I’ve met some very Scottish people, more Scottish than I could have imagined, before I met them. — Punshhh

:up: Hard to not like a man in a kilt playing the bagpipes :smile:

Why has Scotland remained in the union?

Is the question that simply too many English have moved to Scotland and openly displayed anti-English sentiment has made them firm supporters of the union?



(Yeah, that's what is lacking here from a typical European dispute: blaming ethnic minorities.)

Or are the pro-Independence people simply too annoying?

Just recently Jacob Rees Mogg said in the house that devolution is a failed project and that it is now time for its abolition — Punshhh

What Rees-Mogg actually said was: "It is the SNP that has been the failure and it is not devolution that has been the failure."

At Commons Business Questions 19 Nov 2020, Rees-Mogg said that devolution would work "perfectly well" if the Conservatives were in charge in Scotland. He accused the SNP of having a "shameful" record at Holyrood. He also said "The failure of the SNP is not something I would have thought [Mr Sheppard] would wish to boast about. "The SNP in government has failed on Scottish education, it has failed on Scottish health, it has failed on Scottish law and order. "It is a shameful record in Scotland of the SNP. They have let the people of Scotland down." He added: "Devolution could work perfectly well if only the Conservatives were in charge in Scotland, which would make a triumphant success of it.

Both the Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Conservatives have had a long history of supporting and strengthening Scottish devolution.

The Conservative and Unionist Party manifesto 2019 stated: "Strengthening the Union: Conservatives have a proud history of upholding and strengthening the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We also want to ensure that the UK Government and its institutions are working effectively to realise the benefits of four nations working together as one United Kingdom."

The Scottish Conservative manifesto of 2021 stated: "For devolving power and funding to communities, so that we can put an end to the era of SNP centralisation and better support local services, like schools and roads".

The Scotland Act 2016 devolved further powers to Scotland, and recognised the Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government as permanent among UK's constitutional arrangements, with a referendum required before either can be abolished.

In addition, Ruth Davidson at a speech to the Scottish Conservatives on the 26 March 2013 said: "we have heard their ambition for a devolved parliament within the UK with greater powers than it currently holds. We have listened, we have heard and we will act. We will respond positively to that ambition, and in doing so, we reaffirm our unshakeable conviction that continued membership of the UK is the cornerstone of a safer, fairer and more prosperous Scotland"

In summary, it is not Conservative policy to abolish devolution.

But in reality the EU is largely trying to regularise standards, regulations, tariffs and enjoy a customs Union between members. — Punshhh

The home page of the EU does not say that the role of the EU is largely in trying to regularise standards, etc, but rather that "The European Union is a unique economic and political union between 27 EU countries".

The single market is important as the economic engine of the EU, but is no longer the raison d'être of the EU.

It is true that the predecessor of the EU was the European Economic Community (EEC), created in 1958, and initially increasing economic cooperation between six countries: Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

What began as a purely economic union has evolved into an organization spanning policy areas, from climate, environment and health to external relations and security, justice and migration. A name change from the European Economic Community (EEC) to the European Union (EU) in 1993 reflected this.

The problem with the current EU is that it is no longer largely an economic union, but is progressively becoming more and more political.

This would not necessarily be a problem in itself, in that the EU's stated aim is in making its governing institutions more transparent and democratic. However, this is an example of Orwellian doublespeak, because the EU is becoming in reality, more opaque, bureaucratic and undemocratic.

As Rees-Mogg said to the Oxford Union on the 24 October 2013, in speaking about the EU's "contempt for public opinion" as shown by the Commission repeatedly demanding referenda on EU treaties until they are approved and its role in the removal of elected leaders of countries such as Greece and Italy, thus giving a voice to extremist parties such as Greece's New Dawn and France's Le Front National. Their successes, amplified in EU elections, have become a destabilising influence on member states' democracies.

If the EU had remained an economic union and had not morphed into an undemocratic bureaucracy, I doubt Brexit would have happened.

Why has Scotland remained in the union? — ssu

1) Money: England subsidises Scotland to the tune of nearly £2000 per year per person. I remember in the 2014 referendum Salmond made a lot of Scotland being able to pay its way via its oil revenues - then oil was $100 per barrel. That looks like a pipe dream now.

2) Fear of going it alone as a minnow. What currency would they use? They want to keep the £, but Westminster will not be so amenable. Sanctuary should be found within the Euro, but post-Brexit it's a longer and uncertain road to get into the EU. And I think many Scots aren't ready for the loss of Queen's-head-on-the-coins Britishness.

I think that when the reality of the financial hit Scots will take from independence becomes clear in a ref campaign they may lose their courage. But then I thought that about Brexiteers too!

Fear of going it alone as a minnow. What currency would they use? They want to keep the £, but Westminster will not be so amenable. Sanctuary should be found within the Euro, but post-Brexit it's a longer and uncertain road to get into the EU. And I think many Scots aren't ready for the loss of Queen's-head-on-the-coins Britishness. — Tim3003

This is the thing I didn't understand when listening to the pro-Independence narrative: this so-called "independence-light". They were saying that it wouldn't be a change as if they could pick the positive aspects of independence, but refrain losing positive aspects of the union. It really raises question how much actually the Scots want to be independent. After all, the world didn't end in the UK after Brexit happened.

I assume that the Queen could stay to be head of Independent Scotland. As Alex Salmond has said years ago, the union of the crowns predates the union of the parliaments which he wishes to end. I assume this view hasn't changed with Nicola being at the helm. Canada and Australia are independent countries from the UK, so why couldn't Scotland have the monarch they have had? The royal family loves to be in Scotland. So it would be just basically a personal union. So she (the queen) could easily continue even on Scottish money, if the Scots wouldn't want to go with the euro.

North Sea Oil — ssu

The SNP's mistaken dependence on North Sea oil and gas prior to the 2014 independence referendum should be both a lesson and an important moral about their dependence on the EU prior to any future independence referendum.

The SNP manifesto 2011 stated that "In 1970 North Sea Oil was discovered, with 90% of it lying in Scottish waters. This led to one of the our most successful campaigns – It’s Scotland’s Oil". The SNP manifesto 2021 stated "The people of Scotland voted decisively to remain within the European Union and we firmly believe that EU membership is the best option for Scotland".

Alex Salmond, as Scottish First Minister, and the SNP, as majority government, when leading up to the 2014 referendum put the oil industry at the heart of their campaign. They predicted oil prices could rise above $150 a barrel by 2020 - the remaining reserves were worth £300,000 per Scot - they estimated there were 24 billion barrels of oil and gas remaining, with a wholesale value of £1.5 trillion - all of which would significantly underwrite Scotland's economy.

However, these predictions did not come to pass. MSP Andrew Wilson, chairman of the SNP's growth commission, said in 2017 said that making North Sea revenues central to the economic arguments for independence had been a mistake, and SNP's future economic case "should not include oil". Since then the North Sea oil price has plummeted with UK oil and gas production generating negative receipts in 2015/16 of -£24m compared with +£2.15bn the year before. Today a barrel of oil is $70.

While the oil and gas sector currently does not generate much in the way of public tax revenue, it does contribute to the economy in other ways, such as in employment. For example, about 70,000 Scots are either directly or indirectly employed in the oil and gas industry, primarily in the Aberdeen area.

However, there are inevitable pressures against further economic benefits of fossil fuels. In the 6 May 2021 Scottish elections, the pro-independence SNP failed to win an overall majority and must rely on the the Green Party, who favour a substantial reduction in oil and gas production, for a pro-independence Holyrood majority.

In summary, as the SNP made the mistake in 2014 (according to the chairman of the SNP's own growth commission) of planning to base Scotland's economy on North Sea revenues, the SNP will need a stronger and more reasoned argument in 2021 to show that they are not making another mistake in planning to base Scotland's economy on joining the EU.

However, these predictions did not come to pass. - In summary, as the SNP made the mistake in 2014 (according to the chairman of the SNP's own growth commission) of planning to base Scotland's economy on North Sea revenues — RussellA

Comes to mind the Scottish idea of getting a fabulous colony in the Mosquito Coast, which would raise vast riches to the country with the Darien scheme in the late 17th Century.

There is something similar with the idea of this external income source ...and not simply having the Scots pay taxes.

In truth, natural resources give far less income than something manufactured with skill and technology.

In truth, natural resources give far less income than something manufactured with skill and technology. — ssu

Oh? I think you'll find some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world have been accumulated by the oil-rich middle eastern states. The largest belongs to Norway..

Well, unlike the British, they indeed have accumulated that wealth because they have not spent it.

Yet in truth, the share of GDP of the oil sector isn't so huge compared to other oil producing countries....which tells something. Norway was already wealthy when it found oil and proved to use the revenues better than for example UK. Actually thanks to the fact that they asked a philosopher what to do with oil revenue.



Now compare how well Venezuela has done with far more larger oil resources.

He added: "Devolution could work perfectly well if only the Conservatives were in charge in Scotland, which would make a triumphant success of it.

What you focus in on amounts to the same thing.
SNP are a failure, we know that they are now the dominant party, so by extension devolution is a failure because it has enabled SNP dominance.
Devolution would work if the Conservatives are in power in Scotland, well of course it would because they would also be in power in Westminster and they would conspire to keep the Scots happy while not enabling Scots to have a say in their affairs unless governed, viewed through a Tory lense.

I recognise the significance of the amendments to the Scotland act. It will be interesting to see if it has any teeth during the tussle over indyref2.

However I won’t be taking seriously anything spoken by a Tory after 2014. They have shown themselves to be disingenuous and self servingly devious after that.

I agree the abolishment of devolution is a not a policy, which I did not suggest, but the Tory’s will be looking to how they can bring Scotland to heal. An impossible task as far as I and many others can see.

In reference to the EU, the ambition of an ever closer Union has faded in recent years in the light of various crises. The development of EU wide policy has been a good thing for the Union as a whole and is focussed on means of cooperation in critical areas, rather than in any kind of arresting of political powers, or institutions. Also the UK has been free to negotiate opt out clauses and vetos.

So the criticisms and failures perceived in the minds of those in the UK about the EU are largely fabricated and have been groomed to transfer our own failures and inability to cooperate in the project of the EU onto the EU parliament.

This has been going on for many years and is fuelled by the right wing client press in the UK. Which has been drip feeding concocted and false narratives into the population for a generation.

If one is looking for genuine reasons for Brexit, it will inevitably lead back to the cancerous influence Murdoch. Alongside the failures in Blair’s government to manage the flows of Eastern European migrants following secession in 2004.

It is certainly not anything to do with the European Commission.

Now if we look at this Westminster/media bubble through the eyes of Scotland, particularly following the EU referendum. Is it any wonder Nicola Sturgeon is doing so well.

Obviously, in an ideal world all four nations should be "independent" — Apollodorus

In an ideal world there would be one world nation.

Pride comes before the fall