Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Scottish independence

1646567697080

Comments



  • Thanks. I was feeling lazy and because it wasn't an exact quote (though it captures the spirit) I couldn't use the "find" function.

    You are not alone - Raab, when SoS for Brexit admitted that he had not read the 34 page document while it was central to the on going negotiations.




  • You are not alone - Raab, when SoS for Brexit admitted that he had not read the 34 page document while it was central to the on going negotiations.


    I'm not that bad. I've read through it several times but not for a few months and the memory has faded.




  • Nicola Sturgeon on Andrew Marr today seems to think that Scotland could join the EU without having a hard border with the UK and could retain free trade with it as well.
    Maybe she needs to ask the EU for their opinion before making these claims in an attempt to achieve independence.




  • Nicola Sturgeon on Andrew Marr today seems to think that Scotland could join the EU without having a hard border with the UK and could retain free trade with it as well.
    Maybe she needs to ask the EU for their opinion before making these claims in an attempt to achieve independence.

    Under current circumstances if she is willing to swallow a lot of effort on her end she could pull it off.

    For simply travel she could have Scotland the Common travel agreement with Ireland. That was always a given.

    For trade yeah she pushes for the same circumstances as Northern Ireland.

    Which yeah isnt exactly free trade atm, but key difference Scotland can do that Northern Ireland couldnt and puts it border between themselves and the EU.

    Scotland can put the custom border at its ports and leave the actual land border open.

    Unlike Brexit and Northern Ireland, Scotland is the one looking for seperation so as long as they were not lazy about it they can set the terms of the border.

    The issue with Brexit and Northern Ireland has almost entirely fallen on the simple fact that the current British Government is one of the laziests governments in europe, unwilling to do anything unless it has to. A lot of the 'teething issues' with Northern Ireland were teething issues because the British government didnt get off its arse to prepare for most of them.

    A scottish government willing to work (still a big if) negotiating with the EU itself willing to take on the tasks of getting their ports ready.

    They have the grounds to argue that they'd like Northern Ireland would be more effective managing the sea ports between Europe and Scotland then trying to enforce a land border.


    Also what Scotland wants from the EU is not exactly the same as what England wanted.

    Scotland is looking more for inward investment from the EU and keeping free trade with the UK. so a lot of scotland's trade going to EU would probably be able to handle the custom check at the sea ports.

    Especially if they actually make an effort at planning them, also unlike england which issue is they left a bunch of eu programmes and needed to provide more extensive paperwork to move their product, Scotland would be signing into them so most of their paperwork for scottish goods would be primarily proving it was produced in scotland.

    Where it all hinges on *current circumstances* though is in the other direction.

    At the moment the laziest government in europe is staying true to form and not enforcing any rules on imports into the UK from the EU.

    So if those circumstances were to continue (unlikely but hey lazy conservative government might surprise me) then there is no issue with free trade from scotland into the UK cause the UK isnt going to be arsed to check anything.


    So to confirm

    No border yes with CTA

    free trade with the UK, yes because UK government too lazy to bother enforcing borders.

    Free trade with the EU (distinctly not what Sturgeon said, she specified continued free trade with the UK) to a limited extent yes, border checks at ports in scotland to confirm products are scottish. But otherwise yes if scotland was given the same status as Northern Ireland (even if on a limited basis).




  • Nicola Sturgeon on Andrew Marr today seems to think that Scotland could join the EU without having a hard border with the UK and could retain free trade with it as well.
    Maybe she needs to ask the EU for their opinion before making these claims in an attempt to achieve independence.

    I found it quite hard to listen to her, all she wanted to do was rant and rave.

    Interesting she talks about remaining in the common travel area though. I thought all new members of the EU have to join the schengen area.


  • Advertisement


  • BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    Under current circumstances if she is willing to swallow a lot of effort on her end she could pull it off.

    For simply travel she could have Scotland the Common travel agreement with Ireland. That was always a given.

    For trade yeah she pushes for the same circumstances as Northern Ireland.

    Which yeah isnt exactly free trade atm, but key difference Scotland can do that Northern Ireland couldnt and puts it border between themselves and the EU.

    Scotland can put the custom border at its ports and leave the actual land border open.

    Unlike Brexit and Northern Ireland, Scotland is the one looking for seperation so as long as they were not lazy about it they can set the terms of the border.

    The issue with Brexit and Northern Ireland has almost entirely fallen on the simple fact that the current British Government is one of the laziests governments in europe, unwilling to do anything unless it has to. A lot of the 'teething issues' with Northern Ireland were teething issues because the British government didnt get off its arse to prepare for most of them.

    A scottish government willing to work (still a big if) negotiating with the EU itself willing to take on the tasks of getting their ports ready.

    They have the grounds to argue that they'd like Northern Ireland would be more effective managing the sea ports between Europe and Scotland then trying to enforce a land border.


    Also what Scotland wants from the EU is not exactly the same as what England wanted.

    Scotland is looking more for inward investment from the EU and keeping free trade with the UK. so a lot of scotland's trade going to EU would probably be able to handle the custom check at the sea ports.

    Especially if they actually make an effort at planning them, also unlike england which issue is they left a bunch of eu programmes and needed to provide more extensive paperwork to move their product, Scotland would be signing into them so most of their paperwork for scottish goods would be primarily proving it was produced in scotland.

    Where it all hinges on *current circumstances* though is in the other direction.

    At the moment the laziest government in europe is staying true to form and not enforcing any rules on imports into the UK from the EU.

    So if those circumstances were to continue (unlikely but hey lazy conservative government might surprise me) then there is no issue with free trade from scotland into the UK cause the UK isnt going to be arsed to check anything.


    So to confirm

    No border yes with CTA

    free trade with the UK, yes because UK government too lazy to bother enforcing borders.

    Free trade with the EU (distinctly not what Sturgeon said, she specified continued free trade with the UK) to a limited extent yes, border checks at ports in scotland to confirm products are scottish. But otherwise yes if scotland was given the same status as Northern Ireland (even if on a limited basis).

    my question is why should scotland get a special status like NI since there is no good friday agreement to kind of make this a go.




  • peter kern wrote: »
    my question is why should Scotland get a special status like NI since there is no good Friday agreement to kind of make this a go.

    But there would be some form of agreement between the UK and Scotland if it legally leaves the United Kingdom, that while not as crucial as Good Friday agreement it would at least warrant some level of temporary special status at minimum, especially if the UK/Scotland have some form of transition process to allow for the untangling of UK's institutions from Scotland's

    Of course that would all be arguably temporary, but everything about the affairs of Brexit comes across as temporary, (not necessarily from a remain perspective) the current trade terms are being pushed to be renegotiated already, the UK hasnt implemented any of it's own import controls at all. If all that remains, what's not to see whatever compromises made between Scotland and the UK equally becoming unintentionally permanent too.

    Interesting she talks about remaining in the common travel area though. I thought all new members of the EU have to join the schengen area.

    Required when they meet the criteria, you can still join the EU without meeting the criteria and then later when you do become part of Schengen. Bulgaria Croatia and Romania are technically not part of schengen yet as they've not fully met the criteria but are working towards it.




  • BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    Required when they meet the criteria, you can still join the EU without meeting the criteria and then later when you do become part of Schengen. Bulgaria Croatia and Romania are technically not part of schengen yet as they've not fully met the criteria but are working towards it.

    being in the CTA is very clearly at odds with Schengen though. They can't commit to meet the Schengen criteria and also commit to the CTA.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    being in the CTA is very clearly at odds with Schengen though. They can't commit to meet the Schengen criteria and also commit to the CTA.


    I dont think they need to commit to meet schengen criteria no matter what. If they cannot meet schengen criteria they dont join schengen from what I can see. What they cant do is choose to ignore schengan if there is no reason for them to ignore it, so for example if Ireland and France were both joining the EU today, Ireland would be incapable of joining Schengen because of the North while France wouldnt have any excuse and would be required to join after a five year evaluation. being part of the CTA will be such grounds for Scotland and will predate their EU membership.


    The EU also cant force Scotland to leave the CTA if it's part of Scotland's withdrawel agreement with the UK.

    Scotland's EU membership of the EU will not happen before the terms of Scotland's future relationship with the UK are locked in place. So the terms of the EU membership will be based on that. If Sturgeon's goal is to keep an open border between Scotland and the UK it will require her to work hard on that withdrawl agreement as that will be what the EU will look at when deciding how to handle Scotland's membership.



    If by some bizarre logic Scotland's EU membership etc started processing before they've finalised leaving the UK then you'd have your schengen disaster as that's when the EU will insist on no CTA membership etc.

    But thats not going to happen, the EU has made clear it wont get involved between Scotland and England until the dust has settled.




  • BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    Scotland's EU membership of the EU will not happen before the terms of Scotland's future relationship with the UK are locked in place. So the terms of the EU membership will be based on that. If Sturgeon's goal is to keep an open border between Scotland and the UK it will require her to work hard on that withdrawl agreement as that will be what the EU will look at when deciding how to handle Scotland's membership.

    indeed.

    The response Sturgeon gave to Andrew Marr on this, was that the Scottish Government would come up with creative and well thought out solutions to avoid border checkpoints at Gretna and Berwick and ensure the continued seamless flow of goods.

    It sounded kind of familiar to be honest.


  • Advertisement


  • Aegir wrote: »
    indeed.

    The response Sturgeon gave to Andrew Marr on this, was that the Scottish Government would come up with creative and well thought out solutions to avoid border checkpoints at Gretna and Berwick and ensure the continued seamless flow of goods.

    It sounded kind of familiar to be honest.

    That argument worked the last time - and the UK can argue against it in that light




  • Sturgeon should just answer that independence is first and then the people in Scotland can decide what they want to do with regards to the EU or the EFTA. She should be focusing on the self determination angle

    It took almost 2 years for the 2014 referendum to take place after the Edinburgh Agreement was signed and the independence negotiations will take another couple of years. Getting an independent Scotland into a position of alignment to join the EU will take another few years so attempting to answer today how the border would work is pointless




  • Channel 4 are hosting a debate of Scotland's main party leaders at 7pm on Tuesday. It's being billed as the first time such a debate happened for a UK-wide audience.

    https://twitter.com/Hayley_Barlow/status/1386727156336709634

    One of the questions asked might be on this story from The Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/26/trident-overseas-or-halted-scotland-independence

    This seems like a great barganing chip for an independent Scotland.




  • Channel 4 are hosting a debate of Scotland's main party leaders at 7pm on Tuesday. It's being billed as the first time such a debate happened for a UK-wide audience.

    https://twitter.com/Hayley_Barlow/status/1386727156336709634

    One of the questions asked might be on this story from The Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/26/trident-overseas-or-halted-scotland-independence

    This seems like a great barganing chip for an independent Scotland.
    No, it doesn't. It sounds like a compelling argument as to why Westminster should not countenance Scottish independence. And I rather suspect that's the reason it's being advanced just now.

    It sounds like it, but when you dig into it I don't think it is. The point being made is that, if Faslane ceases to be available, "there is no alternative port immediately available elsewhere in the UK". But they jump rather quickly from that to concluding that the UK "would probably require the help of an allied country or the nuclear deterrent would have to be halted completely".

    They are missing the approach which (a) is obvious, and (b) was the approach of the Scottish government in 2014. It is that independent Scotland would negotiate for the removal of Trident from Faslane over an agreed timeframe.

    In other words, it is unlikely that the UK would need alternative facilities in England or Wales to be available immediately. They would need them to be available by the end of the period within which Trident is to be withdrawn from Faslane. And of course that period would be negotiated with an eye to, among other things, how long it would take to prepare alternative facilities in England or Wales.




  • Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, it doesn't. It sounds like a compelling argument as to why Westminster should not countenance Scottish independence. And I rather suspect that's the reason it's being advanced just now.

    It sounds like it, but when you dig into it I don't think it is. The point being made is that, if Faslane ceases to be available, "there is no alternative port immediately available elsewhere in the UK". But they jump rather quickly from that to concluding that the UK "would probably require the help of an allied country or the nuclear deterrent would have to be halted completely".

    They are missing the approach which (a) is obvious, and (b) was the approach of the Scottish government in 2014. It is that independent Scotland would negotiate for the removal of Trident from Faslane over an agreed timeframe.

    In other words, it is unlikely that the UK would need alternative facilities in England or Wales to be available immediately. They would need them to be available by the end of the period within which Trident is to be withdrawn from Faslane. And of course that period would be negotiated with an eye to, among other things, how long it would take to prepare alternative facilities in England or Wales.

    There is also the question of the Green vote as well.

    The SNP has never had a majority, they have always been supported by the Greens who want rid of Trident. If the SNP no longer need the Green Party then the future of Faslane may not be as big an issue, or at least not as pressing.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    There is also the question of the Green vote as well.

    The SNP has never had a majority, they have always been supported by the Greens who want rid of Trident. If the SNP no longer need the Green Party then the future of Faslane may not be as big an issue, or at least not as pressing.
    Both the SNP and the Greens have generally opposed the UK having an independent nuclear deterrent, as I think has a (modest) majority of Scottish public opinion. I think it's likely that in the event of Scottish independence both the SNP and the Greens and quite possibly Scottish Labour would oppose the idea of Scotland hosting the UK's nuclear deterrent, both because of opposition to nuclear weapons generally and because of the implications for Scottish defence policy. (Plus the UK would probably want to think twice about the long-term wisdom of basing its entire nuclear capability in another country.)

    I would think that, regardless of the balance of the various parties, in the event of Scottish independence the writing is on the wall for Faslane as a base for nuclear defence. But I think it will be an orderly and negotiated wind-down, not a sudden eviction.




  • People forget that the UK held naval bases in Ireland up to 1938. Solutions to such matters are always negotiable.




  • Channel 4 are hosting a debate of Scotland's main party leaders at 7pm on Tuesday. It's being billed as the first time such a debate happened for a UK-wide audience.

    https://twitter.com/Hayley_Barlow/status/1386727156336709634

    One of the questions asked might be on this story from The Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/26/trident-overseas-or-halted-scotland-independence

    This seems like a great barganing chip for an independent Scotland.

    Well what is interesting in this article is how it is stated that the base cannot be based in Portsmouth or Devonport due to the close proximity to major population centres.

    Faslane is 40 miles from the centre of Scotland's largest city.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    The SNP has never had a majority,

    Except when they did, 2011 election




  • Aegir wrote: »
    There is also the question of the Green vote as well.

    The SNP has never had a majority, they have always been supported by the Greens who want rid of Trident. If the SNP no longer need the Green Party then the future of Faslane may not be as big an issue, or at least not as pressing.

    The electoral system was designed by Westminster to stop one party having an overall majority. Imagine how life in the UK would be if Westminster adopted a similar electoral system?

    Anyhow, the SNP got a majority in 2011 and the parliament has a pro-independence majority since


  • Advertisement


  • bob mcbob wrote: »
    Well what is interesting in this article is how it is stated that the base cannot be based in Portsmouth or Devonport due to the close proximity to major population centres.

    Faslane is 40 miles from the centre of Scotland's largest city.

    26 miles straight line from the centre of Glasgow




  • bob mcbob wrote: »
    Well what is interesting in this article is how it is stated that the base cannot be based in Portsmouth or Devonport due to the close proximity to major population centres.

    Faslane is 40 miles from the centre of Scotland's largest city.

    Portsmouth and Davenport are basically the centre of those cities. It would be like proposing moving Faslane to Govan.




  • The electoral system was designed by Westminster to stop one party having an overall majority. Imagine how life in the UK would be if Westminster adopted a similar electoral system?

    there would be a lot less SNP MPs, that's true.
    Anyhow, the SNP got a majority in 2011 and the parliament has a pro-independence majority since

    yes, I forgot that.

    The Greens are a very important part of the pro independence voice is what my point was.




  • I find Ross quite rude in this debate with his repeated interruptions.

    Sarwar doing it too.




  • So did anyone watch the Channel 4 debate, and how did it go? Presumably at this late hour before elections, there wasn't much substance to glom onto - but how were the respective leaders? I'm going to take a wild presumption the Labour & Tories attacked Sturgeon at all junctures.




  • pixelburp wrote: »
    I'm going to take a wild presumption the Labour & Tories attacked Sturgeon at all junctures.

    Labour, Tories and Lib Dems ganged up from what I saw (as per usual). I only caught the last 20 minutes of it and anyway I have already send my postal vote in so this is really for the undecided

    The Times alex Massie gives the following
    Third Scottish leaders’ debate: how they performed
    Alex Massie
    Wednesday April 28 2021, 1.01am, The Times


    Patrick Harvie, Greens 6/10

    Message The pandemic is actually an “extraordinary opportunity” to reconsider the kind of country we wish to be. Do we wish to be our own country or must we remain shackled to Boris Johnson’s Britain? We cannot separate post-pandemic recovery from the constitutional question, for we need to build a different economy and a different society.

    Delivery More Catholic than the Pope in terms of his enthusiasm for an immediate post-election dash to independence. Only independence can allow Scotland to unlock its future. Asked what the Greens had achieved on climate change, he talked instead about income tax and the party’s proposals for a wealth tax.

    Verdict Struggled to get his fair share of speaking time but when he did he did all he could to remind (left-wing) SNP voters that they can use their list vote most effectively by giving it to the Greens, the better to build a pro-independence majority. Since these voters represent his key audience, this was a successful evening for Harvie.

    Anas Sarwar, Labour 6/10

    Message Let’s talk about what we can do together. Would you prefer us to work together to end child poverty or spend the next five years arguing about borders and the constitution? Scotland needs a better opposition but also a better government. The Labour Party is on a journey back to relevance and usefulness: come and join me on it.

    Delivery Is the nice, decent guy schtick wearing thin? Perhaps, a little but Sarwar still did his best to suggest he rises above the partisan wrestling that otherwise dominated a grumpy encounter while still throwing a few sharp elbows. There is no love lost between him and Douglas Ross in the race for second place, and it showed.

    Verdict Still retains a freshness that makes him stand out; if you have tired of politics in recent years, he may be the man for you. Has at least offered Labour hope there may be better days ahead. His core message that there must be a third way that is neither SNP nor Tory remains a clear one.


    Nicola Sturgeon, SNP 7/10

    Message Who chooses who governs Scotland? Who chooses what kind of Scotland we want? Is it the people of Scotland or are the people’s desires at the mercy of, or liable to be thwarted by, Boris Johnson? The constitutional argument is chiefly a question of democracy and democratic legitimacy. We need to choose our own future even if “I’m not planning a referendum immediately”.

    Delivery Acknowledged, once again, that her government has “not been perfect” but what else would you expect when one hand is tied behind your back? More animated than in previous debates and presented herself as the only serious candidate with a serious plan for the country.

    Verdict Gave her best performance in this debate. Dominated proceedings, not least by virtue of being the only plausible first minister on stage. Given a relatively easy ride by the moderator but successfully framed the election choice as a decision between her vision for Scotland and Johnson’s ambitions for Britain. The obvious winner.

    Douglas Ross, Conservatives 4/10

    Message We need to get rid of an SNP government that has failed Scotland. Our recovery from the pandemic will be at risk if Sturgeon presses ahead with another independence referendum. We should not — wait for it — have another referendum.

    Delivery Gave the impression of a man struggling to contain his frustration, clashing with Sturgeon and Sarwar. Still a novice at this level and a lack of debating nimbleness showed, not least when he tried to evade the question, “Is the Union voluntary?” rather than answer it persuasively. Failed to put any clear blue water between him and the prime minister, declining to mention he resigned from Johnson’s government on a point of principle.

    Verdict Another difficult evening as he was forced to defend himself against SNP, Labour and Green attacks. Struggled to say much beyond repeating constitutional talking points. This is a core vote strategy but will it be enough?

    Willie Rennie, Liberal Democrats 5/10

    Message Our politics at present is depressing, isn’t it? The debate is “toxic”. We need to move on — so long as moving on does not mean moving closer to another referendum. Voters are right to despair and so they should vote for nice guys like me to pour soothing oil on troubled waters.

    Delivery Like Harvie, existed on heavily rationed time but he is used to the making of bricks without straw. Stressed that recovering from the pandemic will take at least five years and was, as so often, disappointed with the first minister and incredulous she cannot see the reality he perceives (this prompted a mighty eye-roll from the first minister).

    Verdict Has been speaking in these events for more than a decade and this experience shows. Always at his strongest when prosecuting a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger case against the SNP’s record in government but otherwise has relatively little to offer. But that’s OK: he is playing in only a handful of constituencies, and where people like the Lib Dems they really like them.


    Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Channel 4 presenter 3/10


    Presented the election as a proxy referendum on independence in the shadow of Tory “sleaze” at Westminster — a framing that will not have displeased the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon. Much time was wasted introducing the leaders and explaining the electoral system to an audience tuning in from elsewhere in the UK. The presenter also spent the first two thirds of the show amplifying SNP — and Green— talking points and used more time to ask questions about Boris Johnson, the prime minister, than he devoted to queries about Sturgeon’s record in office as first minister. Told Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader: “I know you want to talk about policy . . . ” and suggested, remarkably, that this was a bad thing. Concluded by suggesting that the evening had been “fascinating if you live in England” and “useful if you live in Scotland” — a verdict both presumptuous and doubly implausible.




  • Douglas Ross

    Gave the impression of a man struggling to contain his frustration

    This is bang on. Has always given me the vibe that he's an awkward question away from nutting someone.




  • I saw some of the debate and thought too much shouting at each other and interrupting needlessly.

    It was like a game of multiple chess where the chess master (Nichola Sturgeon) plays each of the other (lesser) players, each with their own chess board in front of them waiting for the master's next move, and she moves systematically from one to the next - each time peruses the board for a few seconds, makes the next move, and then goes to the next victim's board - in the end, defeating all the players, demonstrating her own mastery.

    She was way better than any of her other debaters, and none came close to challenging her on any issue. It was a bit like watching Snow White and the five dwarfs - Sleepy and Grumpy were self isolating in London.




  • Aegir wrote: »
    being in the CTA is very clearly at odds with Schengen though. They can't commit to meet the Schengen criteria and also commit to the CTA.

    You are correct.

    A commitment to membership of Schengen, like adoption of the Euro, is mandatory for new EU members.

    No country that is serious about EU membership would even consider prioritising commitments to a non-EU country over commitments to its fellow EU countries.


  • Advertisement


  • View wrote: »
    A commitment to membership of Schengen, like adoption of the Euro, is mandatory for new EU members.
    I get the feeling they'll find a way to fudge these points.


Advertisement