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

View

PommieBast wrote: »

I get the feeling they'll find a way to fudge these points.

These points, like the Single Market aspects of the EU, are explicitly laid out as part of the five objectives of the EU. They are not optional extras.

If a country isn’t prepared to commit to actively work to meet all of those aims, it isn’t committed to EU membership. It has no more business being an EU member than a country would have that announces it wants an “exemption” so that it can apply protectionist policies toward its imports from other EU countries.

BonnieSituation

View wrote: »

These points, like the Single Market aspects of the EU, are explicitly laid out as part of the five objectives of the EU. They are not optional extras.

If a country isn’t prepared to commit to actively work to meet all of those aims, it isn’t committed to EU membership. It has no more business being an EU member than a country would have that announces it wants an “exemption” so that it can apply protectionist policies toward its imports from other EU countries.

Really?

An independent Scotland can show as much commitment to joining the euro as Sweden has.

The EU always comes up with an answer.

Mr.Nice Guy

Channel 4 posted the debate on their YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5MHZ-M9thc

I thought Sturgeon dealt with the criticism from the others well. I find Ross to be woeful.

View

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Really?

An independent Scotland can show as much commitment to joining the euro as Sweden has.

The EU always comes up with an answer.

The EU didn’t come up with any answer for Sweden.

Sweden is a special case and exists due to a combination of stupidity on the part of Swedish politicians (who insisted on a subsequent referendum on the Euro after having won a previous one on joining the EU) and sloppy wording in the Swedish accession treaty. The EU made it clear to all subsequent countries that joined that would not apply to them.

If and when any application by Scotland to join the EU is made, the other EU member states are highly unlikely to admit Scotland if it turns up in Brussels demanding a shopping list of exemptions to the EU Treaties. They are not going to all the opt-outs, rebates etc that the U.K. had since, as we all saw, those actually did nothing to placate the hostility in the U.K. to the EU and probably played right into the “prima donna” mentality of many British people.

Peregrinus

View wrote: »

The EU didn’t come up with any answer for Sweden.

Sweden is a special case and exists due to a combination of stupidity on the part of Swedish politicians (who insisted on a subsequent referendum on the Euro after having won a previous one on joining the EU) and sloppy wording in the Swedish accession treaty. The EU made it clear to all subsequent countries that joined that would not apply to them.

If and when any application by Scotland to join the EU is made, the other EU member states are highly unlikely to admit Scotland if it turns up in Brussels demanding a shopping list of exemptions to the EU Treaties. They are not going to all the opt-outs, rebates etc that the U.K. had since, as we all saw, those actually did nothing to placate the hostility in the U.K. to the EU and probably played right into the “prima donna” mentality of many British people.

I think the EU would be much more open to accommodations to facilitate Scottish accession than it would for accommodations to facilitate UK re-accession, to be honest.

At a minimum, they'd allow Scotland to remain out of Schengen, in order to preserve the British-Irish common travel area. That would be a no-brainer.

And, if Scotland had a currency linked to sterling, I think they'd be very open to allowing that link to be maintained for quite a while.

In the long term, it's unlikely that Scotland would want a permanent link with sterling. Just as our dependence on UK trade declined after we joined the EU to a point where we decided to cut the sterling link, so expect the same development in post-indy Scotland.

rock22

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the EU would be much more open to accommodations to facilitate Scottish accession than it would for accommodations to facilitate UK re-accession, to be honest.

At a minimum, they'd allow Scotland to remain out of Schengen, in order to preserve the British-Irish common travel area. That would be a no-brainer.

And, if Scotland had a currency linked to sterling, I think they'd be very open to allowing that link to be maintained for quite a while.

In the long term, it's unlikely that Scotland would want a permanent link with sterling. Just as our dependence on UK trade declined after we joined the EU to a point where we decided to cut the sterling link, so expect the same development in post-indy Scotland.

I really think this is a lot of wishful thinking.

There is a lot of "British exceptionalism" about the Scottish approach to EU. It is in exactly the same position as any other applicant state, or it would be when it finally achieves independence. This letter is another example. Tellingly , it doesn't seem to be published in a Irish newspaper.

Additionally, Scotland, at the moment, will face a veto from Spain regarding any application. That might change depending on events in Catalonia and the actual process and agreement on Scottish independence.

Fianlly, there are waiting applicant nations in the Balkans which, to many members at least, will take priority.

Peregrinus

rock22 wrote: »

I really think this is a lot of wishful thinking.

Time will tell, I suppose!

rock22 wrote: »

There is a lot of "British exceptionalism" about the Scottish approach to EU. It is in exactly the same position as any other applicant state, or it would be when it finally achieves independence. This letter is another example. Tellingly , it doesn't seem to be published in a Irish newspaper.

Now that is wishful thinking. There is zero chance, zero, that the EU will intervene in this way in what is for the time being a purely domestic debate within the UK, a non-member state.

rock22 wrote: »

Additionally, Scotland, at the moment, will face a veto from Spain regarding any application. That might change depending on events in Catalonia and the actual process and agreement on Scottish independence.

That seems a rather sweeping statement. Scotland won’t face a veto on any application “at the moment” because, at the moment, there can be no Scottish application; the question of a veto can’t arise.

There can’t be a Scottish application until there’s an independent, sovereign Scotland. And I seriously doubt that Spain would veto an application from an independent sovereign state on the grounds that it acquired its sovereignty by seceding — constitutionally — from a larger state, and this might encourage others do to the same. The great majority of EU member states acquired their sovereignty by seceding from a larger state; Spain taking the view that this is somehow illegitimate, even when done constitutionally, would enrage and appal them. I think Spain would pay a huge political price for such a veto, squander much political capital, and secure no advantage.

The claim that Spain would do this is mostly advanced in Brexity British newspapers, so I suppose it too is an example of wishful thinking, but on the other side. Has any Spanish government figure said that Spain would do this? If not, why do you state baldly that it would?

rock22 wrote: »

Fianlly, there are waiting applicant nations in the Balkans which, to many members at least, will take priority.

There’s no queue. Each applicant can become a member state when it meets the criteria for membership, or secures agreement to their modification or waiver. How soon Montenegro or Albania can accede is in no way affected by how soon Scotland accedes, and they are not advantaged in any way if Scottish accession is delayed. And of course in general they will be cheered by seeing accession criteria modified to meet the particular circumstances of Scotland, since that strengthens their case for seeking analagous modifications to meet their own particular circumstances.

View

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the EU would be much more open to accommodations to facilitate Scottish accession than it would for accommodations to facilitate UK re-accession, to be honest.

At a minimum, they'd allow Scotland to remain out of Schengen, in order to preserve the British-Irish common travel area. That would be a no-brainer.

And, if Scotland had a currency linked to sterling, I think they'd be very open to allowing that link to be maintained for quite a while.

In the long term, it's unlikely that Scotland would want a permanent link with sterling. Just as our dependence on UK trade declined after we joined the EU to a point where we decided to cut the sterling link, so expect the same development in post-indy Scotland.

The ideas you suggest are fundamentally incompatible with the stated aims of the EU.

An applicant country cannot commit to the EU’s aim of having:
1) an EU wide common currency (the Euro), and,
2) an EU wide area in which EU citizens can travel without borders (Schengen),
while simultaneously being committed on a medium/long term basis to:
1) using Sterling or a currency directly linked to it, and,
2) having a common travel area with a (hostile) non-EU country.

Scotland has to be prepared to fully commit to all the EU’s aims and have a clear plan as to how to bring them about. The member states are not going to approve a “British exceptionalism” plan which starts as “temporary” - like all the U.K. opt-outs - and then becomes permanent and then leads to another Brexit scenario where the very idea that the EU countries don’t roll over and agree to demands made to them ends up being regarded as “vindictiveness” by the EU.

View

rock22 wrote: »

I really think this is a lot of wishful thinking.

There is a lot of "British exceptionalism" about the Scottish approach to EU. It is in exactly the same position as any other applicant state, or it would be when it finally achieves independence. This letter is another example. Tellingly , it doesn't seem to be published in a Irish newspaper.

Additionally, Scotland, at the moment, will face a veto from Spain regarding any application. That might change depending on events in Catalonia and the actual process and agreement on Scottish independence.

Fianlly, there are waiting applicant nations in the Balkans which, to many members at least, will take priority.

Spain has repeatedly said they would not on principle veto a Scottish application. It would be very short sighted to them to do so since, whenever Scotland eventually joined, they would want it to be open - not hostile - to backing “the Spanish position” in voting in the CoM.

Your point about the SNP’s approach being one of “British exceptionalism” is correct.

[Deleted User]

View wrote: »

The ideas you suggest are fundamentally incompatible with the stated aims of the EU.

An applicant country cannot commit to the EU’s aim of having:
1) an EU wide common currency (the Euro), and,
2) an EU wide area in which EU citizens can travel without borders (Schengen),
while simultaneously being committed on a medium/long term basis to:
1) using Sterling or a currency directly linked to it, and,
2) having a common travel area with a (hostile) non-EU country.

Scotland has to be prepared to fully commit to all the EU’s aims and have a clear plan as to how to bring them about. The member states are not going to approve a “British exceptionalism” plan which starts as “temporary” - like all the U.K. opt-outs - and then becomes permanent and then leads to another Brexit scenario where the very idea that the EU countries don’t roll over and agree to demands made to them ends up being regarded as “vindictiveness” by the EU.

Poland deosnt use the euro?

Why would scotland have to?

Peregrinus

View wrote: »

The ideas you suggest are fundamentally incompatible with the stated aims of the EU.

An applicant country cannot commit to the EU’s aim of having:
1) an EU wide common currency (the Euro), and,
2) an EU wide area in which EU citizens can travel without borders (Schengen),
while simultaneously being committed on a medium/long term basis to:
1) using Sterling or a currency directly linked to it, and,
2) having a common travel area with a (hostile) non-EU country.

Scotland has to be prepared to fully commit to all the EU’s aims and have a clear plan as to how to bring them about. The member states are not going to approve a “British exceptionalism” plan which starts as “temporary” - like all the U.K. opt-outs - and then becomes permanent and then leads to another Brexit scenario where the very idea that the EU countries don’t roll over and agree to demands made to them ends up being regarded as “vindictiveness” by the EU.

Applicant countries aren’t required to adopt the euro on joining; just to commit do doing so at a future point. There is no set timetable. (There cannot be — a country can’t join the euro until it meets specified economic criteria.) There are I think six member states which have joined since 2004 and which have yet to adopt the euro.

And if a country can join without adopting the euro, I don’t know of any EU rule which prevents them from linking their currency in some way to the currency of another country.

This isn’t a simply binary - either you join the euro or you don’t. For instance, In Scotland’s case a dynamic trade-weighted link to both the euro and sterling, pending Scotland meeting the criteria to adopt the euro, is the kind of thing that could be negotiated. As Scotland’s trade with the EU expanded, and its trade with the UK contracted, its currency would move closer and closer to the euro, even before formally adopting the currency.

As for joining Schengen, new EU members are not obliged to become parties to the Schengen Agreement, but the Schengen rules form part of the community law acquis which they are expected to adopt on joining. However all new member states negotiate exceptions to the adoption of the acqus, and in Scotland’s case an exception to adopting the Schengen rules could certainly be considered. Basically Scotland would be seeking to adopt instead the rules that already apply to an existing member state - Ireland - and it would have good reasons for doing so. Those rules are also part of the acquis, albeit a part which new member states do not adopt, so there is no fundamental violence to the principle of adopting the acquis there. And if course it would not create precedents for other applicant countries; as none of them currently participate in the common travel area (unless Wales secedes from the UK and seeks to accede to the EU!)

Sam Russell

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

Hard border between Scotland and England ? Scotland currently exports four times more to the UK than it does to the EU.

Scotland has few crossing points between England and Scotland (less than 20 roads and a few train lines iirc) and it would be relatively simple to control compared with the Irish/NI border. It would be straightforward to implement 'trusted trader' or other systems.

If the UK agreed to SPS controls on a par with the EU system many of these problems are much diminished.

Peregrinus

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

Should there be an IndyRef2 any time soon which I doubt and should Scotland vote to leave the UK which I also doubt it would be many decades if at all before Scotland reaches the minimum economic requirements on things like government deficit and debt before it would even be considered for EU membership.
Without the Bank of England as guarantor Scotland would have to fund independence by borrowing on international markets at exorbitant rates.
And with North Sea oil rapidly running out and the price of Brent crude about half of what it was when the SNP costed its plans before the last referendum you can see why Nicola Sturgeon has admitted she hadn't even begun to think of the economic arguement.

This all seems a bit bleak. Can you show your workings? Other European economies similar in size to Scotland have managed to meet the criteria for admission to the EU, and don't have to borrow "at exorbitant rate". Can you explain why Scotland should be so uniquely cursed?

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

Hard border between Scotland and England ? Scotland currently exports four times more to the UK than it does to the EU.
And how would Scotland replace the £12billion a year it currently receives under the Barnett formula ?
Scottish independence is like a united Ireland - a useful rallying call for politicians but with little immediate or medium-term prospect of success.

Similar arguments failed to stop Brexit, though, didn't they? And, unlike the nonsense arguments advanced in favour of Brexit, Scotland actually does have good reason to seek independence, because (unlike the UK in the EU) it really is deprived of sovereignty in the UK, and it really is subject to the whims and prejudices of a governing class that don't give a damn about Scottish wishes or interests. People might reasonably reckon that it's worth paying some economic price to escape that.

landofthetree

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1387728472374759426

dogbert27

landofthetree wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1387728472374759426

They're owned by NatWest anyway which is based in London.

They said this too in 2004. I find it a bit disingenuous to say that they are neutral in Scottish Independence but release a statement days before the election which is emotive for people to think they will be losing their "national" bank.

I guess an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be associated with a Royal Bank in name anymore.

Sam Russell

dogbert27 wrote: »

They're owned by NatWest anyway which is based in London.

They said this too in 2004. I find it a bit disingenuous to say that they are neutral in Scottish Independence but release a statement days before the election which is emotive for people to think they will be losing their "national" bank.

I guess an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be associated with a Royal Bank in name anymore.

I think they would use 'The Central Bank of Scotland' name, as we have 'The Central Bank of Ireland' as the BoI already had taken that name. There is also 'Bank of Scotland' owned by Lloyds Bank.

It is all irrelevant anyway.

bob mcbob

dogbert27 wrote: »

They're owned by NatWest anyway which is based in London.

They said this too in 2004. I find it a bit disingenuous to say that they are neutral in Scottish Independence but release a statement days before the election which is emotive for people to think they will be losing their "national" bank.

I guess an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be associated with a Royal Bank in name anymore.

Actually they took over Natwest but now Natwest is to the fore again.

When the CEO lives and works the majority of time in London then as far as I can see London is their defacto HQ now.

It is not too much different from Lloyds where their headquarters are in London but registered office is on the mound in Edinburgh. This registered office is now actually a museum to Scottish banking.

BonnieSituation

bob mcbob wrote: »

Actually they took over Natwest but now Natwest is to the fore again.

When the CEO lives and works the majority of time in London then as far as I can see London is their defacto HQ now.

It is not too much different from Lloyds where their headquarters are in London but registered office is on the mound in Edinburgh. This registered office is now actually a museum to Scottish banking.

RBS took over NatWest... Fast forward a number of years and the RBS group renamed itself NatWest. That's the technicalities surrounding "NatWest coming to the fore" recently.

If the spiritual HQ of a bank that nearly bankrupted the State is something to stop you from voting for the SNP or Greens, then you weren't likely not be voting indy anyway.

It's a nice museum though.

Capt'n Midnight

Aegir wrote: »

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

Radioactive fallout carried by the prevailing wind would also affect Edinburg. 70% of Scotland's population lives in the general area. It's a classic example of English nimby-ism.

Capt'n Midnight

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

An independent Scotland could link its currency to the groat if it wishes but without the Bank of England behind it a Scottish pound wouldn't be worth anywhere near sterling.

Scottish banks have to hold English Sterling reserves to match every single Scottish £ they issue. So it's a complete non issue until or unless they change that.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Radioactive fallout carried by the prevailing wind would also affect Edinburg. 70% of Scotland's population lives in the general area. It's a classic example of English nimby-ism.

If nuclear reactors were safe, they would build one in Hyde Park - so the saying used to be.

They always put reactors away from important centres of population, like 40 km from Glasgow was OK as the Scots are not important - well one would assume so.

.

Capt'n Midnight

View wrote: »

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.

Unless Scotland plays the Grandfather Clause card since technically they aren't a new member having joined back in 1973.
If accepted it would tick ALL the boxes since the UK met all the criteria not so long ago. At the very worst it's a good bargaining chip and doesn't set a bad precedent.

Besides the CTA predates Schengen. It's like a mini-Schengen but with more immigration checks rather than making ID cards mandatory.

The Euro is a red herring as actual usage would depend on economic criteria being met and as is repeatedly pointed out on this thread Sweden have kinda sorta just barely missed alignment for umpteen years on the trot.

astrofool

It's interesting to see the tory led media tops repeat "project fear" without an ounce of self awareness.

A Dub in Glasgo

landofthetree wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1387728472374759426

It is essentially a brass plate in Edinburgh

A Dub in Glasgo

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

It provides 6,500 jobs directly and another 11,000 indirectly.
You won't find many people in that area voting for independence.

That figure has been debunked many times

Ministry of Defence reveals just 520 Faslane jobs depend on Trident

bob mcbob

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

Faslane was chosen for its geographical position.
It provides rapid and stealthy access through the North Channel to the submarine patrolling areas in the North Atlantic, something that can’t be replicated by a base further south or on another coast.
The Scots were rather keen on the employment and prosperity it brought to the area too.
It provides 6,500 jobs directly and another 11,000 indirectly.
You won't find many people in that area voting for independence.

That's interesting because the Faslane base is in Dumbarton. This is the most marginal seat in Scotland. The Labour MP has a majority of 106 over the SNP.

https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,constituency-profile-dumbarton

The Times believes that seat will fall to the SNP from Labour next week

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/holyrood-election-is-it-time-for-faslane-seat-to-hit-the-big-snp-button-d59hbfb0k

Perhaps you should do some basic fact checking (Google is great) before posting.

[Deleted User]

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Radioactive fallout carried by the prevailing wind would also affect Edinburg. 70% of Scotland's population lives in the general area. It's a classic example of English nimby-ism.

That must be why they built the atomic weapons establishment in that well known Scottish town of Aldermaston.

Peregrinus

Time to inject a little reality into the discusssion, I think.

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

There are very strict economic entry criteria for joining the EU which are enshrined in its law.These can't be simply overlooked because someone fancies Scotland joining the EU.

Mm-hm? Want to tell us what these “very strict economic entry criteria” are? Plus a bit of argument in support of your claim that Scotland won’t be able to meet them when other countries, smaller and/or poorer than Scotland, plainly have been?

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

And why would the international money markets lend money to a country that has no central bank with substantial gold reserves at anything other than with a substantial premium ?

Nobody is proposing an independent Scotland without a central bank. When you have to make stuff up in order to oppose Scottish independence that’s a pretty sure sign that you’re on the hind foot.

As for gold reserves, the nineteenth century called and wants it economic theories back. Lots of countries have negligible gold reserves and, if you think countries’ credit ratings are a function of the size of their gold reserves, all I can say is that you evidently weren’t paying attention back when you were doing Junior Cert economics. Gold reserves are pretty much irrelevant here.

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

These questions and many more - defence being one of them - have yet to be answered by the SNP.

That’s because nobody has asked them. They would be embarrassed to ask such stupid questions.

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

An independent Scotland could link its currency to the groat if it wishes but without the Bank of England behind it a Scottish pound wouldn't be worth anywhere near sterling.

Here on planet earth Ireland, a smaller and then a poorer country than Scotland, linked its currency to Sterling and maintained it at parity for more than 50 years, without any support at all from the Bank of England. If Scotland wants to do this it can — any country could — and if you want to argue otherwise you need to, well, argue otherwise with an actual argument rather than offering fact-free unsupported assertions that are contradicted by well-known real-world counterexamples.

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

I see Sturgeon has quietly shelved her plans for an indy IndyRef ...

You left out “. . . in the first 100 days of an SNP government”. That’s because her priority in that time will be the fight against Covid. It takes a fairly high degree of desperation to try to spin this into an abandonment of independence.

[Deleted User]

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Besides the CTA predates Schengen. It's like a mini-Schengen but with more immigration checks rather than making ID cards mandatory.

Are you referring to the common travel area between Ireland, Isle of Mann, the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom? The same United Kingdom that the SNP wants to leave?

Peregrinus

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

The total Scottish tax take is £66bn. The total state spending is £81bn. The shortfall of £15bn is made up by money from Westminster

Come back to me when you have a plan to balance the two after independence because the SNP hasn't yet which is why Scottish people were not convinced in the original referendum and according to the polls are still not convinced.

Of course corruption in the party ranks, declining education standards, the highest drug overdose death rate in Europe and a failing health service haven't helped either.

The SNP is going backwards
.
SNIP

Will the Waitrose wing of the SNP, the Scottish Greens, be propping her up again in parliament ?

OK. The first thing I note is that none of this answers or attempts to answer any of questions raised in the post you quote. You reply to the post, quoting it but otherwise ignoring it.

I take this means that you’re not going to answer the questions I raised; that you don’t have answers to them? And since those questions were a response to points that you offered or claims that you made, I take it this also means you no longer wish to discuss the point that you have posted to, well, a discussion board?

There’s a pattern here. You post making various claims; other posters reply, taking issue with what you have said; you ignore the responses, and instead post different claims. If people engage with those, you ignore that too, and post something else again. And so on.

Which leads to two thoughts:

First, if you’re not defending your own claims, the likely explanation is that you know they are not very defensible. This is probably not the impression you are hoping to make, so you might want to rethink that strategy.

Secondly, it’s a waste of time and effort to reply to your posts if you’re going to ignore the replies. If you want a discussion, how about you engage with what I have already posted in reply to you, and we can take it from there? And, if you don’t want a discussion, why in God’s name are you posting to a discussion board?