17 ms·

As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around: good luck to them. Brexit has shown very clearly that Scotland wants to chart a differen

As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around: good luck to them. Brexit has shown very clearly that Scotland wants to chart a different path to England and IMO they should be allowed to do it. …just be generous to English folks seeking asylum from Tory rule, yeah?

donedealomg 4y ago
atc 4y ago
c16 4y ago
In full agreement. The UK is now a joke of a country, all the best to them.
- easytiger 4y ago
  Compared with whom and on what criteria?
  - melenaboija 4y ago
    Compared to what it was before brexit
  - gspr 4y ago
    For an easy case: compared to itself before Brexit.
  - Bouncingsoul1 4y ago
    criteria:prime minister, with whom: anyone ;)
  - c16 4y ago
    1. A PM who lies about attending a party, and runs with the lie until he is forced to admit it by a report and photographic evidence. 2. A PM who lied to the Queen. 3. Food poverty on the up [1] 5. £350m a week for NHS post Brexit, and yet that was a blatant lie. NHS now struggling with many staff quitting post covid and as a result of increased work load due to brexit. The list goes on. [1] British medical journal (https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/347/bmj.f7157/F1.large.jpg https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/347/bmj.f7157/F1.large.jpg)
    - gadders 4y ago
      Also a leader of her majesty's opposition who lied about attending a party.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      None of those really seem to make the UK worse than other countries. 1. A politician being a hypocrite. I'm shocked! 2. A politician who lied. I'm shocked! 3. Seems to be happening in many countries? 5. Nursing and doctor shortages are happening in other countries as well.
    - orra 4y ago
      All those. Plus, threatening peace and stability in Northern Ireland, first by pursuing a hard Brexit at all costs, and now by tearing up the Northern Ireland protocol.
      - gadders 4y ago
        Yes, it is entirely correct that the IRA determine the UK's custom borders. Completely foolish to think otherwise.
        orra 4y ago
        This is a nonsense comment, but you probably know that. Northern Ireland was opposed to Brexit, and the Northern Ireland Protocol is supported by a majority of representatives in Northern Ireland. Nothing to do with the IRA.
ivolimmen 4y ago
As a Dutch and EU citizen I fully understand their motivation. I also regretted to see England leave the EU.
- easytiger 4y ago
  Will you feel the same way when the EU seeks the end of veto powers (as is currently happening)? https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/european-parliament-adopts-resolution-suggesting-abolition-of-veto.960752 https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/european-parliament-a...
  - pojzon 4y ago
    Which is going to get introduced because nations like Hungary, led by oil oligarchs connected to Russia, want to fk over whole EU for their personal gain. You should work towards stronger union not weaken it.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      I am a Czech citizen and a mild Euroskeptic. I definitely do not want the EU to become stronger than it already is. We have had enough experience where obsession with "more power" leads, and I do not want to see this scenario replayed again in slightly different conditions. What I value about current EU is precisely that it cannot just squash dissent by force, even from a single country.
      - zwirbl 4y ago
        > What I value about current EU is precisely that it cannot just squash dissent by force, even from a single country. And this often means that the EU can't get anything done on an EU wide level
        inglor_cz 4y ago
        That is, for me, a feature, not a bug. Consent is a great thing. Many people of smaller nations like Czechs, that regained sovereignty after a long period of subjugation to various powers, do not really want to give it up again so that the French-German axis may have their job easier.
madeofpalk 4y ago
> As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around Not judging, I'm honestly curious why you didn't want them to be independent and thought that, "as a Brit" it was your position to have an opinion on Scotland's independence other than "whatever they want"? Me, Australian living in England.
- carnitine 4y ago
  Because fracturing your country and making it poorer and smaller probably isn’t desirable?
  - eyko 4y ago
    Smaller is desireable (leaner government, and fairer representation). Poorer is a matter of opinion -- Scotland has a healthy economy.
    - carnitine 4y ago
      I’m talking from the perspective of a non-Scottish citizen. The UK - a healthy economy = poorer. Smaller vs larger has arguments on either side. I think when you’re talking about major world powers there’s an appeal to not downsizing.
  - ggm 4y ago
    A non Yugoslavian, I regret the breakup of Yugoslavia immensely but I do wonder if any of the former constituent states would agree with you regarding Scotland or me regarding Yugoslavia? Note that it's an open question if the Scots economy would remain worse per capita, not disagreeing there is/was pain ahead in transition.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      From former Czechoslovakia, our disintegration was a mixed parcel. The best thing is that Slovaks had to stand on their own feet and their nationalists slowly had stop blaming everything on Prague. This kind of whiny nationalism embodied by then-prime minister of Slovakia Vladimir Meciar is somewhat disgusting and I can see its softer version in Scotland right now. The worst thing is that yes, our international weight has gone down significantly. But there was customs union between CZ and SK even after the split. I cannot imagine the economic pain if the former federation was suddenly divided by a hard border, as Scotland and England would be.
carnitine 4y ago
Don’t most anti-Brexit arguments have direct anti-independence analogues?
- hardlianotion 4y ago
  Neither Brexiters nor Scottish independence supporters like to be reminded of this.
- cstross 4y ago
  Yes, with one key difference: the Brexit campaigners insisted that the UK was being tyrannized and forced to implement policies set in Brussels by the EU (despite having full political representation in making those policy decisions), whereas Scotland is ultimately under UK control -- large elements of public policy are reserved for Westminster, which means control by a succession of governments Scotland hasn't voted for since 1955. (The first part of this is a side-effect of UK governments since the late 1980s blaming their own unpopular public policies on the EU, aided and abetted by certain elements of the British media who made bank by painting the EU as some kind of continental political supervillain bent on tormenting the UK, rather than a political process the UK had full participation in. One of those most prominent of those journalists being one Boris Johnson ...)
  - ErikCorry 4y ago
    Scotland hasn't voted for the government since 1955? 2005, largest party in Scotland was Labour, Labour won the UK election. same for 2001, 1997, 1974 (both elections), 1966, 1964. Until recently Scotland always voted Labour, and Labour didn't always win. But you could say the same about most Northern English cities, that doesn't mean they should form a new country.
    - matthews2 4y ago
      > that doesn't mean they should form a new country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Independence_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Independence_Party
  - 4y ago
cstross 4y ago
For non-UK people: There are four nations in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). But England has roughly 90% of the population of the UK. So what England votes for in an all-nations referendum, the rest of the UK gets. England voted for Brexit by a narrow-ish majority. But Scotland voted against Brexit by a huge margin -- 62/38, or approximately 3:2. Ironically, the year before the Brexit referendum there was a Scottish independence referendum where "remain part of the UK" won, 55/45. One of the promises the remain campaign made was that staying in the UK was the only way to guarantee Scotland could stay in the EU. So there's a strong sense here in Scotland that we were misled, and presented with a bait-and-switch last time round. Finally, Scotland has a very different political climate from England, with a much weaker far right, stronger far left, and a dominant centre left government. While since 2017, England has increasingly drifted towards the far right.
- Wildgoose 4y ago
  You missed out the part that Wales also voted for Brexit, (52.5% to 47.5%) and that England actually voted strongly for Brexit (53.6% to 46.4%) only to have that result diluted by Scotland and Northern Ireland. It was a UK-wide vote, not an individual nation vote.
  - mcv 4y ago
    But the fact remains that Scotland very strongly wants to remain in the EU, and only a year before voted to remain part of the UK in order to stay in the EU. That was absolutely an ugly bait-and-switch, and I'd be incredibly upset about it if I was Scottish. I'm frankly surprised there hasn't been a massive independence movement directly following the Brexit referendum.
    - Wildgoose 4y ago
      You can't make the statement that Scotland only voted to remain part of the UK in order to remain in the EU. That was just one of many factors. More to the point is that EU citizens resident in Scotland were given a vote on the matter and apparently they overwhelmingly voted Remain because it was in their direct interests to do so. And in no way can it be described as "an ugly bait-and-switch" when the Establishment had no desire to leave the EU, they were just as surprised at the Brexit result as everybody else.
orra 4y ago
> …just be generous to English folks seeking asylum from Tory rule, yeah? As you know, UK asylum policy is horrific at the moment. The UK is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, copying Australia's repugnant offshore policy. I hope we (Scotland) do better. In 2014, the independence white paper had a points based immigration policy. I want a much more open immigration policy this time round. Scotland is enriched by migrants, whether from England or elsewhere. Moreover, we generally depend upon immigration to maintain modest population growth.
- dataengineer56 4y ago
  Scotland doesn't have England's immigration problems because immigrants generally don't want to go to Scotland. It's easy to be virtuous when the problem doesn't affect you.
  - orra 4y ago
    > immigrants generally don't want to go to Scotland Fewer migrants come to Scotland than England, but again: migrants come to Scotland, they enrich society, and their population is demographically useful. > the problem doesn't affect you. It was shown very recently that 'concern' over immigration in the UK is correlated to newspaper reporting, not levels of migration.
- everfrustrated 4y ago
  There is a big difference between people legally arriving under a points system and people rowing themselves over to live illegally.
  - orra 4y ago
    > people rowing themselves over to live illegally. Complete misdirection. It's lawful for asylum seekers to arrive by otherwise-unlawful transport. It'd be better if they didn't have to, of course.
    - JimmyAxod 4y ago
brigandish 4y ago
As a Brit who voted for Scottish independence last time, against the wishes of many of my family and those around me, if this happens again then I'll vote against the SNP's wishes. They said it was a once in generation vote. I made my case, as did everyone else, we all had the chance to vote on it, and my side lost. Democratic votes need the consent of the loser, not I didn't get my way so let's have another vote. Brexit has nothing to do with it, a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU, it's just an excuse. I don't even think they have the support this time as much as they did last time. It's opportunist, mendacious, unwarranted and ill-considered politicking that I will fight tooth and nail against.
- justin66 4y ago
  > As a Brit who voted for Scottish independence last time, against the wishes of many of my family and those around me, if this happens again then I'll vote against the SNP's wishes. You don't believe they should hold the vote again so soon, and so in the event of another vote your reaction will be to... participate in the vote you do not believe should be held, but cast a ballot against the outcome you want? What is the crazy logic there?
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > What is the crazy logic there? - I do not control whether there is a vote - Those proposing the vote said they wouldn't do it - I will work to spoil it I'd prefer that you work through the simple and obvious points yourself instead of implying some mental problem on my part, if only to remove yourself from the irony of such a claim.
    - justin66 4y ago
      > I will work to spoil it You've failed to communicate the why? of this. I can express it a different way: you have decided that you know what is best for yourself and your country regarding independence - a big and highly consequential topic - and you're going to act in opposition of that to spite a relatively small number of powerful people whose actions you disapprove of. Those powerful people will not suffer regardless of whether your country makes the "correct" (whatever that is) choice regarding independence, but you and your country certainly will. Hence my curiosity about your logic.
tut-urut-utut 4y ago
I always admired Brits for allowing people from Scotland (and maybe other parts) to actually vote and decide if they wanted to stay in the same country with them. If people all over the world had the same right, I suppose a lot of the wars could be avoided. Just imagine Ukraine allowing people in Donetsk and Lugansk to actually decide their status themselves, instead of using an army to force them into Ukraine. Selectively applying right to independence is maybe the single worst problem in the whole world, whose solution could lead to immediate benefits to everyone. And before someone claims otherwise, I would even go as far as the community level. If a city in Scotland vote to stay in Britain, I would allow them to become independent of Scotland and stay. In the same ways as I would allow a city in Donetsk to stay in Ukraine if they want so. Freedom of association is the basic human right, and no majorisation should be allowed to happen. Never.
- walkhour 4y ago
  These kinds of votes would happen more often if the independent country committed to running referendums asking whether they should join the original country after they became independent. Many countries fear a referendum every twenty years with a 30% chance of resulting in independence, with these conditions, it's just a matter of time until the region becomes independent, and referendums, of course, stop happening.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > Just imagine Ukraine allowing people in Donetsk and Lugansk to actually decide their status themselves, instead of using an army to force them into Ukraine. > Freedom of association is the basic human right, and no majorisation should be allowed to happen. Never. Russia has cleansed the occupied territories of ethnic Ukrainians pretty well over the last years since they took them over. Any form of "referendum" to associate with Russia is nothing more than a plain land grab, a sham election. In contrast, there has been no campaign in Catalonia or in Scotland to forcibly remove ethnic Spaniards/English people in order to stage a fraudulent vote.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    > Russia has cleansed the occupied territories of ethnic Ukrainians pretty well over the last years since they took them over. Any form of "referendum" to associate with Russia is nothing more than a plain land grab, a sham election. Without commenting your claims of supposed ethnic cleansing, I'd like to point out that such a referendum could've potentially been held before or after the Maidan coup in 2014. But since Ukraine regime decided to crush independence movement using their armed forces, people of Donbas had no other choice but to fight back and got help from whoever was willing to help them. Otherwise, this territory would be ethnically cleansed. > In contrast, there has been no campaign in Catalonia or in Scotland to forcibly remove ethnic Spaniards/English people in order to stage a fraudulent vote. I wish Spanish government reacted similar to British in case of Catalonia. Instead of helping to properly organize the referendum, they opted for using armed forces and criminalizing and arresting pro-independence supporters.
kmlx 4y ago
> Brexit has shown very clearly that Scotland wants to chart a different path to England and IMO they should be allowed to do it. i don't get this. to me, in 2022, all the countries of the UK are exactly the same. even Ireland in some aspects. same language, same history, more or less same laws. what's so special about Scotland, and what's their "different path" as compared to, let's say, Wales?
- dubeye 4y ago
  Is greater London exactly the same as Cornwall? Scotland has sufficient tax base and legal structures to go it alone, whilst Wales arguably doesn't. In your list, you exclude politics.
  - kmlx 4y ago
    > Is greater London exactly the same as Cornwall? considering how many people from London move to Cornwall, and judging by the number of Teslas on the road, yeah, it's pretty similar. > Scotland has sufficient tax base and legal structures to go it alone, whilst Wales arguably doesn't. there are lots of countries that went at it alone. that doesn't mean those countries have been successful. one can even argue that an ever closer European Union made lots of small countries be more successful by giving up part of their power. also, there's no such thing as "alone" in this day and age. > In your list, you exclude politics. less politics, better for everyone.
    - dubeye 4y ago
      Cornwall is one of the poorest areas in the United Kingdom and London is one of the richest. So not too similar in that respect. Success is a different question, but the point made that most economists accept Scotland 'could' do it. Wales not so much. > less politics, better for everyone. We are discussing politics right now :)
- kitd 4y ago
  Not the same distribution of revenue and resources though. London & Westminster have an excessive degree of power and might, and the other nations, as well as much of the rest of England, are powerless as a result.
gghhzzgghhzz 4y ago
As a Welsh secessionist, I can't for the life of me square the idea of wanting to leave union that for all its massive faults is at least something you can understand and engage with, to replace that by joining a union that is distant, more artificial and certainly more vague and impenetrable to the common person. Why would you leave economic and political dominance by Westminster with no control over the economics of your borders (the capital flows, the tax loopholes, the destabilising and exploitative 'investment', the primacy of trade which leads to the all encompassing trade for trade's sake, the depopulation of youth) to instead give that control up to Frankfurt and Brussels? I think we (Scotland, and Wales) should define what we want to do first and why and where we want to go / want to be. Then in some cases trade agreements will be useful to promote these goals. but they have to be tightly controlled and compensated for.
- brnt 4y ago
  Despite the image that British media have carefully crafted, Brussels (and Frankfurt?) are far more democratic and competent governments than Westminster. It is only vague because British government has had a deliberate policy of keeping that so (you should read some memoirs of other-EU diplomats on the issue). Convolution of governing is such a British tradition, that unfortunately you believe it is both everywhere and the particular strain present in Westminster is the least worst of all.
  - gghhzzgghhzz 4y ago
    I think we should all have a healthy scepticism for leaders and politicians. We do tend to have that for those in Westminster. The idea that politicians in Brussels don't have vested interests, are not the result of heavy lobbying, are not seeking re-election, are not corruptible or of questionable moral standing is rather dangerous. There seems to be a heavy degree of Blue-Washing. Take a politician like Donald Tusk for example, someone who would be in the fringes of the socially conservative right in the UK, yet is venerated during the Brexit discussions. Or Micheal Barnier, again venerated amongst so called liberals in the UK, yet now calling for an immigration ban in France. On the economic side. Yes everything is very convoluted and remote for a reason. Power structures always get taken over by the interests of capital. The idea that the EU / Euro / European central bank is any different is again rather dangerous. This is an institution with economic interests written into its constitution. The goal here is to drive down the costs of labour added with the maybe unintended or maybe intended consequence that the EU has spend 20 years dealing with the contradictions and artificial constraints on public spending of a currency that it has created, when it could have been using that time and effort to do something transformational, especially in the direction of green technology and energy.
gadders 4y ago
I can't help thinking there is a certain tension between wanting to be an independent country, and then also wanting to join the EU and give up your currency. Most of the new powers you would gain under independence would be given away again.
- enriquto 4y ago
  > there is a certain tension between wanting to be an independent country, and then also wanting to join the EU Not necessarily. For example, regarding official languages, there's no way that Gaelic would be an official EU language if Ireland was not directly part of the EU. And if Catalonia gained its independence, then Catalan would likely become an officially recognized language in the EU (which it isn't, due to spanish interference). Actually, this is one of the most important motivations for many pro-indepencence supporters in Catalonia (of which nearly all of them are pro-EU).
  - gadders 4y ago
    So they could have a language, but lose most of everything else?
    - enriquto 4y ago
      That's a pretty big deal, actually... imagine (assuming that you are an English monolingual) that suddenly the geopolitics around your city change, and you can not live your daily life using English anymore. You need to learn another, foreign language, that becomes the sole official language. Would you be happy, even if you kept "most of everything else" ?
enriquto 4y ago
> As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around: good luck to them. As a Catalan that wants his country to be independent: I'd cry tears of joy if our western neighbors were half as nice as you the English are. I was not pro-indy before I got to know first-hand the callousness of even moderate spaniard unionists.
- smcl 4y ago
  Just a heads up - this person is delivering all the "No" campaign's talking points in this thread so it's very unlikely they actually voted "Yes" in 2014.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Are you referring to me? My real name is linked in my profile and I can prove that: a) I campaigned for independence in 2014 b) can prove that I was annoyed about the result Of course, I cannot prove that I actually voted yes as it's a secret ballot. I can put you in touch with my mum though, who voted no. Perhaps she's lying too and she'll lie to you about what I said I'd voted for. She loves her son and we're into lying to people while using our real names… <insert relevant sarcasm emoji face> Jesus wept. What is it with HNers who want to lie about others they disagree with politically, on HN? This isn't Facebook or Twitter.

donedealomg 4y ago

atc 4y ago

c16 4y ago

In full agreement. The UK is now a joke of a country, all the best to them.

easytiger 4y ago
Compared with whom and on what criteria?
- melenaboija 4y ago
  Compared to what it was before brexit
- gspr 4y ago
  For an easy case: compared to itself before Brexit.
- Bouncingsoul1 4y ago
  criteria:prime minister, with whom: anyone ;)
- c16 4y ago
  1. A PM who lies about attending a party, and runs with the lie until he is forced to admit it by a report and photographic evidence. 2. A PM who lied to the Queen. 3. Food poverty on the up [1] 5. £350m a week for NHS post Brexit, and yet that was a blatant lie. NHS now struggling with many staff quitting post covid and as a result of increased work load due to brexit. The list goes on. [1] British medical journal (https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/347/bmj.f7157/F1.large.jpg https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/347/bmj.f7157/F1.large.jpg)
  - gadders 4y ago
    Also a leader of her majesty's opposition who lied about attending a party.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    None of those really seem to make the UK worse than other countries. 1. A politician being a hypocrite. I'm shocked! 2. A politician who lied. I'm shocked! 3. Seems to be happening in many countries? 5. Nursing and doctor shortages are happening in other countries as well.
  - orra 4y ago
    All those. Plus, threatening peace and stability in Northern Ireland, first by pursuing a hard Brexit at all costs, and now by tearing up the Northern Ireland protocol.
    - gadders 4y ago
      Yes, it is entirely correct that the IRA determine the UK's custom borders. Completely foolish to think otherwise.
      - orra 4y ago
        This is a nonsense comment, but you probably know that. Northern Ireland was opposed to Brexit, and the Northern Ireland Protocol is supported by a majority of representatives in Northern Ireland. Nothing to do with the IRA.

ivolimmen 4y ago

As a Dutch and EU citizen I fully understand their motivation. I also regretted to see England leave the EU.

easytiger 4y ago
Will you feel the same way when the EU seeks the end of veto powers (as is currently happening)? https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/european-parliament-adopts-resolution-suggesting-abolition-of-veto.960752 https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/european-parliament-a...
- pojzon 4y ago
  Which is going to get introduced because nations like Hungary, led by oil oligarchs connected to Russia, want to fk over whole EU for their personal gain. You should work towards stronger union not weaken it.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    I am a Czech citizen and a mild Euroskeptic. I definitely do not want the EU to become stronger than it already is. We have had enough experience where obsession with "more power" leads, and I do not want to see this scenario replayed again in slightly different conditions. What I value about current EU is precisely that it cannot just squash dissent by force, even from a single country.
    - zwirbl 4y ago
      > What I value about current EU is precisely that it cannot just squash dissent by force, even from a single country. And this often means that the EU can't get anything done on an EU wide level
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        That is, for me, a feature, not a bug. Consent is a great thing. Many people of smaller nations like Czechs, that regained sovereignty after a long period of subjugation to various powers, do not really want to give it up again so that the French-German axis may have their job easier.

madeofpalk 4y ago

> As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around Not judging, I'm honestly curious why you didn't want them to be independent and thought that, "as a Brit" it was your position to have an opinion on Scotland's independence other than "whatever they want"? Me, Australian living in England.

carnitine 4y ago
Because fracturing your country and making it poorer and smaller probably isn’t desirable?
- eyko 4y ago
  Smaller is desireable (leaner government, and fairer representation). Poorer is a matter of opinion -- Scotland has a healthy economy.
  - carnitine 4y ago
    I’m talking from the perspective of a non-Scottish citizen. The UK - a healthy economy = poorer. Smaller vs larger has arguments on either side. I think when you’re talking about major world powers there’s an appeal to not downsizing.
- ggm 4y ago
  A non Yugoslavian, I regret the breakup of Yugoslavia immensely but I do wonder if any of the former constituent states would agree with you regarding Scotland or me regarding Yugoslavia? Note that it's an open question if the Scots economy would remain worse per capita, not disagreeing there is/was pain ahead in transition.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    From former Czechoslovakia, our disintegration was a mixed parcel. The best thing is that Slovaks had to stand on their own feet and their nationalists slowly had stop blaming everything on Prague. This kind of whiny nationalism embodied by then-prime minister of Slovakia Vladimir Meciar is somewhat disgusting and I can see its softer version in Scotland right now. The worst thing is that yes, our international weight has gone down significantly. But there was customs union between CZ and SK even after the split. I cannot imagine the economic pain if the former federation was suddenly divided by a hard border, as Scotland and England would be.

carnitine 4y ago

Don’t most anti-Brexit arguments have direct anti-independence analogues?

hardlianotion 4y ago
Neither Brexiters nor Scottish independence supporters like to be reminded of this.
cstross 4y ago
Yes, with one key difference: the Brexit campaigners insisted that the UK was being tyrannized and forced to implement policies set in Brussels by the EU (despite having full political representation in making those policy decisions), whereas Scotland is ultimately under UK control -- large elements of public policy are reserved for Westminster, which means control by a succession of governments Scotland hasn't voted for since 1955. (The first part of this is a side-effect of UK governments since the late 1980s blaming their own unpopular public policies on the EU, aided and abetted by certain elements of the British media who made bank by painting the EU as some kind of continental political supervillain bent on tormenting the UK, rather than a political process the UK had full participation in. One of those most prominent of those journalists being one Boris Johnson ...)
- ErikCorry 4y ago
  Scotland hasn't voted for the government since 1955? 2005, largest party in Scotland was Labour, Labour won the UK election. same for 2001, 1997, 1974 (both elections), 1966, 1964. Until recently Scotland always voted Labour, and Labour didn't always win. But you could say the same about most Northern English cities, that doesn't mean they should form a new country.
  - matthews2 4y ago
    > that doesn't mean they should form a new country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Independence_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Independence_Party
- 4y ago

cstross 4y ago

For non-UK people: There are four nations in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). But England has roughly 90% of the population of the UK. So what England votes for in an all-nations referendum, the rest of the UK gets. England voted for Brexit by a narrow-ish majority. But Scotland voted against Brexit by a huge margin -- 62/38, or approximately 3:2. Ironically, the year before the Brexit referendum there was a Scottish independence referendum where "remain part of the UK" won, 55/45. One of the promises the remain campaign made was that staying in the UK was the only way to guarantee Scotland could stay in the EU. So there's a strong sense here in Scotland that we were misled, and presented with a bait-and-switch last time round. Finally, Scotland has a very different political climate from England, with a much weaker far right, stronger far left, and a dominant centre left government. While since 2017, England has increasingly drifted towards the far right.

Wildgoose 4y ago
You missed out the part that Wales also voted for Brexit, (52.5% to 47.5%) and that England actually voted strongly for Brexit (53.6% to 46.4%) only to have that result diluted by Scotland and Northern Ireland. It was a UK-wide vote, not an individual nation vote.
- mcv 4y ago
  But the fact remains that Scotland very strongly wants to remain in the EU, and only a year before voted to remain part of the UK in order to stay in the EU. That was absolutely an ugly bait-and-switch, and I'd be incredibly upset about it if I was Scottish. I'm frankly surprised there hasn't been a massive independence movement directly following the Brexit referendum.
  - Wildgoose 4y ago
    You can't make the statement that Scotland only voted to remain part of the UK in order to remain in the EU. That was just one of many factors. More to the point is that EU citizens resident in Scotland were given a vote on the matter and apparently they overwhelmingly voted Remain because it was in their direct interests to do so. And in no way can it be described as "an ugly bait-and-switch" when the Establishment had no desire to leave the EU, they were just as surprised at the Brexit result as everybody else.

orra 4y ago

> …just be generous to English folks seeking asylum from Tory rule, yeah? As you know, UK asylum policy is horrific at the moment. The UK is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, copying Australia's repugnant offshore policy. I hope we (Scotland) do better. In 2014, the independence white paper had a points based immigration policy. I want a much more open immigration policy this time round. Scotland is enriched by migrants, whether from England or elsewhere. Moreover, we generally depend upon immigration to maintain modest population growth.

dataengineer56 4y ago
Scotland doesn't have England's immigration problems because immigrants generally don't want to go to Scotland. It's easy to be virtuous when the problem doesn't affect you.
- orra 4y ago
  > immigrants generally don't want to go to Scotland Fewer migrants come to Scotland than England, but again: migrants come to Scotland, they enrich society, and their population is demographically useful. > the problem doesn't affect you. It was shown very recently that 'concern' over immigration in the UK is correlated to newspaper reporting, not levels of migration.
everfrustrated 4y ago
There is a big difference between people legally arriving under a points system and people rowing themselves over to live illegally.
- orra 4y ago
  > people rowing themselves over to live illegally. Complete misdirection. It's lawful for asylum seekers to arrive by otherwise-unlawful transport. It'd be better if they didn't have to, of course.
  - JimmyAxod 4y ago

brigandish 4y ago

As a Brit who voted for Scottish independence last time, against the wishes of many of my family and those around me, if this happens again then I'll vote against the SNP's wishes. They said it was a once in generation vote. I made my case, as did everyone else, we all had the chance to vote on it, and my side lost. Democratic votes need the consent of the loser, not I didn't get my way so let's have another vote. Brexit has nothing to do with it, a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU, it's just an excuse. I don't even think they have the support this time as much as they did last time. It's opportunist, mendacious, unwarranted and ill-considered politicking that I will fight tooth and nail against.

justin66 4y ago
> As a Brit who voted for Scottish independence last time, against the wishes of many of my family and those around me, if this happens again then I'll vote against the SNP's wishes. You don't believe they should hold the vote again so soon, and so in the event of another vote your reaction will be to... participate in the vote you do not believe should be held, but cast a ballot against the outcome you want? What is the crazy logic there?
- brigandish 4y ago
  > What is the crazy logic there? - I do not control whether there is a vote - Those proposing the vote said they wouldn't do it - I will work to spoil it I'd prefer that you work through the simple and obvious points yourself instead of implying some mental problem on my part, if only to remove yourself from the irony of such a claim.
  - justin66 4y ago
    > I will work to spoil it You've failed to communicate the why? of this. I can express it a different way: you have decided that you know what is best for yourself and your country regarding independence - a big and highly consequential topic - and you're going to act in opposition of that to spite a relatively small number of powerful people whose actions you disapprove of. Those powerful people will not suffer regardless of whether your country makes the "correct" (whatever that is) choice regarding independence, but you and your country certainly will. Hence my curiosity about your logic.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago

I always admired Brits for allowing people from Scotland (and maybe other parts) to actually vote and decide if they wanted to stay in the same country with them. If people all over the world had the same right, I suppose a lot of the wars could be avoided. Just imagine Ukraine allowing people in Donetsk and Lugansk to actually decide their status themselves, instead of using an army to force them into Ukraine. Selectively applying right to independence is maybe the single worst problem in the whole world, whose solution could lead to immediate benefits to everyone. And before someone claims otherwise, I would even go as far as the community level. If a city in Scotland vote to stay in Britain, I would allow them to become independent of Scotland and stay. In the same ways as I would allow a city in Donetsk to stay in Ukraine if they want so. Freedom of association is the basic human right, and no majorisation should be allowed to happen. Never.

walkhour 4y ago
These kinds of votes would happen more often if the independent country committed to running referendums asking whether they should join the original country after they became independent. Many countries fear a referendum every twenty years with a 30% chance of resulting in independence, with these conditions, it's just a matter of time until the region becomes independent, and referendums, of course, stop happening.
mschuster91 4y ago
> Just imagine Ukraine allowing people in Donetsk and Lugansk to actually decide their status themselves, instead of using an army to force them into Ukraine. > Freedom of association is the basic human right, and no majorisation should be allowed to happen. Never. Russia has cleansed the occupied territories of ethnic Ukrainians pretty well over the last years since they took them over. Any form of "referendum" to associate with Russia is nothing more than a plain land grab, a sham election. In contrast, there has been no campaign in Catalonia or in Scotland to forcibly remove ethnic Spaniards/English people in order to stage a fraudulent vote.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  > Russia has cleansed the occupied territories of ethnic Ukrainians pretty well over the last years since they took them over. Any form of "referendum" to associate with Russia is nothing more than a plain land grab, a sham election. Without commenting your claims of supposed ethnic cleansing, I'd like to point out that such a referendum could've potentially been held before or after the Maidan coup in 2014. But since Ukraine regime decided to crush independence movement using their armed forces, people of Donbas had no other choice but to fight back and got help from whoever was willing to help them. Otherwise, this territory would be ethnically cleansed. > In contrast, there has been no campaign in Catalonia or in Scotland to forcibly remove ethnic Spaniards/English people in order to stage a fraudulent vote. I wish Spanish government reacted similar to British in case of Catalonia. Instead of helping to properly organize the referendum, they opted for using armed forces and criminalizing and arresting pro-independence supporters.

kmlx 4y ago

> Brexit has shown very clearly that Scotland wants to chart a different path to England and IMO they should be allowed to do it. i don't get this. to me, in 2022, all the countries of the UK are exactly the same. even Ireland in some aspects. same language, same history, more or less same laws. what's so special about Scotland, and what's their "different path" as compared to, let's say, Wales?

dubeye 4y ago
Is greater London exactly the same as Cornwall? Scotland has sufficient tax base and legal structures to go it alone, whilst Wales arguably doesn't. In your list, you exclude politics.
- kmlx 4y ago
  > Is greater London exactly the same as Cornwall? considering how many people from London move to Cornwall, and judging by the number of Teslas on the road, yeah, it's pretty similar. > Scotland has sufficient tax base and legal structures to go it alone, whilst Wales arguably doesn't. there are lots of countries that went at it alone. that doesn't mean those countries have been successful. one can even argue that an ever closer European Union made lots of small countries be more successful by giving up part of their power. also, there's no such thing as "alone" in this day and age. > In your list, you exclude politics. less politics, better for everyone.
  - dubeye 4y ago
    Cornwall is one of the poorest areas in the United Kingdom and London is one of the richest. So not too similar in that respect. Success is a different question, but the point made that most economists accept Scotland 'could' do it. Wales not so much. > less politics, better for everyone. We are discussing politics right now :)
kitd 4y ago
Not the same distribution of revenue and resources though. London & Westminster have an excessive degree of power and might, and the other nations, as well as much of the rest of England, are powerless as a result.

gghhzzgghhzz 4y ago

As a Welsh secessionist, I can't for the life of me square the idea of wanting to leave union that for all its massive faults is at least something you can understand and engage with, to replace that by joining a union that is distant, more artificial and certainly more vague and impenetrable to the common person. Why would you leave economic and political dominance by Westminster with no control over the economics of your borders (the capital flows, the tax loopholes, the destabilising and exploitative 'investment', the primacy of trade which leads to the all encompassing trade for trade's sake, the depopulation of youth) to instead give that control up to Frankfurt and Brussels? I think we (Scotland, and Wales) should define what we want to do first and why and where we want to go / want to be. Then in some cases trade agreements will be useful to promote these goals. but they have to be tightly controlled and compensated for.

brnt 4y ago
Despite the image that British media have carefully crafted, Brussels (and Frankfurt?) are far more democratic and competent governments than Westminster. It is only vague because British government has had a deliberate policy of keeping that so (you should read some memoirs of other-EU diplomats on the issue). Convolution of governing is such a British tradition, that unfortunately you believe it is both everywhere and the particular strain present in Westminster is the least worst of all.
- gghhzzgghhzz 4y ago
  I think we should all have a healthy scepticism for leaders and politicians. We do tend to have that for those in Westminster. The idea that politicians in Brussels don't have vested interests, are not the result of heavy lobbying, are not seeking re-election, are not corruptible or of questionable moral standing is rather dangerous. There seems to be a heavy degree of Blue-Washing. Take a politician like Donald Tusk for example, someone who would be in the fringes of the socially conservative right in the UK, yet is venerated during the Brexit discussions. Or Micheal Barnier, again venerated amongst so called liberals in the UK, yet now calling for an immigration ban in France. On the economic side. Yes everything is very convoluted and remote for a reason. Power structures always get taken over by the interests of capital. The idea that the EU / Euro / European central bank is any different is again rather dangerous. This is an institution with economic interests written into its constitution. The goal here is to drive down the costs of labour added with the maybe unintended or maybe intended consequence that the EU has spend 20 years dealing with the contradictions and artificial constraints on public spending of a currency that it has created, when it could have been using that time and effort to do something transformational, especially in the direction of green technology and energy.

gadders 4y ago

I can't help thinking there is a certain tension between wanting to be an independent country, and then also wanting to join the EU and give up your currency. Most of the new powers you would gain under independence would be given away again.

enriquto 4y ago
> there is a certain tension between wanting to be an independent country, and then also wanting to join the EU Not necessarily. For example, regarding official languages, there's no way that Gaelic would be an official EU language if Ireland was not directly part of the EU. And if Catalonia gained its independence, then Catalan would likely become an officially recognized language in the EU (which it isn't, due to spanish interference). Actually, this is one of the most important motivations for many pro-indepencence supporters in Catalonia (of which nearly all of them are pro-EU).
- gadders 4y ago
  So they could have a language, but lose most of everything else?
  - enriquto 4y ago
    That's a pretty big deal, actually... imagine (assuming that you are an English monolingual) that suddenly the geopolitics around your city change, and you can not live your daily life using English anymore. You need to learn another, foreign language, that becomes the sole official language. Would you be happy, even if you kept "most of everything else" ?

enriquto 4y ago

> As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around: good luck to them. As a Catalan that wants his country to be independent: I'd cry tears of joy if our western neighbors were half as nice as you the English are. I was not pro-indy before I got to know first-hand the callousness of even moderate spaniard unionists.

smcl 4y ago
Just a heads up - this person is delivering all the "No" campaign's talking points in this thread so it's very unlikely they actually voted "Yes" in 2014.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Are you referring to me? My real name is linked in my profile and I can prove that: a) I campaigned for independence in 2014 b) can prove that I was annoyed about the result Of course, I cannot prove that I actually voted yes as it's a secret ballot. I can put you in touch with my mum though, who voted no. Perhaps she's lying too and she'll lie to you about what I said I'd voted for. She loves her son and we're into lying to people while using our real names… <insert relevant sarcasm emoji face> Jesus wept. What is it with HNers who want to lie about others they disagree with politically, on HN? This isn't Facebook or Twitter.