Scottish independence, English me would like to understand

Me too, Sunny. Could you have a word with the UK Government about that?

Jaberwok Sat 30-Jan-21 18:36:01

^Surely far better to have total independence like Iceland, Norway or Greenland?

Do these countries have "total independence"?

paddyanne

Whether we gain Independence or not NO ONE especially not a tory government that we didn't vote for has the right to tell us we're not ALLOWED a vote .As one of only Two signatories to the TREATY of union we should be able to decide for ourselves it WAS a "treaty" we signed ..not a deed of ownership...though sometimes I do wonder what England thought it had signed .

You've had a vote - you lost, remember?

Things have changed a lot since then, remember?

One of the really important reasons to stay in the UK, we were told, was that it would guarantee us staying in the EU.

Scotland's Remain vote, in the EU referendum, was 62%.

Since the decision to Brexit, the UK government has been seen to have no interest in the effects on Scotland and it is now planning to reduce the powers of Holyrood.

In those circumstances 'You lost' isn't good enough and it's time for a rematch.

Greenland, independence from Denmark, 1st May, 1979. Joined EU in 1973, withdrew in 1985 over fishing (!!) dispute.

Norway. Independence from Sweden gained in 1905.

Iceland , became an independent republic in 1944.

Norway is closely aligned to the EU and pays for access to various 'bits' of the single market. The two Norwegian ladies we met on holiday early 2016 said they thought is was unsatisfactory as Norway had very little say on EU regulations. They'd have preferred to be a full member.

Norway has sacrificed some sovereignty for the economic advantages the single market brings.

Grannyrose I see good old colonialism is alive and well in your mind.Democracy surely must be allowed to take its course ? The PEOPLE of Scotland are sovereign NOT any Queen ,or parliament .the say is ours and ours alone ,However many ballots over any number of years it takes.
The WM is merely burying its head in the sand with its denial of a referendum.The more they say NO the more people will flock to the Independence cause .
Independence is NORMAL ,ask any country anywhere in the world if they would prefer a different country with different goals and core beliefs to run theirs ...I think you'll find the answer is no .Why then would the people of Scotland be prepared to live under these constraints?

But you would under the EU who would certainly have a big say in how Scotland was financially run bearing in mind Scotland would be a financial recipient, and not a contributor as was the case with the UK.

Lithuania is top (bottom?) of the table for EU countries for the proportion of its GDP it receives from the EU. Its 3%. So even if we equalled Lithuania in this, I think we'd cope.

Jaberwok

But you would under the EU who would certainly have a big say in how Scotland was financially run bearing in mind Scotland would be a financial recipient, and not a contributor as was the case with the UK.

Scotland has been a big recipient of EU regional aid for years so dont count on too much more, there are lots of EU states with lower incomes.
In any case there is no prospect of membership if the rest of UK is outside.

In any case there is no prospect of membership if the rest of UK is outside.

What makes you think that, Katie? The EU has always said that they'd be happy to accept Scotland as a member.

Why shouldn't they get regional aid? Doesn't it go on need? Not on what has been given in the past...

Do any of you Scottish Grans remember the Rev I M Jolly? Read this in your best Rikki Fulton "Last Call" voice....

Haallo.

Ah'm here to remind you no to get above your staation. Scotland's a wee country on the Northern edge of Europe and ye've got no say at all. Don't think the Ee Yu will have ye back cos they'll no. And even if they did, they'll no give you any siller. And even if they did, they'd tell ye how tae spend it....

Aye, best know your place and jist keep quiet.

[sigh] goodnight....

Lady Carmichael has ruled ‘no’ today about the SNP’s push for a second referendum on independence. Said it it too soon and speculative.

Her exact words in Court were it was ‘hypothetical, academic and premature’.

The case was brought to the Courts to see whether the SNP actually have the power to legislate for a referendum vote. The case was brought on behalf of an independence group, ahead of the May election.

Wishful thinking UG. Read it again.

"Grannyrose I see good old colonialism is alive and well in your mind."

That's a bit rich, paddyanne, considering the fundamental and enthusiastic role played by generations of our fellow Scots (including several of my ancestors) in founding, administering, policing and defending British colonies around the world. Indeed, was it not was the failure of the attempt to establish a Scottish colony in Central America (the Darien Scheme) which helped precipitate the 1707 Union of the Parliaments?

You are correct, Alegrias It was Keating's action in wanting a ruling on whether another referendum could be sought that was "‘hypothetical, academic and premature’."

Her exact words - "The pursuer failed the sufficient interest test. He was a busybody. The 1998Act left it to the Scottish Parliament to determine its own policy goals and other considerations relevant to the exercise of its powers. The pursuer was not directly affected by the subject matter of the action, because the action was about whether a body of which he was not a member had a power that itwas not proposing to use. For similar reasons, he did not represent anyone who was directly affected."

It is always better to find the primary source (in this case www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csoh016.pdf?sfvrsn=0 ) than to rely on a media report.

MaizieD

^In any case there is no prospect of membership if the rest of UK is outside.^

What makes you think that, Katie? The EU has always said that they'd be happy to accept Scotland as a member.

Why shouldn't they get regional aid? Doesn't it go on need? Not on what has been given in the past...

Because if the rest of the UK is outside the EU there would have to be a hard border with full customs and I really don’t think that is in Scotlands interests.
The only land borders the EU has are with Russia and the other Eastern block countries, that sort of isolation is going to hurt, of course emotion may well rule the day. If I were a Scot I would think twice before voting for independence in those circumstances.

Sweden and Norway.

No hard border. No full customs.

NI and Eire, even

Yes. But Norway is in the EEA and has an agreement with the EU, as does all the other EEA states
UK is not in the EEA.

There is now a full customs border with NI and Eire.

Fair comment.

Turkey and Bulgaria? Turkey and Greece?
Switzerland and nearly everybody else?
Gibraltar and Spain?

The idea that Scotland should not do what it wants because of English exceptionalism is a non starter for me.

Turkey has a hard border, they want to join but the EU has not yet agreed, Bulgaria and Romania are in transition to join EU, every other state is in the EEA, Serbia I’m not sure about.

I'm refuting the assertion that the only land borders the EU have is with "Eastern Bloc" countries. There are several other land borders which are made to work because people want to make it happen. So when it is said that a hard border would have to exist between Scotland and England, that's because England would want to have it that way and I don't see why Scotland shouldn't be allowed self determination if just because rUK want to go it alone.

Bulgaria and Romania have been EU members since 2007 - 14 years. They're not in transition.