Another independence vote in Scotland?

“The motion states there should be another vote “as soon as it is safe to hold a proper, detailed, serious national debate on independence” and the date should be decided by “data-driven criteria” about when the public health crisis is over.

Chris Hanlon, the SNP’s policy development convener, insisted the timescale was “not kicking the can down the road”, amid some calls from pro-independence supporters for another referendum as soon as possible.

Alba leader Alex Salmodn said this morning that Scotland was in an independence “groundhog day” under Nicola Sturgeon with no progress being made. 

Mr Hanlon said the recent Holyrood election result, in which the SNP won 64 of the 129 seats, “clearly and unambiguously” gave an endorsement for another referendum.

He added: “We must put data before dates.” Herald of Scotland

Comment: I see that the Alba Party wants to abolish the monarchy if independence occurs. They are minor players, but this is the first time I have seen this taken as a position. I think the time for independence drives in Scotland is probably past as it is for independence drives in Quebec.

The time for secession drives in Texas is fast approaching. pl

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Another independence vote in Scotland?

  1. Polish Janitor says:

    Alba and SNP’s pro-independence stances doesn’t end with secession from Britain,-which I think is a big mistake for Scotland down the road- as it’d be a launching pad to joining the EU. If one day there’s a Free Republic of Texas it will be for the sake of securing freedom and constitutional rights, which at least is quite noble, not replacing one form of subjugation with another technocratic one. Nevertheless, whenever I come across the term, “secession”, I feel automatically repelled. I don’t like the term, the meaning, and especially the political baggage attached to it. To be fair, there a several cases that come to my mind at the moment that are legitimate, e.g. in Tibet, Quebec, Catalonia, Kurdistan and one in the Russian far-east Yakutia. There are also some majority-white quite prosperous enclaves in S.Africa that would make a proper case for independence and self-rule.

  2. Barbara Ann says:

    Good grief, “as soon as it is safe” and “data-driven criteria”. William Wallace would be spinning in his grave, if he had one. No wonder there is a new party advocating for independence right away.

    I presume you have Scottish ancestry Colonel, can you trace it back far?

    • Pat Lang says:

      Barbara Ann

      The Langs of my blood were a sept of Macdonald of Glencoe. They went to Ireland after the Glencoe massacre and to avoid taking the Oath of Allegiance to King William. They were Jacobite and Catholic. They went to Louth in Ireland where they lived as a community with similar families until they came to St. Lawrence County, New York in 1828. That line stayed there until after the CW when they migrated to Western Wisconsin in the 1870s. You can look at my family tree on It is the Lang/Lessard tree.

  3. English Outsider says:

    They’re in a good position, the Scots. North Sea Oil isn’t as plentiful as it was but enough still there to satisfy their energy needs. Self sufficient in food, or could be. Already a strong national identity, which for me would be a central point. And who wouldn’t want to get away from the Westminster swamp? They’d probably get landed with their own swamp but at least that’d be closer to home and easier to keep an eye on.

    From the point of view of us English it’d be better to have happy neighbours than people forced to stay in the UK by compulsion, though one would hope some sort of defence alliance could be put together. Even these days it’s easier to defend an island than part of one.

    So if I were a Scotsman I’d say “yes” to independence without a second thought.
    As an Englishman I’d say good luck to them and not seek to put obstacles in their way,

    Where it gets tricky is when they join the EU, which seems to be regarded by the Scots as an inevitable consequence of breaking away from the UK. It’d be entirely their right to do that but then the shutters would have to come down.

    The EU does what all countries or groupings do and what the US does. It uses its control of trade to extend its control generally. Control of trade is power and like all others it uses that power.

    But unlike the US, or Russia or China, it does that to an unusual degree. Hungary’s finding that out at the moment. Hungary is primarily reliant on trade with the EU. That means the Hungarians can be strong-armed into running their own country in a way that doesn’t suit them. And those ways go far beyond mere “harmonisation of standards” or other trading conveniences.

    Whether the way that does suit them is a good way or not isn’t the issue. In being dependent on trade with the rest of the EU the Hungarians have to give up their freedom to run the country in the way that suits them. They have to a degree substituted control by a remote and difficult to persuade Brussels for democratic control of their own country. The degree will become greater as “ever greater union”, the watchword of Brussels, proceeds.

    We in the UK already face a lesser variant of this problem. We gave up part of our fishing grounds because the EU has the greater trade weight, and we may be strong-armed into giving them up permanently. Does the US, does China, insist on taking fishing grounds as a precondition for trading with them? Of course not. We in the UK live next door to an unusually predatory entity and will do so until the EU breaks up.

    And this predatory entity owning Scotland as it does Hungary? And using the extensive trade between Scotland and England as a lever to exact concessions in that case too? We have seen in the case of Northern Ireland how powerful that lever can be. We would not like to see another being inserted.

    So if the Scots go for independence we should not only not seek to put obstacles in their way. We should be generous with support, particularly agency services, as they find their feet as an independent nation. But they’d have to redirect their trade fast away from the UK. For in trading with Scotland we’d be trading with the EU and trading with the EU exposes us to unwanted compulsion. Trading with the EU is, to put it bluntly, too risky to be relied upon more than is strictly necessary.

    As for Texas, I can express no view on whether they can or ought to break away but were they to do so they’d find themselves in the same boat the UK was when it sought independence.

    It’s not as easy as it was. All countries are now heavily dependent on centralised agency services to a far greater degree than they ever were in the past. Most of the agency services Texas relies upon are not based in Texas and are not “owned” by Texas. They’d do well, it they were truly serious, to set up their own before they contemplated such a radical step as breaking away. We didn’t, and paid for it.

    • A Portuguese Man says:


      Aren’t the Scots independent insofar as they are British? Is a putative Scottish independence going to be any more independent than British independence?

      In other words, in what specific policy would independent Scotland diverge from Britain? The EU and… what else? Let’s concede they may be in a state of perpetual leftism. Fine. In what way will they differ from an eventual British Labour cabinet?

      For all intents and purposes they cannot diverge unless they want to become a challenge and threat to London.

      From my own Portuguese point of view it is nothing but foolishness and shortsightedness. And IMO the English would be even more foolish in letting it happen.

      • Pat Lang says:

        A Portuguese Man

        They are a different people.

        • A Portuguese Man says:

          Be that as it may.

          They will still be living in that particular piece of territory, with the same neighbours.

          With the devolvement of powers that has already occurred, what part of dependence remains outside of the freedom to challenge and threaten?

          Specific example: let us say European Union armed forces are formed. If Scotland does become independent ipso facto becoming dependent on the EU, is that not a major security threat to the rest of Great-Britain? Why should London allow continental forces establish themselves on the island?

          I’ve no particular horse in that race, as I do in the Spanish situation, but that’s how I see it.

          • Fred says:

            Pourtuguese Man,

            “let us say European Union armed forces are formed. ”

            Most of the EU members are in NATO, but if they ever build an EU army they become a threat to the UK, which is also a NATO member? Perhaps the US should get out of NATO now, especially since we keep having to defend these people from the country they buy their natural gas from. Now delivered via that pipeline that avoids Ukraine.

          • A Portuguese Man says:


            From my POV every major conflict between England, and Great-Britain later, across the centuries in Europe had them fighting against one hegemonic European continental power, be it Spain, France or Germany.

            Different circumstantial reasons and pretextes were invoked each time but, strategically, it seems to me this that is always what it boiled down to.

            I would say that preventing any continental hegemony in Europe is a permanent major strategic objective of GB due to European geography, wherever current alliances and allegiances may reside. The link with the US is IMO as strategically important, so they needs to be kept in balance.

            But the fact of Brexit seems to confirm this permanent tendency and suggests to me that sooner or later, one way or another, they will need to act on this objective regarding the EU which is a de facto continental hegemony. US decline, disinterest, or perception thereof will only contribute towards this scenario.

            My guess is they will try to and eventually succeed in break it up somehow.

            In any case, allowing an eventually independent Scotland to join the EU would be squarely at odds with this objective, tendency, whatever you want to call it.

            But who knows… Maybe such things don’t matter anymore.

            As for NATO, yes I can’t really say what exactly you get out of it.

    • LeaNder says:

      They’d probably get landed with their own swamp but at least that’d be closer to home and easier to keep an eye on.

      Glad you haven’t lost your humor.

      We all look forwards and surely wish the GB the very, very best going forward. Personally, I doubt there will be any referendum anytime soon.

  4. Matthew says:

    Col: I prefer a California exit than a Texit. We Texans love the USA, but loathe California’s influence on the Union.

  5. Seamus Padraig says:

    I really feel for the Scots. The only thing than being ruled by London is being run by Nicola Sturgeon.

  6. d74 says:

    From a French Outsider to EO.

    Scottish independence would have other outcomes.
    From “NavyLookout”, a very well done and informative site about RN:

    The Royal Navy would lose its most important ports and shipyards.

    The conclusion of NavyLookout, :
    “It is clear an independent Scotland would be a disaster for UK defence and the Royal Navy in particular. As Britain moves towards a future outside the EU, it is critical that a strong Union is maintained which would benefit us all. The UK Trident system is critical to the defence of Europe, the UK and Scotland. Those in Westminster must persist in making this case to the people of Scotland while ensuring they serve their interests with equal vigour to those in England.” (As July 2016)

    Another result, jubilant in my opinion.
    We all know that the Europe of Brussels hates borders and would like to destroy them all.
    An independent Scotland to be able to join Europe would impose the creation of a hard border between this country and England. So Brussels would eat its ideological hat!

    Scotland and France are very old allies. “Auld Alliance”, Paris Treaty 1295, ratified by Scotland in 1296. Formal end in 1560. Unofficial relations have lasted much longer.

    • LeaNder says:

      “Auld Alliance”

      Appreciated, somewhat, somehow. Glad you didn’t get lost on the bits and pieces about sovereign British fishing grounds. 😉

      We gave up part of our fishing grounds because the EU has the greater trade weight, and we may be strong-armed into giving them up permanently.

      Full discovery, if anyone on the continent would love to have his “Fish and Chips” shop around, it surely would be me. Unfortunately, the shop just around a corner from me has escaped me. Only realized it when it was too late, after it had closed down again. Sad.

    • English Outsider says:

      D74 – yes, defence in those circumstances would be a pig. In fact there’d be a whole heap of difficulties if Scotland went.

      I still hold stubbornly to my view that if they want to go we should not stand in their way. Apart from elementary fairness, think how they’d feel if we tried to stop them!

      As that acute observer of the geopolitical scene, PG Wodehouse, remarked “It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.” Better happy neighbours than grumpy bedfellows.

  7. James Doleman says:

    As you know sir I live in Scotland, this is the current map for party political affiliation in the UK. The Scottish nationalists are in yellow.
    Thanks for the site
    Best regards

Comments are closed.