Scotland, Brexit & IndyRef2: Implications, considerations and similar (including impact on rail).

[Falcon1200]

No one is saying the UK will deliberately make life difficult to Scotland because that is, as you say not an attractive argument.

Should Scotland become independent the separation negotiations, after 300 years of history with us sharing multiple UK-wide agencies and organisations, will make the Brexit talks seem like splitting the cost of toddlers' ice lollies. And Scotland would be very much the junior party at the mercy of Westminster; Not that I think Westminster would be deliberately vindictive, but it would seek to achieve the best possible outcome for the UK and would no longer need to consider the effect of its policies on Scotland, or spend any money there (unless of course the SNP manages, as it has suggested, to get the UK to continue paying Scots' pensions after independence - Just another example of the utter nonsense peddled in pursuit of their dream). However, there is always a silver lining, post independence Ian Blackford would no longer be a Westminster MP !

It's also true that there are a small number you could describe as "anti-English", and I did experience this very occasionally when I lived there. In over a decade, I could count on one hand the number of times this ever went beyond a light-hearted joke.

Regarding anti-English sentiment, I have lived in Scotland since 1984, and have never experienced any directed at me personally; During my working life there was plenty of banter, but I made sure to give as good as I got, and in any case the mickey-taking was often directed more at the likes of the Aberdonians in the office than the English ! On a more general level however I have more than once made the mistake of travelling by train on the same day as a Scotland football international, and been shocked to hear the Scottish fans chanting their hatred of England rather than their support for their own team. They might be a minority, and no doubt drink-fuelled too, but still a most unpleasant experience.

 

[Wolfie]

Bye then. Don't be a stranger though. Remember, you'll be able to visit for 180 days in any calendar year.

That is the sort of crass English nationalism that is destroying the United Kingdom. Like pathetic Brexiteers who asserted that they wanted to take back control from Brussels (which never had control) but now bleat like hell when Edinburgh and increasingly Cardiff want to take back control from a government in Westminster elected for and by England.

Only if such folk spit their dummies out will there be a hard border between England and Scotland.

Who said anything about holiday entitlement? And also, I merely said "bye, don't be a stranger", which is perfectly fine.

Another big assumption there with the passport thing. Didn't happen in Czechoslovakia, for instance.

Anyway, even if Cardiff123 doesn't visit in person, I'll probably still see him about in the International Transport section of RF. So, I suppose it wouldn't be goodbye, merely farewell.

Your comments about Czechoslovakia are utter rubbish. My ex's uncle was offered a choice of Czech or Slovak passports when that country split. Even though he was ethnically the former he chose the latter option as that was where most of his family lived.

 

[Falcon1200]

I would suggest that a hard border would result in a decline of cross border traffic (less reason to travel anyway) and rail would be less competitive to air where checks would be carried out at airports, with no apparent delay to the journey. There would be a profound effect on Anglo-Scottish rail travel.

I would have to agree; One of the attractions for the English and Welsh to visit Scotland, despite the uncertain weather, is that travel is easy and seamless whether by road, rail or air, with no hard border to pass through and a common currency (Scottish banknotes not withstanding). Changing that would I am sure have an adverse effect on the demand for cross-border travel, and if, as suggested elsewhere, Scotland would trade with the EU via Scottish ports rather than ones in England, that would affect freight traffic too. On a more local level, the nearest large town to Dumfries and Annan is Carlisle, hence the increased service on that part of the GSW route, that flow would also be hit by a hard border.

 

[RT4038]

Untrue. Most if not all Schengen outer border rail services still use on-board checks. The ones where it's not on-board are the ones where it never was, largely.

But it is true - there are very few Schengen outer border, cross border rail services. Are there much more than 20 per day, along a massively long border? Some of those don't take place in a moving train, but stopped at a border station. Those that there are, are not particularly busy services either.

 

[Gareth]

That is the sort of crass English nationalism that is destroying the United Kingdom. Like pathetic Brexiteers who asserted that they wanted to take back control from Brussels (which never had control) but now bleat like hell when Edinburgh and increasingly Cardiff want to take back control from a government in Westminster elected for and by England.

Only if such folk spit their dummies out will there be a hard border between England and Scotland.


Your comments about Czechoslovakia are utter rubbish. My ex's uncle was offered a choice of Czech or Slovak passports when that country split. Even though he was ethnically the former he chose the latter option as that was where most of his family lived.

Your ex uncle (lucky him) had to pick. So no, it wasn't rubbish.

 

[Wolfie]

It will only become a problem if the Common Travel Area (CTA) is dismantled, in which case I would imagine the cross-border services will become like E* with juxta positioned border control in Glasgow and Edinburgh and the trains running non-stop to the border. Quite what would happen in this scenario with local trains from the likes of Dumfries to Carlisle - I guess that there would be a new border station constructed and all the passengers alight and go through border control (with possibly the through trains stopping to pick up only as the 'connection'), or perhaps they would cease operating in their current form and the trade given over to buses as no substantial special infrastructure over private car traffic would be required for them.
Whatever, it would be hugely disruptive to travel patterns, particularly in the reverse direction, in which case I guess there would be an awful lot of international passengers changing trains at Carlisle and going through border control there (It being too expensive to provide Scottish immigration clearance at anywhere further afield more than London, Birmingham and Manchester?). Similarly at Berwick, possibly Newcastle on the other side.
However, this is all a bit speculative (as befits the Speculative Ideas section), as it is probably unlikely that the CTA would go, at least in the short to medium term.

If Scotland was to become independent and rejoined the EU that would likely involve joining Schengen too. That is not compatible with the CTA.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Scotland was to become independent and rejoined the EU that would likely involve joining Schengen too. That is not compatible with the CTA.

As I've said, there would be no benefit to the EU or Scotland of joining Schengen as it has no land border with the EU. Thus, I would be astonished were an exception not forthcoming.

 

[Wolfie]

The CTA is not likely to be dismantled for Scotland. Being in Schengen would neither particularly benefit Scotland nor the EU because there is no land border between Scotland and the EU. It would pose an issue if England remains entirely out, but I would be unsurprised to see England join EFTA in the medium-term future (as it's still "leave" but would solve most of the issues), and if it did that would mean no particular need for a border per-se.

EFTA is the worst of all worlds. You become a ruler taker with no influence and have to pay into the EU.

This is where anti-UK people are dreaming, I'm afraid. The so-called Common Travel Area is an informal arrangement which has its origins in the formation of the Irish Free State, back in the 1920s. As the new state was still a part of the British Empire, it wasn't considered foreign and free movement was standard, at least amongst the "white" countries. Inertia and Northern Ireland are what keep it in existence. It's not a British Isles equivalent of the Schengen Agreement and Scotland is no more a member of it than Lancashire is.

As for the EU, it's a centralising force which hopes one day to become a state in its own right. Schengen, along with the Euro, are central tenents to this and no new member state is eligible for an opt out of either. The EU's said nothing about changing these core principles purely to accommodate Scotland and so the sensible starting assumption is that it wouldn't.

And it's not just the EU that would have to consent to such an arrangement but also the UK. Why would the UK want yet another immigration loophole? Ireland's enough of a headache as it is.

And I'm sorry but your choo choos would be affected too, probably quite substantially. Depending on how the checks are done, it's likely there'd be fewer services crossing the new international border with various restrictions for domestic travel on such services.

While l disagree with your characterisation of the EU l agree that much of the rest of this post is accurate.

No, your love of breaking up the UK yet wanting your choo choos to remain unaffected is utter zealotry and unrealistic.

Unlike you, I've followed the EU closely over the last 20 years or so. It's not remotely pragmatic when it comes to what it considers its fundamental principles.

The last para is spot on.

 

[Wolfie]

Nobody said anything about holiday entitlement but that didn't stop you making a very interesting interpretation of what I said about the UK's tourist visa policy.

And it's all very well and all to put the word "choice" in bold but choices have consequences and breaking up a centuries old unitary state would have huge consequences not only for Scotland but the rest of the UK too. Indeed, considering the UK's size and influence, it would be a world event many times the magnitude of Brexit.

While I'd rather none of this happen to begin with, I certainly don't want it to happen if those who end up voting for it do so under the impression that nothing will really change; which is the impression far too many gave back in 2014. Many couldn't cope with the idea that Scotland could end up using a different currency. That suggests these people weren't as into independence as they believed.

Perhaps Scots have got the idea that they can have their cake and eat it.... I wonder how that may have occurred....

 

[Wolfie]

The island is called Great Britain. And again, Scotland isn't Ireland. Assuming both: the UK is happy to have yet another potential immigration loophole (Ireland can already be a headache) and: the EU is willing to waive the mandatory participation of Schengen that EU membership requires - is blind faith and both those horses would have to come home for no border control to be possible. Neither party have indicated they'd be up for that, so the status quo ante is that there'd be border controls.

I absolutely agree.

It's very, very unlikely there would be a hard, fenced border. But train services operate across hard, fenced borders the world over. It would mean either on-board checks or a border station. It's not a massive issue as far as the railway goes.

There would not be onboard checks for exactly the same reason that there are not onboard checks on Eurostar.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can we keep the debate on here civilised please.

thanks

 

[Mikey C]

Will Gretna Green be renamed Gretna Green International?

 

[Wolfie]

Will Gretna Green be renamed Gretna Green International?

Duty free and marriage.... What more could anyone want? lol

 

[A0wen]

Perhaps Scots have got the idea that they can have their cake and eat it.... I wonder how that may have occurred....

Prior to the Indy Ref in 2014, so before the Brexit referendum if that's what you're inferring.

As I've said, there would be no benefit to the EU or Scotland of joining Schengen as it has no land border with the EU. Thus, I would be astonished were an exception not forthcoming.

Whether or not it would be beneficial to Scotland, the EU has made it clear that conditions of joining now include adoption of the Euro and Schengen. If an indy Scotland wanted to join the EU, those are the terms. They'd also have to do something about their budget deficit as well: The Maastricht Treaty rules (fiscal deficits must not exceed a limit of 3 percent of GDP, and public debt should not exceed 60 percent of GDP). Even including North Sea Oil revenue Scotland's current budget deficit is north of 20% of GDP.

Scotland’s deficit balloons to 22% of GDP

Data highlight fiscal challenge country would face in event of independence

www.ft.com

 

[Wolfie]

Prior to the Indy Ref in 2014, so before the Brexit referendum if that's what you're inferring.



Whether or not it would be beneficial to Scotland, the EU has made it clear that conditions of joining now include adoption of the Euro and Schengen. If an indy Scotland wanted to join the EU, those are the terms. They'd also have to do something about their budget deficit as well: The Maastricht Treaty rules (fiscal deficits must not exceed a limit of 3 percent of GDP, and public debt should not exceed 60 percent of GDP). Even including North Sea Oil revenue Scotland's current budget deficit is north of 20% of GDP.

Scotland’s deficit balloons to 22% of GDP

Data highlight fiscal challenge country would face in event of independence

www.ft.com

Re your first sentence that will be the referendum in 2014 where Scots were told that the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in the UK. What l was actually referring to though were the claims by Leavers that UK could leave the EU but still have all of the benefits of membership.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whether or not it would be beneficial to Scotland, the EU has made it clear that conditions of joining now include adoption of the Euro and Schengen. If an indy Scotland wanted to join the EU, those are the terms.

Those are the published terms. Like if you approached Airbus and asked to buy a fleet of A320s, the published terms tend to be open to negotiation.

They'd want the Euro anyway as their own currency wouldn't really be viable and England wouldn't help them to use theirs.

 

[A0wen]

Those are the published terms. Like if you approached Airbus and asked to buy a fleet of A320s, the published terms tend to be open to negotiation.

They'd want the Euro anyway as their own currency wouldn't really be viable and England wouldn't help them to use theirs.

The EU got its fingers burned when it loosened the budget demands to let Greece join the Euro - the resulting crash almost destroyed the Euro's credibility - there's no way the German govt or ECB will want to go through that again.

The other items are non negotiables - the UK had opt outs to them as an existing member. The EU doesn't want opt outs perpetuating, so no new member will be offered or get them.

The Airbus analogy is false, not least because it's about buying a product or service, not joining an organisation which has a joining criteria and set of rules to follow. And if Airbus won't flex on their price, Boeing or Embraer will.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The EU got its fingers burned when it loosened the budget demands to let Greece join the Euro - the resulting crash almost destroyed the Euro's credibility - there's no way the German govt or ECB will want to go through that again.

Very, very different to Schengen. A country not being in Schengen does not in any way harm the EU, not least one that has no land border with the EU and is unlikely to have one any time soon. If of course England rejoined and joined Schengen, it would make sense for Scotland to do so. The purpose of Schengen is frictionless road transport, primarily - it allowed the removal of disruptive border control posts on motorways and major roads. If there aren't any motorways and major roads between Scotland and the EU it's pointless - showing your passport or ID card at an airport or ferry terminal is hardly a major effort. It wasn't even that significant for rail, because showing your passport/ID on a moving train (as it was done pre-Schengen) is no more effort than showing your ticket.

Schengen has always been a bit separate - there are EU countries not in it (e.g. Romania, Ireland) and there are non-EU countries in it (e.g. Switzerland).

 

[A0wen]

Very, very different to Schengen. A country not being in Schengen does not in any way harm the EU, not least one that has no land border with the EU and is unlikely to have one any time soon. If of course England rejoined and joined Schengen, it would make sense for Scotland to do so.

Schengen has always been a bit separate - there are EU countries not in it (e.g. Romania, Ireland) and there are non-EU countries in it (e.g. Switzerland).

Romania is in the process of joining. The non-EU states which have joined have tended to have land borders with the EU - Switzerland notably.

Ireland *doesn't* want to join Schengen because it would almost certainly kill the Good Friday Agreement stone dead as it would, by its very definition, result in a land border between the Republic and North. There isn't a GFA issue with England and Scotland, so there would need to be the introduction of a land border, despite what the SNP might claim, because that's what is required for borders with non-EU countries. And the EU doesn't want a 'porous' border with a non EU UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The GFA is not the only reason not to have a land border on the island of Great Britain. That it would be pointless friction is another.

It'd be hard not to have one if the UK doesn't join EFTA/EEA at some point (for customs reasons), but I'm pretty confident that it will have done (but no further) before an independent Scotland needs to consider the issue. The EU has shown itself to be very pragmatic in the whole Brexit thing compared with the UK.

 

[quantinghome]

You obviously don't understand much about Scottish & Welsh culture if you think that just because England, Scotland and Wales all speak the same language and share the same island, that they all share the same homogenous culture. The difference in the politics of the 3 nations is also becoming increasingly apparent, e.g. Scotland is pro-EU, England is not.

The Westminster government's increasing 'muscular unionism' by undermining devolution at every opportunity is not helping relations between the devolved governments and Westminster. "Great British Railways" is just one example of that, the devolved governments were not even consulted on how it would work or affect rail services in Scotland & Wales before the initial Williams-Shapps plan was published.

Of course England, Scotland and Wales have their own unique cultural traditions, and regions within those countries also have their own unique culture. But we also have a huge amount of shared culture, which is naturally overlooked by the nationalist movements in each country. Coming from the north of England I find Wales and Scotland more like home than London or the southern shires, nice places though the latter are.

To an unfamiliar visitor to Britain, the cultural differences between our three countries would seem pretty small compared to the common culture we share. We have a lot more in common than we are often prepared to admit. It may have been ever thus. As Freud noted: "Intolerance of groups is often, strangely enough, exhibited more strongly against small differences than against fundamental ones".

Scotland voted 62/38 Remain/Leave in the Brexit referendum; England was 47/53 (with a huge amount of regional variation); Wales was also 47/53. A 15% difference between Scotland and England/Wales hardly justifies your assertion, particularly when there was greater variation than that within countries.

But I agree the Tories are making a complete hash of things (as ever) and are playing into the hands of the Welsh and Scots Nats. That's why the SNP are so desperate to get another referendum in as soon as possible. Having such an inept government in Westminster represents a golden opportunity which may never be repeated; hopefully in the near future a more clued up responsive and considerate government will be in power at Westminster, with strong traditions in all three countries, and that will be bad news for the SNP and Plaid.

As to the original question, ultimately it would depend what the nationalists want to do with independence. As with Brexit, much is left unclear, and that is deliberate. Scottish independence has a very wide voter coalition with many of its supporters holding contradictory aims. A definitive position by the SNP on critical issue like currency, EU membership, or the border would turn off a certain proportion of the independence vote, and they can't afford to do that with the percentages so tight.

We also need to consider just how thoroughly integrated the British economy is. Scotland's trade with England is 3-4 times its trade with the EU. Scotland acting in its own rational interests would be looking to do all it could to maintain current border arrangements, but as we've seen with Brexit, rational self-interest tends to take a back seat in the event of a nationalist victory in a referendum.

Apart from the Border, there's also the question of subsidy. Scotrail has a very large subsidy per pax-km (largest after Northern and Wales). The sections of the ECML and WCML serving Scotland are in all probability the least economic parts of those two routes given the trade off between traffic levels and length of infrastructure. Would continued support to heavily loss-making routes be a priority for an independent Scottish government given the inevitable squeeze on its budget? If it's that or prescription charges or university tuition fees, what's it going to keep, and what's it going to cut?

 

[Kingston Dan]

I do think that Scottish independence is very likely, but I don’t think it will have an enormous impact on the way we move around in these islands.

Whilst it is likely that a newly-independent Scotland would seek EU membership, I feel this would only have an impact in the world of commerce and business, with some extra red tape and customs formalities. The Common Travel Area would almost certainly continue as now, allowing totally unrestricted travel within the remainder of the UK, Scotland, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann, exactly as now.

One only has to look at present-day travel between the UK and Ireland, where, because of family and historical links, citizens of both countries not only enjoy unrestricted travel, but also continue to have the right to live, work, vote, use public services etc without any restrictions. Even now, after 100 years of Irish independence, someone from say Guildford, could move to live in Cork and it would be no more of a big deal than moving to Dorset.

The links will continue for generations. My own grandmother was from County Mayo, and although I have only ever been to Ireland on two occasions, and have never lived there, I’m an Irish citizen, in addition to being a citizen of the UK. Approximately 7 million citizens in the UK either have, or are entitled to, Irish citizenship.

Getting back to the main topic, I think it would be sensible for both Scotland and Wales to have independent control of their railway infrastructure, as the operation of the trains has already been devolved.

Obviously it would be up to the devolved nations to decide on how this would work, but I think keeping track and trains separate would make operations easier, as for example, Cross Country, Avanti, Trans-Pennine Express and LNER could easily make track access payments to the new Scottish infrastructure company.

I would personally like to see a new cohesive train operating unit for England, with its own name and branding reflecting its status as the operator for England. This organisation could operate regional and South Eastern services. It would make commercial sense to have a separate Inter-City company to operate cross-border services from England into both Wales and Scotland - regardless of whether the nations are within the UK or not.

The new Inter-City operator could be jointly owned and funded by the three nations, with a single unifying Inter-City brand, removing the need for trains operating these services being perceived as overtly British or English.

At the end of the day, regardless of whether independence happens or not, this island is called Britain and we will all still continue to be ‘British’, in much the same way as the citizens of Norway, Denmark and Sweden are all Scandinavian.

Quite.

 

[Clansman]

As I've said, there would be no benefit to the EU or Scotland of joining Schengen as it has no land border with the EU. Thus, I would be astonished were an exception not forthcoming.

This.

It's astonishing how many (mainly those most fiercely opposed to the idea of EU membership for individual UK nations) fail to take context into account when looking at the EU's founding principles re Euro and Schengen etc and resort to the default 'on print' response as if politics in the 21st century in Europe flat lines on any negotiated settlements on common consensus.

And that's without even considering that no precedent has been set for a developed nation in the west of Europe - an ex member who was part of a founding member with a bespoke arrangement - seeking membership.

Mind you it is an amateur yet brilliant tactic to subdue the ill-informed into deferring to the status quo without a second thought.

 

[A0wen]

The GFA is not the only reason not to have a land border on the island of Great Britain. That it would be pointless friction is another.

It'd be hard not to have one if the UK doesn't join EFTA/EEA at some point (for customs reasons), but I'm pretty confident that it will have done (but no further) before an independent Scotland needs to consider the issue. The EU has shown itself to be very pragmatic in the whole Brexit thing compared with the UK.

BIB - Eh ? The EU hasn't been pragmatic at all - it has stuck to many of its dogmas.

Flexibility is not something the EU does - which is why an Indy Scotland won't have an easy time joining.

 

[tomuk]

I think it would be sensible for both Scotland and Wales to have independent control of their railway infrastructure, as the operation of the trains has already been devolved.

The Scottish Government do have control of Network Rail Scotland. Although NR is owned by the UK government the Scottish Government specify and fund what they want just as the UK government does for England and Wales.

 

[Berliner]

Should Scotland become independent the separation negotiations, after 300 years of history with us sharing multiple UK-wide agencies and organisations, will make the Brexit talks seem like splitting the cost of toddlers' ice lollies. And Scotland would be very much the junior party at the mercy of Westminster; Not that I think Westminster would be deliberately vindictive, but it would seek to achieve the best possible outcome for the UK and would no longer need to consider the effect of its policies on Scotland, or spend any money there (unless of course the SNP manages, as it has suggested, to get the UK to continue paying Scots' pensions after independence - Just another example of the utter nonsense peddled in pursuit of their dream). However, there is always a silver lining, post independence Ian Blackford would no longer be a Westminster MP !

Why is it nonsense to expect a system that has been paid into to then payout? The UK would be obliged to give any Scottish share of Pensions money back to those who had been paying in all their working lives, the same way as someone who emigrates to, say, Spain, is able to still claim their UK pension. I agree that anyone who starts to pay into it after independence clearly isn't the responsibility of the UK, but there will be a generation or so who continue to have their pensions paid at least in part from the UK system until the workforce has filtered through to be entirely covered by the Scottish system, but to suggest the UK would just cut off people who had paid money into its system is equally nonsensical. How the UK pays that money would be a matter for negotiation, whether it's a lump sum, or some kind of ongoing thing, or individuals claim their pension as they do today, but there will definitely be money moving from the UK to Scotland to fund it. What's the alternative? The UK simply keeps its share of other people's money and makes Scotland the only foreign place where you cannot claim a UK pension from? After all, we see Former UK MEPs continue to claim their EU pensions even though we are out of that. I'd argue also that the UK does very little to consider Scotland at the moment when making policy decisions. Brexit is the most obvious example of that. Not a single amendment was made, nor did the UK government even pretend that they respected the fact Scotland voted to remain. They could have softened independence calls by at least coming up with a bespoke plan for Scotland, even some token gestures to make it look like an entire nation's choice was at least acknowledged (the same way NI and Gibraltar got bespoke agreements).

 

[Clansman]

Flexibility is not something the EU does - which is why an Indy Scotland won't have an easy time joining.

The point on its own about flexibility is fair enough to an extent. But then again that applies to any non member state with membership aspirations and those who have recently joined post 2000.

If your point relates to Scotland in isolation (as if to say the process would be more difficult than countries like Poland, Croatia, or Bulgaria) then it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny considering the EU's most inflexible positions relate to economic conditions and alignments that Scotland has satisfied since the UK was a member.

It's these same conditions within which the accession articles help align prospective member states to the rest of the EU to ensure as seamless an integration as possible - ie ex Warsaw Pact signatories with less developed economies & democratic institutions compared to western Europe.

Scotland is unique in these regards in that there is no example to date of a country in its current position seeking membership, so comparisons to Brexit and previous accessions of member states can only hold so much weight - and not as much weight that those who bring them up as a counter argument like to think they are. Not nearly enough when looking at the context.

 

[najaB]

The UK would be obliged to give any Scottish share of Pensions money back to those who had been paying in all their working lives, the same way as someone who emigrates to, say, Spain, is able to still claim their UK pension.

Exactly. This is a non-issue.

 

[Wolfie]

This.

It's astonishing how many (mainly those most fiercely opposed to the idea of EU membership for individual UK nations) fail to take context into account when looking at the EU's founding principles re Euro and Schengen etc and resort to the default 'on print' response as if politics in the 21st century in Europe flat lines on any negotiated settlements on common consensus.

And that's without even considering that no precedent has been set for a developed nation in the west of Europe - an ex member who was part of a founding member with a bespoke arrangement - seeking membership.

Mind you it is an amateur yet brilliant tactic to subdue the ill-informed into deferring to the status quo without a second thought.

A few comments:
1. The UK was not a "founding member" of what became the EU.
2. Why should a country in "the west of Europe" expect to be treated any differently by the EU than one in the east of Europe?
3. Even if you are correct about a compromise on Schengen one thing that the EU would certainly not compromise on would be free movement. That alone would cause issues for an independent Scotland and residual UK.

 

[HarryL]

But I agree the Tories are making a complete hash of things (as ever) and are playing into the hands of the Welsh and Scots Nats. That's why the SNP are so desperate to get another referendum in as soon as possible. Having such an inept government in Westminster represents a golden opportunity which may never be repeated; hopefully in the near future a more clued up responsive and considerate government will be in power at Westminster, with strong traditions in all three countries, and that will be bad news for the SNP and Plaid.

But that's where independence voters would say the UK fails. We have a voting system that allows England to pick from either the Tories or Labour to lead the government. The result is usually a Tory government that has no care to cooperate and means Scotland ends up having to fight to keep its devolved powers or are ignored when it comes to what they want. The big example is obviously Brexit, where Scotland rejected it yet still had it forced on them, despite promises from Better Together during the 2014 Indy vote that the only way to remain was to say no.