Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Iormlund]

So Catalonia is a presence in Scottish politics but it's a presence purely as a sort of solidarity movement for the pro-indy politicians. You'll always see lots of Catalan flags and yellow ribbons etc at pro-indy rallies and demonstrations. But the other side isn't really that big in Scottish politics because even unionists in the UK think Spain over-reacted - no-one wants to respond the way Spain did, even the most hardline unionists. So I think the pro-indy side see it as just solidarity and the unionist side see it as a cautionary tale of what not to do.

Do separatists realize Spain will veto their accession to the Union if the separation is unilateral?

[Sheilbh]

I don't know. Independence can't be unilateral unless there's a literal conflict of some sort over it so the Scottish state becomes the sort of sole legitimate violence user. No-one is talking about that.

So even if it started with a UDI to actually work it would require negotiation and recognition by the UK state too - like Irish independence through the negotiation of the Free State then follow up steps.

This is why it's all internal politics within the pro-indy parties. Even if they hold an unlawful IndyRef and declare independence it doesn't mean anything and would depend on the response of the UK government. I think the options would basically be to ignore it or to start negotiations over indpendence. I suspect the most likely response would be to ignore it and possibly set out the scenario for a lawful referendum.

[Valmy]

The context is that they are about to have an election in May so this might just be bluster.

[Zoupa]

I'm not clear about how Scotland joined the UK originally, but in Qc there was a debate regarding how to obtain independence.

Basically 2 options: referendum, which failed, or through an act of the Parlement du Quebec. That 2nd option's side argued that Qc technically joined Canada through an act of the Parlement, so they can leave the same way.

Their point was/is that by clearly stating their intent before an election, then winning that election, they could unilaterally leave Canada without going through a referendum. Any similar debates in Scotland?

[Sheilbh]

I'm not clear about how Scotland joined the UK originally, but in Qc there was a debate regarding how to obtain independence.

Basically 2 options: referendum, which failed, or through an act of the Parlement du Quebec. That 2nd option's side argued that Qc technically joined Canada through an act of the Parlement, so they can leave the same way.

Their point was/is that by clearly stating their intent before an election, then winning that election, they could unilaterally leave Canada without going through a referendum. Any similar debates in Scotland?

An Act of Union by both Scottish and English parliaments to create the UK and the UK parliament. But because of that the UK parliament is the successor to both the Scottish and English parliaments. It could legislate for Scottish independence but the current Scottish parliament, could not because in theory it was established by the UK parliament and has powers defined by the UK parliament. It's a creation of the UK parliament, not the successor to the Scottish parliament of 1707.

Most unionists and nationalists agree you need a referendum (I think they are becoming a core part of our system). The issue is whether the UK government would allow a referendum - because it's a power reserved for them, not the Scottish parliament. So the 2014 the referendum was agreed between the Scottish and UK governments. Johnson has said that he won't agree to another referendum because it was a once-in-a-generation thing etc. Sturgeon is running explicitly on demanding a second referendum and if she wins a majority I think she has a really strong case, given how the system is designed to avoid maforities. Johnson would probably still resist but personally I think there is a mandate.

The question is what to do if there is no route to a lawful referendum. Sturgeon is very vague on this but basically is seen as on the moderate side of things, Salmond is positioning himself as hard-line and hinting that the Scottish parliament could issue a UDI if there was a supermajority for independence or run an unlawful referendum ahead of a UDI if there wasn't a supermajority. So there is maybe the start of that debate - but it's not really developed at this stage. I've mentioned before that there's a risk of splits in the SNP on what to do if the 2014 route to independence isn't available. So far those have been internal debates and fights, which Sturgeon can dismiss. Now Salmond's launched a rival it's far more difficult to avoid the question.

[Tamas]

a referendum (I think they are becoming a core part of our system)

[Barrister]

I'm not clear about how Scotland joined the UK originally, but in Qc there was a debate regarding how to obtain independence.

Basically 2 options: referendum, which failed, or through an act of the Parlement du Quebec. That 2nd option's side argued that Qc technically joined Canada through an act of the Parlement, so they can leave the same way.

Their point was/is that by clearly stating their intent before an election, then winning that election, they could unilaterally leave Canada without going through a referendum. Any similar debates in Scotland?

Umm, Quebec joined Canada through an act of Parliament all right - the UK Parliament.  That was the good ole British North America Act.

And anyways, we now have binding rules to follow on how Quebec can gain independence:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do

Quebec can not unilaterally declare independence.  A vote in favour of independence however would have to trigger negotiations and could not be ignored by Canada.

[viper37]

I'm not clear about how Scotland joined the UK originally, but in Qc there was a debate regarding how to obtain independence.

Basically 2 options: referendum, which failed, or through an act of the Parlement du Quebec. That 2nd option's side argued that Qc technically joined Canada through an act of the Parlement, so they can leave the same way.

Their point was/is that by clearly stating their intent before an election, then winning that election, they could unilaterally leave Canada without going through a referendum. Any similar debates in Scotland?

Umm, Quebec joined Canada through an act of Parliament all right - the UK Parliament.  That was the good ole British North America Act.

And anyways, we now have binding rules to follow on how Quebec can gain independence:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do

Quebec can not unilaterally declare independence.  A vote in favour of independence however would have to trigger negotiations and could not be ignored by Canada.

a) The legislative assembly of Lower Canada decided to join the movement to form what would become Canada.  It's not like the UK politicians decided one day to merge the provinces of the continent.

b) It could.  It won't, but it could unilataraly declare indepandance.  Canada would have to send in the army to quell an insurrection.  Déjà vu & all that.   I doubt the population would accept it either, hence why all separatist government so far have insisted they would hold a referendum on the subject.  If 90% of Quebec wanted to secede by force, I guess any elected govt would go that way, with a simple vote in the National Assembly.  But like I said, not gonna happen.
c) the ruling says the Feds must negotiate in good faith following a valid referendum.  If it happens with a Liberal party in power, you can strike out the good faith part.

[The Brain]

Would an independent Scotland apply for EU membership as one of its first acts?

[Sheilbh]

Would an independent Scotland apply for EU membership as one of its first acts?

Yes.

On the new party some people have done some analysis of how it might impact the election. Basically if it gets less than the 5% threshold, or mainly takes votes from the Scottish Greens it will help the unionist parties. If it gets over the 5% threshold (which seems likely) up to about 25% then it will help build a super-majority - as Salmond says he wants. When the system was designed the assumption was that Labour would win a lot of constituencies, and enter into a coalition with the Lib Dems who'd do well through PR - this is basically a pro-Indy version of that with the SNP as Labour and Alba as Lib Dems (and Salmond as kingmaker ). If they get over 25% then they're probably starting to really eat into the Scottish Greens and SNP, which again given the PR system, would mainly help the unionist parties.

Salmond and Farage are the two men who basically created modern British politics - and I think they're both pretty smart at how to use the system. So I'd probably bet on is probably Salmond getting over 5% and helping build a majority for independence - but it could easily go the other way

[Josquius]

Salmond's new party does seem to be a great thing for the unionist side, helping to break up the nationalist vote.
Possibility of Scottish Labour coming back from the dead?

[Sheilbh]

A year old but perfectly sane and normal country's attitude to a public service - also one for Larch's pastoralism theory:

[Tamas]

Commercial property and city centre service owners must really be chewing off the ears of the government because firs Sunak says some "lets go back to the office" stuff, than Johnson doubles down saying people have had "enough time off" at home and should return to their offices.

Well, after spending one of the busiest and most stressful years of my career working from home, I say he can fuck right off!

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - tone deaf given so many have been working from home and that's what the government are telling everyone to do. But the context was in a question of whether there should a bank holiday at the end of this (which I fully support) not get back in the office now.

Edit: Also annoyingly paywalled in the Times but Cameron while he was PM was chums with Lex Greensill the founder of Greensill. It's a business bank that's gone bust during covid and is very closely linked to the Gupta family business.

Turns out that while he was PM he was opening doors for Greensill to pitch to the civil service on using them to fund various government functions. So Greensill got meetings with senior civil servants in 11 different departments and were apparently feeding Cameron civil service reports on their proposals, with all the negative stuff removed. The head of the civil service Jeremy Heywood was also instructing the civil service to "leave no stone unturned" in working out if government could work with Greensill.

On his retirement Cameron became a paid board member of, with plenty of share options and on whose behalf he lobbied for covid relief funds (which he didn't get but he did get a hearing). Of course they've since gone bust so those share options aren't that great now - but this is what I mean by thinking in British (national) politics corruption is in the jobs/opportunities you get after you leave office. And Cameron probably should've gone for the more reliably blue chip options like George Osborne "advising" Blackrock on M&A or Tony Blair providing strategic advice to JP Morgan.

But maybe that's a summary of Cameron's reputation after leaving office - Osborne could get an aggressive city PE fund, Blair could rely on the Americans - Cameron's left with a kind of shady supply chain financing company set up by an Aussie mate

[Syt]

Votes something something consequences.