Scottish Independence

dlouth15

Lemming wrote: »

DLouth, do you honestly expect that Spain would "prefer" a no-vote but then go "ah shurrre aren'twe all grand and shure aren't we great friends really? No harm done, lets go drinkin'together begorrah"?! No. Not by a wide, wide country mile.

I cannot fathom how you can possibly interpret Spain's position on this as being so absolutely bi-polar. They have absolutely no influence in any independence vote, so are rightly unable to do anything until Scotland were to cede and apply for EU membership. Given their own internal issues, do you honestly think they'll turn around and play happy neighbours? If you do I have a great deal on London bridge for you. Just for you, and at a special knock-down lo-lo price for today only.

I'm not sure what you mean by "they have absolutely no influence in any independence vote". Of course they do. It might be considered bad form but there's no law against the Spanish government saying things in order to influence the citizens of another country.

Before the referendum they are trying to influence the result. After the referendum they are looking after their own pragmatic interest. These need not be the same thing.

I expect the same of the UK. Assuming a yes result, the UK will be have to accept the result and realise there's nothing to be gained by punishing Scotland and will work constructively with them. Up until that point, no end of dangers will be hinted at.

I would be interested in Godge's comments on Cameron's remarks. I think Godge maintained that the UK would do its utmost to make an EU entry difficult for Scotland.

I don't see this as bi-polar either. I would only consider it such if they fundamentally changed their position without any change in political reality.

The only question worth asking is whether in the event of a "yes" it is more in Spain's interest to accept Scotland's entry or more in their interest to oppose it. What they say now in terms of vague hints at difficulty is something to which I would attach little weight.

Had they said they would without question block Scotland's entry, well I might be tempted to take seriously. But they've said nothing along those lines.

Lemming

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "they have absolutely no influence in any independence vote". Of course they do. It might be considered bad form but there's no law against the Spanish government saying things in order to influence the citizens of another country.

Before the referendum they are trying to influence the result. After the referendum they are looking after their own pragmatic interest. These need not be the same thing.

The Spanish government has absolutely no influence in any independence vote. They carry absolutely no ability to vote in the matter and therefore have no influence in so far as the question being put to the Scottish people.

What has not been sold to the Scottish people - and Salmond has been extrordinarily reckless in this - is the reality that whilst the question of independence is theirs, and theirs alone rightly, they haven't gotten agreement from anyone else affected on the practical realities that come along with any new found independence. And suddenly, the electorate having been fed a pup in the dark of night are now facing the cold light of day as those other nations affected do start to give their opinions.

So no. Spain has no influence in the question of independence. They do however have a say on matters of EU membership, and NATO. Neither of which Scotland has started serious discussions over yet because the soverign nation does not officially exist yet. Last I heard, EU membership was not the raison d'etre for independence. Of course the cynic might point out that Salmond is playing a cynical game of "can I have a bertie bowl please" and he knows that unless he sugar coats any possible "yes" outcome to high-heaven, people will tell him to get on his bike.

I expect the same of the UK. Assuming a yes result, the UK will be have to accept the result and realise there's nothing to be gained by punishing Scotland and will work constructively with them. Up until that point, no end of dangers will be hinted at.

Whilst I don't envisage any draconian border drama between Scotland and the UK, I do not think for a moment that Westminister will play quite so nicely. They may smile and say "please", "thank you", and "have a nice day", but there'll be plenty of fake smiles out and about for quite a few years whilst making life as miserable as possible for Salmond's government.

I would be interested in Godge's comments on Cameron's remarks. I think Godge maintained that the UK would do its utmost to make an EU entry difficult for Scotland.

That would be a distinct and highly likely possibility. There is no nice way of dealing with what is essentially a break-up. It may be done in an orderly and civil fashion, but it will not be buddy-buddy, drinks after work either.

I don't see this as bi-polar either. I would only consider it such if they fundamentally changed their position without any change in political reality.

Your stance on Spain is odd to say the least, and the best I can describe it is as being bi-polar. On the one hand you acknowledge that they do not want a yes vote. And then on the other hand seem to think that if a yes vote is passed it'll be business as usual and how Spain will suddenly welcome the fledgling Scotland with open arms whilst throwing concerns about its own borders to the wind. THAT is bi-polar. Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but no etc.

There is a bloody reason why Spain (among others) won't be eager to see a yes vote!!!!

The only question worth asking is whether in the event of a "yes" it is more in Spain's interest to accept Scotland's entry or more in their interest to oppose it. What they say now in terms of vague hints at difficulty is something to which I would attach little weight.

Had they said they would without question block Scotland's entry, well I might be tempted to take seriously. But they've said nothing along those lines.

/sigh

Do you think that ANY other country with concerns is going to say ANYTHING before the results of any referendum are held? No, because that would weaken their hand.

bobcoffee

Do like the "bertie bowl" comment and it concerns me too.
Not sure if it is more to do with a "power hungry" party or actually looking out for Scotland's best interests.

Lemming

bobcoffee wrote: »

Do like the "bertie bowl" comment and it concerns me too.
Not sure if it is more to do with a "power hungry" party or actually looking out for Scotland's best interests.

It's not a power hungry SNP per-se; Salmond has been banging on about having an independence vote for a very, very, very long time. By long time I mean before he was even a known political name. This whole referendum is a design of his making.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'm not sure you've been following the discussion but sure it is fairly clear that Spain would rather a no vote and I've already said this. Fewer marches in Barcelona by Catalan nationalists and so on. Hence this sort of statement. It is not evidence, imo, that they would block entry in the event of a yes vote however, which is a different matter entirely. Indeed they have later said that they would not block entry.

Another example is the UK, that has been put forward as a country that would block entry. All the mainstream UK parties are officially against Scottish independence but Cameron himself (thanks Dub in Glasgow) has said that not only would he not block Scottish EU entry but would be backing it strongly.

Last time I looked, the Spanish had said that they had no official position. However, the logic for the Spanish is very straightforward - if Scotland becomes independent, then the question of its EU entry is open. If Scotland is simply voted straight into the EU, then the same would be expected to be true for Catalonia. And Scottish independence and EU application would, based on recent events, precede any such move by Catalonia.

I cannot see that Spain can possibly choose to encourage Catalonian (and Basque) separatism - which means that Spain either directly blocks Scottish entry, or encourages others to do so. And there are other Member States with separatist movements.

Having said that, there's no doubt that Scotland would qualify for EU membership, so it's equally hard to see the political brass neck being mustered to refuse them in a clear display of national self-interest.

Which, to me, argues that the actual outcome would be the other EU countries making Scotland jump through absolutely all the accession hoops with every last i dotted and every last t crossed, and with no maintenance of current UK opt-outs such as the euro. Schengen I'm not sure about, and that would be an interesting one - practically speaking, I suspect that one would go by the board, and Scotland would join the UK-Ireland Free Movement Area.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo

It is stretching reality to say that Spain (or Barroso) has absolutley no influence on the independence vote. They may not be campaigning but they do have influence and they are using that influence.

Godge

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "they have absolutely no influence in any independence vote". Of course they do. It might be considered bad form but there's no law against the Spanish government saying things in order to influence the citizens of another country.

Before the referendum they are trying to influence the result. After the referendum they are looking after their own pragmatic interest. These need not be the same thing.

I expect the same of the UK. Assuming a yes result, the UK will be have to accept the result and realise there's nothing to be gained by punishing Scotland and will work constructively with them. Up until that point, no end of dangers will be hinted at.

I would be interested in Godge's comments on Cameron's remarks. I think Godge maintained that the UK would do its utmost to make an EU entry difficult for Scotland.

I don't see this as bi-polar either. I would only consider it such if they fundamentally changed their position without any change in political reality.

The only question worth asking is whether in the event of a "yes" it is more in Spain's interest to accept Scotland's entry or more in their interest to oppose it. What they say now in terms of vague hints at difficulty is something to which I would attach little weight.

Had they said they would without question block Scotland's entry, well I might be tempted to take seriously. But they've said nothing along those lines.

I have told you many times on this thread that what is said in public differs to what happens behind closed doors in Europe.

The example I keep giving is the recent banking crisis in Ireland. For years you had European leaders acknowledging the special position of Ireland, recognising the great sacrifices of the Irish people, something should be done for Ireland, it was different to all the rest. Yet in all that happened, and we got some help in lengthening loans etc., not one European taxpayer put their hand into their pocket and helped us out.

I have to respect the Germans and Merkel because they were upfront all along about no special deals. It was the others who said encouraging things in public and said different things behind closed doors. I pointed out several times over the last few years that European taxpayers would not put their hands in their pockets and no matter what was said at European councils, all we could expect was things that cost them nothing, which is what we got. (And by the way, I have no problem with that, we made this mess, we have to clear it up).

And the same thing applies to whatever Cameron or Barrosso or the Spanish Prime Minister says. They will all respect the will of the Scottish people as they respected the will of the Irish people to elect a government that stupidly guaranteed the banks. They will all say that a path to joining the EU is there for Scotland, they are all politicians remember and what they don't say is as important as what they do say. And nobody has said that Scotland remains a member of the EU the day after the independence vote. It is what happens behind closed doors that is important.

So when we are back here in 10 years time congratulating Scotland on having moved to Stage 2 of its accession negotiations having conceded that Spanish trawlers can fish inside the 12-mile limit or something else, then you might understand. Of course, the Scottish people have first to vote yes to independence.

First Up

If (in the increasingly unlikely event that) Scotland votes Yes, it will have chosen to leave both the UK and the EU. As far as mainland Europe is concerned, that is a regional, internal issue that has little or no impact on them. Scotland wasn't in Shengen anyway, so it is not as if passport controls would suddenly re-appear at Scottish Airports for those going to fish, golf or walk the hills.

European consumers would be hard pressed to name a Scottish product other than whisky. European companies selling to Scotland treat it as a small, somewhat awkward region of the UK and cover it from central marketing and distribution bases in England. If Scotland disappeared tomorrow, it would barely register. In short, Scottish independence really does not matter to anyone except the Scots, other than (and to a much lesser extent) the English, Welsh and N Irish. (It would also have a disastrous impact on attracting foreign investment.)

What does however matter to the rest of Europe is that if it were to happen AND if Scotland could re-enter the EU as easily as some here believe. That would both potentially open a Pandora's Box of secessionist regions within the EU and seriously disrupt the complex, sensitive and carefully orchestrated process by which the EU is dealing with future expansion - countries with a lot more to be concerned with than Scotland does.

The notion that a region already in the EU could tear up the agreements, suit itself in terms of whatever exit deal it does with it's former parent and then walk back in through another open door to open arms is naive, fanciful tosh.

However I feel I have now written this same point in half a dozen posts and it seems no closer to getting through. It is also all quite academic - Scotland would be nuts to vote Yes and I know from extensive personal experience that most Scots are not nuts. The latest poll shows a whopping 17% support for a Yes vote in Aberdeen - the center of the oil/gas industry.

Godge

First Up wrote: »

If (in the increasingly unlikely event that) Scotland votes Yes, it will have chosen to leave both the UK and the EU. As far as mainland Europe is concerned, that is a regional, internal issue that has little or no impact on them. Scotland wasn't in Shengen anyway, so it is not as if passport controls would suddenly re-appear at Scottish Airports for those going to fish, golf or walk the hills.

European consumers would be hard pressed to name a Scottish product other than whisky. European companies selling to Scotland treat it as a small, somewhat awkward region of the UK and cover it from central marketing and distribution bases in England. If Scotland disappeared tomorrow, it would barely register. In short, Scottish independence really does not matter to anyone except the Scots, other than (and to a much lesser extent) the English, Welsh and N Irish. (It would also have a disastrous impact on attracting foreign investment.)

What does however matter to the rest of Europe is that if it were to happen AND if Scotland could re-enter the EU as easily as some here believe. That would both potentially open a Pandora's Box of secessionist regions within the EU and seriously disrupt the complex, sensitive and carefully orchestrated process by which the EU is dealing with future expansion - countries with a lot more to be concerned with than Scotland does.

The notion that a region already in the EU could tear up the agreements, suit itself in terms of whatever exit deal it does with it's former parent and then walk back in through another open door to open arms is naive, fanciful tosh.

However I feel I have now written this same point in half a dozen posts and it seems to closer to getting through. It is also all quite academic - Scotland would be nuts to vote Yes and I know from extensive personal experience that most Scots are not nuts. The latest poll shows a whopping 17% support for a Yes vote in Aberdeen - the center of the oil/gas industry.

Excellent post.

The arguments are going round in circles.

jmayo

dlouth15 wrote: »

So on that basis you would have expected Spain to have refused entry to Slovenia and Croatia, countries that unilaterally declared independence from Yugoslavia?

Yugoslavia was made up of six Socialist Republics: SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, SR Croatia, SR Macedonia, SR Montenegro, SR Slovenia, and SR Serbia.
There was also two Socialist Autonomous Provinces Vojvodina and Kosovo which were part of Serbia.
From 1974 to 1990 these two provinces were treated as the other federal members of the federation.
After the breakup of Yugoslavia they were subsummed into Serbia.

Yugoslavia had only became an internationally recognised state in the 1920s after WW1.
On the other hand Spain became an offical united state in 1715 after the Spanish War of Succession.

As another poster has said how long did it take those former Yugoslav republics to gain entry to EU and these were from a former country that never was a member of the EU?

dlouth15 wrote: »

And Scotland isn't even separating unilaterally in that way. If it does separate it will be with the full agreement of the UK authorities. Yet you believe Spain to have a big problem here to the extent they are willing to disrupt the working of the rest of the EU. Can you see why I can't bring myself to go along with the view that Scotland's entry will be hugely problematical as opposed to it's exclusion.

Negotiating in good faith doesn't mean not representing your own national interests. It simply means that they can't simply refuse to negotiate or put up spurious objections for the sake of stalling the talks in the hopes that they collapse.

Of course they are not going to go on world TV and proclaim their objection, but what they do behind closed doors may be a world of difference.
A country will do what it has to do to protect it's interests.
And just remember Spain is a large country which will probably be backed by France and Italy, two other large members which would have areas that might be in the mood for independence down the road.
Then we can add in Belgium, Greece and maybe a few more.

bobcoffee wrote: »

Spain is made up of 3 cultures, Spanish, Basque, Catalonia.
3 separate languages (similar enough).
Basque is more like a "rebel county" and people with in those borders do want their own independence for a long time.
Catalonia is a RICH county, that could easily be its own country with little difficulty. They also want their own independence.

Basque region is not that poor either and is doing quiet well at the moment AFAIK.
Also you are forgetting Galicia which does have it's own language and degree of autonomy.

bobcoffee wrote: »

Now the above might be slightly wrong but the direction is solid.
Spain those not want either to leave and it does cause enough friction within Spain.
EU has taken a back seat and seems to support Spain functioning as a whole.
(tin foil hat on) I believe its more got to do with Spain financial issues (which it does have them).
Also that is where Spain fears Scotland getting independence, because its been trying to keep Spain whole for a long time.

Spain without Catalonia and probably even Basque region would be in a pretty bad shape, so there is no way Madrid can afford to let them go.

Madam

Why do you all assume that it's only the Scots who have the vote? There are many nationalities with that right(myself included). I'm one of those 'undecided' but kind of lean more to a yes vote but its a long time between now and September - god knows how many times I may change my mind:( Tbh most people living here that I know are only interested in keeping their jobs - everything else is incidental. Carry on with the circle thing though;)

Lemming

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having said that, there's no doubt that Scotland would qualify for EU membership, so it's equally hard to see the political brass neck being mustered to refuse them in a clear display of national self-interest.

Which, to me, argues that the actual outcome would be the other EU countries making Scotland jump through absolutely all the accession hoops with every last i dotted and every last t crossed, and with no maintenance of current UK opt-outs such as the euro. Schengen I'm not sure about, and that would be an interesting one - practically speaking, I suspect that one would go by the board, and Scotland would join the UK-Ireland Free Movement Area.

Whislt not disagreeing with anything in particular (I agree with it for the most part), I'm not so sure that we might not see an actual balls-to-the-wall veto used given the last five bumpy years for the EU in general with countries far less cosied up to one another. Given that Spain is already in financial difficulties, with the largest unemployment figures in the EU, and stands to lose a considerable amount of wealth with regional succession movements they may view themselves as having been backed into a corner so to speak.

What I think is far more likely than a brazen veto is unrealistic terms on EU membership applied.

First Up

Lemming wrote: »

Whislt not disagreeing with anything in particular (I agree with it for the most part), I'm not so sure that we might not see an actual balls-to-the-wall veto used given the last five bumpy years for the EU in general with countries far less cosied up to one another. Given that Spain is already in financial difficulties, with the largest unemployment figures in the EU, and stands to lose a considerable amount of wealth with regional succession movements they may view themselves as having been backed into a corner so to speak.

What I think is far more likely than a brazen veto is unrealistic terms on EU membership applied.

Maybe not unrealistic (as in impossible) but certainly tough enough to set the ground rules for other secessions, or admission of new members with potential secessionist issues. The lawyers will have a field day with this.

sfakiaman

Just a thought, but as part of the UK's entry deal to the EEC (as I think it was called then) fishing rights in Scottish waters were included. If Scotland becomes independent and outwith the EU those rights will disappear. This will also mean that the agreement between the UK and Europe cannot be delivered by the rUK. This surely means that the rUK can no longer meet its treaty obligations and will have to renegotiate entry to the EU.

Fratton Fred

sfakiaman wrote: »

Just a thought, but as part of the UK's entry deal to the EEC (as I think it was called then) fishing rights in Scottish waters were included. If Scotland becomes independent and outwith the EU those rights will disappear. This will also mean that the agreement between the UK and Europe cannot be delivered by the rUK. This surely means that the rUK can no longer meet its treaty obligations and will have to renegotiate entry to the EU.

Renegotiate its deal maybe, but not entry.

partyguinness

I am thinking back over the countries that have achieved independence or acquired it over the past 50 years or so. I cannot recall the debate leading up to it dominated by economics in the way this debate is (just my own Lady Book history). There is something fundamentally wrong here.

That's why I cannot feel that the Yes campaign is doomed and the whole campaign is decidedly grubby.

Surely the true nature of independence is about a race of people wishing to ascert their independence and take control over their destiny regardless of the implications. I dont think that is as naive as it sounds.

If the Scots truly want independence (which I doubt) then arguments about oil, EU, sterling etc are moot.

bobcoffee

That is a very interesting indeed, fishing rights is on the EU agenda along with other things too.
Well I know Ireland's fishing rights has big ties with Spain, not sure if Scotland does too.

One thing is for certain if Scotland go for a YES, we will get to see some true colours of our member states.
Also how correct/incorrect tin foil hat people are :P

Fratton Fred

bobcoffee wrote: »

That is a very interesting indeed, fishing rights is on the EU agenda along with other things too.
Well I know Ireland's fishing rights has big ties with Spain, not sure if Scotland does too.

One thing is for certain if Scotland go for a YES, we will get to see some true colours of our member states.
Also how correct/incorrect tin foil hat people are :P

I'm not sure what the treaties state, but I'm pretty sure it is more a case of where you can and can't fish in respect to territorial waters. The rUK will still be allowing fishing in its waters, but they have changed.

How has that broken the treaty?

partyguinness

Independence debates are so last century.:)

bobcoffee

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure what the treaties state, but I'm pretty sure it is more a case of where you can and can't fish in respect to territorial waters. The rUK will still be allowing fishing in its waters, but they have changed.

How has that broken the treaty?

No idea.. how has that broken the treaty.. is that directed at me?

Spain has one of the largest fishing fleets in the EU, so that is where I'm bringing them into the conversation.

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

Last time I looked, the Spanish had said that they had no official position. However, the logic for the Spanish is very straightforward - if Scotland becomes independent, then the question of its EU entry is open. If Scotland is simply voted straight into the EU, then the same would be expected to be true for Catalonia. And Scottish independence and EU application would, based on recent events, precede any such move by Catalonia.

True however only in actual the event of Catalonia or Basque independence. It might encourage the Catalonians but that is all it does. It doesn't make gaining that independence any easier. Both the separatists and Madrid know this. For the same reason it is of limited value a precedence.

So in general I can agree that other things being equal, the Spanish government would rather a no vote so that the issue doesn't occur in the first place even if it is not that major an issue.

I cannot see that Spain can possibly choose to encourage Catalonian (and Basque) separatism - which means that Spain either directly blocks Scottish entry, or encourages others to do so. And there are other Member States with separatist movements.

Having said that, there's no doubt that Scotland would qualify for EU membership, so it's equally hard to see the political brass neck being mustered to refuse them in a clear display of national self-interest.

Which, to me, argues that the actual outcome would be the other EU countries making Scotland jump through absolutely all the accession hoops with every last i dotted and every last t crossed, and with no maintenance of current UK opt-outs such as the euro. Schengen I'm not sure about, and that would be an interesting one - practically speaking, I suspect that one would go by the board, and Scotland would join the UK-Ireland Free Movement Area.

I think the important thing here which you've acknowledged is that wanting not to encourage the Catalans or the Basques will not be the only consideration in relation to the EU entry of another country. Other considerations such as relations with other EU countries could well supersede them.

fundi

dlouth15 wrote: »

The last thing they want is border controls and legal problems for people and companies if Scotland were to have a spell outside the EU.

Disgruntled scots outside of Scotland can always seek asylum or sanctuary in other countries. Scotland could become the new Ireland of Europe, a banana republic where despite record EC aid per head of population over many decades - more handouts than any other country ever received - we have become the most indebted country in the world, per head of population. Complaints to the nearest Scottish embassy ( yip, they will have to be for as well in hard currency, Scotland ).
Scotland if it slipped downwards towards independence, could always take a leaf out of our book and become a tax haven for American multinationals, where their profits can be laundered. If Scotland plays its cards right there is nothing to stop them attracting google, facebook, microsoft, intel, ebay etc.

Godge

sfakiaman wrote: »

Just a thought, but as part of the UK's entry deal to the EEC (as I think it was called then) fishing rights in Scottish waters were included. If Scotland becomes independent and outwith the EU those rights will disappear. This will also mean that the agreement between the UK and Europe cannot be delivered by the rUK. This surely means that the rUK can no longer meet its treaty obligations and will have to renegotiate entry to the EU.

The UK would have given up certain fishing rights within its territorial waters. All that has changed is the UK territorial waters, which are now smaller. So the UK will not be in breach of its treaty obligations.

What is of interest is that when Spain and Portugal joined, the northern European countries tried to protect some of their coasts from predatory fishing and successfully got concessions from Spain and Portugal as they were the applicant countries. These concessions included restricted access to Irish and UK fishing territory. I am not sure if these concessions have been maintained today but the UK and Ireland only secured them because they were already member states. The shoe will be on the other foot for Scotland. Spain and Portugal will be the established member states looking for concessions from the accession applicant. Scotland will be the applicant having to give up right.

Someone else might have the up-to-date story on fishing rights but it is an interesting dynamic that has changed.

Certainly, the one thing that Scotland can expect in any accession negotiations is that rather than keeping more sovereignty, it will probably lose more to the EU than the UK has already lost.

dlouth15

Godge wrote: »

And nobody has said that Scotland remains a member of the EU the day after the independence vote.

Just to pick you up on this. Nobody? Are you sure?

View

Godge wrote: »

I have told you many times on this thread that what is said in public differs to what happens behind closed doors in Europe.

The example I keep giving is the recent banking crisis in Ireland. For years you had European leaders acknowledging the special position of Ireland, recognising the great sacrifices of the Irish people, something should be done for Ireland, it was different to all the rest. Yet in all that happened, and we got some help in lengthening loans etc., not one European taxpayer put their hand into their pocket and helped us out.

It has already been pointed out to you that your understanding is wrong.

Were taxpayers in other EU member states able to provide us with cost-free, and risk-free assistance there would have been no complaints about their politicians doing so.

It is precisely because that assistance was neither cost-free nor risk-free to the tax-payers in the other member states that there was such hostility to it amongst the general public of the other member states.

bobcoffee

Yep Godge someone has been lying to you, forget about anyone else, just germany alone before the crisis has been giving out free handouts during my lifetime, mainly thinking of the 90's I'm not old enough to remember the 80's to be able to comment.
Its one of the issues, nobody is responsible for the money given and it just got wasted.

jmayo

sfakiaman wrote: »

Just a thought, but as part of the UK's entry deal to the EEC (as I think it was called then) fishing rights in Scottish waters were included. If Scotland becomes independent and outwith the EU those rights will disappear. This will also mean that the agreement between the UK and Europe cannot be delivered by the rUK. This surely means that the rUK can no longer meet its treaty obligations and will have to renegotiate entry to the EU.

In practical terms they would need to establish a naval presence in order to protect those waters.
We all know how easy it was for the Spanish to raid our waters what with our naval capabilities.

partyguinness wrote: »

I am thinking back over the countries that have achieved independence or acquired it over the past 50 years or so. I cannot recall the debate leading up to it dominated by economics in the way this debate is (just my own Lady Book history). There is something fundamentally wrong here.

A lot of those countries or areas seeking independence had been colonies or conquered areas where the vast majority of the native people had often kept their demand for freedom and independence through the years.

On the other hand the Scots have never been totally united in their determination to axe it's links with Westminister or the English crown.
Hell poor ould Willy Wallace had to deal with the backstabbing nobles who took the English shilling, Bonnie Prince Charlie or the other Jacobite risings really did not have the support of the lowlanders and just remember how the massacre of the Clan MacDonald at Glencoe was planned and carried out by Scots loyal to the English crown.
Jeeze the more I think about it the more I hope they vote yes.
I think they should show Braveheart the night before the vote.

partyguinness wrote: »

That's why I cannot feel that the Yes campaign is doomed and the whole campaign is decidedly grubby.

Surely the true nature of independence is about a race of people wishing to ascert their independence and take control over their destiny regardless of the implications. I dont think that is as naive as it sounds.

If the Scots truly want independence (which I doubt) then arguments about oil, EU, sterling etc are moot.

Ahh, but this is Scotland.

BTW what happens to Balmoral if they get independence ?

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

True however only in actual the event of Catalonia or Basque independence. It might encourage the Catalonians but that is all it does. It doesn't make gaining that independence any easier. Both the separatists and Madrid know this. For the same reason it is of limited value a precedence.

So in general I can agree that other things being equal, the Spanish government would rather a no vote so that the issue doesn't occur in the first place even if it is not that major an issue.

In a democratic country, which Spain is, the amount of support for Catalonian independence makes a difference, and an easy passage for Scotland into the EU would encourage support.

A Scottish No vote would not actually discourage Catalonian separatism, but a difficult passage for Scotland into the EU, or a refusal, would.

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think the important thing here which you've acknowledged is that wanting not to encourage the Catalans or the Basques will not be the only consideration in relation to the EU entry of another country. Other considerations such as relations with other EU countries could well supersede them.

I'd go with Godge's view that entry could be made difficult by requiring large concessions. In effect, that would send a statement to the Catalans that independence is costly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

In a democratic country, which Spain is, the amount of support for Catalonian independence makes a difference, and an easy passage for Scotland into the EU would encourage support.

Not if they are perpetually in a minority in Spain, as a whole and not if there's no mechanism to allow Catalan independence.

A Scottish No vote would not actually discourage Catalonian separatism, but a difficult passage for Scotland into the EU, or a refusal, would.

I'd go with Godge's view that entry could be made difficult by requiring large concessions. In effect, that would send a statement to the Catalans that independence is costly.

Which is fine, so long as you acknowledge, as indeed you have done, that sending messages to the Catalans or the Basques is not the only consideration for Madrid.

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote:

BTW what happens to Balmoral if they get independence ?

It would presumably continue to be the residence and private estate of Elizabeth I of Scotland, as it is now.

cordially,
Scofflaw