If you live in England (and not all readers do, I know) then you would think that the only referendum under discussion in the UK right now is what is now popularly called A People's Vote, or a second EU referendum.
Those of us familiar with debate in Scotland (and I am, a bit) know that this is not true. There the debate is on a second independence referendum.
Scotland may not have prepared for this as well as it might. But the greater the Brexit chaos, whether we leave, stay or just dangle somewhere between these islands and somewhere else yet to be officially nominated, the more likely it is that Scotland will go to the polls on this issue, with or without Westminster sanction. The pressure is growing.
As usual, in my opinion, some of the best comment on this comes from Robin McAlpine, but other options are available.
My point is that those who think Brexit is the only show in town are wrong. The Union is also up for grabs. And it may well be voted on soon.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard, if you think it’s foolish for the UK to leave the single market with its largest trading partner (the EU), then why do you think it’s a great idea for Scotland to leave the single market with its largest trading partner (the UK).
If Scotland joins the EU when the UK has left, then the Scotland/UK problems around tariffs, borders, regulatory alignment, will be exactly the same as for the UK/EU27.
Because an impoverished England is not Scotland’s future
And independence in Scotland’s case is about much more than the EU
The UK is independent already
As would be rUK if Scotland left
Scotland is not independent now
Referring to the UK as a ‘Single Market’ is a nonsense that has crept in since 2014. It is not – it is a single state and there are quite a lot of differences within it – e.g. Scottish Law is completely different to English Law. For example try using the Scottish Courts to collect a debt from an English customer and you will get precisely nowhere. English teachers can’t teach in Scotland, for example, without re-registering and getting approved as another example.
Yes a lot of Scottish Exports go to rUK (about £48 billion pa), but it is worth noting that of that total about £8 billion is electricity and another £15 billion or more is petrochemicals and related products. Of the remainder the largest element is actually services such as insurance and banking rather than actual goods. So even if there were suddenly tariffs, etc (but of course post-Brexit rUK is going to be a haven of free trade, except not with Scotland?!!) most of that would not be affected. If you look at actual goods, then e.g. 50% of the spirits produced in Scotland (which is not just whisky, but also 70% of UK Gin (e.g. Gordons is made in Fife)) go to the EU while about 8% go to rUK. In fact overall for Scottish food and drink, one of our biggest and most successful sectors, then the EU is two to three times more important than rUK. Highland roads are full of refrigerated lorries heading to Spain and France. So a No Deal Brexit will have a much worse effect on Scotland (exactly because per capita we export far more than rUK) than it will in England.
Scotland is also a major destination for rUK exports, probably bigger than Ireland, so any barriers cut both ways and Scotland could source much of this from the EU instead. So the ‘we will turn the Scottish Border into the new Iron Curtain’ brigade have not thought it through at all. 🙂
Thanks
ANd the flows will increase because Scotland is going to power England in the future
I can understand why Scotland would want its independence and am totally sympathetic to it. BUT, assuming England continues in its deranged way and leaves the EU, with an independent Scotland don’t we have another hard border problem all over again? Granted without a recent history of conflict, but still the problem re agricultural goods in particular.
Yes
But not with the EU
See my other comment, but worth noting that 50% of Scottish food and drink exports go to the EU and not rUK. Of the other 50% then a large part goes to the USA and rest of World, so e.g. for whisky rUK is only 8%.
You and I don’t agree about “independence” Richard, (if you are looking for an idea that’s even stupider than Brexit, look no further IMO), but the possibility that Brexit could provide the political chaos (in Leninist terms a pre-revolutionary situation) necessary for another indyref to emerge is real. Whether Scots would vote for it is a different matter. Even with Brexit lurking, the polls are trending to No since 2015, with no real obvious inclination to Yes.
A greater danger to the Union is a mishandling of the situation in NI.
You are also right that most English-based UK commentators (unless they’re originally from Scotland) don’t have much of a clue about the political
and constitutional situation in Scotland.
Richard,
Out of curiosity (and apologies if you have already made your position on this clear in the past), what is your standpoint on Scottish independence?
Are you an advocate?
Or have the arguments coming from pro-unionists which pour cold water on the ideas of Scotland’s ability to thrive and prosper after secession piqued your interest?
I am not Scottish
If I was I have no a doubt I would be pro
ANd I have no doubt that Scotland could be an entirely viable state
And, I suspect, better off without Westminster
You might want to consider some facts about the border..
1. No GFA to require an open border.
2. No recent history of violence.
3. Population density is low.
4. The border is under 100 miles and there are around 25 crossings of any significance.
It is for this Englishman.
I wish Scotland well with theirs and understand why. But for goodness sake, print your own money – perhaps the best form of sovereignty.
So – Labour are urging support for RefV0.2 in this game of snakes and ladders which they have played with frustrating (but perhaps much needed) incrementalism?
To add legitimacy to this, I would suggest that when this debacle is all over, a Labour Government – or even better – Parliament – launches a public enquiry into the conduct of the original vote.
After this:
I want peoples’ names.
I want those responsible to be made an example of.
I want a reaction (fines and custodial sentences)
.
I want democracy to be restored and protected.
I want rules.
I want justice.
Give it to us.
I’m English and have a dozen or so Scottish friends, which are split similar to the overall result of the 2014 independence poll. I have a great deal of sympathy with voters in Scotland calling for another IndyRef, especially those who wavered and voted to stay in the UK to remain part of the EU.
Where my beef lies, and even my Scot Indy friends don’t fault me on this, is the two-faced approach of SNP politicians. They were all prepared to risk falling out of the EU to gain Scottish Independence in 2014, but now in 2019, staying in the EU is a red line so they must gain Scottish independence in order to do so. It is a flagrantly hypocritical stance, and I can’t abide it – hence I don’t really have a lot of respect for SNP politicians. Their only consistency is getting out of the UK, which to me is as economically nuts as the UK coming out of Europe.
My Scots Indy friends say: “Ah but, that’s politics. And the clue is in the name of the party, by the way!”
We give people we agree with such a long leash when it comes to this sort of hypocrisy and people we don’t agree with none at all. I prefer if it was consistently the latter.
Oh come on: the facts have changed
Wise people change their minds when that happens
And do not moan
“…facts have changed” – and I presume you mean the most material change, which is the UK leaving the EU and Scotland being dragged against it’s will.
But that was my point: five years ago they (the SNP politicians) were prepared to risk that very thing to leave the UK. And now it is an absolute red line and they won’t countenance leaving the EU so they must leave the UK.
I think the hypocrisy on their attitude with respect to being in the EU is massive.
Conversely, they are entirely consistent about leaving the UK.
And which of those do you think the most important to them
The clue might be in the name
And you still cannot deny the facts now are very, very different
I voted YES in 2014 and I have no doubt Scotland would have been admitted as an EU member with little or no delay. Why would the EU have done otherwise? The French, Spanish etc want the fish, and as 70% of so of UK waters are actually Scottish then they would not be catching many around Cornwall! The various comments from the EU Commission and EU heads of government in 2014 were made because Cameroon asked them to be made (and to an extent because they have their own internal issues such as Catalunya). The minute there had been a YES result that would all have changed.
I don’t think the SNP are hypocritical and was ‘getting out of the UK’ nuts for Canada, USA, Australia, or anyone else? Just because Scotland is independent does not mean we don’t want to still trade with rUK on the best possible terms. rUK actually exports more goods to us than we sell to them so they have every incentive to ensure that continues!
“They were all prepared to risk falling out of the EU to gain Scottish Independence in 2014, but now in 2019, staying in the EU is a red line so they must gain Scottish independence in order to do so.” There’s a considerable difference between risk and dead certainty! And the general view in the independence movement was that the risk, whilst manifestly there, was not that high – certainly nowhere near as high as painted by a hostile media and the Unionist campaign.
Steve,
Does it not count as hypocrisy in your mind that during the 2014 Indyref one of the most telling tactics of Project Fear was to tell the Scots that the only way to guarantee remaining in the EU was to vote against secession from the UK? Fast forward 2 years and the only way for Scotland to remain in the EU, which is what 2/3rds of the Scottish electorate voted for in 2016, is to leave the UK.
In 2014, Scotland’s secession from the UK would have necessitated applying for EU membership, but Scots Law and EU Law were already aligned and Scots citizens were already recognised as EU citizens holding EU passports, so fast tracking of admittance was, at the very least, highly likely. In 2014 it was therefore recognised that leaving the EU would be a necessary, short-term consequence of leaving the UK.
Now, with the UK government forcing Scotland to leave the EU against the Scots’ wishes and using every trick in the book to prevent/avoid/ignore (take your pick – they’ve all happened) dialogue with the Scottish Government, who do you think is guilty of hypocrisy? There are countless examples, but one should suffice: the Scottish Parliament voted against May’s EU Withdrawal Bill, but the UK Gov then inserted a clause to the effect that, regardless of how the Scottish Parliament voted on the EU Withdrawal Bill, Westminster would deem that to be a vote in favour of the Bill. Not only is that an offensive perversion of logic, law and the English language, it’s utter hypocrisy to dress up rule by diktat as in any way legitimate and, having done so, to continue to claim that the UK is a mature democracy.
Finally, Steve, if you’re getting your information about Scotland from the mainstream British media, you’re relying on significantly unreliable sources.
Your first paragraph – that is exactly why I said in my post that I sympathise with some Scottish voters who considered voting to leave the UK but chose to remain in it to stay in the EU. I said it!
Your second para – I smell a bit of revisionism here and you are falling into the same trap as Liam Fox about the ease of making deals (and that’s not a good association!). In hindsight, you may believe that you would have fallen back into the EU, but it genuinely wasn’t the case at the time. Only one or two EU politicians would go above the parapet and say you would get in easy, but most said it would take time. Also, the Scots would have really struggled in their negotiations, especially around the CFP. You would have been minnows in a pond with some very big fish.
Your third para – again, I sympathise, but you are ignoring the result of the 2014 Referendum and the UK being one nation including Scotland. There are lots of perversions of democracy going on here. Fox this morning moaning about the prospect of the House of Commons taking control of this process when that is one of the reasons he campaigned for us to leave the EU! It’s all pathetic, but beware of falling into the same trap yourself. I repeat, Scotland voted to remain as part of the UK. I’m upset myself at the UK voting to go out of the EU, and I want to find a way of respecting the result without being impoverished. It is riddle, wrapped up in a mystery inside an enigma. I can’t fathom it. I can’t work out the best course. My belief is May will eventually get her deal through, and my hope is that within five years we are stuck in the backstop, and we will then vote for EU re-entry.
Your fourth para – I read the Guardian and Richard’s website and occasionally i100 and Private Eye.
My beef is not with Scottish voters, but with SNP politicians who now regard staying in the EU as a red line now, but not before. I didn’t think this would be such a difficult nuance for people to grasp.
I think most of us who voted ‘Yes’ didn’t believe the lies of Better Together (Project Fear Version 1) that independence risked being permanently out of the EU – all the indications were that there would be little delay in accession. I also know that many of us feared that England would do just what it has done and drag us out.
It was explicitly to be a full sovereign participant in the EU that drove the Yes vote and will again.
I guess I’m just a grumpy old liberal elitist remoaner snowflake but if I had a grandparent born in any of the other 27 Member States, I’d already have applied for a passport and if I had a grandparent born in Scotland, I’d be supporting IndiRef2. But I’m stuck with my lot. England and Wales are hell bent on the greatest act of collective self-harm in my lifetime and there is nothing I can do to get them the medical attention they need. My mood right now makes Marvin seem optimistic.
I may apply to be an honorary Scot….
There has NEVER been any benefit to Scotland being part of the UK. Pretending otherwise is stretching reality into fantasy. There are too many examples to list,
(Sorry Richard, I get somewhat irritable as soon as I start reading the litany of ‘uk single market’ – hahahaHAHAHha… – ‘brexit is chaotic so scottish independence will be worse’ – hahahahahahaaaa,,, not possible – ‘we shouldn’t get independence because the SNP are politicians and I don’t like them’ – duh – ‘there is no appetite for a referendum’ – hahahaha, ahhh, only, I dunno, 80% of the population or something (>50% for having one right now) polls have it – You have still to get the rest of the blabbering misinformation coming through so I wont encourage anyone – but you may have a way to go with this one 😉 )
Ask yourself: How many countries have become independent from English rule? How many of them are small countries? How many of them have ‘failed’? How many are clamouring to get back under westminster rule? (answers: lots, a few, none, none) And I do not believe Scotland is unique.
A very good question
And you answer it correctly
As I said above of Scottish “independence” – “if you are looking for an idea that’s even stupider than Brexit, look no further IMO”.
Rantings about English rule and the UK not being a single market and there being no benefits of belonging to the UK, which are negative and also wrong, just show how weak the arguments for “independence” are.
Alex
That may be your view
But we have now heard it
And candidly, it makes little sense
Richard
Alex Gallagher Says:
“if you are looking for an idea that’s even stupider than Brexit, look no further IMO”.
Hmmm…. I don’t think there IS an idea more stupid than Brexit. Probably not since the Versailles Treaty.
The claims made for ‘taking back control’ and ‘regaining sovereignty’ which were so much a part of the Brexit ‘Leave’ pitch, are patently silly, whereas the same claims for an Independent Scotland are not.
Westminster’s focus is to a large degree focussed on the interests of the home counties and the financial sector, quite why there was such support for Brexit in the North and Regions of rUK is a mystery to me, but Scots were not persuaded by the flannel and fantasy imagery of a return to the golden days of Empire.
The mascot for Brexit should be the Mary Rose. Top-heavy and not seaworthy.
Well, may I offer this as an incentive Scotland.
The Scots seem to be developing quite a different approach to social security (I hate the term ‘welfare state’ – welfare is not the State’s only role) to the UK’s DWP (Don’t Want to Pay):
http://blog.spicker.uk/the-social-security-charter-promises-a-different-kind-of-service/
@Pilgrim Slight Return
“(I hate the term ‘welfare state’ — welfare is not the State’s only role)”
I think that depends on what the term ‘welfare’ means to you. I think welfare as money hand-outs is an American usage, which has become derogatory.
Arguably the ‘welfare’ of the entire population is absolutely the business of the state. As is ‘social security’.
Both terms in their widest interpretation include Education, Health care and Defence of the Realm. And much besides, such as legal and material infrastructure.
The responsibility of a ‘Courageous State’ is the welfare of the ‘Commonweal’. Slippery stuff language. !!
I know what you are saying Andy but I still think the term ‘welfare’ has to be expunged for reason you have noted.
Just like too many of the population have soaked up the ‘EU is evil’ cool aid, ‘welfare’ now has such negative connotations.
‘Social Security’ means more to me but may mean nothing to others. The whole system could do with being renamed and I’ll stick to that.
On the question of the future governance of Scotland, I, as a Scot living in Scotland, retain a simple outlook.
The Acts of Union of 1707 brought about a union of the PARLIAMENTS of Scotland and England — not the COUNTRIES. Scotland and England remained as separate entities after this union of the legislatures so talk of Scotland ‘becoming’ independent as a country is, to my mind, fatuous. There is not, and never was a ‘country of Great Britain’.
The 1707 Acts were cleverly worded to attempt to ensure that the then new Parliament of Great Britain became recognised as the supreme legislative body for both countries. They failed in that endeavour in the fields of law, religion and aspects of royal succession where unbridgeable differences could not be eliminated thus confirming that two separate countries remained.
Assuming that this simple view is correct, many of us are of the opinion that the 300+ year-old arrangements are not the best possible in today’s changed circumstances and that the aspirations of the people now living in Scotland are more likely to be met by dissolving the parliamentary union and restoring its full government to the country.
Such a Scottish government would not seek to make an enemy of its erstwhile ‘partners in the rest of the UK and would not expect the rest of the UK to behave in a hostile way either. All talk about ‘hard borders’ etc. is mendacious nonsense. A truly sovereign state of Scotland, with all its resources, should be seen as an entity to be welcomed into the 21st century international scene.
Decisions on EU membership or the nature of international trade relations will be taken in due course in the same way that other countries deal with such affairs.
I have considerable sympathy with your interpretation
Very interesting whatboutery Phil. But if Brexit is such a bad idea and you’re in favour of unity per EU, why are you for separation per the UK? Doesn’t make sense.
Oh come on Alex
You are more than able enough to know that is utterly illogical
Alex, does your reply refer to my comment? I can’t make any connection.
‘Talk of hard borders etc’
But, as I understand it, the EU has to control its’ Single Market borders, and as they have said today, a hard border will be required in Ireland in the event of ‘no deal’. Presumably, this will also apply to the EU border with England (assuming England withdraws for the EU)?