Scottish Independance II: Scots Fight On

[Copperknickers II]

Back to the medieval romanticism again I see.
Regional disagreement with a national decision does not create a "democratic deficit".

It's not 'medieval romanticism', it's just a fact. Scotland is a nation which existed long before the UK did. The UK was a stitch-up created by collusion between a faction within the Scottish elite and the English elite to annex the territory of Scotland. Your denial of the existence of the Scottish nation and your view of it as a 'region' is simply at odds with the facts and the history.

As per the original agreement, the vote was a once in a generation opportunity.

Scotland decides when and how often we vote on our own future, not you, and not the Westminster government. Besides, if we are breaking our promise, it's because they broke their promises to us. But please, just keep saying it over and over again, 'Scotland bad, Britain good'. It shows everyone you have no rational arguments to offer.

Five years is not a generation. And no one buys the "material change in circumstances" argument either since Scotland leaving the United Kingdom would necessarily result in it exiting the European Union irrespective of the 2016 referendum.

Not true, our plan was to join the EU as a separate country.

What I reject are attempts to vandalize the constitution with "neverendum" demands.

Just one of the many awful features of the UK system is that we don't have a constitution to vandalise.

Your position would only be tenable if one of the following were true: a) there hadn't been a recent referendum on Scottish independence; b) polling showed a clear and sustained lead for Scotland exiting the United Kingdom; c) a national government hadn't been elected on a platform of opposing a 2d. referendum.

... what? So option C admits that my position is very much tenable, given that no national Scottish government has been elected on a platform of opposing a 2nd referendum - in fact quite the opposite has happened.

Then you'll accept the outcome of the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 elections?

When did I say I didn't accept the outcome of those elections?

The SNP does not have a "majority" in Holyrood.

Combined with the Scottish Greens, independence-supporting MSPs have a majority in Holyrood.

Nor does leaving the United Kingdom hold a clear lead in the polls.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Remain hold a clear lead in the polls up until the EU referendum? By your logic the 2016 referendum should never have been held, given we already had a previous referendum on the same subject, and Cameron's one was justified purely by a minority of Brits voting for the Tory manifesto. But once again, what's unacceptable for Scotland is acceptable for the Tories, apparently.

Your whole posts smacks of "constitutional issues can only be resolved by the ballot box if I agree with the outcome".

I'm very happy to accept the outcome of a Scottish independence referendum which reflects the political reality of 21st century Scotland. We have not had one yet.

It’s obviously not unheard for countries to secede on the basis of political differences, but I have to admit it’s bizarre for an ostensibly nationalist party to want to transfer sovereignty to Brussels like the SNP does. They would also need to give up their currency.

We don't have our own currency so how can we 'give it up'? In a state of independence, we would have a choice of two foreign currencies (the euro, and the pound sterling), or creating our own currency. The latter is the option most of us now support, pending a transition period. It works perfectly well for Scandinavian and small Central European countries, no reason it can't work for us. And as for your first point, Brussels has no sovereignty over any country, except in the form of pooled sovereignty of the member states and the EU electorate. This pooled sovereignty is exercised through the council of the European Union, aka the governments of the member states. Given that this meant the Tories, in the case of Britain for the past 10 years, Scottish voters* had no representation there at all. As an independent EU country we'd represent ourselves in the Council of Europe. Most of us believe the EU is a net positive force for Scotland, although this is far from a universal opinion among SNP voters. The SNP is in favour of the EU simply because we are aligned with the EU on a plethora of issues, given that Scottish politics is generally closer to the European norm than British politics is.

*excepting the miniscule minority of Tory voters living in Scottish Tory constituencies, of course.

British voters most certainly do want to leave EU. In the elections just a month ago, UK voted massively pro-leave EU giving Johnson that huge majority some people harpy about.

That is categorically untrue. The majority of voters in last month's election voted for Labour or the Remain-supporting parties. It was largely our ridiculous electoral system which allowed that to translate to a Tory majority in parliament - if we had a fair system of proportional representatation then Boris' leave deal would be dead in the water.

Nope. Scotland's history starts in the 9th century but then the Saxons were added. But even if we go at 9th century... most people in the middle East have waaaaaaaaaaaay longer history.
1200 years is not much actually even for ... the British isles (Irish are around since the 5th century or something).
I.e. I would say "Scotland is a proud nation with a relatively short history"

The nation of Alba, which was always known in Latin as 'regnum Scotorum' ('Kingdom of the Scots') existed as you say since the 9th century. It's true that we underwent a massive cultural shift as a result of the spread of the English language, but we have always remained the same nation state with largely the same people within largely the same borders as we were in the 9th century. Aside from micronations, no other country in the world can say that except China, Japan and perhaps Denmark. Ireland was never a unified nation state under a single leader until its independence from the UK.

[Cope]

It's not 'medieval romanticism', it's just a fact.

Your avatar says differently.

Scotland is a nation which existed long before the UK did.

Yes, in the medieval era.

The UK was a stitch-up created by collusion between a faction within the Scottish elite and the English elite to annex the territory of Scotland.

That's a cute talking point, but almost all polities can be said to have been a consequence of a "stitch-up" between elites (ahem James VI) somewhere down the line. Now tell me how the Kingdom of Scotland was itself a construct of organic democratic choice(s) and not a feudal "stitch-up" between monarchs, nobles and clerics?

Your denial of the existence of the Scottish nation and your view of it as a 'region' is simply at odds with the facts and the history.

I used the word "regional" to distinguish between national (that is UK wide) and local/devolved elections. You prove why such a distinction was necessary later on in your reply.

Scotland decides when and how often we vote on our own future, not you, and not the Westminster government.

As self-righteous as your posturing is, I think you'll find, first that a clear majority of Scots have already voted against separation in a recent plebiscite, and second that Westminster does in fact retain the power to acknowledge (or not) the legitimacy of the SNP's incessant referendum demands - hence the importance of the Johnson manifesto. Of course, if the SNP had a clear majority in Holyrood or if there was an unambiguous lead in the polls for those who favoured separation, London would be under pressure to accede to another vote. As it happens, neither of those things are true.

Besides, if we are breaking our promise, it's because they broke their promises to us.

This, of course, being the core justification of the neverendum position. There'll always be a "broken promise" or a betrayal to excuse the agitation. What next? The SNP doesn't like the UK's trading arrangements with the US? They're unhappy with the House of Lords? The temperature has risen too sharply? You can never really be sure what the rationalization will be, but you can be certain that the descent into the infinite regress will continue.

But please, just keep saying it over and over again, 'Scotland bad, Britain good'. It shows everyone you have no rational arguments to offer.

I have never said "Scotland bad". Like all good nats. you're conflating the SNP with Scotland and then declaring any criticism of the former to be an insult to the latter. This ongoing pretence that the nationalists somehow own the country's soul (even though they couldn't win their own referendum) is quite insufferable.

Not true, our plan was to join the EU as a separate country.

Separation from the rUK would necessitate Scotland exiting the European Union. And of course, we all know that Sturgeon (who claims to want EU membership) facilitated Johnson's Brexit election specifically because she knew that her strategy for another referendum would only have any weight if the UK was out of the EU. Though as we'll see, you're still going to complain about fptp and the Johnson election anyway because having your cake and eating it is a stalwart of SNP policy.

Just one of the many awful features of the UK system is that we don't have a constitution to vandalise.

You mean it doesn't have a codified constitution? Try giving Erskine May a read for starters.

... what? So option C admits that my position is very much tenable, given that no national Scottish government has been elected on a platform of opposing a 2nd referendum - in fact quite the opposite has happened.

And now we see the folly of your complaints about my use of the word regional. As per my previous argument, and irrespective of how much you wish Westminster was bound by the SNP's manifesto, the British parliament supersedes Holyrood on constitutional concerns.

When did I say I didn't accept the outcome of those elections?

Well you certainly don't seem to think that any of them resolve the pertinent constitutional questions (even though they do).

Combined with the Scottish Greens, independence-supporting MSPs have a majority in Holyrood.

So you've got the climate nutters on your side? Congratulations (not that they'll support a vote which isn't green lit by Westminster). Now explain to me how that justifies your claim that voters have given the SNP a majority "time and time again".

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Remain hold a clear lead in the polls up until the EU referendum? By your logic the 2016 referendum should never have been held, given we already had a previous referendum on the same subject, and Cameron's one was justified purely by a minority of Brits voting for the Tory manifesto. But once again, what's unacceptable for Scotland is acceptable for the Tories, apparently.

My "logic" refers to the legitimacy of holding a 2d. referendum on the same question within close temporal proximity to the 1st. Predictably, the nats. were squawking about a rerun within 18 months of the first vote, and they'll be doing the same after a prospective second. As to your point about "Cameron's" referendum bill, I think you'll find that more than just the Tories voted for it (5/6 MPs if I remember correctly).

I'm very happy to accept the outcome of a Scottish independence referendum which reflects the political reality of 21st century Scotland. We have not had one yet.

Another recitation of the neverendum position.

That is categorically untrue. The majority of voters in last month's election voted for Labour or the Remain-supporting parties.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It was largely our ridiculous electoral system which allowed that to translate to a Tory majority in parliament - if we had a fair system of proportional representatation then Boris' leave deal would be dead in the water.

And the SNP wouldn't have 45 Westminster MPs (according to PR it should be closer to 25). Sounds lovely. Not that the the majority of MPs (including from the SNP) accepted the proportional outcome of the 2016 election anyway. In fact, as we've already established, it was the SNP who facilitated the general election which foiled the prospect of Parliament ramming though a 2d. referendum which they claimed to want.

Hypocrisy all round I'd say.

The nation of Alba, which was always known in Latin as 'regnum Scotorum' ('Kingdom of the Scots') existed as you say since the 9th century.

Ooo, you know how the genitive case functions in Latin. Fancy.

It's true that we underwent a massive cultural shift as a result of the spread of the English language, but we have always remained the same nation state with largely the same people within largely the same borders as we were in the 9th century.

Feudal kingdoms are not "nation states" (lol). If you want to know where Scotland's rights and democracy actually come from, see the reforms acts of 1832, 1864, 1884, 1918 and 1928. Funny too though, that after having spent so long denying your nationalist credentials, you've now openly resorted to blood and soil arguments.

[Copperknickers II]

In the below post, you raise an interesting point which I'm happy to discuss further in another thread if you wish, but it's not of core importance to the matter at hand here so I have put it in a spoiler.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Almost all polities can be said to have been a consequence of a "stitch-up" between elites (ahem James VI) somewhere down the line. Now tell me how the Kingdom of Scotland was itself a construct of organic democratic choice(s) and not a feudal "stitch-up" between monarchs, nobles and clerics?

Of course, all Dark Age feudal monarchies were undemocratic, and were not constructed with the interests of the average person in mind. However, I think there's a strong argument for considering them legitimate entities when looked at in the context of their times. Under a feudal system, the role of the lord is to protect his subjects, which is ultimately possible only through allegiance with a higher liege lord, and this was the ultimate role of the monarch - to be the ultimate protector of the realm. The details of the fusion of the kingdom of Dal Riada and that of Pictland is lost to the mists of time so we don't know its precise character (conquest, treaty, absorption through other means), but it's fair to say that, by the standards of the time, the creation of the kingdom was seen as legitimate and the Scottish king came to be seen by his earls and by the Pope as the legitimate ruler as ordained by God. 'By the standards of the time' being the key point here - the Acts of Union in 1707 were in a post-Westphalian sovereignty and post-Glorious Revolution period, which means even at the time they were widely seen as outrageous and unjust by Scots - we know this from detailed contemporary sources which record riots in the streets. The poet Robert Burns, not known for being an avid nationalist, was still bitter about it nearly 100 years later, penning the famous line 'we were bought and sold for English gold'.

Feudal kingdoms are not "nation states" (lol). If you want to know where Scotland's rights and democracy actually come from, see the reforms acts of 1832, 1864, 1884, 1918 and 1928. Funny too though, that after having spent so long denying your nationalist credentials, you've now openly resorted to blood and soil arguments.

It's not a 'blood and soil' argument to state the fact that Scotland has existed as a geographical and political entity for more than 1000 years - it's just context I like to present to British Nationalists who try to deny Scotland's right to assert nationhood based on the constitutional arrangements of the past 300 years. Of course, neither the present constitutional arrangements nor the history of the past 1000 years are relevant to modern democracy - if Scotland today wishes to be an independent country then we should have that right. As for whether nation states existed in the Medieval period, Anthony Smith makes a convincing case for medieval nations to be regarded as part of a family of linked geographical/identity groups of which modern, democratic nation states are just the latest iteration in an evolving series which stretches back quite a long way, but that's a discussion for another occasion.

Your avatar says [you are a Medieval romanticist]. Scotland was a nation [only] in the medieval era.

Did it occur to you that the focus of this website might have influenced my choice of avatar? Or do you think I go around advertising my passing interest in galloglaich outside the confines of this *checks notes* military history gaming forum? Scotland continues to be a nation today, just not an independent one. We were de jure independent until 1707 which is closer to the American Revolutionary War than the Medieval era.

Now, onto business:

I used the word "regional" to distinguish between national (that is UK wide) and local/devolved elections.

And in Scotland, we use the word 'regional' to refer to our own regions, and 'national' to describe matters which adhere to Scotland as a whole. Unless of course we have specific contextual reasons for using the word to refer to Britain as a whole, which we often do. This is not a practice unique to Scottish nationalists nor is it a practice that stems from the creation of the devolved parliament - before we had a devolved parliament, we had within Scotland a national legal system, a national education system, national police statistics, and so on. Scotland is 'a nation within a nation'. A confusing situation but one which Scots are well acclimatised to.

As self-righteous as your posturing is, I think you'll find, first that a clear majority of Scots have already voted against separation in a recent plebiscite,

In 2014, yes. That was before the Brexit referendum, and before Scotland returned three successive general election majorities for the SNP and one pro-independence majority in the Holyrood elections. 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019 - each of these years has provided an iteration of a plurality of Scots placing their faith in independence-supporting parties, the same kind of plurality by which Boris Johnson claims the mandate to take Britain out of the EU. The SNP is not trying to take Scotland out of the UK, they are simply trying to hold a referendum on the issue so that the Scottish people can decide what is best for us, not in 2014, but in 2021.

Tell me something - if Jeremy Corbyn had won the election last month, would you have considered that he had a right to hold a second referendum on Britain's EU membership?

and second that Westminster does in fact retain the power to acknowledge (or not) the legitimacy of the SNP's incessant referendum demands - hence the importance of the Johnson manifesto.

That is highly debateable, and we will soon see if it is actually true. It's not clear to me that Westminster has any power whatsoever to prevent the SNP from holding an advisory referendum.

Of course, if the SNP had a clear majority in Holyrood or if there was an unambiguous lead in the polls for those who favoured separation, London would be under pressure to accede to another vote. As it happens, neither of those things are true.

Tell me something else - if Theresa May had passed her Brexit Bill and taken us out of the EU under a Conservative minority government propped up by the pro-Brexit DUP, would you consider that legitimate? And once again - why do you consider the 2016 referendum legitimate, given that there was no 'unambiguous lead in the polls' for Brexit prior to the vote? The justification Cameron used for holding the Brexit referendum was nothing more than a plurality (aka, minority) of British voters supporting it as a manifesto pledge - exactly the same justification you are denying to Scottish nationalists. It's a blatant and unashamed double standard, can you really not see that?

I have never said "Scotland bad". Like all good nats. you're conflating the SNP with Scotland and then declaring any criticism of the former to be an insult to the latter. This ongoing pretence that the nationalists somehow own the country's soul (even though they couldn't win their own referendum) is quite insufferable.

The SNP are the governing party of Scotland. Conflating the governing party with the country as a whole in a political debate is hardly 'nationalism', it's a convenient form of metonymy which you have used yourself on many occasions. Indeed, as we will see below, in the very same post where you accuse me of doing so. But of course, criticism of the SNP does not constitute criticism of Scotland as a country.

This, of course, being the core justification of the neverendum position. There'll always be a "broken promise" or a betrayal to excuse the agitation. What next? The SNP doesn't like the UK's trading arrangements with the US? They're unhappy with the House of Lords? The temperature has risen too sharply? You can never really be sure what the rationalization will be, but you can be certain that the descent into the infinite regress will continue.

The SNP may do whatever they want, but their power comes from the Scottish people who vote for them. If Scottish people continue to want a referendum then democracy dictates we will continue to ask our leaders to push for one. Of course, it's an unfortunate bug of the system in FPTP that a minority of Scots can do this even against the wishes of the majority. But if the majority do not want the SNP in power and want to end the 'neverendum' as you call it, they have only to vote them out of power by coalescing around a single opposition party. Sometimes I wish they would, but then I remember that the independence agenda is only a small part of the SNP's day job - they have spent the rest of it contributing to some of the biggest improvements in life standards and education levels in Scotland in our recent history. I can only imagine that many Scottish Unionists actually prefer to support Labour or waste their vote in other ways, rather than give their vote to the Tories, due to the knowledge that by ending the 'neverendum' they would be condemning Scotland to the purgatory of austerity, corruption and incompetence on display in Westminster.

Separation from the rUK would necessitate Scotland exiting the European Union. And of course, we all know that Sturgeon (who claims to want EU membership) facilitated Johnson's Brexit election specifically because she knew that her strategy for another referendum would only have any weight if the UK was out of the EU.

... you seem to be implying that everybody knew last month's election was going to turn out in Johnson's favour. At the forefront of all Remainers' minds was the real possibility that the election would lead to a Corbyn victory, or at least a Corbyn/Libdem/SNP coalition, which would have been able to hold another Brexit referendum. This would actually have been a better result even from the most cynical of Scottish nationalist perspectives, given the power it would have given to the SNP to dictate terms to Corbyn, as well as the apoplexy of anti-Scottish sentiment which would have erupted from British Nationalists as a result.

Though as we'll see, you're still going to complain about fptp and the Johnson election anyway because having your cake and eating it is a stalwart of SNP policy.

My whole argument is predicated on the premise that, while the Westminster system is ridiculous and poorly designed, we must nevertheless find a way to function in it, and the best way of doing this is by applying the same standards to all parties, even when those standards are built upon questionable foundations. The SNP's majority in Westminster is not representative of the number of votes they actually received, I freely admit this, but your accusation of cakeism is laughably false - the SNP are firmly opposed to FPTP, despite its benefits. This is because unlike the Tories, they esteem their principles as being of more importance than power.

Well you certainly don't seem to think that any of them resolve the pertinent constitutional questions (even though they do).

The inherent conflict between the results at the British level, and the results at the Scottish level, means it is self-evidently impossible to regard them as having resolved any constitutional questions.

Now explain to me how that justifies your claim that voters have given the SNP a majority "time and time again".

They gave the SNP a majority in all votes except the 2016 Holyrood elections, where they gave pro-independence parties a majority, representing a de facto majority for the SNP given how strongly aligned the Greens are with all their main policies. Many people actually voted for the Greens AND the SNP, since the Scottish system allows you to pass two votes - one for constituency seats and one for additional MSPs who are not tied to a particular constituency.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now come on, Epic. You said:

"In the elections just a month ago, the UK voted massively pro-leave EU giving Johnson that huge majority some people harp about."

I never said that Johnson should have lost the election. I simply said that the above sentence is categorically untrue, which it is. Because, in the most wonderful of ironies, the only way that sentence can be interpreted as true is if, "like all good nats" (your words), you conflate the country with the minority of voters who opted for its ruling party

[Aexodus]

Hmm, I was always under the impression that while the EU pressured countries to join the Eurozone, it didn't actually "require" them to do so. That's why countries that don't use the Euro like Romania and Sweden still exist. I have to say, the language in the Maastricht Treaty is quite vague. The intent behind monetary integration is pretty straightforward, but the implementation is not completely specific. I'm a critic of the Euro and contemporary EU economic policies in general (and German), but I never realized just how invasive EU intentions are. I've never actually read the original text of EU treaties, so this has been educational.


That said, would Scotland have to adopt the Euro if they seceded and joined the EU? I have my doubts about that.

I'm very happy to accept the outcome of a Scottish independence referendum which reflects the political reality of 21st century Scotland. We have not had one yet.

What was wrong with the 2014 referendum?

We don't have our own currency so how can we 'give it up'? In a state of independence, we would have a choice of two foreign currencies (the euro, and the pound sterling), or creating our own currency. The latter is the option most of us now support, pending a transition period.

Pound Sterling isn’t a foreign currency. If you opt to permanently have your own currency you can’t be an EU member, because to join the EU you need to agree to at some point, adopt the Euro.

It works perfectly well for Scandinavian and small Central European countries, no reason it can't work for us.

The only reason they would have opt outs is because they were already members of the EU at the time that the Eurozone was introduced. If they don’t have an opt out they have already agreed to adopt the Euro.

And as for your first point, Brussels has no sovereignty over any country, except in the form of pooled sovereignty of the member states and the EU electorate.

Well if you want to call it pooled sovereignty, there it is. You would also have little influence in the EU compared to what it was like as being in the UK, although that obviously is no longer an option.

Scotland in the EU would accept the superiority and primacy of EU courts and EU law overriding Scottish courts and Scottish law. Transfer of sovereignty or not Scotland would effectively lose control of many aspects of law except for a 6/751 share of seats in the European Parliament, as well as a seat in the council and commission. Monetary policy in the Eurozone would be entirely for Brussels to decide.

This pooled sovereignty is exercised through the council of the European Union, aka the governments of the member states. Given that this meant the Tories, in the case of Britain for the past 10 years, Scottish voters* had no representation there at all. As an independent EU country we'd represent ourselves in the Council of Europe. Most of us believe the EU is a net positive force for Scotland, although this is far from a universal opinion among SNP voters.

I see your point, but this assumes Scotland will continue to be SNP majority as a 1 party state. Once the independence debate was over voters would fall into more traditional ideological lines.

Scotland is always entitled to vote for Tories or Labour and directly influence what party is in Downing Street.

The SNP is in favour of the EU simply because we are aligned with the EU on a plethora of issues, given that Scottish politics is generally closer to the European norm than British politics is.

That’s a fair point. Scotland’s always been a Labour/SNP kind of place.

*excepting the miniscule minority of Tory voters living in Scottish Tory constituencies, of course.

All the same they might be simply Unionists more than true fiscal conservative blues.

[Lifthrasir]

I've been following the discussion here for a while. Being not especially familiar with that subject, I've made some researches. Result, I have to admit that there are several points I don't get

According to the NYR Daily, in 2015, 36 percent of people in the Republic of Ireland were in favor of a united Ireland in the short to medium term, and only 30 percent of those polled in the North. Compare those numbers to a recent poll that found 65 percent support in the Republic and 51 percent in the North.
So, considering that 62% of the Scots voted to remain in the EU in 2016, is it that weird to think that opinions have changed in Scotland as they have in Ireland during the last few years regarding Scotland independence?

There's also an example with Australia (See Australia Act 1986). Why a similar process could't be considered for Scotland assuming that most of the Scots want the independence?

Aexodus mentionned the Scottish deficit at 7 percent vs the UK one at 1.1 percent. However, Richard Murphy, Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City - University of London, qualifies the Governement Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) as a completely rubbish approximation to the truth, to re-use his words (see here for explanation and details).
Another interesting fact from Statistica is that the budget deficit in Scotland has decreased since 2010/2011 until now (from 15 800 millions GBP in 2010/2011 to 9 376 millions GBP in 2018/2019 and without the revenue from the North Sea. So my question is how actually is the Scottish deficit and can it be a real issue to join the EU?

About the EU:

Scotland in the EU would accept the superiority and primacy of EU courts and EU law overriding Scottish courts and Scottish law. Transfer of sovereignty or not Scotland would effectively lose control of many aspects of law except for a 6/751 share of seats in the European Parliament, as well as a seat in the council and commission. Monetary policy in the Eurozone would be entirely for Brussels to decide.

On paper, yes possibly. In facts, not really without the agreement of your gouvernment.
You're talking about EU and Brussels as an "foreign entity" but actually it is constituted by our own politicians. It is easy to blame the EU for any decision people don't like but actually these decisions are taken by our own politicians even if they know while voting that it would be unpopular in their own respective countries. Then they just hide behing the same common lie: "Wasn't me, that's the EU who decided".

[Aexodus]

But Lifthrasir it really has a lot to do with the principle of having independent British law. Foreign or not, EU courts are not British, and that’s the mindset of many eurosceptics.

In terms of identity, eurosceptics obviously don’t want to be European and don’t see themselves as european.

[Lifthrasir]

Well, I'd like to continue on that subject but unfortunately, that's not the topic of this thread

[Cope]

Of course, all Dark Age feudal monarchies were undemocratic, and were not constructed with the interests of the average person in mind. However, I think there's a strong argument for considering them legitimate entities when looked at in the context of their times. Under a feudal system, the role of the lord is to protect his subjects, which is ultimately possible only through allegiance with a higher liege lord, and this was the ultimate role of the monarch - to be the ultimate protector of the realm.

As much as I appreciate the lecture, I did actually study medieval history at university.

The details of the fusion of the kingdom of Dal Riada and that of Pictland is lost to the mists of time so we don't know its precise character (conquest, treaty, absorption through other means), but it's fair to say that, by the standards of the time, the creation of the kingdom was seen as legitimate and the Scottish king came to be seen by his earls and by the Pope as the legitimate ruler as ordained by God. 'By the standards of the time' being the key point here - the Acts of Union in 1707 were in a post-Westphalian sovereignty and post-Glorious Revolution period, which means even at the time they were widely seen as outrageous and unjust by Scots - we know this from detailed contemporary sources which record riots in the streets. The poet Robert Burns, not known for being an avid nationalist, was still bitter about it nearly 100 years later, penning the famous line 'we were bought and sold for English gold'.

So your argument is that the alleged legitimacy (by feudal standards) of a petty medieval kingdom should be viewed as more relevant than the Acts of Union? And you think this an adequate refutation of my claim that you're trading in medieval romanticism? Laughable.

It's not a 'blood and soil' argument to state the fact that Scotland has existed as a geographical and political entity for more than 1000 years - it's just context I like to present to British Nationalists who try to deny Scotland's right to assert nationhood based on the constitutional arrangements of the past 300 years.

You tried to argue your case on the basis that, and I'm paraphrasing, "we're the same people (not true) occupying the same patch of earth (only somewhat true)". That's an unambiguous blood and soil argument.

Of course, neither the present constitutional arrangements nor the history of the past 1000 years are relevant to modern democracy

"The political settlements of the 11th century are equally distant from modern democracy as are the present constitutional arrangements". Again, laughable. The current political structure is wholly contingent upon democratic consent.

if Scotland today wishes to be an independent country then we should have that right.

The devolution settlement and its amendments does/do recognize that right. What they do not recognize is the SNP's incessant hectoring.

As for whether nation states existed in the Medieval period, Anthony Smith makes a convincing case for medieval nations to be regarded as part of a family of linked geographical/identity groups of which modern, democratic nation states are just the latest iteration in an evolving series which stretches back quite a long way, but that's a discussion for another occasion.

I did not claim the inexistence of medieval nations: I claimed the inexistence of medieval nation-states.

Did it occur to you that the focus of this website might have influenced my choice of avatar? Or do you think I go around advertising my passing interest in galloglaich outside the confines of this *checks notes* military history gaming forum?

It did occur to me that your "choice of avatar" might have had multiple influences - of which one is undoubtedly the intersection between your political leanings and medieval romanticism.

Scotland continues to be a nation today, just not an independent one. We were de jure independent until 1707 which is closer to the American Revolutionary War than the Medieval era.

The sovereignty of the Scottish crown/Parliament is not the same as the independence of a nation. This Bravheart tier mythology which lionizes feudal/oligarchical rule over the tangible progress made by the British parliament over the past two centuries (which, by the way, includes the restoration of the Scottish Parliament as democratic institution) is quite remarkable. By all means, have your heroes, but don't try and tell me that expressions of "de jure" dynastic power practiced by the Balliols, Bruces or any other "noble" faction should somehow form the basis of a rational argument in favour of separation - especially since the current British monarch is herself a descendant of the Stuarts.

And in Scotland, we use the word 'regional' to refer to our own regions, and 'national' to describe matters which adhere to Scotland as a whole. Unless of course we have specific contextual reasons for using the word to refer to Britain as a whole, which we often do. This is not a practice unique to Scottish nationalists nor is it a practice that stems from the creation of the devolved parliament - before we had a devolved parliament, we had within Scotland a national legal system, a national education system, national police statistics, and so on. Scotland is 'a nation within a nation'. A confusing situation but one which Scots are well acclimatised to.

So you understand that the way we interpret language is contingent on contextual markers (congratulations for that), yet you still used my distinction between regional and national elections to spin a victim narrative about my supposed "denial" of the Scottish nation.

In 2014, yes. That was before the Brexit referendum, and before Scotland returned three successive general election majorities for the SNP and one pro-independence majority in the Holyrood elections. 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019 - each of these years has provided an iteration of a plurality of Scots placing their faith in independence-supporting parties

And? The SNP isn't going to convince Westminster to authorize another referendum with a "plurality" (or even a close majority) of votes given the recentness of the previous plebiscite and the political agreement that went with it. The only exception to this would be if the SNP's Westminster wing was able to form a coalition with a British government which offered them a quid pro quo agreement on a 2d. referendum.

the same kind of plurality by which Boris Johnson claims the mandate to take Britain out of the EU.

Johnson's vote share empowered him in the Commons (the UK's highest constitutional body) and was predicated on a majority vote to leave the European Union in a generational referendum. He has both a representative and proportional mandate to take the UK out of the EU.

The SNP is not trying to take Scotland out of the UK, they are simply trying to hold a referendum on the issue so that the Scottish people can decide what is best for us, not in 2014, but in 2021.

The nationalist party that's been prattling on about independence for, what, eighty years, isn't trying to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom? I eagerly await the SNP's impartial role in any prospective rerun of the 2014 referendum!

Tell me something - if Jeremy Corbyn had won the election last month, would you have considered that he had a right to hold a second referendum on Britain's EU membership?

Yes. Westminster retains the absolute legal right to make constitutional judgements irrespective of whether I, or anyone else, thinks those judgements are democratically abusive (as would have been the case with Corbyn's scheme to hold a rigged 2d. referendum).

That is highly debateable, and we will soon see if it is actually true. It's not clear to me that Westminster has any power whatsoever to prevent the SNP from holding an advisory referendum.

Note my use of the word "legitimacy". Westminster retains the right to acknowledge (or not) the legitimacy of the SNP's demands.

If your view is that Holyrood possesses the authority to unilaterally sign off on its own constitutional referendum and then treat its outcome as binding, irrespective of Westminster's position, then what you're actually saying is that Holyrood is already sovereign and Scotland is already "independent".

Tell me something else - if Theresa May had passed her Brexit Bill and taken us out of the EU under a Conservative minority government propped up by the pro-Brexit DUP, would you consider that legitimate?

Yes, for the reasons noted above.

And once again - why do you consider the 2016 referendum legitimate, given that there was no 'unambiguous lead in the polls' for Brexit prior to the vote? The justification Cameron used for holding the Brexit referendum was nothing more than a plurality (aka, minority) of British voters supporting it as a manifesto pledge - exactly the same justification you are denying to Scottish nationalists. It's a blatant and unashamed double standard, can you really not see that?

I've just answered this. My "standard" specifically refers to the holding of consecutive, temporally proximate, referendums on the same question. It is completely reasonable to introduce limitations on repeat referendums so as to avoid the perennial instability (both constitutional and economic) caused by the political railroading of separatist movements. This is precisely why plebiscites are typically treated as generational events which should only be rerun after an adequate gap or a clear change in public opinion. The SNP's deliberately open interpretation of "material changes" (which can be used to deem any likely future event as an excuse for another referendum) aren't relevant.

The SNP are the governing party of Scotland. Conflating the governing party with the country as a whole in a political debate is hardly 'nationalism', it's a convenient form of metonymy which you have used yourself on many occasions. Indeed, as we will see below, in the very same post where you accuse me of doing so.

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that the comment you're referring to was neither made by me nor shows a conflation between party and country as a whole.

But of course, criticism of the SNP does not constitute criticism of Scotland as a country.

So you'll be apologizing for your accusation that I'd either claimed or implied that Scotland was "bad"?

The SNP may do whatever they want

No, they may not.

but their power comes from the Scottish people who vote for them. If Scottish people continue to want a referendum then democracy dictates we will continue to ask our leaders to push for one.

We all know that the SNP and their fan club will continue trying to browbeat the electorate with their interminable separatism. That doesn't mean that Westminster is forced to acquiesce to a minority Holyrood government (especially given the manifesto pledges of both the Labour and Conservative parties).

Of course, it's an unfortunate bug of the system in FPTP that a minority of Scots can do this even against the wishes of the majority.

The SNP's presence in the Commons is largely irrelevant to the question of independence unless the party can find coalition partner(s) who would sponsor the idea.

But if the majority do not want the SNP in power and want to end the 'neverendum' as you call it, they have only to vote them out of power by coalescing around a single opposition party.

The SNP being "in power" (that is leading a minority government) in the Scottish Parliament has nothing to do with Westminster accepting the party's demands.

Sometimes I wish they would, but then I remember that the independence agenda is only a small part of the SNP's day job - they have spent the rest of it contributing to some of the biggest improvements in life standards and education levels in Scotland in our recent history. I can only imagine that many Scottish Unionists actually prefer to support Labour or waste their vote in other ways, rather than give their vote to the Tories, due to the knowledge that by ending the 'neverendum' they would be condemning Scotland to the purgatory of austerity, corruption and incompetence on display in Westminster.

I'm not interested in your fetishization of the SNP's domestic agenda. Personally, I don't find the aggrandisement of a party which runs colossal budget deficits at the expense of the national government which, like a stroppy teenager, it despises, particularly impressive.

... you seem to be implying that everybody knew last month's election was going to turn out in Johnson's favour. At the forefront of all Remainers' minds was the real possibility that the election would lead to a Corbyn victory, or at least a Corbyn/Libdem/SNP coalition, which would have been able to hold another Brexit referendum. This would actually have been a better result even from the most cynical of Scottish nationalist perspectives, given the power it would have given to the SNP to dictate terms to Corbyn, as well as the apoplexy of anti-Scottish sentiment which would have erupted from British Nationalists as a result.

What exactly is your point? We know that the SNP supported the election out of political cynicism. How does that square with your previous wailing about the absence of a 2d. referendum on Europe (an outcome directly facilitated by the SNP)?

My whole argument is predicated on the premise that, while the Westminster system is ridiculous and poorly designed, we must nevertheless find a way to function in it, and the best way of doing this is by applying the same standards to all parties, even when those standards are built upon questionable foundations. The SNP's majority in Westminster is not representative of the number of votes they actually received, I freely admit this, but your accusation of cakeism is laughably false - the SNP are firmly opposed to FPTP, despite its benefits.

See above. My accusation of "cakeism" related to your whinging about the very fptp election which the SNP expedited and which was responsible for the eradication of the plot to attach a 2d. referendum onto any withdrawal agreement.

This is because unlike the Tories, they esteem their principles as being of more importance than power.

Heaven spare me. You are free to prostrate yourself before your nationalist icons, but I'd rather you did it in private.

The inherent conflict between the results at the British level, and the results at the Scottish level, means it is self-evidently impossible to regard them as having resolved any constitutional questions.

No it isn't. Most people are capable of understanding the differences in responsibilities and competencies between the various tiers of government. Constitutional, defence, migratory etc. policies are within Westminster's, not Holyrood's, purview. Westminster may choose to temporarily transfer constitutional powers to the Holyrood via a section 30 order or, if it so willed, a new act of parliament.

They gave the SNP a majority in all votes except the 2016 Holyrood elections, where they gave pro-independence parties a majority, representing a de facto majority for the SNP given how strongly aligned the Greens are with all their main policies. Many people actually voted for the Greens AND the SNP, since the Scottish system allows you to pass two votes - one for constituency seats and one for additional MSPs who are not tied to a particular constituency.

The only Holyrood majority the SNP have won was in 2011. So not "time and time again".

Now come on, Epic. You said:

"In the elections just a month ago, the UK voted massively pro-leave EU giving Johnson that huge majority some people harp about."

I didn't say that.

I never said that Johnson should have lost the election. I simply said that the above sentence is categorically untrue which it is.

No it isn't. According to the framework of representative democracy, the UK did vote "massively" for Johnson's "huge majority".

Because, in the most wonderful of ironies, the only way that sentence can be interpreted as true is if, "like all good nats" (your words), you conflate the country with the minority of voters who opted for its ruling party

See above. Acknowledging a political reality is different from your false accusation that I'd disparaged Scotland by daring to criticize the SNP's insurgent behaviour.

[Exarch]

Brian Cox, along with Sean Connery support Scottish Independence:
https://twitter.com/HeartScotNews/st...23327916843009

Makes sense really, if the Anglos keep treating scots like they're just sepoys, to do the dirty work, then wtf makes Anglos think they can ever keep a united kingdom?
May as well just give up and beg the Norwegian to come back and take over Bretland for once and for all.

[Lifthrasir]

But Lifthrasir it really has a lot to do with the principle of having independent British law. Foreign or not, EU courts are not British, and that’s the mindset of many eurosceptics.

In terms of identity, eurosceptics obviously don’t want to be European and don’t see themselves as european.

After consultation, it appears that it's fine to reply here
For info, the European Court of Justice was created to be the judicial authority of the EU, ruling on member states’ compliance with EU treaties, interpreting EU law and deciding on the legality of EU institutions’ actions. The Court of Justice does not, however, have any power to strike down national law; this is a task for the national courts. The national courts will, however, seek to resolve the conflict through interpretation. But UK courts are required not to enforce UK laws to the extent that they are incompatible with EU obligations. That's the most simple definition I could find. This is just to say that each side pulls the sheet back towards itself. I think we agree on this
Anyway, according this article, leaving the EU won't solve that "issue"

Back on Scotland case, that shouldn't be a problem IMO.

Edit: It is quite funny to see that The Times said last October that 1 in 4 who have voted yes in Scottish independence have changed their mind (article from October 23, 2019). Almost at the same time, The Guardian said that the rate is about 50% in favor for independence (article from October18, 2019)

Anyway, the fact is that the SNP won 48 of Scotland's 59 seats on December 12 election. Despite the fact that Mrs Sturgeon is asking for another referendum behind the Section 30 Order, it seems that actually her best option is to wait the election in Holyrood in 2021 with the hope that the SNP will win a large majority. If it happens, then it will become quite difficult to Westminster to refuse another Scottish referendum about their independence.

[Love Mountain]

Why would it become difficult? They can always just say no, can't they?

[Cope]

Why would it become difficult? They can always just say no, can't they?

Yes.

[Lifthrasir]

Why would it become difficult? They can always just say no, can't they?

As you can see in my previous post, no side can say for sure how many Scots are in favour for the independence. My own guess is that it was probably mostly unchanged until the 2016 referendum (55% against and 45% in favour - for info).
Now, Mr Johnson is using his election victory to press ahead with Brexit, which the SNP opposes and which Scotland voted against in the 2016 EU referendum (62% of Scots voted to stay in EU). This may make Scots changing their mind about remaining in the UK. This is somehow already illustrated with the 48 Scotland seats won by the SNP during the same election.
If Mrs Sturgeon confirms that result during the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2021, she will be in a very strong position to claim another referendum about Scotland independence. Note that Mrs Sturgeon perfectly knows that she needs the Westminster's approval to run that referendum because if run without it, then it can be rejected by the UK Supreme Court.
So, in such eventuality, how Mr Johnson would be able to justify his demand for the Brexit done because voters asked for it whilst demanding the 2nd Scottish independence referendum to be rejected despite voters asking for it
Remember that former conservative prime minister, Mrs Thatcher, wrote in her memoirs that Scots have an “an undoubted right to national self-determination . . . Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way”.
On a side note, it will be interesting to see if Mr Johnson can become more unpopular in Scotland than the Iron Lady was

[Cyclops]

The UK doesn't have a strong tradition of referenda. This is obvious from Cameron's stupid blunder calling for the Brexit referendum, and its stunning outcome.

More broadly within the Commonwealth and around the world the principles are not entirely consistent, but within the British tradition you don't rerun referenda until you get the "right" result but in the EU you do.

The Scottish referendum on independence was a settled question: like the Australian referendum on the republic in 1999 (we voted to keep Liz) the result was a bit shonky as the question and debate were framed by those on the side that won (the Queen's intervention was considered rather shady in this country, if she had made such a comment in 1999 it would have caused a furore). Nevertheless the result is accepted here (we will not vote again at least until after HM dies).

So it would definitely be against the British usage to rerun a Scottish independence referendum for at least a decade or two. You could make a case that the death of the monarch (in whose person so much of the Union resides now with devolved Scots parliament has been re-established). you could also make a case that the United Kingdom leaving the EU is a sufficient change to justify reconsidering the question (and its worth aknowledging the possibly o Brexit was already in the air in 2014) but there's no hard and fast test.

This is politics, and its more in the praxis than the theory. The Union in 1707 was to be in perpetuity, but so was the Union with Ireland in 1801 and that is 26/32nds gone. If the SNP can swirl enough nebulous "consent" from its population into reality then there will be another referendum. Murdoch et al will try to poison the debate, Boris will waffle and lie (as will Surgeon and the rest, politicians gonna politic) and someone will claim the result is treason no matter what.

Given the UK looks like its crashing out of the EU fast and dirty (Boris is a big talker but a ****ing incompetent at actual work) the ripples might give Holyrood the impetus it needs to get the cords cut.

[Cope]

As you can see in my previous post, no side can say for sure how many Scots are in favour for the independence. My own guess is that it was probably mostly unchanged until the 2016 referendum (55% against and 45% in favour - for info).

The vast majority of polls continue to show that unionism has more support than separation.

Now, Mr Johnson is using his election victory to press ahead with Brexit, which the SNP opposes and which Scotland voted against in the 2016 EU referendum (62% of Scots voted to stay in EU). This may make Scots changing their mind about remaining in the UK. This is somehow already illustrated with the 48 Scotland seats won by the SNP during the same election.

The SNP lost almost half their seats in the 2017 general election (which occurred post EU referendum). They recovered most, but not all of these seats last month, having 8 fewer than in 2015. What this shows is that the Westminster elections in Scotland don't really say much about support for independence.

If Mrs Sturgeon confirms that result during the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2021, she will be in a very strong position to claim another referendum about Scotland independence.

If the SNP retain the same vote share they received in the 2019 Westminster elections in the 2021 Holyrood elections, nothing will change. They'll remain a minority party in the Scottish Parliament.

Note that Mrs Sturgeon perfectly knows that she needs the Westminster's approval to run that referendum because if run without it, then it can be rejected by the UK Supreme Court.

According to all precedent and proper constitutional understanding that is correct. Unfortunately the Supreme Court essentially acts as a law unto itself. The PM should dissolve it and restore the Law Lords.

So, in such eventuality, how Mr Johnson would be able to justify his demand for the Brexit done because voters asked for it whilst demanding the 2nd Scottish independence referendum to be rejected despite voters asking for it Remember that former conservative prime minister, Mrs Thatcher, wrote in her memoirs that Scots have an “an undoubted right to national self-determination . . . Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way”.

If the SNP win a significant majority in the Scottish Parliament (>55%) then of course it will make the situation more difficult, though certainly not beyond resolution.

On a side note, it will be interesting to see if Mr Johnson can become more unpopular in Scotland than the Iron Lady was

That will depend on how well he manages the UK's exit from the European Union and whether or not he remains committed to investing outside of London. A key problem is that the SNP will claim credit for any improvements made on account of additional funding from the central government (assuming any is actually forthcoming).

[Daruwind]

So it would definitely be against the British usage to rerun a Scottish independence referendum for at least a decade or two. You could make a case that the death of the monarch (in whose person so much of the Union resides now with devolved Scots parliament has been re-established). you could also make a case that the United Kingdom leaving the EU is a sufficient change to justify reconsidering the question (and its worth aknowledging the possibly o Brexit was already in the air in 2014) but there's no hard and fast test.

This is crux of issue. Original referendum was help upon knowledge that Scotland probably would leave EU in case of independence while now situation is reversed. Scotland leaving for staying in UK...

[Love Mountain]

This is crux of issue. Original referendum was help upon knowledge that Scotland probably would leave EU in case of independence while now situation is reversed. Scotland leaving for staying in UK...

You say that, but for how many? I get the logic behind this argument, and that there is an overlap between those who want to be part of EU and those who want Scottish independence, but how big is that overlap really?

[Lifthrasir]

Clever would be the one able to give the right figure and to tell how it will evolve during the coming year.

I'm convinced that it's not going to be an easy nor a quick process for Scotland, first to get the referendum, second to get its independence (assuming that a large majority of Scots vote for it and Westminster accept it) and third to join the EU.
Though, there is a historical precedent in Europe with the Czech and Slovak republics. They splitted in 1992 and both are now in the EU (since 2004 if my memory serves me well).

[Sar1n]

Though, there is a historical precedent in Europe with the Czech and Slovak republics. They splitted in 1992 and both are now in the EU (since 2004 if my memory serves me well).

This one is quite different from the UK. Czechoslovakia was a federation, with both members having its own parliament with equal status. And back then neither was member of EU, which meant the dissolution of federation required essentially just open borders treaty, splitting the army assets and establishing separate currencies. It was all essentially done by agreement of prime ministers (both countries are parliamentary democracies, with prime ministers being de facto most powerful persons in governments), there was no referendum and it actually changed very little, though the countries drifted a bit apart since then. But we still don't really consider Slovakians to be foreign...

[Lifthrasir]

True. My point was more to illustrate that it's not because a nation secedes from another that it can not join the EU. The fact that UK as a whole was member of the EU shouldn't change that IMO (but I might be wrong)