Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Scottish independence
Options
Comments
-
Government controls the parliament, did you skip civics class?
what? no it doesn't.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/parliament-government/0 -
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »Devolved powers that were being administered by the EU. IMB is diluting devolution
You previously said that this was scaremongering
it is scaremongering.
someone needs to set the standards for all regions.0 -
it is scaremongering.
someone needs to set the standards for all regions.
You seem to be following two seperate lines of argument.
Are you saying that devolution is not being diluted and that suggesting otherwise is scaremongering, or acknologing that devolution is being diluted but arguing that said dilution is justified?
Its not credible to argue that a dilution of devolution that someone points out is true but justified, and at the same time not true and only scaremongering.0 -
Aegir wrote:someone needs to set the standards for all regions.
Ah, so you understand the importance of common standards across the UK. Now, try and extend that concept to the EU single market.
It would be nice to think the penny could drop but it has a long way to fall.0 -
You seem to be following two seperate lines of argument.
Are you saying that devolution is not being diluted and that suggesting otherwise is scaremongering, or acknologing that devolution is being diluted but arguing that said dilution is justified?
Its not credible to argue that a dilution of devolution that someone points out is true but justified, and at the same time not true and only scaremongering.
it is only a dilution is the Scottish Parliament had these powers in the first place. The argument on the IMB (and I accept it is far from perfect) is that these powers are transferring back to the UK, so who should have them.
If the UK government has them, the Scottish government argue it is a power grab, if they are devolved to each region then you could effectively have four different sets of standards which, among other things, makes internal trade difficult.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
powers that were otherwise controlled by the EU. Ultimately, there has to be some mechanism for all four members of the UK to have common standards.
why are you assigning labels to people?
what part of devo max do you have a problem with?
Oh look, a question being answered with a question. How Aegir.
You're a Unionist though; so I would think you would have an interest in how the current UKGOV is approaching one of the constituent members attitude's about leaving the "precious union". Or you're not and just have a patronising attitude towards Scots for some reason.0 -
How about we just have good relations with Scotland and leave it at that? Let them have Rockall, with every year that goes past exploring for new gas and oil becomes more uneconomic anyway. Then support their bid for EU membership. SNP's current position is that they want to be a monarchy, leave em off I say.0
-
-
Court case next week and now a sitting MSP has endorsed the case to join two sitting MPs who endorsed it last week
https://twitter.com/PeoplesAS30/status/13498082522723000320 -
Advertisement
-
Denmark is a member of the EU in respect of mainland Denmark, but not in respect of Greenland or of the Faroe Islands (which are both part of the Denmark).You are confusing two different situations. Any EU member is free to negotiate opt outs it might need, as Denmark and Ireland (Schengen) have done when Treaty changes came into effect. But they were already full members when they did that, having complied with all conditions for membership required at the time they joined.
Scotland is not a sovereign state, which has always been the first requirement for EU membership. Whatever about an existing member opting out of something new, there is no chance an applicant non member can opt out of something as old as the Treaty of Rome.
In principle, there's no reason why the UK couldn't accede as a member of the EU in respect of Scotland (and NI?), but not in respect of England (and Wales?). The position would then be not that Scotland was a member, but that the UK was a member in respect of Scotland.
It's fair to point out that this would have to be negotiated with the EU-27 and they might or might not agree to it. But they agreed exactly this with Denmark in 1973 when it acceded to the EU in respect of Denmark proper and Greenland, but not in respect of the Faroe Islands (which are part of Denmark, but with home rule). And they agreed a variation of it in the Greenland Treaty of 1985, which allowed Denmark to withdraw in respect of Greenland, while remaining a member in respect of Denmark proper. So the possiblity of UK acceding as a member respect of Scotland is one for which there is a precedent, and certainly one that could be explored.
And if Westminster's position is that they will not explore it, well, that pretty much puts the kibosh on any attempt to defuse the independence movement by offering maximal devolution instead. This will just underline that Westminster is not prepared to give the Scots the kind of devolution that would satisfy the aspirations that give rise to demands for independence, which is the opposite of the intended outcome of the stratgegy.0 -
Peregrinus wrote:In principle, there's no reason why the UK couldn't accede as a member of the EU in respect of Scotland (and NI?), but not in respect of England (and Wales?). The position would then be not that Scotland was a member, but that the UK was a member in respect of Scotland.
The equivalent arrangement would be that the Faroe Islands joined the EU but Denmark did not.
Scotland's fate depends first and foremost on how it resolves its position in the UK. Even in the unlikely event it can do that in conformity with EU treaties, it would set a precedent much to alarming for Spain (re Catalunya), Cyprus (Turkey) and applicant and candidate countries in the Balkans and the former SU with ethno-nationalist enclaves.
Scotland's application will be received and reviewed sympathetically when it is a sovereign, independent state.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Denmark is a member of the EU in respect of mainland Denmark, but not in respect of Greenland or of the Faroe Islands (which are both part of the Denmark).
.....
It's fair to point out that this would have to be negotiated with the EU-27 and they might or might not agree to it. But they agreed exactly this with Denmark in 1973 when it acceded to the EU in respect of Denmark proper and Greenland, but not in respect of the Faroe Islands (which are part of Denmark, but with home rule). And they agreed a variation of it in the Greenland Treaty of 1985, which allowed Denmark to withdraw in respect of Greenland, while remaining a member in respect of Denmark proper. So the possiblity of UK acceding as a member respect of Scotland is one for which there is a precedent, and certainly one that could be explored.
....
You are using Denmark in that sentence with two different meaning, the Autonomous state of Denmark and the Realm of Denmark( which includes Denmark proper, Greenland and Faroe Islands).
But the changes agreed regarding Denmark in 1985 are not a real precedent for UK and Scotland.
(Denmark was the member of the EEC and when it joined,( with us in 1973) Greenland was not autonomous. When Greenland achieved autonomy from Denmark ( the state but not Denmark Realm) it decided to leave the EEC.
It is worth pointing out that, 1), the population of Greenland is about 50,000 2), the main driver for independence , ironically, was fishing, 3), the deal agreed with the EEC left the arrangement much the same as before because the EEC is the buyer of almost all Greenland fish, 4), Greenland now chairs the organisation for EU overseas territories and finally, there is a debate in Greenland about re-joining.)
While I believe there would be no real barrier to Scotland joining the EU, it could only do so as a recognised independent state and not as a region of UK, no matter what the constitutional arrangement because those arrangements would still always be subject to change by parliament in Westminster.
So the first step will always be Scotland achieving independence .0 -
I don't think it would ring any alarm bells with respect to Catalunya, etc; none of those are cases of a region seeking indepence in order to join/remain in the EU when the parent state doesn't want to.The equivalent arrangement would be that the Faroe Islands joined the EU but Denmark did not.
Scotland's fate depends first and foremost on how it resolves its position in the UK. Even in the unlikely event it can do that in conformity with EU treaties, it would set a precedent much to alarming for Spain (re Catalunya), Cyprus (Turkey) and applicant and candidate countries in the Balkans and the former SU with ethno-nationalist enclaves.
Plus, if this arrangement is feasible it allows the Scots to be in the EU while also remaining in the UK. I don't see why that should alarm the Spanish, etc; surely if they are worried that Scotland leaving the EU will encourage Catalunyan separatism, then they would be delighted to support any arrangement which meant Scotland not leaving the EU?
Sure, but that's no comfort to unionists; quite the opposite.Scotland's application will be received and reviewed sympathetically when it is a sovereign, independent state.
Remember, what we're talking about here is strategies Westminister might adopt to defuse demands for independence. The specific strategy mentioned is maximal devolution; giving Scotland [most of] the competences that independence would give it, but without it leaving the UK (and therefore suffering the adverse consequences of leaving the UK).
We lads who took Leaving Cert history back in the day recall that in the 1890s a Tory government tried a somewhat similar strategy with respect to Ireland, referred to as "killing home rule with kindness". It didn't work, obviously. But, different situation, different times; could it work here, now?
As already discussed in this thread, one of the big drivers for the renewed demand for independence is Scotland's desire to be in the EU, versus England's insistence on taking it out. A killing by kindness strategy needs to address this problem if it's to have any chance of working, I think.
And the Danish precedent points to a model which could work. Obviously, it needs the agreement of the EU-27, and neither the Scots government nor Westminster can guarantee that it would be given. But it could certainly be sought. And you haven't really done much to persuade me that it wouldn't be given. You point out that it's not compatible with the Treaties as they stand. True, but so what? The Danish solution wasn't compatible with the Treaties as they stood at the time, so the Treaties were amended. Twice. They could be amended again.
But, in the context of this thread, the important question is not "would the EU agree to this?" It's "would the UK agree to this?" If Westminster won't even countenance it as a possibilty, then their "killing by kindness" strategy pretty much looses credibility. There'd be a clear limit to the amount of kindness they are prepared to offer Scotland, and that limit would fall well short of anything that would satisfy the desires that are fuelling the drive for independence.
Even if you could persuade me that the EU would never agree (and, actually, it wouldn't be difficult to persuade me of that) that wouldn't greatly undermine my argument here. If Westminster won't offer Scotland the kind of devolution that would make it possible to participate in the EU while England didn't, or if no level of devolution would make that possible, the outcome is the same; the devolution offered by Westminster won't allow Scotland to satsify one of the primary aspirations that fuels the independence movement, and therefore it won't be effective to defuse the demand for independence.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I don't think it would ring any alarm bells with respect to Catalunya, etc; none of those are cases of a region seeking indepence in order to join/remain in the EU when the parent state doesn't want to.
Plus, if this arrangement is feasible it allows the Scots to be in the EU while also remaining in the UK. I don't see why that should alarm the Spanish, etc; surely if they are worried that Scotland leaving the EU will encourage Catalunyan separatism, then they would be delighted to support any arrangement which meant Scotland not leaving the EU?
Sure, but that's no comfort to unionists; quite the opposite.
Remember, what we're talking about here is strategies Westminister might adopt to defuse demands for independence. The specific strategy mentioned is maximal devolution; giving Scotland [most of] the competences that independence would give it, but without it leaving the UK (and therefore suffering the adverse consequences of leaving the UK).
We lads who took Leaving Cert history back in the day recall that in the 1890s a Tory government tried a somewhat similar strategy with respect to Ireland, referred to as "killing home rule with kindness". It didn't work, obviously. But, different situation, different times; could it work here, now?
As already discussed in this thread, one of the big drivers for the renewed demand for independence is Scotland's desire to be in the EU, versus England's insistence on taking it out. A killing by kindness strategy needs to address this problem if it's to have any chance of working, I think.
And the Danish precedent points to a model which could work. Obviously, it needs the agreement of the EU-27, and neither the Scots government nor Westminster can guarantee that it would be given. But it could certainly be sought. And you haven't really done much to persuade me that it wouldn't be given. You point out that it's not compatible with the Treaties as they stand. True, but so what? The Danish solution wasn't compatible with the Treaties as they stood at the time, so the Treaties were amended. Twice. They could be amended again.
But, in the context of this thread, the important question is not "would the EU agree to this?" It's "would the UK agree to this?" If Westminster won't even countenance it as a possibilty, then their "killing by kindness" strategy pretty much looses credibility. There'd be a clear limit to the amount of kindness they are prepared to offer Scotland, and that limit would fall well short of anything that would satisfy the desires that are fuelling the drive for independence.
Even if you could persuade me that the EU would never agree (and, actually, it wouldn't be difficult to persuade me of that) that wouldn't greatly undermine my argument here. If Westminster won't offer Scotland the kind of devolution that would make it possible to participate in the EU while England didn't, or if no level of devolution would make that possible, the outcome is the same; the devolution offered by Westminster won't allow Scotland to satsify one of the primary aspirations that fuels the independence movement, and therefore it won't be effective to defuse the demand for independence.
If Scotland was part of the EU and England not how would the border controls work?
It's a bit easier in the Danish example regarding border control with respect to the Faroes and Greenland.0 -
This may well be correct; a relatively small part of the Danish realm being outside the EU while the rest is in is materially different from a relatively small part of the UK being in the EU while the rest is out. So while in principle a part-in part-out model is available, in practice a model that works for mostly-in-but-a-little-bit-out is not necessarily scalable to mostly-out-but-a-little-bit-in.You are using Denmark in that sentence with two different meaning, the Autonomous state of Denmark and the Realm of Denmark( which includes Denmark proper, Greenland and Faroe Islands).
But the changes agreed regarding Denmark in 1985 are not a real precedent for UK and Scotland.
(Denmark was the member of the EEC and when it joined,( with us in 1973) Greenland was not autonomous. When Greenland achieved autonomy from Denmark ( the state but not Denmark Realm) it decided to leave the EEC.
It is worth pointing out that, 1), the population of Greenland is about 50,000 2), the main driver for independence , ironically, was fishing, 3), the deal agreed with the EEC left the arrangement much the same as before because the EEC is the buyer of almost all Greenland fish, 4), Greenland now chairs the organisation for EU overseas territories and finally, there is a debate in Greenland about re-joining.)
While I believe there would be no real barrier to Scotland joining the EU, it could only do so as a recognised independent state and not as a region of UK, no matter what the constitutional arrangement because those arrangements would still always be subject to change by parliament in Westminster.
So the first step will always be Scotland achieving independence .
And, even if the model could be engineered to work for that case, I kind of doubt that at this stage there would be the political appetite among the EU-27 to do this for the UK. Pretty much the last thing the EU-27 want now is another complex, sui generis, special case treatment for the UK to accommodate their drearily intractable domestic political conflicts. Something might have been done in 2016, and the EU would have been keen to see Brexit limited in any way, but by now the UK has pretty much burned the trust and goodwill that would be needed for anythign creative.
No. From the Scots Nats point of view, the signficance of the Danish model is not that it is available to, and would work for, Scotland; it's that such models are in principle a possiblity, but that Westminster has never at any point been willing to explore them. And the Westminster's refusal to countenance them even now is problematic not that they are in practice available, but because it shows that, fundamentally, Westminster's attitude to Scotland hasn't changed.
Probably nothing can be done now, but if back in 2016 Westminster had looked at the referendum result and thought "Gosh! We've got a UK which is almost 50:50 divided between favouring membership and rejecting membership! We've got a UK, two of whose countries want out, and two of whose countries want in! How can we go about finding a way forward that respects, and takes account of, these almost equally-balanced divisions? What kind of flexiblities and compromises can we explore that would try to attach weight to the diverse of views within the UK and its consitituent countries?"
If they had done that, I kind of doubt that they would have ended up with a Danish-style solution. But if they had approached the issue with the kind of openness and flexibility and commitment to diversity that, in the case of Denmark, led to the Danish-style solution, then they might have found their way toward a UK-style solution that was (a) acceptable to the EU, and (b) more respectful of Scotland than the winner-takes-all, grind-your-enemies-beneath-your-chariot-wheels-until-you-hear-the-lamentations-of-their-womenfolk Hard Brexit that they have actually been stuck with.0 -
Peregrinus wrote:Remember, what we're talking about here is strategies Westminister might adopt to defuse demands for independence. The specific strategy mentioned is maximal devolution; giving Scotland [most of] the competences that independence would give it, but without it leaving the UK (and therefore suffering the adverse consequences of leaving the UK).
You can talk about that if you want but the EU will stay out of it.0 -
Depends on England's relationship with the EU - e.g. if England was outside the EU but in the Customs Union, say, then the border could work like the Greek/Turkish border. Or if England was outside the CU but in the SM, then the border could work like the Norway-Sweden border.If Scotland was part of the EU and England not how would the border controls work?
It's a bit easier in the Danish example regarding border control with respect to the Faroes and Greenland.
Obviously it would be harder border if Scotland was in the EU and England still went for hard Brexit. But even that would be feasible; the Eng/Scot border has only 23 road crossings and 2 rail crossings so, from a technical point of view, applying fiscal and regulatory controls would be comparatively straightforward.0 -
Of cousre it will. But so what? The Scottish independence conversation is between Scotland and Westminster. What matters about this is not what the EU says or doesn't say about it; it's what Westminster says about it, because that shows Westminister's attitudes towards Scotland needs, wishes and interests.You can talk about that if you want but the EU will stay out of it.0 -
Peregrinus wrote:Of cousre it will. But so what? The Scottish independence conversation is between Scotland and Westminster. What matters about this is not what the EU says or doesn't say about it; it's what Westminster says about it, because that shows Westminister's attitudes towards Scotland needs, wishes and interests.
This started when you suggested there might be a way that Scotland could rejoin the EU while still part of the UK.
There isn't.0 -
Advertisement
-
No. This started earlier, when it was suggested that Westminster would try to defuse the demand for independence by offering (or even actually granting) maximal devolution. I came in to point out that nationalists would naturally evaluate the devolution offered (or granted) against its capacity to satisfy Scottish aspirations, and in particular the aspiration that is currently fuelling the renewed demand for independence.This started when you suggested there might be a way that Scotland could rejoin the EU while still part of the UK.
There isn't.
Other governments have been committed to exploring and developing ways of respecting competing view as to EU membership. Much can be done if there is a genuine commitment to doing this; the Danish model is just one example of the kind of flexibity and creativity that is available, and that the EU is willing and able to accommodate. (The Norway model is another.)
The Scots Nats point will not be that the Danish model could have been applied to Scotland, or that it could be applied now. It will be that Westminster has never had, and still does not have, the attitudes and values that made the Danish model and the Norway model possible, and that could have made possible the development of a UK model which respects Scotland. And the limitations of Westminster's maximal devolution offer will show this; the offer won't even pretend to open the way for addressing Scotland's aspirations with respect to the EU, because that is - still - something for which Westminster has no regard.0 -
But what is the point of maximal devolution, you'd have a UK in name only. Westminster may prefer Scotland actually becoming independent.0
-
Peregrinus wrote:No. This started earlier, when it was suggested that Westminster would try to defuse the demand for independence by offering (or even actually granting) maximal devolution.
Fine, but maximal devolution won't include eligibility for EU membership while not a sovereign state.0 -
-
-
Yeah, Northern Ireland is indeed outside of the European Union. There are no Northern Irish MEPs. Furthermore, you'd need a different way of determining who is a citizen, because if Scotland was part of the UK but also part of the EU, how do you deal with freedom of movement for people?0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »...
Probably nothing can be done now, but if back in 2016 Westminster had looked at the referendum result and thought "Gosh! We've got a UK which is almost 50:50 divided between favouring membership and rejecting membership! We've got a UK, two of whose countries want out, and two of whose countries want in! How can we go about finding a way forward that respects, and takes account of, these almost equally-balanced divisions? What kind of flexiblities and compromises can we explore that would try to attach weight to the diverse of views within the UK and its consitituent countries?"
If they had done that, I kind of doubt that they would have ended up with a Danish-style solution. But if they had approached the issue with the kind of openness and flexibility and commitment to diversity that, in the case of Denmark, led to the Danish-style solution, then they might have found their way toward a UK-style solution that was (a) acceptable to the EU, and (b) more respectful of Scotland than the winner-takes-all, grind-your-enemies-beneath-your-chariot-wheels-until-you-hear-the-lamentations-of-their-womenfolk Hard Brexit that they have actually been stuck with.
I believe you are right, that some sort of arrangement could have been arrived at with the EU. One thing that the EU has shown itself to be good at is engineering and implementing complex political solutions, the Withdrawal agreement with the NI protocol and the arrangement in Gibraltar are evidence of that ability and willingness. But Mrs May was never politically astute enough to explore those options. And there hasn't been anyone since with even a ounce of political ability!
But getting back on topic, first and foremost, the people of Scotland really need to show convincingly that they want independence and set out a convincing plan to achieve that. The SNP, at a political level, could maintain alignment with EU rules and standards so that an application for membership would go smoothly. But right now, making constitutional decisions because fishermen are angry, ( the same who supported Brexit 92% according to the Guardian) is not really a plan.0 -
I believe you are right, that some sort of arrangement could have been arrived at with the EU. One thing that the EU has shown itself to be good at is engineering and implementing complex political solutions, the Withdrawal agreement with the NI protocol and the arrangement in Gibraltar are evidence of that ability and willingness. But Mrs May was never politically astute enough to explore those options. And there hasn't been anyone since with even a ounce of political ability!
But getting back on topic, first and foremost, the people of Scotland really need to show convincingly that they want independence and set out a convincing plan to achieve that. The SNP, at a political level, could maintain alignment with EU rules and standards so that an application for membership would go smoothly. But right now, making constitutional decisions because fishermen are angry, ( the same who supported Brexit 92% according to the Guardian) is not really a plan.
The Scottish Government has indicated that they will maintain alignment with EU standards however this is complicated a bit by the UK internal market bill where it states that any item that meets standards in any of the 4 UK nations - this is accepted throughout the UK.
Even before the Brexit fishing sellout, support for independence was about 55%. Now you can add to that some in the fishing communities who supported Brexit (and hence the union).
The SNP at the moment do not have to do anything. Just let the Brexit chaos run & run and let the clowns in Westminster continue with their arrogance and incompetence. Then watch support of independence increase.0 -
I believe you are right, that some sort of arrangement could have been arrived at with the EU. One thing that the EU has shown itself to be good at is engineering and implementing complex political solutions, the Withdrawal agreement with the NI protocol and the arrangement in Gibraltar are evidence of that ability and willingness. But Mrs May was never politically astute enough to explore those options. And there hasn't been anyone since with even a ounce of political ability!
But getting back on topic, first and foremost, the people of Scotland really need to show convincingly that they want independence and set out a convincing plan to achieve that. The SNP, at a political level, could maintain alignment with EU rules and standards so that an application for membership would go smoothly. But right now, making constitutional decisions because fishermen are angry, ( the same who supported Brexit 92% according to the Guardian) is not really a plan.
I think the smoother path is Scotland applying to join the EFTA during whatever transition period it gets after independence, and once it's comfortably in the EFTA it can start "teething" as an independent nation, and calmly apply to join the EU.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think the smoother path is Scotland applying to join the EFTA during whatever transition period it gets after independence, and once it's comfortably in the EFTA it can start "teething" as an independent nation, and calmly apply to join the EU.
I think that's exactly how that will play out.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement