Why did Scotland mostly vote Remain?

You are little more than a region of a country at the minute.

Scotland is a COUNTRY in a political union. The same as England.

Scotland voted remain because the EU give them a lot of money, and they can't support themselves very well out of it

Then there's Northern Ireland. I don't know what NI thinks it will do. I doubt there is enough support for a united Ireland and what would the logistics be? The education system is totally different and people in Ireland have to pay for their health service - that would not be popular! The thought of NI going solo is a total joke.

People in Scotland and Northern Ireland have criticised English nationalism when they are stropping and asserting their own. If Scotland does go it alone, it will be Europe's ***** and probably still dependent on England in ways. Hypocrisy at its worst.

Is it self-sufficient? Scotland is little more independent than Wales and Wales is basically just an extension of England.

Remainers state that England will face problems without Europe - that's obvious. However, Scotland will face huge financial realities after it has stropped and asserted its nationalism. Unless concessions are made, Scotland will struggle as it benefits financially from the union.

Regardless, if we are in such a poor state as you seem to be suggesting, it is yet more evidence that the union isn't working for us.

If Scotland were to have a second referendum and vote to leave the UK, would they even be able to survive? As. 'The latest comprehensive snapshot concluded that Scotland was running a larger deficit as a percentage of economic output than the UK average.' this takes into account the money Scotland makes from taxes and the money the UK government gives to Scotland so without the UK they would just turn out to be the next ROI with huge public debt as a percentage of their GDP

Source: BBC News, HM Treasury

I'm sorry, that's just not true. Scotland has run a deficit- based on the Scottish Government's own figures - in 24 of the last 25 years. In one year of that, we were a net contributer to the UK - yes - but it wasn't even by much.



That doesn't really follow (plus, you'd then be making the reverse case in the last section I quoted: that the union is in fact good for Scotland's economy).

The reason is that we're talking about tax and spending, not the underlying economy. There is £15 billion more spent on public services for Scotland than is raised in taxes in Scotland. That tells you nothing at all about its economy. In this case, particularly, it is *******s - it actually represents the transfer of money from other parts of the United Kingdom to provide far higher levels of public spending in Scotland.


So we're presented with a very clear choice for an independent Scotland: raise taxes or cut public spending by billions of pounds. Both inevitably harm the economy - and at the levels we're talking here, it's the sort of harm that creates a very deep, very unpleasant recession.

Of course Scotland now runs a deficit- rUK has a deficit too.

Scotland's has actually been comparatively smaller in past years (before the fall in oil prices).

Being ruled by Tory governments we don't vote for, and being dragged out of the European Union against our wishes (and possibly plunged into a recession anyway)- is not democratic

There was absolutely no appetite for an EU referendum in Scotland in the first place.

Within Scotland there are political differences too. Support for remaining in the EU varied more in percentage terms within Scotland's 32 council areas than it did between Scotland and England. There are numerous parts of Scotland who have an SNP government "they didn't vote for", including the very place where the Scottish Parliament sits.

Political variation is normal across countries.

Here's a poll showing 58% of Scots wanted a referendum on membership of the EU. I don't think there's a single one out there that would suggest anything otherwise. A referendum was pretty popular across the UK.

Yes, it did for one year in the last quarter of a century. In every other year, we had a deficit - we contributed less in taxes than was spent on Scotland. If you're curious, that year was 2000-01 - when we were still running a smaller surplus, proportionately, than the UK as a whole.

All of this includes Scotland's full geographic oil and gas revenues. I wouldn't use figures that don't.



Indeed, but Scotland has a proportionately much greater deficit and the gap is not reducing. While the UK was looking at getting out of deficit by 2019, even the most optimistic long-term projections did not show this happening for Scotland any time in the foreseeable future.



Again, that's not the case. Figures for 2013-14 - ending at April 2014, long before the oil price fall - Scotland had a net fiscal balance of 8.8% of GDP, whereas for the UK it was 5.8% of GDP. That's a difference in cash terms of £4.6 billion.

There has been years where Scotland's relative fiscal balance has been in a better position than the UK as a whole (ie, we've had a lower proportionate deficit). Over the last 15 years, there has been two or three years where that was the case - depending on whether you measure per capita or by GDP (the second being the more credible). In any case, that's not being a "net contributer" - Scotland continued to see more public spending than it raised in taxes, no money went elsewhere.



I fail to see that. There are always parts of a country that vote different ways from others. The concept of democracy is one person, one vote: notably though, hundreds of thousands of Scots did vote for a Tory government, just like millions of others across the UK. Our votes are all equal.

Within Scotland there are political differences too. Support for remaining in the EU varied more in percentage terms within Scotland's 32 council areas than it did between Scotland and England. There are numerous parts of Scotland who have an SNP government "they didn't vote for", including the very place where the Scottish Parliament sits.

Political variation is normal across countries.



Here's a poll showing 58% of Scots wanted a referendum on membership of the EU. I don't think there's a single one out there that would suggest anything otherwise. A referendum was pretty popular across the UK.

In contrast you have a survey of just over a thousand people taking the answers only of people who answer a landline telephone and are prepared to complete a survey. Hardly the most ideal sampling method.

Whatever you or I think, it is highly likely that Scotland will hold a second referendum and it is pretty likely they will become independent. As a Scottish colleage told me, and he is far from unique in his viewpoint:

"It doesn't matter to be if we end up poorer. Scotland will be in control of its own destiny."

Well this report by the university of Glasgow shows Scotland has historically been in a a better fiscal position than rUK, having a surplus throughout the 80's and a smaller deficit than rUK in the years thereafter.

These figures also show Scotland to have higher revenues than expenditure (i'm sure there are other years too!):

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/03/1859
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/03/9525

I understand what you're saying about there being political differences across a country- of course there are. However, when the majority of a country votes for a political party and ends up being governed by another,or votes overwhelmingly in a referendum to no avail, I can't agree that that is democratic. Although this obviously depends on whether an individual relates to being Scottish or British.
Yes 58% said in a poll that they "wanted" an EU referendum, yet not enough to vote for a party that was offering one. It was not high on the list of priorities for Scottish voters.

I think we can safely say that it was the fairly substantial popular view in Scotland that there should be an EU referendum. I accept polls have limitations, but (1) it was a sizeable majority and (2) it chimes with what we know about public opinion. People like referendums, they don't necessarily have to support the change option to support one being called.

I'm sure he isn't unique, there are a lot of fairly terrible people out there. However the people I focus on tend to give a toss whether we can support the least fortunate in our society, whether we can provide people with stable employment, whether we can afford a health service.

Perhaps your colleague isn't actually malicious. I'm prepared to accept that. Perhaps he is either a straight-up idiot who has not made the connection between the national economy and the wellbeing of the public, or perhaps he's so blinded by nationalism that he's genuinely thinks that people plunged into poverty can be sustained by the skirl of the bagpipes and the belief in the greatness of the fatherland.

Nationalism of that type is the most corrosive and backward force ever to gain any popular currency.

I would suggest the opposite. That he would like to live in a Scotland that is able to decide exactly how it makes money and exactly how it spends money. He is not, of course, referring to making everyone poorer, just those in his position.

You don't know enough of his politics to make such damning judgements, and you should really be intelligent enough to have seen that in the first place.