Scottish Independence referendum 2023

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by steenkh

This reminds me of an issue that is rarely raised: Such polls tend to end up in two roughly equal parts. I believe that momentous decisions, such as leaving EU, or Scottish independence should not be decided by a simple majority, but by a larger majority, such as 60% or even more. Polls that end in 51 vs. 49, such as most do, has a huge consequence where almost half of the population is against.

As a Dane, i.e. an outsider, I do not have any real opinion on whether Scotland should be independent, but I do think it would be tragic if such a decision was taken with almost half of Scots being against it. Conservatism should rule.

I have no problem with a simple majority of the electorate voting for a dramatic change. A simple majority of voters is a different story.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Would any Scots trying to cross this hard border at Hadrian's Wall become "economic migrants"?

Oi! Hadrian's Wall is well south of where I live (see an earlier post in this very thread complaining about the lazy use of it as "the border"), in fact chunks of Scottishland are south of where I live...

And the Tweed doesn't work either, as it is only the border for a short stretch from just south of Paxton to slightly west of of Carham. Most of the Tweed is firmly in Scottishland...

ETA Using the Iapetus Suture would be closer, but even that runs south of Berwick. I would quite like that as it might make some politicians and journos think about geology.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Oi! Hadrian's Wall is well south of where I live (see an earlier post in this very thread complaining about the lazy use of it as "the border"), in fact chunks of Scottishland are south of where I live...

And the Tweed doesn't work either, as it is only the border for a short stretch from just south of Paxton to slightly west of of Carham. Most of the Tweed is firmly in Scottishland...

ETA Using the Iapetus Suture would be closer, but even that runs south of Berwick. I would quite like that as it might make some politicians and journos think about geology.

Speaking as someone from Oop North (though now living in Welsh Wales) but not that far Oop North, I'd be happy for the new Scottish border to run along the 54th parallel,

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

I would ask: WHY does Scotland want independence? What is the goal here? To tell every sassenach to fook off? Or is it something else?

For example, is it to re-engage more closely with the EU, separately from England? Negotiate their own trade agreements with the EU, or even attain some form of membership? Perhaps have a Scottish MEP? If so, what is preventing that happening despite still being "part of the UK"?

To find their own way in the world, at the moment Scotland is a fief of a South East of England centric govenment and subject to the whims of whichever eejits the swivel eyed membership of the tory party picks to be leader. The mistakes of an independent Scotland would at least be its own.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Wow. Socialist blinkers much?

No fan of governmejts working for the benefit of all, then.

[Gulliver Foyle]

There's a perfectly legal* way for Scottish independence to be called:

"Whereas and Wherby, the Union with England Act, 1707 was effected through fraud, deception,bribery and the threat of violence by a foreign power, this Parliament, being the sole legitimate successor to the Soverign Parliament of Scotland, 1707, declares said to be invalid and thereby repealed."

Put it to a vote and see what happens.

*Which is not to say constitutional, hard to define constitutionality when a country doesn't have one.

PS those who say that International law supports the Supreme Court ruling are wong. A people's inalienable right to self determination is a cornerstone of the UN Charter and thus International law.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by The Don

This is used as a term to scare the horses, Economic Migrants whoooooooooo!!

Economic migrants are highly motivated people who are willing to take immense risks to come to a country and work. A less blinkered populace would welcome them, they seem like exactly the sort of people you'd want to come to a country.

But concerns about migrants aren't just right wing. I have also heard union leaders expressing concerns that it is a way for employers to suppress wages by getting people who will work for lower wages.

Clearly some migrants are essential, evidence supports migration being good for the economy.

However it does need to be recognised that a significant part of the illegal migration is criminal. Illegal immigrants are imported to work as slave labour in cannabis farms and brothels.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by The Don

An argument I have seen is that Scotland is now too different from the rest of the UK England for a harmonious union to be possible. Scotland needs and welcomes immigrants, the English believe that wogs begin in Calais. Scotland would like Northern European Social-Democratic government, the English want a libertarian free-for-all. Scotland would like to protect workers and the environment, the English are happy to hurtle to the bottom.

Some powers are devolved to Scotland but not enough to make enough of a difference.

Is this true?

There remains considerable anti-Irish sentiments in parts of the Scottish population. These are white immigrants settled for generations. Scotland has fewer immigrants as compared with England. Are there any majority non-white cities in Scotland? Scotland is 96% white as compared with England 85%.population are White.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60928666

As some one who is non-white English born, racism does exist in Scotland.

Any statement that gives a whole population certain characteristiscs e.g. 'English believe that wogs begin in Calais', is racist. The current right wing Tory government is more ethnically diverse than either the Scottish Government or the Labour leadership, but not all people in England of many diverse ethnicities voted for them, nor did they all vote for Brexit. You need to recognise that England is a far more diverse population than Scotland. It would be equally racist to think that all Scots are wanting a socialist utopia.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

There's a perfectly legal* way for Scottish independence to be called:

"Whereas and Wherby, the Union with England Act, 1707 was effected through fraud, deception,bribery and the threat of violence by a foreign power, this Parliament, being the sole legitimate successor to the Soverign Parliament of Scotland, 1707, declares said to be invalid and thereby repealed."

Put it to a vote and see what happens.

*Which is not to say constitutional, hard to define constitutionality when a country doesn't have one.

PS those who say that International law supports the Supreme Court ruling are wong. A people's inalienable right to self determination is a cornerstone of the UN Charter and thus International law.

There was a vote; the vote was to remain in the Union. That is self determination. The SNP ignoring the vote and trying to move to independence against the expressed will of the people of Scotland is not democratic.

There is no doubt the legitimate successor to the 1707 Parliament of scotland was and is the Parliament of the United kingdom.

That you do not like the outcome of the vote of 1707 nor the referendum does not make them illegitimate.

[Rolfe]

If you seriously think Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP in its present form is trying to move to independence, I have a bridge to sell you.

Also, as a point of simple fact, the 2014 vote has not been "ignored". If it had been, Scotland would be independent by now. There is absolutely nothing illegitimate about a party or campaign group continuing to campaign for its stated objective after a defeat in the polls, a defeat that was acknowledged and accepted. It is now eight years since the independence referendum. In the legislation dealing with Northern Ireland seven years is explicitly stated as the time that should pass after a referendum before another may be held on the same issue.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Lothian

if they are crossing at Hadrian's wall they
are already deep into England. They could be economic migrants, asylum seekers, students, tourists, or business visitors which is why the hard border would be needed.

I just assumed nobody was going to afford to build even a barbed-wire effort at the real border. Since Hadrian had already built a stone barrier precisely to mark and protect Roman Britain, that would still be sufficient to stop any "illegals" even today.

Anyway, moving on!

I'll offer this comment: In 1947, England was reasonably happy to give two whole countries, great swathes of the globe, and nearly a billion people their independence from the crown, after ruling them for a couple of hundred years. And yet in 2022 they baulk at a few million Scots living in a few rain-soaked mountains the same courtesy. What's the difference?

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

I just assumed nobody was going to afford to build even a barbed-wire effort at the real border. Since Hadrian had already built a stone barrier precisely to mark and protect Roman Britain, that would still be sufficient to stop any "illegals" even today.

Anyway, moving on!

I'll offer this comment: In 1947, England was reasonably happy to give two whole countries, great swathes of the globe, and nearly a billion people their independence from the crown, after ruling them for a couple of hundred years. And yet in 2022 they baulk at a few million Scots living in a few rain-soaked mountains the same courtesy. What's the difference?

Those Scots asked for a once in a lifetime vote, were given one and chose to remain.
The costs of separation and rejoining are prohibitive (see brexit,). It is totally bonkers to, as Rolfe suggests, have a vote on leaving, and if they leave, rejoining every 7 years.

Of course she is being disingenuous. She wants a vote to leave every year and if Scotland does vote for independence she would not want any vote to rejoin.

[Rolfe]

The Scots did not ask for (and were not given) a "once in a lifetime" vote. There was nothing whatsoever in the referendum legislation prohibiting a further referendum within any specific time.

And anyone who seriously thinks that Nicola Sturgeon has any desire for or intention of achieving another independence referendum needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Planigale

There was a vote; the vote was to remain in the Union. That is self determination. The SNP ignoring the vote and trying to move to independence against the expressed will of the people of Scotland is not democratic.

There is no doubt the legitimate successor to the 1707 Parliament of scotland was and is the Parliament of the United kingdom.

That you do not like the outcome of the vote of 1707 nor the referendum does not make them illegitimate.

An Act of a Parliament will be put to a vote of parliamentarians. Oh and the parliament of the UK cannot by definition be the successor of the parliament of Scotland, because it represents a different country. That'd be like saying the US house of congress is the successor to the UK parliament of 1777.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

I just assumed nobody was going to afford to build even a barbed-wire effort at the real border. Since Hadrian had already built a stone barrier precisely to mark and protect Roman Britain, that would still be sufficient to stop any "illegals" even today.

Anyway, moving on!

I'll offer this comment: In 1947, England was reasonably happy to give two whole countries, great swathes of the globe, and nearly a billion people their independence from the crown, after ruling them for a couple of hundred years. And yet in 2022 they baulk at a few million Scots living in a few rain-soaked mountains the same courtesy. What's the difference?

Without Scottish resources and the Scottish people's resourcefulness, England would be a third-world country. Look how their empire fell apart after they gave independence to part of Ireland.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The Scots did not ask for (and were not given) a "once in a lifetime" vote. There was nothing whatsoever in the referendum legislation prohibiting a further referendum within any specific time.
.

Of course there would be nothing in the referendum legislation. That would not be the place. I am talking about what Alec Salmons asks for and Cameron agreed to

[Norman Alexander]

It seems to me that while full independence remains problematic, it is the ability of Scotland to treaty and trade with the EU separately from England that is a prime issue. Northern Ireland already has a different status in this regard, as has been shown by the "border in the Irish Sea" debate.

Could a smarter and perhaps more realistic and achievable move be to push for the devolution of Scottish trading authority and abilities to Scotland?

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

It seems to me that while full independence remains problematic, it is the ability of Scotland to treaty and trade with the EU separately from England that is a prime issue. Northern Ireland already has a different status in this regard, as has been shown by the "border in the Irish Sea" debate.

Could a smarter and perhaps more realistic and achievable move be to push for the devolution of Scottish trading authority and abilities to Scotland?

Yes it could happen but would require a hard land border.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Of course there would be nothing in the referendum legislation. That would not be the place. I am talking about what Alec Salmons asks for and Cameron agreed to

That's pure Grauniad spin. There was no such agreement.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

It seems to me that while full independence remains problematic, it is the ability of Scotland to treaty and trade with the EU separately from England that is a prime issue. Northern Ireland already has a different status in this regard, as has been shown by the "border in the Irish Sea" debate.

Could a smarter and perhaps more realistic and achievable move be to push for the devolution of Scottish trading authority and abilities to Scotland?

At the time all that was being worked out it was suggested quite forcefully that Scotland (which voted strongly to remain in the EU should be treated in the same way as Northern Ireland, which would have had the advantage of there not being a border in the Irish Sea, which was seen as anathema at one point.

It could have worked, it would have worked better than the present arrangement I think, but unsurprisingly it was politically unthinkable. It would have been advantageous to Scotland, and if there is one thing the Westminster government is determined about, it is that Scotland should never be given any favourable terms.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Yes it could happen but would require a hard land border.

Like in Northern Ireland?

If the Tories were smart, and realising that Brexit has been a massive fail but not wanting to lose face with the Kipper faction, allowing Scotland to be a de facto trading partner with the EU and not having a hard border with England could be an acceptable solution to resuming some form of re-engagement in the EU marketplace. Obviously, that would be clumsy, but it would be a start to resumption of "normality". And good for Scotland too.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

That's pure Grauniad spin. There was no such agreement.

The term 'once-in-a-generation opportunity' was used in the Scottish Government white paper and by Salmond and the independence campaign.

It has no legal weight but it was the message at the time.

[Rolfe]

It has no legal weight. Thank you. Rhetoric designed to impress on people that this was a historic opportunity is a very different thing from a commitment to stop all campaigning for many decades. (Thank you also for correcting "once in a lifetime" to "once in a generation", which is a very different thing. In the context of Northern Ireland a political generation has already been defined as seven years, also referring to the frequency of independence referendums. It is now more than eight years since the previous referendum in Scotland, so we really should be hearing no more of this nonsense.)

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Like in Northern Ireland?

If the Tories were smart, and realising that Brexit has been a massive fail but not wanting to lose face with the Kipper faction, allowing Scotland to be a de facto trading partner with the EU and not having a hard border with England could be an acceptable solution to resuming some form of re-engagement in the EU marketplace. Obviously, that would be clumsy, but it would be a start to resumption of "normality". And good for Scotland too.

Like the Irish Sea border, the issue that has stopped the Irish Government from operating.


"Goods" entering the EU must be controlled in quality, and quantity by reference to the source.
If Scotland "joined" the EU like N. Ireland it would need to control goods crossing from England. That is the uncomfortable truth that the UK has "discovered" in N Ireland. There need not be a border to stop people but there would need to be a border for goods and border guards to stop smuggling.

P.S. The only time I expect to see 'Tory' and 'smart' in the same sentence is "Tories smart from general election humiliation"

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It has no legal weight. Thank you. Rhetoric designed to impress on people that this was a historic opportunity is a very different thing from a commitment to stop all campaigning for many decades. (Thank you also for correcting "once in a lifetime" to "once in a generation", which is a very different thing. In the context of Northern Ireland a political generation has already been defined as seven years, also referring to the frequency of independence referendums. It is now more than eight years since the previous referendum in Scotland, so we really should be hearing no more of this nonsense.)

Good luck finding where I said the was a timed legal bar to another referendum.
I stand by my comment that your wish for a regular vote will disappear if Scotland gains independence and you would strongly oppose a rejoin vote 7 years later.

[Rolfe]

Relax, Lothian. You're winning. You have no need to be so anxious. You even have the First Minister and the Scottish Government fighting your corner, though you don't seem to realise it.

As regards an independent Scotland agitating for a vote to reunite with England seven years down the line, get back to me if that ever happens. So far the number of countries which have escaped from Westminster rule and have then thought better of it and petitioned to return is a big fat zero. I don't see any country bucking that trend, Scotland or anywhere else.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It has no legal weight. Thank you. Rhetoric designed to impress on people that this was a historic opportunity is a very different thing from a commitment to stop all campaigning for many decades. (Thank you also for correcting "once in a lifetime" to "once in a generation", which is a very different thing. In the context of Northern Ireland a political generation has already been defined as seven years, also referring to the frequency of independence referendums. It is now more than eight years since the previous referendum in Scotland, so we really should be hearing no more of this nonsense.)

I do think that it is something that perhaps should be agreed prior to the next referendum? The last referendum was fairly definitive 55% to remain in the UK and 45% for independence. With an 85% turn out effectively less than 40% of possible electors voted for independence. Yet as soon as the loss happened rather than respecting the wishes of the people of Scotland and perhaps pursuing a Scotland first policy and making maximum use of devolved powers the SNP (and other pro independence groups) immediately strove to pursue an independence policy.

Perhaps ten years should be agreed as the minimum interval before there can be a call for another referendum. The UK government agreeing that if after ten years there is a majority vote in the Scottish parliament for a referendum then one should be delivered within e.g. twi years of such a vote resulting in probably just under twelve years between votes This would mean at least one Scottish parliament with a referemdum not being an issue and the parliament focussing on running the country not on independence.

Politics is not a big interest of mine. So if people tell me there are all sort of good reasons why this is stupid I should probably accept that. Rolfe in particular knows far more about the reality of Scottish politics than I do, and I have always though is probably right in what they write. That does not mean there is no reason not to test the argument.

[Rolfe]

Why ten and not seven? It's seven years in Northern Ireland.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Why ten and not seven? It's seven years in Northern Ireland.

Why ever? What other UK parliament is bills have a no repeat clause? Why should any bill that has popular support in the UK be time limited?

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Like the Irish Sea border, the issue that has stopped the Irish Government from operating.


"Goods" entering the EU must be controlled in quality, and quantity by reference to the source.
If Scotland "joined" the EU like N. Ireland it would need to control goods crossing from England. That is the uncomfortable truth that the UK has "discovered" in N Ireland. There need not be a border to stop people but there would need to be a border for goods and border guards to stop smuggling.

P.S. The only time I expect to see 'Tory' and 'smart' in the same sentence is "Tories smart from general election humiliation"

Countries like India set up "special economic zones" to facilitate and encourage imports and exports in various locations. Various allowances are made such as duty and VAT free, tax exemptions, etc. It discourages illicit trade while promoting national benefit. Well...that's the stated idea anyway!

NB. I was involved with this when working at Hewlett Packard some years ago. Part of the "fun" of regularly shipping very expensive training equipment in and out of India was navigating the bureaucracy and paperwork to get our technical training done inside an SEZ to avoid massive import duties, etc.

Anyway, surely with some flexible thinking (yes, I know - Tories!) Scotland can be designated something along this sort of line as a "gateway" to the EU again. It is still legally in the UK, but the effect is that it has a Venn diagram overlap with the EU in some form. Win-win?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Why ever? What other UK parliament is bills have a no repeat clause? Why should any bill that has popular support in the UK be time limited?

I can't actually parse this.

We have general elections every few years, because we recognise that people change their minds. Nobody insists that the result of a general election decades ago locks the country into being governed by the winning party in perpetuity.

There are two factors in play. One is that individuals can and often do change their minds. Events subsequent to the poll may sway them to believe that they made the wrong choice. The other is that the population is always in flux. Old people die, young people reach voting age. The electorate of today is a different beast from the electorate of even ten years ago.

Why should a people be locked into a decision taken years ago, when many may have thought better of it, many didn't have the chance to vote on it, and many of the people who did are no longer with us?

The insistance that we must never be allowed to change our minds, never be allowed to vote on an issue again, comes from a place not only of insecurity but of absolute contempt for democracy. I got the result I wanted and I'm keeping it, even if every other soul in the country now wants the opposite!

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Yes it could happen but would require a hard land border.

And a much different EU than what we have today. The six counties only got their special dispensation only because so much of the Good Friday Agreement was dependant on both parts of the island being inside the EU.

And that dispensationmay yet disappear, given the English government want to renegotiate away essential parts of it, yet again.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Countries like India set up "special economic zones" to facilitate and encourage imports and exports in various locations. Various allowances are made such as duty and VAT free, tax exemptions, etc. It discourages illicit trade while promoting national benefit. Well...that's the stated idea anyway!

NB. I was involved with this when working at Hewlett Packard some years ago. Part of the "fun" of regularly shipping very expensive training equipment in and out of India was navigating the bureaucracy and paperwork to get our technical training done inside an SEZ to avoid massive import duties, etc.

Anyway, surely with some flexible thinking (yes, I know - Tories!) Scotland can be designated something along this sort of line as a "gateway" to the EU again. It is still legally in the UK, but the effect is that it has a Venn diagram overlap with the EU in some form. Win-win?

Special economic zones are the same thing as freeports which are tax evasion and criminal enterprise hubs within a country, whose only function is to shift economic activity from one part of the country to another.

Anyways, the EU is not going to agree with such a radical renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement without a) the UK implementing their end of the NIP, b) them implementing their end of the withdrawal agreement and c) the whole of the UK becoming part of a customs union (not the Customs Union much less the Single Market) similar to what the EFTA or maybe Turkey has.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Countries like India set up "special economic zones" to facilitate and encourage imports and exports in various locations. Various allowances are made such as duty and VAT free, tax exemptions, etc. It discourages illicit trade while promoting national benefit. Well...that's the stated idea anyway!

NB. I was involved with this when working at Hewlett Packard some years ago. Part of the "fun" of regularly shipping very expensive training equipment in and out of India was navigating the bureaucracy and paperwork to get our technical training done inside an SEZ to avoid massive import duties, etc.

Anyway, surely with some flexible thinking (yes, I know - Tories!) Scotland can be designated something along this sort of line as a "gateway" to the EU again. It is still legally in the UK, but the effect is that it has a Venn diagram overlap with the EU in some form. Win-win?

On the assumption that Scotland joins the EU, it would be great if there could be a local solution for England Scotland trade.

There is a precedent, N Ireland. England and Wales would need to stick to EU rules, with no say in setting them and would need to establish external border checks to apply EU rules. Otherwise England and Wales could be a conduit for illegal goods into the EU.

The EU us a protectionist organization. Allowing goods into the EU at a lower spec than EU producers must stick to, is bad for EU businesses. Competition in goods from outside the bloc is also bad hence the additon of quotas on imported goods and tariffs.

Ignoring the border might be a win for England and Scotland but it would not be one for the EU and especially for EU businesses.

The only real solution would be for England and Scotland to follow N. Ireland and become defacto EU members with no say.

Putting breaking up the union to one side, I personally I think that rejoining the EU, even with no say would be better than where we are now but the UK government are unlikely to go for it.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I can't actually parse this.

Really? I am saying the same as you. There should not be a "no referendum for 10 years" rule or 7 years or whatever. I am not aware of a ban on the UK parliament from discussing and voting on any topic other than the N Irish one you mentioned. It seems pointless given parliament could always vote to overrule it anyway.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Special economic zones are the same thing as freeports which are tax evasion and criminal enterprise hubs within a country, whose only function is to shift economic activity from one part of the country to another.

Nope, not so. Not all SEZ's are freeports. They are set up with their own rules primarily to provide a favourable variation on trading rules that otherwise apply to the country generally. There is no one specific model they must follow. Everything is possible.

Only one intention could be to shift economic activity geographically. Another might be to favour trading partners, or (as in the case I cited) to allow very expensive equipment to arrive and leave the country duty and import free but under very specific circumstances and locations and timing. An SEZ does not even have to be a geographic area. It may be a set of circumstances or specific participants. FYI, India has thousands of SEZ's, each with its own rules - it's a bureaucratic nightmare.

Quote:

Anyways, the EU is not going to agree with such a radical renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement without a) the UK implementing their end of the NIP, b) them implementing their end of the withdrawal agreement and c) the whole of the UK becoming part of a customs union (not the Customs Union much less the Single Market) similar to what the EFTA or maybe Turkey has.

Is that really up to England? My question is: Can Scotland negotiate such an arrangement (or indeed multiple arrangements) outside of England's control?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Nope, not so. Not all SEZ's are freeports. They are set up with their own rules primarily to provide a favourable variation on trading rules that otherwise apply to the country generally. There is no one specific model they must follow. Everything is possible.



Only one intention could be to shift economic activity geographically. Another might be to favour trading partners, or (as in the case I cited) to allow very expensive equipment to arrive and leave the country duty and import free but under very specific circumstances and locations and timing. An SEZ does not even have to be a geographic area. It may be a set of circumstances or specific participants. FYI, India has thousands of SEZ's, each with its own rules - it's a bureaucratic nightmare.



Is that really up to England? My question is: Can Scotland negotiate such an arrangement (or indeed multiple arrangements) outside of England's control?

One major misunderstanding you are making is considering it is England and Scotland, there is no English government, all negotiations are between the UK and Scotland (as defined in the various devolution legislation). For simplicity sake you can sum it up as the UK government has not devolved powers to the Scottish government to enter into international treaties. So no the Scottish government can't enter into a trade treaty with the EU.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Darat

One major misunderstanding you are making is considering it is England and Scotland, there is no English government, all negotiations are between the UK and Scotland (as defined in the various devolution legislation). For simplicity sake you can sum it up as the UK government has not devolved powers to the Scottish government to enter into international treaties. So no the Scottish government can't enter into a trade treaty with the EU.

If Scotland left it could join the EU which would be expensive and would leave them in the same position as now. An EU member can not negotiate its own trade deal. It would be the EU and rUK that would need to agree how Scotland/England trade works and it will be two choices. Hard border or rUK becomes an EU puppet.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Lothian

If Scotland left it could join the EU which would be expensive and would leave them in the same position as now. An EU member can not negotiate its own trade deal. It would be the EU and rUK that would need to agree how Scotland/England trade works and it will be two choices. Hard border or rUK becomes an EU puppet.

That is true, but AIUI, Darat was responding to Norman Alexander's questions about Scotland's latitude for action to strike trade deals with the EU (or any other group presumably) whilst still being part of the UK.

If that is the case then if Scotland remains part of the UK then it has no ability to have a different relationship with the EU than the rest of England and Wales.

If the scope of devolution were broadened so that it could set up separate trade deals then, as you point out, trade across the border between England and Scotland would have to be very tightly controlled to prevent substandard goods coming into the EU via the backdoor.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by The Don

That is true, but AIUI, Darat was responding to Norman Alexander's questions about Scotland's latitude for action to strike trade deals with the EU (or any other group presumably) whilst still being part of the UK.

If that is the case then if Scotland remains part of the UK then it has no ability to have a different relationship with the EU than the rest of England and Wales.

If the scope of devolution were broadened so that it could set up separate trade deals then, as you point out, trade across the border between England and Scotland would have to be very tightly controlled to prevent substandard goods made in English sweat shops by slaves coming into the EU via the backdoor.

You forgot the hilited bit.