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.
|
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
|
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.
|
That is exactly what OH and I say Caroline. They will be up s**t creek without a paddle :-D
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
Referendums & Parliamentary are incompatible.
Not much of an answer! :-S But I'm sure Rollo will fill in the historical blanks.
|
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
|