3 ms·

Yeah, conveniently leave out that Scotland was threatened back then with not being accepted into the EU if they left the UK, and also the fact that ~60% of Scot

by euyyn 10y ago

Yeah, conveniently leave out that Scotland was threatened back then with not being accepted into the EU if they left the UK, and also the fact that ~60% of Scots voted to remain in the EU. Because those two things aren't relevant.

Silhouette 10y ago
When people voted in IndyRef1, both the possibility of leaving the EU, temporarily or permanently, if they voted to leave the UK and the possibility of leaving the EU as part of the UK if they voted to remain were widely known and understood. No-one can read the future, then as now, but it's not reasonable to say that people didn't know what they were voting for either way. And so no, I don't think the number of Scots who voted to remain in the EU is particularly relevant under the circumstances, any more than the balance of the vote in London or Manchester or Cornwall or any other part of the overall UK. That was the entire point of the independence referendum. Moreover, so far all the evidence I've seen suggests that public sentiment in Scotland hasn't changed very much in terms of remaining part of the UK, even at the expense of no longer being part of the EU.
- euyyn 10y ago
  > the possibility of leaving the EU, temporarily [...], if they voted to leave the UK [was] widely known and understood. I don't know what you're trying to achieve by mischaracterizing that "temporarily" leaving the EU was an option. Member states can veto new entries, and both Spain and the UK threatened that seceding meant no more EU for Scotland. You'll only fool yourself by arguing that the threat of being kicked out of the EU wasn't a factor in people's minds. Before Brexit, voting to remain in the UK was the only way to prevent that; after Brexit, voting to secede from the UK is the only way to prevent it. A referendum is what'll provide the evidence of how much those changing circumstances have affected the vote.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Sorry, but isn't this argument logically inconsistent? If Spain was going to veto an independent Scotland's entry into the EU before, why wouldn't it now? Why has anything changed from their perspective? And why so confident that Spain would veto anyway? The situation with a Scotland that had voted democratically to separate from the UK would be quite different to the political situation in Spain. Also, why would the remaining UK have vetoed it before? There was a lot of fear-mongering going on before the referendum, but there doesn't seem to be any good reason the UK should object, and doing so on purely political grounds could easily backfire. If the remaining UK was expecting to remain in the EU as well (which, I think it's fair to say, most people did expect at that point) then an independent Scotland also being in the EU would have made issues at the border much easier, so if anything you'd think the UK would have encouraged Scotland to join the EU. I'm quite sure the issue of EU membership was a factor in some people's voting decisions in IndyRef1, but I don't see how Brexit combined with the argument you've made here would suggest a different outcome.

by euyyn 10y ago

Silhouette 10y ago

When people voted in IndyRef1, both the possibility of leaving the EU, temporarily or permanently, if they voted to leave the UK and the possibility of leaving the EU as part of the UK if they voted to remain were widely known and understood. No-one can read the future, then as now, but it's not reasonable to say that people didn't know what they were voting for either way. And so no, I don't think the number of Scots who voted to remain in the EU is particularly relevant under the circumstances, any more than the balance of the vote in London or Manchester or Cornwall or any other part of the overall UK. That was the entire point of the independence referendum. Moreover, so far all the evidence I've seen suggests that public sentiment in Scotland hasn't changed very much in terms of remaining part of the UK, even at the expense of no longer being part of the EU.

euyyn 10y ago
> the possibility of leaving the EU, temporarily [...], if they voted to leave the UK [was] widely known and understood. I don't know what you're trying to achieve by mischaracterizing that "temporarily" leaving the EU was an option. Member states can veto new entries, and both Spain and the UK threatened that seceding meant no more EU for Scotland. You'll only fool yourself by arguing that the threat of being kicked out of the EU wasn't a factor in people's minds. Before Brexit, voting to remain in the UK was the only way to prevent that; after Brexit, voting to secede from the UK is the only way to prevent it. A referendum is what'll provide the evidence of how much those changing circumstances have affected the vote.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Sorry, but isn't this argument logically inconsistent? If Spain was going to veto an independent Scotland's entry into the EU before, why wouldn't it now? Why has anything changed from their perspective? And why so confident that Spain would veto anyway? The situation with a Scotland that had voted democratically to separate from the UK would be quite different to the political situation in Spain. Also, why would the remaining UK have vetoed it before? There was a lot of fear-mongering going on before the referendum, but there doesn't seem to be any good reason the UK should object, and doing so on purely political grounds could easily backfire. If the remaining UK was expecting to remain in the EU as well (which, I think it's fair to say, most people did expect at that point) then an independent Scotland also being in the EU would have made issues at the border much easier, so if anything you'd think the UK would have encouraged Scotland to join the EU. I'm quite sure the issue of EU membership was a factor in some people's voting decisions in IndyRef1, but I don't see how Brexit combined with the argument you've made here would suggest a different outcome.