To ask how Scottish Indyref1 NO voters are feeling about it today?

[StatisticallyChallenged]

I was just chatting with DH about the possibility of a second Indyref whilst watching the news and I wondered how those who voted no in 2014 are feeling now?

Cards on the table, for those who weren't on the Indyref threads, I was a strong no voter and campaigner last time. I work in financial services (have changed company since) and I had huge concerns about the impact on the economy of a No vote - all the issues around currency etc. I also found a lot of the campaign arguments very unconvincing and like we were being promised the moon which could never materialise.

I still feel that way about the last referendum. But I have to admit that watching the news today, seeing people proudly declaring they voted out because of immigrants...this isn't a country which currently reflects me. I still have massive concerns about the economy although it's a lot less clear cut given the likely turmoil over the next few years.

I'm well aware that an independent Scotland may have huge issues getting in to the EU btw, it's not so much about the EU membership but about feeling a bit less affinity with being 'British' today.

statisticallychallenged I think that Scotland would be attractive to the EU.

For a few reasons.

EU is very sympathetic towards Scotland- as was seen at the EU meeting this afternoon. Also an independent Scotland would be the obvious choice for many financial HQs running from England.
Also when the EU welcomes Scotland it will piss off the English government which EU would love..

Also when the EU welcomes Scotland it will piss off the English government which EU would love..

I'll vote for an independent Scotland just to see this happen joke, obviously

Cameron's 's certainly going to be remembered for this one. The break up up the Union and the start of 50 years of political and civil unrest in Europe.
Nice one Davey!

I meant desirable to immigrants specifically rather than the EU IYSWIM - it was in the context of the immigration discussion

Unfortunately I reckon the financial institutions will probably head to Dublin if they want English speaking EU long before Scotland ever got anywhere near that stage

You can't say that for certain. It could equally be the start of a change process that brings about far greater transparency and accountability in the EU. Equally it could go the other way - or any number of things in-between. No-one knows for sure.

Scotland should have the right to decide as a country what it would like

It did. 2014, 18th September if you recall. It's just that Scotland didn't decide the way that the SNP decided.

That was for Pearly.

Now Now SirChenjin, we'll have none of those facts from you ;)

Sorry

Dublin has already been mentioned where I work, depending what happens with the negotiations.

Not all jobs, obviously, but some. All views my own etc.!

Am i right in thinking there's already some presence in Dublin OOAOML? Wouldn't surprise me at all, makes total sense.

Yes, there is some. I don't think it is being planned just now (or if it is nobody tells my pay grade ) but there are certainly contingencies being worked on.

I've seen an interesting shift of people to resigned 'probably no unless the economic case is better' and support for federalism. Obviously still early days and emotions and ongoing tensions - but interesting.

I reckon there would be huge support for federalism - which would probably be the element which would be required for a Greenland style option. At the moment I don't think that's a goer because England has no parliament/governing body.

I think you would need a very federalised structure with Westminster probably only having responsibility for foreign affairs/defence and for England to have a parliament so that England (and Wales) could leave. I think that's why it was possible for Greenland (it was also EEC rather than EU but...)

I'm not convinced federalism/devo max/variants thereof will be all that attractive this time. Last time round, yes, absolutely, and it would have won by a landslide. I'd have voted for it myself. But WM wouldn't go for it, they demanded a straight yes/no answer.

And then Gordy promised the closest thing to devo max/federalism/The Vow and the actual response to our "No" vote was, the very next morning, EVEL. (Fuck knows why people believed an Oppostion backbencher had the power to promise anything, but there you go.)

And reneging on promises, striking out every SNP amendment to the Scotland Act, including the one about making our Parliament permanent, which was a pretty basic thing in the Smith Commission report.

There's no point offering any of these things in a second indyref, set off because of one of the many deceits (only way to guarantee staying in EU), since any pretty much any solution other than indy means we're still out of the EU. And we just said that's not what we want.

We don't know that another indy ref is the only way forward - too early too say. We may have voted to stay in the EU but we also voted to stay in the UK, so I expect the SNP Govt to respect both decisions and to look at all possible options (including the federal approach, which should not be discounted to suit the nationalist agenda) to try and make that happen - and only if all other avenues have been exhausted should they look at another indy referendum.

We are in unchartered waters here - the last thing we need is yet more predictable kneejerk nationalis reactions and threats of destabilisation before all parties come together to consider all the options over a period of time.

I think the time for federalism is long gone. The time for it was in the late 70s, early 80s, after the previous devolution votes when various promises were made sound familiar?

You should to read the book "Internal Colonialism" by Michael Hechter, written in about 1976 if it's still in print: the Celtic "fringe" is all that's left of the English British Empire

I think it would still be popular now. The 70s and 80s was a different generation. Just because it would have been nice to have it previously doesn't make it irrelevant now

I think quite the opposite - I think it's one of the many options that should be looked at and considered carefully. Ruling anything out at this stage is short sighted.

The lie that sounds most familiar is the once in a generation and we'll respect the will of the Scottish people o e that ca me fromissions the SNP camp - probably because it's the most recent. Both sides make promises and break them, don't they - there's no moral high ground to be had in politics. Which is probably why there is little appetite for another referendum any time soon before they can put the facts in front of us.

Totally, to try and claim the snp has the moral high ground on telling porkies is beyond disingenuous. Most of their economic case was utter bollocks and they made promises they couldn't make.

I equate the Leave side in this referendum with the Yes side in the Scotyish referendum due to the amount of porkies told by the SNP on currency, Europe, the economic case etc. They most definitely do not hold the moral high ground!

I can see what will happen now, we'll end up with another referendum and Scotland out of the U.K. and the EU.

I think that there was a glimmer of hope that Federalism might have been an option with the Smith Commission and if we'd got Full Fiscal Autonomy (which would have partially answered the question as to whether or not Scotland could survive on its own) . However that was stamped upon by Westminster.

I have issues with the "once in a generation" claim being inconsistent with the present reality on a number of grounds: a "generation" in politics is at most 5 years, often less; the idea that you should never give up on a "once in a lifetime" opportunity (I didn't get my "once in a lifetime" job at first attempt but had an unexpected 2nd opportunity - should I have turned it down? ); a General Election where the SNP won a resounding victory and then were outvoted on everything to do with the Smith Commission; a Scottish Government election where the SNP got a mandate specifically on the "material change in circumstances"; and last, but by no means least , the material change in circumstances.

Oh come off it - it was never a 'once in a political generation' . Nicely done though

The political landscape has chanel massively - you simply can't say that there is or isn't an appetite for anything at this stage. Far too many unknowns. We've got weeks and months of negotiations ahead of it before we know anything for certain - or anything approaching certainty.

The SNP lost their majority - less of a mandate and more a 'you've got a hell of lot of work to do'

Not the same situation as the UK, but the island of St Martin in the Caribbean (which is very small and seems to have a tourism economy) has one part of the island as an independent state (although still technically within the kingdom of the Netherlands) with a different currency to the French side of the island - which is in the EU and uses the Euro.

Very different to here, but this and Greenland show that if the will is there (big if) then the EU can be flexible.

www.st-maarten.com/index.php/home/island/island-introduction-5/money

I was a very definite no. I am still positively a no.