There is a lot of nonsense that is spoken of regarding what an independent Scotland would involve – financial meltdown, mass emigration and never entering a World Cup again. As if we need to be independent for one of those harbingers of doom to come true.
Amidst the excellent debate in the epic comments on James’ recent post, the common line of ‘borders at Gretna’ was raised, fast becoming Scottish independence’s very own version of Godwin’s Law. (that is, the longer an online conversation discusses Scottish independence, the probablility that someone mentioning passport controls at Gretna approaches 1).
I had always considered this to be a ridiculous notion. Having to get your passport out when driving between Scotland and England seems fanciful when no such border exists between Ireland and the UK, not to mention France and Spain, Holland and France and Denmark and Sweden (though that last one is set to change). However, when leaving a comment on that recent article, I realised that passport controls between Scotland and rUK* is not so ridiculous after all.
Picturing an independent Scotland, the first thing that it will need to work hard on is its economy. I do not imagine there will be a significant withdrawal of business from a new Scotland and, even if there was, new entrants to the market would quickly fill the gap and that may not necessarily be a bad thing for a new nation finding its identity. However, there will always be extra costs for a young country as new processes get set up and institutions are created from scratch. Furthermore, a strong dose of confidence would be useful to inject at such an uncertain time so a visible growth in the Scottish economy would be welcome.
The two key ways to achieve such growth and confidence are exports and tourism; two areas in which Scotland is particularly blessed. On tourism, a new Scotland would seek to sell all its key characteristics; the golf, the whisky, the rolling hills, the ceilidhs. Ah, I’m getting all misty-eyed just typing it. However, no scone would be left unturned as this new country tried to ingratiate itself to its new European neighbours so it’s not out of the question for Scotland to opt to enter the Schengen agreement which would mean that citizens from EU countries that are also in this agreement would not need their passports to travel to Scotland. A subtly powerful way to entreat tourists to come visit and spend their money. Indeed, Scotland may even have no choice in the matter as it has been suggested that new joiners to the EU (of which I would personally assume that Scotland as the secession state would be and rUK would not) must join this Schengen agreement.
Either way, the rest of the UK would have a problem if Scotland were to enter Schengen.
Per Wikipedia:
In 1985 five member states of the then European Economic Community signed the Schengen Agreement on the gradual dropping of border controls between their respective countries. This treaty and its implementation convention of 1990 would pave the way for the creation of the Schengen Area. Although not implemented until 1995, two years later during the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference, all European Union member states except the United Kingdom and Ireland, plus two non-member states Norway and Iceland, had signed the Schengen Agreement. During those negotiations, which led to Amsterdam Treaty and the incorporation of Schengen into the main body of European Union law, Britain and Ireland obtained an opt-out affirming their right to maintain systematic passport and immigration controls at their frontiers. If the United Kingdom or Ireland were to join Schengen, the Common Travel Area would come to an end. If one were to join without the other, the joining country would have to exercise border controls vis-Ã -vis the other thus ending the zone. If both were to join all the functions of the area would be subsumed into the Schengen provisions and the Area would cease to have any separate existence.
I can’t imagine the largely UKIP-sympathetic, anti-immigration electorate of rUK ever agreeing to open, passport-free borders; it is barely tolerable for them to be a part of the EU as it is. In Scotland, that is not the case and, were it to be proven that the income gained from being part of Schengen would exceed the cost of a few passport controls and the hassle when travelling into England, then I can easily imagine this imbalance on the British mainland taking place.
The irony of a border point at Gretna symbolising an end of the Scottish/UK marriage? Don’t bet against it….
* rUK = the rest of the UK once Scotland has left
#1 by Indy on May 25, 2011 - 4:50 pm
OK we are assuming that all this tourism is coming by ferry are we?
Cos if most of these new tourists from Schengen countries are coming by plane they will need their passports (as a form of identity) to book a ticket in the first place, even if they don’t need to show it at border control.
And if they were hiring a car they would also probably need their passport as proof of identity.
So why would any Scottish administration of any hue decide to join Schengen just so the minority of EU tourists who bring their own cars by ferry to Scotland don’t have the hassle of having to show a passport when they pass through border control?
#2 by Jeff on May 25, 2011 - 5:02 pm
Aeroplanes are the more conventional form of transport these days Indy, do keep up…. 😉
Travellers will need a form of identity at airports but a driver’s license will suffice and people have that to hand as a matter of course anyway. I suspect people can use their driver license to hire a car too, call that a hunch.
We can argue the toss but I reckon offering 300m-400m Europeans not to have to take a passport with them on holiday would be a significant boost to Scottish tourism.
#3 by Martinb on May 25, 2011 - 5:17 pm
Not all flights require govt-issued ID: flying to SOU from EDI with FlyBe, my work ID pass is plenty good enough.
And for self-checkin on *real* airlines, I don’t even need that on the day; home-printed (or phone with 2d barcode) works just fine.
How does it work between .ie & UK?
#4 by Indy on May 25, 2011 - 5:24 pm
Yeah that’s what I thought,
When was the last time you didn’t have to show your passport at check-in, even on an internal flight within the UK?
#5 by Jeff on May 25, 2011 - 6:21 pm
A few weeks ago.
Drivers license is always sufficent when I fly between Edinburgh and London. I checked Wikipedia for Schengen in general and it clearly states that passports aren’t required.
#6 by Indy on May 25, 2011 - 6:58 pm
Yes I know people are not required to show their passport for border control but they may need to show it for proof of identity. But that isn’t even the point.
You are suggesting that Scotland will join Schengen in order to make it easier for EU tourists to come here without passports (even though I maintain a lot of them would have to bring their passports anyway as proof of ID but that’s debatable).
The consequence of that would be that there would have to be border controls between Scotland and England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
So, again, why would any Scottish Government do that?
The hassle of having border controls within the UK would so obviously outweigh the benefit of getting some extra tourists who feel really strongly that they do not want to have to carry a passport.
It just does not make sense.
#7 by Aidan Skinner on May 25, 2011 - 5:36 pm
Schengen appears to be a non-negotiable part of EU membership now.
#8 by Indy on May 25, 2011 - 5:44 pm
So how come the UK and Ireland aren’t in it?
#9 by Malc on May 25, 2011 - 5:48 pm
Because they were members BEFORE Schengen. I think what Aidan means is that it (and the Euro) are non-negotiable fo new members joining the EU.
Whether Scotland would be a “new” member or a “revised” member is open to debate – clearly, there is no precedent.
#10 by Indy on May 25, 2011 - 6:01 pm
This is a complex area. If Scotland is a “new” member then so would the rest of the UK be as it too would be a new country, However I am sure everyone will be pleased to know that Stephen Noon is doing a PhD or something like that on it. Good timing eh?
#11 by Aidan Skinner on May 25, 2011 - 6:37 pm
The remaining UK would certainly be a successor state keeping it’s existing treaty status, obligations, rights etc. just as Russia was the successor state to the USSR.
The smaller states which broke away from the USSR either resumed their prior independent legal identity or acquired a novel one. Those states had to apply for UN membership for instance. Scotland would presumably fall into this category, resuming it’s pre-1707 legal identity. That, historic, Scotland was not a member of the EU, NATO or other supranational body.
I am not a lawyer, but I do like to play one on the internet.
#12 by Indy on May 25, 2011 - 6:49 pm
You really can’t say that. There is all kind of different legal opinion on it. The SNP is probably guilty of saying Scotland would definitely be in when we don’t know that for certain but neither does anyone else.
#13 by Aidan Skinner on May 25, 2011 - 7:52 pm
Not really, there’s a fairly large body of legal opinion that we would need to negotiate entry. It’s not that we wouldn’t get in, but there would be terms associated with it.
Here’s a recent overview: http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/926/Independence%3A_the_legal_questions.html
#14 by Alexander Belic on May 26, 2011 - 4:27 am
Actually Russia was the second of the 15 nations to declare independence from the Soviet Union, by your logic the successor state would have been Georgia. All 15 members would have had an equal claim to the Soviet seat on the security council, etc but in the Alm-ata accords 14 of them agreed to recognise Russia as the successor, with full control of the nuclear weapons, & security council seat and 100% responsibility for the Soviet national debt.
As far as I’m aware there are no plans to shirk a per capita share of the UK’s national debt, assets or treaty responsibilities.
#15 by Aidan Skinner on May 26, 2011 - 10:48 am
I didn’t claim that order was important in determining successor state status, and I would also dispute that the other countries had equal claim to that status.
Whether there is a claim to the national debt, military or other assets or treaty responsibilities is also not a determinant of successor state status. Both the Czech republic and Slovakia assumed portions of assets and liabilities and remain liable for their treaty obligations however neither is a successor state to Czechoslovakia and both had to apply for UN membership.
#16 by Malc on May 25, 2011 - 6:39 pm
He’s doing a Masters I think. But yes – it is complex. Arguably we could both carry on our previous memberships, or since we’re the ones seceding we might have to re-apply while the rUK would get to carry on as was. Its complex, as you say. We’ll probably have to leave this one in the hands of constitutional lawyers.
#17 by Aidan Skinner on May 25, 2011 - 6:18 pm
indeed, although Belgium may set one before we do. It’s highly unlikely that they’d want to negotiate an opt out and, with it being part of the settled EU law I suspect it might be rather difficult for us to do so.
Quite possibly the same situation with the Euro, though how on earth joining ERM II when we used a foreign currency outwith our control would work I haven’t the foggiest.
#18 by Malc on May 25, 2011 - 6:40 pm
Belgium is such an interesting case – maybe they will separate… but yeah, opt-outs. Who knows?!
#19 by Aidan Skinner on May 25, 2011 - 6:44 pm
well I really hope the SNP are much further along figuring this out than they’ve let on or it’s going to be an extremely unstable period between a yes vote and independence.
#20 by Holyrood patter on May 25, 2011 - 5:05 pm
No scone left unturned?
Are you channeling love and garbage?
#21 by Martinb on May 25, 2011 - 5:18 pm
Only if Jeff’s (correctly) pronouncing it as scone, rather than falling into the error of scone.
#22 by IanH on May 25, 2011 - 5:22 pm
Just out of curiosity, does the r in rUK stand for rest or runt?
I’d guess that most tourists in Scotland are English, so making things convenient for them would be the priority. Although that might change if Scotland adopted the Euro.
#23 by douglas clark on May 25, 2011 - 7:39 pm
I had always understood it to be rump UK. Y’know, a bit pejorative….
#24 by pozorvlak on May 25, 2011 - 6:06 pm
an independent Scotland would involve… never entering a World Cup again
We can but hope.
Pingback: Scottish passports and the Scottish-English border | The Widmann Blog
#25 by Thomas Widmann on May 25, 2011 - 7:47 pm
That blue passport in this posting didn’t look very much like a realistic Scottish one to me, so I tried to mock up a more realistic one.
#26 by Random Lurking Scotsman on May 25, 2011 - 9:53 pm
Considering my wife’s family live in England, passport controls would be a bit of a pain. That said, apart from insane rants on the Scotsman forums what independence would mean hasn’t really been spelt out in full, concrete detail so I’m looking forward to seeing what the SNP come up with.
#27 by douglas clark on May 25, 2011 - 11:08 pm
Random Lurking Scotsman,
Whilst I agree that the SNP are in the driving seat, I am just as interested in what you come up with.
Independence is not about subservience to the SNP. It is as much about what you want for the future – and we are talking hundreds of years here – not what a political party says.
That said, it will be a cold day in hell if you do not put up your own ideas. Because standing aside right now and criticizing – the SNP for example – is to abrogate the whole idea of independence. It is to be a passive voice in an active world.
Do you actually have any views?
Or do you think this is like ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ where it is all entertainment?
’cause that is how you are coming across.
#28 by Colin on May 26, 2011 - 1:12 am
I think I can shed a little light on the constitutional issues re: Scotland and Rump UK. The main legal debate here is whether the Acts of Union created a new legal entity or not. If they did then the UK ceases to exist as a legal entity upon Scotland leaving it, therefore making Scotland and the rump UK in equal positions regarding EU membership. The other view is that the rest of the UK would continue as a continuation of the old UK and not need to re-apply. Within Britain the former seems to be closest to the truth and so from a UK legal perspective, both countries would either have to re-apply or would continue to be members (depending upon what would happen concerning EU membership of newly created nation that was previous and EU member its old legal form).
However, the question is really what the rest of the EU thinks – if they view England, Wales and Northern Ireland as a new nation state and Scotland as a new nation state, as seems to be the legal position, then one of these two options concerning membership will apply to both. If the EU takes its own view and sees the rump UK as the continuing state then it might only apply to Scotland. I really think it will be what legal view the EU takes and not what the legal view is held within the UK.
#29 by Bugger the Panda on May 26, 2011 - 9:06 am
re Aiden Skinner
If and when Scotland breaks the Union, the United Kingdom is no more. The United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed by the Treaty of Union and brought into being by Acts of Parliament, in London and Edinburgh. Both Parliaments ceased to be and a new Parliament of the United Kingdom etc came into being. This both Nations should they split would have rights and obligations implicit form their period of joint Union. England is not the UK and would not inherit any less than Scotland and thus would just assume the mantle of the broken UK leaving Scotland to reapply for any membership of organisations and other unions.
As I was typing this I saw that Colin had also addressed this. I disagree that we must defer to the EU as to whether Scotland as a new nation needs to apply for membership whereas England et al need not.The UK is shot and needs to think of itself as a new national entity too.
#30 by James on May 26, 2011 - 10:02 am
There certainly seems no obvious basis for one of the constituent countries to be treated differently from what remains. Is it the relative size? Surely not. If England voted for independence leaving a UK Remaining (Celtic), would they take the EU membership with them? Is it “whose decision it is to leave”? Again, that can’t make sense. If Westminster voted unilaterally to make the Isle of Wight independent, would the UK Remaining rather than the Wightians be expected to reapply for EU membership? Surely both remain members. Having said that, none of this has been tested.
#31 by Aidan Skinner on May 26, 2011 - 10:58 am
We’re not talking about Scotland and England diverging at the same time.
We’re talking about Scotland choosing to no longer be part of a distinct legal entity who’s other constituent parts, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, comprise over 90% of the population, remain united in the same way as before.
There would certainly have to be a process of negotiation regarding eg. budget payments, CAP subsidies, fishing quotas etc. which strongly resembled membership negotiations.
On the point about jurisdiction, the EU is a club and is run by it’s members. We would have to defer to their opinion as to whether we had to reapply. To simply say we can barge in is hubristic bordering on arrogant.
#32 by James on May 26, 2011 - 11:00 am
I’m just curious about the basis for that. Is it because of the act of choice? So if Westminster decided by diktat to make us independent we’d still be in the EU?
#33 by Aidan Skinner on May 26, 2011 - 11:25 am
No, I think it’s a more subtle, philosophical question of identity – eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
#34 by Jeff on May 26, 2011 - 11:03 am
Fair points Aidan, I particularly agree that rUK would have no trouble staying on as an EU member. We are a net provider of finance and noone in the EU will want to turn the taps off there.
However, it still strikes me as needlessly pessimistic to assume for even a moment that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be welcomed with open arms. As long as we join the Euro of course….
#35 by Aidan Skinner on May 26, 2011 - 11:16 am
Oh, I don’t think we’d have any problem joining, I expect it would be a very quick, largely technocratic process and we might even get away with not joining the Euro and retaining a currency union with the UK given the difficulties with us joining ERM II.
#36 by Bugger the Panda on May 26, 2011 - 9:08 am
How about the
Disunited Kingdom
the Untied Kingdom
#37 by Fairliered on May 26, 2011 - 10:42 am
If rUk had to reapply for EU membership, would it choose to do so?
#38 by Shave on May 26, 2011 - 10:57 am
I don’t think the EU would want to take the risk of rUK voting on membership, it would be keen for rUK to remain in the fold.
The EU may be more inclined to seek concessions from Scotland before offering membership. Or not. I don’t know.
#39 by Lost Highlander on May 26, 2011 - 11:31 am
I believe that a secessionist Scotland will in International law be the new state. This leaves rUK as considered the inheritor of the UK in that it will get its place in the UN and the EU. This is right as the rUK will have the larger population. We are not members of the Vienna convention and so it would not apply and so we would come out of this with no treaty obligations etc that the UK body entered into. But this is to Scotlands advantage.
Still Scotland will not come out of this completely treaty less certainly treaties signed before the Union are still in force for instance trade treaties with Holland.
Scotland is more or less guaranteed to get into the EU. The EU cannot afford for Scotland to not be part of it. Schengen is becoming increasingly unworkable and as seen between France/Italy and Denmark there will be border controls again. Scotland stating it will not join the Schengen plan will certainly have the support of the rUK and I doubt if it will be pushed heavily by EU negotiators aware that open borders are meaningless to a country that is an Island and our one land border will still be checking all EU passports. Simply sharing information between Scotland and rUK will ensure that no border posts at Gretna will be needed.
The Euro again will not be pushed if only as it is in Germany etc interests not to have a new country suddenly entering and no matter what causing disruption to the Euros financial situation especially with the long term damage done to it recently.
It has to be remembered that it in these negotiations Scotland will not be weak it will actually be coming in with a strong hand. Europe would not want any country to turn round and state that the EU is not needed and Scotlands control of the North sea would kill the common fishing policy we have that large an EEZ. Also Scotland without treaties and having a strong financial services industry with European banks already operating here creates perfect tax haven terrority. And of course there is an open border with England and previous treaties allowing access to europe for trade and there could be little pressure put to stop Scottish exports.
#40 by Jeff on May 26, 2011 - 11:43 am
“open borders are meaningless to a country that is an Island ”
I would disagree with that. When one flies into Edinburgh from London, they leave through an exit that requires no passport to be shown. When one flies to Edinburgh from Paris, they leave through an exit that does require a passport check.
A simple solution if Scotland is to be part of Schengen is that all flights from Schengen countries have passengers directed through the ‘domestic’ gate and no passports are needed. Similar solution for Glasgow, Aberdeen etc.
#41 by Angus McLellan on May 26, 2011 - 1:52 pm
Given the low number of scheduled flights from Scotland to European destinations, Schengen membership would be of limited benefit. And when I reflect on the many things which make air travel so awful, in my humble opinion, passport controls are not a significant factor. Any idea of fairness would lead to the conclusion that it’s better for pampered frequent air travellers to suffer a little more inconvenience than to impose land border controls that would impact ordinary people’s daily lives much more.
As to the general question of accession negotiations with the EU, I think that Scotland’s future position has been strengthened by the rise of Euroskepticism and the various Eurozone economic woes. While Scottish negotiators may not be able to get everything they want, they should manage to get a note excusing us from Schengen and the Eurozone. It’ll take nothing less than a miracle to get an equivalent of the UK refund though.
#42 by Jeff on May 26, 2011 - 2:36 pm
Yep, fair points actually. If Germany is regretting ditching the Deutchmark for the the Euro project then they might find it a hard sell to add another country into the mix, particularly in light of HBOS/RBS woes.
I would say one thing. Scotland doesn’t have a great list of European destinations but I would argue that that is because Scotland isn’t independent and Edinburgh/Glasgow aren’t seen as hubs. I am often envious of the destination board at Copenhagen and Stockholm airports. There’s no reason why Edinburgh’s shouldn’t be as exotically filled.
#43 by Doug Daniel on May 26, 2011 - 4:20 pm
I’m not much of a flyer, so I don’t know the answer to this, but would it be fair to say that all European nations tend to have at least one hub airport? This is something I’ve not thought about before, that Scottish independence may lead to more flights directly to Scotland rather than through London. Is the current situation a result of the UK government making sure London remains the hub airport for most international travel, or do airlines just choose to use London as a hub?
I suppose independence would possibly necessitate more travel through Edinburgh airport either way, but still, I’d love to know how the present situation came about.
#44 by Thomas Widmann on May 26, 2011 - 4:38 pm
Historically, every European country had its own national airline, so there’s no doubt that if Scotland had been independent for the past 100 years, Scottish Airlines (or whatever they would have been called) rather than British Airways would have been the dominant airline of Scotland. However, at the moment airlines are merging across Europe, so it’s highly unlikely that the Kingdom/Republic of Scotland would bother creating a national carrier now.
#45 by Doug Daniel on May 26, 2011 - 8:18 pm
You never know, one of our transport moguls might decide to try their hand at a national airline. ScotAir? Saltire Airways?
As long as it isn’t FirstScotAir, I wouldn’t have a problem – unless they managed to have working toilets and punctual flights.
#46 by Jeff on May 26, 2011 - 10:11 pm
I could definitely see that happening. Brian Souter perhaps?
#47 by Aidan Skinner on May 27, 2011 - 11:41 pm
http://youtu.be/HnReqwF9YAI
#48 by Jeff on May 26, 2011 - 4:44 pm
Good question. I don’t think the Government allocates a hub airport and then x% of flights have to come through it; I think it’s more of a case that a capital city of a country attracts more flights simply due to market demand.
It was only recently that Edinburgh opened up 12 or so more routes and I would suggest that the Parliament had a bit to do with that in terms of increasing Edinburgh’s profile across Europe.
A Scottish only airline would of course create more travel through Scotland and an independent Scotland would make this more likely. So, to answer your question, it’s simple market forces rather than Governments that increase destinations but Scotland’s constitutional makeup can influence that.
#49 by Jeff on May 26, 2011 - 4:45 pm
(Of course, if Stockholm and/or Copenhagen had a Heathrow and Gatwcik 400 miles away which was typically cheaper to fly to, then they’d probably have less flights too as a result; so the effect of independence could be overplayed!)
#50 by Doug Daniel on May 26, 2011 - 8:12 pm
This is the thing I was wondering about. I haven’t actually checked, but I would have thought that Edinburgh and London aren’t anomolies in terms of closeness of capital cities. I suppose it depends on whether its common for people to fly to, for example, Brussels when the final destination is in the Netherlands, or Budapest when the final destination is in Hungary.
Although even simpler than that would be to see what the situation has been in the relatively recent independent countries like Czech Republic and Slovakia, or Slovenia and Croatia, and so on. Also, I wonder if many people fly to Dublin when the final destination is Northern Ireland, or Belfast when the final destination is in Eire?
I would figure all this out myself, but I have a quiz to win in 20 minutes, and the internet is very slow offshore. Maybe I’ll check it out tomorrow.
#51 by Angus McLellan on May 26, 2011 - 5:45 pm
“Independence means more direct flights to Europe and North America” might win over some voters in the referendum, but not quite so many if “from Prestwick” or “from 2035” appear in the small print. I’ve never had the pleasure of visiting Copenhagen or Stockholm, so I don’t know what the airports are like. But fitting in many more flights at Edinburgh and Glasgow seems difficult. Neither is easily expanded – and any expansion is politically fraught – while Glasgow in particular seems likely to need the sort of complex, expensive engineering works seen at Schipol to grow much more. I suspect it would turn out easier to provide more destinations by reducing the number of formerly-internal flight slots.
I’ve never been in any doubt about which way to vote in the referendum, but that doesn’t mean that I have no concerns over the consequences of independence. Top of my list right now is the problem of being unable to decide whether, if the referendum should succeed, it will be better to take a punt on the construction industry (physical infrastructure surely required), on printing and copying (great forests will die so that our new institutions may be born), or something else altogether. I appreciate that this lies outwith Better Nation’s remit, so I’m not expecting to find answers here. But wouldn’t the Scotsman, for example, serve its readers better by devoting space to answering questions like mine instead of providing a platform for fossils like Michael Kelly?
#52 by Graves on May 26, 2011 - 3:06 pm
As a welsh observer of the exciting developments in Scotland over the last 15 years, it is saddening to see the lack of understanding by many commentators in the Scottish blogosphere as regards the rump Uk – a misunderstanding which they often berate themselves. The so-called rump Uk is no more of an entity/union than the *Uk* ever was – and to presume that Welsh attitudes, public opinion, standpoints can be equated with English/Unionist ones shows a sad lack of understanding and effort on the part of (otherwise) fantastic commentators.
#53 by Jeff on May 26, 2011 - 3:13 pm
Thanks for the comment Graves but I would disagree with it, almost take umbrage with it infact.
I don’t know why you think anyone who has commented here believes Welsh attitudes and public opinion can be equated with English/Unionist ones after Scotland becomes independent but they can’t be equated within the UK either so I’m not entirely sure what your point is?
If Wales wants to leave the United Kingdom then there is a political process open to it for that to happen, if the Welsh people want it. I personally don’t think that has a chance of happening any time soon so, whether certain Welsh people like it or not, Wales will remain a part of the UK as it stands now or a part of ‘rUK’ if Scotland does leave in a few years time.
Basically, I don’t think the misunderstanding that you suggest actually exists. I just think you’re frustrated that the rate of change in Wales is significantly slower than that enjoyed in Scotland and for that I can certainly sympathise.
#54 by Thomas Widmann on May 26, 2011 - 3:27 pm
There’s no doubt that Wales would remain with England after Scottish independence – after all, Wales was incorporated into England a long time before the creation of Great Britain.
However, what’s the status of Northern Ireland? When the United Kingdom was formed in 1801, it was uniting Ireland and Great Britain, so one could argue that if Great Britain ceases to be, it’s not obvious that the outcome should be “the United Kingdom of England (incl. Wales) and Northern Ireland” and “Scotland” rather than “England (incl. Wales)” and “the United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
Of course, Ireland was ruled by English kings for centuries, not Scottish ones, but would that be the determining factor? Or would Scottish independence be followed by a referendum in Northern Ireland to determine which state they should join?
#55 by Lost Highlander on May 27, 2011 - 12:02 am
At the moment Wales does not want independence it does appear that like Scotland the devolution process has though started them on the road.
But that should really be the subject of a post all to itself with a lot more welsh voices saying there views.
“I would disagree with that. When one flies into Edinburgh from London, they leave through an exit that requires no passport to be shown. When one flies to Edinburgh from Paris, they leave through an exit that does require a passport check”
Jeff I honestly think that ID checks are an essential part of flying they do not slow the flight process down but if you need official photo ID to get on a ferry you certainly should need at least similar or stricter to get on a plane. 9/11 showed us planes are not like trains or buses in the case of mass transportation.
#56 by Jeff on May 27, 2011 - 7:50 am
LH, I don’t deny that showing ID before flying is an important part of the process but what I am saying is that only having to show a driver license or other wallet-friendly photo ID is significantly preferable to having to have your passport.
If Schengen passport-free travel wasn’t so useful why are so many nations signed up to it, including island states of Cyprus and Malta?
#57 by Thomas Widmann on May 27, 2011 - 8:01 am
According to Schengen rules, you should still carry ID when abroad, even if it’s not normally checked, and I believe only a national ID card or a passport is valid for these purposes. This is one of the reasons that most EU countries have some kind of national ID card, although most of the schemes are fairly simple and certainly much less intrusive than Labour’s huge ID card project that involved a huge database. (I would certainly be in favour of an ID card that was just a smaller and cheaper passport but didn’t involve the database bit.)
However, Schengen is not just passport-free travel. It’s also unified visas and increased police cooperation and other things, so there is an advantage in joining even for island states.
#58 by Ron on May 28, 2011 - 10:22 am
As a Scot who has lived in Germany for nearly 40 years and travelled extebsively on business in Europe for 20, I can confirm that all Schengen countries have ID cards in credit card format. They had them long before Schengen. People don’t take passports normally. Schengen travellers have developed a distaste for queuing up at passport controls, since they rarely have to do so.
#59 by Thomas Widmann on May 28, 2011 - 10:43 am
Almost all – Denmark (and possibly the other Scandinavian countries) don’t have ID cards.
#60 by Doug Daniel on May 27, 2011 - 12:46 pm
Type your comment here
SOUT-AIR!
He’d be a fool not to.
#61 by Jeff on May 27, 2011 - 1:44 pm
Absolutely. It’s his destiny.
Speaking of which – Brian. Remove the ‘ria’ and turn it around you get ‘air’. What’s left? BN. Better Nation.
No further questions your honour…..
#62 by Alex Buchan on May 27, 2011 - 3:17 pm
Speaking of Scotland’s position vis-a-vis the EU, what has not been commented on is the question of how much confidence there would be in the rUK as a viable entity continuing, and what this would mean in terms of stability both within rUK and the EU.
If we use our imagination to picture the scene after a Yes vote in the referendum; along with speculation over the negotiations between the Scottish and UK governments discussions over the political viability of the rUK would quickly emerge.
Northern Ireland might be the first object for discussion but that would quickly lead on to questions over whether the UK government could be expected to safeguard specifically English interests in any negotiations and the Welsh government would be eager from the start to know how Scottish independence would impact on Wales, given that the rUK would be even more dominated by England.
Negations with the Scottish government could quickly be seen to be impossible to separate out from considerations over how all parts of the present UK would relate. For instance, the crisis in Northern Ireland’s unionist parties that Scottish independence would create may well lead to the need to find some formula like an enhanced Council of the Isles to try to stabilise NI’s position and this would bring the Irish government into the process.
In the light of all this the EU would be in the background trying to help not shore up all of the present territory of the British Isles with EU summits on the issue and coming out of this could be pressure for Scotland to find some third way between devolution and independence.
I’m not saying all of this will definitely happen but what I’m really arguing for here is the artificially of discussing the dry constitutional position divorced from the wider political and financial issues e.g. with the removal of oil assets and questions over political instability could there be a run on sterling etc.
#63 by Aidan Skinner on May 27, 2011 - 11:43 pm
I’m not overly concerned about a run on sterling since we’d be keeping it.
#64 by Angus McLellan on May 28, 2011 - 4:26 am
You’ve raised some interesting points, although I’m not sure they are all easily answered.
While there would be a greater impact on the people of these islands were the short term result of Scottish independence to be a former-UK with separate England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rather than the usually assumed rUK plus Scotland, I do not see what can justly be done to make such an outcome impossible. I’m also not clear why anyone would wish to prevent this since it could only happen were continuation of the UK lacking solid support where it matters, in England. Yes, it would be unfortunate were people in Wales and Northern Ireland compelled to accept an independence they had not asked for and did not want, but that is and always will be a possibility given the centrality of England in the Union.
Even if the EU wasn’t certain to have enough troubles to be going on with, it should stay well out of the way unless it has no choice but to be involved, for example in accession negotiations. Any intervention in an intra-UK matter would be like chucking petrol on a fire given both the prevalence of Euroskepticism and the conviction of some more radical Euroskeptics that the EU is angling to break up not just the UK but also England.
The idea of there being a middle way out there waiting to be found by intrepid, open-minded thinkers, while reasonable in theory, seems less convincing when the context is considered. It runs against 150 years of Whitehall tradition, especially at the Treasury. And then there are all those great minds whose view of the proper nature of things was, whether they would recognize it or not, informed by the ideas of Bagehot and Dicey, parliamentary supremacy and the idea of a unitary state. Those concepts would easily survive Scottish independence, or even the end of the UK. England and the UK are so very nearly the same thing that the absence of the remainder would be a mere detail. For that reason, there’s little incentive for any substantial degree of compromise as there is much more to be lost than gained. Then again, I may have taken Yes, Minister rather too seriously when formulating this opinion.
As for a run on sterling, it was a possibility last year, allegedly, and it may be again soon enough. So it can’t be ruled out, not now, not ever. As it does today, the Westminster government’s policies would always have the greatest impact on confidence in the pound. And the markets already know that there will be a referendum, so much of the uncertainty is already priced into exchange rates. It could be that those markets are working on the (good enough) approximation UK ~= rUK ~= England. So independence, if it ever happens, will not of itself cause a run on the pound.
#65 by Alex Buchan on May 28, 2011 - 10:51 am
Was listening to a fascinating documentary called “In Business: Continental Drift†on radio 4 on Thursday, it can be heard again at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/programmes/schedules/fm/2011/05/26
Various leading bankers and economists were interviewed and the conclusion was that politicians and bankers are not working on the assumption that Greece, Ireland and Portugal can turn things round without leaving the Euro. The bail-outs are primarily to buy time to let Spain and Italy carry out the restructuring necessary before any of these other countries default. Such defaults are expected in about 3 years’ time, by which time it is hoped that these bigger economies will have turned things round and will be able to withstand the impact. The smaller countries will continue to be bailed out until it is safe to let them default. The example of Argentina was given, where the effects of a default were muted because it had been so long in the coming.
What impact will all this have on the referendum campaign. The timing of any exit from the Euro of Greece, Ireland etc. will be crucially important. It could happen just as the momentum towards the referendum is picking up pace, but, of course, it could even happen during the official campaign itself.
On my point about the stability of the rUK, what strikes me is that generally on this blog we talk as if Scotland leaving would be like a surgical procedure, where all that is required is to discuss how that procedure will be carried out. When you seriously consider a remaining union, which is already under strain because of the reluctance of Whitehall to take on board the implications of devolution and English disquiet over the cost of N.I. then its seems to me that we can’t assume that a yes vote in the referendum won’t triggers lots of developments, at present unforeseen, and which will impact massively in any negotiations. The ex Tory MEP John Stevens has written this article in ConservativeHome drawing out all the ramifications at the international and British level of a yes vote. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/05/the-victory-of-the-snp-in-the-edinburgh-parliament-elect-ions-has-obviously-put-the-prospect-of-scottish-independ-ence-firmly.html
Your comments about the rUK breaking up as one possible outcome just highlights what would already be the case: that Scottish independence would rank with, if not eclipse, the impact of German reunification on the EU. It would mean that Belgium, and Spain and even Italy and France would be under far greater pressure. The idea would be established that it was just a matter of time before these states also started to fragment. Given how single minded the EU has been in keeping Greece, Ireland and Portugal dangling until the time is right to let them go, do we really expect the EU not to be thinking of a plan for limiting the impact of Scottish independence.
#66 by Alex Buchan on May 28, 2011 - 11:21 am
I should have said that defaulting and leaving the Euro will be massively traumatic in Greece, Ireland etc, with banks collapsing and a collapse in living standards. So it will be seized upon by the NO campaign. Of course, it will let the currency of these countries fall to a level that will allow their economies to be competitive again. But the Irish going back to the Punt at a value far below Sterling will be a great gift to the No campaign.
#67 by Angus McLellan on May 29, 2011 - 2:45 am
While the current position in Ireland is unsustainable – what were the previous government smoking? – I think we’ll not see the punt back in circulation again just yet. As for Greece and Portugal, their situation is very different and switching back to drachma and escudo seem to be the only way out. Whether this will even register in Scotland is something we’ll just need to wait and see. The only certainty is that the Euro is no longer a realistic option, so neither is Schengen.
As for the implications in Spain or Belgium – France and Italy seem very different – I don’t know much about Spain. But I did live in Belgium for ten years, so here goes. There’s only one big obstacle to disunion, the status of Brussels in a disunited Belgium. It’s always possible that result of a referendum in Scotland might focus minds in Flanders, bringing acceptance that Brussels is no longer a “Flemish city”, but that could equally well happen at any time, referendum or not.
I rarely watched francophone TV, so the great “Tout ça (ne nous rendra pas la Belgique)” spoof programme was something I only found out about afterwards. Unfortunately, there’s not much chance of the BBC or STV doing anything similar.
#68 by Alex Buchan on May 29, 2011 - 1:51 pm
I should clarify that I don’t think it would be the referendum alone or even gaining independence that would impact on the EU so much as the accession of a new member state following on from the break-up of an existing state. I think that is the thing which would change dynamics.
#69 by Aidan Skinner on May 29, 2011 - 3:21 pm
Why do you link the Euro and Schengen in that way?
#70 by Angus McLellan on May 29, 2011 - 5:12 pm
Easily answered: both would disadvantage Scotland, both are in trouble, and both would have to be dealt with in hypothetical EU accession negotiations. Even rats, so it’s said, are smart enough not to jump aboard sinking ships.
#71 by Ewan Dow on May 28, 2011 - 1:41 am
Re the name for the non-Scottish parts of the current UK post independence, surely given the names of the constituent countries, England, Wales and Northern Ireland there’s one obvious choice for its name…..
EWAN
Has a good sound to it and is clearly a quality name don’t you think! 😉