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
Comments
-
PommieBast wrote: »I get the feeling they'll find a way to fudge these points.
These points, like the Single Market aspects of the EU, are explicitly laid out as part of the five objectives of the EU. They are not optional extras.
If a country isn’t prepared to commit to actively work to meet all of those aims, it isn’t committed to EU membership. It has no more business being an EU member than a country would have that announces it wants an “exemption” so that it can apply protectionist policies toward its imports from other EU countries.0 -
These points, like the Single Market aspects of the EU, are explicitly laid out as part of the five objectives of the EU. They are not optional extras.
If a country isn’t prepared to commit to actively work to meet all of those aims, it isn’t committed to EU membership. It has no more business being an EU member than a country would have that announces it wants an “exemption” so that it can apply protectionist policies toward its imports from other EU countries.
Really?
An independent Scotland can show as much commitment to joining the euro as Sweden has.
The EU always comes up with an answer.0 -
Channel 4 posted the debate on their YouTube channel:
I thought Sturgeon dealt with the criticism from the others well. I find Ross to be woeful.'It is better to walk alone in the right direction than follow the herd walking in the wrong direction.'
0 -
BonnieSituation wrote: »Really?
An independent Scotland can show as much commitment to joining the euro as Sweden has.
The EU always comes up with an answer.
The EU didn’t come up with any answer for Sweden.
Sweden is a special case and exists due to a combination of stupidity on the part of Swedish politicians (who insisted on a subsequent referendum on the Euro after having won a previous one on joining the EU) and sloppy wording in the Swedish accession treaty. The EU made it clear to all subsequent countries that joined that would not apply to them.
If and when any application by Scotland to join the EU is made, the other EU member states are highly unlikely to admit Scotland if it turns up in Brussels demanding a shopping list of exemptions to the EU Treaties. They are not going to all the opt-outs, rebates etc that the U.K. had since, as we all saw, those actually did nothing to placate the hostility in the U.K. to the EU and probably played right into the “prima donna” mentality of many British people.0 -
The EU didn’t come up with any answer for Sweden.
Sweden is a special case and exists due to a combination of stupidity on the part of Swedish politicians (who insisted on a subsequent referendum on the Euro after having won a previous one on joining the EU) and sloppy wording in the Swedish accession treaty. The EU made it clear to all subsequent countries that joined that would not apply to them.
If and when any application by Scotland to join the EU is made, the other EU member states are highly unlikely to admit Scotland if it turns up in Brussels demanding a shopping list of exemptions to the EU Treaties. They are not going to all the opt-outs, rebates etc that the U.K. had since, as we all saw, those actually did nothing to placate the hostility in the U.K. to the EU and probably played right into the “prima donna” mentality of many British people.
At a minimum, they'd allow Scotland to remain out of Schengen, in order to preserve the British-Irish common travel area. That would be a no-brainer.
And, if Scotland had a currency linked to sterling, I think they'd be very open to allowing that link to be maintained for quite a while.
In the long term, it's unlikely that Scotland would want a permanent link with sterling. Just as our dependence on UK trade declined after we joined the EU to a point where we decided to cut the sterling link, so expect the same development in post-indy Scotland.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »I think the EU would be much more open to accommodations to facilitate Scottish accession than it would for accommodations to facilitate UK re-accession, to be honest.
At a minimum, they'd allow Scotland to remain out of Schengen, in order to preserve the British-Irish common travel area. That would be a no-brainer.
And, if Scotland had a currency linked to sterling, I think they'd be very open to allowing that link to be maintained for quite a while.
In the long term, it's unlikely that Scotland would want a permanent link with sterling. Just as our dependence on UK trade declined after we joined the EU to a point where we decided to cut the sterling link, so expect the same development in post-indy Scotland.
I really think this is a lot of wishful thinking.
There is a lot of "British exceptionalism" about the Scottish approach to EU. It is in exactly the same position as any other applicant state, or it would be when it finally achieves independence. This letter is another example. Tellingly , it doesn't seem to be published in a Irish newspaper.
Additionally, Scotland, at the moment, will face a veto from Spain regarding any application. That might change depending on events in Catalonia and the actual process and agreement on Scottish independence.
Fianlly, there are waiting applicant nations in the Balkans which, to many members at least, will take priority.0 -
I really think this is a lot of wishful thinking.There is a lot of "British exceptionalism" about the Scottish approach to EU. It is in exactly the same position as any other applicant state, or it would be when it finally achieves independence. This letter is another example. Tellingly , it doesn't seem to be published in a Irish newspaper.Additionally, Scotland, at the moment, will face a veto from Spain regarding any application. That might change depending on events in Catalonia and the actual process and agreement on Scottish independence.
There can’t be a Scottish application until there’s an independent, sovereign Scotland. And I seriously doubt that Spain would veto an application from an independent sovereign state on the grounds that it acquired its sovereignty by seceding — constitutionally — from a larger state, and this might encourage others do to the same. The great majority of EU member states acquired their sovereignty by seceding from a larger state; Spain taking the view that this is somehow illegitimate, even when done constitutionally, would enrage and appal them. I think Spain would pay a huge political price for such a veto, squander much political capital, and secure no advantage.
The claim that Spain would do this is mostly advanced in Brexity British newspapers, so I suppose it too is an example of wishful thinking, but on the other side. Has any Spanish government figure said that Spain would do this? If not, why do you state baldly that it would?Fianlly, there are waiting applicant nations in the Balkans which, to many members at least, will take priority.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I think the EU would be much more open to accommodations to facilitate Scottish accession than it would for accommodations to facilitate UK re-accession, to be honest.
At a minimum, they'd allow Scotland to remain out of Schengen, in order to preserve the British-Irish common travel area. That would be a no-brainer.
And, if Scotland had a currency linked to sterling, I think they'd be very open to allowing that link to be maintained for quite a while.
In the long term, it's unlikely that Scotland would want a permanent link with sterling. Just as our dependence on UK trade declined after we joined the EU to a point where we decided to cut the sterling link, so expect the same development in post-indy Scotland.
The ideas you suggest are fundamentally incompatible with the stated aims of the EU.
An applicant country cannot commit to the EU’s aim of having:
1) an EU wide common currency (the Euro), and,
2) an EU wide area in which EU citizens can travel without borders (Schengen),
while simultaneously being committed on a medium/long term basis to:
1) using Sterling or a currency directly linked to it, and,
2) having a common travel area with a (hostile) non-EU country.
Scotland has to be prepared to fully commit to all the EU’s aims and have a clear plan as to how to bring them about. The member states are not going to approve a “British exceptionalism” plan which starts as “temporary” - like all the U.K. opt-outs - and then becomes permanent and then leads to another Brexit scenario where the very idea that the EU countries don’t roll over and agree to demands made to them ends up being regarded as “vindictiveness” by the EU.0 -
I really think this is a lot of wishful thinking.
There is a lot of "British exceptionalism" about the Scottish approach to EU. It is in exactly the same position as any other applicant state, or it would be when it finally achieves independence. This letter is another example. Tellingly , it doesn't seem to be published in a Irish newspaper.
Additionally, Scotland, at the moment, will face a veto from Spain regarding any application. That might change depending on events in Catalonia and the actual process and agreement on Scottish independence.
Fianlly, there are waiting applicant nations in the Balkans which, to many members at least, will take priority.
Spain has repeatedly said they would not on principle veto a Scottish application. It would be very short sighted to them to do so since, whenever Scotland eventually joined, they would want it to be open - not hostile - to backing “the Spanish position” in voting in the CoM.
Your point about the SNP’s approach being one of “British exceptionalism” is correct.0 -
The ideas you suggest are fundamentally incompatible with the stated aims of the EU.
An applicant country cannot commit to the EU’s aim of having:
1) an EU wide common currency (the Euro), and,
2) an EU wide area in which EU citizens can travel without borders (Schengen),
while simultaneously being committed on a medium/long term basis to:
1) using Sterling or a currency directly linked to it, and,
2) having a common travel area with a (hostile) non-EU country.
Scotland has to be prepared to fully commit to all the EU’s aims and have a clear plan as to how to bring them about. The member states are not going to approve a “British exceptionalism” plan which starts as “temporary” - like all the U.K. opt-outs - and then becomes permanent and then leads to another Brexit scenario where the very idea that the EU countries don’t roll over and agree to demands made to them ends up being regarded as “vindictiveness” by the EU.
Why would scotland have to?0 -
Advertisement
-
The ideas you suggest are fundamentally incompatible with the stated aims of the EU.
An applicant country cannot commit to the EU’s aim of having:
1) an EU wide common currency (the Euro), and,
2) an EU wide area in which EU citizens can travel without borders (Schengen),
while simultaneously being committed on a medium/long term basis to:
1) using Sterling or a currency directly linked to it, and,
2) having a common travel area with a (hostile) non-EU country.
Scotland has to be prepared to fully commit to all the EU’s aims and have a clear plan as to how to bring them about. The member states are not going to approve a “British exceptionalism” plan which starts as “temporary” - like all the U.K. opt-outs - and then becomes permanent and then leads to another Brexit scenario where the very idea that the EU countries don’t roll over and agree to demands made to them ends up being regarded as “vindictiveness” by the EU.
And if a country can join without adopting the euro, I don’t know of any EU rule which prevents them from linking their currency in some way to the currency of another country.
This isn’t a simply binary - either you join the euro or you don’t. For instance, In Scotland’s case a dynamic trade-weighted link to both the euro and sterling, pending Scotland meeting the criteria to adopt the euro, is the kind of thing that could be negotiated. As Scotland’s trade with the EU expanded, and its trade with the UK contracted, its currency would move closer and closer to the euro, even before formally adopting the currency.
As for joining Schengen, new EU members are not obliged to become parties to the Schengen Agreement, but the Schengen rules form part of the community law acquis which they are expected to adopt on joining. However all new member states negotiate exceptions to the adoption of the acqus, and in Scotland’s case an exception to adopting the Schengen rules could certainly be considered. Basically Scotland would be seeking to adopt instead the rules that already apply to an existing member state - Ireland - and it would have good reasons for doing so. Those rules are also part of the acquis, albeit a part which new member states do not adopt, so there is no fundamental violence to the principle of adopting the acquis there. And if course it would not create precedents for other applicant countries; as none of them currently participate in the common travel area (unless Wales secedes from the UK and seeks to accede to the EU!)0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19005
Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »Hard border between Scotland and England ? Scotland currently exports four times more to the UK than it does to the EU.
Scotland has few crossing points between England and Scotland (less than 20 roads and a few train lines iirc) and it would be relatively simple to control compared with the Irish/NI border. It would be straightforward to implement 'trusted trader' or other systems.
If the UK agreed to SPS controls on a par with the EU system many of these problems are much diminished.0 -
Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »Should there be an IndyRef2 any time soon which I doubt and should Scotland vote to leave the UK which I also doubt it would be many decades if at all before Scotland reaches the minimum economic requirements on things like government deficit and debt before it would even be considered for EU membership.
Without the Bank of England as guarantor Scotland would have to fund independence by borrowing on international markets at exorbitant rates.
And with North Sea oil rapidly running out and the price of Brent crude about half of what it was when the SNP costed its plans before the last referendum you can see why Nicola Sturgeon has admitted she hadn't even begun to think of the economic arguement.Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »Hard border between Scotland and England ? Scotland currently exports four times more to the UK than it does to the EU.
And how would Scotland replace the £12billion a year it currently receives under the Barnett formula ?
Scottish independence is like a united Ireland - a useful rallying call for politicians but with little immediate or medium-term prospect of success.0 -
-
landofthetree wrote: »
They're owned by NatWest anyway which is based in London.
They said this too in 2004. I find it a bit disingenuous to say that they are neutral in Scottish Independence but release a statement days before the election which is emotive for people to think they will be losing their "national" bank.
I guess an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be associated with a Royal Bank in name anymore.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19005
They're owned by NatWest anyway which is based in London.
They said this too in 2004. I find it a bit disingenuous to say that they are neutral in Scottish Independence but release a statement days before the election which is emotive for people to think they will be losing their "national" bank.
I guess an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be associated with a Royal Bank in name anymore.
I think they would use 'The Central Bank of Scotland' name, as we have 'The Central Bank of Ireland' as the BoI already had taken that name. There is also 'Bank of Scotland' owned by Lloyds Bank.
It is all irrelevant anyway.0 -
They're owned by NatWest anyway which is based in London.
They said this too in 2004. I find it a bit disingenuous to say that they are neutral in Scottish Independence but release a statement days before the election which is emotive for people to think they will be losing their "national" bank.
I guess an independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily be associated with a Royal Bank in name anymore.
Actually they took over Natwest but now Natwest is to the fore again.
When the CEO lives and works the majority of time in London then as far as I can see London is their defacto HQ now.
It is not too much different from Lloyds where their headquarters are in London but registered office is on the mound in Edinburgh. This registered office is now actually a museum to Scottish banking.0 -
Actually they took over Natwest but now Natwest is to the fore again.
When the CEO lives and works the majority of time in London then as far as I can see London is their defacto HQ now.
It is not too much different from Lloyds where their headquarters are in London but registered office is on the mound in Edinburgh. This registered office is now actually a museum to Scottish banking.
RBS took over NatWest... Fast forward a number of years and the RBS group renamed itself NatWest. That's the technicalities surrounding "NatWest coming to the fore" recently.
If the spiritual HQ of a bank that nearly bankrupted the State is something to stop you from voting for the SNP or Greens, then you weren't likely not be voting indy anyway.
It's a nice museum though.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,656 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 88896
Portsmouth and Davenport are basically the centre of those cities. It would be like proposing moving Faslane to Govan.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,656 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 88896
Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »An independent Scotland could link its currency to the groat if it wishes but without the Bank of England behind it a Scottish pound wouldn't be worth anywhere near sterling.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 19005
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Radioactive fallout carried by the prevailing wind would also affect Edinburg. 70% of Scotland's population lives in the general area. It's a classic example of English nimby-ism.
If nuclear reactors were safe, they would build one in Hyde Park - so the saying used to be.
They always put reactors away from important centres of population, like 40 km from Glasgow was OK as the Scots are not important - well one would assume so.
.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,656 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 88896
You are correct.
A commitment to membership of Schengen, like adoption of the Euro, is mandatory for new EU members.
No country that is serious about EU membership would even consider prioritising commitments to a non-EU country over commitments to its fellow EU countries.
If accepted it would tick ALL the boxes since the UK met all the criteria not so long ago. At the very worst it's a good bargaining chip and doesn't set a bad precedent.
Besides the CTA predates Schengen. It's like a mini-Schengen but with more immigration checks rather than making ID cards mandatory.
The Euro is a red herring as actual usage would depend on economic criteria being met and as is repeatedly pointed out on this thread Sweden have kinda sorta just barely missed alignment for umpteen years on the trot.0 -
It's interesting to see the tory led media tops repeat "project fear" without an ounce of self awareness.0
-
-
Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »It provides 6,500 jobs directly and another 11,000 indirectly.
You won't find many people in that area voting for independence.
That figure has been debunked many times
Ministry of Defence reveals just 520 Faslane jobs depend on Trident0 -
Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »Faslane was chosen for its geographical position.
It provides rapid and stealthy access through the North Channel to the submarine patrolling areas in the North Atlantic, something that can’t be replicated by a base further south or on another coast.
The Scots were rather keen on the employment and prosperity it brought to the area too.
It provides 6,500 jobs directly and another 11,000 indirectly.
You won't find many people in that area voting for independence.
That's interesting because the Faslane base is in Dumbarton. This is the most marginal seat in Scotland. The Labour MP has a majority of 106 over the SNP.
https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,constituency-profile-dumbarton
The Times believes that seat will fall to the SNP from Labour next week
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/holyrood-election-is-it-time-for-faslane-seat-to-hit-the-big-snp-button-d59hbfb0k
Perhaps you should do some basic fact checking (Google is great) before posting.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Radioactive fallout carried by the prevailing wind would also affect Edinburg. 70% of Scotland's population lives in the general area. It's a classic example of English nimby-ism.
That must be why they built the atomic weapons establishment in that well known Scottish town of Aldermaston.0 -
Time to inject a little reality into the discusssion, I think.Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »There are very strict economic entry criteria for joining the EU which are enshrined in its law.These can't be simply overlooked because someone fancies Scotland joining the EU.Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »And why would the international money markets lend money to a country that has no central bank with substantial gold reserves at anything other than with a substantial premium ?
As for gold reserves, the nineteenth century called and wants it economic theories back. Lots of countries have negligible gold reserves and, if you think countries’ credit ratings are a function of the size of their gold reserves, all I can say is that you evidently weren’t paying attention back when you were doing Junior Cert economics. Gold reserves are pretty much irrelevant here.Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »These questions and many more - defence being one of them - have yet to be answered by the SNP.Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »An independent Scotland could link its currency to the groat if it wishes but without the Bank of England behind it a Scottish pound wouldn't be worth anywhere near sterling.Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »I see Sturgeon has quietly shelved her plans for an indy IndyRef ...0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Besides the CTA predates Schengen. It's like a mini-Schengen but with more immigration checks rather than making ID cards mandatory.
Are you referring to the common travel area between Ireland, Isle of Mann, the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom? The same United Kingdom that the SNP wants to leave?0 -
Advertisement
-
Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »The total Scottish tax take is £66bn. The total state spending is £81bn. The shortfall of £15bn is made up by money from Westminster
Come back to me when you have a plan to balance the two after independence because the SNP hasn't yet which is why Scottish people were not convinced in the original referendum and according to the polls are still not convinced.
Of course corruption in the party ranks, declining education standards, the highest drug overdose death rate in Europe and a failing health service haven't helped either.
The SNP is going backwards
.
SNIP
Will the Waitrose wing of the SNP, the Scottish Greens, be propping her up again in parliament ?
I take this means that you’re not going to answer the questions I raised; that you don’t have answers to them? And since those questions were a response to points that you offered or claims that you made, I take it this also means you no longer wish to discuss the point that you have posted to, well, a discussion board?
There’s a pattern here. You post making various claims; other posters reply, taking issue with what you have said; you ignore the responses, and instead post different claims. If people engage with those, you ignore that too, and post something else again. And so on.
Which leads to two thoughts:
First, if you’re not defending your own claims, the likely explanation is that you know they are not very defensible. This is probably not the impression you are hoping to make, so you might want to rethink that strategy.
Secondly, it’s a waste of time and effort to reply to your posts if you’re going to ignore the replies. If you want a discussion, how about you engage with what I have already posted in reply to you, and we can take it from there? And, if you don’t want a discussion, why in God’s name are you posting to a discussion board?0
Advertisement