Small piece on Newsnight, begins with Gordon Brown on the danger to UK Union.



Always weird to see someone insist that SNP must be delighted with BoJo and Brexit when they've consistently opposed the very idea of leaving the EU.

Dr Whitford was excellent there.

The most astonishing thing (not astonishing) about Gordon Brown's comments in his speech were to claim the SNP were now pushing an extreme form of independence, extreme. Because they are now considering an independent currency.

2014: Currency union post independence? Madness! Surely a new currency would be better.
2019: A new currency post independence? Madness! Extremists!

Just how dishonest is this?

Brown, who was a key figure in the campaign for a no vote during the Scottish independence referendum, also said the UK was under threat from what he said was a “recent but little-publicised shift” by the SNP from a soft to hard version of independence. This was accompanied by the party’s abandonment of the pound and its desire to leave the UK single market and customs union.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

Yeah, that's pretty shitty.

Gordon has previous form on this, he keeps trying to make Scexit happen!

How ridiculous, both Labour and Conservatiives are keen to retain a good trade relationship with the EU, with Scotland as part of the EU that means your going to trade with us.

The currency thing is almost as bad; the SNP are responding to all the MPs (mostly Con) who declared that they would not allow an independent Scotland to use pound Sterling. Apparently none of them are familiar with the Isle of Man Government. So when an alternative, and reasonable, solution is proposed; we get called extremists.

Thing is, Scotland remaining part of the EU is actually a solution to their NI border problem. Put the customs border between Scotland/England and Spain/Gibralatar. And if we gain independence and join the EU it can then serve as the hard border.

Another thing occurs to me; none of the Brexit parties have a political mandate in Scotland.
So the correct response to a political party attempting to relieve us of our EU rights without proper representation should really be a polite, but firm, "go fuck yourself".

zerne wrote:Thing is, Scotland remaining part of the EU is actually a solution to their NI border problem. Put the customs border between Scotland/England and Spain/Gibralatar. And if we gain independence and join the EU it can then serve as the hard border.

This would seem to create problems (for the UK) than actually solve any. Not least that Scotland being "part of the EU" (retaining EU membership), would necessitate, whether or not Scotland was independent, a hard border on GB in order to collect appropriate tariffs from cross-border trade. From there, I don't see how or through what mechanism, a Scottish-English border in any way solves the wholly separate NI border problem. It would seem that the UK/EU would now be required to establish two borders rather than one. That's before we even consider that the UK/EU would permit such status for Scotland:dunno:

zerne wrote:Another thing occurs to me; none of the Brexit parties have a political mandate in Scotland.
So the correct response to a political party attempting to relieve us of our EU rights without proper representation should really be a polite, but firm, "go fuck yourself".

I presume the “Brexit parties” to include the Tories?
The Tory party (with 13 Scottish representatives) and forming the UK government must have a political mandate in Scotland, right?

Yes, the same border problems a UK outside EU has with the Republic border would be replicated with Scotland. Thats why staying in is the best solution for all

I didn't actually have to search far for an illustrated example of what i mean:

mmmh un iting Ireland and Scotland? the idea seems, prone to causing trouble

It's always a two border problem. The one at Gibraltar and the other one. Can you blame a nation for wanting to remain on the correct side?

Svartalf wrote:mmmh un iting Ireland and Scotland? the idea seems, prone to causing trouble

Who's proposing a uniting Ireland and Scotland? They remain separate by geography and politics. It a free movement area (a la EU) that draws the customs borders at England And Wales. Those two seem to want to leave the EU. NI and Scotland kinda don't.

To be fair, I suspect that proposal from "some yank" might be that Scotland NI and the Republic are all in EU. Not that Scotland unites with anybody else.

Cos that isn't the plan

ronmcd wrote:Yes, the same border problems a UK outside EU has with the Republic border would be replicated with Scotland. Thats why staying in is the best solution for all

It is, but we lost the argument the first time round.
Best of 3?

zerne wrote:I didn't actually have to search far for an illustrated example of what i mean:

The illustration seems to be indicating a united Ireland and an independent Scotland.

fisherman wrote:

zerne wrote:I didn't actually have to search far for an illustrated example of what i mean:

The illustration seems to be indicating a united Ireland and an independent Scotland.

Well, in that case all i can say is that a fuller understanding of the backstop is essential to making it all clear.

But for you, i shall try.

The EU and UK have made a political agreement to there being no hard border on the mainland of Ireland regardless of future outcomes. (top left)

That's the backstop.

The hard border exists then as a figurative line between Ireland and the rest of the UK bits of the British Isles. (top right)

What this means is that Northern Ireland, and it's currently non-functional parliament, are treated as an EU member state. There free movement between both countries for example.

Where you draw that figurative line is almost entirely optional

(The one between Gibraltar and Spain, not so much)

What i propose is merely an extension of the existing agreement to cover Scotland. (big picture)

Or to put it even more simply:

Bits in blue.
Functionally EU.

Both Northern Ireland (in the current form of the agreement) and Scotland (tbc) remain part of the UK.

(For now.)

The added benefit is that you would be drawing those lines in accordance with the express wishes of separate electorates, laws and their respective ruling bodies. Stormont and Holyrood.

Hell you could even eliminate the hard border in Gibraltar with a few more alterations to this kind of agreement. Which fits in line with their wishes too. [Yay democracy.] It respects the referendum result across the UK and delivers leave of the EU to those who wanted it.

But if you have a better, more amicable, fair and realistic alternative to offer. I would love to hear it.

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:

zerne wrote:I didn't actually have to search far for an illustrated example of what i mean:

The illustration seems to be indicating a united Ireland and an independent Scotland.

Well, in that case all i can say is that a fuller understanding of the backstop is essential to making it all clear.

But for you, i shall try.

The EU and UK have made a political agreement to there being no hard border on the mainland of Ireland regardless of future outcomes. (top left)

That's the backstop.

The hard border exists then as a figurative line between Ireland and the rest of the UK bits of the British Isles. (top right)

What this means is that Northern Ireland, and it's currently non-functional parliament, are treated as an EU member state. There free movement between both countries for example.

Where you draw that figurative line is almost entirely optional

(The one between Gibraltar and Spain, not so much)

What i propose is merely an extension of the existing agreement to cover Scotland. (big picture)

Or to put it even more simply:

Bits in blue.
Functionally EU.

Both Northern Ireland (in the current form of the agreement) and Scotland (tbc) remain part of the UK.

(For now.)

Thanks.

I have no problem with Scotland trying to get the best Brexit it can. But Scotland inserting itself and getting the same deal as NI does not solve the NI border problem (which was your original claim), UK consent for such an outcome would be less likely rather than more likely.

zerne wrote:The added benefit is that you would be drawing those lines in accordance with the express wishes of separate electorates, laws and their respective ruling bodies. Stormont and Holyrood.

Hell you could even eliminate the hard border in Gibraltar with a few more alterations to this kind of agreement. Which fits in line with their wishes too. [Yay democracy.] It respects the referendum result across the UK and delivers leave of the EU to those who wanted it.

But if you have a better, more amicable, fair and realistic alternative to offer. I would love to hear it.

Unfortunately, I am an unoriginal thinker, so nothing to offer of note.

Three years ago, I thought it was a sure thing that we would coalesce around an EFTA/EEA solution. It would still be possible to achieve if Parliament had accepted the deal. But it seems the further from the referendum the more polarised we have become. It is now possible to consider that the English majority might withdraw consent for the union (which was unthinkable 3 years ago) to ensure the correct Brexit is achieved.

ronmcd wrote:To be fair, I suspect that proposal from "some yank" might be that Scotland NI and the Republic are all in EU. Not that Scotland unites with anybody else.

Cos that isn't the plan

Well, it's not Scotland's plan, but...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/m ... 50453.html
https://www.change.org/p/the-uk-governm ... n-scotland



Oddly, the people who put forward such plans for the North to join Scotland never seem see Scots being a minority of the population of "New Scotland" as an issue.