Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[ceptimus]

As a resident non Scottish UKer, I think they would hand the dirty work to Scottish unionists to start violence, and then the Westminster government would have to send in the troops to "protect the population", and there they'd stay with their guns pointed at the natives, just in case. It would be sold to the ordinary population of rUK as a necessary security measure.

If there was any sign of the population disagreeing with this, a few atrocities committed supposedly in the name of Scottish independence would soon quieten it down.

Yes, the same tactics that worked for many years against the Northern Irish nationalists.

 

[Craig B]

Uhhh. Yep. I wonder what the other ultra-nat commentators on this thread think of it? Does it represent the ultra-nationalist position, or even the moderate-nationalist position?

You don't wonder anything. If you did, you wouldn't resort to your known tactic of characterising people in advance, as Ultras in this case, making them reluctant to respond.

So you're not "wondering", you're creating a pretext to stick labels on people. If nobody replies, you'll perhaps take the opportunity to criticise your opponents for their timerousness or discourtesy in leaving your post without response.

 

[Strawberry]

This is nuts.

Yes, Britain's policy in Northern Ireland was indeed nuts. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[LondonJohn]

What I'm missing in this, admittedly fascinating, discussion concerning a possible Scottish independence is the following.

There is a further test to see whether a nation/country is an independent state and that is whether it is recognized as such.

If, just if, Scotland would declare itself independent, because enough of its people want that, and enough other countries recognize that independence, then it doesn't matter what the rest of the UK says. Scotland would be independent.
Now of course they (rump UK) could stop things, but really the only option at that point would be violence. A bit like the falling apart of Yugoslavia.
Now that was a bit of a mess (to be very conservative with the words) but it did set a precedent.

So the question would be. How desperate or willing would rump UK be to keep Scotland against the Sottish will in its fold? Enough to kill people for it? That is ultimately the question.

As I said in my answer to another post just now, the situation simply won't arise where Scotland calls a referendum (or, for that matter, declares independence) without first having negotiated assent from the UK government for both. And both a referendum and a declaration of independence would be illegal in UK law. As you say, that technically doesn't stop Scotland from doing either, but the ramifications would be serious (just as assault is against the law, but it wouldn't stop a man from attacking a stranger in the street and punching him/her to the ground).

And senior Scottish government officials are undoubtedly far more sensible, well-informed and mindful of due process and constitutional law than most (if not all) of the nationalist commentators in this thread. Just as in the 2014 referendum, the Scottish government will negotiate with the UK government, to the point where the UK government agrees to grant assent to a referendum and to independence if applicable.

The flip side of the coin is that the UK government will never "be so desperate" to keep Scotland within the UK that they will flat-out deny another referendum. The UK government already assented to one recent Scottish independence referendum in 2014, after all. The EU issue is obviously, to any reasonable person, a game-changer in terms of the "settled" nature of the 2014 referendum. There's clearly an argument to be made that a further referendum on Scottish independence would be fair and appropriate, and I'd be astonished if the UK government didn't hold that broad view. That being said, I would expect the UK government to want to see a couple of important things happen before assenting to a further referendum/independence.

As I've mentioned several times now, I suspect the UK government will want to wait to see the polling numbers for Scottish independence after the UK's exit deal from the EU has been entirely concluded, so that the UK's post-brexit position in Europe can be properly factored into the equation. And I also suspect that the UK government will want to see long-run independent polls showing consistent majority support for independence. Now, IMO the Scottish government might very well (and IMO ought to) accept these sorts of conditions as reasonable and fair too. Which will leave us all in the mature, reasonable, mutually-respectful position of waiting to see that there's ongoing majority support in Scotland for independence, and waiting to see whether the Scottish people's desire for independence is affected in any way by the outcome of Brexit negotiations. If both those boxes are ticked in favour of Scottish independence, then IMO the UK government would freely, fairly and democratically hand over referendum powers to the Scottish government, with the associated promise to enact Scottish independence if the referendum returns a majority Leave outcome.

 

[LondonJohn]

You don't wonder anything. If you did, you wouldn't resort to your known tactic of characterising people in advance, as Ultras in this case, making them reluctant to respond.

So you're not "wondering", you're creating a pretext to stick labels on people. If nobody replies, you'll perhaps take the opportunity to criticise your opponents for their timerousness or discourtesy in leaving your post without response.

Yeah. As I said, ask Nicola Sturgeon - a committed nationalist for sure, but not an ultra-nationalist - whether or not she would countenance holding an independence referendum or declaring independence without UK government assent in the form of acts of the UK parliament. You might well be very surprised by the answer. And that's the difference between a nationalist and an ultra-nationalist.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Oh for god's sake! This is nothing more than hysterical (and perhaps wishful-thinking?) rhetorical garbage.

The ultra-nats in this debate are continually (and again, IMO, wilfully) missing the point that it would be very unlikely indeed that the UK national government would "refuse" to allow Scotland to hold an independence referendum (and to then declare independence from the UK if there was a majority Leave), provided certain reasonable conditions were met.

I've already opined that an example of such conditions might be something like: "No referendum until the negotiations for the UK's exit from the EU have been fully concluded, so that the Scottish people know what they would be getting if Scotland stayed within the UK; and no referendum until after at least three years of reliable independent polling showing support for independence in the majority".

The ultra-nats here almost seem to want the UK government to say "flat out no". That way, they could achieve what appears to be their dream: brave Scotland turning round and showing its bare backside to the English enemy, courageously forging ahead with their own future, decided by the "will of the people", and watching and laughing as "England" could do nothing to stop them.

The reality and realpolitik is, of course, massively different. If there's sustained majority will in Scotland for independence, and (in a condition which I believe is likely to be insisted upon by the UK government, and which is entirely reasonable to any objective observer) the Scottish people wait until the outcome of UK Brexit negotiations to see what effect the new relationship between the UK and the EU might have on their desire for Scottish independence, then it's (IMO) very unlikely indeed that the UK government would ever seek to block a referendum or refuse to honour its outcome.

The ultra-nats also seem to think that the immovable position of the UK government must somehow be against Scottish independence, and that this will necessarily translate into refusal to grant a referendum/independence. And while Scottish independence certainly is against the desired ideological position of all the main Westminster parties, be in no doubt that pragmatism and fairness will outvote all of that if/when it comes down to it. One might, as some sort of an example of this apparent contradiction (which is not a contradiction at all in fact), state that all the main political parties in Westminster are against sending ground troops to a war in Syria - but it might just be, at some point, that the UK government (via parliament) judges that it is in the best interests of the UK to send ground forces to Syria.

In short, there simply WILL NOT be a scenario where the Scottish government holds a referendum without the necessary assent (and enactment of the appropriate amendments etc) of the UK government. Neither the Scottish government nor the UK government could possibly want such a situation to arise. There may well be protracted and heated negotiations over precise conditions, but I don't think anyone should be in any doubt that any future Scottish independence referendum will more-or-less exactly follow the process of the 2014 referendum: the UK and Scottish governments will, at some point in the future, make a joint declaration, in which the UK government will announce that it has agreed to devolve the power for a referendum to the Scottish government and that it will honour the outcome if there's a majority Leave vote (by passing some sort of "Independence of Scotland" act through parliament and into UK law).

Ah yes that old canard. I'm a highly reasonable Englishman telling those uncouth foreigners what is and isn't good for them and no sensible person could possibly disagree with me.

You've spent the last 10 pages telling us exactly how Westminster can stop Scotland becoming independent if it wants to and then we point out the error of your arguments you accuse us of being ultra-nats arguing against ludicrous unrealistic positions. Positions that you were arguing were right and proper just a few posts ago.

And no it's not reasonable for Theresa May, you or anyone else to insist that Scots are stripped of their rights as EU citizens while we wait for Westminster to get its act together and decide what it wants to do.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yeah. As I said, ask Nicola Sturgeon - a committed nationalist for sure, but not an ultra-nationalist - whether or not she would countenance holding an independence referendum or declaring independence without UK government assent in the form of acts of the UK parliament. You might well be very surprised by the answer. And that's the difference between a nationalist and an ultra-nationalist.

Why don't you ask her and post her reply rather than speaking for her?

I think she'll tell you to get stuffed. Or ignore you.

She's quite clever like that.

 

[Architect]

I've already opined that an example of such conditions might be something like: "No referendum until the negotiations for the UK's exit from the EU have been fully concluded, so that the Scottish people know what they would be getting if Scotland stayed within the UK; and no referendum until after at least three years of reliable independent polling showing support for independence in the majority".

I find this interesting and, I'm afraid to say, somewhat inconsistent.

Notwithstanding that referenda within the UK are traditionally non-binding, and likewise that the majority vote for leaving the EU was slim, the Westminster administration and in particular the PM have adopted a firm view that they will pursue Article 50 without either Parliamentary debate or a second referendum.

For a different approach to be adopted for Scottish independence, or indeed any of the other home nations, is hypocritical. Sauce for the goose is, opr at least should be, sauce for the gander.

Now of course it may be that you believe a similar position should have been pursued in respect of Brexit and there is certainly a logical basis to such a decision. That is not, however, what has happened within the UK and put plainly if Westminster adopts a stance (albeit that there is little evidence it is on the agenda) then that is again simply going to bolster the view that the government is not playing with a straight bat.

The ultra-nats here almost seem to want the UK government to say "flat out no". That way, they could achieve what appears to be their dream: brave Scotland turning round and showing its bare backside to the English enemy, courageously forging ahead with their own future, decided by the "will of the people", and watching and laughing as "England" could do nothing to stop them.

However the PM has indicated as recently as 13th October that she would oppose a second referendum, a position also taken by the Scottish Secretary.

The reality and realpolitik is, of course, massively different. If there's sustained majority will in Scotland for independence, and (in a condition which I believe is likely to be insisted upon by the UK government, and which is entirely reasonable to any objective observer) the Scottish people wait until the outcome of UK Brexit negotiations to see what effect the new relationship between the UK and the EU might have on their desire for Scottish independence, then it's (IMO) very unlikely indeed that the UK government would ever seek to block a referendum or refuse to honour its outcome.

This presumes, of course, that there is a meaningful likelihood of the post Article 50 negotiations being concluded within a reasonable timescale failing which the WTO rules will apply. On the basis of the current rather poor responses from mainland Europe, and of course bearing in mind the attempted Canadian deal, that seems unlikely.

The ultra-nats also seem to think that the immovable position of the UK government must somehow be against Scottish independence, and that this will necessarily translate into refusal to grant a referendum/independence. And while Scottish independence certainly is against the desired ideological position of all the main Westminster parties, be in no doubt that pragmatism and fairness will outvote all of that if/when it comes down to it. One might, as some sort of an example of this apparent contradiction (which is not a contradiction at all in fact), state that all the main political parties in Westminster are against sending ground troops to a war in Syria - but it might just be, at some point, that the UK government (via parliament) judges that it is in the best interests of the UK to send ground forces to Syria.

I'm interested in your reference to the main parties at Westminster here, on the basis that I think it tells us a little about how you view UK politics. The actual number of seats for each is as follows:

Conservative 330
Labour 231
SNP 54
Liberal 8
DUP 8

So of the top three parties by numbers at Westminster, two are strongly unionist (as far as we know) and the third is strongly secessionist. A demonstrable error has been made on your part. I appreciate that you will argue that you mean parties with entire UK coverage, but the simple fact is that the third largest party - by a considerable margin, I hasten to add - has been elected on a platform which is at the very least pro-Scottish and at the strongest pro-independence.

In short, there simply WILL NOT be a scenario where the Scottish government holds a referendum without the necessary assent (and enactment of the appropriate amendments etc) of the UK government. Neither the Scottish government nor the UK government could possibly want such a situation to arise. There may well be protracted and heated negotiations over precise conditions, but I don't think anyone should be in any doubt that any future Scottish independence referendum will more-or-less exactly follow the process of the 2014 referendum: the UK and Scottish governments will, at some point in the future, make a joint declaration, in which the UK government will announce that it has agreed to devolve the power for a referendum to the Scottish government and that it will honour the outcome if there's a majority Leave vote (by passing some sort of "Independence of Scotland" act through parliament and into UK law).

I'm unclear what you mean by your first sentence here and would ask for clarification. Are you maintaining the position that it is legislatively incompetent for Holyrood to conduct a referendum - in which case I am afraid I must press you to respond to my earlier posts more fully on this issue - or are you suggesting that the impediment is a strategic or realpolitik issue?

 

[Craig B]

Yeah. As I said, ask Nicola Sturgeon - a committed nationalist for sure, but not an ultra-nationalist - whether or not she would countenance holding an independence referendum or declaring independence without UK government assent in the form of acts of the UK parliament. You might well be very surprised by the answer. And that's the difference between a nationalist and an ultra-nationalist.

That proves my point, which is that you do not

... wonder what the other ultra-nat commentators on this thread think of it?

but simply wish to stick labels on people, as you are doing in the post cited above.

 

[ceptimus]

I don't think the RUK would wish to use military force to quell the democratically demonstrated demand of Scotland for independence (if that ever happens).

I think most English people would be sad to see Scotland leave the UK mainly for emotional and historic reasons. But on the other hand, we'd be glad to see the back of perpetual moaners like Sturgeon and we'd no longer have to put up with the unrealistic and unachievable demands made by SNP members at Westminster.

English taxpayers would no longer have to suffer the iniquity of Scotland sucking on the English taxpayer's teat and using that money to provide Scottish people with handouts not enjoyed south of the border (free prescriptions, cheaper education and such like).

If the Scottish economy collapses following independence, it might make Scotland a nice cheap place to visit for holidays.

 

[Giz]

Uhhh. Yep. I wonder what the other ultra-nat commentators on this thread think of it? Does it represent the ultra-nationalist position, or even the moderate-nationalist position?

I'd predict that, despite it being a fantasy about using violence and troops to keep down the "natives", it will be you that gets criticized (for being critical of such posts).

 

[Giz]

You don't wonder anything. If you did, you wouldn't resort to your known tactic of characterising people in advance, as Ultras in this case, making them reluctant to respond.

So you're not "wondering", you're creating a pretext to stick labels on people. If nobody replies, you'll perhaps take the opportunity to criticise your opponents for their timerousness or discourtesy in leaving your post without response.

Oh look!

 

[Architect]

English taxpayers would no longer have to suffer the iniquity of Scotland sucking on the English taxpayer's teat and using that money to provide Scottish people with handouts not enjoyed south of the border (free prescriptions, cheaper education and such like).

The subject at hand is the scope for Indyref 2, rather than a detailed discussion of inter-UK funding arrangements. Nevertheless I think it perhaps inappropriate to let it pass without a comment or two.

The generally quoted figures for this are based on the Treasury’s latest Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses tables and HMRC’s income and tax tables. These do indeed show that public service spending per head in Scotland is higher than in England and Wales. But it’s lower than Northern Ireland and, for example, London.

The figures also suggest that Scots contribute more than any English region outside the South East and East, reflecting the fact that their average incomes are high relative to the rest of the UK, although there will be dent coming due to the impact of the downturn in the oil sector (amongst others).

The next issue, of course, and one which is raised frequently is apportionment of both central taxation and how major capex projects are attributed. By way of simple example major infrastructure projects with a solely English location may be classed as national. The BBC's Scotching the Myth documentary, now some years old, likewise carried an interesting analysis of Civil Service and Central Government spending. For what it's worth, the summary was that there was a dispropportionately higher spend in the relatively affluent south.

The final point you raise is that of spending on things like free prescriptions. This overlooks the fact that Holyrood gets a block grant which it then decides to spend as it sees fit, within statutory limits. If it decides that this might include eyesight checks or free nursing homes for the elderly then it is at the expense of other items. The English taxpayer does not have to write a rather large cheque and just send it up to Edinburgh.

Against this backdrop, unless you are being tongue in cheek, I'm afraid that I do think you need to carry out some research before weighing in with such confidence on what are, in fact, rather complex issues. If you are in any doubt then you might wish to have a depate with FrancescaA at some point, as she does provide posters with a feel for the technical depth required in consideration of fiscal issues. Even if I don't agree with her.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The subject at hand is the scope for Indyref 2, rather than a detailed discussion of inter-UK funding arrangements. Nevertheless I think it perhaps inappropriate to let it pass without a comment or two.

The generally quoted figures for this are based on the Treasury’s latest Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses tables and HMRC’s income and tax tables. These do indeed show that public service spending per head in Scotland is higher than in England and Wales. But it’s lower than Northern Ireland and, for example, London.

The figures also suggest that Scots contribute more than any English region outside the South East and East, reflecting the fact that their average incomes are high relative to the rest of the UK, although there will be dent coming due to the impact of the downturn in the oil sector (amongst others).

The next issue, of course, and one which is raised frequently is apportionment of both central taxation and how major capex projects are attributed. By way of simple example major infrastructure projects with a solely English location may be classed as national. The BBC's Scotching the Myth documentary, now some years old, likewise carried an interesting analysis of Civil Service and Central Government spending. For what it's worth, the summary was that there was a dispropportionately higher spend in the relatively affluent south.

The final point you raise is that of spending on things like free prescriptions. This overlooks the fact that Holyrood gets a block grant which it then decides to spend as it sees fit, within statutory limits. If it decides that this might include eyesight checks or free nursing homes for the elderly then it is at the expense of other items. The English taxpayer does not have to write a rather large cheque and just send it up to Edinburgh.

Against this backdrop, unless you are being tongue in cheek, I'm afraid that I do think you need to carry out some research before weighing in with such confidence on what are, in fact, rather complex issues. If you are in any doubt then you might wish to have a depate with FrancescaA at some point, as she does provide posters with a feel for the technical depth required in consideration of fiscal issues. Even if I don't agree with her.

From a Brexiter I took the post as a stamp of economic approval.

 

[Architect]

Lest anyone wonders I have tried twice to edit that post to the 2015 statistics without success, and suspect some sort of IT glitch (or my own ham-fisted abilities with Windows 10 and Firefox).

But whilst I'm here, I just thought ceptimus might wish to have a look at this:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...h_Scotland_gave__27bn_more_than_was_received/

 

[ceptimus]

So what is Sturgeon waiting for? Get on with it!

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh look!

Hahaha

In a bizarro-world where the statement:

"It's a fact under UK constitutional law, supported by international law, that a further referendum for Scottish independence and any consequent route to independence require the prior assent of the UK government (and the UK government may very well be minded to grant that assent if certain reasonable conditions are met)"

gets re-worked into the following statement (which is then the basis of a straw man "response"):

"You damned Scottish don't know what's good for you! We imperialist UK-ers English will tell you what's good for you, and you will shut up and take it! If we say no independence for you, it's no independence for you! Eat that, Scottish idiots! Mwahahahahahahahaha!"

.... there's really zero hope for any type of constructive debate. History will show if, how and when there is a further Scottish independence referendum. I think one will probably happen. And I know with virtual certainty that it will happen following a joint declaration of the UK and Scottish government, after a period of negotiations and condition-setting. I also know with even greater certainty that the Scottish government will never either call a referendum nor declare independence for Scotland without having first conducted this sort of successful negotiation with the UK government.

I suspect that only the real passage of events will be sufficient to persuade most of the zealous pro-indy commentators on this thread how it actually works, and what the political/legal/constitutional reality of the situation actually is. Even then, however, that might not be enough. Never mind.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why don't you ask her and post her reply rather than speaking for her?

I think she'll tell you to get stuffed. Or ignore you.

She's quite clever like that.

That's why I suggest you ask her! Or will she tell you to get stuffed or ignore you too? She's quite clever like that, you know......

 

[Craig B]

If the Scottish economy collapses following independence, it might make Scotland a nice cheap place to visit for holidays.

We're getting that experience of being a nice cheap place already, thanks to the Brexit slump in the value of the once-mighty Pound against the Euro.

 

[Architect]

......will she tell you to get stuffed or ignore you too? She's quite clever like that, you know......

O wad some power the giftie gie us...