Scottish Independence

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 14-02-2014 8:03pm

VeryOwl wrote: »

I read the 'white paper' and it was thin on detail and fat with aspirational waffle.
.

There is a fair bit of aspiration waffle as you put it in the White paper there is also a fair bit of detail I have just spent the last three weeks wading through it :eek:. You have to remember there can't be to much detail as a lot of that will be worked out in the two years from the referendum to independence if it is carried. Also after the first General election the governing party will put many of their own policies into place

Lemming · 14-02-2014 8:06pm

VeryOwl wrote: »

Salmond isn't a 'muppet', just incredibly cynical. Tbh I've found most people here, even those sympathetic to independence, don't really like him.

Poor choice of words on my part; I do not mean muppet as in he's an inept idiot; more would have little time for him as whatever comes out of his mouth is to be treated with a serious pinch of salt.

feargale · 14-02-2014 8:17pm

tdv123 wrote: »

So they would force a sizable minority into a independent Scotland against their will?

I'm on the fence in this one, but how does that differ from forcing a sizable minority to stay in the U.K. against their will?

feargale · 14-02-2014 8:24pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, democracy should be respected but you have to remember the vote in Scotland only represents Scotlands desire. Scotlands will should be taken into consideration but it has to be balanced with England's to reach a compromise.

Nice one. Queen Victoria had the same idea re. Gladstone's electoral victories.

First Up · 14-02-2014 10:54pm

A bit of a yawn at this stage. It is pretty obvious that emotion apart, independence makes no sense and it's also pretty obvious that a substantial majority of Scots know it.
Light entertainment between now and September but the result isn't in doubt, nor should it be.

Fr Tod Umptious · 14-02-2014 11:34pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I think the whole debate around oil etc is a little peculiar. The vast majority of countires in the world do not have oil resources but that doesnt stop them asserting independence which is really what it should be about.

That is why I think there will be a 'no' winner. Personally I would like a 'yes' vote but why now? What is so different about 2014 than any other time in the last 200 years?

Surely if there was a genuine desire in Scotland for independence, it would have happened by now.

A question I asked a few days back, still to be answered by someone who supports a Yes by the way

djpbarry · 15-02-2014 3:03pm

Madam wrote: »

Politics?

Necessity? Alex Salmond has created the myth of Scotland being a major oil-producing nation, but it's patent nonsense.

djpbarry · 15-02-2014 3:04pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No English.

The collective term for English, Welsh and Northern Irish is "English"?

djpbarry · 15-02-2014 3:04pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Interesting, a lot of people I know in Scotland does not think Salmond is a muppet at all...

Alex Salmond is the single biggest reason there is to vote 'No'.

Iwasfrozen · 15-02-2014 4:03pm

djpbarry wrote: »

The collective term for English, Welsh and Northern Irish is "English"?

In the case of naval bases, yes. Yes it is.

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 15-02-2014 4:51pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Alex Salmond is the single biggest reason there is to vote 'No'.

Why he isn't going to be in charge for long if independence is won. A yes vote is not a vote for Salmond

djpbarry · 15-02-2014 6:51pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In the case of naval bases, yes. Yes it is.

Because?

A Dub in Glasgo · 15-02-2014 8:32pm

Because the UK / Britain / rUK = England to a lot of people. Factually incorrect but they don't care

tdv123 · 15-02-2014 9:39pm

feargale wrote: »

I'm on the fence in this one, but how does that differ from forcing a sizable minority to stay in the U.K. against their will?

It doesn't it's the exact same thing.

everdead.ie · 15-02-2014 9:45pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A question I asked a few days back, still to be answered by someone who supports a Yes by the way

The difference is they got some concessions but it's the latest they can have this vote on Independence if they waited any longer they lose the right to have the vote.

I think it will be closer than people think but I do think the no vote will carry.

Lemming · 15-02-2014 11:17pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

rUK

As an aside, that's the second time in this thread I've seen that term used. Exactly what is it meant to be?

A Dub in Glasgo · 15-02-2014 11:21pm

Rest of the UK - a description that started after third level education fees were brought in by the UK Government but not the Scottish Government

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/university-tuition-fees/going-to-university-in-scotland/

COYW · 16-02-2014 12:08pm

Jose Manuel Barosu confirmed on the Andrew Marr show this morning that an independent Scotland will have to apply to join the EU as a new member, on gaining independence, and that acceptance of that application would require the agreement of all 28 member states. The whole idea of a new state, which is part of an existing member, being accepted would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" in his words.

Not the news that the Scottish Nationalists wanted to hear. It is on the BBC iplayer, the last interview on the show. He did say that the question was purely theoretical tough, as the democratic decision is in the hands of the Scottish people at the moment.

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-02-2014 12:16pm

Scotland gaining independence nullifies the Act of Union of 1707, does that mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland will cease to exist as well therefore a new application to join the EU will be needed by both Scotland and Rest of UK? I would like to see this tested legally.

djpbarry · 16-02-2014 2:05pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Scotland gaining independence nullifies the Act of Union of 1707, does that mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland will cease to exist as well therefore a new application to join the EU will be needed by both Scotland and Rest of UK?

I don't think so. As far as international treaties will be concerned, the UK will still exist, just in a different form. In the same way, Serbia & Montenegro essentially continued to exist as Serbia following Montenegro's secession.

But, I could be wrong - there's no precedent for this sort of thing in the context of the EU, but I'd be surprised if the UK had to reapply.

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-02-2014 2:43pm

In that case, I cannot see how Scotland can be classed as a new state then and be chucked out of the EU

COYW · 16-02-2014 3:43pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

In that case, I cannot see how Scotland can be classed as a new state then and be chucked out of the EU

"Chucked out" of where? Look at the list of member states? Do you see Scotland? It isn't a member state. It would be a new state. That is what the Scots are looking for through independence. It would be Scotland, which is no longer part off the United Kingdom. They are looking to break away from the UK, right?

The United Kingdom is currently a member state of the EU. Therefore, it wouldn't have to apply for membership and the United Kingdom that remains would remain as a member. The Act of Union has nothing to do with membership of the EU.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 16-02-2014 4:13pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't think so. As far as international treaties will be concerned, the UK will still exist, just in a different form. In the same way, Serbia & Montenegro essentially continued to exist as Serbia following Montenegro's secession.

But, I could be wrong - there's no precedent for this sort of thing in the context of the EU, but I'd be surprised if the UK had to reapply.

Wouldn't Greenland be a precedent? Denmark didn't have to reapply after Greenland left.

Manach · 16-02-2014 4:40pm

AFAIK, based on a EU text, Greenland followed all the various obligations to leave the community and the process wound down for the requisite time period. Whether Scotland needs to follow this exact route likely up to the commissioner, or even the ECJ to pass judgement on the treaties exact terms.

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-02-2014 5:02pm

Just seen the Barrosso interview and he reiterates his opinion from a while ago so nothing really new. On the same page, the BBC link to an earlier story about 'A senior legal expert has challenged the opinion of the European Commission president over the status of an independent Scotland in the EU'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20757450

At the moment, it is speculation as there is no precedent

Manach · 16-02-2014 5:19pm

Given any legal judgement would be taken before the European Court, and that they have a long track-record from the 1960s (Costa case etc) of promoting European integration, my guess is that any marginal calls would go Scotland's way in seeking a fast track to EU membership.

COYW · 16-02-2014 5:35pm

Manach wrote: »

Given any legal judgement would be taken before the European Court, and that they have a long track-record from the 1960s (Costa case etc) of promoting European integration, my guess is that any marginal calls would go Scotland's way in seeking a fast track to EU membership.

Fast track to what? All 28 members would have to agree to their inclusion whatever route is taken.

Manach · 16-02-2014 5:47pm

The unitary member state vote for inclusion is for new aspirant members to the EU. Scotland might lodge an application which would be based on it is already a pre-existing member, as part of the United Kingdom, and hence would not be subject to those terms in the treaty.

Harry Angstrom · 16-02-2014 7:02pm

COYW wrote: »

Jose Manuel Barosu confirmed on the Andrew Marr show this morning that an independent Scotland will have to apply to join the EU as a new member, on gaining independence, and that acceptance of that application would require the agreement of all 28 member states. The whole idea of a new state, which is part of an existing member, being accepted would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" in his words.

Not the news that the Scottish Nationalists wanted to hear. It is on the BBC iplayer, the last interview on the show. He did say that the question was purely theoretical tough, as the democratic decision is in the hands of the Scottish people at the moment.

Barroso is a typical EU bureaucrat. He just wants to maintain the status quo. Cameron and Osborne must have been delighted to hear him saying that, just like Osborne saying that Scotland wouldn't necessarily be guaranteed to still be part of sterling if it gained its independence.
Muddying the waters and causing unnecessary public alarm is a great way of getting the electorate to vote No. We've seen that in this country with the defeats of the Seanad referendum, and the referendum to give increased powers to Dail committees.

smcgiff · 16-02-2014 7:07pm

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Barroso is a typical EU bureaucrat.

He's only worried about the Basques.

Scottish Independence

Comments