Scottish independence

Sam Russell

Let us assume there is a Indyref II, and it is carried.

If Scotland are to leave the UK, then I would assume they would negotiate a withdrawal agreement (WA) in which a number of issues would be agreed. Probably arrangements for defence (the nuclear subs and cost of it) and the amount of England's national debt that Scotland will be forced to take on. This latter point may affect the ability of Scotland to launch its own currency.

Fishing, territorial waters might be a big issue if oil and gas are important. CTA would be a given, and other citizen's rights would be a given. Security would not appear to be an issue, but you never know. Food standards?

What other issues would be contentious?

bob mcbob

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let us assume there is a Indyref II, and it is carried.

If Scotland are to leave the UK, then I would assume they would negotiate a withdrawal agreement (WA) in which a number of issues would be agreed. Probably arrangements for defence (the nuclear subs and cost of it) and the amount of England's national debt that Scotland will be forced to take on. This latter point may affect the ability of Scotland to launch its own currency.

Fishing, territorial waters might be a big issue if oil and gas are important. CTA would be a given, and other citizen's rights would be a given. Security would not appear to be an issue, but you never know. Food standards?

What other issues would be contentious?

Well whatever agreed level of national debt is taken on then I would also assume a similar split on national assets (both in UK and abroad).
That will certainly be contentious - I can just see the Telegraph headlines now.

Sam Russell

bob mcbob wrote: »

Well whatever agreed level of national debt is taken on then I would also assume a similar split on national assets (both in UK and abroad).
That will certainly be contentious - I can just see the Telegraph headlines now.

The nuclear subs would be an interesting point of (dis)agreement. They are in Scottish waters, and cost a huge amount of money for no benefit to Scotland (and probably not England either).

National assets within Scotland should pass to the Scottish Gov - remember there was an economic war here over the farm annuities in the 1930s, which bankrupted many people here. Dev claimed the annuities and Britain retaliated by refusing to buy the beef until 1939, by which time it was all dead.

The real issue will start if/when Scotland joins the SM/CU and a hard border is created along Scotland's southern border. Maybe where that border is going to be might be contentious - Berwick on Tweed?

The current Scotland - England border is an old border that has been fought over in the past.
It follows a river - mountain ridge - river broadly with limited crossing points, especially compared to Ireland - Northern Ireland.

There are of course some odd bits with small roads etc.

Imreoir2

Sam Russell wrote: »

The nuclear subs would be an interesting point of (dis)agreement. They are in Scottish waters, and cost a huge amount of money for no benefit to Scotland (and probably not England either).

National assets within Scotland should pass to the Scottish Gov - remember there was an economic war here over the farm annuities in the 1930s, which bankrupted many people here. Dev claimed the annuities and Britain retaliated by refusing to buy the beef until 1939, by which time it was all dead.

The real issue will start if/when Scotland joins the SM/CU and a hard border is created along Scotland's southern border. Maybe where that border is going to be might be contentious - Berwick on Tweed?

Yes, the nuclear subs is one of the issues the Scots can leverage to get a better seperation deal from the rUK. The SNP has long been on record as wanting the subs out of Scotland. Flexibility on that issue, potentially a treaty port situation or allowing for an extended transition phase to allow the RN an orderly withdrawl, might be a bargening chip the Scots can offer for some concessions elsewhere.

Even if Indy II passes, London will still want to keep Scotland tied closely to its sphere of influence and is likely to be awkward about giving Scotland any kind of sweetheart deal that would allow Scotland freedom of action to chart their own course. I don't expect them to want the Scots in the EU, to adopt the Euro, or to join Schngen if they can help it.

It will be interesting to see how the Scots model themselves after independance, will they look east to Scandinavia, south to England, or west to Ireland for inspiration for their constitutional arangements? Will it be the Kingdom of Scotland or the Republic of Scotland, for example.

Water John

I would expect them to keep the monarchy. Just pushing on it might be a bit too divisive. I presume they could do a Constitutional Monarchy which might be the option.

serfboard

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Flexibility on that issue, potentially a treaty port situation or allowing for an extended transition phase to allow the RN an orderly withdrawl, might be a bargening chip the Scots can offer for some concessions elsewhere.

Ah yeah, sure didn't we do the same thing?

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't expect them to want the Scots in the EU, to adopt the Euro, or to join Schngen if they can help it.

If IndyRef2 passes, Scotland will certainly join the EU, and there'll be bugger all England can do about it. We've had the discussion here about the Euro, and I agree that a currency peg, with eventual joining of the Euro seems most likely. And as for Schegen? Sure we're not even in that.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how the Scots model themselves after independance, will they look east to Scandinavia, south to England, or west to Ireland for inspiration for their constitutional arangements? Will it be the Kingdom of Scotland or the Republic of Scotland, for example.

I remember Alec Salmond talked before about Scotland wanting to join the "Arc of Prosperity" and mentioning Norway, Ireland and Iceland - just before the econmoies of the latter two countries crashed spectularly. But, as was pointed out at the time, despite how bad things got here, no-one was talking about knocking on the UK's door and asking them to take us back.

serfboard

Water John wrote: »

I would expect them to keep the monarchy. Just pushing on it might be a bit too divisive. I presume they could do a Constitutional Monarchy which might be the option.

I think this might be sensible, given how strong Unionist opinion/Britishness is in Scotland.

And, some of them will love to have their oul' knighthoods and their royal titles.

Imreoir2

serfboard wrote: »

Ah yeah, sure didn't we do the same thing?

Yes, but that was a somewhat different context. In our case it was more that we were not really in a position to make the RN leave so we decided to 'let' them stay for a while.

serfboard

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Yes, but that was a somewhat different context. In our case it was more that we were not really in a position to make the RN leave so we decided to 'let' them stay for a while.

And do you think that Scotland will be in a position to make the RN leave?

And besides, I'd imagine there are a fair few jobs in those submarine ports in terms of support services.

Also, and differently to us, I would expect Scotland to stay in/join NATO.

Sam Russell

I think the SNP will try to be in favour of anything to get the unionist vote.

Monarchy - OK fir now.
Sterling - yes, sure.
NATO - yes, why not?
CTA - yes, of course.
Fasslane. We need the jobs.
etc. etc. etc.

I think SNP strategy will be - get Indyref ii passed, and we will sort out Scotland later, in a manner Scots will decide for them selves.

Imreoir2

serfboard wrote: »

And do you think that Scotland will be in a position to make the RN leave?

And besides, I'd imagine there are a fair few jobs in those submarine ports in terms of support services.

Also, and differently to us, I would expect Scotland to stay in/join NATO.

Yes.

In our case the UK was willing and able to prolong the war to maintain their naval bases in Ireland, which at the time they saw as important to their national security.

In the context of an independant Scotland, I don't think it is credible to suggest that the UK would go to war to maitain their naval presence in Scotland after a successful indy ref. All an independant Scotland need do to make the RN leave is to inform London that their ships are no longer welcome.

Capt'n Midnight

serfboard wrote: »

And do you think that Scotland will be in a position to make the RN leave?

And besides, I'd imagine there are a fair few jobs in those submarine ports in terms of support services.

Also, and differently to us, I would expect Scotland to stay in/join NATO.

If Scotland dropped defence spending to Irish levels they'd save about £3 Bn a year.

Peregrinus

On they question of the monarchy, from what I recall the Scottish government's proposal in 2014 was that independent Scotland would be a constitutional monarchy witin the Commonwealth (like New Zealand, say) operating under a provisional constitution (which was drafted and published in advance of the referendum). Within (I think) two years of independence there would be elections for a Constitutional Convention, which would discuss and draft a permanent constitution, to be pt to the voters for ratification in a referendum. Presumably part of that process would involve consideration of whether Scotland should remain a monarchy or become a republic. The point was to separate that question from the question of independence, and I would expect the same strategy to be pursued in any future independnece referndum.

On defence matters, in 2014 the proposal was that independent Scotland would seek to join NATO. It would also seek to be a non-nuclear state, and this would involve rump-UK's Trident nuclear weapons being withdrawn from Scotland and relocated somewhere in rump-UK, but Scotland probably wouldn't wish to pursue this in a way that might call into question its commitment to the NATO nuclear umbrella, or damage its relations with prospective NATO partners, so the withdrawal of nuclear forces is something they would seek to do by agreement, and over time. Presumably also rump-UK would see the merit in having its nuclear capacity headquartered in, and operating out of bases in, its own territory. Faslane was to become the main naval base for the Scottish naval service, and also the joint headquarters for the Scottish defence forces, but this was to be a transition that would be "managed gradually".

Guy:Incognito

Surely if Scotland leave, England have to give in to all their demands re a withdrawal agreement otherwise they would be bullies trying to harm Scotland by being vindictive and just proving how right Scotland were to leave an evil empire . Or does that only apply to the UK leaving the eu?

Hermy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Surely if Scotland leave, England have to give in to all their demands...

On that, what powers if any do Scotland have to make these demands of the UK/ England? Assuming Scotland were to successfully achieve independence by legal constitutional means is there anything to compel UK/ England to grant said independence or could they just ignore a referendum for instance and make a counter-demand that Scotland remain in the union?

bob mcbob

serfboard wrote: »

And do you think that Scotland will be in a position to make the RN leave?

And besides, I'd imagine there are a fair few jobs in those submarine ports in terms of support services.

Also, and differently to us, I would expect Scotland to stay in/join NATO.

I think if Scotland joins Nato then an agreement will be made (if the Americans want it - which I think they will).

The North Atlantic is becoming a strategic geographic location again as the Arctic ice melts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/china-military-arctic-ice-caps-melt-uk-navy-russia-tony-radakin-b889695.html

serfboard

Imreoir2 wrote: »

In our case the UK was willing and able to prolong the war to maintain their naval bases in Ireland, which at the time they saw as important to their national security.

In the context of an independant Scotland, I don't think it is credible to suggest that the UK would go to war to maitain their naval presence in Scotland after a successful indy ref. All an independant Scotland need do to make the RN leave is to inform London that their ships are no longer welcome.

I wasn't suggesting that England would go to war with Scotland - but you can be sure that England will throw its weight around in any negotiations.

So, if keeping the bases in Scotland were to be a red line for England, Scotland may have to concede on the point (at least for a time), for gains elsewhere.

In other words, if England sees it "as important to their national security", then Scotland will simply not be able to "inform London that their ships are no longer welcome".

Imreoir2

Hermy wrote: »

On that, what powers if any do Scotland have to make these demands of the UK/ England? Assuming Scotland were to successfully achieve independence by legal constitutional means is there anything to compel UK/ England to grant said independence or could they just ignore a referendum for instance and make a counter-demand that Scotland remain in the union?

Yes, but there is no reason to grant a referendum in the first place if you are not minded to abide by its result.

In theory however, the UK government could simply ignore the result, but they would risk a swift UDI from the Scottish government in that situation. I don't think the UK is willing to send in the tanks if the Scots vote for independance.

Hermy

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Yes, but there is no reason to grant a referendum in the first place if you are not minded to abide by its result.

In theory however, the UK government could simply ignore the result, but they would risk a swift UDI from the Scottish government in that situation. I don't think the UK is willing to send in the tanks if the Scots vote for independance.

Given that the Scots are looking at the possibility of going ahead with a referendum without Westminster approval and that this Tory government have already declared their willingness to break international law I'm thinking normal rules may not apply.

Basically, I'm just wondering how it would all play out and to what extent each can exert their will (without sending in the tanks).

Water John

We fought a war with England and agreed a truce. The UK kept naval bases for nearly 20 years. Trident will stay until they become obselete.

Imreoir2

Water John wrote: »

We fought a war with England and agreed a truce. The UK kept naval bases for nearly 20 years. Trident will stay until they become obselete.

There seems to be a significant leap between your first two points and your third.
Scotland and England might reach such an agreement, but that is not certain and what happened in Ireland 100 years ago will not be relevant to it.

Peregrinus

Everybody assumes that rump-UK would want to keeps its nuclear forces in foreign territory, and operate them exclusively out of that territory, but there are obvious strategic reasons why the UK might not be keen. Placing your nuclear capability in another country gives that other country some degree of control over it, both practically and legally, and after that we are only talking about what degree of control. The UK might prefer to move to a situation in which the Scottish government had no control at all over Trident.

Ideally, the break-up of the UK might lead to a degree of self-examination on the part of rump-UK that would lead them to question the utility or value of maintaining this preposterous collection of phallic symbols, and the problem might be solved by decommissioning. But that's probably too much to hope for; a more likely response, at least in the short term, is that rump-UK will become more hairy-chested about Trident, not less so. If I were Scotland I would quietly encourage rump-UK to get all anxious about "taking back control!" of Trident so that, as regards the desirability of moving from Scotland, both sides would be on the same page.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

Everybody assumes that rump-UK would want to keeps its nuclear forces in foreign territory, and operate them exclusively out of that territory, but there are obvious strategic reasons why the UK might not be keen. Placing your nuclear capability in another country gives that other country some degree of control over it, both practically and legally, and after that we are only talking about what degree of control. The UK might prefer to move to a situation in which the Scottish government had no control at all over Trident.

Ideally, the break-up of the UK might lead to a degree of self-examination on the part of rump-UK that would lead them to question the utility or value of maintaining this preposterous collection of phallic symbols, and the problem might be solved by decommissioning. But that's probably too much to hope for; a more likely response, at least in the short term, is that rump-UK will become more hairy-chested about Trident, not less so. If I were Scotland I would quietly encourage rump-UK to get all anxious about "taking back control!" of Trident so that, as regards the desirability of moving from Scotland, both sides would be on the same page.

Only problem is that the Faslane site is the best location for a nuclear sub - deep water, and multiple approaches for the subs. There is no such location in England. Portsmouth was an ideal navy location because the Isle of Wight gave four tides a day. That was a great asset from the 16th century, not so much today for a sub.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Only problem is that the Faslane site is the best location for a nuclear sub - deep water, and multiple approaches for the subs. There is no such location in England. Portsmouth was an ideal navy location because the Isle of Wight gave four tides a day. That was a great asset from the 16th century, not so much today for a sub.

The Royal Navy currently has a submarine base at Devenport, and previously had one at Blyth, and there may be other locations in England or Wales that haven't been used as submarine bases but could be. So there would be options in rump-UK. I get that they may be less suitable in one way or another than Faslane, but they would be more suitable in at least one signficant respect; they are not in the terrritory of a foreign government - particularly one that wants them gone.

Markcheese

I suppose ,that if hollywood goes ahead with a referendum against westminsters wishes , it could end up like catalonia , ( although I doubt that westminster would make as much of a pigs eat of it as the spanish government did ) ..
, either westminster could call the referendum illegal , so many wouldn't vote , or
They could proclaim it advisory( as brexit was ) , and then ignore the result ..
In a close vote , the fear and divide tactics would probably swing it .
and I would imagine that the current Uk administration would happily go to whatever underhand tactics "necessary " to get their desired result..

Sam Russell

Markcheese wrote: »

I suppose ,that if hollywood goes ahead with a referendum against westminsters wishes , it could end up like catalonia , ( although I doubt that westminster would make as much of a pigs eat of it as the spanish government did ) ..
, either westminster could call the referendum illegal , so many wouldn't vote , or
They could proclaim it advisory( as brexit was ) , and then ignore the result ..
In a close vote , the fear and divide tactics would probably swing it .
and I would imagine that the current Uk administration would happily go to whatever underhand tactics "necessary " to get their desired result..

If the pro-independence parties get a very large majority in the upcoming SA elections, it would be difficult, but likely, that Westminster would ignore the result and the certain subsequent demand for an IndyRef2.

If the Scottish Assembly go ahead, and the UK Gov participates, then it will hard, but likely, for them to ignore the result (unless it is not carried).

We will have to wait developments (if any).

bob mcbob

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the pro-independence parties get a very large majority in the upcoming SA elections, it would be difficult, but likely, that Westminster would ignore the result and the certain subsequent demand for an IndyRef2.

If the Scottish Assembly go ahead, and the UK Gov participates, then it will hard, but likely, for them to ignore the result (unless it is not carried).

We will have to wait developments (if any).

Well it seems that Westminster has already decided

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54827100

Constitutional crisis is on it's way.

A Dub in Glasgo

That is not sustainable as UK already legislates that a political generation for a referendum can be 7 years - granted that relates to Northern Ireland

The SNP used 'once in a generation' as a figure of speech to galvanise support and the Tories know it. Johnson used the same approach for the General Election last year

eire4

bob mcbob wrote: »

Well it seems that Westminster has already decided

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54827100

Constitutional crisis is on it's way.

I have said it before but will say it again this continued intransigence from London will only increase the vote for the SNP next May at the Scottish Assembly elections and the support for independence in general to the point where I can see it being above 60% support in favour of independence by next May.