nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scottish independence

Faye McAleer

Would you be in support of a politico-economic union and formal international intergovernmental cooperation between the three Gaelic nations, (united) Ireland, (independent) Scotland and the Isle of Man similar to Benelux?

The Benelux cooperation has served as a model for the EU, and is basically an EU lite, comprising a customs union and a parliament as well as shared resources.

This could work between the three Gaelic nations and when we get reunification and the Scottish get independence, I think it is something good that should be created.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sondagefaux

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's a lot closer to 300 years.

Which pales compared to the 800 years for parts of Ireland.

Imagine if only part of Scotland got independence. The part staying in the UK gets 90% of the heavy industry, the banks, most of the mines and almost all the hard working protestants. The only major asset the independent part has is the ability to make decisions rather deferring to Westminster.

I wonder how that might work out? ðŸ˜†

Imreoir2

peter kern wrote: »

why would people think that an independent scotland is such a no brainer

debt
paymets to uk when leaving
risk losing oakney and shetland.
ecconnomy,

Every country has debt.

What payments would an independant have to make to the UK when leaving?

Polls suggest that while those islands would rather remain as part of the UK, a very large majority would prefer to stick with Scotland regardless of the outcome of an independance referendum.

Rest assured that an independant Scotland will still have an economey.

who do they trade with while out of uk and not in eu.
joining eu going to take 5/6 years but given the state the economy is it
could take longer
the currency issue no way could they keep the scotish pound and only
20 % of scots wanted the euro.

while in the long term likley beneficial thats at least 15 en 20 years until they would se benefits.
the irish way off leaving would be very hasty.
as we always said brexit during covid was stupid ...

They would trade with the same people they trade with now. The terms of their trade arrangements would need to be worked out, but unlike the Tory government in Westminster, they would not be hampered in such negotiations by an ideology that demanded the erection of needless trade barriers.

On what basis do you think an independant Scotland could not keep the pound? We pegged our currency to the pound did for years and years.

sondagefaux

Small businesses sending their exports from Britain to the EU are unlikely to be sending orders that are big enough to fill a whole truck.

So the people that transport their goods group their goods together with goods from other companies exporting to the EU. This system is known as groupage.

Each and every consignment on the same truck, which could be carrying hundreds of different consignments, must have all its paperwork in order.

One mistake in one consignment means the whole truck is held up.

The attached file shows what happened when one freight company's trucks had groupage consignments on some of its trucks with missing or incorrect paperwork.

At the end, the freight company announces that it intends to stop offering groupage services to export customers.

How will their small business customers send their orders to the EU? They'll have to find another transport company that's still willing to do groupage. At far greater cost.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-04/u-k-freight-shipping-costs-quadruple-after-brexit-and-covid-19

PommieBast

listermint wrote: »

Would the UK not owe them money though for taking all the gas and oil reserves for decades and parking rental for their northern fleet and subs.

It was partially balanced out by the Barnett formula fudge, although there are still arguments about the way oil was managed which resulted in a pitiful average return per barrel compared to Norway.

Peregrinus

CelticRambler wrote: »

There was an article linked on this thread (I think) in the latter half of last year that explained how the elections in May could be run in Scotland on the basis of a mandate for independence, and if the [SNP] were to achieve a thumping majority, they would have the legal basis to declare independence without seeking Westminster's approval.

Those elections in May will coincide with a hell of a lot of fishermen coming to the end of their cash reserves, and a hell of a lot of seed potato exporters having to decide whether or not to plant crops for the year ahead, and they will know that it was Boris Johnson's Brexit that put them in that situation. No doubt there will be many other groups across the population who begin to feel the full effect of Brexit as the weather warms up and Covid dies down.

While it's probably still a bit early for Brexit to have wreaked as much havoc on the Scottish economy as it has the potential to do, I would also say that these elections are probably the perfect time for the SNP to run a campaign on the back of seeking a formal mandate for (unilaterally declaring) independence. And if the Tories run against that, well ... :P

The problem with a UDI strategy is that it leads to a Scotland whose independence and sovereignty is disputed and (at least initially) enjoys limited or no recognition. The EU isn't going to touch that with a barge-pole. So you face a very awkward period of what could be years trying to press the UK to acknowledge the independence of Scotland, and unable in the meantime to move towards EU membership or to regularise your relationships with other countries.

This is the route we followed in Ireland — general election victory for Sinn Fein, followed by unilateral declaration of independence by Dáil Éireann. And that, of course, was followed by the war of independence, which was followed by the Anglo-Irish Treaty. And, significantly, few or no other countries would have anything to do with us until after the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the establishment of the Free State.

I don't think the Scots want a war of independence.

So, before rushing down the UDI route, the Scots should ask themselves what is their strategy for after UDI? In particular, how are they going to get Westminster to accept and acknowledge it, without which no other country is likely to? What political pressure are they going to bring to bear, and how? And how confident can we be that this will produce the desired result?

[Deleted User]

One problem for this current round of support for independence in Scotland is that it is very much linked to Brexit.

The referendum loss in 2014 quietened things down a bit only for Brexit to bring it back to the surface.

Most of the support for independence now is based on the idea of a swift return to Europe.

So something like a UDI would never be a runner because the EU would have nothing to do with it.

Equally the question of the pound would be troublesome as EU membership now requires adaption of the Euro.

And what happens if London starts to listen and starts offering greater devolution to appease the independence calls ?
Does greater devolution in fact take Scotland further from the EU rather than closer as the independence supports would like it to be?

Peregrinus

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

One problem for this current round of support for independence in Scotland is that it is very much linked to Brexit.

That's true, but I don't think it's a problem for support for indepence; I think it's a problem for unionists.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The referendum loss in 2014 quietened things down a bit only for Brexit to bring it back to the surface.

Most of the support for independence now is based on the idea of a swift return to Europe.

So something like a UDI would never be a runner because the EU would have nothing to do with it.

Equally the question of the pound would be troublesome as EU membership now requires adaption of the Euro.

It requires a commitment to adopt the euro, in due course, when the time is right, having regard to all the circumstances, etc, etc. It's not enforceable or, at any rate, it's not enforced. Sweden, for example, has been committed to adopting the euro since 1994, but is still using the Krona and has no current plans to move on from that, or even to join the ERM. Simlilar comments could be made about Poland, the Czech Republic and a couple of other countries. And I think there would be a ready understanding of independent Scotland's special issues with regard to adopting the euro. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be allowed to be be a barrier to EU membership.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And what happens if London starts to listen and starts offering greater devolution to appease the independence calls?

London would have a credibility problem there, since we all remember the talk of further devolution before the 2014 referendum, and the action that conspicuously didn't follow afterwards.

So I think this time round it wouldn't be enough to offer greater devolution; to be taken seriously London would have to actually grant it in advance of the referendum.

And that might create another problem, since actually granting further devolution necessarily entails being specific about exactly what further competences are being conferred on Scotland. Which means it would probably be obvious that the further develotion granted wasn't sufficient to enable Scotland to make decisions that it wishes to make, like rejoining the EU. In which case you run the risk that, far from convincing people that independence isn't necessary, the whole exercise might serve as a demonstration that it is; that the grant of more devolution cannot satisfy Scottish aspirations.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Does greater devolution in fact take Scotland further from the EU rather than closer as the independence supports would like it to be?

Do you want to rephrase this? Independence supporters don't want greater devolution to take Scotland closer to the EU; they want independence to take Scotland closer to the EU. They probably don't believe that greater devolution could acheive this, and it would be up to unionists to convince them that it could. I think that would require a fundamental restructuring of the UK such that its constituent countries took control of their own foreign affairs and international trading relationships, while remaining part of the UK. Is that likely to be on offer from Westminister?

rock22

Peregrinus wrote: »

Affects of brexit
That's true, but I don't think it's a problem for support for indepence; I think it's a problem for unionists.

Euro
It requires a commitment to adopt the euro, in due course, when the time is right, having regard to all the circumstances, etc, etc. It's not enforceable or, at any rate, it's not enforced. ......
And I think there would be a ready understanding of independent Scotland's special issues with regard to adopting the euro. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be allowed to be be a barrier to EU membership.

.....

Constitutional change

Do you want to rephrase this? Independence supporters don't want greater devolution to take Scotland closer to the EU; they want independence to take Scotland closer to the EU. They probably don't believe that greater devolution could acheive this, and it would be up to unionists to convince them that it could. I think that would require a fundamental restructuring of the UK such that its constituent countries took control of their own foreign affairs and international trading relationships, while remaining part of the UK. Is that likely to be on offer from Westminister?

I have tried to multi-quote - without great success , but i will address each point below

Brexit
This undoubtedly lent support to calls for Scottish independence. And it is likely that as the affects of Brexit are absorbed, some of that Brexit anger will dissipate. Fishermen and potato farmers are unlike to be happy , but don't forget fishermen where pro Brexit at one time.

Euro
The Eu was not in a political position to enforce the adoption of the Euro for current members but it is a condition of entry for new members which they will not abandon easily . I can see no way Germany, Spain, Italy and France would accept any new applicant without convergence and adoption of the Euro.

[Constitutional change
Even if more powers are devolved to Scotland, there is no process that would allow a constituent part of the UK to be accepted as a member of the EU. No matter what constitutional framework you can imagine, if UK is accepted as sovereign in some way then the EU will only deal with the UK government and Scotland cannot gain entry. Secondly, there is no way the EU would allow itself to be used as a 'pull factor' for independence in interfering with what it would see as a UK constitutional matter.

Ultimately, whether Scottish people vote for independence will depend on whether they want to make their own decision , free of England, or not. A lot of Scottish people, even those who might favour independence, have a strong loyalty to the UK through the monarchy and the armed forces. There is not , and has never been , a desire to repudiate these in the way they were in Ireland one hundred years ago.

Even today, for most Scots, the discussion is about how well they might be by remaining in the UK or by breaking away from it. It is a decision many of them are making in terms of pounds shillings or pence. I am half Scottish and have many relatives in Scotland. They are much more conservative and careful than we are. Their default will be the status quo unless it becomes intolerable or independence promises a much better rosier, prosperous future. And no one can give the Scots a guarantee that they will be better off independent of the UK. Even the EU cannot guarantee them that membership , if it is ever offered, will be financially beneficially.

Personally, I would love to see an independent Scotland. But i don't think there is the passion there to "..break away and to hell with any predictions good or bad".
When they have established themselves as a recognised state hopefully without insurrection, then they can build up their economy and look to future membership of organisations such as the EU. But it is foolish to think this can be done quickly or painlessly. Look at the Balkans to see just how torturous the road to independence and EU membership can be.

pixelburp

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[...]

And what happens if London starts to listen and starts offering greater devolution to appease the independence calls ?
Does greater devolution in fact take Scotland further from the EU rather than closer as the independence supports would like it to be?

Peregrinus already mentioned this, but this is something that should have happened already. The fabled "Devo max" amounting to more devolution powers were supposed to happen if Scotland rejected independence in 2014; the 3 party leaders signed a very public declaration to this effect, offering Hollyrood more power in exchange for a No vote. 6 years later and there has been no sign of increased powers - in fact, the opposite could have happened had the infamous IM bill gone through during the trailing end of Brexit negotiations. I couldn't say how the phantom DevoMax figures in the public consciousness and discourse over independence, but while London is free to dangle more sovereignty in front of the Scots, this is a record already played.

edit: here's a contemporaneous account of "Devo max": I'm open to correction here because I'm fairly sure all these promises were quickly forgotten about...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-what-devo-max-9733931.html

Currently, Scotland create its own laws regarding: agriculture, forestry and fisheries, education and training, environment, health and social services, housing, law and order (including the licensing of air weapons), local government, sport and the arts, tourism and economic development, and many aspects of transport.

Meanwhile, Westminster retained the powers to decide upon: benefits and social security, immigration, defence, foreign policy, employment, broadcasting, trade and industry, nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity, consumer rights, data protection, and the Constitution.

Put simply, devo-max – also known as maximum devolution - would give Holyrood the power over most reserved matters, except defence and foreign affairs.

All the three main pro-union parties - Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – have pledged to offer a version of devo-max if Scotland votes no in Thursday’s referendum.

Sam Russell

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

One problem for this current round of support for independence in Scotland is that it is very much linked to Brexit.

The referendum loss in 2014 quietened things down a bit only for Brexit to bring it back to the surface.

Most of the support for independence now is based on the idea of a swift return to Europe.

So something like a UDI would never be a runner because the EU would have nothing to do with it.

Equally the question of the pound would be troublesome as EU membership now requires adaption of the Euro.

And what happens if London starts to listen and starts offering greater devolution to appease the independence calls ?
Does greater devolution in fact take Scotland further from the EU rather than closer as the independence supports would like it to be?

This is exactly the path the British Gov adopted in our case in 1914 - they passed the Home Rule Bill' It immediately led to a mutiny by the British Garrison in the Curragh, and armed insurrection in the Ulster region. The Gov then suspended its implementation until after the WW I finished.

Two years later, in 1916, it was followed by armed insurrection in Dublin, followed by coercion and executions that horrified the population that led to even more insurrection.

The British Gov have already offered greater devolution to Scotland in 2014, and never delivered it. In fact, they have reduced devolution by taking back any sovereignty gains from Brexit to themselves, and introduced Henry the Eighth powers.

The Scots have learned from Cameron that 'Eton words - soon forgotten' and they would be wise to understand that old saying - 'Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, fool on me'.

They have a difficult road ahead.

bob mcbob

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

One problem for this current round of support for independence in Scotland is that it is very much linked to Brexit.

The referendum loss in 2014 quietened things down a bit only for Brexit to bring it back to the surface.

Most of the support for independence now is based on the idea of a swift return to Europe.

So something like a UDI would never be a runner because the EU would have nothing to do with it.

Equally the question of the pound would be troublesome as EU membership now requires adaption of the Euro.

And what happens if London starts to listen and starts offering greater devolution to appease the independence calls ?
Does greater devolution in fact take Scotland further from the EU rather than closer as the independence supports would like it to be?

Why do you say things quietened down - is that because it was no longer a story for Westminster and the London media? If so then you are correct.

On the other hand if you think it is sustainable that 45% of Scotland no longer believes in the United Kingdom. Where people of working age (ie the productive parts of society) want to leave but the status quo is retained thanks to the ahem elderly. If you believe that this is a sustainable position then there is not really much I can say.

Like many things Covid and Brexit just speeded up the changes that were already in progress.

[Deleted User]

bob mcbob wrote: »

Why do you say things quietened down - is that because it was no longer a story for Westminster and the London media? If so then you are correct.

On the other hand if you think it is sustainable that 45% of Scotland no longer believes in the United Kingdom. Where people of working age (ie the productive parts of society) want to leave but the status quo is retained thanks to the ahem elderly. If you believe that this is a sustainable position then there is not really much I can say.

Like many things Covid and Brexit just speeded up the changes that were already in progress.

Well the 2014 vote was a "once in a generation" event.
When that failed it was obvious that talk of independence would go on the back burner.
But then Brexit came along pretty soon after and that was obviously a major change that brought it to prominence again, making that "once in a generation" excuse far less tenable.

What it looks like now is that Brexit, against the wises of the Scottish voters based on the 2016 referendum, is now the major driving force behind the popularity of independence.

Even more basic than that, Scottish admission to the EU is the major driving force behind the popularity of independence.

Is the hope of joining the EU enough to cut links with your nearest neighbour that you have been in a political union with for over 300 years ?

That will certainly have to be teased out.

And as another poster alluded to if the upheaval of Brexit settles down will the anger towards it also become lessened.

[Deleted User]

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They would trade with the same people they trade with now. The terms of their trade arrangements would need to be worked out, but unlike the Tory government in Westminster, they would not be hampered in such negotiations by an ideology that demanded the erection of needless trade barriers.

On what basis do you think an independant Scotland could not keep the pound? We pegged our currency to the pound did for years and years.

what trade barriers did the conservatives agree to that the SNP wouldn't?

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

what trade barriers did the conservatives agree to that the SNP wouldn't?

Ok let me see -

- refusal of the single market
- refusal of the customs union
- refusal of EFTA
- refusal of free movement

I am sure there are many more but it is difficult to keep up.

Each and everyone of these choices by the Tories resulted in a trade barrier

[Deleted User]

bob mcbob wrote: »

Ok let me see -

- refusal of the single market
- refusal of the customs union
- refusal of EFTA
- refusal of free movement

I am sure there are many more but it is difficult to keep up.

Each and everyone of these choices by the Tories resulted in a trade barrier

aah, so the SNP would magically join the EFTA?

Sounds like the deal Boris was going to get that was better than the one May got, or the one Corbyn was going to get that was better than the one Boris could get......

cameramonkey

The Scottish fishing zone makes up over 60% of UK waters. The EU I am sure would look at that as a major reason to have e Scots back into the EU.

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

aah, so the SNP would magically join the EFTA?

Sounds like the deal Boris was going to get that was better than the one May got, or the one Corbyn was going to get that was better than the one Boris could get......

Yes, you only need to follow the rules and get agreement from other EFTA nations - nothing magic about it.

Boris decided, that as leader of the English national party, the EU would be blinded by English exceptionalism and he could follow his cakeism strategy.
Well that worked out didn't it!

[Deleted User]

bob mcbob wrote: »

Yes, you only need to follow the rules and get agreement from other EFTA nations - nothing magic about it.

Boris decided, that as leader of the English national party, the EU would be blinded by English exceptionalism and he could follow his cakeism strategy.
Well that worked out didn't it!

can you get any more cliches in your post?

so how long does it take to join the EFTA? Does being a member of EFTA automatically make a country a member of the EEA? (hint, no it doesn't)

who would Scotland trade with in the meantime? What would the RUK demand in order for Scotland to get a deal with its main partner?

It isn't as easy as "We'll get a good deal" as has been shown very nicely by Brexit.

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

can you get any more cliches in your post?

so how long does it take to join the EFTA? Does being a member of EFTA automatically make a country a member of the EEA? (hint, no it doesn't)

who would Scotland trade with in the meantime? What would the RUK demand in order for Scotland to get a deal with its main partner?

It isn't as easy as "We'll get a good deal" as has been shown very nicely by Brexit.

Probably no one. I mean, it's impossible to trade outside of the constructs of the EFTA and the EU's SM and CU... don't you know this>?:rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well the 2014 vote was a "once in a generation" event.

Can you point out the clause in the Edinburgh Agreement which states this?

A Dub in Glasgo

cameramonkey wrote: »

The Scottish fishing zone makes up over 60% of UK waters. The EU I am sure would look at that as a major reason to have e Scots back into the EU.

The size of Scotland and the associated natural resources is often 'forgotten' by unionists

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

can you get any more cliches in your post?

so how long does it take to join the EFTA? Does being a member of EFTA automatically make a country a member of the EEA? (hint, no it doesn't)

who would Scotland trade with in the meantime? What would the RUK demand in order for Scotland to get a deal with its main partner?

It isn't as easy as "We'll get a good deal" as has been shown very nicely by Brexit.

I was targeting the post to the audience - I notice you don't disagree with any of it.

So let's see, assuming agreement for indy ref 2 is granted this year, leading to an independence vote next year with a year negotiating terms of the divorce and a year transition period. We are looking at a final split in 2024/25. That should be time enough negotiate what we need with Europe to sort things out.

Oh I absolutely agree that there will be a difficult transition period - most Scots that I know understand and accept this. They accept that it is a price worth paying.

bob mcbob

Latest news on the Brexit front

Independent Scotland could be ‘top of the list’ to join EU, expert says

An independent Scotland could be “top of the list” to join the European Union, one expert has claimed.

Barbara Lippert, director of research at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin and an expert in EU enlargement, said Brexit had been a “gamechanger” for many in Europe in understanding why some Scots want to leave the UK.

Ms Lippert said she believed there would now be “broad openness” to an independent Scotland becoming part of the EU.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-latest-brexit-economy-live-b1785850.html

Scottish fish prices ‘collapsing’ by as much as 80% due to Brexit bureaucracy, industry warns

Scottish fish exporters have warned that prices are "collapsing" due to delays shipping goods to the EU after Brexit, our Business Correspondent Ben Chapman reports.

The burden of red tape has led to a backlog of seafood which cannot make it across the border in time to be sold at markets in France and beyond. With limited access to their main customers Scottish fishermen have been faced with a glut of perishable goods.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/scotland-fish-prices-brexit-delays-b1786095.html

[Deleted User]

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Can you point out the clause in the Edinburgh Agreement which states this?

There obviously is none.

But referendums that have as major a constitutional impact as something like Scottish independence, that had a 10+% margin of success/failure and a 80+% turnout are not usually repeated in a short time frame.

The margin of win/loss and the turnout give a clarity about the outcome that means the issue is "put to bed" as it were.

So therefore it could be considered a "once in a generation" vote.
For example there was 18 years between two Scottish devolution referendums.
One would, under normal circumstances, expect something the same after the 2014 independence referendum.

However the Brexit decision and the fact that Scotland voted Remain means that these are not normal circumstances, and Scottish nationalists are well within their right to argue against the "once in a generation" concept.

Water John

Once in a Generation, seems to be a flexible time. Is it 40 years as has been previously suggested, 18 years as you mention, or less?
Maybe it isn't an actual time measure, but related to changed circumstances and events?

A Dub in Glasgo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

There obviously is none.

But referendums that have as major a constitutional impact as something like Scottish independence, that had a 10+% margin of success/failure and a 80+% turnout are not usually repeated in a short time frame.

The margin of win/loss and the turnout give a clarity about the outcome that means the issue is "put to bed" as it were.

So therefore it could be considered a "once in a generation" vote.
For example there was 18 years between two Scottish devolution referendums.
One would, under normal circumstances, expect something the same after the 2014 independence referendum.

However the Brexit decision and the fact that Scotland voted Remain means that these are not normal circumstances, and Scottish nationalists are well within their right to argue against the "once in a generation" concept.

'There obviously is none' is absolutely correct. Brexit changed the landscape and the people in Scotland have now realised they were sold a pup

A Dub in Glasgo

Water John wrote: »

Once in a Generation, seems to be a flexible time. Is it 40 years as has been previously suggested, 18 years as you mention, or less?
Maybe it isn't an actual time measure, but related to changed circumstances and events?

UK law already legislates for referenda in one part of the UK and that legislation allows for a political generation of 7 years

[Deleted User]

Water John wrote: »

Once in a Generation, seems to be a flexible time. Is it 40 years as has been previously suggested, 18 years as you mention, or less?
Maybe it isn't an actual time measure, but related to changed circumstances and events?

Which is exactly what I said.

Brexit is the changed circumstances and events.

Imreoir2

Aegir wrote: »

can you get any more cliches in your post?

so how long does it take to join the EFTA? Does being a member of EFTA automatically make a country a member of the EEA? (hint, no it doesn't)

who would Scotland trade with in the meantime? What would the RUK demand in order for Scotland to get a deal with its main partner?

It isn't as easy as "We'll get a good deal" as has been shown very nicely by Brexit.

No doubt you are correct, but the point that I was making is that a Scottish government finding itself in the position of wanting to get a good deal would not be hamstrung by ideology, unlike the Tory government in London, into making demands of its potential partners that would prevent a good deal being reached. The Scottish government is not wedded to ending freedom of movement with Europe, it does not demand no role for the ECJ etc etc.

It's certainly not as easy as "we will get a good deal, on our terms, because we hold all the cards". There would be a price to be paid for a good deal. If you accept that it is a price that the Scottish government would be willing to pay, then there is no reason that a good deal cannot be reached. My point, which you seem to have missed, is that the Scottish government would be willing to pay the price for a good deal in a way that the Tory Government in London were not.

Peregrinus

rock22 wrote: »

Brexit
This undoubtedly lent support to calls for Scottish independence. And it is likely that as the affects of Brexit are absorbed, some of that Brexit anger will dissipate. Fishermen and potato farmers are unlike to be happy , but don't forget fishermen where pro Brexit at one time.

“Some of that Brexit anger may dissipate” — but only some. The effects of Brexit may not be “absorbed” that easily, or without great pain, so the increased support for independence may be enduring. And, regardless, the offence to Scotland is not simply that Brexit is harmful to it, but that they voted not to Brexit but were forced to anyway. “See — it wasn’t so bad after all!” is not really enough to offset the effects of this. If Scotland can be forced to Brexit against its will then, as long as it remains in the UK, it can and presumably will be forced to do other things against its will. And that’s a lesson that won’t be unlearnt.

rock22 wrote: »

Euro
The Eu was not in a political position to enforce the adoption of the Euro for current members but it is a condition of entry for new members which they will not abandon easily . I can see no way Germany, Spain, Italy and France would accept any new applicant without convergence and adoption of the Euro.

You are mistaken. A commitment to monetary union has been a requirement for accession since the Maastricht treaty in 1992. Sweden was not a member then; when Sweden joined in 1995 the requirement was already in place, and it is explicitly set out in Sweden’s Treaty of Accession. The same is true for Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia. All were required, as a condition of accession, to commit to the adoption of the euro; all made the commitment in their accession treaties; none of them have adopted the euro yet (though Bulgaria and Croatia have joined ERM II).

In summary, 16 countries have joined the EU since the Maastricht Treaty. Of those, 9 are now using the euro and 7 are not.

So your view that Germany, Spain, Italy and France will not accept new applicants without convergence and adoption of the euro is not supported by the facts.

rock22 wrote: »

Constitutional change
Even if more powers are devolved to Scotland, there is no process that would allow a constituent part of the UK to be accepted as a member of the EU. No matter what constitutional framework you can imagine, if UK is accepted as sovereign in some way then the EU will only deal with the UK government and Scotland cannot gain entry.

Again, I think you’re mistaken here. The Kingdom of Denmark is partly in, and partly outside the EU - mainland Denmark is in the EU; Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which are integral parts of the Kingdom but with a high degree of home rule, are not.

So, the principle is established; different parts of the same sovereign entity can be inside and outside the EU, provided they have sufficient legislative and administrative autonomy to make this workable. So if it wanted to the UK could seek to adopt a constitutional framework which would enable it to do what Denmark has done.

So if the UK seeks to defuse demands for independence by conferring greater powers on the Scottish institutions, the question will arise: “Are these greater powers great enough to allow Scotland to participate in the EU? If not, why not? And, if not, does this not simply demostrate that Scotland’s aspirations cannot be met by the degree of autonomy that Westminster is willing to grant it within the UK?”

rock22 wrote: »

Secondly, there is no way the EU would allow itself to be used as a 'pull factor' for independence in interfering with what it would see as a UK constitutional matter.

The EU is already a pull factor for Scottish independence. There is nothing they can do to prevent this and, anyway, why would they want to? Besides, it was a UK choice to make the EU a pull factor in this context; the UK is much better positioned to change this state of affairs than the EU is.

rock22 wrote: »

Ultimately, whether Scottish people vote for independence will depend on whether they want to make their own decision , free of England, or not. A lot of Scottish people, even those who might favour independence, have a strong loyalty to the UK through the monarchy and the armed forces. There is not , and has never been , a desire to repudiate these in the way they were in Ireland one hundred years ago.

I don’t think you can argue that any Scot who “favours independence” has a strong loyalty to the UK. He plainly doesn’t.

He may well have warm fuzzy feelings about the monarchy and/or the armed forces. But of course independent Scotland can, and at least in the short term will, retain the monarchy, it will have armed forces, and they may very well compromise the same Scottish regiments that currently form part of the UK armed forces. So Scots don’t have to choose between independence on the one hand and Queen and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards on the other. They can have both.

rock22 wrote: »

Even today, for most Scots, the discussion is about how well they might be by remaining in the UK or by breaking away from it. It is a decision many of them are making in terms of pounds shillings or pence. I am half Scottish and have many relatives in Scotland. They are much more conservative and careful than we are. Their default will be the status quo unless it becomes intolerable or independence promises a much better rosier, prosperous future. And no one can give the Scots a guarantee that they will be better off independent of the UK. Even the EU cannot guarantee them that membership , if it is ever offered, will be financially beneficially.

Personally, I would love to see an independent Scotland. But i don't think there is the passion there to "..break away and to hell with any predictions good or bad".
When they have established themselves as a recognised state hopefully without insurrection, then they can build up their economy and look to future membership of organisations such as the EU. But it is foolish to think this can be done quickly or painlessly. Look at the Balkans to see just how torturous the road to independence and EU membership can be.

There’s much good sense here. But, while it’s true that “no one can give the Scots a guarantee that they will be better off independent of the UK”, we pretty much can guarantee that sticking with the UK at this point is going to make them poorer than they need to be. And the question they will ask themselves is, why should they put up with that? At least if they are independent they will have the ability to make choices with a view to improving their own prosperity.

But, in the end, I don’t think it comes down to prosperity. Few countries have chosen independence on the back of a guarantee of prosperity, and yet many have chosen independence