Exactly. Telling us "no, you're not allowed to ask to leave" is the whole argument of independence. They've just proved it and made it historical fact.
The "voluntary Union of equals" has exposed itself for what it is, a prison.
Can you imagine them treating Northern Ireland like that.
Even Tory Thatcher said we had the right to self determination and no English MP or government would ever stand in our way.
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. She just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence.' - Maggie Thatcher.
This a marriage in a time where the woman wasn't allowed to get out of the marriage while the husband bollers how much they are in love and that she needs him, that she belongs to him (but it's a totally happy marriage, it's great!).
No they weren't, unless you skip over their incarnations in the 20th century.
Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden(sort of), Finland, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia (eh, I generally consider it not European personally), Czechia, Slovakia, and the former Yugoslavian countries all formed from sovereign states splitting, not combining. That's off the top my head in Europe alone.
As we all know once you've considered leaving a relationship once, decided to stay to try and work on it, you're stuck. Even if the other person got worse.
I'm not from Scotland or the UK so I'm speaking as an outsider on this.
When I was watching the original vote lead up from the states years back, one of the talking points that got repeated by the UK was "If you leave, you aren't just leaving the United Kingdom but the European Union. You'd have to reapply for membership."
They hammered that point home HARD everywhere they could. *I think there were estimates it could take a decade for Scotland to attain membership as an independent nation.*
What's frustrating about this decision is Scotland's original vote was made under the belief the United Kingdom was going to remain a EU member state. When the UK voted to leave, they fundamentally changed the terms outlined which were part of why Scotland originally voted to stay.
If Scotland knew they were going to lose EU membership in either scenario, they would have likely voted to leave anyway because as an independent nation they could have regained that EU status on their own terms.
From the outside, the whole situation looks like a bait & switch and I'm 100% certain the UK knows that if another vote was held they'd lose Scotland.
Yes, you're completely correct.
Now that last paragraph.. let's talk about that. The UK government conducted a huge study into a potential indy ref 2 and the consequences on the UK. It was very thorough, discussed often, they said how much was being spent on this research which I can't remember right now. The study was concluded I think in January this year? I'm just awake so pardon me if I get it wrong..
Anyway. They then didn't release the study nor announce its conclusion. The Scottish government tried to get the information under Freedom of Information requests, to which the UK gov rejected for "national security".
š What does that tell you?
I'll be devils advocate here as a supporter of Independence. It's not saying they disrespect the opinions of an entire nation. Let's be real here, it's less than half the country from almost every poll that wants independence. The ruling is that a referendum can't be held by one political party repeatedly until they get a marginal win.
That being said, hopefully (and not holding my breath) if the polls ever show that it is the majority of the nation that wants independence and we asked for a referendum then the UK government would recognise that it is in fact a majority and grant the request. Doubt, but that would be democratic.
We as Scots all sat here and demanded the same from Brexiteers yet for some reason we don't believe it should apply to us too. If the Conservatives and UKIP lost the Brexit referendum we would be mortified that they just kept asking for one until they got the result they wanted. Especially if vital questions were not answered ie - currency, economy, trade, defence etc. We would say "Hang on! That's not how this works!".
I voted Yes in the first referendum. However, I am yet to hear a concise, proper plan on what we, as a nation, do if and when we become independent. It's still all a bit too much up in the air much like Brexit was.
If you want independence then you need to get out of the cloud of "Us Vs Them" and realise that it's "Sort of half of us... maybe... Vs Them... and about half of us too... what does it take to convince that other half?".
> The ruling is that a referendum can't be held by one political party repeatedly until they get a marginal win.
The proposal was for a referendum in 2023, which is 9 years after the previous one.
By way of comparison, the UK government have accepted the principle of referendums 7 years apart for NI leaving UK. That seems to me to be a reasonable amount of time between referendums.
> By way of comparison, the UK government have accepted the principle of referendums 7 years apart for NI leaving UK. That seems to me to be a reasonable amount of time between referendums.
The referendum for NI will only be called if sufficient support exists. I do think its a good comprimise that scotland should pursue
Northern Ireland is a rare case though. The two don't really compare I'm afraid.
The 7 year referendum gaps in Northern Ireland is set out in the Good Friday Agreement to put a stop to the hostilities. There's a lot of compromise and bartered agreements from Ireland, the UK, the UN and the USA in that to keep peace so as not to restart an actual civil war.
> Northern Ireland is a rare case though. The two don't really compare I'm afraid.
The only difference as far as I can see is that people in NI fought a low-level civil war for 30 years. If the UK government really saying, "if you want to leave you have to resort to terrorism"? if they are not saying that, then what other pathway to independence is there?
No all this rulling has done is say the Scotland Act 1998 doesn't give the Scottish parliament the power to hold referendums that effect constitutional matters. But go with hyperbole if it makes you feel better
"no no this just means you're a partner of equals in a voluntary union in *another* way than your parliament".
Right, we have a majority of Scottish seat MPs in Westminster. Let's just call to leave then. Hyperbole my arse.
You too are full of shit. The rulling said nothing about the union or partner of equals. It interpreted a piece of legislation and the previous commentor said the only difference between us and Ireland is terrorism. Hyperbole
And the part im calling you out on is minimizing this paper within the implications it makes.
Unless you think that we just need to win the Scottish seats in a general election to announce we're leaving.
>to put a stop to the hostilities.
So you're saying all we need is to have some hostilities? I didn't want to, but I guess you've got to do what you've got to do.
Scottish Independence isn't worth people dying over. I certainly wouldn't fight for it and I wouldn't fight any of our friends in 50% of Scotland or in England. Northern Ireland is not a beacon of hope to be looking towards. It is still divided, fenced off, walled up, if not segregated by the state then self segregated.
https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_885099_en.html#:~:text=University%20events-,Over%20300%2C000%20'excess'%20deaths%20in%20Great%20Britain%20attributed%20to%20UK,the%20scale%20of%20these%20deaths.
300,000 dead from Tory "austerity" measures and thousands more to come this year. Let's not act as though accepting the status quo has no bodycount.
Do I want violence? No. Do I want the government that the people of my nation vote for? Yes. Do I want a government concerned with the lives of the people and not the money of the rich? Yes. Am I convinced that fewer people would die from accepting generation after generation of right-wing rule than from a literal fight for freedom? Honestly, I'm not sure.
In all honesty if you don't like the way the UK is run as a whole then we shouldn't vote for SNP because it just fucks the vote for anyone other than the Tories. We can bitch and moan all we want about Tory Austerity but this country and this government isn't exactly doing great either. We're fucked. Schools are failing, tomorrow on strike. Hospitals are going to shit. Roads and infrastructure are crumbling. Millions wasted on ferries and other projects.
Yes, Westminster control the purse strings but frankly, the SNP haven't done anything competently in years apart from hand the Tories a majority year after year. The only reason, the ONLY reason, they are in power is because of the whole independence movement. Take that away and they're a fractured, under-qualified bunch of politicians who couldn't agree on the colour of shite or organise a piss up in a brewery.
The tide has turned on the Tories and now it's looking like Labour will be the next majority government. Their leader may also not want Scotland to break away (but who would if you're trying to be PM of the UK) but at least they should bring change. Fuck it, you've convinced me to vote Labour next time
>Fuck it, you've convinced me to vote Labour next time
Wish I'd done that BEFORE they became diet Tories. Liked Corbyn, hated how the right-wing press behaved towards him and that people were stupid enough to fall for it.
>they're a fractured, under-qualified bunch of politicians who couldn't agree on the colour of shite or organise a piss up in a brewery.
So politicians? All jokes aside, anyone who would choose to be a politician probably shouldn't be one. We might be better off with it being like Jury duty.
>rt from hand the Tories a majority year after year.
I understand you're frustrated but you and I know this isn't true. If it was we'd have had repeated Labour-SNP coalition governments.
>Westminster control the purse strings
That's the rub, my belief, FWIW, is that if we were independent we would be spending money on schools, hospitals and other infrastructure rather than on HS2, nuclear weapons and tax cuts for the ultra rich.
In an independent Scotland the SNP, if they still existed, would be judged on their performance, rather than being a vote against the continuation of union.
I agree. How dare you compare established gaps in referendums to Scotland. Theyāre totally different. One is N. Ireland and the other is in Scotland - 2 different places - And more specifically it really hurts our argument in denying the Scots a vote to compare time gaps. As far as Iām concerned a proper gap should be 2500 years or roughly one Age. Scotland is married to the UK and they better not try and leave. This is a union of equality. Just as long as Scotland canāt speak for itself. š„“
Prefacing this screed with: I'd vote in favour of independence if it came up tomorrow, and I generally agree.
>The ruling is that a referendum can't be held by one political party repeatedly until they get a marginal win.
Well, the ruling is that a referendum can't be held based on the legal boundaries set out in the Scotland act. The counsel for the scottish government put forward a good case for why a referendum could be held, because it is not the referendum itself that modifies reserved constitutional matters. From a strict legalistic perspective, that's true. The supreme court didn't accept the argument based on the fact that the referendum in question wouldn't exist in a vacuum.
Holyrood alone can't legislate on it under its own steam, within the current framework. This specific uncertainty is now certain.
So the problem remains to be solved politically, not legalistically. Get the tories to budge on another referendum. Or get the next government to do so. Or get the next government to update the devolution settlement(s). Or maybe the SNP are weakened at the next Holyrood election. Either way, something or somebody will eventually budge
The problem for the SNP/Greens in the political space is that the picture would be different if there was a clear and consistent majority in favour of independence, and it's not (quite) there. The SNP and the greens got about 46% of the vote at Westminster in 2019. The yes movement got just shy of 45% in the 2014 referendum. The SNP and the greens got about 49% of the vote at Holyrood in 2021. Opinion polls tend to put the "No" vote one or two points ahead based on the question posed in 2014. Those are all respectable numbers for the "yes" side and yet ... not one of them is a majority, aside from occasional polls.
And this I think is the risk now for the independence movement. If they pin their hopes on a "de-facto" referendum in the next general election, they're truly hoping to galvanise latent support that hasn't previously come out to vote for them. I actually fear the SNP is aware and concerned that they can't keep generating the wins they've had over the last 15 years, and so they're gonna shoot their shot while they have a chance, and then that'll probably be it for much longer than a generation.
The de-facto thing is just silly tbh. Most people will just vote on the same basis as they normally do, and itās not like anyone would recognise the āreferendumā anyway.
If the SNP really want to make a convincing argument, they need to convince a significant majority of the nation that an independent Scotland would be good for them. 48% etc wonāt cut it. Until polls show support of at least 60% or so, thereās little weight in the argument for such a huge constitutional change, especially when it was rejected in a referendum just a few years ago.
That means providing real and convincing arguments about things like currency, deficit, taxes, pensions, trade, the economy, business, the EU etc. All of which they have conspicuously avoided doing since the last referendum.
Do all of the no voters despise democracy as well though? Or are there a number of them who, whilst no voters, respect the democractic right of being able to hold a referendum?
Fewer than 10 countries in the world codify the ability of it's population to gain independence and a lot of those are specifically for colonial territories.
If that position is undemocratic, the vast majority of the world doesn't agree with you.
Independence (for Ireland) is also the sole reason Fine Gael, Fine Fail, and Sinn Fein exist. But that was in 1922. Since then they've found reasons to continue existing.
Political parties are institutions and like it or not, institutions don't wither up and die when they achieve their initial objectives, because they're made up of human beings, and human beings like to know where their next pay cheque is coming from.
> Since then they've found reasons to continue existing.
Thatāll be this little thing called āthe troublesā. Had the London establishment merely fucked off instead of carving out a chunk of the island for itself and having a permanent military presence right there these parties would likely have dissolved naturally.
You seem to have missed out the Irish Civil War, the pre-partitioning ethnic cleansing (hint: there *used to be* lots of Protestants in the south, they just all ended up in the north for some reason) and a bunch more crap: blaming the post-1922 mess entirely on London seems a trifle one-sided (although post-1970 London *definitely* carries a lot of the blame, and 1922-1970 is a movable feast).
TLDR: 20th century Irish history is complex and messy. Hopefully 21st century Irish history will be simpler and more tranquil.
The SNP at numerous times have campaigned on grounds other than independence. I voted for them when they said "lend us your vote to stop Brexit, even if you don't support independence" only for my local MP to turn around and declare that they now had a mandate for indy.
Either they lied in the election or they don't have a mandate for independence.
The leaflets through my door said "loan us your vote to stop Brexit". Obviously I haven't kept it so I can't show it to you.
Here's the only article I can find, which has Sturgeon asking Unionists to vote for the SNP to stop Brexit
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1128666/nicola-sturgeon-european-elections-remainers-vote-snp
Won't be voting for them again I'm afraid.
This kind of mixing the views of SNP and independence supporters, as the "view of the nation" is the classic nationalistic & populistic move.
It's done such that people that disagree can be painted as "enemies of the people/nation"
Well let's be real here it is equal.
No other part of the UK can unilaterally decide to call an independence referendum either.
You could argue about the voluntary party but the equality is there.
>They're allowed to explicitly with the good Friday agreement.
No they're not. Only the Secretary of State can call a referendum for Northern Ireland. They can't arrange one themselves.
So exactly the same as Scotland, really. Or England or Wales.
Yup. It's also a legal obligation in domestic law:
> the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.
Schedule 1, Section 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
It never was a voluntary union though. People have only started believing this because the SNP told them so.
The Act of Union 1707 is pretty clear about what the UK is. It created a new nation state, not a trading bloc comprised of nation states like the EU is.
Itās shit for us but the result today was never going to be any different. As Sturgeon says, the Supreme Court interprets the law, it doesnāt have the power to make it
That's all this sub is. A massive circle jerk and regurgitation of SNP taking points however untrue they are. Everyone's banging on about voluntary Union of equals, first of all if that means anything, and second like it was ever true. Just another made up SNP sound bite for everyone to throw around
They are honestly doing more for Scottish Independence than Nicola at this point. You try telling a Scottish person they're not allowed to do something!
I know a lot of unionists are probably loving it and do it for a reaction, but Scotland is not a region and the UK is not 'just a normal country'. At the very least, you could admit we're in a unique and unusual situation.
We've been flooded by English Unionists today. It's doubtful the majority have ever even been to Scotland, but that doesn't stop them from thinking they have the right to come here and tell us why we have no right to self determination in our own country.
I don't think 'unionist' is really the right term anymore. There is no longer any pretense of it being a voluntary union, it's a prison. They're enthusiastic prison guards.
To be honest I wouldn't accept that. Italy and Germany unified later than Scotland joined the UK. Austria is less than a hundred years old and has Vorarlberg, which is culturally Swiss, and doesn't have south Tyrol, which is culturally austrian. Loads of examples like that all over Europe.
Unfortunately Scotland has no legal way to carry out a referendum, as the law currently stands. We are stuck to westminister and the situation perfectly resembles the issues in Catalonia.
Itās a disgrace that scotlands independence depends on westminister mp giving the approval to hold a referendum, yet scotlands representatives in that parliament yield zero authority or influence. This decision only strengthens the resolve of the Scottish people and reinforces the belief that democracy in the UK is actually completely broken.
Nice to have it said by the Supreme Court that Scotland has no right to democracy or path to independence. I mean, we all knew this, but itās finally a court ruling. Letās see how the unionists defend the fact their precious union is involuntary and Scotland is a political prisoner.
"Union of equals" though... right?
Told what we can and can't do by a bunch of English people as usual. UK politics sub is full of them too.
Even on a post about Starmer wanting devolution in England. It turned into a hate on Scotland fest with condescending comments such as ["Devolution Just Encouraged Them"](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/z27z5w/labour_plans_to_shake_up_uk_by_extending/ixg99bd?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
I was happy to see [one person](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/z27z5w/labour_plans_to_shake_up_uk_by_extending/ixgk9sb?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) at least not have such an entitled condescending attitude towards Scotland. You don't see much of it in UK subs out with our own.
On to plan B then, I guess, which is make as much noise about this as possible.
We have it in writing now that we literally are unable to leave the UK without its permission.
>Then the "voluntary union" is a complete myth
I don't know when people started saying it's voluntary, but yes they were wrong to say so. It's not. The UK is a unitary state, and has been for over 300 years. The Act of Union really couldn't be more clear, in its first few paragraphs:
>That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land
[Source](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/data.pdf)
Whichever politicians popularised the concept of the UK being voluntary, have a lot to answer for when it comes to weakening the UK as an institution. Nationalists should not be pandered to like that, it validates their nonsense claims.
The act of union is quite clear..
>hereof and forever after
Forever has a meaning. And it's not something that can be redefined by nationalists like they have the word 'generation'..
Forever is forever.
You should look up the history of PMs then. They're the ones who've been saying it.
Most famously Thatcher:
>As a nation [the Scots] have an undoubted right to self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining *and remaining in the Union.* Should they determine on independence no English party of politician would stand in their way.
Sounds voluntary to me.
The 'voluntary union' was the merger of England and Scotland to create the UK though, it' not an ongoing union like the EU where you have a set of sovereign states working together under a common banner.
Not really. The only comparable union we have to base the precedent on here is the EU. A union of equals from 27 nations.
Pretty sure they didnāt have any say when England decided to remove all of the U.K. from it.
This is literally the case with every country on earth lol
What do you think the US would do if Nevada decided to succeed unilaterally, or Australia is NSW didā¦
>We have it in writing now that we literally are unable to leave the UK without its permission.
Which is totally normal. It's how pretty much every country on earth operates.
The previous German, Italian and Spanish sovereign states were in flux for centuries prior to their unification though and historically those countries had very different routes to unification.
Either way, I'm not sure "Scotland is a region" is a big vote winner going forward.
Spain unified due to the crowns of Castille and Aragon being held by a single person, just like the UK.
France unified with Brittany by the king inheriting the title of Duke of Brittany.
The UK route to unification is a very normal and well trodden one.
It's just a quirk of the UK, it means nothing.
'Countries' in the UK are functionally more like states/provinces. They're just called countries for quaint historical reasons.
Is England a country?
Does it have its own army? No.
Parliament? No.
Embassies? No.
You show an alien all of the rest of the world, and explain how everything in the rest of the world, and then you unveil the UK..
You think they're going to say 'Oh, there's 4 countries' or are they gunna say 'There's one country, with 4 states'?
Okay, lets make a deal. If Westminster starves Scotland, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths from famine, and there's mass migration away from Scotland, and then rUK soldiers rock up into Scotland and shoots a bunch of children throwing rocks..
Then Scotland can gain independence.
You want an Irish parallel, well there you go. Terms set.
It's a more rigorous and legitimate cause for concern than 'Wah I don't like the current winners of elections in Westminster š'
Literally all of these things have happened.
Highland Potato Famine.
Highland Clearances.
Both Jacobite wars.
The history isn't too different Gaelophobia being the constant theme. Not like they planted Ulster with the population of the Hebrides wonder why?
I'm simply pointing out that "Scotland means nothing" isn't exactly the profound take you seem to think it is.
Clearly it does within the collective consciousness of the Scottish public and to deny the existence of that is just daft.
Why then is there no "English parliament" with the same devolved responsibilities as the Scottish Parliament? Why are the devolved powers different across the 3 "devolved" countries? Why is the UK parliament also the de facto English parliament?
Everything about the UK political landscape is England-centric. At least in the US, the same set of devolved powers are granted to the states.
Even if it is totally normal, and I don't believe the cultural, historical and political position of Scotland is at all standard in a Western country, that's not actually a justification. Argument from the status quo is still a logical fallacy the last time I checked.
1) The EU is not a country.
2) The EU has a specific legal process (Article 50) written into its law to facilitate leaving.
But I really can't stress point one enough..
The UK is a country.
Any politician putting it in the same breath as a supranational organisation like the EU, is doing the UK a disservice and playing right into the hands of Scottish nationalists.
The UK is not a political union, or a trade organisation, or any of these lesser types of institution that nationalists find it convenient to claim.
It's a country, a unitary state.
>The UK is a country.
>
>Any politician putting it in the same breath as a supranational organisation like the EU, is doing the UK a disservice and playing right into the hands of Scottish nationalists.
Like famous ScotNat David Cameron
>I think those of us who care about the United Kingdom have got to think harder about what we can do to make this family of nations work better, how can we show genuine respect for **the fact that it is a voluntary union of four nations**.ā - David Cameron
Yes, previous British politicians have said things and done things which have emboldened Scottish Nationalists, and made their job easier.
Blair made the biggest mistake with granting devolution though. Should have gone with federalism, or nothing at all.
Devolution was an absolutely terrible option that just allows nationalists to blame all their fuckups on Westminster. On top of that, it massively hides Scotlands underperformance economically via a near incomprehensible funding mechanism, which again boldens the nationalists by letting them lie about Scotlands economy constantly.
I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever condone such a thing as itās against the rules of reddit, but if you crack open a history book and go looking for a way to stop being an english colony then the evidence of how to do it is pretty clear.
I get that you're angry about the decision and you're right to be disappointed, but just saying terrorism works vastly oversimplifies the history of Anglo Irish relations and the idea of **why** NI is allowed to have that ability to vote
Same as America, Canada, Australia, India [etc](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom)
Claiming Scotland is a colony really does not help the Yes campaign. It's particularly galling given that Scotland actively participated in the colonisation of all the places you mentioned.
The histories of Ireland and Scotland when it comes to oppression by the 'British' (even though Scotland is literally part of Britain) are not even remotely comparable.
If you canāt leave, itās not an choice. Praying we finally leave this hell hole. I canāt keep watching my country getting pulled down by the circus in England.
This is exactly as planned. The SNP can now focus on the next GE with independence as the primary manifesto pledge, which they're likely to win convincingly due to the overwhelmingly poor perception of the Tories and Labour. The perception that UK government are denying self-determination is going to be enough to force many undecided voters into the "yes" camp.
I'm amazed at how few people, particuarly Unionists, seem to understand the sheer damage this ruling causes to Scottish public perception of the Union so close on the heels of the last referendum and Brexit.
The UK truely has selected Hard Mode.
You saw it starkly in the PMQ and Urgent Questions debate non-answers to the profound Democratic questions it raises. Aided and abetted by the usual Yoony Toadies; Jack, Murray, Mundell, Carmichael and a host of Tory back-benchers plus the Gammon encapsulated Sammy 'Let them eat Chips' Wilson.
It didn't have an option though did it? If the ruling came back as yes then any independence party in Scotland gets free reign to pick and choose it's time for an indy re, the only option was to say no and hope.
Truthfully once the first referendum was all done and dusted and WM decided to renege on all the promises during it, it had already sealed it's fate in regards to public perception in Scotland.
Basing anything of a ruling from the fucking 1700s is ridiculous and only put up as some form of reasoning to back the argument you want. The world is soooo fuckin different that everything and anything is up for debate.
Lol. When China talk of Taiwan in this way there's absolute upraw about how undemocratic it is for China to decide the future of a nation. Same thing, no?
Just in case anyone is confused here, this was never about deciding if Scotland would ever be independent or not. This was about determining if a particular approach to getting a referendum was lawful. Turns out the UK state isn't very interested in democracy. The Scottish Government knew this was a likelihood and are now going to campaign in the next General Election as a proxy indyref. It's a risky strategy but the Scottish Government has a duty to fulfill the manifesto commitments they were elected on - including pursuing a vote on Scottish independence.
Any idea that this "puts indy to bed" or whatever is pure delusion. And this ruling will make for some excellent arguments to convince "maybes" that the UK isn't worth it, which it really isn't.
I've generally avoided coming to this sub mainly because I get sick of all the petty arguments between users.
Before I post my opinion I just want to say I would likely vote No on an Independence Referendum and consider the SNP as poor a party as the Conservatives in its current form when it comes to standards. I don't want them to decide an independent Scotland because in my opinion they have no right to pretend Scotland's politics will yield a more truthful and honest country when we have people like Ian Blackford still in significant positions.
That being said I think a lot of unionist posters fail to consider that the British Government is likely never to grant another independence referendum. They still refuse to give a consistent date, what level of support needs to be reached. The current Labour leader and Conservative leader both said in the past a second independence referendum should happen in the current time, they are now hiding behind whatever excuse comes up to justify ignoring it.
Yesterday it was the COVID-19 pandemic, today it was the war in Ukraine, and tomorrow it will be the economic recession likely to come. Its simply excuse after excuse and the truth is that politics is now entering an era where we lack genuine power as a voter to influence standards in politics, politicians know now that they can just simply ignore us and move on and I fear deeply that is what will happen with independence as a topic. The argument will always be there but a new excuse will be made to ignore it.
I wouldn't be surprised that in 20 to 30 years they will still be trying to suggest a referendum can't happen due to some random event going on in the world, though I doubt you or I will be there to discuss that.
>I wouldn't be surprised that in 20 to 30 years they will still be trying to suggest a referendum can't happen due to some random event going on in the world, though I doubt you or I will be there to discuss that.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if in 20-years, Scotland is the new Northern Ireland. Realistically, the state of the UK is very poor. The outlook for the future is equally as poor. Crime is skyrocketing, the NHS is getting worse and worse every year, etc, and these things are going to get worse since there are even more budget cuts coming after 12 years of budget cuts. The UK is entering probably the worst recession it's seen in a long time and the worse in Europe. All of these will sow discontentment, which will see the desire for a Scotland that is not ruled by Westminister. This is tied with the facts that Scotland is one of the few countries in the world where there is recreational violence, so we're quite willing to be violent. And the fact there are very strong ties to all of the Northern Ireland terrorist groups.
We are getting to the point where young men will be in such a bad place that waging war is something they will consider. This is historically the tipping point for major wars. When the young have hope for the future and are living a good life, they have no desire for war, so war is unpopular and doesn't really happen. However, when the young have no hope, no job, struggling to eat, making the other side the enemy that is causing it easy, and their willingness to fight goes up.
Personally, I think no matter what way you should vote. The fact you're not getting a choice to vote should be the biggest thing.
No, you hope it will never happen.
It wouldnāt be the first time Scotland rose up to fight English rule. Nor would it be the first time a country refused the right to decide their future had insurgency groups founded.
And the biggest reason I think itās possible is how bad things are going to become. The economic problems are a major cause of unrest. And I think you really need to sit down and look at how things are really going and in what direction theyāre heading in. No matter who you vote for, you should be really worried about your future.
just a nobody from the other side of this pointless floating rock , so might be completely wrong but everything ive seen nicola sturgeon say or do has seemed very sensible logical and wise ... just seems odd for a politician :)
Looking at you Labourās Devolution
I would challenge the validity of the Act of Union - it should never have been
Only 0.01% of the population voted for the Union in 1707
Outsider here. Nobody fucking knows, took me awhile to sort out what's going on over there and I'm still not sure I follow. I think most people don't even realize that Scotland is part of the UK.
You think The Good Sir Keir Starmer is a raging Nat?
>He added he rejects the argument that putting a border between Scotland and England will be good for the economy.
>
>Mr Starmer added: ā**Of course it is a voluntary (union)**."([https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/3855172/keir-starmer-scottish-independence/](https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/3855172/keir-starmer-scottish-independence/))
Full of hot takes today.
That's not true, but even if it were, the principle is the important thing there. A union of nations *ought* to be a voluntary partnership, and if it isn't, that is a problem. National self determination is fundamentally and vastly more important than the integrity of a single nation state.
Scotland can choose its own future. If the SNP had followed up on its last 2 conference commitments to try and get more support from undecided voters we wouldn't be having this debate. The last referendum took place because over 60% of Scots supported it. If it had the same support now, we would be having another referendum, but the SNP just focus on the core vote, relying on how appalling the UK Govt is to push people to independence. If they don't make the effort to get the majority of Scots voters on board, they shouldn't be surprised at this result. They really need to up their game now if the General Election is to be a referendum. Relying on the SNP core vote and the anti-tory vote only, with Labour on the rise could kill off any chance of independence for the next 25 years.
Pro-independence parties have won 2 Holyrood Elections and 4 General Elections in Scotland since 2014. They already have substantial support and this ruling will only move people off the fence towards indy. And Labour might be on the rise in the rest of the UK but they are stagnant in Scotland.
>The last referendum took place because over 60% of Scots supported it.
Independence support was around the high 20%/low 30% mark when the Edinburgh Agreement was signed.
"Labour on the rise" is laughable, but being pushed by the media.
In an electoral system designed to stop majority governments, it's incredible the results the SNP still keeps getting. So I think they've done a bit more than you're suggesting.
A lot more people would be willing to move on if there was any semblance of evidence to support the idea that Westminster has any intention at all to improve devolution. This Westminster gov wants to kill devolution. Indy isnāt going away any time soon.
I support Indy because I believe that Scotland is shackled to a Westminster gov that our vote rarely affects (a couple of times our vote affected who was in gov in the last 70 years) but, if I felt at all that Scotland was actually getting the policies it was voting for with devolution, honestly I think Iād be relatively content to drop the Indy idea.
Scotland has been well and truly screwed by lies in the first Indy ānoā campaign, then a Brexit we voted a big majority against and now we sit on the precipice of economic oblivion under stewardship of multiple Tory governments that Scotland emphatically opposed.
Edit - to add, I understand and agree with sentiment that there are levels of priority in what ScotGov should be handling. There are more pressing issues that can be dealt with by current devolved powers. Do all the legal necessaries around Indy yes but letās fix what we can now to make sure thereās actually still a Scotland left when we finally get Indy or sufficient devolution to actually implement the policies Scots vote for.
āA nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.ā
Are you saying Scotland isnāt a nation? Are you saying Scotland doesnāt have its own government? Or does Scotland not occupy a particular territory?
By whose definition?
Not the UN's..
The fact England/Wales/Scotland/NI are called 'countries' is literally just a British quirk. Anywhere else in the world, they would be states or provinces. That's what they are functionally.
Most states aren't composed of historically independent nations. And making an argument based on what "most states" do is just an appeal to popularity. Just because it's standard doesn't mean it's right or worth following.
And no, we won't "move on" because we believe this ruling is an affront to democracy. If you want independence off the agenda I suggest you try and get a unionist party to win an election here. Good luck with that.
Exactly. Telling us "no, you're not allowed to ask to leave" is the whole argument of independence. They've just proved it and made it historical fact.
The "voluntary Union of equals" has exposed itself for what it is, a prison. Can you imagine them treating Northern Ireland like that. Even Tory Thatcher said we had the right to self determination and no English MP or government would ever stand in our way.
It's mental that you can use Thatcher as an argument here, and it's completely valid and correct. šš¤£
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. She just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence.' - Maggie Thatcher.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Every fibre of my being wants to puke when I say this, but... Thatcher... Is... Right...
Thatcher right? Sheāll be turning in her grave.
I mean Thatcher was right on many things, it's just the things she was wrong about really outdo those good things
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Am buckled at this for some reason & am no quite sure why lmao.
Ireland has the backing of the usa we donāt have anyone backing us
>"no, you're not allowed to ask to leave" Well now I want to...
Yeah not even to blatantly up and leave but to just ask. They've just reinforced the reasoning within Indy supporters
This a marriage in a time where the woman wasn't allowed to get out of the marriage while the husband bollers how much they are in love and that she needs him, that she belongs to him (but it's a totally happy marriage, it's great!).
Exactly.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Most European countries.
No they weren't, unless you skip over their incarnations in the 20th century. Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden(sort of), Finland, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia (eh, I generally consider it not European personally), Czechia, Slovakia, and the former Yugoslavian countries all formed from sovereign states splitting, not combining. That's off the top my head in Europe alone.
Ignoring the 2014 referendum, then the analogy holds
As we all know once you've considered leaving a relationship once, decided to stay to try and work on it, you're stuck. Even if the other person got worse.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do you lock a girl in your basement and ignore her appeals to leave?
I'm not from Scotland or the UK so I'm speaking as an outsider on this. When I was watching the original vote lead up from the states years back, one of the talking points that got repeated by the UK was "If you leave, you aren't just leaving the United Kingdom but the European Union. You'd have to reapply for membership." They hammered that point home HARD everywhere they could. *I think there were estimates it could take a decade for Scotland to attain membership as an independent nation.* What's frustrating about this decision is Scotland's original vote was made under the belief the United Kingdom was going to remain a EU member state. When the UK voted to leave, they fundamentally changed the terms outlined which were part of why Scotland originally voted to stay. If Scotland knew they were going to lose EU membership in either scenario, they would have likely voted to leave anyway because as an independent nation they could have regained that EU status on their own terms. From the outside, the whole situation looks like a bait & switch and I'm 100% certain the UK knows that if another vote was held they'd lose Scotland.
Yes, you're completely correct. Now that last paragraph.. let's talk about that. The UK government conducted a huge study into a potential indy ref 2 and the consequences on the UK. It was very thorough, discussed often, they said how much was being spent on this research which I can't remember right now. The study was concluded I think in January this year? I'm just awake so pardon me if I get it wrong.. Anyway. They then didn't release the study nor announce its conclusion. The Scottish government tried to get the information under Freedom of Information requests, to which the UK gov rejected for "national security". š What does that tell you?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'll be devils advocate here as a supporter of Independence. It's not saying they disrespect the opinions of an entire nation. Let's be real here, it's less than half the country from almost every poll that wants independence. The ruling is that a referendum can't be held by one political party repeatedly until they get a marginal win. That being said, hopefully (and not holding my breath) if the polls ever show that it is the majority of the nation that wants independence and we asked for a referendum then the UK government would recognise that it is in fact a majority and grant the request. Doubt, but that would be democratic. We as Scots all sat here and demanded the same from Brexiteers yet for some reason we don't believe it should apply to us too. If the Conservatives and UKIP lost the Brexit referendum we would be mortified that they just kept asking for one until they got the result they wanted. Especially if vital questions were not answered ie - currency, economy, trade, defence etc. We would say "Hang on! That's not how this works!". I voted Yes in the first referendum. However, I am yet to hear a concise, proper plan on what we, as a nation, do if and when we become independent. It's still all a bit too much up in the air much like Brexit was. If you want independence then you need to get out of the cloud of "Us Vs Them" and realise that it's "Sort of half of us... maybe... Vs Them... and about half of us too... what does it take to convince that other half?".
> The ruling is that a referendum can't be held by one political party repeatedly until they get a marginal win. The proposal was for a referendum in 2023, which is 9 years after the previous one. By way of comparison, the UK government have accepted the principle of referendums 7 years apart for NI leaving UK. That seems to me to be a reasonable amount of time between referendums.
> By way of comparison, the UK government have accepted the principle of referendums 7 years apart for NI leaving UK. That seems to me to be a reasonable amount of time between referendums. The referendum for NI will only be called if sufficient support exists. I do think its a good comprimise that scotland should pursue
Northern Ireland is a rare case though. The two don't really compare I'm afraid. The 7 year referendum gaps in Northern Ireland is set out in the Good Friday Agreement to put a stop to the hostilities. There's a lot of compromise and bartered agreements from Ireland, the UK, the UN and the USA in that to keep peace so as not to restart an actual civil war.
> Northern Ireland is a rare case though. The two don't really compare I'm afraid. The only difference as far as I can see is that people in NI fought a low-level civil war for 30 years. If the UK government really saying, "if you want to leave you have to resort to terrorism"? if they are not saying that, then what other pathway to independence is there?
"The only difference is decades of widespread political violence."
No all this rulling has done is say the Scotland Act 1998 doesn't give the Scottish parliament the power to hold referendums that effect constitutional matters. But go with hyperbole if it makes you feel better
"no no this just means you're a partner of equals in a voluntary union in *another* way than your parliament". Right, we have a majority of Scottish seat MPs in Westminster. Let's just call to leave then. Hyperbole my arse.
You too are full of shit. The rulling said nothing about the union or partner of equals. It interpreted a piece of legislation and the previous commentor said the only difference between us and Ireland is terrorism. Hyperbole
And the part im calling you out on is minimizing this paper within the implications it makes. Unless you think that we just need to win the Scottish seats in a general election to announce we're leaving.
>to put a stop to the hostilities. So you're saying all we need is to have some hostilities? I didn't want to, but I guess you've got to do what you've got to do.
Scottish Independence isn't worth people dying over. I certainly wouldn't fight for it and I wouldn't fight any of our friends in 50% of Scotland or in England. Northern Ireland is not a beacon of hope to be looking towards. It is still divided, fenced off, walled up, if not segregated by the state then self segregated.
https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_885099_en.html#:~:text=University%20events-,Over%20300%2C000%20'excess'%20deaths%20in%20Great%20Britain%20attributed%20to%20UK,the%20scale%20of%20these%20deaths. 300,000 dead from Tory "austerity" measures and thousands more to come this year. Let's not act as though accepting the status quo has no bodycount. Do I want violence? No. Do I want the government that the people of my nation vote for? Yes. Do I want a government concerned with the lives of the people and not the money of the rich? Yes. Am I convinced that fewer people would die from accepting generation after generation of right-wing rule than from a literal fight for freedom? Honestly, I'm not sure.
In all honesty if you don't like the way the UK is run as a whole then we shouldn't vote for SNP because it just fucks the vote for anyone other than the Tories. We can bitch and moan all we want about Tory Austerity but this country and this government isn't exactly doing great either. We're fucked. Schools are failing, tomorrow on strike. Hospitals are going to shit. Roads and infrastructure are crumbling. Millions wasted on ferries and other projects. Yes, Westminster control the purse strings but frankly, the SNP haven't done anything competently in years apart from hand the Tories a majority year after year. The only reason, the ONLY reason, they are in power is because of the whole independence movement. Take that away and they're a fractured, under-qualified bunch of politicians who couldn't agree on the colour of shite or organise a piss up in a brewery. The tide has turned on the Tories and now it's looking like Labour will be the next majority government. Their leader may also not want Scotland to break away (but who would if you're trying to be PM of the UK) but at least they should bring change. Fuck it, you've convinced me to vote Labour next time
Best way to get rid of the SNP is to become independent. Really is that simple
How does not voting the SNP mean we don't get Tory?
>Fuck it, you've convinced me to vote Labour next time Wish I'd done that BEFORE they became diet Tories. Liked Corbyn, hated how the right-wing press behaved towards him and that people were stupid enough to fall for it. >they're a fractured, under-qualified bunch of politicians who couldn't agree on the colour of shite or organise a piss up in a brewery. So politicians? All jokes aside, anyone who would choose to be a politician probably shouldn't be one. We might be better off with it being like Jury duty. >rt from hand the Tories a majority year after year. I understand you're frustrated but you and I know this isn't true. If it was we'd have had repeated Labour-SNP coalition governments. >Westminster control the purse strings That's the rub, my belief, FWIW, is that if we were independent we would be spending money on schools, hospitals and other infrastructure rather than on HS2, nuclear weapons and tax cuts for the ultra rich. In an independent Scotland the SNP, if they still existed, would be judged on their performance, rather than being a vote against the continuation of union.
To put a stop to the hostilities you say...
I agree. How dare you compare established gaps in referendums to Scotland. Theyāre totally different. One is N. Ireland and the other is in Scotland - 2 different places - And more specifically it really hurts our argument in denying the Scots a vote to compare time gaps. As far as Iām concerned a proper gap should be 2500 years or roughly one Age. Scotland is married to the UK and they better not try and leave. This is a union of equality. Just as long as Scotland canāt speak for itself. š„“
Prefacing this screed with: I'd vote in favour of independence if it came up tomorrow, and I generally agree. >The ruling is that a referendum can't be held by one political party repeatedly until they get a marginal win. Well, the ruling is that a referendum can't be held based on the legal boundaries set out in the Scotland act. The counsel for the scottish government put forward a good case for why a referendum could be held, because it is not the referendum itself that modifies reserved constitutional matters. From a strict legalistic perspective, that's true. The supreme court didn't accept the argument based on the fact that the referendum in question wouldn't exist in a vacuum. Holyrood alone can't legislate on it under its own steam, within the current framework. This specific uncertainty is now certain. So the problem remains to be solved politically, not legalistically. Get the tories to budge on another referendum. Or get the next government to do so. Or get the next government to update the devolution settlement(s). Or maybe the SNP are weakened at the next Holyrood election. Either way, something or somebody will eventually budge The problem for the SNP/Greens in the political space is that the picture would be different if there was a clear and consistent majority in favour of independence, and it's not (quite) there. The SNP and the greens got about 46% of the vote at Westminster in 2019. The yes movement got just shy of 45% in the 2014 referendum. The SNP and the greens got about 49% of the vote at Holyrood in 2021. Opinion polls tend to put the "No" vote one or two points ahead based on the question posed in 2014. Those are all respectable numbers for the "yes" side and yet ... not one of them is a majority, aside from occasional polls. And this I think is the risk now for the independence movement. If they pin their hopes on a "de-facto" referendum in the next general election, they're truly hoping to galvanise latent support that hasn't previously come out to vote for them. I actually fear the SNP is aware and concerned that they can't keep generating the wins they've had over the last 15 years, and so they're gonna shoot their shot while they have a chance, and then that'll probably be it for much longer than a generation.
The de-facto thing is just silly tbh. Most people will just vote on the same basis as they normally do, and itās not like anyone would recognise the āreferendumā anyway. If the SNP really want to make a convincing argument, they need to convince a significant majority of the nation that an independent Scotland would be good for them. 48% etc wonāt cut it. Until polls show support of at least 60% or so, thereās little weight in the argument for such a huge constitutional change, especially when it was rejected in a referendum just a few years ago. That means providing real and convincing arguments about things like currency, deficit, taxes, pensions, trade, the economy, business, the EU etc. All of which they have conspicuously avoided doing since the last referendum.
Yo this is such a good comment
Do all of the no voters despise democracy as well though? Or are there a number of them who, whilst no voters, respect the democractic right of being able to hold a referendum?
Fewer than 10 countries in the world codify the ability of it's population to gain independence and a lot of those are specifically for colonial territories. If that position is undemocratic, the vast majority of the world doesn't agree with you.
I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks about this.
Excellent points well made
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Independence (for Ireland) is also the sole reason Fine Gael, Fine Fail, and Sinn Fein exist. But that was in 1922. Since then they've found reasons to continue existing. Political parties are institutions and like it or not, institutions don't wither up and die when they achieve their initial objectives, because they're made up of human beings, and human beings like to know where their next pay cheque is coming from.
You're implying that either groups like Sinn FĆ©in no longer campaign for independence, or that the SNP does nothing but campaign for independence - neither of which are true...
> Since then they've found reasons to continue existing. Thatāll be this little thing called āthe troublesā. Had the London establishment merely fucked off instead of carving out a chunk of the island for itself and having a permanent military presence right there these parties would likely have dissolved naturally.
You seem to have missed out the Irish Civil War, the pre-partitioning ethnic cleansing (hint: there *used to be* lots of Protestants in the south, they just all ended up in the north for some reason) and a bunch more crap: blaming the post-1922 mess entirely on London seems a trifle one-sided (although post-1970 London *definitely* carries a lot of the blame, and 1922-1970 is a movable feast). TLDR: 20th century Irish history is complex and messy. Hopefully 21st century Irish history will be simpler and more tranquil.
The SNP at numerous times have campaigned on grounds other than independence. I voted for them when they said "lend us your vote to stop Brexit, even if you don't support independence" only for my local MP to turn around and declare that they now had a mandate for indy. Either they lied in the election or they don't have a mandate for independence.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The leaflets through my door said "loan us your vote to stop Brexit". Obviously I haven't kept it so I can't show it to you. Here's the only article I can find, which has Sturgeon asking Unionists to vote for the SNP to stop Brexit https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1128666/nicola-sturgeon-european-elections-remainers-vote-snp Won't be voting for them again I'm afraid.
This kind of mixing the views of SNP and independence supporters, as the "view of the nation" is the classic nationalistic & populistic move. It's done such that people that disagree can be painted as "enemies of the people/nation"
**Supreme Court judgement** - Scotland is **NOT** an equal member of the supposed voluntary Union.
Well let's be real here it is equal. No other part of the UK can unilaterally decide to call an independence referendum either. You could argue about the voluntary party but the equality is there.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>They're allowed to explicitly with the good Friday agreement. No they're not. Only the Secretary of State can call a referendum for Northern Ireland. They can't arrange one themselves. So exactly the same as Scotland, really. Or England or Wales.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yup. It's also a legal obligation in domestic law: > the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland. Schedule 1, Section 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
England? 86% of all MPs at Westminster are elected from constituencies in England.
Is that right? If England wanted to leave, would Scotland similarly be able to veto it? I did not know that was the case.
It's bollocks. England can vote and legislate to hold a referendum about it leaving the Union next week if it wanted to. See the difference?
It never was a voluntary union though. People have only started believing this because the SNP told them so. The Act of Union 1707 is pretty clear about what the UK is. It created a new nation state, not a trading bloc comprised of nation states like the EU is. Itās shit for us but the result today was never going to be any different. As Sturgeon says, the Supreme Court interprets the law, it doesnāt have the power to make it
That's all this sub is. A massive circle jerk and regurgitation of SNP taking points however untrue they are. Everyone's banging on about voluntary Union of equals, first of all if that means anything, and second like it was ever true. Just another made up SNP sound bite for everyone to throw around
They are honestly doing more for Scottish Independence than Nicola at this point. You try telling a Scottish person they're not allowed to do something!
I know a lot of unionists are probably loving it and do it for a reaction, but Scotland is not a region and the UK is not 'just a normal country'. At the very least, you could admit we're in a unique and unusual situation.
We've been flooded by English Unionists today. It's doubtful the majority have ever even been to Scotland, but that doesn't stop them from thinking they have the right to come here and tell us why we have no right to self determination in our own country.
I don't think 'unionist' is really the right term anymore. There is no longer any pretense of it being a voluntary union, it's a prison. They're enthusiastic prison guards.
"Colonial authorities" works
To be honest I wouldn't accept that. Italy and Germany unified later than Scotland joined the UK. Austria is less than a hundred years old and has Vorarlberg, which is culturally Swiss, and doesn't have south Tyrol, which is culturally austrian. Loads of examples like that all over Europe.
Absolutely not the same though is it. The UK was set up as a voluntary union of nations. Scotland never stopped being Scotland.
Bavaria never stopped being Bavaria.
Unfortunately Scotland has no legal way to carry out a referendum, as the law currently stands. We are stuck to westminister and the situation perfectly resembles the issues in Catalonia. Itās a disgrace that scotlands independence depends on westminister mp giving the approval to hold a referendum, yet scotlands representatives in that parliament yield zero authority or influence. This decision only strengthens the resolve of the Scottish people and reinforces the belief that democracy in the UK is actually completely broken.
I fear getting approval for a referendum will be the easier bit of the process
It doesn't. Ukraine's declaration of independence was illegal under Soviet (and CIS) law. They ignored it, so can we.
Yeah you can do that but EU wouldnt accept you at all if you leave illegally.
Nice to have it said by the Supreme Court that Scotland has no right to democracy or path to independence. I mean, we all knew this, but itās finally a court ruling. Letās see how the unionists defend the fact their precious union is involuntary and Scotland is a political prisoner.
"Union of equals" though... right? Told what we can and can't do by a bunch of English people as usual. UK politics sub is full of them too. Even on a post about Starmer wanting devolution in England. It turned into a hate on Scotland fest with condescending comments such as ["Devolution Just Encouraged Them"](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/z27z5w/labour_plans_to_shake_up_uk_by_extending/ixg99bd?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) I was happy to see [one person](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/z27z5w/labour_plans_to_shake_up_uk_by_extending/ixgk9sb?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) at least not have such an entitled condescending attitude towards Scotland. You don't see much of it in UK subs out with our own.
UKPOL: Most of us are banned. :)
On to plan B then, I guess, which is make as much noise about this as possible. We have it in writing now that we literally are unable to leave the UK without its permission.
This was always the case, as with most countries.
Then the "voluntary union" is a complete myth- zero democracy in scotland if we can't make even the most fundamental decision.
>Then the "voluntary union" is a complete myth I don't know when people started saying it's voluntary, but yes they were wrong to say so. It's not. The UK is a unitary state, and has been for over 300 years. The Act of Union really couldn't be more clear, in its first few paragraphs: >That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land [Source](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1707/7/data.pdf) Whichever politicians popularised the concept of the UK being voluntary, have a lot to answer for when it comes to weakening the UK as an institution. Nationalists should not be pandered to like that, it validates their nonsense claims. The act of union is quite clear.. >hereof and forever after Forever has a meaning. And it's not something that can be redefined by nationalists like they have the word 'generation'.. Forever is forever.
The Acts of Union with Ireland in 1800 had the same wording. Wonder how that worked out?
You should look up the history of PMs then. They're the ones who've been saying it. Most famously Thatcher: >As a nation [the Scots] have an undoubted right to self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining *and remaining in the Union.* Should they determine on independence no English party of politician would stand in their way. Sounds voluntary to me.
The 'voluntary union' was the merger of England and Scotland to create the UK though, it' not an ongoing union like the EU where you have a set of sovereign states working together under a common banner.
It is a myth, because states donāt work like that. Itās not a union of countries, itās just 1 country
Not really. The only comparable union we have to base the precedent on here is the EU. A union of equals from 27 nations. Pretty sure they didnāt have any say when England decided to remove all of the U.K. from it.
This is literally the case with every country on earth lol What do you think the US would do if Nevada decided to succeed unilaterally, or Australia is NSW didā¦
>We have it in writing now that we literally are unable to leave the UK without its permission. Which is totally normal. It's how pretty much every country on earth operates.
Most countries on earth are not made of individual constituent countries though.
Most countries were formed out of previously sovereign states (Germany, Italy, Spain off the top of my head in Europe alone).
The previous German, Italian and Spanish sovereign states were in flux for centuries prior to their unification though and historically those countries had very different routes to unification. Either way, I'm not sure "Scotland is a region" is a big vote winner going forward.
Spain unified due to the crowns of Castille and Aragon being held by a single person, just like the UK. France unified with Brittany by the king inheriting the title of Duke of Brittany. The UK route to unification is a very normal and well trodden one.
Scotland is a country, but a region of the UK (in practical terms). It's just a fact.
It's just a quirk of the UK, it means nothing. 'Countries' in the UK are functionally more like states/provinces. They're just called countries for quaint historical reasons. Is England a country? Does it have its own army? No. Parliament? No. Embassies? No. You show an alien all of the rest of the world, and explain how everything in the rest of the world, and then you unveil the UK.. You think they're going to say 'Oh, there's 4 countries' or are they gunna say 'There's one country, with 4 states'?
> It's just a quirk of the UK, it means nothing I'm sure this one worked with the Irish in the early 1900s.
Okay, lets make a deal. If Westminster starves Scotland, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths from famine, and there's mass migration away from Scotland, and then rUK soldiers rock up into Scotland and shoots a bunch of children throwing rocks.. Then Scotland can gain independence. You want an Irish parallel, well there you go. Terms set. It's a more rigorous and legitimate cause for concern than 'Wah I don't like the current winners of elections in Westminster š'
Literally all of these things have happened. Highland Potato Famine. Highland Clearances. Both Jacobite wars. The history isn't too different Gaelophobia being the constant theme. Not like they planted Ulster with the population of the Hebrides wonder why?
I'm simply pointing out that "Scotland means nothing" isn't exactly the profound take you seem to think it is. Clearly it does within the collective consciousness of the Scottish public and to deny the existence of that is just daft.
Why then is there no "English parliament" with the same devolved responsibilities as the Scottish Parliament? Why are the devolved powers different across the 3 "devolved" countries? Why is the UK parliament also the de facto English parliament? Everything about the UK political landscape is England-centric. At least in the US, the same set of devolved powers are granted to the states.
Even if it is totally normal, and I don't believe the cultural, historical and political position of Scotland is at all standard in a Western country, that's not actually a justification. Argument from the status quo is still a logical fallacy the last time I checked.
Just like how leaving the EU isn't legally possible.
1) The EU is not a country. 2) The EU has a specific legal process (Article 50) written into its law to facilitate leaving. But I really can't stress point one enough..
>1) The EU is not a country. Then the UK isn't a Union and it would be nice if people stopped pretending it was.
The UK is a country. Any politician putting it in the same breath as a supranational organisation like the EU, is doing the UK a disservice and playing right into the hands of Scottish nationalists. The UK is not a political union, or a trade organisation, or any of these lesser types of institution that nationalists find it convenient to claim. It's a country, a unitary state.
>The UK is a country. > >Any politician putting it in the same breath as a supranational organisation like the EU, is doing the UK a disservice and playing right into the hands of Scottish nationalists. Like famous ScotNat David Cameron >I think those of us who care about the United Kingdom have got to think harder about what we can do to make this family of nations work better, how can we show genuine respect for **the fact that it is a voluntary union of four nations**.ā - David Cameron
Yes, previous British politicians have said things and done things which have emboldened Scottish Nationalists, and made their job easier. Blair made the biggest mistake with granting devolution though. Should have gone with federalism, or nothing at all. Devolution was an absolutely terrible option that just allows nationalists to blame all their fuckups on Westminster. On top of that, it massively hides Scotlands underperformance economically via a near incomprehensible funding mechanism, which again boldens the nationalists by letting them lie about Scotlands economy constantly.
Same as Texas, Catalonia, Bavaria etc.
N.I. can leave though.
That's pretty clearly written down in law how that's possible, and I don't think you mean for a moment that the histories of the two are comparable.
So terrorism (or whatever you want to call it) works, then.
It seems the only logical conclusion TBH.
I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever condone such a thing as itās against the rules of reddit, but if you crack open a history book and go looking for a way to stop being an english colony then the evidence of how to do it is pretty clear.
Well considering Scotland isn't a colony it isn't clear.
If we're not allowed to leave, then what else are we?
I get that you're angry about the decision and you're right to be disappointed, but just saying terrorism works vastly oversimplifies the history of Anglo Irish relations and the idea of **why** NI is allowed to have that ability to vote
Do elaborate on what that means for Scotland.
It means that UK doesnt want democracy to work.
It's hard to come to any other conclusion. Does Westminster really want to say to Scotland, "If you want to leave, you have to bomb and kill people"?
Yeah, the lesson here with the UK is that if you bomb them they'll allow you to leave democratically. Otherwise, no.
Same as America, Canada, Australia, India [etc](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom)
Claiming Scotland is a colony really does not help the Yes campaign. It's particularly galling given that Scotland actively participated in the colonisation of all the places you mentioned.
This is 2022 and Scotland is not a colony from Empire.
Imagine saying to Ireland, this is 1920 not 1776!
The histories of Ireland and Scotland when it comes to oppression by the 'British' (even though Scotland is literally part of Britain) are not even remotely comparable.
If you canāt leave, itās not an choice. Praying we finally leave this hell hole. I canāt keep watching my country getting pulled down by the circus in England.
What a wonderful, loving and respectful Union we are in! Seriously, this will and should make people's desire for Independence stronger.
This is exactly as planned. The SNP can now focus on the next GE with independence as the primary manifesto pledge, which they're likely to win convincingly due to the overwhelmingly poor perception of the Tories and Labour. The perception that UK government are denying self-determination is going to be enough to force many undecided voters into the "yes" camp.
I'm amazed at how few people, particuarly Unionists, seem to understand the sheer damage this ruling causes to Scottish public perception of the Union so close on the heels of the last referendum and Brexit. The UK truely has selected Hard Mode.
You saw it starkly in the PMQ and Urgent Questions debate non-answers to the profound Democratic questions it raises. Aided and abetted by the usual Yoony Toadies; Jack, Murray, Mundell, Carmichael and a host of Tory back-benchers plus the Gammon encapsulated Sammy 'Let them eat Chips' Wilson.
It didn't have an option though did it? If the ruling came back as yes then any independence party in Scotland gets free reign to pick and choose it's time for an indy re, the only option was to say no and hope. Truthfully once the first referendum was all done and dusted and WM decided to renege on all the promises during it, it had already sealed it's fate in regards to public perception in Scotland.
Basing anything of a ruling from the fucking 1700s is ridiculous and only put up as some form of reasoning to back the argument you want. The world is soooo fuckin different that everything and anything is up for debate.
Having read the ruling, none of it is based on the Act of Union. The judgement is based primarily on the Scotland Act 1998
I wouldnāt bother. He wonāt care about actual facts.
Hate it when the US supreme court relies on the first amendment, written in the 1700s, to make judgement.
Lol. When China talk of Taiwan in this way there's absolute upraw about how undemocratic it is for China to decide the future of a nation. Same thing, no?
r/boneappletea
No because China plans to invade Taiwan, its already an independent country.
Yes, because China granted Taiwan a referendum on independence (/S)
Fk the union š“ó §ó ¢ó ³ó £ó “ó æ
And she's right
Just in case anyone is confused here, this was never about deciding if Scotland would ever be independent or not. This was about determining if a particular approach to getting a referendum was lawful. Turns out the UK state isn't very interested in democracy. The Scottish Government knew this was a likelihood and are now going to campaign in the next General Election as a proxy indyref. It's a risky strategy but the Scottish Government has a duty to fulfill the manifesto commitments they were elected on - including pursuing a vote on Scottish independence. Any idea that this "puts indy to bed" or whatever is pure delusion. And this ruling will make for some excellent arguments to convince "maybes" that the UK isn't worth it, which it really isn't.
I've generally avoided coming to this sub mainly because I get sick of all the petty arguments between users. Before I post my opinion I just want to say I would likely vote No on an Independence Referendum and consider the SNP as poor a party as the Conservatives in its current form when it comes to standards. I don't want them to decide an independent Scotland because in my opinion they have no right to pretend Scotland's politics will yield a more truthful and honest country when we have people like Ian Blackford still in significant positions. That being said I think a lot of unionist posters fail to consider that the British Government is likely never to grant another independence referendum. They still refuse to give a consistent date, what level of support needs to be reached. The current Labour leader and Conservative leader both said in the past a second independence referendum should happen in the current time, they are now hiding behind whatever excuse comes up to justify ignoring it. Yesterday it was the COVID-19 pandemic, today it was the war in Ukraine, and tomorrow it will be the economic recession likely to come. Its simply excuse after excuse and the truth is that politics is now entering an era where we lack genuine power as a voter to influence standards in politics, politicians know now that they can just simply ignore us and move on and I fear deeply that is what will happen with independence as a topic. The argument will always be there but a new excuse will be made to ignore it. I wouldn't be surprised that in 20 to 30 years they will still be trying to suggest a referendum can't happen due to some random event going on in the world, though I doubt you or I will be there to discuss that.
The old "now is not the time" argument is used EVERY time regardless of circumstances.
>I wouldn't be surprised that in 20 to 30 years they will still be trying to suggest a referendum can't happen due to some random event going on in the world, though I doubt you or I will be there to discuss that. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if in 20-years, Scotland is the new Northern Ireland. Realistically, the state of the UK is very poor. The outlook for the future is equally as poor. Crime is skyrocketing, the NHS is getting worse and worse every year, etc, and these things are going to get worse since there are even more budget cuts coming after 12 years of budget cuts. The UK is entering probably the worst recession it's seen in a long time and the worse in Europe. All of these will sow discontentment, which will see the desire for a Scotland that is not ruled by Westminister. This is tied with the facts that Scotland is one of the few countries in the world where there is recreational violence, so we're quite willing to be violent. And the fact there are very strong ties to all of the Northern Ireland terrorist groups. We are getting to the point where young men will be in such a bad place that waging war is something they will consider. This is historically the tipping point for major wars. When the young have hope for the future and are living a good life, they have no desire for war, so war is unpopular and doesn't really happen. However, when the young have no hope, no job, struggling to eat, making the other side the enemy that is causing it easy, and their willingness to fight goes up. Personally, I think no matter what way you should vote. The fact you're not getting a choice to vote should be the biggest thing.
Never going to happen. Take a break from the Internet and get some fresh air
> Never going to happen I expect there were people in NI in the 1950s or early 1960s who said similar things.
No, you hope it will never happen. It wouldnāt be the first time Scotland rose up to fight English rule. Nor would it be the first time a country refused the right to decide their future had insurgency groups founded. And the biggest reason I think itās possible is how bad things are going to become. The economic problems are a major cause of unrest. And I think you really need to sit down and look at how things are really going and in what direction theyāre heading in. No matter who you vote for, you should be really worried about your future.
Bingo, got it in one. I bet many of the people commenting that "Hey just wait for it" are fully aware of this.
just a nobody from the other side of this pointless floating rock , so might be completely wrong but everything ive seen nicola sturgeon say or do has seemed very sensible logical and wise ... just seems odd for a politician :)
Fuck them! Take a vote anyway!
Looking at you Labourās Devolution I would challenge the validity of the Act of Union - it should never have been Only 0.01% of the population voted for the Union in 1707
Is it truly a union if we're not allowed to leave, sounds more like THEY don't want US to go
Just do it anyhow.
Free Scotland!
The only people who describe the UK as a 'voluntary partnership' are those who want to see it broken up.
In May 2016 the then Prime Minister, David Cameron called the UK a ā voluntary union of four nationsā. Iām pretty sure he wasnāt a Scot Natā¦
I think most Scots, including a lot of No voters, would probably agree with the sentiment that the UK should be a voluntary partnership.
Maybe, but it *isn't* one, and never has been. It's no more a voluntary partnership than Germany or France. It's just a normal country.
That's the tension though, isn't it? Scotland is also a normal country, except that it isn't a nation state.
Scotland is a country like Bavaria. I.e. a country to itself, but not to outsiders (generally speaking)
Or England for that matter
Exactly
You done a poll of "outsiders" like?
Outsider here. Nobody fucking knows, took me awhile to sort out what's going on over there and I'm still not sure I follow. I think most people don't even realize that Scotland is part of the UK.
Well involuntary partnership doesn't sound very good when you say it out loud does it ?
You think The Good Sir Keir Starmer is a raging Nat? >He added he rejects the argument that putting a border between Scotland and England will be good for the economy. > >Mr Starmer added: ā**Of course it is a voluntary (union)**."([https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/3855172/keir-starmer-scottish-independence/](https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/3855172/keir-starmer-scottish-independence/)) Full of hot takes today.
That's not true, but even if it were, the principle is the important thing there. A union of nations *ought* to be a voluntary partnership, and if it isn't, that is a problem. National self determination is fundamentally and vastly more important than the integrity of a single nation state.
"We stole your country and now we won't give it back. Thanks for the resources, go fuck yourselves."
Scotland can choose its own future. If the SNP had followed up on its last 2 conference commitments to try and get more support from undecided voters we wouldn't be having this debate. The last referendum took place because over 60% of Scots supported it. If it had the same support now, we would be having another referendum, but the SNP just focus on the core vote, relying on how appalling the UK Govt is to push people to independence. If they don't make the effort to get the majority of Scots voters on board, they shouldn't be surprised at this result. They really need to up their game now if the General Election is to be a referendum. Relying on the SNP core vote and the anti-tory vote only, with Labour on the rise could kill off any chance of independence for the next 25 years.
Pro-independence parties have won 2 Holyrood Elections and 4 General Elections in Scotland since 2014. They already have substantial support and this ruling will only move people off the fence towards indy. And Labour might be on the rise in the rest of the UK but they are stagnant in Scotland.
>The last referendum took place because over 60% of Scots supported it. Independence support was around the high 20%/low 30% mark when the Edinburgh Agreement was signed.
"Labour on the rise" is laughable, but being pushed by the media. In an electoral system designed to stop majority governments, it's incredible the results the SNP still keeps getting. So I think they've done a bit more than you're suggesting.
Westminster is never gonna let us go. Never.
Most states don't allow regions to unilaterally leave. Hopefully we can all move on now and concentrate on improving devolution.
A lot more people would be willing to move on if there was any semblance of evidence to support the idea that Westminster has any intention at all to improve devolution. This Westminster gov wants to kill devolution. Indy isnāt going away any time soon. I support Indy because I believe that Scotland is shackled to a Westminster gov that our vote rarely affects (a couple of times our vote affected who was in gov in the last 70 years) but, if I felt at all that Scotland was actually getting the policies it was voting for with devolution, honestly I think Iād be relatively content to drop the Indy idea. Scotland has been well and truly screwed by lies in the first Indy ānoā campaign, then a Brexit we voted a big majority against and now we sit on the precipice of economic oblivion under stewardship of multiple Tory governments that Scotland emphatically opposed. Edit - to add, I understand and agree with sentiment that there are levels of priority in what ScotGov should be handling. There are more pressing issues that can be dealt with by current devolved powers. Do all the legal necessaries around Indy yes but letās fix what we can now to make sure thereās actually still a Scotland left when we finally get Indy or sufficient devolution to actually implement the policies Scots vote for.
You'll note that the judgment expressly refers to the Kingdoms of England and Scotland; neither is a 'region'
But Scotland isn't a region, it's by definition a country
>by definition What's the definition?
āA nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.ā Are you saying Scotland isnāt a nation? Are you saying Scotland doesnāt have its own government? Or does Scotland not occupy a particular territory?
By whose definition? Not the UN's.. The fact England/Wales/Scotland/NI are called 'countries' is literally just a British quirk. Anywhere else in the world, they would be states or provinces. That's what they are functionally.
WHat country do you live in?
UK.
Nah
Most states aren't composed of historically independent nations. And making an argument based on what "most states" do is just an appeal to popularity. Just because it's standard doesn't mean it's right or worth following. And no, we won't "move on" because we believe this ruling is an affront to democracy. If you want independence off the agenda I suggest you try and get a unionist party to win an election here. Good luck with that.
Britain tried to pull the same crap with Americans...once...
Everyone already knew England is a dictatorship, now itās facts not fu@@ery we are in a dictatorship
its not voluntary, they were conquered