Should the SNP campaign for the same status as NI?

[Trogdor]

11 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I doubt it, they share a currency and there are zero border checks. Their Schengen agreement deal shows how flexible and pragmatic the EU can be when it suits.

I never realised Lichtenstein used the Swiss franc. Thanks for that.

[renton]

16 hours ago, btb said:

That's my opinion and it undercuts the ProjectFear argument about border checkpoints at Gretna & Berwick - I also reckon if The Glimmer Twins approve it for NI they can't legitimately argue against it for Scotland.

WM don't have to legitimately argue anything. The issue for ScotGov is that it relies on WM discussing in good faith on any given subject.

Whereas they can, and probably will just say no, spraf some pish about the day job and wait for the next news cycle.

Edited February 28, 2023 by renton

[Granny Danger]

To answer the OP question, no.  We should be campaigning for Independence, nothing short of it.  However if the changes in NI go ahead I think it will weaken the unionist position on the Scotland/England border issue.

[milton75]

14 hours ago, Michael W said:

Lichtenstein is largely part of the Single Market, with some exceptions. As is Switzerland through the numerous EU-CH agreements in place. The UK (minus NI), is not part of the Single Market, with NI only remaining part owing to ensure that an international agreement (to which an EU Member State is a signatory) is upheld.  

You also need a customs declaration to send goods from the EU to Lichtenstein and vice-versa (presumably the case also from Switzerland to Lichtenstein). That isn't frictionless trade. The EU does indeed have a deal with Lichtenstein and harmonisation through the EEA agreement/Single Market etc, but it is not an all-encompasing, frictionless deal, even if it removes many barriers. 

And at any rate, it's not a valid comparison to the point that was being made. All EU countries trade on Lichtenstein on the same terms, with no Member State enjoying 'frictionless' trade as an exception. In the example provided, (Scotland having frictionless trade with both the EU and the rest if the UK), this will only happen if: 

Scotland stays in the UK and the UK rejoins the EU; or

If independent and in the EU, the rest of the UK rejoins the EU as well.  

Future EU-rUK agreements where an independent Scotland is concerned would of course be  possible, but they will be for all of the EU to benefit from and not just a select part of it. And, at any rate, it won't be frictionless unless rUK rejoins. Or, should it be "joins", since it'd be a different State to the one that was formerly a Member?

 

I think you're focusing too much on the "frictionless" point. If Scotland was Independent and in the EU then it is true that there could not be frictionless trade with the rUK.

However, what this deal demonstrates is that there could be access to the rUK market with considerably less hassle than could historically have been the case.

Also, and somewhat importantly, it also completely refutes the claim made by many Unionists that an Independent Scotland would by necessity have to have a hard border with England. That's clearly not the case, and it will be interesting going forward to see anyone claim otherwise.

[welshbairn]

3 hours ago, Trogdor said:

I never realised Lichtenstein used the Swiss franc. Thanks for that.

If Ayr United had shared Falkirk's glorious adventure into European football you would have known that. 

[Michael W]

2 hours ago, milton75 said:

I think you're focusing too much on the "frictionless" point. If Scotland was Independent and in the EU then it is true that there could not be frictionless trade with the rUK.

However, what this deal demonstrates is that there could be access to the rUK market with considerably less hassle than could historically have been the case.

Also, and somewhat importantly, it also completely refutes the claim made by many Unionists that an Independent Scotland would by necessity have to have a hard border with England. That's clearly not the case, and it will be interesting going forward to see anyone claim otherwise.

I probably am focusing too much on that, tbh. I work in International Trade, so am very sensitive to claims of frictionless trade being made, given recent examples of what promises of frictionless trade have delivered. It was never happening with the EU despite whatever wishes Vote Leave and their messengers put out, but has also introduced friction into intra-UK trade, which we have seen the results of. 

However, I don't agree that the NI example really says anything about an  independent Scotland. The NI protocol *has* facilitated a border (for the movement of goods), although this is in the Irish Sea and isn't on land, and affects intra-UK movements of goods. This border still exists despite the changes that will hopefully be approved. I don't know how such challenges might be worked around were Scotland independent, as this route would be EU-non-EU only and there's no consideration of domestic movements to consider. Movement of people would also be problematic from the EU's perspective. NI is again a special case in this regard as many people there have Irish passports (e.g. EU citizenship) and even if they don't, are entitled to have one. Looking at the non-EU State that would border an independent Scotland, that isn't the case. We're also looking at 50m+ people and not c1.9m. 

NI, whilst not in the EU, is also in its Single Market, which is necessary to prevent a land border on the Island. For an independent Scotland, that would be another challenge to overcome assuming GB remains outside the Single Market and is not sufficiently aligned. Ultimately, this part hinges on another country doing something, which is never an ideal situation. You have to take the situation as it stands. 

Finally, there is no Good Friday Agreement to be concerned with upholding. A good thing we haven't had to have such a thing to resolve conflict in our country, but it was ultimately this aspect that forced the EU into a special arrangement for NI. The EU was not going to breach an agreement one of its own Member States signed up for. 

Happy to hear arguments as to what could be possible, but I fear we are starting to get into "cake and eat it" territory here. There are reasons NI has been treated the way it has and the rest of the UK hasn't, which don't apply to Scotland. This might well be frustrating, but the EU's hand was forced into accommodating them. 

Ultimately, It really depends on what the UK and EU's relationship is at the time - the closer that it is, the more access an independent Scotland would have and the better the chances of some carveouts, albeit I think if these could be obtained they woukd be time-limited at best. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Michael W

[Trogdor]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

If Ayr United had shared Falkirk's glorious adventure into European football you would have known that. 

Is that revenge for my bait on the Cup thread? We'll speak again of cup adventures in a couple of weeks. 

[BB_Bino]

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

To answer the OP question, no.  We should be campaigning for Independence, nothing short of it.  However if the changes in NI go ahead I think it will weaken the unionist position on the Scotland/England border issue.

This!

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Trogdor said:

Is that revenge for my bait on the Cup thread? We'll speak again of cup adventures in a couple of weeks. 

Given we lost in extra time to Vaduz, not necessarily.. 

[milton75]

I agree with much of that, however my point regarding "hard border" as an ominous concept pertains to not only a whole gamut of attendant psychological and sociological upsets that this would present, but also the spectre of "loss of access to market".

You're correct about the reasons NI has been pandered to, but the mechanics of dealing with those issues are now there for all to see. So if nothing else the argument becomes not that Independent Scotland "must suffer x consequences", and more instead that Independent Scotland "will suffer x consequences", because there's no political expediency to working anything else out.
That comes across far more poorly to the electorate.

Lastly it seems unpalatable that we reward bad behaviour. Anyone that's dealt with a truculent toddler knows this isn't a good policy. We're stuck with a section of the country where the locals have been blowing each other up for decades so everyone else has to bend over backwards to accommodate them (and let's not forget it STILL isn't good enough for many in the DUP).

I encourage the locals of Glasgow and Edinburgh to start an attritional civil war for the next 50 years. Find out what treats we're fed to get them to stop.

[stillresigned]

6 hours ago, milton75 said:

I agree with much of that, however my point regarding "hard border" as an ominous concept pertains to not only a whole gamut of attendant psychological and sociological upsets that this would present, but also the spectre of "loss of access to market".

You're correct about the reasons NI has been pandered to, but the mechanics of dealing with those issues are now there for all to see. So if nothing else the argument becomes not that Independent Scotland "must suffer x consequences", and more instead that Independent Scotland "will suffer x consequences", because there's no political expediency to working anything else out.
That comes across far more poorly to the electorate.

Lastly it seems unpalatable that we reward bad behaviour. Anyone that's dealt with a truculent toddler knows this isn't a good policy. We're stuck with a section of the country where the locals have been blowing each other up for decades so everyone else has to bend over backwards to accommodate them (and let's not forget it STILL isn't good enough for many in the DUP).

I encourage the locals of Glasgow and Edinburgh to start an attritional civil war for the next 50 years. Find out what treats we're fed to get them to stop.

I made that very point in a phone call to my cousin earlier on tonight. Superficially, it seems that Northern Ireland is been ‘ rewarded’ for thirty years of killing each other. However, looking at it objectively I hope(?), this latest act is probably the (hopefully)denouement of 800 years of conflict in Ireland, but I am neither so naive as to hope this marks an outbreak of brotherly love on the island of Ireland and I expect to see more twists and turns on the road to eventual lasting peace.

That been so, of course it still does make a precedent that it is not beyond the wit of man for a special solution to be found to satisfy Scottish aspirations in the short to medium term. Although, as you alluded to we have an ample supply of mumpties in Scotland who may well wish to recreate the Troubles here in Scotland. And in that regard, I wouldn’t sure put the use of agents provocateurs by the British State if it’s back was to the wall here as well.

Onemcan only trust in the good sense of the,Scottish people not to deviate from the strictly peaceful and democratic methods that the pro-Independence movement has practised for the last 100 years or so.  At heart what I am trying to say that whilst I do not like certain MSPs relegate Independece to a period of 25 years in the future I frankly cannot see it happening any time soon .