Home » Britain » Indyrefs Until Nicola Gets the Answer She Wants

Indyrefs Until Nicola Gets the Answer She Wants

by John Brian Shannon | March 14, 2017

Q: How many Scottish Independence referendums will there be, Mum?

A: As many as it takes for Nicola Sturgeon to get the answer she wants, dear…

Which will be more than the advertised ‘once-in-a-generation-vote’ of the original referendum on Scottish independence.


“Senior Nationalists called the referendum a ‘once in a generation’ event. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon both signed an agreement with stating they’d respect the result. Ms Sturgeon went on the record saying she ‘wouldn’t have the right’ to ask the question again unless views changed.

These turned out to be hollow promises, every one.

Absolutely everything the SNP has done from referendum day to now, has been geared towards engineering another vote.

Despite losing her majority in May, by June Nicola Sturgeon was back at it – using the EU referendum as a catalyst. Instructing officials to start drafting another independence referendum Bill within four hours of the Brexit result.

It is unjustified, infuriating and wrong. It denies the democratic verdict of the 2014 referendum. It breaks Nicola Sturgeon’s own word. It ignores every bit of polling evidence which suggest Scots don’t want another referendum, and that Brexit hasn’t materially changed views on independence.

And it is terrible for Scotland’s economy.” — The Telegraph

In the space of only 30 months and against her own promises, the First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon is proposing another referendum on Scottish independence (Indyref) in the hopes of getting the results she missed by a healthy margin during the last Indyref held in September 2014.


Here are the 2014 results as recorded by the BBC

Scottish independence | Final results in 2014 Indyref

Scottish independence | Scotland votes 'No'

Breakdown: Here is the referendum result by Council.

Scottish independence | Scotland Indyref 2014 results by Council

With 84.59% of eligible voters turning out to vote in the referendum, the ‘No’ result can’t be blamed on poor voter turnout. It must be something else.

Maybe it’s that the Scottish people know they have ‘a good deal’ with the rest of the United Kingdom, or that they are a people who respect the many and historical links between Scotland and the other members of the UK and Commonwealth, or that they feel their future is inextricably linked with everyone else on the island, or that the case for Scottish independence simply wasn’t compelling enough. It could be all of that, and more.

Whatever their reasons, 55% of eligible Indyref voters in 2014 chose to stay in the United Kingdom.

Scottish independence | Scotland votes to become an independent country - Indyref


The question that hasn’t been answered by Nicola Sturgeon;

What’s changed ‘the case for’ Scottish independence vs. 30 months ago?

Something must have changed to make Nicola think there would be a different referendum result or she wouldn’t be calling for a second referendum on Scottish independence.

The Scottish people and the other members of the United Kingdom are entitled to know exactly what has changed that would suggest a different Indyref result.

Otherwise the people of Scotland will simply duplicate the time and expense of a second referendum to arrive at a similar result.

Inquiring minds (and the people paying for, and affected by) a second referendum deserve to know…


Related Article:


9 Comments

  1. randyjw says:

    What a waste. They keep doing this, over and over, in the U.S., too — it’s a maddening waste of time and money. The countries should stay together as a larger leveraging force in the world, in counterpoint to the EU and to continue in their strong position as good and democratic contributors, coming from a position of strength.

    • Hi Randyjw,

      I agree fully with your statement.

      In geopolitics, SIZE matters!

      Smaller countries get pushed aside, while the larger powers gain the advantage.

      Corporations see similar results; There are ‘economies of scale’ that kick in with huge purchasing power that the smaller companies can’t match, which makes the larger organizations much more profitable per widget produced — for one example.

      There is a reason that the trend for corporations is to get larger over time, not smaller.

      Similar is true in the animal kingdom, of course.

      Britain should be making huge efforts to invite the Republic of Ireland and the Scandinavian countries to The Commonwealth of Nations organization, should some of those nations decide to leave the EU (and it looks like some will, within a decade)

      SIZE matters in geopolitics, business, and in the animal kingdom. It is a ‘cosmological constant’ rule in politics, if I can use that terminology here.

      Always great to see your comments!

      Cheers, JBS

  2. Brexit has been a convenient lever for SNP to manipulate the faux outrage of another democratic vote that didn’t suit their end.

    There will be no Brussels Barnett Formula. Is it even financially viable for an Independent Scotland to be an EU Member State? We’ve yet to hear of the latest financial model on which it would be based.

    I’d have more respect for the SNP as a party if they were open and upfront, if they stated Indyref2 was always their intention. They’re now misleading much of their own support. This, however, will be lost on their cult-like following.

  3. Tim Walker says:

    In recent decades there has been a trend towards trade blocs.

    In the case of the UK there are two obvious possibilities, the Commonwealth, and NAFTA. Other possibilities have been discussed.

    Don’t know about Scotland. The Scots would probably be at the end of the queue, along with Catalonia and the Basques.

    • Hi Tim,

      Quite true!

      I think the biggest amount of short-term gain would come from the UK gaining associate membership in NAFTA.

      But a longer-term goal of closer economic links with Commonwealth nations — that also includes more trade as a component of that closer economic relationship — could become even more attractive to the United Kingdom, and could benefit all Commonwealth nations.

      Think of the total population of India alone in 2022 (2.2 billion) and think of what that developing economy and its new levels of disposable income, might do for the UK.

      The numbers are mind-boggling! So much so, that the UK could add a trillion pounds sterling to annual GDP from 2020 onwards — but only if the UK seizes those very real trade opportunities NOW.

      Any Prime Minister that fails in this — Britain’s BEST chance to grow its economy since WWII — should be summarily fired by the Queen, by their own political party, and if it comes to it, by voters.

      Trade with India can do more for Britain (over the medium-term) than almost every other trading relationship combined. But only if it’s done properly.

      Therefore, I support associate NAFTA membership for the UK in the short-term and dramatically improved economic links with India over the medium-term.

      Always great to get your comments here!

      Cheers, JBS

  4. Tim Walker says:

    Indeed, John, I can see a promising future for an intact UK.

    It is not my place to comment on the nationalist aspirations of the Scots, Basques, or whomever. But I am willing to comment on international trade, and I suspect that a Scotland that departs the UK will be left out in the cold.

    • I agree, Tim.

      And further to your point, it’s difficult to see what would be positive for Scots in an independent state. (What would the purported the benefits look like? Nobody has addressed that yet)

      Four times as much trade comes via the rest of the United Kingdom, as from the EU, in the Scottish example.

      Scotland is a mere backwater for the EU, an asterisk — meanwhile, Scotland is an integral part of the UK’s history and present-day experience.

      Scotland in a newly-independent United Kingdom will be of far more importance, than a Scotland that serves as a curiosity or a backwater for the EU.

      Best regards, JBS

  5. Tim Walker says:

    One thing I think is extremely unrealistic-the expectation of subsidies from tax payers in other countries.

Leave a Comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s