Scotland post-Brexit - what happens next?

[Chester1]

The SNP of course will never accept a NO vote. To quote Alex Salmond:
"There isn't so much as a no vote in Scotland there are only deferred yesses"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661

I was hoping we would get a rest after the last independence referendum but unfortunately all opposition to the SNP has played into their hands. I don't know what effect Brexit will have on this.

Its better to get it over with and allow the 4 countries to move on. The border area is low populated, England will be happy with a customs border and Scotland can rejoin the EU. There will be tremendous disruption but it will be successfully blamed on the English Tories.

 

[SargeNpton]

Questions to consider for Scottish voters in any future referendum...

Is an independent Scotland financially self-sufficient?

Should it gain independence it would presumably wish to take a fair proportion of the UK's assets with it. Would it also be willing to accept the same proportion of the national debt?

What currency would it use, given that, during the last referendum, it was told that it would not be able to continue to use the GB pound?

Would it opt to join the EU and would the EU agree to let it in (Spain has previously said that it would resist Scottish membership to dissuade some of it's own regions from wanting independence).

If in the EU would it opt to join the Euro? Would doing so actually prevent the country from having sufficient control over its own fiscal policy?

 

[radamfi]

Would it opt to join the EU and would the EU agree to let it in (Spain has previously said that it would resist Scottish membership to dissuade some of it's own regions from wanting independence).

That was before the UK left the EU. This isn't an issue any more.

 

[SargeNpton]

That was before the UK left the EU. This isn't an issue any more.

I do believe that it is. Spain's attitude to its regions hasn't changed, so its reluctance to admit Scotland after splitting from the UK would still stand.

 

[radamfi]

I do believe that it is. Spain's attitude to its regions hasn't changed, so its reluctance to admit Scotland after splitting from the UK would still stand.

There are many news articles if you search to show that this isn't an issue.

 

[Tester]

I recall hearing a while back (although not for a while) that there were various events which would, if they occurred, be deemed a valid trigger justifying a second referendum sooner than otherwise. One of them was a Brexit referendum in which the UK as a whole voted to leave, but where Scotland voted to remain.

Does anyone know any more about this? Is it factually based, or was it simply somebody's wishful thinking?

Regardless, it is definitely the case that one of the biggest campaign issues in the referendum was that any Scot wishing to remain in the EU should vote against independence. In the light of events it isn't hard to see why many are disgruntled.


Another point for consideration:

If Scotland does achieve independence and is able to rejoin the EU there would be tremendous scope for people to 'vote with their feet' over time.

People in England and Wales who feel sufficiently strongly that they want to remain within the EU, and/or who are not comfortable with the political direction of the current UK, could relocate to another part of Great Britain - perhaps a less daunting and more feasible step than moving to another EU country (a common language being perhaps the most significant consideration).

Similarly people in Scotland who feel sufficiently strongly that they do not want to remain within the EU, and/or who prefer the political direction of the current UK could do exactly the same.

Of course none of this is ideal, and many people would not, or could not, make such a move. But we have to play the hand we are dealt, rather than the hand we wish we had been dealt. I can at least see something positive evolving from the current situation - a significant increase in the number of people living their lives feeling that 'their' government is more in tune with their personal wishes and beliefs.

Surely at least a little possibility of win-win - what are the downsides?

 

[radamfi]

People in England and Wales who feel sufficiently strongly that they want to remain within the EU, and/or who are not comfortable with the political direction of the current UK, could relocate to another part of Great Britain - perhaps a less daunting and more feasible step than moving to another EU country (a common language being perhaps the most significant consideration).

They can already move to Ireland. You may already know this, but I'm surprised by the number of people on social media who say they wish they had an Irish passport so they could move to Ireland. The advantage of Scottish independence would be the possibility of not having to wait 6 years for naturalisation, depending on what rules are in place for deciding who has Scottish nationality. Given there's no such thing at the moment, I suspect simply living there on day one of independence would suffice.

 

[JamesT]

I recall hearing a while back (although not for a while) that there were various events which would, if they occurred, be deemed a valid trigger justifying a second referendum sooner than otherwise. One of them was a Brexit referendum in which the UK as a whole voted to leave, but where Scotland voted to remain.

Does anyone know any more about this? Is it factually based, or was it simply somebody's wishful thinking?

It’s something that has been claimed by the SNP ever since the Brexit referendum appeared on the horizon. This mostly seems to be a way for them to row back on the rhetoric that 2014 was a ‘once in a lifetime’ vote. I don’t believe there are any formal conditions for when such a referendum should happen, merely for the First Minister to ask and the Prime Minister to allow one.

Regardless, it is definitely the case that one of the biggest campaign issues in the referendum was that any Scot wishing to remain in the EU should vote against independence. In the light of events it isn't hard to see why many are disgruntled.

That was true at the time. If the UK had remained in the EU, Scottish independence would result in Scotland leaving the EU as the continuation of our membership would remain with the rUK. There were some dissenting views, but the certain path was that Scotland voting No kept them in the EU until the Brexit referendum happened.

 

[Tester]

They can already move to Ireland. You may already know this, but I'm surprised by the number of people on social media who say they wish they had an Irish passport so they could move to Ireland. The advantage of Scottish independence would be the possibility of not having to wait 6 years for naturalisation, depending on what rules are in place for deciding who has Scottish nationality. Given there's no such thing at the moment, I suspect simply living there on day one of independence would suffice.

Indeed I do - I didn't want to over complicate things. I referred to GB rather than UK for a reason!

 

[JamesT]

They can already move to Ireland. You may already know this, but I'm surprised by the number of people on social media who say they wish they had an Irish passport so they could move to Ireland. The advantage of Scottish independence would be the possibility of not having to wait 6 years for naturalisation, depending on what rules are in place for deciding who has Scottish nationality. Given there's no such thing at the moment, I suspect simply living there on day one of independence would suffice.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/pages/11/ has proposals for who would get a future Scottish nationality, which does include being ‘habitually resident’ on day one.

 

[Tester]

That was true at the time. If the UK had remained in the EU, Scottish independence would result in Scotland leaving the EU as the continuation of our membership would remain with the rUK. There were some dissenting views, but the certain path was that Scotland voting No kept them in the EU until the Brexit referendum happened.

Absolutely true, but as I said, it's not hard to see why many are disgruntled.

 

[Richard Scott]

We'll manage, thank you.

Lots of countries 'manage' and plenty I'm glad I don't live in.

 

[GusB]

Is an independent Scotland financially self-sufficient?

There's no reason why a country of approx. 5.5m people shouldn't be self sufficient. Denmark, Finland and Norway have similar populations. with Ireland being slightly smaller. I wouldn't consider any of those countries to be economic basket cases.

Outwith Europe, Singapore and New Zealand are developed nations within the same population bracket. Are they basket cases too?
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population (I know it's Wikipedia, but I'm just looking for ball-park figures here)

We have a developed economy with expertise in a number of fields.

What currency would it use, given that, during the last referendum, it was told that it would not be able to continue to use the GB pound?

I would agree that the currency issue was a bit of a sticking point in the previous independence campaign, but there was a fair amount of disinformation bandied about too. We could adopt the UK Pound, but this would mean that we're subject to the whims of the Bank of England. We could adopt our own "Scottish Pound" which could initially be pegged to the UKP in a transition phase.

We could adopt the US dollar, or the Euro, or any other currency that's freely traded.

If in the EU would it opt to join the Euro? Would doing so actually prevent the country from having sufficient control over its own fiscal policy?

The idea that we'd be forced to join the Euro immediately is absolute nonsense. The process of joining the Euro first of all requires joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism, something which Sweden has successfully avoided as alluded to in a previous post.

Would it opt to join the EU and would the EU agree to let it in (Spain has previously said that it would resist Scottish membership to dissuade some of it's own regions from wanting independence).

Another myth is that we'd go back to the end of the queue if we wanted to rejoin the EU, and this isn't the case. As we are currently part of the UK, we are already aligned with EU legislation and it would be a fairly straightforward process to get back in.

Perhaps the people of Scotland wouldn't want to go back into the EU, and that's something I'm prepared to accept. EFTA would be one option, but it would be up to the electorate to decide once we'd achieved independence. While it may be current SNP policy to rejoin the EU as soon as possible, there's no guarantee they'll be in power after independence is achieved.

It’s something that has been claimed by the SNP ever since the Brexit referendum appeared on the horizon. This mostly seems to be a way for them to row back on the rhetoric that 2014 was a ‘once in a lifetime’ vote. I don’t believe there are any formal conditions for when such a referendum should happen, merely for the First Minister to ask and the Prime Minister to allow one.

One train of thought is that we don't actually need to wait for Westminster to agree to a referendum. There are many people on the pro-Indy side who believe that all the SNP need to do is to state in their next manifesto that winning a majority of pro-indy seats is enough of a mandate for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence, and there's little the rUK can do about it.

"Project Fear" (the original version) preyed upon the worries that certain sections of the population held at the time. Would our pensions be safe? The answer to that is that pensions would be no less safe than those of ex-pats who have retired to the continent, but the Better Together/No Thanks campaign managed to stoke up fear among the elderly population. It warned that we'd be out of the EU if we voted "Yes". We all know how that went. We were lied to, just as the British public was lied to when we were told that we could have a Norway-style agreement with the EU after Brexit. Some people bought the lies and voted accordingly. We were promised a better devolution settlement but got a watered-down version instead. Oh, and ship-building - we were warned that Scottish shipyards couldn't expect to receive orders from the MoD after independence, yet we've seen those orders cut back significantly anyway.

I just wish that my Irish ancestry was a couple of generations closer!

 

[Butts]

There's no reason why a country of approx. 5.5m people shouldn't be self sufficient. Denmark, Finland and Norway have similar populations. with Ireland being slightly smaller. I wouldn't consider any of those countries to be economic basket cases.

Outwith Europe, Singapore and New Zealand are developed nations within the same population bracket. Are they basket cases too?
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population (I know it's Wikipedia, but I'm just looking for ball-park figures here)

We have a developed economy with expertise in a number of fields.

I would agree that the currency issue was a bit of a sticking point in the previous independence campaign, but there was a fair amount of disinformation bandied about too. We could adopt the UK Pound, but this would mean that we're subject to the whims of the Bank of England. We could adopt our own "Scottish Pound" which could initially be pegged to the UKP in a transition phase.

We could adopt the US dollar, or the Euro, or any other currency that's freely traded.

The idea that we'd be forced to join the Euro immediately is absolute nonsense. The process of joining the Euro first of all requires joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism, something which Sweden has successfully avoided as alluded to in a previous post.

Another myth is that we'd go back to the end of the queue if we wanted to rejoin the EU, and this isn't the case. As we are currently part of the UK, we are already aligned with EU legislation and it would be a fairly straightforward process to get back in.

Perhaps the people of Scotland wouldn't want to go back into the EU, and that's something I'm prepared to accept. EFTA would be one option, but it would be up to the electorate to decide once we'd achieved independence. While it may be current SNP policy to rejoin the EU as soon as possible, there's no guarantee they'll be in power after independence is achieved.

One train of thought is that we don't actually need to wait for Westminster to agree to a referendum. There are many people on the pro-Indy side who believe that all the SNP need to do is to state in their next manifesto that winning a majority of pro-indy seats is enough of a mandate for a Universal Declaration of Independence, and there's little the rUK can do about it.

"Project Fear" (the original version) preyed upon the worries that certain sections of the population held at the time. Would our pensions be safe? The answer to that is that pensions would be no less safe than those of ex-pats who have retired to the continent, but the Better Together/No Thanks campaign managed to stoke up fear among the elderly population. It warned that we'd be out of the EU if we voted "Yes". We all know how that went. We were lied to, just as the British public was lied to when we were told that we could have a Norway-style agreement with the EU after Brexit. Some people bought the lies and voted accordingly. We were promised a better devolution settlement but got a watered-down version instead. Oh, and ship-building - we were warned that Scottish shipyards couldn't expect to receive orders from the MoD after independence, yet we've seen those orders cut back significantly anyway.

I just wish that my Irish ancestry was a couple of generations closer!

As The Republic of Ireland forms part of the CTA there is nothing to stop you moving there and living and working without restrictions.

Or are you just wanting to become a "plastic paddy" for an EU Passport ?

 

[samxool]

(Spain has previously said that it would resist Scottish membership to dissuade some of it's own regions from wanting independence).

That statement is completely untrue.

It said it would support Scotland joining the EU as long as its independence was legally binding by both Scotland and the UK.
It would only block Scotland if it unilaterally declared independence and Westminster was opposed.

 

[eoff]

One train of thought is that we don't actually need to wait for Westminster to agree to a referendum. There are many people on the pro-Indy side who believe that all the SNP need to do is to state in their next manifesto that winning a majority of pro-indy seats is enough of a mandate for a Universal Declaration of Independence, and there's little the rUK can do about it.

The problem with this is that the SNP pick up a lot of votes that are anti-Tory and were anti-Labour, perhaps the Labour support will go up with Corbyn gone. The SNP had higher support in times when support for independence was low. Any unilateral referendum would be boycotted by no supporters and would be immediately challenged so might not even happen.
I have no idea what a "Universal Declaration of Independence is", perhaps you need to be an SNP insider to understand that.

 

[XAM2175]

I have no idea what a "Universal Declaration of Independence is", perhaps you need to be an SNP insider to understand that.

I expect that the word GusB intended to use was "unilateral".

 

[GusB]

I expect that the word GusB intended to use was "unilateral".

It was indeed - post amended

 

[Cloud Strife]

Questions to consider for Scottish voters in any future referendum...

Is an independent Scotland financially self-sufficient?

Should it gain independence it would presumably wish to take a fair proportion of the UK's assets with it. Would it also be willing to accept the same proportion of the national debt?

What currency would it use, given that, during the last referendum, it was told that it would not be able to continue to use the GB pound?

Would it opt to join the EU and would the EU agree to let it in (Spain has previously said that it would resist Scottish membership to dissuade some of it's own regions from wanting independence).

If in the EU would it opt to join the Euro? Would doing so actually prevent the country from having sufficient control over its own fiscal policy?

1) Yes, but with the provision that I'd expect taxation to move to Nordic levels rather quickly. Scotland would likely generate huge amounts of money from producing and selling electricity, especially offshore wind power.

2) The national debt is a complicated thing, and I'd expect it to be subject to a lot of long and drawn out arguments. For instance, a majority of Scots would never agree to pay debt relating to Trident. However, you have to bear in mind that the UK Parliament also took a substantial amount of revenues raised in Scotland from energy, so I'd expect it to head to some sort of international arbitration.

3) There's nothing stopping an independent Scotland from using a Scottish Pound pegged at par to the GBP. Ireland did so for 50 years, Montenegro today uses the Euro without any permission whatsoever, and the SCP would stay pegged to the GBP pending a move into the ERM. The Bank of England can say what they want, but countries pegging their currencies to a bigger one is nothing unusual in Europe. The exact system used would be up for debate, perhaps it would be pegged to the GBP only, perhaps pegged to a basket of currencies, perhaps pegged to the EUR, who knows?

4) It would almost certainly join EFTA and by extension the EEA. Full EU membership is a question for an independent Scotland, but in terms of Spain, that issue has been largely resolved since the failure of the Catalan Republic.

5) Given that there are smaller countries (the Baltic States, Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg, etc) that are members of the Euro, it's hard to see what the problem is.

I do believe that it is. Spain's attitude to its regions hasn't changed, so its reluctance to admit Scotland after splitting from the UK would still stand.

This is a non-issue now. Spain was rather frightened that the EU wouldn't back them against independence bids by their own historical nations, but since the EU made it clear that they wouldn't support any UDI and that independence had to be based on the agreement of both governments, it's a non-issue. Even in Catalonia these days, there's more or less acceptance that independence has to come about by overwhelming political pressure on Madrid and not unilaterally. That's why the ERC in Catalonia are supporting Sanchez's government, as they're now extracting considerable concessions, such as the clear right to keep treating Spanish as a foreign language in Catalan schools.

 

[ABB125]

One of my dad's favourite sayings is that if the Scottish wanted independence, they should have let the English vote! (And, in some ways, that's not unreasonable: Scottish independence would have a huge effect on England (and maybe Wales?), so surely English people should have some influence?)

Personally I'm not too bothered by the prospect of Scottish independence: if they want to run out of money and decimate trade with the rest of Britain I'm not going to stop them! As long as they take a share of the national debt with them (based on the Barnett formula, so Scotland bears the burden of all the extra money it's received over the years), and pay for all the necessary infrastructure (border checkpoints etc), they're free to do as they wish. Scottish railways and roads etc are pretty self contained, with one major road crossing (A74(M)) and a couple of smaller ones (A1, A68, A697), and two rail crossings (Carlisle, Berwick), so it shouldn't be the most difficult border to manage compared to some.
I think it would be a shame if they left, but it would by no means be the end of the world.

 

[Chester1]

1) Yes, but with the provision that I'd expect taxation to move to Nordic levels rather quickly. Scotland would likely generate huge amounts of money from producing and selling electricity, especially offshore wind power.

2) The national debt is a complicated thing, and I'd expect it to be subject to a lot of long and drawn out arguments. For instance, a majority of Scots would never agree to pay debt relating to Trident. However, you have to bear in mind that the UK Parliament also took a substantial amount of revenues raised in Scotland from energy, so I'd expect it to head to some sort of international arbitration.

Who will Scotland be selling the electricity to? England would want to get self sufficient pretty fast and they can already buy huge quantities from mainland Europe. England won't leave itself in a position to be blackmailed over electricity supply. All of Scotlands neighbours have oil, gas or large scale renewables (or all three), why would rely on Scotland. Scotland has multiple economic strengths, its a little strange that Scottish nationalists are vocal about energy. It looks like its the Scottish nationalist equivalent to brexiteer fish!

The debt argument is similar to brexit. It was argued that a net contributor to the EU budget over its whole membership the UK should not pay any debt. The EU got £39 billion from the UK simply because it refused to negoiate further unless debt, citizens rights and Northern Ireland were sorted first. Rest of UK will do the same. It will say a deal on Citizens rights and national debt are a prerequisite for any further talks.

The debt is Scotland's only point of major leverage because removal of trident is non negotiable to the SNP. It will be moved to a Plymouth until a permanent new home can be built or it be scrapped. Scotland will agree to a mechanism to take responsibility for circa 9% of national debt or have a very "hard Scexit". Scotland as a new legal entity would have no legal liability to the UK debt. There would be nothing to arbitrate, its not a legal matter, its a political matter. Accepting a share of the UK national debt relative to Scotlands population will be a prequiste for any English Government to work with a Scottish government on anything. Sure there will be some self loathing people who think the UK is a terrible colonial entity but most would be filled with rage if expected to pay extra taxes because Scotland has walked away from circa £180bn of national debt. It would poison relations for a generation or more and make sensible cooperation impossible.

Trident is a rounding error on national debt and besides which it was voted for by a majority of Scottish MPs! For me SNP threats over the national debt are another reason to get the break up over and done with now the oil and gas revenue is almost gone. I am glad the covid debt has already been paid for through quantitative easing (which will effect value of pound negatively over next few years), because it means Scotland can't walk away from it. It would be fair enough to exclude Bank of England held debt from the calculation because its not real debt and most of it has already been paid for through value of pound).

Scotland will get an acceptable deal but it will be on the broad terms set by the rUK. The strength of the UKs leverage will be exggarated just like the EUs was during Brexit but the gist is true. The EU set the terms more than the UK as the bigger side and the rUK will set the terms more than Scotland. Apart from making the odd sympathetic comment the EU and US aren't going to intervene. To do so would poison relations rUK for a generation and thats not worth it. Spain will let the Scotland join the EU but they would be mad to agree to it if Scotland had just walked away from UK national debt because of the message it would send to Catalonia! The imbalance of wealth and population is nearly twice that of the UK vs EU. It will show. For some reason Scots who said EU holds all the cards think Scotland would be an exception in these sorts of negoiations.

 

[GusB]

One of my dad's favourite sayings is that if the Scottish wanted independence, they should have let the English vote! (And, in some ways, that's not unreasonable: Scottish independence would have a huge effect on England (and maybe Wales?), so surely English people should have some influence?)

Why on earth should the rest of the UK have a vote on whether Scotland should be independent? Can you imagine the uproar there would be if the EU had insisted that the other 27 nations had a say in whether the UK left the EU?! It's not England's (nor Wales' or Northern Ireland's) business any more than it is ours to decide on matters pertaining solely to other parts of the UK.

Personally I'm not too bothered by the prospect of Scottish independence: if they want to run out of money and decimate trade with the rest of Britain I'm not going to stop them! As long as they take a share of the national debt with them (based on the Barnett formula, so Scotland bears the burden of all the extra money it's received over the years), and pay for all the necessary infrastructure (border checkpoints etc), they're free to do as they wish.

The debt argument is similar to brexit. It was argued that a net contributor to the EU budget over its whole membership the UK should not pay any debt. The EU got £39 billion from the UK simply because it refused to negoiate further unless debt, citizens rights and Northern Ireland were sorted first. Rest of UK will do the same. It will say a deal on Citizens rights and national debt are a prerequisite for any further talks.

The debt is Scotland's only point of major leverage because removal of trident is non negotiable to the SNP. It will be moved to a Plymouth until a permanent new home can be built or it be scrapped. Scotland will agree to a mechanism to take responsibility for circa 9% of national debt or have a very "hard Scexit". Scotland as a new legal entity would have no legal liability to the UK debt. There would be nothing to arbitrate, its not a legal matter, its a political matter. Accepting a share of the UK national debt relative to Scotlands population will be a prequiste for any English Government to work with a Scottish government on anything. Sure there will be some self loathing people who think the UK is a terrible colonial entity but most would be filled with rage if expected to pay extra taxes because Scotland has walked away from circa £180bn of national debt. It would poison relations for a generation or more and make sensible cooperation impossible.

Ah, it must be Christmas because the old chestnuts are being brought out again. I'd be interested to see where you're getting your figures from.

Revealed: The ACCOUNTING TRICK that Hides Scotland's Wealth (2022)

Note: The research below was first carried out eight years ago but is updated every year. The figures and graphs have been updated and republished on December 7th 2022 to include the GERS most recently published for 2021/22. Every Westminster Government in your lifetime has knowingly diverted...

www.businessforscotland.com

There is an expenditure line in GERS called Public Sector Debt Interest (PSDI). It’s the fifth-largest expenditure of the Scottish Government and a larger spend than Scotland’s allocated share of the UK Armed forces expenditure. Historical analysis of GERS reports demonstrates that every year since records began, Scotland has been paying interest on a population share of the UK’s debts. In 2019-20, PSDI added £4.5bn to the cost of running Scotland.366

That’s not paying back the capital on any debt, it’s just the interest on the UK’s debt. Scotland has recently been granted very limited borrowing powers, but while the UK’s debt was being built up Scotland had no borrowing powers. In fact, Scotland’s economy was either in surplus, or had a lower deficit than the UK, so Scotland did not contribute to the creation of the debt.

How does a nation without the ability to borrow end up paying billions of interest on debt every year? It does so because the allocation of the debt is not related to the UK region or nation which generated the debt, nor where the money was spent or the economic benefit felt. The UK’s debt is allocated to Scotland’s accounts on a population percentage basis, even though Scotland did not generate that debt.

Looking at Scotland’s GERS reports (and earlier historical data) that go back 40 years, Scotland’s share of UK debt interest amounted to a staggering £133.4bn.367 However, analysing those figures also demonstrates that, had Scotland been an independent country, its entire borrowing requirement over those 40 years would have been zero. Let me be clear: nothing, not one penny.

Scotland’s accounts have had £133bn (one-hundred and thirty-three thousand million pounds) of interest on debt removed from them, despite the fact that Scotland did not generate, nor benefit from this spending. This has happened simply because it is not an independent nation and had to chip in to service the rest of the UK’s rising debts. Without that £133bn cost, Scotland’s finances would be in surplus today.

If we look back as far as reliable historical figures for Scotland’s revenues and expenditure go, we can see that in 1980-81, before the UK debt started to spiral, Scotland was charged £3bn to service the UK debt. Despite that, it managed to record a surplus of more than £1bn.368 Indeed, using GERS, Scotland’s finances showed a surplus until 1990, when the cumulative surplus amounted to £38.8bn (£74bn surplus without debt loading).369

It is undeniable that in an independent Scotland those surpluses would either have been invested to grow Scotland’s economy or possibly put into a sovereign wealth fund, similar to Norway’s.

The sources that the article uses can be found here:

Numbered Sources for Scotland the Brief

This page contains the numbered sources for the full non-abridged version of the book Scotland the Brief. Content from the book that is directly replicated on businessforScotland.com will also match the numbered sources here. 1 Progress Scotland (2019), ‘63% majority believe Scotland will become...

www.businessforscotland.com

Who will Scotland be selling the electricity to? England would want to get self sufficient pretty fast and they can already buy huge quantities from mainland Europe. England won't leave itself in a position to be blackmailed over electricity supply. All of Scotlands neighbours have oil, gas or large scale renewables (or all three), why would rely on Scotland. Scotland has multiple economic strengths, its a little strange that Scottish nationalists are vocal about energy. It looks like its the Scottish nationalist equivalent to brexiteer fish!

We would sell electricity to countries that want to buy it, and nobody is suggesting that there will be any blackmailing going on. If England can buy in electricity from mainland Europe, why on earth wouldn't it by from its nearest neighbour? It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Yes, we do have multiple economic strengths of which energy is only one, but it's one that we have a significant amount of expertise in.

 

[JamesT]

That site does have a very obvious bias and is making some interesting assumptions that Scotland isn’t responsible for any of the UK’s national debt. Scotland is part of the UK and benefits from various UK-wide spending, even if it’s not physically in Scotland. Which is the whole point of GERS. Borrowing for that spending is part of the costs of running government, your tax revenues will never perfectly line up so there will be always some to keep cash on hand. Why shouldn’t Scotland be responsible for a proportion of that cost whilst being a part of the UK?

There’s also a bit of double dipping going on. Much is made of what could have been done with the oil and gas revenues of the 80s and 90s, including suggesting it could have been invested in a sovereign wealth fund. But if you do that you can’t spend it on anything else. Public spending on welfare for the de industrialisation of the UK was largely funded from the North Sea and a fair chunk of that spending was in Scotland.

 

[GusB]

That site does have a very obvious bias and is making some interesting assumptions that Scotland isn’t responsible for any of the UK’s national debt. Scotland is part of the UK and benefits from various UK-wide spending, even if it’s not physically in Scotland. Which is the whole point of GERS. Borrowing for that spending is part of the costs of running government, your tax revenues will never perfectly line up so there will be always some to keep cash on hand. Why shouldn’t Scotland be responsible for a proportion of that cost whilst being a part of the UK?

There’s also a bit of double dipping going on. Much is made of what could have been done with the oil and gas revenues of the 80s and 90s, including suggesting it could have been invested in a sovereign wealth fund. But if you do that you can’t spend it on anything else. Public spending on welfare for the de industrialisation of the UK was largely funded from the North Sea and a fair chunk of that spending was in Scotland.

I won't deny that the site I quoted from has an obvious bias; it's a pro-independence site, after all. That's why I posted the the link to the sources which back it up.

 

[Journeyman]

Why? Assuming Scotland remains in a common travel area, there would be no difference to living in Northern Ireland and working in the Republic or vice versa.

If Scotland becomes an EU member, there would have to be a hard border with customs controls in place between Scotland and England, and all trade would be subject to our new treaty with the EU. The only way this has been avoided between NI and RoI is by placing the barrier in the Irish Sea, so travel between RoI and NI isn't affected. Both NI and RoI are in the customs union and single market. That option isn't available to an independent Scotland, and solving the problem would be far more difficult, no matter what nonsense the SNP spout about it.

 

[jumble]

That's a good question. The near-certain forthcoming Scottish independence would likely kill it, I reckon, as there wouldn't be MPs travelling back and forth. And HS2 will likely kill the Lowlander. It might be viable to have a simpler operation a bit more like the Cornish one, perhaps just Inverness and FW (or even Oban instead)? If primarily for leisure travellers it could run a bit later to allow an 05something arrival at Edinburgh/Glasgow for those who do need to get there then.

I have my doubts that Boris is going to allow a second referendum any time soon.
I also doubt that the EU would want Scotland in any case

 

[JonathanH]

If Scotland becomes an EU member, there would have to be a hard border with customs controls in place between Scotland and England, and all trade would be subject to our new treaty with the EU. The only way this has been avoided between NI and RoI is by placing the barrier in the Irish Sea, so travel between RoI and NI isn't affected. Both NI and RoI are in the customs union and single market. That option isn't available to an independent Scotland, and solving the problem would be far more difficult, no matter what nonsense the SNP spout about it.

Yes - the reality is that a hard border with proper passport and customs control would be needed and the political issues which ensured a 'soft border' applies between the Republic of Ireland and the UK on the island of Ireland do not currently apply between England and Scotland. Indeed, I think they would be welcomed by more people than are against them, perhaps not by people living in the borders though.

However, Caledonian Sleeper with pick up only restrictions either side of the border might be easier transit, with passport checks at the departure stations or some sort of border control done aboard. For day trains, I could imagine something like the border controls at the stations in Basel needing to be implemented at Carlisle and Berwick and the withdrawal of through services.

Would subsidy be permitted for cross-border travel?

 

[berneyarms]

If Scotland becomes an EU member, there would have to be a hard border with customs controls in place between Scotland and England, and all trade would be subject to our new treaty with the EU. The only way this has been avoided between NI and RoI is by placing the barrier in the Irish Sea, so travel between RoI and NI isn't affected. Both NI and RoI are in the customs union and single market. That option isn't available to an independent Scotland, and solving the problem would be far more difficult, no matter what nonsense the SNP spout about it.

That applies to goods not people, and we are dealing with people in this thread as we are talking about the Caledonian Sleeper.

The Common Travel Area allows for free travel between GB, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Ireland for Irish and UK citizens. As an Irish citizen I don't need a passport to visit GB (unless required by an airline's own rules, such as Ryanair).

That won't change. None of the governments across these islands would want that.

 

[JonathanH]

That won't change.

Why not? Just because a Common Travel Area was agreed for the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on break up a hundred years ago does not mean the same needs to apply for Scotland when it goes its own way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If independence comes Scotland will be unable to afford to subsidise the sleeper, especially as price of, and demand for oil is rapidly dropping

They might choose not to because it might represent poor value for money, but really the Sleeper is quite cheap when you consider the sort of sums even a small country spends on general public spending.

Why not? Just because a Common Travel Area was agreed for the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on break up a hundred years ago does not mean the same needs to apply for Scotland when it goes its own way.

Extremely unlikely that the CTA would be disbanded, and even more unlikely that Scotland would join Schengen instead, because it literally has no possible benefit at all from doing so, neither to Scotland nor to the EU, and plenty of disadvantages. There may need to be some sort of "soft" customs border, though, which wouldn't involve stopping and showing your passport, but would involve registering what is in your lorry and paying any duties, with spot checks. Switzerland is not in the EU Customs Union but is in Schengen (which is basically a wider version of the CTA in concept), and while it does have customs posts on busier border roads they aren't manned a lot of the time[1] and passage is not really impeded in practice unless they see "red flags" in what you're doing.

And there are plenty of smaller ways through, for example I've walked from Saint-Gingolphe (CH) to Saint-Gingolphe (F) through a customs post, then returned along the beach path where there isn't a customs post or indeed anything other than a small sign pointing out that you're crossing a border and need to phone up and declare goods above the limits if you have any.

[1] They do like manning Annemasse to take duty free off people being bussed and taxied there for hotels when their flights were cancelled, though.