Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Cade]

Cabinet member leaked details to the press

 

14 against
Williamson, Fox, Mordaunt, Truss, Javid, Grayling, Wright, Leadsom, Hunt, Brokenshire, Evans, Barclay, Cairns, Lewis

 

10 For
Gauke, Hancock, Hammond, Clark, Hinz, Lidington, Perry, Gove, Rudd, Cox

 

Rest undecided

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

What is your source for this?

 

 

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

 

Cheers, although that wasn't exactly what Cade was saying. According to that, the 14 included those who wanted No Deal or short extension.

 

They got their short extension. Or at least they are going to ask the EU for that extension.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by redjambo

[JamboX2]

12 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Sorry but you can't take one poll with a sample of 859 people and make factual claims. 

 

True. I suppose the correct statement is there's a trend in that direction. The SNP policy for immigration is little different from the UK's in principle: both happy to adopt an Aussie points system with minor changes. I think given SNP and Tory MPs are returned on those manifestos it is clear controlled immigration is a Scottish voter desire. 

 

Albeit a difference of party view on Single Market. Which, may well change now given TM's statement.

[JamboX2]

11 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I think you're taking a very narrow snapshot of the current political debacle, which is fair enough on a Brexit thread!

I should have been clearer. I'm talking in very broad terms and I do think that we are very different from our neighbours. 

I think Scots have a generally broader outlook, perhaps due to our historical diaspora, whereas I sense England becoming ever more insular, evidenced by a growing, and apparently acceptable, far right.

I base that on nothing more than personal experience I'm afraid. 

 

 

 

I would say a vocal minority are. But this is yet to fashion itself into electoral outcomes with a very prominent, explicitly right wing populist party never winning plurality in the HoC.

 

I know plenty folk back home who are all for pulling up the draw bridge - anecdotle but there you have it. I think it naive for any of us to think there's not that within Scotland. Nor that it would gain traction once independent. See the Scandinavian nations are now facing backlashes against migration there. It gain a foothold anywhere.

Edited April 2, 2019 by JamboX2

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, coconut doug said:

Norway doesn't have a hard border with the EU. Norway is in Shengen.

 

It has customs check points. I call that a fairly non-frictionless border.

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, coconut doug said:

The PM is not meeting anybody in the middle and never has as far as i can see. This is her greatest attribute.

 

The quote came from Nick Watt (Guardian now BBC) and is in the context of TM demanding a harsh whipping regime on the Boles amendment. She thinks membership of the single market means Scotland can maintain its market with RUK after Indy and this undermines the case for the union. Boles has left the Con Party as a consequence of this.

 

He's left for more than that. And today's events suggest an albeit far too late in the day switch which wont achieve much.

 

Quote

 

  You need to use another term rather than Nationalist when referring to supporters of Scottish Indy, particularly in the context of of all these flag waving types hanging about o/s Westminster. Independence supporters is fine. "Stoking nationalist anger" is not a good phrase either, it puts people in mind of Tommy Robinson and Farage and their behaviour at the weekend and i'm sure you wouldn't want to do that. We are not like them and don't share their sentiments.

 

What about those folk who march in Scotland with all those flags and banners who call for an end to the Tories and "Red Tories"? Or Sion Nan Gael? The folk who terrorise anti-independence MPs offices? None of them are very open and friendly.

 

Every movement has nutters. Not all Brexiteers are in the EDL. Not everyone who wants independence is like those I've mentioned above.

 

But both are manifestations of nationalism and fronted by nationalists. Your views on what you represent in content may be different but is still putting nation and identity before other concerns.

 

Fundamentally, and we've been here before, I'm yet to be convinced that independence will matter for much (much like Brexit) for social and economic change for Scotland (and the UK). It relocates power at great expense but doesn't change political attitudes or voters concerns and the economic upheaval they cause are counter intuitive to the claimed reasons for them.

Edited April 2, 2019 by JamboX2

[AlimOzturk]

Corby open to meeting May and coming to an agreement. May needs Labour to get a deal.of sorts through. 

[redjambo]

16 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

It has customs check points. I call that a fairly non-frictionless border.

 

Really?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561

 

"Frictionless borders: learning from Norway"

 

Average waiting time: 8 minutes.

Edited April 2, 2019 by redjambo

[JamboX2]

21 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Really?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561

 

"Frictionless borders: learning from Norway"

 

Average waiting time: 8 minutes.

 

It's still a check on entry so not a frictionless border that we have now.

 

It's why a Norway deal (SM minus CU) is not a viable way to resolve the NI border.

Edited April 2, 2019 by JamboX2

[redjambo]

7 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

Reading article it doesn’t sound that frictionless to me. Technology will improve it as will time, but to call it frictionless is a massive stretch imo. 

 

The same article that claimed the average waiting time is 8min also has users saying it’s a 90min wait and paperwork heavy. 

 

Any form of border, even a high tech, heavily lubed border won’t go down well in Ireland, including a customs union. These things cost time, money and will impact people.

 

 

I'm turning into FA. The article indicates that it can be a 90 minute wait at times.

 

It's not perfect, but yet again we're making frictionless/non-frictionless into a binary choice. There are various degrees of friction - it is just a case of finding a level that is deemed acceptable.

 

By the way, I'm not arguing this particular point from any political viewpoint or even in relation to Brexit. I was just interested when the original poster said that the Norway-Sweden border was a hard border and in my recollection from having traversed it several times, albeit not carrying goods, it was pretty soft, virtually non-existent for me.

Edited April 2, 2019 by redjambo

[Cade]

Norway and Sweden are both in the Schengen area.

Both are in the EEA.

 

UK will not be in either of these.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Cade

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, Cade said:

Norway and Sweden are both in the Schengen area.

Both are member of EFTA.

Both are in the EEA.

 

UK will not be in any of these.

 

Sweden is no longer a member of EFTA.

 

https://www.efta.int/about-efta/european-free-trade-association

 

Neither is it in the EEA extension to the Single Market, except if you argue that all EU members are.

 

https://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement

 

Cade. Serious question. Does it ever cross your mind to check your facts before posting?

[Cade]

4 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Sweden is no longer a member of EFTA.

 

https://www.efta.int/about-efta/european-free-trade-association

 

Neither is it in the EEA extension to the Single Market, except if you argue that all EU members are.

 

https://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement

 

Cade. Serious question. Does it ever cross your mind to check your facts before posting?

I did, and edited accordingly :p

Point was the the UK won't get a Norway+++++++ whatever deal due to our stupid red lines.

It'll be some kind of border checks no matter what.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Cade

[redjambo]

Just now, Cade said:

I did, and edited accordingly ?

Point was the the UK won't get a Norway+++++++ whatever deal due to our stupid red lines.

It'll be border checks no matter what.

 

No you didn't. You checked your facts after you posted.

 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens in the weeks to come...

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Notts1874 said:

That would tip some of the ERG over the edge??

I just saw the nick of the ERG on the Laura thingymabob's Brexit show.  A bunch of @#£#@#£#@#£#@@##s

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

Very shortly we could be up the top there with Armenia.

[redjambo]

By the way, Cade, that map of yours is out of date. Lithuania joined the Eurozone on 1 Jan 2015.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

Labour need to tell her to get fecked and then to get properly behind some of the indicative votes this week.

You get it. 

 

Its a Tory mess. The last thing Labour should do is be complicit in that mess.

 

Thersa has surely pissed off the DUP and all other partys by offering just Labour the Chance to work things out. Not to mention her brexiteers who will hate her for offering Labour anything.

 

If Corbyn tells her to shove it she is  friendless .

[frankblack]

11 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Think Gove might be next up after May. Allegedly key player in extension happening today.

 

He has re-established himself with tories during stint in environment and he generally getting himself more tv time lately.

 

Suppose will make some posters happy to have a Scot ruling over England.

 

 

Technically Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were also Scots, and John Smith before them would have been prime minister had he survived.

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, Toxteth O'Grady said:

You get it. 

 

Its a Tory mess. The last thing Labour should do is be complicit in that mess.

 

Thersa has surely pissed off the DUP and all other partys by offering just Labour the Chance to work things out. Not to mention her brexiteers who will hate her for offering Labour anything.

 

If Corbyn tells her to shove it she is  friendless .

 

Labour want a General Election, so it wouldn't be in their interests to help out TM.

[Costanza]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Not quite a fair summary on the first point.

And I am certainly not contrite about pointing out the Guardian/Observer's relentlessy negative reporting on Brexit in its supposed "news" stories. Fox over-promised and underdelivered it is true, but he is a politician! (and he may have quite a bit of time yet to deliver!)

I have not seen a correction of the Guardian/Observer reporting as fact that the anti-Brexit demo the other week attracted more than twice as many people as neutral experts have since estimated.

The Remain side is effectively one wing of the Tory Party? Sounds like a Guardian/Observer "fact".

If I misinterpreted your comments then I would apologise but you haven't said what they were...

I never said the Guardian wasn't pro remain(it clearly is) but focused on their 100% accurate glass half empty comments on the lack of trade deals rolled over.

As for the March, I couldn't care less about the March figures but I'm pretty sure they are just quoting the figures from the organisers but if you have evidence to the contrary then feel free to post it.

And my comments on the remain side were clearly a reference to the pre referendum predictions of George Osborne rather than describing the whole remain side.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Costanza said:

If I misinterpreted your comments then I would apologise but you haven't said what they were...

I never said the Guardian wasn't pro remain(it clearly is) but focused on their 100% accurate glass half empty comments on the lack of trade deals rolled over.

As for the March, I couldn't care less about the March figures but I'm pretty sure they are just quoting the figures from the organisers but if you have evidence to the contrary then feel free to post it.

And my comments on the remain side were clearly a reference to the pre referendum predictions of George Osborne rather than describing the whole remain side.

Thanks for the sort of apology however quickly negated!

The Guardian/Observers  "comments", presented as news (not comment),  were I suppose 100% accurate but a glass half full report would have also been 100% accurate.

Of course on the march they were quoting the organisers' estimates. These always inflate the numbers, But in the Guardian/Observers  headlines (more than one) and in the text beneath the headlines they never qualified the numbers by saying they were based on the organisers' estimates. And they have never reported on the numbers estimated since by independent experts. The deterioration of journalism standards in papers I have read for nearly 50 years disappoints me. The Mail I expect (though recently the Mail has been less partisan in its news reporting than the Guardian).

And you seem to suggest George Osborne was somehow detached from or not a central player in the Remain campaign. And you ignore the fact that Carney also in the Remain camp has apologised (sort of) for getting his post-remain vote predictions totally wrong.

[JamboX2]

She should've asked for Blackford as well as Corbyn. Those two are more flexible than Cable and TIG/CHUK.

 

Tactically speaking it makes more sense that way. Especially if she is trying to turn the screw on the ERG and DUP. 

 

If I were Corbyn or Blackford (if he is invited later) i would say there were three preconditions to passing her deal:

 

1. Government accepts the will of parliament on the terms of the future relationship (I.e. indicative votes by run-off to re-draft the Political Declaration before it is passed). 

 

2. Devolved legislatures to be given the power to consent to any deal agreed in phase 2.

 

3. The WA/PD to be put to the people in a referendum for approval: Brexit Deal v Remain.

 

All of this would require EU elections and a year's extension. If she doesn't go for it. On her head be it. Election it is. Or you demand a Government of National Unity be founded under a caretaker PM - not being yourself (Liddington or Cox for example) to get a deal through which everyone can rally around, likely Norway or Norway+.

 

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

Think Gove might be next up after May. Allegedly key player in extension happening today.

 

He has re-established himself with tories during stint in environment and he generally getting himself more tv time lately.

 

Suppose will make some posters happy to have a Scot ruling over England.

 

I thought Tank Commander would have resurfaced by now.

 

Gove, Fox, IDS. A trio of #£@#s

[The Mighty Thor]

May's latest brainwave is nothing more than a, what she believes to be, cunning trap to put Corbyn's fingerprints all over a cliff edge Brexit. 

She has no intention to compromise and is merely running the clock down further until it comes down to her WA or no deal.

Has anyone in the Labour front benches got the nous to see this for what it is or are they going to be left 'responsible' for the whole shit show in the greatest last man frees all of all time?

 

As my dear auld nana would have said "she's a sleekit bitch"

 

[Ibrahim Tall]

6 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

She should've asked for Blackford as well as Corbyn. Those two are more flexible than Cable and TIG/CHUK.

 

Tactically speaking it makes more sense that way. Especially if she is trying to turn the screw on the ERG and DUP. 

 

If I were Corbyn or Blackford (if he is invited later) i would say there were three preconditions to passing her deal:

 

1. Government accepts the will of parliament on the terms of the future relationship (I.e. indicative votes by run-off to re-draft the Political Declaration before it is passed). 

 

2. Devolved legislatures to be given the power to consent to any deal agreed in phase 2.

 

3. The WA/PD to be put to the people in a referendum for approval: Brexit Deal v Remain.

 

All of this would require EU elections and a year's extension. If she doesn't go for it. On her head be it. Election it is. Or you demand a Government of National Unity be founded under a caretaker PM - not being yourself (Liddington or Cox for example) to get a deal through which everyone can rally around, likely Norway or Norway+.

 

 

If she’d went to Corbyn and Blackford she’d have been crucified, she might not even survive going to Corbyn.

 

Tbh, i don’t think it’s  likely that the SNP would have been ‘flexible’, whether you like them or hate them they’re one of the very few groups in all this who’ve been consistent with their message from the beginning. It’d likely have taken a major concession to get them onside with any ‘deal’, I.e. agreeing to a new Indy referendum.

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

If she’d went to Corbyn and Blackford she’d have been crucified, she might not even survive going to Corbyn.

 

Tbh, i don’t think it’s  likely that the SNP would have been ‘flexible’, whether you like them or hate them they’re one of the very few groups in all this who’ve been consistent with their message from the beginning. It’d likely have taken a major concession to get them onside with any ‘deal’, I.e. agreeing to a new Indy referendum.

 

They've been willing to bend recently. And as the third party I think they should have been invited.

 

Corbyn will be under pressure to agree a second European referendum. If the PM wont budge on that or a much longer extension then we are unlikely to see agreement.

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Thor said:

May's latest brainwave is nothing more than a, what she believes to be, cunning trap to put Corbyn's fingerprints all over a cliff edge Brexit. 

She has no intention to compromise and is merely running the clock down further until it comes down to her WA or no deal.

Has anyone in the Labour front benches got the nous to see this for what it is or are they going to be left 'responsible' for the whole shit show in the greatest last man frees all of all time?

 

As my dear auld nana would have said "she's a sleekit bitch"

 

 

They've got to meet with her. But that doesn't mean they'll agree anything, imo. 

 

Attlee said the price of cooperation in 1940 was Chamberlain's resignation. Will Corbyn demand the same? Would be a fair price.

[Ibrahim Tall]

32 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

They've been willing to bend recently. And as the third party I think they should have been invited.

 

Corbyn will be under pressure to agree a second European referendum. If the PM wont budge on that or a much longer extension then we are unlikely to see agreement.

 

"3rd party" sounds bigger than it actually is in practical terms though. 

Labour/Conservatives make up 86% of parliament, if they come to an agreement every other parties vote is irrelevant.

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

If she’d went to Corbyn and Blackford she’d have been crucified, she might not even survive going to Corbyn.

 

Tbh, i don’t think it’s  likely that the SNP would have been ‘flexible’, whether you like them or hate them they’re one of the very few groups in all this who’ve been consistent with their message from the beginning. It’d likely have taken a major concession to get them onside with any ‘deal’, I.e. agreeing to a new Indy referendum.

It’s laughable that they would have seek permission for another referendum.

[Mikey1874]

2 hours ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

If she’d went to Corbyn and Blackford she’d have been crucified, she might not even survive going to Corbyn.

 

Tbh, i don’t think it’s  likely that the SNP would have been ‘flexible’, whether you like them or hate them they’re one of the very few groups in all this who’ve been consistent with their message from the beginning. It’d likely have taken a major concession to get them onside with any ‘deal’, I.e. agreeing to a new Indy referendum.

 

Agree generally.

 

SNP have shown some compromise though in backing Common Market 2.0 in vote this week. 

 

And whatever deal it is still needs agreed by Parliament. It might be enough Labour and Tories without anyone else. But SNP votes would be helpful. 

[Mikey1874]

11 minutes ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

"3rd party" sounds bigger than it actually is in practical terms though. 

Labour/Conservatives make up 86% of parliament, if they come to an agreement every other parties vote is irrelevant.

 

Yeah

 

Some people failing to understand conventions in Parliament. Official Opposition has a formal role. 

 

Also while SNP have had talks with EU Labour has had parallel talks with EU over last 2 years. Labour's position on EU has support there so deal can be made quicker with some degree of legitimacy. 

[Cade]

Some Welsh junior minister that nobody knew even existed has resigned, going on some utterly bonkers rant about Marxism.

 

[flecktimus]

3 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

May's latest brainwave is nothing more than a, what she believes to be, cunning trap to put Corbyn's fingerprints all over a cliff edge Brexit. 

She has no intention to compromise and is merely running the clock down further until it comes down to her WA or no deal.

Has anyone in the Labour front benches got the nous to see this for what it is or are they going to be left 'responsible' for the whole shit show in the greatest last man frees all of all time?

 

As my dear auld nana would have said "she's a sleekit bitch"

 

Totally agree with this.

 

Strange why there has there been no resignations.

[Boris]

[Francis Albert]

Not much mention of the EU's likely reaction. Will May agreeing to talk again to Corbyn in itself be enough of a "breakthrough" for them to agree a further Article 50 extension? You would hope she has at least some sort of nod from the EU but who knows?

[Mikey1874]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Not much mention of the EU's likely reaction. Will May agreeing to talk again to Corbyn in itself be enough of a "breakthrough" for them to agree a further Article 50 extension? You would hope she has at least some sort of nod from the EU but who knows?

 

Soft Brexit is what EU wants.

 

Deal actually conceded quite a lot to May albeit some insurance re Backstop and customs alignment. 

 

Should be fairly straightforward.

 

The difficult bit is around arrangements that would allow UK to suspend or otherwise limit free movement. 

[Costanza]

Theresa May at the start of Brexit:

 

"Last night May referred to her first speech as Prime Minister in which she talked of the “precious bonds” that formed the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister said: “When I stood upon the steps of Downing Street I made clear the importance of our great Union. Far more than mere geography brings us together – and we are much more than the sum of our parts. As we move into this new chapter, we must seize the opportunities ahead, as we will achieve far more together than we could ever do apart. “I want Monday’s meeting to be the start of a new grown- up relationship between the devolved administrations and the UK government – one in which we all work together to forge the future for everyone in the United Kingdom.”
 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/theresa-may-wants-grown-up-relationship-with-scotland-1-4265901

 

Now when we have talk of National Unity...sit down and shut up Scotland. 

Regardless of your views on the SNP , this can't be seen as acceptable can it?

[Mikey1874]

48 minutes ago, Cade said:

Some Welsh junior minister that nobody knew even existed has resigned, going on some utterly bonkers rant about Marxism.

 

 

"The Brexit people voted for" 

[Francis Albert]

18 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Soft Brexit is what EU wants.

 

Deal actually conceded quite a lot to May albeit some insurance re Backstop and customs alignment. 

 

Should be fairly straightforward.

 

The difficult bit is around arrangements that would allow UK to suspend or otherwise limit free movement. 

Probably right. One thing that might make it more difficult is a Commons vote ruling out No Deal (even if advisory only). It might tempt some in the EU (Macron for example) to play hard ball as they might see they have nothing to lose by "teaching the UK a lesson").  I assume the vote on ruling out No Deal is going ahead today?

[Mikey1874]

13 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Probably right. One thing that might make it more difficult is a Commons vote ruling out No Deal (even if advisory only). It might tempt some in the EU (Macron for example) to play hard ball as they might see they have nothing to lose by "teaching the UK a lesson").  I assume the vote on ruling out No Deal is going ahead today?

 

I think it still is going ahead but with less concern.

 

I think it's in everybody's interest including EU to sort this out quickly.

 

It helps EU governments for the European Elections. 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, flecktimus said:

Totally agree with this.

 

Strange why there has there been no resignations.

They'll come soon enough.

Particularly if there's 14 of them driving for a no deal exit

[Francis Albert]

13 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I think it still is going ahead but with less concern.

 

I think it's in everybody's interest including EU to sort this out quickly.

 

It helps EU governments for the European Elections. 

That may be true for most but it needs all 27 to agree. A lot of the debate over the last few months (indeed since the May/EU deal was done) seems to have been an internal UK debate assuming EU consent to whatever we eventually agree is a given. There are certainly some in the EU who would see the UK leaving but retaining too many benefits of remaining as a dangerous precedent. I suspect there is quite a bit of negotiating to be done even if the UK Parliament eventually agrees on a "deal" (in reality a position)  it is prepared to support. In which case ruling out No Deal at this stage would not IMO be the brightest thing to do (although admittedly consistent with the shambles of our handling of the thing to date!)

Edited April 3, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Don Dan]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Some Welsh junior minister that nobody knew even existed has resigned, going on some utterly bonkers rant about Marxism.

 

 

Unless of course you are Welsh. 

[Mikey1874]

SNP talking up their position on supporting customs union and single market. 

[Mikey1874]

Nicola Sturgeon is meeting Theresa May later today.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47792886

 

Wants pause to consider options and longer extension.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Mikey1874]

Corbyn bypassing Brexit at PM Questions asking about poverty..

[Don Dan]

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1113401814135607297?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

 

Blackford obviously has the ear of Sturgeon!

[coconut doug]

On 02/04/2019 at 00:37, JamboX2 said:

 

All I'm saying is reciprocity of citizens rights is a key element of EU treaties and that a no deal scenario shreds that reciprocal nature. Therefore there would be zero reciprocity of rights initially if Scotland and the rest of the UK split.  Separate treaties would be needed or it would need to form part of any future arrangement between the UK and EU. By it's very nature such a deal wont be as generous as the situation now and an independent Scotland would become bound to a degree by those future treaties between the UK and EU as a member state. 

 

That is fairly uncontroversial. You seem to suggest Scots will be treated more favourably than others. I would hope so, out of self interest. Its not necessarily a draconian choice but a legal default. Obviously there would be agreements dictating rights etc. I'm not saying we'd be made to walk about with ID cards. But we would lose certain privileges and rights we currently hold, as EU citizens are about to. 

 

As it stands the Irish will be bound by many of the arrangements in the withdrawal agreement as will UK citizens in Ireland. And in a no deal scenario thousands of British nationals will return to the UK from Europe as by law their rights as EU citizens will have evaporated overnight. The deal for all its flaws is a managed transition to the new relationship which will set out the new way this will all work in future.

 

As for the bit in bold, the UK will continue to exist as Scotland would  e opting to leave it. The English, Welsh and Northern Ireland would still be in union. Much like the UK continued beyond 1922. The UK would roll on. It is Scotland leaving the UK and starting out as a state free to manage its position how it sees fit. The process here is different from, say, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia where the constituent parts mutually dissolved their union. But that is off topic.

I think everybody understands what No deal means even if we do not fully appreciate the implications.

 

If Scotland becomes independent there will be no reciprocity of rights on day 1 of Indy unless these are negotiated before hand. This is the case whether we are in the EU or not. 

 

You have no way of knowing how generous these terms might be and in any case the use of the term "generous suggests that they would be a concession of some sort. If Scotland were in the EU then i think by its very nature the EU would support the Scottish position (see Ireland and Brexit). I cannot imagine why in any case there would be any significant difficulties between Scotland and the RUK and in the likely scenario of RUK's race to the bottom, Scotland's citizens would benefit from EU rights as well as those we create and negotiate for ourselves.

 

What are these rights that we currently hold that we are likely to lose if we become independent? Are you suggesting that we would lose more rights if we remained in the EU and the RUK did not?

 

Do you believe it is the case that UK citizens will return to UK in the event of a no deal situation. Are there no citizens of non EU countries resident in Spain or France? Is it the EU or the individual countries themselves that decide upon Residency rights? Do countries of the EU not currently hold the right repatriate individuals to their country of origin for a number of reasons already?

 

The Union is between Scotland and England. The notion of the continuing state which you seem to be describing may not be the relevant definition if it transpires that Scotland's union is being dissolved rather than a situation where Scotland is seceding. I think Wales was incorporated within England prior to the Union between Scotland and England and like NI has a different relationship. Scotland as i understand it was never subsumed into England but i suspect you and Adam Tomkins will have a different opinion.