Hacker News Reader

> Russia and friends would seem to have an interest in Scottish independence as it undermines the UK.

But so do Scottish people.

Obviously, but how is that relevant in the context here with the Iran internet blackout?

Presumably only some Scottish people have an interest in undermining the UK? Latest (2024) results from YouGov suggest yes/no is 34/49 to the question 'Should Scotland be an independent country?' [1]

1. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Internal_Ind...

More recent results from YouGov (November 2025) put yes/no at 39/41 [1] while other polling companies put yes in the lead [2].

[1] https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/docume...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_in...

Out of the 26 polls since the GE, 13 are pro indy 13 aren’t. But it’s worth noting that 9 of the 13 pro-indy polls were commissioned by strongly pro-Indy groups (The National, The Herald, STV News), which seems like it could have some selection bias.

The Herald[1] and STV News (neutral as a broadcaster) are not strong Pro-Indy groups.

The National certainly is.

DOI: Scotsman not in favour of independence.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Herald_(Glasgow)#Political...

I honestly wasn't trying to game my reply, I looked for the latest results on their site and clearly failed at that!

Scotland is part of GB, so the fairly likely Northern Ireland exit will be the big blow to the "UK"

Moreso when Russia and friends are putting their finger on the scale.

After all it certainly doesn't make economic sense.

Countries aren’t just economies. Scotland was colonized by England and it’s reasonable for them to want to be independent. It’s also reasonable for them to want to remain in the UK. Trying to paint one side as the one Russia supports is an ugly way of treating a decolonization movement.

"Scotland was colonized by England"

That's not really true, it was a union agreed by both sides - hence the name.

The British East India Company’s colonization of India also involved negotiated treaties.

Aren't you a German? (Maybe I am mistaking you for someone else.) If so, I would like to remind you of the German saying „Nicht alles, was hinkt, ist ein Vergleich“.

Your analogy is very, very stretched. One can definitely say that suppression of Highlanders after the defeat of the last Jacobite Uprising was somewhat similar to other British military actions, including those in India, but that was the standard of the day in the 18th century.

Scotland was in no meaningful way "colonized". The local elite kept their power, their property, and got adequate representation in the common British Parliament, which meant real influence over the legislative process and formation of governments.

Can you name any Indian MPs sitting in the Westminster back then and co-determining the next budget and the next Prime Minister? No.

comments on the person of a comment are not allowed on YNews by the guidelines here

... too bad there's no precedent for some part of an island around there uniting with this fancy free trade group of maverick countries!

Yes, a foreign adversary can only really leverage existing stressors. Iran could not really radicalize for an issue which the country was either totally unified on, or else is totally apathetic about.

agit-prop sure loves to try tho

Jade Helm, Obama's tan suit, etc.

most don't stick, which means you need to hammer "real" issues, even if they're only real to 10% of the population or less, e.g. "wedge issues" etc.

Right. You're always going to be able to press on racial tensions, but just try manipulating the mass study of advanced calculus. The latter is just going to be impossible.

My perspective, is Russia only sees other countries on how they can militarily respond to Russia's intentions.

For Scottish independence- well Adam Smith, David Hume et al set up the modern world. There's a definite Scottish identity. For others in Scotland it's a UK identity and they still identify as Scottish.

Russia's interest in Scottish independence begins and ends with the British nuclear deterrent.

Specifically HMNB Clyde [0] - it's the only naval base in the UK that can host the Vanguard class nuclear submarines that can launch the Trident.

[0] - https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/locations-and-operations/bases-...

If England want to house American nuclear weapons, they can house them in England. Put them in Harwich or something.

> If England want to house American nuclear weapons, they can house them in England

Sure. But the point is they don't. Moving nuclear weapons (and building a new submarine base) is difficult, disruptive and expensive. (Having a non-nuclear power on the same landmass as a geopolitical competitor is also nice. If there is an underlined vision of this millenium shared by the world's great and regional powers, it's that nuclear sovereignty trumps the conventional kind.)

Well, they can pay us rent or something.

Do you want a nuclear weapons site 20 miles from your largest city?

> Do you want a nuclear weapons site 20 miles from your largest city?

If you’re nuking a submarine port you’re nuking other port infrastructure. And if the UK is under strategic nuclear fire, any population center is going to be leveled.

(I understand the NIMBY argument. I don’t want to live next to nuclear weapons more due to accident risk than targeting.) And I understand the non-proliferation one when it worked.)

Typically it's US manufacted missiles fitted with UK designed and built warheads.

eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme)

There are / have been other nuclear warheads and bombs in the UK of both UK and US origin.

> Russia and friends would seem to have an interest in Scottish independence as it undermines the UK.

Famously, Alex Salmond (at the time, the leader of the Scottish National Party) was given a regular programme on Russia Today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alex_Salmond_Show

Say what you want about Scottish independence (its for the Scots to decide), but a break up of the UK would serve Kremlin interests no end.

I actually think that the process around Scottish independence actually demonstrates that the UK is actually relatively sane - a part of the country wanted to consider independence, the government at the time said "OK you can have a referendum", the referendum was held and Scotland voted to stay in the UK.

I was, and still am, a support of Scottish independence but I how the whole thing was handled reflects pretty well on the UK as a whole.

I'll certainly give you that. We have a (reasonably!) healthy democracy in Blighty, despite our grumblings.

Though it's fair to say that had the referendum been held more recently, Russian interference would have been orders of magnitude more severe. I'm not sure what the solution is to protect against such interference. (That is, interference in the worlds democracies, not just ours).

> I'm not sure what the solution is to protect against such interference. (That is, interference in the worlds democracies, not just ours).

Do to them what they do to us. Make "FAFO" a thing again.

We once upon a time stopped supporting the Russian opposition and it cost us dearly.

As for "what can we do now" - for every attributed or even suspected action of interference by Russia, Ukraine gets handed another few billion dollars worth of ammunition. When something gets attributed to Iran, give some nice toy to Israel. When something gets attributed to China, how about some missiles for Taiwan. We don't need to engage in wars ourselves, but we can put serious impedances against their plans.

The only ones I can't think of a solution are the North Koreans because they're so isolated and have the unique advantage that for anything we do they can shoot ballistics onto South Korea.

Politics is a bit like the roads in that it depends on manners, trust, mutual respect and a sense of fair play.

That has been called the "Good Chap" theory of government:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Good_chap%22_theory

I do believe that if people have good "unofficial" unwritten/unspoken manners and customs, pretty much any official "system" can work. Conversely, if the unofficial stuff is not on point, you'll have all sorts of trouble even with a theoretically good system.

It's like "Thinking Fast and Slow". Fast, unofficial, unconscious part of decisions and actions versus the slow, official, conscious part. The unconscious is more important in many cases.

> I actually think that the process around Scottish independence actually demonstrates that the UK is actually relatively sane - a part of the country wanted to consider independence, the government at the time said "OK you can have a referendum", the referendum was held and Scotland voted to stay in the UK.

You cannot ignore the influence of EU membership, both to the referendum vote for Scottish independence, and post-Brexit attitudes. The Scottish independence referendum was impacted by it becoming clear that an EU membership would not be automatic nor even possible (Spain would veto); Brexit happening means that part of what motivated Scotts to remain in the UK was taken from them (they voted overwhelmingly for the UK to remain in the EU).

Then you had the insane Brexit referendum which was non-binding but considered binding, where the "leave" vote could mean any number of things, and blatant nonsense was allowed to be used as slogans (that famous Boris bus), with the government failing to communicate on what the EU is.

I guess in my world the IndyRef was in the good old days before the breaking of the world that was Brexit.

Many "remain" votes in IndyRef were predicated on the UK remaining in the EU - Brexit was specifically a bait and switch.

Talk of referendum's being "non-binding" is a red herring and a distraction.

The Scottish independence referendum was also non-binding, because that is how things work in the UK.

.. Of course there was a complication in the Scottish case as the Edinburgh Agreement (2012) was necessary to hold it, and the UK government was politically bound to honour the result - but that's the same as the UK brexit vote. All parties were politically bound to honour the result, but not legally bound.

Relatively sane just says how bad it is elsewhere, as in we probably wouldn't descend into civil war.

As a fellow Scot, I watched the commentary unfold while I lived in Canada and to me the what would you call it, blatant, slant on things meant the vote would go a particular way. I think it all boiled down to the uncertainty of negotiations with Westminster. Pensioners were scared about their pensions disappearing and whatnot.

All the same, it's true that Scotland runs a deficit much the same as the rest of the UK does, relying on London generated revenue.

That seems to me a stark reality of independence, which some voters were willing to pay. Point being anyway, online algos are readily manipulating opinions and spreading false information.

> but a break up of the UK would serve Kremlin interests no end.

Like Brexit did.

>Makes sense. Russia and friends would seem to have an interest in Scottish independence as it undermines the UK.

Do they? Since Independent Scotland is very likely to rejoin EU it seems to me Russia & co would be interested in keeping it on the sinking ship that is post-brexit UK(economy wise).

I don't think that's a given, or even necessarily a strong likelihood. A majority of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK, unlike the Brexit situation where a shrinking minority of the UK's trade was with the rest of the EU, the only EU member for which this was the case. Scotland is accustomed to deficit spending and to large subsidies from the rUK, neither of which would be epecially palatable to EU finances.

And while I certainly think it's fair to describe the UK economy as a sinking ship, I also think that blaming that on Brexit is, to put it politely, "starting with your conclusion". UK growth has been higher than France, Germany or Italy since 2016. Brexit has obviously had impacts, but they haven't all been negative (the City in particular has zero enthusiasm to fall back into any EU alignment) and I think the COVID lockdown shambles and the Homerically inept current government have been bigger factors.

I found this a decent recent overview on the common analytical takes, if you're interested: https://julianhjessop.substack.com/p/what-the-nber-gets-wron...

Given that a sentiment for independence of Scotland has only really became an actual topic people discuss semi-seriously after the Brexit, I think it is fair to assume that there is a quite high likelihood of it, and there are quite some EU states that get preferential treatment budget wise, no reason to assume that Scotland cannot become that.

Covid has been global, lockdowns have been everywhere, UK is not unique and did not even have the worst of it in terms of lockdown strictness. While "averaged out" UK economy post-brexit/pre-covid might not look that much worse than EU, if you look into specifics the picture gets far uglier with entire economy sectors going bankrupt, all in all it was a spectacular self inflicted damage that will be felt for decades to come, especially now that US is becoming a hostile actor.

> Given that a sentiment for independence of Scotland has only really became an actual topic people discuss semi-seriously after the Brexit

The Scottish independence referendum was in 2014, two years before the Brexit referendum.

And? Sentiment has changed drastically after brexit.

I have lived in UK during the referendum, I remember it vividly, nobody seriously believed that it would actually go through, it seemed THAT absurd.

I am still convinced that brexit is one of the first big wins of Russian meddling campaigns.

Scotland would be a net contributor to EU finances as an EU state. Its GDP/capita is very similar to the UK's.

Though its notional deficit would be far higher and break EU rules IIRC (which have been broken numerous times by existing EU states).

It would disrupt UKs defence (nuclear submarines in particular) and energy (oil fields) both of which currently are primarily based geographically within Scotlands territory. This is classic Russian tactics. Its not about whether Scotland joins EU or stays with UK, or which is economically or politically the best decision - its about seeding chaos and uncertainty within one of Russias largest antagonists.

I think it'd make the remainder of the UK weaker and more divided if Scotland joined the EU after leaving the UK, so I'd think that serves their interests too.

Yes, but it would make EU stronger, so how does it serve their interests?

If anything it would force UK back into the EU, further strengthening it.

The EU has not yet set a precedent for allowing breakaway states into full membership, so it's far from a given that an independent Scotland would be able to rejoin the EU.

Scotland is of enormous strategic importance due to its location relative to Russia's naval ports. An independent Scotland with no other backing would have minimal resources to monitor and deter Russian naval activity.

The precedent is now the promise to allow Ukraine into the EU.

I note that if you're looking for a weakly defended EU country reachable from the North Atlantic and quietly relying on the UK defence umbrella without admitting it, Ireland is already there.

That is an interesting precedent. However, Ukraine is not a breakaway state from an existing EU member state (or a state which has been in the EU). There are numerous regions in the EU on a similar path, and none have yet succeeded (including Kosovo, which has been independent since 2008).

I'm also not talking about the defence of Scotland itself, I'm noting that monitoring and curtailing Russian naval activity in the Baltic Sea corridor is of wider strategic importance. If Scotland became unable to do this, Russia would have an easy exit path for naval vessels from its Baltic Sea ports.

In your example, Ireland as an EU member has significantly more access to military resources than otherwise.

> Since Independent Scotland is very likely to rejoin EU

That is in no way clear because Spain has previously (during the Scottish independence referendum) indicated they would veto such a thing (because they don't want to give Catalonia any ideas or hopes).

But in any case, a Scottish independence would force the UK to find, and invest a lot in, a new base for its nuclear submarines. Scotland is also the most important UK part of GIUK gap, where there is a lot of infrastructure to catch and track Russian assets entering the North Atlantic. UK losing access to that is not good for it nor for the US with their special relationship.

A Scotland in the EU can also create tensions between the UK and the EU, which would also be good for Russia.

An independent Scotland or Wales would have pretty much the same trading relationship with the EU, as England has.

At least for several decades after independence

The level of integration of everything, including trade and supply chains and finance etc, is so big as to be almost total.

In addition, I'm pretty sure that EU would not welcome another hard border with England, it's already waisted far too much time and effort on the issue in Ireland. I'm sure it doesn't want to have to go through that again.

An independent Wales is a non-starter and I say that as a Welshman… Wales is just to reliant on subsidies from London (as is Scotland and the majority of England)

Scotland heavily subsidises England.

That might have been true in the time of peak North Sea oil but it's not true anymore

The SNP have won a lot of seats through the voting system because the other parties split the non-independence vote. The SNP have never had a majority of votes, even with an overwhelming majority of parliamentary seats.

which voting system? There's one for Holyrood and one for Westminster.

IIRC it's been a long time since anyone has commanded a >50% of the vote share.

It has been quite a long time since a Westminster party has won with a vote share of over 50%, and the SNP vote share at Holyrood is higher than those of parties that win Westminster elections. The Westminster electoral system (nb to non-Brits: all the UK constituent bodies run different voting systems for no good reason) delivers majorities at the cost of legitimacy.

Assuming everyone on a BBC comment section is from the UK, that's 90% not Scottish and 10% Scottish

In 2024 the SNP got 30% of the vote, the big unionist parties having more than 2 votes for every 1 nationalist.

A survey of online posts is usually not representative of a population at large, either within the online community or the society as a whole. There are so many biasing and selection effects at work, even before talking about anything deliberate which is probably also going on.

Usually over-representative of the unemployed, angry, lonely and obsessed

I'd go for "retired, angry, lonely and obsessed"

Edit: I'm 60 in case anyone thinks I'm being ageist

That spells out "ORAL" which is very fitting for a vocal minority.

> Makes sense. Russia and friends would seem to have an interest in Scottish independence as it undermines the UK.

They also strongly support Unionism, because it also undermines the UK.

Presumably BBC comments also contain comments from English people who might not follow the same 45/55 split on Scottish indeoendence as Scottish people do?

The problem with this argument is that it is very simplistic.

And a very simple way of de-legitimising any anti-establishment position, and protecting the status quo.

We can look at independence movements in Europe, Brexit, Trump, republicanism in the UK, any sort of heterodox economic or foreign policy.

Even if you disagree with these positions, it is helpful to you to steelman your position and your arguments. And just dismissing them as Putin's work drops you into a trap. It's arguably one reason why Trump got re-elected. People spent his entire first term assuming he'd be exposed in some complicated Russian plot and put in jail; rather than thinking hard about why he got elected in the first place. Same thing happened to some degree with the Brexit vote.