“Scottish government loses indyref2 court case”

Urms Yes I did !!
Interesting grannydarkhair
We were on a Med cruise just before the last referendum and as there was a flight from Scotland as well as Gatwick there were a lot of Scots on board.
Over the course of the cruise we got chatting to quite a few from north of the border and without exception they were all passionately opposed to independence.

Ok there again, not a large sample but one couple said generally speaking it was a bit of a class issue.

Maybee70 yeah you def got that right!

Independence as a class issue? I'd certainly disagree with that. I know pro-Independence supporters from all walks of life.

Aveline

Havers. SNP were never going to accept the referendum result. Brexit wasn't even mentioned in 2014.

Of course Brexit wasnt a thing then. But staying in the EU a consideration for people who voted No wasn't it ? And then we were taken out by a UK vote.

Jaberwok

The Act of Union 1707 states quite clearly that for Scotland to regain independence both Westminster and Holyrood have to agree a referendum to decide the matter. Its like The Treaty of Utrecht regarding Gibraltar ,both sides have to agree in order to break the treaty. As it stands no way is Westminster budging on either of these issues

The Act of Union 1707 states no such thing. Maybe you are thinking of the Scotland Act `1998.

The Parliament of Scotland in 1707, like its counterpart in England, was made up of a landowning elite, many of whom had lost personal fortunes from investing in the Darien Scheme (note that the Scottish treasury itself was not bankrupted. The idea of consulting the common people about anything was beyond thinking about. As it happens, the Act was deeply unpopular among the Scottish people of the time and if such a referendum were to be held it would certainly have resulted in a thunderous NO! Union was opposed by both Catholic highlanders and Lowland Covenanters.

The union in fact was far from an amicable agreement anyway. It was an act of blackmail. A shotgun marriage if you like. The English parliament was terrified that after the death of Queen Anne the two crowns would be separated again, with England committed to a Hanoverian succession and the Scots free to appoint their own successor, presumably James Francis Edward Stuart, the Old Pretender, as James VIII, whom many Scots saw as the legitimate king anyway. The English were further concerned that Scotland, a long-time ally of the French, would interfere with England's wars with France. England had been blockading exports to Scotland for two years and had decreed Scots in England to be foreign nationals. The members of the Scottish parliament were bribed with reimbursement of at least part of their Darien losses, but if in spite of all that they did not cooperate then there were troops stationed at the border ready to invade.

But under the terms of the act, it was always a "voluntary" union. Even Margaret Thatcher said, 290 years after the act, that if Scotland wanted independence then all it had to do was elect a pro-independence majority to Westminster. That was fulfilled in 2015.

^ Has Scottish independence been fully costed? What will happen about their currency? Will they be allowed to rejoin the EU?^

I think you'll find that the answers to those questions is probably 'Yes'. Maybe

I know that there has been work done on costings and that the currency issue has been talked about.

I don't think that a Labour government worries them too much, either...

LadyHonoriaDedlock

Since I work for the Scottish government I have to be very careful what I say but I can assure Septimia's DH that

1. Like any other political party the SNP doesn't have any money other than what it raises through donations, membership subscriptions and fundraising. It uses that for campaigning, which is the SNP's function. It certainly doesn't have any money to invest in the NHS even if it could.

2. The Scottish Government is not the SNP, even if it is largely made up of MSPs whose election campaigns were funded by the SNP, with a couple of Green SNPs thrown in. The reason for this compostion is that in the Holyrood elections of 2021, SNP-backed candidates were elected by a near landslide, almost securing an overall majority in an electoral system specifically designed to avoid such an eventuality, on the basis of a manifesto commitment to working towards independence. If the Scottish government were to allocate any money and resources to SNP or Green campaigning it would be in deep trouble, just as an individual MSP would be if she used Holyrood resources for party business. Remember Owen Paterson?

3. I know a lot of what goes on and I know that the First Minister works long hours on many government-related issues including attracting investment into Scotland, and external commitments related to her role. If she's seen in the media south of the border only when she speaks of independence then that only reflects what was very plain to me when I moved up here, that the London media largely ignores issues relating to Scotland. For the record I'll say this about the FM: she demands 120% from her staff and in return she'd lay down her life. In many ways she's still the working-class Ayrshire lassie with working-class Ayrshire values. I say this because I don't recognise in the person many of the slurs that are thrown about by people who know nothing.

I say this as an English-born adopted Scot. Who, by the way, has never experienced any anti-English abuse. I won't say it doesn't happen, only that I haven't seen it.

This is worthy of another reading as there is so much disinformation going about. It is refreshing to read a post from someone who know what she is talking about. Much has changed since the last Scottish referendum and I am not surprised that people are fed up with the unstable shenanigans in Westminster .
My preference would be for England to have a devolved administration because why should it be different from the other nations? A House/Parliament/Assembly could be created to oversee the issues that are common to all four nations. Every nation would have representation and the nonsense of Westminster would be resolved.

Parsley3

Aveline

Havers. SNP were never going to accept the referendum result. Brexit wasn't even mentioned in 2014.

Of course Brexit wasnt a thing then. But staying in the EU a consideration for people who voted No wasn't it ? And then we were taken out by a UK vote.

I agree. That was totally wrong. Staying in the EU was what swayed so many Scottish voters and their views ( along with Ireland) were totally ignored.

I know for a fact that work is ongoing in preparing a strategy for independence but obviously nobody is going to give anything away. Clearly I'm not at liberty to say anything even about what little I am aware of. Obviously, though, the Scottish government does not intend to go into a referendum campaign as unprepared as it was in 2014.

Its very clear that Sturgeon and the rest of the indy-supporting parties in Holyrood knew very well that the response from the Supreme Court would be that Holyrood didn’t have the right to call a referendum. Getting the go-ahead to stage a referendum in October 2023 was never the point; the point was getting a legal ruling that says that Scotland has no way out of the Union. Whatever happens we have to do what the 500-odd English MPs allow us to do. There’s no way to decide to leave a Union which is supposed to be voluntary. But today everything changes. It’s clearly not voluntary because we can’t even talk about leaving unless the English let us.

Any future referendum is not the heart of the matter; the heart of the matter is an independent Scotland. (I almost typed “so long as but a hundred of us remain alive”. Seems appropriate today.) Those of us who support independence will never stop wanting it, so if you are fed up, or tired of hearing about it, it doesn’t matter. We’ll still be here. So anecdotes about generations, or border posts, or traumatised coach-based tourists, are just red herrings and distractions.

Whether Sturgeon is good at running Scotland or not, doesn’t matter. She’s doing what we elected her to do. Now perhaps someone will pipe up and say “I didn’t vote for her”, and I’m sure many didn’t. But many did. Enough voted for indy parties to give them the majority in our Parliament. That’s democracy. But this is about an independent Scotland, not the capability of a specific political party.

So buckle up, the fun starts here.

(Also, three cheers for Lady Honoria 🥳)

LadyHonoriaDedlock

Thank you for the refresher.

I'd forgotten a lot of that, probably because the way we were taught all those up years ago was to learn various acts etc by rote and instantly discarded a lot of the information after exams.

My response: hold a final referendum - at Holyrood's expense - for the people of Scotland to decide whether they wish to continue to be beneficiaries of the Union or go their own way.

If they elect to stay in the Union - at the same per capita taxpayer funding as England - that's an end of it. Alternatively, if they decide on independence - go - with no further financial or other claim on the Union.

Time to Lance this boil otherwise it will just fester.

As I (almost) said above, the English don't get to tell us what to do any more, we've had enough of that.

Who's Lance?

😁🤭

Septimia

I rather think that, regardless of whose facts are right or wrong, everyone has already made up their minds on this issue. To keep on debating it is only causing unnecessary rancour. One way or another it will be settled eventually - sooner rather than later would be better - and then we can get back to being supportive rather than divisive.

At last, someone who talks sense. I would say the sooner the better. maybe all the countries of the United Kingdom should be devolved and then we can all learn to tolerate each other.

Well I know volver will accuse me of getting hung up on detail,😬 but has anybody actually done an analysis of all things that will need to be worked out in practice, if Scotland becomes independent? Or will it be protracted discussions after the event like Brexit which seemed to full of ‘Oh I hadn’t thought about how that would work”.

I get the principle, it just that afterwards when the reality hits lots of people seem to change their minds when they see how it will affect them.

"In 2014 Scotland was told it would be an equal partner within the union"

Scotland is an equal partner with England in the Union. We are both subject to UK law.

volver

As I (almost) said above, the English don't get to tell us what to do any more, we've had enough of that.

Who's Lance?

The English aren't telling you what to do. The British supreme court is, according to British law.

And, just for the record, I would support the Scots having another referendum if they'd promise to abide by the result this time.

Scotland is an equal partner with England in the Union.
The English aren't telling you what to do.

Have you seen the news this week? 🤣🤣

500+ MPs from English constituencies, 60-ish from Scottish ones. Not exactly what could be called an equal partnership, is it?

I would support the Scots having another referendum if they'd promise to abide by the result this time.

This is what I mean, really. We don't need the support of other nationalities if they are going to impose conditions on us. We'll decide for ourselves.

But volver Scotland only has 5 million or so people.
Roughly the size of Gtr Manchester just spread out over a bigger land mass.

England has just under 60 million people.

Seems a fair representation to me.

volver

^Scotland is an equal partner with England in the Union.^
The English aren't telling you what to do.

Have you seen the news this week? 🤣🤣

500+ MPs from English constituencies, 60-ish from Scottish ones. Not exactly what could be called an equal partnership, is it?

And 40 from Wales.
18 from Northern Ireland
60 from Scotland

The number is roughly representative of the number of citizens of each country.
It is supposedly a United Kingdom.

I suppose in some ways we are more fortunate here as are the people in Scotland as we are devolved.

I think the Scots themselves should decide. I do think there are inherent risks, because the Scottish nation will be divided whatever the outcome and I’m not clear whether that can be reconciled, and what the implications will be for whichever group doesn’t win the day- the pro and unionist votes are so close. I hope for the sake of everybody who lives in Scotland that once a decision is made it settles.

Urmstongran

But volver Scotland only has 5 million or so people.
Roughly the size of Gtr Manchester just spread out over a bigger land mass.

England has just under 60 million people.

Seems a fair representation to me.

But Scotland is a country and Greater Manchester is a city contained in another country.

Simples

Lathyrus

Well I know volver will accuse me of getting hung up on detail,😬 but has anybody actually done an analysis of all things that will need to be worked out in practice, if Scotland becomes independent? Or will it be protracted discussions after the event like Brexit which seemed to full of ‘Oh I hadn’t thought about how that would work”.

I get the principle, it just that afterwards when the reality hits lots of people seem to change their minds when they see how it will affect them.

So what comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Do we do the analysis first, so that we know every minute detail of how things will be after independence? If so, we get all kinds of complaints about spending money on planning that may never be needed. The indy parties have started down this road, incidentally, two white papers published already.

Or, do we have the vote first without the planning and have all sorts of complaints about asking people to vote for something that hasn’t been well thought out?

Catch-22.

The question in 2014 was “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Not “Should we have independence even if we might not get to join the EU for a few years, and the currency is yet to be decided, and you might not get to watch Strictly?” If anyone ever asks me again, “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, the answer will always be “yes”. How could it not be? How could anyone seriously say that they don’t want their country to be independent?

The timescale for independence last time was 18 months; far too short IMO. Negotiations to pick apart a 300 year old union will take at least as long as the Brexit negotiations, but the difference is that we shouldn’t take part in them in bad faith. We shouldn’t be signing agreements that we know we are going to immediately renege on. We won’t be telling people it will be the easiest deal in history and that we have an “oven ready deal”. I use “we” advisedly; I think in Brexit “they” did the negotiating, this time it will be “us”.

(The Strictly things was really one of the reasons Better Together thought up. Project Fear, eh? Oh how we laughed.)