Will Scotland Leave the UK?

We already have a thread for this. Please keep Brexit out of this thread, except for where it directly relates to the question of Scotland leaving the UK.

[1andrew1]

For Scotland to run a consistently larger deficit than the UK average suggests structural issues at play in its economy. Have these been hidden by being part of a larger entity?

Would leaving the UK force Scotland to face up to these issues which it hasn't had needed to so far, thanks to generous Westminster funding?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

For Scotland to run a consistently larger deficit than the UK average suggests structural issues at play in its economy. Have these been hidden by being part of a larger entity?

Would leaving the UK force Scotland to face up to these issues which it hasn't had needed to so far, thanks to generous Westminster funding?

They are simply spending what they are being given. The real problem is that they are being given too much of English money.

In the same way that the poorer EU nations, are propped up by money from the richer EU nations. Eg Poland benefits by a staggering 13bn Euros of net EU funding, and yet their core economy doesn't seem to be improving well enough to need less EU money year on year.
The free money gives the false impression that their economy is doing better than it actually is. There is no pressure to improve that situation themselves.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

They are simply spending what they are being given. The real problem is that they are being given too much of English money.

In the same way that the poorer EU nations, are propped up by money from the richer EU nations. Eg Poland benefits by a staggering 13bn Euros of net EU funding, and yet their core economy doesn't seem to be improving well enough to need less EU money year on year.
The free money gives the false impression that their economy is doing better than it actually is. There is no pressure to improve that situation themselves.

So if Scotland leaves the UK, it will be under pressure to improve its situation then which would be good for Scotland in the long-term plus the remaining nations of the UK would no longer need to cross-fund it?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

So if Scotland leaves the UK, it will be under pressure to improve its situation then which would be good for Scotland in the long-term plus the remaining nations of the UK would no longer need to cross-fund it?

Exactly, they'd be so nimble and thrive no downsides for anyone

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

So if Scotland leaves the UK, it will be under pressure to improve its situation then which would be good for Scotland in the long-term plus the remaining nations of the UK would no longer need to cross-fund it?

That would be a decent précis of the Nat argument - plus, it neatly encompasses the typical evasion you get from them when they talk about Scotland making “different choices” without going into any sort of detail about exactly what those choices would look like.

Imagine, though, the arguments made against Brexit with regards to our loss of unfettered access to the EU single market. Now imagine those arguments made against Scotland’s loss of access to the single market within the UK. Again, standard Nat evasion is to point out that rejoining the EU would give Scotland access to a much larger single market, however (leaving aside the serious structural barriers to an independent Scotland joining the EU any time soon), there is an enormous difference between access to a single market and the proven ability to exploit that access. England may be a smaller market than the EU, but Scotland does vastly more trade with England than it does with the EU. Geography, history and a fully aligned economy all play their part in that.

So much of the Nat prospectus actually relies on the remaining UK rolling over and giving Scotland absolutely everything it wants in terms of access to the market and influence over monetary policy that their argument is holed below the waterline before it’s even off the slipway.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

That would be a decent précis of the Nat argument - plus, it neatly encompasses the typical evasion you get from them when they talk about Scotland making “different choices” without going into any sort of detail about exactly what those choices would look like.

Imagine, though, the arguments made against Brexit with regards to our loss of unfettered access to the EU single market. Now imagine those arguments made against Scotland’s loss of access to the single market within the UK. Again, standard Nat evasion is to point out that rejoining the EU would give Scotland access to a much larger single market, however (leaving aside the serious structural barriers to an independent Scotland joining the EU any time soon), there is an enormous difference between access to a single market and the proven ability to exploit that access. England may be a smaller market than the EU, but Scotland does vastly more trade with England than it does with the EU. Geography, history and a fully aligned economy all play their part in that.

So much of the Nat prospectus actually relies on the remaining UK rolling over and giving Scotland absolutely everything it wants in terms of access to the market and influence over monetary policy that their argument is holed below the waterline before it’s even off the slipway.

Yeah but sovereignty...

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Yeah but sovereignty...

Indeed - it’s a powerful argument for some. Having lived here almost two decades it’s one I understand and (to an extent) buy into. When I visit England now it does at times feel (almost) foreign.

However I don’t think it’s a catch-all that trumps everything. In the case of the EU it’s not credible to claim the UK resigning membership is an economic calamity. We were a net contributor to the organisation and we are a major global economy more than able to make our own way in the world even if there are short term issues while we adjust.

In the case of Scotland vis a vis the UK, how patriotic is it really, to insist that Scottish sovereignty trumps all, in the face of the hard numbers published annually by the Scottish government itself that prove beyond doubt that removing Scotland from the UK would mandate savage reductions in state services?

[Sephiroth]

Well - being still a member I might as well post.

It's the word "sovereignty" and its implications that has spurred me (as it has Chris).

Scotland is a nation that united with England & Wales some hundreds of years ago to form the current union. The UK government has no democratic issue with Scotland leaving the UK; thus the sovereignty question was settled in the 2014 referendum. If the UK government wants to authorise another referendum, so be it (though I don't think they should be bullied by Sturgeon into doing it soon).

The embarrassment might come if Sturgeon holds an advisory referendum and there is a majority for independence. It would be democratically awkward for the UK government to refuse a binding referendum on a determined date.

My (arrogant) post of 17-July sets out some of the things that need to be settled before a referendum should take place - so that the Scots will know the score in advance.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Well - being still a member I might as well post.

It's the word "sovereignty" and its implications that has spurred me (as it has Chris).

Scotland is a nation that united with England & Wales some hundreds of years ago to form the current union. The UK government has no democratic issue with Scotland leaving the UK; thus the sovereignty question was settled in the 2014 referendum. If the UK government wants to authorise another referendum, so be it (though I don't think they should be bullied by Sturgeon into doing it soon).

The embarrassment might come if Sturgeon holds an advisory referendum and there is a majority for independence. It would be democratically awkward for the UK government to refuse a binding referendum on a determined date.

My (arrogant) post of 17-July sets out some of the things that need to be settled before a referendum should take place - so that the Scots will know the score in advance.

Your problem is illustrated by your use of “the Scots”, as if it’s a single homogeneous mass entirely, or largely, sealed off from the rest of the UK. For starters, 10% of “the Scots” are actually English. I’m one of them. Most (but by no means all of us) believe in the Union. All of us - that is, about half a million people - have an absolute right to move back to England if Scotland became independent and we didn’t like how it was turning out.

It is vastly unlikely that anybody born anywhere in the UK and living in Scotland - including people Scottish by birth - would lose the right to move and settle in England. That’s one enormous migrant crisis waiting right there if a grand experiment in Scottish nation building goes pear shaped. In fact there would inevitably be some movement simply on the basis of a Yes vote, most likely among more affluent and mobile families, making even harder for a newly independent Scotland to succeed. England simply can’t warn “the Scots” what will happen and then wash its hands of it. It will continue to have an interest in Scotland’s future, for good or ill.

Furthermore, Sturgeon’s great risk in holding an advisory referendum is that the unionist side simply boycotts it on the basis it wasn’t authorised by Westminster, following the precedent set, and agreed to, by the Nats in 2014. That gives the Nats a guaranteed massive majority, on a small turnout, which the UK government can paint as no more democratic than an average Monday in Minsk.

None of this is to say that the Nats won’t huff and puff and scream and scream and scream until they’re sick, but when it comes to it they are absolutely powerless to force anything to happen. The only thing ever likely to force a UK government to relent is a substantial, sustained lead in the polls, which the Nats have never had. Nicola knows this and in the past has voiced that view. She can’t voice it aloud any longer because she has enough opposition within the party to risk a leadership challenge if she starts looking like the Nat who doesn’t want independence.

[Sephiroth]

I think you're splitting hairs with me in your first paragraph. The rest makes perfect sense.

The term "Scots" in my meaning is those eligible to vote in a binding referendum. As simple as that. I can't see where I implied otherwise.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I think you're splitting hairs with me in your first paragraph. The rest makes perfect sense.

The term "Scots" in my meaning is those eligible to vote in a binding referendum. As simple as that. I can't see where I implied otherwise.

Then the problem is in your personal redefinition of commonly understood words. You implied as I described because of your decision to misuse the language. In two way communication it makes things simpler if you acknowledge and accept common definitions rather than insisting on your own.

In this case, “the Scots” is a plural, proper noun for those of a particular national identity. I am eligible to vote in a referendum held in Scotland but I am not, and will never be, one of “the Scots”. I am one of “the English”. This is not splitting hairs - it is categorically different and, as I’ve illustrated, it’s important that distinctiveness is understood because it has the capacity to cause a serious migrant crisis. It serves nobody to obfuscate that point.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Then the problem is in your personal redefinition of commonly understood words. You implied as I described because of your decision to misuse the language. In two way communication it makes things simpler if you acknowledge and accept common definitions rather than insisting on your own.

In this case, “the Scots” is a plural, proper noun for those of a particular national identity. I am eligible to vote in a referendum held in Scotland but I am not, and will never be, one of “the Scots”. I am one of “the English”. This is not splitting hairs - it is categorically different and, as I’ve illustrated, it’s important that distinctiveness is understood because it has the capacity to cause a serious migrant crisis. It serves nobody to obfuscate that point.

You're going in hard on a very minor point. I am not a Scot so I can be forgiven for using the dictionary definition of "Scot".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Scot - the other dictionaries say the same thing.

Scot noun (1)

Definition of Scot (Entry 1 of 2)
1: a member of a Celtic people of northern Ireland settling in Scotland about a.d. 500
2a: a native or inhabitant of Scotland
b: a person of Scottish descent

Please allow me to put a question back to you. Would the average reader in this thread have reached a different conclusion had I used a different term from "Scots", or your preferred term now that you know what I meant by it?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You're going in hard on a very minor point. I am not a Scot so I can be forgiven for using the dictionary definition of "Scot".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Scot - the other dictionaries say the same thing.



Please allow me to put a question back to you. Would the average reader in this thread have reached a different conclusion had I used a different term from "Scots", or your preferred term now that you know what I meant by it?

Multiple dictionaries of British English disagree with you.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...y/english/scot
https://www.lexico.com/definition/scot
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...sh/scot?q=Scot

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Multiple dictionaries of British English disagree with you.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...y/english/scot
https://www.lexico.com/definition/scot
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...sh/scot?q=Scot

I see. So it's your preferred dictionaries versus mine? This is getting silly. Btw, the OED (on my iPad) defines it as "a native of Scotland or person of Scottish descent".

Anyone reading my post knows exactly what is meant in context and it would be the same understanding if your preferred substituted word had been used.