EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

The inbred and traditional hatred of the English is behind this and will cloud the judgement of more realistic Scots who may well help the vote over the line, let's hope so.

Paul Sidorczuk said:

In terms of population, excluding the current British figure. how would Scotland rank numerically with all the existing EC countries?

Click to expand...

Leaving the UK in for the moment, rUK would drop from 3rd to 4th (swapping places with Italy) and Scotland would come in at 20th (behind Slovakia and displacing Ireland).

Tim R-T-C said:

However, the EU members are hardly likely to give Scotland a free ride. Countries like Spain have serious independence movements of their own and if the Basque region for example see Scotland getting a good deal, it will bolster their own moves for a referendum.

Click to expand...

But this is a bit different because there are extreme circumstances forcing Scotland to become independent. If Spain and/or France leave the EU then regions within them wanting to stay in the EU have a similar excuse.

chris11256 said:

There's a quote online from the EU. Even if independent, Scotland would not inherit the UK's membership and would need to apply from scratch.

Click to expand...

But Scotland would be leaving the EU anyway if they stay in the UK. Scotland would at least have a road map back to EU membership.

Barn said:

Leaving the UK in for the moment, rUK would drop from 3rd to 4th (swapping places with Italy) and Scotland would come in at 20th (behind Slovakia and displacing Ireland).

Click to expand...

In GDP terms it would probably be higher than 20th.

radamfi said:

But Scotland would be leaving the EU anyway if they stay in the UK. Scotland would at least have a road map back to EU membership.

Click to expand...

The big issue however is that if Scotland could 'inherit' the current UK membership, it could benefit from our negotiated terms of membership. As a new entrant, they would be expected to join the Euro and become members of Shengen. This is a condition of all new EU members and I can't see them wanting to give Scotland an exception.

This then opens up serious issues for England - it would be necessary to put a physical border up with Scotland, or to join Shengen ourselves.

Johnuk123 said:

The inbred and traditional hatred of the English is behind this and will cloud the judgement of more realistic Scots who may well help the vote over the line, let's hope so.

Click to expand...

Is inbred and traditional hatred of "the other" a factor in other referenda about constitutional exits, or just this one, you reckon?

Mrs May says indyref2 would create division and economic uncertainty, ow the irony!

Tim R-T-C said:

The big issue however is that if Scotland could 'inherit' the current UK membership, it could benefit from our negotiated terms of membership. As a new entrant, they would be expected to join the Euro and become members of Shengen. This is a condition of all new EU members and I can't see them wanting to give Scotland an exception.

This then opens up serious issues for England - it would be necessary to put a physical border up with Scotland, or to join Shengen ourselves.

Click to expand...

There would certainly be issues to be overcome. Even if Scotland has to take the Euro and apply Schengen, they would still be at least in the EU. The alternative is being outside the EU which is even worse.

Clearly Scotland would prefer keeping the UK's current membership, which the UK is privileged to have at the moment, and having a hard border between the England and Scotland would be bad for both. That can be avoided by dropping the whole hard Brexit nonsense now. Sturgeon has already compromised by agreeing that a soft Brexit would mean she would drop the referendum.

radamfi said:

There would certainly be issues to be overcome. Even if Scotland has to take the Euro and apply Schengen, they would still be at least in the EU. The alternative is being outside the EU which is even worse.

Clearly Scotland would prefer keeping the UK's current membership, which the UK is privileged to have at the moment, and having a hard border between the England and Scotland would be bad for both. That can be avoided by dropping the whole hard Brexit nonsense now. Sturgeon has already compromised by agreeing that a soft Brexit would mean she would drop the referendum.

Click to expand...

Structure it so it's actually Little England that declares independence. This keeps Scotland in the EU with current arrangements. As Scotland has the nukes they would retain the seat on the UN security council too. Scotland could then take refugees from south of the border, and eventually merge with the 'London' city-state.

New thread for Indyref2 discussion here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=143693

Whats the Northern Ireland angle in all this? If Scotland does become independent, then that puts Norn between a rock and a hard place. Or welcoming place....

I can't see Norn staying in the UK if Scotland becomes independent, what's in it for them? They would be isolated and between two EU countries (assuming Scotland can join) - so if they re-unite we may have to find homes for those wishing to stay in what's left of the UK.

What a total and utter mess, all brought about by Cameron being too sacred of Ukip. Now, we need a new UK flag comprising of Wales and England, red cross on a green background??

Howardh said:

I can't see Norn staying in the UK if Scotland becomes independent, what's in it for them?

Click to expand...

The Unionists no longer have a majority in Stormont, despite the fact that Ulster was created in the way that it was to specifically give them an in-built majority. One more seat and Sinn Fein take over as the biggest party in the NI Assembly. With the political crisis at Stormont at the moment I can see the DUP losing that seat if there's a third election, just to make Arlene Foster resign as much as anything else.

And that, too, can be laid firmly at the feet of Brexit. Northern Ireland also overwhelmingly voted against Brexit.

If the North loses its ties with Eire, if the hard border comes back, then I truly can't see the majority of Norn Iron wanting to stay in the UK. I know several people who live in the North and work in the South, and vice versa, and sectarian ties are on their way out for many younger people.

It's a right mess. Still, the little angry Englanders are taking back control, so that's all that counts

Howardh said:

Whats the Northern Ireland angle in all this? If Scotland does become independent, then that puts Norn between a rock and a hard place. Or welcoming place....

I can't see Norn staying in the UK if Scotland becomes independent, what's in it for them? They would be isolated and between two EU countries (assuming Scotland can join) - so if they re-unite we may have to find homes for those wishing to stay in what's left of the UK.

What a total and utter mess, all brought about by Cameron being too sacred of Ukip. Now, we need a new UK flag comprising of Wales and England, red cross on a green background??

Click to expand...

My 2p as a republican with strong interest in Irish politics:

(Northern) Irish Unionism is not a political outlook that has a unified worldview. It is a constitutional position. Some unionists are unionists for pragmatic or financial reasons, while some are unionists for historical, cultural or dogmatic reasons. And then there's the middle ground, whose reasons for being unionists encompass a range of the above, and possibly other factors.

A crucial thing to consider is that, for cultural/historic/dogmatic unionists, the link to the British Union is via Scotland. Ulster Protestantism has its roots in the Ulster Plantation which were primarily Scots people. Hence, when you walk around East Belfast, or the Shankill, don't be surprised to find there are nearly as many saltires as there are Union Flags. Most unionists do not identify with London, or England, but identify with a "Union" which is sometimes a vague concept to convey, but has its roots in Scotland.

The modern unionist is, sadly, a forsaken creature. Northern Ireland barely features on the radar of Westminster, nor the radars of the millions of English/Welsh people who voted for Brexit. The moderate unionist party, the UUP, recommended a Remain vote to its members. This ensured that, overall, Northern Ireland returned a Remain vote, with only the DUP (a frankly unpleasant party comprised of fundamentalist Christians and led by Arlene Foster, but voted for by often very nice and normal people) recommending a Leave vote.

Should Scotland leave the UK, the constitutional link would become a very dotted and faint line.

Many historical issues have prevented a United Ireland in the past. There is no accepted "solution" to what a UI would look like, whether Stormont would continue to exist in a federalist state, and what accommodations any new Irish state would give to unionists. Should the 12th of July be a national holiday? Will a new flag and anthem be needed? And so on. It should be said that there are lots and lots of old unionists/Protestants living in the Republic, primarily in Donegal, where there is no tension at all - in fact, Donegal is celebrated as a diverse and unusual county and Orange marches are certainly tolerated (the Orange Order behave remarkably well in the Republic and are unrecognisable from the image they have in the North).

However, most unionists, if they are honest, remember only to well the absolute misrule that occurred under the one-party NI state up until the current iteration of the Troubles. This misrule occurred not because unionists are Bad People, but because the structure of the state encouraged abuse of the minority and tyranny of the majority. They are rightly concerned that ending up as a minority in an Irish state might be far from ideal for them. However, they don't usually recognise that the Ulster Protestant is a maligned and forgotten creature in UK politics either!

Other blocking issues include the strong dislike of Sinn Fein by unionists - they would never want Sinn Fein to "claim victory" if a UI came about. Clearly, a pan-nationalist front which seeks to actively include unionists is needed to mobilise a United Ireland.

There is also fear amongst unionists of the historical narrative they'd be setting if they voted for a United Ireland. How would the history books view the timeline, if a UI came about only 20 years after the cessation of the Provisional IRA's campaign?

From a republican perspective, things which would accelerate a United Ireland:

1) Gerry Adams to hand over the leadership of Sinn Fein to someone like Mary Lou McDonald - untainted by the IRA.
2) Cross-party working groups to thrash out what a UI state would look like.
3) Honest appraisal of the existing Irish state, its symbols and Constitution.
4) Acceptance that a UI is a "new Ireland" and not merely an absorption of six counties into the existing state.
5) SDLP to get on with it and merge with Fianna Fail.
6) Sinn Fein to stop commemorating the IRA[1] and to stop referring to past injustices; unionists find the former reprehensible and the latter unconstructive and divisive, to say the least.

In short, a United Ireland is possible, but republicans and nationalists will need to stretch their minds as much as unionists will need to.


[1] I would like, in a new Ireland, for a unified monument to all conflict-related deaths. This would include republican and loyalist paramilitaries, all civilians, and all members of the British Armed Forces who died serving in Ireland. However, that isn't everyone's cup of tea.

A very thoughtful post from someone close to the issue. Thank you.

MPs have voted with a majority of 48 not to support the Lords amendment which would have guaranteed rights for EU citizens currently in the UK.

A total of 287 MPs supported the amendment, while 335 voted with the government against it.

MPs have now divided on the second amendment, which would require Parliament to vote on any deal struck with the EU during negotiations.

Source - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-39256795

Second amendment about the meaningful vote also removed 331-286

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/841361695280906240

Domh245 said:

Second amendment about the meaningful vote also removed 331-286

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/841361695280906240

Click to expand...

So once again we see how useless MPs are -- quite happy to let the Executive decide it all.

Senex said:

So once again we see how useless MPs are -- quite happy to let the Executive decide it all.

Click to expand...

And just what are they supposed to have a meaningful vote on at Article 50 plus two years the choice will be take it or leave it.

Domh245 said:

Second amendment about the meaningful vote also removed 331-286

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/841361695280906240

Click to expand...

So the whole point of leaving the EU was to regain sovereignty ("take back control"). And parliament have just voted to relinquish their sovereignty. The irony is priceless.

Trog said:

And just what are they supposed to have a meaningful vote on at Article 50 plus two years the choice will be take it or leave it.

Click to expand...

I would have thought the point would be to vote at some point prior to the two years being up, at the point where you can re-negotiate a deal if it was not to the liking of parliament. But even if it is a "take it or leave it" scenario - why not vote on it? If the deal's bad, "leave it" might well be the preferable option!

Trog said:

And just what are they supposed to have a meaningful vote on at Article 50 plus two years the choice will be take it or leave it.

Click to expand...

So if the deal presented is 'no tariffs on trading with the EU, however requirement to accept freedom of movement', is that something that parliament would accept, or something that parliament would reject? Certainly worth a debate between our elected members. How about if the deal involves protection for our car industry, but staying in the common fisheries policy? How about if there's a deal which gives us free access to the single market with no tarriffs, no requirement for free movement, but requires a subscription fee of £50m a week? or £500m a week?

Instead they've washed their hands of the decision, and left it in the unelected hands of Theresa May. This way they feel "I can't be blamed". Sadly they're right, but in a just world if the outcome is bad, they should be blamed and fired the year later. On the other hand if the outcome is good they should get to keep their job.

I won't be voting for my incumbent MP regardless of any other actions, as they have decided they don't think MPs actually have a job to do other than support the government of the day. Why do we pay £40m in backbencher salaries, and another £40m in pensions and various expenses. Why not go for an elected executive and drop the legislative branch completely?

me123 said:

I would have thought the point would be to vote at some point prior to the two years being up, at the point where you can re-negotiate a deal if it was not to the liking of parliament.

Click to expand...

I thought it was supposed to be doubtful if the negotiations could be carried out in two years.

So if parliament is to vote on it with the usual back and forth between commons and Lords, with both genuine and wrecking / political point scoring amendments, then time to do any renegotiating. The original deal would need to be done in say fifteen months, which seems highly unlikely to be possible.

Trog said:

I thought it was supposed to be doubtful if the negotiations could be carried out in two years.

Click to expand...

It took going on nine years to negotiate a trade agreement with Canada. Two years would be a miracle.

And now the Lords have passed the bill, so May can now trigger article 50. I suppose we now just sit here and watch the chaos unfurl.

najaB said:

It took going on nine years to negotiate a trade agreement with Canada. Two years would be a miracle.

Click to expand...

Remember we'll also want to negotiate new trade deals with Canada too. And South Korea. And Mexico. And Egypt. And South Africa. And Turkey. And Israel. And about 40 other countries.

We're throwing that all away on the off chance we can negotiate a deal with Australia and Pakistan

Domh245 said:

And now the Lords have passed the bill, so May can now trigger article 50. I suppose we now just sit here and watch the chaos unfurl.

Click to expand...

Mayhem surely?


Remember the good old days when you could get €140 or $155 for £100. Then they announced the referendum. Today you get €114 or $122.

The Sinn Fein/IRA MEP Martina Anderson speaking in the Euro parliament has told Theresa May to "shove Irish border checks where the sun don't shine" - classy and statesmanlike she must have been watching the SNP at Westminster.

Steveman said:

The Sinn Fein/IRA MEP Martina Anderson speaking in the Euro parliament has told Theresa May to "shove Irish border checks where the sun don't shine" - classy and statesmanlike she must have been watching the SNP at Westminster.

Click to expand...

Tastelessly expressed but the right sentiment. As the UK is already determined to avoid a hard border there, though, she should use her energy to persuade others of the same aim.

Barn said:

Tastelessly expressed but the right sentiment. As the UK is already determined to avoid a hard border there, though, she should use her energy to persuade others of the same aim.

Click to expand...

It's the UK that is creating the problem and so should be the one to come up with a practical solution that does not require the Irish government to change the arrangements it has with the rest of an EU of which it will continue to be a member.

It is a border by definition it has two sides, and whatever the future arrangements are they will need to be agreed by both the UK and the EU/Irish Republic. So anyone saying that the UK must sort it out on its own is an idiot.