Scottish independence

Water John

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Boris is offering a tunnel to NI.

But who is going to pay for it ?

The EU

eire4

Water John wrote: »

The EU

Haha that is brilliant.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

The way I see it... if Ireland is united before Scottish Independence, wouldn't we be a lot better off if Great Britain remained intact as one country? Scotland would basically be trying to invade our economic space in the EU, our unique selling point to the bloc.

I genuinely wish the UK all the best when we get the 6 counties back. Nobody in the country should have any bone to pick whatsoever with England/GB after that. Rather than the current chip on the shoulder that a lot have, we'd be strong friends and allies ala their relationship with Australia/Canada.

Wanderer78

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote:

The way I see it... if Ireland is united before Scottish Independence, wouldn't we be a lot better off if Great Britain remained intact as one country? Scotland would basically be trying to invade our space in the EU, our unique selling point to the bloc.

What space would that be?

You can see Scotland is preparing for independence in many ways, including by creating it's own infrastructure bank, we should really do the same

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What space would that be?

You can see Scotland is preparing for independence in many ways, including by creating it's own infrastructure bank, we should really do the same

Well educated, English speaking work force... a bridge between America and the EU. Wouldn't be surprised if they'd undercut our 12.5% corporation tax either. Make no mistake about it they'd be a painful economic competitor.

Wanderer78

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote:

Well educated, English speaking work force... a bridge between America and the EU. Wouldn't be surprised if they'd undercut our 12.5% corporation tax either. Make no mistake about it they'd be a painful economic competitor.

Can't see that at all, if more join the Eu, and we manage to resolve many of its issues, it would be largely good for us all, the least amount of friction between us all, could benefit all

Peregrinus

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

The way I see it... if Ireland is united before Scottish Independence, wouldn't we be a lot better off if Great Britain remained intact as one country? Scotland would basically be trying to invade our economic space in the EU, our unique selling point to the bloc.

In general, Ireland is better off if GB remains united. We still sell quite a lot of stuff to GB; therefore it suits us if GB remains prosperous. And division of GB into Scotland and England+Wales, especially if it involves a hard trade border, will tend to make both parts of GB less well-off.

But so what? Ireland's view on whether GB should remain united or should be divided, and Ireland's interest in the matter, will have absolutely no bearing on whether GB does remain united or is divided. We cannot influence this one way or the other; all we can do is prepare for the possibility that it may happen.

Wanderer78

Peregrinus wrote:

In general, Ireland is better off if GB remains united. We still sell quite a lot of stuff to GB; therefore it suits us if GB remains prosperous. And division of GB into Scotland and England+Wales, especially if it involves a hard trade border, will tend to make both parts of GB less well-off.

We actually don't do much trade with the UK anymore, most is now with the Eu, but the slow breaking up of the UK is very problematic for us all

Peregrinus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We actually don't do much trade with the UK anymore, most is now with the Eu, but the slow breaking up of the UK is very problematic for us all

About 12% of our exports go to the UK but, for some sectors of the economy — principally agriculture/food — it's signficantly higher. So, not trivial at all. The UK's economic health does have a material effect on us.

Wanderer78

Peregrinus wrote:

About 12% of our exports go to the UK but, for some sectors of the economy — principally agriculture/food — it's signficantly higher. So, not trivial at all. The UK's economic health does have a material effect on us.

Oh I completely agree, but 12% is just 12%, a falling UK is not good for anyone, including ourselves, this could get tricky

breatheme

Scotland would also be more customers for Irish products.

I see Scotland joining as another Denmark joining, not another Ireland.

pixelburp

Honestly, if Ireland's economy is that fragile that a single addition to the EU would cause its collapse, maybe we never had a good economy to begin with? I would see Scotland as neither friend nor foe, were it to join the Union. Merely another neighbour, in a union of equals. There'll be some things we share, and others we compete for. But nothing so drastic that Ireland's success would be immediately imperilled; that feels a touch histrionic.

But all things being equal, it's also entirely likely Ireland would suddenly find itself another English speaking nation to pool resources and clout when it comes to cross-continental issues. Without the UK, we cut a very lonely figure, conceptually. That could change for the better with Scotland upping the numbers from 1 to 2 (well, technically 3 given Malta's official language is English, but you get my point).

Saren Arterius

Don't derail the thread please.

Saren Arterius

breatheme wrote: »

Scotland would also be more customers for Irish products.

I see Scotland joining as another Denmark joining, not another Ireland.

How can you possibly think that Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade would be in any way good for Scotland and its economy?

On the one hand you tell us that Britain will suffer because it's left a union with which it does just 40% and declining of its trade, yet on the other you enthusiastically support Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade. Scotland is far more dependent on the UK for trade than on the EU. You lot really haven't thought this one through.

Scotland would be f* cked if it leaves the UK - and that would be Scotland's problem, not the UK's. We'd be fine. Scotland wouldn't. In fact, it'd soon be begging to be let back in.

Water John

ROI was doing similar trade with the UK in the 1970s.

A Dub in Glasgo

Saren Arterius wrote: »

How can you possibly think that Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade would be in any way good for Scotland and its economy?

On the one hand you tell us that Britain will suffer because it's left a union with which it does just 40% and declining of its trade, yet on the other you enthusiastically support Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade. Scotland is far more dependent on the UK for trade than on the EU. You lot really haven't thought this one through.

Scotland would be f* cked if it leaves the UK - and that would be Scotland's problem, not the UK's. We'd be fine. Scotland wouldn't. In fact, it'd soon be begging to be let back in.

In what way is the UK a union?

jm08

Saren Arterius wrote: »

How can you possibly think that Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade would be in any way good for Scotland and its economy?

On the one hand you tell us that Britain will suffer because it's left a union with which it does just 40% and declining of its trade, yet on the other you enthusiastically support Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade. Scotland is far more dependent on the UK for trade than on the EU. You lot really haven't thought this one through.

Scotland would be f* cked if it leaves the UK - and that would be Scotland's problem, not the UK's. We'd be fine. Scotland wouldn't. In fact, it'd soon be begging to be let back in.

Its fair to say that England would be sunk without Scottish energy and water. England is not going to stop buying that. Scotland could gear its economy to suit itself, rather than south east of England. One thing they could raise a fair bit by putting a wealth tax on large estates which are mostly owned by wealthy English people.

Peregrinus

Saren Arterius wrote: »

How can you possibly think that Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade would be in any way good for Scotland and its economy?

On the one hand you tell us that Britain will suffer because it's left a union with which it does just 40% and declining of its trade, yet on the other you enthusiastically support Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade. Scotland is far more dependent on the UK for trade than on the EU. You lot really haven't thought this one through.

Scotland would be f* cked if it leaves the UK - and that would be Scotland's problem, not the UK's. We'd be fine. Scotland wouldn't. In fact, it'd soon be begging to be let back in.

The economic impact would be signficant, and it would disproportionately fall on Scotland. But not entirely — rump UK would also be adversely affected.

This wouldn't necessarily prevent Scottish independence, or lead to its early reversal. After all, it hasn't prevented or led to the early reversal of Brexit.

And, on the other side of the scale, Scotland in leaving the UK would be gaining far, far more in the way of sovereignty, independence and autonomy than the UK gained by leaving the EU. So, the considerations pro and con are bigger on both sides for Scotland with Indyref than they were for the UK with Brexit.

breatheme

Saren Arterius wrote: »

How can you possibly think that Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade would be in any way good for Scotland and its economy?

On the one hand you tell us that Britain will suffer because it's left a union with which it does just 40% and declining of its trade, yet on the other you enthusiastically support Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade. Scotland is far more dependent on the UK for trade than on the EU. You lot really haven't thought this one through.

Scotland would be f* cked if it leaves the UK - and that would be Scotland's problem, not the UK's. We'd be fine. Scotland wouldn't. In fact, it'd soon be begging to be let back in.

Because trade would not stop, England needs Scotland as well.

Saren Arterius

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

In what way is the UK a union?

It's a political union comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - the most successful political union on history.

pixelburp

Saren Arterius wrote: »

How can you possibly think that Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade would be in any way good for Scotland and its economy?

On the one hand you tell us that Britain will suffer because it's left a union with which it does just 40% and declining of its trade, yet on the other you enthusiastically support Scotland leaving a union with which it does 63% of its trade. Scotland is far more dependent on the UK for trade than on the EU. You lot really haven't thought this one through.

Scotland would be f* cked if it leaves the UK - and that would be Scotland's problem, not the UK's. We'd be fine. Scotland wouldn't. In fact, it'd soon be begging to be let back in.

Can you show some statistics that back that up re. Scotland's trading?

You seem to be working under the assumption that if they left, trading would simply stop or become so blocked as to functionally cease. Why would you believe that? When Ireland declared independence, both it and the UK came up with agreements to allow frictionless trade or movement, such as the CTA. Agreements that of course have made Brexit all the more stinging of late, precisely because for the longest time we operated as close partners. And that was an inherently acrimonious breakup.

An indendent Scotland's first order of business would be to arrange something between itself and the UK to allow for trade to continue, reducing hassle as much as possible. It's entirely possible that 63% figure might drop as exporters look elsewhere, but we can't know. Certainly "Scotland would be f*cked" is a reduction and then some.

jm08

Saren Arterius wrote: »

It's a political union comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - the most successful political union on history.

I'd say that the US (formed in 1776) is the most successful political union in history. The Act of Union barely lasted a 100 years!

Saren Arterius

jm08 wrote: »

Its fair to say that England would be sunk without Scottish energy and water. England is not going to stop buying that. Scotland could gear its economy to suit itself, rather than south east of England. One thing they could raise a fair bit by putting a wealth tax on large estates which are mostly owned by wealthy English people.

It took me about 15 seconds to Google it and discover that Scotland does NOT provide water to England. Scotland doesn't export any water at all

Another quick Google: On average, over the last four years, 72 per cent of UK electricity generation has taken place in England, 15 per cent in Scotland, 11 per cent in Wales and 2 per cent in Northern Ireland.

Saren Arterius

jm08 wrote: »

I'd say that the US (formed in 1776) is the most successful political union in history. The Act of Union barely lasted a 100 years!

I'd say the UK is.

jm08

Saren Arterius wrote: »

I'd say the UK is.

Why?

jm08

Saren Arterius wrote: »

It took me about 15 seconds to Google it and discover that Scotland does NOT provide water to England. Scotland doesn't export any water at all

Another quick Google: On average, over the last four years, 72 per cent of UK electricity generation has taken place in England, 15 per cent in Scotland, 11 per cent in Wales and 2 per cent in Northern Ireland.

Using what to generate it? Gas, oil, coal, wind? Where does the raw material to generate electricity come from?



Scotland doesn't supply water now to England (Wales does). With climate change etc, population growth in south east England, it will be something to worry about for the future.

Niska

Saren Arterius wrote: »

Another quick Google: On average, over the last four years, 72 per cent of UK electricity generation has taken place in England, 15 per cent in Scotland, 11 per cent in Wales and 2 per cent in Northern Ireland.

A google so quick you forgot to link the source.
I'm assuming it's this:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/669787/Regional_Electricity_Generation_and_Supply.pdf

It back's up your figures above, though you forgot to add the consumption figures:

England: 81.5%
Scotland: 10%
Wales: 5.9%
Norther Ireland: 2.6%

So, if Scotland is producing 15% of the UK supply, but only consuming 10%, and England is producing 72% but consuming 81.5%, it's fair to say Scotland is exporting Electricity to England.

Indeed, page 10 of the above report has a nice diagram showing this, along with imports from Continental Europe and Ireland.

One caveat - the figures are from 2016.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Saren Arterius given a week off for persistently trying to derail the thread. Please do not respond to their posts.

bob mcbob

Peregrinus wrote: »

The economic impact would be signficant, and it would disproportionately fall on Scotland. But not entirely — rump UK would also be adversely affected.

This wouldn't necessarily prevent Scottish independence, or lead to its early reversal. After all, it hasn't prevented or led to the early reversal of Brexit.

And, on the other side of the scale, Scotland in leaving the UK would be gaining far, far more in the way of sovereignty, independence and autonomy than the UK gained by leaving the EU. So, the considerations pro and con are bigger on both sides for Scotland with Indyref than they were for the UK with Brexit.

Although Scotland currently does 63% of it's trade with rUK this does not mean that all of this trade is consumed in rUK. Some of it is for onward export to the EU.

When Scotland leaves and joins the EU SM & CU so the rules that the UK currently enjoy with the EU will also apply at the Scottish border. Now according to the Tories, the current issues with the rules are teething issues only which will be resolved. Yea I don't believe it either but the Tories can't have it both ways.

If the issues with the rules are structural then it is more likely that companies will move bases to within the SM & CU.

After Scottish indy, the rUK will have the EU (and rules) to the North, South, East and West but it is Scotland that is isolated. It reminds me of the famous Times headline "Fog in channel, Europe cut-off'

bob mcbob

Just got the Scottish Tory glossy thru the door for the May elections.

The Headline is -

"Only the Scottish Conservatives can prevent the SNP winning a majority.
Stopping their second independence referendum"

So the Scottish Tories agree that if SNP run on a second referendum and win a majority then a 2nd referendum should be provided. I wonder if Boris knows?

Also an interesting article in the Herald which says that as support for independence has grown so Unionism has become more extreme as the soft No voters have moved to Yes. This leaves the Unionist parties fighting over the smaller hard core No voters.

I tend to think of it less as the arrival of unionists into the SNP and more the departure of soft unionists from the other parties and what that has done to those parties,” she said. “You can see this in Labour's polling and the attitudes of Labour-supporting voters to the constitution.

“Having advocated a policy that was clearly more hardline than their electorate for years, Labour has shed those ambivalent to that policy, with the result that their (now much smaller) group of supporters is more opposed to indy than they used to be.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19118720.independence-yes-displaced-unionism-unionism-tried-fight-back-david-leask/