Scotland post-Brexit - what happens next?

[najaB]

Yes, but the problem with that analogy is that the UK government isn't evil or delibrately harmful-it's just inept. As inept as any other government.

Refusing to feed starving children while spending billions on a test and trace system that doesn't work (but was run by a party donor) has a definite whiff of evil / deliberately harmful to me.

 

[takno]

Refusing to feed starving children while spending billions on a test and trace system that doesn't work (but was run by a party donor) has a definite whiff of evil / deliberately harmful to me.

A line has certainly been crossed. Exactly when it was crossed is open for debate, but if we do need to accept that the current government is unusually corrupt as well as incompetent. Otherwise we are just buying into a narrative that politicians are all as bad as each other and nothing can be done

 

[LocoCycle]

That's the official reason. I think it has a lot more to do with capitalising on Brexit teething problems. If it eventually settles down and the average person isn't badly affected by it, people will be much less willing to tolerate the upheaval of independence. The SNP will be able to exploit any initial problems to their advantage.

I, and no doubt some others in Scotland, are watching the Brexit process with interest - in particular Northern Irelands experience. If it quickly settles down to something sustainable as far as day to day business and travel is concerned, then that will give confidence to Scots that leaving the UK could be a less frightening process than a short term high impact Brexit mess would.

 

[Journeyman]

I, and no doubt some others in Scotland, are watching the Brexit process with interest - in particular Northern Irelands experience. If it quickly settles down to something sustainable as far as day to day business and travel is concerned, then that will give confidence to Scots that leaving the UK could be a less frightening process than a short term high impact Brexit mess would.

I think some sort of hard land border would be inevitable, though. The land border between NI and the Republic is essentially the same as a border between two EU countries, because NI remains subject to EU single market rules, and the border is in the Irish Sea. Given that you can only travel between the UK mainland and NI by sea or air, effectively it's no different to any other air or sea crossing. Scotland's border with England can be crossed by air, rail, bus/coach, car, lorry and on foot, and regularly is by people living one side and working on the other. There's huge questions as to whether that freedom and flexibility could be maintained if Scotland was an EU member in the CU/SM and England wasn't.

 

[JamesT]

And the question that such a suggestion prompts is "can the people offering such a settlement be trusted to deliver it?" In 2014 Cameron waxed lyrical about the benefits of the union, signed his name to the "solemn vow", and then went back to Westminster the next morning and introduced English Votes for English Laws. After that came the Brexit fiasco that has included Johnson's multiple displays of being completely and totally untrustworthy. Why should the Scottish electorate believe that this time will be different - especially if the new settlement requires the approval of the rest of the UK too?

EVEL should have been implemented alongside devolution, it was a massive hole that Scottish MPs could vote on matters that didn’t affect their constituents.
Cameron set up the Smith Commission after the vote which lead to the Scotland Act 2016 which did implement the promises made in the vow.

 

[takno]

EVEL should have been implemented alongside devolution, it was a massive hole that Scottish MPs could vote on matters that didn’t affect their constituents.
Cameron set up the Smith Commission after the vote which lead to the Scotland Act 2016 which did implement the promises made in the vow.

EVEL is a pretty terrible system, but it damages England rather than Scotland, and the problem is the structure of it. Regional governments, or at worst a separate English government, would have made everybody happier.

The SNP's main contribution to EVEL appears to have been to find a desperately tenuous reason they should be able to vote on English Sunday trading, and then use it to vote against England having the same setup as Scotland. I don't think that particular bit of nippy behaviour endeared them or Scotland to anyone.

 

[Senex]

And the question that such a suggestion prompts is "can the people offering such a settlement be trusted to deliver it?" In 2014 Cameron waxed lyrical about the benefits of the union, signed his name to the "solemn vow", and then went back to Westminster the next morning and introduced English Votes for English Laws. After that came the Brexit fiasco that has included Johnson's multiple displays of being completely and totally untrustworthy.

But if you have devolution (or what masquerades as devolution) for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, then surely you should have English Votes for English Laws, or otherwise you have an imbalance. It's back to the basic error of Tony Blair's devolution plans for the United Kingdom which totally failed to take into account the problem of England, the largest element in the union. If that question had been properly dealt with, then maybe the appalling way Scotland has been treated by England since the EU referendum might just not have happened.

 

[najaB]

But if you have devolution (or what masquerades as devolution) for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, then surely you should have English Votes for English Laws, or otherwise you have an imbalance.

No, you should have an English parliament. Then the Westminster government deals with reserved matters and the devolved governments deal with devolved matters. It's not inconceivable that people may want to vote for (for example) a Labour devolved government but a Conservative national one.

 

[Senex]

No, you should have an English parliament. Then the Westminster government deals with reserved matters and the devolved governments deal with devolved matters. It's not inconceivable that people may want to vote for (for example) a Labour devolved government but a Conservative national one.

Yes, of course if you set up a genuine federal system each part of it must have its own parallel assemblies. The simple way to make progress would indeed be to have established an English parliament/assembly alongside the others, but the problem is that England has far too much of the total population relative to the others and so can too easily be a bully in the federal whole coupled with the fact that parts of England (particularly the north and the south-west) tend to feel, with some quite strong evidence, that they don't do very well out of an English system run by and for London. A major constitutional convention is long overdue if the Union is to survive. (I'm not convinced that it would be a good thing that it should, but if people want it to, they need to take action and not just let things stagger on.)

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Yes, of course if you set up a genuine federal system each part of it must have its own parallel assemblies. The simple way to make progress would indeed be to have established an English parliament/assembly alongside the others, but the problem is that England has far too much of the total population relative to the others and so can too easily be a bully in the federal whole coupled with the fact that parts of England (particularly the north and the south-west) tend to feel, with some quite strong evidence, that they don't do very well out of an English system run by and for London. A major constitutional convention is long overdue if the Union is to survive. (I'm not convinced that it would be a good thing that it should, but if people want it to, they need to take action and not just let things stagger on.)

An English Parliament could not be a copy/paste of the Scottish-they won't buy it at all. Plus, London couldn't be a part of it anyway. The way I see it, there are two options:

1. English Parliament, but have laws ratified in county council chambers
2. Have delvolved Parliaments under old Saxon lines, but have a sort of loose "English Council" that acts as linchpin to the English nation.

 

[Cloud Strife]

There's huge questions as to whether that freedom and flexibility could be maintained if Scotland was an EU member in the CU/SM and England wasn't.

It's not an issue. Norway/Sweden or the Swiss/EU borders show how it can be done. Essentially:

- Immigration controls continue to be carried out on the border of the CTA, just as now.
- Customs controls exist as on the Norway/EU and Swiss/EU borders. There aren't actually that many border crossings between Scotland and England, so it's not that much of an issue to erect customs posts at each one.
- Customs controls are carried out on the train for those stopping between Edinburgh/Glasgow and the border, while those proceeding directly to/from Edinburgh/Glasgow will have customs posts in the railway stations, manned by both Scottish and English customs authorities. It might mean that trains will tend to run non-stop between the border and those cities, but it's not a big deal.
- Most crossings are in the middle of nowhere, so pedestrians are a moot issue.
- Flying is dealt with in the same way as Irish/Channel Island/Manx arrivals today - they bypass passport control and go through customs.

An English Parliament could not be a copy/paste of the Scottish-they won't buy it at all. Plus, London couldn't be a part of it anyway.

But why not? I always imagined this:

- England takes over the House of Commons, and it becomes the seat of the new English parliament.
- The House of Lords becomes the new Federal Parliament, in which the English MFP's total the same as the Scottish/Welsh/NI MFP's. As a result, England cannot force any legislation through the Federal Parliament without the explicit consent of at least one rUK MFP. Given that the Federal Parliament is likely to have a diverse set of elected representatives, it would become a matter of negotiation between the countries to decide on UK-level policy.
- Devo-Max for all four countries, with the provision that Northern Ireland remains under Federal supervision. If the Northern Irish Assembly is suspended, then the new Federal Government takes responsibility for Northern Irish affairs.
- The Federal Government itself is on the Swiss model - the biggest party from each nation is entitled to appoint four cabinet members. Effectively, it's a permanent coalition to ensure stability.
- Clear division between national and Federal competences.

I don't see why England couldn't have her own parliament. EVEL only works as long as the Tories have a majority in England and in the UK - if the next government is a Labour/SNP coalition, then EVEL is out of the window as Labour would probably need Scottish votes to pass English legislation.

 

[najaB]

Customs controls are carried out on the train for those stopping between Edinburgh/Glasgow and the border, while those proceeding directly to/from Edinburgh/Glasgow will have customs posts in the railway stations, manned by both Scottish and English customs authorities. It might mean that trains will tend to run non-stop between the border and those cities, but it's not a big deal.

Other than the occasional Motherwell and Lockerbie calls there aren't that many trains that stop between England and Edinburgh (Waverly or Haymarket) and Glasgow Central. They could omit the Haymarket calls without too much disruption.

There aren't actually that many border crossings between Scotland and England, so it's not that much of an issue to erect customs posts at each one.

I count 18 but most of those are minor roads.

 

[takno]

Other than the occasional Motherwell and Lockerbie calls there aren't that many trains that stop between England and Edinburgh (Waverly or Haymarket) and Glasgow Central. They could omit the Haymarket calls without too much disruption.

I count 18 but most of those are minor roads.

There's Dunbar stops as well

 

[mcmad]

Other than the occasional Motherwell and Lockerbie calls there aren't that many trains that stop between England and Edinburgh (Waverly or Haymarket) and Glasgow Central. They could omit the Haymarket calls without too much disruption.

I count 18 but most of those are minor roads.

There are the trains down the GSW too.

I counted 30 roads based on if there was a google car down it or not.

 

[jthjth]

Other than the occasional Motherwell and Lockerbie calls there aren't that many trains that stop between England and Edinburgh (Waverly or Haymarket) and Glasgow Central. They could omit the Haymarket calls without too much disruption.

I count 18 but most of those are minor roads.

There are 7 road crossings along the border between Berwick and Coldstream, and that’s just 14 miles.

 

[najaB]

I counted 30 roads based on if there was a google car down it or not.

Some of those loop back around or are dead ends.

 

[jthjth]

Some of those loop back around or are dead ends.

A hard border near Berwick would go down very badly with the locals. Berwick is in practice the county town for Berwickshire (Scotland) and north Northumberland (England). People cross the border countless times as part of their normal lives. Note that if you go south west from Berwick you go from England into Scotland.

 

[Journeyman]

A hard border near Berwick would go down very badly with the locals. Berwick is in practice the county town for Berwickshire (Scotland) and north Northumberland (England). People cross the border countless times as part of their normal lives. Note that if you go south west from Berwick you go from England into Scotland.

This is exactly what I'm concerned about, and these concerns are written off far too easily. We need answers to this, and anything that makes crossing the border any more difficult than it is at the moment is completely unacceptable.

 

[najaB]

A hard border near Berwick would go down very badly with the locals.

I suspect it would. But it's impossible to please all of the people all of the time. There might be ways to make the border crossing more palatable like a list of local car registrations which are only subject to limited random checks.

Lessons could be learned from the border between the USA and Canada which is officially a hard border but, like the UK/Scotland border, has communities that straddle it.

 

[jthjth]

I suspect it would. But it's impossible to please all of the people all of the time. There might be ways to make the border crossing more palatable like a list of local car registrations which are only subject to limited random checks.

Lessons could be learned from the border between the USA and Canada which is officially a hard border but, like the UK/Scotland border, has communities that straddle it.

It’s not as simple as the US/Canada border. Those nations have been separate from the get go, with economic ties largely to the home country. Scotland and England have been economically integrated for hundreds of years. Around Berwick the border simply isn’t a thing, it’s really no more important than a boundary between two English counties. There’s a huge amount of daily economic trade across the border every day. A hard border would plunge both sides into economic hardship that would take years to rectify - the local economy is fragile at the best of times. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against Scottish independence, but it can’t be done at the expense of ordinary people and the border communities should not be considered to be acceptable collateral damage for the greater project.

 

[najaB]

Around Berwick the border simply isn’t a thing, it’s really no more important than a boundary between two English counties.

The same is true of the US/Canada border in places - it literally runs down the middle of the road in some towns with the houses on either side being in either country.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I'm sorry but it seems somewhat absurd that nationalists seem to loathe Brexit and the problems it causes regarding borders and yet are happy to do the exact same thing to their own country. I can't believe independence is so important we're talking about how to put literal barriers between the Scottish and English people-how depressing.

It's not an issue. Norway/Sweden or the Swiss/EU borders show how it can be done. Essentially:

- Immigration controls continue to be carried out on the border of the CTA, just as now.
- Customs controls exist as on the Norway/EU and Swiss/EU borders. There aren't actually that many border crossings between Scotland and England, so it's not that much of an issue to erect customs posts at each one.
- Customs controls are carried out on the train for those stopping between Edinburgh/Glasgow and the border, while those proceeding directly to/from Edinburgh/Glasgow will have customs posts in the railway stations, manned by both Scottish and English customs authorities. It might mean that trains will tend to run non-stop between the border and those cities, but it's not a big deal.
- Most crossings are in the middle of nowhere, so pedestrians are a moot issue.
- Flying is dealt with in the same way as Irish/Channel Island/Manx arrivals today - they bypass passport control and go through customs.



But why not? I always imagined this:

- England takes over the House of Commons, and it becomes the seat of the new English parliament.
- The House of Lords becomes the new Federal Parliament, in which the English MFP's total the same as the Scottish/Welsh/NI MFP's. As a result, England cannot force any legislation through the Federal Parliament without the explicit consent of at least one rUK MFP. Given that the Federal Parliament is likely to have a diverse set of elected representatives, it would become a matter of negotiation between the countries to decide on UK-level policy.
- Devo-Max for all four countries, with the provision that Northern Ireland remains under Federal supervision. If the Northern Irish Assembly is suspended, then the new Federal Government takes responsibility for Northern Irish affairs.
- The Federal Government itself is on the Swiss model - the biggest party from each nation is entitled to appoint four cabinet members. Effectively, it's a permanent coalition to ensure stability.
- Clear division between national and Federal competences.

I don't see why England couldn't have her own parliament. EVEL only works as long as the Tories have a majority in England and in the UK - if the next government is a Labour/SNP coalition, then EVEL is out of the window as Labour would probably need Scottish votes to pass English legislation.

I mean, and English Parliament would work and it would save the Union-but the English are different see devolution a bit differently. They tend to like centralisation (much like the South Welsh) and the last thing Middle England would want is a devolved chamber full of more left wing, pro-EU, lawyer types. Don't forget, there is less concept of "England" than there is of Scotland and, I could be wrong, but I think the English are much more close to their respective counties than the Scots and Welsh are. I think an English Parliament could work as a centralised entity in say, Birmingham, and County Councils acting as England's "House of Lords".

Or, you could just make Northumbria, Mercia, Anglia, Kent/Sussex, Wessex and Middlesex-Cornwall could be a 6th UK nation perhaps.

 

[najaB]

I'm sorry but it seems somewhat absurd that nationalists seem to loathe Brexit and the problems it causes regarding borders and yet are happy to do the exact same thing to their own country. I can't believe independence is so important we're talking about how to put literal barriers between the Scottish and English people-how depressing.

The thing is, to a nationalist their country is Scotland, not the UK.

I'm not a nationalist, I voted No in the 2014 referendum but increasingly I'm coming around to the view that Scotland wouldn't be any worse off as an independent member-state of the EU than it would be as a part of the UK outside, and at least any mess that we end up in would be our mess to own, rather than a mess that was imposed on us. Hopefully there will be a change of leadership (or Government!) soon that will change my mind.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The thing is, to a nationalist their country is Scotland, not the UK.

I'm not a nationalist, I voted No in the 2014 referendum but increasingly I'm coming around to the view that Scotland wouldn't be any worse off as an independent member-state of the EU than it would be as a part of the UK outside, and at least any mess that we end up in would be our mess to own, rather than a mess that was imposed on us. Hopefully there will be a change of leadership (or Government!) soon that will change my mind.

Whether they view the UK or Scotland as their own country, Scotland is still getting borders where none need be.

And yes, I do feel the same about the NI situation.

 

[najaB]

Whether they view the UK or Scotland as their own country, Scotland is still getting borders where none need be.

But the borders with the EU would be removed - so we'd be gaining access to more than we would be losing.

 

[takno]

I'm sorry but it seems somewhat absurd that nationalists seem to loathe Brexit and the problems it causes regarding borders and yet are happy to do the exact same thing to their own country. I can't believe independence is so important we're talking about how to put literal barriers between the Scottish and English people-how depressing.

There would be exactly the same number of borders. Scotland would just be on the EU side of that. Scottish Nationalists are still happy, European Nationalists are happy, British Nationalists are not. Eventually the argument comes down to the same Brexit argument every time, that a lot of people essentially felt that the European Union didn't somehow count or matter in the same way that the British Union does, and a lot of other people respectfully disagree.

 

[Journeyman]

But the borders with the EU would be removed - so we'd be gaining access to more than we would be losing.

But how many people in Scotland need to travel freely to the EU on a daily basis, compared to the number who travel freely to England?

 

[packermac]

There would be exactly the same number of borders. Scotland would just be on the EU side of that. Scottish Nationalists are still happy, European Nationalists are happy, British Nationalists are not. Eventually the argument comes down to the same Brexit argument every time, that a lot of people essentially felt that the European Union didn't somehow count or matter in the same way that the British Union does, and a lot of other people respectfully disagree.

Are there British Nationalists?
Perhaps there are many in England and Wales that would like separation from the existing grouping.
Maybe any vote should be on the break up of the union.

 

[Journeyman]

Are there British Nationalists?
Perhaps there are many in England and Wales that would like separation from the existing grouping.
Maybe any vote should be on the break up of the union.

British Nationalists are convenient bogeymen for hardcore Scottish nationalists. It's based on the idea that anyone who isn't passionately devoted to Scottish independence must be a Farage-worshipping knuckle dragger who wants to see immigrants hung, drawn and quartered.

I've been accused of being one several times, although my objections to Scottish independence are entirely pragmatic. I'm open to changing my views if it ever became clear it would benefit most people, but right now I don't think it will.

 

[najaB]

But how many people in Scotland need to travel freely to the EU on a daily basis, compared to the number who travel freely to England?

Not just people, also goods - all told it might be fairly close.