5 ms·

Haven't they already had one recently and the majority were against it...

• leereeves 4y ago
  Yes, in 2014, but that was before Brexit.
  • rbanffy 4y ago
    And the argument for remaining part of the UK was precisely because Scotland would have to start the EU admission process from scratch.
• newaccount74 4y ago
  That was before Brexit.
• MagnumOpus 4y ago
  Eight years ago, before the English decided to catapult them out of the EU. (A major argument from the English side against Indyref was that an independent Scotland couldn't be part of the EU, but a united Kingdom could - that aged poorly.)
  • cdogl 4y ago
    It was a strange argument in the first place. If Luxembourg and Malta can be in the EU, why not Scotland? Hard to imagine them being refused.
    • tehbeard 4y ago
      It's less an issue of size and more of economics etc. Also the precedent it sets for Catalonia's independence movement and the issues that causes for Spain is another pain point that has been brought up (edit: Though as I understand it, Spain's position is that as long as Scotland does it "legally", and not by secession, they're fine?).
    • pmyteh 4y ago
      The only plausible problem was a Spanish veto, to avoid encouraging secession by the Basque country and Catalonia. If done with the consent of the Rest of the UK, though, I don't think that would have eventuated.
    • bhaak 4y ago
      It certainly can but an independent Scotland would not automatically be a member of the EU. They would have had to apply for membership and even though it would have certainly been speedrun (unless the UK would have been petty and tried to block their admittance) there would still have been some turmoil until they were admitted. And now they got the turmoil without any option of being part of the EU. Edit: proper tenses so it's clear this is with regards to how the situation was for the referendum of 2014.
      • smcl 4y ago
        (edit: questioned the meaning of the parent comment, but they have clarified)
        • bhaak 4y ago
          That was written for the referendum of 2014. Today of course, the situation is completely different.
          • smcl 4y ago
            Ah, clear :) I'll edit my comment too
      • soVeryTired 4y ago
        Spain would likely be against Scotland joining, since there’s an analogous independence movement in Catalonia that Madrid wants to suppress. Not that they’d necessarily veto, but the politics aren’t clear-cut.
        • bhaak 4y ago
          Only if they secede without approval of the UK. The referendum in 2014 was accepted by the government. That's something Madrid won't do. At least not within the foreseeable future.
• prvit 4y ago
  They had one 8 years ago and the situation changed drastically since then. Northern Ireland for example gets to hold independence referendums every 7 years, so there hardly exists any real argument against holding another one… Besides the fact that Westminster would likely lose, of course.
  • Kaibeezy 4y ago
    I wasn’t aware (or I forgot) NI has this option. Do you know why they have it? Can you point to a good explanation somewhere? Thx.
    • prvit 4y ago
      They have it because IRA was willing to kill a lot of people to get it. This is a part of the so-called Good Friday Agreement which was signed in 1998 after Northern Irish nationalists fought a 30 year war against the British state with an ultimate goal of becoming a part of Ireland instead.
      • Kaibeezy 4y ago
        That's what I get for asking an imprecise question. Sometimes, when two countries dislike each other very much... A more precise line of questioning might have been: What considerations brought about the inclusion of this particular clause or right? Under what circumstances has it been raised for consideration since the Agreement? Can you point to a resource focusing on the issues and history surrounding this particular clause? Anyway, the comments above made some suggestions.
  • dijit 4y ago
    > Northern Ireland for example gets to hold independence referendums every 7 years I can't find a source for this, do you have one?
    • prvit 4y ago
      Northern Ireland Act 1998
• Kaibeezy 4y ago
  2014. The result was much closer than polls predicted. The argument is the circumstances have fundamentally changed: Brexit (2016) is proven to be an economic and regulatory disaster, and Scotland is out of the EU against its will (62% voted remain).
  • whostolemyhat 4y ago
    Most cities in Britain voted remain; since the population of London is higher than Scotland, should London have an independence referendum, especially since England doesn't have its' own parliament?
    • timeon 4y ago
      Why not if there is desire.
    • Kaibeezy 4y ago
      Some of the discussion on the below post the other day (re the .gb TLD) was around this question. The UK political landscape is a very odd duck. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33689935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33689935
    • smcl 4y ago
      If there is a strong pro-London independence movement, and if London routinely elects a party whose defining policy is London's independence in the majority of seats in local and national elections then yes it absolutely should have a referendum.
    • AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
• smcl 4y ago
  Let's not play daft, we all know why this issue has come up again
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• dijit 4y ago
  I can explain a little more than the other replies. The situation has changed a lot and the reason why is brexit. In 2014 the Scottish referendum a central part of the "No to independence" marketing was the idea that Scotland would be out of the EU and would be unlikely (or uncertain) if they would be able to return to the EU. The victory margin for remaining in the UK was quite narrow and interviews from that time indicate that it was a large problem for many. In 2016 in the Brexit referendum Scotland's regions voted unanimously to remain in the EU, but of course they were outnumbered by the English and Welsh. So, since a central promise that inspired many to check the "No" to independence box to Scottish independence had changed: the conversation has come about again. EDIT: I'm currently going through old youtube videos trying to find interesting "on the street" conversations and it's absolutely shocking how close the argument for Independence and Brexit are. I am not sure it's consistent to be pro-brexit and anti-scotland independence.
  • smcl 4y ago
    The reason why there are so many terse replies is that this happens every single time - the anti-indy crowd like to troll that they haven't the faintest idea what the problem is, and engaging with them as if they're acting in good faith is tiring and usually not worth it. I appreciate that you took the time to explain though, there is a remote chance OP (or simply someone passing by) sincerely doesn't know what's going on.
  • colinb 4y ago
    > unanimously mm. No.
    • dijit 4y ago
      Every Scottish region voted to remain: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum/eu-referendum-results-region-scotland https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w... You can literally see the Scottish border: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/24/world/europe/how-britain-voted-brexit-referendum.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/24/world/europe/...
• Dylanfm 4y ago
  As others have said, circumstances have changed (Brexit). The handling of Covid was a reminder too. Consistently rules would (or would not) be made in the south, yet here in Scotland we'd have a firmer stance and/or clearer guidelines to follow. For example, lifting mask rules and so on. I know opinions differ on this subject, for many people that I know the difference in the Scottish gov's handling was appreciated. It's also interesting looking at result maps for the Brexit vote and the last General Election. These maps show the Scotland / England border, yet that's just a result of showing the differences in how these nations vote.
• rich_sasha 4y ago
  UK held an EU membership referendum in 1975, with 67% in support for being in. In fact the UK had been in for 2.5 years at that point so really that was a "remain or Brexit" referendum. And yes 40 years ago it had another one. People change their minds and situations evolve it seems.
• iso1631 4y ago
  Yes. 55:45. And normally that would be a reasonable answer - if you had a situation where you could ask the same question every year for an irrecoverable change that would be chaos. The question is how long the "term" should be - 5 years is the term for a national government so that would be too short, but 15 years, 30 years? However I certainly have sympathy with the idea of a new referendum 1) Leaving the EU was a material change, one which factored significantly into the 2014 debate 2) The SNP, who's entire reason to exist is for Scottish Independence, has won significant vote share (45% off a 68% turnout in 2019, 48% off 63% in 2022) 3) Devo Max hasn't worked out the way it was promised in 2014 Certainly if the SNP were to get a majority of votes in 2024 then there could be a mandate for another referendum based on the new reality. I suspect the SNP would not want to wait that long though because 2024 would also likely herald the departure of the tory government and potentially a swing back towards no (remain part of UK). The larger problem is that when a country is roughly evenly divided (50-50, 48-52, 45-55), there are no good answers. Unfortunately the UK as a whole has set a public precedent that a single poll of 52% off 72% is all you need to cause massive constitutional change to the point of removing peoples citizenship. When you have a situation where you have a sustained 2:1 or 3:1 majority in favour of a referendum for years at a time, like in Catalonia, then there's certainly no excuse not to have one, and if the result is a supermajority like Catalonia probably would be then it should be progressed. With Scotland though, opinion polls on independence are where they were in 2014. There was a "no" surge in 2017, a "yes" surge in 2020, but neither were sustained. It's quite plausible that Yes/Independence would win. It's also plausible that No/Remain would win. If No won 55:45 again, it wouldn't make the Yes side satisfied, and wouldn't be the end of discussion. If Yes won 55:45, then the No side wouldn't be satisfied, although the change would be done. It's quite plausible the margin would be even closer that those. It's also worth noting that the SNP have not managed to get a majority of votes in any election (in 2015 they got 49.97%, but since then their %age has dropped off)
• ploppyploppy 4y ago
  Yes but we mustn't accept that. Watch the zealots invade this thread with their delusional reasoning for why we must re-do it. It's hilarious