|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Vote on Scottish Independence
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Have to say I agree with Marvin here - at any rate it seems to me the question is important even if the answer is 'it doesn't make much difference'.
I very much doubt that most Scots think membership of the euro is a matter of indifference.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I wouldn't say it's a matter of indifference. Just that if we can't retain use of the GBP then that isn't a reason to reject independence. The Yes campaign wouldn't be significantly weakened if they'd put joining the Euro or having our own currency in their vision of independence.
To address Marvin's point.
There are significant differences between Scotland and Greece or Portugal. If Scotland were in the Euro before the recent economic crash it would be very unlikely that it would be in the economic difficulties that other nations have experienced. Other small countries, Belgium and Luxembourg for example, weathered the economic downturn at least as well as the UK even within the Eurozone. Ireland didn't do too badly either.
Of course, the global economic depression hit plenty of countries outwith the Eurozone. It's likely that Greece and Portugal would have had problems even if they hadn't adopted the Euro.
As an additional point, countries like Monaco have done very well with their currency tied to a powerful neighbour - initially the French Franc, and now the Euro (which is their official currency, even though they have no representation on the ECB). If it works for Monaco, why can't it work for Scotland (or, indeed the whole UK) with the added influence over policy of representation on the ECB.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it works for Monaco, why can't it work for Scotland (or, indeed the whole UK) with the added influence over policy of representation on the ECB.
It works for Monaco purely because Monaco is a tax haven for a lot of very, very wealthy people. Scotland can try to go down the "we do not collect income tax" route if it wants, but I doubt it could make it work quite as well.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are significant differences between Scotland and Greece or Portugal. If Scotland were in the Euro before the recent economic crash it would be very unlikely that it would be in the economic difficulties that other nations have experienced.
I am told Scotland has a (proportionally) very large financial services sector.
But I find the way the debate has concentrated on economics to be somewhat odd. This is, after all, about nationhood, not economics. Isn't it?
Perhaps the explanation is (as mentioned earlier by SPK) that the debate on nationhood has already been won by the nationalists. People regard themselves less and less as British and more and more as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. The shared British culture created over 300 years has been so neglected that the Better Together campaign has hardly bothered to make anything of it, as far as I can tell. Even when I lived in Scotland, back in the 90s, Britishness was deeply unfashionable, associated with Conservatism, and under attack, not just from the SNP but Labour too, as they played the nationalist card for votes. In consequence, Britishness came to mean the worst caricature southern English snobbishness and greed allied with Orangism and Rangers FC, and despite all that shared culture, Britishness remains associated with those specific things. The Unionists have surrendered the field without a fight. In consequence, the debate, or so it seems to me, is not why should Scotland leave, but why should Scotland - being a separate nation already - remain in union.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
It's not really about nationhood for me; the Act of Union in 1707 preserved Scotland's separate church, law and educational system. Most of my life is or has been bound up with education / law / church, and so I've always had a sense of being primarily Scottish first, British second.
It's not anti-British to be a member of the Church of Scotland, any more than it is anti-British to be a member of the Church of England. Similarly, it's no more anti-British to study Scots Law at University and become a Scottish solicitor, as I did, than it is to study English Law and become an English solicitor.
I'm sure this is true for a lot of Scots. Hence, the referendum is about economics / social expectations / politics, rather than nationhood.
[ 18. June 2014, 12:58: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
(missed edit window)
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
In consequence, Britishness came to mean the worst caricature southern English snobbishness and greed allied with Orangism and Rangers FC, and despite all that shared culture, Britishness remains associated with those specific things.
I've never lived in an area in which Rangers FC or Orangism have been relevant, and I've never associated Britishness with them.
To be honest, I struggle to know what I associate "Britishness" with. When the Royal family are in this area (I'm not a million miles from Balmoral) they're often photographed in kilts, attending Highland games, and they use their Scottish titles - Duke of Rothesay etc. So they don't epitomise "Britishness" in particular, either.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I don't see how it is consistent to deny that for you it's about nationhood, and then mention certain things that are the indicia of nationhood. The reason why Scotland has an independence movement and (say) Wessex doesn't, is because there is no nationalist Wessexian sentiment of any significance (the Mercian movement looks fun though). An independent Wessex would be a wealthy state, particularly if it revived its ancient claims (or created a new one) to some of the home counties north of England.
In my politics and history studies north of the border, academics were keen to emphasise again and again that Scotland had always had a sense of national identity and indeed was a nation, and were very interested in the decline of Scots identifying as "Scottish but British", and the consequent reassertion of Scottish national identity. To be Scottish and British was never a big issue in the past. Now it seems Scots don't even know what it is, although from a distance I have to say it seems pretty obvious.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
FWIW, if my son has to write down his nationality he always puts "British" because, as he says, he knows one of them has one "t" and the other two, and if he writes "British" he still has the option to add a "t" if it looks wrong, whereas if he writes "Scottish" and then decides it looks wrong, it's harder to remove a "t".
Proof that national identity has layers of meaning known only to the individual. Or something.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
The Mercians look more fun.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The Mercians look more fun.
See, as a Mercian I'm quite on board with a lot of that, and then they go off on one about priestesses and paganism. Given that it's a real party (slightly unbelievably), and not a spoof, they might actually be on to something if they hadn't then gone totally off-piste.
But I do love a good horn dance.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Rather oddly, the paganism hasn't stopped them from adopting the St Alban's Cross for their flag. I wonder what King Penda would make of that.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
On a slightly different point, an interesting situation would arise if an independent Scotland were to be allowed to remain in the EU but a UKIP-minded England (dragging Wales and Northern Ireland with it) were to stomp grumpily out.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Strictly speaking, Scotland can't "remain" in the EU as it isn't currently a member. A newly-independent Scottish state could in theory become a member as soon as it came into existence, but that would require all EU member states (including the UK) to consent to a variation of the relevant treaties.
It is generally assumed by proponents of Scottish independence that an independent Scotland would be welcomed in. Speaking as a resident of a small country, I think this viewpoint overstates the importance an independent Scotland will have on the international scene, ie, virtually none.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
On a slightly different point, an interesting situation would arise if an independent Scotland were to be allowed to remain in the EU but a UKIP-minded England (dragging Wales and Northern Ireland with it) were to stomp grumpily out.
Assuming an independent Scotland is granted admission to the EU, then Scotland will have no more say on the continuing EU membership of the rest of the UK than any other EU nation.
It would be a major economic challenge if some form of open trade/border relationship with the rest of the UK wasn't negotiated. But, I can't see even UKIP being stupid enough to want to pull the rest of the UK out of open trade relationships with the rest of 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
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
A Britain outside the EU would need to negotiate to retain open-market access, and any such access would be unlikely to be unconditional. There would be a price to pay.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Strictly speaking, Scotland can't "remain" in the EU as it isn't currently a member. A newly-independent Scottish state could in theory become a member as soon as it came into existence, but that would require all EU member states (including the UK) to consent to a variation of the relevant treaties.
It is generally assumed by proponents of Scottish independence that an independent Scotland would be welcomed in. Speaking as a resident of a small country, I think this viewpoint overstates the importance an independent Scotland will have on the international scene, ie, virtually none.
I think it's more that any country blocking Scottish membership is going to look foolish and petty. It's not so much "EU members will fall over themselves to welcome Scotland in" as "surely no-one will care enough the risk looking stupid blocking it". The only likely candidate is Spain and I think, when push comes to shove, they'll favour being able to fish in Scottish waters and maintain trade links over trying to get leverage over Catalonia (whose hypothetical membership they could block themselves if it ever came to it). They'll huff and puff about it before hand but it's not worth the trouble for them to refuse Scotland membership.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
In a 'Scotland-in, legacy-UK out' scenario, we could see some UK corporations finding it worth relocating to Scotland; and possibly Wales and (less plausibly) Northern Ireland might want to follow Scotland. The English Mail/Express/Sun reading public would probably be too pig-headed to draw the obvious conclusion.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
A number of EU states have separatist movements that their governments will presumably not wish to encourage. Spain is far from the only one. The question is whether these governments can dress up their real concerns in some other guise.
While one should not underestimate their powers of inventiveness, there is already an obvious one: the currency issue. It is perfectly possible to object to Scottish entry on the basis that Scotland is not an established country with its own, established, financial track record or institutions such as a reserve bank, or even currency, and as such it represents a potential threat to the good fiscal management of the EU. I am guessing this is why there are in fact rules requiring new entrants to the euro to have had their own reserve bank for a period of years.
The obvious way round this is a currency union with the UK, but that is not something an independent Scotland would be entitled to have, nor something that there is much political will in the UK to offer, so it seems.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
In a 'Scotland-in, legacy-UK out' scenario, we could see some UK corporations finding it worth relocating to Scotland;
Some willl relocate south to protect their business, e.g. those in the pensions industry, who are already making contingency plans.
While I could imagine others moving north for tax reasons (I understand that Yes proponents are suggesting Scotland adopt an extremely low rate of corporate tax). The problem with this is that Ireland has already won this game of beggar-my-neighbour economics.
quote:
possibly Wales and (less plausibly) Northern Ireland might want to follow Scotland. The English Mail/Express/Sun reading public would probably be too pig-headed to draw the obvious conclusion.
I never really quite understand why remarks like this are acceptable. They bring nothing to the debate. As it is, the most pig-headed English nationalists would probably be glad to have the Welsh and the Northern Irish off their hands, as they are more clearly a drain on the exchequer than Scotland is likely to bein the future.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
If I have caused offence by using the expression 'pig-headed', I apologise. Would 'dyed in the wool' be more acceptable?
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
The possibility of an in-out referendum on UK membership of the European Union has serious implications for the credibility of the “YES” campaign in Scotland, because it rests on the assumption that when the dust has settled Scotland will come to an amicable arrangement with the Bank of England to retain the pound and remain, or be quickly accepted, as a member of the European Union. While these predictions might be regarded as not unreasonable, should rUK vote to leave the EU and and independent Scotland remain within the EU, then it’s difficult to see how the economic and fiscal link between Scotland and rUK, as envisaged by the SNP, could continue; and the concerns of rUK over immigration from the EU would necessitate strict border (passport) controls between Scotland and rUK. In that case the separation between Scotland and rUK would be more unavoidably radical than envisaged or desired by either party to the cost and disadvantage of both.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Apology accepted, but what is the obvious conclusion? I'm not a Daily Mail reader.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
While these predictions might be regarded as not unreasonable, should rUK vote to leave the EU and and independent Scotland remain within the EU, then it’s difficult to see how the economic and fiscal link between Scotland and rUK, as envisaged by the SNP, could continue; and the concerns of rUK over immigration from the EU would necessitate strict border (passport) controls between Scotland and rUK.
This is confused argument. There are countries in the free trade area encompassed by the EFTA who aren't in the EU. There are countries outside the EU who are part of Schengen, and there are countries in the EU who are not. There are countries within the EU who are in both who still have vestigial bilateral arrangements between each other allowing both free trade and free movement.
The idea that 'and the next day everything stopped' is a brand of fear mongering. Each country would have far too much invested in both free movement and free trade to allow this. If the time came when they didn't, they *might* sleep walk into that position - but then it wouldn't matter anyway.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?
The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Chris Stiles quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
While these predictions might be regarded as not unreasonable, should rUK vote to leave the EU and and independent Scotland remain within the EU, then it’s difficult to see how the economic and fiscal link between Scotland and rUK, as envisaged by the SNP, could continue; and the concerns of rUK over immigration from the EU would necessitate strict border (passport) controls between Scotland and rUK.
This is confused argument. There are countries in the free trade area encompassed by the EFTA who aren't in the EU. There are countries outside the EU who are part of Schengen, and there are countries in the EU who are not. There are countries within the EU who are in both who still have vestigial bilateral arrangements between each other allowing both free trade and free movement.
The idea that 'and the next day everything stopped' is a brand of fear mongering. Each country would have far too much invested in both free movement and free trade to allow this. If the time came when they didn't, they *might* sleep walk into that position - but then it wouldn't matter anyway.
One is well aware that states have the capacity to create structures to support their mutual interests, so that Scotland and rUK could make arrangements for the easy flow of individuals between each other to continue more or less as at present in the event of rUK leaving the EU. Problems arise, however, when there are conflicts of interest. Perhaps the major sentiment behind pressure in rUK to leave the EU is opposition to immigration from the EU, so a referendum decision to leave the EU would almost certainly lead to the introduction of a strict immigration policy. Scottish Nationalists, however, regard an increase in immigration as a solution to their country's need for greater growth. In any event rUK would not wish Scotland to become an open backdoor for European immigration. That is why border control would be necessary, for even if a Scottish passport allowed for automatic access other nationals would not be so fortunate. The sheep and goats will need to be distinguished at Carlisle and Berwick.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Orfeo: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?
The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
...In other words it is possible to use a particular currency without there being a currency union. Scotland, therefore, could autonomously continue to use the pound without permission of rUK. The problem is that the Bank of England would cease to be a lender of last resort and guarantor of Scottish government borrowings, which would adversely affect interest rates on its bonds.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Perhaps the major sentiment behind pressure in rUK to leave the EU is opposition to immigration from the EU, so a referendum decision to leave the EU would almost certainly lead to the introduction of a strict immigration policy.
Sentiment against the EU is equally schizophrenic. A majority of voters would be in favour of staying in the EU providing the terms of staying in could be 'renegotiated' along the lines of which Cameron proposes. Only one point of his seven is specifically connected to immigration, and even that is addressing an issue (EU immigrants seeking benefits) that the Germans already want addressing.
So again, for all practical purposes there would be little difference.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
...OK, Chris, but we were discussing what might be the case if the rUK electorate voted to leave the EU.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?
The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
But do those involve currency unions? I imagine that with the exception of the French territories, euros are simply an acceptable medium of exchange. I also imagine that euros are used in the French territories (e.g. French Guyana) because they are part of France, and therefore EU territory. If I am correct, none of these examples would be akin to what is being proposed by the Nats.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
But is there a currency union that "crosses", so to speak, the EU border?
The Euro is used in Kosovo, Montenegro, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, the Vatican, 4 French territories and 1 British territory. The first two of these never asked, they just went ahead with using Euros.
But do those involve currency unions? I imagine that with the exception of the French territories, euros are simply an acceptable medium of exchange. I also imagine that euros are used in the French territories (e.g. French Guyana) because they are part of France, and therefore EU territory. If I am correct, none of these examples would be akin to what is being proposed by the Nats.
I told you the first two did it without asking. That means all the others did ask. They have signed agreements with the EU.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
How is it significant that the others asked to use a freely-tradeable currency? Have these states entered into fiscal pact with EU member states, and are they entitled to rely upon a reserve bank of an EU member state as lender of last resort?
I note also that none of them have an economy of the size of Scotland's.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
OK, I'm guessing there is no "cross-border" currency union, as would be the case if the rUK (or more likely Scotland) found itself outside the EU with the other in. None of those examples are on point.
I will add that the insistence amongst the Yes camp that it is fair that iScotland is morally entitled to a currency union with the rUK shows a real sense of over-entitlement. The reasons why the rUK might be disinclined to share their currency, given the Euro's turmoils, are really very understandable.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet: quote:
I think it's more that any country blocking Scottish membership is going to look foolish and petty. It's not so much "EU members will fall over themselves to welcome Scotland in" as "surely no-one will care enough the risk looking stupid blocking it".
Judging by his recent performance during the Juncker fiasco, the possibility of looking foolish and petty is not something that is likely to deter Our Glorious Leader from doing something that he thinks will win him votes at the next election.
In a way I agree with him. The media has turned making politicians look stupid into a fine art; it is almost impossible to avoid doing something that they will claim is stupid, so you might as well just ignore them and do the things that you think are important. It's a pity he hardly ever does anything that I agree with, but as I didn't vote for him I suppose it is not surprising.
Cod: quote:
I will add that the insistence amongst the Yes camp that it is fair that iScotland is morally entitled to a currency union with the rUK shows a real sense of over-entitlement.
It's also rather inconsistent, when they have been busily insisting that the voters of Scotland should be allowed to put Scotland's interests first (which I agree with). If they do vote Yes, then the voters of the rest of the UK should be allowed to put their own interests first - and as you say, it's not clear that a formal monetary union with an independent Scotland would be in the interests of the rest of the UK.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Cameron's ineptness is embarrasing. IMO, Juncker is quite the wrong person for the job. But it was criminal to let himself get isolated in the way that he has. He has failed to control his party, an in order to appease them he has chosen some rather odd company. Not only did he fail to get his way, he also failed to win himself (or the UK) any political capital out of the loss. However, it is on the public record that he would support iScotland's entry into the EU and, to be honest, I doubt many would be vindictive enough to want the rUK to veto it.
The irony is that history will probably treat Cameron kindly. Time is increasingly running out for the Yes campaign, and one would expect (touch wood) that the UK referendum vote will be to retain EU membership: the plain facts will recall that Cameron made two big calls and got them right. Seems to me though that he's being bloody reckless.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Yes, it is fairly clear that his tactic of:
a. Taking the Conservatives out of the largest European Parliamentary group;
b. Complaining when that group fails to take Conservative wishes into account -
is dictated by trying to appease his own backbenches, rather than any kind of principle or logic.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I think there was a sound logic in saying 'we're part of a European Parliamentary group which is federalist in outlook. We're not a federalist party - quite the opposite - so we're going to build our own group'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Pity it came across as "if you don't do what I say I'm not going to be your friend any more," then.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
That's not how it came across to me. (Although are you talking about the Conservatives' withdrawal from the EPP or the disagreement over Juncker's appointment?)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Juncker - but Cameron's attitude to Europe generally comes across like that to me. I daresay it plays well to (some of) his own backbenchers and might win back some Conservative voters who have gone over to UKIP, but it's going down like a lead balloon with most of our fellow EU members. And getting back to the original subject of this thread for a moment, it may also be hurting the 'No' campaign in the Scottish referendum; Scotland has done rather well out of the EU and most Scottish voters probably do not want to be dragged out of it by the rest of the UK.
[ 10. July 2014, 10:09: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think there was a sound logic in saying 'we're part of a European Parliamentary group which is federalist in outlook. We're not a federalist party - quite the opposite - so we're going to build our own group'.
Sure, but one must then accept that one represents a fringe party. If the next general election delivers another hung parliament, the views of Plaid Cymru will count for rather less than those of Labour or the Conservatives, and that is the price they pay for ideological purity.
Of course one can argue that although the Tories' group is minor, the United Kingdom isn't a minor player by any means, but that contradicts Cameron's own insistence that the appointment should have reflected the composition of the European Parliament.
[ 10. July 2014, 12:03: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
I hope I'm in the right thread; I couldn't resist posting this list. Not that I'm particularly bothered by what "celebs" think, but I can't imagine that I would ever agree with such a disparate group of people. I can see myself agreeing with Bamber Gascoigne, Sir Michael Parkinson and James May, but George Galloway, Simon Cowell and Tracey Emin?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Sadly, having lived outside Scotland for the last 26 years because of my Better Half's work, I have no say in the matter, but it doesn't mean I don't care, and I really don't think that Scotland would benefit from cutting her ties with the U.K.
I was interested to see some of the people who agree.
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I was thinking of starting a thread on the debate the other night. But since this thread is alive again ...
I know it wasn't broadcast live south of the border, but it was shown again last night in England. And, it's been reported on widely anyway.
I'm still in the undecided category, and the debate didn't convince me to swing either way. I found Salmond particularly disappointing, particularly as I generally find the arguments for independence attractive. Darling was, well just too much Darling. Better Together have got themselves a leader who just doesn't inspire anything. There were times when I felt they made a right balls up of the argument, and I felt that I could have made a better case than was presented. Two examples, one from each side.
First Salmond, repeatedly asked about "plan B" for currency. He was evasive, never answered the question and created a strong impression that there is no alternative to maintaining the pound in some form of currency union with the Bank of England. I would have answered something along the lines of "I believe the best option for Scotland and the rest of the UK is to maintain the pound, something which Darling himself recognised prior to the start of the campaign" (which is more or less all that Salmond said), I would continue "During the campaign period it is expected that the Better Together supporters would say that such a currency arrangeement is unworkable" (he did sort of say that), and "I believe that when Scotland has voted for independence then cool heads will prevail in Westminster and a mutually beneficial arrangement maintain a common currency for Scotland and the rest of the UK can be agreed" (which is, as I understand it what the Scottich Government actually believes). Finally, I would have put the political boot in a bit and said something like "Of course, after a vote for independence it is possible that the Westminster government in a fit of pique blocks an arrangement for maintaining a common currency, to the detriment of the economy of the rest of the UK. In that case we would have to adopt a second best solution, which will be [insert whatever it is]. Though not what we really want, if the Westminster government wants to take one last chance to take things out on the people of Scotland, we will take it. I believe that although not the best this option would still be good for the economy of Scotland". That would have been a far more convincing argument - especially if in follow-up questions he could have supported those statements.
Second, Darling dodged the question of whether Scotland would be viable as an independent nation. He dodged it because he didn't want to say that yes, we could be a viable independent nation. Whereas, the evidence from other small nations is that we could be, and I think most people recognise that. He could have had a very easy come back - something like "yes, Scotland can be a viable independent nation. But, that's not the important question. The important question is would Scotland, and the people of Scotland, be better off as an independent nation or as part of the UK? I would say that Scotland is better as part of the UK".
Poor marks for both of them. Especially when I could give better answers than they did, even without necessarily believing the answers.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
On the contrary, I found Darling (for the first time) to have some fire in his belly, some real passion. And Salmond really couldn't answer the currency question...er...because he can't.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Darling had fire in his belly for all the negative things he had to say, how independence couldn't work. But, he couldn't seem to raise any enthusiasm for anything positive about what staying in the UK would mean. He couldn't even be positive and enthusiastic about what additional powers are proposed for Holyrood that had recently been announced by the coalition - in fact, he gave the distinct impression that he didn't even know what those additional powers would be. But, negative campaigning, trying to scare people with the unknowns a yes vote would bring, has been a strong feature of the Better Together campaign from the start - which, I admit, is part of why I find the arguments for independence so attractive. They are arguments for something, I want to here the arguments for maintaining the union.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
Good point. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It seems to me that Salmond is trying to pick and choose the bits of Britishness that he likes: he'd keep the pound, keep the Queen and have some elevated position of his own imagining in the EU.
Dream on ...
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I'm not bothered about the Royal Family, but when they're up here, at Balmoral, they use their Scottish titles, attend the Church of Scotland, attend Highland games trigged out in full tartan fig etc etc. I don't see a problem post-Independence.
Pre-Independence - they have palaces at Holyrood and Balmoral. Post -independence - they have palaces at Holyrood and Balmoral. Pre-independence - the Scottish Royal honour is the Order of the Thistle. Post-independence - the Scottish Royal honour is the Order of the Thistle. Pre-independence - whilst in Scotland they attend the Church of Scotland. Post-independence - whilst in Scotland they attend the Church of Scotland and so on. What Could actually change re the Royal family if there was independence?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What Could actually change re the Royal family if there was independence?
The appointment of a Governor General? Well, someone’s got to keep an eye on Salmond when the Queen’s in London…
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
