Scottish Nationalists: Why leave one union to join another?

[FrancinePefko42]

From my understanding, the primary motive for Scotland leaving the United Kingdom is to have full autonomy as independent sovereign state - with all the freedom that would confer.

Why does being closely tied to Brussels have greater appeal than retaining the ties with England?

It really, honestly, truly has nothing to do with not liking "the English". We don't like being ruled from Westminster, although UK, GB and "England" being conflated so frequently in mainstream media doesn't help that perception.

And what is "illogical" about wanting to leave an abusive spouse? Especially when there is a far more welcoming alternative suitor.

Who is the welcoming suitor?

Slightly under half the voting population don't like being ruled from Westminster. The others either do like it or consider it a necessary evil.

Racecardriver I'm disappointed that you think it's because we 'don't like the English. Where I live, there are a great many English families who moved here to work in the oil industry (mostly). You could call them economic migrants . They go to work/school/socialise largely unmolested in any way. They're generally happy and settled here, many have been here for decades. Scotland is not 'anti-English. It suits politicians (and others) to peddle this myth, it keeps people voting to preserve the union. There are English SNP members and politicians (including Nicola Sturgeon's husband). There are English pro-independence groups across the political spectrum. Are all who voted for Brexit racist? It's the same type of statement.

Francine an awful lot of our money is spent on our behalf, and not always with our consent. The renewal of Trident comes to mind, along with repairs to Buck House, Houses of Parliament, HS2, London Crossrail, London sewers... oh yeah, and bombing brown people. The Scottish Government has had to balance the books every year, we were only permitted borrowing powers very recently.

MorrisZapp
Who is the welcoming suitor?
Junker

I'm so enjoying Francines contributions : he/she keeps on coming up with what he/she thinks are winning arguments and they keep on being returned to him/get with interest.

I don't really care what he/she thinks. But he/she is helping those of us who support independence get across the arguments. He/she keeps on bringing up the fallacies arguments against and teeing them up beautifully to be knocked down

You've convinced me pretty bird. I have never heard a clearer or more convincing rationale for an independent Scotland joining the EU with Jean Claude Junker as your knight in shining armour. Completely understandable.

There are English pro-independence groups across the political spectrum
Exactly. It's not about being anti English.
I'm English

Francine, by your logic, shouldn't Sheffield, having voted to leave the EU, now vote to leave the UK, then England then Yorkshire? Because apparently you can't have different views on different Unions?

#IndySheffield

Prettybird I know from your posts that you are passionate about independence for Scotland. I just wonder how you would feel if the Indy Ref, assuming it was a once in a lifetime opportunity, had gone in favour of independence along similar margins to EU Ref and you were told sorry it’s only advisory (which I believe that it was) so we are going to ignore it?

@time4chocolate

Maybe relieved if the SNP were making as big a balls up as the Tories are of Brexit?

Personally I thought that the vote would need to be 60:40 in favour of Independence for maximum stability.

Having said that though, Malta only voted 54% in favour of the proposed new constitution that would give them independence - and I don't see them clamouring to become a vassal of the UK again

Actually just musing and supposing since my last post, if Indyref had been successful and they didn’t enact the result, then they would have to apply the same non-enactment to EU Ref? If they had Indy ref 2, say in 12 months time they would have to honour the result if it went to independence? They would both be advisory referendums and should have the same rule applied?

Sorry waffling late into the night!!

The Indyref did have statutory status - unlike the EU Referendum which was supposedly only advisory

There was a bit of a Twitter stushie a couple of days ago, as to whether indyref was "legally binding." The ref itself wasn't, but the Edinburgh Agreement (Salmond and Cameron signed) committed both parties to abide by the result. It didn't say anything about no more indyrefs for a generation, though.

I can’t find anything to say it was anything other than advisory. I have found this which actually mentions my earlier musings.

fullfact.org/law/can-scotland-legally-hold-another-referendum/

Hirples - yes, you will get a second bite of the cherry

It was the Edinburgh Agreement that I was thinking about (which was a formal agreement).

Unlike the EU Referendum, which despite the SNP MPs attempts, was only ever advisory - which was the Government's response when the SNP MPs tried to amend the legislation to include safeguards.

I read through the Act that enabled the ref to happen, during the Twitter thing. It's true there nothing saying it was legally binding, which is why the Edinburgh Agreement was necessary.
But no, had we won 52/48 as Leave did, I wouldn't have been thrilled to be told it's not happening. And I imagine there would have been legal consequences, because it's a political union between two parties and if one party says it's over, the only possible reaction is to start divorce negotiations. Leave/Remain isn't the same thing.

Text of Edinburgh agreement: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/text-of-the-edinburgh-agreement-8212225.html

FWIW: this is also why the Scottish referendum is not directly comparable to the Catalan referendum as it was done legally with the permission of Westminster.

Pretty - was just off having a read of it and it does clearly say that on point 30. Good document and doesnt allow for any misinterpretation.

They’re happy to be ruled by anyone as long as it’s not the English

This is an interesting comment (in a very interesting thread- thank you!)

It's not the English. It's Westminster. I'm not a natural Indy voter. I'm a Labour party member (tempted to tear up my card several times over non Indy matters but still there) who works UK wide. The issues in Scotland are the same issues I see in Leeds and Birmingham and Manchester and rural Cumbria.

I came late but did vote Yes. I now can't see any alternative. Westminster is a basket case. The Scottish Government has its faults but I have no concern that my grandchildren will not get into their local schools and get a good education, I can get an appointment with my GP on the same day or within a week, our public transport system is pretty good. I'm happy to pay more tax to keep public services going. I'm absolutely delighted that NHS Scotland isn't being sold off to Richard Branson.

My clients are mainly SMEs. The uncertainty over Brexit is causing them no end of harm. For a "pro-business" party, the Tories are wreaking irreparable damage on the UK economy.

My first choice would be for a UK government that took social justice seriously. That ain't going to happen any time soon so it's independence within Europe for me.

My indy pals are quite careful about this. They hate brexit as much as I do but they have to watch their step. They can't insist that a referendum of this magnitude ie constitutional breakup should legally require a particularly solid majority.

Because they want to declare a decisive victory with whatever wafer thin marginal result they manage to muster next time.

It's all academic though. Nicola Sturgeon is extremely astute. She knows her career won't survive another failed push for independence. She won't call for a referendum until the polls are heavily in her favour.

thor86
Francine, by your logic, shouldn't Sheffield, having voted to leave the EU, now vote to leave the UK, then England then Yorkshire? Because apparently you can't have different views on different Unions

No. The residents of Sheffield did not vote in the EU Referendum as "Citizens of Sheffield". They voted as "Citizens of the United Kingdom" and the result was a United Kingdom result.

While we can arbitrarily see which town, city, county or even nation within the UK voted Remain and which ones voted Leave, these are pretty meaningless distinctions because in a democracy you first decide where you will draw your voting boundary.

For EURef the boundary was clearly around the whole of the United Kingdom.

If you're not clear on the voting boundary, you could have individual wards within Sheffield saying "But wait! This ward voted Remain. Our democratic voice must be heard!"

And why stop at a voting ward? How about individual streets? How about individual houses?
32 Acacia Avenue voted Remain. Number 30 and 34 voted Leave. Mr & Mrs Miggins feel (of #32) have, for some years, felt like the "abused wife" in the way they have been treated by their neighbours at #30 and #34. They believe the EU represents an admirer /suitor / rescuer / kindly "prospective husband". While it is impossible to physically move the house (#32 will remain next to #30 and #34), they now say their democratic voice needs to be heard

"We never voted for Brexit" say Mr & Mrs Miggins. "Why should we put up with it?"

"We've been abused, mistreated and insulted like an abused wife"

"We just KNOW that the EU will is our knight in shining armour. We want to marry 'him'"

That about sums up the SNP position on this thread.