General Chat

Can someone explain to me when Nicola Surgeon says that the people of Scotland want Indy Ref 2 to prove that the majority want an independent Scotland, does this mean all people living in Scotland are classed as Scottish?

I say this because I have lived in Scotland for nearly 27 years but I'm English and British. I am in favour of the union and voted the first time to stay in the union.
If you removed all the non Scottish people from this area, there would probably not be that many people left.

When she speaks of Scotland should only be voting on matters that affect them and therefore England as in Westminster basically shouldn't have a say in Scottish matters. So how does that work when many people living in Scotland are not Scottish but many other nationalities?

If Scotland were to gain independence from the rest of the uk then as an English woman, would I have to apply for citizenship?

Florence in the hebrides
:-S

Referendums & Parliamentary are incompatible.

Not much of an answer! :-S But I'm sure Rollo will fill in the historical blanks.

The answer to your last sentence is that nobody knows - I doubt that Nicola Sturgeon has thought that far ahead.

Regarding the rest, as residents of the country, Scottish or not, and paying Scottish taxes, we should have a say in what goes on. Apart from Westminster having to give permission for a referendum, nobody living outside Scotland, even Scots, has any say in Scottish affairs.

I also think that it's high time England had a "devolved" assembly of some sort, to deal with purely English affairs, instead of it all being done at Westminster, with the SNP, Plaid Cymru et al having a say.

Johnson's govt has decided to take back all of the devolved powers from 1 Jan 2021 and then decide which if any can be returned to Scots control and to what extent. The Scottish Parliament strongly objected to this as it takes a cart and horses through devolution. For the moment each Edinburgh ministry has an overseer from London.

It is a general principal of any civil contract and international treaties that should there be a material change then the Treaty may be abrogated or be subject to change. Pretty obviously that has happened with the Treaty of Rome, Treat of Lisbon as a result of brexit. It takes two to tango.

In the case of Scotland there are two issues.

(1) Is brexit a material change demanding that S30 for another referendum be granted? At the time of the Scottish Indie Ref it looked likely that the UK would vote to remain in the EU. The SNP argued forcibly that if it did not then that would be "a material change". Such statements by those in high office are usually taken into account with legal disputes.

(2) The UK is a founding signatory to the United Nations charter. Article 1 states that "All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.". 'People' has generally been taken over the years to mean a nation. Who could deny that the Scots are a nation?

Scotland has the right to go to law at the International Court at the Hague using both of the arguments I have set out. As the UK is a UN Member it would have to accept any decision made which would probably go in favour of Edinburgh.

So that makes things easy for the SNP then ? No, not really. There are any amount of legal ins and outs to be considered, proofs, precedents, etc etc such that getting a decision quickly would be very unlikely. Several years at best and most likely 10-20 years if London dragged its feet. That is why Sturgeon is pushing for a s30 permission. Nevertheless the shadow of court action is there. Such action would do London's already threadbare reputation little good.

On a practical level the SNP needs to accomodate the UK nukes and generally enter into a close defence arrangement,and not try to hijack the £ .

Scotland would become a member of the British Isles freedom of movement treaty along with the ROI . ROI citizens resident in the UK have full rights of residence, voting and can stand as MPs all as ROI citizens. ROI citizens not resident in te ROI cannot vote there.

This kind of referendum is usually restricted to people actually resident in the location at the time of the referendum not the diaspora. If there was to be a second IndieRef then the 16-18 age group wouild get to vote as before. All citizens of the UK and ROI resident in Scotland would be able to vote as in the first IndieRef.

The history of Ireland 1880-1922 suggests that if a majority of Scots wish to leave the UK then they will by one means or another. All of the main three largest English parties are against another Scots referendum for the following reasons:
1. Leave would win
2. They want the seats at Westminster ( all three believe the SNP are a temporary phenomenon)
3. Loss of territory and population and near certain loss of the UK seat on the UN Security Council
4. Scotland joining the EU.
5. Could provoke N.I. into leaving as well.

My own feeling is that so long as Johnson is PM the Scots will not get their S30, London will increasingly override devolution and there will be any amount of rancour. Maybe the SNP will be added to the terrorist list and their MPs imprisoned in Belmarsh for deradicalisation.

One of my GF was born in Moffat, Galloway so I am easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNRqibe96_g

Let them separate and stop the monies from London going to them, then they can ask the EU to join and see how far that gets them....and yes I speak as one who has very strong Scottish roots more than a GF. the only trouble is last time so many jobs were dumped up there to buy votes.

That is exactly what OH and I say Caroline. They will be up s**t creek without a paddle :-D

Brexiters can never see that supporting brexit for the UK ( dragging an unwilling NI and Scotland along with them) is at odds with opposing the same thing for Scotland.

As was pointed out by Frost in Brussels last week the main arguments for brexit were and are political ; the numbers will just have to fall in ex post facto. If they don't then we will be living in interesting times.

The Scots, especially those under 40, just don't see themselves as "British" any more and want out. Plenty of people with influence, not politicians, in Scotland see the tie with London as something that holds the country back. The country's debt as a % of GDP is now around the same as London's albeit higher than most of euroland . It has come down every year for the past five years.

The new immigration rules have gone down very badly in Scotland as lack of people is the country's single biggest problem.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-01/scottish-independence-is-back-and-so-are-the-financial-hurdles

For myself I feel that on balance, despite the many injustices, that the Union has benefited both counries.

The current problems lie in London refusing to act according to the terms of the devolution settlement. Eventually, as Mr Frost made clear in Brussels, politics outweigh economics. Despite the advantages of the union for both countries they have fallen out of love and divorce is very much on the cards.

Johnson is pretty experienced on divorce settlements and expulsions so I would not hold my breath for the sight of spring flowers of peace and joy or S30 lambs gamboling in the meadow. 79% of Tory members don't care if Scotland and N.I. leave the Union or not.

fwiw the term "British" was invented during the C19 orginally to give some sort of justification for the Scots blood shed in the Crimea. Few residents of Lanarkshire thought much of Rudyard Kipling.

The EU have already said they don't want them as members if they were to get independence they would have very little money to add to their pot

If they welcomed them then it's a big kettle of fish they'll be stirring for other small countries. Scotland brings nothing but will ask for something from the EU...and weren't they just working out which countries need to pay more now the UK is going.
Right now Scotland has it good....they get better medical help than in England for instance.

I agree with you Caroline. If they want independence they must pay there own way and not get benefits from us .

Young Scots, who wish to pass their Highers, are expected to be able to spell English correctly. It seems that any old thing will do south of the border.

Sir John Cheke (16 June 1514 – 13 September 1557) was an English classical scholar who wrote:

‘I am of this opinion that our own tung should be written cleane and pure, unmixt and unmangeled with borowing of other tunges; wherein if we take not heed by tiim, ever borowing and never paying, she shall be fain to keep her house as bankrupt‘.

I just give my tongue free rein at times, Dermot.

Not in my house, it didn't, Rollo.

;-)

NS is best ignored not all Scots want independence.

Emma :-D

"Are referendums good for democracy?"

(BBC Radio 4 programme not too long ago).

Sorry I haven't been back on my thread. Ive had internet problems!!!

I have to agree with Emma :-D

Another referendum will cost a lot more money that could be put to better use .
The potholes up here are really awful and dangerous and our local council are cutting back on the budget to repair roads yet I read yesterday they are gong to hike the council tax by 5%!!

Some of our bins too are only going to be emptied every 5 weeks very soon...So if your recycled bin is full up and you are not mobile to drive to a recycling site, then where exactly are you supposed to put the rubbish?

Florence in the hebrides

Just another thought. If Scotland do get independence then it would mean, a scottish Army, Navy and Airforce and therefore no longer a British variety of Services.
If we went to war at any time instead of having the best of British to fight for us, we would have smaller and less effective army etc...
Even worse to think then we could end up fighting each other!!!!

We are better together in every sense of the word.
Scotland as an independent country is not financially viable to support itself.
After the last ref, the oil and gas prices crashed and it was said that if Scotland had one the ref, they would have been bankrupt over night.

Florence in the hebrides

In the event of Scottish independence a Scottish army, air force etc would be unlikely. The Queen would still be Queen of Scotland (albeit QE1 not 2 ) as she is of, say, Canada which has the RCAF etc. Some sort of defence treaty would be sorted out. The nukes at Faslane are something the SNP would have to get used to, probably sweetened by a generous rental deal.

Lots of small countries are independant and manage perfectly well - eg Iceland, ROI, Portugal, Malta, Cyprus, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Baltics.

Rubbishing Scottish independance, especially by sasssenachs, simply winds up the nationalists. A far better approach is to promote all of the many things that make the Union the better choice for both parties.

For that to work the UK govt in London must treat Scotland as an equal partner not some sort of colony. Since 1914 that has been true for the most part.
However if Johnson persists in his current policies he may well provoke a split.

The current situation is very much like Ireland in 1916-1922. The chief differences are that this time the issue will be decided by a referendum not the Maxim machine gun and summary executions. I rather doubt that Rangers FC and their fans would fill in for the Ulster Unionists and a red right hand..