Is Scottish independence more likely now and if so why?

I honestly can't see why as none of the issues with independence raised in 2014 have gone away or been fixed.

Scroll to see replies

As a supporter I'm a bit pessimistic about the likelihood of Scottish independence, but I think what's been more significant is that the attraction of staying in the UK has been reduced dramatically with Brexit and then its handling of coronavirus.

I think coronavirus will turn out to be a turning point in the way devolution is seen in both Scotland and Wales, in that the governments there have been exercising sweeping powers that many people didn't necessarily expect they had, and most people think they've done a better job of using them than the UK government has.

Reply 2

jbt1

Original post by Saracen's Fez

I would agree with you on the point of devolution and I fully support devolution, however better governance (although the SNP track records not the best) isn't a call for independence as it doesn't address practice issues.

When looked at properly Scotland has gained so much from being in the UK during the coronavirus pandemic and will continue to benefit into the future through spending for example. The problem with the benefit we get from the Union is it's not very dramatic or appealing in the sense that people aren't as interested in gaining X amount of money as they are the idea of self governance. The thing Unionists need to focus on now is demonstrating the benefit that is given, because a lot of it I feel is very 'covert' so to say.

Reply 3

Tomrosenburg121

If Scotland wants its own independence and leave the United Kingdom, then goodbye.

Reply 4

jbt1

Original post by Tomrosenburg121

If Scotland wants its own independence and leave the United Kingdom, then goodbye.

Yes that's what i'm talking about. Do you think it is more likely now that Scotland would vote for independence?

Reply 5

Tomrosenburg121

Original post by jbt1

Yes that's what i'm talking about. Do you think it is more likely now that Scotland would vote for independence?

Probably, then again I already thought those cards were on the table.

Reply 6

jbt1

Original post by Tomrosenburg121

Probably, then again I already thought those cards were on the table.

I recon that people are reacting on an emotional level to independence, but once the practice issues for which people voted no in 2014 for are demonstrated to still exist then I think it will go away. The main issue is that the SNP are always campaigning for independence whilst there isn't the same level of constant campaigning for remaining in the Union. To me that means that it is impossible to tell right now what a possible vote for independence would be.

Reply 7

Saracen's Fez

Original post by jbt1

I honestly don't understand why people think that the state spending over coronavirus is something special about the UK. All of Europe has done more or less the same, and I don't see why an independent Scotland would have been the exception?

Reply 8

Burridge

The demand for Scottish independence has grown markedly since the 2014 referendum. Brexit and the handling of COVID are two factors that have contributed towards this. 3 in 4 Scots believe that their government is handling the Covid crisis well - this will only give Scot's greater faith in autonomy.

That doesn't answer the question of whether independence is more likely though. The Conservative party, in office until 2024 and with a ~80 seat majority, have reaffirmed their stance that independence was settled 6 years ago and there will be no re-run of the referendum. Labour's position is a little more opaque but also aren't in favour of a re-run. Neither of the two major parties want another referendum - sadly, it's only Westminster that can sanction that.

There's more of an appetite for independence amongst the public but that doesn't necessarily mean independence is more likely.

Reply 9

jbt1

Original post by Saracen's Fez

I'm not arguing that Scotland wouldn't have had any spending on Corona, but look at the bigger picture. Scotland receives more than 10 billion from the UK to fund public services, something that would go away with independence.

Reply 10

username1148663

Original post by jbt1

I honestly can't see why as none of the issues with independence raised in 2014 have gone away or been fixed.

It’s not more likely.

Westminster has to allow a second vote and I doubt they will until something like 2040

Reply 11

fallen_acorns

The only thing that will drastically change the chances of Scottish independence is if the EU gets behind it and offers them a fast track straight back in..

Without that the problems are still the same if not worse than in 2014. That doesn't mean people want it less.. I suspect more people want independence from back then, but there is a difference between wanting it and thinking it is possible and a good idea. I suspect, more people want it in principle, but less think its a workable idea.

Reply 12

Saracen's Fez

Original post by jbt1

This is the point though: tax and spend isn't exclusive to the UK, and nor is a furlough scheme. An independent Scotland would collect and spend taxes and borrow money in the same way as any other country, the money just wouldn't come via London.

It feels like the language of benevolence has come back into the devolution debate, and we've gone back to 'look how generous the UK are being by funding public services in Scotland', rather than accepting that people in Scotland are also taxpayers and business owners who want public services, and may or may not feel that they no longer want their money to be cycled via London in doing so.

Reply 13

Gundabad(good)

Original post by jbt1

I honestly can't see why as none of the issues with independence raised in 2014 have gone away or been fixed.

More likely because the SNP now have Brexit as another excuse to leave.

Reply 14

username402722

There is a majority in the UK parliament of the so-called Conservative and Unionist Party. Who will never agree to Indyref 2, however strong the support in Scotland for independence, or indeed the support elsewhere in the UK. So no chance before 2025 or even later.

The case may be stronger, at least culturally, but that will make no difference.

Reply 15

fallen_acorns

Original post by Saracen's Fez

Your right that the money gets cycled through London.. the bit your missing out though is that while its traveling through London a good chunk is added, and more gets sent back then London received in the first place.

Yes, an independent Scotland could have done their own furlough and spending schemes, but they would have had to borrow far more then the UK did to match what the current situation because their relative tax income will shrink as soon as they loose the contribution that comes from England.

The language of benevolence exists, because London (and specifically London, as most regions of the UK except London also run a deficit) subsidizes Scotland.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 16

Saracen's Fez

Original post by fallen_acorns

And it's perfectly reasonable for Scotland to think that if it had full control of its finances and wasn't operating with one hand tied behind its back, it would be able to act in the interests of its own economy and boost it – not so much too poor to be independent but too poor not to be independent.

Reply 17

L i b

Original post by Saracen's Fez

Let's be realistic, if Scotland had voted for independence now, it'd have already had a £10bn+ hole in its finances - added to by the slump in the oil industry taking away one of the big-ticket revenue raisers that Scotland has. It'd have inevitable sterlingised as the rhetoric around a currency union would've been exposed as nonsense, and been left without a central bank, trying to build up foreign currency reserves and with significant flight of financial services and other sectors. Its credit rating would've been in the toilet and would already have required very significant borrowing.

Scotland would be uniquely placed because it would've been the only country in Europe daft enough to have committed a national act of hari-kari. Choices have consequences, and if we're going to pretend that Scotland would've toddled along just fine after that, then it's nothing more than a fantasy.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 18

L i b

Original post by jbt1

I honestly can't see why as none of the issues with independence raised in 2014 have gone away or been fixed.

That's to fundamentally misunderstand the appeal of nationalism: it's not a position that people reason themselves into. It's not an ideology that considers things in a dispassionate analysis, it's one that says "come with us, we'll restore your honour" or "let's get one over on them, even if it does hurt us - we'll be making our own decisions".

Take Brexit. On a proper balance, it ruined the 2014 case for independence: no chance of a shared currency, a full-on border at Gretna, a huge impact on trade with the rest of the UK. But inevitably it's changed some minds, not because it's made Scottish independence more attractive, just because they're angry with the United Kingdom.

Is it more likely? Compared to what? The Conservatives have made it dramatically less likely by nailing their 'no referendum' colours to the mast. So it's pretty likely that'll hold and there won't be an avenue for it in the foreseeable future. It might make it more likely longer-term, but if you can really predict political trends 15 years in advance, then you'd be hailed as some sort of savant.

Reply 19

L i b

Original post by Saracen's Fez

I think this is quite true. For many people, devolution didn't really touch their day-to-day lives - a lot of older people largely ignore it. Hence, I think, why Scottish Parliament elections still have considerable lower turnouts than UK general elections. Most would've - quite reasonably - expected a major crisis to be handled at a UK level, but it wasn't - and it highlighted where a huge amount of power does lie.