To think Scotland should become independent?

[antelopevalley]

As life continues to get worse in the UK, it is time for Scotland to go independent. We need to build a forward-looking country that invests in its future, rather than the backward-looking country the UK has become that prioritises the rich. It is time for Scotland to separate from the UK and become that country.

having been sold a lie on brexit

What lie was Scotland sold? If anybody promised that voting to stay in the UK would guarantee Scotland - or indeed the whole of the UK - would remain in the EU in perpetuity, then they had no right to promise this and should not have been taken seriously by anybody who understands that democracy is an ongoing process and never a one-and-for-all single decision.

Tens of millions of people across the whole of the UK feel bitterly betrayed by results of the Brexit referendum - not just those living in Scotland - as indeed, I have no doubt, do many people who voted in favour of Brexit, based on lies and false promises; but again, that's the nature of democracy, with its benefits and its serious flaws, and of politics and the integrity of politicians, as well as the credulity of the voters in those who were put in their positions by previous democratic processes and previous voters as a group (whether that group did or did not include them).

Did you also hold the view the French, German, Spanish had a right to an opinion the Brexit referendum?

I believe they did have opinions, and they've been proven correct it was a collective act of self-harm, they knew it, Scots knew, the NIrish knew it. But, just like aliens who held views on Brexit rUK residents will have no vote when we enact our self-determination. 🙂

Anyone can have an opinion, so long as that opinion is not to simply regurgitate the right-wing media's tropes/rhetoric regarding Scotland being 'too wee, too stupid, too poor' to become a thriving independent nation.

I was born, bred and intend to die in Scotland. Me, and many others on this thread have, it's true, lived here far longer than the OP.

Yet, you still decide to ignore the facts presented to you by Scots regarding the 'too wee, too poor, too stupid' rhetoric we receive from those who zilch, nada, zero to do with our constitution.

You seem to believe, for whatever reason, those who desire/demand independence are influenced solely by our FM. Ironically, the tropes/rhetoric espoused by you/your ilk come direct from the pages of the DM, Torygraph and Sun whose billionaire owners fully understand the importance of Scotland and her resources to rUK.

Btw, I doubt your Scottish if you think being told to not talk utter shite is abusive! lol

Oh, and if you think my earlier post was a 'tirade' you are definitely not Scottish. 🙂

At least you recognise democracy as being 'an ongoing process' .... we, Scots, are at the stage of this process we wish to assert our right to self-determination.

I just wish there were more like you who understand democracy is not static. 😉

Well your guessing is terrible then because that's not what I'm trying to say at all.

What I am saying is that many people have come to realise that the union is fundamentally corrupt and designed to favour only one of the "equal" home nations. And that after being subjected a further 8 years of tory austerity and political madness which has now led to the biggest fall in living standards in 70 odd years, it's probably worth asking the question again.

You do realise that Scotland's "terrible health" has been a long standing issue that has existed from well before devolution or the SNP right? It's crystal clear that the union hasn't worked out too well for us so far, so why would you think staying in it as the Torys decimate what's left of the economy is the best solution?

Why do you think an independent Scotland would be incapable of addressing the issues we face if we were fully in control of our country. For example, an independent Scotland would not be facing an energy cost crisis just now.

Similarly, if it were in our best intrest to increase immigration to help deal with social care issues of an aging population we would be able to do so as unlike England we are not overpopulated, whereas currently that's not an option open to us.

First, let me apologise for posting the following wall of text again, but lies like the above need called out every time.

When it comes to finances and accounting Scotland is consider to be just another government department.

All UK revenue is pooled into a central resource (the treasurey) which the UK government then re-allocate as they see fit (there's obviously more to it than that but that's a whole other thread).

Due to the way revenue is recorded it is not possible to accurately report on how much of the total revenue comes from each part of the UK. 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 cost the UK more than it puts in by as a) we don't actually know how much each nation is putting in and b) we are considered as a single financial entity at this point (a bit like a household with multiple incomes).

However, some have tried to estimate the contribution of Scotland to the UK accounts 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 are widley dismissed as inaccurate and misleading due to how they 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 total revenue with 8.2% of the population. Under these outcomes Scotland again, cannot be said to be being costing more than it contributes.

This brings me back the point around how Scotland is considered as 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 a deficit. It can borrow some additional funding from the national loan fund, however there are strict limits on how much can be borrowed, and any borrowing must be fully repaid in subsequent budgets.

Any Scottish deficit cited 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 created stems from Westminster decisions/mismanagement, not from 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, which will then impact their supposed "deficiet" (as well as their actual budgets).

Any figures or stats quoted that claim to show that Scotland costs the UK more than it receives are based on assumptions, guesswork, and hunches and are most certainly not facts.

Cannot wait for independence. Then back in EU. Then EU passport. BRING IT ON.

'Did you also hold the view the French, German, Spanish had a right to an opinion the Brexit referendum?'

Yep, because that's exactly the same situation as a referendum to break up the UK isn't it TBH, after your comments above about how Scotland is perceived you should welcome a UK wide vote - if everyone outwith Scotland ( or let's face it, you mean England) feels that way they'd probably vote for Scottish independence anyway. Win win. Hurrah.

Your generally persuasive, inclusive, nuanced posts have persuaded me the OP is right - mea culpa. Or, sorry, is that not Scottish enough for you ?

I am scottish, born, bred and lived here all my life. I find the comments that you are ‘talking utter sh*’ offensive and abusive.
it’s embarrassing to push this as how we all talk. I cringe when people who think that this is just the Scottish banter.

that’s where your nationalism loses support and shows it true colours of racism. Criticising posters for lying that they are Scottish. I personally don’t know the ‘rules’ anymore of being Scottish.
Lack of historical knowledge of Europe is astounding here. Nationalism is almost a dirty word in Europe especially after ww2 and the nazi party. Even Macron says that nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism and is not a fan.

I’m fed up with all this moaning, ‘it’s not our fault’. Yeah you need to rejoin the eu if scotland ever got independence because who would we blame for all our troubles?

In 2014 I was a bit sad at the thought of Scotland leaving the U.K.

nowadays I think they can’t leave soon enough.

It’s very emotive as Brexit was. But like Brexit it’s better to look at the economics otherwise this kind of hatred and division that comes from your post will just be internalised.

When you can’t blame the English you’ll just fight amongst yourselves over it. Which is the only plus, although I feel sorry for those who did not want it and still don’t.

I'm not Scottish so it's not for me to decide but I think things have drastically changed post Brexit so Scots should be given the opportunity for another vote.

But this is just not true. I’m sorry but it’s not. Ask any economist and they will say an Indy Scotland will face tough economic times - at least for the first decade or so. the majority of Scot’s understand this. And I think deep down most yes voters do too.

By saying every economist is wrong rather than coming up with a frank and honest debate about how Indy Scotland might cope with 10 years of hardship the SNP does itself no favours whatsoever. it’s like telling us to believe a trans man is every bit a woman. Simply not true. Saying it is won’t change facts.

the gullible and easily led are already yes voter. It’s the rest of us you have to convince, and saving black is white won’t wash.

I suspects this ‘forward-looking’ and ‘progressive’ utopia will not live up to expectations.

Our population has remained the same in number for decades whilst the English has hugely increased - that must tell you something. Unfortunately our pop has also aged proportionally thanks possibly to retirees.
Doesn’t bode well imv.

I dont think its quite as simple as that ....

Yes I wish they would then we wouldn’t have to hear them whining on so much.

Perhaps not.

But Scottish people do realise how bad things are in Scotland under the Dear Leader who shall not ever be criticised.

Things will not move on until we get another referendum. Whether unionists agree with it or not, things have changed dramatically since 2016 and a large proportion of Scot’s are very unhappy with the ‘union’.

I don’t think anyone wants to see repeated referendums on the same issue, but there does need to be another one given the level of change. Otherwise, we will reach/have already reached a political stalemate we’re a sizeable chunk of the population will not vote for uk parties, in Scottish or Westminster elections, and another chunk will not vote for independence parties. This removes choice and I don’t think that’s good.

As an independence voter I think SNP have reached there peak, and we need fresh blood in power, but I could not bear to vote for a party that thinks it’s morally acceptable for Westminster/politicians outside Scotland to ‘allow’ a referendum. That is not democracy. We didn’t need the EUs permission to vote on brexit.

I find it hard ti believe that many people in Scotland are imagining that things are so much worse in England right now.

I mean, objectively, it’s simply not the case that Scotland is somehow unaffected by cost of living issues, or that Scottish public services are brilliantly functional. Or even that they necessarily compare favourably to the rUK equivalent.

it’s not like you cross the border from the land of milk and honey to a post apocalyptic wasteland when you head south. The SNP might like you to believe it was though.

Yes, I've got plenty of passport stamps after my last holiday which involved overland travel through several non-Schengen countries. A little inconvenient to have to get off of the bus several times in the middle of the night to go through the frontier on each side, not to mention a train waiting at a station while two sets of border guards scanned and stamped everyone's passports.

Of course if Scotland doesn't join the EU then matters are simplified because as well as remaining part of the Common Travel Area you could set up some kind of Customs Union.

What if Scotland does want to join the EU though? I think that the current situation in Northern Ireland is a clear demonstration of the pitfalls there.

Import export is what I do for a living. The fact that there is no land border in Ireland is entirely down to the Irish political situation. This has moved the UK/ EU border from N Ireland to the Irish Sea in order not to have a physical border dissecting Ireland.

if Scotland was in the EU and the UK was not there would be a hard border between Scotland and England as the EU would demand it. Mind you, I don’t think Scotland will become independent, and I certainly don’t think it will join the EU before the UK rejoins the EU free trade area / single market. There is a public will to bring down the trade barriers between us and the EU. It will happen before too long when enough of the gammons die off so that their xenophobic views no longer sway politics.

I'm not sure the Brexit result reflects what Scotland really thinks.
For the Scottish referendum there was a 85% turnout. For the Brexit vote only 67%.so a good proportion didn't care. Had they voted it could have been leave or it could have been stay. I suspect leave because of the demographic of an older population. Over the UK there was a 72% turnout.

It could also demonstrates that being part of Europe is less important the further you are from it - Scots aren't regularly going to pop to France to stock up on wine or for a weekend in Brittany due to the extra 400 miles involved.

Of course it's completely democratic for sovereign states to have the power to permit or block secessionist demands for a referendum!

International law makes it very clear that a right to self-determination has to be balanced against a state's right to territorial integrity.

Of course, the UK didn't require the permission of the EU in order to have a referendum on EU membership. That's because the EU is absolutely NOT an independent, sovereign state!

You clearly do NOT understand international law, democracy or politics. 🤷‍♂️ I'm sure you'll be shocked to be told AGAIN that there is NO democratic right to secession.

Actually, no, it wasn't undemocratic since the EU is NOT an independent, sovereign state. There is a crucial difference between sovereign states such as the UK, France, Germany, Spain, etc, and the EU.

None of those countries allow secession except for....the UK. Even then, there is nothing in international law that states the UK Government must give in to Nationalist demands for a secession referendum.

Scotland is a non-sovereign country. Under international law, its only entitled to devolution which it has.

International law also makes it VERY clear Scotland cannot unilaterally declare independence. In fact, to do so would mean sovereign states AND the EU would not recognise a UDI Scotland as legally independent. This has a wide range of implications, including the EU refusing to admit a UDI Scotland to the EU.

Canada helpfully gave us a ruling on this the UK will follow:

"It is clear that international law does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their "parent" state....

The various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states...

A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity."

• Canadian Supreme Court ruling on the issue of secession

The fact devolution exists within the UK ultimately means international law WILL protect the territorial integrity of the UK in the event of an illegal UDI.

Your argument is full of emotion and without legal political logic. Sad.

Since you tried being passive aggressive on my point about there being no right in international law to secession.......I challenge YOU to prove there is such a right.

What's that?! You can't? That's fine because I'll post it again:

Secession is not a democratic right

"Currently, among the constitutional laws of the world, only two states carry the right of secession in their constitution: Ethiopia, and the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis."

• My Country, Europe

“In the Federal Republic of Germany, which is a nation-state based on the constituent power of the German people, states are not ‘masters of the constitution’.

Therefore there is no room under the constitution for individual states to attempt to secede. This violates the constitutional order.”

• Ruling from the Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany.

"The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all."

• Section Two of the Spanish Constitution

"France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic."

• Article One of the French Constitution

"The Republic, one and indivisible, recognizes and promotes local autonomies; implements in those services which depend on the State the fullest measure of administrative decentralization; accords the principles and methods of its legislation to the requirements of autonomy and decentralization."

• Article Five of the Italian Constitution

"It is clear that international law does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their "parent" state....

The various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states...

A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity."

• Canadian Supreme Court ruling on the issue of secession

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

• United States of America Pledge Of Allegiance

"The answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)”

• Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2006

“Article 52 of the Constitution is a unitarian structure, indivisible, indecomposable."

Dean of the Brazilian Supreme Court, Judge Celso de Mello

"WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth...."

• Preamble to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia

So, if there was an actual right to secession in international law.....all the above would be illegal.

Yet they are not. Funny that(!)

Less passive aggressive rubbish from you and more engaging with the actual arguments made. 🤷‍♂️