Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Since it looks increasingly likely that we are going to have a second independence referendum in the space of 3 or 4 years I thought we might as well start a new thread on it.

My sense is that the case will be a harder sell with the oil price in the gutter and I have a feeling that the implications of a non-EU UK and a Scotland in the EU hen worked through will likely not be trumped by the sense of injustice and anger at the Leave vote especially as time mellows that particular emotion.

Nicola's goal seems to be to have a referendum in time to prevent Scotland actually leaving the EU and simply continuing as a member. This is going to throw up the same questions we had before about the status of Scotland as a member and while my opinion is that an independent Scotland should be automatically granted membership I doubt that anyone at the EU is going to confirm that prior to an referendum.

Whether the EU would be more supportive to Scotland in the light of Brexit remains to be seen but if the choice is seen as 'leave the UK and hope the EU admit us on their terms' then I can't see it getting over the line.

The current polls show that there isn't a majority in favour of independence in Scotland and it will be interesting to watch how they change in the coming weeks. There seems little point in pushing for a vote that they know they won't win but time is not on their side.

Rock meet hard place.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't think it will be a "sell". The decision to have one will follow not lead Scottish public opinion. If the latter indicates a landslide (60%?) then difficulties be damned.

So far we have no numbers on post brexit vote polling I think.

Yes independence is a lot more problematic economically and financially now. But I don't think that would mean the SNP passes up a once in a generation chance.

Sorry--I mean twice.

 

[Darat]

Don't see the new leaders of the UK allowing another Scottish referendum.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't think it will be a "sell". The decision to have one will follow not lead Scottish public opinion. If the latter indicates a landslide (60%?) then difficulties be damned.

So far we have no numbers on post brexit vote polling I think.

Yes independence is a lot more problematic economically and financially now. But I don't think that would mean the SNP passes up a once in a generation chance.

Sorry--I mean twice.

I don't think it will get to 60% for and that's where it gets interesting. It's never been there. Independence is Nicola's only real roll of the dice and she has to act quickly on it if its to happen.

That's when things get potentially interesting - if it's 45% for independence will she try the long shot and hope to persuade the last 6% during the campaign or do nothing and accept Scotland leaves the EU and that independence isn't happening any time soon.

 

[Francesca R]

Pasted . . .

It's actually a better proposition now that the alternative is stay in the UK outside the EU because the economic benefit of EU membership falls only to the independence side of the equation.

I know you were getting at the low oil price but the oil price is outwith our control and so we would have had to cope with the same low price regardless. Its probably a harder sell now, but the reality of the financial proposition has just improved significantly.

One factor is the low oil price

Another (linked) is that Scotland's budget deficit is now far too high to meet EMU criteria, implying large tax rises and spending cuts that are not appealing to the SNP

The third is its currency which will not be the pound and probably can not be the euro on day one either.

But none of these problems will prevent Sturgeon having an indyref if she believes it will be a clear win.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Don't see the new leaders of the UK allowing another Scottish referendum.

Don't think they have a choice really as Scottish government can hold one anyway. Plus I'm sure some of the Tory right would at least secretly like to get rid of us even if they would never say it out loud.

 

[Francesca R]

if it's 45% for independence will she try the long shot and hope to persuade the last 6% during the campaign

I severely doubt it.

But I would be less surprised about pro indy opinion rocketing. Populism is very powerful I think we just saw that yesterday.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Pasted . . .



One factor is the low oil price

Another (linked) is that Scotland's budget deficit is now far too high to meet EMU criteria, implying large tax rises and spending cuts that are not appealing to the SNP

The third is its currency which will not be the pound and probably can not be the euro on day one either.

But none of these problems will prevent Sturgeon having an indyref if she believes it will be a clear win.

What makes you confidently say it 'will not be the pound'? I think long term that's very likely but absolutely nothing to stop usage of the pound in the short term

 

[Francesca R]

A currency union must have consent of all parties to it. (Just ask the euro zone if you want to check that)

The UK post Brexit government will say no. 99.99% definitely. That is all it has to do.

Independent Scotland cannot force R-UK to share a currency with it against R-UK's will, that's all.

(And it should not even try if it actually has real respect for the principle of self determination)

Oh--to clarify--yes it can use the pound all it likes but that isn't a currency union. Nor is it maybe a brilliant idea for an aspiring EU member to be informally using the currency of a never again to be EU member. Don't think it would satisfy any EU accession demand either but you never know.

 

[Darat]

Don't think they have a choice really as Scottish government can hold one anyway. Plus I'm sure some of the Tory right would at least secretly like to get rid of us even if they would never say it out loud.

Without the agreement of the UK government such a referendum would have no power.

 

[Francesca R]

Without the agreement of the UK government such a referendum would have no power.

The putative Tory government might be OK ditching Scotland. It will have been Cameron's fault after all.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A currency union must have consent of all parties to it. (Just ask the euro zone if you want to check that)

The UK post Brexit government will say no. 99.99% definitelythat is all it has to do.

Independent Scotland cannot force R-UK to share a currency with it against R-UK's will, that's all.

(And it should not even try if it actually has real respect for the principle of self determination)

Oh--to clarify--yes it can use the pound all it likes but that isn't a currency union. Nor is it maybe a brilliant idea for an aspiring EU member to be informally using the currency of a never again to be EU member. Don't think it would satisfy any EU accession demand either but you never know.

Yes I wasn't talking about a currency union there just using the pound as an interim arrangement. Currency union is murkier waters but I would point out that the Pound is Scotland's currency as much as it is England's and leave it at that

As for EU accession well Scotland is currently already in the EU so it's a unique situation in many regards. I think a lot of it would come down to whether the EU wants to take a positive view of Scotland wanting to stay in and to support that. If it does then I'm sure a lot of the technicalities could be overlooked in favour of political expediency. At the end of the day I assume the EU would rather have Scotland as a member than not and we certainly wouldn't be as much of a pain in the ass as the UK has been in terms of making demands for special treatment.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Without the agreement of the UK government such a referendum would have no power.

I think it's fairly well established that such a vote would certainly be sufficient for Scotland to declare independence. Subsequent negotiations and arrangements would presumably have to be handled by international law if England didn't want to play ball.

I haven't seen any Tory silly enough to claim they would not recognise a second Indyref as legitimate.

 

[Francesca R]

Currency union is murkier waters but I would point out that the Pound is Scotland's currency as much as it is England's and leave it at that

Forget the "shared asset" nonsense. That is a slogan intended to affect certain folks' sense of injustice.

There are two independent nations.

One of them wants both of them to have the same currency

The other one thinks this is stupid and wants to have its own currency

What happens?

The two countries have their own currency each is what happens. Of course. It can not possibly be any other way without coercive force being applied.

So two countries, two currencies.

Now sure you could claim that the currency Scotland was using was the original pound and the one R-UK was using was some new fangled currency just created. But do you think anyone, anywhere, anytime (apart from Scots) would agree with that? If you do, well OK have at it. It's still not an FX union. On that I think we agree

 

[Francesca R]

I think a lot of it would come down to whether the EU wants to take a positive view of Scotland wanting to stay in and to support that.

Yes. I don't think it is a sure thing that the EU would play hardball with Scotland just like I don't with Brexiting R-UK*. Hence, again, Sturgeon will go for it if she is sure she will win.

(*Some people want to have one cake and eat the other in these threads though. The EU will do what it thinks is in its interest in both cases)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Forget the "shared asset" nonsense. That is a slogan intended to affect certain folks' sense of injustice.

There are two independent nations.

One of them wants both of them to have the same currency

The other one thinks this is stupid and wants to have its own currency

What happens?

The two countries have their own currency each is what happens. Of course. It can not possibly be any other way without coercive force being applied.

So two countries, two currencies.

Now sure you could claim that the currency Scotland was using was the original pound and the one R-UK was using was some new fangled currency just created. But do you think anyone, anywhere, anytime (apart from Scots) would agree with that? If you do, well OK have at it. It's still not an FX union. On that I think we agree

I agree that no country can be forced to use a currency against its wishes but I don't think it would be as simple as you suggest for England to suddenly just change the name of the Pound to the Nigel and pretend it's a new currency. Perhaps it is that easy though.

Im not really sure what the fundamental difference between an English pound and a shared pound would be practically other than a Scottish representative at the table in the BoE.

All of this stuff would have to be negotiated as part of the separation and would be traded off against other things.

I think the end result would be 'use the pound until we can sort out the Euro' whatever 'use the pound' ends up meaning.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes. I don't think it is a sure thing that the EU would play hardball with Scotland just like I don't with Brexiting R-UK*. Hence, again, Sturgeon will go for it if she is sure she will win.

(*Some people want to have one cake and eat the other in these threads though. The EU will do what it thinks is in its interest in both cases)

Of course the EU will look after its own interests but there is a rather fundamental difference between being on their team and negotiating with them and resigning from their team and negotiating with them.

 

[catsmate]

Don't see the new leaders of the UK allowing another Scottish referendum.

Technically the Scottish parliament can do a fair amount to obstruct the UK's exit.

 

[Degeneve]

I have read somewhere (can't remember where, sorry) that Spain could be reluctant to accept a "Scottish secession" followed by an application to become member of the EU as they don't want to create a example for their own Catalans separatists.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Technically the Scottish parliament can do a fair amount to obstruct the UK's exit.

Any examples?

There's a fair amount of stuff going to be suddenly devolved - agriculture and fisheries etc - that presumably will mean some additional funds will have to be found to pay for it. Thank God for the £350m, eh?