Calls for referendums in Scotland and Northern Ireland after Brexit vote

[Thaiwine]

If not this excuse the scots would have found another, Sturgen and ilk will not give up until they divide the UK

I suspect some have greedy eyes and believe oil will enrich the (politicians) people.

[pegman]

I was in favour of Scotland leaving, but they had their choice and said no, as such that should be the end of it. What a load of cheap political maneuvering.

Conditions have fundamentally changed. Let them vote. N.Ireland should also with one option being merging with Scotland. Those counties were once Scotland and the majority there may wish for that to return.

[RuamRudy]

I was in favour of Scotland leaving, but they had their choice and said no, as such that should be the end of it. What a load of cheap political maneuvering.

It was always on the cards that the Scottish Nationalists would have another go sooner or later, a bit like the Quebecois keep doing Canada. The EU referendum result means that it may be sooner rather than later. I suppose it is up to them. I don't really want to rehash all the arguments from two years ago, so let them get on with it.There is going to be a major restructuring of the UK in any case so we may as well do it in one hit.

You never know, an Independent Scotland, within the EU, using the Euro may well be another of those dynamic smaller EU states which benefit greatly from the EU, like umh, umh, well maybe I'll get back to you on that. Bear in mind that whilst Scotland may benefit from EU funding at present, much of that cash comes from the UK contribution to the EU budget. With that cash spigot turned off there may be rather less for Brussels to dish out.

If you define independence as doing what Mr Juncker and his fellow unelected "Presidents" tell you, and paying for the privilege, good luck.

The same is true for Northern Ireland - with the additional question as to whether the Republic of Ireland wants to take on the "ethnic divisions" in the north, which I rather doubt.

Why does your argument against an unelected Brussels not stand true for Scotland's relationship with Westminster? We have precisely one Tory MP in Scotland yet we have had six years of their rule. Westminster is to Scotland what Brussels is to England.

[RuamRudy]

If not this excuse the scots would have found another, Sturgen and ilk will not give up until they divide the UK

I suspect some have greedy eyes and believe oil will enrich the (politicians) people.

You are 100% correct - we will not give up until we destroy the union. I am sorry if that seems sacriligeous to you, but it was and remains a bad deal for Scotland. The sooner we are free of it the better.

[Gulfsailor]

Hold on. If the UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales and N-Ireland, and mostly the English want to leave the EU, then the solution is rather simple; The UK will remain in the EU, and England becomes independent from the UK. There is then no need for referenda in Scotland, N.Ireland or Wales or how they could rejoin the EU at a later time as independent countries.

They'll just have to find themselves a new non-English king or queen or rename their union to the URBWE (united republic of Britain without England).

[smedly]

If they want to vote to go then let them...but maybe they might want to wait until further down the road just to see what is happening.

There is over 2 years to go before people want to start getting excited.

I don't know how Scotland would cope in the EU, the oil is running out and the price is not as good as it was. They would loose the free Prescriptions and free University (which the UK tax payer pays for) unless they have loads of money to pay for it, how would they pay into the bottomless pit of coffers which the EU wants every month? They would have to take on the Euro as they do not have theit own currency! But if thats what they want then Good Luck

Economist are saying that The UK should return back to normal in about 3 to 5 years but if Scotland leaves it may take 5 to 10 years.They both need each other because it is said that the market impact because of Euxit could be worst then the 1987 market crash.What ever happens I would not be making any long term investments at this time.

rubbish

[JAG]

I was in favour of Scotland leaving, but they had their choice and said no, as such that should be the end of it. What a load of cheap political maneuvering.

It was always on the cards that the Scottish Nationalists would have another go sooner or later, a bit like the Quebecois keep doing Canada. The EU referendum result means that it may be sooner rather than later. I suppose it is up to them. I don't really want to rehash all the arguments from two years ago, so let them get on with it.There is going to be a major restructuring of the UK in any case so we may as well do it in one hit.

You never know, an Independent Scotland, within the EU, using the Euro may well be another of those dynamic smaller EU states which benefit greatly from the EU, like umh, umh, well maybe I'll get back to you on that. Bear in mind that whilst Scotland may benefit from EU funding at present, much of that cash comes from the UK contribution to the EU budget. With that cash spigot turned off there may be rather less for Brussels to dish out.

If you define independence as doing what Mr Juncker and his fellow unelected "Presidents" tell you, and paying for the privilege, good luck.

The same is true for Northern Ireland - with the additional question as to whether the Republic of Ireland wants to take on the "ethnic divisions" in the north, which I rather doubt.

Why does your argument against an unelected Brussels not stand true for Scotland's relationship with Westminster? We have precisely one Tory MP in Scotland yet we have had six years of their rule. Westminster is to Scotland what Brussels is to England.

Because Westminster and it's Government is the parliament and government for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a union which unlike the European Union elects its government, as a single entity, to govern the state as a single entity. And unlike the European Union, if the electorate of the United Kingdom have had enough of that government. then they can vote them out.

I am an Englishman, more specifically a West-countryman, and have little experience of Scotland. If Scotland desires independence then go ahead. It may work economically, I just don't know. I don't understand the attraction of the EU, particularly as I suspect that there will be less cash to be received, and Scotland would have to adopt the Euro, but that would, as they say here, be "up to you".

I do have a lot of experience of Northern Ireland. It could not survive economically as an independent country, and I doubt whether The Republic of Ireland relishes taking it on with all its economic and political (sectarian) problems. As for it joining Scotland - as someone here has suggested - well the best of British luck to you, you will need it.

I suppose it would ensure the survival of the Scottish Infantry Regiments - you would need them!

Edited June 25, 2016 by JAG

[robblok]

If scotland and northern irland leave Britain then it gets even more marginalized and the future would be even darker for the UK. I can only hope that the Scots now get their chance to leave. The UK had their vote.. now the situation has changed.

[RuamRudy]

It was always on the cards that the Scottish Nationalists would have another go sooner or later, a bit like the Quebecois keep doing Canada. The EU referendum result means that it may be sooner rather than later. I suppose it is up to them. I don't really want to rehash all the arguments from two years ago, so let them get on with it.There is going to be a major restructuring of the UK in any case so we may as well do it in one hit.

You never know, an Independent Scotland, within the EU, using the Euro may well be another of those dynamic smaller EU states which benefit greatly from the EU, like umh, umh, well maybe I'll get back to you on that. Bear in mind that whilst Scotland may benefit from EU funding at present, much of that cash comes from the UK contribution to the EU budget. With that cash spigot turned off there may be rather less for Brussels to dish out.

If you define independence as doing what Mr Juncker and his fellow unelected "Presidents" tell you, and paying for the privilege, good luck.

The same is true for Northern Ireland - with the additional question as to whether the Republic of Ireland wants to take on the "ethnic divisions" in the north, which I rather doubt.

Why does your argument against an unelected Brussels not stand true for Scotland's relationship with Westminster? We have precisely one Tory MP in Scotland yet we have had six years of their rule. Westminster is to Scotland what Brussels is to England.

Because Westminster and it's Government is the parliament and government for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a union which unlike the European Union elects its government, as a single entity, to govern the state as a single entity. And unlike the European Union, if the electorate of the United Kingdom have had enough of that government. then they can vote them out.

I am an Englishman, more specifically a West-countryman, and have little experience of Scotland. If Scotland desires independence then go ahead. It may work economically, I just don't know. I don't understand the attraction of the EU, particularly as I suspect that there will be less cash to be received, and Scotland would have to adopt the Euro, but that would, as they say here, be "up to you".

I do have a lot of experience of Northern Ireland. It could not survive economically as an independent country, and I doubt whether The Republic of Ireland relishes taking it on with all its economic and political (sectarian) problems. As for it joining Scotland - as someone here has suggested - well the best of British luck to you, you will need it.

I suppose it would ensure the survival of the Scottish Infantry Regiments - you would need them!

Much as you consider yourself an Englishman, I consider myself a Scot. As well as our shared heritage, I see fundamental differences in our cultures too; maybe they are subtle and hard to define, but that is like any concept of statehood.

It is an unarguable fact that while we Scots can bolster an election result, we cannot determine it. The leadership and direction of the union will always be in your hands, not ours. Much as I would not dare to impose my political will on England, we as a country have repeatedly rejected conservatism yet we are forced to endure it. That is unacceptable to me and an increasing number of people - the EU referendum was simply another example of how we are forced to go where we don't want to go.

Why do we support the EU? Maybe because we are a little fish in Westminster but in Brussels we would be a full and equal partner.

I am not sure about Northern Ireland - I have never been there and the only suggestion I have read of it joining Scotland was on TV.

[MissAndry]

If the English could vote too, they'd be gone tomorrow.

[RuamRudy]

If the English could vote too, they'd be gone tomorrow.

I have no doubt that if you had an English equivalent of the SNP, it would be very popular. The SNP has proven that you can have National in your name while being inclusive and welcoming to all people.

[khunken]

As an Irishman (ROI) I have no doubt that if Northern Ireland wants to unite the country, the Republic would welcome them with open arms. But I have my doubts that it will happen.

On the subject of the pound there is a precedent. When the Republic became a free country in 1922, it decided (c1928) to keep the pound as the national currency. It was named the Irish Pound (PUNT) and on par with the pound sterling until 1978/9 when it broke the sterling link and later was superceded by the Euro. I don't see any reason why Scotland couldn't do something similar if it breaks from the UK.

[7by7]

An independent Scotland could not do "something similar" if it wants wants to join the EU.

One of the non negotiable conditions for joining the EU is adopting the Euro.

[Basil B]

They already had a referendum in 2014, no need for another

Meaning the Scott's...

Sturgeon is just sounding like a broken record.

And the Northern Irish, yes the call for unification is from a minority, as for the the majority the answer will be "not over my dead body" it would be hard to find anyone in NI who is undecided on this issue.

Eire must now consider if it too wants to stay in Europe???

Edited June 25, 2016 by Basil B

[RuamRudy]

An independent Scotland could not do "something similar" if it wants wants to join the EU.

One of the non negotiable conditions for joining the EU is adopting the Euro.

Or commitment to joining the Euro. Sweden has been committed to joining for years but still has not joined.

[Basil B]

If the English could vote too, they'd be gone tomorrow.

England should have it's own assembly and more powers should then handed down to the individual countries, all should have the same powers as the British parliament will be too busy for years untangling UK and EU laws.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Basil B

[dunroaming]

Sturgeon made it very clear that ifBrexit won she would call for a new referendum. Northern Ireland indicated that they would look at re-uniting with the Republic as well.

There does need to be time for the mist to clear and we see where we are and of course if Boris gets to be PM. I personally think a general election will be called and if that is called before parliament votes on leaving the EU then all bets are off. We are in uncharted water here.

[Bunnychow]

If not this excuse the scots would have found another, Sturgen and ilk will not give up until they divide the UK

I suspect some have greedy eyes and believe oil will enrich the (politicians) people.

You are 100% correct - we will not give up until we destroy the union. I am sorry if that seems sacriligeous to you, but it was and remains a bad deal for Scotland. The sooner we are free of it the better.

Why are you hell bent on destroying the Union, unless i am mistaken Scotland is only one country in the Union, so if only Scotland leaves you have destroyed nothing...you have left the union thats all...but until Scotland finds another nipple to suck on, i dont see them leaving..

[RuamRudy]

You are 100% correct - we will not give up until we destroy the union. I am sorry if that seems sacriligeous to you, but it was and remains a bad deal for Scotland. The sooner we are free of it the better.

Why are you hell bent on destroying the Union, unless i am mistaken Scotland is only one country in the Union, so if only Scotland leaves you have destroyed nothing...you have left the union thats all...but until Scotland finds another nipple to suck on, i dont see them leaving..

Oh man, you are back to these breasts again. Are you obsessed with them?

You are right - the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland will remain for... how long?

I did explain to you previously how Scotland more than carries its weight in the union. Maybe you missed it but I cannot be bothered to spell it out to you again.

[7by7]

An independent Scotland could not do "something similar" if it wants wants to join the EU.

One of the non negotiable conditions for joining the EU is adopting the Euro.

Or commitment to joining the Euro. Sweden has been committed to joining for years but still has not joined.

Nice try; but no cigar!

Sweden joined the EU in 1995; the Euro was officially adopted as the EU currency in 1999.

The Euro didn't become legal tender until 1st January 2002. It was used in conjunction with a state's old currency while that currency became phased out. Germany being first, when the Deutschmark stopped being legal tender after 31 December 2001, Malta the last when the same happened to the Maltese Lira after 31st January 2008.

Like the UK and Denmark, Sweden did not to adopt the Euro in 1999; but, unlike the UK and Denmark, Sweden didn't permanently opt out, but made a commitment to adopt it once certain economic criteria were met.

Other states, e.g. Poland, which have joined since 2002 have yet to adopt the Euro, but have to once certain economic conditions are met.

Now, all new states seeking to join the EU have to meet these economic conditions and adopt the Euro as a non negotiable condition of membership.

[RuamRudy]

An independent Scotland could not do "something similar" if it wants wants to join the EU.

One of the non negotiable conditions for joining the EU is adopting the Euro.

Or commitment to joining the Euro. Sweden has been committed to joining for years but still has not joined.

Nice try; but no cigar!

Sweden joined the EU in 1995; the Euro was officially adopted as the EU currency in 1999.

The Euro didn't become legal tender until 1st January 2002. It was used in conjunction with a state's old currency while that currency became phased out. Germany being first, when the Deutschmark stopped being legal tender after 31 December 2001, Malta the last when the same happened to the Maltese Lira after 31st January 2008.

Like the UK and Denmark, Sweden did not to adopt the Euro in 1999; but, unlike the UK and Denmark, Sweden didn't permanently opt out, but made a commitment to adopt it once certain economic criteria were met.

Other states, e.g. Poland, which have joined since 2002 have yet to adopt the Euro, but have to once certain economic conditions are met.

Now, all new states seeking to join the EU have to meet these economic conditions and adopt the Euro as a non negotiable condition of membership.

Personally, I don't believe it will be as cut and dried as you suggest, however if it is an unassailable obstacle to entry to the EU, I am not too fussed.

[khunken]

An independent Scotland could not do "something similar" if it wants wants to join the EU.

One of the non negotiable conditions for joining the EU is adopting the Euro.

Or commitment to joining the Euro. Sweden has been committed to joining for years but still has not joined.

Nice try; but no cigar!

Sweden joined the EU in 1995; the Euro was officially adopted as the EU currency in 1999.

The Euro didn't become legal tender until 1st January 2002. It was used in conjunction with a state's old currency while that currency became phased out. Germany being first, when the Deutschmark stopped being legal tender after 31 December 2001, Malta the last when the same happened to the Maltese Lira after 31st January 2008.

Like the UK and Denmark, Sweden did not to adopt the Euro in 1999; but, unlike the UK and Denmark, Sweden didn't permanently opt out, but made a commitment to adopt it once certain economic criteria were met.

Other states, e.g. Poland, which have joined since 2002 have yet to adopt the Euro, but have to once certain economic conditions are met.

Now, all new states seeking to join the EU have to meet these economic conditions and adopt the Euro as a non negotiable condition of membership.

Personally, I don't believe it will be as cut and dried as you suggest, however if it is an unassailable obstacle to entry to the EU, I am not too fussed.

It's certainly not as cut and dried as 7by7 makes out.

There is no precedent for a country within a union already an EU member to have to go through EU application negotiations. The EU may or may not be flexible in considering Scotland's application favourably.

In other words it is an unknown set of events and the EU is well known for making exceptions. It depends on the attitude of the existing members and could be allowed by the simple replacement of the UK by Scotland. It's a big 'maybe' but not impossible.

[RuamRudy]

Nice try; but no cigar!

Sweden joined the EU in 1995; the Euro was officially adopted as the EU currency in 1999.

The Euro didn't become legal tender until 1st January 2002. It was used in conjunction with a state's old currency while that currency became phased out. Germany being first, when the Deutschmark stopped being legal tender after 31 December 2001, Malta the last when the same happened to the Maltese Lira after 31st January 2008.

Like the UK and Denmark, Sweden did not to adopt the Euro in 1999; but, unlike the UK and Denmark, Sweden didn't permanently opt out, but made a commitment to adopt it once certain economic criteria were met.

Other states, e.g. Poland, which have joined since 2002 have yet to adopt the Euro, but have to once certain economic conditions are met.

Now, all new states seeking to join the EU have to meet these economic conditions and adopt the Euro as a non negotiable condition of membership.

Personally, I don't believe it will be as cut and dried as you suggest, however if it is an unassailable obstacle to entry to the EU, I am not too fussed.

It's certainly not as cut and dried as 7by7 makes out.

There is no precedent for a country within a union already an EU member to have to go through EU application negotiations. The EU may or may not be flexible in considering Scotland's application favourably.

In other words it is an unknown set of events and the EU is well known for making exceptions. It depends on the attitude of the existing members and could be allowed by the simple replacement of the UK by Scotland. It's a big 'maybe' but not impossible.

What is the mood in RoI, Khunken? I am conscious that Scotland has been dominating the headlines, but potentially massive changes are being talked about across the water. Is reunification feasible?

[robblok]

I read more and more about Scotland wanting a new referendum. If this really happens the economic blow to England would be huge. I wonder if the Brexit voters really had considered all the trouble it would cause them.

I read that a lot of the leave votes were just protest votes.

Freedom wise the Brexit was good.. but economically its bad.

[ilostmypassword]

An independent Scotland could not do "something similar" if it wants wants to join the EU.

One of the non negotiable conditions for joining the EU is adopting the Euro.

Or commitment to joining the Euro. Sweden has been committed to joining for years but still has not joined.

Nice try; but no cigar!

Sweden joined the EU in 1995; the Euro was officially adopted as the EU currency in 1999.

The Euro didn't become legal tender until 1st January 2002. It was used in conjunction with a state's old currency while that currency became phased out. Germany being first, when the Deutschmark stopped being legal tender after 31 December 2001, Malta the last when the same happened to the Maltese Lira after 31st January 2008.

Like the UK and Denmark, Sweden did not to adopt the Euro in 1999; but, unlike the UK and Denmark, Sweden didn't permanently opt out, but made a commitment to adopt it once certain economic criteria were met.

Other states, e.g. Poland, which have joined since 2002 have yet to adopt the Euro, but have to once certain economic conditions are met.

Now, all new states seeking to join the EU have to meet these economic conditions and adopt the Euro as a non negotiable condition of membership.

In theory they have to adopt the Euro. But if you read the actual language, it's very vague and was written at a time when it was assumed would-be members of the EU would want to adopt the Euro as their currency. There is no mechanism for forcing them to adopt the Euro and like Poland, they may make noises about it, but clearly don't want to after having seen the damage it has prolonged in Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal.

[SgtRock]

The EU have spoken and it would appear that a Scottish entry to the EU is a long way off

The European Commission said on Saturday Scotland was part of the United Kingdom and declined to "speculate further" after First Minister Nicola Sturgeon called for talks with the European Union to keep Scotland in the bloc.

"Scotland is part of the UK," a Commission spokeswoman told Reuters. "Constitutional arrangements apply. We will not speculate further."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland-commission-idUKKCN0ZB0LA

[mommysboy]

If Scotland wants to go fine, but last time there was a no vote, and they seemed to have unreal expections regarding finances. Now their economic position is much worse. It's not a given there would be an exit vote. The UK's position is clear, Scotland had its referendum 2 years ago and there can't be another one for some time.

If N.Ireland wants to go fine. But there is no suggestion that a referendum is being sought by Irish Parliament. As they have not had a referendum recently, I imagine there would be no objection.

[RuamRudy]

Poll puts support for Scottish independence at 59%

"In a clear reflection of the growing backlash north of the Border to Thursday’s Brexit result, a ScotPulse online survey of 1,600 Scottish adults on Friday (24 June) showed that 59% of Scots now back leaving the UK."

[mommysboy]

Time for the English to have another referendum . Should Scotland be allowed to remain within the union.

I bet the result would surprise a lot of people not least the Scots.

Yes last time polls showed 65% of rest of UK wanted Scotland to remain. I wanted that too. But since then I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want them to remain, it's just the rancour, and it seems that they will go sooner or later.

I could well imagine a majority voting Scotland out.

It would be a great shame really,.

[mommysboy]

I welcome this wholeheartedly - an independent England and Scotland and nothing more to whine about. Folk around the world think the English as some kind of leviathan desperately holding on to its treasures at all costs. That's the beauty of this union and democracy (now in any case); if you want out, ask for a referendum and let your people decide.

But is the Scots truly want out, give the English the vote, it was somewhere around 65-70% in favour last time. And NI going back to Eire would also be nice, though bearing in mind many of its people are staunchly pro-British and troubles would likely kick off in a big way if there ware an attempt at reunification.

But auto-accession to the EU is not how it works; it needs agreements from ALL members and an incentive to want to take newbies; how the books would look if they were on their own. What can Scotland offer? It doesn't make much and the oil, part of which is in English waters, is on its way out. There is also the Barnett Formula to consider and the subsequent loss of the whacking subsidy everyone gets north of the border.

As for Sturgeon; horrible old goat that will sink her people, though I wish them all the best. Just don't blame the English if it all goes wrong.

If they want to vote to go then let them...but maybe they might want to wait until further down the road just to see what is happening.

There is over 2 years to go before people want to start getting excited.

I don't know how Scotland would cope in the EU, the oil is running out and the price is not as good as it was. They would loose the free Prescriptions and free University (which the UK tax payer pays for) unless they have loads of money to pay for it, how would they pay into the bottomless pit of coffers which the EU wants every month? They would have to take on the Euro as they do not have theit own currency! But if thats what they want then Good Luck

So much misinformation...

Oil: it is not the entirety of the Scottish economy. We have a very mature and diverse economy. However, once we get rid of Faslane, we will be able to open up the Irish Sea to exploration, and advances in technology are already making West of Shetland accessible.

Free Prescriptions / university fees: Scots are already UK tax payers so we are already covering the cost of prescriptions and university fees.

Currency: we do have a currency. It is called the pound.

But thanks for the good wishes. Likewise.

In reality, it would likely not be a blow or a bonus for either.

Scotland is a net gainer from UK but not much.

But last time Scotland's plans did not add up financially. Scotland would simply need to set up its own currency. And then convert to Euros if/when it joins EU.

Scotland would have to come up with more than the pie in the sky finances it previously used.

Edited June 26, 2016 by mommysboy