Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I've seen lots of stories around brexit and a second Scottish referendum before and after the brexit vote.

    This prompts me to ask you guys this question.

    Do you realise to hold a second independence referendum the SNP need Westminster approval?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Fully aware of it. But they can't delay the issue forever and Scotland isn't going to suddenly overcome its many problems with the UK. Scotland is leaving, when is to be determined but it is happening.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Does England actually need Scotland anymore?

    The only advantages of being part of the union that I was aware of were that Labour could rely on a lot of seats,oil,a lot of nice scenery albeit too far away and a nice flag.

    But now?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    They need approval officially but if they decide that's what they're doing then Westminster can't realistically refuse to allow it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    They won't leave.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    They won't leave.
    Being a middle class anglo-scot I can tell you that the liberal section of Scotland that was for staying in the UK has changed to prefering INDY within the EU.

    What has changed is that many Londoners now agree with them..

    If Scotland goes for a new kind of citizenship where anyone on this Island is eligible to be Scottish I think they will get the entire 48% of the Island as new citizens. That would really blow the Torys out of the water -

    More or less the entire population of the UK under 50 becomes Scottish!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Being a middle class anglo-scot I can tell you that the liberal section of Scotland that was for staying in the UK has changed to prefering INDY within the EU.

    What has changed is that many Londoners now agree with them..

    If Scotland goes for a new kind of citizenship where anyone on this Island is eligible to be Scottish I think they will get the entire 48% of the Island as new citizens. That would really blow the Torys out of the water -

    More or less the entire population of the UK under 50 becomes Scottish!
    actually this is a cool idea
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Being a middle class anglo-scot I can tell you that the liberal section of Scotland that was for staying in the UK has changed to prefering INDY within the EU.

    What has changed is that many Londoners now agree with them..

    If Scotland goes for a new kind of citizenship where anyone on this Island is eligible to be Scottish I think they will get the entire 48% of the Island as new citizens. That would really blow the Torys out of the water -

    More or less the entire population of the UK under 50 becomes Scottish!
    Watch Scotland stay in, barely any of young generation gives a toss about this issue or even voted, saying 70/30 is true.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I hope they get one, decentralisation often leads to better turnout for the average person.

    Best case, I think the whole country should become something a little bit like a mix between a federal system and the swiss canton system though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elitepower)
    Fully aware of it. But they can't delay the issue forever and Scotland isn't going to suddenly overcome its many problems with the UK. Scotland is leaving, when is to be determined but it is happening.
    I've learned well that the more people desperately insist their political views are inevitably going to come to fruition, the less secure they are in that belief. When Bertrand Russell said "the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts", this is the sort of thing he was aiming at.

    Even Karl Marx, in suggesting communism was inevitable, referred to external forces and economic theorising. It was wishful thinking, but he backed it up. Scottish nationalists do not even have the legitimacy of the extremists - they simply assert as their arguments become ever-more paper-thin that they are somehow irresistible to the great Scottish public.

    Don't fall into the trap of thinking because you believe something, everyone else is somehow going to be persuaded of it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    They need approval officially but if they decide that's what they're doing then Westminster can't realistically refuse to allow it.
    We hear this asserted a lot, that somehow the UK Government's arm will be twisted on this. But realistically, what is the actual consequence? It's not like the pro-union parties will be crushed in the UK Parliament - they've only got three MPs from Scotland between them.

    When I ask this question, it usually ends up with the assertion that the Scottish Government will simply act criminally and that civil servants will somehow be complicit in this. That's not going to happen. We have the rule of law in this country - and ultimately there is no entitlement to referendums on breaking away from a state, and states have every right to set the conditions for such things if they grant them.

    For my part, I think the UK and Scottish Governments agreed pretty clearly that the referendum would be legal and decisive - for it to be decisive means that the decision should not be undermined in this way. I don't think it will ever come to that though, as I don't think the SNP's own interests lie in calling another referendum.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I know right, and apparently the EU is undemocratic!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    We hear this asserted a lot, that somehow the UK Government's arm will be twisted on this. But realistically, what is the actual consequence? It's not like the pro-union parties will be crushed in the UK Parliament - they've only got three MPs from Scotland between them.

    When I ask this question, it usually ends up with the assertion that the Scottish Government will simply act criminally and that civil servants will somehow be complicit in this. That's not going to happen. We have the rule of law in this country - and ultimately there is no entitlement to referendums on breaking away from a state, and states have every right to set the conditions for such things if they grant them.

    For my part, I think the UK and Scottish Governments agreed pretty clearly that the referendum would be legal and decisive - for it to be decisive means that the decision should not be undermined in this way. I don't think it will ever come to that though, as I don't think the SNP's own interests lie in calling another referendum.
    At the same time though, if over a sustained period there are clear majorities in polls demanding another, immediate referendum, and tons of Scottish politicians calling for it (not saying it is now, but hypothetically), how long could Westminster ignore it before being rightly accused of denying Scots their democratic rights?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    At the same time though, if over a sustained period there are clear majorities in polls demanding another, immediate referendum, and tons of Scottish politicians calling for it (not saying it is now, but hypothetically), how long could Westminster ignore it before being rightly accused of denying Scots their democratic rights?
    Ah, but of course there are not "rights" here that are impacted. Parts of the UK do not have the democratic right to secede on their own terms.

    Even democracy as a theory does not grant rights to minorities: it places the sovereign power with the majority - the people - in a single demos. This is fairly consistent - there is no way democracy can create a state, it can only provide the operative system for governing a pre-existing state.

    Let's not forget there are many great democrats who have blocked secessionist demands. Most famously to us, perhaps, Abraham Lincoln. He spoke fairly extensively on this point, notably in his first inaugural address--

    "Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left."

    If we try to universalise the principle that parts of a state can secede at will and by right, we fall into straightforward anarchy under which democracy cannot endure. Nationalists attempt to get around this by suggesting only "nations" have this right - in this case, how a nation is defined and how the definition is applied in practice is entirely subjective and speaks only to their own prejudices. It is essentially a form of special pleading.

    It is perverse to suggest that a state can merrily give into these demands. Despite the assertions of the Scottish nationalists that this would be a "once in a generation" or a "once in a lifetime" vote, agitation for a second referendum began almost as soon as the result of the last one was declared. Here we are, less than two years down the line, seriously contemplating another - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so terrifying.

    Democrats, liberals and indeed anyone who respects the rule of law cannot make common cause with identity politics and should be very wary indeed of pandering to it. It awakens the very worst instincts in people and has the potential to destroy some of our greatest achievements.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    why on earth would scotland exit the british union over something as trivial (to scotland) as brexit? do scottish people *really* care about the EU? why? how does it affect scotland so much? does scotland get millions of immigrants from the EU? nope, so what is the reason? to make the english have more immigration?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    why on earth would scotland exit the british union over something as trivial (to scotland) as brexit? do scottish people *really* care about the EU? why? how does it affect scotland so much? does scotland get millions of immigrants from the EU? nope, so what is the reason? to make the english have more immigration?
    Yes, my relatives living in Edinburgh voted to stay in the Union last time will all be voting to leave the union now.

    Its far far far more important to be a member of the EU than it is to be a member of the UK. I myself will be attempting to get an Irish passport via great grandmother (the Irish government expect over a million applications from England over the coming year).

    Take a typical example, sun glasses, without the EU "red tape" symbols they might not work and you're go blind or "food hygene" without the EU standards you could die of food poising.

    Would you want to go back to 1970s British leyland made goods?

    Ordinary people are far more interested in REMAINING safe, REMAINING relatively well off and REMAINING able to work in the EU then they are in waving Engerland flags from estate windows.

    Middle Class Liberal Elite types or Technocrats living in Scotland will now be joining the rest of the Scottish nation in voting to leave the UK.

    Hopefully Scotland will offer the entire 48% Scottish passports and there will be no one left as British under the age of 50.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Ah, but of course there are not "rights" here that are impacted. Parts of the UK do not have the democratic right to secede on their own terms.

    Even democracy as a theory does not grant rights to minorities: it places the sovereign power with the majority - the people - in a single demos. This is fairly consistent - there is no way democracy can create a state, it can only provide the operative system for governing a pre-existing state.

    Let's not forget there are many great democrats who have blocked secessionist demands. Most famously to us, perhaps, Abraham Lincoln. He spoke fairly extensively on this point, notably in his first inaugural address--

    "Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left."

    If we try to universalise the principle that parts of a state can secede at will and by right, we fall into straightforward anarchy under which democracy cannot endure. Nationalists attempt to get around this by suggesting only "nations" have this right - in this case, how a nation is defined and how the definition is applied in practice is entirely subjective and speaks only to their own prejudices. It is essentially a form of special pleading.

    It is perverse to suggest that a state can merrily give into these demands. Despite the assertions of the Scottish nationalists that this would be a "once in a generation" or a "once in a lifetime" vote, agitation for a second referendum began almost as soon as the result of the last one was declared. Here we are, less than two years down the line, seriously contemplating another - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so terrifying.

    Democrats, liberals and indeed anyone who respects the rule of law cannot make common cause with identity politics and should be very wary indeed of pandering to it. It awakens the very worst instincts in people and has the potential to destroy some of our greatest achievements.
    Logical arguments, but you're arguing against emotions and anger, L I B - just like the Brexit referendum.

    If there's a large enough critical mass of people that demand a second referendum on independence, and Westminster ignores or denies it, no amount of talk about constitutionality, rights or democracy will persuade. Expect violence and non-co-operation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    If there's a large enough critical mass of people that demand a second referendum on independence, and Westminster ignores or denies it, no amount of talk about constitutionality, rights or democracy will persuade. Expect violence and non-co-operation.
    This is usually where these discussions end up: threats of civil disorder. I, for one, do not think that's really a realistic prospect, nor one that we couldn't deal with. Quebec had a problem with nationalist terrorism and I think there's as much chance even if the UK Government was as amenable as it could be that the same result will happen when the SNP are on the down-swing, as inevitably they will be at some point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Its far far far more important to be a member of the EU than it is to be a member of the UK.
    Oh, is it? Why?

    Common travel and open borders? We do not have open borders with the EU at the moment anyway - and for the relatively small number of Scots living in other EU countries, there are several times as many who live in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

    Because of a single market and free trade? Not only are there fewer barriers to trade within the UK than across the EU, Scotland also does four times as much trade with the rest of the UK than all the other countries in the EU put together. It is, by far, our biggest and most important market.

    Because of security? We have a united UK armed forces that provides enormous economies of scale to Scotland as well as combined national intelligence and security agencies that are among the best and most significant in the world.

    Because of what we receive from the EU in funding and support? The UK as a whole, and an independent Scotland, are net contributors to the EU. As part of the UK, Scotland receives £15 billion in extra funding - net - above what it raises in taxes.

    Because of research funding? Scottish institutions receive around 13% of UK research funding, while we have only 8% of the population.

    Because of a stable economic framework? We share a currency with one that works because of common fiscal arrangements and economic convergence; we could share an economy with the other that has been demonstrated not to work particularly effectively and has inherent weaknesses.

    I was all for the UK remaining in the EU, but to pretend that is somehow more important to Scotland than remaining in the UK is straight-up nonsense.

    Take a typical example, sun glasses, without the EU "red tape" symbols they might not work and you're go blind or "food hygene" without the EU standards you could die of food poising.
    Regulations on goods and services are incorporated into domestic law. I don't think anyone has made any suggestions of these changing.

    CE marking regulations are not just used in the EU, but required of goods across the European Economic Area, as well as the likes of Switzerland, Turkey, Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro. Many CE marked goods are made outside the EU for the European market: it does not require you to be in the EU.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    why on earth would scotland exit the british union over something as trivial (to scotland) as brexit? do scottish people *really* care about the EU?
    No, in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't. The SNP's most fervent supporters often confuse their own party's pro-Europe stance with the stance of the Scottish public or their voters. Over a third of SNP voters voted to leave, many more won't give much of a toss either way - hell, we had a turnout well below UK average for the referendum.

    Let's not forget that instead of joining a pro-EU party, Nicola Sturgeon joined one that advocated withdrawal from the EU back in the mid-1980s.

    This is just one of many reasons why I'm reasonably sure the referendum vote is far from the big issue that the SNP are making it out to be. I don't see it swinging enough folk to make a difference.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Yes, my relatives living in Edinburgh voted to stay in the Union last time will all be voting to leave the union now.

    Its far far far more important to be a member of the EU than it is to be a member of the UK. I myself will be attempting to get an Irish passport via great grandmother (the Irish government expect over a million applications from England over the coming year).

    Take a typical example, sun glasses, without the EU "red tape" symbols they might not work and you're go blind or "food hygene" without the EU standards you could die of food poising.

    Would you want to go back to 1970s British leyland made goods?

    Ordinary people are far more interested in REMAINING safe, REMAINING relatively well off and REMAINING able to work in the EU then they are in waving Engerland flags from estate windows.

    Middle Class Liberal Elite types or Technocrats living in Scotland will now be joining the rest of the Scottish nation in voting to leave the UK.

    Hopefully Scotland will offer the entire 48% Scottish passports and there will be no one left as British under the age of 50.
    Fortunately not everyone is as lacking in their convictions as your relatives.

    You won't get an Irish passport solely on the basis of your great-grandmother.

    You've obviously never heard of British Standards, ISO standards, Food Standards Agency, Public Health England etc. We don't need the EU to 'keep us safe', we can do it fine by ourselves or in line with other international organisations.

    The whole 'we need the EU' line being pushed by Sturgeon is simply nonsense and she does not speak for the whole of Scotland. There are plenty of well-educated people up here who do not agree with the SNP independence agenda being pushed at every opportunity. Don't forget that more people voted against independence than for remain.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.