Except it’s not “Scotland’s debt to the UK”; it’s the UK’s debt to UK bondholders.
This comes back to the point I was making earlier; rump-UK will be an organic continuation of present UK, whereas sovereign Scotland will be a brand new creation. It’s not a given that sovereign Scotland is responsible for a share of the UK’s present obligations, any more than it’s a given that they can claim a share of the UK’s present assets; the extent to which Scotland succeeds to either of these things is a matter for negotiation.
Sure, you can make a moral case that the UK debt was accumulated to fund UK government activities from which all the UK, including Scotland, benefitted, and so Scotland should take on some share of the debt.
But you can also make the case that it;s unreasonable to expect the Scottish govenrment to take on a share of a debt which is largely denominated in sterling, and at the same time to exclude them from the sterling area. This would leave the Scottish government hugely vulnerable to exchange rate risk with respect to its share of the debt, while the rump-UK government was exposed to no similar risks. Hence, I think there is a case to be made, to put it no higher, that a currency union between rump-UK and Scotland is a reasonable quid pro quo for the Scots taking on a share of present UK debt.
The Scottish government’s position is slightly different; it argues that if the Scots are to succeed to a share of UK liabilities, they should also succeed to a share of UK assets - including the Bank of England, and the currency which it issues. It’s a differently worded argument, but it comes down to the same thing. In fact a stronger version of the same thing - the Scots would not only use sterling, but through their stake in the Bank of England they would have a voice in the managements of the currency.
If both Scotland and rump UK remain either full members or associates (like Norway and Switzerland) - which is the most likely outcome- neither country would prosper alone without at least associate membership- then the CTA is hardly a problem. Even if Scotland decided to open its borders widely to anyone willing to work, as EU members, the rump UK would not be able to stop settled overseas born people resident in Scotland from crossing the border. Additionally for many decades almost everyone crossing that border would be full British citizens. I live in Scotland but my sons were born in England this century- giving them entry and settlement rights lasting towards the end of this century! Independence will not strip British nationality from people: even those born in Ireland before 1948 are eligible for full British Citizenship even if their families have never lived in the UK for ten generations!
I think there will be a transitional arrangement- either currency union or the use of sterling as a de facto policy for some time- maybe decades followed by both countries becoming full members of the Euro in fullness of time, maybe Scotland before rump UK.
Well, yes. It’s highly likely that almost every Scot, at least initially, will also have or be entitled to UK citizenship, and in any case as EU/EEA nationals they’d have a right of entry into the UK.
I guess the issue from the UK’s point of view is whether Scotland could be used as a route into the UK by third country (i.e. non-EU/EAA nationals) admitted into Scotland. If Scottish migration policies and practices allowed in signficant numbers of people who would not be admitted to the UK, then an open border would be problematic.
But how likely is it that Scotland would wish to adopt such a policy? Not very, I would have thought. So the risk of losing a CTA with the UK would not be a very real constraint on Scotland adopting the border/immigration policies of its choice.
This is a good point, and your other points about the scope for negotiation are pretty strong too. But the point Osborne made, which I find myself more or less forced to agree with, was in response to questions about what would happen if Scotland took on the debt, and reneged on it. I don’t think there’s any way that wouldn’t have negative consequences.
On the question of dividing assets and liabilities, I’m not sure it’s quite right to consider the currency as an asset in the same way that, say Bank of England reserves are. It’s obviously an asset in the colloquial sense but I don’t see how it works in the accounting sense. (How do you get 10% of a currency, for example.)
More seriously, once you start from the position that Scotland has no natural responsiblity for liabilities or assets you put the North Sea oil back on the table - it’s a UK asset which a newly sovereign Scotland has no necessary claim on. Given how crucial it is to an independent Scotland’s economy, rUK is in a position to force quite a lot of liabilities on iScotland in return.
North Sea Oil can never go back on the table. The UK is a signatory to the Treaty on the Law of the Sea which defines access to coastal access to resources- the Uk has already agreed procedures for such disputes.
The right to the benefits of a currency which for the last fifty years has been massively supported by North Sea Oil (mostly Scottish) are more nebulous, but well arguable.
British citizenship by birth is inalienable. Pure Scots with nothing more than commonwealth rights may become a problem in future generations if the rump UK wishes (it has not done so with the Irish).
Scotland is underpopulated and short of workers. If corporation tax and business breaks are available, industry would increase, especially along Motorway corridors with access to the rump UK. Scotland might wish to have a liberal immigration policy whereby non-EU persons with suitable skills were welcome to come and work to fill the vacant industrial and support posts that would be created. Other European nations do this. After five years they may well be able to apply for Scottish citizenship which would allow them access to the rump UK and the rest of the EU. Even if CTA went for non-Brit Scots, there would still be EU and Commonwealth rights of access.
Oh, yes, any state dishonouring its own debt obviously shreds its credit rating. But I think that’s a completely different proposition to Scotland not taking on a share of UK debt to begin with.
Well, not all assets get apportioned pro rata. Assets which are basically territorial, for example, go with the territory. So Scotland succeeds to all crown land in Scotland, for example, while the UK keeps the rest. (At least, that’s the opening position). Similarly territorial waters and maritime economic zones don’t get pro-rata apportionment; they go with the contiguous land.
The Bank of England’s not like that, though. Its principal (only?) branch is in London, but it’s a corporation all of whose shares are held by the crown. (The Bank was only nationalised in 1946.) Scotland will argue that the share in the BofE should be divided pro-rata. And, since the BofE issues and manages the currency, that gives Scotland a pro-rata voice in the management of the currency.
At least, that’s the bargaining position. A minority share in a central bank may not give you all that much effective control, so I guess Scotland may be willing to start from there and then negotiate some other arrangement. The point is, their opening position is that the institution which manages the currency is something that both Scotland and rump-UK have a stake in, and the issue of currency is a joint venture, and structures have to be devised for managing in in a way which recognises the legitimate interests of both countries.
Actually, no. Parliament can redefine citizenship any time it pleases, and strip anyone of citizenship. It’s just wildly unlikely that they would, certainly in the context of Scottish independence.
Yes. And if Scotland want to run a very open immigration policy, that could cause tensions over a CTA. But I suspect not; if Scotland allows its immigrants to become citizens then, CTA or no CTA, they can enter rump UK (unless rump UK leaves the EU or Scotland doesn’t join it, in either of which events a CTA is unlikely anyway).
It should be remembered that Scotland issues its own bank notes already, subject to a deposit being made to the BofE for a proportion of that issued scrip. Most notes in circulation here are Scottish notes. It should also be remembered (as an aside) that the BofE was set up by a Scot- William Patterson, whose grave I drive past every day!
I think you would find that any nation that stripped its natural born citizens of their passport would be seen as a despotic state. Why would they strip me of my passport for living in Scotland and not Billy Connolly of his for living in Los Angeles? The might have the sovereign right to do so, but I suspect that it would never get it past Parliament (Teresa May is currently having enough trouble stripping terrorists of their passports.) I also suspect that the ECHR would not permit such a removal of a basic right of individuals.
Not to burst anybody’s bubble, but they’ve done that several times. What was originally a unified “British subject” status has been subdivided as former British possessions established their own independent citizenships, and acquisition of a Commonwealth country citizenship has typically led to loss of British citizenship. It’s true that everyone born in Ireland before 1948 remained their the rights they had at birth but the same is not true of, .g, everyone born in India before 1947, despite the fact that they were British Subjects at birth. And, typically, as colonies have been granted independence since 1949, the independence legislation has provided for the locals to acquire a new citizenship in substitution for, not along with, their British citizenship.
(Not that I think that would happen in the case of Scotland.)
It would be unconscionable and against the European Declaration of Human Rights which is part of our law and increasingly is becoming our Bill of Rights and Constitution.
Can you imagine the decision process between me and Billy Connolly. A non-starter.
I was under the impression that the current Conservative government wanted to leave the European Declaration of Human Rights, or at least introduce a few exceptions…
True, but neither can we assume that most Scots were in favour of Independence during the past thirty years. Scots have a somewhat schizophrenic attitude to Independence. It’s an attitude that the best pollsters and political scientists in Scotland can write endlessly on without coming to any firm conclusions. It’s a murky mixture of anti-Conservatism, the Progressive values of Scots, oil revenue and much more. Our settled views on Independence are not as clear cut as your earlier post suggested.
The current Conservative Government has said that it wants to do that. The current Conservative Government also knows that if it does that, the country is screwed as it would lose trading rights with the EU (member or not) This threat has been sufficient to force mighty Mother Russia to stop killing its criminals for the past fifteen years in order to maintain access to European markets. No British Government could afford the disruption that such a move would cause- we would not even have associate status like Norway and Switzerland and would be open to massive tariff barriers.
It is possible to derogate from the non right to life clauses, but only for cause, not as a whim.
Isn’t it contradictory to say “Scotland should be independent and not part of Britain.” and at the same time say “Scots should remain British citizens and it would be wrong for Britain to strip Scots of British citizenship upon Scottish indepenence.”? If you want to seperate from Britain, why not do that? Why hold onto citizenship of a country you don’t want to be a part of?
No, not at all. I was born in England and will remain English to the end of my life. I happen to choose to live in Scotland. Were I to be again living in the USA, would that be sufficient reason for stripping me of my citizenship?
There is a difference between Scotland as a State or Nation, and the people (Scots and others) living in it.
Scots born after Independence would not of course have rump UK nationality unless it was a child of at least one British parent- in which case it would have the right to such citizenship- unless all such grandmothered rights were withdrawn.
Sure, yes. My point wasn’t really that Scots have favoured independence for the past 30 years, more that there was a clear majority who supported further self-determination of one sort or another, and that they were ignored for quite a long time.
Woah, stop. The European Convention on Human Rights isn’t an EU thing, it’s a Council of Europe thing, as is the European Court of Human Rights. There’s no trade impact here.