Independence

[tobyaw]

So… in 2014 we get to vote in a referendum on independence from the United Kingdom. In 2017 we get to vote in a referendum on independence from the European Union.

I assume that if we, as a country, vote yes for the first, then we won’t get the chance to vote for the second.

What do we do if we fancy both?

Comments

[vivdunstan.livejournal.com]

Surely seceding from Europe post an independence vote is a matter for the Scottish parliament to debate? Nothing to do with the UK 2017 referendum? I'm guessing we might not even be in the UK by then, though I'm unsure about possible timescales.

All this does rather depend on a yes vote winning the Scottish referendum of course.

[tobyaw]

Well, yes. Except that the major parties at Holyrood are relentlessly pro-EU. So there won’t be any choice in the matter.

Of course, the EU may not permit an independent Scotland to join in a manner that is appealing to the electorate, so that may not be an option.

If you want both you have a problem

[tokyo-mb.livejournal.com]

I think that's pretty clear...

If you vote for independence you have the avowedly pro-European SNP in power. If the result of the independence vote is a "yes" to independence, you will have effectively voted for a considerably more pro-European party of government than exists in Westminster.

Re: If you want both you have a problem

[andrewducker]

The SNP will very probably not be the governing party after the first election after Independence. They will quite possibly tear themselves apart once they don't have independence holding them together...

Re: If you want both you have a problem

[tokyo-mb.livejournal.com]

Fair point.

Re: If you want both you have a problem

[tobyaw]

A believable scenario. But it worries me; despite their flaws, in every which way I prefer the Nats to Labour. I can’t see the Tories or the Whigs being anything other than junior partners in a future Holyrood government. I’d hate to be stuck with Labour as the only major party.

Re: If you want both you have a problem

[vivdunstan.livejournal.com]

I can't see the Conservatives ever having any reasonable presence in a post-independence Scottish parliament, even with the help of proportional representation. They are generally reviled here. And the Liberals have lost all credibility by their recent actions.

Of course this does pose a problem for people who are anti Europe. Which is a shame.

Re: If you want both you have a problem

[andrewducker]

I strongly suspect we'd see a major reorganisation of parties following any split. No idea what we'd see once the parties weren't tied to their London parents.

However, Scotland seems to be naturally more left-wing and Euro-friendly than the rest of the UK, so I suspect you'll be disappointed in whoever is elected.

Re: If you want both you have a problem

[vivdunstan.livejournal.com]

I think it will take a very long time post independence (if it happens) for Scottish parties/politicans to be properly shorn of their UK brands, at least in the popular mind. People have long memories. I don't think the Conservatives will be a credible opposition in Scotland for many decades. Again assuming independence happens! And even when they are revitalised, as you say Scotland is naturally more left wing and pro Europe than England, and I can't see that changing.

Re: If you want both you have a problem

[tobyaw]

It is a pity that Murdo Fraser’s 2011 plan to disband the Scottish Conservatives and to create a new autonomous centre-right Scottish party came to nothing. He came a respectable second in the leadership election.

I would prefer all of the Holyrood parties to be independent of outside influence.

Re: If you want both you have a problem

[andrewducker]

Yes, I think that would have been a great step forward.

It's a shame that no other parties have sprung up in Scotland, other than the SNP. The system certainly supports it.

Re: If you want both you have a problem

[tobyaw]

I’m not convinced that Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK, just that there is such a strong anti-Tory feeling in many areas that it appears that way.

[andrewducker]

Simple: Move to England between 2014 and 2017!

[tokyo-mb.livejournal.com]

If Scotland votes yes to independence, beware... Westminster might want to place restrictions on economic / political migrants moving South!

Re:

[andrewducker]

Aaah,but we'd have freedom of movement throughout Europe, including the rest of the UK, until they voted to leave it!

[houstonjames.livejournal.com]

One of the bizarre anomalies right now is that the government can discriminate *within* the UK, because the EU largely safeguards rights between countries rather than within them. Hence the Scottish government can charge English students more than Scottish ones for university tuition - but has to give French and Greek students the Scottish rate. As soon as Scotland leaves the UK, EU rules will require English students to get the benefits they are denied at present; an interesting little legal quirk.

Presumably, on the same basis the UK government could - theoretically, at least - restrict migration from Scotland to England/Wales, though it's hard to imagine that actually happening, particularly since people from the rest of the EU would be free from such restrictions.

One scenario could be Scotland voting for independence, effective 2018, so in 2017 we would still be a part of the UK. Excluding Scotland from that referendum would be reasonable and legal, I think, since the outcome won't apply to Scotland either way. (At least the outcome of the Scottish referendum should be known before the UK one is being legislated for, avoiding ambiguity there.)

I wonder to what extent the SNP really want EU membership, as opposed to being so adamant we'd remain EU members because they saw that question as a threat to their goal of independence from London? The notion of leaving the UK yet staying in the EU always seemed contradictory to me: surely any argument against continued UK membership is at least as valid against staying in the EU. The money they spent fighting against disclosing the legal advice suggests it's more a case of determination not to debate the question at all, rather than having a considered position of wanting EU membership in itself.

Personally, I would vote for independence from both, since I oppose the EU, and having a genuinely separate government seems preferable to the hybrid Edinburgh/London rule at present.

[andrewducker]

Yup, the whole "Free to Scots and other EU members, but not the English" seems odd to me - and I can't see it being sustainable if Scotland does get Independence.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's time to resurrect the Kingdom of the Isles and Man.

[tobyaw]

Would it take military action for the Scottish islands to annex Man? Or do you foresee more of a coming together of like-minded islanders?

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Would the Scottish islands annex Man or vice versa? The population of the Isle of Man is about the same as the Hebrides, Shetland and Orkney combined.

But yes, I imagine a coming-together of like-minded islanders with low taxes and living off oil revenues without having to subsidise lowland scivers...

[makyo.livejournal.com]

I think you have to decide what country you want to live in: an independent Scotland, a UK that's part of the EU, or a UK that's not part of the EU. The one option that doesn't currently appear to be on the table is an independent Scotland that isn't part of the EU, because the pro-independence lobby seem to be predominantly pro-Europe as well. If that's what you want, then I guess you're out of luck.

What you certainly don't get to do is to be a citizen of an independent Scotland with any say over whether the remainder of the UK stays in the EU or not. Just as if the UK does (heaven forfend) leave the EU, we shouldn't expect to have any further say in what the rest of Europe does.

[tobyaw]

On the basis that polling suggests that Scottish independence is increasingly unpopular, I suspect we’ll all get a chance to vote in the 2017 referendum on EU membership.

[makyo.livejournal.com]

That, of course, depends on whether Cameron et al can get an overall majority in the 2015 general election. Again, this is an issue I suspect we have diametrically opposed views about.

[ggreig]

The polling results are a bit worrying for people like me who favour independence, but it's worth bearing in mind that they also show high levels of support for the sort of "devo max" that isn't on offer and never will be, and that support for independence increases significantly if people think it won't cost much or actually benefit them (as some suggest would be the case). There's scope for opinion to change considerably before the referendum.

[andrewducker]

I agree. It's all going to come down to how it's sold in the last few months before it happens.

[lewis-p-bear.livejournal.com]

As the EU referendum depends on Mr C getting back in I don't think you have an issue.
He may be a Decent Chap who is just misunderstood but we can't see that cutting it with the down trodden masses.
Two ideas come to mind.
We could abandon the EU and join Scotland ( i.e. let the Scottish parliament run England as well) or just admit the whole thing is a cock up and elect the first Teddy Bear government.
This Bear would be happy to serve and has some very definite policy ideas in the matter of Kapok tax.
One other thought.
This 'ere Scottish referendum?
Who gets to vote?
Do you have to have a Scottish Grandmother or just live there 'cause if it is the latter doesn't that mean that lots of English will be voting to leave England?
Weird.

[ggreig]

Qualification is by residency, so a lot of people who are English by birth but live here will have a vote, while a lot of people who are Scots by birth but live elsewhere won't. Some of those excluded are whinging about it, but really there's no other sensible way to do it.

[tobyaw]

One could argue that all members of a union should have a vote in choosing whether to break up that union. I suspect if the English and Welsh had a vote in the referendum, then Scottish independence would be somewhat likelier.

[ggreig]

One couldn't really, unless one wanted to put aside the internationally agreed principle of self determination. Even though, as you say, it might favour my preference.

[tobyaw]

Self determination seems quite well defined and widely accepted. It depends, however, on a rather wooly definition of “nation”, as far as I can tell.

[ggreig]

That's where it helps that Scotland is pretty well-defined as a nation, although it's not currently a state - there are existing, well-defined borders, hundreds of years of independent history preceding the Union(s), and institutions such as separate legal and education systems (which existed even before devolution of course).

[tobyaw]

Fair enough. By comparison, Wales and Northern Ireland don’t share the same attributes of nationhood, so wouldn’t have the same rights to self determination.

[ggreig]

I think they would (as would England of course). You don't need all those attributes; the fact that Scotland does have them is just supporting evidence that makes our case easier to recognise.

If a significant proportion of the populations of the Isles of Bute or Wight (chosen because they don't have a significant independent history, to my knowledge) wanted self determination they could go for it. They'd probably have to struggle harder to be listened to than Scotland has, but they could do it.

So, to take what might be a slightly more likely example, if [England + Wales + Northern Ireland] wanted to hold a referendum to become a state independent from the current UK, that would be fine, and Scotland would have no say in the matter, although the end result of a Yes would be remarkably similar to a successful Scottish independence referendum.