Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

Disclaimer: I'm English.

One can hardly blame them. I was a unionist during the first referendum simply because I thought we were stronger together and felt that the Scottish made the UK as a whole more liberal (which, to be clear, is a GOOD thing).

But after Brexit one cannot blame or criticise them for wanting to leave. I want to leave too! If their choice is being part of a fairly progressive EU or a conservative/paranoid/racist English-Welsh alliance then they're better off leaving and trying to gain EU membership.

My only concern for Scotland is that they wouldn't be able to gain (re-gain?) EU membership then would be left out on their own for many years. So I definitely think the Scottish leadership needs to better plan out EU entry relative to the last referendum.

With or without Scotland, England is a sinking ship, better that other countries don't tie themselves to her mask as she flounders.

View on HN

Disclaimer: I'm a child of English parents who was born in Wales but grew up in Scotland. I have Scottish and English children, in-laws and cousins. I have a family home in Scotland but I currently live in England. My children live in England and Scotland. Some of us live in Italy.

What a fucking mess of a total fucking disaster. None of this needed to happen and it's a total nightmare for me and my family.

If this goes through the UK is gone totally and both countries could sink.

I have no idea whether I'd get Scottish Nationality without moving there. Similarly, I assume the same goes for my children.

While the future back in the EU looks like it could be good (eventually) for Scotland there is no guarantee that Scotland will match the criteria in the short term and there may be no EU in the long term if Marine le Pen gets her way.

Do I move to go with them? Do I stay here and wait until its too late? Presumably if I qualify to be Scottish so does half of England. What happens then?

As for the economics—they are super-scary—worse than the economics of Brexit as Scotland not only proportionally trades more with rUK than UK does with the EU there is the little matter of £9bn subsidy UK gives Scotland plus other costs that Scotland will have to take on that look like being a £15bn a year shortfall. Imagine what devastation those kind of cuts will wreak on a small country of 5-6m people?

I'm terrified that once the dust settles and Scotland is free of the UK and having to slash services to meet EU entry requirements the whole mood of jolly, liberal, civic nationalism could come crashing down to normal nasty nationalism and people like me and my family who are reasonably well-off with english-sounding accents could soon see bricks crashing through the windows. Similarly, once the IMF and European banks start to dictate spending policy, European immigrants my be less welcome there than they are now. These are fears not predictions but I think they are plausible scenarios—Hungary seems a case in point here.

On the upside, weirdly, we may see a united Ireland come out of this fiasco.

The economics are very disputable - the UK doesn't do regional apportionment of tax collection other than (just now) income tax, so not everyone believes the GERS number of £9bn.

And now it's even more disputable with Brexit: what farm subsidies will Scotland recieve, for example? What's the future cuts scenario for the UK? What happens if the rUK starts mass deportation of EU nationals? Parts of England are a few Daily Mail stories away from burning down Polish or Pakistani corner shops.

The UK had its opportunity to choose inclusivity and openness, and instead England voted for reactionary panic. I think it's hard to underestimate how much work the SNP have done in declaring ethno-nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment unacceptable, and pushing those sentiments to the margins in Scotland despite the media.

(English-born Edinburgh resident SNP member here, btw)

> not everyone believes the GERS number of £9bn.

The GERS figures are produced by Scottish Government statisticians. Why would they massage the out of Scotland's favour?

I think that's nonsense. The GERS figures were accepted beforehand by the SNP themselves, and they're the best available. Even if they're out by 10% that's still a massive financial hole Scotland is looking at. Of course nationalists will now decide that the figures are inconvenient and so must be wrong, but their track record on economics isn't great - their prior plan involved building their fairer, kinder Scotland on the back of oil revenues which are now gone (and they ignored the decommissioning costs anyway).

The UK is not "a few Daily Mail stories" away from burning down Pakistani corner shops, Pakistani immigration having nothing to do with Brexit whatsoever of course. That's the kind of ridiculously over the top drama that lost the referendum, and it boils down to a form of racism itself: a belief that white English people are just horrible and ignorant, in defiance of all the facts (the UK is one of the most racially diverse countries in Europe).

Finally, I don't know what kind of independence campaign you remember, but the SNP I know practically defines itself through racist hatred of the English. Their entire argument for an independent Scotland seems to boil down to "we hate the awful Tory voting English".

> the SNP I know practically defines itself through racist hatred of the English

This is in direct contradiction of my experience of being English (RP accent and all) at Indyref events and the SNP conference itself. There's maybe one or two fringe old guys who are actually anti-English and everyone else finds it embarrasing and is genuinely friendly.

Everyone does hate the Tories though.

Not gonna deny that my support for the SNP is heavily influenced by my large dislike for tories. Seems like an awful stretch to call that racism though.

I think everyone here has a poor view of Tory voters, regardless of national origin.

Not me

that's grand pal

As a Scot I will be voting for independence in the spirit that you and your family will be welcome to live and work in Scotland, not certain what the claim to passports will be but if half of England qualifies then all the better (not really sure we if we wouldnt want the entire of England to qualify).

As for the economics I am not too worried. A 15bn shortfall sounds exaggerated but hey given the worse case Trident is a 205bn cost that dissapears and it is not the only one. rUK doesnt fund Scotland out of some kind heartedness, Scotland has a solid industry and a government that has shown to use its income to prioritise social services and an independent Scotland within the EU immediately becomes an extremely attractive place for all those international companies looking for a nice place to base their EU trace (a lot of which may just need to drive up a few hours from England)

Scotland's contribution to Trident is ~£200m per year.

I see some negative news about brexit plan execution, so I still think it might be possible to revert or avoid a total crash (if it occurs, maybe the world has some cards up his sleeves and things will reorder nicely) ?

Doesn't Scotland get a lot of money from oil and gas?

Not any more—they are currently running at a net loss. the rest of the UK are subsidising them to be decommissioned and for staff to be made redundant.

North Sea wells are declining.

True but that's been known for a while - and afaik there hasn't been a definitive "oil will run out in 20xx" answer. Main thing hurting right now is the global slump in oil price hammering the North East - to be fair all of this does suggest that Scotland needs to focus on diversifying into renewables and tech but that was always the plan. It's just kinda irritating that this has come up now as it's a convenient stick to beat the pro-EU left with.

I'm just thinking if you count the subsidies as coming from Britain to Scotland but not the oil being pumped from Scotland and sent to Britain?

How would the borders go in case of separation? Seems Scotland has only one refinery, and it's half owned by a Chinese company.

All current economic statistics about Scotland are baed on origin. Anything made in Scotland is counted as part of Scottish economy, even if it travels to England to be exported—that is counted as a Scottish export even though it left via an English port.

The difference after independence would be that the export would occur at Carlisle rather than Felixstowe.

Most of the "Thatcherism effect" of the 19080s can be directly attributed to North Sea oil. If you remove that money from the economy Thatcherism was a contraction until the banks boomed (though that was mostly post-Thatcher).

Part of the hippocratic oath is "first do no harm". We could usefully extend that to politicians. The UK government has, in 7 or 2 years depending on how you count, set the UK on a path to destruction -- and it was all very predictable.

>The UK government //

That's short-hand of course for the "UK people's democratically expressed will".

FWIW I don't vote conservative, nor support Brexit; but we can't solely blame the elite cabals - as this sort of phrasing tends to do - the demos are complicit.

People were led on by millionaire politicians and billionaire newspaper owners who flat out lied during the referendum. Politicians have been blaming immigrants and "benefit scroungers" for problems which are really caused by austerity. It would be nice to have an informed demos who could look past all that, but we don't right now.

come on, essentially the entire Western political structure was on the side of remain

they even shipped Obama over

That's because people are comforted that when a majority of people disagree with them and vote for outcomes they don't like it's obviously either because they were misled or manipulated (or they're racists).

Ah, brilliant idea! Politicians and voters just shouldn't be allowed to make bad choices. Why had no one thought of this yet?

>Disclaimer: I'm a child of English parents who was born in Wales but grew up in Scotland. I have Scottish and English children, in-laws and cousins. I have a family home in Scotland but I currently live in England. My children live in England and Scotland. Some of us live in Italy. //

This may be an indication of the problem. To my view your opener should be "I'm a child of British parents, born in Britain and grew up in Britain. I have British children. I, and my children, live in Britain. Some of us live elsewhere in the EU."

Somewhere we've hung on to the the idea that we're a [loose] amalgam of separate nations to which we really owe our loyalty [if any is owed]. Whilst that doesn't seem to be the case in other parts of the world [corrections?]. Which other sub-divisions of single countries compete internationally in sports for example?

I would have but that would have made things very confusing: I feel 100% British. My immediate family is scattered around the UK our forefathers were scattered throughout the British Isles—one half of the family was Irish. Even my English parents have Scottish blood somewhere down the line.

Even worse for me, I'm an internationalist and I felt very proud to be part of the EU for many of the same reasons I felt proud to be part of the UK: civic nationalism. The UK was the worlds most successful civic nation built on mutualism between a number of ethnic countries. To break up on ethnic borders and return to tribalism is heartbreaking.

> built on mutualism

Was it?

I mean, that's how it's taught in schools, but how well does that reflect the actual history? Certainly it doesn't represent the UK's history with Ireland, which really isn't taught in schools. That's how people like Melanie "wrong about everything all of the time" Phillips can write national newspaper articles in which Ireland has a "tenuous claim to nationhood".

This is kind of the problem, we have all this national mythos that runs up to about 1966 and then stops. And it doesn't bear scrutiny in the modern age. The last attempt at building a national narrative that worked for everyone was the Blair era "cool Britannia", and half a million dead Iraqis took the shine off that a bit.

Not to mention the inward focus of Unionism. Everyone looks towards London, but London doesn't look outwards. Occasionally it dispatches a foreign correspondent to Manchester to report on conditions. The average English person thinks of Scotland little and NI not at all.

> I mean, that's how it's taught in schools, but how well does that reflect the actual history? Certainly it doesn't represent the UK's history with Ireland, which really isn't taught in schools.

How it's taught in schools in UK/England perhaps. In Ireland the history class is all about how England is a horrible oppressor of Ireland. ;)

It's perhaps part of the confusion, and a sign that the states - rather than nations - have become so important that the concepts have been muddled, but I think that what you refer to as a "civic nation" is actually typically called a "state."

"Ethnic countries" - if the states primarily contains one nation of people - ethnically (ie mainly culturally), is commonly referred to as a national state.

National states became a popular concept in the 19th century, possibly because the kings, emperors and other rulers were starting to loose power and had to build their states around some concept. Before that, the kings and the rulers did not give the nationality of their subjects much of a thought I suppose.

I think you may be reading too much into it. I think poster is using those labels to illustrate the issue rather than for the purpose of asserting nationalism.

Whilst that doesn't seem to be the case in other parts of the world [corrections?]

Some (many?) Americans would describe themselves as hailing from a specific state or city, not the nation.

Personally, when traveling abroad, if asked where I'm from, I generally say "Washington DC", not "the US".

«Personally, when traveling abroad, if asked where I'm from, I generally say "Washington DC", not "the US".»

Yeah, I've met people like you. The problem is, this asks from your interlocutor of awareness for internal USA geography knowledge. On the other hand, many of those "from San Francisco" or from somewhere alike expect you to be just "from Europe" instead of "Germany" (or any other national state with its own cultural identity and external policy, for that matter).

P.S.: Try "Franconia" or "Thuringia" instead of "Germany" and see how many bells that rings! Mind you, these are broad regions, not merely cities.

It doesn't need any extra knowledge, assuming people know Washington DC is in the USA. They're no worse off than if he says "the USA".

I often say "London". I don't like saying "England", I consider the whole UK to by my country, but "United Kingdom" or even "Britain" are often not understood, and in any case, "which city?" is almost always the next question.

There are exceptions. If I'm introducing myself to someone with very limited English, like a young child in a developing country, I'll say England.

It happened to me quite a lot to introduce foreign clients to local acquaintances that haven't traveled abroad and don't have much knowledge (or interest) about outside world. Yeah, they heard of Washington (DC), alright, but haven't heard of SF and that caused a scene to my local pals with them being clearly unaware of where that place was and also being a little embarrassed to ask more. US citizens are not the only ones, this also happened with Vancouver and Melbourne. These are indeed prominent cities but not necessarily in anyone's world, and it seems nicer when that "which city?" comes instead of "where is that?"

It's at least a bit dependent on who is asking. I would expect somebody from Western Europe, Australia, etc to know Washington DC and SF (and London, Manchester, Frankfurt, etc).

I wouldn't have the same expectation of somebody from Asia. Not only is language a possible problem, but there are a TON of large cities in China (and other parts of Asia) I know nothing about.

Vancouver and Melbourne I can understand, but I'm amazed that there are people in the developed world that haven't heard of San Francisco.

That city has been part of the American "brand" for decades; from hippies, free love, Vietnam protesters and gay rights, to the dot-com boom and more recent startups. Add some destructive earthquakes, plenty of American films and music, and the international press whenever a startup does something bad.

Disclaimer: I'm Scottish

Really appreciate the well-wishing on it. I would love for there to still be a very open relationship between the two countries. We've got plenty of space up here and a booming tech scene!

Agreed on clarification with the EU membership but I think this is something that the SNP have been working on and that we can expect to see follow-up announcements.

Interesting times!

Interesting to see what might happen post Brexit if Scotland does become Independent and stays in the EU. London has been a great place for International companies to set up shop to access the EU market and labor force...I wonder if they will simply relocate to Scotland? England only business matters could also be handled from within Scotland itself.

Of course the obvious corollary is that much of Scotland's existing banking/corporate HQ sector does far more business in the rest of the UK than in Scotland, and some of those divisions might need or wish to relocate to somewhere in the rest of the UK rather than stay in a newly independent country of 5 million people that hasn't fully sorted out divorce terms with the UK never mind developed trade links with the rest of the world.

Where EU links matter, a newly independent Scotland that might join the EU is a far less attractive destination than many other nations whose EU membership and other trade relationships already exist. Where EU links are less important, London has the considerable advantage of network effect, access to the 55 million remaining Brits under English law and regulations, and by then at least some idea of what its trade policy with the rest of the world might look like. Can't see the SNP wanting to start a corporate-tax cutting race to the bottom either.

Those Scots that (with considerable justification) are very unhappy that the rest of the UK voted them out of the EU with all the uncertainty and damage to trade that entails might want to consider that the same arguments apply to leaving the UK. And Scotland does a lot more business with the rest of the UK than the EU

It'd be very easy to set up parallel legal structures in Scotland and then just transfer the business up. You possibly wouldn't even need to relocate.

True but it is a different legal system. London is used because everyone knows and likes the English legal system and the English courts. Scottish courts and the Scottish legal system aren't worse, just different. Wanting to do business with a contract using Scots law is a bit like trying to raise VC while incorporated in Maine. Nothing wrong with it, just not the way everyone is used to. The Scottish legal community has nothing like the density of commercial lawyers or the experience.

Not saying it wouldn't be doable for some businesses. If however your business relies on doing anything new/innovative in a legal sense then that is one reason why London is an attractive to be based. That is a big part of why "The City" is such a force, and legal services are a decent chunk of the UK's service exports.

Agreed - I'm a Scots-qualified lawyer :P

It's true that there's a lot of advantages to English laws but we see a lot of companies using Scotland anyway for its Scottish Limited Partnerships which have a lot of tax/ownership advantages.

I'm sure there will be considerable debate and potential change to our commercial law if independence goes ahead. To my mind it's a huge commercial opportunity.

Let's be honest though, winter in Scotland is long, dark and miserable.

Can't argue with that! Winter is always coming...

>My only concern for Scotland is that they wouldn't be able to gain (re-gain?) EU membership then would be left out on their own for many years. So I definitely think the Scottish leadership needs to better plan out EU entry relative to the last referendum.

Previously they said that if the UK left the EU, and Scotland left the UK, they could take on the UK's EU membership. This seems to be what they're aiming for with saying they want the referendum before the Brexit process is complete.

That said, it's never been confirmed that would actually be allowed, and with the UK government likely to trigger Article 50 this month, I'm not sure the door is even open for that. And given the EU's fairly strict and slow entry process, as you say, Scotland could be left outside of both unions for many years. I'm not sure if they'd even satisfy the EU's economic requirements on their own.

To confirm, I don't think there's any real belief in the party or the wider independence movement that Scotland would somehow 'inherit' the UK's EU membership. The idea seems to rather be along the lines of negotiating fast-track entry into the EU. It's possible that this won't happen, but on the other hand it's worth noting that Scotland is already subject to EU rules and compliance is a much less complex issue that for a country which is entirely outside the EU.

Couldn't a speedy entry process be negotiated?

My guess though is that the EU won't be keen on the UK splitting up and thus won't encourage it by providing Scotland a quick ascension.

This is also a wonderful bargaining chip for the EU to play against Theresa May in negotiating the terms of the UK's exit.

> This is also a wonderful bargaining chip for the EU to play against Theresa May in negotiating the terms of the UK's exit.

Yup. "You lot can leave, but we'll take Scotland. Your choice."

Not to mention Gibraltar - everyone's overlooked this tiny rock, but Gibraltar is entirely dependent on EU freedom of movement and voted very heavily remain. It's not a coincidence that there was a Gibraltar diplomatic mission to the SNP conference, although I'm not entirely clear what they wanted other than solidarity against Brexit.

Maybe Spain would let in Scotland and claim Gibraltar as their own?

Spain is already claiming Gibraltar as its own.

Is just that not the UK neither the people in Gibraltar want that. But yes, Gibraltar could face some problems when the UK leave the UE.

Why would they claim it as their own if the population is not Spanish?

Short version: look at a map.

Long version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar

If the population does not want to be part of the country, one cannot just annex the territory in the modern times.

Correct. That said, if the UK leaves the EU, and freedom of movement goes away, the opinions of Gibraltar's residents may change fairly rapidly.

You're assuming the EU will want it.

Germans are going to face a large hike in their contributions to the EU in the next few years as the UK leaves, as the EU appears to be utterly incapable of actually spending less (despite now having diminished responsibility). That's just not in its nature.

So then Scotland comes along. The best available data says it's an economic basket case significantly worse than Greece. The UK subsidises it to a great extent for historical and cultural reasons that don't apply to Germany. Meanwhile, 40% of Scotland voted out of the EU as well.

If you're German and already questioning whether you should be subsidising lots of low productivity high debt Mediterranean countries, does the thought of waiving the entry requirements and then paying even more taxes to subsidise a new Greece appeal to you?

Don't know why this has been downvoted. It's on topic and not even a particularly controversial line of argument. I'd hate to think downvotes were happening due to prejudice, but it does seem that the left wing wants to suppress differing opinion these days.

Can you elaborate on why England is a sinking ship? I ask because you're not the first person I've heard say that, but apart from a referendum 6 months ago, what has changed?

I think the view the pound losing 20% of its value, large-scale cuts to social spending and the economic effects of Brexit yet to be felt create a sense of worry about England's financial future. Also the increase in racist attacks, xenophobia etc.

Plus the UK is in an extremely weak position to negotiate trade with almost everyone and have a very short amount of time in which to do so.

It is a slow start, but jobs have already started shifting from the UK to other EU member countries (particularly for companies based elsewhere in the EU). We'll also likely see reductions in exports as UK goods cost more for other countries to import than competitors elsewhere, and UK imports from the EU go up in price (due to tariffs) and elsewhere (due to weaker trade agreements).

We also may see "brain drain" as students and highly qualified pros go to countries like Germany, France, Sweden, and Ireland where they can gain/maintain full EU travel/rights/benefits. Gaining citizenship in England & Wales is simply going to be seen as less useful than in e.g. Germany.

Overall we're just on the leading edge of how bad Brexit is going to be, the loss of the GBP's value is the market trying to "build in" projected future weakness. It could take England & Wales thirty years to fully recover from Brexit.

The pound losing its value makes our exports cheaper, and inward investment more attractive. Lavish welfare state spending makes many people in the UK dependent on benefits - there are plenty of jobs out there for those that look, and we should be housing single men that have paid in for 40 years ahead of families of migrants. The increase in racist attacks and xenophobia is mostly unproven, as any crime can be reported as a hate crime, and there is no requirement to prove the hate element; not to mention the efforts of the vested interests/left wing press including the BBC, who are obviously desperate to undermine the Brexit vote by any means possible.

Because "sinking ship" is a line often repeated by the West's globalist media monopolies and, unfortunately, most consumers of opinion are in a rush to agree with their televisions.

"Globalist media monopoly" is a line often repeated by nationalist propaganda chanels and, unfortunately, most consumers of opinion are in a rush to disagree with anything that challenges their world view.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the parent comment about sinking ships. I'm simply pointing out how easy it is to form this type of meaningless rhetoric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownersh...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_U...

Challenge your worldview. The status quo is not a conspiracy.

I am not trying to make a political stance here. I don't disagree that the media is controlled by be an elite minority.

I was simply pointing out that the rhetoric you just spewed is meaningless in this context and contributed nothing of substance to the conversation.

I suppose I am at fault here as well. I shouldn't have given such a useless comment the dignity and value provided by a response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Enjoy your delusion!

Commenting like this will get your account banned here, so please don't do it again.

Oh, please. With or without Scotland, England remains in the lead or on a par with the other most advanced countries in the world in most areas. Of course it has it's problems - like everywhere else - but the downturn that was forecasted to begin immediately after a leave vote has not materialised, with the UK economy proving remarkably resilient in this post-leave/pre-Article 50 period. If we judge it by the wisdom of crowds, I don't see a massive exodus of immigrants leaving the UK in fear of a downturn post-Brexit - in fact the opposite - I seem to encounter more and more immigrants everywhere I go in England, so no doubt they judge that your sinking ship is preferable to life in Spain, Poland etc. If you want to see a sinking ship, look across the EU where there is mass unemployment, suppression of free speech in support of mass immigration, a failed currency resulting in destructive economic imbalances, social dislocation due to lack of integration of migrants, free movement for terrorists and criminals, nepotism, all ruled over by an unelected and unaccountable elite in Brussels.

England is still one of the most important economies in the world. Better not hope she goes down, or everyone gets poorer.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/uk-economy-...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-01/after-bre...

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-27/u-k-s...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/23/net-migratio...

Firstly, the Grauniad is hardly an unbiased source these days, sadly. Secondly excuse me if I'm sceptical about the predictions of economists. Thirdly, your second source trots out a tired myth of remainers - that leaving the EU means we will not be able to fill low skilled work. It means nothing of the sort - it just means that we can choose what low skilled workers we let in, and if we want to continue to offer EU citizens seasonal work in the agricultural sector, nothing about Brexit prevents that. Fourth, your third source contains only predictions about the return of Polish citizens. Finally, your fourth source reflects a mixed picture - headlined 'Net migration to UK falls sharply after Brexit vote', we then find the following comments later on:

'Home Office figures show that the number of EU nationals in Britain who had their applications processed for UK residence documents to secure their individual status more than doubled from 92,289 in 2015 to 201,287 in 2016. More than 140,000 were successful.'

'Work continues to prove the main driver for near-record levels of immigration, particularly from within the EU, whose citizens accounted for 180,000 of the 294,000 who came to Britain to work in the year to September'

..so overall, far from a conclusive rebuttal of my points.

> the Grauniad is hardly an unbiased source these days

The surveys in question were compiled by Markit.

> we can choose what low skilled workers we let in

You seem to have missed the point: they don't want in, they are already leaving:

The June 23 referendum vote to leave the EU has already affected Gorton’s business: About 10 of his Eastern European employees have gone home.

“They were coming to us the next day and saying, ‘Crikey, this is not good for us, we’re not wanted in the U.K.,”’ he said. “Within a week of the vote, we saw people leave and go back to Poland and Lithuania. Ever since then, it’s become a lot harder to find the people we need.”

> your third source contains only predictions about the return of Polish citizens

Based on trends already observed.

> your fourth source reflects a mixed picture

Because it covers the period in the year to September, i.e. only 3 months after the referendum vs 9 preceding it. The trend break is quite visible in the chart:

https://interactive.guim.co.uk/charts/embed/feb/2017-02-23T1...

> the Grauniad is hardly an unbiased source these days

The surveys in question were compiled by Markit.

>> Sure, and I'll bet it's possible to find statistics that prove the opposite if you look hard enough. Not to mention the fact that as things change, so the country will adapt.

> we can choose what low skilled workers we let in

You seem to have missed the point: they don't want in, they are already leaving:

The June 23 referendum vote to leave the EU has already affected Gorton’s business: About 10 of his Eastern European employees have gone home.

>> So then we have to pay a little more for our fruit and veg. I'd be more than happy to do this if it means we are not sending billions in CAP money towards preserving the bucolic complacency of rural France.

> your third source contains only predictions about the return of Polish citizens

Based on trends already observed.

>> Oh no, the Poles are going! Well I suppose that means indigenous Brits will be able to see their doctor in a timely manner, and the first language in our school classes might revert to English again, etc.

> your fourth source reflects a mixed picture

Because it covers the period in the year to September, i.e. only 3 months after the referendum vs 9 preceding it. The trend break is quite visible in the chart:

https://interactive.guim.co.uk/charts/embed/feb/2017-02-23T1....

>> I wouldn't put my mortgage on it: 'Note: 2016 data is provisional'

Thanks for the downvote instead of challenging any of my points! People just try to suppress differing opinions instead of engaging with them these days. It's sad. We can only learn by talking. Are disagreements really so threatening to your echo chamber?

You're not interested in learning, only soapboxing.

The EU have already shown to be very amenable to an independent Scotland joining the EU in a timely manner (https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/eu-officials-are-discussi...). The process will be clarified however I dont think either side expect Scotland to get left in the lurch here

"My only concern for Scotland is that they wouldn't be able to gain (re-gain?) EU membership then would be left out on their own for many years."

Why? How?

Scotland would easily fulfill the requirements to join pretty much right away and the EU needs good news and would be able to sell that as something positive, so they have clear incentives to make it happen ASAP. Scotland also would be a net contributing country.

Because Madrid doesn't want to bolster the Catalonian independence movement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-in...

Severin Carrell is just being wilfully ignorant, and continues to peddle this myth in the Guardian whenever he can.

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/la-gota-que-co...

"The argument upon which Spain bases it opposition to Catalan and Basque self-determination is a clause in the Spanish constitution which forbids them to have independence referendums. There is no such clause in the British constitution forbidding Scotland from holding an independence referendum. When Scottish independence come about, it will be legal, it will be constitutional, and it will be negotiated with and recognised by Westminster.

Spain doesn’t recognise the independence of Kosovo from Serbia because Kosovo declared independence unilaterally, an independence which isn’t recognised by Serbia and which Serbia claims is contrary to the Serbian constitution. But Spain does recognise the independence of Montenegro from its union with Serbia because Montenegrin independence was permitted by the constitution and is recognised by Serbia. Unionists only ever cite Kosovo, never Montenegro.

2013 puts that in the context of the 2014 Indyref, where the Spanish were against the possibility of independent Scotland being considered as a successor state of the UK + thus automatically gaining EU membership.

Nowadays the context is on independent Scotland applying to join as a non-EU member, which no one has made any objections to.

Aside: It interests me that you sign yourself as English and call yourself a unionist. I'm British by nationality through official designation and consider all of the UK to be my home country.

Also the English-Welsh alliance. The counties that we call Wales have been annexed to the lands of the English Crown, as were Yorkshire or Cornwall (say), for a millennium or so. It saddens me that this has to be thought of as an alliance - by a unionist - when in fact they're simply arbitrary groups of counties in a single kingdom.

Segregationists, nationalist, protectionists, or whatever, appear to be winning the battle in pitching each of us against the others rather than us [humankind] uniting as people towards mutual good.

That said I agree with your sentiment, why would those Brits in Scotland sit on the sinking ship when offered a place back on dry-land with their fellow Europeans.

> Aside: It interests me that you sign yourself as English and call yourself a unionist. I'm British

I don't think that's interesting in the context of this discussion, it's shorter that "I'm British but not from Scotland".

The interesting thing to me is that it's only we English who feel the pressure to identify as 'British', say 'UK', et al. - Scots say so, Unionist or not.

It's a funny outcome after centuries of 'England' being used to refer to the whole union (and even the Empire, I believe) - but it changed some time in the last century or so, and now "you must get it right or you'll offend Scots!" is instilled into us in schools such that we even err on the side of UK.

> I want to leave too!

There was a brief desire to start an independence movement for London... It might very well happen (starting a group, not independence itself - if that ever happens it'll be decades) if Brexit gets too nasty and Scotland leaves and causes rest-UK to be even more hostile to our concerns.

London independence would surely only come with the complete collapse of the UK. Or it becoming an EU-like organisation. And that's not entirely impossible - there are enough regional independence movements that it's possible to imagine it.

Much more likely, though, is that everyone argues about it for decades and nothing happens.

Total collapse of the UK is looking quite possible.

- Scotland is likely to go (despite what the polls say right now)

- Northern Ireland is quite likely to join Ireland

- God knows what Wales is going to do

>- God knows what Wales is going to do //

It looks like the Cymraeg [language] loving Welsh-nationalists are likely to press for all schools to become Cymraeg language and demand all businesses to move that way too. That should push taxation to new levels, reduce school achievement further, and retard international businesses from entering/remaining in Wales.

Given the North-South divide in Wales (even amongst Cymraeg speakers) I'd expect the massive demographic differences to push it back to the pre-annexation days where Gwynedd in the North was the central power (due to Irish/Viking immigrants after the Roman exit AFAICT!). Cymraeg speakers in the low-population North will break away and enter an economy propped up by tourism. The South-East is 90% English speaking, has three-quarters of the population and relies on the M4 corridor for a lot of its economy it's staying close to England one way or another.

In short Wales is already starting to pull itself apart. The low-income Welsh people who benefited a lot from EU schemes [eg in The Valleys (S.E.)] voted to Leave though, I don't think they'd try to follow Scotland back to the EU. However there's still an undercurrent of "we were conquered by the English and will hate them forever".

An oft-overlooked factor that interests me is the Crown - what have they got to say about it all. I assume they're keeping their beaks out to ensure they keep Crown money and property but along with all of this it strikes me if they aren't going to retain a political union of "their" lands then there's no longer a regent in even the hands-off sense we have in the UK today.

Why you'd throw off rule of the Queen's government and choose to stay being Her subject is beyond me.

Northern Ireland is a very tricky issue. Despite the majority in vote against Brexit, there is an almost 50/50 divide between pro-british unionists and pro-irish nationalists. As far as I understand it, the government in Belfast has been a close cooperation between both sides since 1998. If that cooperation breaks down no one knows what is about to happen, but many fear that the violence of the 'Troubles' might return, a prospect no one but the extreme hardliners really want.

So, I don't think it is as simple as: 'Northern Ireland is quite likely to join Ireland'.

From friends and acquaintances in Northern Ireland, some of the unionists are wondering just why they're in favour of a maintaining a union, when the other side is either against them (anti-EU), or doesn't much care (the perception that people in Great Britain don't follow much news on NI).

I will admit that this is a gross simplification. However it's a totally plausible prediction. I stand by it as a summary.

Exactly. Scotland doesn't have as much die-hard "unionists" as NI does.

Is it Schadenfreude to realise that as much as I loathe this that once we hit the tipping point and all the property investors give up on London I'll be able to afford to live there.

Gibraltar will be courted like crazy by Spain given the massive Remain majority and Brexit uncertainty...

> Northern Ireland is quite likely to join Ireland

I sort of wish that were the case. The reality is likely to be a lot more problematic than "quite likely", and has every danger of becoming quite violent, to boot.

Not sure where the "Northern Ireland is quite likely to join Ireland" is coming from. The longstanding narrow majority in favour of the Union in N.Ireland was heavily skewed towards Leave, and the country's political map is defined far more by sectarian concepts of political identity shaped by decades of hostilities than pragmatic concerns about trade links.

London independence is more likely to be used as leverage for more devolution than to actually achieve independence. Sadiq Khan has already brought it up in support of devolution of more powers to London.

But any kind of devolution for London that makes much difference will end up increasing divisions, and increase the odds the UK fractures further. I have a hard time picturing a UK 30 years from now without imagining a Westminster that has devolved away most of its powers.

Even then, I suspect Scotland will still leave sooner or later, and possibly Northern Ireland too.

> But after Brexit one cannot blame or criticise them for wanting to leave.

Actually, a poll yesterday suggested 56% do not want a referendum at this stage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/half-scots-do-not...

I don't blame them at all. A large part of the "better together" campaign was fear-mongering that Spain would block their re-entry to the EU (ostensibly to set a precedent that'd make Catalunya's 'exit' more difficult).

It does feel like they were entirely hoodwinked on that particular point.

What's with the racist comment? Is it just a reference to one of the reasons for leaving being the refugee crisis?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com