England, Wales and NI bring to the mix too. It can’t cope with the politics of the rest of the UK

More rubbish.

"It can't cope with the politics of the rest of the UK"

This is a curious way of referring to the fact that different people have different outlooks, and different political groups disagree. Once again, typical of the nonsense that leads to pro-Independence being tabbed as "divisive" but unionism not so, when opinion on the matter is often close to a 50/50 split.

deep down the SNP are classic nationalists - the type that history shows are ugly and always damaging

If you are going to make claims like this, it would be helpful if you could substantiate them somehow, otherwise I'll just dismiss it with the contempt it deserves.

My opposition to Independence has really grown after seeing how a small country with a small pool of talent can get such a stranglehold on politics and dominate and control a population

The electorate decide their government, including in Scotland. If Scotland is "dominated" by pro-Independence political groups, that is because of the democratic will of the Scots electorate. You are peddling a narrative which implies there has been some sort of undemocratic seizure of power in order to "dominate and control a population", complete and utter guff.

Thank god for the diversity of Westminster and the checks and balances. Because the fucking SNP fought bitterly, using tax payers money, to strip women of their rights and dignity. This was a stonking unforgivable attack on human rights

Yes, how dare a governmental party pursue a policy that was a manifesto pledge for nearly 10 years, through two elections, and was almost universally the position of the other political parties, not just in Scotland, but throughout the entirety of the UK. You are free, of course, to disagree with the aims of the policy, but there is no justifying Westminster intervention in entirely Devolved matters. Interestingly enough, the SC ruling completely dismantles the logic behind the stated reasons for the S35.

That was a pivotal moment for me in profoundly realising that having a ‘sanity check’ from a parliament which represents a wide diversity of views - strong because it stems from a wide diversity of people - is important

You say "sanity check", I say yet another egregious example of total disregard for Democracy, one which just serves to emphasise yet again that the UK is in no recognisable way a "union of equals".

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 01/09/2025 19:31

SerendipityJane · 01/09/2025 10:50

If Scotland requires the "consent" of Westminster to leave the union then there isn't any equity.

However it's worth noting that by the same token "England" can't really secede either.

Yes, but do you honestly think if there was sufficient drive for England to leave the UK that Westminster is going to bother consulting with Devolved governments to seek their approval?

Of course not, because Westminster does not require consent in that case, demonstrating once again that "union of four equals" is total and utter myth with regard to democratic process.

celticnations · 01/09/2025 20:15

@SprayWhiteDung I could live more happily within the Union if indeed say, 1 Scottish vote carried the weight of 10 English votes.

Ditto Northern Ireland & Wales.

Re Referendums. Some Irish/Northern Irish politicians & political commentators are actively promoting that a Border Poll must have say, 60%+ in favour of reunification. And if you don't vote then you have abrogated having a say.

A Brexit referendum must never be repeated.

celticnations · 01/09/2025 20:15

@SprayWhiteDung I could live more happily within the Union if indeed say, 1 Scottish vote carried the weight of 10 English votes.

Ditto Northern Ireland & Wales.

Re Referendums. Some Irish/Northern Irish politicians & political commentators are actively promoting that a Border Poll must have say, 60%+ in favour of reunification. And if you don't vote then you have abrogated having a say.

A Brexit referendum must never be repeated.

SerendipityJane · 01/09/2025 21:30

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 01/09/2025 19:31

Yes, but do you honestly think if there was sufficient drive for England to leave the UK that Westminster is going to bother consulting with Devolved governments to seek their approval?

Of course not, because Westminster does not require consent in that case, demonstrating once again that "union of four equals" is total and utter myth with regard to democratic process.

How can England "leave" the UK ? It's head of state is the UKs head of state.
Unless you mean becoming a republic and leaving Scotland, Wales and NI under the crown ?

We are a peculiar little bunch of islands.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 01/09/2025 21:58

SerendipityJane · 01/09/2025 21:30

How can England "leave" the UK ? It's head of state is the UKs head of state.
Unless you mean becoming a republic and leaving Scotland, Wales and NI under the crown ?

We are a peculiar little bunch of islands.

Well the monarch is also HoS in plenty of places which are not part of the UK, this is rather immaterial.

England could, if it wished, secede from the UK and leave the remaining three nations in an rUK, this in no way compels anyone to drop the King as HoS. The King is not just "UK" HoS, he is also HoS in the four individual nations, just as the Crown was unified prior to the advent of the UK itself.

This would have been an elegant solution to the Brexit clusterfuck, assuming Wales also bailed, because England and Wales would then have found themselves outside the EU, with Scotland and NI continuing on as EU members consistent with the view those populations expressed.

There is also the relevant point that nobody is suggesting that upon leaving the UK Scotland would immediately resort to becoming a Republic. Why would it? There would be no requirement for England to do so either.

I think in the scenario that England secedes the UK would just break up in any case, but the argument is semantic more than anything else regarding the specifics of the term "United Kingdom".

It's often said that if Scotland goes independent then England, Wales, and NI would just remain in the "rUK", but in reality, as its the Scots and English Kingdoms which are "united", if one of them should secede then the term becomes a nonsense as the rump State would only incorporate one Kingdom.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread