homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Vote on Scottish Independence (Page 21)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  ...  28  29  30 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Vote on Scottish Independence
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely

But as a rump UK negotiator, would you be prepared to gamble on it?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
England has its own parliament. Until relatively recently the English parliament was in control of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland too...

Or, to put it another way, it's like saying "why do we need a women's history course? What about a men's history course?" when in fact all the other history is men's history.

Cute, but not true. There's a UK Parliament but nowhere that specifically English issues can be decided. Now that can be resolved within the UK Parliament by having sessions devoted to matters devolved to England when Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots members spend time in their constituencies. We certainly don't want another tier of politicians in
London.

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that federalism (real federalism, not devolution) is the best option (and a final solution to the West Lothian problem) - and it sadly is not on the ballot. Maybe, if politics and nationalism do not get in the way, some federal solution can be worked out in the end whether the vote is yes or no. However, I'm a yank and so my opinion is not that relevant.

On an unrelated note, why on Earth doesn't your average Englishperson want a English Parliament that allows England to vote on its own issues that Scotland, Wales, N.I., etc., get to vote on for themselves without having Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish in Westminster also able to vote on those England-only issues? It seems so unfair and a federal system seems like a pretty straightforward solution. (Feel free to put this Yank in his place by explaining the British way of government better to me [Smile] )

England has its own parliament. Until relatively recently the English parliament was in control of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland too.

Then Northern Ireland and Scotland got parliaments and Wales got an assembly (and don't get me started on that). Each of these has varying, but still limited power over certain segments of law, but is still beholden in some way (to a varying degree, depending on which body we are talking about) to the English parliament.

Or, to put it another way, it's like saying "why do we need a women's history course? What about a men's history course?" when in fact all the other history is men's history.

No.

I don't care how little power that reading of things gives to those non-English that have been graciously allowed to send a few token representatives. It doesn't stop it being borderline offensive to the English people.

There is a British Parliament which also deals with English matters on a UK wide non-derogated basis (excluding those parties such as the SNP who admirably choose to recuse themselves from England & Wales and England bills). There will be an English Parliament the day that there is a legislative body in which *only* those representing the English can vote. Until then, the English are just the overwhelming largest majority in a body which goes far beyond legislating for them alone and in which MPs from Scotland, Wales and NI are graciously pleased to have a say *regardless of how small* in making laws for the English. This has been the settlement since Labour decided to open the box post 1997.

Home rule for the English, on "ourselves alone" terms, ought to be one of the conclusions of this mess, if everyone else is going to have it.

UK parliament can deal with foreign policy and defence. Everything else should be devolved to the four consituent countries, with no say for the other three in the domestic affairs of any one.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely

But as a rump UK negotiator, would you be prepared to gamble on it?
Very probably, or at least have more to gamble with and much better odds than the Scottish representatives at the negotiating table.

[ 15. September 2014, 15:43: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380

 - Posted      Profile for Alwyn     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
We certainly don't want [...]

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... borderline offensive to the English people.

(emphasis added)

Please forgive me for snipping very short quotes out of context and for making a procedural rather than a substantive point.

I can see where you're 'coming from' in the points that you've made. You should be free to debate using whatever words you want (within the Ship's policies, of course). No doubt, many English people would agree with you.

And yet ... in the quotes above, an assumption seems to be being made that the English all think the same way about these issues. I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps people could consider talking in terms of 'I don't want' or 'borderline offensive to to many people'?

Sorry for interrupting. Please continue with your debate.

--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely

But as a rump UK negotiator, would you be prepared to gamble on it?
Very probably, or at least have more to gamble with and much better odds than the Scottish representatives at the negotiating table.
There are also plenty of rumours now that Scots will be punished if they vote no. So instead of Home Rule, they will dine on dry bread and water for the next few decades. Perfidious Albion!

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
We certainly don't want [...]

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... borderline offensive to the English people.

(emphasis added)

Please forgive me for snipping very short quotes out of context and for making a procedural rather than a substantive point.

I can see where you're 'coming from' in the points that you've made. You should be free to debate using whatever words you want (within the Ship's policies, of course). No doubt, many English people would agree with you.

And yet ... in the quotes above, an assumption seems to be being made that the English all think the same way about these issues. I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps people could consider talking in terms of 'I don't want' or 'borderline offensive to to many people'?

Sorry for interrupting. Please continue with your debate.

My pearls of wisdom are mistaken for the views of a whole nation? Happens to me all the time.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely

But as a rump UK negotiator, would you be prepared to gamble on it?
Very probably, or at least have more to gamble with and much better odds than the Scottish representatives at the negotiating table.
There are also plenty of rumours now that Scots will be punished if they vote no. So instead of Home Rule, they will dine on dry bread and water for the next few decades. Perfidious Albion!
There are also plenty of rumours the moon landings didn't happen. In this case, in run up to a referendum, the question is more who stands to benefit from them? Perfidious may well cover it, but Albion less so IMHO.....

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Unlikely

But as a rump UK negotiator, would you be prepared to gamble on it?
Very probably, or at least have more to gamble with and much better odds than the Scottish representatives at the negotiating table.
There are also plenty of rumours now that Scots will be punished if they vote no. So instead of Home Rule, they will dine on dry bread and water for the next few decades. Perfidious Albion!
There are also plenty of rumours the moon landings didn't happen. In this case, in run up to a referendum, the question is more who stands to benefit from them? Perfidious may well cover it, but Albion less so IMHO.....
Yeah, but the moon landings weren't organized by Gordon Brown and David Cameron, were they? Let's just say that those two gentlemen are treated with a certain degree of suspicion. Once bitten ...

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU simply can't afford to lose a rich nation from the club

How much do you suppose the EU would actually lose if they didn't accept Scotland? This, admittedly old, paper from the Scottish government estimates their contribution in 2007 to be just over a billion Euros, and its receipts to be about 850m Euros. The net gain to the EU of around a quarter of a billion Euros doesn't sound to me like the sort of amount they'll be desperate to keep at all costs, especially considering that other countries that are of a similar size are all net recipients of EU funds.

The EU may decide that it would be better off financially without Scotland, especially if there are political pressures from some member states (i.e. Spain) to deny them membersip on principle.

What principle exactly ?

I also think we maybe underestimating the impact of the debacle in the Ukraine. The world has an interest in showing that it is possible to change national borders without everything immediately going to shit.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yes, I was thinking about the Ukraine, and the idea that another country might punish them for wanting to be independent! Hmm.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I'm the product of Irish and English and probably Welsh ancestry. None of which makes me inherently think "oh, what a shame that it's not all one country". Nor does any of that make me feel especially Irish or English. I'm Australian.

I am mostly Scottish by ancestry, with some Welsh and some English. I was born and raised in England. I speak with a fairly generic southern English accent.

I have always considered myself to be "British" rather than "English". I also don't have a strong attachment to the part of the country in which I grew up - I was born in one part of the country, moved aged one to a second part, and then again at six to a third area, where my parents still live. But I have no greater attachment to the area that I grew up than I do to the city I went to University in, or the one where I worked before leaving the UK.

If the vote is for independence, I will still think of myself as British. Scotland won't feel like any more of a foreign country, for all that it technically will be. I imagine this is true for lots of people who were brought up in countries that no longer exist.

Oh, and as far as the EU goes, I'm pretty sure there will end up being a deal that lets Scotland in without obliging Scotland to join Schengen - Scotland will give up the veto rights and derogations that the UK has from the various bits of the social whatnot, and it won't have to join Schengen. I don't know about the Euro, but the idea of large EU nations breaking up into many small regions is every Euro-federalist's wet dream, so they'll find a way.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
And again, won't they be thinking of Putin? See how we treat small emerging nations in the West - with honour and dignity, and no hint of punishing them. (Hollow laughter from assorted Scottish electorate).

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's equally the stuff of fairyland that rUK will take an aggressive no-holds-barred approach determined to punish the Scots for daring to leave.

(X-Post, following on from LeRoc.)

Not an aggressive so much as getting the best deal for the rUK eg: Scotland assuming its share of the debt burden.
The thing is that if you listen to Nationalist propaganda about the English, or at least about the Westminster Elite, is that they are a bunch of heartless effete toffs who are bleeding Scotland dry and if only Scotland could rise up and be a nation again it could fling off the shackles and embrace her true destiny as a free nation.

However, upon asserting her destiny as a free nation the English and the Westminster elite will fall over themselves to establish a currency union and fast track Scotland into NATO.

This appears to be a claim hitherto unique in the annals of nationalist propaganda. I don't recall the aria in Nabucco, right after the chorus of the Hebrew Slaves (representing the Italians under the Hapsburgs), when Moses suddenly appears on stage and announces that the Children of Israel and Pharaoh will sign a Customs Union or the bit when Byron is ruminating upon Marathon looking out upon the Sea and looks forward to the day when an independent Greece and the Ottoman Empire will share a currency. For that matter my copy of Herodotus appears to lack the passage when Xerxes threatens to turn the sky over Thermopylae dark with his arrows and Leonidas ripostes that it will be all the better for signing a treaty of mutual defence between Sparta and the Persian Empire in the shade.

If the English are that reasonable then why should the Scots want independence? If the English are so unreasonable that only independence will do then the Scots should really be wargaming worst case scenarios, rather than asserting that all will be well in the best of all possible worlds?

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I thought that one counter-argument is that the rump UK will not do various deals with Scotland out of kindness, but self-interest. In other words, if the rump UK gets very shirty and says no on various issues, the pound will crash, shares in British companies will tumble, and various other unpleasant things will happen.

Thus, the UK did not help Ireland in the economic collapse, out of a brotherly kindness to another state, but out of a wish to sustain trade.

But this is all guesswork; as is most of the debate.

[ 15. September 2014, 19:53: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
An open letter from your Canadian cousins (Globe and Mail newspaper)

Not saying it's all agreeable, but we do love you. The thistle and the maple leaf are emblems of the free (song: There's None More Scots, than the Scots Abroad - band: Spirit of the West, of Vancouver). The conclusion seems reasonable from a Cdn perspective: "There is an alternative to independence: federalism."

quote:
You probably don’t know this, but you made us. The first European to cross the continent and reach our Pacific coast was Alexander Mackenzie – a Scot. Our first prime minister and chief Father of Confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald? Scottish. So too our second PM. Our country’s national dream, a railroad from sea to sea, was realized in 1885 when Sir Donald Smith, head of the Canadian Pacific Railway, drove The Last Spike at Craigellachie – a place named after a village in his homeland. The man who did the most to create Canada’s system of universal public health care, and chosen as “The Greatest Canadian” in a national survey of CBC viewers, was Tommy Douglas. He was born in Falkirk....


--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794

 - Posted      Profile for An die Freude   Email An die Freude   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's equally the stuff of fairyland that rUK will take an aggressive no-holds-barred approach determined to punish the Scots for daring to leave.

(X-Post, following on from LeRoc.)

Not an aggressive so much as getting the best deal for the rUK eg: Scotland assuming its share of the debt burden.
The thing is that if you listen to Nationalist propaganda about the English, or at least about the Westminster Elite, is that they are a bunch of heartless effete toffs who are bleeding Scotland dry and if only Scotland could rise up and be a nation again it could fling off the shackles and embrace her true destiny as a free nation.

However, upon asserting her destiny as a free nation the English and the Westminster elite will fall over themselves to establish a currency union and fast track Scotland into NATO.

This appears to be a claim hitherto unique in the annals of nationalist propaganda. I don't recall the aria in Nabucco, right after the chorus of the Hebrew Slaves (representing the Italians under the Hapsburgs), when Moses suddenly appears on stage and announces that the Children of Israel and Pharaoh will sign a Customs Union or the bit when Byron is ruminating upon Marathon looking out upon the Sea and looks forward to the day when an independent Greece and the Ottoman Empire will share a currency. For that matter my copy of Herodotus appears to lack the passage when Xerxes threatens to turn the sky over Thermopylae dark with his arrows and Leonidas ripostes that it will be all the better for signing a treaty of mutual defence between Sparta and the Persian Empire in the shade.

If the English are that reasonable then why should the Scots want independence? If the English are so unreasonable that only independence will do then the Scots should really be wargaming worst case scenarios, rather than asserting that all will be well in the best of all possible worlds?

You may not have heard of Norway or of Slovakia. Sure, there was a bit of resentment between the countries, but in both those cases they received independence from a larger partner without any forms of punishments. Norway's peaceful pursuit of independence sparked this annual event called the Nobel Peace Prize that you may have heard of. Still, they settled for independence because that's what they wanted and they felt as lesser partners in the countries they were part of. If Sweden could be calm about it 100 years ago, why can't England accept it today?

--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH

Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
No politician will want to be seen as conceding too much because they'll be punished by the voters next year.

Which is true of all politicians. Salmond and his pals will be up for re-election in the Scottish Government too, and will need to go to the electorate with clear evidence that they fought for a good deal for Scotland.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
We certainly don't want another tier of politicians in London.

There's a simple solution to that. You establish an English Parliament with it's tier of politicians in Birmingham, Manchester, or Winchester. Anywhere that's not London.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But all these things take time. A scenario of weeks or months seems unrealistic to me.

I don't think anyone is seriously considering a transition to independence over the time scale of weeks or months. Six months would be a very rapid timescale for all the negotiations of the terms of independence, drafting and debating relevant Acts in Westminster and Holyrood (and whatever procedures would need to be followed in Brussels and Strasbourg), and then establishing all the infrastructure for an independent Scotland. It took almost two years to get from a Yes vote in a referendum to establishing a devolved Scottish Parliament. A similar timescale for establishing an independent nation would not seem to be out of the question, though we can hope for more rapid progress than that.

quote:
And thinking that this can happen without Scotland adopting the euro is crazy talk.
It may be that the Euro could be a trump card for Salmond. After being seen to fight hard to retain the pound, reluctantly agree to the Euro thus solving the main difficulty with England and Europe at the same time. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that, I never agreed with the decision of the UK government to stay out of the Euro in the first place.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Posted by Tubbs:
quote:

But a yes vote would mean they are no longer part of the Union. Surely, that's the whole point!

Nope, you missed the point I was making: to deny a currency union and to enforce strict border control is to essentially separate off a part of your own union in grand isolation - namely, Northern Ireland. To do such a thing would be incredibly stupid, politically, socially and economically.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
to deny a currency union and to enforce strict border control is to essentially separate off a part of your own union in grand isolation - namely, Northern Ireland. To do such a thing would be incredibly stupid, politically, socially and economically.

I think the border control position is quite straightforward. If an independent Scotland didn't join the Schengen treaty, it would join the Common Travel Area with the UK, Ireland, Man and the Channel Islands, and there wouldn't be any border controls.

If Scotland joined Schengen, then Scotland would be obliged by the Schengen treaty to maintain border controls on its non-Schengen border with the UK, and the UK would be bound by the CTA to maintain border controls on its border with Scotland.

Notwithstanding the rules for new entrants, I think Scotland would be able to negotiate EU membership on terms that would allow it to opt out of Schengen and so join the CTA.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Alan Cresswell: drafting and debating relevant Acts in Westminster and Holyrood (and whatever procedures would need to be followed in Brussels and Strasbourg)
One question I would find interesting is: is it realistic to assume that both things can be done simultaneously? I'm not sure about that. I find it quite probable that the EU will wait for Scotland to become independent before it starts the admission procedures. I mean, before that it won't even be clear how Scotland will be organized financially, so how can you open these chapters, and how will other countries be able to decide on whether to admit it?

I can imagine that countries like Spain or Germany will say: let Scotland finish the negotiations with the rUK first, before we'll even start talking about EU admission. And on the other side, the rUK won't want too much EU interference in drafting and debating the relevant acts, especially the ones that will have financial consequences.

In practice, this means that there will be a time period where Scotland is already independent, and it still isn't clear if and under which conditions it can become a EU member. That seems like a huge risk to me, and one where Scotland won't be able to make many demands.

[ 16. September 2014, 02:19: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That is still assuming that Scotland will actually be leaving the EU. I don't take that as a foregone conclusion, the vote is whether to leave the UK.

But, assuming for the moment that Scotland will be leaving the EU and seeking re-admittance then I can't see how the discussions on terms of re-admission to the EU can be done at any time other than simultaneously with discussions with Westminster. To take one obvious example, the currency. If admission to the EU would require adoption of the Euro then discussions with Westminster over retaining the pound are pointless, so to negotiate currency union with rUK would require a prior agreement with Brussels that Scotland would not be compelled to adopt the Euro.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Alan Cresswell: That is still assuming that Scotland will actually be leaving the EU. I don't take that as a foregone conclusion, the vote is whether to leave the UK.
I see no other outcome then that the other member countries will want to decide on whether to admit an independent Scotland. Spain's position alone will make this necessary. And this means following the complete procedure.

quote:
Alan Cresswell: To take one obvious example, the currency. If admission to the EU would require adoption of the Euro then discussions with Westminster over retaining the pound are pointless, so to negotiate currency union with rUK would require a prior agreement with Brussels that Scotland would not be compelled to adopt the Euro.
It's a chicken and egg story here. To negotiate membership of the EU would require a prior agreement with London about debts etc.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I see no other outcome then that the other member countries will want to decide on whether to admit an independent Scotland. Spain's position alone will make this necessary. And this means following the complete procedure.

I'd agree that the other member countries have to decide on the status of an independent Scotland. This doesn't necessarily mean that Scotland would have to go through the normal new entrant procedure. There's no precedent for a member state splitting in two, so, Spanish bluster notwithstanding, the EU is free to make something up.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Leorning Cniht: I'd agree that the other member countries have to decide on the status of an independent Scotland. This doesn't necessarily mean that Scotland would have to go through the normal new entrant procedure. There's no precedent for a member state splitting in two, so, Spanish bluster notwithstanding, the EU is free to make something up.
True. There are two things in play here: one is the political decision on whether to admit Scotland. And I have no doubt that it will be a political decision. There's no way in Scotland will automatically stay. That's a fantasy. Legislation on this is unclear at most, and there are too many countries wanting to have a say on this.

The other part is which procedures would be required for it to enter. Although they may be shorter than those for, say, Turkey, I don't believe there will be no procedures at all. The EU will want to know something about Scotland's financial situation before it will allow it to enter.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Where it gets interesting is if Scotland wants to remain in the E.U. and the rest of Great Britain wants to leave. I suppose membership in the club is not an asset in the divorce negotiations. [Smile]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Which, of course, is one of the great inconsistencies of the Better Together campaign. The claim that Scottish membership of the EU is only certain within the UK ... while at the same time many of those same campaigners are looking ahead to an in/out referendum on the UK staying in the EU.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which, of course, is one of the great inconsistencies of the Better Together campaign. The claim that Scottish membership of the EU is only certain within the UK ... while at the same time many of those same campaigners are looking ahead to an in/out referendum on the UK staying in the EU.

I don't think Scottish membership will be and issue at all if they say 'yes' to independence, they would be pretty much straight in.

But I am sure that a condition would be that they join the Euro.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't think Scottish membership will be and issue at all if they say 'yes' to independence, they would be pretty much straight in.

What makes you so sure of that?

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't think Scottish membership will be and issue at all if they say 'yes' to independence, they would be pretty much straight in.

What makes you so sure of that?
They are already 'in' as part of the Union so it would be a rubber stamp exercise imo.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Where it gets interesting is if Scotland wants to remain in the E.U. and the rest of Great Britain wants to leave. I suppose membership in the club is not an asset in the divorce negotiations. [Smile]

I suppose that the simple answer to that, and to Boogie's posts, is that Scotland would not be remaining in the EU. The pieces of land called Scotland are part of the UK, which is a member; Scotland itself is not. And I don't consider that for any independent Scotland to join the UK would be a rubber-stamping operation. Any Spanish government, with the possibilities of independent Catalonia and Basque country, would not like a joining process for a portion of a member state to be simple.

Then there's the question of the pound. It's reasonable to ask why an independent Scotland should have any say in the monetary policies of the UK, and thus the medium of exchange would be beyond the control of the Scottish government. From there you need to consider border controls, and it goes on.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They are already 'in' as part of the Union so it would be a rubber stamp exercise imo.

As far as I can see, applying members need to fulfil several criteria including economic criteria. Unless or until Scotland is an independent country and has some clarity about, say, currency, I don't see how this criterion can be said to be met.

Also AFAICS, membership is ratified by a treaty of accession signed by all existing member states. As has been pointed out, Spain may not be very keen on signing something that offers a precedent to Catalonia.

In any case, I can't see any prospective EU membership taking less than several years, with all the attendant uncertainty that brings.

[x-post with Gee D]

[ 16. September 2014, 06:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Would the remaining United Kingdom have to re-apply as well? Assuming that is, that they want to remain a member state? Do their new reduced finances have to be reviewed again?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794

 - Posted      Profile for An die Freude   Email An die Freude   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Where it gets interesting is if Scotland wants to remain in the E.U. and the rest of Great Britain wants to leave. I suppose membership in the club is not an asset in the divorce negotiations. [Smile]

I suppose that the simple answer to that, and to Boogie's posts, is that Scotland would not be remaining in the EU. The pieces of land called Scotland are part of the UK, which is a member; Scotland itself is not. And I don't consider that for any independent Scotland to join the UK would be a rubber-stamping operation. Any Spanish government, with the possibilities of independent Catalonia and Basque country, would not like a joining process for a portion of a member state to be simple.

Wouldn't this depend on the view of the EU - whether it has member states or member citizens? Would Scots as individuals lose their EU membership? That would be the first case of that happening, of people being kicked out, and would justify future EU-breakouts (which is not something Brussels wants). Furthermore, what would happen to all those Scots currently using their EU rights (e.g. to work abroad without need for a visa), would the EU suddenly strip them of that membership and their rights?

My guess is that Brussels will cut Scotland a deal, saying they expect that the new government will consider themselves joined, on the same conditions as they have had under Britain, and that the process to withdraw from the EU will be the one that needs active action, not the reverse.

--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH

Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
to deny a currency union and to enforce strict border control is to essentially separate off a part of your own union in grand isolation - namely, Northern Ireland. To do such a thing would be incredibly stupid, politically, socially and economically.

I think the border control position is quite straightforward. If an independent Scotland didn't join the Schengen treaty, it would join the Common Travel Area with the UK, Ireland, Man and the Channel Islands, and there wouldn't be any border controls.


That is almost certainly true but it wouldn't happen automatically, would it- surely there would have to be a positive decision to let Scotland join the CTA?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That is still assuming that Scotland will actually be leaving the EU. I don't take that as a foregone conclusion, the vote is whether to leave the UK.

But, assuming for the moment that Scotland will be leaving the EU and seeking re-admittance then I can't see how the discussions on terms of re-admission to the EU can be done at any time other than simultaneously with discussions with Westminster. To take one obvious example, the currency. If admission to the EU would require adoption of the Euro then discussions with Westminster over retaining the pound are pointless, so to negotiate currency union with rUK would require a prior agreement with Brussels that Scotland would not be compelled to adopt the Euro.

I think this is what is so frustrating about the discussion, the way that 'yes' supporters have persuaded themselves that the future promises motherhood and Apple pie without a hint of the real world jolting this myopic view. The problem for the 'yes' campaign is that there are two sides to any negotiation and you cannot take it for granted that everyone wishes you well. Furthermore a lot of the consequences have already been spelled out. There won't be a currency union unless your currency is supervised and you leave the EU on the same day that you leave the UK. Those bolts of reality don't seem to impinge on the alternative reality of 'yes' supporters.

[ 16. September 2014, 07:15: Message edited by: Spawn ]

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
One would presume that UKIP wouldn't have been campaigning for Better Together if the rest of the UK was going to be out of the EU and needing to re-apply for admission.

I think everyone assumes that the rest of the UK would automatically stay in the EU with all the opt-outs etc that they currently have. It's difficult to think of a reason why the rest of the UK wouldn't be in the EU. But, for the same reason it's difficult to see what the fundamental difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK would be under those circumstances. Both would be new countries, both in continuity with an existing EU nation (the UK), etc. Size (population or economy) shouldn't be a significant difference. Both would have a functioning monetary system and associated financial institutions - the rUK the pound supported by the Bank of England, Scotland is less certain but one of at least three options: the pound in monetary union with rUK, a Scottish currency supported by a Scottish central bank, an interim currency (probably the pound without monetary union) while preparing admission to the Eurozone.

As far as I understand it, the EU does not have a defined policy regarding new states formed by sections of exisiting EU member states gaining independence. It's not happened before, and had not been considered when the founding principles of EU membership were defined. So, the EU is making it up as they go along. But, it is in the interests of the EU to keep Scotland in the club, so I'm sure that a way to do so with minimal difficulties will be found. The fly in the ointment is that this will be setting precedent and, for whatever reasons other EU member states do not wish to offer similar opportunities for independence to regions in their own countries with distinct cultural and political identities. So, to appease them a method whereby Scotland is kept in while making it clear that it's not a precedent for any other potential future independent nations will be needed. Which probably won't be easy.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I am interested as to what the 'Yes' camp will do with themselves when it comes in a narrow 'no'.

Start campaigning for yet another referendum? [Snore]

This could be never ending [Roll Eyes]

I'm beginning to think a 'yes' would at least give everyone something positive to do.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The EU will want to know something about Scotland's financial situation before it will allow it to enter.

You mean, like it did the former Communist accession states?

The rules will happily be broken if necessity requires it.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am interested as to what the 'Yes' camp will do with themselves when it comes in a narrow 'no'.

Start campaigning for yet another referendum? [Snore]

This could be never ending [Roll Eyes]

I'm beginning to think a 'yes' would at least give everyone something positive to do.

It depends on whether the SNP continue to get enough votes to form the government. I think the UK government can refuse referendums in the next five years on the basis that devo max must be bedded in first.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Both would have a functioning monetary system and associated financial institutions - the rUK the pound supported by the Bank of England, Scotland is less certain

As far as I can see it is a whole lot less certain in the absence of a central bank and lack of clarity on it taking its share of sovereign debt.

Doc Tor, ignoring the rules is of course an EU pastime, but you need something to ignore. As far as I can tell, there is no certainty whatsoever about any economic aspect of Scotland post a yes vote.

I find the youthful enthusiasm of the yes vote alluring, but anyone voting who doesn't realise it's a complete leap in the dark is going to have a rude awakening.

[ 16. September 2014, 07:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think that, as in Northern Island, there might be consideration of building in minimum intervals. In Northern Ireland I think it is not less than seven years after the last one.

[replying to Boogie]

[ 16. September 2014, 07:28: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
We had a referendum in 1979, then one eighteen years later in 1997, now this one fourteen years later. I think it's reasonable to assume that if there's a "no" vote, the next one will be in 2030 or thereabouts. [Biased]

[ 16. September 2014, 07:30: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
A very definite no will kick an independence referendum into the long grass, and it won't be on the political radar for at least 20 years. Most of the leading figures in the Yes campaign will be spent politically (at least on independence), it'll need a new generation of politicians to take a bill through Parliament for a new referendum.

A very small majority for no will be interesting. It shows much greater support for independence than would have been expected even 6 months ago, it would vindicate the decision to put the question to the people and the leaders of the Yes campaign will still be in a position to formulate a further referendum. But, if we get devo-max there will need to be clear evidence that further powers would benefit Scotland, which will mean there needs to be time for the effect of devo-max to be assessed. I would expect that in that situation we will have 5 years of consolidation of government in Scotland such that there are institutions in place to take the reigns post-independence (eg: the Scottish banking systems developing an institution that is a central bank in all but name ready to support a Scottish currency).

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Both would have a functioning monetary system and associated financial institutions - the rUK the pound supported by the Bank of England, Scotland is less certain

As far as I can see it is a whole lot less certain in the absence of a central bank and lack of clarity on it taking its share of sovereign debt.
Well, that would need to be defined in post-yes negotiations. But, of one thing that is certain is that an independent Scotland would need a central bank and would need to take up a fair share of the UK national debt. Post-yes, Scotland can establish a bank without the need to negotiate with anyone, but what our share of the debt will be is something that needs to be negotiated.

quote:
I find the youthful enthusiasm of the yes vote alluring, but anyone voting who doesn't realise it's a complete leap in the dark is going to have a rude awakening.
It's not a total leap in the dark. There is, IMO, enough light to see that there is solid ground beyond a Yes vote, even if the exact lie of the land isn't clear. An independent Scotland will have a functioning economy, with associated currency - it's just not certain that will be the pound or how that would relate to other nations. We will have a functioning legal system, health service, education system, welfare and benefits, and all the other services for a civilised country. Scotland will be in the EU, although there is a very remote possibility that we'll be on a very fast track to EU re-membership.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Scotland will be in the EU, although there is a very remote possibility that we'll be on a very fast track to EU re-membership.

I really think there is no certainty at all about the latter assertion, and even less about the first, at the very least until the issues of banking, currency and debt are resolved (along with Catalonia).

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174

 - Posted      Profile for itsarumdo     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
like companies have size tresholds which determine operating bands - if a companytexpands bigger than the band it is in, it will go broke unless it either expands out to the next size or conttracts back to a smaller more manageable size. Has anyone ever analysed this kind of thing for countries? Are there scales that work and scales that don't?

--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron

Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
One interesting aspect of scale, is that the most prosperous countries tend to be smaller. The indices of most prosperous countries (GDP per capita) often include Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Holland. However, this does not specify other aspects, such as the welfare state, which are seen as important in the Scottish debate.

Actually, correction to that, some types of 'prosperity index' taken things like health and education into account.

[ 16. September 2014, 08:22: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  ...  28  29  30 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools