Jump to content

The Scottish Independence Referendum Thread


Graeme

Recommended Posts

The problem with your argument is, it is one-sided. It is valid and is fairly correct, the Scottish people returning governments that they did not vote for, but it is still one-sided. Basically, your belief is, ''we do not return the left wing governments we demand, so, we seek independence''. It is my belief that citizenship and nationhood are far more multifaceted affairs than what you care to discuss.

What more is there to understand? The current constitutional arrangement does not democratically serve the people of Scotland to our satisfaction, and has not done for a very long time. In any democracy, since it is based on the principle of utilitarianism, there is the chance of a large minority being disappointed after a plebiscite. E.g. a 49-51% split in the electorate means that just under half of those polled are not getting what they vote for. That's unfortunate, that's democracy.

However, in this instance, one such minority (the people of Scotland) decided that if the system was not capable of delivering to us what we want, then we will change the system. It was Scotland's notion of nationhood which allowed us to do that, the fact that after the treaty of union, Scotland retained our own systems of law, education and religion meant that we had the infrastructure to fight back where others could not. I don't doubt for a second that working class people in the North of England were every bit as aggrieved by Thatcher's policies as their counterparts North of the border, but it did not manifest as a political mandate for change in the same way because the social cohesion granted by an idea of "nationhood" was not the same. They were not able to conceive of London as a foreign power in quite the way the Scots could. Even Wales, which has a lot of the facets of nationhood is far more structurally ingrained with England, which goes some way to explaining why the independence/home rule movement there has never been as prolific.

This is reflected plainly in the results of the devolution referenda from 1997: Scotland 74%, Wales 51%, in favour, North East England (2004), rejection by 77.9%.

Scotland already sees itself as another country, in the 2011 census 62% of the population stated their identity as "Scottish only". with 18% saying "Scottish and British". This referendum (as I've said before) is far more about the practicalities of governance than it is us deciding our nationality.

Is that a nuanced enough look into our national psyche with statistical evidence to back it up for you?

I could go on about Scott, the Black Watch and sentimentalism - and will go on about that at a further time as I am going to bed, but I would like your opinions on one point: the military. The SNP have not even began to address the issue of the Scottish military establishment. If Scotland removes her soldiers from the British army, this would have massive repercussions on British strategic planning. I am sure you would prefer no army at all, and in a sense, we all do, but with the current aggrandizement of Russia and a crisis in in the middle east, in which Britain has massive military entanglements, Scottish independence seems, not only wrong but, dangerously reckless. Just what does Salmond intend to do with the Scot's Guards and Royal Scots Dragoon Guards? I have not heard one reply to this. This probably does not interest you but my family is essentially, a Scottish military family, who are deeply concerned about the rise of a socialistic - anti-historical - government, averse to their predicament of military spending cuts. I have relatives who vow to migrate to England, if Scotland gains independence - such is their hatred of the prospect. I do not come from a naval background but I am also aware of the threat of, cuts to Trident (which, the media, has seized upon). None of this has been addressed. The SNP are not a bit interested in the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I'm far more concerned with the development of Scotland's social infrastructure than I am with the advancement of our military capability. I think it's an absolute travesty that increasing numbers of our people are having to resort to food banks to get the sustenance they require to survive while billions are spent on the upkeep of Trident every year. At the end of the day, the shape of any future Scottish military cannot be predicted at this point. A vote for independence is just about giving Scotland the power to decide who it elects, presumably variable defence policy will appear in the manifestos of every party standing for election in the independent Scottish parliament in 2016. It's not Alex Salmond's decision to make at this stage. The military expenditure required to defend a country of 5 million is obviously going to be considerably less than that required for one of over 60 million though, and hopefully Scottish troops will cease trying to play world police in the middle-east. The Scottish electorate were by and large opposed to involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Scottish squaddies were still sent off to kill and to die, I think we're a bit weary of that now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I'm far more concerned with the development of Scotland's social infrastructure than I am with the advancement of our military capability. I think it's an absolute travesty that increasing numbers of our people are having to resort to food banks to get the sustenance they require to survive while billions are spent on the upkeep of Trident every year. At the end of the day, the shape of any future Scottish military cannot be predicted at this point. A vote for independence is just about giving Scotland the power to decide who it elects, presumably variable defence policy will appear in the manifestos of every party standing for election in the independent Scottish parliament in 2016. It's not Alex Salmond's decision to make at this stage. The military expenditure required to defend a country of 5 million is obviously going to be considerably less than that required for one of over 60 million though, and hopefully Scottish troops will cease trying to play world police in the middle-east. The Scottish electorate were by and large opposed to involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Scottish squaddies were still sent off to kill and to die, I think we're a bit weary of that now.

Seriously...why does any country that is aligned with the U.S. even worry about their military?

We've got your back.

Anyway....this is what Scotland (used to) think(s) about England......

WOLVERINESIMEANFREEDOM.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want an economy worse than Romania's, being out of the EU and not having a currency - then yes is a good option.

One person on a crusade to be a president of an 'independent' country could mess things up royally for everyone else and hasn't considered the impact of the majority of the above. A great leader.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I'm far more concerned with the development of Scotland's social infrastructure than I am with the advancement of our military capability. I think it's an absolute travesty that increasing numbers of our people are having to resort to food banks to get the sustenance they require to survive while billions are spent on the upkeep of Trident every year. At the end of the day, the shape of any future Scottish military cannot be predicted at this point. A vote for independence is just about giving Scotland the power to decide who it elects, presumably variable defence policy will appear in the manifestos of every party standing for election in the independent Scottish parliament in 2016. It's not Alex Salmond's decision to make at this stage. The military expenditure required to defend a country of 5 million is obviously going to be considerably less than that required for one of over 60 million though, and hopefully Scottish troops will cease trying to play world police in the middle-east. The Scottish electorate were by and large opposed to involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Scottish squaddies were still sent off to kill and to die, I think we're a bit weary of that now.

Seriously...why does any country that is aligned with the U.S. even worry about their military?

We've got your back.

Anyway....this is what Scotland (used to) think(s) about England......

WOLVERINESIMEANFREEDOM.jpg

Maybe, on the other hand that's more telling of what Americans think.

Never trust an American film based on history, especially a Mel Gibson one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want an economy worse than Romania's, being out of the EU and not having a currency - then yes is a good option.

One person on a crusade to be a president of an 'independent' country could mess things up royally for everyone else and hasn't considered the impact of the majority of the above. A great leader.

Threatening how bad it could be really isn't a constructive way to endorse a "no" vote. I've been asking for a Unionist solution to the democratic deficit which led to the initial tabling of the referendum, several times within this thread and so far no-one has offered one apart from "put up and shut up."

Give me some explanation on the mechanisms for a country with an advanced industrialised economy to revert to the developing upper-middle income economy of a country still emerging from the detrimental elements of totalitarian rule:

I'm not saying that everything would instantly fall into place, but countries with far fewer resources are able to sustainably run their economies. You seem to be presuming an incredible level of incompetence and stupidity on behalf of the Scottish Government, which (given that we have one of the most highly educated populations in the world) I think is unfounded. Most people in Scotland are satisfied with the way the Scottish Government handles all our devolved affairs (and they're certainly doing a better job than that shower in Westminster).

Why would it be that they can handle health, justice, education, transport and business perfectly well but if you threw in defence, foreign policy and tax-raising we would suddenly fall to pieces?

From the UK, Scotland has:

32% of the land area.

61% of the sea area.

90% of the fresh water.

65% of the natural gas production.

96.5% of the crude oil production.

47% of the open cast coal production

81% of the untapped coal reserves

62% of the timber production

46% of the total forest area

92% of the hydro electric production

40% of the wind wave and solar energy production

60% of the fish landings

30% of the beef herd

20% of the sheep herd

9% of the dairy herd

10% of the pig herd

15% if the cereal holdings

20% of the potato holdings

...obviously 100% of the Scotch Whisky industry.

We also have:

a 17 billion pound construction industry

13 billion food and drink industry

10 billion business services industry

9.3 billion chemical services industry

A 9.3 billion tourism industry

7 billion financial services industry

5 billion aeroservice industry

4.5 billion pound whisky exports industry

3.1 billion pound life sciences industry

Scotland still has 350 million pounds worth of textile exports

We have 25% of Europe's wave and wind energy potential.

And finally we are blessed to have 1.5 trillion pound worth of oil and gas reserves.

How tremendously incompetent would we have to be to become impoverished with this amount of resources at our disposal?

Also, for the time being, an independent Scotland would still be "the Kingdom of Scotland", a constitutional monarchy (presumably a referendum on whether or not to become a republic would be forthcoming). So your fears about some errant Commander-in-Chief seem a bit silly. If that was some sort of slight on Alex Salmond's apparent ego trip, I don't believe he's "Mr. Independence" and the campaign is about so much more than him or his party, but for what it's worth, he has the strongest mandate for his political position of any politician (and the highest approval ratings) in these islands, all gained through due democratic process and despite (rather than because of) the mainstream media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I'm far more concerned with the development of Scotland's social infrastructure than I am with the advancement of our military capability. I think it's an absolute travesty that increasing numbers of our people are having to resort to food banks to get the sustenance they require to survive while billions are spent on the upkeep of Trident every year. At the end of the day, the shape of any future Scottish military cannot be predicted at this point. A vote for independence is just about giving Scotland the power to decide who it elects, presumably variable defence policy will appear in the manifestos of every party standing for election in the independent Scottish parliament in 2016. It's not Alex Salmond's decision to make at this stage.

I am not discussing the 'advancement of' the military. I am discussing the fate of the current Scottish regiments in the British Army, and the plan for a future Scottish defense force. Thus far, Salmond has provided neither. Look, if you concern is predominately 'social', take into account the thousands of servicemen employed. Take into account the jobs created by Trident.

The military expenditure required to defend a country of 5 million is obviously going to be considerably less than that required for one of over 60 million though,

Now that is a real flawed argument considering, England, Wales and Northern Ireland's military contribution.

hopefully Scottish troops will cease trying to play world police in the middle-east. The Scottish electorate were by and large opposed to involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Scottish squaddies were still sent off to kill and to die, I think we're a bit weary of that now.

Applies to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish also. I do not think the English were considerably more keen on Blair's middle eastern military interventions, than the Scottish were! Allow me to make this clear, this has got nothing to do with certain unpopular military engagements in recent history, nor, the aggrandizement of the military. This has everything to do with the fate of three hundred year old regiment who are administratively and logistically bound within, the British Army. (It also has something to do with the ability of a future Scotland to even defend itself in the future but I will leave that discussion for a further time).

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I'm far more concerned with the development of Scotland's social infrastructure than I am with the advancement of our military capability. I think it's an absolute travesty that increasing numbers of our people are having to resort to food banks to get the sustenance they require to survive while billions are spent on the upkeep of Trident every year. At the end of the day, the shape of any future Scottish military cannot be predicted at this point. A vote for independence is just about giving Scotland the power to decide who it elects, presumably variable defence policy will appear in the manifestos of every party standing for election in the independent Scottish parliament in 2016. It's not Alex Salmond's decision to make at this stage.

I am not discussing the 'advancement of' the military. I am discussing the fate of the current Scottish regiments in the British Army, and the plan for a future Scottish defense force. Thus far, Salmond has provided neither. Look, if you concern is predominately 'social', take into account the thousands of servicemen employed. Take into account the jobs created by Trident.

Now that is a real flawed argument considering, England, Wales and Northern Ireland's military contribution.

Applies to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish also. I do not think the English were considerably more keen on Blair's middle eastern military interventions, than the Scottish were! Allow me to make this clear, this has got nothing to do with certain unpopular military engagements in recent history, nor, the aggrandizement of the military. This has everything to do with the fate of three hundred year old regiment who are administratively and logistically bound within, the British Army. (It also has something to do with the ability of a future Scotland to even defend itself in the future but I will leave that discussion for a further time).

Those who wished to continue serving in the British military would be able to do so as commonwealth citizens, in the same way 14% of the British armed forces are currently made up of citizens born in the Republic of Ireland. From what I understand, those regiments would remain under the jurisdiction of the UK MoD, it would be their decision whether to continue them and how to staff them if Scots stopped signing up, or to dissolve them.

If you read what I said, the organisation of an independent Scottish military is the remit of whatever government gets elected to an independent Scottish parliament in 2016. The current Scottish government have put forth their vision of the Scottish military summarised here:

"These plans include a phased build up of personnel to some 15,000 regular and 5,000 reserve personnel across land, air and maritime forces over ten years.

Over the first term of a Scottish Parliament, the current governments proposes that naval forces would be built up to two squadrons with around 2,400 regular and at least 270 reserve personnel. The army would incorporate an HQ function and an All-Arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units and supported by a number of specialist units and special forces. This would entail around 4,700 regular and at least 1,110 reserve personnel. The Scottish Government envisages air forces will include an Air Force HQ function, establishement of Air Command and Control systems, a Quick Reaction Alert squadron, a tactical air transport squadron, flight training and establishment of airborne maritime patrol capability. This would require 3,250 regular personnel and around 300 reserve personnel.

The Scottish Government has also committed to a policy of no compuslory redundancies for service personnel during their service contract.

The plans also include removal of Trident nuclear submarines and would also see Faslane become the joint headquarters for our conventional armed forces as well as the main naval base.

Other existing and planned major army facilities will be retained. Air operations would be restored to Leuchars (alongside an army presence) and Lossiemouth would continue as the main operating base for fast jet aircraft and air policing. Options would be considered for re-instating Rosyth as a supporting naval base."

Scotland currently contributes £3 billion to the UK's annual defence budget and only £2 billion is spent in Scotland, which backs up what I was saying about a smaller army costing us less per capita with more money available for improving public services. The relevance of military contributions coming from England, Wales and Northern Ireland (of which I am well aware) to my argument about Scotland being able to downsize our defence spending is lost on me. Where are these flaws you mention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting and thanks for posting that. How will this, come about? For instance, will the current Scottish Regiments pass into this newly formed Scottish army, and any person from those regiments not wishing to serve the Scottish Army, being able to switch over to English, Welsh or Irish regiments - or - will the Scottish regiments remain in the service of the British Army, any Scottish soldiers/officers from those regiments wishing to form part of the newly formed Scottish Army, transferring out. The former scenario is essentially what happened to the six Southern Irish Regiments in 1922. The regiments were disbanded and many of the soldiers (around 50%) and officers (20%) bulked up the Irish Free State's National Army - it should be pointed out the difference between, 1922 Ireland, and 2014 Scotland.

PS

A military establishment of 20,000 soldiers would be, absurdly low. There will be job cuts.

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graeme, I'm not ignoring or simply questioning the debate, my vote if I had one would be a firm NO, but as I recently moved (arguably got out at the right time) there's no point in me engaging with it all that much :shrugs: I hope for a No outcome but if it goes the other way...well, I'm happy that I moved far South if the border, but I can't say the same for 95% of my friends and family up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I'll ask you again. What is your solution for the democratic quandary which led to the referendum within the framework of the Union (other than "put up and shut up" which the Scottish people are never going to accept now)? I ask that of every unionist in this thread, the referendum came about because the Scottish people NEVER want a repeat of the 2010 general election (or 1992, 1987, 1983 or 1979) how do you give that to them within the framework of the Union?

With further devolution (not that there's any guarantee of this, see Boris Johnson's recent comments on the matter), we'll still have nuclear weapons stored 30 miles from Glasgow (with all the costs they incur), we'll still have young men and women sent away to fight in the middle-east and we'll still contribute more to the treasury per head than we receive (with likelihood that the Barnett formula will be scrapped and Scotland's block grant from Westminster will be reduced, making it difficult to maintain the levels of public spending the Scottish people want). Explain to me why this is a good thing which we should vote for?

Edited by Graeme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graeme, the main weakness of your argument is you focus too much on the exclusiveness of Scotland.

The Scots do not like, recent, middle east military interventions? Neither does the rest of the UK! The Iraq war was as equally unpopular in England as it was in Scotland.

The Scots do not like an unfair economic policies? Neither does the rest of the UK! (we do have food banks, south of the tweed by the way).

And - I hate to say it as a life long Labour-hater - a lot of (rather stupid) English people vote for Labour.

You act like all of these beliefs and problems are unique to Scotland, are Scotland's alone. Have you actually ever visited England? It is basically the fuckin same as Scotland in many aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graeme, the main weakness of your argument is you focus too much on the exclusiveness of Scotland.

The Scots do not like, recent, middle east military interventions? Neither does the rest of the UK! The Iraq war was as equally unpopular in England as it was in Scotland.

The Scots do not like an unfair economic policies? Neither does the rest of the UK! (we do have food banks, south of the tweed by the way).

And - I hate to say it as a life long Labour-hater - a lot of (rather stupid) English people vote for Labour.

You act like all of these beliefs and problems are unique to Scotland, are Scotland's alone. Have you actually ever visited England? It is basically the fuckin same as Scotland in many aspects.

Difference is Scotland has a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would it be that they can handle health, justice, education, transport and business perfectly well but if you threw in defence, foreign policy and tax-raising we would suddenly fall to pieces?

Thankfully this doesn't really affect me but I am intrigued to see how it works if the yes vote wins. I would ask though how much more tax should some poor bugger like me have to pay? I'm pretty much getting gouged right now so what is fair as far as tax rises are concerned? I know it's easy to talk about jacking up taxes on the "rich" but I'm not fucking rich and the exchequer is already taking 40% of any pay rise I'm ever going to get from now on. How much more would you say they're entitled to help themselves to? :shrugs:

Edited by Dazey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 'yes', there will be a customs barrier, with full passport checks across the border. This border would be logistically expensive to erect, run through numerous areas of outstanding natural beauty, and require a large administration. The reason is, the SNP is pro-EU and will naturally want to apply for EU membership. New EU members have to adopt the Schengen agreement, which, Britain has opted out of. Migrants could enter England freely, via Scotland. In a more general sense, it is obvious that if Scotland has a different emigration policy than Britain, border controls would need to be erected. (Even if we do erect a border, it is obvious that migrants will try to by pass by sabotage or digging tunnels a la the American-Mexican border.)

Yet the whole thing is dismissed by Salmond as 'Westminster scare mongering'. Salmond still seems to believe that we can have an open border!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graeme, the main weakness of your argument is you focus too much on the exclusiveness of Scotland.

The Scots do not like, recent, middle east military interventions? Neither does the rest of the UK! The Iraq war was as equally unpopular in England as it was in Scotland.

The Scots do not like an unfair economic policies? Neither does the rest of the UK! (we do have food banks, south of the tweed by the way).

And - I hate to say it as a life long Labour-hater - a lot of (rather stupid) English people vote for Labour.

You act like all of these beliefs and problems are unique to Scotland, are Scotland's alone. Have you actually ever visited England? It is basically the fuckin same as Scotland in many aspects.

GivenToFly has the gist of the situation, these problems are not Scotland's alone but Scotland has the tools to do something about it. I have already addressed this contention to the best of my ability, you appear to have either ignored it or chosen not to engage with it and then continued to criticise me for it again anyway. Here it is again:

"It was Scotland's notion of nationhood which allowed us to have this choice. The fact that after the treaty of union, Scotland retained our own systems of law, education and religion meant that we had the infrastructure to fight back where others could not. I don't doubt for a second that working class people in the North of England were every bit as aggrieved by Thatcher's policies as their counterparts North of the border, but it did not manifest as a political mandate for change in the same way because the social cohesion granted by an idea of "nationhood" was not the same. They were not able to conceive of London as a foreign power in quite the way the Scots could. Even Wales, which has a lot of the facets of nationhood is far more structurally ingrained with England, which goes some way to explaining why the independence/home rule movement there has never been as prolific.

This is reflected plainly in the results of the devolution referenda from 1997: Scotland 74%, Wales 51%, in favour, North East England (2004), rejection by 77.9%.

Scotland already sees itself as another country, in the 2011 census 62% of the population stated their identity as "Scottish only". with 18% saying "Scottish and British". This referendum (as I've said before) is far more about the practicalities of governance than it is us deciding our nationality."

I have lived in England, I love it and lots of the people in it, I even intend to move back there to study more but I don't want the Scottish electorate to ever have to be governed by another Conservative administration again (for as long as the majority of people in Scotland don't vote for one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graeme, the main weakness of your argument is you focus too much on the exclusiveness of Scotland.

The Scots do not like, recent, middle east military interventions? Neither does the rest of the UK! The Iraq war was as equally unpopular in England as it was in Scotland.

The Scots do not like an unfair economic policies? Neither does the rest of the UK! (we do have food banks, south of the tweed by the way).

And - I hate to say it as a life long Labour-hater - a lot of (rather stupid) English people vote for Labour.

You act like all of these beliefs and problems are unique to Scotland, are Scotland's alone. Have you actually ever visited England? It is basically the fuckin same as Scotland in many aspects.

GivenToFly has the gist of the situation, these problems are not Scotland's alone but Scotland has the tools to do something about it. I have already addressed this contention to the best of my ability, you appear to have either ignored it or chosen not to engage with it and then continued to criticise me for it again anyway. Here it is again:

"It was Scotland's notion of nationhood which allowed us to have this choice. The fact that after the treaty of union, Scotland retained our own systems of law, education and religion meant that we had the infrastructure to fight back where others could not. I don't doubt for a second that working class people in the North of England were every bit as aggrieved by Thatcher's policies as their counterparts North of the border, but it did not manifest as a political mandate for change in the same way because the social cohesion granted by an idea of "nationhood" was not the same. They were not able to conceive of London as a foreign power in quite the way the Scots could. Even Wales, which has a lot of the facets of nationhood is far more structurally ingrained with England, which goes some way to explaining why the independence/home rule movement there has never been as prolific.

This is reflected plainly in the results of the devolution referenda from 1997: Scotland 74%, Wales 51%, in favour, North East England (2004), rejection by 77.9%.

Scotland already sees itself as another country, in the 2011 census 62% of the population stated their identity as "Scottish only". with 18% saying "Scottish and British". This referendum (as I've said before) is far more about the practicalities of governance than it is us deciding our nationality."

I have lived in England, I love it and lots of the people in it, I even intend to move back there to study more but I don't want the Scottish electorate to ever have to be governed by another Conservative administration again (for as long as the majority of people in Scotland don't vote for one).

England has the choice, as does a Scotland in the Union. Go to the polls - is it 59 MPs you have? Go to the polls, as we have done for hundreds of years. It is a stubborn and infuriating process, getting change from Westminster, yet it does occasionally produce results - results pertaining to the left (which is your own political ideology). What about the Great Reform Act of the 1830s or the 1945 government which brought about the Welfare state. These were all policies which, I presume, were - and still, are - conducive to the Scottish mindset (if, what you telling me is, you are overwhelmingly, left wing and socialists) yet they all emanated from Westminster!

(I cannot believe I am supporting British Lefty policies in this debate haha)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, there will be a huge psychological split between the two nations, if the Scottish vote 'yes'. The English account for a large section of tourism to Scotland. Indeed, the English have been visiting Scotland's natural wonders since the late-18th century Romantics, while, Edinburgh has always been visited because of its culture and historicism. Even the Royals got in on the act, setting up camp there with Balmoral. It is believed, as a sort of rejection of a newly independent Scotland - even a sort of reprisal - the English, many of whom come from prosperous parts of the South East of England, would turn their back on Scotland as a tourist destination. Needless, this would have massive repercussions on the Scottish economy.

It is also believed there will be a Scottish diaspora to England, of Unionists. I was actually reading about the crudity of the 'Yes' campaign and the SNP supporters, JK Rowling and Michelle Mone being attacked on social media for supporting the 'yes' vote. ''The quicker we vote yes, the quicker u get to f*** ya tramp'' is how someone, posted on her social media and there have been threats of violence!

Michelle Mone now feels she is no longer safe in Scotland.

I actually feel it will create a huge climate of dislike between the two countries.

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 'yes', there will be a customs barrier, with full passport checks across the border. This border would be logistically expensive to erect, run through numerous areas of outstanding natural beauty, and require a large administration. The reason is, the SNP is pro-EU and will naturally want to apply for EU membership. New EU members have to adopt the Schengen agreement, which, Britain has opted out of. Migrants could enter England freely, via Scotland. In a more general sense, it is obvious that if Scotland has a different emigration policy than Britain, border controls would need to be erected. (Even if we do erect a border, it is obvious that migrants will try to by pass by sabotage or digging tunnels a la the American-Mexican border.)

Yet the whole thing is dismissed by Salmond as 'Westminster scare mongering'. Salmond still seems to believe that we can have an open border!

Presumably the UK would accept a customs union (it's in its own interest given the interconnectedness of the two countries) under the condition that Scotland doesn't join the Schengen space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 'yes', there will be a customs barrier, with full passport checks across the border. This border would be logistically expensive to erect, run through numerous areas of outstanding natural beauty, and require a large administration. The reason is, the SNP is pro-EU and will naturally want to apply for EU membership. New EU members have to adopt the Schengen agreement, which, Britain has opted out of. Migrants could enter England freely, via Scotland. In a more general sense, it is obvious that if Scotland has a different emigration policy than Britain, border controls would need to be erected. (Even if we do erect a border, it is obvious that migrants will try to by pass by sabotage or digging tunnels a la the American-Mexican border.)

Yet the whole thing is dismissed by Salmond as 'Westminster scare mongering'. Salmond still seems to believe that we can have an open border!

Presumably the UK would accept a customs union (it's in its own interest given the interconnectedness of the two countries) under the condition that Scotland doesn't join the Schengen space.

New EU members are legally obliged to join the Schengen area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in summary your solution is "Keep doing what you've been doing for the last 30 years, it will possibly get you the government your people want some of the time."

Great. What an attractive option.

Meanwhile a threat levied at our heads that if we choose to govern ourselves you'll throw the toys out the pram and go in the huff with us? Well, that makes England sound like a friend worth having...

Also, there are morons and cupcakes on both sides, if you like I could link you to some antisocial behaviour by Unionists as well, it doesn't add any weight to your arguments or mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...