Scottish Politics

[Tincanalley]

To me it is really sad that some of these people in Scotland do not see the greatness of our historic union and keep trying to ruin it. The older I get the less 'English' and more 'British' I feel. I really don't understand what there is to gain, selfish politicians aside. We are so intertwined in every way. The way they talk about it is as if 90% of Scotland wanted to stay in the EU and now wants independence. It's utter nonsense and such a shame to waste so much time and energy on compared to what they could and should be doing.

Says it all, really. You have to love “these people”

 

[owlo]

If the SNP can come up with an answer to the economic question that isn't "we have oil Iol" then they might stand a chance. Difficult question to answer, though.

They can of course try and energise the non voters who just want independence, and get them . I feel that where Brexit went through where IndyRef didn't was because the Brexit movement was so damn tribal. It was flag waving and roast dinner nonsense that didn't ask or answer questions. It helps that the silent No voters that surprised a lot of folk won't be as silent this time. They'll feel emboldened by current events, and be more than happy to shout that they're No voters. That makes them easier to target and try to sway.

I still think any vote will end up being No, though. Nothing in recent years has gone the way I think it will.

This guy is good at explaining things in a way we can understand: https://www.businessforscotland.com/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/

I don't agree with everything, but he makes a cogent case. Has a good few articles too.

 

[4bars]

To me it is really sad that some of these people in Scotland do not see the greatness of our historic union and keep trying to ruin it. .....

Maybe because the ones that trying to ruin it might not be scottish?

 

[altodevil]

What kind of Westminster reform, and why are English voters taken for fools?

Proportional elections, elected house of lords, rebuilt chamber to a co-operative semi-circle etc. It's utterly barbaric and a disgrace for a first world country.

Because they are routinely voting-in governments that decimate the NHS and public services that the majority of folk rely on day in and day out.

 

[Counterfactual]

Probably in the same way that the momentum has kind of dissipated for independence in Quebec after 2 independence referendums.

I'm not saying the SNP won't still be working for independence. That is literally the very essence of their party. But after 2 referenda (if both unsuccessful), with no new triggers after Brexit, what are the justifications going to be? The party will still exist, will srtill always have a hardcore of support, may even carry on doing a good job. But I imagine the support will decrease a bit and votes will increase to other parties.

Literally no country is going to allow a part of their territory to have a referendum on independence every 10 years, regardless of how much they may agitate for it. I don't believe Quebec has had a referendum since 95, despite having 2 in 15 years.

That's a good point and an analogy I hadn't considered.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I don't buy this Westminster narrative that gets peddled most frequently, you'd think England is the land of milk and honey the way people talk about it.

Ah, so we're all united until I say something you don't like and then I get attitude from you. Glad to know what you really meant by union.

A lot of London's benefits are happenstance from being the capital and an international city with all the external investment that brings. Remove London from the equation and what other areas of the entire UK aren't being 'ignored' by comparison to suggest that Scotland is getting a bad deal somehow? The narrative of being ignored by Westminster is hard to justify.

Yeah, I never said it was just Scotland that experienced it. Which you would've seen if you read what I posted.

Plenty of London even is as much of a shitehole as the rest of the country too believe me. No vitriol from me, on the contrary I'd say that all comes from the other side a bit like small man syndrome.

You know what? This bit here just shows how little you actually fecking think about the union. You're the big daddy and everyone else should just shut up and be grateful to be a part of it. Everything you post after this about unique shared history is bullshit because you need to be the one shouting the loudest, which you've shown in your entire reply to me. You're making more of a case for Scottish independence than anything else. I tell you that IndyRef is because huge swathes of the UK feel ridiculed and ignored by Westminster and then you go on ridicule and ignore what I've said.

The historic union is like those Royal family plate buying sychophants. Wearing the union like it's a handbag that we can show off to the world, without actually caring what it's made from. Like I said before, you can't say the union is great for everyone when you're the big player. If the Union was a suit then "England" is the shirt, tie, coat and trousers. Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and anything in England outside of the Westminster bubble are the muddy shoes. And if any of us speak up about how we might have a problem with this apparently wonderful union we're all apart of we're told to feck off.

 

[Member 55443]

Says it all, really. You have to love “these people”

Reading too much into that one.

 

[Member 55443]

Ah, so we're all united until I say something you don't like and then I get attitude from you. Glad to know what you really meant by union.


Yeah, I never said it was just Scotland that experienced it. Which you would've seen if you read what I posted.



You know what? This bit here just shows how little you actually fecking think about the union. You're the big daddy and everyone else should just shut up and be grateful to be a part of it. Everything you post after this about unique shared history is bullshit because you need to be the one shouting the loudest, which you've shown in your entire reply to me. You're making more of a case for Scottish independence than anything else. I tell you that IndyRef is because huge swathes of the UK feel ridiculed and ignored by Westminster and then you go on ridicule and ignore what I've said.

The historic union is like those Royal family plate buying sychophants. Wearing the union like it's a handbag that we can show off to the world, without actually caring what it's made from. Like I said before, you can't say the union is great for everyone when you're the big player. If the Union was a suit then England is the shirt, tie, coat and trousers. Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and anything outside of the Westminster bubble are the muddy shoes. And if any of us speak up about how we might have a problem with this apparently wonderful union we're all apart of we're told to feck off.

Sorry mate didn't intend to cause you to get so angry. All I know is there have been several wars fought between England and Scotland going back hundreds of years so actually a long term peaceful union between the two countries who have subsequently gone on to share a wealth of culture, history, technology, and achievement in just about anything you can imagine and now fight together when it's called for is what I recognize as a 'wonderful union', doesn't get much better than that. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, genuinely.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Sorry mate didn't intend to cause you to get so angry. All I know is there have been several wars fought between England and Scotland going back hundreds of years so actually a long term peaceful union between the two countries who have subsequently gone on to share a wealth of culture, history, technology, and achievement in just about anything you can imagine and now fight together when it's called for is what I recognize as a 'wonderful union', doesn't get much better than that. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, genuinely.

Try and understand where the divide comes from. Mate, I'm not even fully Scottish. I've got more roots in England than this kilt wearing, haggis munching paradise even if I was born here. Breaking up the union wouldn't be ideal but there's genuine reasons why the movement is strong here, and just saying "our wonderful union" and "you should see it that way" isn't going to change that. It actually has the opposite effect.

 

[Member 55443]

Try and understand where the divide comes from. Mate, I'm not even fully Scottish. I've got more roots in England than this kilt wearing, haggis munching paradise even if I was born here. Breaking up the union wouldn't be ideal but there's genuine reasons why the movement is strong here, and just saying "our wonderful union" and "you should see it that way" isn't going to change that. It actually has the opposite effect.

What if we compromise and give you the Isle of Man and all the angry pro indies can start a new country there? Surely it would be a paradise in no time.

 

[Counterfactual]

Proportional elections, elected house of lords, rebuilt chamber to a co-operative semi-circle etc. It's utterly barbaric and a disgrace for a first world country.

Because they are routinely voting-in governments that decimate the NHS and public services that the majority of folk rely on day in and day out.

PR: Has its drawbacks. How about adopting the Scottish AMS across the UK, or are you advocating for PR in Scotland too?
Elected HoL: Why bother with a HoL at all? I don't see that it serves any purpose as it is.
Rebuilt chamber to semi-circle: This makes sense if you move away from a 2-party system, which it seems like you would with PR/AMS.

English voters voting Conservative is their prerogative. It doesn't mean they're taken for fools.

 

[Cheimoon]

Probably in the same way that the momentum has kind of dissipated for independence in Quebec after 2 independence referendums.

I'm not saying the SNP won't still be working for independence. That is literally the very essence of their party. But after 2 referenda (if both unsuccessful), with no new triggers after Brexit, what are the justifications going to be? The party will still exist, will srtill always have a hardcore of support, may even carry on doing a good job. But I imagine the support will decrease a bit and votes will increase to other parties.

Literally no country is going to allow a part of their territory to have a referendum on independence every 10 years, regardless of how much they may agitate for it. I don't believe Quebec has had a referendum since 95, despite having 2 in 15 years.

Although a huge factor is that Quebec independence has polled pretty low since 1995. Well, maybe not right after, but a rematch within years was never in the cards anyway. In any case, if there were a vote now, you'd get 30-40% Yes, so what's the point? There is some interplay there with politics, as federal governments are now more careful with Quebec sensitivities (although also because there are a lot of seats there), the Quebec party that originally drove the referenda has become largely irrelevant, and the party currently in power is sovereignist, but now in the sense of getting as much power as possible out of Ottawa and into Quebec.

It's a messy dynamic, but in any case, I'm sure there would be another referendum if there were a political turn on the federal level and Quebec felt sufficiently what upon by the country.

 

[Counterfactual]

Try and understand where the divide comes from. Mate, I'm not even fully Scottish. I've got more roots in England than this kilt wearing, haggis munching paradise even if I was born here. Breaking up the union wouldn't be ideal but there's genuine reasons why the movement is strong here, and just saying "our wonderful union" and "you should see it that way" isn't going to change that. It actually has the opposite effect.

This debate is very interesting to me having lived on both sides of the border. I can see the English point of view which is that, "the Scottish tail seems to wag the English dog" (to be fair, the SNP have turned stoking this belief into an art form with free tuition places at University, free prescriptions and free elderly care), but also the Scottish point of view, which is that they've contributed a fortune to the UK exchequer through oil/gas and seen little return, along with the perception that the English ride roughshod over their opinions.

I'd like the two sides to come together. The Scots are a wonderful people... amusing, warm and generous. I truly enjoyed trying to pick out the one word in every Dundonian sentence I understood (y'ken?) There's strength and beauty in our diversity. Hopefully we can resolve our differences and harness that strength.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I feel culturally intertwined in the Union. I lived in England for many years and feel at more at home in the major cities of England, Birmingham excepted which I have never got, than I do in much of Scotland. I have deep emotional ties to London and Manchester in particular and feel a great cultural synergy with much of England. Had you asked me 25 years ago, the concept of voting to leave the Union would have seemed both abhorrent and ridiculous.

However, I can see no other means of escape from the continuously right wing voting patterns of England as a whole. For Labour to win in England they had to lose Scotland and the rot started long, long before the horrors of Brexit (tuition fees being a notable early issue).

I would vote to leave the Union, with a heavy heart, because I see no other way. The left in the population densities of Scotland, who were Labour through and through, felt betrayed through the Blair years and drifted to the SNP who, perhaps cynically, adopted policies that appealed to that voter base.The "Tartan Tories" are no more. Whilst I don't vote SNP, almost everyone I know, all generically Labour, does. The dye is set and I don't see any chance for a realignment, though I hope for one.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

This debate is very interesting to me having lived on both sides of the border. I can see the English point of view which is that, "the Scottish tail seems to wag the English dog" (to be fair, the SNP have turned stoking this belief into an art form with free tuition places at University, free prescriptions and free elderly care),

I'm struggling with this point. Why is Scotland's belief in education and healthcare being free at point of use, which we choose to prioritise in our budget, an example of the SNP bating England?
Edit: for a start, fairly sure these policies were implemented (retained?) when Holyrood was under Labour control.

 

[Counterfactual]

I'm struggling with this point. Why is Scotland's belief in education and healthcare being free at point of use, which we choose to prioritise in our budget, an example of the SNP bating England?

Are you arguing that it's a coincidence, and that the perception in England of those policies being passed in Scotland would have no influence on the SNP's decision to enact them?

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Are you arguing that it's a coincidence, and that the perception in England of those policies being passed in Scotland would have no influence on the SNP's decision to enact them?

I'm even more lost now. Are you suggesting that Scotland, for instance, retaining free higher education was done to annoy England rather than, you know, that it's what we believe is the right thing to do? Do you think Scottish political decisions are taken to noise up England?

 

[4bars]

I'm even more lost now. Are you suggesting that Scotland, for instance, retaining free higher education was done to annoy England rather than, you know, that it's what we believe is the right thing to do? Do you think Scottish political decisions are taken to noise up England?

Damn scottish for doing the right thing for their people to piss off English...How dare they?

 

[Reiver]

When I was younger, I was 100% behind independence, nothing else really mattered to me, from a political sense, to hell with any consequences. I have never felt British, never identified as British.
As I got older, I started giving consideration to other things - standards of living, issues of equality, and the environment. I've probably swung into the gradualist camp for independence. I'd be quite happy to support a more federal Scotland, with increased borrowing powers, if it was an option. Interestingly, this is something Scottish Labour has indicated they might support.
Scotland was assured that voting to remain in the Union was the only way to guarantee continued EU membership. So right now, the Union to me and many others represents years of continued Tory rule, veering ever to the Right and being forced to leave the EU.
For me, Brexit is such a seismic change to the political landscape, it does justify another referendum. I don't think it does set a standard for having one every 10 years.
I dont think this would lead to a vote for independence should there be another referendum. But the divisions over Independence and Brexit are deep and here to stay.

 

[lefty_jakobz]

Scotland will win its independence this time round thanks to Boris and the Tories.

The Welsh will follow suit soon after.

England and NI will be left on their own.

 

[Counterfactual]

I'm even more lost now. Are you suggesting that Scotland, for instance, retaining free higher education was done to annoy England rather than, you know, that it's what we believe is the right thing to do? Do you think Scottish political decisions are taken to noise up England?

Scottish politicians enact the will of the Scottish people, as they should. If the Scottish people prioritise having, for example, free higher education and free prescriptions over other spending, they're entitled to do so.

To address your points...

1: Free higher education and free prescription policies were enacted under the SNP, or at least Sturgeon took credit for them...

“Two of my proudest achievements of the SNP government have been getting rid of charges for ill health and tuition fees,” says Nicola.
(source)

2: She directly emphasises the benefits to Scottish students compared to those living in England...

“Around 600,000 adults from families with an annual income as low as £16,000 would have been liable for prescription charges before we abolished them. And while tuition fees have continued to soar in England, Scottish students know that under the SNP, their education will always be based on their ability to learn – not their ability to pay.”
(same source)

 

[Berbasbullet]

Want them to stay, can’t blame them for leaving.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Scottish politicians enact the will of the Scottish people, as they should. If the Scottish people prioritise having, for example, free higher education and free prescriptions over other spending, they're entitled to do so.

To address your points...

1: Free higher education and free prescription policies were enacted under the SNP, or at least Sturgeon took credit for them...

“Two of my proudest achievements of the SNP government have been getting rid of charges for ill health and tuition fees,” says Nicola.
(source)

2: She directly emphasises the benefits to Scottish students compared to those living in England...

“Around 600,000 adults from families with an annual income as low as £16,000 would have been liable for prescription charges before we abolished them. And while tuition fees have continued to soar in England, Scottish students know that under the SNP, their education will always be based on their ability to learn – not their ability to pay.”
(same source)

hasn’t the education pre university suffered massively? At least that’s the argument used. I’m not au fait with internal Scottish politics.

On the face of it, clearly free prescription’s in Wales and Scotland, and free university is going to annoy some people who do pay for prescription’s and university across the border - especially given the Barnett formula.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

If they vote to leave then we shouldn't stand in their way. I don't want one penny of the cost of them doing so to be paid by me or mine though. UK assets stay in the UK, exceptional costs of leaving to be paid by Scotland and no borrowing in Sterling.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Scottish politicians enact the will of the Scottish people, as they should. If the Scottish people prioritise having, for example, free higher education and free prescriptions over other spending, they're entitled to do so.

To address your points...

1: Free higher education and free prescription policies were enacted under the SNP, or at least Sturgeon took credit for them...

“Two of my proudest achievements of the SNP government have been getting rid of charges for ill health and tuition fees,” says Nicola.
(source)

2: She directly emphasises the benefits to Scottish students compared to those living in England...

“Around 600,000 adults from families with an annual income as low as £16,000 would have been liable for prescription charges before we abolished them. And while tuition fees have continued to soar in England, Scottish students know that under the SNP, their education will always be based on their ability to learn – not their ability to pay.”
(same source)

The tuition fee law was passed by the SNP in 2007 but there were differences prior to that too under the Labour/Lib coalition. Really, that law is simply rejecting the changes begun under Blunkett.
Clearly, that is in direct contrast to England.
I'm still not seeing how the relates to your "do you think it's just a coincidence" point. Clearly, Scotland choosing to reject tuition fees is directly linked to England choosing to introduce them after 36 years so it's causally linked but any suggestion that the decision was taken to annoy England rather than because Scotland believes, as Sturgeon put it, "education...based on their ability to learn - not their ability to pay".

 

[Fingeredmouse]

hasn’t the education pre university suffered massively? At least that’s the argument used. I’m not au fait with internal Scottish politics.

On the face of it, clearly free prescription’s in Wales and Scotland, and free university is going to annoy some people who do pay for prescription’s and university across the border - especially given the Barnett formula.

Yes. that'd piss me off if I lived in England to but my ire would not be directed at Scotalnd and Wales but at the Governments who starting making you pay. The solution to that would be to vote for people who consider free prescriptions and University into Parliament surely?
As for the Barnett formula: how the devolved nations choose to spend their funds is up to them and how and why the Barnett formula was introduced and continues to be applied and the fact that it is not, in anyway, a subsidy for Scotland is a direction I fear to venture in lest I get dragged into a lengthy and tedious discussion.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Yes. that'd piss me off if I lived in England to but my ire would not be directed at Scotalnd and Wales but at the Governments who starting making you pay. The solution to that would be to vote for people who consider free prescriptions and University into Parliament surely?
As for the Barnett formula: how the devolved nations choose to spend their funds is up to them and how and why the Barnett formula was introduced and continues to be applied and the fact that it is not, in anyway, a subsidy for Scotland is a direction I fear to venture in lest I get dragged into a lengthy and tedious discussion.

it’s not something that bothers me, or my perspective, but I imagine it’s how people may think. Furthermore the Barnett Formula does mean that spending per person is higher in the devolved nations, ergo allowing them to offer free prescriptions…

Again, not my view, I have no opinion - it is how many think, and why there is some resentment.

like you - I’m not wanting to get into a tedious discussion!

 

[Fingeredmouse]

it’s not something that bothers me, or my perspective, but I imagine it’s how people may think. Furthermore the Barnett Formula does mean that spending per person is higher in the devolved nations, ergo allowing them to offer free prescriptions…

Again, not my view, I have no opinion - it is how many think, and why there is some resentment.

like you - I’m not wanting to get into a tedious discussion!

Quite and I'm fully aware how the Barnett formula is presented in the politics of Westminster as England subsidising the other nations and it always will be.

If they vote to leave then we shouldn't stand in their way. I don't want one penny of the cost of them doing so to be paid by me or mine though. UK assets stay in the UK, exceptional costs of leaving to be paid by Scotland and no borrowing in Sterling.

Which is fair but what do you then mean by UK assets which are, by definition, assets of the current nations within the UK? That can of worms will be an absolute nightmare if Scotland were to secede.

 

[Counterfactual]

The tuition fee law was passed by the SNP in 2007 but there were differences prior to that too under the Labour/Lib coalition. Really, that law is simply rejecting the changes begun under Blunkett.
Clearly, that is in direct contrast to England.
I'm still not seeing how the relates to your "do you think it's just a coincidence" point. Clearly, Scotland choosing to reject tuition fees is directly linked to England choosing to introduce them after 36 years so it's causally linked but any suggestion that the decision was taken to annoy England rather than because Scotland believes, as Sturgeon put it, "education...based on their ability to learn - not their ability to pay".

I don't believe the decision was taken "to annoy England". That would be massively and ridiculously presumptuous.

I believe Scottish policies are implemented for the benefit of the Scottish people.

I also believe the SNP are not above tweaking the nose of the English if the opportunity arises, which Sturgeon did when drawing the comparison between Scottish and English students. She even stated that the position of the English students was effectively worsening ("while tuition fees have continued to soar in England"). It was unnecessarily provocative.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Quite and I'm fully aware how the Barnett formula is presented in the politics of Westminster as England subsidising the other nations and it always will be.

Which is fair but what do you then mean by UK assets which are, by definition, assets of the current nations within the UK? That can of worms will be an absolute nightmare if Scotland were to secede.

Assets would remain with the nations remaining in the UK, they are UK assets. Scotland having decided to leave them behind, what was it the EU said, you can leave but you don't get to take the furniture with you. Agree them pre referendum, so everyone knows what is at stake before they vote.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I don't believe the decision was taken "to annoy England". That would be massively and ridiculously presumptuous.

I believe Scottish policies are implemented for the benefit of the Scottish people.

I also believe the SNP are not above tweaking the nose of the English if the opportunity arises, which Sturgeon did when drawing the comparison between Scottish and English students. She even stated that the position of the English students was effectively worsening ("while tuition fees have continued to soar in England"). It was unnecessarily provocative.

I get your point now. It doesn't seem to me to be provocative any more than pointing out in what way you believe your political enemies' policies to be ineffective under normal circumstances but fair enough.

Assets would remain with the nations remaining in the UK, they are UK assets. Scotland having decided to leave them behind, what was it the EU said, you can leave but you don't get to take the furniture with you. Agree them pre referendum, so everyone knows what is at stake before they vote.

Well, that's going to be a pretty contentious point especially as, if you follow that logic, everything in Scotland is a UK asset. If you choose to leave a marriage you get feck all seems a fairly, to use @Counterfactual 's language, provocative position. I'm sure it's the one that'll be taken, if ever it comes to it.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Disentangling the UKs assets would clearly be a challenge, and obviously contentious.

military assets would be interesting. It certainly used to be the case all of our nuclear assets our held in Scotland.

there would ultimately be some sort of transition. Hopefully we don’t get that far…

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I get your point now. It doesn't seem to me to be provocative any more than pointing out in what way you believe your political enemies' policies to be ineffective under normal circumstances but fair enough.

Well, that's going to be a pretty contentious point especially as, if you follow that logic, everything in Scotland is a UK asset. If you choose to leave a marriage you get feck all seems a fairly, to use @Counterfactual 's language, provocative position. I'm sure it's the one that'll be taken, if ever it comes to it.

It gets worse,

UK debt is 2131.2 billion pounds. Scotland is for the sake of the math 10 % of the UK per population. Just the 213 billion pounds to pay before they leave then.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Assets would remain with the nations remaining in the UK, they are UK assets. Scotland having decided to leave them behind, what was it the EU said, you can leave but you don't get to take the furniture with you. Agree them pre referendum, so everyone knows what is at stake before they vote.

in a similar way to Brexit - it’s impossible to outline exactly what the terms will be. It can only be the premise that is proposed and outlined. and as we’ve seen with Brexit the detail takes years.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

It gets worse,

UK debt is 2131.2 billion pounds. Scotland is for the sake of the math 10 % of the UK per population. Just the 213 billion pounds to pay before they leave then.

Scotland wouldn’t need to pay any debt before they left, it would become a liability. The terms of that liability may be interesting, depending upon their assets and credit rating.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

in a similar way to Brexit - it’s impossible to outline exactly what the terms will be. It can only be the premise that is proposed and outlined. and as we’ve seen with Brexit the detail takes years.

As we have seen with Brexit, it is best to iron out those details pre vote or you don't know what you are voting for. Like I say I don't want to be paying for it so best off getting started with those details because they can really bite you in the arse.

 

[sun_tzu]

Assets would remain with the nations remaining in the UK, they are UK assets. Scotland having decided to leave them behind, what was it the EU said, you can leave but you don't get to take the furniture with you. Agree them pre referendum, so everyone knows what is at stake before they vote.

Interesting would also be the financial settlement ... presumably the UK would want some funds (as did the EU) to settle their share of national debt... futire pemsions etc

I am not sure these would be negotiated pre -referendum - I agree that in an ideal world they would be but given how difficult these negotiations were with the Eu and how long they took im just not sure how practical it would be to engage with that before the referendum - equally access to nuclear bases etc - trade and border rules - and probably something to do with fish would also no doubt be big stumbling blocks to a negotiation that for people to make the best informed decision should be agreed beforehand but that would probably require several years of negotiations which does not fit with the SNp proposed timeline of introducing legistlation in early 2022 with a vote in 2023 and the westminister line of no authority for a referendum

As such its hard to imagine such negotiations (given their complexity) happening within a timeframe that works - and thats even without the whole scotland will (probaby) want to rejoin the EU but will that involve using the Euro or not and scotland technically not being able to discuss these terms with the EU because they are part of the UK and the UK wont give permission for them to have these talks (imagine Spains reaction if the UK government started direct negotations with catalonia on a trade deal to be ratified once they becoe independent)

Basically this will result in a lot of bluster and unprovable claims (probably plastered on the side of a bus) from both sides - and thats if there is even a referendum which I suspect at the moment the Government would simply de-legitamise by telling remain supporters not to vote as its not authorised (basically what spain did in catelonia)

I actually think the SNP's best chance of a binding referendum comes with the next election and a hung parliament where it could be their price for propping up a labour government (along with voting through massive boundry changes should scotland leave)

Unfortuantly there is very little chance of an informed vote though

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

As we have seen with Brexit, it is best to iron out those details pre vote or you don't know what you are voting for. Like I say I don't want to be paying for it so best off getting started with those details because they can really bite you in the arse.

but as we’ve seen - the massive effort, and political will and lengthy negations mean that it’s obviously not possible to do so and get anything worthwhile and binding prior to a referendum.

it has to be, and will be done afterwards if we come to it.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Scotland wouldn’t need to pay any debt before they left, it would become a liability. The terms of that liability may be interesting, depending upon their assets and credit rating.

There is every chance they renege on debt repayments though. They will have to sort out their own currency to borrow to pay it off and the value of that currency would be volatile. Studies suggest tax rises and spending cuts would both be needed to underpin the value of Scotland's new currency and there is no appetite for either. If they go under and fail to repay their debt that is the rest of the UK having to pay for Scottish independence. Which wouldn't be fair and I don't agree to run that risk just because some people held a referendum I didn't get a vote in and decided to leave.

Its for the SNP to lay out how they resolve their problems not the UK. They want to leave its on them.

 

[Foxbatt]

It would probably be a lot easier now since UK is out of the EU.