Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Scottish independence: Scotland would be 'separate state'

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Thomas_I
    Closed Accounts Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Thomas_I


    gallag wrote: »
    Because they are British, they are the UK, they are the citizens, the prime ministers, every good thing about the UK and every bad. Its not us vs them, the Scottish are us and we are them.

    Are you an Ulster-Scot?


  • Options
    #63
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,771 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    djpbarry wrote: »
    When was Ireland ever an "equal partner" within the UK? Frame your answer in the context of Ireland having equal status to the other 26 states within the EU.

    Again with the "800 years" inference that is so prevalent in threads like these.

    Once more.. What happened in Ireland wasn't pretty and you could go as far to say that it wasn't "fair", but it was deemed acceptable statecraft back then for stronger countries to simply invade weaker ones and take what they wanted! Half of Europe was at it at the time, and if things had played out differently I'm sure Ireland would have plundered and pillaged with the rest of them as well.

    Anyway, times have moved on, cultures and governments have "evolved", and expansion through conquest is no longer deemed "acceptable" by the First world (nowadays it all happens electronically/financially without ever firing a shot).

    We as a country would do well to calmly and rationally consider the option of joining the UK as a partner (rather than subject) considering our close ties economically AND culturally vs our current status as a peripheral member of a Union that has directly and indirectly brought the country to its knees over the past 5 years, and that we will never have an "equal" say in through sheer weight of numbers against us (hence why the bubble was allowed to grow in the first place as economic policy of the time was designed around Germany's needs, not us, the Portuguese, Spanish, Greeks etc).

    We've also proven time and again that we cannot be left at the controls ourselves as we are too immature, greedy and ultimately short-sighted to do things in our own best interests, hence why we elect teachers, publicans and other such dangerously under-qualified people to represent us on an international stage based on nothing more on how many potholes they fixed in the local village, or if they were able to push through some planning/grant application for us. Result: never-ending corruption, waste and incompetence at not just the highest levels, but ALL levels while our latest "leader" plays "European of the Year" to his European "betters".

    But because too many of the Irish are still stuck in the past this won't happen yet. Luckily for the people of Northern Ireland there have been a few visionaries in the past 30 years so troops on the streets and militarised border checkpoints are a thing of the past, and in its place is a working government that, while not perfect, at least has allowed most of the ordinary people to live in relative peace.

    At the end of the day we have already signed over our hard won "Independence" twice now - first to the Church, and then to the EU, so save for ideological and "patriotic" reasons, I don't see why we couldn't at least look at the idea.


  • Options
    #64
    Thomas_I
    Closed Accounts Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Thomas_I


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Again with the "800 years" inference that is so prevalent in threads like these.

    Once more.. What happened in Ireland wasn't pretty and you could go as far to say that it wasn't "fair", but it was deemed acceptable statecraft back then for stronger countries to simply invade weaker ones and take what they wanted! Half of Europe was at it at the time, and if things had played out differently I'm sure Ireland would have plundered and pillaged with the rest of them as well.

    Anyway, times have moved on, cultures and governments have "evolved", and expansion through conquest is no longer deemed "acceptable" by the First world (nowadays it all happens electronically/financially without ever firing a shot).

    We as a country would do well to calmly and rationally consider the option of joining the UK as a partner (rather than subject) considering our close ties economically AND culturally vs our current status as a peripheral member of a Union that has directly and indirectly brought the country to its knees over the past 5 years.

    But because too many of the Irish are still stuck in the past this won't happen yet. Luckily for the people of Northern Ireland there have been a few visionaries in the past 30 years so troops on the streets and militarised border checkpoints are a thing of the past, and in its place is a working government that, while not perfect, at least has allowed most of the ordinary people to live in relative peace.

    At the end of the day we have already signed over our hard won "Independence" twice now - first to the Church, and then to the EU, so save for ideological and "patriotic" reasons, I don't see why we couldn't at least look at the idea.

    What kind of partnership would that be? I´ve read about different proposals on various boards about that, not in particulare on Irish initiative, but from some people in the UK considering something like a "closer circle of Commonwealth countries" in this "new club" some also have mentioned that the membership of Ireland would be welcome. But there was no mention of another shape like "federation" or "con-federation" with the UK.

    It´s not clear whether Scotland in the event of its independence would not had to re-negotiate or apply for its membership to the Commonwealth of Nations, let alone the EU which is another matter.


  • Options
    #65
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    Thomas_I wrote: »

    Are you an Ulster-Scot?
    I sir, am British.


  • Options
    #66
    Thomas_I
    Closed Accounts Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Thomas_I


    gallag wrote: »
    I sir, am British.

    I already know that, Sir.:)

    It seems that you´re not the only one on here considering some "partnership" of Ireland with the UK, like Kaiser 2000 said in his post on this thread.

    Sometimes I´m really lost in the woods by all this. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Again with the "800 years" inference that is so prevalent in threads like these.
    Eh, I inferred no such thing?
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    We as a country would do well to calmly and rationally consider the option of joining the UK as a partner (rather than subject) considering our close ties economically AND culturally vs our current status as a peripheral member of a Union that has directly and indirectly brought the country to its knees over the past 5 years...
    What was that you were saying about calm and rational?
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    ...and that we will never have an "equal" say in through sheer weight of numbers against us (hence why the bubble was allowed to grow in the first place as economic policy of the time was designed around Germany's needs, not us, the Portuguese, Spanish, Greeks etc).
    The bubble was allowed to grow because Ireland allowed it to grow. End of.
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    We've also proven time and again that we cannot be left at the controls ourselves as we are too immature, greedy and ultimately short-sighted to do things in our own best interests, hence why we elect teachers, publicans and other such dangerously under-qualified people to represent us on an international stage...
    Give me a publican, teacher or farmer any day over a guy who’s never done a day’s work in a real job (David Cameron).


  • Options
    #68
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,771 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Eh, I inferred no such thing?
    I quote: When was Ireland ever an "equal partner" within the UK?
    Times change, things move on and old enemies become allies and friends. Such is the way of the world.

    I think we're approaching a period where the general population has had enough of the EU's "one size fits all" approach to governance when it's been shown it doesn't work, and the idea of still further integration doesn't sit well with a lot of the people throughout Europe - despite what the politicians and bureaucracy want/would have us believe (and who incidentally benefit most from the current system of unaccountability/anonymity that's there now).
    What was that you were saying about calm and rational?
    I'm completely calm and rational (must've been that nice lunch earlier!) but if you can't see the disastrous impact the EU's insistence on "Austerity" (despite many other groups and experts - insofar as there are such things - saying such policies just don't work ultimately) has had on this country in terms of employment (or the lack thereof) and the domestic economy in general, then perhaps you should have a walk around any smaller town this weekend and count the number of closed shops you see.
    The bubble was allowed to grow because Ireland allowed it to grow. End of.
    No, the bubble grew because it suited German interests at the time to keep interest rates low when what we needed was a means of cooling our rapidly overheating economy as some people were calling for.

    Now, I will grant you that FF didn't do much/anything to calm the situation, but even if they HAD wanted to, the means wouldn't have been there.. that's what happens when you sign away control over such things.
    Give me a publican, teacher or farmer any day over a guy who’s never done a day’s work in a real job (David Cameron).
    Oh so we don't have political dynasty's in Ireland then? But my point was actually how such a teacher/publican etc is somehow instantly qualified to represent our country at EU level when their grasp of some/many? of the facts is suspect at best - witness the recent shoving through of the Promissory Notes deal despite many TD's admitting live on air that they hadn't fully read it/had it explained it to them beforehand.

    Yep that's the sort of "leadership" we need alright


  • Options
    #69
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    I quote: When was Ireland ever an "equal partner" within the UK?
    I’m looking for a mention of “800 years” in there and I’m not seeing it.

    The point I was making is that it is ridiculous to suggest that Ireland is a “less equal” partner within the EU than it was within the UK. Of course it’s no coincidence that those who suggest Ireland should reconsider its position outside of the UK, the most eurosceptic nation in the EU, are almost always of an anti-EU disposition.
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    I think we're approaching a period where the general population has had enough of the EU's "one size fits all" approach to governance when it's been shown it doesn't work...
    Has it indeed? There was me thinking that over the last few decades, Europe had enjoyed a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity.
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    I'm completely calm and rational (must've been that nice lunch earlier!) but if you can't see the disastrous impact the EU's insistence on "Austerity"...
    The need for “austerity” is entirely self-imposed – Ireland is living way beyond its means and shut itself out of the bond markets as a result.
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Now, I will grant you that FF didn't do much to calm the situation...
    Didn’t do much to calm the situation?!? Are you serious? They did everything in their power to inflate the bubble.
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    ...but even if they HAD wanted to, the means wouldn't have been there..
    Really? They didn’t have control over taxation, for example?
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Oh so we don't have political dynasty's in Ireland then?
    I have no idea what that has to do with my point.
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    ...witness the recent shoving through of the Promissory Notes deal despite many TD's admitting live on air that they hadn't fully read it/had it explained it to them beforehand.
    I think you’re being incredibly naive if you think that politicians anywhere read in detail every treaty or piece of legislation that they’re asked to vote on.

    Anyways, this thread is getting way off-topic at this stage, so I’m bowing out.


  • Options
    #70
    COYW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭COYW


    Thomas_I wrote: »
    What kind of partnership would that be? I´ve read about different proposals on various boards about that, not in particulare on Irish initiative, but from some people in the UK considering something like a "closer circle of Commonwealth countries" in this "new club" some also have mentioned that the membership of Ireland would be welcome. But there was no mention of another shape like "federation" or "con-federation" with the UK.

    It´s not clear whether Scotland in the event of its independence would not had to re-negotiate or apply for its membership to the Commonwealth of Nations, let alone the EU which is another matter.

    Scotland would remain part of the Commonwealth. I see no benefit in them leaving it at any stage as an independent body. They will be put to the bottom of the EU list for membership. Barroso stated that they would have to apply for membership to the EU at the end of last year. Acceptance into the EU would take years.

    I totally agree with Kaiser2000 in relation to us becoming a partner with the UK. We have such close cultural and economic links that it makes sense. The UK is our biggest trade partner. It could also be a potential solution to the NI issue. You could have ourselves, England, NI, independent Scotland & Wales in a partnership.


  • Options
    #71
    Madam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Madam


    COYW wrote: »
    Scotland would remain part of the Commonwealth. I see no benefit in them leaving it at any stage as an independent body. They will be put to the bottom of the EU list for membership. Barroso stated that they would have to apply for membership to the EU at the end of last year. Acceptance into the EU would take time.

    I'm not so sure we should become part of the the EU again(if independence happens;)), the likes of Norway does pretty well without it why not Scotland?

    Btw I'm not a euro skeptic:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Madam wrote: »
    I'm not so sure we should become part of the the EU again(if independence happens;)), the likes of Norway does pretty well without it why not Scotland?

    Btw I'm not a euro skeptic:)
    Because Norway is the exception not the rule. There is no way the EU will take Scotland on on those terms. As a new state joining the EU they'd have to switch to the euro.


  • Options
    #73
    Madam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Madam


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Because Norway is the exception not the rule. There is no way the EU will take Scotland on on those terms. As a new state joining the EU they'd have to switch to the euro.

    How would that make a difference to Scotland joining? Btw Scotland has 'always' been the exception;)


  • Options
    #74
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    COYW wrote: »
    They will be put to the bottom of the EU list for membership. Barroso stated that they would have to apply for membership to the EU at the end of last year. Acceptance into the EU would take years.

    What makes you think that? While expert opinion does say that an independant Scotland would need to negotiate membership of the EU, they also say that there is no reason to assume that it would be a particularly long or dificult process. Should Scotland vote for Independance, there is little reason to think that the terms of EU membership could not be agreed by the time Scotland becomes Independant in 2016.


  • Options
    #75
    COYW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭COYW


    An Coilean wrote: »
    What makes you think that? While expert opinion does say that an independant Scotland would need to negotiate membership of the EU, they also say that there is no reason to assume that it would be a particularly long or dificult process. Should Scotland vote for Independance, there is little reason to think that the terms of EU membership could not be agreed by the time Scotland becomes Independant in 2016.

    José Manuel Barroso makes me think that. He stated that an independent Scotland would have to take it's place at the back of the queue if it wished to gain membership of the EU.

    This will not be a quick and easy process. If you look at the "The accession process for a new Member State", a process set up by the EU to aid applicant countries, you will see that the process is far from straight forward. Scotland will not be able to submit an application for membership until (if) it gains independence in 2016, for starters. They have to meet certain economic and legal criteria also before they can submit an application also.


  • Options
    #76
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    If the UK is the "successor state" and Scotland has to start off from zero, then presumably the UK will be happy to hold the entire UK national debt?


  • Options
    #77
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    COYW wrote: »
    José Manuel Barroso makes me think that. He stated that an independent Scotland would have to take it's place at the back of the queue if it wished to gain membership of the EU.

    This will not be a quick and easy process. If you look at the "The accession process for a new Member State", a process set up by the EU to aid applicant countries, you will see that the process is far from straight forward. Scotland will not be able to submit an application for membership until (if) it gains independence in 2016, for starters. They have to meet certain economic and legal criteria also before they can submit an application also.

    There is no queue, applicant countries have to meet specific criteria, they don't have to wait for other countries to get in ahead of them. As for those criteria, Scotland is already in the EU, I doubt there will be much for them to prove on the Legal or Economic front. The people of Scotland are also already European Citizens and there is no mechanism to take that away from them should Scotland become Independant.


  • Options
    #78
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    ardmacha wrote: »
    If the UK is the "successor state" and Scotland has to start off from zero, then presumably the UK will be happy to hold the entire UK national debt?
    Not on your nelly, London isn't that dumb.


  • Options
    #79
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    An Coilean wrote: »
    The people of Scotland are also already European Citizens and there is no mechanism to take that away from them should Scotland become Independant.
    That's an interesting assertion. EU citizenship exists by virtue of being a citizen of an EU member state; the Union has no independent concept of citizenship that I'm aware of. If Scotland wasn't an EU member state, Scots wouldn't be EU citizens.

    There is (inexact) precedent. Greenland effectively seceded from the Union, and Greenlanders, while Danish citizens, are not EU citizens.


  • Options
    #80
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    COYW wrote: »
    I totally agree with Kaiser2000 in relation to us becoming a partner with the UK. We have such close cultural and economic links that it makes sense. The UK is our biggest trade partner. It could also be a potential solution to the NI issue. You could have ourselves, England, NI, independent Scotland & Wales in a partnership.
    We're not already?


  • Options
    #81
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You’d have a state with about 1 million rich people and 24 million people who couldn’t afford to do anything. Wonderful.

    So basically it would just replicate current conditions in the UK as a whole, except for there would be more rich people and less poor people (in both absolute and relative terms)?

    A step in the right direction I suppose.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    R P McMurphy wrote: »
    Ireland's economic model was always going to take a battering with a decline in the global economy. With the collapse and subsequent stagnation of global trade Ireland has done terribly and will continue to struggle, however with an upswing are well placed to take advantage of a recovery. What is often forgotten was the praise heaped upon this model in the not too distant past. can you guess which British political figure came out with these comments

    Of course we also have to mention that the Irish economic model under the "celtic tiger" is guaranteed to periodically lead to economic collapse. It is a clause written into the very nature of capitalism itself.


  • Options
    #83
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    We as a country would do well to calmly and rationally consider the option of joining the UK as a partner (rather than subject) considering our close ties economically AND culturally vs our current status as a peripheral member of a Union that has directly and indirectly brought the country to its knees over the past 5 years, and that we will never have an "equal" say in through sheer weight of numbers against us (hence why the bubble was allowed to grow in the first place as economic policy of the time was designed around Germany's needs, not us, the Portuguese, Spanish, Greeks etc).

    We already have, through the frameworks of the EU and UN. Equal partnership would mean equality between the UK and Ireland, and Ireland will not have equality with the UK if it subsumes back into the UK.
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    I think we're approaching a period where the general population has had enough of the EU's "one size fits all" approach to governance when it's been shown it doesn't work,

    And what makes you think that the current UK model, "government of the few, for the few and by the few" is any more appealing?

    I've no more love for the current direction of the EU than most, but I won't be tying my boat to the sinking ship of Call me Dave and "A name too Jewish for a future PM"* Osborne.

    *Those were his own words regarding his actual first name, when asked why he re-christened himself George half way through secondary school.


  • Options
    #84
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    COYW wrote: »
    I totally agree with Kaiser2000 in relation to us becoming a partner with the UK. We have such close cultural and economic links that it makes sense. The UK is our biggest trade partner. It could also be a potential solution to the NI issue. You could have ourselves, England, NI, independent Scotland & Wales in a partnership.
    What would a partnership entail? Would there be common budgets like defence or justice?

    Without common budgets then i don't see any benefit for any state and with common budgets I don't see England doing very well out of the deal tbh.


  • Options
    #85
    Muilleann
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭Muilleann


    There is no such nationality as "British".

    It is a "made up" nationality to justify English domination of the Irish,Welsh and Scots.

    Now,mind you,they're a powerful nation the English and it's in our best interests to get along with and co-operate with them.

    But never to be dominated by them.

    Any time the independence issue arises in Scotland,Wales or Northern Ireland the UK government invariably trot out the threat of public service workers losing their jobs,etc.

    And it's a threat that usually works.


  • Options
    #86
    Thomas_I
    Closed Accounts Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Thomas_I


    Muilleann wrote: »
    There is no such nationality as "British".

    It is a "made up" nationality to justify English domination of the Irish,Welsh and Scots.

    Now,mind you,they're a powerful nation the English and it's in our best interests to get along with and co-operate with them.

    But never to be dominated by them.

    Any time the independence issue arises in Scotland,Wales or Northern Ireland the UK government invariably trot out the threat of public service workers losing their jobs,etc.

    And it's a threat that usually works.

    It´s no threat, it´s what necessarily has to follow because why should the English pay slaries to civil servants who are not in their service anymore? That doesn´t makes any sense. Everything has it´s price and independence costs a lot more than some like to expect.

    If one country considers itself that it can afford its independence, than it should pay for it by itself.


  • Options
    #87
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Muilleann wrote: »
    There is no such nationality as "British".
    Yes there is. There are 63 million of them as proof.
    Muilleann wrote: »
    It is a "made up" nationality to justify English domination of the Irish,Welsh and Scots.
    All nationalities are made up. And it's hardly dominion when they are free to leave at any time. For so long as they stay in the UK they have their own regional parliaments and have proportional representation in Westminster. Doesn't sound like dominion to me.
    Muilleann wrote: »
    Now,mind you,they're a powerful nation the English and it's in our best interests to get along with and co-operate with them.
    For the time being England isn't a nation you mean the UK. And yes it is in our interests to co operate with them. Same as any other country.
    Muilleann wrote: »
    But never to be dominated by them.
    Obviously it's not in our interests to be dominated by anybody.
    Muilleann wrote: »
    Any time the independence issue arises in Scotland,Wales or Northern Ireland the UK government invariably trot out the threat of public service workers losing their jobs,etc.
    It's a concern not a threat. What do you want them to do? Continue to finance the public service in the event of independence.
    Muilleann wrote: »
    And it's a threat that usually works.
    One thing I've learned from boards is that money talks nationalism doesn't.


  • Options
    #88
    COYW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭COYW


    ardmacha wrote: »
    If the UK is the "successor state" and Scotland has to start off from zero, then presumably the UK will be happy to hold the entire UK national debt?

    Not a chance in hell. Their portion of the national debt would need to be addressed. I'm pretty sure some deal would be done on the debt but Scotland would be "born" with billions of national debt.
    Thomas_I wrote: »
    It´s no threat, it´s what necessarily has to follow because why should the English pay slaries to civil servants who are not in their service anymore? That doesn´t makes any sense. Everything has it´s price and independence costs a lot more than some like to expect.

    If one country considers itself that it can afford its independence, than it should pay for it by itself.

    Yep, they can't have their cake and eat it. If they want independence they have to be adult enough to address their portion of the national debt in the current administration. I think some people have this silly idea that Scotland will trot off into the sunset debt free. Times will be very tough for them, if they vote for independence.
    Muilleann wrote: »
    Any time the independence issue arises in Scotland,Wales or Northern Ireland the UK government invariably trot out the threat of public service workers losing their jobs,etc.

    And it's a threat that usually works.

    What do you expect them to say? They have to be honest about these things. Can you prove that Scotland has the financial capability to maintain its public services, which receive more funding than NI (just), Wales and England at the moment, if it gains independence? I can't see it happening, no matter what way I look at them.


  • Options
    #89
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You’d have a state with about 1 million rich people and 24 million people who couldn’t afford to do anything. Wonderful.

    I missed this one. :) The standard of living in the worst part of the South East is no where near as bad as certain parts of Glasgow.


  • Options
    #90
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    COYW wrote: »
    Not a chance in hell. Their portion of the national debt would need to be addressed. I'm pretty sure some deal would be done on the debt but Scotland would be "born" with billions of national debt.

    Which is pretty much how the union came about in the first place.

    In hindsight, i wonder how an independent Scotland would have dealt with the £45Bn bail out of RBS?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Thomas_I
    Closed Accounts Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Thomas_I


    COYW wrote: »
    ...
    Yep, they can't have their cake and eat it. If they want independence they have to be adult enough to address their portion of the national debt in the current administration. I think some people have this silly idea that Scotland will trot off into the sunset debt free. Times will be very tough for them, if they vote for independence.
    ...

    I´m not going to expect that Scotland will be quit off their share in the UKs national debt, but I´d say that this will be an issue for and during the negotiations according to the result of the referendum (means in case of a majority in favour of independence).


Advertisement