Why forbid it when you can just ignore it? E.g. Spanish government said they wouldn't recognize results of a Catalonia independence vote. (Whether they actually would is another matter.)
That would symbolise everything the independence movement asserts about the arrogance of Westminster politicians and their alleged couldn't-give-a-damn attitude towards the Scots. Personally, I think there would be riots.
If there is a legally-held and popularly-supported vote in Scotland which decides in favour of independence, it would end badly if Westminster somehow decided to declare it null and void or just pretend it didn't happen.
All great, logical points. But that's not how governments usually operate when it comes to nationalist movements. Spain is fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent Catalan independence. Catalan independence has much greater support than Scottish independence, but the Spanish government is determined to stop it. It looks like the Spanish government will even try to punish them if they leave (doing their best to deny them EU membership and the like and probably not recognizing them as a country even if they have independence). By contrast (and despite some early posturing), the UK will want a Scotland that is well-integrated and will obviously recognize it.
But even the UK hasn't cared about popular sentiment for independence in the past. Look at the United States, Ireland, and India. But I think the UK has changed a lot and recognizes that it can get much of the same benefits without needing to rule over places. Frankly, it's a mature attitude to notice that you can succeed without force.
And it's that maturity that's going to make this a mostly good experience regardless of the result. If Scotland becomes independent, the UK will try to make it as easy as possible so that Scottish and other British people will barely notice a change. It's best for the UK if an independent Scotland has no barriers for their people and firms. Similarly, if Scotland remains in the UK, politicians seem to recognize the desire for even more devolved powers to the Scottish Government.
Normally, countries don't recognize a piece of their land becoming independent easily. Popular sentiment and even riots often don't deter countries from asserting dominance. Heck, sometimes countries even want to take over pieces of land that are currently independent where popular sentiment is 95%+ against being taken over. Yes, the UK government is doing the pragmatic thing where "it doesn't have any other choice". But loads of other countries are faced with the same issue and they're not facing it with that sort of logical pragmatism.
It will also set a good example of how it's possible to handle nationalist movements, particularly if Scotland becomes independent, and would give the UK and Scottish governments a lot of clout when mediating nationalist disputes in future.
An interesting aside on this is how Spain would treat an independent Scotland. They might decide to try and make an example of how miserable life could be for a region that becomes independent.
Here's some irony for you: the Tories, who are the people the "independence movement" is complaining about, would gleefully sign off on Scottish independence because it would give them complete and permanent dominance over the rest of the UK - without the Scottish MPs there is no possibility of any other party controlling the UK government. (Post-independence Scotland would likely have a very unhappy experience negotiating with a permanent Tory government)
LDs will back the outcome of the referendum whatever happens. Labour are the only party that might attempt to ignore the referendum because Scottish independence will end their existence.
> Labour are the only party that might attempt to ignore the referendum because Scottish independence will end their existence.
Labour would have gotten elected quite frequently discounting Scottish votes. This link has been posted further downstream by nmeofthestate but worth reposting here: http://theweebluebook.com/principles-and-politics.php
I hadn't really thought through the implications for the remainder of the UK, you've made some interesting points. In terms of international politics, I could see it diminishing Britain's status considerably.
Well, maybe, I guess by Britain you mean England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
My main concern is what does this mean for the position of Wales and NI in the union? I think that it will diminish Wales as an entity, and lord alone knows how it will play in NI.
I'm English, I think England will muddle along, a bit like a sort of very militant and eccentric version of Holland. No bad thing that...
> That would symbolise everything the independence movement asserts about the arrogance of Westminster politicians and their alleged couldn't-give-a-damn attitude towards the Scots.
What, any more than Maggie? I agree that it would be extremely unpopular in Scotland, but there's ways to spin independence referendum results for propaganda in the outside world. Claims of unclear/biased question, claims of voter eligibility "irregularities", claims of bad faith independence negotiations, etc.
If push comes to shove who's going to ostracize UK over 5 million people? U.S. wants HMNB Clyde to stay, big European countries will be afraid of UK leaving EU, and the UK doesn't listen to the rest anyhow.
If UK wants to hold onto Scotland against its will they will, but let's hope they don't.
