I am not too concerned. I would have preferred 2019-2020 after the Brexit recession is in full throe. Rumour is that that was Nicola’s view and she has sold a dummy to Theresa.
That’s not correct. No-one is bound by the decision at all, even after Article 50 is triggered.
It’s been suggested as a possibility that there could be a bridging arrangement where Scotland could join the EEA, and so never lose access to the single market. There could then be a decision on whether to go for full EU membership or not. This was mentioned on Sunday Politics Scotland: you can see it at BBC One - Sunday Politics Scotland, 19/03/2017 (it’s the interview with Professor Michael Keating, which is just over an hour into the programme).
Obviously this would require the Independence Referendum to be held before Brexit is completed.
This seems like a huge double standard to me. When a referendum passes, everyone accepts it. If it doesn’t , the opponents keep going to try to get more referendums. Has a measure ever been accepted by voters, only to have the naysayers demand a second vote to make sure it’s what the people really want?
It is not a ‘double standard’. The main Scottish political party was elected in 2016 on a manifesto that stated:
“We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”
The Scottish people elected them and another indpendence seeking party to a majority in the Parliament.
It’s been suggested but I don’t get the impression it’s likely. Not many countries want to encourage separatists.
The point is that Scotland are eligible to join the EEA at an early opportunity. As Scotland’s laws are currently compliant with WU Law, they would not have a long accession process. Even if they dd not enter the EEA or EU, they could negotiate immediate access to the single market separately as they are fully compliant, and willing to accept the four freedoms.
If that is the case, what stops them from doing that post brexit? What stops the UK for getting a similar deal through a similar process? Why make an irreversible decision when you will not be in full possession of the facts and delaying the decision makes the decision a fully informed one.
Scotland would not be seceding but ending a voluntary union- an important distinction.
If Scotland remain with the UK they follow the UK trajectory (whether in or out) If they vote out of the UK they are out of the E.U. regardless of what the UK does. Whatever deal transpires for the UK (and there will be a deal) will no longer be available to Scotland. It seems like a silly idea to commit to an in/out referendum when the full facts of the “in” option may not be known until after that referendum.
Is there a reason why none of that can happen post the Brexit negotiations? My prediction? I suspect that we may hear from Theresa May that the UK will seek to have a staged withdrawal from the E.U. remaining in the EEA and the single market for some years (probably tied to the supposedly “optional” divorce payment). That would remove any pressing need for a referendum pre-Bexit. What will be fascinating is quite when a substantial announcement on this (or variation of it, or something of similar significance) will be made.
why? Either the E.U. are flexible in their approach to accession or not. An independent Scotland 6 months past the Brexit process will be fundamentally the same entity as in 2019
This seems painfully obvious to me. If a referendum is fixed for a time that occurs before the Brexit negotiations are concluded there is no possibility of knowing what options are open for those Scottish voters minded to remain in the UK, worse than that, those options will become known if only a reasonably delay is allowed. And there is no downside to Scotland in that, any accommodation that the E.U. is willing to make to Scotland will still be open immediately after Brexit. Unless of course the E.U. is so mendacious as to make mischief with that.
I tend to agree that May will fold her Hard Brexit hand and try to stage a soft long Brexit. But she may lose considerable credibility and her lead in the opinion polls, leading to an anti tory government more amenable to Scottish Indeendence!
Further evidence that the Scottish people may desire a referendum
Pollster ComRes found that 44 per cent of Scottish respondents agreed with the statement: “Theresa May should insist that any second Scottish referendum on independence takes place only once Britain has concluded the process of leaving the EU”. But 48 per cent disagreed and 8 per cent said they didn’t know.
Hardly conclusive…and the wording of the question is almost guaranteed to put the back up of many people “insist”? FFS.
Another thing to consider is that she does govern for the whole of the UK. As much as it may pain you. A referendum smack bang in the middle of negotiations may also hampers her ability to get a good deal (or, of course, she may consider it is another bargaining chip to be played which may not necessarily fall in Scotland’s favour)
Yes. It’s not at all unusual for an issue decided by referendum to be revised in a further referendum, and a different decision made. The result of a referendum is no more written in stone than an Act of Parliament; it can always be revisited and, if the context in which the decision was made has changed - as is plainly the case here - it can make sense to revisit it.
The purpose of a referndum is not to put an issue beyond discussion or review. It’s to ascertain what a majority of the people want. If a majority of the people voted for a Tory government last time round, that is not an argument against having another general election, if political circumstances (or the operation of the law) make another election desirable or neccessary. The fact that a majority of Scots voted to stay in the United at a time when this was trumpeted as the only way to be certain of continued participation in the EU is no argument against revisiting the question when the opposite is the case.
I didn’t say it was conclusive. I specifically said it will be interesting to see how it changes when the same questions are asked after thus week.
I don’t think that is an important distinction. The United States was a voluntary union, but nobody quibbles with the term “secession” for what the southern states tried to do in 1860. I don’t think there’s anything inherent in the concept of “secession” that says you can only secede from a relationship, alliance, federation or whatever that you were forced into in the first place.
If you formally withdraw from an alliance, federation, union, etc, then you’re “seceding” from it, and the question of how you got into it in the first place is not really relevant.
Many of the countries in the EU are themselves the products of secession - Ireland (from the UK); Belgium (from the Netherlands); the Czech Republic and Slovakia (both from Czechoslovakia, itself the produce of secession from Austria); Poland (from Russia); Hungary (from Austria); Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (all seceded first from Russia and a second time from the Soviet Union); Croatia, Slovenia (both from Yugoslavia, itself a secession from Austria); Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Rumania (all from Turkey).
So, for all that secession can be disruptive in the short term, most European countries would eagerly endorse the view that, if a nation wishes to secede from the state into which it is incorporated, (a) it has a right to do that, (b) it’s probably a bad idea and in the long run more disruptive to try and stop it and (c) it can work out quite well, really.
“Secede” as used by unionists has a hint of negativism about it. Separation is more neutral and more accurate in a case of voluntary union between two nominally equal entities, rather than a minority part or parts leaving a larger union.
Any term as used by unionists is going to have a hint of negativity about it, isn’t it?
And, while the union of 1707 may have been formed “between two nominally equal entities”, the whole point of the union is that we don’t have two entities any more. We have one. That’s what the word “union” means. The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England both ceased to exist in 1707, to be replaced by a single Kingdom of Great Britain. If Scotland becomes independent, it will be seceding from that single Kingdom (or, more accurately, from its successor, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland). The area which will be seceding corresponds to the territory of the former Kingdom of Scotland, and of course that’s historically and politically significant. But it doesn’t change the legal or constitutional significance of what is happening here.
Try to get your history correct. The Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England were vacated in 1603 when the Kingdom of Great Britain was created. Between 1603 and 1707 Great Britain was one Kingdom with two Parliaments. In 1707 the two Parliaments were united. So there will be two separations possible- one of a kingdom into two kingdoms and one of a state into two states.
If it occurs before QEII dies, I suspect that the UK will continue as a regal entity covering two states but after her death the two kingdoms will separate. After her death I suspect that the Crown will divide at Independence, re-creating two separate kingdoms.
This isn’t right. James VI and I (there’s one hint) tried to achieve a ‘perfect union’ between the two kingdoms, but failed. He declared that he was to be known as King of Great Britain, but this was merely symbolic - legally there were still two kingdoms. Charles I was crowned in England as King of England, and in Scotland as King of Scotland. Charles II likewise had two coronations. Why? Because there were two kingdoms, and two crowns to wear. Post Glorious Revolution, when James VII and II (another hint) separately lost the thrones of England and Scotland, William III and II (yes, really) was offered the Crown of Scotland by the Estates, one month *after *he was crowned King of England.
That this was the legal situation until 1707 is obvious from the first clause of the Act of Union: