Scottish Independence

[rollwiththis]

Is the current Brexit shambles going to be the catalyst for Scottish Independence?

We cannotjoin the Euro. And Salmond isn't even a member of the SNP.

Salmond may be away with his friends at RT and Iranian Press TV, but the attitudes he exemplified are alive and well on this thread with its mocking and denigration of UK economic and security prospects.

In the end, Scotland's logstic umbilicals all come via England. This fact will not change. Good relations are essential and entirely possible, so let's have a bit less Mel Gibson Bannockburn Bollocks, thank you.

An independent Scotland could improve the infrastructure long neglected by WM, forming new maritime connections with the EU and our Nordic neighbours. Umbilical cords can be cut.

But yes, good relations with our southern neighbours would be sensible. So no more nonsense about annexing military bases, eh?

hirpleswithhaggis
We cannotjoin the Euro. of course we can if we join EU we're just leaving against our will.

In the end, Scotland's logstic umbilicals all come via England. This fact will not change. Good relations are essential and entirely possible, so let's have a bit less Mel Gibson Bannockburn Bollocks, thank you

This absolutely articulated how I feel Mockers. I’m glad Salmond is out.

The only people i hear spouting about braveheart are people who don't want to leave. It's a really annoying and patronising outlook. That it's just taken that we would be hostile. A well known Scottish trait

Horehound We cannot join the Euro, even as EU members, unless we put our own currency into the Exchange Rate Mechanism for at least two years, to show that our currency does not fluctuate wildly and thereby upset Eurozone stability.

We do not have our own currency.

In the event that we become independent and set up our own currency, why would we give that up to join the Euro a few short years later?

hirpleswithhaggis because I'd expect a currency in a 2 year infancy to be less stable than the euro. If it was stable then fair enough and I'm actually happy either way what currency we use. It's an excuse roled out said it's a stumbling block , it's not. And from what we have seen in the Brexit shambles it's clear rules can be changed..

PS. croatia joined and dont use the euro.

Many Eastern European countries don’t use the euro.

I wonder if anyone voted remain in the Brexit ref because they didn’t like the labour/tory/libdem/snp/green party.

Independent Scotland would be to the UK what Canada is to the USA

What is Canada to the USA, pretty well ignored I would think.

No change there then.

Sadly I suspect it probably will lead to another Indyref, and I do mean sadly. I'm thoroughly sick of constitutional issues and desperately want Brexit to be sorted out one or another (I actually don't really care at this point - just do something!), so that people can start to heal the massive divisions that these referenda open up. It's hard to deny that the shambles at Westminster is an international embarrassment, but I don't think Holyrood is any better tbh. I also agree with a previous poster that the lack of a second chamber is fine for a devolved assembly (as it was known when set up) but doesn't work for a country, and we'll only end up with more bad/poorly-thought-through legislation if that issue isn't fixed.

I predict that there will be another Indyref in the next year or so (whenever Nicola thinks she can win one), it will be an even closer result, and will either result in the Union winning and more outrage from Nationalists, or the Nationalists winning and the current disaster/bad feeling amplified at least 10-fold because breaking up a country is a much bigger deal than leaving a much looser union like the EU. Either way, I am very pessimistic about Scotland's future and thoroughly depressed by the whole thing.

If the Brexit debacle has taught us anything it ought to be the need for a supermajority for major constitutional change.

If the Brexit debacle has taught us anything it ought to be the need for a supermajority for major constitutional change

How would you define a supermajority? What would the minimum % required to be considered a supermajority?

For me a majority is anything over 50%.

The exact definition isn’t for me to say. Typically a supermajority is defined as around two thirds, although Nicola Sturgeon might define it as 60% (the level of support she reportedly wanted for a prolonged period of time before calling another Indyref). I could live with either, personally.

What’s important is that it’s a large enough margin that the result is unlikely to be a fluke that could go the other way on another day, like say 52/48. That way, you avoid all the issues associated with a close result that we are currently seeing.

What’s important is that it’s a large enough margin that the result is unlikely to be a fluke that could go the other way on another day, like say 52/48. That way, you avoid all the issues associated with a close result that we are currently seeing

Even if the 2016 referendum had been 60% leave the remain voters would still be crying that it was only advisory and leave campaign had acted illegally..

Even if the 2016 referendum had been 60% leave the remain voters would still be crying that it was only advisory and leave campaign had acted illegally

It was only advisory.

And there should have been a clause that said it could only go ahead if all four parts of the UK voted to leave.

And of course it should not have even happened, because of the GFA.

@PizzaCafe2016 I suspect there will always be people on the losing side who cry foul about the way the campaign was run (and forget the half truths from their own side...) but their argument has much less weight if a supermajority is required for constitutional change. Because while there might be a small percentage who are swayed by less-than-honest tactics, whether it's misleading statistics on the side of a bus or disingenuous (or just plain wrong) claims in a white paper, it's unlikely that 2/3 of the population will be. You start from a position of acceptance of the result, and so are more likely to come together moving forward (unlike with Brexit, where right from the beginning there was a faction trying to overturn the result, and indeed the polls appear to have reversed to show an equally small majority for Remain). I'd personally be pretty gutted if Scotland voted for independence, but if 2/3 of the population had voted that way I'd have to accept it.

Surely this is just common sense when you're talking about something as monumentous as breaking up a country. You should be absolutely sure that it's the will of the large majority of people, and that they won't change their minds in a few months when things shift a little. It shouldn't be the kind of decision that only requires those wanting change to squeak over the line, only for a couple of percent to regret their decision, change their mind, and chaos ensues. I would expect even the most ardent Nationalist to accept that if Scotland is to have a good future as an independent country, it first needs to have a large majority of the population who actually want that.

And there should have been a clause that said it could only go ahead if all four parts of the UK voted to leave

Impossible in any scenario. For example, England (Population 57 Million), Scotland (Population 5 Million) and Wales (Population 3 Million) vote to leave, but NI (Population 2 Million) votes not to leave, you would have allowed 2 Million to decide the fate of the other 65 million! As McEnroe once said "you can not be serious"

The GFA is more significant. I am not legal expert, but can the WA or any other form of Brexit avoid breaching the GFA? If not then MP's should have discovered that before article 50 started.

But ten DUP MPs are now dictating to the Government.

True

As a Scot who has lived in both England and Scotland I find it very interesting how so many SNP supports especially think that WM ignore Scotland and that Scotland is so hard done by. Government is very London centric but try being from Northern England.
They don't have a devolved parliament or an Ian Blackford wining on and on about 'poor, hard done by Scotland'. The attitude of the SNP is so embarrassing, they make the Scots a laughing stock.

I feel that all the SNP want is independence, they're not interested in anything else so manage to turn everything round to suggest that it's a reason for having another referendum. Do remember originally the SNP were actually dead against the EU. I know quite a few hard line SNP who are still against the EU and voted leave which is ironic considering how much store NS puts in Brexit as a reason for indi ref 2.
The atmosphere up here was horrendous at times during and after the last indi ref. The nationalist fervour was way over the top.
I remember seeing some tourists parking up in Edinburgh and suggesting they remove the St George cross flag from their car window if they hoped to come back to it undamaged! The nasty vial hatred encouraged about Tories by SNP supporters on social media is appalling. The SNP have highjacked the Scottish flag and try and suggest that unless you are pro independence you are unpatriotic!
Patriotism is very strong in Scotland and has absolutely nothing to do with your political persuasion.
Scotland has some of the oldest banks in the world and I'd be very sad indeed if we lost our Scottish bank notes so I certainly don't want the Euro.

@Doubletrouble I agree with you on a few things.

I know SNP supporters who voted to Leave EU.

I also live in England outside London. A devolved parliament does have a big impact. I remember voting for it. 1st vote was 97 😀

I am not a fan of SNP but at the moment I am pro independence (that may change - I am so disgusted with Brexit)