Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

The economic hit would be enormous and the SNP is not being honest about that. Imagine that they win with 50%+1 of the vote then lose 20% of GDP, how would the 50%-1 feel about that?

The horse has bolted, but regular referendums where a simple majority of votes cast can lead to independence is ridiculous.

Separatists don't care about that. Everything will be milk, honey, and kumbaya singing once they win the vote

[Josquius]

We've seen the impact of Brexit and Scotland's international trade is similarly about 50/50 EU/ROTW (with the EU portion being a little bit smaller than ROTW). But 60% of their trade is with the rest of the UK. Brexit was leaving an incomplete semi-integrated single market, leaving the UK would be leaving a highly integrated single market that's developed as one for about three hundred years. It would be a huge shift and economic hit - especially as unlike in 2014, because of climate, the SNP can't propose to solve that issue by simply discovering more gas.

And that's putting to one side Scotland's deficit which is currently running at over 20%, or the need to establish a new currency (because the BofE/Sterling would be responding to the rUK economy, not Scotland's - so may not be loose enough, or may start tightening too soon). Having their own currency and central bank (and I think getting that deficit down) needs to be done before Scotland meets the criteria to even apply for EU membership. I don't think it'd be as easy as slipping from the UK into the EU and I don't think the EU is in a mood to make special deals with Brits any more (maybe they were in 2017) particularly around accession given the position of Ukraine.

Having said all of that there's more to a country and its life than the economy (though that helps), so I get the appeal and it might be worth it. And in the long-run with the right policies there is no reason Scotland would not be able to make a huge success of independence. It's for the people of Scotland to decide that.

But I think we need to dispel myths that it wouldn't be, basically, Brexit times ten or that (as the SNP claim) after independence they could spend more on public services. Especially if, on Brexit, you get angry about lies (which I don't) or think people feel like they were sold a bag of goods (which I do). Because I don't really see the difference except for scale.

Edit: Also basically I'm not convinced by the SNP position on this which is very often "being in the UK is awful, after independence we would simply be Sweden". It's a nice goal. But there's lots of steps and difficulties on the way.

Purely on the politics I think this is a big challenge for the SNP because I don't thnk pushing for a referendum now is popular with the general public, but I think it's really important to the fundamentalist wing of the party. But I think that leaves an incredible opportunity for Scottish Labour (and their leader, Anas Sarwar, seems to be doing quite well of this) of pointing out that the very real problems in public services and attacking the government for not focusing on that, but instead on "division" and pushing for another referendum.

The thing is though Britain leaving the EU is Britain cutting itself adrift, tearing up all its trading agreements with the world and becoming an all round inferior trade option.
Scotland outside of brexit Britain is putting up a bit of a trade wall but it still has advantages for trade with England that other countries don't. It will lose a fair bit to British companies and even some foreign companies no doubt. But in no way would this be 60% of its economy.
On the other hand Scotland would not just be slicing open its belly ala Brexit, it would actively be joining the EU and gaining a favourable trade position there- it stands to eat a lot of England's lunch here.

It would be a rough transition sure. But Brexit to the nth degree is a poor comparison which neglects that there is an upside and we're dealing with a smaller and more adaptable economy.

[Tamas]

Based on these discussions I have reached the conclusion that the UK is doomed. Seems like most Brits here are mostly ambivalent at best to Scotland leaving. As you guys also noted, there's next to no feeling of kinship with Unionists of Northern Ireland.

This is no way to keep a country together. Scotland will become independent on one of the 5-yearly independence referendums it seems bound to have, will have its economy subsequently ruined (one thing I don't think you guys mentioned: who the hell would want to migrate there if it doesn't grant access to the rest of the UK? It's a grim por place, plenty of those anywhere in Europe). England will also face upheaval and extra costs if nothing else from trying to house the Royal Navy and the nucular subs within England.

[Sheilbh]

Based on these discussions I have reached the conclusion that the UK is doomed. Seems like most Brits here are mostly ambivalent at best to Scotland leaving. As you guys also noted, there's next to no feeling of kinship with Unionists of Northern Ireland.

This is no way to keep a country together. Scotland will become independent on one of the 5-yearly independence referendums it seems bound to have, will have its economy subsequently ruined (one thing I don't think you guys mentioned: who the hell would want to migrate there if it doesn't grant access to the rest of the UK? It's a grim por place, plenty of those anywhere in Europe). England will also face upheaval and extra costs if nothing else from trying to house the Royal Navy and the nucular subs within England.

I'd slightly quibble on "grim and poor" - I think that's a perception in the UK which is false. From an English perspective often that we're weighed down or subsidising Scotland; from a Scottish that they've been held back and patronised by the English (frankly it reminds me a bit of Eurozone discourse which is probably about right). But it's not true. Scotland's the third richest region of the UK and far richer than most English regions - of course, being the UK there's huge disparities within Scotland too from the North-East (based on oil) which is basically Nordic levels of GDP, or France (Edinburgh and Fife) to far lower GDP espeicially in and around Glasgow. But your point migration might well be right.

But I totally disagree on the point around the union. I'd argue the opposite - there is no other way in a democratic society to hold together a democratic union of nations than with their consent. I would be desperately sad if Scotland left - I think it is in all of our interests to stay together, I think we can do more together (all the Remain arguments basically). But it is a decision for the people of Scotland. I don't think we can compel Scotland to stay, and I think the biggest risk to the union is if we became a union of law rather than a union of consent and legalistically close avenues of democratic change/independence. It would undermine the fundamentals of being a democratic society which is a union of nations.

I think there probably is something to the UK being almost a uniquely vulnerable country (possibly Canada too?) because it acknowledges that it's contingent and based on consent (certainly not with a franchise that includes non-citizens). Northern Ireland has a right to join Ireland. We've established that the basis for Scotland being in the union is the referendum of 2014 - which all sides viewed as legitimate and that was lawful - not some 18th century treaty.

My view is that weakness is the strength of the union - it doesn't delegitimise it in the way a union of law might, or create barriers between people (beyond what's normal) on the basis of England blocking Scotland (which is clearly what the SNP is going to argue now). As I say I am more confident for the union given that despite Brexit, despite Johnson, despite twelve years of Tory rule polling is still broadly supportive of staying in the union. If it's not doomed now, if "yes" is not ten points ahead given all of that - when will it be? To me that is astonishing - and at the minute "no" appears to be climbing the polls. If this is the situation given all of that - imagine what it'll be like when we have UK Labour government (possibly with rejuvenated Scottish Labour participation), especially one that's likely to deliver devo-max once Gordon Brown's report on the constitution comes out.

[garbon]

Based on these discussions I have reached the conclusion that the UK is doomed. Seems like most Brits here are mostly ambivalent at best to Scotland leaving. As you guys also noted, there's next to no feeling of kinship with Unionists of Northern Ireland.

This is no way to keep a country together. Scotland will become independent on one of the 5-yearly independence referendums it seems bound to have, will have its economy subsequently ruined (one thing I don't think you guys mentioned: who the hell would want to migrate there if it doesn't grant access to the rest of the UK? It's a grim por place, plenty of those anywhere in Europe). England will also face upheaval and extra costs if nothing else from trying to house the Royal Navy and the nucular subs within England.

I'd agree. As an aspiring British citizen, it is perpelxing how...complacent(?) the English are about the potential breakup of the UK.

[Sheilbh]

It'd be bad and sad and would definitely cause upheaval in England too - but aside from trying to persuade Scots to stay, it's just not our decision to make.

[garbon]

It'd be bad and sad and would definitely cause upheaval in England too - but aside from trying to persuade Scots to stay, it's just not our decision to make.

I think you can show enthusiasm for Scotland being part of the UK without forcing it to stay.

[Tamas]

It'd be bad and sad and would definitely cause upheaval in England too - but aside from trying to persuade Scots to stay, it's just not our decision to make.

I think you can show enthusiasm for Scotland being part of the UK without forcing it to stay.

Indeed. Plus remove this 50%+1 idiocy, it is no way to govern any country. Guaranteed constant instability.

[Sheilbh]

I think you can show enthusiasm for Scotland being part of the UK without forcing it to stay.

Sure. As I say I'd be devastated if Scotland left and I was surprisingly emotional with the 2014 vote going the way it did. I really want Scotland to stay and there is no UK without it.

Indeed. Plus remove this 50%+1 idiocy, it is no way to govern any country. Guaranteed constant instability.

I disagree with this on principle but also after 2014 and 2016 we can't suddenly start adding supermajorities. That would be unfair having already established the basis of this type of referendum (which was also the same for the devolution referendums).

[Tamas]

I think you can show enthusiasm for Scotland being part of the UK without forcing it to stay.

Sure. As I say I'd be devastated if Scotland left and I was surprisingly emotional with the 2014 vote going the way it did. I really want Scotland to stay and there is no UK without it.

Indeed. Plus remove this 50%+1 idiocy, it is no way to govern any country. Guaranteed constant instability.

I disagree with this on principle but also after 2014 and 2016 we can't suddenly start adding supermajorities. That would be unfair having already established the basis of this type of referendum (which was also the same for the devolution referendums).

Learning lessons and adjusting politics is unfair? 

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. The precedents and basis of (most) previous referendums have been 50%+1. That was the basis for the last indy ref. To change the way you do referendums or elections to make it more difficult one side to win is unfair and anti-democratic.

I also think it would quite possibly inspire more of a "yes" vote because people would interpret it (rightly) as an attempt to stymie the democratic will.

It's not adjusting politics - it's adjusting the basis on which the politics happens.

[Josquius]

I agree 50%+1 is stupid. That it has been done in the past doesn't matter, that's a naff excuse that if followed through would mean we never got the vote.

But also totally agree things have changed materially since the last referendum and Scotland is entitled to one now. Whether the snps time line is the smartest for them... Well that's politics. I guess they want it done before the tories get booted out of power.

[Sheilbh]

I agree 50%+1 is stupid. That it has been done in the past doesn't matter, that's a naff excuse that if followed through would mean we never got the vote.

I thin it does matter - but also expanding the franchise increases democracy. I think imposing a super-majority now makes it more difficult for one side to win than it was at the last referendum which I think is entirely illegitimate. It's like gerrymandering on a national level.

But also totally agree things have changed materially since the last referendum and Scotland is entitled to one now. Whether the snps time line is the smartest for them... Well that's politics. I guess they want it done before the tories get booted out of power.

They want it ASAP because the Tories are likely to lose the last election. But also because it's likely that Nicola Sturgeon will stand down before the next Scottish election - and for a nationalist party she needs to deliver the big thing they exist for which is another referendum.


I think there has been a material change but the SNP set themselves (literally until this week) the threshold of pro-indy parties winning 50%+1 of the vote in the UK or Scottish elections as a mandate for a referendum. They haven't achieved that. Their new line is that winning 50%+1 seats in UK or Scottish elections is a mandate which is a big shift in a FPTP system and it looks like setting the bar so low they can't possibly fail.

[Valmy]

I thin it does matter - but also expanding the franchise increases democracy. I think imposing a super-majority now makes it more difficult for one side to win than it was at the last referendum which I think is entirely illegitimate. It's like gerrymandering on a national level.

But one side, the Unionists, can never win. While the secessionists can. That strikes me as also illegitimate. I mean once Scotland leaves the chances of them ever returning is about 1 in a billion. But if the Unionists win the chances of their being another referendum is pretty high. How is that legitimate? Seems to me a super-majority is entirely just and fair in that kind of election. Context matters, does it not?

If we do got with 50%+1 it should be binding for 100 years. That would be fair.

Otherwise it is having an election where if one candidate wins they get to be dictator for life and and the other gets a five year term. And we pretend its an even and fair election.

[Tonitrus]

Otherwise it is having an election where if one candidate wins they get to be dictator for life and and the other gets a five year term. And we pretend its an even and fair election.

Oh no, not the Stuarts again...