Scotland's independence -

[Closet Sorcerer]

I can't make heads or tails about what a possible new independence referundum would have as consequences for all the parties involved.

From what I gathered (and I might be wrong, feel free to correct me), Scotland's main reason to vote "no" for the 2014 referundum was the fact that the UK would stay in the EU. Now that Brexit happened, the Scots want to take their ball to Brussels. However, the "what would happen" is very mushy for me.

As many of our Brit Kiwis said, the UK is a financial powerhouse, but what "matters" outside of the City in economic terms ? What would be the consequences for them and the UK as a whole ?

EDIT : date fixed, thanks to @LagoonaBlue for pointing it out.

 

[MMMMMM]

Was actually thinking of making a thread about this myself, sort of glad somebody else did it first.

I'm writing a lot here so take this disclaimer before you start: I'm massively biased in favour of Scottish independence and have a deep investment in this shitstorm resulting in Scotland breaking out of the UK and preferably into the EU. Since I know most people here aren't even in the UK, I'll attempt to be neutral in regards to how I present the facts.

It's an exaggaration to say that Scotland voted No last time because it wanted to remain in the EU, until a couple of years ago it wasn't something most British people thought too much about. EU election participation has always been pretty low, it wasn't until the memelord Farage got momentum that people really considered it.

I'd say there's a few main reasons Scotland voted no. The first is that it seems like a big risk, and people instinctively try not to rock the boat. The second main reason was the uncertainty about various institutions, the status of the EU, the currency, how everything would be divided up. Can Holyrood really guarantee that Scottish oil will remain Scottish, etc. And the third reason that really won the campaign was the now infamous "Vow", along with all the other promises made about what Scotland would get if it voted No. It's notable that this vow was annonced just as the polling indicated a Yes majority vote, the timing was clearly not a coincidence.

So while Scotland wasn't exactly staunch in its EU support (Something like 36% of Yes voters don't even want the EU) , the Scottish National Party did include a little caveat in their 2015 manifesto that effectively said "If we think you're not keeping your end of the deal, we're outta here", and they won a landslide. This coupled with the fact that Holyrood has a pro-independence majority basically give the Scottish Government a mandate to try all this again.

The mushy "what would happen" is a really good question with not many good answers, so far we've had a few individuals who don't speak on behalf of the entire EU say positive things. Essentially since the entire UK already meets the necessary criteria to be in the EU, there is much less work that needs to be done to bring Scotland to EU standards. (Compared to say, Turkey for example, which is only getting further away)

As far as economic consequences go, this is where it gets messy. There's a lot of arguing back-and-forth over how much Scotland contributes versus how much it uses, and because the people most qualified to speak on economics are also the most incentivised to lie about it, we're still none the wiser. Suffice it to say that countries such as Finland and New Zealand seem to be doing adequately despite being of similar size, and without being financial powerhouses.
Another point is that the party currently ruling the UK has overseen the deconstruction of almost all of Britain's industrial giants, and that if Scotland was truly that much of a burden, it too would have been dropped long ago.

Alright I wrote way too much so I'll leave it there for now, but I'm probably going to be active in this thread until we actually get the result.

 

[Ravenor]

As far as economic consequences go, this is where it gets messy. There's a lot of arguing back-and-forth over how much Scotland contributes versus how much it uses, and because the people most qualified to speak on economics are also the most incentivised to lie about it, we're still none the wiser. Suffice it to say that countries such as Finland and New Zealand seem to be doing adequately despite being of similar size, and without being financial powerhouses.
Another point is that the party currently ruling the UK has overseen the deconstruction of almost all of Britain's industrial giants, and that if Scotland was truly that much of a burden, it too would have been dropped long ago.

The problem is without Oil (and their is scant chance of you keeping that), Scotland costs more from the rest of the UK perperson than it contributes back so a lot of things would have to change like free uni, totally free perscriptions etc etc, you might be the same size but the vast majority of Scotland is either uninhabited and not suitable for serious farming so that's the NZ model off the table, and you haven't got the resources that Finland has.

On the positive side you do have some killer uni's and a really stunningly beautiful landscape and easy access to the rest of the EU and North America so tourism would be big cash cow.

I'd also like to ask the most educated man I know north of the border @Vitriol to weigh in on this as he knows the situation far better than me, and personally I'm neutral on the subject and feel that Scotland get's a raw deal in an awful lot of ways but the way this is being handled is wrong.

 

[AnOminous]

Alright I wrote way too much so I'll leave it there for now, but I'm probably going to be active in this thread until we actually get the result.

The really important part is what do you call it? Scexit sounds HORRIBLE.

Also this is kind of necessary.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

It's an exaggaration to say that Scotland voted No last time because it wanted to remain in the EU, until a couple of years ago it wasn't something most British people thought too much about. EU election participation has always been pretty low, it wasn't until the memelord Farage got momentum that people really considered it.

I'd say there's a few main reasons Scotland voted no. The first is that it seems like a big risk, and people instinctively try not to rock the boat. The second main reason was the uncertainty about various institutions, the status of the EU, the currency, how everything would be divided up. Can Holyrood really guarantee that Scottish oil will remain Scottish, etc. And the third reason that really won the campaign was the now infamous "Vow", along with all the other promises made about what Scotland would get if it voted No. It's notable that this vow was annonced just as the polling indicated a Yes majority vote, the timing was clearly not a coincidence.

So while Scotland wasn't exactly staunch in its EU support (Something like 36% of Yes voters don't even want the EU) , the Scottish National Party did include a little caveat in their 2015 manifesto that effectively said "If we think you're not keeping your end of the deal, we're outta here", and they won a landslide. This coupled with the fact that Holyrood has a pro-independence majority basically give the Scottish Government a mandate to try all this again.

And while Rome Burns, Sturgeon struts the stage and flies off to the EU for meetings (which devolved into a farce as nobody would meet with her). There are oh so many domestic problems banking up in Scotland and the SNP have had over a decade with a lot of power to fix or lobby for powers to fix them.

Turnout in Scotland was also the lowest out of the entire union. Indeed, less people voted for the EU than voted for the Union. By about a million or so.

Blaming people South of the Border wears insanely thin when most domestic powers now rest in Hollyrood.

It's quite a nice long term trap set up by the Unionists for the Nats, it's a slow-drip type and the fact the Scottish Tories of all people seem to be leading the unionist charge thanks to the uselessness of Scottish Labour amuses me no end. Sturgeon likes to endlessly blame and bash the rest of the Union for Scotland's own shortcomings when her party has now been in control since 2007.

I remember Labour making those same shitty exuses when they ran out of taxpayers money and then tried to blame Major and Thatcher for all their woes some 13 years from when they'd been in office.

We should be seeing Scotland take control of her internal destiny and improving the lot of its people, but instead we get centralizing disasters like Police Scotland which, thanks to how badly the force works, resulted in two people dying in a cold ditch due to sheer negligence and incompetence over which "zone" should take responsibility.

The mushy "what would happen" is a really good question with not many good answers, so far we've had a few individuals who don't speak on behalf of the entire EU say positive things. Essentially since the entire UK already meets the necessary criteria to be in the EU, there is much less work that needs to be done to bring Scotland to EU standards. (Compared to say, Turkey for example, which is only getting further away)

Scotland in the Union right now is a drain on resources. The UK government sends some £10bn annually north of the border that keeps scottish government spending at what it needs to, and it has been this way for years. The rest of the UK could benefit by Scotland leaving to the tune of the same amount it's due to save from the EU at its worse possible outcome of WTO rules.

Oh and while the UK does meet criteria for being inside the EU, it does not meet the criteria for joining the EU any more.

New applicants have to run with the Euro as their currency upon joining. They also have to run a budget surplus for three years prior to that.

Meaning Scotland will need its own currency and its own central bank during that time. Pegging any scottish currency to the British pound for conveniences sake would make the action itself an utter farce and one the EU would find deeply suspicious and question the true value of the scottish currency and economy.

And pegging it to something like the Euro... would just be a rerun of Black Monday contained to Scotland.

Several states (Italy and Spain in particular) have no desire whatsoever to see any kind of seperatist state joining the EU.

The EU, having just watched it's second biggest paymaster walk away (and biggest per head) is hardly going to be interested in Scotland joining the EU who will probably be looking to desperately plug that annual £10bn/12bn euro gaping wound in its public finances.

They've already made it very clear they'd block any attempt at Scotland joining to the point Sturgeon is now reportly ditching the idea of joining the EU.

Which kind of puts her at odds with her position of calling the a second referendum (on the basis she wants to protect Scotland's place in the EU single market) as a confused mess and utter joke.

Never mind that Scottish ministers were calling up businesses during the week after her announcement basically telling them it was a bluff to reassure them and to stop them fleeing south of the border.

She is sabre rattling for the sake of a measily £12bn scotland sends to the EU. versus the nearer £70bn that Scotland flogs to the rest of the UK all to try and extract something out of the government because they won't tongue her representatives arse during the monthly meetings on the withdrawal process.

As far as economic consequences go, this is where it gets messy. There's a lot of arguing back-and-forth over how much Scotland contributes versus how much it uses, and because the people most qualified to speak on economics are also the most incentivised to lie about it, we're still none the wiser. Suffice it to say that countries such as Finland and New Zealand seem to be doing adequately despite being of similar size, and without being financial powerhouses.

They also have people actually wanting to move there.

Scotland does not.

It's population has basically remained static for some fifty years. No migrants want to go there when they have the freedom to move anywhere in the british isles and wider EU. England by comparison has risen by 10 million and even the Welsh have managed to import or shag another 800,000 or more of themselves into existence.

Independence is not going to cure that, and any "lax" migration policy scotland adopts to try and encourage it would just fuck up North-South commerce as the UK would obviously have to erect border checks or even an actual wall to stop the inevitable flood of people trying to sneak down here illegally.

Another point is that the party currently ruling the UK has overseen the deconstruction of almost all of Britain's industrial giants, and that if Scotland was truly that much of a burden, it too would have been dropped long ago.

So, so many points lost for using "fatcha" as an excuse. She's been dead five years and out of power for 27. Fishing was devastated by the EU common fisheries policy and a throttle put on agriculture thanks to the CAP.

Thanks to the EU we also cannot subsidize businesses that we may want to defend (like, say, shipbuilding yards, oil workers, defence contractors etc).

Ya know, all that heavy industry scotland still boasts?

I find it fun watching the SNP strut around pretending its a grown up government when, even handed far far more money than it should have per head it still fucks things up on a regular basis.

But hearing the yapping of the dwarf in the north when Manchester or Yorkshire has more people in it is getting rather tiresome.

If it hadn't been in the "vow" I'd be offering Sturgeon full fiscal autonomy for Scotland.

Just to see if she'd make a faster U-turn than the chancellor this week on National Insurance.

 

[MMMMMM]

Turnout in Scotland was also the lowest out of the entire union

No, that was Northern Ireland with 62.7% against Scotland's 67.2%. I also looked up the difference between the vote for the Union against the vote for the EU, it's more like 400,000.

Scotland in the Union right now is a drain on resources

This is a forced meme, for years Scotland has been paying into HMRC more than it has been allocated.

Meaning Scotland will need its own currency and its own central bank during that time. Pegging any scottish currency to the British pound for conveniences sake would make the action itself an utter farce and one the EU would find deeply suspicious and question the true value of the scottish currency and economy

I don't see why it would be suspicious, everybody in the EU knows that this is a unique scenario and that it may potentially be a necessary step to maintaining the EU status of Scotland. If some random nation switched to the pound prior to applying, that would raise a few eyebrows, but in this case it's probably not a dealbreaker.

They've already made it very clear they'd block any attempt at Scotland joining to the point Sturgeon is now reportly ditching the idea of joining the EU.

This is the only point I'm going to ask for a source for, I've looked but cannot find anything concrete on this. Suffice it to say it contradicts what little we currently are hearing from the EU.

So, so many points lost for using "fatcha" as an excuse.

You misread, there was no excuse-making. My point was that the Conservative Party does not tolerate poor profit margins, and prefers to sell off anything it can. The conclusion I'm leading you to here is that the UK would have happily said cheerio to Scotland if they would have been better off without it.

If it hadn't been in the "vow" I'd be offering Sturgeon full fiscal autonomy for Scotland.

This was actually the third option for the first independence vote, Cameron negotiated the question down to a simple Yes/No in exchange for letting 16/17 year olds vote. It's not something the SNP is likely to shy away from.

 

[admiral]

If Scotland stays in the UK it's shitty, if it leaves it's also shitty. I do agree with May, though, that a referendum now would be a poor idea. I think Sturgeon's hooked on a single issue and dumb uni kids and old crusties latch onto her because they don't like England. I'm not Scottish, but I live here and honestly I think the way things are now are as good as it's going to get for now.

 

[Inquisitor_BadAss]

No, that was Northern Ireland with 62.7% against Scotland's 67.2%. I also looked up the difference between the vote for the Union against the vote for the EU, it's more like 400,000.


This is a forced meme, for years Scotland has been paying into HMRC more than it has been allocated.


I don't see why it would be suspicious, everybody in the EU knows that this is a unique scenario and that it may potentially be a necessary step to maintaining the EU status of Scotland. If some random nation switched to the pound prior to applying, that would raise a few eyebrows, but in this case it's probably not a dealbreaker.


This is the only point I'm going to ask for a source for, I've looked but cannot find anything concrete on this. Suffice it to say it contradicts what little we currently are hearing from the EU.


You misread, there was no excuse-making. My point was that the Conservative Party does not tolerate poor profit margins, and prefers to sell off anything it can. The conclusion I'm leading you to here is that the UK would have happily said cheerio to Scotland if they would have been better off without it.


This was actually the third option for the first independence vote, Cameron negotiated the question down to a simple Yes/No in exchange for letting 16/17 year olds vote. It's not something the SNP is likely to shy away from.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....on-members-block-independent-scotland-bid/amp

I also remember this being reported on TV when she was meeting EU leaders saying there would vetoes against Scottish membership.

 

[LagoonaBlue]

OP, the referendum was in 2014 not 2015.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

Anyone who has read my semi-serious posts here knows that I have more sympathy for separatist movements than just about anyone else in the world, but if you're a Scottish Nationalist you're basically voting entirely on heart. I can't judge you, I'm a fucking Neo-Confederate, but the outlook of an independent Scotland is bleak, and I take a dim view regardless as long as a "Republic" is even on the table whether they actually say they'll split from the monarchy or not. I think for me, the question is what they would gain. They have their own everything to my understanding, they are practically an autonomous nation within the wider UK- at least when you compare similar situations around the world. They would just lose the pound, maybe lose the Crown (and thus one of the most effective tools of international diplomacy in the world), and be slightly poorer. But their languages? Protected. Their own education system? Taxation? They have it all (to my limited understanding.) American states don't have so many rights. Only one Canadian province really does.

What's to gain? I suppose just independence in the technical sense, which I would defend as worthwhile, but they should think long and hard about it.

 

[Vitriol]

The problem is without Oil (and their is scant chance of you keeping that), Scotland costs more from the rest of the UK perperson than it contributes back so a lot of things would have to change like free uni, totally free perscriptions etc etc, you might be the same size but the vast majority of Scotland is either uninhabited and not suitable for serious farming so that's the NZ model off the table, and you haven't got the resources that Finland has.

On the positive side you do have some killer uni's and a really stunningly beautiful landscape and easy access to the rest of the EU and North America so tourism would be big cash cow.

I'd also like to ask the most educated man I know north of the border @Vitriol to weigh in on this as he knows the situation far better than me, and personally I'm neutral on the subject and feel that Scotland get's a raw deal in an awful lot of ways but the way this is being handled is wrong.

I think the whole situation is a mess.

I've seen convincing arguements both ways regarding whether scotland is a net drain or benefit to the union. My conclusion is that nobody really knows and that the difference either way probably isnt that much.

Scotland as a country has a population between ireland and denmark. It has a gdp between ireland and denmark.

In the immediate term i would expect the leftist gov to borrow a ton, slide into debt and then in about 20-30years turn sharply to the right- something like ireland or denmark. You may be seeing a theme.

Scotland is different to the rest of the uk, we have an export foccussed market, a problem with population growth and brain drain.

At the last referendum i opinioned that the issue for me came to one of self determination- if the demos of scotland no longer feels its interests align with the uk majority then it should leave and embrace the consequences for better or worse. On a personal level i prefer smaller countries and feel they are more accountable to their people and voted out last time.

However i did so on the understanding that this was the only vote for the next 30years. I think it is far more dangerous to our society to reward a party for outright lying than the potential benefits of independence. There is a myth that the situation has fundamentally changed, but the possibility of an english vote for brexit was widely and commonly discussed. I do not consider the situation therefore to have fundamentally changed and will not oblige the snp with a vote in favour this time. Referenda are open to abuse if they are allowed to be re run again and again. I didnt get the vote i wanted in 14 i did in 16. I do not want either to be re run and think it is extremely dangerous to start down that road.

The nationalists should have gone for ffa imo and in 20 years cqlled a new ref with their handling of the economy under ffa as proof of the viability of iscotland.

 

[Pickle Inspector]

I think it's extremely unlikely Scots would vote to leave the union, the poll of polls on the subject currently show 56% of people polled want to remain and 44% want to leave when the don't knows are removed (53% remain and 42% leave with the don't knows included)
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/quest...ttish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask

Some reasons I think it's the case is:

There is no way a referendum will be allowed until the UK is out of the EU and by that time Scotland would definitely have to rejoin (An independent Scotland would probally have to currently rejoin anyway) and it's questionable if Scotland would even be accepted with current EU rules. (Having a budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less)

Oil prices

There are a percentage of people who previously voted to leave the union who wanted out of the EU AND the British union and would rather Scotland stay part of the United Kingdom than rejoin the EU.

 

[Vitriol]

I think it's extremely unlikely Scots would vote to leave the union, the poll of polls on the subject currently show 56% of people polled want to remain and 44% want to leave when the don't knows are removed (53% remain and 42% leave with the don't knows included)

my biggest worry is apathy: we have now had a major vote in scotland in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016. Not counting EU elections or the '16 scots election. fatigue is setting in, election war chests are badly depleted. The nats side have a passion that will help their turn out, much more difficult to motivate that for the union. We may sleepwalk out of the union.

There is no way a referendum will be allowed until the UK is out of the EU and by that time Scotland would definitely have to rejoin (An independent Scotland would probally have to currently rejoin anyway) and it's questionable if Scotland would even be accepted with current EU rules. (Having a budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less)

agreed and such uncertainty was a major problem for the yes campaign in '14.

Oil prices

Also agreed. I think this is a fairly major point for the union. Infact i think this has the potential to win it for the union side.

There are a percentage of people who previously voted to leave the union who wanted out of the EU AND the British union and would rather Scotland stay part of the United Kingdom than rejoin the EU

there are, and I am probably one of them, but i dont believe there are all that many of us 'tartan tories'.

I think it is also worth pointing out that the SNP have been in gov for 10 years now. Gov fatigue has not yet set in but they know it will- their voteshare seems to have peaked and they are now taking a major advantage of labour's disastrous shambles. This could help or hinder them. If the referendum turns into a debate between Davidson, Dugdale and Sturgeon, Sturgeon will win. If it turns into a debate between an english MP and the FM that will also not go well for the union side. There is no alistair darling now and while Brown almost single handily saved the union last time, that trick only works once. Worse case scenario would be a return of TB who has been attempting to make a return since brexit.

Just points to think on.

 

[Here to Lurk]

The really important part is what do you call it? Scexit sounds HORRIBLE.[/QUOTE
Scotaddle.

 

[RisingPhoenix]

If I recall part of the issue for the EU in regards to Scotland is that other nations in the union have similar situations where chunks of countries might like independence and/or to become EU members of their own right too, so admitting Scotland is rather awkward for other member states to deal with. I also imagine it would be kinda awkward for EU to have a massive roadblock in the free travel agreement region.

Personally I don't have a horse in the race other than I'm British and it would be nice to keep the union together, but if Scotland wants to go it's own way then I don't really have a problem with it outside concerns on how the Scottish people would fare after.

Like I wouldn't want to have a senario where Scotland leaves and it's great - everyone parties and enjoys the highs of breaking free. But then you get stories running a few years in where poverty gets worse, services slashed ect.

I want to stress I don't mean that as an inevitability, I loathed how "No" was pretty much all "if you leave yer boned" and sort of expected a Yes win because of it. Just...I wouldn't want the Scots to come out of it badly in the long run is all. The SNP don't entirely fill me with faith on that matter, and not sure the other parties could handle the job once the deed is done. But maybe there's something I'm missing in that area. I just get the impression that SNP is very much like UKIP - their one major selling point is all they are really good for, after that they'll crumble apart.

 

[Lorento]

I just get the impression that SNP is very much like UKIP - their one major selling point is all they are really good for, after that they'll crumble apart.

It's true, perhaps more than Sturgeon or Farage would admit. The SNP have one issue and one issue only, to get Scotland out of the Union. They'll spend the UK Government's money, sure, but when it comes to the crunch they really just want to get out. And once they do and that money stops coming, they will collapse because the Scots will immediately reject the tremendous budget deficit they have.

 

[Larry Thorne]

As an outside the impression I get is that there are actually no good reasons for leaving the Union. If all you ever talk about is the economy you have failed. All other separatist movements are about a culture/people being oppressed and your concerns being ignored by the national government.

None of that is true for Scotland. Independence seems like a vanity project at best and motivated by spite at worst.

 

[MMMMMM]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....on-members-block-independent-scotland-bid/amp

I also remember this being reported on TV when she was meeting EU leaders saying there would vetoes against Scottish membership.

"A senior Whitehall source said"
Some organisations can be trusted to write things like this, but the Express is not one of them. I'm not saying it's not true, but coming from them I'd put money on it being completely fabricated.

Anyone who has read my semi-serious posts here knows that I have more sympathy for separatist movements than just about anyone else in the world, but if you're a Scottish Nationalist you're basically voting entirely on heart. I can't judge you, I'm a fucking Neo-Confederate, but the outlook of an independent Scotland is bleak, and I take a dim view regardless as long as a "Republic" is even on the table whether they actually say they'll split from the monarchy or not. I think for me, the question is what they would gain. They have their own everything to my understanding, they are practically an autonomous nation within the wider UK- at least when you compare similar situations around the world. They would just lose the pound, maybe lose the Crown (and thus one of the most effective tools of international diplomacy in the world), and be slightly poorer. But their languages? Protected. Their own education system? Taxation? They have it all (to my limited understanding.) American states don't have so many rights. Only one Canadian province really does.

What's to gain? I suppose just independence in the technical sense, which I would defend as worthwhile, but they should think long and hard about it.

The outlook is already bleak, which is probably why the only places that had a majority Yes vote happened to be in some of our more deprived areas.
Scotland doesn't exactly have it's own everything, there are some things devolved to the Scottish parliment but ultimately if Westminster decide to make obscene budget cuts, or start another expensive war, there is no recourse for Scotland. And at the discrection of the Speaker of the House, Scottish MP's can be excluded from any vote that is deemed to be the concern of England alone. (That last part hasn't been abused yet to my knowledge, it was only implemented about a year ago)

As for what there is to gain, consider how Scotland has been treated in recent years. Contempt doesn't even begin to describe it, I am now fully convinced that the ruling class of the UK despises Scotland, and now that both the Conservative and Labour party have almost ceased to exist north of the border, they're not even interested in winning votes anymore. It's actually to their advantage to undermine Scotland in any way, and we've seen it happen more and more. Not that independence will fully insulate Scotland from this hatred, but it will be a step away at least.

However i did so on the understanding that this was the only vote for the next 30years. I think it is far more dangerous to our society to reward a party for outright lying than the potential benefits of independence. There is a myth that the situation has fundamentally changed, but the possibility of an english vote for brexit was widely and commonly discussed. I do not consider the situation therefore to have fundamentally changed and will not oblige the snp with a vote in favour this time. Referenda are open to abuse if they are allowed to be re run again and again. I didnt get the vote i wanted in 14 i did in 16. I do not want either to be re run and think it is extremely dangerous to start down that road.

The nationalists should have gone for ffa imo and in 20 years cqlled a new ref with their handling of the economy under ffa as proof of the viability of iscotland.

Unfortunately you won't have a choice, in the event of a refurendum you will either reward one party for lying, or you will reward several. The parties on the Better Together bandwagon promised that a No vote was the only way to ensure EU membership, (lmao) and that Scotland would be rewarded for its loyalty with new powers, and some major engineering contracts. The massive carbon facility was cancelled, the ships on the Clyde were cancelled, and we already have the Tories arguing against Scotland being given the powers that we are taking back from the EU following Brexit.

It doesn't get more fundamental than this, if two parties reach an agreement and one party refuses to uphold their side of the bargain, there is now no reason for the second party to adhere to its promises.

there are, and I am probably one of them, but i dont believe there are all that many of us 'tartan tories'.

You're not in a very enviable position, conservative Scots are already a minority, and anti-EU tories even more so. I'm honestly not sure what I'd do in your position, it seems to be that the party is throwing its lot in with the UK Conservatives on every issue, but that could simply be an anti-SNP strategy. I have no idea how the rank and file feel.

It's true, perhaps more than Sturgeon or Farage would admit. The SNP have one issue and one issue only, to get Scotland out of the Union. They'll spend the UK Government's money, sure, but when it comes to the crunch they really just want to get out. And once they do and that money stops coming, they will collapse because the Scots will immediately reject the tremendous budget deficit they have.

There's no nice way to say this: this is fantasy.

Even back in the days where the SNP were small-time, they took on every big issue. Their policies on energy, nuclear weapons, education and social justice have been in their manifesto for as long as I can remember. But those aren't just for show, they take these issues seriously. Once they were the big players in the Scottish parliment, they set about working towards their non-independence goals. They don't always hit every expectation, but in general their track record has been decent.
In fact, prior to the prospect of Scotland actually becoming independent, they had voters who didn't even want independence, they just wanted a party that was halfway competent.

As an outside the impression I get is that there are actually no good reasons for leaving the Union. If all you ever talk about is the economy you have failed. All other separatist movements are about a culture/people being oppressed and your concerns being ignored by the national government.

None of that is true for Scotland. Independence seems like a vanity project at best and motivated by spite at worst.

It's the opposite, the economic arguments were the weakest focus of the campaign last time.

And while most of the oppression of Scotland is historical (barring the idealogical opposition of Gaelic which continues right up to the present day), it cannot be denied that the nation as a whole is largely being ignored by governments that couldn't telegraph their disintrest any more if they tried. Take Brexit as the latest example, the Scottish government has been denied any inside knowledge of what the plan is, even a token gesture to allay a few doubts was denied. That is the true trigger for indyref2, this was wholly avoidable.

 

[Florence]

I do think it's fairly ridiculous the way Sturgeon and Salmond have been banging on about how the Scots have been kept down for centuries by their English overlords.If anything, the Welsh have a much better claim to being oppressed. The last king to solely rule Scotland was invited to London to become King of England; of the last two true Princes of Wales, one was forced into hiding and the other had his head on a spike at the Tower.

Plaid Cymru can go stuff themselves though.