An Independent Scotland?

Steep said:
The one overriding factor in this is that all Scottish citizens are and will continue to be European citizens. How does the EU go about disenfranchising 5 million people?
Click to expand...

They wont

Scotland will do that all by its self if the people vote yes on the 18th September
 
Keith just because you say it doesn't make it fact and so far all you've done is make and repeat unsupported statements gleaned from gutter press headlines, when you're proved wrong you just steamroller on regardless. You're never going to convince anyone like that.
 
Steep said:
Just because I say it doesn't make it fact and so far all I have done is make and repeat unsupported statements gleaned from gutter press headlines, when I am proved wrong I just steamroller on regardless.
Click to expand...

Really?

You talking to yourself there?
 
Being childish doesn't win you any arguments either.
 
I'm presuming Jean Claude Juncker has
http://wingsoverscotland.com/what-it-would-be-like/#more-58541
Juncker makes clear that the vote is an internal matter for the UK, and Scotland would not have to "join the queue" to join the EU. Scotland already by definition meets acquis communitaire.

To be clear I'd rather Scotland were out of the EU, but sadly I think we will still be in it, whether independent or as part of the UK.
 
EU membership has never been Mr Salmond's strongest area, having previously claimed to have legal advice backing up his case. It turned out no such advice ever existed, and Alex Salmond spent thousands of taxpayers moeny trying to cover this up.
 
Moadib The EU and the EEC before it has been very good for Scotland, much of the Highlands would still have single track roads but for them for example. The failings like the ruination of our fisheries have come from the UK government not being willing to fight the battle for them and/or not passing on funding that is awarded.

The future won't be so rosy either way though, we're now in the position of having to support new entrants in the way we were once supported, paying the piper as it were. I reckon that rankles with the folk down South who've maybe not needed EU cash as much and is why DC has had to promise a referendum on staying in. As usual the Southern vote will decide what happens for everyone else so it's very likely that if there's a no vote that we'll end up out of the EU anyway.
 
Moadib said:
I'm presuming Jean Claude Juncker has
http://wingsoverscotland.com/what-it-would-be-like/#more-58541
Juncker makes clear that the vote is an internal matter for the UK, and Scotland would not have to "join the queue" to join the EU. Scotland already by definition meets acquis communitaire.

To be clear I'd rather Scotland were out of the EU, but sadly I think we will still be in it, whether independent or as part of the UK.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for Alex Salmond, Mr Juncker has indicated that a separate Scotland would face a difficult journey to join the EU, saying that there will be “No new enlargement in the next five years"

Even before Scotland applies there are a whole host of things to consider. Not least the currency.

In addition, all member states have to agree. There is a due process to go through. I guarantee there will be no automatic rubber stamp for Scotland to go through.

In the long term, it's distinctly achievable for Scotland to join EU but it won't be happening over night.
 
Keith W said:
You really do not understand do you?

Have you actually read article 50?
Do you have any understanding of it and it's implications?
Click to expand...


firstly you can't catagorically say we won't be in the EU as there has never been a break up of a country already in the EU (like wise I suppose I can't say we will be either). However, the strength of the argument for us to remain is significantly higher than to automatically be removed which we are unlikely to be given current EU law. The other fact is that the rUK will also be part of the break up and no longer be the current EU member it is so they will also have the same issue as Scotland ;)

as a member state we are bound by EU law and the no campain have not put forward how under EU law we would suddenly cease to be EU members overnight - what ever the outcome it will set precedent and mean changes will have to be made under article 48.
 
5th of July?

The conversation and the context in which he made the statement was about Eastern European countries. After the no campaign twisted it to include Scotland the BBC phoned his office to clarify exactly what he meant, the answer was "he was specifically NOT talking about Scotland and that Scotland's case was purely an INTERNAL matter" The BBC doing something right for once and checking the facts instead of blindly publishing any guff they're handed.

I'm not sure myself what he means by internal, whether it's internal to the UK or internal to the EU but given his relations with David Cameron I'll go with him being favourable to Scotland's case either way if only to p*** DC off.
 
Steep said:
5th of July?

The conversation and the context in which he made the statement was about Eastern European countries. After the no campaign twisted it to include Scotland the BBC phoned his office to clarify exactly what he meant, the answer was "he was specifically NOT talking about Scotland and that Scotland's case was purely an INTERNAL matter" The BBC doing something right for once and checking the facts instead of blindly publishing any guff they're handed.

I'm not sure myself what he means by internal, whether it's internal to the UK or internal to the EU but given his relations with David Cameron I'll go with him being favourable to Scotland's case either way if only to p*** DC off.
Click to expand...


I refer to Junckers comments in my post made on the 5th, Not the attached link which you posted. I'll have look that when I get a chance.
 
I don't think joining the EU will be straight forward for Scotland but i don't think it will be the same or as difficult as other new countries to be honest as much of the statute is already in place. Either way it will definitely be a special and unique case.
 
POAH said:
The other fact is that the rUK will also be part of the break up and no longer be the current EU member it is so they will also have the same issue as Scotland ;)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that is incorrect, rUK will be the successor to the UK and will take over all treaties and obligations of the old UK (if this split was to happen, of course). This was discussed some time ago, and the example of the Russian Federation succeeding the USSR was the example given that I remember.

They used a specific term for the legal succession of countries with regard to treaties etc (that I can't remember).
 
I think you're right Dave. Not that I'm worried either way it will sort itself out when the time comes.
 
Dave1 said:
I'm pretty sure that is incorrect, rUK will be the successor to the UK and will take over all treaties and obligations of the old UK (if this split was to happen, of course). This was discussed some time ago, and the example of the Russian Federation succeeding the USSR was the example given that I remember.

They used a specific term for the legal succession of countries with regard to treaties etc (that I can't remember).
Click to expand...

I wasn't meant to be anything other than a p***take, wasn't ment to be serious :(
 
Bernie174 said:
Which has been my point all along. It's an important decision, and one that should be made with all of the data as accurately laid out as possible, which is straight forward. It doesn't help that we all know Salmond is making it up as he goes along and like Hugh doesn't like difficult questions.

I also agree that you will end up with a socialist Government, along the lines of Hugh's much mentioned "Old Labour". So Unions running the country by proxy, rampant inflation and a broken economy. Good luck with that!

all to often Countries have asked for and got independence, and it's debatable that it works, Zimbawe being a great example. OK, I accept an extreme one, but the principle remains the same.

Luckily I am not involved in it, so I suppose I should keep my nose out, but it's a principle I have always held that I dislike people being misled to the point they do something based on a lie. At the moment thats what's happening.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely with your description of what could happen under a socialist regime and would feel I had failed Scotland by voting for independence and not trying to prevent something like that happening. At the same time I feel it's our right to make our own decisions, without interference from a Londoncentric Parliament. I don't really hold with the view that a no vote leaves us open to years and years of abuse from the UK Government though.


Neither of those choices have to do with logic. We all know that there's probably enough money in the "pot" to make things comfortable for a good long while so the financial issues for me, whilst important and generally unanswered, are a bit of a red herring. As nothing else has been decided/negotiated you can't really decide on that basis either but we're still going to have to vote. So, again for me, it's coming down to how do I feel. Do I feel more Scottish than British? Do I think we should take the chance of cocking it up with the flip side the prospect of a potentially better future? Right now I really don't know.


Steep said:
To be fair, that was back in the late 70's before the thatcherite era began.
Click to expand...

You're being naive. You don't think he'll go straight to bed with the money men when he needs to, as he will? He'll not only dance to their tune but buy the MP3, put it on and ask how loud they want it. Anyway, I thought this wasn't about him, or maybe it is when it suits.

You're STILL blaming Maggie?????????? That's a huge chip to be carrying around all this time. Personally I blame that Claudius fella, they should never have let him in.


Steep said:
"We'll make it work!" You should come work for the yes campaign Dod, that sums it up perfectly for me.
Click to expand...

Thing is Hugh, I find the Yes campaign to be more offensive than the no. It's scare mongering, abusive and evasive and that's frustrating as there is a big part of me wants to say yes.
 
Joe Anderson Mayor of Liverpool today. “My message to Salmond is to stop trying to fool people, stop trying to kid people. This is a grab for power by him and Holyrood" unfortunately Salmond is still fooling people and will continue to do so. !!
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Joe Anderson Mayor of Liverpool today. “My message to Salmond is to stop trying to fool people, stop trying to kid people. This is a grab for power by him and Holyrood" unfortunately Salmond is still fooling people and will continue to do so. !!
Click to expand...

who and what now? maybe Mr Anderson should spend more time concentrating on his own shanty town and its problems before commenting on political matters than have b****r all to do with him.
 
dod said:
]

You're STILL blaming Maggie?????????? That's a huge chip to be carrying around all this time. Personally I blame that Claudius fella, they should never have let him in.




Thing is Hugh, I find the Yes campaign to be more offensive than the no. It's scare mongering, abusive and evasive and that's frustrating as there is a big part of me wants to say yes.
Click to expand...

Maggie had a lot to answer for but I don't think anyone in the yes camp seriously wants to drag up the past, ancient or recent.

Your last bit I find surprising, the yes campaign I've seen has been very open and honest, getting away from the major players the 'grass roots' campaign has been startlingly upbeat and positive. The scaremongering accusations are almost always aimed at Westminster.
 
POAH said:
who and what now? maybe Mr Anderson should spend more time concentrating on his own shanty town and its problems before commenting on political matters than have b****r all to do with him.
Click to expand...

Well Salmond did go to Liverpool, what do you expect !!!!
 
POAH said:
who and what now? maybe Mr Anderson should spend more time concentrating on his own shanty town and its problems before commenting on political matters than have b****r all to do with him.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Eck did roll up in Liverpool (with the Labour battle bus hot on his heels) to make speeches.
 
The other fact is that the rUK will also be part of the break up and no longer be the current EU member it is so they will also have the same issue as Scotland
Click to expand...

It wont, unfortunately. The UK as an Entity continues to exist, it's just smaller, slightly.
Scotland as a separate Country does not exist at the moment, it's a constituent part of the UK. There's then 2 schools of thought.

Scotland no longer being part of the UK, and in effect a "New" Country should apply to join the EU, and prove they are not a basket case, which they will be under Hugh's "Old Labour" idea.
Or
They already are part of the UK as part of the UK so can't be removed from the EU, and thus will become a basket case under Hugh's "Old Labour" and a drain on the rest of us.

Salmond doesn't know which it is, but he's happy to lie to everyone about everything, al la Westminster, which Hugh says won't happen in Scotland under Independence, although it already is, so thats hard to believe.

Salmond also says Scotland will use Sterling under Independence, which is hardly Independence as another Country in effect is controlling your money. Then again, the Bank Of England has said, you wont have it and it's thier ball, not Salmond's, so it seems that Salmond is misleading the Scots again.

Independence is a funny word anyway when you take into account Europe, no one's "independent" Scotland just swaps London for Brussels. Except when The Scots jump up and down cause they don't like the latest bit of European stupidity for the benefit of France, the European Parliament will look down their noses and shrug their shoulders, like they do with all small Euro Countries. When we, the UK chuck teddy in the corner, it might mess with France, so they tend to take a lot more notice.

So, it's a sort of semi independence, with little control over it's self, so much the same as now, but with "Old Labour" unions running the what little is left after the UK runs the money, the EU runs most of the rest.

Of course most of what's being promised isn't going to happen anyway, its pie in the sky, which comes as no surprise to anyone who thinks about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Agreed, and of course if Scotland does go Independent, the fiscal economy doesn't work as planned, people end up paying more taxes, businesses go bust then there will be no going back !
 
How many countries in the past have been an EU member as part of a union, then lost their membership as a result of becoming independent?
 
Robert, none, but then it's never happened before. No country has ever left the EU after joining either, the only country who's ever come close was the UK back when it was still the EEC and we had an in/out referendum.
 
So how does anyone on either side know what the outcome will be?
I would expect that a special arrangement could be negotiated to allow continued membership due to the fact that it's the first time that it's happened, and therefore not necessarily covered by standard guidelines.
It's true that it may not be possible, but then again know one knows with any real certainty what may be allowed/negotiated.
Same thing could apply to a monetary union.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
Unfortunately for Alex Salmond, Mr Juncker has indicated that a separate Scotland would face a difficult journey to join the EU, saying that there will be “No new enlargement in the next five years"
Click to expand...
That was exactly the point I was debunking. That quote was trumpeted from the rooftops by the media. However one person (James Cook, BBC) actually called Juncker's office to confirm whether this statement included Scotland. "The reply could not have been more clear. Juncker did not include Scotland in that statement. As Juncker had said before, Scottish independence is a matter for democratic decision and is an internal EU matter. Juncker was talking abut the length of time it would take applicant nations to meet the acquis communitaire, or body of EU law, regulation and obligation. Scotland, by definition, already does meet the acquis. All this Juncker’s office told the BBC explicitly. What is implicit, and self-evidently true, is that Scotland’s independence is not an enlargement, it is just Scotland remaining in, requiring some internal readjustment."

The five years comment is a non-issue, despite pro-union media trying to continue it as though it is. Why bother clarifying things when it fits propaganda as it is?

As I say, for me that's bad news. Whether UK or independent I'd prefer out of EU, but I'm sure Scotland will remain in the EU whatever happens.
 
Steep said:
Moadib The EU and the EEC before it has been very good for Scotland, much of the Highlands would still have single track roads but for them for example.
Click to expand...
But do you think that would have been impossible for Scots to do?! Scotland is a nett contributor to the UK, and the UK is a nett contributor to the EU. The EU then "funds us" by giving us that money back.

The benefits approach from England to Scotland can generate a lack of ambition here. I think if Scotland's revenues were to be invested in Scotland (rather than going on a bureaucratic money-go-round) not only could we do things like that, there would be the economic need and drive to do so.
 
I agree entirely with your description of what could happen under a socialist regime and would feel I had failed Scotland by voting for independence and not trying to prevent something like that happening. At the same time I feel it's our right to make our own decisions, without interference from a Londoncentric Parliament. I don't really hold with the view that a no vote leaves us open to years and years of abuse from the UK Government though.
Click to expand...

It's a big risk, the prospect of a return to the loony 70's, before Maggie sorted out the Unions, and firmly put them where they should be, which wasn't running the Country. Like her or hate her, had that not happened we would have been in a far worse position now, in Scotland as well as England.

Moving on though, balancing that very real risk, against the so called Londoncentric situation. Scotland already has autonomy over almost everything except fiscal policy, foreign policy and defence. Under Independence, using Sterling means the first doesn't change.
Foreign policy doesn't really change either, so that really only leaves defence. That's dictated by a number of factors, membership of NATO being one of them, so Scotland if as Salmond says remains a member of NATO would still have been involved in Afghanistan. Would still need to spend a large amount on defence and still be expected to contribute to collective security. So, nothing changes there either, except Scotland would be expected to fund all of it it's self.

The rest of it is promises of tinkering with welfare, that probably wont happen due to the cost.

On the minus side, Scotland looses it's voice, it is no longer part of the Security Council at the UN, as an example. It becomes a small part of the EU, with no clout. It simply put becomes as important as say Cyprus.

The losses of work to Scottish Industry, no more warships built by Scots yards that have almost no other business being probably the biggest example. The Unions will ensure the status quo at the moment in that they cannot compete with South Korea will kill that industry off. Companies that don't want the hassle of operating in a foreign country withdrawing into the remains of the UK, but I've not seen anyone saying they will go the other way.

Withdrawal of UK Civil Service and defence jobs, leaving some areas as black holes, like Faslaine. None of these are opinion, they are what will happen. Salmond & Co can harp on, but frankly he's in a pre orgasmic stupor over Independence and will say anything for it to happen.
 
Bernie174 said:
It's a big risk, the prospect of a return to the loony 70's, before Maggie sorted out the Unions, and firmly put them where they should be, which wasn't running the Country. Like her or hate her, had that not happened we would have been in a far worse position now, in Scotland as well as England.

Moving on though, balancing that very real risk, against the so called Londoncentric situation. Scotland already has autonomy over almost everything except fiscal policy, foreign policy and defence. Under Independence, using Sterling means the first doesn't change.
Foreign policy doesn't really change either, so that really only leaves defence. That's dictated by a number of factors, membership of NATO being one of them, so Scotland if as Salmond says remains a member of NATO would still have been involved in Afghanistan. Would still need to spend a large amount on defence and still be expected to contribute to collective security. So, nothing changes there either, except Scotland would be expected to fund all of it it's self.

The rest of it is promises of tinkering with welfare, that probably wont happen due to the cost.

On the minus side, Scotland looses it's voice, it is no longer part of the Security Council at the UN, as an example. It becomes a small part of the EU, with no clout. It simply put becomes as important as say Cyprus.

The losses of work to Scottish Industry, no more warships built by Scots yards that have almost no other business being probably the biggest example. The Unions will ensure the status quo at the moment in that they cannot compete with South Korea will kill that industry off. Companies that don't want the hassle of operating in a foreign country withdrawing into the remains of the UK, but I've not seen anyone saying they will go the other way.

Withdrawal of UK Civil Service and defence jobs, leaving some areas as black holes, like Faslaine. None of these are opinion, they are what will happen. Salmond & Co can harp on, but frankly he's in a pre orgasmic stupor over Independence and will say anything for it to happen.
Click to expand...
Scotland doesn't have a voice at the moment!
Why wouldn't we be as important as Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Portugal etc etc?
 
You don't? Funny, you are part of the UK, and you certainly do in that sense, because you don't think you have doesn't mean you don't. Either way, if Independent you have none whatsoever.

You'd have more than Sweden, as it's not in the EU!
As for the rest, they are established, Scotland isn't. In any case, very few of them have much clout, nor does Cyprus, it's simply that. The EU is run for France and Germany. The UK is the Ginger Haired Stop Child in it, but we have a bit more sway than the Countries you mention. Scotland wouldn't.
 
Bernie174 said:
You don't? Funny, you are part of the UK, and you certainly do in that sense, because you don't think you have doesn't mean you don't. Either way, if Independent you have none whatsoever.

You'd have more than Sweden, as it's not in the EU!
As for the rest, they are established, Scotland isn't. In any case, very few of them have much clout, nor does Cyprus, it's simply that. The EU is run for France and Germany. The UK is the Ginger Haired Stop Child in it, but we have a bit more sway than the Countries you mention. Scotland wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Well we certainly won't have much say in the EU if we don't get independence and the UK votes to leave the EU.
Wonder if our voice will have much of a say then?
I thought Sweden joined the EU in 1995?
The more you run us down, the more I want to vote yes!
 
Moadib said:
But do you think that would have been impossible for Scots to do?! Scotland is a nett contributor to the UK, and the UK is a nett contributor to the EU. The EU then "funds us" by giving us that money back.

The benefits approach from England to Scotland can generate a lack of ambition here. I think if Scotland's revenues were to be invested in Scotland (rather than going on a bureaucratic money-go-round) not only could we do things like that, there would be the economic need and drive to do so.
Click to expand...

If we hadn't been in Europe our infrastructure improvements would have been down to Westminster and I think it would at the very least have taken much longer, more likely we'd still be waiting.
I don't disagree with you about being better off out, not from a financial point of view but because I think the EU is too big, too cumbersome and controlled by the big players to the detriment of others. I think smaller is better, with loose trade agreements rather than ever more constricting rules.
 
Glad to see I'm getting some more vocal support on here :) now I just have to win Dod round to voting yes and my task will be complete :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top