Scottish independence

bob mcbob · 20-10-2020 11:25am

I saw this in another thread (thanks An Ciarraioch)

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-10-19/u-k-s-tories-start-war-gaming-to-stop-scottish-independence?__twitter_impression=true

This is a report produced by the Tories to try to counter support for Independence. It really smacks of desperation -

One way of trying to break the link between independence and remaining in the single market is by “co-opting the EU into demonstrating that there is no viable pathway to renewed membership,” the report said.

Brexit has changed the game and makes the conventional argument against a rerun of the 2014 referendum -- that it was a “once in a generation” vote -- no longer effective, it said. “Put simply, there are not enough Leave voters to convert to the ‘No’ side to make up for the movement of Remain voters into the ‘Yes’ camp,” the report said.

Sam Russell · 20-10-2020 11:36am

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

Enhanced councils are already being created in the form of combined authorities. England overall still needs its own parliament to oversee these authorities.

My use of the term 'Enhanced Council' is a semantic subterfuge for the unaware and not meant to be a county council but a regional government as is found in other European countries like Spain or Germany. The increased power of these 'councils' will be identical to the powers of the devolved assemblies - which also need to be extended.

The powers of the assemblies should be extended significantly, and the powers of Westminster reduced accordingly, so that Local Government has true power to control local issues, particularly economic power, together with real revenue collecting powers.

Gathering more power centrally in Westminster just allows the SNP to gather more votes.

serfboard · 20-10-2020 2:13pm

bob mcbob wrote: »

One way of trying to break the link between independence and remaining in the single market is by “co-opting the EU into demonstrating that there is no viable pathway to renewed membership,” the report said.

As I've said several times before, the President of the European Commission at the time (and now chairman of Goldman Sachs), intervened disgracefully in the Scottish independence debate:

BBC wrote:

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the European Union.

In the event of an IndyRef2, I believe that no such intervention will be made.

I obviously don't believe that the process would be immediate (or automatic as Alec Salmond said), but I also think that it doesn't necessarily have to be lengthy as Scotland is currently a member and is thus following membership regulations.

The ideal scenario for Scotland would be a period of transition out of the UK and into the EU long enough to minimise economic damage.

In relation to the currency, we continued to use Sterling for six years after Independence, and we pegged to Sterling for another fifty years after that. Obviously things are different now, but with regard to having to use the Euro for new members, as others have said here, I belive that an exception would be made in Scotland's case for a set period of time (a number of years).

Peregrinus · 20-10-2020 2:25pm

I don't think the exception would be for a fixed number of years; it would be until stated criteria/conditions are met.

There are plenty of precedents. None of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden use the euro. All have an obligation to join once they meet the convergence criteria. I've no doubt there would be flexibility shown on the framing of appropriate conditions as to when Scotland should join, to meet the particular situation of Scotland.

breatheme · 20-10-2020 3:14pm

serfboard wrote: »

As I've said several times before, the President of the European Commission at the time (and now chairman of Goldman Sachs), intervened disgracefully in the Scottish independence debate:

In the event of an IndyRef2, I believe that no such intervention will be made.

I obviously don't believe that the process would be immediate (or automatic as Alec Salmond said), but I also think that it doesn't necessarily have to be lengthy as Scotland is currently a member and is thus following membership regulations.

The ideal scenario for Scotland would be a period of transition out of the UK and into the EU long enough to minimise economic damage.

In relation to the currency, we continued to use Sterling for six years after Independence, and we pegged to Sterling for another fifty years after that. Obviously things are different now, but with regard to having to use the Euro for new members, as others have said here, I belive that an exception would be made in Scotland's case for a set period of time (a number of years).

And I think they were twisting what Barroso meant. The Scots wanted automatic accession, which I agree is not possible. Once they're out, with rUK, that doesn't matter as much.

Mr.Nice Guy · 20-10-2020 6:52pm

bob mcbob wrote: »

One way of trying to break the link between independence and remaining in the single market is by “co-opting the EU into demonstrating that there is no viable pathway to renewed membership,” the report said.

I thought the Tories didn't want the EU interfering in domestic affairs? Apparently it's okay when it suits. I can't imagine why the EU would help them on that front given the way they have behaved.

Mr.Nice Guy · 30-10-2020 6:54pm

Another poll for Yes:

https://twitter.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1322073857684082688

The age breakdown once again shows big support amongst younger voters:

https://twitter.com/ProfPMiddleton/status/1322114273321971712

So approximately 3/4 of voters under the age of 35 are in favour of independence. Hard to see how unionists can avoid what seems an inevitable tide towards the dissolution of the UK. There doesn't seem to be anyone on the pro-union side that can articulate a positive future for the young, and these people will be denied the freedom to live and work in the rest of the EU that their parent's generation enjoyed.

Markcheese · 30-10-2020 7:36pm

Not exactly resounding for leaving the uk , and add in ,that young people are far less likely to vote than oldies..

Water John · 30-10-2020 7:45pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Not exactly resounding for leaving the uk , and add in ,that young people are far less likely to vote than oldies..

This is before the Brexit brick drops.

Hawkeye9212 · 31-10-2020 3:26pm

serfboard wrote: »

As I've said several times before, the President of the European Commission at the time (and now chairman of Goldman Sachs), intervened disgracefully in the Scottish independence debate:

In the event of an IndyRef2, I believe that no such intervention will be made.

I obviously don't believe that the process would be immediate (or automatic as Alec Salmond said), but I also think that it doesn't necessarily have to be lengthy as Scotland is currently a member and is thus following membership regulations.

The ideal scenario for Scotland would be a period of transition out of the UK and into the EU long enough to minimise economic damage.

In relation to the currency, we continued to use Sterling for six years after Independence, and we pegged to Sterling for another fifty years after that. Obviously things are different now, but with regard to having to use the Euro for new members, as others have said here, I belive that an exception would be made in Scotland's case for a set period of time (a number of years).

England won't let use Scotland let use the sterling beyond a transition period. They'll have to create a new currency and peg to Sterling or the Euro if they plan on joining the EU.

BonnieSituation · 31-10-2020 3:46pm

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

England won't let use Scotland let use the sterling beyond a transition period. They'll have to create a new currency and peg to Sterling or the Euro if they plan on joining the EU.

"England" can't stop Scotland doing anything re currency.

People seem to forget that Scotland "own" sterling as well.

If they don't allow* Scotland use the currency then it follows that they lose out on the national debt share that an independent Scotland would be liable for.

It's nice to see the same fearmongering coming to the fore that they had to put up with in 2014.

*They can't obviously do jack in this regard.

Capt'n Midnight · 31-10-2020 4:03pm

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

England won't let use Scotland let use the sterling beyond a transition period. They'll have to create a new currency and peg to Sterling or the Euro if they plan on joining the EU.

So they'll have to get Scottish Banks to print banknotes and back them up by holding an equal amount of English Sterling and they won't be legal tender in England ?

Not really a problem because that exactly how the current system works.

Hawkeye9212 · 31-10-2020 4:18pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

"England" can't stop Scotland doing anything re currency.

People seem to forget that Scotland "own" sterling as well.

If they don't allow* Scotland use the currency then it follows that they lose out on the national debt share that an independent Scotland would be liable for.

It's nice to see the same fearmongering coming to the fore that they had to put up with in 2014.

*They can't obviously do jack in this regard.

They won't own it after independence. Scaremongering? Seriously, get a grip.

Hawkeye9212 · 31-10-2020 4:19pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So they'll have to get Scottish Banks to print banknotes and back them up by holding an equal amount of English Sterling and they won't be legal tender in England ?

Not really a problem because that exactly how the current system works.

But they'll have control over their own fiscal policy rather than having it decided in London by the Bank of England.

Markcheese · 31-10-2020 4:54pm

Water John wrote: »

This is before the Brexit brick drops.

Is it going to be a"brick " ,or just a long term stagnation , accompanied by an awful lot of propaganda of the "how much more would you be paying for soy sauce " variety , probably a lot of it would be more effective than that ..

Markcheese · 31-10-2020 5:03pm

Actually from a game playing point of view this is a win/ win for the SNP,
Westminster is denying them another referendum ,
(Brexit is blamed on westminster- and the denial gets then extra support )
Also westminster under the current tories will want to significantly drop how much money is given to Scotland , if they do that , SNP blame westminster ,get extra support ) but more likely westminster won't drop funding ,because of fears of alienating scotland... And the SNP will be able to spin that nicely , while still pushing for their referendum , or for even more autonomy ,

Fr Tod Umptious · 01-11-2020 11:10am

Markcheese wrote: »

Not exactly resounding for leaving the uk , and add in ,that young people are far less likely to vote than oldies..

On single issue things younger people do tend to vote more so than they would in a general election.

It's easier to get people energized around a single issue than it is to get people to back a candidate or party that may have multiple policies all of which a single supporter may or may not agree with.

The recent referendums on marriage and the 8th amendment here in Ireland showed that.

I can imagine that a single issue thing like Scottish independence would be the same.

BonnieSituation · 01-11-2020 7:14pm

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

They won't own it after independence. Scaremongering? Seriously, get a grip.

Did I hit a nerve or something? I don't think you get how this works tbh.

Peregrinus · 02-11-2020 3:05am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So they'll have to get Scottish Banks to print banknotes and back them up by holding an equal amount of English Sterling and they won't be legal tender in England ?

Not really a problem because that exactly how the current system works.

That's probably not how they would do it, though.

They'd establish a Central Bank of Scotland (by whatever name) and issue a Scottish currency. The Central Bank would then adopt a policy of exchanging the Scottish currency, in any amount, for sterling, or vice versa, at a rate of 1:1. This is what's known as a currency peg. There would be no need to hold sterling reserves equal to the amount of Scottish currency in issue.

That's how we did it. We kept it up for fifty-odd years, until it suited us to move on. And you can move on simply by ending the peg, or by changing it - e.g. Scotland could decide to peg to the euro (which is what Denmark does right now), or to peg to a trade-weighted balance of sterling and the euro. Or of sterling, the US dollar and the euro. Or whatever.

Sam Russell · 02-11-2020 11:35am

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's probably not how they would do it, though.

They'd establish a Central Bank of Scotland (by whatever name) and issue a Scottish currency. The Central Bank would then adopt a policy of exchanging the Scottish currency, in any amount, for sterling, or vice versa, at a rate of 1:1. This is what's known as a currency peg. There would be no need to hold sterling reserves equal to the amount of Scottish currency in issue.

That's how we did it. We kept it up for fifty-odd years, until it suited us to move on. And you can move on simply by ending the peg, or by changing it - e.g. Scotland could decide to peg to the euro (which is what Denmark does right now), or to peg to a trade-weighted balance of sterling and the euro. Or of sterling, the US dollar and the euro. Or whatever.

Scotland has a better current position than we had in 1922 - they already have Scottish sterling notes in circulation, and do not have to create new notes. We did not introduce our notes until after the 1927 currency act, and the notes began circulation in Sep 1928.

As you say, once they set up a central bank, they can do what they wish with the currency - peg to the GBP, Euro, or whatever. Denmark would be a good model to follow.

I think if they got independence (when), they should peg to sterling until they get either acceptance to join EEA, or the EU, then transition to the Euro.

02-11-2020 12:55pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Scotland has a better current position than we had in 1922 - they already have Scottish sterling notes in circulation, and do not have to create new notes. We did not introduce our notes until after the 1927 currency act, and the notes began circulation in Sep 1928.

As you say, once they set up a central bank, they can do what they wish with the currency - peg to the GBP, Euro, or whatever. Denmark would be a good model to follow.

I think if they got independence (when), they should peg to sterling until they get either acceptance to join EEA, or the EU, then transition to the Euro.

I don't believe that is true, Bank Of Ireland, Ulster Bank, Daniel O'Connell's National Bank etc were all printing bank notes in Ireland up to the 40s according to Wikipedia.
They were definitely circulating their own notes at independence.

I imagine not much would change initially, that Bank of England interest rates would continue to be set in London, and would be applied in Scotland until a central bank could be created and working.

Presumably a working central bank would be a requirement for EU membership.
Is there any particular requirement to have your own currency?

First Up · 02-11-2020 12:59pm

Deleted User wrote:

Presumably a working central bank would be a requirement for EU membership. Is there any particular requirement to have your own currency?

On the contrary. Adopting the Euro is a condition of new membership.

View · 02-11-2020 2:29pm

First Up wrote: »

On the contrary. Adopting the Euro is a condition of new membership.

A commitment to adopting the Euro in the future is a condition of new membership. A country can’t adopt the Euro on day one of its EU membership even if it is eager to do so. At best it can join the ERM and must then spend three years in that before adopting the Euro, which is what Estonia did.

First Up · 02-11-2020 2:48pm

View wrote:

A commitment to adopting the Euro in the future is a condition of new membership. A country canâ€™t adopt the Euro on day one of its EU membership even if it is eager to do so. At best it can join the ERM and must then spend three years in that before adopting the Euro, which is what Estonia did.

I was pointing out that moving to the Euro is what matters for new members, not having their own currency now.

02-11-2020 8:17pm

First Up wrote: »

I was pointing out that moving to the Euro is what matters for new members, not having their own currency now.

The EU accession criteria are at the highest level as follows:

The first step is for the country to meet the key criteria for accession. These were mainly defined at the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 and are hence referred to as 'Copenhagen criteria'. Countries wishing to join need to have:

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union

I imagine not having functioning central bank or equivalent would suggest a country doesn't have the ability to implement monetary union. I dont know how long it would have to be operating before it would be considered to have it.

First Up · 02-11-2020 9:04pm

Deleted User wrote:

I imagine not having functioning central bank or equivalent would suggest a country doesn't have the ability to implement monetary union. I dont know how long it would have to be operating before it would be considered to have it.

So I would think but that isn't the same as having your own currency.

02-11-2020 10:59pm

First Up wrote: »

So I would think but that isn't the same as having your own currency.

Sorry I wasn't clear. Having a central bank and a currency.
By definition you can't have your own monetary policy if your interest rates are being set in London.

You can't be working towards monetary union with the Eurozone if your monetary policy is coming from the Bank Of England.

A break would have to come at some point.

Peregrinus · 03-11-2020 1:55am

We joined in 1973 while our currency was still pegged to sterling. So obviously it's possible. Obviously the commitment to adopt the euro wasn't a criterion then, but I don't see any fundamental reason why Scotland couldn't join with a Scottish pound pegged to sterling, plus a commitment to adopt the euro when the conditions for doing so were satisfied. Even if this isn't consistent with the current accession criteria, the accession criteria can always be modified for a particular country in the treaty of accession, if the political will is there. And I think the EU would be keen to welcome an independent Scotland escaping from Brexit UK.

03-11-2020 11:18am

Having a pegged currency doesn't seem to be a problem.
As you note we were pegged to the British pound but they joined at the same time and it might not have been a requirement then. We did also break the peg shortly after.

A more recent example would be the Cypriot pound, pegged to GBP till the 70s then to the USD, joined the EU, joined ERM II, and two years later adopted the EUR.

Similarly Malta was pegged to GBP, broke it in the 70s, or rather GBP broke it by floating their currency, then pegged to a basket of currencies, joined EU, joined ERM II, joined the EUR.

All had their own currency, even if they were managed and pegged.

It's possible that Scotland would be accommodated, but what would they trade for it?

Macedonia and Serbia are pegged to the Euro, Montenegro has unilaterally adopted it.

Edit: Yes, a Scottish Pound, pegged 1:1 to GBP being the monetary policy would probably be sufficient.

First Up · 03-11-2020 11:21am

Deleted User wrote: »

Having a pegged currency doesn't seem to be a problem.

Macedonia and Serbia are pegged to the Euro, Montenegro has unilaterally adopted it.

So has Kosovo

Sam Russell · 03-11-2020 12:44pm

Let us assume there is a Indyref II, and it is carried.

If Scotland are to leave the UK, then I would assume they would negotiate a withdrawal agreement (WA) in which a number of issues would be agreed. Probably arrangements for defence (the nuclear subs and cost of it) and the amount of England's national debt that Scotland will be forced to take on. This latter point may affect the ability of Scotland to launch its own currency.

Fishing, territorial waters might be a big issue if oil and gas are important. CTA would be a given, and other citizen's rights would be a given. Security would not appear to be an issue, but you never know. Food standards?

What other issues would be contentious?

bob mcbob · 03-11-2020 1:30pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let us assume there is a Indyref II, and it is carried.

If Scotland are to leave the UK, then I would assume they would negotiate a withdrawal agreement (WA) in which a number of issues would be agreed. Probably arrangements for defence (the nuclear subs and cost of it) and the amount of England's national debt that Scotland will be forced to take on. This latter point may affect the ability of Scotland to launch its own currency.

Fishing, territorial waters might be a big issue if oil and gas are important. CTA would be a given, and other citizen's rights would be a given. Security would not appear to be an issue, but you never know. Food standards?

What other issues would be contentious?

Well whatever agreed level of national debt is taken on then I would also assume a similar split on national assets (both in UK and abroad).
That will certainly be contentious - I can just see the Telegraph headlines now.

Sam Russell · 03-11-2020 1:41pm

bob mcbob wrote: »

Well whatever agreed level of national debt is taken on then I would also assume a similar split on national assets (both in UK and abroad).
That will certainly be contentious - I can just see the Telegraph headlines now.

The nuclear subs would be an interesting point of (dis)agreement. They are in Scottish waters, and cost a huge amount of money for no benefit to Scotland (and probably not England either).

National assets within Scotland should pass to the Scottish Gov - remember there was an economic war here over the farm annuities in the 1930s, which bankrupted many people here. Dev claimed the annuities and Britain retaliated by refusing to buy the beef until 1939, by which time it was all dead.

The real issue will start if/when Scotland joins the SM/CU and a hard border is created along Scotland's southern border. Maybe where that border is going to be might be contentious - Berwick on Tweed?

03-11-2020 2:10pm

The current Scotland - England border is an old border that has been fought over in the past.
It follows a river - mountain ridge - river broadly with limited crossing points, especially compared to Ireland - Northern Ireland.

There are of course some odd bits with small roads etc.

Imreoir2 · 03-11-2020 7:12pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The nuclear subs would be an interesting point of (dis)agreement. They are in Scottish waters, and cost a huge amount of money for no benefit to Scotland (and probably not England either).

National assets within Scotland should pass to the Scottish Gov - remember there was an economic war here over the farm annuities in the 1930s, which bankrupted many people here. Dev claimed the annuities and Britain retaliated by refusing to buy the beef until 1939, by which time it was all dead.

The real issue will start if/when Scotland joins the SM/CU and a hard border is created along Scotland's southern border. Maybe where that border is going to be might be contentious - Berwick on Tweed?

Yes, the nuclear subs is one of the issues the Scots can leverage to get a better seperation deal from the rUK. The SNP has long been on record as wanting the subs out of Scotland. Flexibility on that issue, potentially a treaty port situation or allowing for an extended transition phase to allow the RN an orderly withdrawl, might be a bargening chip the Scots can offer for some concessions elsewhere.

Even if Indy II passes, London will still want to keep Scotland tied closely to its sphere of influence and is likely to be awkward about giving Scotland any kind of sweetheart deal that would allow Scotland freedom of action to chart their own course. I don't expect them to want the Scots in the EU, to adopt the Euro, or to join Schngen if they can help it.

It will be interesting to see how the Scots model themselves after independance, will they look east to Scandinavia, south to England, or west to Ireland for inspiration for their constitutional arangements? Will it be the Kingdom of Scotland or the Republic of Scotland, for example.

Water John · 03-11-2020 7:33pm

I would expect them to keep the monarchy. Just pushing on it might be a bit too divisive. I presume they could do a Constitutional Monarchy which might be the option.

serfboard · 03-11-2020 7:53pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Flexibility on that issue, potentially a treaty port situation or allowing for an extended transition phase to allow the RN an orderly withdrawl, might be a bargening chip the Scots can offer for some concessions elsewhere.

Ah yeah, sure didn't we do the same thing?

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't expect them to want the Scots in the EU, to adopt the Euro, or to join Schngen if they can help it.

If IndyRef2 passes, Scotland will certainly join the EU, and there'll be bugger all England can do about it. We've had the discussion here about the Euro, and I agree that a currency peg, with eventual joining of the Euro seems most likely. And as for Schegen? Sure we're not even in that.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how the Scots model themselves after independance, will they look east to Scandinavia, south to England, or west to Ireland for inspiration for their constitutional arangements? Will it be the Kingdom of Scotland or the Republic of Scotland, for example.

I remember Alec Salmond talked before about Scotland wanting to join the "Arc of Prosperity" and mentioning Norway, Ireland and Iceland - just before the econmoies of the latter two countries crashed spectularly. But, as was pointed out at the time, despite how bad things got here, no-one was talking about knocking on the UK's door and asking them to take us back.

serfboard · 03-11-2020 8:01pm

Water John wrote: »

I would expect them to keep the monarchy. Just pushing on it might be a bit too divisive. I presume they could do a Constitutional Monarchy which might be the option.

I think this might be sensible, given how strong Unionist opinion/Britishness is in Scotland.

And, some of them will love to have their oul' knighthoods and their royal titles.

Imreoir2 · 03-11-2020 8:01pm

serfboard wrote: »

Ah yeah, sure didn't we do the same thing?

Yes, but that was a somewhat different context. In our case it was more that we were not really in a position to make the RN leave so we decided to 'let' them stay for a while.

serfboard · 03-11-2020 8:05pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Yes, but that was a somewhat different context. In our case it was more that we were not really in a position to make the RN leave so we decided to 'let' them stay for a while.

And do you think that Scotland will be in a position to make the RN leave?

And besides, I'd imagine there are a fair few jobs in those submarine ports in terms of support services.

Also, and differently to us, I would expect Scotland to stay in/join NATO.

Sam Russell · 03-11-2020 9:06pm

I think the SNP will try to be in favour of anything to get the unionist vote.

Monarchy - OK fir now.
Sterling - yes, sure.
NATO - yes, why not?
CTA - yes, of course.
Fasslane. We need the jobs.
etc. etc. etc.

I think SNP strategy will be - get Indyref ii passed, and we will sort out Scotland later, in a manner Scots will decide for them selves.

Imreoir2 · 03-11-2020 9:17pm

serfboard wrote: »

And do you think that Scotland will be in a position to make the RN leave?

And besides, I'd imagine there are a fair few jobs in those submarine ports in terms of support services.

Also, and differently to us, I would expect Scotland to stay in/join NATO.

Yes.

In our case the UK was willing and able to prolong the war to maintain their naval bases in Ireland, which at the time they saw as important to their national security.

In the context of an independant Scotland, I don't think it is credible to suggest that the UK would go to war to maitain their naval presence in Scotland after a successful indy ref. All an independant Scotland need do to make the RN leave is to inform London that their ships are no longer welcome.

Capt'n Midnight · 03-11-2020 11:14pm

serfboard wrote: »

And do you think that Scotland will be in a position to make the RN leave?

And besides, I'd imagine there are a fair few jobs in those submarine ports in terms of support services.

Also, and differently to us, I would expect Scotland to stay in/join NATO.

If Scotland dropped defence spending to Irish levels they'd save about £3 Bn a year.

Peregrinus · 04-11-2020 2:10am

On they question of the monarchy, from what I recall the Scottish government's proposal in 2014 was that independent Scotland would be a constitutional monarchy witin the Commonwealth (like New Zealand, say) operating under a provisional constitution (which was drafted and published in advance of the referendum). Within (I think) two years of independence there would be elections for a Constitutional Convention, which would discuss and draft a permanent constitution, to be pt to the voters for ratification in a referendum. Presumably part of that process would involve consideration of whether Scotland should remain a monarchy or become a republic. The point was to separate that question from the question of independence, and I would expect the same strategy to be pursued in any future independnece referndum.

On defence matters, in 2014 the proposal was that independent Scotland would seek to join NATO. It would also seek to be a non-nuclear state, and this would involve rump-UK's Trident nuclear weapons being withdrawn from Scotland and relocated somewhere in rump-UK, but Scotland probably wouldn't wish to pursue this in a way that might call into question its commitment to the NATO nuclear umbrella, or damage its relations with prospective NATO partners, so the withdrawal of nuclear forces is something they would seek to do by agreement, and over time. Presumably also rump-UK would see the merit in having its nuclear capacity headquartered in, and operating out of bases in, its own territory. Faslane was to become the main naval base for the Scottish naval service, and also the joint headquarters for the Scottish defence forces, but this was to be a transition that would be "managed gradually".

Guy:Incognito · 04-11-2020 2:19am

Surely if Scotland leave, England have to give in to all their demands re a withdrawal agreement otherwise they would be bullies trying to harm Scotland by being vindictive and just proving how right Scotland were to leave an evil empire . Or does that only apply to the UK leaving the eu?

Hermy · 04-11-2020 10:08am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Surely if Scotland leave, England have to give in to all their demands...

On that, what powers if any do Scotland have to make these demands of the UK/ England? Assuming Scotland were to successfully achieve independence by legal constitutional means is there anything to compel UK/ England to grant said independence or could they just ignore a referendum for instance and make a counter-demand that Scotland remain in the union?

bob mcbob · 04-11-2020 11:41am

serfboard wrote: »

And do you think that Scotland will be in a position to make the RN leave?

And besides, I'd imagine there are a fair few jobs in those submarine ports in terms of support services.

Also, and differently to us, I would expect Scotland to stay in/join NATO.

I think if Scotland joins Nato then an agreement will be made (if the Americans want it - which I think they will).

The North Atlantic is becoming a strategic geographic location again as the Arctic ice melts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/china-military-arctic-ice-caps-melt-uk-navy-russia-tony-radakin-b889695.html

serfboard · 04-11-2020 1:51pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

In our case the UK was willing and able to prolong the war to maintain their naval bases in Ireland, which at the time they saw as important to their national security.

In the context of an independant Scotland, I don't think it is credible to suggest that the UK would go to war to maitain their naval presence in Scotland after a successful indy ref. All an independant Scotland need do to make the RN leave is to inform London that their ships are no longer welcome.

I wasn't suggesting that England would go to war with Scotland - but you can be sure that England will throw its weight around in any negotiations.

So, if keeping the bases in Scotland were to be a red line for England, Scotland may have to concede on the point (at least for a time), for gains elsewhere.

In other words, if England sees it "as important to their national security", then Scotland will simply not be able to "inform London that their ships are no longer welcome".

Imreoir2 · 04-11-2020 4:39pm

Hermy wrote: »

On that, what powers if any do Scotland have to make these demands of the UK/ England? Assuming Scotland were to successfully achieve independence by legal constitutional means is there anything to compel UK/ England to grant said independence or could they just ignore a referendum for instance and make a counter-demand that Scotland remain in the union?

Yes, but there is no reason to grant a referendum in the first place if you are not minded to abide by its result.

In theory however, the UK government could simply ignore the result, but they would risk a swift UDI from the Scottish government in that situation. I don't think the UK is willing to send in the tanks if the Scots vote for independance.

Hermy · 04-11-2020 7:42pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Yes, but there is no reason to grant a referendum in the first place if you are not minded to abide by its result.

In theory however, the UK government could simply ignore the result, but they would risk a swift UDI from the Scottish government in that situation. I don't think the UK is willing to send in the tanks if the Scots vote for independance.

Given that the Scots are looking at the possibility of going ahead with a referendum without Westminster approval and that this Tory government have already declared their willingness to break international law I'm thinking normal rules may not apply.

Basically, I'm just wondering how it would all play out and to what extent each can exert their will (without sending in the tanks).

Scottish independence

Comments