Yeah–the big argument I think against letting Northern Ireland and Scotland have a veto, is if the Westminster Parliament accedes to that it establishes it as a precedent, which will probably be expected to be followed forever after.
It would likely enrage the England, outside-of-London Leave voters to a dangerous degree.
And frankly, I think it should be done. Britain has never been a Federal country per se, but it’s been a union of countries. Historically sovereignty was in Parliament, but I think just like in a truly Federal state, if you’re really to remain together, the constituent parts must have some level of genuine, immutable power in key situations. In the United States this occurs for things like Presidential elections and constitutional amendments.
Now, in America we use a 3/4ths system for our States to approve constitutional amendments, with only four constituent parts of course the equivalent in Britain would mean the other three could outvote the fourth, which might create weird situations. But Britain and America aren’t 1 for 1 comparable, given the unique situation that has brought Britain together, it may simply make sense for these major issues to require agreement of all of the devolved Parliaments. This would only affect a very narrow list of things, like precisely this situation with Brexit, and perhaps major constitutional changes (like, just as an example–transforming the country into a Republic.)
The referendum was fought very much with the knowledge that a future Tory government would be holding an EU referendum.
I agree.
The SNP are making a lot of noise about a second referendum because it’s not only their raison d’etre but it also deflects attention from their bullying, (anti-English) racism, corruption, and incompetence.
I am unaware of any jurisdiction on the face of the planet where racism is itself illegal. The police are not going to be interested in reports of a “thought crime.”
I don’t. True, the Scottish parliament has no legal power to organise a legally-binding referendum (that lies with Westminster), but if, after the next Scottish parliament election (and/or an early Westminster election) the parliament votes for one, Westminster refuses, and the Scottish parliament then either organises a non-binding referendum of its own or launches a Covenant-signing campaign, then we are in uncharted constitutional waters, but basically, there would be b-all Westminster could do about a sufficiently convincing demonstration of Scottish support for independence.
I don’t forsee Westminster agreeing a vote on the principle of leaving, unless the details have already been hashed out.
There is a very good chance that if the vote in Sep 2014 had been yes, then the coming oil price crash would have led to SNP backing away from leaving slowly.
I genuinely do not see the EU wanting anything to do with Scotland as an independent nation.
The is a far wider international aspect to this, there is absolutely no doubt that other EU nations would look at their semi-autonomous regions and become extremely concerned that membership of the EU itself could lead to the break up of other nations.
Look at Spain, look at Belgium where national preferences do not necessarily direct themselves to being Belgian citizens, there are plenty of subnational zones that would like to take a risk free option of breaking away from the host nation and becoming entities within the EU. Lord alone knows what to make of Balkan nations.
This would all inevitably lead to territorial disputes, which is very much against the EU outlook.
At present Scotland has an extremely good deal from Westminster under the Barnett formula.
This is related to the central government grant that the regions get, and Scotland gains greatly from it, so whilst the rest of the UK is suffering Tory imposed austerity, Scotland has largely been free of its worst effects. Perhaps this favouritism was the price of encouraging Scots not to vote for independence, but the fact remains, Scotland costs more to run than it contributes to UK coffers.
In other words, Scotland has an economic deficit, especially with the fall of oil prices.
I really doubt that the EU would wish to take on this liability without some serious reform, and harsh economic restructure, and also encourage subnational groups to do the same.
Scottish independence is for Scots to decide, but if the Jockexit campaign we predicated on being able to join the EU, they have a problem, because that would mean negotiating EU terms prior to the referendum itself, and EU is just not going to want to be seen as instrumental in the break up of the UK, because it would become an active territorial grabbing organisation.
This is an absolutely fundamental shift in the purpose of the EU, in effect it would be behaving like a nation state in its own right, grabbing territory also means security issues, it means some form of militaristic protection, because you cannot gain sovereignty unless you can hold it by force if necessary.
What we would conceivably have, is a Scotland no longer in what is left of the UK, then trying to spend a lot of time campaigning in the EU, they would need to develop their own currency - cause sure as hell the EU will make currency a part of the negotiation process. How do you negotiate a currency deal when you have no currency history?
England simply will not allow an independent Scotland to retain Sterling, that would be like writing blank checks for an unknown liability, it just isn’t going to happen.
What would we have? A Scottish pound? very highly likely. How robust would it be, and how credible would an independent Scottish credit rating be?, One assumes that once the Scottish pound were implemented, then there would be moves to join the Euro.
If the Scots wish to leave, I wish them good luck and every success, I hope it works well for them - genuinely I really do, but they really have their work cut out, it would certainly be an adventure.
That’s why the EU can’t negotiate with a *pre-*independence Scotland. But once the split is done, there’s no reason not to welcome them in, as fragments of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia already have been.
Scotland might seek an agreement with the ECB to use the euro, even before full accession to the Union (as Andorra, Monaco, and San Marino now have), or they might start using euros unilaterally (as Kosovo and Montenegro have done). It would certainly demonstrate their commitment.
The chances are the EU would damn well expect them to, as with all other new members. Using the euro is a condition of admission.
Which would also fit neatly with my (not always serious, but I think now it might be) response to the idea of Scottish independence, which is that Westminster should insist they take Northern Ireland with them. That way Scotland and all parts of Ireland would be in the EU *and * the eurozone. And Scotland can have the responsibility of dealing with the inheritance of James VI/I’s plantation.
The problem is that the Scottish economy is so integrated with the rest of the UK (~70% or Scottish exports, similar numbers on imports) that it makes little sense for Scotland to use any currency other than the UK Pound. This was one of the issues that the Yes vote foundered on last time. The SNP had no good answer for “what currency are we going to use?” The only honest answer was “OK, we’re looking at a long period of severe economic problems, but it’s worth it for independence.” The Scots didn’t buy it.
Even though I want to have the Scots to remain, there really is nothing stopping them being independent if they want too, look at Ireland, similar population size and rural-ism and former Union member, and the same arguments were said about them when they wanted to be independent. Sometimes, nationalism trumps economic advantage, because for years after Ireland left the UK, it was an economic backwater until the mid 90’s (Although this hard more to do with Irish economic policy rather than independence)
Well, it’s not quite the same, since Ireland was an economic backwater while it was in the UK. It was underdeveloped, suffered from underinvestment, had lower per capita income and assets, and yet for most of the time from 1800-1922 was a net contributor to the UK exchequer (as in, tax revenues from Ireland exceeded public expenditure in Ireland). Ireland was basically pretty badly governed as part of the UK, so leaving didn’t really represent a huge economic disadvantage. Scotland in 2016 would be giving up more, economically speaking, by leaving the Union than Ireland gave up in 1922.
You mean the current Republic right? Ulster and Dublin were pretty big centres of industry. Unsurprisingly they had the highest level of opposition to Hom Rule.
Spain’s PM Rajoy has already said under no circumstances will the EU even seriously discuss anything about EU membership for Scotland while Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. He will never allow that to become a precedent because it is gravely at odds with Spain’s interests (due to Catalonia.) There are other EU heads of state who have largely said the same thing, probably because they don’t want the EU to be in the business of “helping” neighboring non-EU countries splitting up. That is the path to serious, serious dangers.
So if Scotland leaves, it will have to join the EU like any normal member, and will not even be able to discuss issues with the EU until it has achieved independence. I’ve read the expected turnaround time would be 5-7 years, during which Scotland would be responsible for its own affairs. During that 5-7 period it would receive none of the money it now receives from the UK, and without which Scotland would be in a grave deficit and likely fall into a serious, prolonged recession.
Once Scotland joins the EU–no member state of the EU receives transfer payments anywhere close to what Scotland receives from the UK, so even joining the EU doesn’t bring that money back. Additionally, without those transfer payments Scotland’s deficit and other economic indicators are far out of line with EU guidelines for membership. So to even accept them as members the Scots would likely have to self-impose severe austerity to get those numbers in line with EU expectations.
Considering Greece essentially committed financial accounting fraud to lie about doing just this to get EU membership themselves, I suspect that the EU will put Scotland under a microscope.
The leave voters in Scotland are far-lefties, generally, and dream of a world with a more robust social welfare state. There is absolutely no way to reconcile that with the reality of Scottish independence at present. Scotland would be looking at a painful 15-20 year transition, during which quality of life would be genuinely lower than it was in the UK.
Would Scotland ultimately be okay? Probably, I just think they’re looking at a much longer economic malaise than even the UK is looking at with leaving the EU.
