Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

ceptimus said:
Of course I understand. I was just explaining to Archie why his claim that Theresa doesn't have confidence was wrong.
Click to expand...


You perhaps understand that he was really explaining to you that your characterisation of Nicola Sturgeon as not having confidence was wrong.

And I have to say he did it better and more eloquently than I did.
 
Rolfe said:
Point of order. Scotland won't be "leaving the UK". When one partner in a two-partner union leaves, there is no union. But that's just semantics.
Click to expand...

Not only is it just semantics, it's also wrong. The kingdom of Ireland joined the Union after Scotland, and although five-sixths of Ireland has subsequently seceded, that still leaves the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Maybe you're assuming that Northern Ireland will leave the Union even before Scotland gets around to it.
 
No, it never worked like that. The "United Kingdom" was the union of Scotland and England. Subsequent modifications were just fiddling at the margins. But right enough, a reuinited Ireland has to be on the cards as well.
 
Rolfe said:
No, it never worked like that. The "United Kingdom" was the union of Scotland and England. Subsequent modifications were just fiddling at the margins. But right enough, a reuinited Ireland has to be on the cards as well.
Click to expand...
Reunited Ireland? Not a chance.
 
Rolfe said:
I should just leave you to it. You're better at this than I am.
Click to expand...

I'd rather Sturgeon hurried up as well. I'd have declared the referendum the morning after the Brexit vote. But I'd be a Trumpian FM. Probably better for all that someone else decides these things.

'Confidence' and bravado shouldn't really be the deciding factors in these things.
 
abaddon said:
Reunited Ireland? Not a chance.
Click to expand...


Who knows? Certainly not me. And as far as I'm concerned that's a spectator sport. (One that kept me up till after three in the morning but that's another story.) Any opinion I might have isn't even relevant.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I'd rather Sturgeon hurried up as well. I'd have declared the referendum the morning after the Brexit vote. But I'd be a Trumpian FM. Probably better for all that someone else decides these things.

'Confidence' and bravado shouldn't really be the deciding factors in these things.
Click to expand...


Rationally, she can't declare the referendum until article 50 has been triggered. Everyone expected Cameron to do that the morning after the Brexit vote, but he didn't. Jack of Kent was tweeting and blogging for months that the long-term intention was to weasel out of triggering it at all. He's gone a bit quiet about that recently but the fact remains, until that actually happens there's at least the theoretical possibility that Britain won't leave the EU at all.

It's also important to be seen to explore all possible options for a special deal for Scotland that respects the 62% Remain vote while at the same time respecting the 55% No vote. I think Sturgeon was initially perfectly sincere about that. If a deal to keep Scotland in the single market could have been reached then she'd have gone on playing the long game. That's no longer likely (to put it mildly) but the motions have to be gone through.

I don't know anyone in the SNP who thinks there's the slightest chance that we won't be having another go within two years at the most. Patience, grasshopper.
 
Rolfe said:
Rationally, she can't declare the referendum until article 50 has been triggered. Everyone expected Cameron to do that the morning after the Brexit vote, but he didn't. Jack of Kent was tweeting and blogging for months that the long-term intention was to weasel out of triggering it at all. He's gone a bit quiet about that recently but the fact remains, until that actually happens there's at least the theoretical possibility that Britain won't leave the EU at all.

It's also important to be seen to explore all possible options for a special deal for Scotland that respects the 62% Remain vote while at the same time respecting the 55% No vote. I think Sturgeon was initially perfectly sincere about that. If a deal to keep Scotland in the single market could have been reached then she'd have gone on playing the long game. That's no longer likely (to put it mildly) but the motions have to be gone through.

I don't know anyone in the SNP who thinks there's the slightest chance that we won't be having another go within two years at the most. Patience, grasshopper.
Click to expand...

As I said I am far more Trumpian in my approach than Nicola. :)

I don't necessarily think the whole explore other options thing was correct at the time but I appreciate why she did it.

Of course I am an outsider to this now so I don't know how it's playing back home. Events have possibly worked out better than I imagined as Theresa May seems to have made things worse for the Tories in Scotland with her approach and even Labour have now shot themselves in the foot. (I was going to write head there, but in Scottish Labour's case I doubt that would do much damage). Add the Trump factor into the mix and the UK's toadying to a singularly reprehensible idiot and independence has quite a bit going for it.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I don't know how long Northern Ireland would persist with being part of the UK if hard borders were put up to Ireland and Scotland. I really think a lot depends on how those arrangements play out.
Click to expand...

Any motivation for the UK to put up hard borders would be to prevent the illegal migration of people. If EU migrants don't want to live in Northern Ireland there might not be any UK hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, though the checks on ferries from Northern Ireland to Scotland and Wales would need to be uprated to stop illegal EU migrants slipping in to England, Wales, and Scotland by those routes.

On the other hand the EU might be required by its own laws to put up hard borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic in order to enforce tariffs and stop any non-EU-approved goods slipping past the border into the EU. The UK won't be much bothered about borders for these purposes as the UK is in favour of free trade of goods anyway.

The problem with any hard borders on land between the UK and the EU, apart from the general delay and hassle, is that they become a target for any dissident terrorists - a few shootings or bombings there could topple the fragile peace that's been enjoyed in recent years. If that happens it's more likely to entrench the unionist position than erode it - making a united Ireland an even more distant prospect.
 
Assume for the moment that both the UK and the EU were prepared to allow Scotland to remain in the single market; this is a huge assumption, but it's just for the sake of argument. Wouldn't that then require a hard border between Scotland and England?

If Scotland remains in the single market, you have exactly the same problem that will exist between Ireland and Northern Ireland after Brexit. The England Scotland border will be more costly and difficult to erect and maintain than the one in Ireland - given that the Irish border posts were in place until recently anyway.

Have Sturgeon and her SNP colleagues made any proposals about how the new border would be managed? If so, I'd be interested to see them.
 
What section of that 62 page document discusses the border posts between England and Scotland? I don't want to read through 62 pages of wishful thinking if the border posts aren't even discussed.

I did a search and 'border post' is nowhere mentioned.

page 34 section 95 said:
We demonstrate that such a differentiated solution is based on a broad range of other practice from across the EU and we provide options to address the practicalities, including demonstrating how an invisible border for people and goods can be maintained between Scotland and the remainder of the UK.
Click to expand...

page 44 section 150 said:
In relation to both free movement of goods and services and free movement of
people, the UK Government has been very clear in its belief that, despite Brexit, the
invisible border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland can be
maintained. We strongly support efforts to keep this invisible border between the
Republic of Ireland, which is a member of the customs union, and the UK, which
(we assume) will not be. This also means there are no good grounds for suggesting
that a border will be required between Scotland and England which – under this
proposal – would share a common position in relation to the EU Customs Union.
Click to expand...

Seems to say that the same problems that apply to the Ireland border would also apply to the Scotland border in the (vanishingly unlikely) event that the EU were prepared to allow Scotland to remain in the single market when the rest of the UK leaves - so it supports my position. Thank you for the link.
 
Last edited:
I can see that you tend to read documents in a way that "supports your position". Feel free, it doesn't matter.
 
ceptimus said:
Not only is it just semantics, it's also wrong. The kingdom of Ireland joined the Union after Scotland, and although five-sixths of Ireland has subsequently seceded, that still leaves the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Maybe you're assuming that Northern Ireland will leave the Union even before Scotland gets around to it.
Click to expand...
Following a Scottish decision in favour of independence, we'll have a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a Northern Ireland, but no "Great Britain" because that entity consists of a union including Scotland. That is, assuming the Union with N Ireland remains secure, which it may or may not.
 
Great Britain is the name of the island. It's going to stay there short of tectonic shift. I'm a bit hazy about which "kingdoms" would be united in your scenario.
 
ceptimus said:
Any motivation for the UK to put up hard borders would be to prevent the illegal migration of people. If EU migrants don't want to live in Northern Ireland there might not be any UK hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, though the checks on ferries from Northern Ireland to Scotland and Wales would need to be uprated to stop illegal EU migrants slipping in to England, Wales, and Scotland by those routes.

On the other hand the EU might be required by its own laws to put up hard borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic in order to enforce tariffs and stop any non-EU-approved goods slipping past the border into the EU. The UK won't be much bothered about borders for these purposes as the UK is in favour of free trade of goods anyway.

The problem with any hard borders on land between the UK and the EU, apart from the general delay and hassle, is that they become a target for any dissident terrorists - a few shootings or bombings there could topple the fragile peace that's been enjoyed in recent years. If that happens it's more likely to entrench the unionist position than erode it - making a united Ireland an even more distant prospect.
Click to expand...

It would be wonderfully hypocritical of (but seemingly par for the course for ) Brexiteers to moan about Schengen and free movement of people and then after tanking the economy to achieve their goal actually put in place an arrangement worse than what already existed such as the above. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom