Scottish Independence

[wibblewobble8]

Now that it seems inevitable that there will be a second Scottish Independence Ref (re the news today) do you think Brexit will have an impact upon the result making it more likely to succeed? Personally, i hope so.

At least now the Scots will have a better knowledge of what it is voting for. Both sides will agree that the next vote will be its final vote.

RBeer

There will be no idea what they will be voting for. If ti is done prior to the end of the UK/EU negotiation, they will not know what staying on means and it is very unlikely that the EU will have agreed to Scotland in the EU on current UK terms.

"There will be no idea what they will be voting for"

Just like you when you voted for brexit, didn't seem to stop you though.

Smallfox Knew what I was voting against though - v important difference.

So do the Scottish!

RBeer, your comment on another thread about what young Scots would think about not being able to go to the EU and study/work etc. made me think about another one of Scotland's greatest exports to England and that is people, especially the young educated ones! So what would they do if they found out they couldn't go and study/work in England as they have for 100s of years!
Would Andrew Marr and Andrew Neil not be able to work in England any more? There are so many Scots in all walks of life in England, what would happen to them?

At least now the Scots will have a better knowledge of what it is voting for.

No they won't.

NS can't guarantee that Scotland can stay in the EU.

Independence could mean out of UK and out of EU.

Any Scottish independence plan has to address what currency they will use. From my (English) POV, it was the Achilles heel in 2014, and no amount of Salmond-bluster could hide the hole.

And whatever the plan for currency is, it needs to be completely independent of external factors. Which means it can't rely in any way on "pound sterling" as issued and used by (what would then be rUK).

I have a personal stake in the pound, and like many other non-Scottish UK citizens found it slightly that Alex Salmond was telling me what I would do because he said so.

(Really this should have been the below-the-waterline hole in the Brexit argument. A rather bland assurance that the rest of the world would "have to" do x,y, and z. As we (well, some of us) are learning, the rest of the world doesn't jump because we say so anymore).

Anyone can use the pound - it's a tradeable currency.

However, given the way the pound is going the euro may be a better bet

Anyone can use the pound - it's a tradeable currency.

And if Salmond had left it at that, it would have been fine. Many economists pointed out that it was a risky strategy, as it would leave Scotland using a currency it had no control over, but it wasn't an impossible, nor necessarily impractical path to take. Especially if hooked to a credible plan to create an independent Scottish currency.

The problem was that wasn't what was proposed. Instead there was a waffled "we'll use the pound and the rest of the UK can underwrite us at their own risk". At which point it was game over. No semi-intelligent treasury could ever sign up to that, and so the UK treasury didn't. And rather than agreeing it was a sensible fiscal decision which was made in the best in interest of what would be rUK (i.e. UK minus Scotland) a lot of lesser-minded commentators started squealing it was Sassenach spite. Thus lowering the debate to yaa-boo politics, and causing enough doubt in the independence argument to swing some voters.

It seems a common tactic now, to build reasons around dictating what "other people will have to do". Which is all very well, but such rhetoric tends to evaporate on contact with reality. Of course, going back, an awful lot of diplomacy was conducted by making other people do what they were told. With gunboats.

Re the currency, what Salmond (and the "Scotland's Future" document) said was that sharing sterling was Scotland's preferred option as that would be best for both Scotland and rUK. There were 3 other options which were also feasible.

I agree with LurkingHusband - we all have a stake in the pound. That cuts both ways: Scotland co-"owns" sterling. The Bank of England might be called the "Bank of England" but it is actually the Bank of the UK.

I actually watched Mark Carney's press conference on both his report on Scotland's options and the impact on the UK and the Q&A session that followed (and read the BoE paper he was presenting). It was very different to how it was presented in MSM.

He said that it was possible for Scotland to use the £ - as a technocrat his job was to make things work. He did however say that there would need to be the political will to do so - which was outwith his remit. He warned that sharing a currency - any currency - involves a degree of loss of sovereignty and a need to align fiscal policy. The UK Government had already ceded (voluntarily) a degree of sovereignty to the BoE, as it is now supposedly fully independent in the decisions it makes over interest rates (one of the few good things Gordon Brown did).

As it happens, my own preferred option would have been to shadow the £Sterling for a few years (just as the Irish punt did) (the £Stirling? ). That would have given Scotland the chance to have the track record required to join the Euro should it want to (it might not want to though ; it could do what Sweden and Denmark do those well known economic basket cases and never quite for some strange reason meet the fiscal criteria to join the € )

It will be interesting to see what the working party on currency options comes up with this time.

Just for context, as an Englander, my only objection to Scottish independence was the suggestion that they would continue to use Sterling with an expectation that the rUK underwrite their adventures in reality.

Otherwise - sentiment of having grown up in the "U"K aside - it was a question for Scotland, and none of my business.

I would however note that Scotland was hardly a land of milk of honey pre-1603. And moreover, once their royal clan got within sight of Westminster, they never went back.

The major difference between the Greens and the SNP last indyref was over currency, and as you say it was one of the big uncertainties which turned people off voting Yes.

Hopefully the currency issue will be addressed more thoroughly, Common Weal have done brilliant work making a case for a Scottish currency and a Scottish National Investment Bank, and outlining the economic benefits of having more control of the economy.

I think Scotland has to make a choice.

We can stay in the EU (and we would be permitted to either stay or rejoin, many senior EU officials have confirmed this). Purely in terms of economics, Business for Scotland estimated we get back £20 for every £1 spent in the EU in rebate, subsidies, and trade. We can stay part of Erasmus and ESA, and enjoy free movement across the EU, which benefits us as we have a small population which is below replacement rate and immigration is good for us.

Or we can stay in the UK. There may be a hard Brexit costing £66 billion, it is £1.6 trillion in debt which we must service. It will cost us our current trade relationships with the EU and we are currently not even permitted to have the First Minister made aware of what negotiations are being made to replace them.

Indyref was a 55% stay in the UK, EU ref was a stay in the EU by 62% in Scotland. So I think another referendum is justified, as it increasingly looks impossible to have both of these.

We can stay in the EU (and we would be permitted to either stay or rejoin, many senior EU officials have confirmed this)

Links to all these senior EU offcials that have said this please.....

I don't think Scotland was saying that rUK would have to underwrite its "adventures in reality" . What it was saying was, "if you want us to continue to pay our share of the debt, then we also want our share of the assets" (hence why I mentioned that Scotland co-owns the Bank of England).

Not unreasonable by any means.

It would be like saying that when you get divorced, you have to continue paying the (interest only) mortgage, but you can't have a share in the house - or alternatively not be given the cash value of that share.

Funniest thing is if Scotland had gone independent - with it's own currency - I would happily have invested a few thousand in it, as would MrsLH, and even my elusive US-bound DB. I think there would have been quite a groundswell of sentiment-underpinned good wishes.

What could have been ?

Perhaps the rest of the UK should get a vote on whether they want to be independent from Scotland or not.

I thought Theresa May has said no Indyref2 anyway. Can she legally stop one? Assuming she can, that's that then.

I thought Theresa May has said no Indyref2 anyway. Can she legally stop one? Assuming she can, that's that then.

She can ignore whatever result the Scottish parliament can deliver if she likes. She's already ignoring 48% of the electorate anyway, so a few more won't matter.

I think NS has to ask Westminster for 'permission' to hold a referendum Rock so could be blocked by the UK government.

I think NS has to ask Westminster for 'permission' to hold a referendum Rock so could be blocked by the UK government.

we're skating at the limits of my knowledge of the devolution powers, but I can't see Westminster stepping in to prevent a referendum (has Westminster ever overruled Holyrood ?). However, they can just treat it like it does ePetitions, and ignore it outright. Nothing NS could do about that.

She can ignore whatever result the Scottish parliament can deliver if she likes. She's already ignoring 48% of the electorate anyway, so a few more won't matter.

Tbf NS is ignoring the majority that voted NO only 2 years ago.....

Tbf NS is ignoring the majority that voted NO only 2 years ago.....

Only the playing field has changed. Even though I was heartily sick to the back teeth of IndyRef-1, I'm also happy to accept - and support (so my local MP can ignore me on this as they have done on every other matter I have written to them on) the view that Brexit has broken a fundamental assumption the "stay" side used when campaigning.

The only argument against IndyRef 2, would be if the "stay" rhetoric had pointed out that voting to remain in the UK was NOT a guarantee of remaining in the EU. However, not only did they not do that - they actually reversed it, and claimed it was the only way to remain in the EU.

Like Bresit, IndyRef-1 is also broken and beyond repair.

Once again, well done David Cameron.

Yes - WM can block a referendum; constitutional issues not that we have a written one are reserved to Westminster, so not technically within the remit of Holyrood.

The SG could in theory hold a plebiscite rather than an official referendum - but WM would be perfectly entitled to ignore it.

You'd then get into the uncharted waters of the potential for UDI and the damage to the UK's international reputation for "forcing" Scotland to stay against her will (assuming Scotland voted for independence, which is by no means a given)

I think the SG would prefer a "sanctioned" referendum, not least the fact that they don't want a Catalonian situation (Spain's opposition to their referendum was that it was unconstitutional; Spain didn't have an issue per se with Scotland's last referendum as it was all done "constitutionally")

You'd then get into the uncharted waters of the potential for UDI

Sadly, they are not uncharted, and inevitably involve pointy sticks that go "bang". I believe the UK has some experience of that from other Celtic quarters .

Are you happy yet, David Cameron ?