Scottish independence

Might be confusing Council of Europe with the Council of European Union?

bob mcbob wrote: »

, parliament can just change the law.

Which is exactly what happened for the Brexit power grab on devolved powers

See that the UK Govn't are using similar Brexit type tactics in their talks with both Australia and New Zealand.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/21/bizarre-uk-comments-about-australias-trade-minister-a-serious-setback-to-talks
Always a bully, Scotland can't expect anything different.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9501851/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Makes-proud-English-Yes-really.html

From Holyrood to Hollywood, the English have always been cast as the oppressor, by everyone from opportunist nationalist politicians to cynical movie producers behind such travesties as Braveheart and In The Name Of The Father.

For our part, the English have taken it in our stride, and with good humour. We put up with Wee Burney and her tiresome Toytown Tartanistas slagging us off and peddling bogus historical grievances for political gain.

The Scot Nats are still banging on about Culloden, for heaven's sake. But that doesn't stop them taking our money.

How tone deaf is this?

It's not the SNP taking English money. It's the Scottish government that is currently part of the United Kingdom that receive their share from the UK government.

But if he wants Scotland to not receive money from the "English" government then he should start using his column in support of an independent Scotland.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

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).

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.

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

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

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.

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.

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