You can't quit UK without my approval, David Cameron warns Scots

TheSpecialOne

If Scotland is going independent based on North Sea Oil revenues well then they are in big trouble. The money coming from the Oil has fluctuated greatly over the past 30 years, Scotland cannot budget properly due to this. Until they provide another Economic arguement other than the Oil Scotland should remain in the UK.

Batsy

Apparently, if Scotland became independent it would suddenly find itself outside the EU, and if it wished to rejoin the EU then it would have to join the euro.

And I think it's fairly safe to assume that the majority of the Scots don't want the euro.

Batsy

grizzly wrote: »

I've heard that Camerons father-in-law is the third largest landowner in Scotland. If they got independence it's likely that such land would be nationalised (it's currently held by royal title). This may play some part of his personal interests in the question of its status.

You are wrong.

Cameron's father-in-law is Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffield, 8th Baronet. He owns the 300-acre Normanby Hall estate, near Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire. He is a direct descendant of King Charles II (David Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV, the uncle of Queen Victoria, making him a distant cousin to Queen Elizabeth II).

Scotland's third-biggest landowner is the National Trust for Scotland.

dlofnep

Batsy wrote: »

Apparently, if Scotland became independent it would suddenly find itself outside the EU, and if it wished to rejoin the EU then it would have to join the euro.

And I think it's fairly safe to assume that the majority of the Scots don't want the euro.

None of the above is correct.

Batsy

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm sure the Scottish people wouldn't appreciate you referring to them as 'rats' for aspiring to have the perfectly legitimate status as an independent country.

Yet when the British people aspire to be an independent nation free from Brussels rule they get called "swivel-eyed, xenophobic, europhobic Little Englanders" by the Left.

It seems there's one rule for Scots wanting independence from London and another for the British wanting independence from Brussels.

Batsy

dlofnep wrote: »

None of the above is correct.

Actually all of it is correct.

I'm afraid to say that if Scotland gained independence from the UK it would be out of the EU. It could then decide to stay out or rejoin. However, if it rejoined it would have to adopt the euro - and that it something that the Scottish people wouldn't want.

This is similar to the Irish Republic automatically leaving the League of Nations in 1922 when it left the UK. It had to re-apply for membership.

dlofnep

LordSutch wrote: »

David Cameron has obviously stepped up to the plate and called Mr Salmond's bluff re "Lets have the referendum now" while Salmond wants to delay until he gets the climate just right (for his liking).

Salmond doesn't want to delay anything. He was very forthright prior to the election that such a referendum would be in the second half of the parliamentary term. Therefore, he's right on schedule and Cameron hasn't called anyone's bluff. All he has done, is demonstrated that he's willing to push democracy aside and try to dictate Scottish affairs from Westminster.

dlofnep

Batsy wrote: »

Yet when the British people aspire to be an independent nation free from Brussels rule they get called "swivel-eyed, xenophobic, europhobic Little Englanders" by the Left.

I support Britain's view to be independent from Brussels, and have the ability to decide it's own affairs. None of the above has anything to do with this thread. Nobody in this thread made such a comment - but a poster in this thread did refer to the Scottish people as 'disloyal rats'. That is utter bigotry, and your attempt to deflect from it won't change it.

Batsy wrote: »

It seems there's one rule for Scots wanting independence from London and another for the British wanting independence from Brussels.

No, there isn't. I support both. It isn't a matter of left versus right. Both sides of the political spectrum have many people are increasingly cautious about the central role that the EU plays in our affairs, and indeed British affairs.

LordSutch

dlofnep wrote: »

Salmond doesn't want to delay anything. He was very forthright prior to the election that such a referendum would be in the second half of the parliamentary term. Therefore, he's right on schedule and Cameron hasn't called anyone's bluff. All he has done, is demonstrated that he's willing to push democracy aside and try to dictate Scottish affairs from Westminster.

The reference to the 2nd half of the term was not in the SNP manifesto, it was an "add on" just prior to the election, and anyway, who is Alex Salmond to dictate the date of a referendum which could (possibly)? breakup the United Kingdom !!!

Batsy

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Should Scotland secede from the UK, has anybody figured out what percentage of the British national debt that they'd have to take with them would be? As they were part of the group when the money was spent, it'd only be fair for them to take a reasonable percentage of the debt with them...

This is one reason why independence could be disastrous for Scotland. It is likely that an independent Scotland would lose the AAA rating that it currently enjoys whilst being part of the UK.

Sean O'Grady: Split with Scotland would make for a messy divorce

Economic Outlook: The debt-to-GDP ratio of an independent Scotland might prove so large as to sink it financially before it was even born


Monday 09 May 2011
The Independent

The first question would be what currency to adopt. Sterling is an option, theoretically. The Irish did this after the establishment of the free state in 1922, and that lasted until 1978. After a brief period of monetary independence, the punt gave way to the euro, and we all know what happened next; boom and bust. SNP politicians used to be fond of the euro, and pointed to the examples of Ireland and Iceland as what was achievable for a small dynamic financially adventurous nation at the edge of the EU. Of course, they're more circumspect about joining northern Europe's "arc of prosperity" now. Would the SNP promise a further referendum on whether to join the euro soon after a successful vote on independence?

Joining the euro is a much more realistic prospect in an independent Scotland than in the UK, and could be disastrous. Without the freedom to devalue the Scottish currency, Edinburgh would be trapped in the eurozone with deflation the only way to ensure competitiveness long term – and with the same baleful consequences as are now being experienced in Greece, Ireland and Portugal. The PIGS might then be Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Scotland rather than Spain, which appears to have escaped the contagion, for now. Such a prospect would complicate the independence referendum at any rate.

Scotland would, though, get full access to its oil, although that has been a declining asset, plus, within EU rules, its fishing rights. It could also capitalise on its superior education system, and promote the sort of low-tax environment that helped the Irish and the east Europeans win inward investment.

But there are weaknesses in Scotland too. It is no longer propping up the foot of the UK's economic league table – more prosperous than the West Midlands now, for example – but it is not about to join the BRICs, either. Scotland, for all its strengths, would be much more like an amalgam of Ireland and Greece than to Germany in its fundamentals; relatively uncompetitive, with a big undercapitalised banking sector and a nasty overhang of private and public debt.

Which brings us neatly to the second big question, of how much of the UK's national debt Scotland ought to take on. And, within that, how much of the debt related to rescuing the semi-nationalised Scottish-based Royal Bank of Scotland and, arguably the Scottish bit of the Lloyds/TSB/Halifax/Bank of Scotland combine. Either way, the debt-to-GDP ratio of an independent Scotland might prove so large as to sink it financially before it was even born; 100 per cent of GDP is well within the bounds, being about 10 per cent of the UK's projected £1tr debt and Scottish GDP at about £100bn.

Scotland's non-existent track record in managing public finances might also leave markets to impose an immediate "risk premium", meaning even higher borrowing costs, lower investment and lower consumption levels immediately. Apart from Edinburgh New Town, where there would be rush for handsome townhouses to serve as embassies and high commissions, property would be swiftly devalued. Short term, independence would be tough, until Scotland demonstrated its strengths.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/sean-ogrady-split-with-scotland-would-make-for-a-messy-divorce-2281295.html

dlofnep

Batsy wrote: »

Actually all of it is correct.

I'm afraid to say that if Scotland gained independence from the UK it would be out of the EU. It could then decide to stay out or rejoin. However, if it rejoined it would have to adopt the euro - and that it something that the Scottish people wouldn't want.

This is similar to the Irish Republic automatically leaving the League of Nations in 1922 when it left the UK. It had to re-apply for membership.

Any membership of the EU would be merely a formality. The Czech Republic did not join the Euro and received membership, and it will be down to the Czech citizens to decide if they do join it.

dlofnep

LordSutch wrote: »

The reference to the 2nd half of the term was not in the SNP manifesto, it was an "add on" just prior to the election

As stated, it will be run in the second half of the parliamentary term. So no, Cameron did not call his bluff. Salmond has been very forthright about it as I have already stated.

LordSutch wrote: »

, and anyway, who is Alex Salmond to dictate the date of a referendum which could (possibly)? breakup the United Kingdom !!!

Alex Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland, and the leader of a political party which has a majority in the Scottish Parliament. He has a mandate to determine the date of such a referendum, and isn't some guy they've pulled off the street.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

All he (Cameron) has done, is demonstrated that he's willing to push democracy aside and try to dictate Scottish affairs from Westminster.

You have a curious understanding of representation. In the past you have defended Gerry Adams pontificating on internal matters of this state, despite him having no electoral mandate, or even being a resident here.

Yet you accuse Cameron, the democratically elected prime minster of the UK of pushing democracy aside when he discusses Scottish affairs???

While Scotland is still part of the UK it is perfectly proper for the British PM to comment on its affairs.

Batsy

LordSutch wrote: »

The reference to the 2nd half of the term was not in the SNP manifesto, it was an "add on" just prior to the election, and anyway, who is Alex Salmond to dictate the date of a referendum which could (possibly)? breakup the United Kingdom !!!

Salmond is just being anti-English. He wants to leave the referendum until 2014 because that year is when the Scots celebrate the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn. Salmond knows that when Scotland is flooded with the resulting patriotism and the inevitable anti-English racism it would probably prove more likely that the Scots would vote for independence then than now.

You would think if Scots were so desperate for independence the SNP would give them the referendum now. That is why Cameron is being very clever in trying to force Salmond to bring the referendum forward. Basically he's saying to Salmond: "Look, if, as you believe, the Scots want independence why do you not give them the referendum NOW, instead of waiting until 2014 when Scotland will be flooded with patriotism and anti-Englishness? Just give the supposedly pro-independence Scots their referendum NOW and they can leave the Union sooner."

Cameron is calling Salmond's bluff and currently has the upper hand. It seems to me that the SNP are scared of having the referendum now because they think the Scots will vote against independence, so are sort of cheating by waiting until the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn when they know waves of patriotism will sweep Scotland.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

You have a curious understanding of representation. In the past you have defended Gerry Adams pontificating on internal matters of this state, despite him having no electoral mandate, or even being a resident here.

I don't remember Gerry Adams dictating to the Dáil about the date of a referendum. Gerry Adams is the member of a cross-island political party, and currently a TD - he is free to pontificate all he likes. Try a different angle. You might want to stick to the topic at hand by the way, if you are capable of doing so - instead of deflecting from the issue at hand.

lugha wrote: »

Yet you accuse Cameron, the democratically elected prime minster of the UK of pushing democracy aside when he discusses Scottish affairs???

Yes I do. He may be the PM of the UK, but he has absolutely no justification to dictate the internal matters of the Scottish state. That is for the Scottish parliament to decide.

lugha wrote: »

While Scotland is still part of the UK it is perfectly proper for the British PM to comment on its affairs.

You're simply being dishonest with your choice of words I'm afraid. He didn't 'comment' on it's affairs. He attempted to dictate the affairs of Scotland, there is a huge difference between that, and passively commenting on the issue.

LordSutch

Batsy wrote: »

Salmond is just being anti-English. He wants to leave the referendum until 2014 because that year is when the Scots celebrate the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn. Salmond knows that when Scotland is flooded with the resulting patriotism and the inevitable anti-English racism it would probably prove more likely that the Scots would vote for independence then than now.

You would think if Scots were so desperate for independence the SNP would give them the referendum now. That is why Cameron is being very clever in trying to force Salmond to bring the referendum forward. Basically he's saying to Salmond: "Look, if, as you believe, the Scots want independence why do you not give them the referendum NOW, instead of waiting until 2014 when Scotland will be flooded with patriotism and anti-Englishness? Just give the supposedly pro-independence Scots their referendum NOW and they can leave the Union sooner."

Cameron is calling Salmond's bluff and currently has the upper hand. It seems to me that the SNP are scared of having the referendum now because they think the Scots will vote against independence, so are sort of cheating by waiting until the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn when they know waves of patriotism will sweep Scotland.

Here here, you have echoed some of my thoughts from #116.

dlofnep

Batsy wrote: »

Salmond is just being anti-English.

No, he isn't. He is being pro-Scottish. The guy doesn't have an anti-English bone in his body. It's very easy to accuse him of having an anti-English agenda, when it's quite clear that his vision for an independent Scotland is built out of love for Scotland, rather than a hatred for England.

All you are doing is attacking his character, rather than the merits of his debate. Grow up.

Batsy

dlofnep wrote: »

Any membership of the EU would be merely a formality. The Czech Republic did not join the Euro and received membership, and it will be down to the Czech citizens to decide if they do join it.

An independent Scotland re-joining the EU would have to join the stricken Euro. All new member states are legally obliged to join the euro at some point. I doubt, though, that this is something that Salmond has told the Scottish people - who I think don't want to join the Euro - either through ignorance or just because he doesn't want them to know. If the Scots vote for independence they might live to regret it:

Independent Scotland ' would have to join the euro'[/SIZE]

An independent Scotland would almost certainly be forced to join the crisis-stricken euro despite Alex Salmond’s claims it could keep the pound as its currency, according to leaked Government legal advice.

By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
11:46AM BST 26 Oct 2011
The Telegraph

Lawyers have told Coalition ministers that Scotland is only an EU member by virtue of being part of the United Kingdom and would lose this status following separation.

An independent Scotland would then have to join the EU as a new accession state, a process that could take up to three years, meaning the UK’s derogation from the single currency would not apply.

According to the official legal advice, Mr Salmond would then have to obtain his own opt-out from the euro but this “might not be easy to negotiate” with the existing members.

The official advice, prepared for the Government in preparation for the independence referendum, flies in the face of assurances the First Minister has given the Scottish public that they would be allowed to keep sterling.

It is one of a series of unsubstantiated claims in a booklet titled Your Scotland, Your Future that was unveiled at last weekend’s SNP conference and will be distributed to households across the country.

The First Minister last night faced renewed calls to publish his own legal advice on the question after refusing a request for it to be published under Freedom of Information laws.

The Government legal advice states that the terms of an independent Scotland’s application to join the EU would be closely bound up with its “departure from the UK”.

“Scotland is only part of the EU by virtue of the UK’s membership. If Scotland were to leave, it would not automatically assume membership of the EU,” it concludes.

“EU law would require negotiation of the terms of an independent Scotland’s membership of the EU since the treaties do not provide for an increase in the number of member states other than by treaty amendment.”

Thus, an independent Scotland would have to negotiate its own Treaty of Accession, which would be an “extensive and protracted negotiating process”.

This would involve a formal application for membership by Edinburgh, an opinion from the European Commission, assent by the European Parliament and ratification by member states, including the remaining UK.

“While it would move quickly given their peculiar situation as formerly a part of a member state, it would still take several years – two as an absolute minimum, more likely three – before they were part of the EU again,” it concludes.

The advice warns an independent Scotland “might lose access to some EU funding” while their application is being considered. The research was cleared with legal advisers and the Europe Directorate.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8850189/Independent-Scotland--would-have-to-join-the-euro.html
[/SIZE]

Scots warned they must join ailing euro if they want independence

By James Chapman
10th January 2012
Daily Mail

Scots will be told that a vote for independence will mean them being forced to ditch the pound and join the faltering euro.

Constitutional experts believe an independent Scotland would be forced to reapply for EU membership – and, like all new members, would have to commit to joining the ill-fated single currency.

Dr Jo Murkens, senior lecturer in law at the London School of Economics, said claims the country could remain in the EU and keep the pound were ‘bizarre’.

‘Continued membership would only be possible with the approval of all 27 member states,’ she said. ‘An independent Scotland would have to join the EU as a new accession state, which could take years.

‘All the new member states are legally obliged to adopt the euro at some future point.’

As senior Labour figures signalled their backing for David Cameron’s high-risk attempt to force Holyrood to hold an independence referendum quickly, Government sources said Scotland’s future in the EU would be a central issue.

The SNP has claimed Mr Cameron was attempting to dictate to Scotland the terms of a referendum – a strategy that would only increase support for leaving the UK.

Tensions also emerged last night in the Coalition over the idea of imposing an 18-month deadline for a legally binding referendum.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2084578/Scots-warned-join-ailing-euro-want-independence.html#ixzz1j4A2b4Ar

dlofnep

Batsy, could you stop spamming the thread with articles? I'm perfectly capable of reading them if you provide the link. And it just simply isn't the case, as I have already pointed out with the Czech Republic. Depending on how a new Scottish constitution looks - it may be up to the Scottish people to ultimately decide. I don't see Scottish EU membership being rejected under any circumstances.

It's not as if EU membership is mandatory either. Norway is doing fine without it, and is one of the most developed countries in the world - always coming in the top 2 or 3 places to live. Scotland would still have trade agreements with the rest of Britain and Ireland, along with other commonwealth nations.. and Europe to boot via the European Economic Area.

View

Batsy wrote: »

An independent Scotland re-joining the EU would have to join the stricken Euro. All new member states are legally obliged to join the euro at some point.

And of course the "United Kingdom of the remaining bits of Great Britain & Northern Ireland" (i.e. E, W & NI) would be a new member state too, wouldn't it?

I do presume that Westminster wouldn't try to adopt the line used by the Serbs in the 1990's when they kept insisting that there really was a Yugoslavia in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

dublinscot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The SNP have been making a case for Scottish independence since their conception, a year or two more isn't going to make any difference.

The current trend of opinion polls would suggest quite the opposite.

Batsy wrote: »

I can't see why the English should be denied a referendum on independence. If the Scots can have a referendum on Scottish independence why can't the English have one on English independence?

The English could have a referendum on independence tomorrow if you wanted. Nobody does though (well, apart from the odd outraged Daily Mail reader)

Batsy wrote: »

Nah. Scotland could always join Alex Salmond's "Arc of Prosperity", containing countries such as Ireland and Iceland. He was once very keep on an independent Scotland joining it. I'm sure the Scottish people would jump at the chance.

Funny how when unionists mention the 'Arc of Prosperity' they always forget to mention Norway, Sweden, Denmark....

Batsy wrote: »

[The Oil] Which will run out soon.

Unionists have been saying that to undermine Scottish independence ever since it was discovered.

There are around 20 billion barrels left according to the latest UK Oil & Gas report. That's around 30-40% of what has already been extracted. Revenue-wise, at current prices, that's around 1 trillion £.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/18/north-sea-oil-reserve-sti_n_1101059.html

Batsy wrote: »

The Shetland Islanders don't like the Scots.

The Shetland Tartan Army lads i know from the fitba certainly don't agree!

It's just another Unionist canard. Why have there been no moves over the past 40 years towards independence for Shetland?

Judgement Day wrote: »

If a referendum is held, it should be made quite clear to the Scots that they will be voting for the removal of all British bases there, the introduction of border controls and the barring of Scottish passport holders from holding political office in England. Interestingly, David Cameron has strong Scottish family links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron and his future as PM would be in doubt - if I were in charge of things. For good measure I would also reinsert the missing verse of the British National Anthem.

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the Queen

PS By the time England cuts off its subsidies to the disloyal Scots and the overly loyal NI Unionists it will be considerably better off.

Any chance you could lead the No campaign? You'd be perfect!

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Scotland was independent, they would have either let one of the largest banks in the world go bust, or bail it out, thereby bankrupting Scotland.

No, you're forgetting that RBS is effectively a British bank. And since the vast majority of RBS customers are English, an agreement would have been reached between the Scottish and RumpUK governments. This is what happened with Fortis bank in the Benelux.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7641132.stm

grizzly wrote: »

Realistically it's not going to happen in the the next few years, or even he next few decades.

I see it as a formality. It might take 2 years or it might take 20, but the wind is only blowing one way.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Foreign policy would be an interesting one. The MOD employ a lot of people in Scotland and if Scotland was to withdraw completely from this, it would most likely lead to the closure of Leuchars, Lossiemouth and even HMNB Clyde, which employs 4000 civilians.

I imagine Scottish defence spending would become more in line with similar sized nations, which would likely involve base closures as you say. The cost of this would be offset by the savings made on Trident and illegal foreign adventures however.

Then there is the question of the Scottish regiments. Would they be disbanded? Where would the thousands of Scottish soldiers go?

Scottish soldiers will still have the option to join the British army, like all other commonwealth countries. Though i would expect the Scottish Defence Forces to be made up of the bulk of the current Scottish regiments.

TheSpecialOne wrote: »

If Scotland is going independent based on North Sea Oil revenues well then they are in big trouble. The money coming from the Oil has fluctuated greatly over the past 30 years, Scotland cannot budget properly due to this. Until they provide another Economic arguement other than the Oil Scotland should remain in the UK.

The oil is just a bonus. A big one, yes, but not the basis for Scottish independence. The national movement is a lot older than the discovery of oil in the North Sea!

Batsy wrote: »

Apparently, if Scotland became independent it would suddenly find itself outside the EU, and if it wished to rejoin the EU then it would have to join the euro.

Not true. Look at the Czech Republic. Joined the EU without having to adopt the Euro.

And I think it's fairly safe to assume that the majority of the Scots don't want the euro.

I'd agree with that.

juan.kerr

Apologies if this has been answered before:

If the north had a vote and voted to become part of the Republic of Ireland, I'd assume that we would also get to have a separate vote to determine of we wanted to accept the 6 counties into to the Republic. Or does the Republic of Ireland constitution automatically allow for 're-unification' (for want of a better word) in this scenario?

maggy_thatcher

dublinscot wrote: »

Not true. Look at the Czech Republic. Joined the EU without having to adopt the Euro.

The Czech Republic is obliged to join the euro, it just hasn't yet...there's a "loophole" that they're using in that they can't join until after they commit to ERM II, but it can't be forced to join ERM II, so therefore they can hold off on joining. The ECB has specifically said that any new members must commit to joining, so it would be interesting to see what happens.

As for not joining the EU - that's technically possible, although if I were one of the nation states in the EU, I'd do what I could to block them joining EFTA - so effectively they would be subject to massive import/export tariffs on all their goods.

Cú Giobach

Batsy wrote: »

If the Scots vote for independence they might live to regret it:

I can't understand why you would be so against the Scots taking this step.
It certainly can't be for their good because if they voted for independence then forcing them to stay would be against their wishes, so it must be a personal desire to see the union held together irrespective of the desires of the constituent countries, which is wholly undemocratic and a sentiment worthy of the politburo of the old USSR.
The population of over 5,000,000 in Scotland is comparable to that of Denmark, Finland, Norway, Croatia, Slovakia, Ireland and more, it is not exactly unheard of for a country that size to wish for, gain and survive independence.

dublinscot

Batsy wrote: »

Salmond is just being anti-English. He wants to leave the referendum until 2014 because that year is when the Scots celebrate the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn. Salmond knows that when Scotland is flooded with the resulting patriotism and the inevitable anti-English racism it would probably prove more likely that the Scots would vote for independence then than now.

I have to laugh at this 700th anniversary thing from the unionist commentators in the media.

It's just a way of trying to paint the SNP as anti-English whisky-swigging fools who are obsessed with fighting ancient battles.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, he isn't. He is being pro-Scottish. The guy doesn't have an anti-English bone in his body. It's very easy to accuse him of having an anti-English agenda, when it's quite clear that his vision for an independent Scotland is built out of love for Scotland, rather than a hatred for England.

All you are doing is attacking his character, rather than the merits of his debate. Grow up.

Negativity is all they have. That, and if you can't play the ball, play the man...

Cú Giobach

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

if I were one of the nation states in the EU, I'd do what I could to block them joining EFTA - so effectively they would be subject to massive import/export tariffs on all their goods.

Why?

maggy_thatcher

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Why?

To encourage them to join the EU properly.

Cú Giobach

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

To encourage them to join the EU properly.

Don't you mean force. And again why?

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

............. and anyway, who is Alex Salmond to dictate the date of a referendum which could (possibly)? breakup the United Kingdom !!!

He's the elected leader of the scottish parliament.....

maggy_thatcher

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Don't you mean force.

No - encourage. They have a choice - join the EU, or don't get free trade between the rest of the EU - seems fair to me.

Thinking about it a bit more, if Scotland were to join the EU as an independent nation, it probably wouldn't be allowed to get an opt-out on the Schengen agreement either (all new entrants are supposed to join it) - which would make the border between England and Scotland somewhat troublesome!