Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think in a perverse way Brexit makes the call of independence more attractive, but the practical reality far more difficult. Though there would still be very significant issues that affected people's everyday lives (and not just in the Borders) - the deficit, pensions, currency, defence etc.

I don't know how that tension between increasing the political relevance of independence and it becoming more difficult will be resolved. My suspicion is that in the long term if the union can survive this period - ie after this government, it will make independence less likely.

I think the SNP are being very coy about the costs and impact of independence. Some of the stuff they're saying is just not going to happen - rUK will not continue to pay for Scottish pensions, for example. But there is a lot of pushback against this and I think it's less people imagining the alternative than hearing all the stuff about costs and either thinking it will be lower, or that it's worth it. And that could be right - who makes decision that affect you and who has power to make laws that bind you is a really important issue, especially in a democratic society. But basically, again, every sin people accuse the Tories or Brexiters very much has an SNP analogue.

[Josquius]

I would argue that fragmenting into smaller nation states have been the historic trend of failing/stagnating countries/regions. The US have not (yet) fragmented, nor have China or India since its independence. Most western European states have remained intact as well, and the multi-national states created in place of Austria-Hungary have survived as well, with the partial exception of Yugoslavia. So, the vast majority of human population remained in large states, so disintegrating isn't really the trend. I know that the argument would be to call those nation states, but I am not sure if there is a bigger difference in culture and language between people living in opposing ends of the United Kingdom, than, say, India.

Where this all would make sense is within a supra-national/state organisation like the US or the United States - if both Scotland and England were in the EU it would make very little difference to the population of either whether they are still in the UK or not. However, cutting centuries old links because a marginal majority of people think that might be a good idea is a very destructive idea.

Independence, like Brexit, is the price behind Door 1. You can choose the status quo, or whatever you imagine the alternative to be.

The bother is which makes independence seem more of a sensible option today, that Scotland isn't just jumping blindly out into the abyss, cutting itself off from the world.
The UK already did that.
Scotland would be climbing back onto the ship.
It's an inverse of the situation in the last referendum where it would be Scotland jumping out whilst the UK remains part of the world

[crazy canuck]

If Scotland separates there are a lot of plausible outcomes.  One is economic disaster caused by restricted trade with the UK.  But that is not a certainty.  It is also plausible that there is a free trade zone with sterling being used by both.

It could blow up but that would be a political choice.  A dumb one and so certainly possible 

[Tamas]

It is also plausible that there is a free trade zone with sterling being used by both.

Right until Scotland seeks to join the EU. I am quite convinced the EU has no desire to create a second Northern Ireland situation with a "special relationship" border with the UK. Scotland cannot offer anything to the EU worth special treatment.

Just like Brexit, Scottish independence has very clear disadvantages and a very undefined and uncertain set of advantages.

[Sheilbh]

Scotland would be climbing back onto the ship.
It's an inverse of the situation in the last referendum where it would be Scotland jumping out whilst the UK remains part of the world

I think this vastly underestimates the difficult of Scotland re-joining Europe. I think there was a period (maybe 2016-19) when it would have been relatively easy and the EU would have been a lot more supportive/sympathetic/flexible. But I think they are exhausted of dealing with these isles etc.

But also Scotland does not meet the criteria to even apply. It needs to set up its own currency with its own central bank and deal with its 20%+ deficit before it's close to Copenhagen. Those are not small hurdles. And while Scotland is a small, open economy that can should be able to make change more easily I don't think it'll be quick or easy.

More broadly I think the context of accession has changed. The EU has just disappointed the Western Balkan countries again. They are warning (through member states) that it will take Ukraine many years, even after peace. Even ignoring Turkey, there have been candidates in the accession process for about 20 years. Scotland should be closer on the acquis because the UK hasn't really diverged from the EU on anything yet, but I think the EU would be aware how toxic it would look to Eastern Europe - particularly in the context of Ukraine - if Scotland was just waved through. I think Scotland would join, but I don't think it'd be quick or easy.

If Scotland separates there are a lot of plausible outcomes.  One is economic disaster caused by restricted trade with the UK.  But that is not a certainty.  It is also plausible that there is a free trade zone with sterling being used by both.

This is true and we've no idea what Scottish politics looks like after independence.

The SNP always reminds me of how Fianna Fail used to operate where it's almost a purely populist party with no guiding ideology beyond Scottish independence - aside from that it will just do what is popular in society at that time (which can be left or right) plus a little bit of clientilism/patronage/corruption. I could see them carrying on like that and, like Fianna Fail used to, dominating Scottish politics as an almost entirely non-ideological governing party. But Scottish politics post-independence might break down on more normal left/right lines. There's definite factions within the SNP - which used to be nicknamed "Tartan Tories" but have now positioned themselves as a centre-left resistance to Tory rule, but both strands still exist. At the minute the big factional divide is on the constitution between gradualists and fundamentalists, but that would change. It's not clear.

The big economic disaster I don't think is restricted trade. I think it's dealing with a 20%+ deficit and no central bank - that's going to be a big thing to deal with on day one, plus more restricted trade. As I say I think the idea the SNP have pushed that rUK would pay for Scottish pensions (basically their argument is that it's like UK citizens with a UK pension who move overseas still get their pension) is nonsense. So all of that will have a really direct impact on people's lives very quickly. In 2014 the SNP were still basically pretending that they would find more gas which would be the solution - climate politics has changed that and I'm not sure they've really explained their alternative model or how to get there. As I say a lot of it seems to be sort of: 1 - get independence; 2 - ?????; 3 - Scotland is a prosperous, independent, social democratic, Nordic state.

Although I don't think rUK or Scotland would be likely to require border controls or anything like that on day one. I think day one would basically be what you've described (plus a shared head of state). I think it'd be more likely to be a gradual, negotiated process. But transition to what depends on the politics.

Edit: Incidentally there was a really baffling headline in one of the Scottish papers over the weekend: "Thatcher's Indy Beliefs Unite 'Yes' Movement Behind Sturgeon's Strategy". I've seen several people try to explain it but still don't fully get it. But the Thatcher quote it was referring to was apparently this:

As a nation, they [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (nor indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others [...] it cannot claim devolution as a right of nationhood inside the Union.

Which is interesting - still don't fully understand why it caused Jim Sillars (a gradualist) to back Sturgeon's push.

[viper37]

We should be moving towards less nation-states, not more.

Vladimir Putin totally agrees with you.  If only we had more leaders like him, we would have eternal peace on our lands.

Vladimir Putin does indeed think supra-national entities are more powerful (and difficult to deal with).
Which is why:

• He is trying to rebuild the old Russian Empire.
• He funds any enterprise that can fragment his enemies. See Brexit, separatist and far-right movements, etc.

Because most world countries insist on ruling like #1, going to #2 is an easy way to weaken them.

The UK told the Scots they were retarded for event thinking to leave the British Empire.  Than the UK left the European Union because they felt they didn't have enought voice in their own affairs.

So... Scots are retarded for wanting to manage their own affairs according to their own priorities, but the British were enlightened when it came to leaving the European Union?

Can't have it both ways, sorry.

[Sheilbh]

To be absolutely clear the Scots are not victims of the British empire but its co-creators, partners and beneficiaries (I feel like that's probably more clear in Canada than almost anywhere else)

[viper37]

It would be better if they could be united, and Islam was not discriminated against, and there was no violence on such stupid grounds as ethnicity and religion.  And it would be better if those people themselves acknowledged those cultural differences and didn't kill over them.  Very much the same could be said of the issues surrounding Israel/Palestine.

But that's not the reality.

In Israel and Palestine, Palestinian mulims hates the Jewish population, enouth to support the Hamas in a part of the territory.  And the Israeli have repeatedly given their support to parties that will openly discriminate and evict Palestinians from their homes.

That's the reality.

It's easy to say that one single State with everyone in harmony would be the ideal, but it ain't the reality.

The reality is there is a dominant group that will take advantage of its position to further its advancement over the other group.

[Tonitrus]

Yep...and I think so made it rather clear that our reality sucks. 

But we should also not enslave ourselves to it as inevitable fate that cannot ever be mitigated or corrected.

[Valmy]

If Scotland separates there are a lot of plausible outcomes.  One is economic disaster caused by restricted trade with the UK.  But that is not a certainty.  It is also plausible that there is a free trade zone with sterling being used by both.

It could blow up but that would be a political choice.  A dumb one and so certainly possible 

Depends. They could either join the EU or be in a free trade zone with the UK. Can't be both.

Or I guess they could also do neither.

[Valmy]

I would argue that fragmenting into smaller nation states have been the historic trend of failing/stagnating countries/regions. The US have not (yet) fragmented, nor have China or India since its independence. Most western European states have remained intact as well, and the multi-national states created in place of Austria-Hungary have survived as well, with the partial exception of Yugoslavia. So, the vast majority of human population remained in large states, so disintegrating isn't really the trend. I know that the argument would be to call those nation states, but I am not sure if there is a bigger difference in culture and language between people living in opposing ends of the United Kingdom, than, say, India.

Where this all would make sense is within a supra-national/state organisation like the US or the United States - if both Scotland and England were in the EU it would make very little difference to the population of either whether they are still in the UK or not. However, cutting centuries old links because a marginal majority of people think that might be a good idea is a very destructive idea.

Independence, like Brexit, is the price behind Door 1. You can choose the status quo, or whatever you imagine the alternative to be.

The bother is which makes independence seem more of a sensible option today, that Scotland isn't just jumping blindly out into the abyss, cutting itself off from the world.
The UK already did that.
Scotland would be climbing back onto the ship.
It's an inverse of the situation in the last referendum where it would be Scotland jumping out whilst the UK remains part of the world

Yeah but jumping back on the EU ship means a hard border with the UK, which strikes me as a very bad outcome. The situation in 2014 where they would just be brother nations in the EU strikes me as a much more favorable situation than today.

[Josquius]

I would argue that fragmenting into smaller nation states have been the historic trend of failing/stagnating countries/regions. The US have not (yet) fragmented, nor have China or India since its independence. Most western European states have remained intact as well, and the multi-national states created in place of Austria-Hungary have survived as well, with the partial exception of Yugoslavia. So, the vast majority of human population remained in large states, so disintegrating isn't really the trend. I know that the argument would be to call those nation states, but I am not sure if there is a bigger difference in culture and language between people living in opposing ends of the United Kingdom, than, say, India.

Where this all would make sense is within a supra-national/state organisation like the US or the United States - if both Scotland and England were in the EU it would make very little difference to the population of either whether they are still in the UK or not. However, cutting centuries old links because a marginal majority of people think that might be a good idea is a very destructive idea.

Independence, like Brexit, is the price behind Door 1. You can choose the status quo, or whatever you imagine the alternative to be.

The bother is which makes independence seem more of a sensible option today, that Scotland isn't just jumping blindly out into the abyss, cutting itself off from the world.
The UK already did that.
Scotland would be climbing back onto the ship.
It's an inverse of the situation in the last referendum where it would be Scotland jumping out whilst the UK remains part of the world

Yeah but jumping back on the EU ship means a hard border with the UK, which strikes me as a very bad outcome. The situation in 2014 where they would just be brother nations in the EU strikes me as a much more favorable situation than today.

In 2014 they would have been leaving the EU

[Valmy]

In 2014 they would have been leaving the EU

Right, but the expectation was that they would re-join correct?

[Sheilbh]

Right, but the expectation was that they would re-join correct?

Yes. The question was how quickly they could re-join. They would, initially, be a third country who would need to apply from the outside. I imagine rUK would want to make it as easy as possible and would push for Scotland, if possible, to inherit EU status. It was never entirely clear how leaving the EU plus Scottish independence would work/interact because it wouldn't be like Article 50 and the EU points would be a factor but one of many that would be negotiated during independence.

But 2013-14 was also the time of (and Larch will kill me) peak Spanish opposition because there were pushes at exactly the same time for a Catalan referendum. Rajoy and the Spanish foreign minister made comments that basically they wouldn't block Scotland necessarily, but it would be outside the EU and a third country etc and need to apply like anyone else from the outside.

[Jacob]

The are obviously of context-specific nuances, but in general I support the right of self-determination.

The Baltics were absolutely right to continue agitate for and obtain their independence.

Tibet is a nation being subjugated by an imperial power and has every right to independence if the population desires it.

Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia, Greenland etc are all reasonably entitled to independent nationhood and should not coerced to give up independence if that's what the population desires.

The Confederacy had - absent other context - the right to independence if the population was in favour, IMO. However in context being pro-slavery in an age of abolition is morally indefensible, so keeping them in the US by force of arms was morally correct. Besides, they never properly established popular support for independence, given slaves were not allowed to vote (and presumably would've opted to stay in the union and become free). But if, say, California or Texas or Hawaii wanted to secede from the US by popular will and not in pursuit of absolute evil, that's acceptable IMO.