Scottish Independence... What are your thoughts?

[astral276]

You can be in the EU without being part of the Schengen Area like Norway and Switzerland.

I think you have that arse about face. Norway and Switzerland are part of the Schengan Area but not in the EU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area

Also, as the Schengan Area is now part of EU law it would be highly unlikely (if not impossible) for Scotland to obtain an opt out like the UK if they joined the EU. The UK couldn't get one now - times have changed.

In reality anyone saying you will need a passport is just scaremongering

The stock response of 'bullying' and 'scaremongering' to any unpalatable truth is starting to wear a bit thin.

[tonyreddevil]

3 Weeks Tomorrow is the Referendum.
Soon Here!
Cheers Tony

[PetBazaar]

They may need one to get back into England. Plus, if Scotland does join the EU you will need one both ways as they will have to enforce their border as part of the Schengen Area. Scots may need one as the UK will likely set up border checks due to the predicted disparity in immigration policies. Scotland will need to negotiate to join the Common Travel Area (which would be at odds with EU membership - even more so if the UK exits).

Like so many SNP promises this one is based on what the SNP wants to happen without regard for how it affects anyone else or their ability to deliver on their promise. Just another part of their (bag)pipedream.

My take on this one involves 3 points.

The first is that Scottish immigration policy is planned to be largely unchanged. Current thinking is that we need 24,000 immigrants a year. But! And this is the bit most folk omit from the story. Immigration is currently 22,000 a year. The SNP would also prefer it if 2000 fewer people left instead and would hopefully develop policies to try and achieve that. I assume that the other parties would also prefer that option. So with immigration effectively little different, our main trading partners (in both directions) being across this new border and the precedent of Eire, it's hard to see why being refused access to the CTA could be viewed as any thing other than spite from rUK.

Second point. If the UK Government is to be believed we won't be an EU country, so won't be in Schengen. Should I assume that the UK government isn't misleading 5,000,000 people to achieve their own political ends? Who knows. But even if we are a member we won't share a border with any other Schengen country, and I believe that common sense will prevail and we wouldn't be forced into it if we were seen to be part of the CTA.

Thirdly. Border posts would be no use. What's the point of them if you can just walk around them across a field? To stop folk getting in you need to build a wall or fence and set up regular patrols and guard towers and in all honesty I just don't see that happening.

[tonyreddevil]

CTA= Common Travel Area.
Is this proper terms?

[squern]

I watched that debate, and thought Salmond did very well.
He came over as very positive, and made Darling look rather shifty.

I didn't like Darling's trick of talking/shouting over the replies to the questions he had asked - looked like desperation.

If I had been an undecided voter, I think Mr S would have persuaded me to his cause.

[astral276]

My take on this one involves 3 points.

The first is that Scottish immigration policy is planned to be largely unchanged.

The SNP has stated that they intend to increase immigration - they need to in order to support the economy and pay for their pledges. Westminster intends to decrease immigration. That means the immigration policy of the two countries would drift further and further apart and Scotland would become an easy access point to the UK via the border for illegal immigrants. Both Labour and the Conservatives have stated that that would inevitably lead to border controls between England and Scotland. The Liberals don't care; they would happily let every man and his dog into the country - herding the indigenous population into pens to make room for them if necessary.

...it's hard to see why being refused access to the CTA could be viewed as any thing other than spite from rUK.

Scotland is currently a signatory to the CTA as part of the UK. As a separate country they would have to negotiate joining it. If, as above, their immigration policy is at variance with the UK that may not acceptable. This is one of those 'cherry picking' areas. It suits the SNP so they want to continue to enjoy its benefits uninterrupted - regardless of the best interests of anyone else involved. The UK looking to protect their own interests is not 'spite'.

Second point. If the UK Government is to be believed we won't be an EU country, so won't be in Schengen.

The UK government have never said that Scotland would/could not be an EU member, the only people that have said that is the SNP in a distortion of what has been said. What the UK government has said it that Scotland's EU membership as part of the UK will not simply continue uninterrupted post independence, that Scotland would need to apply to become an EU member state, that becoming a new EU member state will not be as quick and simple as the SNP leads people to believe, and that current EU opt outs enjoyed by the UK will not be inherited by Scotland.

As regards Schengan, the SNP stated aim is for Scotland to be an EU member. Schengan is now part of EU law and does not allow for 'common sense'. Basing any part of your future on what you perceive as common sense prevailing in the EU is a tad risky - to say the least. Even if the UK imposed no border controls, if the UK were to leave the EU then Scotland (if they were to be and remain in the EU - as is their stated intention) would have an open border with a non-EU country. The EU would not allow that and Scotland would be required to control that border.

Thirdly. Border posts would be no use. What's the point of them if you can just walk around them across a field? To stop folk getting in you need to build a wall or fence and set up regular patrols and guard towers and in all honesty I just don't see that happening.

Border controls can take many forms. How physical that barrier is depends on the level of perceived threat one country poses to the integrity of its neighbour.

[astral276]

I didn't like Darling's trick of talking/shouting over the replies to the questions he had asked - looked like desperation.

I didn't watch it (a. I have no say as to the outcome, b. Salmond gives me the creeps) but the reports I have seen indicate both were guilty of stifling the debate by shouting the other down.

If I had been an undecided voter, I think Mr S would have persuaded me to his cause.

Let's hope they go for it. Though I anticipate they will bottle it and we will have to listen to them moaning on into the future.

[PetBazaar]

The SNP has stated that they intend to increase immigration - they need to in order to support the economy and pay for their pledges. Westminster intends to decrease immigration. That means the immigration policy of the two countries would drift further and further apart and Scotland would become an easy access point to the UK via the border for illegal immigrants. Both Labour and the Conservatives have stated that that would inevitably lead to border controls between England and Scotland. The Liberals don't care; they would happily let every man and his dog into the country - herding the indigenous population into pens to make room for them if necessary.

You're absolutely right about the SNP immigration policy. The point I was making is that the policy is to increase migration to 24,000 a year which, realistically, is little different from the 22,000 a year that it currently stands at. If a future Scottish government can provide sufficient opportunities to decrease the number of emigrants by 2,000 a year they will achieve the same thing. This, if not yet a policy, is also an ambition of the SNP, not sure about the other parties.

It has to be assumed that the Irish government will continue to set their own policies too. The logical extension of this is that border controls will also have to go up between the UK and Irish Republic. If that's the case, then the CTA will effectively cease to exist. If this too is the case then it has to be regarded as a result of UK government policy decisions rather than an inevitable result of independence.

The alternative is, that Scotland remains in the UK. The UK cuts immigration and Scotlands working age population reduces further making the economy less and less viable and more the basket case that everyone says it already is.

The UK government have never said that Scotland would/could not be an EU member, the only people that have said that is the SNP in a distortion of what has been said. What the UK government has said it that Scotland's EU membership as part of the UK will not simply continue uninterrupted post independence, that Scotland would need to apply to become an EU member state...

As regards Schengan, the SNP stated aim is for Scotland to be an EU member. Schengan is now part of EU law and does not allow for 'common sense'. Basing any part of your future on what you perceive as common sense prevailing in the EU is a tad risky...

If Scotland's membership is interrupted, then surely they are not an EU member? I'm not sure how else "interrupted" can be interpreted.

It took Greenland 6 years to leave, and it's suggested by some that it takes 8 years to be accepted. So worst case scenario in an "interruption" is that we're not in the EU for 14 years.

But say that even that's not the case and we're accepted to the EU immediately. It's still 18 months (at least) until "independence day". Assuming that immigration policy is relatively unchanged (on both sides, which only a year after a UK General Election seems likely, particularly if UKIP come nowhere), a CTA negotiation assuming that there is no falling out on other topics (which seems unlikely) has no reason to be unsuccessful. So as a CTA country which shares no land borders with the EU it seems reasonable to assume that a Schengen opt out could be negotiated. Particularly since a side effect would be alienating the rest of the UK who the EU would simultaneously be working with to try to prevent leaving. As many have said, the EU is nothing if not flexible.

Border controls can take many forms. How physical that barrier is depends on the level of perceived threat one country poses to the integrity of its neighbour.

Valid point, but if the border is intended to prevent migration then it must be physical or at the very least vigorously patrolled. Anything less would be so porous as to be pointless. Controls on roads are of little use beyond checking that lorries and buses aren't stuffed with contraband, whether human or otherwise.

[DandC_Warehouse]

Astral, are you a Daily mail reader by any chance? lol

[astral276]

Astral, are you a Daily mail reader by any chance? lol

No, but then I suspect you were not actually interested if I were or not and the question was intended to be some childish insult - which I failed to 'get' so it didn't hit the target.