Scotland post-Brexit - what happens next?

[nlogax]

Exactly. I genuinely don't care about what Scotland does (and wish it well) as long as England has its own identity in the end, including Citizenship. I don't want an English identity that is merged into British, it causes too many problems for all. The fact that such a view gets that kind of reaction shows this debate, both on this site and in the public will turn nasty. I don't hold any ill will to Scotland but apparently wanting England to have a separate identity and Citizenship to Britain / UK deserves scorn and venom!

England's identity isn't clear to me and never has been. Certainly against the context of the other home nations. How do you define it? (does this need a separate thread?)

 

[Chester1]

England's identity isn't clear to me and never has been. Certainly against the context of the other home nations. How do you define it? (does this need a separate thread?)

English identity won't be properly defined until the UK breaks up, which looking at Scotland, has clearly started.

It says a lot about English identity that people don't understand that the UK minus Scotland isn't Britain and that the Citizenship of the rump state left won't be British permanently. Minus Wales and Northern Ireland that is especially true!

I see the break up of the UK and the end of the British state (and its Citizenship) as a way of moving on from the UKs former great power status. England would be a normal country like Canada or Australia, not be part of any multi national union or trying to be a great power either.

Its hard to have a debate about Scottish independence when people think the larger state left afterwards will be the same as the current one. rUK will not be the UK! I doubt it would exist for long either.

 

[GusB]

English identity won't be properly defined until the UK breaks up, which looking at Scotland, has clearly started.

It says a lot about English identity that people don't understand that the UK minus Scotland isn't Britain and that the Citizenship of the rump state left won't be British permanently. Minus Wales and Northern Ireland that is especially true!

I see the break up of the UK and the end of the British state (and its Citizenship) as a way of moving on from the UKs former great power status. England would be a normal country like Canada or Australia, not be part of any multi national union or trying to be a great power either.

Its hard to have a debate about Scottish independence when people think the larger state left afterwards will be the same as the current one. rUK will not be the UK! I doubt it would exist for long either.

Do we really think that the state left afterwards will be the same? I certainly don't! Repeating your point over and over and over again isn't helping, and clearly you're the one who isn't listening to anyone else's input. You really are just trolling now.

 

[notlob.divad]

I wasn't joking, and I meant it about Scottish identity just as much as English. I grew up in the West Midlands, which is too often the butt of everybody's jokes to really assert an identity, and I've lived in Yorkshire and Scotland, but always felt more like I was in them than of them. Meanwhile I was still a child when the single market opened up, I regularly travel all over Europe and I can speak 6 other EU languages to varying degrees. I'm European to the core, and the fact that I was stripped of that by people who still refuse to understand that it's even a thing is, to me, deeply disturbing.

Fully agree with you regarding this point and the previous post you made.

I am of England the North West, of English, Scottish and Irish lineage (if you go back far enough) but don't really consider myself either English or particularly British either. However European was an identity I could associate myself with and still do. I now live in Poland and despite very mush calling this home now, I will never consider myself Polish, even if circumstances eventually force me to apply for citizenship. I don't consider myself as having anything particularly in common with the people from Devon, London, Yorkshire or East Anglia, that I can call on to bring about a sense of English identity, nor indeed with the people of Scotland or Wales that I can call on to identify myself as British. However I can call on what I consider European values that help me form my self identity.

I have no preference for what happens to Scotland after Brexit, I am not Scottish and believe in the right to self determination. It is not for a non-Scot to put forward any preference one way or another, but in my opinion a reckoning is coming both in Scotland and Northern Island, the fall out of which could have quite a dramatic effect on what remains. I would fully understand the people of Scotland's desire to seek their own path and reverse the previous decision, after the lies and broken promises of recent years.

 

[MattA7]

I don’t know about England or Wales but in Scotland people usually self-identify in 3 groups:

1) Scottish and British
2) Scottish only
3) British only

 

[Chester1]

Do we really think that the state left afterwards will be the same? I certainly don't! Repeating your point over and over and over again isn't helping, and clearly you're the one who isn't listening to anyone else's input. You really are just trolling now.

I am not. People are insisting Scots would keep British Citizenship after independence, I am stating its a massive stretch to assume that British Citizenship would exist for much time after independence because unlike Irish independence etc, Scottish independence kills Britain as a state. I don't think that is a bad thing but I do think the assumption that Scots would stay British citizens shows that it is being side stepped.

Personally I think the better option would be a question along the lines of do you wish to disolve the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, put seperately to the 4 nations and if any vote yes then they leave. I think England would vote to disolve the UK (as well as Scotland), Northern Ireland and Wales might vote to stay but without Scotland and England staying in the Union they wouldn't have a choice.

 

[XAM2175]

Your totally missing my point. British Citizenship will disappear with the breakup of the UK. It might linger as a placeholder English Citizenship for a bit but then it will be replaced. Creation of the Irish Free State a century ago isn't a roadmap for citizenship after the break up of the UK!

No, you're missing my point - discussions of what eventually becomes of the rest of the UK following Scottish independence are for the most part outside the scope of this thread. For convenience and to avoid doubt we're continuing to refer to the remainder of the UK as such and its citizenship as British, because it is effectively certain that in the immediate aftermath of Scottish independence England, Wales, and Northern Ireland will remain constituted as one state.

Aren’t people from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Gibraltar and Guernsey considered full British citizens despite their country’s not being part of the UK. If that’s possible why couldn’t a independent Scotland have a similar arrangement to those nations.

Because Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man are Crown dependencies and Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, and none of them have their own citizenships. Would would these arrangements offer for Scotland?

if it wasn’t for Scotland would want to rejoin the EU then the 3 nations could have a freedom of movement agreement where citizens have freedom of movement in other member states. However Scotland EU membership could potentially complicate a free movement agreement between the 3 nations as England and Wales would be concerned about EU Nationals entering via Scotland.

There is a difference between freedom of movement and having an open border, and you can have one with or without the other. Freedom of movement with regard to the EU and CTA means that all member citizens have the right to visit, live, and work (and a few other things) in the territories of the member states, not freedom from having to pass through immigration controls and have their identities and nationalities verified. For example, EU citizens continue to enjoy EU freedom of movement in Ireland but they must pass through Irish immigration controls first. From Ireland they can enter the UK by crossing the open border, but since they no longer have EU freedom of movement in the UK they cannot establish residence or take employment. The proposal that Scotland participates in the CTA would work the same way.

 

[RT4038]

No, you're missing my point - discussions of what eventually becomes of the rest of the UK following Scottish independence are for the most part outside the scope of this thread. For convenience and to avoid doubt we're continuing to refer to the remainder of the UK as such and its citizenship as British, because it is effectively certain that in the immediate aftermath of Scottish independence England, Wales, and Northern Ireland will remain constituted as one state.

I think you may also be missing the point that this would be subject to negotiation, and should not be taken for granted. Too many things were taken for granted with Brexit, that turned out not to be quite so simple.....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2021 ==

Aren’t people from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Gibraltar and Guernsey considered full British citizens despite their country’s not being part of the UK. If that’s possible why couldn’t a independent Scotland have a similar arrangement to those nations.

Scotland could, but I think it highly unlikely that it would be offered. After all, Scotland is desiring independence from the current partnership ('We don't want to be your partner any more, but we'd like your citizenship')- the rUK is unlikely to view that ever so co-operatively.

 

[Chester1]

No, you're missing my point - discussions of what eventually becomes of the rest of the UK following Scottish independence are for the most part outside the scope of this thread. For convenience and to avoid doubt we're continuing to refer to the remainder of the UK as such and its citizenship as British, because it is effectively certain that in the immediate aftermath of Scottish independence England, Wales, and Northern Ireland will remain constituted as one state.

For all of about 5 minutes...!

I would support some sort of new union between England and Wales but lets not base Scottish independence debates on the assumption that it won't unravel the UK "Soviet style". Scottish independence can and should be justified on the basis of 4 seperate nations with their own governments, parliaments and Citizenships. No comfort blanket of rUK and "British" Citizenship for Scottish unionists.

 

[RT4038]

There is a difference between freedom of movement and having an open border, and you can have one with or without the other. Freedom of movement with regard to the EU and CTA means that all member citizens have the right to visit, live, and work (and a few other things) in the territories of the member states, not freedom from having to pass through immigration controls and have their identities and nationalities verified. For example, EU citizens continue to enjoy EU freedom of movement in Ireland but they must pass through Irish immigration controls first. From Ireland they can enter the UK by crossing the open border, but since they no longer have EU freedom of movement in the UK they cannot establish residence or take employment. The proposal that Scotland participates in the CTA would work the same way.

That would be fine up to the point that the EU required visas from citizens of non-EU CTA countries, and then the non-EU CTA countries demanding reciprocal visas. Border checks would then have to be instituted between EU and non-EU CTA countries, putting some pressure on the CTA.

Hares running and all that.

 

[GusB]

I think you may also be missing the point that this would be subject to negotiation, and should not be taken for granted. Too many things were taken for granted with Brexit, that turned out not to be quite so simple.....

Yes, of course these things would be subject to negotiation and can't be taken for granted. On the other hand, you can't take it for granted that certain things won't happen.

 

[RT4038]

Yes, of course these things would be subject to negotiation and can't be taken for granted. On the other hand, you can't take it for granted that certain things won't happen.

Quite. I think that a salutary lesson from the whole Brexit saga is when playing with fire make sure you know exactly what you're doing and what the consequences are. They are not always obvious from the outset.

 

[JamesT]

For all of about 5 minutes...!

I would support some sort of new union between England and Wales but lets not base Scottish independence debates on the assumption that it won't unravel the UK "Soviet style". Scottish independence can and should be justified on the basis of 4 seperate nations with their own governments, parliaments and Citizenships. No comfort blanket of rUK and "British" Citizenship for Scottish unionists.

Even with the break-up of the USSR, Russia was recognised as the successor state as it contained the majority of population and land area. ex-Soviet citizens could gain Russian citizenship after the breakup.
Although there appears to be strong support for Scottish independence, there doesn't appear to be similarly strong support for independence amongst the other nations. Although you may see a complete break-up as the fairest solution, the least disruptive solution for everyone else is going to be rUK.

 

[XAM2175]

I think you may also be missing the point that this would be subject to negotiation, and should not be taken for granted. Too many things were taken for granted with Brexit, that turned out not to be quite so simple.....

For all of about 5 minutes...! I would support some sort of new union between England and Wales but lets not base Scottish independence debates on the assumption that it won't unravel the UK "Soviet style".

I agree entirely with the general point about negotiation and that yes ultimately the exact arrangements on both sides will be subject to discussion. My argument however is that the outcome of the UK disintegrating following Scottish secession appears to be far less likely than the UK carrying on for a reasonable period of time without Scotland - for the simple facts that at present;

1. Northern Ireland's only acknowledged path outside the UK lies in unification with the Republic of Ireland and this requires public approval by referendum on both sides, and,
2. Public support for Welsh independence lags considerably compared to Scotland (averaging 24% yes over five polls conducted last year) and the concept of Welsh independence is complicated by the complexity of the England-Wales border.

Even if you take the position that Scottish independence could be achieved by repealing the Acts of Union (as opposed to a negotiated secession) and thus restoring the separate Kingdoms of England and Scotland there is no automatic problem with Wales as it was already incorporated into England at that point.

That would be fine up to the point that the EU required visas from citizens of non-EU CTA countries, and then the non-EU CTA countries demanding reciprocal visas. Border checks would then have to be instituted between EU and non-EU CTA countries, putting some pressure on the CTA.

Indeed. Without going off to check the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for their exact powers in this example I'll assume it's hypothetically possible. Of course, since the issuance of visas is a member state power and not an EU one, much of the hypothetical bother could be hand-waved away in much the same way as Australia implemented freedom of movement for New Zealand citizens without removing their requirement that all foreign nationals must hold a visa - by declaring that all New Zealanders automatically receive a visa when they approach the border.

Then again, hares running in paddocks miles away can't be seen as clearly as ones closer to you.

 

[RT4038]

Indeed. Without going off to check the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for their exact powers in this example I'll assume it's hypothetically possible. Of course, since the issuance of visas is a member state power and not an EU one, much of the hypothetical bother could be hand-waved away in much the same way as Australia implemented freedom of movement for New Zealand citizens without removing their requirement that all foreign nationals must hold a visa - by declaring that all New Zealanders automatically receive a visa when they approach the border.

Then again, hares running in paddocks miles away can't be seen as clearly as ones closer to you.

On the assumption that the rUK government would be prepared to 'hand wave' non-CTA EU nationals without visas into the rUK via Scotland, when rUK citizens have no such 'hand waving' concession into non-CTA EU countries? Not very likely, is it?

 

[JamesT]

On the assumption that the rUK government would be prepared to 'hand wave' non-CTA EU nationals without visas into the rUK via Scotland, when rUK citizens have no such 'hand waving' concession into non-CTA EU countries? Not very likely, is it?

Isn't this scenario what we effectively have already with Ireland? non-CTA nationals require a visa for anything more than a leisure trip to the UK and UK nationals require a visa for trips to the EU.

 

[RT4038]

Isn't this scenario what we effectively have already with Ireland? non-CTA nationals require a visa for anything more than a leisure trip to the UK and UK nationals require a visa for trips to the EU.

No, there are no visas required either way yet. (for non CTA EU nationals).

 

[overthewater]

I think people might be jumping the gun, if covid is here until the Spring that election will not take place until Maybe the Sept? then we deffo will not see a new Inde ref vote until 2022..

 

[GusB]

I think people might be jumping the gun, if covid is here until the Spring that election will not take place until Maybe the Sept? then we deffo will not see a new Inde ref vote until 2022..

It doesn't mean that we can't discuss it, though.

 

[JamesT]

No, there are no visas required either way yet. (for non CTA EU nationals).

I don't believe that's correct. I picked an EU country at random in the gov.uk visa website and got the following:

You do not need a visa for some business and academic activities, but you must get a visa if you plan to work in the UK

(from https://www.gov.uk/check-uk-visa/y/france/work/six_months_or_less )

This was the main part of the Brexit arguments over Freedom of Movement. Having exited the single market, EU nationals have the same visa requirements to come to the UK as any non-EU national did before and similarly for UK nationals in the EU. (Obviously modulo any exceptions of settled status etc. catering for those who were already here).

 

[overthewater]

It doesn't mean that we can't discuss it, though.

Your right, but what trying to say is the plan thats been suggested might not happen, IE reality check, we might not get our chance to vote on it again any time soon. They say a week is a very long time in politics, a year is lifetime

 

[XAM2175]

On the assumption that the rUK government would be prepared to 'hand wave' non-CTA EU nationals without visas into the rUK via Scotland, when rUK citizens have no such 'hand waving' concession into non-CTA EU countries? Not very likely, is it?

Maybe, maybe not. As a hypothetical scenario it's really such a long way down the progression of possibilities that I don't think it's worth discussing, because it relies on Scotland becoming independent, continuing to participate in the CTA, successfully joining the EU in a way that doesn't cause it to have to leave the CTA, and then being subjected to an EU immigration directive that to my knowledge has never been seriously proposed and might not even be within the EU's powers (especially outside the Schengen area).

I don't dispute for a moment your point on being wary of unintended consequences but there's only so far we can reasonably go in looking for them.

 

[Clansman]

Worth noting that the EU's structures and regulations are base lines for applicant countries who have traditionally aspired to such standards but haven't met them, ie former eastern block countries with traditionally weak economies and living standards in comparison to western states. More about levelling up and providing stability for both a new member state and the EU to succeed.

When discussing Scotland's EU conditions with respect to it being independent from Westminster, it's worth considering not the Norway model, or the Irish model, but how the EU can be tailored to the needs of Scotland.

In the context of this forum on topics such as rolling stock procurement, many members will confine themselves to rolling stock that's already exists (or those on current or recent production), rather than something completely bespoke to an individual TOC's needs.

The EU is no different in that regard when it comes to member states such as Ireland, as well as non member states participating to a lesser degree within some of it's structures including Switzerland and Norway. The templates that are available are not the only templates for Scotland to explore. If that wasn't true, you wouldn't have the Norway model, or the Irish model - you'd have every country interlocked in the same exact situation, which of course, does not work and would never work.

 

[mcmad]

Is that not getting dangerously close to "oven ready deal" territory though. One of the issues that Brexit should make clear for any future referendum, not just Scottish Independence, is that unless the answer to the question is a straightforward binary yes/no with a clear and agreed path from that result then some sort of second run once whatever deal is worked out is essential.

 

[SargeNpton]

Worth noting that the EU's structures and regulations are base lines for applicant countries who have traditionally aspired to such standards but haven't met them, ie former eastern block countries with traditionally weak economies and living standards in comparison to western states. More about levelling up and providing stability for both a new member state and the EU to succeed.

When discussing Scotland's EU conditions with respect to it being independent from Westminster, it's worth considering not the Norway model, or the Irish model, but how the EU can be tailored to the needs of Scotland.

In the context of this forum on topics such as rolling stock procurement, many members will confine themselves to rolling stock that's already exists (or those on current or recent production), rather than something completely bespoke to an individual TOC's needs.

The EU is no different in that regard when it comes to member states such as Ireland and Norway. The templates that are available are not the only templates for Scotland to explore. If that wasn't true, you wouldn't have the Norway model, or the Irish model - you'd have every country interlocked in the same exact situation, which of course, does not work and would never work.

Norway is not a member state of the EU, so it's relationship IS different. It is however in the European Economic Area, and so has access to the single-market (as long as it follows the EU's lead in certain matters).

 

[Clansman]

Is that not getting dangerously close to "oven ready deal" territory though. One of the issues that Brexit should make clear for any future referendum, not just Scottish Independence, is that unless the answer to the question is a straightforward binary yes/no with a clear and agreed path from that result then some sort of second run once whatever deal is worked out is essential.

As the UK is now out of the EU, the proposition is reversed in this case, so voters will know that we'd be out of the EU regardless.

Transitioning from a Yes vote to actually formally seceding from the UK takes at least 12 months, possibly longer, during which the Scottish government would have all the legitimacy to assume authority for reserve matters in preparation for this, including negotiating a preliminary arrangement with the EU to pursue membership.

Though hypothetical, 'oven ready' or 'deals' or 'no deals' doesn't really apply unless you're talking about a post indy settlement with the UK, which is an entirely different matter altogether compared to leaving the EU. At a glance, most likely IMO easier due to the lack of formal structures or compulsions for each nation to oblige by (the benefits of the UK acting as a sovereign country), though I guess we'll know the answer to that will be decided when the time comes!

Norway is not a member state of the EU, so it's relationship IS different. It is however in the European Economic Area, and so has access to the single-market (as long as it follows the EU's lead in certain matters).

I know, albeit this would have been clearer if I'd added a sodding comma! Thanks for pointing that out

The general point was that I was highlighting the relationships which are possible for an independent Scotland to pursue.

 

[MattA7]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but when do most on this forum suspect that the 2nd referendum will take place. I know Sturgeon wanted to have it in 2020 but it was postponed due to the pandemic.

It certainly appears that a 2nd referendum is almost a certainty and at this moment in time a yes vote is likely.

 

[Chester1]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but when do most on this forum suspect that the 2nd referendum will take place. I know Sturgeon wanted to have it in 2020 but it was postponed due to the pandemic.

It certainly appears that a 2nd referendum is almost a certainty and at this moment in time a yes vote is likely.

I would guess at 8 months after the Scottish Parliament elections. 2 months for both sides to fight over changes to the question and eligibility used 2014 and 6 months official campaigning period. Depending on whether (and when) Scottish Parliament elections are moved because of Covid, that means early 2022. Assuming a yes vote then independence by April 2024. SNP suggested 18-24 months implementation period last time and Tories would make sure that there were no Scottish constituencies in May 2024 general election. They would be crazy to let the process drag on to next general election.

 

[etr221]

The Scottish Parliament Elections are this year (2021): I expect the Scottish government to then be pushing for a referendum. The devolution legislation set up a process for an 'official' referendum, binding on London (and Edinburgh) government; but requiring authorisation by the UK government - which is unlikely to be forthcoming. Either way, I expect a referendum next year 2022 (or at least date fixed in '22, for '23) - either an 'official' one for independence; or an 'unofficial' one, indicative for a real indyref - and if that was passed, over to you, Boris, what are you going to do now? Use the Army to keep Scotland in the Union? Otherwise known as a mega crisis...

 

[Chester1]

The Scottish Parliament Elections are this year (2021): I expect the Scottish government to then be pushing for a referendum. The devolution legislation set up a process for an 'official' referendum, binding on London (and Edinburgh) government; but requiring authorisation by the UK government - which is unlikely to be forthcoming. Either way, I expect a referendum next year 2022 (or at least date fixed in '22, for '23) - either an 'official' one for independence; or an 'unofficial' one, indicative for a real indyref - and if that was passed, over to you, Boris, what are you going to do now? Use the Army to keep Scotland in the Union? Otherwise known as a mega crisis...

I think its only in nationalist dreams that they would try something like that. I doubt Boris could survive an SNP landslide. Scottish independence, removing 6 Tories and 53 opposition MPs and subsequent rise in English nationalism would hand the Tories the 2024 general election, most probably the 2029 general election too. Tory MPs will want the a referendum held quickly.
Tory (and Brexit) voters are only weak unionists these days, the backlash for "losing Scotland" would be more than outweighed by remove of Scottish MPs. It would leave the Tories with 358 out of 591 MPs. They would need to lose 62 MPs in England and Wales to lose the following general election. I think they would be happy in the unlikely event of a remain vote but their main priority will be to move on.