Scottish independence

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Well I guess England shouldn't be too worried about Scotland becoming independent from an energy security pov.

Well done England.

England isn't worried about Scottish independence full stop, it’s only the politicians.

forgottenhills

Peregrinus wrote: »

With respect, there’s no suggestion that Scotland should vote for independence and then declare independence the day after. You’re attacking a straw man of your own devising here.

And with respect I wasn't suggesting that would happen. I was merely listing some of the greatest challenges that the Scots would need solved from day one of an independent Scotland so you are inventing your own straw man there.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Quite. And those of us who are older than about 12 can remember the 2014 referendum, in which the Scottish government published a detailed white paper some months before the referendum outlining how it proposed the Scotland should transition to independence, what its position would be on hosting the UK’s nuclear deterrent, how the UK national debt might be apportioned, what defence forces an independent Scotland would maintain, its fiscal policy, its currency policy, etc, etc.

So, not only the Awful Example of Brexit, but also past experience, suggest that the Scots won’t be invited to vote on independence without a joined up plan for how it is to be delivered.

That White Paper published by the Scottish government in advance of the 2014 referendum was unfortunately short on signed-off definites and timelines that would constitute a solid plan to most people on some of the crucial aspects of an independent state such as currency and EU accession. Instead it listed its aspirations as to what it hoped would happen in relation to key areas such as its new currency, EU accession and dividing the UK national debt with the remainder of the UK.

For instance the White Paper stated that it would continue to use the pound as its currency under the governance of the Bank of England (and backed internationally by BOE assurances) whereas the actuality was that there were no assurances in place from the English authorities that a 3rd country would be allowed operate its currency in this way. In reality Scotland would likely have to tie its currency to the Euro for 2 years to be allowed accession to the EU as it would likely find that it was necessary to join the Eurozone. This creates an economic problem for Scotland as most of its trade is in GBP with the rest of the UK and creates a referendum issue as independence voters have not been overly enthused about ditching the pound up to now.

There was also no concrete plan set out for how Scotland could rejoin the EU coming from a place outside the EU after Brexit (which was mentioned as a possibility). There was also no mention of the Shetland Island choosing to become a Crown Dependency like the Faeroes or the Channel Islands and taking their fishing rights and oil reserves with them in the event of Scottish independence (a choice which is becoming a growing possibility).

For a commentary on the tough choices facing Scotland on the independent currency issue alone here is a decent article.

I'm not saying that Scotland wouldn't make a good fist of independence in the medium to long term and I wish them well as an observer on the sidelines. I am saying that they have to outline some hard choices and initial uncertainties in some major areas to voters ahead of any other referendum and still sell that deal despite some pig in a poke elements. So there is no guarantee that voters will take Scotland independent any time soon, this will probably depend on Brexit Britain post Jan 2021 being a fiasco. It would have been so much easier if they had wanted to, and done this like ourselves, back in 1922 without the complexities of the modern era!

Mr.Nice Guy

SNP MP Drew Hendry was suspended for taking the mace while speaking out against the Internal Market Bill. Apparently, it has a symbolic significance. Given the disrespectful way they're routinely treated in there, I like that one of them showed a bit of passion.

https://twitter.com/MartinJKeatings/status/1339286306699042817

Aegir wrote: »

England isn't worried about Scottish independence full stop, it’s only the politicians.

Sounds very English doesn't it?

I'd be a bit concerned if a part of my country wanted out, had a close fought referendum on the matter (from a zero base) and since then the biggest advocate for that part of the State exiting the UK has dominated local politics and local representation to the National Parliament.

But then again, I would be concerned if there was several insurrections and 2 civil wars in the space of 60 years all about leaving my State. But that's just me.

forgottenhills wrote: »

And with respect I wasn't suggesting that would happen. I was merely listing some of the greatest challenges that the Scots would need solved from day one of an independent Scotland so you are inventing your own straw man there.

That White Paper published by the Scottish government in advance of the 2014 referendum was unfortunately short on signed-off definites and timelines that would constitute a solid plan to most people on some of the crucial aspects of an independent state such as currency and EU accession. Instead it listed its aspirations as to what it hoped would happen in relation to key areas such as its new currency, EU accession and dividing the UK national debt with the remainder of the UK.

For instance the White Paper stated that it would continue to use the pound as its currency under the governance of the Bank of England (and backed internationally by BOE assurances) whereas the actuality was that there were no assurances in place from the English authorities that a 3rd country would be allowed operate its currency in this way. In reality Scotland would likely have to tie its currency to the Euro for 2 years to be allowed accession to the EU as it would likely find that it was necessary to join the Eurozone. This creates an economic problem for Scotland as most of its trade is in GBP with the rest of the UK and creates a referendum issue as independence voters have not been overly enthused about ditching the pound up to now.

There was also no concrete plan set out for how Scotland could rejoin the EU coming from a place outside the EU after Brexit (which was mentioned as a possibility). There was also no mention of the Shetland Island choosing to become a Crown Dependency like the Faeroes or the Channel Islands and taking their fishing rights and oil reserves with them in the event of Scottish independence (a choice which is becoming a growing possibility).

For a commentary on the tough choices facing Scotland on the independent currency issue alone here is a decent article.

I'm not saying that Scotland wouldn't make a good fist of independence in the medium to long term and I wish them well as an observer on the sidelines. I am saying that they have to outline some hard choices and initial uncertainties in some major areas to voters ahead of any other referendum and still sell that deal despite some pig in a poke elements. So there is no guarantee that voters will take Scotland independent any time soon, this will probably depend on Brexit Britain post Jan 2021 being a fiasco. It would have been so much easier if they had wanted to, and done this like ourselves, back in 1922 without the complexities of the modern era!

You do realise that Scotland "owns" Sterling as well? right? It's not solely the preserve of England.

The White Paper was incredibly detailed for a document that would set out the Scotland's initial position during secession negotiations.

There were items that they couldn't have known until negotiated, like pensions etc until after the work began.

Again, I find it fascinating that the anti-independence/Unionist zealots are amazingly forthright about the "lack of detail" in the White Paper, and yet have no qualms with the "back of a fag packet" exchequer and State management that the Tories subject everyone to on a daily basis from Brexit to current and capital spending.

The same sort expect SF to spell out exactly how much money they plan on spending on traffic cones on Februtober forfty-sipth 2045.

It's a bit disingenuous to say the least.

That you think our 'exit' was simple in 1922 says it all. We're still dealing with the fallout.

Obviously, if Scotland transitions to independence, a lot of stuff is going to have to be agreed between Scotland and rump UK.

It would be dishonest and Brexity of a Scottish government to state baldly that X or Y will happen, if X or Y can only happen by agreement. All they can to is say that Scotland will enter into negotiations with a view to seeking agreement on X or Y. Such a statement is not lacking in detail; it's lacking in false reassurance. But that's a good thing.

You can, of course, object that this means that voters won't know things will play out if they opt for independence. But the answer to that is that they don't know how things will play out if they opt to remain part of the UK. A big selling point for the unionist side in 2014 was that an independent Scotland would be out of the EU and would have to apply to accede, so if you value EU membership you should vote "no". Well, that didn't exactly play out as expected, did it? The future is always attended by a degree of uncertainty; independence movements usually succeed on the basis of the possiblities they open up.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, if Scotland transitions to independence, a lot of stuff is going to have to be agreed between Scotland and rump UK.

It would be dishonest and Brexity of a Scottish government to state baldly that X or Y will happen, if X or Y can only happen by agreement. All they can to is say that Scotland will enter into negotiations with a view to seeking agreement on X or Y. Such a statement is not lacking in detail; it's lacking in false reassurance. But that's a good thing.

You can, of course, object that this means that voters won't know things will play out if they opt for independence. But the answer to that is that they don't know how things will play out if they opt to remain part of the UK. A big selling point for the unionist side in 2014 was that an independent Scotland would be out of the EU and would have to apply to accede, so if you value EU membership you should vote "no". Well, that didn't exactly play out as expected, did it? The future is always attended by a degree of uncertainty; independence movements usually succeed on the basis of the possiblities they open up.

It's obvious to the likes of you and I.

I mean, if only there was some sort of precedent for a part of the UK leaving that could give guidance of some sort.

I'll be quite interested in what rUK decide to partition this time.

Capt'n Midnight

forgottenhills wrote: »

I don't think that anyone doubts that Scotland could make a go of it in the long run but the medium term will be very difficult.

The medium term will be difficult for the UK.

Brexit hasn't happened yet. Until the end of the year the normal rules apply.

Has any 1st world country made a huge constitutional change in recent decades, in a world made much more complicated by complex social welfare, rigorous borrowing requirements and closely interconnected trading arrangements that have to be redefined? Perhaps Eastern Europe is closest after 1990, but they didn't really come from a 1st world baseline and expect standards to be maintained. And when we set up a state in 1922 the world and the nation state were a great deal less complex structures. Think even about the IT system changes involved in a state change for one thing - daunting.

Portugal , Spain and Greece were dictatorships not too many years before joining the EU.

East Germany, Slovenia and Czechoslovakia wouldn't have been really poor countries compared to the above when they joined.

East Germany reunited , while both Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia split.

First world was defined politically as US allies, Second world was communist. Non aligned countries like us were the third world, but most of them were poor.

Scotland is stuck with Sterling until they diversify. When over 90% of your exports go to one country you don't have a lot of financial options.

Oddly enough the three Baltic Countries went different ways with currency after independence. They pegged to $ or € or a basket mostly made of $ and €

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's obvious to the likes of you and I.

I mean, if only there was some sort of precedent for a part of the UK leaving that could give guidance of some sort.

To be fair, forgottenhills' point is that disentangling Scotland from the UK will be much more challenging exercise than disentangling the Irish Free State was a hundred years ago. And that's true.

On the plus side, Scotland has much stronger and more resilient state capacity to tackle the challenge than we had a hundred years ago. Plus, all going well the Scots won't be fighting a civil war at the same time.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Scotland is stuck with Sterling until they diversify. When over 90% of your exports go to one country you don't have a lot of financial options.

60%. But your point is good nevertheless.

Still, worthing noting that when we broke the link with sterling, in 1978, 48% of our trade was being done with the UK.

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be fair, forgottenhills' point is that disentangling Scotland from the UK will be much more challenging exercise than disentangling the Irish Free State was a hundred years ago. And that's true.

On the plus side, Scotland has much stronger and more resilient state capacity to tackle the challenge than we had a hundred years ago. Plus, all going well the Scots won't be fighting a civil war at the same time.

Well, it'll be a damn sight easier given the circumstances, but it will be 'logistically' more difficult given the way of the world of course.

Same could be said of a UI in 1970 being logistically easier than in 2020. The politics notwithstanding.

Yeah, I think looking at the timing of all of this, I think rUK, and lets face it, England should use the 'Commemorations' to remind themselves of how out of hand things get when they act as they ALWAYS do.

Peregrinus wrote: »

60%. But your point is good nevertheless.

Still, worthing noting that when we broke the link with sterling, in 1978, 48% of our trade was being done with the UK.

Are we still counting Scottish exports that use English ports as English exports?

There was a massive hullabaloo about the technicalities in 2014, when it essentially made to look like Scotland ONLy exports to England on the basis of the entry/exit point of the goods!

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Are we still counting Scottish exports that use English ports as English exports?

There was a massive hullabaloo about the technicalities in 2014, when it essentially made to look like Scotland ONLy exports to England on the basis of the entry/exit point of the goods!

I'm looking at the Scottish government figures from 2018 (which I think are the most recent to be published). They're based on the final destination in the export transaction. So if a Scottish company sells good to a customer in France, that's a Scottish export to France, even if the goods are trucked to an English port and then shipped from their to France.

But if a Scottish company sells goods to an English customer, and the English customer then sells the goods on to a French customer, that's two transactions — an export from Scotland to England, which shows up in the Scottish export figures as an export to rest of UK, followed by an export from England to France, which doesn't show up at all in the Scottish export figures but (presumably) shows up in the UK figures as a UK export to France (and, if English figures are preared by someone, would show up there as an English export to France).

(That's consistent with how export transactions are generally treated. If a Spanish company sellls to a French company sells to an Italian company, the first transaction shows up as an export from Spain and an import to France, and the second transaction shows up as an export from France and an import to Italy.)

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm looking at the Scottish government figures from 2018 (which I think are the most recent to be published). They're based on the final destination in the export transaction. So if a Scottish company sells good to a customer in France, that's a Scottish export to France, even if the goods are trucked to an English port and then shipped from their to France.

But if a Scottish company sells goods to an English customer, and the English customer then sells the goods on to a French customer, that's two transactions — an export from Scotland to England, which shows up in the Scottish export figures as an export to rest of UK, followed by an export from England to France, which doesn't show up at all in the Scottish export figures but (presumably) shows up in the UK figures as a UK export to France (and, if English figures are preared by someone, would show up there as an English export to France).

(That's consistent with how export transactions are generally treated. If a Spanish company sellls to a French company sells to an Italian company, the first transaction shows up as an export from Spain and an import to France, and the second transaction shows up as an export from France and an import to Italy.)

Cheers. That would be how I would read the figures, but if you recall 2014, it was that almost all of those transactions were being counted as exports to England by the (lying) Unionist-side. Well, disingenuously trying to frame the argument should I say, to show how Scotland wouldn't nay, couldn't survive outside the UK.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Sounds very English doesn't it?

in what way?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'd be a bit concerned if a part of my country wanted out, had a close fought referendum on the matter (from a zero base) and since then the biggest advocate for that part of the State exiting the UK has dominated local politics and local representation to the National Parliament.

it's not my country though.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But then again, I would be concerned if there was several insurrections and 2 civil wars in the space of 60 years all about leaving my State. But that's just me.

I doubt very much that there would be. What happens to the SNP when they're no longer able to blame the English for their problems though will be both interesting and amusing at the same time.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'll be quite interested in what rUK decide to partition this time.

as in Ireland, if that happens, it will be because that is what the Scots considered to be the best option. I doubt the SNP would be too worried about comely maidens dancing at the crossroads or having a load of Prods getting in the way of their Catholic utopia though.

Aegir wrote: »

. . . What happens to the SNP when they're no longer able to blame the English for their problems though will be both interesting and amusing at the same time.

if Brexiters continue to blame the EU for all the woes that befall Brexit Britain — as I have absolutely no doubt they will — that might suggest a certain course of action to the SNP. Just sayin'.

pixelburp

Aegir wrote: »

I doubt very much that there would be. What happens to the SNP when they're no longer able to blame the English for their problems though will be both interesting and amusing at the same time.

Apart from some key divergences in policy (mostly 'cos London leans more right IMO), I"ve not really got the sense Sturgeon or the SNP define themselves in terms of blaming the English: in fact, from what I've seen their manifesto or public narrative for independence has often made sure to emphasise Scottish identity and progression - rather than any revolutionary, antagonistic spirit. Scotland searching for its own future, than the one now prescribed to it (made more emphatic by Brexit)

CoVid has definitely shown some divisions between Edinburgh and London, but those have seemed implementational than ideological, arguably enforced by Westminster's less than stellar handling of the crisis. Again I don't get the sense there'd be a rush to blame the English were Johnson a better leader during this time. Instead, CoVid has allowed Sturgeon to play Prime Minister / President in waiting by showing Scotland as perfectly capable of doing its own business. Again, without seeming antagonistic towards its neighbour.

forgottenhills

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You do realise that Scotland "owns" Sterling as well? right? It's not solely the preserve of England.

Incorrect. GBP is governed by the Bank of England which is the lender of last resort. English politicians have stated that they would not accept an independent Scotland using the BoE after independence and in any case Scotland would have no control over interest rates which is the same story if it created the Scottish Pound and tried to peg its value to GBP. If it wants to access the EU it need to shadow the Euro for up to 2 years so that would suggest it has to create a currency to shadow the Euro. Once again it will have no control over its interest rates during this period. So tough choices facing the SNP in declaring a realistic currency policy before a new referendum especially when a large part of its populace will be less inclined to vote for independence when it will likely be losing a pound that is directly pegged to GBP.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Again, I find it fascinating that the anti-independence/Unionist zealots are amazingly forthright about the "lack of detail" in the White Paper, and yet have no qualms with the "back of a fag packet" exchequer and State management that the Tories subject everyone to on a daily basis from Brexit to current and capital spending.

That you think our 'exit' was simple in 1922 says it all. We're still dealing with the fallout.

Why on earth are you describing me as a "Unionist zealot" when I am simply pointing out real problems that the SNP will face for its next referendum? I have already stated that I wish them well on their mission although it will be daunting in this day and age. I would welcome an independent Scotland in the EU as we share many interests.

And yes it was much easier for us in 1922. For a start there was a much greater percentage of people in Ireland who wanted independence than there seem to be in Scotland going by polling there. That created a unity of desire and a willingness among many to endure subsequent hardships. Secondly there were no integrated IT and supply systems to disentangle with a host of third countries. Everything was paper based and all you had to do to change state in a lot of cases was to change the name on the door or on the typed letterhead. There wasn't such huge reliance on the welfare state and health service and a desire that support in these areas wouldn't change on independence. We didn't have to negotiate trade deals with a host of third countries (but even so a trade war with our largest customer damaged this country quite badly in the 1930s). And we were able to use GBP for a considerable period (its unlikely that Scotland will be able to do so for reasons described above).

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

Boris said wind, not just renewable.

The world's four largest offshore windfarms are in the UK England and more are currently being built.

https://doggerbank.com/
https://hornseaprojectone.co.uk/
https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/lines-business/flagship-projects/east-anglia-one-offshore-wind-farm
https://walneyextension.co.uk/
https://londonarray.com/

It's a good start.

There are 24 million or so homes in England and to power these will need approx 35 GW.

The currently operational, under construction and proposed windfarms in England will take you approx 50% of the way there so still a bit of a gap to fill.

pixelburp wrote: »

CoVid has definitely shown some divisions between Edinburgh and London, but those have seemed implementational than ideological, arguably enforced by Westminster's less than stellar handling of the crisis. Again I don't get the sense there'd be a rush to blame the English were Johnson a better leader during this time. Instead, CoVid has allowed Sturgeon to play Prime Minister / President in waiting by showing Scotland as perfectly capable of doing its own business. Again, without seeming antagonistic towards its neighbour.

that's a perfect example right there.

The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish handling of the pandemic has not differed that much, but anything bad that happens is blamed on the UK government.

There is no equivalent of the Guardian in Scotland that is constantly trying to undermine the Scottish government, so no one really cares what they do.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

.

There is no equivalent of the Guardian in Scotland that is constantly trying to undermine the Scottish government, so no one really cares what they do.

That is so funny... have you read any of the media in Scotland or the traps set by the media at the COVID -19 briefings?

The only outlet that supports the Scottish Government is the National newspaper

A Dub in Glasgo

Poll commissioned by the Scotsman newspaper published today. Another poll the other day showed Yes at 52% excluding Don't Knows

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Poll commissioned by the Scotsman newspaper published today. Another poll the other day showed Yes at 52% excluding Don't Knows

That the SNP could win all bar one constituency seat (They've a list system also) is amazing given how long they are in power. It really is only a matter of time.

Boris being in No. 10 is helping them, but doesn't fully explain their huge support.

pixelburp

Aegir wrote: »

that's a perfect example right there.

The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish handling of the pandemic has not differed that much, but anything bad that happens is blamed on the UK government.

There is no equivalent of the Guardian in Scotland that is constantly trying to undermine the Scottish government, so no one really cares what they do.

But which is it: either we're talking "blaming the English", or blaming Westminster but the two aren't necessarily the same here in terms of an independence movement's narrative. Very little chatter "blames" England in the same fashion Irish independence distinctly "othered" our neighbours.

Worth reminding that with Brexit has come an attempt to remove some power from the devolved governments via the IM Bill; it'd be an odd devolved government that didn't at least push back against the power structure that sits above Hollyrood; that's not "blaming the English", but holding to account a government that's meant to serve all 4 nations within the agreed parameters established. Not CoVid related as such, sure, but part of the same give & take between the two countries.

I do wonder how Scottish politics will look post-independence and if it'll amount to a 1 party system. You'd like to think that once independence is achieved, the SNP might split into smaller parties (I daresay there's a lot of politicians holding their nose for the sake of a common cause)

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is so funny... have you read any of the media in Scotland or the traps set by the media at the COVID -19 briefings?

The only outlet that supports the Scottish Government is the National newspaper

no one on here reads the Scottish press, obviously.

Kermit.de.frog

pixelburp wrote: »

I do wonder how Scottish politics will look post-independence and if it'll amount to a 1 party system. You'd like to think that once independence is achieved, the SNP might split into smaller parties (I daresay there's a lot of politicians holding their nose for the sake of a common cause)

Same as happened in Ireland.

Sinn Féin ultimately split in to FF and FG.