Would Scottish Independence Affect services to/from England?

[Wolfie]

But it's not yet clear whether Scotland becoming independent would count as a new state joining the EU, or whether it would count as a successor state and inherit all the UK's various opt-outs (to do what it wishes with).

Wrong! Both the EU (and NATO for that matter) have said that residual UK would be the successor state and that an independent Scotland would have negotiate membership with all other member states approving (and that, for political reasons, is not a given eg Spain might well say no to try and dissuade Catalonia from going independent).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Participation in Schengen is compulsory for new states joining the EU. It didn't used to be, but I believe this changed with the 1999 Amsterdam Treaty. All new states joining the EU after this date are legally bound to implement Schengen.

A similar scenario occurs with the euro, where new member states are legally bound to join the eurozone, if they meet the criteria to do so.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Proud Salopian]

But he's not untypical of those, especially in the media, who daily predict the collapse or ruination of everything if Scotland becomes independent. Not least the railways. We should just behave, do as we're told, and keep shelling out cash for HS2 and Crossrail.....

The Barnett Formula will mean that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will receive money because of government spending on HS2 and Crossrail which is England-only.

Not something the SNP speak much about, of course... :roll:

As for membership of the EU and NATO (and other international organisations) - it's quite clear in international law that Scotland would be a new state (the UK would not end - it would continue albeit with a smaller territory, just like when the Irish Free State separated in the 1920s) and as a new state would have to join the UN, EU, etc etc. Not going to be a problem (can't see the UN, EU, NATO, WTO etc rejecting Scottish membership) but it may mean that Scotland has to join the Euro. Regarding Schengen - Scotland would probably get away with not having to join this aspect of the EU as both the UK and RoI are without it and Scotland would no doubt be included in the Common Travel Area of the British Isles. But I would imagine the EU (ie most of the member states and certainly the Commission) would press for Scotland to join the Euro.

All hypothetical as thankfully there is a small majority of Scots who oppose all this separatist nonsense. Hopefully in the next 10-20 years there can be a lasting settlement in the UK - for all four of our constituent nations/countries - regarding devolution (INCLUDING ENGLAND which is totally overlooked in all this - see West Lothian question).

 

[Wolfie]

By that argument the country consisting of England, Northern Ireland and Wales should also be counted as a new country, as there is no such country now. So post-independence both countries would have to adopt Schengen*, and the border will be open. Problem solved.

*and the euro

Again wrong! There is precedence - Russia took on the rights and responsibilities of the USSR when that country broke up. Residual UK would have the rights of current UK. New Scotland, who knows.....

 

[Proud Salopian]

Again wrong! There is precedence - Russia took on the rights and responsibilities of the USSR when that country broke up. Residual UK would have the rights of current UK. New Scotland, who knows.....

Indeed - though in my view, the most obvious precedence is what happened when the Irish Free State broke away from the UK. Exactly the same would happen if Scotland broke away - the United Kingdom continues but with a smaller territory and (again, like in the 1920s, probably after a few years of wrangling) a rename of the "geographic descriptor" in the name (United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland -> United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland -> United Kingdom of England, Wales & Northern Ireland).

Can't wait for the referendum to be over, for devolution to be enhanced (and essentially "fixed") and the SNP to become "pointless".

 

[tbtc]

The Barnett Formula will mean that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will receive money because of government spending on HS2 and Crossrail which is England-only.

Not something the SNP speak much about, of course... :roll:

I thought that HS2 was a "national project" and therefore not subject to Barnett (despite much excitement in Wales recently, when they thought that this would mean more money)

 

[Wolfie]

I imagine something like the Ireland Act 1949 would be enacted, where Irish citizens and products of Irish manufacture are not foreign to the United Kingdom.

Not needed if an independent Scotland is in the EU! Freedom of mobility and labour.....

Might be a problem for Scots folk in certain sensitive UK Govt jobs though.....

 

[Proud Salopian]

I thought that HS2 was a "national project" and therefore not subject to Barnett (despite much excitement in Wales recently, when they thought that this would mean more money)

Really? That would be news to me. I'd like to know if this really is the case (got a link or so?) as I would be very surprised if the Barnett Formula didn't kick in - the expenditure by the government would clearly be England-only!

 

[ainsworth74]

Not going to be a problem (can't see the UN, EU, NATO, WTO etc rejecting Scottish membership) but it may mean that Scotland has to join the Euro.

I'm not so confident. If the Scottish Government continues to pursue a no-nuclear policy and even worse (from NATO's view) if they force the rUK to disarm by refusing to allow for a slow and planned withdrawal of Trident from Scotland then I think that could have a significant impact on their application.

NATO is a nuclear alliance and I'm not sure they could get the unanimous support of all 28 members if they rejected nuclear weapons and defacto disarmed another member.

UN is easy, WTO I don't know enough to comment on. EU could be dicey (Spain might not like the precedent it would set for Catalonia) but probably would be fine. That being said I'm not so sure they'd be able to get away with not joining Schengen. It's a requirement for all new members and I don't see what Scotland would bring to the table that could make the EU agree to giving them an opt-out.

Really? That would be news to me. I'd like to know if this really is the case (got a link or so?) as I would be very surprised if the Barnett Formula didn't kick in - the expenditure by the government would clearly be England-only!

Well there are services will be using HS2 to reach Scotland so whilst the infrastructure itself won't get there the benefits will. Also the Government annouced that they're starting a consultation or something along those lines about extending the line to Scotland.

 

[DownSouth]

While the high speed line itself might well only be located in England, there are clearly going to be benefits for cross-border transport to/from both Wales and Scotland. The improvements in passenger journey time would be a part of that, but the biggest gain would easily be the increase in capacity for freight on the classic lines and for trailer transport services on the UIC gauge line during the overnight off-peak periods.

In the same way, the federal government in Australia fully funded a project to build new underpasses for local passenger lines in Adelaide owned by the state government, the benefit being not to the local network but to the national freight network. Now the Adelaide-Melbourne corridor no longer has frequency dictated by local commuter trains and an instant 20% capacity increase on every train now that 1800m trains can run instead of being restricted to 1500m by major level crossings near the former flat junctions.

 

[Garmoran]

Can't wait for the referendum to be over, for devolution to be enhanced (and essentially "fixed") and the SNP to become "pointless".

I fear that those who believe that a majority No vote will draw a line under the SNP's ambition for a fully independent Scotland are destined for disappointment. Just substitute Parti Quebecois for SNP and Canada for UK then compare...

 

[merlodlliw]

No. Dyfrdwy, to spell it correctly, is the river which the English call the Dee. The name is of some interest. The first part 'dyfr' is the old rendering of 'dwr' meaning water. This is the origin of the name Dover. The second part 'dwy' means that is the main or ruling river in the district.

Sadly, it has nothing to with whisky, whiskey or wisgi. Whisky, of whatever spelling, was produced in Wales from sometime in the middle ages until 1910, when the distillery at Frongoch near Bala finally closed, (The temperance movement was at its height.), and that was that until the distillery in Penderyn, near Merhyr Tydfil, opened with its first products going on sale in 2004.

The temperance movement in Bala was indeed at its height,Calvinistic Methodist or Welsh Presbyterian Theological College, overlooked the town.
No shops open on Sunday,I recall what were called heathens selling Sunday Newspapers from a pram(1950s early 60s), The movement was still strong in the 80s,a newsagent & general stores about five miles from Bala on the Capel Celyn road applied for an off license,all hell broke loose,the newsagent managed to get the application heard at Dolgellau magistrates court,as he considered local Bala magistrates to be biased one JP was also an organizer of a petition against the application.
The application was heard in neighboring Dolgellau,has I knew the person making the application due to being in wholesale news at the time, he told me the key opponent,the JP poured hatred on the drinks application etc,the newsagent questioned the opponent,"Do you take an alcoholic drink",only for medicinal reasons was the response,well I only want to sell alcohol for medicinal reasons was the reply. Off License granted.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Forgive me as I have skipped a few pages.

Personally I will be disappointed if the UK breaks up. We all want to be individuals but we all need to belong. Thats why I am keen on the EU but not totally sure.

Having read most of the thread I have a silly question. Where does it say that Scotland will stay in the EU ?. Does Scotland have to and does Scotland want to ?.

I terms of railway operations I think not much will change at first. Then as each side of the border becomes responsible for their side there will be some gradual change.

I imagine the slower/local services will only just cross the border. That will most likely be Carlisle and Newcastle as they have convenient connections anyway. The only odd thing is that they are both in England. Oh and how different is that to now ?.

With Intercity I can see it being easy to terminate services from London at Glasgow (not much change there) and Edinburgh. Terminating at Edinburgh reduces the need for Bi-Mode so that might be a neat solution. I can see services beyond Edinburgh being better integrated with local services North of the central lowlands. The central lowlands of Scotland (I mean the Glasgow - Edinburgh area) must be the main source of Anglo Scottish travel anyway.

Cross Country I can see behaving the same as Intercity. There maybe some services from either side of the border probing further into the other side though. But again I think the lack of electrification North of the Central Lowlands will weaken this tendency. Cross country will find itself confronted by an all electric route from Edinburgh to as far South as Birmingham in the not too distant future. That might lead to Cross Country in England changing. There could be services from Edinburgh/Glasgow as far South as Birmingham using electric only trains. There could be Bi-Modes from further South and South West only as far as Manchester/Leeds.

I imagine I have oversimplified this but my point is that Scotland in transport terms comprises an almost single heavily populated area (Glasgow-Edinburgh) with provinces beyond that (as in further away from the rest of the UK).

Incidentally Wales is different in that the South Wales coast is close to the Thames corridor - that is one population/employment area, The North Wales coast is the other main area and is close to Merseyside/Greater-Manchester. These two distinct areas are at opposite ends of Wales with little in between. They are more associated with their neighbouring conurbations in England than with the rest of Wales.

I know I have ignored the detail but I think I am correct in saying that the Central Lowlands of Scotland form the single coherent economic area for Scotland and is conveniently located close-ish to the border with England. London is at the wrong end of England by comparison.

Apologies to the good residents of places like Aberdeen and Shrewsbury for my simplification but I hope I am indicating where I see the economic and logistical pressures might take things. It really depends how much these pressures change and/or how much existing government support has ignored these pressures.

 

[class303]

This



But he's not untypical of those, especially in the media, who daily predict the collapse or ruination of everything if Scotland becomes independent. Not least the railways. We should just behave, do as we're told, and keep shelling out cash for HS2 and Crossrail.....

Where did I predict the collapse of Scotland in the highly unlikely event of a YES vote? I just detest nationalism and xenophobia and I especially detest Alex Salmond. Anyway that's my last post on this off topic subject. The bold George Galloway can sum up my views far more eloquently than I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CamjOvAmgW4

I wish yes aww ra best! up the ton!

 

[anme]

I expect Scotland will be allowed to join the EU in the case that it does vote for indepedence. Probably they wouldn't be forced into Schengen (which would be impractical if the rest of the UK doesn't join) and likely not the Euro either. Treaties can always be changed or worked around. It is a different situation to e.g. Albania joining, because the territory and population are currently in the EU.

Ultimately it will depend on whether it benefits the EU more to have Scotland in or out. I expect the answer is 'in', although there is a possibility that someone like Spain will kick up a fuss.

Regarding cross border rail operations - an independent Scotland might well reorganise its rail industry. Who knows - there might even be an integrated, nationalised "Scottish Rail" one day. I don't see any reason why existing services can't continue, however the systems are structured north and south of the border.

 

[duncanp]

I fear that those who believe that a majority No vote will draw a line under the SNP's ambition for a fully independent Scotland are destined for disappointment. Just substitute Parti Quebecois for SNP and Canada for UK then compare...

Just to point out that Quebec has had two referendums on independence from Canada, and each time the result has been no.

After all, if the result of the referendum is Yes, you would hardly expect to have another one in 10 years time asking if Scotland wants to opt back into the UK.

According to The Scotsman a few weeks ago, support for independence is "flatlining" (their words not mine) at 25%. However there is a long time to go and this could change of course.

I suspect that in the event of a No vote, especially if the majority is small, the SNP will try to extract concessions from the UK government so that Scotland becomes similar in status to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

I think rail services will continue much as they are at the moment if the result was Yes. Any indpendent country needs good communications with its neighbours for economic reasons.

 

[Proud Salopian]

I suspect that in the event of a No vote, especially if the majority is small, the SNP will try to extract concessions from the UK government so that Scotland becomes similar in status to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

Certainly not in a technical constitutional sense - the Crown Dependencies are under the direct sovereignty of the British Crown (and have no representation in the UK Parliament). They may well be independent in most matters, but are very much an anomaly in terms of sovereignty, international jurisdictions, and the like. There certainly won't be any "new" Crown Dependencies (which are effectively feudal remains) - the UK's overseas territories for example (eg Gibraltar, St Helena, etc) are on completely different constitutional footings, as British Overseas Territories.

What you're thinking of, I think, is Scotland as an autonomous part of the United Kingdom - ie all government is devolved except for a very select few "reserved matters" such as defence and foreign affairs (ie 'external' matters). This is sometimes referred to as "devo[lution] max". This is certainly a possibility, but can only happen with fundamental changes to the governance of England and how Parliament at Westminster functions (indeed these matters should be addressed even with the present devolution situation). Scottish MPs should not be able to vote at Westminster on matters that are devolved to Scotland (and ditto for the Welsh MPs and Irish MPs). Either that or create an English Parliament and transform the Westminster Parliament into a smaller body that deals with "federal" matters only. That then impacts on the position of Prime Minister - he would become a fairly minor position, at least domestically, with the English, Scottish, etc, First Ministers as the main wielders of powers.

All this is rarely discussed by politicians or the media and it really irritates me. This is important stuff and needs to be settled whatever happens to Scotland - even if Scotland departs the UK, there is still the issue of devolution and the "West Lothian question"/"English question" because of Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

[ainsworth74]

Who knows - there might even be an integrated, nationalised "Scottish Rail" one day.

If you mean infrastructure and trains as one entity that would be in violation of EU regulations which requires seperation of the two.

 

[reb0118]

If you mean infrastructure and trains as one entity that would be in violation of EU regulations which requires seperation of the two.

True, but there are workarounds. Quite a few EU countries have split up infrastructure & operations as fully owned subsidiaries of an arms length state owned company.

 

[DownSouth]

If you mean infrastructure and trains as one entity that would be in violation of EU regulations which requires seperation of the two.

A moot point if a post-secession Scotland's application for EU membership is vetoed by other members, or if they choose not to apply to join.

EU membership certainly couldn't follow immediately after secession from the UK, there would need to be a lengthy transition period (during which Scotland might be granted some sort of observer status) while they get things sufficiently detangled from the UK before they even start getting ready for Schengen and the Euro.

Even UN membership is not a certainty, as the UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and therefore would have the power to veto an application for membership from a post-secession Scotland. It would be extremely unlikely to happen, but could be a good threat to wheel out if the Scottish leaders tried to make unreasonable demands in regards to working out arrangements around the division of assets and liabilities, maritime borders and transitional arrangements for defence assets.

Scottish MPs should not be able to vote at Westminster on matters that are devolved to Scotland (and ditto for the Welsh MPs and Irish MPs). Either that or create an English Parliament and transform the Westminster Parliament into a smaller body that deals with "federal" matters only. That then impacts on the position of Prime Minister - he would become a fairly minor position, at least domestically, with the English, Scottish, etc, First Ministers as the main wielders of powers.

All this is rarely discussed by politicians or the media and it really irritates me. This is important stuff and needs to be settled whatever happens to Scotland - even if Scotland departs the UK, there is still the issue of devolution and the "West Lothian question"/"English question" because of Wales and Northern Ireland.

Using the House of Commons as the English devolved legislature could work in this way, if at the same time the House of Lords was also replaced with something that looked a bit more like the Australian Senate to serve as the "federal" legislative chamber retaining the "Lords" name for historical purposes only.

Such a Senate/Lords would need to have multi-member electorates to make it representative. If the boundaries of the present European Parliament electoral divisions were used, a suitably-sized Senate/Lords of 200 members would be achieved by giving each constituency a number of Senators/Lords equal to double their current number of MEPs plus (to make sure the smaller regions aren't easily crushed) four extras to each English constituency and six extras to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

[anme]

Using the House of Commons as the English devolved legislature could work in this way, (snipped).

I think an English legislature is a terrible idea. Much better would be to divide England into smaller regions and devolve powers to those. Having governments for Scotland, Wales and London has been a big success. Government at this level seems particularly effective. We should not create something that's just a slightly smaller version of the UK government.

 

[merlodlliw]

I think an English legislature is a terrible idea. Much better would be to divide England into smaller regions and devolve powers to those. Having governments for Scotland, Wales and London has been a big success. Government at this level seems particularly effective. We should not create something that's just a slightly smaller version of the UK government.

Success, are you including the devolved health service in Wales, in the North of Wales its chaos.

 

[burneside]

I think an English legislature is a terrible idea. Much better would be to divide England into smaller regions and devolve powers to those. Having governments for Scotland, Wales and London has been a big success. Government at this level seems particularly effective. We should not create something that's just a slightly smaller version of the UK government.

The last Labour government tried this about 10 years ago, the first region (in the North East) to have a referendum to decide if the electorate actually wanted devolved powers overwhelmingly rejected the idea. The referendums planned for other areas were subsequently abandoned.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Success, are you including the devolved health service in Wales, in the North of Wales its chaos.

There are problems to be sorted but you might also have noted that the Health Service in England is constantly in the news for all the wrong reasons.

 

[merlodlliw]

There are problems to be sorted but you might also have noted that the Health Service in England is constantly in the news for all the wrong reasons.

I agree, but the North Wales trust (Betsi Cadwaladr) was so bad,the Chairman resigned because the Chef Exec would not speak to him, she also resigned at the same time because the Chairman would not speak to her, this is also the largest Trust in Wales setting a pathetic example some of which at Glan Clwyd hospital near Rhyl are awful. Both the Ex Chairman & CEO of the North Wales trust were appointed by the Cardiff WG Minister,who appeared to do nothing when red lights were flashing until the law suits arrived,then the examiners were sent in.

 

[anme]

The last Labour government tried this about 10 years ago, the first region (in the North East) to have a referendum to decide if the electorate actually wanted devolved powers overwhelmingly rejected the idea. The referendums planned for other areas were subsequently abandoned.

That is true. Still a good idea, though, with the more powers being devolved the better (within reason, of course).

 

[edwin_m]

Scottish independence would probably give the Westminster Parliament an inbuilt Tory majority, so those regions of England where only a small minority support that party are probably going to be looking for some autonomy of their own.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That is true. Still a good idea, though, with the more powers being devolved the better (within reason, of course).

Even so, that idea is still at the mercy of the electorate, who at times, must drive the politicians who see much-espoused projects doomed to failure, to total distraction.

I will quote you an example of a large regional PTE espousement of the two-tier ring belt around Manchester comprising of a congestion charge from which the monies raised at that time would have funded a major expansion of the Manchester Metrolink system. The "Greater Manchester" 10-area map shows a major Labour party presence and it was from that political base that this project was espoused and given great publicity showing what the benefit to the area would be.

However, when the referendum on the matter was put to the electorate who realised that many of these travelling to and from the area concerned to work and shop would be "hit in their pockets" by these proposals, altruistic principles of social fairness went "out of the window" and subsequently, all ten areas voted overwhelmingly against the proposals, even the rock-solid Labour area of Wigan.