[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Only governments of member states can approach the commission for its advice.

Hence the scottish govt asked Westminster to approach the commission.

And all precedents and EU commentary would indicate that Scotland as a successor state would have to apply for membership, so surely the onus is on the Yes campaign to prove otherwise?

Which precedents?
[url= http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/events/programmes/2012-13/speaker_notes/Avery_ScotlandEU.pdf ]Avery evidence to the foreign affairs committee[/url]

[url= http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu ]scottish independence and eu[/url]

I say again the relevant body to present your arguement to/ or to seek advice from is the EU commission which can only hear arguements from or give advice to the government of existing member states. The Uk government claims it wants clarity on the issue and then refuses to get the definitive advice which it can get not from third parties but straight from the horses mouth

Which precedents?

Ireland, Russia, Netherlands, India etc....

Name one example where a minority left a union and became a 'continuing state'

If only there were some 'Yes' friendly people in the European parliament that could ask the question, people who represented a member state but were members of a party who were pro independence, perhaps MEPs who were members of the SNP, if only there were two of those eh!

Thats the point there are no precedents within the EU for this situation as Avery said in my first link page 1 para 4

It has to be the member states government that approaches the EU commission. Not MEPs or for that matter ordinary MPs.

The EU has no historical precedent for dealing with Scottish independence.

For sure - I have no historical precedent for dealing with the wife finding me in bed with Cheryl Cole, but I'm fairly sure it won't end well (the Cheryl bit withstanding obviously)

Good luck with that :-)If I dont go to bed now I will need UN help just to negotiate my way out of the doghouse.

There are currently around 100,000 EU citizens living, studying and working in Scotland. The idea that the EU would make them all come home, and lose access to Scottish waters for European fishing vessels into the bargain, is silly.

There's no precedent for this, therefore a sensible resolution will be reached by the grown-ups once the children have stopped posturing.

The idea that the EU would make them all come home

Why would the EU be interested in making them all 'come home' ?

If Scotland no longer wanted to offer them residence then that would be for Scotland to deal with.

I agree it seems preposterous that the EU would refuse membership to Scotland though.

But then I could never have predicted that the EU would fully support the violent overthrow of an elected government because it had refused to sign a trade deal with it, so who knows ?

The EU thing is a total irrelevance - the EU has been grasping desperately to find some way to get Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia to join, which are obviously futile and far to difficult (hence Euromaidan). They would not hesitate to let Scotland in when it would be almost frictionless.

All of these comments about "Scotland wouldn't be a member after independence" are stupid too - there will be an interval between any successful vote and independence, and that period would be used to negotiate seamless EU membership.

Bencooper: Scotland would be in charge of its own immigration policy, if it chose to deport EU citizens because it was not a member of the EU, that would be its decision, not the EU's. (I don't see it as a plausible scenario anyway seeing as there is no accurate record of where those citizens live, even if there were enough officers to drag them out of their homes).

so surely the onus is on the Yes campaign to prove otherwise?

its unfaitr to put the onus on the Yes campaign when the only ones who can ask are the yes campaign

It seems reasonable to assume that if they thought they would support their view then they would ask so I would imagine they dont ask because
1. They want to use the uncertainty for political gain- rather naughty but you can see why it helps them
2. They think the answer will be Yes they can join

Its all one big we dont know but the issue is the EU will be able to "fast track" them if they wish or refuse if they wish so none of us know what will really happen at the 18 month long negotiations
If i had to bet I would say they will be in the EU, NATO and not the pound

its unfaitr to put the onus on the Yes campaign when the only ones who can ask are the [s]yes campaign[/s]UK government

Its realpolitik

Behind the scenes, the reason the UK govt won't ask for a formal opinion on the status prior to the referendum, as requested by 'Yes' is because they've been asked not to by Spain, as it would lead to unacceptable pressure on their own domestic front to approach for a prospective opinion on behalf of Catalonia.

You need to see the bigger picture!

Given whats happened in the Crimea, I would suggest Scotland's task has just become a whole load more difficult, there will be some very twitchy arses round the table when it comes to recognising independence referenda.

For me at least, this is pertinent to my decision making.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/17/oxfam-report-scale-britain-growing-financial-inequality

What's the EU issue other than another red herring? The Scot Gov is perfectly clear, according to AS's sidekick....

The Scottish Government recognises that membership of the EU will require negotiations with other Member States and the EU institutions in order to agree the terms on which an independent Scotland will become a full member of the EU.

Of course there is the syrup (as always) that a "little birdie" said that this would be done within 18 months, but by yS standards they are close to being straight on this one. Of course, the fact that those in the know suggest that it will take longer can just be dismissed as more bluster.

Of course, the fact that those in the know suggest that it will take longer

a "little birdie"

No, just need to follow the news, Gordi.

If the news is followed by any of the "3Bs", you know it's going to be pretty much "on the button."

For me at least, this is pertinent to my decision making.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/17/oxfam-report-scale-britain-growing-financial-inequality

I'm not sure why that report should be pertinent to your decision making. Increasing economic inequality is not a uniquely British thing it is a phenomena that has become prevalent throughout the world as a direct consequence of the emergence of the neo-liberal economic model.

Back in the day when Richard Nixon famously declared that he was Keynesian the advanced industrialised world was much more equal. But since then neo-liberal policies of mass unemployment, privatization, and weak trade unions, has driven wages down whilst inevitably increasing the accumulated of wealth of a small privileged minority. Indeed this lies at the root cause of the currant financial crises affecting the US and Europe - consumers with poor purchasing power were encouraged to accept easy credit to top up their low wages.

So what would an independent Scotland do about it ? Introduce Keynesian state intervention policies ? Illegal under in EU rules, and apparently an "independent" Scotland independent of the EU isn't on the cards. Higher taxation on the super rich ? How would you stop them crossing the border, even if they were in Scotland in the first place ? Stronger trade unions and higher wages ? How would you stop the labour market being flooded by workers crossing the boarder in search of better wages ?

The widening gap between rich and poor isn't going to be reversed because Scotland gains independence. So just put up with it. Or, if you really want to do something meaningful about then it look at the bigger picture, much bigger picture. The first step before you could actually do anything would be to seek independence from the EU.

There's so much energy going in to pin down what Scotland should do after independence.

The current campaign is for independence, not membership of another Union. Anything else is a red herring.

Shortly after independence we will be electing our choice of government, and that's when these sort of decisions are appropriate to be made.

There is no reason Scotland could not be an independent and neutral country.

Ernie, apologies that wasn't an invitation to debate. It was a statement, it's also not the only reason.

Ernie's 3rd and 4th paras are right though, nothing is going to miraculously change because Scotland is independent. In fact it could be the opposite and get worse, you think the Aberdonian oil industry and Edinburgh financial services industry are going to bankroll the rest of the country without wanting something back?

dragon - Member
...nothing is going to miraculously change because Scotland is independent. In fact it could be the opposite and get worse...

Indeed. That is the ad nauseum message of the Proud Scots in the Better Together mob.

After our airfields have been bombed (apparently it may be necessary) and the new border controls set up, the oil is going to dry up immediately, all the banks are going to go south, and we will not get to watch Dr Who.

We're feart.

I get the imression epicyclo that you reckon Scots in the Better Together campaign are not really proud for not subscribing to your vision of Scotland. If at all possible you may have to reconcile yourself with the fact that a significant number of Scots in iS did not vote Yes however still feel proud to be Scottish.

I disagree with Yes voters profoundly, and think Scotland will be heading down a darker path, but understand their motives. No more or less deserving of calling themselves proud Scots.

[quote=piemonster ]Ernie, apologies that wasn't an invitation to debate. It was a statement, it's also not the only reason.

If you don't want it debated, keep your thoughts to yourself - ernie was simply pointing out that it is an even worse reason for voting Yes than liking Braveheart. I'm quite sure that it has nothing at all to do with your decision - like most on here you've already made up your mind and simply looking for ways to justify your choice.

athgray - Member
I get the imression epicyclo that you reckon Scots in the Better Together campaign are not really proud for not subscribing to your vision of Scotland....

When I hear a sentence prefaced with "I'm a Proud Scot, but..." it resonates with that other sentence "I'm not a racist, but...", so I tend to be somewhat sceptical, especially when they're peddling fear, uncertainty, and disaster, rather than a positive vision of Scotland in the Union.

I have yet to hear one good reason to stay in. Heard plenty of scare stories though.

keep your thoughts to yourself

No

I can see you are struggling epicyclo. You reckon staying in the union would bring doom to Scotland. God knows I have heard plenty of scare mongering from the yes campaign. I will not deny I can see an unhappy path for Scotland after a Yes vote.

If the definition of a proud Scot is decided by either dear leader, the Yes campaign, or it's militant support then we have already set course for a dark destination.

I have already stated that the Saltire is being highjacked by the Yes camp. I find this worrying.

I can disagree with anyone on here about the best direction for Scotland or the UK, and can understand different peoples feelings on their own identity, but will not have my credentials as as proud Scot called in to question.

I have yet to hear one good reason to stay in.

You belong to a fairly stable and safe country.
A lot of people won't want to risk that, which is why the vote will probably be no.

You belong to a fairly stable and safe country.
A lot of people won't want to risk that, which is why the vote will probably be no.

Being honest, this is pretty much what I expect to happen.

Never underestimate people's aversion to change.

Am I remembering correctly that there was a last minute drop in support in 1979?

[quote=piemonster ]

keep your thoughts to yourself

Expect them to be debated then.

Hmmm.

I'm not suggesting you can't debate either the subject matter, or even my thoughts on that subject matter.

Just don't expect much response. For the moment fatigue has set in on that particular nugget.

I'm not 100% either way on Yes or No it's probably a 60/40 split which has been a 40/60 split. Don't assume I'm just looking for justification, some minds do change.

piemonster, just read your link and although it makes saddening reading, you could produce a stat like that for iS. Is the Duke of Buccleuch not the largest land owner in Europe?

Also if you care about the widening inequality gap in the UK, how does Scotland becoming independent help?

athgray - Member
I can see you are struggling epicyclo. You reckon staying in the union would bring doom to Scotland...

Struggling over what? The Union has been doom for Scotland.

What I want is to live in a democratic country. At the moment I do not. A country with an unelected upper house is not a democracy, no matter how much spin you put on it.

The Union has been doom for Scotland

[img] [/img]

the Duke of Buccleuch

I read that as Duke of Bukkake

The Union has been doom for Scotland.

What? 😆

It has been a couple of years since I strayed north of the border, have things changed that much in such little time or...?

big_n_daft - Member
"The Union has been doom for Scotland"
I thought that was the Darien Project

If there was ever a reason for the Scots to not go into a Union with England, it was the Darien Scheme. We'll be more careful next time. 🙂

As said we live in a pretty stable country. I will say, one with faults and massive improvements to make, but stable none the less.

I have stated that I can see iS going down the road of the Ukraine.
Can I envisage a country where mob rule and mob justice conquers all. Certainly. I don't like to point out differences between Scotland and rUK, but if there is, then it is a nationalists sense of political idealism, militancy, and a sense of moral superiority. It can seem like talking to climate camp protesters.

I don't think the majority of nationalist will partake in nastiness, however I think the excesses of the "Scoattish" mob will be tolerated. "They may be a**eholes, but they are OUR a**eholes!"

Eventually, dear leader will run out of scape goats and he will fall. Can I envisage a mob on the Royal Mile with Molotov Cocktails and flaming tyre barricades promoting regime change or kangaroo referedums? Yes.

As an aside, just back from an enjoyable weekend in Yorkshire. Chatting to people I did not get a sense that I was conversing with people of a different nation intent on electing governments to subjugate the Scots, promote war mongering, and increase the inequality gap. Those that think so need to get out more.

piemonster 🙂
I heard he has deep shag pile carpets.

What I want is to live in a democratic country. At the moment I do not. A country with an unelected upper house is not a democracy, no matter how much spin you put on it.

Are you really suggesting that because the Upper House, which has no meaningful power to block the will of the Lower House, is unelected, this defines Britain as an undemocratic country ?

The House of Commons is the supreme legislative authority in the UK. No individuals or institutions have more authority than the House of Commons, other than the EU of course (that's the hugely undemocratic EU which forces sovereign nations to comply with directives irrespective of the wishes of their electorate)

If you really want to dismiss Britain as an undemocratic entity because of a quirky hangover from long gone feudal days then your obvious target should be the Head of State.

But then of course an independent Scotland will still retain an unelected monarch as Head of State, won't it ?

I haven't really bothered much following the Scottish independence debate in any great depth but the one thing which particularly strikes me is how little thought the yes campaign appear to have dedicated to the issue.

Despite having had literally decades to come up with a carefully thought out strategy the SNP and the yes campaign seem to be making it up as they go along. Whether its what will happen after independence or the reasons for independence. The whole argument appears to be based on faith, hope, and wishful thinking. And for that reason alone I would vote no. How anyone can feel any confidence in the yes campaigners is beyond my comprehension.

ernie_lynch - Member
...But then of course an independent Scotland will still retain an unelected monarch as Head of State, won't it ?

I give that 6 months after the first elections...

athgray - Member
...I have stated that I can see iS going down the road of the Ukraine.
Can I envisage a country where mob rule and mob justice conquers all.

We won't need to. Scotland will be a democracy, and we will get the govt we have voted for, not what middle England wanted.

I give that 6 months after the first elections...

What's that based on.........faith, hope, or wishful thinking ?

The reality is that you really don't know what a post independence Scotland will be like. Bearing in mind that it's a one way road if that doesn't scare the undecided then I don't know what will.

ernie_lynch - Member
'I give that 6 months after the first elections..."
What's that based on.........faith, hope, or wishful thinking ?

Living here, talking to folk. I'll refine the prediction. The first election after the death of Queen Elizabeth the First.

So isn't the Scottish Government, which is proposing that the Queen remains Head of State in Scotland, also living in Scotland and talking to people ?

So isn't the Scottish Government, which is proposing that the Queen remains Head of State in Scotland, also living in Scotland and talking to people ?

Looking further afield than Edinburgh, a notional non elected head of state that can be above and removed from politics and on hand to do garden tours and lunch for visiting dignitaries actually seems like a good idea. The idea that you elect one person to run the country then another to run the country and another bunch to vote on it is mad. Just look at the US, president elected as the most powerful person in the free world (I think it says that in the application form/advert for the job) then can't actually do anything as the people who actually make the laws don't agree with him.

Politically there isn't much mileage in alienating the Monarchists in your ranks if you don't need to (and AS needs every vote he can) those that want to believe they will go for a republic can do but publicly they don't need to say they will.

Can't wait for the yes vote to be successful. We need a free England, free from the oppression of Scottish politicians at Westminster voting for things they would not allow in their own wee country. After this has been sorted it will be time to make the move for a free Yorkshire (ow much! The Yorkshire war cry). Now that'll be proper country, them spungers in Brussels will be begin us t be members of th EU. Then if that goes to plan it going to be a free Swaledale (upper), we'll not have folk from Richmond tellin us owt. An you can keep tha pound.

(ow much! The Yorkshire war cry)

genuine genius 🙂

(ow much! The Yorkshire war cry)

😆

Can't wait for the yes vote to be successful. We need a free England, free from the oppression of Scottish politicians at Westminster voting for things they would not allow in their own wee country.

In amongst the antagonistic charm, this is actually a very good idea.

I still believe the UK would be best served by dumping the Lords into a OAP home. Shoving an English parliament in and having a UK wide government for just the really big things. Like invading other peoples countries.

It's often been very useful to have an upper house that can delay and review legislation. The fact that the members are not beholden to party machines to keep their jobs is often cited as a positive. Most are now life peers rather than hereditary.

EDIT: a quick glance through the white paper indicates Scotland would have just a single chamber. The argument in favour of the House of Lords has always been that it helps stop, or at least slow down, abuses of power by the HoC.

Antagonistic charm? Freedom from the Parish Council, why should those on our street be told what to do by those that don't live on it. How small should a country be? Self determination for our house! I'll shortly be publishing a 600 page document that you'll never read that makes the case for an end of the parish council tyranny. It will include the odd bribe of baby sitting for mother. Cry freeeeeeeeeeeeedoooooommmm, freedom for our house and stuff the neighbours.

ernie_lynch - Member
So isn't the Scottish Government, which is proposing that the Queen remains Head of State in Scotland, also living in Scotland and talking to people ?

Which Scottish govt? That's what the current SNP party proposes. They are unlikely to be in power 2 elections in.

The SNP is basically a one policy party, a policy that over-rides everything else in the eyes of the electorate. Current support comes from a wide base of people, eg LibDems, Labour, and a few Conservatives who are voting SNP until such time as we get independence.

They will revert to normal voting habits after independence.

oldnpastit - Member
It's often been very useful to have an upper house that can delay and review legislation. The fact that the members are not beholden to party machines to keep their jobs is often cited as a positive. Most are now life peers rather than hereditary.

But they are still unelected. It's still not democracy no matter how often the establishment tells us it is.

May as well appoint a dictator (in the Roman sense). An upper house that is elected could do the same job.

ernie_lynch - Member
Despite having had literally decades to come up with a carefully thought out strategy the SNP and the yes campaign seem to be making it up as they go along. Whether its what will happen after independence or the reasons for independence. The whole argument appears to be based on faith, hope, and wishful thinking. And for that reason alone I would vote no. How anyone can feel any confidence in the yes campaigners is beyond my comprehension.

+ 1

You have to hand it to the deceitful one, his ability to unite people who normally/often fail to see eye-to-eye is without equal!!!

The democratic deficit idea is an interesting one when you have a central villain who is himself a classic bully, who shouts down and tries to suppress those who point out his follies (this Sunday being the latest example), who publishes deliberately misleading propaganda and rides rough shod over international precedent and norms. Oh and if you expect the H&Is to be better represented by the current narrow Scottish political elite (cough) then you will be disappointed. The Pareto principle works for all sizes of state!

The argument in favour of the House of Lords has always been that it helps stop, or at least slow down, abuses of power by the HoC.

The House of Commons can overcome any blocking by the House of Lords.

And what "abuses of power" ? If there has been any abuse of power I want it stopped, not slowed down.

epicyclo - Member

ernie_lynch - Member
So isn't the Scottish Government, which is proposing that the Queen remains Head of State in Scotland, also living in Scotland and talking to people ?

Which Scottish govt?

The Scottish government which the Yes campaign refers to......I assume they know what they're talking about about ? Or perhaps they don't ?

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/would-queen-still-be-head-state-independent-scotland

mt - Member
Antagonistic charm? Freedom from the Parish Council, why should those on our street be told what to do by those that don't live on it. How small should a country be?...

About 5 million people is a good manageable size... 🙂

But you do seem to have an issue with letting people have a vote.

ernie_lynch - Member
The Scottish government which the Yes campaign refers to......I assume they know what they're talking about about ? Or perhaps they don't ?

They are declaring SNP policy.

Unlike some undemocratic countries the government is not being appointed in perpetuity.

It's an issue we will have a vote on at some stage. Wonderful thing, democracy. 🙂

They are declaring SNP policy.

The Yes campaign claim they are stating Scottish government policy, quote :

[b][i]The Scottish Government’s proposal is that the Queen remains Head of State in Scotland, in the same way as she is currently Head of State in independent nations such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.[/i][/b]

It's an issue we will have a vote on at some stage.

So why doesn't the Yes campaign mention that then ? They make very clear that if people want a republic they will have to vote for republican politicians. Quote :

[b][i]In future Scottish elections voters can elect a party or parties that wish Scotland to become a republic, just as today we could elect politicians to Westminster who want the UK to become a republic.[/i][/b]

Your claims contradict the official Yes campaign. Sort yourself out if you want to present a convincing argument.

Despite having had literally decades to come up with a carefully thought out strategy the SNP and the yes campaign seem to be making it up as they go along.

Plus another one if I'm honest.

6 months to get rid of the Queen? None of the unionist parties have advocated this, it certainly does not appear in Scottish Governments white paper. President Salmond surely not. What other policies will he steamroller through when he gets his a**e on the throne.

epicyclo, some of your vision self perpetuate my view of what iScotland will become.

Antagonistic charm? Freedom from the Parish Council, why should those on our street be told what to do by those that don't live on it. How small should a country be? Self determination for our house! I'll shortly be publishing a 600 page document that you'll never read that makes the case for an end of the parish council tyranny. It will include the odd bribe of baby sitting for mother. Cry freeeeeeeeeeeeedoooooommmm, freedom for our house and stuff the neighbours.

Sea land aside, didn't some fella try this a decade or so ago?

Anyway, word is your troublesome neighbour Shedland. Has bankrupted itself with a failed attempt to colonise some shrubbery two streets away. The ruling classes in Shedland are already fairly friendly to MTland, I reckon if you lob a bag of gold through the door you'll be able to effectively expand MTlands borders a bit.

ernie_lynch - Member
"They are declaring SNP policy."
...You're telling me they're lying ?

No, they are stating their policy.

ernie_lynch - Member
Your claims contradict to the official Yes campaign. Sort yourself out if you want to present a convincing argument.

I'm not a SNP member. What needs sorting out?

Do all future political parties in Scotland have to have the same policies as the SNP? Surely you are aware there is a strong republican undercurrent in Scottish politics?

athgray - Member
epicyclo, some of your vision self perpetuate my view of what iScotland will become.

Good, I'm glad you're beginning to understand that it will be a democracy.

What other policies will he steamroller through when he gets his a**e on the throne.

It's really funny how people think Scotland will turn into North Korea - the Scottish electoral system is significantly more democratic than the Westminster one.

A SNP majority is an anomaly - it wasn't supposed to happen, the system was designed to prevent the SNP getting an overall majority - and after independence it'll most likely revert to a coalition.

North Korea? I specifically said the Ukraine more than once. Don't know where North Korea comes from. WOS I imagine.

For someone who does not follow the indy debate a lot, I reckon ernie is on the mark here.

I have stated that I can see iS going down the road of the Ukraine...

North Korea? I specifically said the Ukraine more than once.

Ah, well that's so much better 😉

I wasn't specifically commenting about you, but there seems to be a theory that the whole independence idea is Alex Salmond's personal project, so he can become a tin-pot dictator of his own little country.

Thanks for the correction konabunny. Has been noted.

Got a spare 12 minutes? Johann Lamont was on Newsnight Scotland last night, and it's a car crash 😉

Nice to agree with you Ben, that is quite shocking. The cream of localised politics on both sides looks wanting. You have to love JL and AS default answer of "experts tell us" instead of "I don't know/I am not clever enough or can't be bothered to try and understand." Always very telling to see when the mask slips under pressure and the underlying motivations become clear for all to see.

The eightsome reel around the lower bands of tax would have been funny if it was not a serious question. And these are the people who would be exercising more power.....

That sort of confuddling is probably why the SNP is getting so many of Labour's votes these days.

Well dear nicola did say that the proposals to raise tax did not go far enough, so you could well be correct.

Nice to agree with you Ben, that is quite shocking.

It's embarrassing, is what it is - she's the leader of the Scottish Labour party, if there's a No vote she could end up as First Minister, and her reply to a simple question on a policy she's been working on for two years is "I wouldn't have thought so".

I wonder where she gets that from, Ben?

Well, most recent Labour policy ideas seem to be "Oh, ****, we need to out-do the Tories again" - so I presume she's inherited it from her Westminster Labour leaders.

If she'd just said that she thought the whole devolution thing was a bad idea, I'd have a lot more respect for that position.

Meanwhile, buried away in today's budget, Scotland's block grant is being cut in real terms.

I think the real problem is that she is a puppet leader. Her bosses in London don't bother to share their thinking with her, and she gets told to take a certain position without having the in depth background.

Either that or she is phenomenally dumb. Surely not?

bencooper - Member
Meanwhile, buried away in today's budget, Scotland's block grant is being cut in real terms.

Ever get the impression that the Tories secretly want rid off us, and are pulling out all the stops to guarantee a Yes vote.

We may end up erecting a statue of David Cameron right next to Wallace and other Scottish heroes. 🙂