Scottish independence

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

Yes but the older people get, the less inclined they are to embrace change. Scotland does 60+% of its business with England; some people just want to stick with what they know. They will see and feel leaving the UK as a much more visible issue than leaving the EU.

Scotland voting for independence last time while within the EU would have been crazy. Much less crazy now and a few years of fortress Britain could make joining the EU as an independent nation very attractive.

But the complications and challenges shouldn't be underestimated.

A completely different approach would be why the English Tories want to keep Scotland in the UK.

Labour backed the NO side because they held 40 of the Scottish seats, and now hold just one seat. Surely if they had backed independence, thay might have a larger representation in an independent Scotland.

The Tories hold six seats, with SNP holding 48 seats. Why bother? If Scotland was independent, then the rUK would have a permanent Tory majority, even without FPTP. Is it because they like dominating other nations? Is it because Scotland houses their nuclear bombs? Or is it because the Queen likes to holiday in Scotland? [Queen Victoria preferred the Isle of Wight].

A friendly break up might result in them remaining friends - perhaps not.

First Up

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What's this obsession with labeling different states as "artificial"?

Yugoslavia began the slow break up after Tito died and the Serbs tried to throw their weight around (obviously there's more to it) but Yugoslavia was no more "artificial" than any of the numerous border changes in Europe in the 20th century after WW1.

What makes the UK less artificial that Scotland can't have a legitimate "independence for independence sake" aspiration like some of Ireland achieved?

The UK only existed on foot of the Scottish Darrien mess really.

Even then we were a separate Kingdom with a separate parliament.

Then we "joined" in 1801 after some coercion.

As I'm sure you're aware a few things happened throughout the 19th century that made a lot of us less than enamoured with London-rule.

And part of the country left the UK in 1922.

So the UK as it stands is a pretty young State in its current composition. It's as artificial and as real as any State. Though, really continues to only exist through coercion and the dominance of one constituent country over the others.

Of course Europe and most everywhere else has evolved over time with the legacy of colonialism, wars and royal marriages. But Yugoslavia was only held together by Tito's strong arm approach and contrived interdependence that collapsed when it broke up. I spend a bit of time there as they are still trying to untangle the mess in parts like BiH and Kosovo, while UN troops make sure people don't go back to burning out neighbours of different ethnicity.

Czechoslovakia wasn't as contrived but there were still differences that only emerged after communism and were big enough to bring about separation.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

Of course Scotland is entitled to aspire to independence. But if they are leaving the sanctuary and stability of the UK, they would be wise to know how they plan to use it.

sanctuary and stability of the UK

that's a good one.

Tell us what the exchange rate between Sterling and the dollar or Euro will be ?
Or even tell us how certain you are that there won't be a 5-10% swing by then.

No one knows how the import/export regime or tariffs will be on the first of January.

No one knows how much paperwork will be needed to trade with companies in NI in Jan or what the costs will be given no one knows how long it will take the UK govt to pay for any tariffs, or if there will be tariffs or what the UK govt will pay for.

No one knows how far the Scottish govt will have to diverge from England if there is a second wave of Covid-19.

First Up

Correct. Nobody knows what will happen. Brexit is monumentally stupid and the UK is in for a very rough ride.

But it's all Scotland has known for a few hundred years so leaving it affects everything, including 60% of their trade.

If they leave the UK (and they very well might) then they will need to have a destination in mind before they go. (Something the UK forgot to do when deciding to leave the EU.)

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

Correct. Nobody knows what will happen. Brexit is monumentally stupid and the UK is in for a very rough ride.

But it's all Scotland has known for a few hundred years so leaving it affects everything, including 60% of their trade.

If they leave the UK (and they very well might) then they will need to have a destination in mind before they go. (Something the UK forgot to do when deciding to leave the EU.)

If they peg to Sterling then there's very little extra financial uncertainty for business and individuals.

The big question is what % of the UK dept would the take on. I can't see Scotland being a nuclear power so there's one huge expenditure they won't have to keep paying.

Leasing bases is a different question, refer to the Irish treaty ports or to the ship USS Proteus and other tenders servicing US subs in Holy Loch.

Charles Babbage

First Up wrote: »

Correct. Nobody knows what will happen. Brexit is monumentally stupid and the UK is in for a very rough ride.

But it's all Scotland has known for a few hundred years so leaving it affects everything, including 60% of their trade.

If they leave the UK (and they very well might) then they will need to have a destination in mind before they go. (Something the UK forgot to do when deciding to leave the EU.)

Well this satirical German tv show suggested that they swap places with Switzerland (bung it into Google or Microsoft Translate if you do not sprechen Deutsch.)
https://www.der-postillon.com/2016/06/schottland-schweiz.html

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If they peg to Sterling then there's very little extra financial uncertainty for business and individuals.

There may be little financial uncertainty, but considerable disruption. If Scotland joints the EU or the EEA while rump UK remains outside the EU and (let's suppose) doesn't have a zero-tariff zero-quota trade deal with the EU, then Scottish-UK trade will be hit by tariffs or quotas or both. That will be a considerably bigger problem than having a different currency would be.

Mind you, the choice is not between tariffs/quotas on the one hand, and no tariffs/quotas on the other. If Scotland stays in the UK, then the 40% of its trade which is not done with England/Wales/NI will be hit by the tariffs/quotas, and the other detriments, that result from Brexit. Because of decisions that the UK has made, the status quo is not on offer to Scotland. And while the initial economic shock of independence is greater that the economic shock of staying in the UK, the Scots may think it worth bearing the greater shock in order to escape the position where they continue to be vulnerable to econmic damage that the UK decides to inflict.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The big question is what % of the UK dept would the take on.

The Scottish government published some thoughts on this in connection with the IndyRef in 2014. Possibilities include:

- UK public debt could be divided in proportion to population.

- UK public debt could be divided in proportion to historical balance of public spending and taxation in Scotland versus the balance in the rest of the UK. This would result in a lower debt share for Scotland than simply dividing by population (or would have done in 2014, but I doubt that the picture has changed since).

Either approach, in 2014, would have resulting in independent Scotland having a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the UK as a whole then had.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I can't see Scotland being a nuclear power so there's one huge expenditure they won't have to keep paying.

Again, based on what was planned in 2014, independent Scotland would not
be a nuclear power and would not host the nuclear capacity of rumpUK (or other countries).

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Leasing bases is a different question, refer to the Irish treaty ports or to the ship USS Proteus and other tenders servicing US subs in Holy Loch.

Independent Scotland was to participate in NATO and, other than the ban on nuclear weapons, would be open to hosting the troops of NATO allies (including rumpUK).

murphaph

I wonder what the transition phase between leaving the UK and joining the EU or at least EFTA would look like for Scotland. I also assume they'd peg their currency to Sterling initially but would London be generous or mean spirited in their approach to the transition phase?

The EU IMO has been as generous as anyone could expect with the UK being treated as a member state as far as businesses are concerned and the UK for the most part setting the deadlines itself. Would London do the same for Edinburgh or would they throw Scotland straight to the WTO sharks?

Is there a fast path at least into the EFTA lifeboat for Scotland in this case?

Personally I would be in favour of developing strong links to Scotland and doing everything we can in Ireland to help them get their place back in the EU. This would come at some immediate cost to Ireland economically as Scotland would be a direct competitor and they could fairly easily replicate our model but you have to think bigger picture.

I'd hope some day to see the rUK rejoin with a different attitude than the last time. I think it will happen but it'll take decades, wasted decades.

Peregrinus

You have to think that actually delivering independence for Scotland would be at least a medium-term project, and the UK government in office during that process would almost certainly not be the present one. So you can speculate pretty freely about how the process would be approached from the Westminster end, but all speculations are equally unrealistic.

My unrealistic speculation; if it gets to the point where Scotland is going to become independent, there is no advantage to rumpUK in making that process more bloody than it needs to be, and considerable disadvantage. So while a Westminster government might play quite hard ball on issues that directly affect rUK's interests, like the division of the national debt, they are less likely to try and impede the Scots simply for the sake of it, e.g. by putting obstacles in the way of the Scots pegging their currency to sterling, if that is what the Scots initially decide to do.

murphaph

Yeah honestly the currency thing is a red herring. The Scots have practically no say in monetary policy as it is. The rUK can't stop them pegging to Sterling if they choose to do so.

The bigger issues are all the same ones we are all so familiar with thanks to Brexit.

Peregrinus

Any country is free to peg its currency to sterling and in the past many did (including Ireland). But very few do nowadays, and those that do are mostly tiny British dependencies, e.g. the Falkland Islands. It's conceivable that a newly-independent Scotland might, but if so I think this would be only a transitional measure, pending the launch of a freely-floating Scottish pound or (more likely) the adoption of the euro.

murphaph

I think the very same. They'd peg to sterling but once inside EFTA or the EU proper they'd begin to diversify their exports and look to join the Euro in time. You could have an interesting timeline something like:

Scotland leaves UK, retains pound.
NI leaves UK for UI, immediately switches to Euro.
Scotland joins EFTA/EU then switches to Euro at some later date.

I genuinely don't see NI surviving in the UK if Scotland leaves. Most of the unionist cultural ties are with Scotland, not England.

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

I think the very same. They'd peg to sterling but once inside EFTA or the EU proper they'd begin to diversify their exports and look to join the Euro in time. You could have an interesting timeline something like:

Scotland leaves UK, retains pound.
NI leaves UK for UI, immediately switches to Euro.
Scotland joins EFTA/EU then switches to Euro at some later date.

I genuinely don't see NI surviving in the UK if Scotland leaves. Most of the unionist cultural ties are with Scotland, not England.

The markets won't give Scotland the luxury of a leisurely switch from sterling to the Euro. If the (are allowed) leave the UK, they will need to do it quickly, decisively and fully. They are already hemorrhaging business and FDI (to Ireland among others) because of the uncertainty. If they leave the UK, the EU is their only option, so they better be quick about it. The SNP know it and so does the business world.

How they untangle from the UK is their own business.

briany

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder what the transition phase between leaving the UK and joining the EU or at least EFTA would look like for Scotland. I also assume they'd peg their currency to Sterling initially but would London be generous or mean spirited in their approach to the transition phase?

Well, since Westminster at present espouses that it is the right of all nations to assert their sovereignty to its fullest extent, I expect they will treat Scotland with the utmost respect and fairness if Scotland makes the choice to do same.

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

Well, since Westminster at present espouses that it is the right of all nations to assert their sovereignty to its fullest extent, I expect they will treat Scotland with the utmost respect and fairness if Scotland makes the choice to do same.

Well, the current Tory government is awash with highly principled people whose only selfless goal is to engage harmoniously withn all other nations for the betterment of their people and humanity in general. So it's all good.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, the current Tory government is awash with highly principled people whose only selfless goal is to engage harmoniously within all other nations for the betterment of their people and humanity in general. So it's all good.

Unless you happen to be the Chagos Islands. Then it is a different story.

They have a very bad history when it comes to principles, and even worse when measured in selflessness.

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have to think that actually delivering independence for Scotland would be at least a medium-term project, and the UK government in office during that process would almost certainly not be the present one. So you can speculate pretty freely about how the process would be approached from the Westminster end, but all speculations are equally unrealistic.

My unrealistic speculation; if it gets to the point where Scotland is going to become independent, there is no advantage to rumpUK in making that process more bloody than it needs to be, and considerable disadvantage. So while a Westminster government might play quite hard ball on issues that directly affect rUK's interests, like the division of the national debt, they are less likely to try and impede the Scots simply for the sake of it, e.g. by putting obstacles in the way of the Scots pegging their currency to sterling, if that is what the Scots initially decide to do.

This is correct, but Britain's history has shown that it (UK Officialdom) will never let go easily.

Almost in all cases that they have been sent packing it has been after an insurrection or civil war. Sure, they even see Civil War within their own jurisdiction as justifiable in order to hold onto colonial appendages.

To think that they well be pragmatic in this scenario is fanciful. This will be the ultimate slap in the face to Westminster primacy.

Without Scotland there is no longer a Britain for the British identity to latch onto. That will be too much for some to let go quietly.

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

This is correct, but Britain's history has shown that it (UK Officialdom) will never let go easily.

Almost in all cases that they have been sent packing it has been after an insurrection or civil war. Sure, they even see Civil War within their own jurisdiction as justifiable in order to hold onto colonial appendages.

To think that they well be pragmatic in this scenario is fanciful. This will be the ultimate slap in the face to Westminster primacy.

Without Scotland there is no longer a Britain for the British identity to latch onto. That will be too much for some to let go quietly.

But the two main parties have already lost Scotland. The Tories have six seats, up from one, but down from 19. The Labour Party currently have just one seat, down from 40 seats before Indyref 1.

Neither have a single seat in NI.

So what is in it for them? Best be shot of the place, but be careful to take the nuclear bombs with them.

.

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

But the two main parties have already lost Scotland. The Tories have six seats, up from one, but down from 19. The Labour Party currently have just one seat, down from 40 seats before Indyref 1.

Neither have a single seat in NI.

So what is in it for them? Best be shot of the place, but be careful to take the nuclear bombs with them.

.

You could have said that about Ireland from any point from 1801 to today and yet...

Scotland is on a whole other plane. There's no way regardless of the perceived lack of support that the big-two have there that that would make it easier to be shot of the place.

Looking at Holyrood would be a better place to look at for actual support of the unionist parties, ie. anyone but the SNP and Greens.


The loss of Scotland would be a psychological hammer-blow.

That they have no support in a jurisdiction has never stopped the British establishment hanging on too long before. No reason to think that they would change tack.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You could have said that about Ireland from any point from 1801 to today and yet...

Scotland is on a whole other plane. There's no way regardless of the perceived lack of support that the big-two have there that that would make it easier to be shot of the place.

Looking at Holyrood would be a better place to look at for actual support of the unionist parties, ie. anyone but the SNP and Greens.


The loss of Scotland would be a psychological hammer-blow.

That they have no support in a jurisdiction has never stopped the British establishment hanging on too long before. No reason to think that they would change tack.

The “big two” have 54 of the 129 seats at the Scottish parliament. I’d hardly call that a lack of support.

feargale

Sam Russell wrote: »

Unless you happen to be the Chagos Islands. Then it is a different story.

They have a very bad history when it comes to principles, and even worse when measured in selflessness.

You can include the USA where the Chagos Islands aka Diego Garcia is concerned. That is a shameful story, and I get the impression that alot of cyber sites are not keen to be giving it exposure.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You could have said that about Ireland from any point from 1801 to today and yet...

Scotland is on a whole other plane. There's no way regardless of the perceived lack of support that the big-two have there that that would make it easier to be shot of the place.

Looking at Holyrood would be a better place to look at for actual support of the unionist parties, ie. anyone but the SNP and Greens.

---

The loss of Scotland would be a psychological hammer-blow.

That they have no support in a jurisdiction has never stopped the British establishment hanging on too long before. No reason to think that they would change tack.

Aegir wrote: »

The “big two” have 54 of the 129 seats at the Scottish parliament. I’d hardly call that a lack of support.

It's almost like I said that? Wow!

The second passage was a general statement on the British establishment tendency to stick around like a bad smell.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

The “big two” have 54 of the 129 seats at the Scottish parliament. I’d hardly call that a lack of support.

If only the UK parliament could be elected like the Scottish parliament, then Bozo would not have his huge majority to wreck havoc across the UK

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If only the UK parliament could be elected like the Scottish parliament, then Bozo would not have his huge majority to wreck havoc across the UK

And the SNP would have half the seats they have now.

What’s your point?

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

And the SNP would have half the seats they have now.

What’s your point?

That the UK parliament elects on FPTP which results in huge majorities and the Scottish parliament elects on the AM system which result in hung parliaments. One is fairer than the other and if the UK wanted fairness, they would ditch FPTP. The only reason the 'big two' have 54 out of 129 in the Scottish parliament is due to the non-use of FPTP

BonnieSituation

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If only the UK parliament could be elected like the Scottish parliament, then Bozo would not have his huge majority to wreck havoc across the UK

Aegir wrote: »

And the SNP would have half the seats they have now.

What’s your point?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That the UK parliament elects on FPTP which results in huge majorities and the Scottish parliament elects on the AM system which result in hung parliaments. One is fairer than the other and if the UK wanted fairness, they would ditch FPTP. The only reason the 'big two' have 54 out of 129 in the Scottish parliament is due to the non-use of FPTP

I thought your point was pretty clear.

A Dub in Glasgo

So did I

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That the UK parliament elects on FPTP which results in huge majorities and the Scottish parliament elects on the AM system which result in hung parliaments. One is fairer than the other and if the UK wanted fairness, they would ditch FPTP. The only reason the 'big two' have 54 out of 129 in the Scottish parliament is due to the non-use of FPTP

That wasn’t your point at all, you were simply looking to have a dig at the Conservative party, for some reason.

If you went for the AM approach to the UK parliament, then the SNP would still have less seats than they have now.

The only reason Boris has a sizable majority is because there was nothing in the way of credible opposition at the last election. Now Labour has a decent leader, that may well change in both Westminster and Holyrood.

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

That wasn’t your point at all, you were simply looking to have a dig at the Conservative party, for some reason.

If you went for the AM approach to the UK parliament, then the SNP would still have less seats than they have now.

The only reason Boris has a sizable majority is because there was nothing in the way of credible opposition at the last election. Now Labour has a decent leader, that may well change in both Westminster and Holyrood.

And you're not looking to have a dig at the SNP?

You're the first person to decry the outsized SNP representation because of FPTP and yet when the tables are turned...

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If only the UK parliament could be elected like the Scottish parliament, then Bozo would not have his huge majority to wreck havoc across the UK

That's the original post.

It's not very long.

A fair interpretation of the original post wrote:

ADIG thinks that it would be a positive thing for the AM system to be in place for Westminster elections.

This would ensure that there is a fairer distribution of seats, and majorities such as the one the current government have, could only really be achieved through consensus and coalition.

ADIG feels that this would be a good thing overall for the British Parliament.

---

Yeah, he really went for the jugular there.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And you're not looking to have a dig at the SNP?

You're the first person to decry the outsized SNP representation because of FPTP and yet when the tables are turned...




That's the original post.

It's not very long.



---

Yeah, he really went for the jugular there.

What are you on about? Tat wasn’t an original post, it was a response to my post. I simply pointed out some truths without resorting to petty name calling.

You claimed the big four have “lost Scotland” whereas in actual fact, they only have a slightly lower share of the Westminster vote than the SNP, who obtained 80% of the seats in Scotland on 44% of the vote. That isn’t a dig, that’s the facts.

Sorry if that doesn’t fit the narrative, but FPTP really really worked in their favour at the last election.

Would a hybrid or even PR system make a difference, yes, but it would adversely affect both the conservatives and the SNP.