Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 Corrupt

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68032233

 

 

 

The state of British politics is truly depressing. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

I do actually agree with some posters that any divorce post Indy would be conducted in the best interests of both parties . It clearly makes sense . But as others noted it can’t be guaranteed . 

Edited January 19 by JudyJudyJudy

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, Dawnrazor said:

The state of British politics is truly depressing. 

It really is . 

[John Findlay]

24 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

The state of British politics is truly depressing. 

Indeed. That's why my next ballot paper at the GE and Scottish parliament elections will be spoiled with the words NONE OF THE ABOVE. Petty? Most definitely.

At this moment in time I firmly believe no political party is deserving of my vote.

[Dawnrazor]

2 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Indeed. That's why my next ballot paper at the GE and Scottish parliament elections will be spoiled with the words NONE OF THE ABOVE. Petty? Most definitely.

At this moment in time I firmly believe no political party is deserving of my vote.

I'll be voting for a local issue candidate again, can't bring myself to vote for one of the big three, none are worthy.

[micole]

37 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

The state of British politics is truly depressing. 

I think we can all agree on that, I am an indy supporter and I really don't know who I'm  going to vote for. The current SNP lot are not doing it for me and for the first time in decades I am seriously considering not voting. This is the state of British politics.....🥴🥴

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I'm not particularly interested whether the Turkish leader comes here or not. Our Turkish community might be though and unless there is something in the devolution settlement that precludes us from talking to foreign politicians then I'm all for it. The Irish do alright trading on their links with countries all over the world. Why is it a bad thing for us? 

So you will be up for the likes of Putin and Netananyhu(excuse the spelling) visiting Scotland?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 hour ago, Dawnrazor said:

All Sturgeon's WhatsApp messages during Covid have been deleted. 

There are some in the Indy movement who would back Gary Glitter if they thought he’d get them away fae they English *****

[Gizmo]

3 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

All Sturgeon's WhatsApp messages during Covid have been deleted. 

Her and Boris must have the same phone. 

[Dawnrazor]

11 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

Her and Boris must have the same phone. 

****in ridiculous isn’t it.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I'm mostly just watching from the outside, but to me the bit that's a big difference between the Brexit and IndyScotia (or whatever) and the response of the remaining entity is down to the politics within that entity.

 

Brexit was an existential crisis for the EU. Nearly every major country in the EU has an anti-EU political bloc within it. The current leaders and ruling parties of most EU nations are very much invested in the European project. Figures in the EU government itself, triply so.

 

If every country saw the UK having an easy go of it, "right, you're out, but we're still besties, aye?" it would have emboldened the anti-EU forces across Europe. EspAdios (or whatever) would have been right on the heels. The EU had to -- had no choice but to -- show that leaving the EU means that you give up some of the goodies like open trade. Or, if not, you have to abide by the very EU laws that you just gave up your right to help shape. The wanks in ESG and other spots of course couldn't abide hearing that and had to strut around and say, "we're Brittania, it's a privilege to trade with us!" That pissed the EU off even more.

 

The question is, would that apply to IndyScot/rUK?

 

On the face of it, no, because at that point the degree to which the rUK would just be effectively England+ would only be accentuated. But how it really went down would be, IMO, down to which party was doing the negotiating. If it's the Tories, it could go quite badly as that same ESG snobbery would come roaring back out. ("The cheek! that Scotland thinks it's better off without us!" or just see "You'll Be Back" from the Hamilton musical.) If it's Labour, do they feel some need to shore up their unionist credentials by being dicks about it all? No idea.

 

But the dynamic flips with Scotland's admission to the EU. They will DESPERATELY want to show that the UK made a huge error with Brexit. Welcoming Scotland back (after a minimum of red tape for show) with a happy reunion for all does exactly that.

[Ulysses]

7 hours ago, John Findlay said:

 

There is absolutely no guarantee that Scotland as an independent country would be allowed to join the current EU.

 

 

I'd have to differ with you there.  An independent Scotland would jump the queue right to the top.

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, Gizmo said:

Under the SNP an independent Scotland would maintain NATO membership and commitments. 

 

 

In that case - I've highlighted the bit in bold - the rUK would automatically retain Faslane/Coulport unless and until it wants to move.  Otherwise the new NATO member would be breaching its obligations to NATO.  The effect of that is that it wouldn't add negotiating leverage for either side.

 

 

6 hours ago, Gizmo said:

 

Gas interconnector - not to Europe, just between EIRE & Scotland, N Ireland and Scotland. 3 in total. 

 

I thought there might be an interconnector between Scotland and Norway, but I admit that could be something I imagined rather than read.

 

If the only interconnectors from Scotland to the rest of the world are to the island of Ireland, that means that gas supply is something that gives the rUK leverage over Scotland in trade negotiations, not the other way round.  If Scotland tells the UK to piss off and not buy its gas, it has no pipelines to sell the gas anywhere else.  Come to think of it, Scotland would have no access to export gas whatsoever, which means losing the European market as well as the rUK market.  There's no point in pushing more gas through Ireland, because Ireland is already buying all it needs or can use, and has no throughput capacity to send the gas anywhere else.  Meanwhile, the rUK is already connected to Norway and the Netherlands, as well as having substantial capacity to import LNG.  In short, Scotland can tell the rUK it won't sell gas to it, and the rUK can call its bluff because the gas can't be sold anywhere else, and in any case the rUK has access to other sources anyway.

 

I'm not suggesting the above would actually happen, but it clearly means that gas supplies would be a point of negotiating leverage for the rUK and not for Scotland, unless and until Scotland could get a couple of interconnectors in place between it and the Continent.

[Gizmo]

26 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

In that case - I've highlighted the bit in bold - the rUK would automatically retain Faslane/Coulport unless and until it wants to move.  Otherwise the new NATO member would be breaching its obligations to NATO.  The effect of that is that it wouldn't add negotiating leverage for either side.

 

 

 

I thought there might be an interconnector between Scotland and Norway, but I admit that could be something I imagined rather than read.

 

If the only interconnectors from Scotland to the rest of the world are to the island of Ireland, that means that gas supply is something that gives the rUK leverage over Scotland in trade negotiations, not the other way round.  If Scotland tells the UK to piss off and not buy its gas, it has no pipelines to sell the gas anywhere else.  Come to think of it, Scotland would have no access to export gas whatsoever, which means losing the European market as well as the rUK market.  There's no point in pushing more gas through Ireland, because Ireland is already buying all it needs or can use, and has no throughput capacity to send the gas anywhere else.  Meanwhile, the rUK is already connected to Norway and the Netherlands, as well as having substantial capacity to import LNG.  In short, Scotland can tell the rUK it won't sell gas to it, and the rUK can call its bluff because the gas can't be sold anywhere else, and in any case the rUK has access to other sources anyway.

 

I'm not suggesting the above would actually happen, but it clearly means that gas supplies would be a point of negotiating leverage for the rUK and not for Scotland, unless and until Scotland could get a couple of interconnectors in place between it and the Continent.

The interconnector between Scotland & Norway was a proposal for an electricity interconnect. 

[Ulysses]

13 hours ago, That thing you do said:

Im going to address it, just to not be hypocritical and fail to do so while expecting people to address my points.

 

Cheers.  A lot of people don't bother, or just make assumptions that what they've said is automatically correct.  

 

 

13 hours ago, That thing you do said:

The trade argument that Scotland is in a weaker position comes from Scotlands main trading partner being the UK. But that isnt the whole story.

 

Englands trading with Scotland is enough that its virtually mutually assured destruction if common sense doesnt prevail. Englands balance of trade is worse, way way worse than Scotlands.Scotland had a balance of trade surplus pre pandemic, though its in deficit now.

 

What it means for England is they are heavily reliant on imports. Now they could get them from easy to reach Scotland or cut their noses off and try to import everything from outside Scotland and the EU, which will increase costs of living massively for Jill and Johnny England.

 

Scotland leaving makes the balance of trade figures worse by quite a way proportionally (as Scotland has the least worst balance of trade in the UK) and what that means is the pound will drop if Scotland are kicked out of it (or choose to leave it) in a hurry. This is why the rhetoric on keeping the pound was ridiculous in the referendum. Its in everyones interest that any move away takes time and keeping the pound is stability for new Scotland while it sets up its own currency and or decides on longer term plan.

 

 

There's a host of reasons why traditional "balance of trade" rules are no longer relevant to the analysis of currency values, and some day in another thread I'll happily get into a discussion about why I think they don't matter at all in the case of the world's major currencies.  But for the purposes of this thread I don't really mind assuming they are relevant.  I'll just point out that according to Statista, Scotland accounts for about 10% of the UK's trade deficit in goods, which is approximately what you'd expect.  And if you look at the regional trade statistics published by HMRC and the Scottish Government, the reality is that Scotland leaving the UK would hardly be noticed by the trade analysts.  In 2022, the UK as a whole had a goods trade deficit of £210.5 billion.  If we exclude Scotland from that, the deficit would have been £211.3 billion.  There is very little difference between those figures - they are only about 0.4% different.  So even if we accept that the rUK's "balance of trade" could seriously impact on the value of GBP, the markets simply wouldn't notice a shift of a few hundred million quid in the balance.

 

Now to the main event.  Leverage.  Specifically, negotiating leverage.

 

In 2018, Scotland sold £51.2 billion to the rUK, while the rUK sold £63.1 billion to Scotland.  I know those figures don't include oil and gas - but that's actually good, because the reality is that they are international markets, so the Scots can sell anywhere and the rUK can buy anywhere at internationally defined prices, so they don't affect what really matters, which is leverage.

 

Why 2018, by the way?  I couldn't see the later figures for both trade and the size of the economy.  But if you have more recent figures, post them in.

 

On the face of it, Scotland can kick sand in the rUK's face with those figures.  The rUK sells more to Scotland than it buys from Scotland, which means Scotland has the balance of advantage.  Right?  Er, no, wrong, as it happens.

 

Why is this so?  The answer is quirky, but beguilingly simple.  in 2018, the rest of the UK's economy was measured at £2,032 billion, which means that what the Scots bought from them (£63.1 billion) was worth about 3% of the rUK economy.   On the other hand, the Scottish economy was in or about £166 billion - which means that what the rest of the UK bought from Scotland (£51.2 billion) was worth about 31% of the Scottish economy.

 

So, you go to the negotiating table.  When you do that, you cut a deal if you can, and you walk away if you can't.  So in the event of a breakdown in negotiations between the two sides, where they can't cut a deal and tell the others to piss off, what's at risk?  In the rUK's case, it's anything up to 3% of their economy.  That's not nothing, by the way, but it's a lot less than the hit in the post-2008 financial crisis.  In Scotland's case, it's anything up to 31% of their economy.  Now pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but that is quite something.  A country can tolerate putting 3% of its economic activity at risk in a negotiation - but 31%?  Really?

 

What does all that mean in practical terms?  It doesn't mean any of this shit will happen, and it doesn't mean that the two economies are heading for recession - but what it does mean is that it would be a lot harder for the Scottish negotiators to walk away from the table than their rUK counterparts if they fell out over some issue.  The price of failure would be far more damaging and bruising for Scotland than for the rUK, so the Scottish negotiators would have to stick in at the table even if things got a bit ugly, whereas their rUK counterparts would have more freedom to walk away, or worse, to threaten to walk away.  In turn, what that means is that whenever there are real sticking points in the post-split negotiations, the view of the UK negotiators would be much, much more likely to prevail.

 

And that's what negotiating leverage is all about.  Good negotiators can make the best use of whatever hand they're dealt, but only up to a point.  

 

 

13 hours ago, That thing you do said:

Resources also do come into this. Scotland holds more than its population share of a large number of natural resources. Resources England needs (water is arguable - gas, electric are not) - it will be cheaper for England to get Scottish Gas than Dutch for example. If the UK was still in the EU and could pivot to new suppliers tomorrow, then this might be a different conversation. But England would need to source its replacements from Africa? US? Australia? Or be pragmatic and deal with Scotland.

 

The UK is continuing to import massive quantities of natural gas from the EU and from Norway, right up to October 2023 according to published data.  It's there to be read at the ONS.  There's no pivot needed.  England brings in roughly 9% of its electricity from Scotland, and if it didn't it would have to import from France while Scotland would simply lose the business. As I said to Gizmo earlier, if Scotland don't sell to the rUK then they don't sell to anyone else because of where the interconnector pipelines are located.  In sort, there's no leverage in energy either.

 

 

13 hours ago, That thing you do said:

Lets alos not forget the UKs standing in Nato and the G7 etc would be challenged if 10% of its landmass and GDP walked out the door. Scotland can use cooperation at that level and maintaining a join approach as a way of negotiating. England thinks of itself as a world power too much to do anything else.

 

No it wouldn't.  As far as NATO goes, the UK is America's closest ally, and the Americans aren't going to turn round and put London under the cosh because Scotland has left.  This isn't even up for debate.  As for the G7, a 10% reduction in the rUK's GDP would still mean it would be bigger than Italy's and Canada's, and more or less the same as France's.  Are you proposing to chuck them out of the club too?

 

To reiterate, I'm not arguing about what the rUK would do or should do.  I'm simply pointing out that if you think Scotland has more negotiating "welly" than the rUK in negotiating a post-independence settlement then you are very definitely missing the point.

[Ulysses]

44 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

The interconnector between Scotland & Norway was a proposal for an electricity interconnect. 

 

In that case my point stands.  Scotland only has one outlet for its gas, so threatening not to sell to England is a bluff that would be called pretty quickly.

[i wish jj was my dad]

11 hours ago, John Findlay said:

So you will be up for the likes of Putin and Netananyhu(excuse the spelling) visiting Scotland?

Probably not, but that's not the point that was being made and I would expect that a smart man of the world like you would have known that.  Should Scottish politicians be precluded from developing relationships with foreign leaders?

In this case, we have a large Turkish population. Ditto India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. We also have a large diaspora in the US, Canada, New Zealand etc and have a pretty decent relationship with European countries.

Are there benefits from engaging directly with countries like that or should we route everything through Lord Cameron as was being suggested? 

[Lord Montpelier]

Been reported that an XL bully dog has attacked a old fella in Aberdeen

 

The same dugs Humza and his crew tried to make a political point out of before caving in to obvious evidence. 

 

Well done SNP. Honestly they can't even do the basics so who would trust them to construct and potentially run a new country. 

[John Findlay]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'd have to differ with you there.  An independent Scotland would jump the queue right to the top.

That's a case of wait and see.

[John Findlay]

58 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Probably not, but that's not the point that was being made and I would expect that a smart man of the world like you would have known that.  Should Scottish politicians be precluded from developing relationships with foreign leaders?

In this case, we have a large Turkish population. Ditto India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. We also have a large diaspora in the US, Canada, New Zealand etc and have a pretty decent relationship with European countries.

Are there benefits from engaging directly with countries like that or should we route everything through Lord Cameron as was being suggested? 

We also have a large Jewish population, many from the old USSR.

You feel free to pick and choose the bad guys you like😉

[TallPaul]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'd have to differ with you there.  An independent Scotland would jump the queue right to the top.

Ooooft the arrogance. An independent Scotland wouldn't even meet the entry criteria.

[Lord Montpelier]

4 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

Ooooft the arrogance. An independent Scotland wouldn't even meet the entry criteria.

Turkey is on the EU candidate list maybe that's why Humza was so keen to suck up to Erdogan, get some guidance and advice

[i wish jj was my dad]

48 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

We also have a large Jewish population, many from the old USSR.

You feel free to pick and choose the bad guys you like😉

I don't imagine that population particularly associates itself with Tsarist Russia, the USSR or today's Russia so I don't see a particular benefit from scotland engaging with Putin for them. Which was the actual focus of the point. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Cheers.  A lot of people don't bother, or just make assumptions that what they've said is automatically correct.  

 

 

 

 

There's a host of reasons why traditional "balance of trade" rules are no longer relevant to the analysis of currency values, and some day in another thread I'll happily get into a discussion about why I think they don't matter at all in the case of the world's major currencies.  But for the purposes of this thread I don't really mind assuming they are relevant.  I'll just point out that according to Statista, Scotland accounts for about 10% of the UK's trade deficit in goods, which is approximately what you'd expect.  And if you look at the regional trade statistics published by HMRC and the Scottish Government, the reality is that Scotland leaving the UK would hardly be noticed by the trade analysts.  In 2022, the UK as a whole had a goods trade deficit of £210.5 billion.  If we exclude Scotland from that, the deficit would have been £211.3 billion.  There is very little difference between those figures - they are only about 0.4% different.  So even if we accept that the rUK's "balance of trade" could seriously impact on the value of GBP, the markets simply wouldn't notice a shift of a few hundred million quid in the balance.

 

Now to the main event.  Leverage.  Specifically, negotiating leverage.

 

In 2018, Scotland sold £51.2 billion to the rUK, while the rUK sold £63.1 billion to Scotland.  I know those figures don't include oil and gas - but that's actually good, because the reality is that they are international markets, so the Scots can sell anywhere and the rUK can buy anywhere at internationally defined prices, so they don't affect what really matters, which is leverage.

 

Why 2018, by the way?  I couldn't see the later figures for both trade and the size of the economy.  But if you have more recent figures, post them in.

 

On the face of it, Scotland can kick sand in the rUK's face with those figures.  The rUK sells more to Scotland than it buys from Scotland, which means Scotland has the balance of advantage.  Right?  Er, no, wrong, as it happens.

 

Why is this so?  The answer is quirky, but beguilingly simple.  in 2018, the rest of the UK's economy was measured at £2,032 billion, which means that what the Scots bought from them (£63.1 billion) was worth about 3% of the rUK economy.   On the other hand, the Scottish economy was in or about £166 billion - which means that what the rest of the UK bought from Scotland (£51.2 billion) was worth about 31% of the Scottish economy.

 

So, you go to the negotiating table.  When you do that, you cut a deal if you can, and you walk away if you can't.  So in the event of a breakdown in negotiations between the two sides, where they can't cut a deal and tell the others to piss off, what's at risk?  In the rUK's case, it's anything up to 3% of their economy.  That's not nothing, by the way, but it's a lot less than the hit in the post-2008 financial crisis.  In Scotland's case, it's anything up to 31% of their economy.  Now pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but that is quite something.  A country can tolerate putting 3% of its economic activity at risk in a negotiation - but 31%?  Really?

 

What does all that mean in practical terms?  It doesn't mean any of this shit will happen, and it doesn't mean that the two economies are heading for recession - but what it does mean is that it would be a lot harder for the Scottish negotiators to walk away from the table than their rUK counterparts if they fell out over some issue.  The price of failure would be far more damaging and bruising for Scotland than for the rUK, so the Scottish negotiators would have to stick in at the table even if things got a bit ugly, whereas their rUK counterparts would have more freedom to walk away, or worse, to threaten to walk away.  In turn, what that means is that whenever there are real sticking points in the post-split negotiations, the view of the UK negotiators would be much, much more likely to prevail.

 

And that's what negotiating leverage is all about.  Good negotiators can make the best use of whatever hand they're dealt, but only up to a point.  

 

 

 

The UK is continuing to import massive quantities of natural gas from the EU and from Norway, right up to October 2023 according to published data.  It's there to be read at the ONS.  There's no pivot needed.  England brings in roughly 9% of its electricity from Scotland, and if it didn't it would have to import from France while Scotland would simply lose the business. As I said to Gizmo earlier, if Scotland don't sell to the rUK then they don't sell to anyone else because of where the interconnector pipelines are located.  In sort, there's no leverage in energy either.

 

 

 

No it wouldn't.  As far as NATO goes, the UK is America's closest ally, and the Americans aren't going to turn round and put London under the cosh because Scotland has left.  This isn't even up for debate.  As for the G7, a 10% reduction in the rUK's GDP would still mean it would be bigger than Italy's and Canada's, and more or less the same as France's.  Are you proposing to chuck them out of the club too?

 

To reiterate, I'm not arguing about what the rUK would do or should do.  I'm simply pointing out that if you think Scotland has more negotiating "welly" than the rUK in negotiating a post-independence settlement then you are very definitely missing the point.

This 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Been reported that an XL bully dog has attacked a old fella in Aberdeen

 

The same dugs Humza and his crew tried to make a political point out of before caving in to obvious evidence. 

 

Well done SNP. Honestly they can't even do the basics so who would trust them to construct and potentially run a new country. 

There was Also a news report about an elderly woman who got attacked by one too quite recently . You’re right he was using it to score political points . Foul

[Konrad von Carstein]

2 hours ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Been reported that an XL bully dog has attacked a old fella in Aberdeen

 

The same dugs Humza and his crew tried to make a political point out of before caving in to obvious evidence. 

 

Well done SNP. Honestly they can't even do the basics so who would trust them to construct and potentially run a new country. 

Wis it Humza's dug likesy?

 

FFS that post is different level SNP bad...

Edited January 20 by Konrad von Carstein

[Thunder and Lightning]

11 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

Wis it Humza's dug likesy?

 

FFS that post is different level SNP bad...

All the posts discussing a variety of topics, well constructed arguments and debate and that's the post you focus on. 😂 

[Konrad von Carstein]

Just now, Thunder and Lightning said:

All the posts discussing a variety of topics, well constructed arguments and debate and that's the post you focus on. 😂 

Caught your attention though...

 

[Mikey1874]

11 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

I'm mostly just watching from the outside, but to me the bit that's a big difference between the Brexit and IndyScotia (or whatever) and the response of the remaining entity is down to the politics within that entity.

 

Brexit was an existential crisis for the EU. Nearly every major country in the EU has an anti-EU political bloc within it. The current leaders and ruling parties of most EU nations are very much invested in the European project. Figures in the EU government itself, triply so.

 

If every country saw the UK having an easy go of it, "right, you're out, but we're still besties, aye?" it would have emboldened the anti-EU forces across Europe. EspAdios (or whatever) would have been right on the heels. The EU had to -- had no choice but to -- show that leaving the EU means that you give up some of the goodies like open trade. Or, if not, you have to abide by the very EU laws that you just gave up your right to help shape. The wanks in ESG and other spots of course couldn't abide hearing that and had to strut around and say, "we're Brittania, it's a privilege to trade with us!" That pissed the EU off even more.

 

The question is, would that apply to IndyScot/rUK?

 

On the face of it, no, because at that point the degree to which the rUK would just be effectively England+ would only be accentuated. But how it really went down would be, IMO, down to which party was doing the negotiating. If it's the Tories, it could go quite badly as that same ESG snobbery would come roaring back out. ("The cheek! that Scotland thinks it's better off without us!" or just see "You'll Be Back" from the Hamilton musical.) If it's Labour, do they feel some need to shore up their unionist credentials by being dicks about it all? No idea.

 

But the dynamic flips with Scotland's admission to the EU. They will DESPERATELY want to show that the UK made a huge error with Brexit. Welcoming Scotland back (after a minimum of red tape for show) with a happy reunion for all does exactly that.

 

It might have seemed like that reading the UK media. But Brexit didn't prove to be an 'existential crisis' for the EU. It gave it a much needed shake up and its come out stronger. Certainly no one else seriously close to leaving nearly 8 years on. 

[manaliveits105]

The rules state that ScotGov ministers MUST transcribe or copy ANY WhatsApp messages relating to govt business into an email or text document and stored in the central record. So says the Minister for Parliamentary Business.

  
 

aye ? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

24 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

Caught your attention though...

 

They have nothing else really . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

9 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

The rules state that ScotGov ministers MUST transcribe or copy ANY WhatsApp messages relating to govt business into an email or text document and stored in the central record. So says the Minister for Parliamentary Business.

  
 

aye ? 

And anyone knows that in any work environment you shouldn’t be talking / texting confidential info on devices not authorised by your employer . It’s common sense . Heads shot of roll about this but like in England they probably won’t 

[BlueRiver]

10 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It might have seemed like that reading the UK media. But Brexit didn't prove to be an 'existential crisis' for the EU. It gave it a much needed shake up and its come out stronger. Certainly no one else seriously close to leaving nearly 8 years on. 

 

I think existential crisis is strong but there I think there is an element of truth in what he says in that the EU would not have wanted to negotiate a deal that essentially showed no downside to leaving for fear of emboldening anti-EU forces in member states. No one is seriously close 8 years on but round about Brexit weren't France and Italy in particular dealing with strong anti-EU sentiment. Something that has fallen back a post after the protracted negotiations. 

[periodictabledancer]

17 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

All Sturgeon's WhatsApp messages during Covid have been deleted. 

What law did she / they break ?

 

[Mikey1874]

6 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

What law did she / they break ?

 

 

 

 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, BlueRiver said:

 

I think existential crisis is strong but there I think there is an element of truth in what he says in that the EU would not have wanted to negotiate a deal that essentially showed no downside to leaving for fear of emboldening anti-EU forces in member states. No one is seriously close 8 years on but round about Brexit weren't France and Italy in particular dealing with strong anti-EU sentiment. Something that has fallen back a post after the protracted negotiations. 

 

I said in the before days, long long ago, that the EU had to show that leaving has all sorts of obvious downsides and that you can't negotiate your way to benefits that member states enjoy.

 

Other countries' desire to leave was hugely overplayed by Brexit supporters IMO

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, John Findlay said:

That's a case of wait and see.

 

Or a case of not wait and see, if I'm to be believed.

 

I'll get my coat.  

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It might have seemed like that reading the UK media. But Brexit didn't prove to be an 'existential crisis' for the EU. It gave it a much needed shake up and its come out stronger. Certainly no one else seriously close to leaving nearly 8 years on. 

 

To me it gave them a shot in the arm for the very reason that they wouldn't accept Boris's or JRM's idea of a Brexit deal. They came through the crisis stronger exactly because they refused to cave. And as you say it squashed the exiters around the rest of the EU.

 

If one is trying to think through how negotiations with the EU and the rUK might go and trying to take lessons from Brexit, that's the one to take.

[JudyJudyJudy]

This 

 

 

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, TallPaul said:

Ooooft the arrogance. An independent Scotland wouldn't even meet the entry criteria.

 

First in the queue.  Prove me wrong.  The queue is a matter of public record, after all.

[TallPaul]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

First in the queue.  Prove me wrong.  The queue is a matter of public record, after all.

Pretty sure there isn't a queue for countries that won't be joining anytime soon

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, TallPaul said:

Pretty sure there isn't a queue for countries that won't be joining anytime soon

 

Can't answer my question?  Fair enough, that's pretty much what I expected.

[TallPaul]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Can't answer my question?  Fair enough, that's pretty much what I expected.

Please direct me to this queue of non sovereign counties not joining the EU that are waiting to join? Bet you can't 

[AyrJambo]

On 19/01/2024 at 11:50, That thing you do said:

Im going to address it, just to not be hypocritical and fail to do so while expecting people to address my points.

 

The trade argument that Scotland is in a weaker position comes from Scotlands main trading partner being the UK. But that isnt the whole story.

 

Englands trading with Scotland is enough that its virtually mutually assured destruction if common sense doesnt prevail. Englands balance of trade is worse, way way worse than Scotlands.Scotland had a balance of trade surplus pre pandemic, though its in deficit now.

 

What it means for England is they are heavily reliant on imports. Now they could get them from easy to reach Scotland or cut their noses off and try to import everything from outside Scotland and the EU, which will increase costs of living massively for Jill and Johnny England.

 

Scotland leaving makes the balance of trade figures worse by quite a way proportionally (as Scotland has the least worst balance of trade in the UK) and what that means is the pound will drop if Scotland are kicked out of it (or choose to leave it) in a hurry. This is why the rhetoric on keeping the pound was ridiculous in the referendum. Its in everyones interest that any move away takes time and keeping the pound is stability for new Scotland while it sets up its own currency and or decides on longer term plan.

 

Resources also do come into this. Scotland holds more than its population share of a large number of natural resources. Resources England needs (water is arguable - gas, electric are not) - it will be cheaper for England to get Scottish Gas than Dutch for example. If the UK was still in the EU and could pivot to new suppliers tomorrow, then this might be a different conversation. But England would need to source its replacements from Africa? US? Australia? Or be pragmatic and deal with Scotland.

 

Lets alos not forget the UKs standing in Nato and the G7 etc would be challenged if 10% of its landmass and GDP walked out the door. Scotland can use cooperation at that level and maintaining a join approach as a way of negotiating. England thinks of itself as a world power too much to do anything else.

 

A CTA as with Ireland is what will happen border wise, with Goods going to England only having their own agreement. Goods with an end point in England can get a waiver from Tariffs and vice versa the other way.

 

My personal view, is regardless of who on paper is stronger or weaker, both need to be pragmatic, so would be.

That is a powerful negotiation strand for Scotland

Nato/G7/Security council etc applies to UK

Any rUK successor state wanting to claim all those continuing memberships (in effect continuing to call themselves and act as the current UK) would also need to assume all the debts (and assets) of the current UK meaning a restored independent Scotland could start off without taking on a share of the current UK debt

As for also not getting a share of assets that would also be up for negotiation with housing of Trident for a period, for example,  offset against some monetary value share of UK embassies etc

 

[John Findlay]

52 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Or a case of not wait and see, if I'm to be believed.

 

I'll get my coat.  

So you bloody should😄

[JudyJudyJudy]

22 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

of the current UK meaning a restored independent Scotland could start off without taking on a share of the current UK debt

Theres a few on this advoctating we should bump the debt. Lovely start to a new Indy country. 

[Ulysses]

32 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

Please direct me to this queue of non sovereign counties not joining the EU that are waiting to join? Bet you can't 

 

Who said such a thing exists?  Not me, and not anyone on the thread.

 

There is a queue of sovereign states in various stages of accession negotiations with the EU.

 

An independent Scotland would be sovereign. 

 

I said "An independent Scotland would jump the queue right to the top."

 

You said "an independent Scotland wouldn't even meet the entry criteria."

 

I repeated that an independent Scotland would be first in the queue. 

 

Leave aside your dislike of independence for a moment, and tell me why you think that an independent Scotland wouldn't go ahead of the others.

 

Don't tell me that Scotland won't be independent (I didn't say it would).

 

Don't tell me that Scotland shouldn't be independent (I didn't say it should).

 

Don't tell me that an independent Scotland wouldn't meet the entry criteria (I didn't say it would).

 

Just say why you think an independent Scotland wouldn't go ahead of the other countries on the candidate list.

[Ulysses]

25 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

That is a powerful negotiation strand for Scotland

Nato/G7/Security council etc applies to UK

 

 

I posted last night to explain why Scotland leaving the UK would have no impact on NATO or the G7.

 

It would have no impact on the Security Council either.  An independent Scotland could of course seek a Resolution of the Security Council in relation to matters between it and the rUK - but I'd imagine that at least one of the five permanent members would be tempted to use its veto to block it.

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I posted last night to explain why Scotland leaving the UK would have no impact on NATO or the G7.

 

It would have no impact on the Security Council either.  An independent Scotland could of course seek a Resolution of the Security Council in relation to matters between it and the rUK - but I'd imagine that at least one of the five permanent members would be tempted to use its veto to block it.

 

The alternative site for the UK nuclear submarines is the USA. But Norway or Finland may be options too. So Scotland isn't in a great position to use it in negotiations.

[TallPaul]

15 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Who said such a thing exists?  Not me, and not anyone on the thread.

 

There is a queue of sovereign states in various stages of accession negotiations with the EU.

 

An independent Scotland would be sovereign. 

 

I said "An independent Scotland would jump the queue right to the top."

 

You said "an independent Scotland wouldn't even meet the entry criteria."

 

I repeated that an independent Scotland would be first in the queue. 

 

Leave aside your dislike of independence for a moment, and tell me why you think that an independent Scotland wouldn't go ahead of the others.

 

Don't tell me that Scotland won't be independent (I didn't say it would).

 

Don't tell me that Scotland shouldn't be independent (I didn't say it should).

 

Don't tell me that an independent Scotland wouldn't meet the entry criteria (I didn't say it would).

 

Just say why you think an independent Scotland wouldn't go ahead of the other countries on the candidate list.

Arrogant and presumptions

 

For a start joining the EU would now involve adopting the euro not long after having launched our own currency. I'm sure everyone would love the idea of 2 currency switches in a decade. Our fiscal deficit would need to be 3% or less (don't tell the 750k non tax payers) and with England not being EU members we would then require a hard border between Scotland and our biggest trading partner.