Sick of the push for Scottish independence

[ThisKiltIsMadeForWalking]

I keep seeing on the news that Nicola Sturgeon is pushing for another referendum and I just don’t get it. If she doesn’t get the answer she wants this time can she push for another in a few years? I just find it disgusting that half the country are struggling badly for things like food/electricity/petrol and she wants to spend millions pushing for something that she wants, that the majority voted against a few years ago? Am I missing something?

A vote can not involve people who might or might not return to Scotland

The Brexit vote excluded a lot of people living overseas, who should have still had a say. A massive constitutional change has a wide-ranging impact.

it's an interesting point about who should be allowed to vote in it - and maybe that question should be solved before the referendum and with enough time for people to register for passports/proof of citizenship?

That was for me the biggest problem with Brexit - the fact that British people who would be affected by it at least as much, if not more, than people living in Britain (ie Brits abroad, especially in EU countries) were not allowed to vote on it. (I will never stop being bitter about that).

As an independent nation, of course, Scotland would be free to decide how nationality is conferred, will they be like the USA is (currently) and if you're born there you're in? or like Ireland with a Grandparent giving you the qualification? What if you're not Scottish and just live there can you vote? (how did it work last time?) Is merely living there enough, or do you have to pay tax or have been there for x amount of time?

This. But also, people were sold Yes based on a $100/bbl oil price. The world has changed a lot in 8 years, and its right to reassess, IMO.

Same, particularly off the back of lockdowns! I'm already looking at house prices south of the border.

This is so sad. I've met so many people recently saying the same thing.

As for "Scottish citizenship", I think that in the unlikely event of independence, Scotland would have to take anyone they can get and offer citizenship to whoever is willing to move here and work. I was told by a particularly fervent SNP member that an independent Scotland would double its population fairly quickly by inviting people from all over the world. When I pointed out that one of the main attractions of Scotland was the relative peace and quiet and unspoilt countryside, he seemed rather deflated. I think this idea might have been quietly dropped but I honestly get the idea from many SNP supporters that they aren't particularly keen on Scottish people and would gladly see us replaced with other nationalities providing they support the SNP.

Obviously though the EU rules are 5 years residence after which you can apply for citizenship providing certain conditions are met, or citizenship if married to an EU spouse, again following certain conditions. Without EU membership, rules vary and citizenship can be difficult to obtain. There are various "golden visas" around the world, but unless Scotland was in the EU, wealthy people would be unlikely to pay for them.

Who needs oil when you can ruin the countryside with wind farms...?

OP:

Tough. Suck it up. It’s an extremely relevant issue whether you like it or not.

Scotland did help in voting for Brexit remember. Our votes are collective. 62% against it, 38% for it. Scotland gave over 1million votes for Brexit. Northern Ireland also had a majority for remain. But as it is a collective, the individual countries opinions don't matter. Maybe we should have made it so that 3 out of 4 had to vote leave for it to be final, otherwise it's half the collective country that said no.

If we'd also had more people turn out to vote, perhaps it would have been different. 67% on such a big decision is quite pathetic. I think it should be mandatory that at least 80% of the electorate should be giving an opinion before a decision can be made. But you'd struggle to do that really.

I voted remain by the way, so it's not like I got my way. I again didn't believe they knew what they were doing and the risks were too great to be happy with leaving. Same as I feel about an independent Scotland.

I think that if a vote is about something irreversible which triggers a major constitutional change then it shouldn’t go through because 1 more person votes for it than against it. Brexit should never have gone ahead on such a small margin. It’s not like an election where you can change it all again in 4 years time.

I think for major constitutional change we should have to at least 55%

In the 2014 IndyRef exit poll, it was clear that just 12% of Nationalists and 14% of Unionists were actually motivated by EU membership. The people knew in 2013 that a vote on UK membership of the EU was coming in the future.

Far from independence guaranteeing continued EU membership, it would have taken Scotland out of the EU for years.

So, EU membership wasn't a major issue at any point. The SNP has simply chosen to cynically use it as a weapon against the UK Government whilst lying to the Scottish people about it.

In other words, the UK being out of the EU is not the significant material change Sturgeon claimed. The global cost of living and covid are both far more significant material changes against Scottish independence.

Of course, the SNP and Sturgeon ignore that because it doesn't suit their political agenda. 🙄

The people knew in 2013 that a vote on UK membership of the EU was coming in the future.

but at that stage - i mean even a week before the Brexit referendum - who would have seriously thought the UK would leave the EU?

Any future IndyRef2 will not be based on Yes/No because a yes has an advantage in sounding positive.

Even though its not a good idea to say yes to everything.

It'll be a Remain/Leave question which is more neutral than Yes/No.

and in 2014 if yes won Scotland would have been instantly booted out of the EU as they would no longer be a member state. No won and so they weren’t. So what was the pack of lies?

That's hardly the point because it's been claimed EU membership is a major difference which implies it was a major issue in 2014.

The fact is it simply wasn't and EU membership is not the material change the SNP claim.

But let's suppose it is, covid and cost of living crisis are much, much bigger material changes against independence. Yet the SNP and Nationalists will ignore their own argument being used against them.

Essentially, material changes don't matter to the SNP because Sturgeon admitted a few years ago that independence trumps all possible concerns.

"The case for full self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, of national wealth and balance sheets and of passing political fads and trends.” - Nicola Sturgeon

That means EU membership is merely a convenient weapon to use against the UK Government as a means to an end. But its an irresponsible way to go about things.

Independence does NOT transcend all those things as these things very much matter.

Do you seriously think the SNP would have dropped the independence thing if the UK had remained in the EU?!

Of course not! Sturgeon only wants that which she believes will help her achieve her goal. And if that involves lying to the people as the SNP have done since 2013....well, that's exactly what they'll do. 🙄

The SNP have their goals, and they are clear. They'll lie/cheat/obfuscate to try get what they want. I'd see a lot of similarities with them and DUP and SF in NI (minus the paramilitary and sectarian associations of the fun folks from NI).

As an English conservative I'm dismayed by BJ and the direction of the Tory party in recent years. While personally I hope that can be reversed, the sad truth is that it's proved very popular with the our electorate.

Independence for Scotland will remain a pipe dream. Scotland has been bought and paid and subsidized for with English money/industry for a long time now. As with north sea oil, there is potential for wind and wave energy that can be useful for this whole island going forward.

As a Yes voter I agree with this.

Yes if only brexit had been subject to a confirmatory referendum on the deal, or a higher threshold. Not everyone even bothered to vote in the brexit ref thinking it wouldn't matter.

you could well see a split post a ref win between snp who don't want to have to meet the eu criteria and those willing to pay the high price. Only the current SNP leadership is committed to trying to rejoin the EU.

As usual, simplicity is allowing pretence.

@AchatAVendre sad but reality of the situation i'm afraid. The majority of the time I never even consider myself as living in a different country to the rest of my family and many friends or at least until I get my tax bill. But being stuck in lockdown and even when some restrictions got lifted it was still basically illegal to visit them made it feel like a very definite border and it didn't feel good!

I've no idea why you're lying by claiming the Scottish Government has no legal powers to borrow!

They definitely do as the Scottish Government acknowledged in an FOI request in 2017:

"The Scottish Government is able to borrow from the National Loans Fund, from banks on commercial terms or through issuing bonds."

Northern Ireland and Wales also have borrowing powers though not to the same extent Scotland does.

What the SNP does is triple austerity in Scotland and then blame the UK Government for any cuts.

No wonder the UK Government wants to give money DIRECTLY to Scottish councils!

At the start of devolution, per capita health spending in Scotland was 22% higher than in England. Under the SNP, this is now just 3% higher.

Meanwhile, the SNP want to waste £20 million on a referendum they do NOT have the Constitutional power to hold and the people don't want it.

Make it make sense.....

And there you have it folks.

This is what it boils down to for the English. Scotland and those who call it home are not seen as an equal nation/people in a United Kingdom but rather as a resource to be exploited for the benefit of the English.

As for your "Scotland is subsided by the English" shite, well that is completely and utterly false and demonstrably so.

Funding for Scotland is calculated and delivered in the same way as funding for DEFRA or BEIS is (albeit a different formula is used). That is to say when it comes to finances and accounting Scotland is consider to be just another government department.

All revenue is pooled into a central resource (the treasurey) which the UK government then re-allocate as they see fit. Due to the way revenue is recorded it is not possible to accurately report on how much revenue comes from each part of the United Kingdom, for example oil and gas exported directly from the North Sea are classified as revenue from "other" sources despite being mostly in Scottish water and is not attributed to Scottish revenue. Similarly, corporation tax is considered from where the HQ is registered, not where revenue was actually generated.

It is therefore an accounting impossibility for Scotland to be subsidised by the English as a) we don't actually know how much each is putting in and b) we are considered as a single financial entitiry at this point (a bit like a household with multiple incomes). Of course, if you subscribe to the notion that the United Kingdom is not an equal union of the four home nations, then you could simple see it as England is the high earner (due to it's size) and therefore is subsiding the rest. But that doesn't take into account proportions and in any case you should surely be supporting Scotlands push for independence if you feel that way?

However some have tried to estimate the contribution of Scotland to the UK coffers and the results, as expected vary massively with some reporting that Scotland are net contributers and others saying we are net beneficiaries.

The GERS figures, which although they are widely dismissed as inaccurate and misleading due to how the apportion spending/revenue, are routinely used to illustrate Scotlands finances (particularly from pro union sides).

In their latest report they estimated a Scottish "deficit" (which doesn't actually exist) of £15 billion. The UK deficit (which does exist) by comparison was £187 billion. So in the GERS figures Scotland's deficit is the around 8% of the UK total, while they also estimate we contribute around 9% of the UKs revenue with 8.2% of the population. Under these outcomes Scotland again, cannot be said to be being subsidised.

This brings me back the point around how Scotland considered just another government department in the UK and how that impacts on the above. Under the Scotland Act, Scotland must return a balanced budget each and every year and therefore it cannot physically or legally run up a deficit.

Any deficit reported is simply an antempt at allocating a portion of the UK deficit to Scotland, but doing so overlooks a major flaw, which is that under the current set up only the UK government can utilise borrowing powers to run a deficit and as such any deficit is created from the mismanagement of funds by Westminster, not by Scotland.

A second point on this is that England are often the sole beneficiaries of this power in that if Westminster decide to increase borrowing to fund English only services or projects they can do so and all four home nations are then liable to cover the cost of said borrowing.

So we are currently in a situation where Scotland has to pay for its health, education, and governance from a set budget decided by Westminster with no room to increase spending. And England pay for its health, education, and governance from the revenue of the entire UK and have the the added bonus of being able to raise additional funds as required, which Scotland then gets to pay towards the costs of servicing the debt.

I suppose its a bit like being in a broken marriage. England and Scotland (sorry Wales and N.I. I've not forgotten you but I'm focused on Scotland just now) are married and own a home together.

England pays in £4k a month to the joint account and Scotland pays in £1.5k. Total expenditure is £6.5k a month meaning we are in trouble. To cover the cost England has taken out a credit card in both their names but won't let Scotland use it without their say so, but happily buys themselves things from it whenever they want.

Scotland now wants out but England is telling them they'll never make it on a £1.5k month as they spend £3.25k a month just now. Scotland fell for the lies last time but has now realised they could live happily on £1.5k a month and that actually their total expenses were only £1.5k a month, whereas England were spending £5k a month on stuff for them.

England are now shitting it because the nice inheritance they were expecting from Scotland gran is walking out the door.

Ok - I've been thinking about this and something that is relevant at the moment is the Northern Ireland Protocol. Very relevant if you live on the island of Ireland (north or south).

If Scotland does vote for independence from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, what does that do for movement of goods into and out of the UK? They won't get automatic membership back into the EU on the same day, that has to be applied for and takes some time. So the UK will have a border with the EU (on the island of Ireland) and with a 3rd country? How will that work? Will there be a Scottish Protocol??

Following on down the road a few years, if Scotland is now the Republic of Scotland (would they automatically become a republic if they went independent - I actually don't know the answer there) - now they want membership to the EU. So England has a border with the EU on the island of Great Britain and they have an EU border on the island of Ireland...that's some bureaucratic nightmare going on right there. I'm exhausted and I'm not involved in any of it 😆

@Thebestwaytoscareatory you state that "Scotland and those who call it home are not seen as an equal nation/people in a United Kingdom"

I would not phrase it like that exactly, but I know what you mean. Scotland's independence is long long gone. Welsh independence anyone? Cornish anyone? Free the East Angles?

You're failing to understand what the National Loans Fund is and how it is admistrated.

The NFL was set up to separate UK government borrowing from UK government revenue. Before its creation everything was accounted for in the UK Consoldiated Fund, which is essentially the UK's current account.

Now we have the CF for revenue and the NLF for borrowing but both are adminstered by the UK government. Scotland can indeed borrow from the NFL but it has no control other how much is in there and has to receive UK government approval for any borrowing. Further complicating matters is Scotland legally had to return a balanced budget so any borrowing has to be accounted for in subsequent budgets.

Essentially if the UK government decides to borrow £100 billion it all goes into the NFL. Scotland can ask to borrow an amount from there, subject to the borrowing agreement in place which currently limits Scotland to borrowing 15% of its overall budget in any one year with a maximum cap of £3 billion, and will only receive money if Westminster approve. Scotland then gets to repay they borrowed capital with interest AND contribute towards servicing the total UK debt in too.

Health spending per capita has dropped due to budget cuts and the inflexibility of borrowing powers and cuts to Scotlands budgets over the years meaning there isn't enough money being allocated to Scotland to maintain that level of spending (whether there physically is or isn't is another debate).

The justification for spending £20 million (first I've seen that figure but we'll go with it) is that if successful Scotland will remove itself from the shackles of Westminster and have full fiscal autonomy to run Scotland to and for the benefit of the Scotland

Its not "rejoining the EU". It would be "joining" the EU. And I don't believe that the SNP are at all committed to it, since as described in detail already, they keep passing legislation which breaches EU law and haven't bothered, despite years of this debate, to even outline the basis or provide any evidence which indicates that the EU would be remotely interested in a relatively economically poor strategically insignificant country on the fringes of Europe joining its membership. A membership which would require to be unanimous on its entry despite it likely encouraging the break up of their own countries and their financial contributions to increase substantially.

That ridiculous question and answer paper the last time, where the embarassing claim was made by the SNP that the European Court of Justice "supported" Scottish independence was truly amazing. Do you think the writer got the Court and the EU Commission mixed up? I think quite fortunate not to be sued for defamation. In reality, the EU institutions simply do not get involved in the issue.

Lets see if Sturgeon et al can get busy and produce some sort of written guarantee of membership at an early stage from an actual EU institution, with legal effect, between now and any referendum.

On the contrary, the argument was made that Scotland has zero borrowing powers and a quick look at the Scotland Act 1998 Amended 2016 shows that to not be true.

That's the point. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have borrowing powers to various limits.

I note you've chosen to ignore the flexibility the UK Government has shown Scotland in regards to borrowing:

"The UK Government has confirmed that the further funding allocated as part of the UK Supplementary Estimates process in the 2020-21 financial year would be accompanied by additional flexibility to carry forward into 2021-22, without having to use the Scotland Reserve."

Health spending per capita in Scotland has dropped due to the SNP ringfencing funding in order to push their IndyRef2 agenda as well as to sort out the various messes they've created. E.g. CalMac ferries and the IT fiasco, to name two.

Rather than use the £20 million more appropriately, the SNP are determined to waste it on an IndyRef2 bid. The election results suggests the SNP does not have the numbers to win it.

Of the 100% of Westminster GE seats in 2019:

SNP = 45%

Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dem = 55%

I note that John Swinney has had to correct himself after saying a majority of Scottish seats is all the SNP needs to win in a Westminster GE.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/29/john-swinney-sows-confusion-over-snp-claims-on-independence-mandate

Sturgeon herself had said the SNP needed to win a majority of all votes should the Supreme Court rule her Government is acting ultra vires. She included winning a majority of all GE votes in Scotland in that.

Since the constitution is reserved to Westminster under the terms of the Scotland Act, the SNP cannot stage a referendum legally.

In that case, Sturgeon thinks she can turn the GE into a de facto referendum on independence.

Whatever Sturgeon may think, a GE is NOT equivalent to a referendum on constitutional matters. What Sturgeon is attempting here is straight out of the Sinn Féin play book - claim the 1918 GE is a de factor referendum even though SF got 46% which wouldn't win a referendum! And the SNP want to try the same trick in 2023.

SNP obviously don't realise that the 1918 election wasn't what achieved independence for the Republic of Ireland. Violence did and that is what really partitioned the island into two separate countries. The warning from history is there for the SNP and Scottish Nationalists - you could end up partitioning Scotland by your own actions.

I guess that was the true nature of SF Michelle O'Neill's visit a while ago to Bute House. Thankfully, Scotland in 2023 will not turn to terrorism for this and Sturgeon's ideas only has very limited value for her party.

Last time, the SNP got 45% of the vote in the Westminster election. The numbers aren't there to win a Referendum on Independence.

So, the £20 million is better spent on what the people need AND want TODAY. 🙄

First you've seen of the figure?! The 2014 referendum cost £15.8 million. This is 2022 going into 2023, so costs don't stay the same nearly 10 years on. 🧐