If you voted no in the independence referendum...

[HirplesWithHaggis]

...is Brexit changing your mind?

I've seen a number of people on social media (including MN) saying that they voted No in 2014 but would say Yes, or are starting to come round to the idea, in a second indyref because of Brexit. Sometimes it's because of the loss of freedom of movement, sometimes it's because Scotland's Remain vote has been completely ignored (see also Irish border issue), sometimes just the way our MPs are treated in Westminster.

Often it's reluctant, which I can fully understand. Have you changed your mind, are you swithering? Might you be persuaded?

For probably unnecessary disclosure, I voted Yes, and will do again. I am not a member of any political party/group. I'm just curious.

Yes I would vote for independence. I worked in investment banking for ten years and teaching fir last five due to family. Do people realise how terrible education system is in England? Anyone can be a teacher - someone with 0 qualifications? The bar is set so low that even qualified teachers from England must complete probation period here before signed off as a teacher.
Scotland's NHS consistently outperforms that in Wales and England.
Our crime is at 40 year low.
From a financial point of view, independence is far superior- sharing
our oil wealth, for example, with 60m instead of 5m people. An investment fund would be set up as Norway have done and which now has earned a million £ per person. My son deserves to live in a country which is not a colony of another. It is wrong to assume break up of Scotland from UK would be as terrible as Brexit. SNP actually created more documents showing various scenarios from Brexit and the Tories did. Oh and fyi- the Tories created Brexit because Rees Mogg and lots of other hedge fund managers shorted currency and other aspects which decrease in a recession.

Your making the classic mistake that it is Scotland's oil

Talk to a Norwegian, they hate the government in Oslo because they think that is where all the oil money has been spent.

It is not the UKs oil either - rights to extract the oil belong to private companies. The best the Scottish Government could do is tax the profits. And given the huge downturn in oil they won’t get much money from that. Even the business rates the large oil companies used to pay are drying up and there are huge numbers of empty offices in Aberdeen; their oil company owners are demolishing large office blocks rather than pay the crippling business rates imposed by the Scottish Government.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/11/08/north-sea-oil-can-still-bargaining-chip-need/amp/

I have spoken to Norwegians as was in Norway last year on a teacher exchange program!
Thanks for the mansplaining!! I have an economics degree and several chartered institute of securities and investments qualifications but thanks for explaining to me that 'the government can tax profits.'

You spoke to Norwegians? Wow!

An Economics degree - that's impressive :D

It is Scotland's oil.

It's one of the main reasons WM won't let Scotland leave the union.

See the McCrone report. Also that article Mumofhunter just posted.

I always find it funny when someone tries to tell me Scotland's oil isn't worth anything

And this is why I don’t bother arguing with the yes brigade...

Calyx - that's an opinion not a fact.

It might be an independent Shetland's oil.

It might be the UKs oil, it was UK Oil when it was discovered and Scotland might be getting its share on a per head basis.

Or it might be Scotland's oil in which case it's Scotland's clean up cost.

I read the McCrone report. Why was that covered up by the WM government at the time? Because it is Scotland's oil.

It's not 'UK' oil. Saying untrue things repeatedly doesn't make them true. WM does have the rights to some oil fields but not most of them.

And as for 'it might be independent Shetland's oil' well yes, maybe it would be, Shetland isn't independent though. Pointless comment really.

Luckygreeneyes, why don't you bother arguing with yessers? Sorry if it should be obvious, I can't see why from the posts before yours.

Luckygreeneyes, don't worry, I've looked at your own previous post and that gives me my answer. Sorry to bother you.

And as for 'it might be independent Shetland's oil' well yes, maybe it would be, Shetland isn't independent though. Pointless comment really.

Neither is Scotland

Birdsfoot no it's not yet independent

So talking about an independent Scotland’s oil is pointless really. Just like talking about Shetland’s.

I don’t know.

I’m not a natural independence supporter but I hate how right wing WM politics is now and of course the giant fuck up of Brexit. We were lied to and last time and now being constantly ignored by WM

There's a good chance Scotland will be independent soon though. Not a certainty but a good chance. As the OP asks, Brexit is changing some minds towards self governance for Scotland.

I haven't heard that Shetland was planning to become independent (but good luck if they did). They could take the oil if they want it. Scotland's got enough renewables, trade and the rest to be successful independently without the oil. With the climate issues it might be best to leave it where it is of course

I haven't heard that Shetland was planning to become independent (but good luck if they did)

Not sure about Shetland but there was definitely talk that if the separatists won in 2014 that Orkney would consider its options , including staying part of the UK.

Yeah, I saw Unionist talk about Shetland staying with the UK, fondly imagining that the oil fields would also remain. (They wouldn't, it's not even a matter of negotiation under existing international maritime law.) I find it interesting that WM are so keen to keep hold of this worthless, fluctuating commodity.

I am sure the shetlanders would not appreciate being called a ‘worthless, fluctuating commodity,’

Of course I was not referring to Shetland or her people in that way, I meant the oil which would be such a burden on an independent Scotland, until it runs out in five minutes.

Or so we're told.

I doubt you have the faintest idea what the actual legal outcome would be.

Let's hope we soon get a chance to find out, then.

It would be interesting and much less horrifying than our current situation in any case

It's only a blog, but useful links here. This is quite clear:

These matters are regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. When another state possesses an island within the continental shelf of this state, special rules apply.

When an island belonging to one state sits on the continental shelf of another state, the islands are treated as enclaves. This matter was discussed in detail in a legal paper published by the European Journal of International Law: Prospective Anglo-Scottish Maritime Boundary Revisited

Most of the rights to the continental shelf would remain Scottish, Map 2 on page 29 of the legal paper shows the most likely sea boundaries. Westminster would be entitled only to a small zone around the islands, and the waters between Orkney and Shetland. This area contains no oil fields. If Shetland and Orkney were to remain under Westminster's control, Shetland would no longer have an oil fund.