Is Scottish independence more likely now and if so why?

Scroll to see replies

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.

Hopefully, the Union stays together throughout this difficult time.

Reply 21

jbt1

Original post by Saracen's Fez

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.

Where is the evidence for this? The Scottish government received one billion less in tax, and this was tax that they had full control over. The argument your putting forward is 'if only we were independent we could have control and then everything would be great' but the reality isn't demonstrative of it. The Scottish Government can act in the interest of its own economy through devolution powers at the moment and that economy gets boosted through being in the UK.

Reply 22

imlikeahermit

It will happen. They have been completely ignored on Brexit. Nice of Boris to have a farewell tour though.

It's a shame that we haven't had Indyref2 already to be fair. What I ideally would have like to see is Scotland vote to leave, and then rejoin the EU.

Reply 23

L i b

Original post by jbt1

That is one of the flaws. The argument that "we" could do better falls apart when the "we" is so loosely defined. The same argument could be made - and in fact would be a lot more persuasive - if you were talking about the Scottish Borders or the Highlands and Islands, which have very distinctive economies within Scotland and are largely an afterthought in the decisions of a central belt devolved parliament. If nationalists believed in this, they'd be pro-localism - but they're - to a ridiculous degree - quite the opposite.

Even if you found the argument persuasive, the financial impact of no longer pooling and sharing resources across the United Kingdom would outweigh, hugely, any ability to grow the economy. In any case, Scotland has lagged behind the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of growth and productivity - maybe if the nationalist administration in Edinburgh had shown any ability to handle that, they might get taken seriously on this sort of rhetoric.

Reply 24

IbeIC123

The government may be pressured to allow another referendum so things don’t escalate like how they did in the troubles

Reply 25

L i b

Original post by IbeIC123

The government may be pressured to allow another referendum so things don’t escalate like how they did in the troubles

At the risk of oversimplifying things, Scotland isn't 1960s Northern Ireland. And the UK Government was elected on a clear manifesto commitment not to allow the result of the referendum to be undermined.

Reply 26

IbeIC123

Of course it isn’t but constant riots or demonstrations might lead to change. The UK might even be pressured by the international community to allow a referendum

Reply 27

L i b

Original post by IbeIC123

Of course it isn’t but constant riots or demonstrations might lead to change. The UK might even be pressured by the international community to allow a referendum

What I'm saying is that no-one's going to start a riot about something like this. And in terms of the international community, what business is it of theirs? Absolutely none - and indeed, the vast majority of countries support the continued unity of the United Kingdom. Those who do not are largely the enemies of the mainstream international community that would do support literally anything that would weaken the western allies.

Reply 28

Akash1234567

I think so but Scottish independence, in my opinion, is untenable.
The SNP and the Pro-Independence Bloc need to answer a few questions:
1) What currency would Scotland use? If it were to use the pound it would not be able to control its own monetary policy due to the fact that the BoE is the issuer of the GBP. If it were to use the Euro then this would take two years (Countries like Spain would voice their concerns too). It has no gold reserves and lacks foreign reserves to make its own currency. If it decided to peg its currency to the USD that would be absolutely mad and that would mean there would be little to no control of their monetary policy.
2) Would it be able to join the EU? At the moment, probably not. Excluding Oil revenue, the budget deficit sits at 6.8% of GDP (Scottish GDP). The Copenhagen agreement states that a nation must have a budget deficit of less than 6% of its GDP. Another issue is Spain. Spain will most likely veto Scotland's membership application as Scotland joining the EU would show that Catalonia would be absolutely fine as an independent nation (Same for Basque). Scotland outside the EU would have an extremely tough time of it and Sturgeon would get heckled like no tomorrow because she would have lied.
3) Scotland has a GDP of £237.8 billion, England and the rest of the UK would be absolutely fine without Scotland. We would be the 8th largest economy and not the 'Little England' that Indy supporters think. What would Scotland gain?

Reply 29

Renner

Original post by Saracen's Fez

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.

That's like expecting a 16 year old to get a platinum credit card. With no currency reserves, a huge defect and a new/unstable currency borrowing rates would be extortionate compared to the BoE.

Reply 30

Renner

Scottish separation is less likely than ever before. And as soon as the cult like followers of the SNP realise this and turn on the dear leader for leading them up the garden path yet again, the better.

Reply 31

L i b

Original post by Renner

That's like expecting a 16 year old to get a platinum credit card. With no currency reserves, a huge defect and a new/unstable currency borrowing rates would be extortionate compared to the BoE.

I think one of the big problems is the lack of measurable outcomes in public spending.

Some of the extra funding distributed in Scotland can be justified in terms of rurality and population density, but there's a big chunk of it that can't. Yet there's no expectations, nothing in particular that the cash is tied to. If it was about producing economic growth or boosting productivity - to bring about greater economic convergence across the UK - then there should be some accountability in terms of how it is used and the results it produces. Instead the gap remains.

Reply 32

TheStupidMoon

The SNP wouldn't get elected with pretend claims of independence if Scotland became independent which it wouldn't even if they voted for independence.

Reply 33

mongee23

Scotland have a right to self-determination if they want it. You deserve a right to your own country with your own people where you can decide your own future, if you believe that your current union is restricting your free will.
I'm not Scottish though, so I don't know how likely it is they'll vote to leave.

Reply 34

username4406682

Can't happen. We subsidise Scotland after all, and Scotland would need its own currency the day after becoming independent.

Reply 35

username4406682

Original post by Renner

The only arguments the Nats ever make are
”oil” - yeah, here I was thinking Wee Jimmy Krankie was an environmentalist
”Celtic union” - Southern Ireland doesn't want to subsidise Scotland, and no one in NI wants a ~~sectarian head count~~ border poll
”the EU” - Spain won't let you in if you pull a UDI because of the message it would send Catalonia
”socialist Scotland” - the Tories in Scotland aren't going to support any Democratic People's Republic of Scotland, and Scottish Labour are unionist

At the end the only argument the Scottish Nationalists have left is anti-English racism of the sort the provisional wing of the SNP are protesting for at the border.

Reply 36

Quady

Original post by Saracen's Fez

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.

On the other hand what has been brought into sharp relief is the currency question. SG would like furlough to continue, but an independent Scotland would be pretty shafted dealing with this without control over its currency and ability to do QE.

Writing this from a Wetherspoon in Glasgow its not entirely apparent how SG has done a better job.

Reply 37

Quady

Original post by LiberOfLondon

I think quite a bit of the arguement is sovereignty/taking back control.

That was the reason I voted to leave two unions in the last decade.

Reply 38

Quady

Original post by LiberOfLondon

Can't happen. We subsidise Scotland after all, and Scotland would need its own currency the day after becoming independent.

The state subsidises my parents with pensions, doesnt mean they would die if that stopped.

Ireland managed without their own currency for six years, for what 25 years without a central bank and kept a peg with stirling until 1999.

So that statement you made seems more from a position of assertion than one that is based in fact.