Will I need a passport to enter and leave an independent Scotland?

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/sep/07/will-i-need-passport-enter-leave-independent-scotland

Version 0 of 1.

Ed Miliband has reportedly raised the prospect of guards and ID checks at the border with a newly independent Scotland.

The Mail on Sunday, which reported the story, even mocked up what the border might look like.

It seems an unlikely prospect: flashing your passport at a border agent as you swish through the Cheviot Hills. But could the line on the map become a line in the sand for voters?

What does the Scottish government say?

The answer from the Scottish government – led by the Scottish National party, the lead campaigners for a vote for independence in September – is simple: no.

It says that, as is the case for UK citizens who travel to the Republic of Ireland now, no passport would be needed. It intends for Scotland to remain part of the Common Travel Area (CTA), which allows all citizens of the UK, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to travel freely across those borders.

There are “no plans in the foreseeable future” for an independent Scotland to sign up to the Schengen agreement. This allows all EU citizens to cross internal borders within the EU without being subjected to border checks; currently, the UK and the Republic of Ireland have opted out of Schengen. Scotland joining the EU as an independent country would not require it to lose its automatic opt-out of Schengen, the SNP says.

The Scottish government position is unequivocal:

There are no circumstances in which the Scottish government would countenance any measure being taken that jeopardised the ability of citizens across the rUK [rest of the UK] and Ireland to move freely across the borders as they are presently able to do. It is for this reason that following independence Scotland will remain part of the Common Travel Area (CTA).

From day one of independence, it says, eligible citizens would be able to apply for a Scottish passport, though it would not be mandatory to hold one, and UK passports would remain valid until expiry. The definition of eligible citizens is fairly broad:

British citizens “habitually resident” in Scotland on independence will automatically be considered Scottish citizens. This will include British citizens who hold dual citizenship with another country. Scottish-born British citizens currently living outside of Scotland will also automatically be considered Scottish citizens. Other people will be able to register or apply for Scottish citizenship on independence based on clear criteria.

Dual citizenship will be permitted, although the Scottish government concedes that it will be Whitehall’s call as to whether to allow dual UK/Scottish citizenship.

What does the UK government say?

The response from Whitehall is: it’s not that simple.

An analysis published in March this year sets out what the UK government says are the significant problems that a new international border would cause:

An independent Scotland would have to create its own infrastructure for controlling its borders. This would be complex, expensive and would no longer benefit from the 20,000 people and over £2bn the UK government spends annually to manage the border, or the UK’s international influence which helps stop people and goods which might harm the UK from entering the country.

It says an independent Scotland could – if it seeks to join the European Union as a new member – be required to sign up to Schengen. But it also concedes that, should Scotland secure an opt-out from Schengen, it could ask to join the CTA:

However, this would have to be negotiated and would likely depend on Scotland agreeing to align certain visa and immigration policies with other CTA members.

The Scottish government has suggested that an independent Scotland would seek to increase inward migration to address its economic and demographic needs. However, an independent Scotland could not both join the CTA and have a separate and much more open immigration policy. To be part of any borderless travel zone, the members must have compatible immigration policies.

The Scottish secretary Alistair Carmichael has called the Scottish government plans “fundamentally contradictory”:

First of all, they say we can be part of the Common Travel Area, which is an open border between Scotland and the continuing United Kingdom, and at the same time they say they will have a widely divergent immigration policy. I think it’s pretty well accepted, and pretty well self-evident, that in fact you can have either of these things but you cannot have them both.

But chief secretary to the Treasury – and leading no campaigner – Danny Alexander sounded a more pragmatic note in a speech to the Road Haulage Association in May:

Now, you probably wouldn’t have to drive through international check points every time you entered an independent Scotland.

But even without a physical barrier, the prospect of a trade barrier, or a currency barrier, could have a completely devastating – and a completely unneeded – impact on your industry.

Immigration in an independent Scotland

So what does the Scottish government propose to do about immigration should voters opt for independence?

On one thing, at least, the yes and no camps seem broadly to agree: an independent Scotland would need more immigrants. Scotland’s population is ageing at a steeper rate than the rest of UK and its working-age population is shrinking. If it goes it alone, more immigration would be needed to support its economy and its pensioners.

In its white paper, the Scottish government sets out its vision of a more liberal immigration policy: a points-based system, targeted at Scotland’s particular needs, such as offering incentives to migrants to live and work in more remote areas, or those whose skills fill gaps in the economy. It would also encourage more overseas students by relaxing restrictions on visas – a UK-wide policy that has come in for much criticism. First minister Alex Salmond has said he wants to see net migration rise to around 24,000 a year.

But Conservatives in Westminster are committed to a target to cut net migration to below 100,000 – despite figures earlier this year showing a 30% leap in net migration to 212,000 in the 12 months to last September. (The Lib Dems say this is not official coalition policy.)

The home secretary, Theresa May, in a speech at the Scottish Conservative party conference in Edinburgh in March, told delegates:

The continuing UK could not allow Scotland to become a convenient landing point for migration into the United Kingdom.

So that would mean border controls between a separate Scotland and the United Kingdom. Passport checks to visit friends and relatives. A literal and figurative barrier between our nations.

On the face of it, then, an independent Scotland and rUK would have significantly different policies towards immigration. And this would be the case even allowing for a potential change in UK government in 2015; Labour has expressed “concerns” about the Scottish proposals and leader Ed Miliband recently warned:

It’s certainly the case that we would have to have a look at the issue of a border if we’ve got different immigration policies. It totally stands to reason. If you have markedly different immigration policies, that becomes an issue between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

But then, as the SNP has pointed out, the UK and the Republic of Ireland already have independent and differing immigration policies, but rub along together within the CTA. Talk by the Westminster government of border controls between Scotland and England have been dismissed by Salmond as “scaremongering”.

The EU question

At the heart of the passport question is the looming issue of an independent Scotland’s membership of the European Union – which is discussed in detail in a separate reality check blog. Here again the yes and no camps diverge sharply: the Scottish government envisages a “continuation” of Scotland’s membership of the EU, with a smooth transition after a yes vote leading to full membership on the first day of independence. And it would seek to do this on the same terms it currently enjoys as part of the UK:

The Scottish government will approach EU membership negotiations on the principle of continuity of effect: that is, a transition to independent membership that is based on the EU treaty obligations and provisions that currently apply to Scotland under our present status as part of the UK, and without disruption to Scotland’s current fully integrated standing within the legal, economic, institutional, political and social framework of the EU.

This would mean Scotland would not – unlike brand new members of the EU – be obliged to sign up to Schengen or the euro, the SNP believes.

There are absolutely no grounds to believe that the EU would challenge Scotland remaining part of the CTA rather than joining the Schengen area. The EU has spent all of its 50 or so years of existence seeking to remove borders across the EU. The EU treaties recognise that membership of the Common Travel Area is not compatible with membership of the Schengen area.

No campaigners have a different take. Better Together insists an independent Scotland would need to apply to join the EU as a new member, forcing it to adopt both the euro and Schengen rules.

The Europe minister, David Lidington, reiterated this in interviews with BBC Scotland and ITV Borders earlier this year:

Scotland, if independent, would have to negotiate with everybody else that, uniquely, Scotland should be exempted from the obligation to join Schengen. Now the UK has an opt-out from Schengen written into law, so does Ireland. If Scotland could not negotiate that… then it would have an obligation to have border checks to control the Schengen external frontier, whether that was at Carter Bar or at Stranraer.

It’s not something that I or anybody else sees as an attractive option, but the question is really one for the Scottish government to say why it is that you think that you could really persuade every other member of the EU that you should be spared the obligation to join Schengen, [and] to join the euro one day, that every other new EU member has to undertake.

Until there is a clearer answer on Scotland’s future membership of the EU, the passport issue is likely to remain unresolved.

Diplomacy, visas and consulates

Lidington, in the same set of interviews, argued that there were other disadvantages should an independent Scotland end up with control of its own borders and passports:

In very concrete terms, we’ve got this very large international network of embassies and high commissions around the world; they promote Scottish business including things like Scotch whisky, Scottish agricultural produce and beef and so on.

An independent Scotland would have to think how big a diplomatic network of their own they can afford, and build it up.

The Henley & Partners Visa Restrictions Index, 2013 – a ranking of countries according to how many places around the globe they can visit without visas – had the UK as joint top for global free travel, alongside Finland, Sweden and Germany. Better Together says:

For Scots working abroad or travelling on holiday, we know that the British passport is recognised all across the world. It guarantees Scots support in almost every country in the world when things go wrong. As a recent international report concluded, the British passport is among the best in the world. Why would we want to give that up?

But Scotland does already have – via its network of Scottish Development International offices in 19 countries – a base from which to promote Scottish business and attract investment. The Scottish government says it intends to boost this with a fresh set of embassies (including in London) and consulates, and points out that where there is no diplomatic mission in a non-EU country, a traveller can seek assistance at any EU-member embassy. As long as an independent Scotland were to be an EU member, a Scottish passport would look broadly similar to that of other member states and carry the same advantages.

Once the EU question is sorted, it’s hard to see these issues as huge stumbling blocks.

Conclusion

As Danny Alexander has intimated, the notion of passport checks at the Scottish-English border seems almost ludicrous: east coast rail passengers used to gliding over the Royal Border bridge at Berwick (although it’s not actually the border; that’s a couple of miles further north, at Marshall Meadows) surely can’t expect to be needing to produce their passports along with their tickets any time soon. A deal to keep an independent Scotland within the Common Travel Area – as Ireland is – looks to be the most straightforward solution.

But immigration could be a real obstacle to a political settlement. It is hard to see a Westminster government of whatever hue signing up to an open border agreement with an independent Scotland that is taking such a markedly different tack on immigrants.

And the issue of EU membership makes this decidedly more twisty. Should Salmond be wrong about the smooth transition into full EU membership, the Schengen problem could become very real. Given current attitudes to the EU and immigration within the wider UK, it is not hard to assume that if Scotland has to sign up to free movement for all EU nationals, the rUK would be even more inclined to shut the door.

So could we see passport checks on the Scottish-English border? Possibly, yes. It might boil down to whether the people and politicians of the rUK can stomach the probability that maintaining an open friendship with an independent Scotland means extending that freedom of movement to everyone who might choose to live there.