As another Brit, a Londoner, who didn't want Scotland to go.

1. Because I enjoy living in a country that has the Scots in it - without Scotland the country would be diminished, less interesting and more insular.

2. Generally, I think fracturing is a bad thing. I wanted to stay in the EU for similar reasons.

This isn't to say that I don't think that Scots should have self determination, just that I would be sad if they went.

I imagine some Australians would feel the sanme if - say - New South Wales decided to become an independent country

If it were Queensland, the rest of us would probably be okay with it.

Edit: just to clarify, that was meant as a good-natured ribbing. We’d definitely miss Queensland. Mostly Noosa.

Well, I have always joked that Sydney should just succeed and become it's own city-state...

NZ was offered statehood and wisely declined. Our loss. Treaty now!

It would go a long way towards reversing New Zealand's brain drain.

I think NZ still has a standing option to join Australia though, no?

You probably mean secede, but it’s nice of you to wish them well!

Thank you! I did try googling and I thought i got it right (against my better judgement), but obviously not.

I believed that the UK is better off as a united country. Not all that different from the logic for the UK staying in the EU: larger economic markets help everyone. A union of likeminded nations is better then isolation. I also have both English and Scottish relatives (one reason I consider myself a “Brit”) so you could say the concept plays into my self image.

> it was your position to have an opinion

I suppose I could have pretended that I didn’t have an opinion on it, but I did. The important part is that I didn’t have a vote so my opinion wasn’t anything other than my opinion.

Scotland can be independent _and_ be in the same economic market (ignoring UK and Spain willing to veto Scotland reentering EU out of spite / own political motives).

Spain will only veto Scotland if the independence is not agreed between the UK and Scotland (in the same spirit of Spain's opinion of Kosovo independence).

Spain parliament is against unilateral declarations of independence.

> Spain parliament is against unilateral declarations of independence.

For background, it's because the Spanish government is afraid that recognizing independence movements legitimizes the Catalonian independence movement in their own country.

It's not only that. After the Civil War and Franco's regime, Spain's political tradition is to avoid conflict and wars at all cost.

> Spain parliament is against unilateral declarations of independence.

Very convenient of them isn’t it?

Aren't they allowed to have an opinion?

How would the UK veto an independent Scotland reentering the EU? They no longer have a vote to do so.

Not any more, but they could’ve after the previous independence referendum if it had gone that way.

It was a talking point during the Scottish independence referendum (pre-Brexit referendum).

Spain would have a different perspective post brexit: one in the eye for Gibraltar.

Because Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom and their secession is therefore of great consequence for the rest of the union - how is that not obvious? I live in Scotland FYI.

I am undecided on independence, but clearly part of the calculus is how it effects matters of concern to the rest of the UK. Consider what is to me, the following con and pro:

(1) Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and its secession would condemn the rest of the union to indefinite right-wing government.

(2) The UK's nuclear subs would have to be restationed, but there isn't a suitable harbour anywhere in the rest of the UK, creating an opportunity for it to be scrapped.

> (1) Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and its secession would condemn the rest of the union to indefinite right-wing government.

Scotland's voters cannot influence the vote in England, under any circumstances.

If you want rid of the Tories, you have to teach England not to vote for the Tories.

I have no idea what you are talking about. In the UK general election citizens of all realms of the UK vote, meaning that Scotland being more left-wing has led to comparatively more left-wing UK governments than would be the case in its absence. So 'if you want rid of the Tories', Scotland is a great asset.

The union worked well as long as voters in Scotland and England voted similarly, but that hasn't been the case since the 1970s.

Scottish voters only rarely influence the outcome of elections to the Westminster parliament, because even thought they vote differently, they only make up about 10% of the GB population (Northern Ireland has different political parties). Almost always, whatever the English electorate votes for, Scotland gets, even when voters in Scotland vote differently.

In the few exceptions where England voted Tory but got Labour because of Scottish votes, how was that fair on England?

>"In the few exceptions where England voted Tory but got Labour because of Scottish votes, how was that fair on England?"

You can always say that if one region that voted for the winning party in a close election hadn't, the outcome would have been different. I don't understand how that's unfair, it's inherent in the arithmetic of majoritarian democracy. You could say the same thing about London or the northwest, which both err leftwards. Unless you're starting off with the idea that Scotland and England are fundamentally different units? Which begs the question.

You're very carefully dodging the main point made by DonaldFisk: that it rarely matters how Scotland votes. Whoever England votes for, Scotland gets. We could've sent 59 Scottish Labour MPs to Westminster in each of the last three elections and it wouldn't have changed a thing, because England wanted a Conservative government.

>Whoever England votes for, Scotland gets. We could've sent 59 Scottish Labour MPs to Westminster in each of the last three elections and it wouldn't have changed a thing, because England wanted a Conservative government.

In 2017, if Scotland didn't elect 13 Conservatives to Westminster then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government with the DUP. If it also didn't elect 4 Liberal Democrats then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government even if she somehow managed to establish a three-way power-sharing agreement with the DUP and the Liberal Democrats. In that event May probably wouldn't have been able to form a government, and there would have been new elections. And remember, May was in abysmal straits at the time.

> You're very carefully dodging the main point

Well, the 'point' wasn't a response to the existing conversation. It was a random interpolation, and I didn't find it very remarkable. In a Parliament of 650 seats no randomly selected bloc of 59 constituencies is likely to play a deciding role in the outcome. It will happen sometimes, but not often. But why would it be otherwise? Of course, if you start off with the belief that Scotland is an independent entity that merits complete self-determination, then that will be a problem. But that begs the question, again.

But that's contradicting the original point you were making about Scotland pulling the UK left isn't it? It sounds like you're saying "Scotland matters ... sometimes. Look, 20% of you helped elect Theresa May!"

That's not what we were talking about, which is that Scotland consistently votes to the left. And there is no way we can get a left-wing government, because England votes to the right. And it kind of doesn't matter that we seem to have picked the SNP, because even if we chose Labour it'd still not make a difference because England votes Tory and likely will do for the forseeable.

> In a Parliament of 650 seats no randomly selected bloc of 59 constituencies

This isn't a randomly selected bloc. This is very well defined and distinct territory - which is the topic of this ENTIRE article we're discussing might I add - so I don't know why you'd play daft and pretend otherwise.

I am going to keep my comments to a minimum because I think this is becoming an unproductive exchange.

> But that's contradicting the original point

You have said there's a contradiction, but have not said what it is. I have no idea what you think it is.

> Scotland consistently votes to the left. And there is no way we can get a left-wing government, because England votes to the right.

It is obviously possible for the UK to elect a left-wing government. I don't know why you think otherwise.

> This isn't a randomly selected bloc

My point is that there is no reason to expect a bloc of 59 constituencies to consistently decide the outcome of general elections. That is not in and of itself necessarily a problem. You need further, independent arguments to show why it is a problem for Scotland.

> You have said there's a contradiction, but have not said what it is. I have no idea what you think it is.

So you said Scotland moves the UK left. We said Scotland can't move the UK left, England is too Tory and too big. You said, but wait Scotland giving 13/59 seats to the Tories seats helped deliver Theresa May to victory. Wat.

> It is obviously possible for the UK to elect a left-wing government. I don't know why you think otherwise.

Again, that is entirely up to England and their best hope is Labour who don't seem particularly interested in either winning or shifting left. Hence our frustration.

> My point is that there is no reason to expect a bloc of 59 constituencies to consistently decide the outcome of general elections ... You need further, independent arguments to show why it is a problem for Scotland.

It would be weird if we "consistently decided" the outcome of elections, but I didn't say that. And please don't make me list all the reasons why Scotland isn't simply 59 constituencies, or even a region like Yorkshire. Absolutely no shade towards Yorkshire, it is a lovely place but I think we both know the difference.

I honestly think you might just be getting a kick out of winding up a Scot. If you were then, well I hope you had fun :) If not then I'm sorry I'm really not trying to be a dick. This might be something that's more based on what you identify your nationality as. If you consider yourself as "British" first, and "English" second (or, as is common British which equals English) then what I am saying will obviously not resonate at all. For me my nationality is "Scottish" - "British" is just an entry in my passport, it's not a thing I feel I particularly identify with. I get the impression you're a leftie overall, so whatever happens re indyref2 I think we're on the same side.

IMO any discussion about “fairness” is null and void while the U.K. has a FPTP electoral system. It’s inherently unfair and a poor representation of voters wishes, no matter which country they live in.

I agree - there are better systems, such as the one for the Scottish Parliament. There was a referendum on changing the system to a slightly better one in 2011, but that was rejected.

> In the few exceptions where England voted Tory but got Labour because of Scottish votes, how was that fair on England?

That hasn't happened. The UK gets the government England votes for.

As a Brit, Scotland is part of Britain - and independence would be (in a sense) losing a part of a birthright (to live and work in Scotland).

But it’s always been a separate country, and people are sovereign over history so it’s their choice.

Would be nice if there was a Common Travel Area with the UK afterwards, though.

Because fracturing your country and making it poorer and smaller probably isn’t desirable?

A non Yugoslavian, I regret the breakup of Yugoslavia immensely but I do wonder if any of the former constituent states would agree with you regarding Scotland or me regarding Yugoslavia?

Note that it's an open question if the Scots economy would remain worse per capita, not disagreeing there is/was pain ahead in transition.

From former Czechoslovakia, our disintegration was a mixed parcel.

The best thing is that Slovaks had to stand on their own feet and their nationalists slowly had stop blaming everything on Prague. This kind of whiny nationalism embodied by then-prime minister of Slovakia Vladimir Meciar is somewhat disgusting and I can see its softer version in Scotland right now.

The worst thing is that yes, our international weight has gone down significantly.

But there was customs union between CZ and SK even after the split. I cannot imagine the economic pain if the former federation was suddenly divided by a hard border, as Scotland and England would be.

> I cannot imagine the economic pain if the former federation was suddenly divided by a hard border, as Scotland and England would be.

It doesn't have to be, even if Scotland was part of EU and not England.

UK and Spain/EU negociated maintaining some of the Schengen rules for the Gibraltar/Spain border despite its status still being disputed by Spain and a bumpy history. There is no reason Scotland and rest of UK cannot have a treaty allowing soft border.

Looking at the Irish situation right now, I am skeptical about any such treaty with regard to Scotland.

> "Note that it's an open question if the Scots economy would remain worse per capita, not disagreeing there is/was pain ahead in transition"

"Remain" is doing a lot of work here. Scotland runs a sizeable deficit with the rest of the union and with the decline of North Sea oil revenues that will only increase. Of course that might not "remain", but leaving the UK and then joining the EU is going to create a 5-10 year period of turbulence as well.

Still, there's more important things than GDP.

IMO the collapse of Yugoslavia has mostly made the newly-independent states doomed to be forever at the periphery of capital.

Smaller is desireable (leaner government, and fairer representation). Poorer is a matter of opinion -- Scotland has a healthy economy.

I’m talking from the perspective of a non-Scottish citizen. The UK - a healthy economy = poorer.

Smaller vs larger has arguments on either side. I think when you’re talking about major world powers there’s an appeal to not downsizing.

Decentralization is a key to robustness. I can't speak for this particular case. But generally I think it is desirable to have. Real sustainable progress often happens in the small and builds bottom up. People in different regions have different needs and ways of doing things. Distributed power leads to less exploitation.

You obviously haven't been to Belgium, which has 6 governments (and prime ministers) for a country that has the size of 1/10th of Italy. Decentralization has benefits, yes, but as for everything there are limits to it.

So what's the negatives Belgium is suffering from, because of their 6 governments? Comparing them to the rest of the EU, Belgium seems quite successful at whatever they are doing.

There's a cost, and it is often annoying and widely discussed, even joked about in highly federal countries. But there's benefits that are quite apparent I think.