The main issue driving the rise of the Scottish independence movement is simply the perceived democratic deficit.
Scotland believe they are being ruled by a party and a government implementing policies they didn’t vote for, with Brexit being the most high profile one. In the 2019 general election that people say was a Tory landslide it wasn’t in Scotland where the Tories only got 25% of the votes in Scotland and lost seats to the SNP.
The Scottish government has limited tax raising powers and is not permitted to borrow monies to fund their priorities as Nicola Sturgeon is often keen to mention because she says if they could they would have done additional things during this pandemic.

I don't know if it's JUST that - ultimately, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland are being ruled by London, with the power-sharing illusion of devolution not really being enough to make that not the case.

If the Union is to survive - and as a resident of Scotland I really hope it does - then the whole London-centric rule has to end. Move the Lords to Edinburgh, have the temporary Parliament in Cardiff etc - make people feel less like they're being ruled by London elitists like Johnson, Gove, and as much as I like the man, Starmer. Make it feel more like they're equal partners in the Union and not being dictated to by England.

London has a bigger population than Scotland.
England has ten times the population of Scotland.
18+ times bigger than Wales.

How 'equal' should Scotland and Wales be in a democratic system?

...this kind of attitude being exactly the reason the Scots in particular want away from London-led politics.

London has a bigger population than Scotland.
England has ten times the population of Scotland.
18+ times bigger than Wales.

How 'equal' should Scotland and Wales be in a democratic system?

That was always the issue something like the Brexit referendum, though. The UK population is (roughly) 66 million: England makes up 56 million of that, so that even if all of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voted to remain (as it was two of them did), then England would always be the decider. It really made a mockery of the "UK voted out" argument when, in reality, England voted out: any UK-based referendum where you have differing viewpoints from the various nations will always be weighted in England's favour where the outcome is determined by a 50%+1 person winning post.

But if Scotland, Wales, N'Orn Iron are all parts of the Union along with England, then there has to be one of two things: equal parity from other nations in the decision making on the running of the United Kingdom (as if the SNP, DUP or Plaid Cymru have any real say in Westminster), or more power to the devolved Governments - including one for England - with Westminster taking on a more federal role akin to that in, say the United States.

One thing is for certain, though. If Unionists want to protect the Union, then they are going to have to start thinking 21st Century, because this current 19th Century setup we have is starting to look dated and one-sided in the favour of England, and that's why the other nations are feeling somewhat fed up.

Er, but Wales voted to Leave. So what if the UK vote had been Remain, but Wales alone voted to leave. Would you all then be making the same arguments on their behalf? Oh, I tell you what, let's look at the regions of England or even conurbations like Greater London. Maybe we should just have left West Yorkshire, the South Hams, West Tyrone and Ceredigion in the EU? Oh, and Guildford.

Kind of fed up of this constant cherry-picking to suit an argument. We were members of EU as the United Kingdom, hence the only valid poll was as a United Kingdom.

This is quite separate from my views on the Union. Whilst I would like it to prevail, I can understand the minority countries being fed up of Westminster government. If devolved powers are not enough, there is only one other option. But, I get equally annoyed that the South West often gets ignored while the Northern Powerhouse continually bleat despite significant investments and devolved power in some areas. In some ways I think areas such as ours, East Anglia and the far North East have stronger cases than Scotland. Yeah ... the South West should be an independent state - bring it on ...

Er, but Wales voted to Leave.

I know. That's why I said "two of them did"

Er, but Wales voted to Leave.

I know. That's why I said "two of them did"

You did, but then conflated them with Scot/NI in the rest of your argument.

So Quinny, would you be championing Wales' cause if the UK as a whole had voted to Remain?

Just listening to the BBC pm programme, it sounds to me as though the NI Protocol part of Brexit will become a recruiting sergeant for a United Ireland.

A very bright lady who runs a company which buys in organic fruit and veg products from the rest of the UK has simply given up, and will resort to buying direct from the EU in future. The reason? For each consignment her supplier must get inspection approval from DEFRA, plus a certificate, and again for each consignment, a certificate from the Soil Association.

DEFRA and her suppliers tell her that both are impossible, so she has no choice. A government spokesman admitted that the 12 month preparation period didn’t happen, because that time was spent in continuing negotiations.

Just a question but why can't England have a referendum and vote for an English parliament. Scotland has a parliament so do the Welsh and there is also the northern Ireland assembly.
Why has the english not had the option of voting for an English parliament.

Just a question but why can't England have a referendum and vote for an English parliament. Scotland has a parliament so do the Welsh and there is also the northern Ireland assembly.
Why has the english not had the option of voting for an English parliament.

It already is an English parliament in all but name. That is literally the reason the SNP exists.

Just a thought, that I don’t see mentioned anywhere on this thread.

It’s been proven by polsters doing post-vote analysis, that many voters don’t respond to the question on the ballot paper in a referendum. Brexit was a good example, where a high proportion of leavers voted because they were simply dissatisfied with their lot.

It seemed to me that when labour lost all its Scottish seats, then independence became more likely. This is simply because Scotland has never had a right of centre majority, and it follows therefore that without a labour or Lib/Lab coalition in Westminster they were always going to be unhappy with their national government.

Having lost all their Scottish seats, plus northern labour heartlands during the disastrous Corbyn years, and with a newly installed 86 majority Tory government, most Scottish left of centre voters who do not vote SNP are now feeling they have nowhere left to go but devolution to rid themselves of this government.

Just a question but why can't England have a referendum and vote for an English parliament. Scotland has a parliament so do the Welsh and there is also the northern Ireland assembly.
Why has the english not had the option of voting for an English parliament.

If legislation at Westminster only applies to England there is a ruling that only English MPs can vote on it, so there is already an English parliament.

There is quite a lot of propaganda currently being pumped out by the UK government listing how Scotland benefits from being in the UK, mostly financial such as furlough or logistical such as use of the army implying that if Scotland was independent they wouldn’t have received it.
This does ignore the fact that as an independent country Scotland would have its own armed forces and raise its own taxes or just like the UK government borrow money to fund the same schemes, just as countries of a similar size like Denmark does.

There is quite a lot of propaganda currently being pumped out by the UK government listing how Scotland benefits from being in the UK, mostly financial such as furlough or logistical such as use of the army implying that if Scotland was independent they wouldn’t have received it.
This does ignore the fact that as an independent country Scotland would have its own armed forces and raise its own taxes or just like the UK government borrow money to fund the same schemes, just as countries of a similar size like Denmark does.

I once looked in to moving to Scotland and AFAIK they have significant tax raising powers already but tend not to deploy them in any meaningful way. The SRIT gives them a lot of devolved power in this regard including retention of the Scottish Rate element. The 19-21% band vs a straight 20% band is largely irrelevant in terms of revenue, and they only increase the 40 and 45% bands by an extra 1%. Prior to that they never used the 3% levy they were granted in 1999. Net net, they already do have the power to do more.

I believe they also control council tax and business rates, as well as bits and pieces like the equivalent of our Stamp Duty, air taxes and savings.

My info may be slightly out of date so apologies if so, but even when I looked into it they obviously had the ability to do more at the time. So if they don't use those powers in any meaningful way now (and haven't since 1999) I'm not sure that can be stated as a case for independence.

There is quite a lot of propaganda currently being pumped out by the UK government listing how Scotland benefits from being in the UK, mostly financial such as furlough or logistical such as use of the army implying that if Scotland was independent they wouldn’t have received it.
This does ignore the fact that as an independent country Scotland would have its own armed forces and raise its own taxes or just like the UK government borrow money to fund the same schemes, just as countries of a similar size like Denmark does.

I once looked in to moving to Scotland and AFAIK they have significant tax raising powers already but tend not to deploy them in any meaningful way. The SRIT gives them a lot of devolved power in this regard including retention of the Scottish Rate element. The 19-21% band vs a straight 20% band is largely irrelevant in terms of revenue, and they only increase the 40 and 45% bands by an extra 1%. Prior to that they never used the 3% levy they were granted in 1999. Net net, they already do have the power to do

I believe they also control council tax and business rates, as well as bits and pieces like the equivalent of our Stamp Duty, air taxes and savings.

My info may be slightly out of date so apologies if so, but even when I looked into it they obviously had the ability to do more at the time. So if they don't use those powers in any meaningful way now (and haven't since 1999) I'm not sure that can be stated as a case for independence.

I think your post re-affirms my view that referendum decisions are often made with the heart, not the head. My Brexit voting friends could never give me a single political decision that could be made outside of EU membership, that couldn’t also be made within it. So, logically, membership caused no constraints, and turning your back on all that simpler trading made no sense. Didn’t stop them voting to leave though.

Same applies to Scotland. That do indeed have tax raising powers they don’t use. They also no longer have the oil revenues which would have made independence economically beneficial when the SNP was first created. We also have a government willing to extend their powers, which theoretically would make independence irrelevant. But none of that cuts any ice when your heart dictates that you want to be part of an independent nation.

One thing puzzles me. The question of currency is never discussed in depth. The SNP say they wish to continue using the pound. However what if we don’t want them to. If Scotland, like Greece ten years ago, spent way beyond their means, the effect would be to devalue the pound. To prevent a euro devaluation the EU had to impose severe restrictions on the Greek economy. We presumably would be unable to act in similar circumstances because we would have no authority. Conversely if we chose to weaken the pound by printing more money, they would be in the same boat.

Another question is the national debt, also never discussed. Presumably they’ll never agree to accepting a per capita or pro rata, share of the debt when they leave. So how might this be resolved?