Potential impact of Scottish independence on flights from Scotland

[Fairdealfrank]

Comparison with Sweden is relevant. Sweden had to agree to join the Euro as a condition of membership but only when the necessary economic convergence was complete. Subsequent to joining the EU, a referendum was held in September 2003 which saw 55.9 percent vote against membership of the eurozone. As a consequence, Sweden decided in 2003 not to adopt the euro for the time being. If they had voted in favour, Sweden would have adopted euro on 1 January 2006. Sweden maintains that joining the ERM II (a requirement for euro adoption) is voluntary, giving Sweden a de facto opt out. Eleven years after that referendum the EU has taken no action against Sweden for failing to join the Euro.

Staying away from the ERM is the "get out of jail free" card that EU countries that are "obliged" to be in the eurozone can adopt, but smaller countries have still joined while the eurozone is still in trouble - Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Malta and Cyprus.

From an "ever closer union" point of view, it is likely that EU establishment would want a separate Scotland to join the EU pretty quickly. Some EU countries have secessionist issues of their own, they may not be so keen.

For example, the Spanish government has vetoed a secession referendum in Catalonia due in November 2014. Belgium and Italy also have potentional problems with parts that want to break away.

These countries may be less keen for an easy ride for Scotland, lest it encourages secessionist tendencies in their own countries.

[Porrohman]

Fairdealfrank: The Spanish foreign minister has said that Spain would not veto Scottish membership of the EU because the referendum has been approved by the UK government. Catalonia is a different situation because the referendum is being carried out without the approval of the Spanish government and it is in breach of the Spanish constitution. No other EU country has suggested that it would veto Scottish membership. The scare stories to that effect lack any substance or credibility.

I'm not sure what the situations are in relation to Italy, France and Belgium but the key issue with Scotland is that the referendum is being held with the agreement of the UK government who have agreed to abide by the democratic outcome. Why would any EU country want to veto Scottish membership in such circumstances? To do so would be illogical and anti-democratic, vindictive and vexatious.

The EU scare stories have some theoretical validity on the basis that the EU has never encountered such a situation before but in reality they are are utter nonsense and they don't concern me (or most of the people in Scotland that I talk to) in the least. They certainly will have no effect whatsoever on the way I intend to vote.

I feel exactly the same way about the currency issue. Osborne, Balls and Alexander all prefixed their recent statements by saying that they would be "unable to recommend" a currency union. Recommend to who? The PM? Parliament? What seems clear from their carefully coordinated choice of words is that the ultimate decision is not theirs. They will make a recommendation, not the ultimate decision. The following Monday, Cameron said in an interview that the currency union was "under threat". He could have said "out of the question" or words to that effect but he didn't.

It seems clear to me and to most people who study the full statements that have been made on this subject, rather than just the soundbites issued for public consumption by the anti-independence media, that the currency decision will be a political one as well as a financial one and the careful choice of words by these four gives them the opportunity for a change of course at a later date.

Part of the problem with the currency issue is the way that the anti-independence mainstream media has reported it. They carefully edited out the bits that didn't suit their political agenda as they previously did with Mark Carney's speech. Carney said that a currency union could work and that the economies of Scotland and the rUK are reasonably well aligned and quite suited in many respects to a currency union. He said however that such a currency union would require some sovereignty to be ceded by each country. The anti-independence mainstream media did their usual selective editing to suit their own political agenda and the word "some" is nearly always omitted, thus giving the impression that there would be a complete surrender of all sovereignty by Scotland. The reality is that a degree of sovereignty would need to be ceded by Scotland and by rUK. Because Scotland's public finances would be more healthy than the rUK's there is a distinct possibility that the rUK would have more issues trying to meet the necessary fiscal criteria than an independent Scotland and this may end up being the reason why a currency union will be causing concern for the UK government. I don't doubt that a currency union has downsides for Scotland and the rUK but so do the other potential currency arrangements. Osborne hasn't spelled out the downsides for the rUK of there not being a currency union and I can assure you that they are potentially a lot more significant than just some transaction charges on currency exchanges. Alexander was asked to spell them out when he gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament's finance committee recently but he couldn't. He has promised to write to them. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.

In view of these circumstances the Scottish government are right to stick with Plan A for the time being because it was recommended by the Fiscal Commission as the best option for both countries and I think most people who understand such matters have more respect for the eminent economists that make up the Fiscal Commission than they do for the politically motivated positions articulated by Osborne, Balls and Alexander. It is quite clear to many of the electorate in Scotland that Osborne's position is undoubtedly a negotiating tactic and that he and/or the PM and/or the UK parliament may well change their minds in the fullness of time.

The disappointing aspect about the UK government's stance on the currency and various other issues is that they are asking for certainty from the Scottish Government but the only way to reach that certainty is for the two governments to engage in a sensible and mature dialogue. The UK government refuses to do this however because it serves their purpose better to try to create uncertainty to try to frighten people into voting no. This stance does a disservice to the democratic process but I can understand why they are doing it; if I had a hand as weak as theirs I might be tempted do the same. Nevertheless, something will ultimately be agreed on each of these issues and I won't be frightened into voting no by such tactics. Quite the opposite in fact. The more ridiculous the scare stories become and the more they repeat the old ones that have already been debunked the less I want to remain part of the union. Many more people in Scotland are taking the same view and support for a yes vote continues to rise.

The more that the UK Government and the Better Together campaign engage in these negative tactics, the more that the Scottish electorate reach the conclusion that the reason they are producing scare stories rather than engaging in a sensible and mature debate is because the sensible answers to most issues will be closer to those set out in the white paper than to the increasingly ridiculous scare stories.

The Scottish electorate have been waiting for a long time for the three main UK parties to provide a positive prospectus for Scotland remaining within the UK but nothing has been forthcoming. Support for a no vote has been steadily declining for months. Initially, people were moving to the don't know category but now there is significant movement towards independence. There is a complacency on the part of many politicians and the mainstream media who seem to believe that independence will be rejected. That's not the feeling that I get talking to people in Scotland and I think Better Together could be in for a nasty surprise come the referendum. Polling organisations in Scotland regularly underestimate support for independence and the SNP. The 2011 Holyrood elections were a classic example of this. The SNP were miles behind in the polls but went on to win an overall majority, despite a proportional representation system that was designed to try to ensure that no party, and especially not the SNP, could ever achieve an overall majority. I'm not sure whether their methodology is accidentally or deliberately flawed but, whatever the reason, they are not a good reflection of public opinion.

The most disturbing thing about the referendum campaign is that there is not a single mainstream media outlet in Scotland that is pro-independence. The UK mainstream media is almost entirely anti-independence too. It's a very dangerous thing for democracy when the entire mainstream media takes the some political stance on an issue. Normally such a situation would only occur in a country where the media is state controlled. For it to happen in a supposedly free democracy is somewhat unusual to put it mildly.

[LTNman]

For years the Scots have complained about darker mornings if the clocks were moved forward, which has stopped the rest of the UK having lighter evenings. If Scotland got its independence I can see no reason why the rest of the UK could not move their clocks to European time so leaving Scotland in a different time zone to the rest of Europe and the UK. If the Scots didn't like it then they have to choose whether they would follow the UK.

If they didn't change I would have thought that this could have an impact on departure times and schedules and even where aircraft were based.

[Heathrow Harry]

"however a feeling among many people north of the border that the
Westminster system is utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt"


That's pretty rich coming from anyone with a knowledge of Scottish politics - it's a nest of vipers

[mad_jock]

The most disturbing thing about the referendum campaign is that there is not a single mainstream media outlet in Scotland that is pro-independence. The UK mainstream media is almost entirely anti-independence too. It's a very dangerous thing for democracy when the entire mainstream media takes the some political stance on an issue. Normally such a situation would only occur in a country where the media is state controlled. For it to happen in a supposedly free democracy is somewhat unusual to put it mildly.

More than likely much like a lot of other industry in Scotland they feel that as a business that a break up will be not very good for business.

To be honest as an ex-pat sweaty sock I don't think either side realises the full bombshell of what the spit up will mean. And I don't think it will turn out how either side thinks it will. The whole process of splitting things will be a monumental task and cost a fortune. And it won't be done in single figures of years.

Personally I think this whole thing has the potential to really shaft both country's economies. I know lots of mates who have the opinion of screw the lot of them (jocks) but I suspect don't realise the hit that's going to occur. If the oil revenue suddenly does disappear I really can't see how they can recover. Conversely I can see a Scottish parliament pissing it up a wall with short term projects with nothing to be seen for future generations.

The fact is that even a no vote isn't going to finish it.

Anyway we shall see what happens, it's not gong to be pretty either way.

[Facelookbovvered]

This is an in/out vote no half measures, there is I believe a sizeable minority who detest anything to do with England that runs much deeper than football rivalry. Thankfully most Scottish people understand the downside risk associated with going it a lone, I might also add that there is a growing minority in England who will celebrate to be rid of Scotland and this not anti Scottish people, but green eyes of what is portrayed in the news paper as unfairness over tuition fee's, toll bridge charges, hospital car parking and aged care costs, the argument runs that Scotland only offers these to a) wind up the English b) because they receive a higher share if public spending per head from Central government, oil and all the other SNP crap is just that, right now Scotland is not a separate country so all tax belongs to the UK government.

I think around 46% will vote YES, if this is the outcome the 46% will not accept it and leave it there! this will grumble on for decades

Re a national airline, well knowing bmi regional airline they will change their name to British Midland the day before & then go ( if a YES vote) oh **** never thought of that lol

[Heathrow Harry]

Good posts from facebook & Mad_Jock

The whole thing will turn into a Quebec-style drizzle of issues. Whenever the Nats get in they'll moan like hell and try to whip up enough feeling for another referendum and whenthe other lot are in it'll be trying to undo whatever the Nats have done.

A recipe for years of uncertainty and mis-spent effort and cash TBH

[FQTLSteve]

I am a Welsh man.....I agree 100% with the views of Porrohman. Scotland is more than capable of being an independent state and a proud member of the EU.

The UK today is being run by Westminster for London only, and yes BA is London Airways. The biggest threat to Scotland and Wales is from nasty vile right wing English politicians who want to run a third world economy for the rest of us outside their bubble.

Please Scotland vote yes and be rid of them forever, maybe we Welsh will then follow you. I hope.

[Porrohman]

There are huge number misconceptions about the Scottish parliament and economy that are the result of biased reporting by the media and unionist politicians. I don't blame people of the UK for believing this propaganda, after all, most people believe these sources to be trustworthy even if mounting evidence proves that they are not.

Firstly Scotland pays substantially more in tax per head than the UK average. Second, it pays a lot more in tax than it receives back through public expenditure. Third London receives almost as much in public expenditure per head of population as Scotland does. Fourth, Scotland's GDP per head of population is about the same as the UK's even if there is no oil. Fifth Scotland has a very diverse economy and a lower unemployment rate than the UK average. Sixth, Scotland's economy has about the same dependency on oil as the UK has in financial services; the latter could easily relocate to the far east or elsewhere.

I could go on, but suffice to say that the anti-independence media has spent over 40 years creating a distorted perception of Scotland, its residents and its economy and these messages have been repeated so many times that it’s not particularly surprising that most people in the UK probably believe them to be true.

Here is one example of the lies and dirty tricks that have been used to deflate any nationalist tendencies in Scotland. The UK Government deliberately lied to Scotland in the 70s and 80s and hid the real facts behind the official secrets act. Every person in the UK should be aware of the way that governments can and do deliberately lie in order to achieve a particular result; McCrone report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are plenty of other examples of this kind of lying e.g the lies about the number of coal mines that would close in the 80s; BBC News - Cabinet papers reveal 'secret coal pits closure plan' How can the people in the UK have any confidence in anything their politicians tell them?

Politicians and the media are demonstrably untrustworthy as species as evidenced by countless scandals. Trying to separate propaganda from truth is not easy but when all three main UK political parties and virtually the entire UK and Scottish media have been anti-independence for so long, a healthy degree of scepticism needs to be applied when considering any of their assertions / output.

[Porrohman]

Getting back to the original question, the reduction and potential abolition of APD should have a positive impact on air transport in Scotland and particularly for long-haul routes. If you compare the routes available from say, Oslo, Dublin, Copenhagen, Stockholm and Helsinki (to name just a few) with those from Scotland its quite probable that Scotland is currently under-served.

An independent Scotland will attract a significant number of foreign embassies. Scotland will create embassies and consulates in a significant number of countries. These will make it easier for Scottish businesses to trade internationally and for foreign businesses to trade with Scotland so I see this as having a net positive effect on the demand for air transport to and from an independent Scotland.

As for the long-haul routes that could be sustained from an independent Scotland, there are plenty of potential candidates but I would expect new routes to be added at a relatively modest rate over a five or ten year period with some trial and error by airlines along the way.

[Flying.Penguin]

Suggesting anywhere near 40% of Scot’s will vote yes is very optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on your view). All the poll’s I’ve seen have had the no vote ranging between 52% and even as high as 72%, and these are poll’s done by proper, impartial bodies too. I believe support for Salmond and his cause is falling all the time and TBH, it’s not surprising due to the man’s arrogance and inability to answer a single question.

He’s even been quoted saying if Scotland votes no he’ll still push for independence. Democracy or dictatorship?

[Porrohman]

Flying.Penguin: Of course the SNP will keep pushing for independence if there is a no vote.

The result is a lot closer that you think and the opinion polls are showing a steady movement towards a Yes vote. Some recent opinion polls have the forecast result as 50/50 and these are the few who predicted the SNP win in the 2011 elections. Don't believe all that you hear from opinion polls, especailly those which are conducted on behalf of newspapers that have an anti-independence bias i.e. all of them. This is how opinion polls really work;

Leading Questions - Yes Prime Minister - YouTube

Comparing the consequences of a no vote with, let's say, a Labour party defeat at a UK general election (1992 perhaps?), you wouldn't expect Labour politicians to become right of centre overnight and desert their socialist roots just because they were defeated....... Hmmm.... Then again, maybe that's a bad example. :-)

[Porrohman]

Mad Jock: Scottish business is not anti-independence. As far as I am aware, there is no specific anti-independence business organisation in Scotland but there is a pro-independence one which has over 1,300 subscribing members and considerably more non-subscribing supporters. It is called Business for Scotland and it publishes some very informative articles which counter the anti-independence bias of the mainstream media. Business for Scotland

I recommend this site to anyone who wants to discover what the pro-independence arguments are to counter the anti-independence bias of the mainstream media.

[Porrohman]

If you want to see a graphical illustration of the inequality of the union for Scotland, you should read of this article; Where does Scotland?s wealth go? : Business for Scotland

It graphically shows where wealth (GDP) is created in the UK and where that wealth ends up. This is one of the many reasons why many people who live in Scotland would like independence and probably supports a case for devolution for English regions if there is demand for this.

Linkling this article with the effect of independence on the air transport industry in Scotland, if more of the wealth generated in Scotland is spent by people who live in Scotland rather than being sucked out of the country, the potential impact on the air transport industry could be very significant, especially when combined with the reduction of APD and the tailoring of government policies to maximise the benefit for the Scottish economy.

In my opinion, although the separation process will be difficult at times, in the long term, the aggregate GDP of the rUK plus Scotland will be greater than the sum of the parts because the government policies of each part can be optimised to its individual needs.

[Porrohman]

Also from Business from Scotland, here is an article that disproves many of the common misconceptions about Scotland's social and economic dependence on the rest of the UK. Revealed: The ACCOUNTING TRICK that Hides Scotland?s Wealth. : Business for Scotland It paints a very different picture of Scotland from the one you will read / hear / see in the mainstream media.

You rarely see any of this kind of information mentioned in the mainstream media because it doesn't suit their anti-independence agenda.

[Trossie]

You paid by that guy with the fishy name (sounds something like those pinky-fleshed, oily type that swim upstream in all the rivers once a year in Scotland?). Bit of a one-man-band party that isn't it? Withered away to insignificance when he retired and only picked up again when he came back out of retirement. He needs to do Scotland a favour and retire again, soon!

[mad_jock]

Sorry Porrohman your as full of poo as the rest of them that bang on about this.

MacIntyre-Kemp is a well known prat who runs multi media companys.

Get something up from someone who controls multi millions petty cash.

All this economic stuff is all spin by both sides. Neither side has a clue what's going to happen.

Its going to be a screw up what ever happens, if no we are going to have to listen to the same crap year after year. And if its yes the shinnangans will start with splitting it up. And once its gone to far they will discover that everyone has been lied to.

[ScotsSLF]

This thread has drifted somewhat and needs to get back on track. One thing is certain and that is that the status quo in Scotland cannot and will not remain and whether it's a Yes or a No vote change will happen. What we really don't need on this thread is it being hijacked by totally blinkered political views (both Yes & No) so can we get back to aviation please?

[Porrohman]

That's fair comment ScotSLF. I'll get back on topic with future posts.

[Trossie]

How will Scottish pilots cope with licences if the country is not part of EASA? (It won't be part of the EU.) Still work on British issued licences from the British CAA no doubt (with no Scottish say in any of it), you don't need to reside in a particular EASA country to have your licence issued there. Same as the country will work on the British Bank of England issued Pound (again with no Scottish say in any of it). And likewise any Scottish airlines will no doubt continue to operate on their current British CAA issued AOCs although the geographic location of the AOC holder could become a problem. They will probably relocate their HQs south of the border and continue to operate into Scotland as 'foreign' airlines (I cannot see a Scottish government wanting to shut all air services in Scotland down by banning that process!).