An Independent Scotland?

Steep said:
Nobody can veto Scotlands entry into the EU. The veto can only be used if a country does not meet all the requirements of membership. Learned that from a Spanish EU minister on the BBC.
Click to expand...
That's funny, because Albania were being blocked by Britain, Germany and the Netherlands and they are only now being considered because we have softened our stance. It's also been noted that no new EU members are expected until after 2021.



Steep said:
Personal venture? You think millions of Scots are going to the polls in September because it's Alex Salmonds hobby?
Click to expand...

Of course it is, do you really think he's doing for the people of Scotland? It just so happens that the consequences of his quest effects the Scottish people. But this doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't be spending so much time on the Yes campaign when we are paying him so much money to be the First Minister instead.
 
From the Telegraph (recent):

Step 1 – Scotland applies to join the EU: Under EU law, it would have to be an independent country to apply.
Step 2 – The European Commission “screens” Scottish law to see if the country is compatible with EU membership – this won’t be an issue.
Step 3 – EU governments decide whether to approve Scotland’s EU application. All EU states have a veto.
Step 4 – The EU and Scotland begin negotiations over individual EU policy areas. There are now 35 so-called “accession chapters” covering everything from the euro to employment law to the EU budget. Each country has a veto over the decision to both open and then to close every single chapter – ask Turkey how easy that has proven (read: Cyprus and France). It’s in these talks that Salmond would need to deliver on his pledge to get an opt-out from the euro, as well as replicating the UK’s special deals on the EU budget, crime and immigration and passport controls.
Step 5 – When the 35th chapter is agreed, the Accession Treaty with the Scottish terms of entry is drafted.
Step 6 – This Treaty must then be ratified by the Parliaments of each EU country and the European Parliament. If one says no, the deal falls.
Click to expand...


According to the FT it seems more like it's a case that Spain won't Veto as opposed to they can't.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/977a39ea-8c26-11e3-9b1d-00144feab7de.html#axzz35drbKl00


Anyway, I've got work to do and I've seen enough for the time being lol
 
gman said:
That's funny, because Albania were being blocked by Britain, Germany and the Netherlands and they are only now being considered because we have softened our stance. It's also been noted that no new EU members are expected until after 2021.

Albania didn't and still don't fully meet the requirements for membership, Scotland does. The veto can only be used if the applicant country does not meet all the requirements. (and this is assuming Scotland even has to rejoin, there is no mechanism for removing a country from a pre existing membership, however there will be lots of legal arguments as to whether Scotland itself was a pre existing member)



Of course it is, do you really think he's doing for the people of Scotland? It just so happens that the consequences of his quest effects the Scottish people. But this doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't be spending so much time on the Yes campaign when we are paying him so much money to be the First Minister instead.

You don't get it - The independence campaign is being led by the SNP because it's been their mandate since they were first formed but they are by no means the only group involved. You're falling in to or colluding with BTs efforts to focus the issue on one person, it's not just about Alex Salmond (and as an aside he does not run the country on his own either, there's a whole government to do that) I would be very annoyed if he spent less time on the question, it being the single most important thing any Scot can take part in.
Click to expand...
 
If it's that important then it should be made mandatory that all eligible people must vote in it, otherwise we won't get a true and fair - a bit like how the SNP managed to gain their dictatorship, sorry, majority rule over all other parties combined in 2011.
 
I find it puzzling that how people who want full control and self determination for Scotland can advocate joining the Eu when this involves handling over non-negotiable control (as the Eu demands) in the following fields (as detailed in the Eu's 35 Chapters of the acquis):-

Chapter 1: Free movement of goods
Chapter 2: Freedom of movement for workers
Chapter 3: Right of establishment and freedom to provide services
Chapter 4: Free movement of capital
Chapter 5: Public procurement
Chapter 6: Company law
Chapter 7: Intellectual property law
Chapter 8: Competition policy
Chapter 9: Financial services
Chapter 10: Information society and media
Chapter 11: Agriculture and rural development
Chapter 12: Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy
Chapter 13: Fisheries
Chapter 14: Transport policy
Chapter 15: Energy
Chapter 16: Taxation
Chapter 17: Economic and monetary policy
Chapter 18: Statistics
Chapter 19: Social policy and employment
Chapter 20: Enterprise and industrial policy
Chapter 21: Trans-European networks
Chapter 22: Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments
Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights
Chapter 24: Justice, freedom and security
Chapter 25: Science and research
Chapter 26: Education and culture
Chapter 27: Environment
Chapter 28: Consumer and health protection
Chapter 29: Customs union
Chapter 30: External relations
Chapter 31: Foreign, security and defence policy
Chapter 32: Financial control
Chapter 33: Financial and budgetary provisions
Chapter 34 - Institutions
Chapter 35 - Other issues

Not much room for self determination and full control left after Scotland complies with that lot.
 
I really don't get the desire on one hand of the Scots for independence, yet will be ceeding most of that power straight back to the EU

All that's happening is they are exchanging the EU control via Westminster, to EU control direct. It's not independence they are going to get, simply more direct control. As part fo the UK they probably will have more say in how much of that control there is, on thier own, a small minority they are largely going to be ignored by the people that run Europe for themselves, the Germans and French.

As for the notion that it's a break from Westminster, I'd garentee the next elections if the get independence the majority of MSP's will be ex Westminster, so more of the same.
 
Gaz J said:
I don't vote and that's the choice I make because I am free to do it. I don't want to waste my time travelling to a polling station to spoil my paper or to do it by post even.

Not voting is my protest.
Click to expand...

spoil your paper - you don't have to vote for a party
 
If they won't/can't make voting mandatory then a no-show could be classed as a vote towards the current party / status. So in an election if the Tories are in power then all no-shows could be counted as a vote towards them because I feel that if people want change then they are more inclined to get up and do something about it, whereas if you are happy with the current state then you may be more inclined to not bother and just leave things as they are.

With the Scottish Independence Referendum the question is straight forward: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" with either a Yes or No answer. Although it should be noted that the Scottish Parliament wanted the question the be "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?", which is of course a loaded question because of the word "agree".

Those who want change are definitely going to be more inclined to show up to vote, so is it fair that no shows should be disregarded or should they be treated as a No vote because the referendum is about changing the current status of Scotland, so surely only Yes votes should be counted as Yes and anything else should default as a No because that's the current state of affairs?

This is just an idea I'm knocking about, I'm sure those who do show up to vote may disagree, but then those who don't show up - well should they get a say? I think they should as things still effect them but perhaps if they knew that their no-show vote would default to the current party in power or default state before a referendum then it would encourage them to actually show up and vote and is perhaps a more diplomatic way of doing it?
 
Last edited:
gman said:
I also find it ironic that as much as I also dislike the BBC, you seem to think it's fine for an STV debate, because they'll be impartial right? lol
Click to expand...

Just realised that Blair Jenkins is the Chief Exec of the Yes Campaign. He was also the former Director of Broadcasting for STV lol
 
Bernie174 said:
I really don't get the desire on one hand of the Scots for independence, yet will be ceeding most of that power straight back to the EU

All that's happening is they are exchanging the EU control via Westminster, to EU control direct. It's not independence they are going to get, simply more direct control. As part fo the UK they probably will have more say in how much of that control there is, on thier own, a small minority they are largely going to be ignored by the people that run Europe for themselves, the Germans and French.

As for the notion that it's a break from Westminster, I'd garentee the next elections if the get independence the majority of MSP's will be ex Westminster, so more of the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, Bernie, it is illogical and since the SNP have said that joining the Euro is not on and that no country can now now join the Eu without monetary union that would leave Scotland on it's own with those in charge being big fish in a small pond. Perhaps that is the not so well hidden agenda.
 
We don't get a lot of the news on this down in the far south, so it maybe that I have this wrong, but I get the impression this notion of Independence is being sold, brushing the EU point under the carpet. The truth is that Scotland is simply swapping one master for another.
Worse still, once 'Independence' is achieved, it's back to the labour party for Scotland and how well that worked for us all last time.
 
Those of us in the Yes camp feel that Scotland at least won't be worse off than we already are so we get out from under the failing Westminster government and make our own way in Europe = big plus. As has been said we're more likely to be out of Europe staying in the union than leaving it. I'm glad that you accept that the current UK relationship is master/servant though :D

As for Labour, Scottish labour has always been more to the left than their cousins down south and that's never more true than now. Labour in Westminster failed because they were trying to out-Tory the Tories. One thing about PR though as has also been said before is that you get the representation that you vote for so if Scotland gets Labour it's because we voted for them. I think it's far more likely that we'll get coalitions of different parties, it's unlikely that any one party will gain enough of the vote for a majority again.
 
Just been thinking, 33 pages on a politically slanted discussion and it's still very civil. I guess some kudos to everyone is well deserved!
 
I'm glad that you accept that the current UK relationship is master/servant though
Click to expand...

Master in the sense that the Westminster Parliament has primacy over the whole UK, or put another way in the same way as Hampshire is.

The problem with coalitions is that yes, lots of people voted for each of the parties concerned, but no one voted for them to act together. Like the one in Westminster, it's cost the Lib voters their principles. Either that, or you get nothing done, like some of the Italians past efforts.

As for making your own way in Europe is it a big plus if it doesn't work out? Yes, OK, you will no doubt say, if it's a mess, it's own independent mess, while expecting the Uk to bail you out.

It's all a bit risk for the population of Scotland, especially given that I don't see a lot of the answers being given, and that 50% of those voting does not mean 50% of the population. Obviously that last point works both ways, and of course we can all sit here and say well, you should have voted.
 
Bernie174 said:
Master in the sense that the Westminster Parliament has primacy over the whole UK, or put another way in the same way as Hampshire is.

The problem with coalitions is that yes, lots of people voted for each of the parties concerned, but no one voted for them to act together. Like the one in Westminster, it's cost the Lib voters their principles. Either that, or you get nothing done, like some of the Italians past efforts.

As for making your own way in Europe is it a big plus if it doesn't work out? Yes, OK, you will no doubt say, if it's a mess, it's own independent mess, while expecting the Uk to bail you out.

It's all a bit risk for the population of Scotland, especially given that I don't see a lot of the answers being given, and that 50% of those voting does not mean 50% of the population. Obviously that last point works both ways, and of course we can all sit here and say well, you should have voted.
Click to expand...

That's part of the problem, folk down South tend to see us as just another county or region, we're not, not by a long way.

At least with PR a coalition will represent the majority of voters.

And again we get the "waiting for the UK to bail you out" horse apples. Scotland independent will be in a better fiscal state than it is now and better set up to face whatever problems come along.

Of course it's a risk but stepping out of the door in the morning is a risk. We believe that this risk is well worth taking and that we'll do just fine standing on our own two feet. You said yourself "We don't get a lot of the news on this down in the far south," so how do you know the questions have not been answered? particularly given the media's propensity to 'not report' stuff they don't like and to misreport stuff wherever they can.
 
Of course it's a risk but stepping out of the door in the morning is a risk. We believe that this risk is well worth taking and that we'll do just fine standing on our own two feet. You said yourself "We don't get a lot of the news on this down in the far south," so how do you know the questions have not been answered? p
Click to expand...

I don't know, which is why I made exactly your point.
I don't doubt that some Scots believe that you'll do fine, just as I don't doubt there's a large proportion of Scots voters, not all being Scots of course, who think otherwise. I do know that both sides wheel out experts who support their point of view Those opinions are often diametrically opposed, and they both can't be right. But those opinions are being peddled by Politicians, and I'd never buy a used car from one of them! Sammond may be a clever politician, but he's still capable of lying to get votes.

That's part of the problem, folk down South tend to see us as just another county or region, we're not, not by a long way.
Click to expand...

I think that's your Assembly Majority Party doing that, no one else.

And again we get the "waiting for the UK to bail you out" horse apples. Scotland independent will be in a better fiscal state than it is now and better set up to face whatever problems come along.
Click to expand...

No, we don't go again. I simply make the point that a very large proportion of Scotland is still likely to see it's self linked to the UK, and IF (I used that word, which makes it a possibly scenario, not a definite one, which I notice is something you did not!), it goes wrong, they will naturally want to turn to the UK. It's a risk, yes, and peddling the theory that you will do much better alone is an assumption and a very dangerous one, given that you don't seem to know exactly how things will pan out.

There's no point in rushing headlong into something, not knowing what your liabilities are going to be. The SNP were, I think wrong not to negotiate a deal first, then have you vote on it. I accept that the talks will start after the vote, but what happens if it turns out to be a bad deal for you? All of these theories about how well you'll do will fall flat. At that point it's too late, the SNP will take you out, no matter how much some of you may well change your mind, the chances of you getting a second vote are nil, unless power changes hands before the independence day and whoever gets in gives you that chance.
 
Bernie174 said:
I don't know, which is why I made exactly your point.
I don't doubt that some Scots believe that you'll do fine, just as I don't doubt there's a large proportion of Scots voters, not all being Scots of course, who think otherwise. I do know that both sides wheel out experts who support their point of view Those opinions are often diametrically opposed, and they both can't be right. But those opinions are being peddled by Politicians, and I'd never buy a used car from one of them! Sammond may be a clever politician, but he's still capable of lying to get votes.

The difference is that the figures Westminster have come up with have been proved to be wrong every time, spectacularly wrong in some cases (see the 2.7 revised down to 1.5 billion but still fantasy land prediction of the costs of setting up a Scottish state). Please stop putting this all on Alex Salmond, he's the leader of the SNP but the SNP are only one of many groups campaigning together for this. BT and the media have consistently tried to target everything on him to 'demonize' him in the hope that it will divert attention away from the rest.

I think that's your Assembly Majority Party doing that, no one else.

No, you compared Scotland to Hampshire, that's what I referred to.

No, we don't go again. I simply make the point that a very large proportion of Scotland is still likely to see it's self linked to the UK, and IF (I used that word, which makes it a possibly scenario, not a definite one, which I notice is something you did not!), it goes wrong, they will naturally want to turn to the UK. It's a risk, yes, and peddling the theory that you will do much better alone is an assumption and a very dangerous one, given that you don't seem to know exactly how things will pan out.

The 'theory' that we'll come running back for the UK to bail us out has been brought up many times on this thread, it will not happen. The idea that we'll do very well on our own is based on solid research and evidence, that's not a theory. Do you really believe that the Scots are sleepwalking into this? that no-one has bothered to think it through?

There's no point in rushing headlong into something, not knowing what your liabilities are going to be. The SNP were, I think wrong not to negotiate a deal first, then have you vote on it. I accept that the talks will start after the vote, but what happens if it turns out to be a bad deal for you? All of these theories about how well you'll do will fall flat. At that point it's too late, the SNP will take you out, no matter how much some of you may well change your mind, the chances of you getting a second vote are nil, unless power changes hands before the independence day and whoever gets in gives you that chance.

This last paragraph, some points/questions - We're not rushing headlong into anything, see above.
Westminster will not even acknowledge the possibility of a yes vote so who exactly would the SNP have negotiated with?
In what way could the negotiations turn out to be a bad deal for us? some examples would be good.
Click to expand...
 
The difference is that the figures Westminster have come up with have been proved to be wrong every time, spectacularly wrong in some cases (see the 2.7 revised down to 1.5 billion but still fantasy land prediction of the costs of setting up a Scottish state). Please stop putting this all on Alex Salmond, he's the leader of the SNP but the SNP are only one of many groups campaigning together for this. BT and the media have consistently tried to target everything on him to 'demonize' him in the hope that it will divert attention away from the rest.
Click to expand...
Who's 'putting it on dear old Alex? what I said was that both sides have put out theories and both cannot be right. Some of what the yes side have said isn't going to be true. Alex is like all politicians, he tells lies. If the yes side cannot see that, then you are in real trouble.
I seem to recall seeing a few 'oops' moments by the yes side so far too.

No, you compared Scotland to Hampshire, that's what I referred to.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I said that Soctland is the same as for example Hampshire in being run by Westminster ultimately. In that sense Westminster is master to us all. The only thing that will change on Independence is that you will go direct to the EU, not via London. It's a response to a point you made about the use of 'master'. You are the one trying to make an issue of it.

The 'theory' that we'll come running back for the UK to bail us out has been brought up many times on this thread, it will not happen. The idea that we'll do very well on our own is based on solid research and evidence, that's not a theory. Do you really believe that the Scots are sleepwalking into this? that no-one has bothered to think it through?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do think some Scots are 'sleepwalking' into this, blinded by the idea, not the reality. You say solid research and evidence. As you have no idea what the terms are going to be, there cannot be solid evidence or research, there is nothing to base either of those on. Like I said, thats a dangerous place to be, vote on an ideal, and find the reality isn't going to be like that. As I said, you have no way back while the SNP is in power, no matter how much some might suddenly find they don't like the reality when it comes to it. Having all the facts about how exactly it is going to pan out, not some politicians word which is worthless would have been far better for the Scots.

OK, you may well want this no matter what, I can see that, it doesn't mean you are right that it is in reality good for Scotland. That's clearly fine for you, but Scotland is far more people than just you.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
but Scotland is far more people than just you.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised at the lack of Yes representation in this thread, there's a few but only Hugh appears to be debating persistently. Which brings us onto....

Bernie174 said:
Yes, I do think some Scots are 'sleepwalking' into this, blinded by the idea, not the reality.
Click to expand...


But I do believe the Yes campaign's biggest weapon is the potential scale of no-shows at the referendum, although you could probably attribute blame for this to the No campaign.
 
Judging from what I see and hear daily the turnout on the 18th will be high, I hope it's very high. At least this time round not voting will not count as a no vote so anyone who wants to say no will have to get out there and do it.
 
It seems to be catching. I've just read that the Veneto region (Venice) is going to hold an indepedence referendum. They held an online one in March when some 78% supposedly voted yes, the results were challenged though so now they're doing it officially.
 
The higher the show the happier I'll be regardless of the result because i just want it to be as fair a result as possible and then we can all just get on and deal with it!
 
gman said:
I'm surprised at the lack of Yes representation in this thread, there's a few but only Hugh appears to be debating persistently. Which brings us onto....
.
Click to expand...

it's funny reading all the crap the no camp come out with. no need to reply to it ;)
 
Steep said:
A debate in August is better for Yes because there'd be less time to gloss over the damage Yes believes AD will do to his side. Both these guys were weaned on Westminster style politics and one upmanship unfortunately plays a big part in their attitudes to political enemies.

My preference would be for a date in August on STV, after what I've seen over the last few months I wouldn't give the BBC the time of day.
Click to expand...

Looks like it could be back on and on both dates! :)
 
POAH said:
fabulous way to prove my point lol
Click to expand...

I never changed it, must have been MI5.



Steep said:
Typical of the Bitter Together misrepresentation of the truth that we see every day! :)
Click to expand...

Oh dear, don't encourage him. You know what happens to threads when he comes along. Flush.

Besides, the only bitter people are the Yes campaign and their disgraceful cybernats, who all appear to be incapable of removing that giant chip on their shoulder. lol @ the STV page btw, although shock horror about cybernats racing out to boycott anyone who disagrees.
 
Note to self - boycott Graham asap.
 
The only reason current UK goverment wants to keep scotland is the money it gets from oil, whisky and from having the sub base. Give it 30 years when the oil has run out and they won't GAF about scotland lol

I had the no campaign's spam through the door today, that went straight into the recycle :D

I do like the no campaigns message - better together - yes the rUK is better off having scotland around not the other way about ;)
 
POAH said:
The only reason current UK goverment wants to keep scotland is the money it gets from oil, whisky and from having the sub base. Give it 30 years when the oil has run out and they won't GAF about scotland lol
Click to expand...

Scotland holds an important strategically geographic value to the UK.

North Sea oil is expensive to extract compared to land extraction and is running out, so I wouldn't overvalue it and neither should the Scottish people when they are looking at going Independent. Alternative means of energy are definitely the way forward and hopefully Scotland can make progress here and quickly. Of course Scotland is of value to the UK, but don't kid yourself into thinking whiskey and oil are the golden nectar that the UK desires:

Scotland Current Budget Balance 2012-13: £8.6 billion deficit (5.9% of GDP) which includes a geographical share of North Sea oil. The UK was 5.8% of GDP.
Scotland Net Fiscal Balance 2012-13: £12.1 billion deficit (8.3% of GDP) which includes a geographical share of North Sea oil. The UK was 7.3% of GDP.

It is also noted that manufacturing in Scotland has shrank from 19% to 12% of the economy from 1998 to 2009. Manufacturing is critical.

Maybe if the Scottish nobles hadn't screwed things up in the first place with their disastrous attempt at starting up a new colony and putting Scotland into poverty then there wouldn't have been a union in the first place. But now after centuries of assistance they finally start to get back on their feet and it's suddenly a case of thanks but no thanks and you can sod off now? Well, the Yes campaign may be big on words but when it comes to putting money where their mouths are then it's a different story, seeing as almost all the Yes Campaign's donations have come from just one couple.

I wonder how much you guys have donated?
 
gman said:
Just been thinking, 33 pages on a politically slanted discussion and it's still very civil. I guess some kudos to everyone is well deserved!
Click to expand...

"agreed" and then almost immediately you get these statements. aint that a coincidence!

POAH said:
it's funny reading all the crap the no camp come out with. no need to reply to it ;)
Click to expand...

POAH said:
The only reason current UK goverment wants to keep scotland is the money it gets from oil, whisky and from having the sub base. Give it 30 years when the oil has run out and they won't GAF about scotland lol

I had the no campaign's spam through the door today, that went straight into the recycle :D
Click to expand...
 
Don't underestimate the oil reserves, North sea oil has a good thirty years and probably more, West coast oil has yet to be tapped, once Trident is gone the firth of Clyde will be opened up to drilling and just today news that a test rig between Shetland and the Faroes has produced oil at far greater quantity than expected. Oil is always going to be a declining resource by its nature but there's enough off Scotlands coasts to keep the oil companies busy for far longer than WM would Have you believe. Speaking of which Alistair did another one of his specials today in a radio interview, he said the oil would run out in 2017!
 
...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top