Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

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.





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.

Well if everyone is saying that there can be an arrangement for Northern Ireland that doesn't involve a hard border it stands to reason that Scotland could have that arrangement with England too.

I don't think it could be done personally but the logical conclusion then is that is can't be done between the UK and Ireland either.

The idea that UK citizens could be subject to passport controls to travel inside the UK is a non-starter.
 
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.
Wiki states that
The term Great Britain later served to distinguish the large island of Britain from the French region of Brittany (in French Grande-Bretagne and Bretagne respectively). With the Acts of Union 1707 it became the official name of the new state created by the union of the Kingdom of England (which then included Wales) with the Kingdom of Scotland, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain.​
Even if the island remains in existence following any Scottish independence, as it will, the island as a whole won't be in a union with N Ireland. Only part of it will be, so that the political name "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will become inexact.
 
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.
They've already decided they want something worse than we have now and are in the midst of making it happen. But it will bring back British sovereignty and we will have British judges deciding on matters of British law... well unless those judges are traitors of course or Murdoch wants to buy the BBC....

Whilst I still have some personal sentimental wishes for the Uk to remain the UK I'd now support enthusiastically Scotland trying to stay in the EU and dumping the backwards looking nations of England, Wales and NI. Sadly I don't think Scotland has a cat-in-hell's chance of avoiding the fate of the UK.

We're doooomed!!!!
 
Some of us tried to tell you back in 2014....

But cheer up, it doesn't look so bad from where I'm sitting. And there's still plenty of time for people to move here if they can manage it.

The only serious fear is that Scottish voters are once more terrorised into voting against their own best interests by the Murdoch press and the BBC. We think our chances are better than last time though. We have to try, because it's our only hope anyway.
 
Last edited:
Wiki states that
The term Great Britain later served to distinguish the large island of Britain from the French region of Brittany (in French Grande-Bretagne and Bretagne respectively). With the Acts of Union 1707 it became the official name of the new state created by the union of the Kingdom of England (which then included Wales) with the Kingdom of Scotland, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain.​
Even if the island remains in existence following any Scottish independence, as it will, the island as a whole won't be in a union with N Ireland. Only part of it will be, so that the political name "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will become inexact.


I don't know what they're going to call it and to be honest I don't much care. They can go with Waningland (WAles, Northern Ireland and enGLAND) if they like. They can carry on using "United Kingdom" and flying the butcher's apron with the Scottish saltire in it and the world will point and laugh but if they're happy that's OK by me.

No, really, it doesn't matter. Semantics. I just get slightly antsy about the "leaving the UK" phrase because it's just one more ploy to try to normalise the idea that Scotland is a region of something called "the UK" which exists as a union independent of Scotland's presence. It doesn't. Valued equal partners, they told us. Aye right.
 
Some of us tried to tell you back in 2014....

Circumstances change.


But cheer up, it doesn't look so bad from where I'm sitting. And there's still plenty of time for people to move here if they can manage it.

Sadly and rather worryingly coincidentally I am now in a similar position I was in during the Scottish referendum.

I can now say a little bit more in regards to what was happening then. I was in the process with an ex-ex-pat Scottish technology millionaire (almost a billionaire at today's stock price) in setting up a new development studio in Scotland. This would have provided about a hundred jobs and if all went well lots of tax revenue for the governments. As part of the plans we had identified a number of key hires, and two of these were from outside the UK - one was from Canada and one was from France. And both of those were very reluctant to relocate to Scotland based on the sole matter of whether Scotland would be in the UK or not. We had numerous meetings with Scottish officials up to minister level and all of them (of course) could not give any reassurance with regards to Scotland's place in the world after a yes result. So in the end the whole enterprise came to naught.

And today I find myself involved in a wholesale restructuring of the European operations of a major developer and the uncertainties are giving me the same headaches. Because of the uncertainty of the UK position what is most likely to happen is large number of redundancies over the next two years and a holding back of investment in the UK and the rest of Europe until the dust settles.
 
Some of us tried to tell you back in 2014....

But cheer up, it doesn't look so bad from where I'm sitting. And there's still plenty of time for people to move here if they can manage it.

The only serious fear is that Scottish voters are once more terrorised into voting against their own best interests by the Murdoch press and the BBC SNP....

Edited by Planigale: strike and hilite added

FIFY

Edited by Locknar: 
It should be made clear when quoted material is altered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Circumstances change.


Yes. I foresaw all that has come to pass, but as a possibility, not a certainty. I warned EU-national colleagues that their right to live here would be in serious jeopardy if Scotland was dragged out of the EU as part of the UK, whereas there would be no such problem with independence - the probability was of a negotiated transition into the EU on independence day, but failing that there was no question that the government of an independent Scotland wouldn't grant them the right to remain. (I don't know that they listened - the No campaign was busy saying that the only way to secure Scotland's EU membership was to vote No. Now they're saying that we voted in 2014 knowing that there would be a referendum and that a Leave vote was likely!)

But I didn't know or believe that any of that was definitely going to happen. None of us did - the No campaign is rewriting history again. I thought avoiding the possibility was another good reason to vote Yes, but deep down I thought there probably wouldn't even be a referendum. I thought Cameron wouldn't get an overall majority and the LibDems would stop him, or failing that, that he himself would manage to wriggle out of the commitment once he was safely back in Downing Street. I thought if he had to go ahead, he'd put a super-majority requirement on it.

Even when none of that happened, I still didn't think enough people were daft enough to vote Leave. Even with the absolutely disastrous toxic poisonous campaign, I thought sheer self-preservation would win through. But it didn't, and the precise scenario I'd been warning might transpire, as a dystopian possibility, is all too real.

Sadly and rather worryingly coincidentally I am now in a similar position I was in during the Scottish referendum.

I can now say a little bit more in regards to what was happening then. I was in the process with an ex-ex-pat Scottish technology millionaire (almost a billionaire at today's stock price) in setting up a new development studio in Scotland. This would have provided about a hundred jobs and if all went well lots of tax revenue for the governments. As part of the plans we had identified a number of key hires, and two of these were from outside the UK - one was from Canada and one was from France. And both of those were very reluctant to relocate to Scotland based on the sole matter of whether Scotland would be in the UK or not. We had numerous meetings with Scottish officials up to minister level and all of them (of course) could not give any reassurance with regards to Scotland's place in the world after a yes result. So in the end the whole enterprise came to naught.

And today I find myself involved in a wholesale restructuring of the European operations of a major developer and the uncertainties are giving me the same headaches. Because of the uncertainty of the UK position what is most likely to happen is large number of redundancies over the next two years and a holding back of investment in the UK and the rest of Europe until the dust settles.


It's a pity when a period of necessary change impacts on particular enterprises. It's one thing knowing rationally that once the deed is done suddenly the way becomes smooth, but another to convince outsiders of that. But I think you can see from my point of view that the long term future and stability of my country is more important to me than 100 particular jobs or one specific enterprise.

Now, instead of having the influx of investment and infrastructure we would have expected on becoming an independent country (the opportunities in Edinburgh alone coming from its transformation to a major international capital are eye-watering), and the control over our own assets and resources that would have allowed us to trim the economy and budget to our own needs, we're stuck in this toxic relationship where even the short-term promises of jobs that were made by the No campaign three years ago have been broken. (Shipbuilding, tax offices, military bases, more - I'm sure someone has a list. All given as reasons for staying in the union, all gone.)

The vision of Scotland as an independent country is a bright one, but it's a change. It was scotched by a campaign of fear that said, hold on to what you've got, you never know, but we'll see you right. I know people who focussed solely on possible negatives for them personally over the first couple of years and couldn't be persuaded that the opportunities exceeded the risks, and I suppose that's natural.

But here we are. We can't go back and rerun 2014 with precognition. We can go forward to the new referendum thinking more about the big picture, or we can retreat into "this is all pretty awful but maybe if I bury my head in the sand it'll work out OK." We'll need to see how that pans out.
 
Last edited:
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.
In the south, we simply don't want them. A colleague of mine cannot name any NI politician without reference to the term "swivel-eyed loons". That gives you an inkling how those of us in the south regard NI. Sure, we have a goodly helping of home grown "swivel-eyed loons", but the difference is that here they are a futile minority stuck in the distant past. In NI, it's pretty much all of them.
 
Well, I guess that's a discussion for a different thread. It might be good to start one, on the back of this morning's election result. If I continued the discussion it would be off-topic.

I think I'll bow out of this thread now, anyway. Reasoned discussion is one thing, but members coming in simply to post derogatory "FIFY" remarks without any rational argument to back them up simply gets my back up and that's not good.

Y'all carry on.
 
Last edited:
In the south, we simply don't want them. A colleague of mine cannot name any NI politician without reference to the term "swivel-eyed loons". That gives you an inkling how those of us in the south regard NI. Sure, we have a goodly helping of home grown "swivel-eyed loons", but the difference is that here they are a futile minority stuck in the distant past. In NI, it's pretty much all of them.
I don't think that's fair, and I think you're being too pessimistic. The reason why people were stuck in the distant past was that until recently the politics and society prevailing in NI were throwbacks to a former age. The inhabitants lived in "bygone days of yore".

But as the politics of that region become more typically modern and normal, the concerns and demeanour of the politicians, and the voters, there will follow the same path.
 
(That's exactly what I was going to say, but seriously, it's turning into a derail.)

Bye again.
 
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.

This is correct. The UK can decide whether to have a hard or soft border. Ireland cannot, this will be determined by EU regulations. How restrictive the UK is on goods from the EU will depend on e.g. tax. If goods are cheaper in the UK due to lack of VAT, then there may be little reason for the UK to have a hard border but Ireland will need to prevent smuggling across the border into the EU.
 
I can see that you tend to read documents in a way that "supports your position". Feel free, it doesn't matter.
Please explain how you read it in a different way. You're the one that cited the document and so far you've not explained how it supports your position.

The document says it welcomes the UK government's approach to the Irish border and wants to use the same approach for the Scottish border in the (in my view very unlikely) event that Scotland remains in the single market when R-UK leaves.

Do you accept that there is no simple solution to the Irish border problem? If not, what is the solution?

When crossing the Irish sea to Wales and Scotland there are already some border checks in place so that helps with the 'invisible border' idea somewhat.

In the case of Scotland there are no existing border checks at all, so the 'invisible border' would be impossible to police.
 
Last edited:
.....The document.......

......exists only to provide a pretext for calling another referendum. It's nothing more than the most obvious ransom note in recent political history, deliberately claiming that the impossible is possible, so that when the British government points out that it is actually impossible the SNP can stomp off in a self-righteous huff and try to whip the populace into voting to leave the nasty UK behind.

Odd that they'd want to leave a union with their biggest trading partner to join one with their second biggest (at a quarter the size), but then, Scots nats are a perverse bunch.
 
SNP propaganda paid for by the tax payer. I think the SNP has been very corrupt in using the government for party political activity.

Staying in the EU was not a party political issue in Scotland, every party including the Tory leader in Scotland Ruth Davidson argued to remain and 68% of the electorate agreed with them and still do. Many people in Scotland are worried about Independence but that does not mean they want Brexit. Scotland demographically needs immigration, it has long established roots with Europe and shares many cultural and historic ties with Ireland. Unfortunately, its ties with England were very badly damaged under Thatcher and if I was a Scottish Tory, I might be very worried about a U.K. Prime Minister reducing the party to having few representatives again.
 
In the south, we simply don't want them. A colleague of mine cannot name any NI politician without reference to the term "swivel-eyed loons". That gives you an inkling how those of us in the south regard NI. Sure, we have a goodly helping of home grown "swivel-eyed loons", but the difference is that here they are a futile minority stuck in the distant past. In NI, it's pretty much all of them.
Well support for unification is running about 50/50.
 

Back
Top Bottom