Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Just wondering. Can't England & Wales just leave the EU and Scotland & Northern Ireland staying.
Like for example Greenland & Denmark, some of those enclaves in Switzerland from Germany & Italy?

I don't think so, AFAIK the UK has to leave the EU as a block (or without Scotland if it secedes before that, but then Scotland would also be out of the EU).

Not necessarily. There is prescedent.
Greenland left the EC while Denmark remained.
Though obviously a huge difference there, it being very much the junior and less engaged with Europe partner leaving.

Then you've situations like Åland which despite being part of Finland has a weird situation of being technically outside the EU.
The Isle of Mann and channel islands have an unusual status too I believe. Though they were never full members.

But I don't see the government letting Scotland remain in the EU and UK anyway. This would lead to a massed movement of foreign firms from their beloved South East up to Caledonia. Way too nice a situation for Scotland.

[The Larch]

Just wondering. Can't England & Wales just leave the EU and Scotland & Northern Ireland staying.
Like for example Greenland & Denmark, some of those enclaves in Switzerland from Germany & Italy?

I don't think so, AFAIK the UK has to leave the EU as a block (or without Scotland if it secedes before that, but then Scotland would also be out of the EU).

Not necessarily. There is prescedent.
Greenland left the EC while Denmark remained.
Though obviously a huge difference there, it being very much the junior and less engaged with Europe partner leaving.

Not the same thing, in that case it was a part of an EU member that left, in this case it's a part of a member who is leaving that wants to stay.

[Maladict]

In addition 80% of Scottish trade is with the other components of the UK and only 14% is with the EU-27.

But they'll be much more competitive trading with the EU27 than England et al.
It may sort itself out fairly quickly.

[Richard Hakluyt]

In addition 80% of Scottish trade is with the other components of the UK and only 14% is with the EU-27.

But they'll be much more competitive trading with the EU27 than England et al.
It may sort itself out fairly quickly.

Not sure why they would be more competitive? Unless there was a rapid decrease in real incomes perhaps.

But yes, of course, in the long run Scotland would be fine as an independent country, just as the UK will be fine outside the EU.

A lot of people aged 60+ in the UK and Scotland though, the long run doesn't do them any good.

[Tamas]

I am not sure about Scotland doing ok on its own.

But I do like the idea of England and Wales leaving the UK and thus the EU. Would solve every pending issue quite quickly!

[Maladict]

In addition 80% of Scottish trade is with the other components of the UK and only 14% is with the EU-27.

But they'll be much more competitive trading with the EU27 than England et al.
It may sort itself out fairly quickly.

Not sure why they would be more competitive? Unless there was a rapid decrease in real incomes perhaps.

But yes, of course, in the long run Scotland would be fine as an independent country, just as the UK will be fine outside the EU.

A lot of people aged 60+ in the UK and Scotland though, the long run doesn't do them any good.

Common market? I was assuming they would be part of it.

[Josquius]

Scotland on its own with England remaining in the EU - Scotland is doomed.
Scotland in the EU with England on its own- adjustment will still be tough but Scotland could do very well taking business from London.

[garbon]

I am not sure about Scotland doing ok on its own.

I guess hypothetically in some far off future. Nothing particularly good in the short term.

[garbon]

This would lead to a massed movement of foreign firms from their beloved South East up to Caledonia.

Seems unlikely.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Probably the principal reason so many firms operate in London is that they have access to a very large pool of skilled workers. This completely trumps the fact that doing business in London is rather expensive. There is no point in relocating to Scotland if you can't staff your business. If it was easy to lure staff then finance firms would set up in places like Burnley, their costs would be minute compared to the cost of doing business in London.

[viper37]

Wrong.

During the last Indyref, it was made crystal clear by the EU that Scotland, as a new nation, would have to apply to join the EU. Spain and other countries with entities seeking independence gave pretty strong indications that they would veto any application.

In that case, then they might want to wait after Brexit.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Scotland would certainly survive, there's no functional reason it can't be an independent country. But that projected budget deficit, the share of British national debt it would almost certainly be required to assume, and the fact that North Sea oil revenues have cratered and are likely to never return, mean that the form of the Scottish state would be very different from what SNP is promising.

To get deficits in line to be acceptable for EU membership, there will be, if anything, social welfare austerity, not the more robust Scandinavian nanny state that is being hinted at as a possibility once the chains of Westminster are thrown off. From a strict economic perspective, I still think Scotland is much better off in a UK that isn't in the EU than it is not part of the UK. But Scotland would  be "okay" outside of the UK, but I think the transition will be absolutely brutal. I think SNP are frankly lying by not honestly acknowledging this.

I also think it needs to be hammered home North Sea oil is never likely to come back to the level it was, which was the main economic argument propping up most of SNP's fantasies. Especially with the developments in the United States, relatively low priced shale oil production is going to continue, and it's likely previously inaccessible easy oil is going to be opened up to drilling. Saudi Arabia has shown it's not going to cut back dramatically in response to high levels of U.S. drilling. North Sea oil has been drilled for a long time, it's expensive to get at now, and while producers like America are producing non-conventional oil at ever lower prices, at the same time we're also slowly moving away from fossil fuels. Maybe at some point far off in the future North Sea oil would make economic sense again, but by then global oil use will be lower in any case.

Scotland may be able to promote tourism more outside the UK but inside the EU, maybe just as an EU-alternative to England to visit the British isles.  It may be able to grab some financial business from London, maybe. But there's no silver bullet for Scotland. Without the UK its budget will be in bad shape and tough decisions will have to be made.

[CountDeMoney]

Donald MacTrump would promise to bring back all those sheep-shearing jobs lost overseas to terrible deals.

[HVC]

Scotland in the EU with England on its own- adjustment will still be tough but Scotland could do very well taking business from London.

Why would that happen? if it the English speaking thing Ireland would make more sense, I would think.

[Gups]

Scotland would certainly survive, there's no functional reason it can't be an independent country. But that projected budget deficit, the share of British national debt it would almost certainly be required to assume, and the fact that North Sea oil revenues have cratered and are likely to never return, mean that the form of the Scottish state would be very different from what SNP is promising.

To get deficits in line to be acceptable for EU membership, there will be, if anything, social welfare austerity, not the more robust Scandinavian nanny state that is being hinted at as a possibility once the chains of Westminster are thrown off. From a strict economic perspective, I still think Scotland is much better off in a UK that isn't in the EU than it is not part of the UK. But Scotland would  be "okay" outside of the UK, but I think the transition will be absolutely brutal. I think SNP are frankly lying by not honestly acknowledging this.

I also think it needs to be hammered home North Sea oil is never likely to come back to the level it was, which was the main economic argument propping up most of SNP's fantasies. Especially with the developments in the United States, relatively low priced shale oil production is going to continue, and it's likely previously inaccessible easy oil is going to be opened up to drilling. Saudi Arabia has shown it's not going to cut back dramatically in response to high levels of U.S. drilling. North Sea oil has been drilled for a long time, it's expensive to get at now, and while producers like America are producing non-conventional oil at ever lower prices, at the same time we're also slowly moving away from fossil fuels. Maybe at some point far off in the future North Sea oil would make economic sense again, but by then global oil use will be lower in any case.

Scotland may be able to promote tourism more outside the UK but inside the EU, maybe just as an EU-alternative to England to visit the British isles.  It may be able to grab some financial business from London, maybe. But there's no silver bullet for Scotland. Without the UK its budget will be in bad shape and tough decisions will have to be made.

Expect a lot of arguments about how assets and liabilities are divvied up - particularly any share of the national debt. A rUK/Scotland divorce will get messy and nasty very quickly for most of the reasons set out.