|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Vote on Scottish Independence
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
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…
Good point!
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
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…
Surely it would be just as valid for England to have a Governor General when the monarch is in Scotland? The current royals are descended as much from the Scottish kings as the English.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I do not understand economics in general, or the currency question in particular. But I had understood that, until the latest wobble of the Euro, that new entrants to the EU were expected to adopt the Euro as their currency as soon as possible. Is that perhaps no longer the case?
But if it is, and as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant, why is nobody mentioning the Euro as the currency? Is it because the whole idea of the Euro is so toxic?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Pretty much. Plus I don't think any of the EU member states have much interest in forcing Scotland into the Euro, the consensus seems to be that, yes, new states must join the Euro, but in order to join the Euro you must first join ERM2, which is voluntary. A new Scottish currency is the almost inevitable outcome if whoever is in power in Westminster decides to do the diplomatic equivalent of holding their breath to get their own way. In many ways being able to control our own currency would be advantageous, considering the examples of Iceland and Ireland in the recent financial crisis. Iceland were ultimately able to cut their losses, endure a short while of imports being very pricey, and get back on track. Ireland have been pretty much stuck because they couldn't devalue the currency and export their way out. Being tied to rUK is not quite so bad for Scotland, at least in the short term, because it's what happens already. Over time a shared currency will be less helpful as the economies diverge, but I would anticipate Scotland being stronger then and able to confidently launch a new currency.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
That's like saying London is already part of the EU and so wouldn't need to apply to be a member state of the EU if it declared independence from the UK. Only states are members of the EU. Scotland isn't a member state of the EU - the UK is. Scotland isn't even a state. I could add, "Yet", but...
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject. The interesting question then becomes which, if any, EU member states would veto Scottish accession in order to discourage their own secessionist movements.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I thought that Alex Salmond's blithe assumption that Scotland would automatically be part of the EU had been blown out the water long ago. I know he thinks that his opinion is always superior to any inconvenient fact, but the fact is that an independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership and not receive it as of right.
Like a lot of things Alex Salmond says, wishful thinking does not mean that something is going to happen.
I can't make up my mind whether Salmond is stupid or just plain dishonest. When it comes to things like EU membership or the currency question, he says things that are quite bizarre. Either he's so stupid he really believes what he is saying, or he knows what he is saying is incorrect but says it anyway (aka "lying").
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
And as a quick aside, a newly independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the Commonwealth also - as would have Quebec in the 60s.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Such questions are far from settled - international law tends to be 'however states actually behave' rather than something written down as a hard and fast enforceable rule. When a 'new' state's territory corresponds in whole or in part with the territory of an old state, it can take a while to sort out to what extent it inherits the old state's rights and the old state's obligations.
Back in my law school days I vaguely recall studying some stuff about the Czech Republic and Slovakia, including a dispute between Slovakia and Hungary about the precise extent that Slovakia was a legal successor to Czechoslovakia. I can't remember the outcomes, though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU 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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Orfeo, not a topic able to be discussed when some of us were at Law School, but my memory is that the Czechs and the Slovaks very quickly reached an agreement about that. I can't remember definitely any more than you, but think it was along the lines that neither was a successor state.
Alan Cresswell, could it be that the UK continues, and that Scotland alone is new? The present UK is of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not of England, Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.
[ 08. August 2014, 06:44: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
No it doesn't - independence for Scotland creates one new state: Scotland. The UK, diminished, and a different size and shape continues. There is a fairly obvious precedent for this if you look at a map of the British Isles....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... could it be that the UK continues, and that Scotland alone is new? ...
That would have been my understanding of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I can't make up my mind whether Salmond is stupid or just plain dishonest ...
Sadly, I suspect he's a dangerous blend of the two, with a bit of sly cunning thrown in for good measure.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Stupid or plain dishonest is the question for me too. Salmond said repeatedly in First Minister's Questions the other day that 'it's our pound and we're keeping it'. He seems to believe (or is outright lying in service of the Yes to Independence campaign) that it's within Scotland's power to insist on a currency union with the rest of the UK:
quote:
The reason we are keeping the pound in a currency union, and the reason we are so unambiguous about it, is because we are appealing to the greatest authority of all, that is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland.
Newsflash for Mr Salmond - the other party in your proposed currency union might perhaps have some say in it too.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does. If the rest of the UK don't want a currency union after independence, then technically they're free to use a different currency and leave Scotland with sterling. In reality, a currency union will be one of many things on the table in the event of a yes vote. Westminster may try to extract a price for it, and it will be up to the negotiating team to decide whether it is worth it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does.
But I don't think this point does have any validity. IMO the pound is an institution or instrument of the UK, like the justice system, the trade agreements we have with various countries, and other things like that. Vote to leave the UK and you vote to leave those institutions.
The pounds the UK has are assets, on the other hand, and should be split according to some reasonable method (the details of which will be part of the negotiations after a Yes vote). Except of course, the UK doesn't have any pounds; it owes somewhere over £1,000,000,000,000 (with the exact amount depending on what you include in the definition of national debt).
I just don't see how it's remotely credible to secede from a country and insist on the right to carry on using that country's institutions. Of course, if an independent Scotland wanted to use the pound then it can; many small countries use the US Dollar, after all. But that's not currency union, and it would leave Scotland with no control over the exchange rate of its currency, arguably meaning it would be less independent than is currently the case.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Scotland doesn't share a justice system with the rest of the UK. Or an education system, healthcare system (thank goodness) or a number of other things.
Whether you agree about the "shared asset" point or not is largely irrelevant; it's a valid interpretation of the situation and to hold that view makes one neither stupid nor dishonest.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
No it doesn't - the UK will continue pretty much as is under international law: with clearly defined borders (albeit with a different one in the north), the same governmental institutions (minus the Scottish Office and one or two other minor changes), the same diplomatic representation and, oh yes, the same currency.
On that last, critical point, Salmond seems to inhabit a Walter Mitty sort of world, being a complete ostrich about the fact that the Westminster parties have said it definitely won't be the pound, and failing to come up with a consequentially necessary Plan B to explain how any currency is going to be underwritten (by the Bank of ...er...England? By the European Central Bank (he hasn't asked them)? Scotland's own resources? The IMF?). Unless and until he can do that, he's very firmly in La-La Land.
--------------------
"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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Scotland doesn't share a justice system with the rest of the UK. Or an education system, healthcare system (thank goodness) or a number of other things.
Sorry, yes; Scotland's justice system is already separate so there'd be no problem in that area if the vote is for independence. But the point is that Scotland doesn't already have its own currency / monetary system. A vote to leave the UK is a vote to leave the currency system; I don't see how it can be anything else (without the agreement of both parties, I mean).
If the situation were like the dissolving of Czechoslovakia into Slovakia and the Czech Republic, then Salmond might have a case. But Scotland is voting on whether to leave the UK; the rest of the UK will not get to vote because we aren't doing anything. So we (the remaining UK) will surely get to keep the institutions of the UK and Scotland will have to negotiate its own arrangements and agreements with whoever it sees fit.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Mr Salmond is in a Walter Mitty world about everything.
In only one of the past 20 years (2001, I think) did Scotland produce more taxation revenue - including receipts from North Sea oil - than it received in grant money from central government.
In other words, for Scotland to pay for itself at its current level of services it is going to have to significantly increase taxation.
And bearing in mind that Scotland has a higher than average proportion of people entirely dependent on benefits that increased tax burden is going to fall onto a small number of the population.
Or, as a Scots accountant of my acquaintance puts it: if you're working in Scotland and the YES vote gets it find a job elsewhere fast.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
That, coupled with that fact that unless the currency point is sorted pdq its substantial financial services industry will head south of the border means it will almost certainly have to go cap in hand to the IMF in short order.
--------------------
"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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Don't forget its the Bank of ENGLAND that's been propping up RBS and HBOS...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does.
The pound isn't a "shared asset of the UK", because the UK is currently a single entity. You can't share something with yourself!
If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland. The pound will continue to be an asset of the UK, just as it is now. Scotland will have no right or standing to demand that the UK enters into a currency union with it. It can, of course, use the pound if it so desires - but the value of that pound, inflation, interest and so forth will be decided by the Bank of England based on what is best for the UK, not Scotland. If those interests were to differ, Scotland would be the one getting the raw end of the deal- and rightly so as it wouldn't be their currency any more than the US Dollar belongs to any of the other nations that use it.
I'm all for Scottish independence, and I'd vote "yes" in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity. But independence means independence, not clinging on to the institutions and services of the country you just left as if you've still got some kind of claim on them. Independence means making your own way, not expecting the ones you've just left to keep looking after you like some kind of feckless 20-year-old still bringing his washing back to mommy every weekend.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
This is typical of the fundamental dishonesty of so much of the Yes campaign. 'We want independence but...'
If they took a Braveheart type line and said 'We must be free or die, our nationhood means more to us than our comfort, we will claim our independence and if we have to live in turf shacks on oatmeal and herrings for a couple of generations, it's a price worth paying', I'd have some respect for them. But not this wanting to have their (Dundee) cake and eat it.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
wanting to have their (Dundee) cake and eat it.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the point he is making, which has some validity, is that the pound is a shared asset of the UK, and Scotland has as much right to it as the rest of the UK does.
The pound isn't a "shared asset of the UK", because the UK is currently a single entity. You can't share something with yourself!
If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland. The pound will continue to be an asset of the UK, just as it is now. Scotland will have no right or standing to demand that the UK enters into a currency union with it. It can, of course, use the pound if it so desires - but the value of that pound, inflation, interest and so forth will be decided by the Bank of England based on what is best for the UK, not Scotland. If those interests were to differ, Scotland would be the one getting the raw end of the deal- and rightly so as it wouldn't be their currency any more than the US Dollar belongs to any of the other nations that use it.
I'm all for Scottish independence, and I'd vote "yes" in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity. But independence means independence, not clinging on to the institutions and services of the country you just left as if you've still got some kind of claim on them. Independence means making your own way, not expecting the ones you've just left to keep looking after you like some kind of feckless 20-year-old still bringing his washing back to mommy every weekend.
--------------------
"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
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by l'organist.
quote:
And bearing in mind that Scotland has a higher than average proportion of people entirely dependent on benefits that increased tax burden is going to fall onto a small number of the population.
Can you provide a link? These figures from the Office of National Statistics suggest otherwise, although they're referring to households, rather than individuals.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by l'organist:
quote:
In only one of the past 20 years (2001, I think) did Scotland produce more taxation revenue - including receipts from North Sea oil - than it received in grant money from central government.
Again, could you provide a link to back up that assertion?
According to the BBC Scotland, with 8.3 of the UK population, pays 8.2% of the taxes, excluding Oil Revenue. If you include oil revenue, Scotland pays more in taxes.
Our public expenditure is higher, but, according to the linked figures, that still doesn't shift the balance if you're including oil revenues, as you say you are in your assertion.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by l'organist:
In only one of the past 20 years (2001, I think) did Scotland produce more taxation revenue - including receipts from North Sea oil - than it received in grant money from central government.
Again, could you provide a link to back up that assertion?
I have no dog in this fight, but I think that's more or less what is said here: quote:
Allocating a population-based share of North Sea revenues results in a position for Scottish public finances which (measured both by the current budget and by the net fiscal balance) has been weaker than that of the UK as a whole for the last 30 years, with the gap widening over time from around 2% of GDP in the early 1980s to around 5-7% by the mid-2000s. The gap exists because spending is higher in Scotland. It has widened largely because, as we saw in Section 1.3, tax revenues have risen more slowly in Scotland.
Source: Scottish independence: the fiscal context by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
[ETA from the briefest of scans of this document I gather there is some argument about who actually owns the North Sea Oil fields and things change a bit depending on whether you allocate oil revenue geographically or by population]
[ 08. August 2014, 18:14: 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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland.
How much smaller would the rump UK have to be before it was treated as a new country? My wish would be for England north of the Mersey-Humber (or any bits to the south that wished) to join Scotland rather than England. Presumably the two parts of Czechoslovakia were not identical in size: who is to decide which is the breakaway state and which is the rump?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If Scotland votes for independence, then there will be two entities - the same old UK (albeit a bit smaller) and the brand new Scotland.
How much smaller would the rump UK have to be before it was treated as a new country? My wish would be for England north of the Mersey-Humber (or any bits to the south that wished) to join Scotland rather than England. Presumably the two parts of Czechoslovakia were not identical in size: who is to decide which is the breakaway state and which is the rump?
The simple answer is: the one that's talking about leaving and becoming independent is the breakaway.
Czechoslovakia was different because both sides agreed to the split and agreed that they would each become new countries. That is manifestly not the case here. Hell, the rest of Britain isn't even being given a vote, on the grounds that it doesn't change anything for them. If that's not a clear sign of which side will still be the same country after the split then I don't know what is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo, not a topic able to be discussed when some of us were at Law School, but my memory is that the Czechs and the Slovaks very quickly reached an agreement about that. I can't remember definitely any more than you, but think it was along the lines that neither was a successor state.
I did a bit more hunting. I remembered it was to do with a dam. I haven't found the full text of the relevant decision, but it seems that Hungary tried to say it wasn't bound any more by a treaty that it signed with Czechoslovakia, and as far as I can work out the ICJ said that no, the treaty still survived and was now between Hungary and Slovakia.
--------------------
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
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
as Scotland would have to apply for admission to the EU as a new entrant
Ah, now there's a good question. Scotland is already part of the EU. Would that change with independence? If not, then Scotland wouldn't need to apply as a new member.
My understanding is that if a new state came into being it would have to apply for membership of the EU. That also appears to be the understanding of the various members of the EU Commission who have offered an opinion on the subject.
That would also, logically, be the case for the rest of the UK as well. Independence for Scotland creates two new states. Either both Scotland and the rest of the UK automatically retain EU membership, or both have to apply for EU membership.
No it doesn't - independence for Scotland creates one new state: Scotland. The UK, diminished, and a different size and shape continues. There is a fairly obvious precedent for this if you look at a map of the British Isles....
For that matter it is generally agreed that Russia alone was the successor state to the USSR after the latter's collapse in the early 1990s. It was simply so much larger than any of the other post-Soviet states, both in terms of area and of population. Likewise, the remaning UK would be so much larger than Scotland that it would clearly be a sole successor state.
Edit: Even if the UK broke up completely England would probably be considered the sole successor state to the UK. It's not geographically too much larger than Scotland, but it has a much larger population.
[ 09. August 2014, 01:46: Message edited by: Try ]
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
This is typical of the fundamental dishonesty of so much of the Yes campaign. 'We want independence but...'
If they took a Braveheart type line and said 'We must be free or die, our nationhood means more to us than our comfort, we will claim our independence and if we have to live in turf shacks on oatmeal and herrings for a couple of generations, it's a price worth paying', I'd have some respect for them. But not this wanting to have their (Dundee) cake and eat it.
I've seen it all before. All of this is standard rhetoric for the Parti Québecois and has been for 40 years. Pauline Marois recently mused about keeping the Canadian Dollar and getting a seat for an independent Québec on the board of the Bank of Canada. Her musing were greeted with more guffaws inside Québec than out.
Except in the recent Québec Election, the merest hint of a Referendum sent the PQ's vote into a tailspin. They lost power and received the lowest share of the popular vote in decades.
It was always going to be this way. Nobody wants "blood, tears, toil and sweat" without a gun pointed at their country. So Plan B is doubletalk and waffling.
If Scotland votes 60% for Union in September then you owe me a Poutine.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Theres a weird dynamic in the no campaign though, which is to respond to the independence campaign with the promise of more autonomy.
What is the long term logic of that ? Well, actually we do think independence is ultimately better but its going to practice at government and a few more generations of economic development until its viable ?
[ 09. August 2014, 12:06: 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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think it's just that they've discovered that Project Fear wasn't enough on its own and couldn't think of any positive reasons to want to be ruled from Westminster.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Hell, the rest of Britain isn't even being given a vote, on the grounds that it doesn't change anything for them. If that's not a clear sign of which side will still be the same country after the split then I don't know what is.
If it doesn't change anything for us, why are the English supporters of the No campaign getting their knickers in such a twist? If it doesn't make any difference, no wonder they are not coming up with any convincing arguments against.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Hell, the rest of Britain isn't even being given a vote, on the grounds that it doesn't change anything for them. If that's not a clear sign of which side will still be the same country after the split then I don't know what is.
If it doesn't change anything for us, why are the English supporters of the No campaign getting their knickers in such a twist? If it doesn't make any difference, no wonder they are not coming up with any convincing arguments against.
Well, it clearly does affect the rest of the UK. That's not something I'm going to dispute.
My point was simply that Salmond and co. said, at the time that the referendum was proposed, that only Scotland should vote because only Scotland would be affected. That seems to indicate pretty strongly that they would consider the rUK to be the same country that it always was, and Scotland to be a completely new country. That, in turn, means anyone claiming that two new countries are being formed is simply wrong.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think it's just that they've discovered that Project Fear wasn't enough on its own and couldn't think of any positive reasons to want to be ruled from Westminster.
Well, no, it might be that they think that quite a lot of Scots want more autonomy without going the whole hog of independence. This is a perfectly respectable position and it is possible that it may be quite widespread. I haven't looked the the Scottish polls but there has certainly been a trend here in Wales (where we have less autonomy than the Scots do at present), since devolution, towards more support for devolution and more support for more devolution- but the proportion of Welsh voters wanting independence has stayed remarkably constant at about IIRC 15%.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I agree with Albertus. If the referendum had given three options - No change, DevoMax (i.e. full fiscal autonomy, but shared defence, embassies and EU) and Independence, I don't think that there's any doubt that the majority would have voted for DevoMax.
David Cameron opposed the "third question" and the Edinburgh Agreement settled that there would be a clean Yes / No vote.
Presumably, at that time, the UK government assumed that the majority who wanted DevoMax wouldn't be prepared to vote "Yes" However, it started to look as though more of the DevoMaxers were moving towards "Yes" than "No" and now the No camp are trying to reclaim them.
FWIW, I would have voted for DevoMax in a three question referendum, but now intend to vote Yes. It's people like me - not totally committed to Independence, but definitely wanting to change the status quo - who are being wooed by offers of increased powers.
If David Cameron doesn't want Scottish Independence, then removing the "third question" was a serious miscalculation because personally, I don't think that Independence had much of a chance when DevoMax would have been enough for most Scots.
My guess is that if it had been a three question vote, it would have been 60% for DevoMax, 30% for Independence, 10% No change.
[ 11. August 2014, 10:55: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
If David Cameron doesn't want Scottish Independence, then removing the "third question" was a serious miscalculation ....
I think (one of) the problems with Mr Cameron is that he's a much better politician than people give him credit for, and so he tends to wrong foot opponents and even sympathisers from time to time.
Apologies in advance for linking to the Mail, but the article does give a clear read of the latest polling figures over the weekend:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721796/Fresh-poll-blow-Salmond-six-10-Scottish-voters-reject-independence-amid-growi ng-fears-pound.html
Which looks remarkably like your assumed figures for a 3 question referendum but filtered thrugh a 2 question lens. Ie, the no vote is increasing now all the main parties are agreed on more devolution.
A cynic (perish the thought) would suggest that this was always the plan and that in fact Mr Cameron has called Mr Salmond's bluff, and (to mix metaphors) should the no vote come through sizeably the net result will be Scotland getting what it was going to get anyway, and Mr Salmond having his fox well and truly shot.
Should that happen, then in purely political terms Mr Cameron will have played a blinder as (in retrospect) he'll have taken no risks whatsoever AND delivered a kicking to an opponent (in terms of both Salmond personally and the SNP more widely) in allowing the people of Scotland to crush their principal dream in such a way it could take Scottish independence off the table for a generation.
If I were a politician I'd call that a pretty good day's work.
Of course, first there has to be a No vote otherwise DC is, as you say, going to look quite silly.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
That's a poll of 1,100 people, and the Mail has form for spinning an anti-Independence story.
YouGov were reporting 52% No and 34% Yes in January, 53% No and 36% Yes in June, and now they're reporting 55% No and 35% Yes in August, so their polls have been fairly consistent. The current YouGov poll doesn't indicate the "drop" in Yes votes which the Mail implies.
Ipso Mori tends to poll higher figures for yes, but they haven't released poll figures in the last week.
I'm not disputing the YouGov figures, but they have been the poll which consistently shows higher "No" votes, and hence are the poll favoured by the Daily Mail.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I've been googling, but rather frustratingly, the Scottish Daily Mail isn't online, so I can't link. On 9 Aug the Scottish Mail used Survation figures, rather than YouGov. This gave the poll figures as 50% No, 37% Yes. As Survation had been polling much lower votes votes for No before, this enabled the Scottish Daily Mail to have the front page headline "Surge in No vote after Salmond TV flop."
However, in the Daily Mail edition, they gave the YouGov figures, which show a higher No vote, and a much wider gap, but no dramatic surge since previous polls.
So, depending which side of the border you buy your Daily Mail, the latest polls show there is either a 13% gap or a 20% gap, and there's been a big change or a marginal change since the TV debate last Tuesday.
[ 11. August 2014, 12:56: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
betjemaniac: quote:
Should that happen, then in purely political terms Mr Cameron will have played a blinder as (in retrospect) he'll have taken no risks whatsoever...
This is assuming that the Scottish electorate will vote No when push comes to shove. I don't think we can assume that: quite a lot of people outside London are thoroughly fed up with being governed from Westminster, including a high proportion of voters in the north of England. The DevoMax voters could go either way.
From where I'm sitting it looks as if Cameron has taken a huge gamble which is by no means certain to pay off. If that's what being a good politician is, you can have it. In this kind of situation someone who deals honestly with the electorate (instead of treating them like idiots or trying to hold them to ransom) would be preferable.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
This is assuming that the Scottish electorate will vote No when push comes to shove. I don't think we can assume that: quite a lot of people outside London are thoroughly fed up with being governed from Westminster, including a high proportion of voters in the north of England. The DevoMax voters could go either way.
From where I'm sitting it looks as if Cameron has taken a huge gamble which is by no means certain to pay off.
I disagree. A vote for DevoMax is kicking the can down the road. Westminster will still be the bogeyman to be blamed for any problems north of the border. Future Salmonds will claim Scots didn't have a fair chance at independence because they were offered a compromise.
They should have a clear yes/no vote, and yes should mean full independence, no pound.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac: quote:
Should that happen, then in purely political terms Mr Cameron will have played a blinder as (in retrospect) he'll have taken no risks whatsoever...
This is assuming that the Scottish electorate will vote No when push comes to shove.
Indeed. I was rather hoping my use of such terms as:
"should the No vote come through"
"should that happen"
"in retrospect"
and
"of course, first there has to be a No vote otherwise..."
would make that clear, but apparently no, I'm just assuming it's a foregone conclusion.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
In this kind of situation someone who deals honestly with the electorate (instead of treating them like idiots or trying to hold them to ransom) would be preferable.
Oh, and FWIW (speaking as someone broadly supportive of a Yes vote), Mr Salmond is asking us to believe that every other party leader is lying when they say there won't be a currency union, Scotland wouldn't be allowed to just join the EU straightaway, and divers and sundry other things.
From where I'm sitting the prime treator of people like idiots and holder of people to ransom is sitting in Holyrood. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are actually trying to deal honestly ISTM, but the SNP answer to that is
"no they aren't, they're lying. All of them. The Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, NATO and the EU. All of them. We, on the other hand, are telling it like it is."
In the immortal words of Danny in Withnail and I,
"Why trust one drug and not the other? Politics, innit?"
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
One thing I value about this thread, betjemaniac, is getting a south of the border perspective. I'm very aware that our newspapers are not necessarily saying the same as the newspapers south of the border (e.g. the differences I've already referred to between the spin of the Daily Mail and the spin of the Scottish Daily Mail.)
One impression I think we are getting here is that Cameron et al have two versions of what will happen re the EU; telling the Scots that only by staying in the Union can they guarantee EU membership, because the UK will stay in the EU forever; and simultaneously saying that the UK will have a referendum on the EU and might leave.
Which is it - would we be foolish to vote for Independence because we might end up out of the EU, or would we be foolish to remain in the Union because there will be a referendum and we might end up out of the EU?
Cameron seems to be saying two different things, depending on whether his audience aspires to remain within, or leave the EU.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Which is it - would we be foolish to vote for Independence because we might end up out of the EU, or would we be foolish to remain in the Union because there will be a referendum and we might end up out of the EU?
Cameron seems to be saying two different things, depending on whether his audience aspires to remain within, or leave the EU.
I think the key point on EU membership is that a newly independent Scotland couldn't remotely be sure of either remaining in the EU or of being waved in as a new member with minimal red tape.
And, at least in part, it all relates back to the currency question; if Cameron's reading of the EU membership situation is right, then independent Scotland (a) would be required to join the Euro if it wanted to join the EU, and (b) would need an interim currency solution in any case, because joining the EU would take some time.
The question needs asking again, I think; what is Salmond's plan B if he can't get a full-on currency union with the remaining UK? (A currency union which Cameron, Miliband and Clegg have all explicitly ruled out, AIUI.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
