To think Scottish Independence would be like a second Brexit?

[MinnieMous3]

Inspired by another thread, do you think Scottish Independence would be like a second Brexit?

As in, independence for independence’s sake rather than because it will actually benefit the country, leaving everyone in an expensive mess?

There seem to be so many parallels - a leader who is good at the battle cry but seems unable to produce a clear plan of what would happen afterwards, paranoia that the union in question is ‘out to get’ them in some way, and complete denial of the perks of being part of it.

I know this may get heated so please play nicely!

After an independence referendum yes vote, I estimate it would take up to 4 years to negotiate a full exit from the UK, all the while taking care that none of the arrangements made would exclude Scotland from joining the EU. Unless the SNP, Liberals, Greens, half of Labour and the odd Tory want to show total hypocrisy, this exit deal probably should then undergo its own referendum. Assuming this also succeeds, then Scotland could apply to join the EU, but there will probably be a requirement for an independent Scotland to show a record of stability and responsibility. This may take a further 4 years. One of the biggest obstacles would be Spain using its veto as they see parallels with the Catalans and Basques. When details of the EU deal are known then a third referendum will almost certainly be needed.

The EU members such as Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary and the Baltic states took around 11 years from independence to join the EU, Bulgaria and Romania a little longer. I see no reason why Scotland should be any different.

@Whammyyammy

Like brexit, the first Scots indy was vote was split. Always gonna be lovers and winners. With brexit the 'winners' are now having second thoughts now they've got what they voted for, would be the same in Scotland

Are they really having second thoughts? I'd look at some of the latest polling if I were you.

jcyclops Assuming this also succeeds, then Scotland could apply to join the EU, but there will probably be a requirement for an independent Scotland to show a record of stability and responsibility. This may take a further 4 years.

The accelerated entry procedure for the Eastern European countries which was the most recent EU enlargement took 12 years, and that was with a lot of assistance in changing their legal systems and making sure they were fully complaint with EU fundamental rights.

Since a fair bit of recent Scottish legislation is in breach of human rights and would be illegal under EU law (not just parts of the Hate Crime bill but things like minimum alcohol pricing, named persons, certain property legislation which is in breach of EU competition law) I would take the EU premise with a pinch of salt.

Selling Scottish independence on the back of EU membership is really dishonest. Its actually very unlikely to happen. I don't even think EFTA wants Scotland. The EU has never made any kind of committment towards admitting an independent Scotland and would be unlikely to want to piss off one of their main trading partners (the UK) by doing so, never mind setting a trend for break off states over the whole of Europe.

I wish the debate was more honest and people weren't so ready to believe the EU membership myth.

The reality is that an independent Scotland would be outwith the EU for many years, likely decades, with no guaranteed membership of the ECHR and loss of the stronger EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (eg where our FOI rights come from).

During the last independence referendum Scots were told the only way of ensuring they continued as members of the EU was to stay in the union. Project Fear worked but look how it turned out. We had to go with the 'majority' even though every county in Scotland voted to remain.

Minimum alcohol pricing came into effect when Scotland was still very much an EU country, so I've no idea where you get the idea that it would be 'illegal under EU law' from.

As for the rest of your post; the EU has been nothing but enthusiastic and encouraging re the prospect of accepting an independent Scotland back into the fold. Tusk was especially strident about that and the messages have stayed pretty much the same since his Presidency ended.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Minimum alcohol pricing came into effect when Scotland was still very much an EU country, so I've no idea where you get the idea that it would be 'illegal under EU law' from.

As for the rest of your post; the EU has been nothing but enthusiastic and encouraging re the prospect of accepting an independent Scotland back into the fold. Tusk was especially strident about that and the messages have stayed pretty much the same since his Presidency ended.

curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=173249&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN

This. There was an Advocate-General Reference made by the Scottish courts to the European Court of Justice, where the A-G found that the minimum alcohol pricing legislation was illegal under EU law, as the public health exemption did not apply where the objective could be achieved by less restrictive measures, mainly taxation.

Thats the usual answer in EU law where human rights and competition law are breached by member states - less restrictive means such as taxation should be preferred over onerous legislation.

If it hadn't been for Brexit, the Scottish courts would have been bound to follow the ruling and the minimum alcohol pricing removed (or the UK would have been fined by the EU Commission).

I'd honestly look for something more concrete than vaguely friendly overtures from individuals within the EU before believing the rhetoric that EU membership is a guarantee. Its not going to happen.

One of the differences between Scotland and other countries that have taken several years to join the EU is that Scotland, as part of the UK, was already in the EU for over four decades and would not be starting from scratch in many areas. For instance, Scots law currently conforms to EU legislation, and the Scottish Parliament recently enshrined in law (via the EU Continuity Bill) future alignment between devolved Scots law and EU legislation, so Scots law won't diverge as time goes on, making smoother transition into the EU possible.

Scotland's trade surplus up until Brexit was akin to those of Norway, Sweden and Finland, and was greater than the UK's as a whole (which was brought down because of England's large trade deficit, England being a net importer, Scotland a net exporter). Brexit will affect this because the decisions taken by the Uk government have meant that the UK's exports have plummetted.

Economically, there are many other pointers suggesting that Scotland would take its place alongside the Nordic countries as a successful small nation in north western Europe. Scotland has great potential for success. It has massive renewable energy assets in wave, wind and hydro. It has food and drink assets such as fish and whisky, it has a potentially huge digital economy, and so on.

After the Scotch Whisky Association and others sought a judicial review, the CJEU ruled that minimum pricing was proportionate in terms of EU law.

In December 2015 the EU's Advocate General indicated that "it was for the domestic courts to take a final decision on minimum pricing, but noted that minimum pricing could be legal but would be contrary to EU law if less restrictive tax measures could be used to achieve the aim of the legislation."

The case by the SWA eventually went to the UK Supreme Court where, in 2017, they ruled that "the legislation is proportionate to the public health aim which it pursues, and that fiscal measures would not be as effective in achieving the targeted aims achievable by minimum pricing."

From: www.gov.scot/publications/minimum-unit-pricing-alcohol-final-business-regulatory-impact-assessment/pages/3/

SixesAndEightsFar too simplistic.

One of the differences between Scotland and other countries that have taken several years to join the EU is that Scotland, as part of the UK, was already in the EU for over four decades and would not be starting from scratch in many areas.

Thats one of the main problems and one which will cause member states to vote against it (should it ever get that far) where unanimity is required for new member states to join.

For instance, Scots law currently conforms to EU legislation, and the Scottish Parliament recently enshrined in law (via the EU Continuity Bill) future alignment between devolved Scots law and EU legislation, so Scots law won't diverge as time goes on, making smoother transition into the EU possible.

Thats meaningless and unenforcable. ie there is no enforcement agency in place, no court to rule for people whose rights have been infringed.

And Scots law is already non-compliant with EU law in many areas - particularly competition law and human rights.

The Scottish Government was dead set against the extension of FOI rights to environmental concerns for one thing - apparently, they couldn't understand why anyone outwith Scotland would want to exercise such a right and it would be too much work for employees - farcical if it wasn't so serious. Thankfully the UK Government made the decision to adopt the extension of rights.

I do wish people wouldn't spread these myths. Scotland isn't at all a Scandinavian country either - its more of a celtic country and has more in common with Ireland than Norway or Sweden.

[quote SixesAndEights]After the Scotch Whisky Association and others sought a judicial review, the CJEU ruled that minimum pricing was proportionate in terms of EU law.

In December 2015 the EU's Advocate General indicated that "it was for the domestic courts to take a final decision on minimum pricing, but noted that minimum pricing could be legal but would be contrary to EU law if less restrictive tax measures could be used to achieve the aim of the legislation."

The case by the SWA eventually went to the UK Supreme Court where, in 2017, they ruled that "the legislation is proportionate to the public health aim which it pursues, and that fiscal measures would not be as effective in achieving the targeted aims achievable by minimum pricing."

From: www.gov.scot/publications/minimum-unit-pricing-alcohol-final-business-regulatory-impact-assessment/pages/3/[/quote]
We all know that decision was taken only because Brexit was imminent. Member States almost never decline to follow the A-G's reference, because it almost certainly means enforcement action being taken by the EU Commission (enormous fines).

@GreenlandTheMovie

SixesAndEightsFar too simplistic.

One of the differences between Scotland and other countries that have taken several years to join the EU is that Scotland, as part of the UK, was already in the EU for over four decades and would not be starting from scratch in many areas.

Thats one of the main problems and one which will cause member states to vote against it (should it ever get that far) where unanimity is required for new member states to join.

For instance, Scots law currently conforms to EU legislation, and the Scottish Parliament recently enshrined in law (via the EU Continuity Bill) future alignment between devolved Scots law and EU legislation, so Scots law won't diverge as time goes on, making smoother transition into the EU possible.

Thats meaningless and unenforcable. ie there is no enforcement agency in place, no court to rule for people whose rights have been infringed.

And Scots law is already non-compliant with EU law in many areas - particularly competition law and human rights.

The Scottish Government was dead set against the extension of FOI rights to environmental concerns for one thing - apparently, they couldn't understand why anyone outwith Scotland would want to exercise such a right and it would be too much work for employees - farcical if it wasn't so serious. Thankfully the UK Government made the decision to adopt the extension of rights.

I do wish people wouldn't spread these myths. Scotland isn't at all a Scandinavian country either - its more of a celtic country and has more in common with Ireland than Norway or Sweden.

In what ways is it more of a Celtic country? Scotland has been making moves towards becoming more aligned with the Nordic countries in recent years. I will come back with the facts when I am less exhausted.

In saying the latter you’ve affirmed the former

Not at all

God, it makes me sad that theres some sort of "wheesht for indy" campaign within the SNP to counteract arguments about the law on the internet.

Not a great time in Scotland's history or to be living here. Its actually becoming fairly unpleasant due to this sort of thing. Scots used to be educated well, fair, equitable and ready to go out into the world and rule it. Now we have to ban or license everything, and cower away in fear at the slightest risk.

Maria53 In what ways is it more of a Celtic country? Scotland has been making moves towards becoming more aligned with the Nordic countries in recent years. I will come back with the facts when I am less exhausted.

Its hardly got a Nordic culture, and Scottish people hardly look like the rest of Scandinavians, do they?

Far more similar to Ireland. Other SNP wheesht for indy types are now ploughing the celtic alliance rhetoric - are you sure you're on message?

Like a lot of things it seems similar in some ways and different in others.

I would say that in both cases there is a split between pragmatists - who see their viewpoint (yea or nay) it as being mainly about economics, or the nitty gritty of political organisation, and there are the people for whom it is more ideological, about a vision of what it means to be Scottish as opposed to British, or British as opposed to European, what it means to have political autonomy, etc.

Of course most people have some sense of both of these things but I generally find people lean strongly to one approach or the other.

I didn't say Scotland was a Nordic/Scandinavian country, I said it would take its place alongside them as a successful, small country in north western Europe.

And yes, as another poster said, Scotland has been making moves in recent years to look at the best of what Nordic countries do and to emulate them.

@StoneofDestiny

In saying the latter you’ve affirmed the former

Not at all

It is. A poster early in the thread said something along the lines of "Brexit argument = racist, xenophobic, ignorant". I then point out how Scottish nationalists are just the same. You then came along and made the same comparison.

@SixesAndEights

I didn't say Scotland was a Nordic/Scandinavian country, I said it would take its place alongside them as a successful, small country in north western Europe.

And yes, as another poster said, Scotland has been making moves in recent years to look at the best of what Nordic countries do and to emulate them.

Could maybe start with an education programme to stop throwing litter out of car windows? You never see litter lining the roadsides in any nordic country. It's utterly disgusting here.

I once drove up through Dumfries and Galloway, along the A75, the litter was appalling. In one layby a police office was standing talking to a motorist and a big sheet of plastic was wrapped round their legs!

I experienced something similar along the A3 near Guildford, in fact there invariably seem to be signs there telling people that their littering is endangering the lives of workers who have to collect it. The major roads round Blackpool last time I was in that area (albeit some time ago) were pretty bad, too.

What has litter got to do with Scottish independence?

*SixesAneEights What has litter got to do with Scottish independence"

Not a Nordic culture/country. Unlikely to be welcomed into EFTA by the Scandinavian countries.

I am English, living in Scotland. I have the strong impression that most who want independence don't know or care much about the vital details, such as the border, which would surely have to be an actual hard border, or the currency - the little I have heard is that Scotland will keep sterling. If they did, and not sure you can just decide to use another country's currency, then Scotland would apparently have no control over its own fiscal policy. Funnily enough we don't hear much about either of these topics.

I would hope if there was a referendum then there should be at least 60% (66.6 % even better) clear wanting to separate.

The thought of breaking everything up on a 50.5% : 49.5% is a hideous prospect.

@GreenlandTheMovie

*SixesAneEights What has litter got to do with Scottish independence"

Not a Nordic culture/country. Unlikely to be welcomed into EFTA by the Scandinavian countries.

What has litter got to do with this?

@GreenlandTheMovie

Maria53 In what ways is it more of a Celtic country? Scotland has been making moves towards becoming more aligned with the Nordic countries in recent years. I will come back with the facts when I am less exhausted.

Its hardly got a Nordic culture, and Scottish people hardly look like the rest of Scandinavians, do they?

Far more similar to Ireland. Other SNP wheesht for indy types are now ploughing the celtic alliance rhetoric - are you sure you're on message?

I asked why Scotland was like Ireland. If you're referring to shared music, whisky, red hair, language, then yes - we do have similarities. But these are hardly things that matter in the building of a country.

As @SixesAndEights has said, the government has been taking legal steps in the creation of its policies to mirror the Nordic countries. These countries tend to have a better quality of life - and that is what I care about. I haven't heard of wheesht for indy or this message you are talking about. The indy movement is a broad church.

Out of the many SNP and indy people I have known throughout the years, I have only personally came across 2 genuine xenophobes. Most really don't harbour such hateful views, no what people here seem to think.

@LizzieMacQueen

I would hope if there was a referendum then there should be at least 60% (66.6 % even better) clear wanting to separate.

The thought of breaking everything up on a 50.5% : 49.5% is a hideous prospect.

I think close results need to be handled with care, so that everyone feels they are gaining something. In 2014, EVEL came hot on the heels of the result and was partially responsible for both the increased success of the SNP and the bedding in of the independence movement. Handled differently, with increased devolution for instance, the independence issue could have faded. Likewise, the Brexit result was crying out for compromise, and we could easily have had it.

I don't think placing arbitary percentages on results is the way forward, although I can see the argument for doing so. If it were to be 60%, for isntance, and the result was 57/43, what then?