Scottish Independence referendum 2023

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

This is another scenario that will almost certainly never take place.

When the UK Government passed special temporary legislation to permit the 2014 referendum, it was done on the strict basis that this would be a “once in a generation” vote. There is zero appetite to abandon that condition. Bear in mind that two major Westminster parties both vehemently oppose Scottish independence: wrt the Conservative Party - full title “The Conservative and Unionist Party” - the clue is in the name; regarding the Labour Party, they know it would become very significantly more difficult for them ever to hold a majority in a UK-less-Scotland legislature, because of the number of Scottish-constituency Labour MPs in the current UK Parliament.

That’s why I argue that the only course of action for Holyrood with any chance at all of success would be to force the hand of the UK Parliament into granting a new IndyRef, through implicit threats and populist ground-level tactics. But I’d also argue that a) things could end up very badly indeed for Scotland if they tried this approach (and I think they probably know this already) and therefore b) I don’t think this will happen in practice.

One issue here is that back in 2014 one of the main arguments against independence, coming from England, was that the only way for the Scottish to remain in the EU, was by staying in the UK. This was really hammered in the messages coming from London.
An argument, which can be debated, but, at face value at least, is a valid one.
And then, after the independence vote was finished, London immediately betrayed this all with starting the entire Brexit thing.

Why should the Scottish believe anything that comes out of England?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by erwinl

One issue here is that back in 2014 one of the main arguments against independence, coming from England, was that the only way for the Scottish to remain in the EU, was by staying in the UK. This was really hammered in the messages coming from London.
An argument, which can be debated, but, at face value at least, is a valid one.
And then, after the independence vote was finished, London immediately betrayed this all with starting the entire Brexit thing.

Why should the Scottish believe anything that comes out of England?

I don't think that bit is strictly true. At the time of the independence referendum it was already Tory party policy that if they won the next election they would hold a referendum on EU membership, so the Brexit clown show was started before Indyref 1 was finished.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

I don't think that bit is strictly true. At the time of the independence referendum it was already Tory party policy that if they won the next election they would hold a referendum on EU membership, so the Brexit clown show was started before Indyref 1 was finished.

Oh, I didn't know that.
I'm seeing this from the other side of the pond, so those things I might very well miss.

[Norman Alexander]

I would ask: WHY does Scotland want independence? What is the goal here? To tell every sassenach to fook off? Or is it something else?

For example, is it to re-engage more closely with the EU, separately from England? Negotiate their own trade agreements with the EU, or even attain some form of membership? Perhaps have a Scottish MEP? If so, what is preventing that happening despite still being "part of the UK"?

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

I would ask: WHY does Scotland want independence? What is the goal here? To tell every sassenach to fook off? Or is it something else?

For example, is it to re-engage more closely with the EU, separately from England? Negotiate their own trade agreements with the EU, or even attain some form of membership? Perhaps have a Scottish MEP? If so, what is preventing that happening despite still being "part of the UK"?

What is preventing them, are the ENglish, who do not want to work together with other countries, other than when they can dictate to those other countries.
You know. The exact reason for that whole Brexit mess. Good old English xenophobia.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

I would ask: WHY does Scotland want independence? What is the goal here? To tell every sassenach to fook off? Or is it something else?

For example, is it to re-engage more closely with the EU, separately from England? Negotiate their own trade agreements with the EU, or even attain some form of membership? Perhaps have a Scottish MEP? If so, what is preventing that happening despite still being "part of the UK"?

An argument I have seen is that Scotland is now too different from the rest of the UK England for a harmonious union to be possible. Scotland needs and welcomes immigrants, the English believe that wogs begin in Calais. Scotland would like Northern European Social-Democratic government, the English want a libertarian free-for-all. Scotland would like to protect workers and the environment, the English are happy to hurtle to the bottom.

Some powers are devolved to Scotland but not enough to make enough of a difference.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by The Don

An argument I have seen is that Scotland is now too different from the rest of the UK England for a harmonious union to be possible. Scotland needs and welcomes immigrants, the English believe that wogs begin in Calais Dover.
Scotland would like Northern European Social-Democratic government, the English want a libertarian free-for-all. Scotland would like to protect workers and the environment, the English are happy to hurtle to the bottom.

Some powers are devolved to Scotland but not enough to make enough of a difference.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by The Don

An argument I have seen is that Scotland is now too different from the rest of the UK England for a harmonious union to be possible. Scotland needs and welcomes immigrants, the English believe that wogs begin in Calais. Scotland would like Northern European Social-Democratic government, the English want a libertarian free-for-all. Scotland would like to protect workers and the environment, the English are happy to hurtle to the bottom.

Some powers are devolved to Scotland but not enough to make enough of a difference.

Wow. Socialist blinkers much?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Wow. Socialist blinkers much?

Nah, not Socialism, Remainderism.

[LondonJohn]

(And on just one point from that diatribe: I imagine, for example, that if a point on the coast of Scotland were close enough to France for people-traffickers to send over uncontrolled waves of boats predominantly full of economic migrants, with the French authorities not exactly unhappy to see them off at the coast….. Scotland might approach the matter in a similar way. Or do you believe that literally any economic migrant should have the right to come to the UK in an entirely uncontrolled manner? Should we perhaps abolish all borders controls into the UK?)

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Nah, not Socialism, Remainderism.

Only one of those points had any relevance/link to Brexit.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

(And on just one point from that diatribe: I imagine, for example, that if a point on the coast of Scotland were close enough to France for people-traffickers to send over uncontrolled waves of boats predominantly full of economic migrants, with the French authorities not exactly unhappy to see them off at the coast….. Scotland might approach the matter in a similar way. Or do you believe that literally any economic migrant should have the right to come to the UK in an entirely uncontrolled manner? Should we perhaps abolish all borders controls into the UK?)

I guess the solution is the same as England has done: building a wall in the English Channel to stop the socialist sponging economic migrants getting in.

What a pity this same wall is really only effective at stifling British trade with their closest and biggest trading partner.

Anyway. You were saying: border controls? Do go on.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

(And on just one point from that diatribe: I imagine, for example, that if a point on the coast of Scotland were close enough to France for people-traffickers to send over uncontrolled waves of boats predominantly full of economic migrants, with the French authorities not exactly unhappy to see them off at the coast….. Scotland might approach the matter in a similar way. Or do you believe that literally any economic migrant should have the right to come to the UK in an entirely uncontrolled manner? Should we perhaps abolish all borders controls into the UK?)

This is used as a term to scare the horses, Economic Migrants whoooooooooo!!

Economic migrants are highly motivated people who are willing to take immense risks to come to a country and work. A less blinkered populace would welcome them, they seem like exactly the sort of people you'd want to come to a country.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

(And on just one point from that diatribe: I imagine, for example, that if a point on the coast of Scotland were close enough to France for people-traffickers to send over uncontrolled waves of boats predominantly full of economic migrants, with the French authorities not exactly unhappy to see them off at the coast….. Scotland might approach the matter in a similar way. Or do you believe that literally any economic migrant should have the right to come to the UK in an entirely uncontrolled manner? Should we perhaps abolish all borders controls into the UK?)

Apparently that doesn't happen in England either.
Cite for the highlighted? Not from a Daily Mail editorial, Suella Braverman or Priti Patel please.

[FatherLukeduke]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Apparently that doesn't happen in England either.
Cite for the highlighted? Not from a Daily Mail editorial, Suella Braverman or Priti Patel please.

Times they are a-changing:

Quote:

The make-up of people on small boats has been changing. From January 2018 to June 2022, Iranian (28%) and Iraqi (20%) nationals represented nearly half of all small boat arrivals. In the first six months of 2022, over half (51%) of small boat arrivals were from three nationalities – Albanian (18%), Afghan (18%) and Iranian (15%).

However, since May 2022, there has been a significant increase in the number of Albanians crossing the channel on small boats. From May to September 2022 Albanian nationals alone comprised 42% of small boat crossings, with 11,102 Albanians arriving by small boat in those five months. In contrast, over the whole of 2021 there were a total of 815 Albanian nationals who arrived by this method. In some weeks over the summer, more than half of small boat arrivals claimed to be Albanian.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...ince-july-2022

I'm not sure the whole "x percent were granted asylum therefore they aren't economic migrants" is completely valid. Many people are destroying papers to obscure where they are from and are coached to answer the questions in such a way that it is very difficult to deny asylum. It is also difficult to separate out the reason why someone might want to escape their home country - economic destitution and political instability are often strongly correlated.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by FatherLukeduke

Times they are a-changing:


https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...ince-july-2022

I'm not sure the whole "x percent were granted asylum therefore they aren't economic migrants" is completely valid. Many people are destroying papers to obscure where they are from and are coached to answer the questions in such a way that it is very difficult to deny asylum. It is also difficult to separate out the reason why someone might want to escape their home country - economic destitution and political instability are often strongly correlated.

Careful - you’ll be considered a paid-up member of the racist “wogs begin in Calais” mob with this sort of good-quality primary-source evidence…..

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by The Don

This is used as a term to scare the horses, Economic Migrants whoooooooooo!!

Economic migrants are highly motivated people who are willing to take immense risks to come to a country and work. A less blinkered populace would welcome them, they seem like exactly the sort of people you'd want to come to a country.

So… would your position be - as it logically should - that the UK should let pretty much anybody into the country if they are motivated enough to make the journey? Because I’m frankly baffled by your apparent reasoning that if a person is willing to take the risk of one of those gangmaster boat trips, this should somehow necessarily qualify them for UK entry (and all in an entirely uncontrolled, unfocussed and non-needs-driven way, of course).

Do you perhaps think there are also entirely logical and appropriate reasons that countries such as U.S.A., Australia or NZ - all of whom, like the UK, have a long history of controlled immigration, often in fairly high numbers - could not and cannot countenance uncontrolled immigration by people who are not genuinely seeking asylum?

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

This is another scenario that will almost certainly never take place.

When the UK Government passed special temporary legislation to permit the 2014 referendum, it was done on the strict basis that this would be a “once in a generation” vote. There is zero appetite to abandon that condition. Bear in mind that two major Westminster parties both vehemently oppose Scottish independence: wrt the Conservative Party - full title “The Conservative and Unionist Party” - the clue is in the name; regarding the Labour Party, they know it would become very significantly more difficult for them ever to hold a majority in a UK-less-Scotland legislature, because of the number of Scottish-constituency Labour MPs in the current UK Parliament.

That’s why I argue that the only course of action for Holyrood with any chance at all of success would be to force the hand of the UK Parliament into granting a new IndyRef, through implicit threats and populist ground-level tactics. But I’d also argue that a) things could end up very badly indeed for Scotland if they tried this approach (and I think they probably know this already) and therefore b) I don’t think this will happen in practice.

If nobody wins an absolute majority at the next general election and the SNP holds the balance of power, then I could see Labour doing the deal. i.e. form a coalition with the SNP in exchange for a referendum. That's not a scenario that look likely at the moment though.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

So… would your position be - as it logically should - that the UK should let pretty much anybody into the country if they are motivated enough to make the journey? Because I’m frankly baffled by your apparent reasoning that if a person is willing to take the risk of one of those gangmaster boat trips, this should somehow necessarily qualify them for UK entry (and all in an entirely uncontrolled, unfocussed and non-needs-driven way, of course).

Sure, why not ?

Subject of course to immigration checks to try to make sure that those arriving do not present a threat to the state because they are terrorists or dangerous criminals.

The right wing press likes to present the spectre of hordes of immigrants coming and destroying the country. The evidence appears to be that immigrants provide a significant economic benefit.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Do you perhaps think there are also entirely logical and appropriate reasons that countries such as U.S.A., Australia or NZ - all of whom, like the UK, have a long history of controlled immigration, often in fairly high numbers - could not and cannot countenance uncontrolled immigration by people who are not genuinely seeking asylum?

I'd turn the question the other way around. What is the rationale for tight control over immigration ?

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by The Don

An argument I have seen is that Scotland is now too different from the rest of the UK England for a harmonious union to be possible. Scotland needs and welcomes immigrants, the English believe that wogs begin in Calais. Scotland would like Northern European Social-Democratic government, the English want a libertarian free-for-all. Scotland would like to protect workers and the environment, the English are happy to hurtle to the bottom.

Some powers are devolved to Scotland but not enough to make enough of a difference.

This is a generalisation. Not all Scots adhere to the above stereotype. More than 30% voted for Brexit.

Not all English adhere to the above stereotype either. I certainly don't. I voted Remain and, to answer LondonJohn's question. Yes, I think we should allow any economic migrant to come and live and work here. I would refuse entry only to those with criminal records. I've seen at first hand (well from the point of view of an IT supplier) how much money we are spending on trying to keep out the foreigners. I can't see how it would be less expensive to let them in and spend it on the required infrastructure updates instead.

[Olmstead]

What was wrong with the immigration approach under the EU anyway? You'd think Germany would be in ruins by now. They don't even have a moat!

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

What was wrong with the immigration approach under the EU anyway? You'd think Germany would be in ruins by now. They don't even have a moat!

Typically, the Brexiteers were worried that foreigners (mainly from Eastern Europe) would come here and take their jobs and sponge off our welfare state at the same time. There was also a scare that Turkey would join the EU and then lots of Muslims would come here and take our jobs and all Muslims are terrorists.

It was all lies though. Generally, immigrants contribute more to our economy than they take out and Turkey is not joining the EU any time soon and the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Furthermore, in times of trouble, the relationship worked in reverse. In the 1980's when the British economy was in trouble, a lot of British people went abroad to work in places like West Germany.

I'm still pretty bitter about Brexit and I don't blame the Scottish Nationalists from wanting to leave the UK to get back into the EU, even though I think Scottish independence would be even more of a **** show than Brexit was.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Typically, the Brexiteers were worried that foreigners (mainly from Eastern Europe) would come here and take their jobs and sponge off our welfare state at the same time. There was also a scare that Turkey would join the EU and then lots of Muslims would come here and take our jobs and all Muslims are terrorists.

It was all lies though. Generally, immigrants contribute more to our economy than they take out and Turkey is not joining the EU any time soon and the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Furthermore, in times of trouble, the relationship worked in reverse. In the 1980's when the British economy was in trouble, a lot of British people went abroad to work in places like West Germany.

I'm still pretty bitter about Brexit and I don't blame the Scottish Nationalists from wanting to leave the UK to get back into the EU, even though I think Scottish independence would be even more of a **** show than Brexit was.

IMO a good summary of the Brexit mindset. Under the unicorns and rainbows Brexit, British people could still continue to work in the EU.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by The Don

IMO a good summary of the Brexit mindset. Under the unicorns and rainbows Brexit, British people could still continue to work in the EU.

And of course, the foreigners are taking our jobs anyway. Because our businesses are no longer competitive thanks to Brexit, the jobs are going to where the foreigners are instead of the foreigners coming to where the jobs are.

[FatherLukeduke]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

What was wrong with the immigration approach under the EU anyway?

Which is what exactly? Freedom of movement for citizens of member states, but build massive militarised walls to keep the poorer, browner less Christian citizens out?

Oh, and any that do get past the border controls get shovelled onto squalid prison islands off the Greek mainland. Facts that pro-EU, pro-immigration people never even seem to mention, while making out the UK as some kind of xenophobic, racist hell-hole (which for some mad reason people still want to get into).

While I don't have much sympathy for our clownish government, or frothing at the mouth Daily Mail commentary that demonises desperate people. I do believe the UK is only trying to do what every nation state (or supranational state in the case of the EU) is trying to do: control who crosses our borders.

I agree immigration can be beneficial, even vital, that doesn't mean a free for all. I suspect most Scots would agree. Suggesting only immigration test should be whether you actually made it here is just silly.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by FatherLukeduke

Which is what exactly? Freedom of movement for citizens of member states, but build massive militarised walls to keep the poorer, browner less Christian citizens out?

Oh, and any that do get past the border controls get shovelled onto squalid prison islands off the Greek mainland. Facts that pro-EU, pro-immigration people never even seem to mention, while making out the UK as some kind of xenophobic, racist hell-hole (which for some mad reason people still want to get into).

While I don't have much sympathy for our clownish government, or frothing at the mouth Daily Mail commentary that demonises desperate people. I do believe the UK is only trying to do what every nation state (or supranational state in the case of the EU) is trying to do: control who crosses our borders.

I agree immigration can be beneficial, even vital, that doesn't mean a free for all. I suspect most Scots would agree. Suggesting only immigration test should be whether you actually made it here is just silly.

If it was all so inconsequential, why put "taking control of our borders" front and centre in the Brexit campaign then?

Maybe now that all the lies are apparent, Scotland would like the benefits back.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

full of economic migrants

If applicants don't legitimately qualify for refugee status it's perfectly legal to deport them to their original country of origin.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

French authorities not exactly unhappy to see them off at the coast…..

The International Declaration on Human Rights prohibits countries from preventing people for leaving.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Scotland might approach the matter in a similar way.

Why?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Wow. Socialist blinkers much?

Not for actual Socialism. If you buy into to the right wing redefinition of Socialism, maybe but it isn't at all clear that this new redefined "Socialism" carries any of the problems of actual Socialism.

[FatherLukeduke]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

If it was all so inconsequential, why put "taking control of our borders" front and centre in the Brexit campaign then?

If all what was so in inconsequential? Immigration is highly consequential - I'm not sure I understand your point.

Quote:

Maybe now that all the lies are apparent, Scotland would like the benefits back.

I voted to stay in the EU, as I thought breaking an union with our biggest trading partners, that sit right on our doorstep, would be crazy. Giving up some of our sovereignty was worth the benefits.

Which is where I personally see the contradiction at the hear of the Scottish independence movement - they want to do exactly the same thing. Leave a union with their biggest trading (and cultural) partner so they can gain some sovereignty. Except, of course, after 300 years of union Scotland is far more intertwined with the UK than the UK ever was with the EU.

Doesn't the UK leaving the EU make Scottish independence even more tricky if Scotland somehow then gets back in the EU? Wouldn't this mean a hard border with England? How could that possibly not be a Very Bad Thing?

[Norman Alexander]

My original question was: Can Scotland have a closer relationship, even the previous "normal" one, with the EU separately from England and without independence from the UK? Is being tied to recalcitrant England a barrier to this?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

My original question was: Can Scotland have a closer relationship, even the previous "normal" one, with the EU separately from England and without independence from the UK? Is being tied to recalcitrant England a barrier to this?

Yes it is.

A closer relationship would require Scotland to make changes with respect to movement of people, adherence to EU legislation, following EU standards and recognising the role of the European Court and so on which is beyond the scope of Scottish devolution

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by FatherLukeduke

.

Doesn't the UK leaving the EU make Scottish independence even more tricky if Scotland somehow then gets back in the EU? Wouldn't this mean a hard border with England? How could that possibly not be a Very Bad Thing?

It would mean a hard border. I am also pretty sure new members of the EU need to join Schengen so visitors from England would need
Visa application form. Fully completed and signed.
Two recently taken photos must be attached. ...
A valid passport. ...
Round trip reservation or itinerary. ...
Travel insurance policy. ...
Proof of accommodation. ...
Proof of financial means. ..or
Proof of paid visa fee

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

My original question was: Can Scotland have a closer relationship, even the previous "normal" one, with the EU separately from England and without independence from the UK? Is being tied to recalcitrant England a barrier to this?

It can and would have a closer relationship. The UK had 4 opt outs from the EU
Schengen Area
Economic and Monetary Union
Charter of Fundamental Rights
Area of freedom, security and justice
I doubt Scotland would be allowed the same.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

(And on just one point from that diatribe: I imagine, for example, that if a point on the coast of Scotland were close enough to France for people-traffickers to send over uncontrolled waves of boats predominantly full of economic migrants, with the French authorities not exactly unhappy to see them off at the coast….. Scotland might approach the matter in a similar way. Or do you believe that literally any economic migrant should have the right to come to the UK in an entirely uncontrolled manner? Should we perhaps abolish all borders controls into the UK?)

A Scotland in the EU could, if it wanted, return migrants arriving from France under the Dublin agreement.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Lothian

A Scotland in the EU could, if it wanted, return migrants arriving from France under the Dublin agreement.

Or it could just bus them straight to the border with England

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Or it could just bus them straight to the border with England

Whilest receiving £ms from England for "preventing" people crossing

[Norman Alexander]

Would any Scots trying to cross this hard border at Hadrian's Wall become "economic migrants"?

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Would any Scots trying to cross this hard border at Hadrian's Wall become "economic migrants"?

if they are crossing at Hadrian's wall they
are already deep into England. They could be economic migrants, asylum seekers, students, tourists, or business visitors which is why the hard border would be needed.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by FatherLukeduke

Which is what exactly? Freedom of movement for citizens of member states, but build massive militarised walls to keep the poorer, browner less Christian citizens out?

Oh, and any that do get past the border controls get shovelled onto squalid prison islands off the Greek mainland. Facts that pro-EU, pro-immigration people never even seem to mention, while making out the UK as some kind of xenophobic, racist hell-hole (which for some mad reason people still want to get into).

While I don't have much sympathy for our clownish government, or frothing at the mouth Daily Mail commentary that demonises desperate people. I do believe the UK is only trying to do what every nation state (or supranational state in the case of the EU) is trying to do: control who crosses our borders.

I agree immigration can be beneficial, even vital, that doesn't mean a free for all. I suspect most Scots would agree. Suggesting only immigration test should be whether you actually made it here is just silly.

This is, almost to a T, my exact viewpoint as well.

(And, by way of disclosure, I was pro-remain (albeit with significant EU reform in several key areas); I played a - albeit pretty minor - role in the Remain campaign, and I consider it a huge mistake that the majority of voters chose Leave.)

ETA: rookie-error repetition of “albeit”

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

[…] I consider it a huge mistake that the majority of voters chose Leave.

This reminds me of an issue that is rarely raised: Such polls tend to end up in two roughly equal parts. I believe that momentous decisions, such as leaving EU, or Scottish independence should not be decided by a simple majority, but by a larger majority, such as 60% or even more. Polls that end in 51 vs. 49, such as most do, has a huge consequence where almost half of the population is against.

As a Dane, i.e. an outsider, I do not have any real opinion on whether Scotland should be independent, but I do think it would be tragic if such a decision was taken with almost half of Scots being against it. Conservatism should rule.