I do.
She has. Cite.
I’m still waiting for your cite.
People say ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ from their own perspectives. I’ve yet to see commonly agreed meanings of either other than ‘hard’ as ‘more separation then I want’ and ‘soft’ as ‘less separation than I want’.
Hmmm. It’s not inconceivable that the SNP can get that mandate. They have before. That’s how come we had a referendum in 2014, after all. The SNP are much happier running an election campaign about Westminster than they are in campaigning on their record in government. “Only both votes SNP will save Scotland from Westminter’s Brexit” will play very well, especially in the wake of a 2020 election where the Tories cream Labour, which is what we’re currently on track for.*
*Hard learned 2016 caveats about election predictions apply here.
OK: People who say that leaving the EU necessarily means leaving the single market are lying to you, Quartz.
Theresa May has not ruled out letting the Scots hold another independence referendum, but government sources have made it clear that she does not support Nicola Sturgeon’s call for it to take place between autumn 2018 and spring 2019. According to one source who has been briefing the Times, the government sees that as “completely unacceptable”. Here is an extract from the Times’ splash (paywall).
The Scottish National Party needs Westminster’s approval for a legally binding vote and last night Mrs May’s allies made clear that she would not allow a referendum during exit negotiations with the EU.
“The prime minister has said this would mean a vote while she was negotiating Brexit and I think that can be taken pretty clearly as a message that this timing is completely unacceptable,” a government source said. “It would be irresponsible to agree to it and we won’t.”
Another ally indicated that Mrs May was prepared to be more explicit in coming weeks and say that preparations for an independence referendum would undermine Britain’s negotiating position with the rest of the EU …
Mrs May is expected to respond more fully after Holyrood votes to table a formal demand for a second independence referendum next week.
Some have speculated that the prime minister will leave the door open to another vote but only if the SNP wins an absolute majority in 2021 Holyrood elections.
I believe in modern parlance this comes under Fake Analysis. Neither you or I have any freaking idea whether or not a soft Brexit would have made Sturgeon’s call for a second referendum less likely. The impact of a hard Brexit upon the Union is therefore not nearly as predictable as you suggest. In fact I’d say a hard Brexit may yet hold the Union in place.
Your cite confirms what I said. She is only opposing it before Brexit.
“Theresa May rules out Nicola Sturgeon’s plans for a new Scottish independence referendum before Brexit,”
I said
“Listen to and watch the media and read the press. She has not and will not deny a Section 30. She may seek to delay it beyond the date Nicola has requested.”
Two problems to mention
1/ The SNP manifesto in 2015 specifically said if the UK pulled out of the EU, the SNP would seek a referendum.
2/ The Scottish Parliament s designed to make it impossible for any single party to get a majority.
The flip side of this is that a lot of UK businesses may want to stay in the common market, yet may not want to leave the British Isles. An independent Scotland could, if they play their cards right, attract a lot of business from England.
We did. (Norway.)
The UK would simply be far too dominant as a EFTA member. The analysis may look different for Scotland alone.
If Scotland does vote for Independence, the rUK faces a dilemma. They cannot afford a failed or impoverished state on the Northern border. Should Scotland’s economy tank, any Scot could simply move south and seek work, health care and education in the rUK. This suggests that any economoc settlement will need to be generous.
It’s not just a question of whether it would have made Sturgeon’s call more likely. It’s a question of whether it would have made her call more credible.
Support for a second referendum before Brexit is running c. 44% for, 56% against now. Sturgeon has expended a considerably amount political energy from June 24 onwards on pushing the idea that Westminster needed to pay due heed to Scotland’s views on Brexit. Specifically, that access to the single market was critical. Imagine if May, in fact, had made a speech about how the Union was fundamental to Britain’s post Brexit success, that she recognised that Scotland had a different view and that, as a result, she was minded to seek a deal that allowed continued access to the single market in some form. And then Sturgeon calls a referendum anyway. Under those circumstances, that call would be regarded as a bad joke at best. Sturgeon would appear as a one-note politician who only ever negotiated in bad faith. Opposition to a referendum would increase. Sturgeon would likely not be stupid enough to call for a referendum if single market access had been conceded, and if she did a lot of Scots would lose patience with her.
So yes, I am pretty certain that soft Brexit would have made the call for a referendum both less likely and less credible.
Should the economy of an independent Scotland tank badly, the Orkneys may seek to rejoin Norway. It would at least be interesting to watch the Scotland’s rhetoric on independence referendums do a 180.
Interesting! I hadn’t heard *anything *on that over here. I suspect a deal could have been worked out though - either access to EEA in some other format or an accommodation with Norway/EFTA. AFter all, the UK was already in the EEA with Norway.
The bigger point - that there are other models for leaving the EU that retain access to the single market - still stands. Staying within the customs union, Swiss style access, some bespoke deal. Rejection of all of these is being decided by government, not an inevitable results of the referendum.
Not true. We would no longer be citizens of England and would be subject to the same restrictions as other foreigners.
Unlikely.
A full and hard border is likely in the event of a Scottish departure combined with Brexit.
Blackmailing our richer neighbours with the threat of undercut wages and benefit tourism. What a glorious future for an independent Scotland!
Which is all fair enough, but I can easily give an alternative scenario; that politicians are shysters. They obfuscate. Sturgeon would have found a reason for Indyref2 no matter what after any Brexit deal. A hard Brexit may concentrate Unionist minds in Scotland. An independent Scotland cast out of both the British & European Union will not be an attractive scenario for many Scots. That is a very likely scenario Scots will face when they cast their votes during any Indyref2. A hard Brexit may yet be the best card any Unionist politician could have played. Half in, half out could have given Scottish nationalists the EU safety net many of them so desperately seek. The burning any European bridges is therefore not as reckless as you think. I believe my alternative analysis is just as valid as yours, but we shall only find out for sure in 3 or 4 years time.
Try and think this through. Every Scottish resident holds a UK passport. Many Scots live in rUK or abroad. How would rUK differentiate between Scots resident in the rUK, those in overseas countries returning to rUK, and Scots resident in Scotland. Additionally one in ten Scots are English born with passports showing that.
Independence would not result in loss of British Nationality as it us illegal to take away someone’s last citizenship. Application for Scottish Citizenship would be voluntary, but every other joint citizenship is recognised, so why would joint Scottish/rUK citizenship?
Not blackmail, but a possible future problem. If the Scottish economy did tank, I would certainly move south. Nothing could stop me!
rUK needs to bear tat fact in mind- it has more reason to make Scexit palatable than the EU has to make Brexit palatable.