Scotland votes no to Independence

[radamfi]

What's your theory ?

There isn't really much comment on this because everyone expects it to be a No vote. The bookmakers are pretty certain of the result as the odds for a No are 1/6. That's pretty unequivocal for a two horse race.

 

[Johnuk123]

There isn't really much comment on this because everyone expects it to be a No vote. The bookmakers are pretty certain of the result as the odds for a No are 1/6. That's pretty unequivocal for a two horse race.

I think the real reason is that this part of the forum is rarely visited by the vast majority they are only interested in railways which is fine as it is a railway forum.

 

[Oswyntail]

However, you do have to realise that there is one side that can create absolute certainty and that is the No side......

Of course, if the Nos did anything like that, the Yes side would complain they were bullying - as they have done with boring (and hilarious) regularity. This is why Salmond (IIRC) insisted there would be no discussion of detail beforehand.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There isn't really much comment on this because everyone expects it to be a No vote. The bookmakers are pretty certain of the result as the odds for a No are 1/6. That's pretty unequivocal for a two horse race.

Odds are based upon how much money people are betting on either side. Given that there have been some enormous bets on a No vote, the bookies have to make that option less enticing so that the betting system doesn't collapse.

 

[SWTCommuter]

However, you do have to realise that there is one side that can create absolute certainty and that is the No side. David Cameron could phone up the EU and get an official, legally-binding opinion on Scotland and the EU that would become part of the independence vote (as in, if the EU say officially that Scotland will have to leave and then re-enter, then a Yes vote would be a vote for that in constitutional terms). However, he has not done this. If he were confident that Scotland wouldn't get in to the EU, why would he not get this legal advice and parade it around as an absolute reason to vote No? This is where it becomes apparent why he has not done such a thing; if he gets official answers, those answers would not help the No side. Instead, keeping everything uncertain gives ammunition to Better Together as they know that people will tend to vote for 'certainty', as a part of the UK, versus uncertainty as an independent state.

Is there anyone at the EU empowered to give that 'legally-binding opinion' when such a decision would depend on the agreement of all the member states?

Andrew Marr sought the opinion of the most powerful EU official back in February:

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the European Union.

Speaking to the BBC's Andrew Marr he said an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership and get the approval of all current member states.

In his interview with Andrew Marr, Mr Barroso said: "In case there is a new country, a new state, coming out of a current member state it will have to apply."

He went on: "Of course it will be extremely difficult to get the approval of all the other member states to have a new member coming from one member state."

Mr Barroso cited the example of the Spanish not recognising Kosovo.

He said: "We have seen Spain has been opposing even the recognition of Kosovo, for instance. So it is to some extent a similar case because it's a new country and so I believe it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, a new member state coming out of our countries getting the agreement of the others."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963

 

[DownSouth]

Is there anyone at the EU empowered to give that 'legally-binding opinion' when such a decision would depend on the agreement of all the member states?

And additionally, 'legally-binding opinion' is an oxymoron!

… the sovereign will of the Scottish people … sovereign will of the people of Scotland … it is now bound to respect that sovereign will in the same way that it is bound by all other constitutional precedent. … if the people voted to abolish it then Parliament could then not justifiably ignore that on the basis of being re-elected with the promise of reinstating them. The absolute final will of the people is what matters … it's the final sovereign will of the people of Scotland …

Repeating it often enough doesn't make it true.

It sounds like the UK needs a Constitution. Without one, you have no way of defining a discrete set of methods by which it can be amended, to the exclusion of all other methods.

The armed forces are going around saying that a Scottish bit can't be broken off like a chocolate bar.

Makes sense, the UK operates an integrated UK defence force and not a collection of Home Nations militias. The ideal option there is probably for the UK to keep their defence forces, and for Scotland to grant the UK use of bases (including Faslane) for which they would get a mutual defence guarantee and the right to recruit personnel to transfer over from the UK defence forces and start building their own defence forces.

The issue of the economics comes into it though - if Scotland wants to secede without taking their fair share of the UK's sovereign debts, as you agree there's surely no right to take any UK assets that are not fixed to the ground and no right to have any say in the UK's management of their currency.

Beyond that any EU citizen has a right to consular assistance from any other EU embassy, so the UK could not deny Scottish passport holders use of their embassies and if they did we would just use Ireland or another EU state's.

That assumes Scotland gains EU membership, an assumption which is rather tenuous given the previous history of Spain vetoing Kosovo's bid for membership, despite Spain having been a participant on the NATO side in various armed interventions in the Balkans.

Bilateral agreements to offer consular assistance could be agreed between Scotland and any other country (which might or might not be the UK), irrespective of EU membership, as many countries do around the world in areas where they have little need for a full diplomatic mission. These bilateral agreements would probably need to be subject to financial payment initially, due to Scotland not yet having any capacity to offer mutual assistance in return.

Scotland would not be willing to have only a share of the most important embassies and high commissions in any case for particularly long - we would buy fancy houses in Washington DC, Paris, Berlin, Beijing etc during the transition period so that our place as an independent country was immediately established.

"Sharing" an embassy for purposes other than consular assistance would be a non-starter for the UK as well. If the secession goes ahead, there are a number of areas where the UK will have no option but to play hardball (including the big stick of threatening to veto UN, EU and NATO membership) in order to demonstrate to the international community that it is a secession which leaves the UK's international status unchanged, and not a Czechoslovakia-style mutual divorce.

Retaining ALL diplomatic missions, retaining memberships of international organisations, retaining the current internationally recognised name (as Yugoslavia did for many years after most of the territory was lost) and most visibly the national flag (including other ensigns and insignia such as the identifying marks of the UK defence forces) of the UK are four of the most visible areas that won't be up for compromise. The name of the UK and the national flags/insignia could be changed at some point later in the piece, on the initiative of the people/government of the UK only and without Scotland getting a say in what would by that time be a foreign power's internal affairs.

… given that all Scottish citizens would remain citizens of the UK regardless of the outcome, for the simple reason that no one can be forced to give up their UK one and the independent Scottish state would see resident rUK citizens as having the same rights as Scottish ones. …

Both of those would be subject to change over time. I cannot see the UK agreeing to a treaty that would force them to grant citizen-like rights to citizens of Scotland permanently, that is one of the areas where the UK will have to protect its sovereignty.

For all the things that Scotland depend upon that are in the rUK, there are things that the rUK depend upon that are in Scotland, so as a stalemate is makes perfect sense to allow both to work as normal during a transition period. Given that the Tories would be more than happy to outsource the DVLA operation to the French Atos company, it would be bizarre for them to reject the idea of other 'essential' services being effectively outsourced to an independent Scotland on commercial terms in return for a commercial outsourcing of Scottish functions to rUK institutions like the DVLA. The UK Government's propensity to regularly spend billions of pounds on replacement IT systems means that the chance to separate the systems, if need be, would arise sooner rather than later as part of a normal complete failure of a new government programme.

Just out of curiosity, what UK institutions do such a large majority of their work in Scotland that it would make sense for Scotland (with 8% of the combined population) to take ownership instead of the UK with 92% of the combined population? The UK Bagpipes Regulation Office and UK Haggis Standards Authority maybe

Seriously, wouldn't it make sense for all UK national institutions to stay with the UK at first (at least for administrative purposes, even if they have an office building in Edinburgh) but with Scottish government standing up new Scottish equivalents which would take on their responsibilities from the UK equivalents.

Overall it is not surprising why the suggestion has realistically been put forward, and why the SNP position is that we want to pay our share as part of a currency union but that we would be more than willing to reject a share if we don't get one.

I'm not convinced that a currency union is a good idea for either Scotland or the UK.

The idea that Scotland would get enough of a say in the fiscal policy (again, that 92/8 population split) of a currency union to make it worthwhile for them is hard to swallow, after all the years of refusing the Euro it's simply ludicrous to expect the UK to give away the ability to make their own fiscal policy.

The Australian Pound was pegged to the Sterling after Federation, which consequently subjected Australia to the fiscal policies of the UK, which rarely took the interests of Australia into account. I hope the SNP leaders are looking at lessons from history on this kind of issue.

can I ask the Mods what plans there are for the title of the RailUK forums in the event of a majority for Scottish Independence?

Getting to the important questions now!

Most of the railways will still be in the UK, so maybe that should be one of those situations where it would depend on a fair share of the sovereign debt being accepted!

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is there anyone at the EU empowered to give that 'legally-binding opinion' when such a decision would depend on the agreement of all the member states?

Andrew Marr sought the opinion of the most powerful EU official back in February:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963

The EU could state whether the process of entry would be an Article 48 treaty amendment or an Article 49 accession. The former makes it certain that the new Scottish state would be a member of the EU from the first moment of its creation; the latter would make it more likely that Scotland would leave and then rejoin.

Kosovo is an absurd example for Mr Barroso to use because it is a partly-recognised state. The only people who use that example are people with some incentive to discourage a Yes vote - remember that Barroso was trying to become Secretary-General of NATO and he wanted the UK's support for it by saying stupid things about Scottish independence. Literally across the border from Kosovo is Montenegro, which became independent from Serbia and Montenegro (the last vestige of Yugoslavia) in 2005 after a free and fair referendum. This referendum was respected by the Serbian government and Montenegro is fully recognised state, and it gained full acceptance from all major powers and organisations immediately with no drama.

The UK Government is bound by the Edinburgh Agreement to accept a Yes vote and the resulting independent state will be fully recognised around the world. After a Yes vote nothing the Spanish can do would put the genie back in the bottle and stop independence happening - they can't pretend that Scotland doesn't exist and talk to the UK Government about fishing fleets up there because the UK Government would point them towards the Scottish one and say it's no longer their problem.

The only thing the Spanish can do is work to ensure that as much of the status quo will survive, in order to minimise the transition costs, time and difficulty for the entire world. That means ensuring that the rights, opt-outs of the independent Scotland plus the rUK are the same as the complete UK beforehand, leaving the Edinburgh-London negotiations to sort out how to divide them up in the best way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And additionally, 'legally-binding opinion' is an oxymoron!

The choice of words might not be the best but the point I make is not invalid. The referendum result binds the UK and Scottish governments to what the Edinburgh Agreement says would happen after that result. If the UK went to the EU and they had a real set of advice on what would happen after a Yes vote, it would be difficult for the EU to then say that what would happen would be different.

Repeating it often enough doesn't make it true.

The United Kingdom is a democracy. From a historical perspective Government may get its powers from Parliament, which got them from the Crown, which got them from God, but in this modern world the legitimacy of the UK Government comes from the democratic will of the people of the country. Using that logic, the UK Government and Parliament would be able to enact legislation that suspended democracy. Such a thing could never happen, even when there is no written constitution that prevents it, because of the power of unwritten constitutional precedent.

On September 18th the people of Scotland will be sovereign because they and they alone will dictate the constitutional future of the country.

It sounds like the UK needs a Constitution. Without one, you have no way of defining a discrete set of methods by which it can be amended, to the exclusion of all other methods.

After a Yes vote the demand for a proper written constitution would become unbearable, especially when the legal core of the Union had gone.

Makes sense, the UK operates an integrated UK defence force and not a collection of Home Nations militias. The ideal option there is probably for the UK to keep their defence forces, and for Scotland to grant the UK use of bases (including Faslane) for which they would get a mutual defence guarantee and the right to recruit personnel to transfer over from the UK defence forces and start building their own defence forces.

The issue of the economics comes into it though - if Scotland wants to secede without taking their fair share of the UK's sovereign debts, as you agree there's surely no right to take any UK assets that are not fixed to the ground and no right to have any say in the UK's management of their currency.

My point is primarily the other way around. Even if an amical agreement could be made without a currency union but with Scotland taking on its share of the debt, it would be almost impossible to properly divide up the value of the assets not located in Scotland. The official sharing of embassies as an tem to be negotiated is meaningless when Scotland and the rUK would be forced to open any embassies and assistance to other EU citizens, so what is then important is the monetary value of what has been built around the world. It won't be possible to put an entire Scottish embassy in the one-tenth of all embassies that Scotland has in the world, but the value of that one-tenth is an asset that could not be denied to the Scots if they wished to take on some of the liabilities as well. Through whatever means that asset would need to be given to us - that could mean a reduction in the total debt we take on or it could mean that amount of cash that would then be available to us to help set up our own embassies abroad.

That assumes Scotland gains EU membership, an assumption which is rather tenuous given the previous history of Spain vetoing Kosovo's bid for membership, despite Spain having been a participant on the NATO side in various armed interventions in the Balkans.

Kosovo had a referendum that was not authorised or acknowledged by the Serbian government. If Spain had recognised it, it would set a precedent for it to recognise independent Catalan and Basque states without there being permission from Madrid. Montenegro had a referendum whose result was recognised by Serbia and the entire international community, including Spain. The Scottish referendum is the same, ergo Spain has to recognise us. At that point there's no logic in causing enormous problems for the EU and other international organisations by vetoing our entry.

Bilateral agreements to offer consular assistance could be agreed between Scotland and any other country (which might or might not be the UK), irrespective of EU membership, as many countries do around the world in areas where they have little need for a full diplomatic mission. These bilateral agreements would probably need to be subject to financial payment initially, due to Scotland not yet having any capacity to offer mutual assistance in return.

As I said, as a member of the EU you have to do this without there being any need for compensating countries for consular assistance not reciprocated.

"Sharing" an embassy for purposes other than consular assistance would be a non-starter for the UK as well. If the secession goes ahead, there are a number of areas where the UK will have no option but to play hardball (including the big stick of threatening to veto UN, EU and NATO membership) in order to demonstrate to the international community that it is a secession which leaves the UK's international status unchanged, and not a Czechoslovakia-style mutual divorce.

The UK cannot justifiably veto Scottish membership of any organisation because it is bound to recognise the state as independent. It would be a rather bizarre logic to say that 'recognition as an independent state' does not include allowing us into the UN, when all recognised independent states are members of it in some way or another.

NATO is not a matter of us having to ask nicely to join; it's a matter of absolute necessity for the alliance that we do join regardless of the cost. If we do not join, it would leave the GIUK gap with an enormous security hole in it, allowing the Russians to have completely free reign in doing whatever they want.

Retaining ALL diplomatic missions, retaining memberships of international organisations, retaining the current internationally recognised name (as Yugoslavia did for many years after most of the territory was lost) and most visibly the national flag (including other ensigns and insignia such as the identifying marks of the UK defence forces) of the UK are four of the most visible areas that won't be up for compromise. The name of the UK and the national flags/insignia could be changed at some point later in the piece, on the initiative of the people/government of the UK only and without Scotland getting a say in what would by that time be a foreign power's internal affairs.

Yes, it is correct that the rUK would be seen as the successor state. There is no reason for it to change its name (other than to make it the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland). Whether it remains as a member of the UNSC depends upon whether such a biblical event (primarily the difficulty of keeping nukes) is enough to force the long-overdue reform of the council. In reality the UK does nothing on the board, given that at all times its opinion will be shared by one or other or both of the United States and France. In all seriousness the UK and French representations should be condensed into a European Union one (a role that France basically performs today) while letting Brazil and India to have a bit more of a say.

Both of those would be subject to change over time. I cannot see the UK agreeing to a treaty that would force them to grant citizen-like rights to citizens of Scotland permanently, that is one of the areas where the UK will have to protect its sovereignty.

2 Republic of Ireland not a foreign country.

(1)It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty’s dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, and references in any Act of Parliament, other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, to foreigners, aliens, foreign countries, and foreign or foreign-built ships or aircraft shall be construed accordingly.

(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2

Ireland became independent after a civil war. Scotland would become independent after the most fabulous free and fair referendum on independence that the world has ever seen.

Just out of curiosity, what UK institutions do such a large majority of their work in Scotland that it would make sense for Scotland (with 8% of the combined population) to take ownership instead of the UK with 92% of the combined population? The UK Bagpipes Regulation Office and UK Haggis Standards Authority maybe

The UK Government has tended to move back-office functions of bureaucracy to places with lower labour costs (Scotland, Wales and the North of England). Various institutions like HMRC or the Student Loans Company have significant operations north of the border that deal with matters across the whole UK. I know they're rather small fry in the grand scheme of things but the HMNB Clyde card would be in the hands of the Scottish negotiators. Unlike an army unit or an air force squadron Trident and the naval base are a permanent asset within Scotland that could not be taken from the independent Scotland in the same way that Scotland can't decide to take Berwick-upon-Tweed. If the rUK wants to be able to use it after independence they have to be nice to us. From a democratic perspective there is no reason why the people of Scotland could not take the whole thing and close it down in the first minute of independence unless we agree with the rUK that it could remain accessible for a transition period.

Seriously, wouldn't it make sense for all UK national institutions to stay with the UK at first (at least for administrative purposes, even if they have an office building in Edinburgh) but with Scottish government standing up new Scottish equivalents which would take on their responsibilities from the UK equivalents.

Yes, basically. The Scottish Government could effectively outsource its operations to the people who control them at the moment. When the time comes for systems renewals and reorganisations that can be an opportunity to create our own. Westminster has quite a history of wasting biblical sums of money on failed IT systems; I'm sure we could do less badly.

I'm not convinced that a currency union is a good idea for either Scotland or the UK.

The idea that Scotland would get enough of a say in the fiscal policy (again, that 92/8 population split) of a currency union to make it worthwhile for them is hard to swallow, after all the years of refusing the Euro it's simply ludicrous to expect the UK to give away the ability to make their own fiscal policy.

The Australian Pound was pegged to the Sterling after Federation, which consequently subjected Australia to the fiscal policies of the UK, which rarely took the interests of Australia into account. I hope the SNP leaders are looking at lessons from history on this kind of issue.

I don't doubt that in the very long term a currency union might not be a good idea. The least bad outcome is that there is some sort of currency union for the transition period, to keep as many things settled and to ensure that things are done sensibly and in order. Once everything settles down it should then be time for an independent Scottish central bank to be created, which would then be responsible for the Scottish content of bailouts and the Bank of England would be responsible for the rUK contents. The two currencies could be kept pegged 1:1 with one another, in the same way that the Danish Krone is pegged to the Euro (at a bizarre rate). There is precedent for the Pound Sterling to be the target of a 1:1 peg with a separate currency, using its own ISO currency code but producing the same physical type and value of coins with different designs. Lots of countries outsource coin production to the Royal Mint, and we have our wonderful separate bank notes already so there's not a problem. If that is enough to keep things stable then that's great. If big problems arise, the Scottish currency could be floated. The level of interdependence between Scotland and the rUK would be like Canada and the United States. Both have free-floating currencies but their values don't really vary from one another ever by enormous amounts, and indeed it has been seriously suggested that an Amero currency union for the two might eventually happen. Unless there's trillions of barrels of oil under the sea around Rockall (I wouldn't be surprised...) the two economies aren't going to diverge too enormously and the rises and falls in one would always have an effect on the other due to their interdependence, even with free-floating currencies.

Getting to the important questions now!

Most of the railways will still be in the UK, so maybe that should be one of those situations where it would depend on a fair share of the sovereign debt being accepted!

The preference of the SNP is to keep the railways almost as-is. The Sleeper and ScotRail franchises are just as valid after a Yes or No, as the track access agreement contracts would survive a split of Network Rail into two separate companies if that were necessary. If Network Rail can cope with being run by Transport Scotland in Scotland today it can cope after a Yes. For NR it is irrelevant whether the TOC is state-owned or not as the contracts are the same, as East Coast shows today, so a future nationalisation of the ScotRail operation would not make a difference.

 

[Oswyntail]

The EU could state whether the process of entry would be an Article 48 treaty amendment or an Article 49 accession. The former makes it certain that the new Scottish state would be a member of the EU from the first moment of its creation; the latter would make it more likely that Scotland would leave and then rejoin.

Kosovo is an absurd example for Mr Barroso to use...

The EU would have to abide by its constitution, and that gives Spain the right to veto. Your first paragraph naively ignores the question of whether Scottish membership is in Spain's interests. Kosovo is not such an absurd example, because it illustrates a section breaking away from a main country against the preferred policy of the government of that country. Nothing happens automatically in international law.

The UK cannot justifiably veto Scottish membership of any organisation because it is bound to recognise the state as independent....

Of course the UK can veto membership, because it is nothing to do with recognising the state as independent. If the UK government believes it is not in the interest of the UK to support Scottish membership, it has every right to veto. Another assumption from the political innocents in Holyrood. Once Scotland leaves the UK, it has as much influence on the UK as any other tiny state.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The EU would have to abide by its constitution, and that gives Spain the right to veto. Your first paragraph naively ignores the question of whether Scottish membership is in Spain's interests. Kosovo is not such an absurd example, because it illustrates a section breaking away from a main country against the preferred policy of the government of that country. Nothing happens automatically in international law.

That statement is utterly irrelevant in this sense. Serbia didn't want Montenegro to break away but it accepted the outcome of its referendum, so now Serbia recognises Montenegro as a fully independent state and both are full members of the international community. The UK Government's policy has been to accept the result of the free and fair referendum, because that was what the Prime Minister signed as the Edinburgh Agreement.

Of course the UK can veto membership, because it is nothing to do with recognising the state as independent. If the UK government believes it is not in the interest of the UK to support Scottish membership, it has every right to veto. Another assumption from the political innocents in Holyrood. Once Scotland leaves the UK, it has as much influence on the UK as any other tiny state.

Spain has had no problems with the EU opening up accession negotiations with Montenegro, despite that state becoming independent in the same way as is wished by the people of Catalonia and the Basque Region. If they were so worried about doing everything in their power to stop separatism, it seems bizarre that they would allow a successful modern separatist movement to enter. Actually, why didn't they stop Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania joining the EU after becoming independent of the Soviet Union? Why not keep both the Czech Republic and Slovakia out, just in case the precedent of a peaceful and legal transition to independent statehood were enough to actually rip Spain asunder? The logical consequence of denying Scottish entry is that theoretically any state that has become independent of another (effectively everyone but England) should no longer be accepted in case that history causes problems.

If there is a Yes vote, nothing that Spain can do will stop Scottish independence from happening. The act of a Yes vote alone is what would drive the Catalan and Basque movements forward; threats about the EU aren't going to do a thing to stop any of them. As I said, there is nothing that Spain or any other country can do to stop independence happening after a Yes vote, including the rUK. The consequence of Spain et al blocking Scottish entry to the EU would be that the single market would be heavily disrupted, and it is not the case that Scotland is some sort of parasite that everyone in the EU wishes to be gotten rid of. If ejected from the single market, it would be entirely reasonable for the independent Scottish state to ban EU access to its immense fishing grounds given that access is an EU right, and the Spanish would be blocking us from fishing theirs. If the UK blocks our entry to the EU against our will then it is entirely our prerogative to seize or blockade Coulport. There's nothing they can do to stop us, as a swift evacuation wouldn't work as there's nowhere to put them anywhere else in the rUK and they would have to travel through Scottish land and waters to get there. Overall you just need to realise that there is a strong incentive for all sides to ensure that negotiations do not get too heated because there is quite a bit of damage that can be done by all sides to all sides if it goes wrong - Mutual Assured Destruction, if you will.

 

[danielnez1]

If there is a Yes vote, nothing that Spain can do will stop Scottish independence from happening. The act of a Yes vote alone is what would drive the Catalan and Basque movements forward; threats about the EU aren't going to do a thing to stop any of them. As I said, there is nothing that Spain or any other country can do to stop independence happening after a Yes vote, including the rUK. The consequence of Spain et al blocking Scottish entry to the EU would be that the single market would be heavily disrupted, and it is not the case that Scotland is some sort of parasite that everyone in the EU wishes to be gotten rid of. If ejected from the single market, it would be entirely reasonable for the independent Scottish state to ban EU access to its immense fishing grounds given that access is an EU right, and the Spanish would be blocking us from fishing theirs. If the UK blocks our entry to the EU against our will then it is entirely our prerogative to seize or blockade Coulport. There's nothing they can do to stop us, as a swift evacuation wouldn't work as there's nowhere to put them anywhere else in the rUK and they would have to travel through Scottish land and waters to get there. Overall you just need to realise that there is a strong incentive for all sides to ensure that negotiations do not get too heated because there is quite a bit of damage that can be done by all sides to all sides if it goes wrong - Mutual Assured Destruction, if you will.

I'm not sure there would be "heavy" disruption to the single market, it is not like the entire EU would be breaking up. Likewise you would not be ejected from the EU, you would be leaving by your own will by voting to become independent from an EU member state. How easy it would be for an independent Scotland to join is another matter, however I feel the SNP have dug their own hole in that regard.

 

[St Rollox]

What will become of RailUKforums?

Will it change it's name to something like, RailformerUKforums.

Will ScotRail be in the international section?

 

[Abpj17]

It could still be called RailUK?

The United Kingdoms are Great Britain and Northern Ireland (not England and Scotland ). They will still be United. It's just that Scotland wouldn't be one of the components of GB anymore.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm not sure there would be "heavy" disruption to the single market, it is not like the entire EU would be breaking up. Likewise you would not be ejected from the EU, you would be leaving by your own will by voting to become independent from an EU member state. How easy it would be for an independent Scotland to join is another matter, however I feel the SNP have dug their own hole in that regard.

No, we are not officially voting to leave the European Union. This is why I am saying that if he really wanted to clear things up, David Cameron could have gone to the EU and got a definitive answer from them, and after consulting with other EU states. No official piece of legislation says that a Yes vote has to be a vote to leave the European Union, so simply assuming this is not good enough. The EU is a democratic institution and there is no intrinsic reason why an independent Scotland could not be a full member, given that it ticks all boxes necessary for entry.

When people bleat on about 'us joining the queue to join' it belies a complete lack of understanding about the process of EU accession. When a country wants to join the EU, it must align its domestic laws to be compatible with the EU acquis before entry. For example, when Croatia was joining it had to pass a Data Protection Act compatible with the EU standard, and had to split railway operations and infrastructure into two separate accounting units with transparent charges for track use. Only once all of these laws have been passed, constitutions changed and legal issues resolved can the country properly join the European Union. The more integrated a country is with Europe already the less time needs to be spent doing this, as for example Norway will have the majority of its laws already in line with the acquis in order for it to be a member of the EFTA.

At this point in time Scotland is within the EU as part of the United Kingdom. Its laws - including Scots law - had to be in line with the EEC one back when the UK joined in 1972 and all new laws have had to be compatible with EU law since then. If there is a Yes vote, all laws currently in force in Scotland will still be in force after independence day, including all of those passed at Westminster with the exception of the laws explicitly repealed by the official sovereignty act and new constitution. Scotland therefore would become a new state with all laws immediately in line with the EU. The only remaining issues are those of the UK's opt-outs, which are not as much problems with domestic law as the agreement of international treaties. The least bad, least disruptive and least time-consuming thing to do is for the whole UK's rights and obligations to be split sensibly between the remaining and new state, so that for the 27 other countries in the EU there would be no material difference. There can be minor changes afterwards but the starting position should be the overall least disruptive option.

The disruption to the single market would be similar to if a state choose to leave, but with the complication that it would also be a new state that then would want to and is more than able to join. There is no logic in kicking Scotland out for 24 months or so just to let it back in again, creating one wonderful legal grey area in that time. For example, given that Scotland would have all the same laws as the EU acquis requires, would it be in effect a member anyway? Would there be freedom of movement, given that the alternative is that all EU citizens would have to be found and made to get a Visa for all of two years. What about all the nominally-Scottish people in the rest of the EU? What about the investments of EU companies in Scotland, and Scottish companies in the EU? If a state is leaving the EU properly, it can sort things out for the long term but if you're just going to let Scotland back in again in a few months/years, the amount of damage you would cause would be far greater.

 

[Oswyntail]

....so simply assuming this is not good enough. .....

Thanks for the chuckle. It seems to me the entire "Yes" campaign is built on "simply assuming" things because, deliberately, no detail has yet been decided.

 

[meridian2]

When people bleat on about 'us joining the queue to join' it belies a complete lack of understanding about the process of EU accession. When a country wants to join the EU, it must align its domestic laws to be compatible with the EU acq before entry.

.

In other words, they screw their respective populations over with a promise of a referendum and then duly don't deliver. And it's because of this the 'Yes' campaign's foundations are entirely built on sand. People are not stupid. They will soon see that Salmond will immediately saunter into the EU market without any care or accountability for the people he's supposed to represent.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Thanks for the chuckle. It seems to me the entire "Yes" campaign is built on "simply assuming" things because, deliberately, no detail has yet been decided.

And why has no detail yet been decided? The only people who can actually do that are the UK Government, who are opposed to Scottish Independence. By not deciding things, they are are solely responsible for this doubt. The Scottish Government cannot go to the European Union and get anything because the EU will not talk to them, as they are not a sovereign member and are instead a regional government. Doubt is a tool to make people afraid to vote Yes, that is all that the Better Together parties now have to go on to try to salvage this referendum.

In other words, they screw their respective populations over with a promise of a referendum and then duly don't deliver. And it's because of this the 'Yes' campaign's foundations are entirely built on sand. People are not stupid. They will soon see that Salmond will immediately saunter into the EU market without any care or accountability for the people he's supposed to represent.

If the people of Scotland vote for a party that supports a referendum on EU membership they are more than entitled to get a referendum. However, in the real world people in Scotland vote for the SNP, Labour and they used to vote for the Lib Dems. Yes, UKIP did win some support in the last European Parliament elections but they came fourth with 10.5% of the vote, behind the SNP at 29.0%, Labour with 25.9% and the Tories with 17.2%. If there were a great demand for a referendum in Scotland the Eurosceptic parties - the Tories, UKIP, Britain First, the BNP and NO2EU - would have got quite a bit more than the 30% of votes that they did get in total. The pro-Europe parties got 70% of the vote in Scotland, so there is no current public desire for a referendum if you go on the low turnouts from the MEP elections. For Scottish and UK Parliament elections the Eurosceptic vote is even lower.

 

[danielnez1]

No, we are not officially voting to leave the European Union...

While it is not on the referendum paper, it is certainly implicit. The very fact that the SNP are saying that they will negotiate after a yes vote shows that EU membership is not certain or automatic.

I'm 100% confident that an independent Scotland will be a EU member state and as you have pointed out Scotland would be compliant with many aspects of it's membership criteria. However Scottish independence would place Scotland in an anomalous situation with regards to the EU and I'd imagine any negotiations would be centred around Scotland joining as a new member state with the UK continuing with its existing arrangements. I wouldn't envision that Spain, Belgium or potentially France would not object to Scotland joining as a new state, as long as it is seen as following due process, with the associated terms and conditions such as eventually adopting the Euro.

Looking at the situation, where there will be trouble is if Scotland starts demanding to pick and choose the best bits of the UK's EU membership such as the opt-outs. Just like the demands for a currency union and a common energy market etc., these are politically unacceptable and Salmond and co's saber rattling will simply serve to harden other countries' position. Scotland won't be in a position to dictate much.

 

[NotATrainspott]

While it is not on the referendum paper, it is certainly implicit. The very fact that the SNP are saying that they will negotiate after a yes vote shows that EU membership is not certain or automatic.

I'm 100% confident that an independent Scotland will be a EU member state and as you have pointed out Scotland would be compliant with many aspects of it's membership criteria. However Scottish independence would place Scotland in an anomalous situation with regards to the EU and I'd imagine any negotiations would be centred around Scotland joining as a new member state with the UK continuing with its existing arrangements. I wouldn't envision that Spain, Belgium or potentially France would not object to Scotland joining as a new state, as long as it is seen as following due process, with the associated terms and conditions such as eventually adopting the Euro.

Looking at the situation, where there will be trouble is if Scotland starts demanding to pick and choose the best bits of the UK's EU membership such as the opt-outs. Just like the demands for a currency union and a common energy market etc., these are politically unacceptable and Salmond and co's saber rattling will simply serve to harden other countries' position. Scotland won't be in a position to dictate much.

The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have a single energy market. If your position is that such things are impossible between Scotland and the rUK then you're clearly wrong. If the rUK decides to go and have a tantrum its only other option is to build many more HVDC links to the Continent and buy their energy from them. If the rUK wants to meet its renewable energy targets it basically has no choice but to buy from Scotland given that it is the cold hard reality of geography that dictates that Scotland has most of Great Britain's renewables potential.

 

[Oswyntail]

And why has no detail yet been decided? The only people who can actually do that are the UK Government,.....

A more "professional" approach would have been for Holyrood and Westminster to get together to agree on some basic principles on issues, such as currency, to provide top-level understanding of what was involved. This was offered, but Salmond refused, because it would have meant presenting a less than perfect dream to the Scottish people. As it is, the Yes campaign can depict anything they don't like as being "Westminster bullying". As far as I can see (or be allowed to see, being English) the whole campaign is based on myths and dreams and has about as much credibility as that Mel Gibson film it is based on.

 

[danielnez1]

The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have a single energy market. If your position is that such things are impossible between Scotland and the rUK then you're clearly wrong. If the rUK decides to go and have a tantrum its only other option is to build many more HVDC links to the Continent and buy their energy from them. If the rUK wants to meet its renewable energy targets it basically has no choice but to buy from Scotland given that it is the cold hard reality of geography that dictates that Scotland has most of Great Britain's renewables potential.

The only ones throwing tantrums are your SNP ministers I'm afraid. As it has been pointed out in other sites, why should a foreign country subsidise another countries renewable energy? That money would be far better spent investing in our own renewables or other energy sources like nuclear.

 

[Spamcan81]

Salmond is a grubby little opportunist. One upside of Scottish independence would be the end of Scottish
MPs in Westminster voting on measures that only affect the rest of the UK.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A more "professional" approach would have been for Holyrood and Westminster to get together to agree on some basic principles on issues, such as currency, to provide top-level understanding of what was involved. This was offered, but Salmond refused, because it would have meant presenting a less than perfect dream to the Scottish people. As it is, the Yes campaign can depict anything they don't like as being "Westminster bullying". As far as I can see (or be allowed to see, being English) the whole campaign is based on myths and dreams and has about as much credibility as that Mel Gibson film it is based on.

And this was 'there shall be no pre-negotiation' Westminster?

“When it comes to why Westminster hasn’t been helping in putting forward the arguments or the numbers for what things cost, I’m afraid that’s because the Edinburgh Agreement which Nicola signed with them precluded any pre-negotiation. It was in there. absolutely to the letter of it, you can Google it tonight, you can pull it up, you can see that they agreed that they would not have any pre-negotiation ahead of a Yes vote.”

Now, she said this at a women's referendum debate next to Nicola Sturgeon, whose signature is literally on the Edinburgh Agreement piece of paper and it says no such thing. This is the calibre of politician who is now responsible for protecting the Union.

The refusal to pre-negotiate is a political tactic, to ensure as much doubt exists as possible (given that doubt helps the No campaign) and because the UK parties believe that independence is something that absolutely, totally will not happen. They have done no preparation for a No vote. This is everyone's government, point-blank refusing to contemplate the notion that it might actually happen. They have a duty as the government of the UK to prepare for all reasonable eventualities - this is why we expect them to have plans in case Ebola comes to the UK or there is another terrorist attack or anything. The chance of Scotland voting Yes is far greater than any of those, but the effect it would have upon the UK, its institutions and its people is most certainly more severe.

The only ones throwing tantrums are your SNP ministers I'm afraid. As it has been pointed out in other sites, why should a foreign country subsidise another countries renewable energy? That money would be far better spent investing in our own renewables or other energy sources like nuclear.

The best value way of adding renewables to the energy market in Great Britain is to build them in Scotland, as there are many, many more places where not as much investment or disruption is needed in order to get the same number of MW. You are more than allowed to invest only in the rUK but you're going to get far less bang for your buck than you would in Scotland. Actually, given that so many people in the UK hate the sight of windfarms it would actually be better for you to pay for them to be up in uninhabited Scotland rather than having to put them in nice bits of England and Wales.

 

[kylemore]

Salmond is a grubby little opportunist. One upside of Scottish independence would be the end of Scottish
MPs in Westminster voting on measures that only affect the rest of the UK.

"Grubby" compared to what? Utter Scum like Cameron and Boris Johnson?

And don't worry we'll be happy to see the back of the Palace of Paedophiles.....sorry - Westminster. The place is soiled beyond any hope of redemption.

 

[danielnez1]

The best value way of adding renewables to the energy market in Great Britain is to build them in Scotland, as there are many, many more places where not as much investment or disruption is needed in order to get the same number of MW. You are more than allowed to invest only in the rUK but you're going to get far less bang for your buck than you would in Scotland. Actually, given that so many people in the UK hate the sight of windfarms it would actually be better for you to pay for them to be up in uninhabited Scotland rather than having to put them in nice bits of England and Wales.

In terms of national interest, I would argue it is still better to build and subsidise our own renewables regardless of of how preferable Scotland's terrain and climate is. Of course an independent Scotland could, and I'm sure would be welcome to sell us electricity at the market rate like we do from France etc.

 

[radamfi]

Interdependency is preferable. That is why the European Coal and Steel Community was formed, so that the Ruhr area, particularly rich in such commodities, didn't have an advantage.

The best sources of electricity in Europe are in thinly populated areas. Norway has more cheap hydroelectricity than it can use and so cables have been built between there and the Netherlands and there are ones proposed between Norway and the UK and between Norway and Germany.

North Africa is virtually uninhabited and has tremendous potential for solar energy. There is more than enough space there to build enough solar panels to power the whole of Europe.

 

[Oswyntail]

And this was 'there shall be no pre-negotiation' Westminster?....

It was proposed, Salmond refused, Westminster politicians spoke in the light of that.

 

[JamesRowden]

North Africa is virtually uninhabited and has tremendous potential for solar energy. There is more than enough space there to build enough solar panels to power the whole of Europe.

A disadvantage regarding solar Power in North Africa is that Photovoltaics are less efficient at high temperatures. When the sun is out, solar panels that point straight at the Sun are more efficient in the UK than in North Africa.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It was proposed, Salmond refused, Westminster politicians spoke in the light of that.

Can you get me a source on that please? Unless the media, which can't exactly be criticised as overly pro-independence, has forgotten that that was ever on the table it would be going on about such a rejected proposition at every opportunity.

 

[St Rollox]

Truth is that events in Scotland will have zero effect on 99% of people living in England unless your some sort of British Bulldog type.
Then your ego might be a bit bruised.

 

[Abpj17]

Truth is that events in Scotland will have zero effect on 99% of people living in England unless your some sort of British Bulldog type.
Then your ego might be a bit bruised.

That's clearly not true. The effect of not paying the Barnett formula and various universal service obligations for the Highlands would have a financial effect. As others have pointed out, Scotland going it alone would entirely change the likelihood of certain parties holding a majority for rUK.