I don't think "England" is going to allow them to use sterling, but I haven't read anything about that in a while.

.....Scotland voted to remain part of the UK. And since the EU leave/remain vote which followed was about the UK as a whole - and not it's constituent parts - there isn't much of a basis for an arguement that they should have another independence referendum. Lots of cities, London for example, voted to remain - no one is seriously suggesting that London should seek independence as a consequence of not getting its way.

Scotland is not part of England, London is.

......voted to remain in the U.K in the face of an upcoming U.K wide referendum on EU membership. Sorry, but that's that.

I daresay there'll be another independence vote in time. But Scots Nationalists are aware that the Spanish, for a start, would resist them being permitted to re-join the EU - lest it encourages similar manoeuvres by their own Basque and Catalan separatists.

Scotlands independence was looking difficult to stack up financially when oil was $120 a barrel - it looks even less appealing at half that.

Do you not find it odd that the Nationalist leaders had no problem with banging the drum for cutting ties with the UK even though it would have forced them out of the EU, and yet now claim EU membership is fundamental to their very survival ?

too much to resist.

I would expect that any final decisions will be influenced by the actual terms of the UK/EU divorce.

There's always hypocrisy in politics, the English guilty of much the same as the Scot Nationalists--asserting the need for national independence and local sovereignty while also telling the Scots they ought to be content with being ruled from London and bowing before the English monarchy.

.....getting one over the English is a big driver of Scots nationalism. It's inevitable when there's 10 English to every Scot' and a bit of historical rivalry. There's even a wall the Romans built to keep them out 🤔

Get what you're saying re political hypocrisy - but I think the truth underneath it all is that the UK vote to leave was swung by (false ?) immigration concerns and a widely held belief that we weren't getting value for money from EU membership.

There's plenty of arguements to dispute the sense of that thinking, but the concerns were and are real enough.

In the case of Scotland they have no such concerns to justify their withdrawal from a union that financially benefits them, and a shot to bits business plan to support their independent existence.

Significant powers have already been devolved to them from London - but a Scottish Nationalist Party can hardly concede to the electorate that independence isn't looking a good option right now.

The Scottish referendum took place in September 2014. The Bill on leaving the EU was introduced in May 2015. The Brexit referendum (which was non-binding, apparently) took place in June 2016.

But even if the Brexit referendum was looming, most people (including, presumably, the Scots) assumed it was going to fail. Many, including many Brexiters, were surprised when it passed.

But apart from the timing, your point is invalid. Scotland voted on one issue in the 2014 referendum - "Should Scotland be an independent country?" That's it. Circumstances have changed.

......are you saying that a vote should only stand until such time as "circumstances change" ? We may as well pack up now and just let the political classes get on with running the show in that case. Circumstances always change eventually.

As to "non-binding" you are quite right. The option existed to reject the decision the electorate made. As you can imagine .exercising that option is dangerous

There was ONE question. It wasn't...

"Should Scotland become independent bearing in mind that there's a possibility that we could leave the EU (which actually isn't a proposal at the moment but we might like to backdate the question in a couple of years)?"

"Circumstances change" makes it sound so minor. Of course, circumstances change. If the circumstance change is major, then yes, Scotland (or any other country) should rethink their position. Had the question of Scottish independence been posed while Brexit had also been posed, we may have had a very different answer. We don't know. But Brexit is a major change, so a reconsideration is appropriate.

They claimed they'd be able to, but plenty of people disagreed that the rules would allow that. But if they had won independence and been forced out, they would have applied for entry at once.

......they'd have "applied".

And then what ?

A big fat "no" from the Spanish is what, and a hand to mouth existence.

The SNP know full and well they can't afford the independence they crave but are forced, by the nature of what their party stands for, to keep demanding it anyway.

Talk from them of another referendum is just that - because there's every chance they'd win and have to walk the walk.

A MAJOR plank of the No campaign in the indyref was that Scotland would lose its EU membership and be cast adrift if we voted Yes. There was no credible expectation that the rUK would vote to leave the EU at the time, not least because there was doubt Cameron would even win another term. That's all worked out swimmingly, so yes, it's a deal-breaker and a crucial change of circumstances.

The "Spanish", assuming you mean the current Spanish administration, are more wound up about Gibraltar's fate in the brexit negotiations than about the possibility of Scottish accession to the EU, and could even veto any Article 50 deal if they don't like the arrangements concerning the Rock. Apart from anything else, the Spanish are fond of using Scottish fishing grounds, which they'll want to retain favorable access to.

There have indeed been calls for special status for London in the brexit settlement. It might not stretch to being an independent city state, but it's practically that already in financial terms.

As for Scotland "can't afford" independence, that's just bullshit. Scotland is an incredibly resource-rich country even if you disregard oil (whose price is currently climbing again anyway), currently not seeing all the benefits from that because of many years of maladministration from Westminster - as applies to regions of the rUK.

Adopting the euro is not compulsory. Countries that joined the EU years ago have gone slow on the process and are still not using the euro, and may never decide to do so.

There would be nothing to stop an independent Scotland using the pound - it couldn't be forbidden from doing so, other countries around the world do it without any hindrance - though given the decimation of its value that's going to continue as brexit unfolds, the question is more whether Scotland would want to do so.

And before you blether on about Hadrian's wall, check an atlas. If you want to gift Scotland chunks of Cumbria and Northumbria, I'm sure that could be arranged, but you'd better run it by the inhabitants before doing anything rash.

.....there was me taking note of where Spains PM and the EU President stood on this, when all along I should have been keeping an eye out for what a couple of members of an obscure committee have told Buzzfeed.

Silly me.

So you have some factual backup for where you claim "Spains PM and the EU President" stand on this? Ah. Didn't think so.

Thats just a guess mind you but they will probably wait atleast that long to see what happens after the UK leaves the EU and then if the benefits of EU membership outweigh the benefits of being part of the UK they will then seek to leave the UK.

.. seems able to stand up to conservatives
these days!

Poor UK

Poor USA

Poor Europe

is great. Not so much the reality. Greece played a big role in this decision along with a few other flailing economies. You have to wonder if the restrictions on entry into the EU had been stricter if it would have made a difference. And you also have to wonder if Brexit will cause the EU countries to revise their conditions for entry. I apologize for saying this, but I feel the EU has been playing fast and loose with these countries in the name of progressiveness. I think this is the beginning of a conservative backlash. In order to make the EU palatable to the mainstay countries like the UK, I believe they will need to add restrictions. In the long run, a conservative approach may be best to maintain what is an overall liberal agenda.

One section of the population, and a significant part of the Tory Party, has always been against EU membership, just on the grounds that the rest of the EU is not British. They increased their support by claiming that immigration from central and eastern European EU members (not Greece, but the ex-Warsaw Pact countries) was taking jobs, and putting a burden on services - hospitals, schools and housing.

Some areas did have problems, because central government wouldn't do any spending to build any new infrastructure in areas that did get significant immigration (and capped local authority spending so they couldn't do it even if they thought they could get it past voters). Some positive planning and spending by central government to even up the costs as well as benefits of the movement of people from the EU might have avoided the 'Leave' vote.

was longer ago than that. I remember it being a big talking point, an example of letting the 'riff raff' countries in. Of course, you could also make the argument that conservatives were fine with the western European countries but were wary of the eastern and Mediterranean countries. That's in keeping with the xenophobia of the right wing.

with insecure democracies, and not setting strict enough criteria for their change. I'm thinking of the fascist elements in Hungary and Poland in particular. On the other hand, it could be said that they might have developed in a worse way outside the EU.

In any case, the big expansion of the EU occurred in 2004. On checking, Greece had entered in 1981 - earlier than I'd thought; but the economic crisis there was in 2009. Euroscepticism was already a big force in British politics in the 1990s, and John Major constantly had to deal with attacks from hard-line Eurosceptics in his party, who were generally far-right in other ways.

I have never heard the 'EU expanded too fast' argument from a Leaver as a big factor in their vote; I have generally heard it from those who, like myself, support remaining but reforming.

The situation with Greece had very little to do with it (especially as we are not in the single currency Eurozone).

This has been going on for a very very long time, long before Greece was even a member of the EU.

The strongest campaigners against the EU have been hard-right xenophobes who are suspicious of any involvement with foreigners, especially non-English-speaking nations, and feel about the EU the way the Tea Party feels about the UN. Often they are also very anti-immigration. Add to that the fact that most people here have had very little real information about the EU, and are often led to blame the EU and/or immigration for economic policies and public service cuts that are really those of British governments and/or other local organizations, and there were just enough people voting for Brexit to get it through in a referendum without a pre-set threshold.

The EU is not perfect, but the likely alternative is far far worse: loss of trade; economic crisis; the government using the opportunity to turn us into a 'low-tax low-regulation low-welfare economy' (they've explicitly said so); and collaboration with the crazy and racist policies of The Unspeakable and his friend Putin.