|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 2, 2020 14:00:12 GMT
But if the Scottish had voted yes in 2014, would the EU referendum outcome been a No due to that experience? Those arguing against a border with Scotland in 2014 would have to argue for a border with Scotland in the Eu referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Aug 2, 2020 14:30:01 GMT
Just bumping this thread, with a slight tweak, on the back of conversations I've had in recent weeks with 3 (separate) Scots that I know on this subject. They all voted NO in 2014, but they all said that, with hindsight (with this of course being before the EU ref vote) - if they had known that leaving the Eu was very likely in the near future - all 3 would have reluctantly voted YES. So, does anyone have an opinion on how the IndyRef result would have gone if the vote had been held in, say September 2016, rather than September 2014? And if Scotland had voted YES in 2016, how would that have affected negotiations between rUK and EU ; and how would the EU have handled the Scottish situation [as at the time of a Sept 16 Indy vote the UK was still a fully signed-up EU member, well before Article 50 expired, so it would be different to how the situation would be if Scotland voted Indy in any subsequent IndyRef vote, as the UK will have now fully left the EU by the time any future IndyRef vote takes place.] *NB I tagged this on to the existing IndyRef thread, as I thought it was similar in nature, but if Admins think it merits a separate thread, please do the necessary Very complex But in simple terms no election in 2017 and may,s deal or something close to it is agreed . What blocked a deal was combo of hard remainers and hard leavers but get rid of 60 of the former plus add 33 tory mps in remain/soft leave seats that were lost in 2017 then the odds of deal look a lot better. Interesting prognosis. Any thought on how the EU negotiations with an Independent Scotland would go? Would they be allowed to rejoin on the nod? if not there would need to be separate negotiations between Scot & EU, alongside the ongoing rUK & EU negotiations. Very messy. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Aug 2, 2020 14:30:57 GMT
But if the Scottish had voted yes in 2014, would the EU referendum outcome been a No due to that experience? Not sure if you're referring back to the OP, rather than the scenario I raised. In my scenario the vote never happened in 2014. |
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,676 
Member is Online
|
Post by myth11 on Aug 2, 2020 15:03:47 GMT
Scotland would likely be fast tracked but the EU would offer a join everything as it can not offer a "better deal" than the last member in or be seen to support break ups and assuming Scotland says yes to everything the EU wants you are looking at around 5 years before Scotland becomes a full member.If you think 5 years is a long time it took the last member Croatia 10 years to join. I would expect a Association Agreement to offered very quickly.
Yes very messy with lots of pot holes.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Aug 2, 2020 16:07:14 GMT
'With daily cases in single figures and no deaths in 24 days, the Royal Regiment of Scotland have been called in to assist Police Scotland with maintaining order at the border with England. The current soft border with England, temporarily in place since independence in 2016 and under discussion during the accession negotiations with the EU due to be completed by 2021, has recently seen an influx of English tourists escaping restrictions now in place in much of the north of Great Britain. National Conservative Prime Minister Ruth Davidson, who only took power in early March after the General Election and an advocate for the retention of the soft border expressed some concern over her once colleague, Great British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's anger over the restrictions; 'I find it somewhat ironic that after years of advocating for Schengen restrictions to apply, and using it as a path to sweep Labour out of office, that even temporary restrictions to the open border to stem the tide of Coronavirus seems to finally now cause him concern.' The latest crisis comes after the Queen confirmed that she would not be attending Balmoral this year. Support for a referendum on establishing a Republic, reaching a peak of 62% in mid July and almost caused a constitutional crisis, has dipped to 52% in the latest poll published today.'
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 12,734
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 2, 2020 16:08:13 GMT
So, does anyone have an opinion on how the IndyRef result would have gone if the vote had been held in, say September 2016, rather than September 2014? There wouldn't have been an IndyRef. It was all Cameron's project to appease the Scots, and he walked the morning after Brexit winning. The Westminster government was still chaotically trying to find its feet and trying to placate both sides in September 2016, a Scottish independence referendum would never have happened that quickly. Remember, it turned out we were only six months off another general election in the autumn of 2016, and OTL it took six months to get the referendum into law, and then twelved months until the actual vote. Even assuming perfect government and parliamentary processes, it's difficult to see a commitment to a referendum in July 2016 without a confirmatory general election. With no general election the earliest would be autumn 2018, with the throw-away-the-majority election that did happen, it wouldn't get through Government or Parliament, so we're left with Boris Johnson putting IndyRef in the 2019 election manifesto. Without Covid that makes autumn 2021 at the earliest. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Aug 2, 2020 16:51:31 GMT
Yes but I think that's just "not playing the game". This is a 'what if' thread. You cant really just say that wouldnt have happened. Anyway there is no reason why - as you say to appease the Scots - that Cameron couldnt have legislated in 2015 to have an IndyRef in Sep 16. Remember everyone was assuming that the EU ref was going to give a 'remain' result (even the brexiters), so it would be entirely plausible timeline. Even if it wasnt specifically in Sep 16, the general thrust of my scenario still stands (any date between 24 June 2016 and 28 march 2019 would still satisfy my criteria for the scenario to be valid). The key factors being:
1) Indy Ref happens AFTER EU Ref, not before
2) How the negotiations between both EU & rUK and between EU & Indy Scotland would be conducted. How would they differ from each other and how would they differ from the way they actually played out?
So my overarching question isnt "whether it would/could have happened", but "assuming it DID happen, how would it all play out"?
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,520
|
Post by pl on Aug 2, 2020 17:00:49 GMT
Let's take a look a the timetable of events here before we move into a What If scenario.
Scotland
Indyref is 18 September 2014
Scottish parliamentary elections 5 May 2016
UK/England
Cameron promises renegotiation and referendum should Conservatives win next election January 2013
UKIP wins EP14 election 22 May 2014
Conservative manifesto launch (promises an EU referendum by 2017) 15 April 2015
UK General election 7 May 2015
Brexit Referendum 23 June 2016
Let's establish a point of departure (PoV) of the timelines as IndyRef day 18 September 2014. We'll assume 'Yes' Get Out The Vote is better than in Our TimeLine, more favourable weather for the 'Yes' campaign and/or some silly eve of poll gaff by the 'No' campaign. Essentially, there is no POLICY reason for the PoV, just "events".
So we have the PoV after Cameron has started talking about an EU referendum and after UKIP wins the 2014 European Parliament election. So Cameron is semi-committed now to referendum and the UKIP pressure is on the Conservatives.
However, the 'Yes' vote on 18 September 2014 changes everything. Cameron may well resign, but the Conservatives quickly choose another leader (they are good at this when needs be). The new leader is not necessarily as committed as Cameron was to the EU commitments he has previously made, and there is more room for manoever on this.
Moreover, we likely see a "rally around the flag" on both sides of the border. Support will rise for the Conservatives, especially among C1/C2/D voters. Sound familiar? These are the exact voters Cameron was trying to attract with the EU policies.
So, we have a new Conservative leader and PM in place by November 2014, and we are now only the clock for both the Westminster and Scottish Parliament elections. The Conservatives (who have 1 MP in Scotland at the time) become the party of England (or England & Wales). Although the Conservative party are/were Unionists, they are always the pragmatists. They start talking about a hard line against Scotland and the SNP. The Liberal Democrats are caught in the middle. They are Unionists, but also democrats. They want to respect the will of the referendum result. But at the same time, 11 of the 57 LD MPs are Scottish. They won't have a strong policy, but their line of working together for a stronger partnership post-Scottish Independence resonates with middle class voters (as per the EU referendum). Labour are in a right muddle: 41 of their 258 MPs are Scottish. Their Scottish MPs now feel on the wrong side of history. Their English MPs blame Scottish Labour for the fine mess they are now in. The PLP is far from a happy place.
The Conservatives go into the elections with a platform of defending the rUK interests. There are occasional words about co-operation, but the Conservatives stress Scotland taking its share of the UK's debts, there is a commitment to reviewing the Scottish/England sea border. There are plans proposed to relocate lots of UK infrastructure from Scotland to England. From the backbenches there is talk of ending the Barnett formula and no longer sending "our" money to Scotland. This is very popular in England. Renegotiating EU membership is a single line in the manifesto "The Conservative will work with our European partners to investigate how the terms of membership can be made more advantageous to all sides".
The Labour manifesto is all over the place - it tries to save both it's Scottish and English seats. It can't. The West Lothian question rears its head in majestic style. What if Labour wins a majority in the UK parliament, but the Conservatives have a majority of the rUK seats. The most memorable Conservative election poster feature Ed Milliband wearing a kilt and waving a Saltire.
UKIP is spitting feathers about the EU - but no-one is listening. All anyone cares about is Scotland. UKIP tries to pivot towards "the Scotland question", but manages it with all the grace and sophistication of a bull in a china shop. The Scottish Question belong to the Conservatives in England & Wales.
The Conservatives win the 2015 general election with a majority of 80. the SNP carry every single constituency in Scotland except three. Orkney & Shetland is won by a local independent on a "It's Shetland's Oil" platform. The Conservatives win two seats: Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk and Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. Given the strongly robustly pro-E&W campaign run by CCHQ, its a surprise to the Conservatives they win these seats, they'd been given up on.
So, post the 2015 elections, we have a single party Conservative government in Westminster, a weakened Labour Party and weakened LDs. In Scotland, you have a Scottish Parliament with an SNP majority, and the SNP holding all but 3 Westminster seats.
The complicating factor for the Scottish negotiators is that they are negotiating with not just Westminster on independence but with Brussels on accession to the EU. At the UK's behest, the EU will not start negotiations on accession issues until all bi-lateral issues have been resolved with the UK.
The SNP realises it is going to have to move quickly. The doomsday 'morning after the night before' scenario for the Scottish economy didn't happen on 19 September, but there has been damage. The pound has sunk against the dollar and euro. Scottish banknotes are now being accepted at an even more steep than normal discount outside the UK. Financial firms have moved the entities holding their assets to London from Scotland, despite all the staff staying in Scotland. Frankly, investors would rather hold English Pounds than Scottish 'pounds'. After all, Westminster is being quite clear that after Independence Scotland will not officially be using the pound. If it wants to use the pound anyway, that's Scotland's lookout, but the BoE will not help Scotland with this at all.
Many questions are being raised by Scottish voters on the rights of EU nationals, those born in England, Scottish 'citizens' in England, how the budget can be balanced now the Barnett formula has been scrapped. The SNP become increasingly convinced that there is a risk that they will not have an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament come 2016. The list vote will deliver a crop of anti-independence candidates, whilst the Socialist Party of Scotland (nee Scottish Labour) is campaigning heavily against the SNP's austerity budget.
The SNP decides there is nothing for it but snap independence. It can't risk the mandate of the people for Independence being violated by the Scottish Parliament after the 2016 elections. A clean-break independence deal is agreed with Westminster for 1 January 2016, with a two year "transition" period, in which some of the finer details will be ironed out. In 2016/17 Scotland will be independent, but will remain in the rUK customs territory. The Scottish pound will be allowed to float against the pound, and a common travel area has been established. Scottish nationals will not be foreigners in rUK. Scotland becomes independent outside the EU, but the interim customs deal sorts out a lot of problems, as does the easy access to rUK passports for Scottish nationals.
EU accession talks start on 2 January 2016. rUK takes the lead in establishing the negotiating mandate, which includes a lot of bilateral issues being solved. The rights of rUK oil and gas firms in the North Sea will have to be guaranteed. equivalence in financial services will not be agreed to until accession. Westminster shows no interest in helping Scotland maintain any opt-outs on joining the euro or home affairs. The only help it is willing to give is on maintaining the CTA.
After months of worrying about Scotland's economic future, the country wakes up to the news on 6 May 2016 that the SNP has lost its majority at Holyrood. Even a deal with the Greens leaves them 3 short. The alternative rainbow coalition of the originally pro-Union parties falls apart on economic policy. In the end, the National Party (nee the Scottish Conservatives) provides confidence and supply to the SNP in return for a more co-operative policy stance towards Westminster.
|
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Aug 2, 2020 19:25:47 GMT
Well in my very very very small sample there was a 100% swing from NO to YES [not claiming anything scientific quite obviously, just interesting to observe]
Tempted to observe that the argument there has switched 180 degrees from what happened in the Brexit vote. In that vote, generally speaking, Remainers voted on tangible, evidential-based factors, Leavers voted on intangible, feelings-based factors. However Boogs has just given some tangible, evidential-based factors for a NO IndyRef vote [which i agree with], but my Scots friends were all talking more about how they feel shafted by the government in that they were voting for a retention of the status quo both within the Uk and the EU. When that changed, and there was not even any attempt [by the Johnson rather than the May govt] to even try to mitigate the effects of a 'hard' Brexit, they've now tilted to a more feelings-based opinion centred on an "Up you, Johnson" attitude, almost regardless of the economic consequences.
As someone who voted no to brexit and would have voted No to Scottish Independence if I'd had a vote, it's interesting to observe the mental machinations of those voting YES/NO or even NO/YES.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 12,734
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 2, 2020 20:01:18 GMT
So my overarching question isnt "whether it would/could have happened", but "assuming it DID happen, how would it all play out"? If soc.history.what-if hadn't gone down the spam hole, I'm sure this discussion would have been had by people with much better speculative/predictive abilities than me. Does anybody know if there's anywhere the whatiffers hang out nowadays? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 12,734
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 2, 2020 20:18:23 GMT
Let's take a look a the timetable of events here before we move into a What If scenario. ScotlandIndyref is 18 September 2014 Scottish parliamentary elections 5 May 2016 UK/EnglandCameron promises renegotiation and referendum should Conservatives win next election January 2013 UKIP wins EP14 election 22 May 2014 Conservative manifesto launch (promises an EU referendum by 2017) 15 April 2015 UK General election 7 May 2015 Brexit Referendum 23 June 2016 Let's establish a point of departure (PoV) of the timelines as IndyRef day 18 September 2014. We'll assume 'Yes' Get Out The Vote is better than in Our TimeLine, more favourable weather for the 'Yes' campaign and/or some silly eve of poll gaff by the 'No' campaign. Essentially, there is no POLICY reason for the PoV, just "events". Interesting, but we're trying to work out a POD where IndyRef is after EuroRef, so a minimal timetable is: May 2011: SNP win Scottish Parliamentary election Jan 2013: Cameron promises EU referendum should Conservatives win next election May 2014: UKIP wins EU14 election Apr 2015: Conservative manifesto launch (promises an EU referendum by 2017) May 2015: Conservatives win UK General election, mandale for EU referendum May 2016: SNP win Scottish Parliamentary election Jun 2016: Brexit wins EU Referendum Jun 2016: Cameron resigns Apr 2017: May loses the UK General Election, holds onto Government Dec 2019: Johnson wins UK General Election Jan 2020: UK leaves the EU Where does "we'll allow the Scots a referendum if there's a mandate" and "Scottish Referendum" fit into that timetable? |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Aug 2, 2020 20:32:53 GMT
I have to say that the idea of Independence seems to me me to be a far higher risk in 2020 than it was in 2014 Oil price Uk Brexit Covid Are all significant reasons to tip wavering voters to remain so if there is indeed a swing towards leave despite that then to my mind it would require an underlying massive swing to overcome the drag that risk must present So frankly I do not believe the anecdotes or social media ramping They might well win an election but not a referendum It simply defies logic I sincerely hope that you are correct Boog. However, it does worry me. I think independence could well occur and it would be, in at least the short and medium term, an economic and social calamity. |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,520
|
Post by pl on Aug 2, 2020 20:34:03 GMT
Let's take a look a the timetable of events here before we move into a What If scenario. ScotlandIndyref is 18 September 2014 Scottish parliamentary elections 5 May 2016 UK/EnglandCameron promises renegotiation and referendum should Conservatives win next election January 2013 UKIP wins EP14 election 22 May 2014 Conservative manifesto launch (promises an EU referendum by 2017) 15 April 2015 UK General election 7 May 2015 Brexit Referendum 23 June 2016 Let's establish a point of departure (PoV) of the timelines as IndyRef day 18 September 2014. We'll assume 'Yes' Get Out The Vote is better than in Our TimeLine, more favourable weather for the 'Yes' campaign and/or some silly eve of poll gaff by the 'No' campaign. Essentially, there is no POLICY reason for the PoV, just "events". Interesting, but we're trying to work out a POD where IndyRef is after EuroRef, so a minimal timetable is: May 2011: SNP win Scottish Parliamentary election Jan 2013: Cameron promises EU referendum should Conservatives win next election May 2014: UKIP wins EU14 election Apr 2015: Conservative manifesto launch (promises an EU referendum by 2017) May 2015: Conservatives win UK General election, mandale for EU referendum May 2016: SNP win Scottish Parliamentary election Jun 2016: Brexit wins EU Referendum Jun 2016: Cameron resigns Apr 2017: May loses the UK General Election, holds onto Government Dec 2019: Johnson wins UK General Election Jan 2020: UK leaves the EU Where does "we'll allow the Scots a referendum if there's a mandate" and "Scottish Referendum" fit into that timetable? That'll teach me to read earlier posts more carefully! :-) |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 12,734
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 2, 2020 20:50:08 GMT
Interesting, but we're trying to work out a POD where IndyRef is after EuroRef, so a minimal timetable is: May 2011: SNP win Scottish Parliamentary election Jan 2013: Cameron promises EU referendum should Conservatives win next election May 2014: UKIP wins EU14 election Apr 2015: Conservative manifesto launch (promises an EU referendum by 2017) May 2015: Conservatives win UK General election, mandale for EU referendum May 2016: SNP win Scottish Parliamentary election Jun 2016: Brexit wins EU Referendum Jun 2016: Cameron resigns Apr 2017: May loses the UK General Election, holds onto Government Dec 2019: Johnson wins UK General Election Jan 2020: UK leaves the EU Where does "we'll allow the Scots a referendum if there's a mandate" and "Scottish Referendum" fit into that timetable? That'll teach me to read earlier posts more carefully! :-) After posting I thought I'd got the wrong end of the stick myself because the thread title is "Yes in 2014", but the content of the thread has changed to "IndyRef after Brexit". |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Aug 2, 2020 20:56:29 GMT
That'll teach me to read earlier posts more carefully! :-) After posting I thought I'd got the wrong end of the stick myself because the thread title is "Yes in 2014", but the content of the thread has changed to "IndyRef after Brexit". Sorry this is mainly my fault. I was trying to tag my scenario onto the existing Indy Ref scenario.
Should I start again in a new thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Aug 2, 2020 22:33:50 GMT
Let's take a look a the timetable of events here before we move into a What If scenario. ScotlandIndyref is 18 September 2014 Scottish parliamentary elections 5 May 2016 UK/EnglandCameron promises renegotiation and referendum should Conservatives win next election January 2013 UKIP wins EP14 election 22 May 2014 Conservative manifesto launch (promises an EU referendum by 2017) 15 April 2015 UK General election 7 May 2015 Brexit Referendum 23 June 2016 Let's establish a point of departure (PoV) of the timelines as IndyRef day 18 September 2014. We'll assume 'Yes' Get Out The Vote is better than in Our TimeLine, more favourable weather for the 'Yes' campaign and/or some silly eve of poll gaff by the 'No' campaign. Essentially, there is no POLICY reason for the PoV, just "events". Interesting, but we're trying to work out a POD where IndyRef is after EuroRef, so a minimal timetable is: May 2011: SNP win Scottish Parliamentary election Jan 2013: Cameron promises EU referendum should Conservatives win next election May 2014: UKIP wins EU14 election Apr 2015: Conservative manifesto launch (promises an EU referendum by 2017) May 2015: Conservatives win UK General election, mandale for EU referendum May 2016: SNP win Scottish Parliamentary election Jun 2016: Brexit wins EU Referendum Jun 2016: Cameron resigns Apr 2017: May loses the UK General Election, holds onto Government Dec 2019: Johnson wins UK General Election Jan 2020: UK leaves the EU Where does "we'll allow the Scots a referendum if there's a mandate" and "Scottish Referendum" fit into that timetable? The 2017 election could have gone either way and we could have ended up with a minority Labour government with SNP confidence and supply, in return for an Indy ref the following year. It's the only plausible scenario post-Brexit in which a U.K referendum could have existed. |
|
