Steve Peers

Hadrian’s Wall is often thought to have been built by the Romans to defend civilized Britannia from invading Picts, who are considered the ancestors of modern-day Scots. This idea is echoed in Game of Thrones, where the Wall serves to keep out wild and dangerous beings from the North.

Theresa May, the British Home Secretary, recently invoked this imagery when she suggested that if Scotland were to become independent, border control would need to be reinstated between Scotland and the remaining United Kingdom. Initially, this appears to be an exaggerated and unconvincing threat, similar to those sometimes used by exasperated parents with their children.

However, could this threat be realistic? Is there any truth to her assertion that the rest of the UK would be forced to implement border controls to safeguard itself against a potentially very open Scottish immigration system? In this scenario, the border wouldn’t be there to stop Picts or mythical creatures, but rather individuals from other nations using Scotland as a backdoor into the rest of the UK.

To assess this argument, we must first consider the two existing models of multinational border control in Europe: the Schengen Area and the Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland. The Schengen system, in theory, prohibits all internal border checks except in specific situations and sets shared guidelines for visas and external border controls. While it doesn’t establish common policies for long-term immigration or asylum, the EU is steadily working towards such agreements. Notably, those with residency permits or long-stay visas are permitted to travel within the Schengen Area for extended durations.

The Common Travel Area generally lacks internal border checks. However, Ireland does implement checks for certain travel types, and travelers might require photo identification to confirm their identity and citizenship. Additionally, the two countries have separate visa requirements, and residency permits and visas issued by one nation aren’t valid in the other. There’s also informal collaboration on immigration policies, as explored in depth by Bernard Ryan.

This system has persisted for nearly a century, experiencing various suspensions and adjustments throughout its existence. Remarkably, it has endured through the past few decades of escalating international travel and even during periods of significant unrest. It’s difficult to believe that a similar arrangement couldn’t be reached between the UK and Scotland. Furthermore, establishing border control concerning Scotland is a more challenging and costly endeavor compared to Ireland due to the significantly larger number of travelers crossing land borders.

Therefore, it’s unlikely that the Home Secretary’s threat would be put into action. Additionally, her statement disregards a fundamental parenting principle: only make threats when necessary. After receiving criticism from both a Canadian central banker and a Portuguese former Maoist, Scottish voters appear unlikely to favor independence at this time. Considering her focus on immigration control, it’s evident that the Home Secretary’s true intention is not to become some sort of ruler of an independent North, but rather to strengthen her position as a potential leader within the Conservative Party, should the opportunity arise.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 2