I have very little confidence that the Cabinet will resolve its Brexit differences tomorrow. I, candidly, have very little confidence that it ever will. And, as yet, I have no more confidence therefore that any significant deal will be reached with the the EU before March next year. But in that case what we do know is that a backstop deal for Northern Ireland has been agreed. In December 2o017 it was agreed that in the event of no other agreement either the UK as a whole, or Northern Ireland on its own, will remain aligned to the single market and the customs union after Brexit takes place so that there is no land border in Northern Ireland. To date, this is just about all that has been agreed on Brexit. In summary, what it says is that if the rest of the UK crashes out of the EU then Northern Ireland does not: it stays.
Like just about everything else on Brexit no one knows what this means. There is no actual agreement on delivery. There is only controversy. The DUP says it will not permit a border in the Irish Sea. Labour says it does not want to be in the Customs Union or Single Market. The Tories are simply fighting each other. But this is an international agreement, and it is meant to be binding.
There is a problem though, and it has been researched by the Wings over Scotland website. I should put it on record that I know just how controversial this website is. It divides opinion, even amongst nationalists. but what Stuart Campbell, who runs it, has done is some opinion polling. As he has argued, both Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to stay in the EU. Scotland did so by a particularly large margin. And in that case, he suggests, any deal which effectively keeps Northern Ireland in Europe would represent a huge benefit that the Scottish people and businesses would likely want too. There is just one downside:
The downside is that if such special status would necessitate customs and immigration checks in the North Channel — as it would have to — then obviously it would mean the same thing on the land border between Scotland and England.
So Stuart did some opinion polling on this and found the following:
As he notes:
According to our recent Panelbase poll, it turns out that a hard border at Berwick and Gretna is a price that Scottish voters are — by a margin of more than two to one — willing to pay to stay in the EU.
He adds:
This is another question where Tories are isolated from the rest of Scotland. While SNP voters (even including the third of them who voted Leave) are absolutely overwhelmingly prepared to tolerate a hard border — presumably since it'd plainly be a further big symbolic and practical step towards independence — Labour and Lib Dem supporters also back the idea by more than 2:1.
Only Tories would be against the idea of Scotland having the same special status as Northern Ireland, and they're only a quarter of Scottish voters and a fifth of MPs.
But it's where he goes next that is really interesting:
And the most intriguing thing about that is this: were it to happen, there'd clearly no longer be any need for a sea border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That's because NI would no longer be shut off from the rest of the UK, the situation that's so intolerable to the DUP — instead it would be England and Wales that were effectively quarantined. The need for a hard land border on the island of Ireland could be avoided, replaced with one between Scotland and England which would have no implications for the Good Friday Agreement.
And there is a practical, and even pragmatic, dimension to this:
Also, at just 96 miles the Scotland-England border is a lot shorter than the NI-Ireland one at 310 miles, and has many fewer crossings, so it'd be far easier to manage.
As he notes:
Now, to say that such an arrangement would be controversial is like saying relations between Israel and Palestine are “a little tricky”. But remarkably, it appears to be the LEAST problematic of the solutions currently open to the UK government. It would — we've just learned — be acceptable to the people of Scotland. It would, at a minimum, be LESS unacceptable to the DUP than any other option is. We know the English would go along with it, because we already know they'd happily cut Scotland and NI loose entirely to secure Brexit, never mind give them a half-and-half status. And let's be honest, nobody much cares what the Welsh think.
I readily admit I had not considered this.
I also readily admit I cannot see it happening,
But can I see that now the idea has been sown it may become a new and recurring feature in discussion on this issue given just how unpopular Brexit is amongst many in Scotland? Yes, I can. And I can see it finding support. As Stuart puts it:
[This solves] the most unsolvable problem in British politics. Northern Ireland and Scotland get what they want — to basically stay in the EU as part of a Celtic substate with one foot in both camps. England and Wales also get what they want — to leave the EU. [And] we don't need to have a hard land border in Ireland, destroying the [Good Friday Agreement], because the border between the EU and the UK will now be a much shorter and less bloodsoaked one located just north of Hadrian's Wall.
In a situation where nothing is known I think that this has to be thrown into debate.
Hat tip: Andy Crow
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Am I being dim? Surely it is muddled to say that if Scotland and N Ireland stay in the EU snd England and Wales leave ‘there’d clearly no longer be any need for a sea border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain’ and ‘NI would no longer be shut off from the rest of the UK’ because there would no longer effectively be a UK or GB. There would need to be a border between both N Ireland and England and Wales and between Scotland and England and Wales. It would not solve the N Ireland ‘problem’ surely.
Of course these issues still exist.
But, the reality is that the politics for Northern Ireland would be easier
For the rUK they remain as fragmented as they are, anyway, going to be be
And of course this is not going to happen (well; I suppose nothing can be ruled out)
But the Scottish sentiment on the issue is telling
And I am certain the English would be entirely happy with it
Which shows just how Brexit has torn asunder the country we thought we were, and which we will never get back
The point is that there is no solution to Brexit that works
There are only separate state solutions
And a border is going to be part of them
This puts it in a manageable place
But I strongly suspect it will be in Ireland, and very obvious and dangerous, because that’s what the rightwingers and their friends want
‘And I am certain the English would be entirely happy with it”
Entirely? Except perhaps the substantial minority of the English who voted to stay in the EU might not be entirely happy to see Scotland or even N Ireland leave the UK.
You’d probably have to end direct flights and sea journeys between Northern Ireland and England/Wales in this scenario, but we’re in a situation where there has to be SOME price paid by someone somewhere, and this is the least bad of a list of bad options. Dundalk isn’t far from Belfast.
There is only ‘controversy’ over Stuart Campbell because the Unionists cannot argue on his carefully researched and fully referenced points. So they play the man, not the ball.
I don’t care about the language he uses on twitter, I don’t have to read it. I don’t care about his views on Hillsborough, they are not germane. I do care about his trenchant criticisms and critiques of the appalling Scottish media. That is a job which badly needs doing and Stuart Campbell does it well.
The MSM hate him with a passion because he shows them up.
Newspaper sales are falling everywhere but here in Scotland they are falling off a cliff. Ignoring, demeaning and denigrating half the market and lying to them is not a good sales strategy. The exception to this rule is The National the only daily which supports Independence. It’s sales are holding up. Funny that.
I am happy to write for The National
When Stuart Campbell keeps his analysis clinical he is a serious force to be reckoned. He undermines his arguments with antagonistic insults & name calling better associated with many tabloids that he takes to task.
Linda Colley’s book (and I’m having a senior moment here, and can’t get the book from my book-room – but think it’s called ‘Britons’) on the making of the United Kingdom certainly has relevance here – toward the end I recall she rather calls the continued existence of such an artificially created state in question.
My own feeling? Bring it on! Let’s have the border with Scotland at Hadrian’s Wall.
Hadrian’s Wall being some way south of the border with Scotland of course. Will the chunk of northern England that would be on the Scottish side be happy about that?
I think it would have to be border as is
Bad luck Berwick
Bad luck Berwick? The local entrepreneurs would make a fortune from smuggling. Bad luck Dundalk more likely!
How about on the Tees?
This solution to me has always been the most logical as it wipes up almost everything excreted by this brexit mess. Eire is making a new boat bridge to France so everyone can avoid England, the DUP can stomach it and Scotland gets its berry pickers back. We could even set up viewing stations on the border to watch the English foraging their natural habitat for half empty baked beans tins. The only fly in the ointment (for Scotland) is the CFP ( and its radicalisation of fishermen) and having read it, I cannot see what all the hoo-ha is about. I’m only a farmer, so I know nothing, but maybe the fisher folk should read it instead of just accepting the “wisdom” of one B. Armstrong.
I think for this to be an ideal situation and tick even more boxes, rather than Scotland and NI remaining in the EU, they go to being part of the EEA and EFTA, this would solve the fisheries and farming issues, as EEA/EFTA membership is how Norway operates and they have a massive land border with Sweden, so there aren’t any issues with freedom of movement. You also have to align with the EU on far less regs than a full member.
Frankly, if Scotland does achieve independence, I could easily see the North of England – with all the talk of a need for a “Council of the North” – asking to become part of Scotland, despite the high Leave votes there, which were as much a desire to get away from Westminster as from Brussels.
And don’t underestimate Wales’ desire to break free of Westminster too, with the Leave vote there being also as much against Westminster as against Brussels.
A break up of the United Kingdom strikes me as more likely than not, in the wake of the disastrous EU Referendum.
I’d be well in favour of shifting the border south to somewhere around, I guess, the Manchester/Sheffield line. But definitely if Scotland goes, can Cumbria and Northumberland join as well please?
Also Lancaster and the Forest of Bowland…
Happy days everyone gets what they want, except the so called elite.
a) DUP gets no border in the Irish sea
b) NI gets to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market
c) No hard border on the island of Ireland
d) Scotland honours both the 2014 and 2016 referendum results
e) England and Wales gets the Brexit they demand for their 2016 referendum
f) Good Friday Agreement maintained
If the DUP try to play hardball then:
the SNP could hold their noses
and back the Tories.
Yipee…. Solution.
Everyone’s a winner. What’s not to like.
THE HARD BORDER SHOULD BE THE M25
*like*
If we are honest, the border should be Watford but certainly no further than the East Midlands.
No self interest there? 🙂
Ahem, ahem……..
Funny how so many of the areas identified are ones that enthusiastically voted for Brexit. And abandoned Labour for UKIP, believing that nice man Mr Farage when he told them their problems were all due to immigrants and the EU.
Meanwhile ‘inside the M25’, the majority voted Remain. And have stuck with Labour. And don’t blame their problems on immigrants despite there being more there than just about anywhere else. (Certainly a lot more than Carlisle – I know, I grew up near there and still go back). And there are more people in poverty in London than the entire population of the NE.
But then it’s much more fun sticking with the lazy stereotypes that everyone in London works in the City/Westminster and has an expensive house in Chelsea or Kensington. Sounds almost Daily Mail-ish. I think a few of you might need to get out a bit more.
So Im not sure those areas would be such a good fit with Scotland…
interesting…radical thinking…
Plus, in terms of expensive infrastructure, there are only approx 35 crossing points between Scotland and England, while there are a couple of hundred between NI and Ireland.
Would England & Wales become enclaves of the EU and even more isolated?
Richard,
As a Scot, I should inform your readers that no-one here who is not a nationalist takes either The National or Wings over Scotland seriously.
I do get it that the SNP sees Brexit as a chance to get independence, and I know some nats who voted to remain in the EU not because they wanted ever closer union within a 1992 union, but because a UK vote to leave the EU would put more strain – possibly unbearable strain – on the 1707 union. Perfectly logical of them.
Unfortunately the logic that NI trade with RoI makes a hard border there unattractive is the same logic that makes a hard border between Scotland and RUK simply crazy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland
: we export to RUK four(!) times what we export to Europe.
So far as borders are concerned, Scots can react to Brexit either by demanding that we cut off our noses to spite our faces, or swearing under our breath and adapting to the world we find ourselves in.
Face reality: within a decade Scotland will have a hard border with the UK
@Cofe Baker Do you take the Telegraph, or the Mail, or The Times or the IFS seriously? The National publishes articles no other media outlet is brave enough to publish or which they ignore because they don’t suit their UK Nationalist agenda, and Rev Stu provides well-researched articles with links to all the evidence. So if you think his arguments are false I assume you deconstruct them in your own blog and provide the evidence. I’d like to read that.
Much what I thought
No one on th right takes the Guardian seriously. So?
Post Brexit would Scotland continue to trade at current levels with an impoverished and deregulated England. Better in the long term to sell quality into regulated markets like the EU.
And, as a Scot, I should inform you that lots of people in the middle, or non nationalist as you choose to call them, do take Stuart Campbell seriously. He is disruptive, effective and on target in nearly everything he writes and is just what is needed in the moribund UK. Perhaps you prefer the vile Scottish media which he exposes daily.
So on those terms, by any poll, upwards of 45% of the people do take the national and wings seriously. Not too shabby.
There’s too much levity about this Border thing. The obvious place to have it is Brigadoon – a truly magical place. (and just hope no one votes with their feet and leaves)
Three points on Cofe Baker response
(1) No non-nationalist takes The National or Wings seriously. By “nationalist” (small n) I assume this means a supporter of independence. So, just now, just under 50 per cent of the Scots voters are likely to take them seriously. That’s a fair lump!
(2) What is more interesting is that the hard border idea is largely supported by those who are not Nationalists (capital n). That idea is being taken seriously.
(3) Why are export figures between Scotland and rUK always presented in one direction? The reverse is also worthy of comment. The rUK exports about £50b of goods to Scotland in a year. This is the second biggest export trade for the U.K. as a whole bar the USA. On that basis keenness on a trade deal would be at least equal.
In the “taking things seriously” stakes where does reliance on Wikipedia for info on the Scottish economy lie?
Indeed, RG Ivey, where exactly does this figure of “four times as much exported to rUK than EU” that Cofe Baker (and everyone else) quotes actually come from? Is it, like the “black hole” in Scotland’s finances, based almost entirely on estimates?
There is no reliable data on rUK /Scottish trade
This comment has been deleted by the editor for wholly inappropriate content
Mr Westcombe,
I didn’t have the opportunity to respond to your last response to me on another thread (it closed), which you thought may be intended to ‘persuade’ you to change your mind, and was inappropriately and perhaps discourteously worded. It wasn’t intended to persuade. My point was that further debate was clearly now pointless. At some point candour is required.
This is not the politics of a General Election; lose and wait for the next chance to change direction. This is on a quite different level of importance, and impact. It is deeply divisive and requires not just leadership, but wisdom (which is typically foreign to conventional politics).
This is not just about Brexit; for the ideology of Brexit entails undermining the EU itself (because it sets out – and will attempt to promote – a permanent European alternative for all Europeans). Here in Britain, it may well end the Union (which is a critical matter, wherever your opinion rests). Therefore, at least I expect that Brexiteers recognise what it is they are supporting, or going along with, and actually believe in it. Oh, well we have “made our collective bed” and must now lie in it, simply will not do: and that includes ‘nothing to do with me Guv, I am just accepting a democratic decision’; that is not what ‘democracy’ is “for”. I respect your engagement here, but the issue is too important for false delicacy.
To the Editor: sorry, Richard I understand that you may not wish to accept this completely ‘off-topic’ intervention.
I don’t agree with it but let’s proceed on the basis that referenda results (no matter how narrow) create a “compelling democratic imperative”. Now let’s look at some results.
– Scotland voted to stay in both the UK and the EU.
– Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU. It has never had a referendum about remaining in the UK but in general elections, it consistently votes for parties whose overriding policy is to do so.
– England and Wales voted to leave the EU and have never expressed an opinion on remaining in the UK.
The compelling democratic imperative is therefore that the UK remains in the EU but that England an Wales (separately or together) leave the UK. This is the only solution that would give everybody what they voted for and nothing they voted against.
This would of course be a stupid and highly damaging outcome but that’s not the point. There is a compelling democratic imperative so it must happen.
Or maybe referenda don’t create a “compelling democratic imperative”.
The will of the people is never a good guide. What happened to that nice Maximilien Robespierre?
Who, precisely proposed “the will of the people” here? Have I missed something?