[noemon]

Nicola Sturgeon announced her intention to hold a second Scottish independence referendum on Monday.

sturgeon.jpg (51.81 KiB) Viewed 2016 times

Here's everything you need to know about the issue.

Why is Nicola Sturgeon calling for a second referendum?

The First Minister says the EU is key
The First Minister says things have changed since the last referendum. Though there was a vote in September 2014, since then we’ve had the Brexit vote – which Scotland voted against. Theresa May also appears to have failed to offer Scotland any concession and is proceeding with a hard Brexit.

She says Scotland should be offered a choice between independence and Theresa May’s plan.

A more cynical way of answer this question is simply to note that Ms Sturgeon is the leader of the Scottish National Party – which is driven and united by the desire to bring about Scottish independence.

Why today?

Parliament is voting to give the Government the power to trigger Article 50 – giving ministers the power to begin the Brexit process.

The Government is also telling MPs to ditch a House of Lords on giving MPs a “meaningful vote” on the final Brexit deal. The SNP’s strategy juxtaposes its referendum plan with the lack of a vote in the rest of the UK.

What happens next?

Theresa May said a second referendum would sow division (House of Commons)
Nicola Sturgeon says she is going to call a vote in the Scottish Parliament to give her a mandate to invoke another referendum – that will happen within weeks.

After that, the First Minister will have to apply for a so-called “Section 30” provision from the UK Parliament, which still technically holds the reigns for triggering a referendum.

Will a referendum definitely happen?

Not necessarily – Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t actually have the power to unilaterally call a referendum. The UK Parliament, and in practice the party leader with a majority in the UK Parliament – Theresa May – will likely have to give her say-so.

Whether Ms May will grant such a referendum is a different matter. She absolutely does not want one and says it will be divisive. On the other hand, it would clearly be seen as undemocratic for English and Welsh MPs to block Scotland from holding a vote on its own future.

It’s likely that the PM won’t be in a rush to bring any clarity to this question.

What is Section 30 and why is it important?

Section 30 refers to Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, which enshrined Scottish devolution and the Scottish Parliament in law.

The Section allows for the temporary transfer of powers from the UK Parliament to the Scottish Parliament, subject to the UK Parliament’s agreement.

This was how a referendum was officially set up in 2014 and it’s expected to be how things go again.

What happens if Scotland votes to leave the UK?

This will be the meat of the referendum campaign, so we can hardly answer it all here. One relevant point, though, is that the European Union has said on Monday Scotland would have to apply to re-join the EU if it left.

Independent

[Political Interest]

It is too early. They need to wait at least another ten years before they ask this question again or until a time when there is absolute consensus in Scotland that this is what they want to do. If she does this now it will look as if she is just trying to get a yes vote. And then the question could be asked if she would then like to hold a third referendum. But there is obviously tremendous support for independence in Scotland. It is understandable that at this moment the SNP would like to play upon anger over the EU referendum north of the English border. The nationalists also have most of the seats in the region.

[noemon]

It's a shame that Scotland has to threaten with secession to have its arguments heard in Westminster. People used to make a whole fuss about Bosnia in Yugoslavia, but Bosnia had more rights and more voice in Yugoslavia than Scotland has in the UK. Bosnia had an absolutely equal vote with Serbia, ala EU style, one country, one vote regardless of population, size & power.

Now both Theresa May and Sturgeon are in a bind. Theresa wants to ignore the Scottish and N. Irish vote, these guys cannot permit that to happen because they would seem to be like empty pawns so something has got to give.

[Decky]

It is too early. They need to wait at least another ten years before they ask this question again or until a time when there is absolute consensus in Scotland that this is what they want to do. If she does this now it will look as if she is just trying to get a yes vote.

Well of course she just wants a yes vote, what else would she want? When your nation is occupied by a foreign power it is your duty to do everything you can do to remove them.

[Heisenberg]

People used to make a whole fuss about Bosnia in Yugoslavia, but Bosnia had more rights and more voice in Yugoslavia than Scotland has in the UK.

I think the "fuss" might have had something to do with state-sponsored ethnic cleansing.

Then again, I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Nicola Sturgeon claim that the UK government is ethnically cleansing Scotland if she thought it would get her a couple more "yes" votes.

[noemon]

I think the "fuss" might have had something to do with state-sponsored ethnic cleansing.

The war crimes started a long time after the initial fuss about the rights of Bosnians to not be subjected to Serbian administration. The whole thing started when Tito died and they had to vote a new Federal President in place. The constituent parts of Yugoslavia, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro and the Serbian Albanians each having a vote each elected the Serbian Milosevic. Bosnians and Croatians started protesting that it is unfair that a Serb was elected and that they should not be subjected to Serbian will and they started the wars of secession which escalated into the shit-storm years later. At the time all Yugoslavs enjoyed equal rights and the constituent parts enjoyed more independence than Scotland in the UK for example.

[Vanasalus]

Brexit itself, regardless of being "soft" or "hard", is a major constitutional change in UK. And, Scotland voted overwhelmingly "No".

It would have been naive to expect Scots complying to English voters's "Yes" decision without any reaction.

Imho, such a huge paradigm shift in constitutional sense definitely legitimizes demands of independence referendum.

People used to make a whole fuss about Bosnia in Yugoslavia, but Bosnia had more rights and more voice in Yugoslavia than Scotland has in the UK. Bosnia had an absolutely equal vote with Serbia, ala EU style, one country, one vote regardless of population, size & power.

Perhaps yes. But the problem was: Their union was not voluntary. Nobody asked Bosnians', Croatians' or Slovenians' consent when they were forcibly amalgamated into a union.

[Thompson_NCL]

The UK is a unitary state so the Scottish (myself included) have an equal vote in UK politics. What more voice should they have? Of course as usual, noemon is not interested in British history or politics, just seeking another desperate avenue to stave off the inevitable.

[Seeker8]

The prime minister begged Scotland to stay at the at the 2014 referendum, and kept repeating the point that it was a union of equal nations. That Scotland had a completely equal status to England in the union.

If an issue such as leaving the EU has to be decided and it's good for England but bad for Scotland then some kind of compromise has to be reached otherwise how are the two nations equal?

[Thompson_NCL]

The prime minister begged Scotland to stay at the at the 2014 referendum, and kept repeating the point that it was a union of equal nations. That Scotland had a completely equal status to England in the union.

If an issue such as leaving the EU has to be decided and it's good for England but bad for Scotland then some kind of compromise has to be reached otherwise how are the two nations equal?

Scotland does have an equal voice in the union, which is why we all get to elect our MP for the UK parliament. I don't think he ever meant what you're suggesting he meant. That is just a poor attempt to suggest the UK government was lying. And the Scottish government is JUNIOR to Westminster.

Anyway, the issue was settled in 2014. No need for another referendum in my lifetime.

[Beren]

Anyway, the issue was settled in 2014. No need for another referendum in my lifetime.

Don't you think that Brexit could be considered relevant enough to have been changing the circumstances since 2014 so much that it makes another referendum somewhat necessary or even desirable perhaps?

[Seeker8]

Scotland does have an equal voice in the union, which is why we all get to elect our MP for the UK parliament. I don't think he ever meant what you're suggesting he meant. That is just a poor attempt to suggest the UK government was lying. And the Scottish government is JUNIOR to Westminster.

Anyway, the issue was settled in 2014. No need for another referendum in my lifetime.

He said the UK is a union of four equal nations. Not individuals, NATIONS. That was exactly what he said. Of course he didn't mean it because the Tories are liars, but we will hold them to it.

I want a referendum because i think we will win this time, but i'm really hoping May rejects it or delays it as is being reported, because that will mean the union is definitely over.

[Seeker8]

Don't you think that Brexit could be considered relevant enough to have been changing the circumstances since 2014 so much that it makes another referendum somewhat necessary or even desirable perhaps?

If people vote for a party promising a referendum they should get it, no matter how many they've had. The people will decide when they've had enough.

[noemon]

Perhaps yes. But the problem was: Their union was not voluntary. Nobody asked Bosnians', Croatians' or Slovenians' consent when they were forcibly amalgamated into a union.

They did, the Kingdom of Croatians, Serbians and Slovenes which included Bosnia willingly joined the Kingdom of Serbia to form Yugoslavia. And even though Bosnians and Albanians were not constituent parts in the original union, Yugoslavia turned them into constituent nations with equal power to the rest after WW2.

[Thompson_NCL]

Don't you think that Brexit could be considered relevant enough to have been changing the circumstances since 2014 so much that it makes another referendum somewhat necessary or even desirable perhaps?

No, not at all. Our membership of the EU was settled by a referendum last year which everyone got a chance to vote in. Given that we are a unitary state, the fact a majority of Scots voted to remain is not of any significance. No more than London voting to remain.

Personally, I think the Scottish parliament should be dissolved along with the Welsh assembly.

[Beren]

No, not at all. Our membership of the EU was settled by a referendum last year which everyone got a chance to vote in. Given that we are a unitary state, the fact a majority of Scots voted to remain is not of any significance. No more than London voting to remain.

Personally, I think the Scottish parliament should be dissolved along with the Welsh assembly.

If you're such a unitary state how could the Scottish referendum happen at all?

I wonder if London should hold a referendum on whether they should remain in the UK.

It's really amusing you use this parallel between London and Scotland as if they were the same case indeed.

[snapdragon]

Don't you think that Brexit could be considered relevant enough to have been changing the circumstances since 2014 so much that it makes another referendum somewhat necessary or even desirable perhaps?

Not if you consider that an independent Scotland doesn't fit the criteria of joining the EU.

To clarify: Scotland's deficit is 9.5% of GDP.

The criteria for joining the EU is a maximum of 3.5%.

[Beren]

Not if you consider that an independent Scotland doesn't fit the criteria of joining the EU.

To clarify: Scotland's deficit is 9.5% of GDP.

The criteria for joining the EU is a maximum of 3.5%.

How does it matter if they could join the EU? Brexit could make them change their minds anyway. They could join later when they fit the criteria. They could have access to the single market until then.

[Heisenberg]

The difference between the UK and Yugoslavia is that the latter was officially a federation. The UK is not. Devolution by Blair's government certainly undermined the UK's status as a unitary state, but to say that Scotland is in a worse position than Bosnia in the 90s is such a ridiculous exaggeration that it's impossible to take it seriously. The Scots wouldn't know real oppression if it hit them in the face. That obviously won't stop them whining about how hard up they are, though.

[snapdragon]

How does it matter if they could join the EU?

They can't, but Nicola Sturgeon is using the fact a majority of the people of Scotland voted to remain as a reason for calling for another referendum a mere couple of years after the last one.
She's claiming Scotland could join as an independent state.

Well, no they can't.

Brexit could make them change their minds anyway. They could join later when they fit the criteria. They could have access to the single market until then.

Very unlikely, but that isn't what she's saying, anyway.