Iceland

I've promised to keep some personal updates coming and it seems a nice idea to turn this blog into a kind of journal/ photo album to remind me of things in the future.  So here's a nice reminder of our Iceland trip a couple of weeks ago and some thoughts/ reflections on the place.

Iceland Trip 3/11/14 - 5/11/14

Flying Birthday Visit

I'd been to Iceland for 4 days once before, in July 2001.  I wasn't sure whether going in late autumn would be such a cunning idea, given the length of the days and what I assumed would be really bad weather.  Mind you, it had rained pretty much the whole time in July and hit a maximum of 13C AND it was Ste's birthday on 4 November and you can't really change when that falls.  He might be a queen, he's not the Queen, so doesn't get two birthdays.  So, off we went just for 2 nights, just literally to go somewhere cool (perhaps in both senses) to celebrate his 22nd.

I wanted everything to be really special, so we had valet parking (oooh get us) and then continued proceedings with free food and drink in the Manchester airport business lounge.  It was Ste's first visit to one, and one he made the most of.  I think he managed to pack away four bacon rolls, which is probably a good proportion of some poor pig's entire leg.  We flew Icelandair, which was really calm, classy and lovely.  I was surprised it was only a 2.5 hour flight, given we started a bit further north than London to start with.

Free food \o/ Free Food \o/

We arrived about 3pm to the most utterly brilliant blue skies and sunshine imaginable.  Iceland's landscape is like no other.  There are volcanoes, lava fields, the dramatic coast line, and miles and miles of unspoilt nothing.  It was spectacular to see it all so clearly.

I'd looked into packages with the various excursions I wanted to do included, but decided a hire car and doing it ourselves would be much more flexible, and more pleasant than hanging around for transfer buses etc.  So we picked up our little VW Polo and our first stop was the Blue Lagoon, which is between Keflavik airport and the capital Reykjavik, just under an hour away.  The first thing I checked was for the snowflake symbol on the tyres: yup, it has snow tyres and they were going to come in handy quite unexpectedly the following day.

Blue Lagoon

The Blue Lagoon is a dream location.  It's a large man-made pool with water from the neighbouring geothermal plant, and it's surrounded by blackened lava fields.  The water comes out of the ground at absurdly high temperatures and pressures, but by the time it reaches the pool it's "only" around 39C.  That is the most delightful temperature on a day where it's 2C, as it was for us.   There's a typically beautiful Nordic glass, wood and steel complex where you get changed, can shower and eat... and then step straight into the milky blue water of the lagoon.  You can see the sun going down behind Ste and the steam coming off the water.  Heaven.

Blue Lagoon Posterboy!

People advised me on Twitter that the "in water massage" couldn't be missed, so I thought what the heck, it's his birthday and we've come all this way.  So I booked us each one, not knowing what to expect.  It's pretty much what it says on the label: you lie on a table in the water for the first part, then they transfer you to a float while they massage your head, shoulders and face.  You're wrapped in a warm towel the whole time, and when you're on your back it feels like you're in amniotic fluid.  You finish up in some kind of trance: it's an amazing, amazing experience.

Ste back in the womb

The water at the lagoon is very rich in silica and other minerals: apparently it's extremely good for people with various skin conditions.  You can scoop it up off the bottom of the pool, or there are barrels of it where you can paste it all over your face.  We of course couldn't resist the opportunity of this and had to do a double-selfie.  Look at the colour of the sky behind us: during the 3 hours we spent there it went from brilliant sunshine, through sunset into the most perfect clear night with stars visible with zero light pollution.  The Lagoon stays open until 8pm off-season and up to 11pm in the summer.

SMILE: It's Halloween!

Reykjavik

By the time we headed on to the hotel to check in the temperature was down to about -2C.   The roads are smooth, straight and easy to drive on and we checked in about 8.30pm.  We stayed at the Hilton Nordica, which I can't praise more highly.  Hiltons can be a bit [a lot] characterless and bland, but this one had some real Nordic design flair about it, including the stunning 11 storey central spiral staircase.  They upgraded us to a gorgeous junior suite too, which is always guaranteed to get me to write a nice review on Tripadvisor. Yes, I am that cheap/easy. 

Not often you feel the need to photo a hotel staircase

An added bonus for us of the Hilton for me was the unexpected surprise of finding that Reykjavik's best vegetarian restaurant is literally a minute away, across the road.  It's called Glo and serves huge, healthy, organic, delicious veggie meals in a really stylish environment.  I hate veggie restaurants that look like grotty student dives where a free helping of food poisoning comes with every meal, so this was bliss.

Even better there was a gaggle of chatty lesbians having supper, which added to the atmosphere.  Iceland is famously LGBT friendly (they had the first out lesbian PM, social democrat Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir back in 2009) and it's worth just noting that we didn't have a moment's awkwardness checking into the hotel or at any other time in the visit.  In fact, the only time we've had any awkwardness anywhere about being a same sex couple was in a supposed trendy urban hotel in Shoreditch (the Hoxton: yeah you deserve to be named and shamed, fuck you) and in a tea rooms in North Wales where presumably if my partner had been a sheep all would have been fine.

We pottled down to the centre of Reykjavik after supper for a walk round.  Almost 2/3 of the country's 325,000 inhabitants live in and around the capital, but it feels like a small, cosy, typically Nordic town.  The houses are brightly painted, often with metal or wooden sides, it's prosperous, tidy and safe.  90% of all buildings in Iceland are heated by free, endlessly renewable geothermal power, so the air is clean.  Although the country took a real battering during the 2008 economic crisis, GDP per capita is still $50,000 and unemployment is under 4.5%.

Hallgrímskirkja. Try saying that when you're drunk.

My favourite building here is the parliament building: the Alþingi.  It's the world's oldest parliament, dating back to 930, but the building it's located in looks like a British provincial town hall.  It's so wonderfully understated.  I started boring Ste about the linguistic meaning ("All" means everything, or great in old Germanic, and a "thing" is a meeting) but the sub-zero temperatures were making his eyes glaze over.  I think it was the temperature, anyway.  The Hallgrímskirkja Church towers over the capital from every angle and is a futuristic 1930s art-deco design.  It's looks all very Gotham City.  Apart from that, Reykjavik is charming enough, but to be frank it's not a reason for visiting the country.

BIRTHDAY BOY

I woke Ste up at 6.30am, which is always guaranteed to go down well.  You can see how full of beans and the joys of life he is in the photo below.  The point of the card is that it contained his surprise: "This card entitles the lucky birthday boy to a 1.5 hour Husky Ride Experience with Dog Sledding Iceland.  Begins at 10.00am on 4 November 2014. Bring gloves, a coat and a camera!"  The cuddly husky that accompanied the card is the one I photographed for the front a few weeks before and ordered from Moonpig.  We later christened him "Grauman" after the cutest, naughtiest, husky in the pack that pulled our sleigh.  He had to wear a cone when he wasn't out working, to stop him from licking his balls, which is always endearing.

It's awake! Birthday Boy :-)

The husky ride was 1.5 hours drive from the hotel, in the south of Iceland.  It was still pitch black until well past 9am, which is interesting.  One of the main arguments against Britain going onto double-summer time (i.e. being in the same time zone as almost all the rest of the EU) is that the Scots don't want it to be dark in the morning in the winter.  Iceland is far further north than Scotland, and by rights should be an hour behind us because of their geographic position.  Instead they've chosen to be in the same time zone as Britain, so that it stays lighter later in the evening.  The flipside of that is it's dark in the mornings, and they're apparently happy with this.  Today, for example, sunrise was at 10.40am in Reykjavik and sunset was at 3.52pm.  If I had the choice I'd do just the same.  Sunrise in London today would be at 8.42am and sunset at 4.56pm, if we did the same thing Iceland does.

Husky Ride

So after a nice long hotel breakfast we drove off, in the dark, and arrived at the isolated farm where the huskies spend their time when they're not up on a glacier for the summer season, or on lower snow covered land in the winter.  This meant it was a ride on a sleigh with wheels, over dry land.  It was pretty much the same experience (particularly the "cold factor" given the 1C temperature and rain) and we had 8 dogs pulling us.  Working in those temperatures for them is apparently the equivalent of us running a half marathon in the tropics: they can't be pushed too hard as it really is warm for them.

Husky Ride!

They're technically Greenlandic Dogs, rather than Siberian Huskies.  Each can pull up to 200kg on their own, so they made light weight of us, even despite breakfast and Ste's bacon rolls the day before.  We were seated and the lovely musher stood behind us and talked to us throughout about the dogs.  Here's a short video of the part of the proceedings!  At the end we got to meet all the dogs in person, including one who had been the star of David Guetta/ Sia's mesmerising She Wolf video, filmed in Iceland. Apparently she's all full of herself now she's a movie star.  Below is real life Grauman back in his run.  Bless him: he was SO happy pulling the sleigh, and so miserable when he had his cone put back on his head.

Poor Licky Balls :(

Doing dog-related is bound to make Ste incredibly happy, and I think he thought the day's treats were over after we'd given the huskies cuddles.  Instead I told him to get in the car as we had more places to visit.

Geysir

We left the south coast behind as the rain really set in late morning.  It was around 1.5 hours to our next stop, which was north and a lot higher geographically.  I hadn't really thought that it would snow, but all of a sudden the rain changed to sleet, then a few kilometres on to thick white snowflakes.  The roads are untreated, and this would cause utter chaos back home.

Winter Wonderland

Everyone is driving on winter tyres though (including us, remember?!) and I was amazed at how the little Volkswagen handled with them.  Going up hills or around roundabouts, all through fresh snow, proved to be no issue whatsoever. The scenery became beyond beautiful, especially with the snow.  It was even better than I'd remembered it from my trip before in 2001.

We stopped for lunch at Geysir, which gives its name to all geysers in English - it was the first hot water spring of this type known to Europeans.  I was really impressed there was no entry charge to pay: you just park and wander up freely.  It's actually a collection of springs and sulphorous pools bubbling out of the ground, with Strokkur doing all the money-shot work, as Geysir himself has temporarily stopped blowing water.  Apparently he will start up again after the next earthquake in the area. 

I

In the meantime Ste decided to play with his little geezer in the car park, which I thought made quite a charming pic.  The geysir "blows" about every 5-8 minutes and there's always a massive "ooooh" from the assembled crowd, followed by a "did you get it?".  The snowy sky doesn't do the scene justice: if you are here on a sunny day the photographs are absolutely stunning.  That said, do click here on this link to me videoing the whole thing with Ste's obligatory "did you get it?" at the end.

That guy is smoking!

Gullfoss Waterfall

From Geysir it's only around half an hour to Gullfoss, the next surprise on the trip: Iceland's Golden Waterfall.  It's the largest in Europe and apparently more impressive than Niagra.  It's a three-staged staircase that ends up in a 100 foot drop and was magnificent in summer.  In winter we just stood entranced for ages (well, between selfies anyway).  I feel this is worthy of several photos for the album, so here we go:

The main "Staircase". Look at the cold in my eyes!

To get an idea of scale, those are two people on the right

Double Selfie. No he isn't far taller than me. He's on a rock.

Our trusty little Volkswagen Polo hire car.

Afternoon Tea

It was now late afternoon, so we drove back through the Þingvellir National Park the 2.5 hours or so to Reykjavik for Ste's last birthday treat.  The whole way beautiful view after beautiful view greeted us.  It stopped snowing, the sun came out and then dusk arrived.  We got back, had a hot shower, and then it was time for Icelandic Afternoon Tea at the Hilton.

We do love a good afternoon tea!

I obviously had the veggie version, but we're not convinced that Ste didn't have both reindeer and puffin for his.  I particularly love the way Ste is mainly vegetarian when I'm not around, and then sensitively eats anything that breathes when I'm present. And SORRY KIDS, if Father Christmas doesn't make it this year with all your presents you'll know why.  Ste ate Rudolph.

Bye bye Rudolph, Donner and Blitzen

With that it was time to snuggle up in the world's most comfortable hotel bed, watching TV, and getting an early night for our 8am flight back to Manchester the following day.  Ste gave me the most incredibly perfect birthday in Beijing in April, so I did my best to return the favour.

Iceland, EEA and Schengen

After we returned the car and checked in at the airport, I mused how irritating it was that we had to go to a separate section of the airport reserved for US and UK flights.  Yes, Iceland is in Schengen and has signed up to the EU free movement of people as part of its membership of the EEA.  Anyone from within the EU can live and work here and claim its no doubt extremely generous social benefits if people were driven to do such things (they aren't). 

I thought about all those things you hear about Britain being a special case (We're an island! Our space is limited and our resources would be put under unbearable strain! They would all come pouring over to take advantage of our benefits!) would seem to apply far more so to a socially minded country like Iceland with just 325,000 inhabitants. Yet you can take a flight from Warsaw or Budapest to Reykjavik with no passport check and there's no equivalent of entering Fortress Britain.  In fact Iceland relies hugely on immigration to get the skills it requires and has no issue about the passportless European free travel zone that Schengen represents.

2014: A Year for Travel

This year was a phenomenal one for me with foreign travel.  I keep a little record of where I've been to each year and a grand total (currently 65 countries visited ever).  A "good year" averages about 14 countries a year for me.  Three times I've been to 17 countries in a single year.  2014 was a new record: from China to New Zealand to Iceland to Australia to all round Europe, I visited 22 countries this year.

World Domination Plans continue..  65 countries and counting!

It was the year in which I visited the land of the red earth, and the land of ice.  And on that note I'll leave these two beautiful images of similarly sized massive lumps of rock that sum up my 2014 travels for me.  The first photo was at Ayer's Rock (Uluru) in Australia in February.  It was 40C.  The second was at the Þingvellir National Park in Iceland in November.  It was -2C.  What a contrast.  The world holds so many treasures: here's to much more exploration in the coming years!

Fire

Ice

An Independent Scotland

Until a month or so ago, it seems relatively few people were considering the ins and outs of what an independent Scotland (and by extension a rump UK) would look like.  That's not least because of the assumption most of us have had that it wouldn't happen anyway.

BOOM! One recent poll showing "Yes" in the lead and that's all changed.  I don't have a vote to cast either way, and as an Anglo-German Europhile I also don't really have too much of an axe to grind in either direction.  I find the whole thing utterly fascinating though, on multiple levels.  Not least of these are the practical details of what independence might look like: the little things in our lives and how they tie in to the bigger issues.  I've cobbled some thoughts on some of these below.

United Kingdom, rUK, or simply FUK?

There's currently a little GB symbol along with the European flag in a strip on my car licence plate.  You're allowed to display a number of symbols there (including the English or Scottish flags), but it's only the European one that exempts you when you're on the continent from carrying a big ugly GB oval sticker on the back of your car in addition.

Great Britain is simply the name of the biggest island in the British isles and it's not called that because we're somehow considered fabulous.  Ptolemy used it over 1850 years ago and it was originally coined to distinguish it from Ireland (Little Britain).  In French it still serves to distinguish us from Brittany.  It also, of course, has a political meaning too: the Kingdom of Great Britain was the name of our State after the 1707 Act of Union between England (which since 1536 had included the principality of Wales) and Scotland. When Ireland joined in the fun on 1 January 1801 the whole thing became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; when Eire obtained independence our State took the name the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or UK for short.

It's infuriating how many people don't understand the above and (particularly Americans and Germans) who refer to the whole thing as "England".  No wonder half the Scots want out. I constantly have to select "Großbrittanien" as my country of residence in German drop down menus on the internet, which leads me to temporary outrage on behalf of the Northern Irish, even though I've not even been there.  I really ought to go, not least to see if they really do pronounce power shower like everyone says, though.

One thing is clear: if Scotland goes independent, there won't (or shouldn't logically) be a GB signifier for the remainder of the state.  That's because a lark chunk of the part of the island of Great Britain will be an independent power.  What will what's left over be called?  I heard a Scots nationalist arguing that the UK no longer had the right to call itself a United Kingdom after independence.  That's balls for two reasons. 1) The "United" actually clearly refers to the union with Ireland, if you look at the paragraph before last.  When it was just England and Scotland that was no "united" in the title. 2) Harsh as it may sound, we're entitled to call ourselves whatever we like after secession by Scotland.  That's the whole point about independence: we're not supposed to interfere in the sovereign affairs of a foreign state.

The "United" bit therefore survived the independence of Eire, so there's no reason why we shouldn't be called the United Kingdom in the future: it's the union of a kingdom, a principality and the remainder of a kingdom.  It would probably be called the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland in full.  I've seen "United Kingdoms" suggested as an alternative but fail to see the logic in that.  It made much more sense in "name our country" postal competition that took place in 1801 than it does now.

The signifier rUK is just being used now to signify the UK post-independence and no one is suggesting it seriously as a sexy new option.  Thanks to my friend Peter who suggested "FUK" (former United Kingdom) would be a good alternative.  I can imagine that was the reaction in Westminster when news of the YouGov poll came in.  And even more thanks to Catherine for suggesting "FUK EW" (former United Kingdom of England and Wales).  We should probably get a petition going for that one.

I'd expect UK to start replacing GB everywhere on car licence plates etc in due course.  As for iScotland? Well, S has been taken by Sweden, so SC or SCO are obvious choices and I'd imagine plenty would be keen to get these on their cars sooner rather than later.

Telephones

Countries have a country code for telephone communications.  The one for the UK currently is +44.  The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) keeps a record of these at the United Nations under ISO 3166-1.  When new countries obtain independence, and after they've been listed in the United Nations Country Names Bulletin, they have invariably wanted to obtain a new code.  For example, Slovenia took the number +386 after breaking away from Yugoslavia (+890).  When Czechoslovakia (+42) ceased to exist, the Czech Republic took +420 and Slovakia took +421 respectively.

Would iScotland want a new country code?  On the contrary, it seems they wish to keep the UK code of +44.  It's true that the United States, Canada, Bermuda etc decided to go together under the +1 regional code when the system was set up way back when, but this is interesting.  Every other new state that has come into existence since the ISO system was created has taken a new country code.  It is, if you like, an obvious international symbol of statehood and independence.  It's a statement to the world.

When the .Scot Internet domain launched in July 2014, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon seemed to get exactly that point and welcomed the launch.

"It is entirely right that Scotland should have its own distinctive and recognisable internet domain - in particular, one that will resonate internationally, helping to promote Scottish business and culture throughout the world," she said.

Hmm.  I develop thoughts on this below.

Could iScotland change its mind and later apply for its own country code?  Of course.  However, could it force "rUK" to take a new country code on the Czechoslovakia model (eg. rUK takes +440 and Scotland takes +441)?  That all depends on whether this is viewed as a secession by iScotland or a complete break-up of the existing state of the UK and creation of two new ones.  That didn't happen when Eire left the then United Kingdom: a new Republic came into existence and the UK jollied on as before.  I imagine the act of independence would be done by means of a declaration by iScotland and an Act of Parliament in Westminster in essence simply undoing the 1707 Act of Union.  rUK would certainly strongly argue it was a secession, not a creation of two new states and it's my guess that it's the obvious conclusion the international community would share.  Therefore the answer is no.

Passports and the Queen

There's a set of quite liberal proposals about obtaining Scottish citizenship, but there's no question the physical passport would change for both countries.  This wouldn't be a replacement job (too expensive and it would swamp the system) - you'd just get a new design when you came to renew in due course.  The rUK one would in all likelihood carry either the "United Kingdom" or "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" with one probable difference. 

The emblem on the passport is technically the Queen's Royal Coat of Arms. As such, it predates the Act of Union of 1707, and goes right back to the Union of Crowns of 1603.  That's when King James VI of Scotland also became King James I of England because someone had chopped his Mum's head off.  The Lion represents England and the Unicorn is Scotland.  They switch positions according to which country they're used in.

Now there's absolutely no intention (currently) to dissolve the 1603 Union of Crowns: the Queen will become the Head of State of iScotland, just as she is the Queen of independent Australia, Canada or Jamaica.  However, keeping the very identifiable symbol of the UK on passports for both countries seems somewhat odd in the long run, after the Unicorn has pranced off into the moonlight.  The Australian passport doesn't have the Royal Crest: they've got a much cooler version with a kangaroo and an emu.   Here's a more detailed explanation of the issue and the place I've lifted the rather wonderful suggestion above of a Lion and Red Dragon for the rUK and two Unicorns for iScotland.  That could well appear on your passport some time in the future.

Just a passing thought on the Queen.  She's officially neutral and I believe that she may not be quite as upset about the "break up of the Union" as the press is assuming.  What ultimately matters far more is the survival of monarchy and the crown.  The key point is that the Windsors be assured to sit on the throne of the new kingdom.  Some SNP politicians are of course republicans, and polls show support for republicanism is somewhat stronger in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, but it's still nowhere near a majority.  

Nonetheless, when Princess Elizabeth was born the British Empire was at its zenith, and her parents were a King-Emperor and a Queen-Empress.  She may well live to see the UK as it currently is bite the dust.  How times change, so very rapidly.

The Union Flag

Scotland has a flag: the fair Saltire.  If you haven't already seen it, watch Downing Street bollocks up hoisting the thing on live TV earlier this week here.   The UK also has a flag which includes the Saltire.  There have been various horrific suggestions for what might replace it.  I've included my personal favourite below, which brings to mind what watching Magic Roundabout on a bad acid trip with a hangover from the night before must be a bit like.  GOD IT'S HORRIBLE.

The answer is of course that it's entirely up to rUK what flag they want and no pressing need to ditch the Union Flag... though keeping it in the long run would definitely seem odd.  That in turns makes you wonder what all the other ex-colonial countries with the Union Flag incorporated into theirs might do.  New Zealand is already considering a completely new flag with the super cool silver fern.  It might just be the impetus for anyone else to cut ties with the "Motherland" if the Union Flag has technically become an anachronism.

Car Licence Plates

UK licence plates currently can have that GB/EU symbol discussed above.  I can't imagine it lasting with the meaningless "GB" on there for too long.  Since 2001, vehicles first registered in Scotland bear an S as the first letter of the registration (just as those in Wales bear a C for Cymru).  What would the situation be post-independence?  Here's Scotland's deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP, on the subject:

“The thing about independence is that it gives you the ability to do these things differently if you want to. But it also gives you the ability, in discussion with others, to share your sovereignty. And I think the DVLA is one of those things we would sit down and have a grown-up discussion with the UK government and decide that’s something we should do”. 

Hmm again.  This is interesting.  In the case of the break-up of other states I can remember in my lifetime (Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia) and the unification of Germany (the other way round) there was a rush to emphasise nationhood by the rapid adoption of obvious symbols such as licence plates.  Even during the Bosnian war of independence, when Sarajevo was being blown apart in daily bombardments, I remember seeing a car that showed someone was even issuing licence plates with "BIH" for Bosnia and Herzegovina on them during the shelling.  It's similar thinking to the +44 phone number issue, and it definitely doesn't seem to match the statement on the .Scot domain.

DVLA is based in Swansea.  It's a UK governmental agency.   To say that you want to "share sovereignty" (i.e. use a foreign country's governmental agencies) implies a number of possibilities.  One is that neither side in this debate thought with a week to go we would realistically be dealing with a "too close to call" situation.  Therefore issues like this just weren't ever given serious consideration.  Another is the intention is actually to deal with issues such as this over time, but there's a realisation that many people are inherently conservative, and it's considered a vote loser to emphasise too many changes in things people are familiar with.  

Personally it seems to me a weird stance to want fully fledged national independence and not want to deal with every day symbols of national identity like this.  If I were a Yes voter, I don't think I'd want foreign licence plates on my car: I'd want ones of my newly independent nation.  The last possibility runs counter to that and suggests that this is actually a very different movement to other nationalist movements that we've seen across Europe.  I'll develop that though further when I come to some thoughts on the type of people who are voting Yes.

European Union

The politicians in both camps have been spinning this question left, right and upside down to suit their own ends.  The SNP position is that Scotland is already a member of the EU, so it wouldn't need to reapply for membership.  Based on very loud noises from Brussels, that seems unlikely to be the case.  Of course the EU has its own vested interests in a "No" vote (stopping similar independence movements across the continent) and so common sense dictates that anything any politician says before a "yes" vote may well not end up being the case afterwards.

I'm a mere lawyer with some understanding of the EU treaties and law.  It seems to me that a new application for membership is the most likely course and find this summary by Professor Murkens of the LSE to be quite persuasive.  The simple fact is none of us knows for sure, though, and I don't quote that to add to the fear-mongering of the No campaign.  Faced with a prosperous Western European nation asking for membership, with all the necessary EU rules in place, I don't think there's any prospect of the answer being "no".  The EU will want iScotland as a member.  When other countries joined (even the likes of Sweden and Austria) they had to pass literally thousands of pieces of legislation.  That won't be the case here, so in theory the process should be more straightforward than for any other new member.

There is a big "but" though: EU law sets out as clearly as it could be that all new members have to join A) the Euro; and B) the Schengen Open Borders Agreement.  I really wonder why hasn't this been discussed more, because it's pretty significant.  Reading Süddeutsche Zeitung, iScotland's obligation to sign up for the Euro isn't even a discussion point: it's assumed they will join up. 

Only the UK and Denmark have an opt out from the Euro, which they secured at the time before the currency was a reality.  To secure a similar concession, Scotland would have to get the unanimous agreement of all 28 EU members.  Getting admisssion to the EU in principle might not be tricky, but obtaining an opt-out could well be.  I don't see why Spain and Belgium (and to some extent, Italy), fearful of their own independence movements, would be terribly well-inclined to give Scotland special favours on admission.

There's a 18 month period between any Yes vote and independence.  That represents a huge time pressure to lobby and convince all 28 governments if there is to be a seamless transition that avoids iScotland being outside the EU for some time whilst this is resolved.  In politics anything is of course possible, but as a lawyer, I'm clear what the legal situation is (assuming new admission is required).  It presents a very real challenge to get the job done in time.

What about rUK's position in the EU?  We were just given a top economic job at the EU Commission.  Scotland would expect its own Commissioner in due course and there would inevitably be some loss of influence in Brussels by the reduction in size of our state.  However given it would still stand at 58.8 million population (a loss of 5.3 million), with 90% of its GDP intact, I can't imagine this will be too significant.  The continuing attitude of our Europhobic government pissing of all of its partners is much more of a factor in my book.

If rUK returns a Tory government next May and they hold a referendum in 2017 on the EU, pro-Europeans will be faced with the loss of supporters in iScotland.  The Scots are generally held to be far more pro-EU.  That could well be a game-changing problem for those of us who want the rUK to stay firmly in the European Union.

The Scotto, the Pound, or the Euro

This shit is complicated and my A-level Economics isn't really up to it.  I refer instead to Frances Coppola's very clear and sensible (if anti-Euro) piece, written over 2.5 years ago, on the "currency conundrum".  Little has changed.  It is, as Frances is keen to point out, not a "No" piece: she simply ultimately believes Scotland requires its own currency.  That's one option, and it's what Slovenia did with the Tolar, and what Croatia did with the Kuna: let's call it the Scotto.  It has its obvious risks, but on the other hand there are plenty of far small economies that survive with currencies of their own quite successfully.

The other options are 1) a currency union (all English party leaders say no - who knows if they will change their position post a Yes vote); 2) the "Panama"/ "Kosovo" model of using the British £ unofficially (an EU commissioner unambiguously said entry to the EU would be impossible if this were the case because of the lack of a central bank); and 3) entry to the Euro.

Latvian €1.  Will the Queen's head make it onto a Euro after all?

What interests me is whether the Euro is not the stealth option that Salmond has up his sleeve.  He repeatedly said he favoured this option until the 2008 crisis.  The press in the UK has thoroughly and probably fatally poisoned popular opinion towards to the Euro, including in Scotland where just 4% favour it as a currency as soon as possible post independence.  This isn't the case everywhere in the EU however.  Estonia joined the Eurozone on 1 January 2013, Latvia became the 18th member on 1 January 2014, and Poland's government is broadly in favour of entry in 2016.  All are successful, dynamic, growing economies.  It is the default legal position on entering the EU, as discussed.  It would be truly fascinating to see Salmond returning from Brussels telling Scottish voters "we have to join the Euro, or we don't join the EU".

The simple fact is none of us has an idea which option will happen post independence.  It's a leap into the unknown, but then so is life.  The global economy unexpectedly went down the plug-hole in 2008 and there's for sure no guarantees of a "safe-existence" in life.  It's down to voters whether pro-independence supporters think the risk of the unknown is fatal to their voting Yes.  I can't make their mind up on that and wouldn't presume to.

As for rUK?  Yeah we'll be stuck with the Pound Sterling for the foreseeable future.  I know that if Scotland did join the Euro, and Schengen, (and went fully metric for good measure) I'd seriously consider moving up there.

Border Checks

How to win hearts and minds?  Threaten to put border guards on the Scottish border.  Bravo, Ed!  That certainly isn't going to happen overnight, but thinking things round it is a possibility.  It is an exercise of a State's sovereignty to control its borders in whatever way it thinks fit, subject to any international agreements it has made on the subject.  The reason there isn't an external border crossing with Scotland currently is that we're one State.  That will clearly change on 24 March 2016 if there's a Yes next week.  Put bluntly, if the rUK wanted to introduce border checks with its new foreign neighbour, iScotland couldn't stop it.

When Eire became independent there was a desire not to impose border controls, and therefore to require people to carry passports, when crossing into Northern Ireland.  Accordingly in 1923 what later became the "Common Travel Area" was born between the UK and Eire.  The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are also members.  The SNP says it wants iScotland to be a signatory to this agreement, and on the face of it that's a likely and desirable outcome.  Some of our politicians can be desperately petty, but the prospect of people having their passports systematically checked on the London-Edinburgh East Coast train, or on the M6 just north of Southwaite services, isn't an attractive one for anyone involved.

Actually, Mail, the border would have EU flags on it. Bog off.

However, we've got the complicating issue of Schengen.  It's just like the Common Travel Area, but bigger.  You can set off in a car from SE Portugal and drive 6000 km up to the Russian border in NE Finland without having your passport checked.  Every member of the 26 member Schengen Area has the obligation to check people entering the zone from outside, and then they're free to travel about in accordance with the EU principle of free movement of people.  As we know from above, all new entrants to the EU have to sign up to Schengen.  Only the UK and Eire got opt-outs at the time of incorporation of the agreement into EU law, because the UK didn't want to join (yay, Daily Mail!) and Ireland didn't as a consequence want to erect a physical border with Northern Ireland that the Common Travel Area had prevented for over 70 years.

So, unless Scotland can secure an opt-out on Schengen by getting all 28 EU members to agree to it, it's going to be in the zone.  That means it has, by law, to secure and check its land border with England - this will be an "external border" in Schengen terms.  Committees of the House of Lords have twice recommended that the UK sign up to Schengen in order to improve border security, by the way.  The primary advantage is full access to the vast electronic Schengen Information Systems that keep police records and data on prospective entrants to the area.  There's also a huge advantage to travellers who don't appreciate hour long queues at airports when they're on a 35 minute flight over from Amsterdam to London.  Our entry to Schengen is of course currently about as likely as Nigel Farage wearing a European onesie singing Ode to Joy on the 6 o'clock news, given the present "the immigrants are invading" mentality most Brits seem to have.

As with the Euro, we don't know whether iScotland would get a Schengen opt-out.  Anything is possible.   I hope they don't, and that it will spur Eire to ditching the Common Travel Area to join Schengen too.  It would put massive pressure on rUK to join the rest of the EU and stop pretending we're an impenetrable fortress because of a load of Border Agency staff holding up the millions of legitimate travellers entering the country.  I can but dream.

The other issue is iScotland's stated intention of a far more liberal immigration policy.  They need to do this to attract more tax payers to support spending plans (particularly pensions).  The Common Travel Area relies on broadly similar agreed immigration policies and levels.  If iScotland became an "open door" to immigrants, who then in significant numbers sneaked across the border at Berwick without checks, in time an rUK government might consider border controls.  Realistically I think this is a very distant prospect and potential problem, but it has been mentioned by politicians.  The Schengen issue looks much more likely to me.

Residence Permits and Visas

Don't be silly.  You don't need residence or work permits as an EU citizen in any other EU state (unless you're a Croatian, in some states, just for the moment, because they only joined last year).  You won't need one for iScotland, assuming they get into the EU as is almost certain, and they won't need one for the rUK.  Nor will you need a visa: you don't require one for Romania, so why would you?  It's far from certain there will even be a border control as we've seen.

Embassies

It seems the plan is for iScotland to have around 100 embassies or consular offices around the world which is similar to Eire's number (97).  That compares to the UK's 270.  Fair enough.  One would be in London, except it would be called a High Commission, just like all other members of the Commonwealth.  Similarly rUK would have a High Commissioner (ambassador in all but name) based in Edinburgh.  We would be separate, foreign nations and so diplomatic representation and consular services for citizens abroad would be required. Weird to think of going to Edinburgh as "going abroad' isn't it?  But that's what it would be.

UK embassy in Berlin.  Start looking for office space, iScotland?

Government Agencies

In a fantastic admission that the Westminster establishment never expected independence to happen, Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood admitted on Monday that absolutely no contingency plans had been drawn up if there's a yes vote.  "Whitehall won't know what to do".  Untangling the mass of intertwined civil administration would be a massive task.  In Keynesian economic terms it could represent a wonderful boost to both economies in terms of the multiplier effect of reversing all the austerity cuts in the public sector in order to deal with it all.

Let's go back to the DVLA.  Vehicle licence plates are one thing that the UK-wide agency handles.  The other is it issues driver licences and keeps driver records.  That means that unless the Scottish part were untangled, Scottish driver licences would be issued by a foreign country's governmental agency.  Isn't that genuinely odd? 

With their infinite Little Englander wisdom, the Tories have opted out of an EU directive that allows cross-border data sharing for speeding and other motoring offences.  Next time a German or French car goes at 90mph through a 30mph speed camera endangering your and everyone else's lives, you'll know who to thank. How would fines and points work with iScotland?  If DVLA continued serving both countries, and there were a cross-border treaty on mutual enforceability, there would presumably be no issue. 

Free Speeding for all EU nationals c/o our government. Yay!

But that isn't by any means assured.  Why? Because there seems to be a certain naivety in assuming that an rUK government would agree to any use of any of its agencies and institutions.  Despite all the smarmy protestations from English politicians currently that we are best friends and that they will love Scotland beyond the grave, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find both a Tory and a Labour led Westminster government remarkably short of goodwill, particularly regarding sharing their national governmental resources and institutions.  Remember this will be in respect of an SNP administration that had just successfully broken up the Union.  When I pointed this out to a Yes supporter I was chatting to on Twitter, he seemed genuinely surprised and disappointed. 

Back to the original point, this doesn't just apply to the DVLA of course: there are hundreds of governmental institutions that do work across the UK currently.  None of this is, of course, of itself to vote one way or the other.  It can be sorted out without question.  If Scotland needs its own DVLA it can set one up.  Every other newly independent country in Europe has created a complete set of its own institutions, after all.  What's of note is that we don't know the answer to any of it - and with a week to go that in itself is perhaps a little remarkable.

24 March 2016

The date for independence has been set for 24 March 2016.  It's a date resplendent in historical significance.  It's the day in 1603 when Elizabeth I died and with James' accession to the throne of England, the Union of Crowns occurred.  It's also the date in 1707 when the Act of Union was signed and the Kingdom of Great Britain was "born".  It will be exactly 309 years old when it kicks the bucket, if Yes all goes to plan.  It's perfectly likely to become a national holiday for iScotland.

James VI/I's shag buddy, George. Why not?

24 March is also the Old New Year's Eve under the Julian Calendar, and is the reason why the tax year still ends on 5 April.   The Old New Year's Day was 25 March, which is when Mary apparently got up the duff, exactly 9 months before Christmas Day (a totally fictitious and arbitrary date as everyone knows: no one knows what date Jesus was actually born).  So there's a neat symmetry in it all.  Kinda.

Nationalism and Support for Yes

During the spadework for my rambling discourse I've picked up on several practical examples of something I hadn't expected.  It is the point that came up first with the telephone codes, then with the car licence plates, the continuing use of DVLA and other government agencies, the retention of the British £, membership of the Common Travel Area, and even wanting the Queen as the Head of State.  This seems to me to be a remarkably conservative and not at all typically "nationalist" movement in many respects.

This isn't by any means the aggressive, symbol-rife, old-fashioned nationalism which was found in plenty of independence movements during the collapse of the Empire, when emblems of Britain were pulled from buildings and statues of monarchs removed.  This isn't even Slovenia, a quiet Alpine nation which moved, as rapidly as it possibly could, to introduce all the outward signs and symbols of nationhood: "SLO" on its licence plates, its own currency and its own border crossings.  There's (apparently) remarkably little of the (not unreasonable) sentiment that Nicola Sturgeon expressed about the .Scot domain to be found anywhere else.

The Auld Bitch as Joyce called her. Once in Dublin, now in Sydney

There are of course plenty of vocal "frothingly nationalist" Scots about (I've encountered some myself on Twitter, and have heard stories from Scottish friends of aggressive Anglophobia at the moment) who seem driven by hatred of the English. 

I've been amazed, though, at the amount of people I know and respect from all manner of backgrounds who are Yes supporters.  They're Green party members, liberals, Europhile cosmopolitans, feminists, moderate open-minded lefties.  These are people you'd never lump into any traditional understanding of "nationalists".  As Suzanne Moore pointed out in a superb piece today, the knocking of "Scottish nationalism" by the elite is in any case inherently a bit ridiculous:

"The language of the no camp – Westminster, bankers, Farage, Prescott, the Orangemen and Henry Kissinger – is innately patronising. Do not give in to petty nationalism, they say.  Just stick with the bigger unionist nationalism; it’s better for you."

What I'm therefore getting from my observation of the whole debate is that many people who support "Yes" in Scotland actually just fundamentally want Westminster out of their lives and that's pretty much the extent of it.  They want to have full control of taxation, immigration, nuclear weapons, benefits and privatisation (the last four of which they incidentally wouldn't receive under Devo-Max).  They don't necessarily want to cut all ties with rUK at all: in fact, being the inherently conservative creatures that many of us are, they would rather most things stayed exactly the same as they are now.  The SNP may be exploiting that fact by deliberately not being open about what changes they do intend to bring about, or they may share the sentiment.  I don't know enough to judge. 

Those wanting everything to remain as it is, absent Westminster's control, may get a rude awakening in the first few months of iScotland.  That might come when they realise they are part of a country with a foreign, Tory run neighbour that is feeling rather bruised by its rejection, and isn't terribly generous or well-disposed to allowing use of its governmental agencies, for example.  Time will tell. 

Inevitably, also, as things go on the two nations will develop separately and will grow apart.  You can already clearly see that in Czech Republic and Slovakia just 21 years after the "velvet divorce".  My friend Paul asked if those English who are currently vocally expressing a personal bond with Scotland, feel the same connection to Eire, 90 years after its independence.  The answer was generally no, which is quite interesting.  Being part of two separate sovereign states will lead to differences growing.

Best of Luck

I really get how divisive this debate is for many people.  I've had people genuinely upset about what is going on (as well as excited and engaged, it must be said).  It looks like the outcome is going to leave almost exactly half the population deeply unhappy and that's a sad thing.   I understand and have sympathies with both sides of the debate.  It is a massive leap into the dark, with plenty of problems and pitfalls, and in addition I personally really cannot stand Alex Salmond.  On the other hand it's an exciting potential for change and very much a once in a lifetime opportunity.  It has the potential to bring about change for better in rUK too.

I hope I haven't been too flippant in my blog post and it's been of some interest in bringing together the type of nitty-gritty detail I'm always interested in.  I wish everyone in Scotland, or the iScotland of the future (I should TM that before Apple does) the very best.  This whole thing is certainly absolutely fascinating if nothing else.