Ship of Fools: Scottish Independence, mark two

Thread: Scottish Independence, mark two Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=019963

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has announced a consultation on plans for a second referendum for Scottish independence.

Not surprisingly, Brexit is a major driver, according to Sturgeon

quote:
am determined that Scotland will have the ability to reconsider the question of independence and to do so before the UK leaves the EU - if that is necessary to protect our country's interests.

So, I can confirm today that the Independence Referendum Bill will be published for consultation next week.

The original referendum had Westminster approval, and for now this consultation appears to only be in Scotland anyway, with no Westminster involvement.

How far away might it be, and what's the outcome likely to be?

BBC report here

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think a second referendum will still need Westminster approval (where's the irony smilie - Westminster needing to approve a referendum in Scotland, but not needing to approve a negotiating position for Brexit). But, there's nothing stopping the Scottish government holding whatever consultations within Scotland as they see fit.

Certainly Brexit has pushed a second referendum back into the political agenda. If there had been no EU referendum, or the result had been different, we'd be at least another decade before anyone dared to suggest it. Part of that is the difference in the voting pattern in Scotland cf: the rest of the UK. For me, the largest part is the feeling of being fed a fiction by Better Together that they had no intention of fulfilling - specifically, knowing the independence White Paper said Scotland would seek to remain in the EU telling us that the only way to guarantee continued membership of the EU was to stay in the UK. If the Better Together campaign, and in particular David Cameron, were serious about that claim then they wouldn't have called the EU referendum - at least, not in the way they did (if they'd made it a requirement that the Leave campaign produce a manifesto detailing what form of Brexit they would seek then a) the referendum would have been much later in the Parliament, b) a lot of the Leave voters would have said "if that's what's planned we're better off staying in" and c) we wouldn't have the current farce of the Government not being able to tell us what their negotiating position will be - which is basically, ISTM, because they can't decide since no one had thought about that in advance).

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

It looks like we're screwed economically either way. I think we've probably got more chance of salvaging something from the wreckage of the UK post-Brexit as an independent nation not shackled to the lunatics who got us into this mess.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It looks like we're screwed economically either way. I think we've probably got more chance of salvaging something from the wreckage of the UK post-Brexit as an independent nation not shackled to the lunatics who got us into this mess.

I can see the argument that the post independence economy would have been hammered by the decline in oil price. The Brexit economy isn't looking too healthy at the moment either and we've not even fired the starting gun.

So as you say, it could be something of a Hobson's choice...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

On the one hand, the UK is busy trying to tell Ireland to push back the UK borders to the Irish borders. That doesn't bode well for the amount of autonomy an independent Scotland would be allowed.

The Tories seem intent on breaking everything about the union that made me want to stay in it last time. Unless Corbyn gets his act together in time to look like a serious opposition, I don't think I'm willing to wait around for another five years just in case the Tories leave anything unsmashed.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

It's going to be interesting. Would Scotland inherit the UK's opt-out from the Euro, and would that matter given the performance of Sterling at the moment? Is it in Scotland's interest to be in a Customs Union with the EU or RUK? The SNP castigated the Unionists last time for 'Project Fear' claiming that Westminster, despite all its other sins and wickednesses would make sure that Scotland had a good deal out of enlightened self-interest, most notably on the currency. Mrs May doesn't really do enlightened self-interest. Would that make a difference or would "Vote 'No' or Mrs May will come for you" backfire?

For what it's worth whilst I hope Scotland stays I can't in all honesty blame them for wanting to be shot of the rest of us. In fact I wonder whether a half-Scottish grandparent would entitle me to residency.

A final thought. Who gets custody of Ulster? Ulster Unionist people routinely remark that they have more with Scots than they do with the English. And it might be one way of saving the Irish peace process by keeping Northern Ireland in the EU and thus keeping the open border.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

One issue is, of course, that by the time the Scottish Government finish their consultation, get Westminster to approve a referendum, produce a renewed White Paper for Independence (since any decent referendum needs a detailed description of the intent of those who intend to change) and organise a vote ... well, that's going to be more than 2 years and the UK will be out of the EU taking Scotland along with it. So, at that point (assuming a Yes victory) an independent Scotland would need to seek entry into the EU, and I doubt it can be assumed that this would be a re-entry under terms that the UK enjoyed prior to June 23 (does that get called 23-6 or 6-23 to join the other numerical references to great disasters of our time?).

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Plus which there are other EU members who were reportedly not keen on giving membership to an independent Scotland as they didn't want to encourage other breakaway regions such as the Catalan and Basque scenarios in Spain.

But as Alan says, this time Scotland will surely already have been taken out as part of the UK, so it wouldn't necessarily be the same argument about allowing a breakaway nation in.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Scotland will still be a breakaway nation in the eyes of those countries wishing to contain their own separatists. Admittance is not guaranteed, but I think it would happen. Whatever the path, it will not be smooth.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

quote:

For what it's worth whilst I hope Scotland stays I can't in all honesty blame them for wanting to be shot of the rest of us. In fact I wonder whether a half-Scottish grandparent would entitle me to residency.

quote:

No need for any particular ancestry at all. That is part of the point.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Plus which there are other EU members who were reportedly not keen on giving membership to an independent Scotland as they didn't want to encourage other breakaway regions such as the Catalan and Basque scenarios in Spain.

But as Alan says, this time Scotland will surely already have been taken out as part of the UK, so it wouldn't necessarily be the same argument about allowing a breakaway nation in.

Given that Spain is still claiming sovereignty over a country they ceded in the 1700’s and keeps telling them to go away, I wouldn’t rely on logic. It’s possible that some of the current members might take one look at the newly independent Scotland and decide that allowing them EU / EETA membership would cause them too much trouble. It would still be a breakaway nation. Just a breakaway nation from a country that’s already left the EU.

EETA membership might be the best option rather than full blown EU membership. It would give them access to the Single Market but enable them to keep control of their fisheries, relationship with the UK and avoid the EU’s fiscal targets. The EU allows members to spend approximately 3% more than they bring it and Scotland spends about 15%.

Tubbs

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Plus which there are other EU members who were reportedly not keen on giving membership to an independent Scotland as they didn't want to encourage other breakaway regions such as the Catalan and Basque scenarios in Spain.

But as Alan says, this time Scotland will surely already have been taken out as part of the UK, so it wouldn't necessarily be the same argument about allowing a breakaway nation in.
Given that Spain is still claiming sovereignty over a country they ceded in the 1700’s and keeps telling them to go away, I wouldn’t rely on logic. It’s possible that some of the current members might take one look at the newly independent Scotland and decide that allowing them EU / EETA membership would cause them too much trouble. It would still be a breakaway nation. Just a breakaway nation from a country that’s already left the EU.

EETA membership might be the best option rather than full blown EU membership. It would give them access to the Single Market but enable them to keep control of their fisheries, relationship with the UK and avoid the EU’s fiscal targets. The EU allows members to spend approximately 3% more than they bring it and Scotland spends about 15%.

Tubbs

Giving Scotland a good deal whilst giving the rUK an extremely bad one would send a hell of a lesson to other countries tempted by the primrose path of right-wing populism. If I was Frau Merkel I'd be sorely tempted.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Giving Scotland a good deal whilst giving the rUK an extremely bad one would send a hell of a lesson to other countries tempted by the primrose path of right-wing populism. If I was Frau Merkel I'd be sorely tempted.

I think the idea of an Indie Scotland joining the EU is distant pipedream: the other EU countries would be replacing a net contributor in the UK with (another) net beneficiary of EU funds. I don't think that's sustainable, unfortunately.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The SNP castigated the Unionists last time for 'Project Fear' claiming that Westminster, despite all its other sins and wickednesses would make sure that Scotland had a good deal out of enlightened self-interest

Funny that they weren't making the same argument about how the EU would react to Britain leaving. Or do Europeans not do enlightened self-interest?

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

The poison of nationalism strikes again. The SNP and the cognitive dissonance of Scottish voters are two of the strings to the bow that plays the cacophonous tune which we all dance to. Let’s recap:

First, we had the IndyRef, which the SNP supported, but was opposed by the Conservatives (they want to rule as much as possible) and Labour (knowing they couldn’t form a majority without Scottish seats). The SNP take any critique of Scottish independence as dismiss it as “Project Fear”, but ultimately a small majority vote to remain.

Second, Labour is accused of opposing the national will, siding with the Tories and are then pretty much kicked out of Scotland at the following general election. Meaning that even though the Conservatives had a small majority, they were bound to far exceed the number of Labour seats.

Third, the nationalists in Scotland now come out nominally in favour of Remaining in Europe, in contradiction to their raison d’être of independence. But they are very half-hearted in their campaign, leaving it to the nationalists in England (not as many in Wales) to stoke up xenophobia whilst at the same time dismissing any critique of leaving the EU as “Project Fear” (an idea borrowed off the Scottish nationalists, but played more ruthlessly).

Fourth, the nationalists in England secure a narrow victory, leaving the EU, meanwhile the nationalists in Scotland, under the banner of independence, vote to remain.

So we now have a country riven by nationalist xenophobia and a second IndyRef. We have English nationalism directing xenophobia against pretty much everyone, Scottish nationalism directing xenophobia against the English and there are quite a few English lefties (myself included) who none too pleased with the Scots whose separatism seems set to doom the English to perpetual Conservative rule. We’ll end up with several countries, still divided by xenophobia, all hating each other but proudly waving their little flags, screaming “look, we’re independent” while the Tories, not content to serve in heaven, retain their Mephistophelian rule.

What a wonderful time to be alive!

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Plus which there are other EU members who were reportedly not keen on giving membership to an independent Scotland as they didn't want to encourage other breakaway regions such as the Catalan and Basque scenarios in Spain.

But as Alan says, this time Scotland will surely already have been taken out as part of the UK, so it wouldn't necessarily be the same argument about allowing a breakaway nation in.
Given that Spain is still claiming sovereignty over a country they ceded in the 1700’s and keeps telling them to go away, I wouldn’t rely on logic. It’s possible that some of the current members might take one look at the newly independent Scotland and decide that allowing them EU / EETA membership would cause them too much trouble. It would still be a breakaway nation. Just a breakaway nation from a country that’s already left the EU.

EETA membership might be the best option rather than full blown EU membership. It would give them access to the Single Market but enable them to keep control of their fisheries, relationship with the UK and avoid the EU’s fiscal targets. The EU allows members to spend approximately 3% more than they bring it and Scotland spends about 15%.

Tubbs
Giving Scotland a good deal whilst giving the rUK an extremely bad one would send a hell of a lesson to other countries tempted by the primrose path of right-wing populism. If I was Frau Merkel I'd be sorely tempted.

How? Both nations are on the same primrose path, but with different destinations. Nationalism is nationalism. One sort really isn't any better than another. (Sorry, but it isn't).

Spain could still nix it.

Tubbs

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
How? Both nations are on the same primrose path, but with different destinations. Nationalism is nationalism. One sort really isn't any better than another. (Sorry, but it isn't).

Spain could still nix it.

It would be epic trolling. The prospect of all those companies relocating to Edinburgh whilst the Brits queue patiently for hours for their monthly Marmite ration. The Spanish could nix it, I agree, but they might not for an informal understanding that, in ordinary circumstances, a secessionist region would be deemed to leaving the EU as well as the larger country a country which seceded in order to rejoin the EU would be treated differently. They could call it the Rajoy doctrine. Heck, Gib could vote to leave rUK and become part of Scotland and the Scots could do an Anglo-Irish Agreement type deal with Spain.

Much as I dislike nationalism, have a look at Alex Massie's blog at the Spectator where he rewrites some of the speeches at the Conservative Party Conference and replaces Scottish with British and English with foreign. As Massie points out, you cannot imagine the SNP using that sort of rhetoric. Where the Conservatives and UKIP are concerned you don't have to imagine anything at all. This is the biggest decision the country has taken since we decided that, actually, we had no plans to surrender to the Germans in 1940 and Scotland and England took different views on the matter. It would hardly be a surprise if this led Scots who, on balance, supported the Union to decide that a separation was in order and to decide that, on balance, Scottish Nationalism was a lesser evil than the sort of thing we have been treated to since Angry Nativism Day.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

What are the trade and work numbers for Scotland-England, Scotland-EU? i.e., what does the economic argument say? Would a Scot be allowed to work in England, where does Scotland get its imports, who does it export to? and all- vice versa.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
where does Scotland get its imports, who does it export to? and all- vice versa.

2013 figures (from BBC the last time people were rushing to google this one in advance of referendum 1):

Scotland exports to rUK: £50.5bn goods and services
Scotland imports from rUK: £62.7bn g&s

Scotland exports to rest of world: £21.3bn g&s
Scotland imports from rest of world: £21.6bn g&s

Those figures will have changed, but I can't see them having changed by much. They're really not pretty reading...

Essentially in the event of Scexit and a hard border with the rUK, Scotland would be putting its wish to remain in the EU and not be in the UK above cold economic reality every bit as much as the Brexiteers are currently.

Obviously, cold economic reality hasn't got a great track record of focusing minds in 2016, but frankly I find those figures more scary than the UK:EU ones.

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
The poison of nationalism strikes again. The SNP and the cognitive dissonance of Scottish voters are two of the strings to the bow that plays the cacophonous tune which we all dance to. Let’s recap:

First, we had the IndyRef, which the SNP supported, but was opposed by the Conservatives (they want to rule as much as possible) and Labour (knowing they couldn’t form a majority without Scottish seats). The SNP take any critique of Scottish independence as dismiss it as “Project Fear”, but ultimately a small majority vote to remain.

Second, Labour is accused of opposing the national will, siding with the Tories and are then pretty much kicked out of Scotland at the following general election. Meaning that even though the Conservatives had a small majority, they were bound to far exceed the number of Labour seats.

Third, the nationalists in Scotland now come out nominally in favour of Remaining in Europe, in contradiction to their raison d’être of independence. But they are very half-hearted in their campaign, leaving it to the nationalists in England (not as many in Wales) to stoke up xenophobia whilst at the same time dismissing any critique of leaving the EU as “Project Fear” (an idea borrowed off the Scottish nationalists, but played more ruthlessly).

Fourth, the nationalists in England secure a narrow victory, leaving the EU, meanwhile the nationalists in Scotland, under the banner of independence, vote to remain.

So we now have a country riven by nationalist xenophobia and a second IndyRef. We have English nationalism directing xenophobia against pretty much everyone, Scottish nationalism directing xenophobia against the English and there are quite a few English lefties (myself included) who none too pleased with the Scots whose separatism seems set to doom the English to perpetual Conservative rule. We’ll end up with several countries, still divided by xenophobia, all hating each other but proudly waving their little flags, screaming “look, we’re independent” while the Tories, not content to serve in heaven, retain their Mephistophelian rule.

What a wonderful time to be alive!

This post has me scratching my head - I don't recognise much of it at all. Full disclosure: I am an English lefty, but have lived in Scotland for the last 11+ years. FWIW I voted for independence in IndyRef1, and would vote for it again in IndyRef2 should that happen. I am not an SNP member or supporter (although I admire individual SNP politicians including Nicola Sturgeon very much; others, less so), and voted Labour and Green at this year's Holyrood election, and Green at last year's Westminster election. I have occasionally voted SNP when I have thought they put up the best candidate (for example at the most recent council election, when our ward didn't have a Green candidate and the Labour candidate was campaigning on a bonkers anti-wind turbine ticket), but am by no means an SNP apologist. Just so you understand where I'm coming from.

I think 'siding with the Tories' is only part of the story of Labour's demise. For the past several decades Labour had been able to put up a donkey in a red rosette and they'd be elected. With the SNP in power in Holyrood since 2007 (initially as a minority govt and then later with a majority), where although not perfect they have by and large demonstrated considerable competence, this meant that at last the Scottish electorate has had a credible alternative, and they have chosen to go with that rather than a party which has taken them for granted for decades. With the rise of Ruth Davidson, who is also clearly a credible and competent politician (shame about her politics), I think that the political options are more mixed and open than for the last few years of SNP dominance, and represents another challenge to Labour. They have pretty much abandoned 'anyone but the Tories' up here (indeed, my local council is a Labour-Tory coalition) and replaced it with 'anyone but the Nats', in my view to their considerable detriment.

I also think that portraying the SNP as denouncing everything anti-independence as Project Fear is too easy. Yes they did use the term, frequently, but for those of us who were here for the entire campaign (and not just the last few weeks when the rest of the UK suddenly woke up to the fact that the referendum was happening), the rhetoric of sky-falling-in and utter negativity was pretty relentless for a full 3 years. The SNP weren't the only ones who thought the Better Together campaign was Project Fear - it was blatantly obvious to ordinary Joe Public like me too. After 3 years of the campaign, I still couldn't point to a single Better Together politician who was making a positive case for the union, it was all doom and disaster if we voted for independence. Oh yes, and don't forget their insistence that the only way Scotland could be guaranteed to stay in the EU would be to vote No to independence.

It's also too easy to say that the SNP are nominally in favour of Europe. A similar number of SNP voters/members voted Leave as did Labour voters, if polls are to be believed. However, the official party platform was always about being in rather than out of Europe, and I disagree strongly that their campaign for the EU referendum was half-hearted. From where I am the SNP was one of the more vocal and positive campaigners for a Remain vote. Their raison d'etre is independence from the UK, not independence from everything.

Finally, I don't know where you've got 'Scottish nationalism directing xenophobia against the English' from. From my position as English living and working in Scotland, I don't recognise that at all. Of course there are bigoted idiots on all sides, and the Scottish nationalists are no exception, but by and large it seems to me that vitriol is aimed at Westminster, not the English. Most people, even in the SNP, really are aware of the difference. One of the things I really love here is that, despite not being Scottish, I have been made welcome, my contribution appreciated, and the validity of my vote (whichever choice I made) not questioned. Scottish nationalism has its unpleasant and nasty underbelly, of course it does, but to equate it with the xenophobia that's emanating from the Tory party higher echelons and UKIP and their ilk is missing the reality, in my view. As for perpetual Tory rule without Scotland, where have you been the last 7 years? Labour could have won all 59 Scottish seats in 2015 and still wouldn't have been the largest party. Labour's predicament runs an awful lot deeper than not being too popular in Scotland right now. They need to get their act together in England and Wales and not just rely on the Scottish party propping them up like they have for decades.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

Jack the Lass
[Overused]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Like Jack, I'm an Englishman living in Scotland (for 20+ years now), and also don't recognise the description of the SNP portrayed by Sipech. The nationalism of the Scottish nationalists is radically different from that of other forms of nationalism - certainly from the racist and xenophobic version of nationalism we see in UKIP and the right wing of the Tories.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
How? Both nations are on the same primrose path, but with different destinations. Nationalism is nationalism. One sort really isn't any better than another. (Sorry, but it isn't).

Spain could still nix it.

It would be epic trolling. The prospect of all those companies relocating to Edinburgh whilst the Brits queue patiently for hours for their monthly Marmite ration. The Spanish could nix it, I agree, but they might not for an informal understanding that, in ordinary circumstances, a secessionist region would be deemed to leaving the EU as well as the larger country a country which seceded in order to rejoin the EU would be treated differently. They could call it the Rajoy doctrine. Heck, Gib could vote to leave rUK and become part of Scotland and the Scots could do an Anglo-Irish Agreement type deal with Spain.

Much as I dislike nationalism, have a look at Alex Massie's blog at the Spectator where he rewrites some of the speeches at the Conservative Party Conference and replaces Scottish with British and English with foreign. As Massie points out, you cannot imagine the SNP using that sort of rhetoric. Where the Conservatives and UKIP are concerned you don't have to imagine anything at all. This is the biggest decision the country has taken since we decided that, actually, we had no plans to surrender to the Germans in 1940 and Scotland and England took different views on the matter. It would hardly be a surprise if this led Scots who, on balance, supported the Union to decide that a separation was in order and to decide that, on balance, Scottish Nationalism was a lesser evil than the sort of thing we have been treated to since Angry Nativism Day.

I don't disagree, it's been a truly depressing time to be English. I'll check out Alex Massie when I don't have the Cold of Doom. But, frankly, I wouldn't blame them.

Given that Spain is still arguing a dispute that everyone else thought was decided in 17-something, the epic troll is well within the realms of possibility.

Tubbs

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The SNP castigated the Unionists last time for 'Project Fear' claiming that Westminster, despite all its other sins and wickednesses would make sure that Scotland had a good deal out of enlightened self-interest
Funny that they weren't making the same argument about how the EU would react to Britain leaving. Or do Europeans not do enlightened self-interest?

Enlightened self-interest when dealing with someone basically trying to cooperate is not the same as enlightened self-interest when dealing with someone playing xenophobic silly buggers.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The SNP castigated the Unionists last time for 'Project Fear' claiming that Westminster, despite all its other sins and wickednesses would make sure that Scotland had a good deal out of enlightened self-interest
Funny that they weren't making the same argument about how the EU would react to Britain leaving. Or do Europeans not do enlightened self-interest?
Enlightened self-interest when dealing with someone basically trying to cooperate is not the same as enlightened self-interest when dealing with someone playing xenophobic silly buggers.

To be honest, I think the argument is bogus whether from the SNP or the Brexiteers. "These people are fiends in human form and we must separate ourselves from them forthwith that our nation may flourish again! When we do so they will be eager to give us good things!" Neither George Osborne nor the EU Commission are monsters but they are politicians and politicians tend to put the people who vote for them ahead of the people who don't.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Neither George Osborne nor the EU Commission are monsters but they are politicians and politicians tend to put the people who vote for them ahead of the people who don't.

Not that the EU Commission is elected, of course...

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Neither George Osborne nor the EU Commission are monsters but they are politicians and politicians tend to put the people who vote for them ahead of the people who don't.
Not that the EU Commission is elected, of course...

Good point. I should have said the other EU Heads of Government who are, and who will conduct the whole thing with their own electorates in mind.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Come March (or whenever they pull the trigger) the Irish peace process will in all likelihood go into free fall. There are two main issues that nobody in the rest of the UK seems to be either talking about or even know about. They are:

1. Currently there is much talk of a hard border. This is a complete reversal of what was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement. It would make life hell for those who live on the borders. Families will find themselves divided again by a hard border. There will be major issues for those who live in the Republic but work in Northern Ireland (and vice versa). There are many other issues surrounding this including many cross-border agreements, but I'm sure you get some of the picture.

2. The UK government seems to be making it clear that they will be voided of the European Court of Human Rights. Again, this formed a major part of the Good Friday Agreement and was instrumental in securing peace and gave assurances to people that they were not going to be treated as suspects or as any less than anyone else simply because they were from a particular section of the community. With the introduction of a new British law, which in all likelihood currently seems will differ quite significantly, the entire basis of the Good Friday Agreement would need to be renegotiated.

Frankly, it's a nightmare and add to that an independent Scotland that will make the Unionist community very twitchy and give good cause to the Loyalist paramilitary groups to up their game. Already, in and around Belfast, Loyalist paramilitary groups are gaining a foothold uncontrolled by the police force with just over one thousand recorded attacks, murders and intimidation activities in the last five years. Things are not good.

The question is, after Brexit happens and a Scottish independence vote looms, will Britain actually have the time, energy and resources to actually deal with this issue? I hope to God, for all our sakes, that they do. Common sense and realistic thinking tells me otherwise.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Tin-hat time: I think the long-term unspoken policy of the English Establishment is to let Northern Ireland swing in the wind.

If it came to it and Boris and chums couldn't talk the Republic into some kind of quasi-British border at their ports of entry, then I think they're just planning to tell the Northern Irish that they can like it or lump it - gambling on the fact that enough people are invested in the peace process to avoid all-out fighting.

Whatever the end result, I think NI is going to see barriers between it and E&W if it wants to continue with free borders with the Republic.

If Scotland moves towards independence, I think the secret plan is to push NI towards either some kind of reunification with Eire or independence on its own. Which would obviously be bloody stupid, but I can't see how else there could be the kinds of immigration barriers that the xenophobes seem set on having.

Of course, the other possibility is that Boris has no clue at all what he is doing and that he thinks things are going to work out alright simply on the basis of his bubbly personality and habit of using Latin and Greek at every opportunity.

If I was an Irish politician on either side of the border, I don't think I'd be thinking that the future was very rosy.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Neither George Osborne nor the EU Commission are monsters but they are politicians and politicians tend to put the people who vote for them ahead of the people who don't.
Not that the EU Commission is elected, of course...

Nor are our government, our Prime Minister and one of the Houses of our Parliament.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

If Scotland moves towards independence, I think the secret plan is to push NI towards either some kind of reunification with Eire or independence on its own.

Nah, the solution is a United Federal Republic of Dal Riata, with a federal parliament based on Iona. I'm only about 40% joking about this.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:

quote:
Of course, the other possibility is that Boris has no clue at all what he is doing

That strikes me as being the possibility which fits with the available evidence. It is not merely confined to Boris, of course.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Funny that they weren't making the same argument about how the EU would react to Britain leaving. Or do Europeans not do enlightened self-interest?

It requires a great deal of delusional thinking not to realise that at this point the governments of continental Europe are acting with a huge amount of enlightened self interest.

We are - after all - welcome to stay in the arrangement they've already spent several decades negotiating. They aren't going to expend a huge amount of legislative effort and time simply because we've decided we want to be led by a clowncar full of zoomers.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Come March (or whenever they pull the trigger) the Irish peace process will in all likelihood go into free fall. There are two main issues that nobody in the rest of the UK seems to be either talking about or even know about. They are:

1. Currently there is much talk of a hard border. This is a complete reversal of what was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement. It would make life hell for those who live on the borders. Families will find themselves divided again by a hard border. There will be major issues for those who live in the Republic but work in Northern Ireland (and vice versa). There are many other issues surrounding this including many cross-border agreements, but I'm sure you get some of the picture.

2. The UK government seems to be making it clear that they will be voided of the European Court of Human Rights. Again, this formed a major part of the Good Friday Agreement and was instrumental in securing peace and gave assurances to people that they were not going to be treated as suspects or as any less than anyone else simply because they were from a particular section of the community. With the introduction of a new British law, which in all likelihood currently seems will differ quite significantly, the entire basis of the Good Friday Agreement would need to be renegotiated.

Frankly, it's a nightmare and add to that an independent Scotland that will make the Unionist community very twitchy and give good cause to the Loyalist paramilitary groups to up their game. Already, in and around Belfast, Loyalist paramilitary groups are gaining a foothold uncontrolled by the police force with just over one thousand recorded attacks, murders and intimidation activities in the last five years. Things are not good.

The question is, after Brexit happens and a Scottish independence vote looms, will Britain actually have the time, energy and resources to actually deal with this issue? I hope to God, for all our sakes, that they do. Common sense and realistic thinking tells me otherwise.

At the moment, Davies is saying that there won't be a hard border and Ireland has said this is one of their red lines for the Brexit deal.

The UK isn't leaving the European Court of Human Rights. May mentioned it as a possibility but everyone else pooh'ed it so she's back tracked. It will leave the EU Court once we're done. (ECHR and the European Court aren't the same, despite what the Fail and the Express says).

But you're not wrong, the whole thing is a complete clusterfuck.

Tubbs

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:

quote:
Of course, the other possibility is that Boris has no clue at all what he is doing
That strikes me as being the possibility which fits with the available evidence. It is not merely confined to Boris, of course.

The Tories are conducting a political experiment with the country. An experiment where nobody knows what they are doing, or what the results might be, but it just looked like a fun things to try.

Last time. I was all for Scotland saying in, because I believed that we were stronger together. This time, I think they should go, because England is fucked.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I rather think it will be Scotland that is "fucked" if it breaks away from the UK only to be gifted Danke, ich verzichte from Anglea merk.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Tubbs:

quote:

At the moment, Davies is saying that there won't be a hard border and Ireland has said this is one of their red lines for the Brexit deal.

The reporting here is full of it (possibly in both senses) but it seems to be mainly coming from the Unionist politicians, especially the DUP, which I guess isn't surprising that they would talk this up.

quote:

The UK isn't leaving the European Court of Human Rights. May mentioned it as a possibility but everyone else pooh'ed it so she's back tracked.

Thank you for this, it is good to hear that. As recently as this morning there was talk of this - not as a possibility but as a fact - on a major Irish radio program. However, we wouldn't truly be Irish if we didn't have a good old moan about things that were never going to happen [Big Grin]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Oh look, let's just get on with the one world government and solve all these problems once and for all, eh?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh look, let's just get on with the one world government and solve all these problems once and for all, eh?

Imagine drafting legislation for that. [brick wall]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Drafting it would be easy. Developing a fair policy that actually worked would be the tricky bit. Not my area.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

My friend Orfeo has likely not encountered a proper civil law Legislete* nor drafted Acts that must be compatible in a civil-code environment.

* I am told the last was Professor/Justice Pigeon, who passed from this earth in 1986.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Sioni Sais says that the government, Prime Minister and one House of Parliament are not elected.

Members of the government are elected of course and the PM is also elected as a MP.

And the EU Commission has way, way more power than the House of Lords. I would suggest more power than the other two legs of the European three-legged stool.

M.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Sioni Sais says that the government, Prime Minister and one House of Parliament are not elected.

Members of the government are elected of course and the PM is also elected as a MP.

And the EU Commission has way, way more power than the House of Lords. I would suggest more power than the other two legs of the European three-legged stool.

M.

Members of the government are not elected. Members of Parliament are. Many members of the government, including the minister of the department I work for, are unelected (she's a member of the House of Lords).

I'd like a more democratic European Commission too, but in the meantime I'd like to see some evidence that the European Commission has more power than the House of Lords that isn't Brexit rhetoric (ie, a pack of half truths, if not outright lies). The European Parliament might be less of a European Commission lapdog if the anti-EU parties actually showed up.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

I'd like a more democratic European Commission too, but in the meantime I'd like to see some evidence that the European Commission has more power than the House of Lords that isn't Brexit rhetoric (ie, a pack of half truths, if not outright lies). The European Parliament might be less of a European Commission lapdog if the anti-EU parties actually showed up.

Hard to compare the two, really: the Lords is part of a two-part UK Parliament which enacts primary legislation for the UK. The Commission is an appointed executive held to account by an elected European Parliament.

The Commission can't do anything about putting you in prison, how much you are taxed, etc. The Lords can't set policy for Europe-wide transport, consumer rights or agricultural subsidies.

So in one sense I suppose the Lords is less powerful than the Executive in those areas - in that it is determining how to implement in the UK those EU-wide policies already determined by the Commission. But in another sense, the Commission is largely unable to do anything about limiting your personal liberty whilst in the UK, so has a lot less power than the Lords.

Of course, what is usually not stated aloud is that the Commission has a lot less power than the European Council of Ministers, who are representatives of the governments of the member states and retain the right of individual veto.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
My friend Orfeo has likely not encountered a proper civil law Legislete* nor drafted Acts that must be compatible in a civil-code environment.

* I am told the last was Professor/Justice Pigeon, who passed from this earth in 1986.

Rather obvious problem going forward, then, in any existing civil law system.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Just did a long post and lost the lot.

From my 20 odd years experience, rather than any systematised knowledge, the European Parliament does not function as we think of a Parliament. If it votes for something, it does not necessarily become law.

The Commission does carry out the duties of an executive but it goes beyond that well into the political. I have recent experience of, in the scheme of things, a small example of this, but could have big effects for some people. PM me if you want the detail. Had we but world enough and time, not to mention inexhaustible pockets, I suppose we could go to the ECJ or whatever it's called these days. As it is, I imagine we'll end up with a fudge somewhere along the line. I have difficulty believing it's a mistake, although I don't think it's been properly thought through.

M.
Sorry, Sioni Sais, I meant to say that you are right of course about unelected members of the HL in Govt. An oversight in my last post.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Scotland exports to rUK: £50.5bn goods and services
Scotland imports from rUK: £62.7bn g&s

Scotland exports to rest of world: £21.3bn g&s
Scotland imports from rest of world: £21.6bn g&s

This makes Scottish independence a no brainer from any economic perspective, especially if it meant Scotland being in the EU and the prospect of tariffs. But as in the case of Brexit, there's more than economics involved. If there was the political good will, Scotland could remain within the EU on a "reverse Greenland" basis, simply inheriting its membership as part of the UK unchanged. But it doesn't make much sense when the vast majority of its trade is with the rest of the UK and oil revenues are flat.

While I have a lot of respect for Nicola Sturgeon, her passionate nationalism and visceral dislike of anything English has got her in a pickle here. If she calls another referendum, there's no certainty that she'd win it. Those trade figures speak for themselves, even to Scots who have no love for the English. It's far from clear that Scotland has any realistic chance of remaining in the EU. If it's forced to re-apply under Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty, that could take years. Scotland may not even qualify economically, and it would certainly mean taking the Euro and losing the other opt outs the UK now has.

So would Scotland want to be independent if it had no free access to either UK or EU markets? The people there are too pragmatic to vote for that even when their hearts sing for it.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
visceral dislike of anything English

[citation needed]

You mean like her Brexit Minister, Michael Russell?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Sturgeon may be unlikely to win a referendum right now, but I think she wants to have one as a bargaining chip.

As regards economic choices, the options are being in a country with Liam Fox as your minister for foreign trade, or being in a country with Liam Fox as minister for foreign trade for your closest trading partner. Neither is exactly a reassuring prospect.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Tin-hat time: I think the long-term unspoken policy of the English Establishment is to let Northern Ireland swing in the wind.

If it came to it and Boris and chums couldn't talk the Republic into some kind of quasi-British border at their ports of entry, then I think they're just planning to tell the Northern Irish that they can like it or lump it - gambling on the fact that enough people are invested in the peace process to avoid all-out fighting.

Whatever the end result, I think NI is going to see barriers between it and E&W if it wants to continue with free borders with the Republic.

If Scotland moves towards independence, I think the secret plan is to push NI towards either some kind of reunification with Eire or independence on its own. Which would obviously be bloody stupid, but I can't see how else there could be the kinds of immigration barriers that the xenophobes seem set on having.

Of course, the other possibility is that Boris has no clue at all what he is doing and that he thinks things are going to work out alright simply on the basis of his bubbly personality and habit of using Latin and Greek at every opportunity.

If I was an Irish politician on either side of the border, I don't think I'd be thinking that the future was very rosy.

No. In the longer term I don't believe things will be that stable here. I find the SNP to be a cross between all the things I dislike about Ireland's Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin - self righteous control freaks - but I believe Edinburgh will be the most stable part of these islands in a few years. Thankfully I'd qualify as Scottish under the grandparent rule..

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If it came to it and Boris and chums couldn't talk the Republic into some kind of quasi-British border at their ports of entry, then I think they're just planning to tell the Northern Irish that they can like it or lump it - gambling on the fact that enough people are invested in the peace process to avoid all-out fighting

While it might seem unrealistic to expect the Irish Republic to enforce Britain's frontiers, it's probably the only way to preserve the Common Travel Area which will, by defaults, preserve the open border. The CTA has been in existence since 1922 so it has nothing to do with the EU. It survived WW2 and the Troubles when many people wanted to end it for security reasons. In many ways I feel most sorry for the way Ireland has been dragged into the front line of Brexit without any input.

Ireland has a lot to lose with it's large agricultural sector and with more than a billion pounds worth of trade between us each week. So much so that it has a right to tell the EU that it must be treated as a special case in any future EU/UK arrangements. Merkel seemed to cold shoulder the idea when the Taoiseach visited her, but President Hollande was quite sympathetic to the idea when he visited Dublin, though he's a lame duck president on the way out. If the EU can't recognise Ireland's special status here, and insists on a one stance fits all approach to the UK, it's leaders are no friends to Ireland.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
While it might seem unrealistic to expect the Irish Republic to enforce Britain's frontiers, it's probably the only way to preserve the Common Travel Area which will, by defaults, preserve the open border.

There are certain hints of "build a wall, and get the government of the other side to pay for it" in the proposal to put the UK "frontier" at points of entry to another country. I'm sure we can manage to talk the French into giving the UK control over a sizable section of France at their end of the Tunnel while we're at it.

Either that, or keep the borders open and enforce import duties at some other point in the supply chain. Most goods are shipped with a full description of what they are, and their value, anyway - for insurance reasons as much as anything else. It's not impossible for importer to just copy that to HMRC and pay the appropriate duties without a hard border check. You'll probably have a larger amount of undeclared imports than you would with a hard border, but a requirement for firms to provide details of all imports upon demand would recover most of the duty due.

When the UK has long land borders between NI and the Republic, and between Scotland and England the costs of a paper trail only system may even be less than building customs facilities along the borders.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

I'm not suggesting any hard borders within the British Isles. Far from it. But politicians are thinking of ways in which the Irish border can be kept open, and one suggestion was that Irish ports of entry could scrutinise on behalf of the UK. It's not a perfect idea and could meet with some opposition in Ireland. But the Common Travel Area predates the EU by decades and I hope we'd all like to see it continue. I certainly hope I don't live to see a border between England and Scotland!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If the EU can't recognise Ireland's special status here, and insists on a one stance fits all approach to the UK, it's leaders are no friends to Ireland.

It seems a bit tough to blame the EU for a problem caused by the UK.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It seems a bit tough to blame the EU for a problem caused by the UK

It's not blaming the EU. It's just asking it to recognise that Ireland has a hell of a lot at stake here. The peace process being the most important, but also it's still relatively large dependence on the UK economically. It's OK for Merkel and others to see the EU as a whole, but Ireland has a special interest in all sorts of ways, and the EU politicians, instead of just waving around their bureaucratic rule books should recognise this.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
instead of just waving around their bureaucratic rule books should recognise this.

Phrasing things this way makes it look like the Europeans are mainly mindless wavers of bureaucratic rule books. In reality they are acting to protect their own trade block - which is completely in their interests to do.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As regards economic choices, the options are being in a country with Liam Fox as your minister for foreign trade, or being in a country with Liam Fox as minister for foreign trade for your closest trading partner. Neither is exactly a reassuring prospect.

That's ridiculously short-term thinking. Scottish independence would have effects and ramifications lasting decades (if not centuries), so to boil it down to one Minister who will almost certainly be gone within a few years is fatuous at best.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It seems a bit tough to blame the EU for a problem caused by the UK
It's not blaming the EU. It's just asking it to recognise that Ireland has a hell of a lot at stake here. The peace process being the most important, but also it's still relatively large dependence on the UK economically. It's OK for Merkel and others to see the EU as a whole, but Ireland has a special interest in all sorts of ways, and the EU politicians, instead of just waving around their bureaucratic rule books should recognise this.

So Ireland, is going to have freedom of movement, as part of the Single Market whilst simultaneously enforcing an immigration policy designed by Theresa May in an attempt to win back UKIP voters. I think I may have spotted a teensy flaw in that theory.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It seems a bit tough to blame the EU for a problem caused by the UK
It's not blaming the EU. It's just asking it to recognise that Ireland has a hell of a lot at stake here. The peace process being the most important, but also it's still relatively large dependence on the UK economically. It's OK for Merkel and others to see the EU as a whole, but Ireland has a special interest in all sorts of ways, and the EU politicians, instead of just waving around their bureaucratic rule books should recognise this.
So Ireland, is going to have freedom of movement, as part of the Single Market whilst simultaneously enforcing an immigration policy designed by Theresa May in an attempt to win back UKIP voters. I think I may have spotted a teensy flaw in that theory.

I have too, which is why I think Ireland is caught by the collective balls on Brexit. Roughly half Irish trade is with the remaining EU26, with a quarter each to the US and the UK. Irish trade policy since 1973 has been to bridge the US and Europe, while maintaining UK trade. No good comes out of any of the probable options for us, and that doesn't even address the border I cross every day.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The BofS is half a billion down again. Tell you what Nicky, if you want to take Scotland out of the UK make sure you take that bloomin loss-making bank with you.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I think you mean the Royal Bank of Scotland.
(Not the Bank of Scotland)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0