> Proposed Scottish independence is 12 months away.
the SNP have been saying this since the first vote in 2014
the SNP have been saying this since the first vote in 2014
If an actual referendum was allowed and held today it would perhaps be a toss up. But two harsh winters from now if the economy is still spiraling it will be a foregone conclusion.
Point being why would anyone invest in Scotland or the rest of the UK during such tumultuous times? And this political instability is set to continue for years and years now.
to what end? with no agreement from the UK government nothing will happen
> Point being why would anyone invest in Scotland or the rest of the UK during such tumultuous times?
there's no doubt it hurts investment in Scotland
however its economic impact on leaving the UK would be more or less a non-event for the rest of the UK
(Scotland's share of UK GDP being less than the UK's share of EU GDP)
Obviously to exploit anti-union sentiments for political gain.
> however its economic impact on leaving the UK would be more or less a non-event for the rest of the UK
It would be followed by Ireland and the end of the union. England will find itself with a smaller population than Italy and similarly mired in political instability and infighting.
The difference between vying for the #1 economy in Europe and #4 is quite profound.
and how effective has this been?
if the UK government doesn't permit it: it doesn't happen, end of story.
> It would be followed by Ireland and the end of the union.
I have news for you, Ireland left in 1921
(if England does end up being independent again its citizens would be significantly better off as the subsidy to the other parts of the UK are quite considerable)
Great. I hope so, I have no idea. But it won't be the UK anymore. Very different place in the world and very different internal politics. Maybe it will become like a mini-US but without the natural resources and economical clout.. doesn't seem promising.
it'll be exactly the same an England is essentially the UK (which is the SNP's problem with it)
this is explained in one very simple chart: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-96b10105bd7d45574f1b5...
I don't think I've heard this proverb used to justify vague predictions before. It's always been the (proper) meaning of "you were right, but only by accident".
It's interesting to see it used in a "I know we've been saying that for eight years, but we'll be right at SOME point!" way.
I'm neutral on the topic of Scottish independence but from a purely tactical perspective it'd be surprising if another referendum could be won at the moment. Sturgeon appears to know that and looks a lot like she's trying to string the SNP base along by claiming to want one without actually getting another referendum.
Problems any new campaign would face:
- The EU. It could be mostly ignored last time. A large part of the SNP base is pro-EU and wants to join as a separate country, whilst another large part of the SNP base is genuinely pro-independence and wants Scotland to be ruled by Scots. These two positions can't be reconciled. EU membership means rule from Brussels. The SNP is theoretically an independence party but would be campaigning on a vision of gaining full independence and then immediately attempting to give it up again, and this would create weaknesses that any competent pro-union campaign would presumably exploit. The hard border and being required to join the Euro would also be a new requirement that wasn't a part of the debate last time.
- Relatedly the financial situation is now worse than before and the EU might not want Scotland as a consequence, as it would be expected to replace the UK's massive subsidies. Joining can take years, in the meantime it would require severe austerity measures to stabilize the new state's finances.
- The SNP has never resolved many of the open issues that caused them to lose last time. What currency would they use, would there be access to the BBC and other infrastructure, border issues, North Sea decomm etc. These questions had clearly been left to the last minute and the pro-union side hammered that fact to great effect. Yet they don't seem to have got much further with the planning since. Tactically this just strengthens the unionist attack line that the SNP don't really want independence - if they did, surely they would be obsessive about all the things they'd do differently after leaving the UK and would have whole libraries devoted to the topic.
If the SNP want to force and win another referendum they need to start having these discussions with their supporters, even if they're unpleasant (e.g. adopting the Euro is generally unpopular).
This was the Brexit lie, and it's not really a sustainable argument post-Brexit.
> Joining can take years, in the meantime it would require severe austerity measures to stabilize the new state's finances.
A referendum wouldn't require leaving immediately; again, see Brexit. Negotiate an EU entrance while preparing for exit.
> The SNP has never resolved many of the open issues that caused them to lose last time.
Again, didn't stop Brexit.
Why do you think rule from Brussels is a lie?
Because it was a lie the last time it was the talking point.
The UK still winds up having to meet EU standards if they want to sell products there; all the regulatory burden, none of the benefits. They could have decided to have blue passports any time they wanted. The 350 million pounds a week for the NHS never materialized. etc. etc. etc.
Presumably with the UK now out of the EU, many of those people would vote for independence. (And I believe Spain, which was the country people were most worried about vetoing an independent Scotland joining the EU because they don't want to encourage those regions of Spain that want to break away has since said that it would have no objection as long as Scottish independence happens in a way that is legal under UK law).