[Closed] SNP & Brexit????

It's good to have confirmation that this was never a Scottish vs English thing though.

Indeed. 😀

How will it go when you have a Scotland v Frankfurt thing though? Its not fair, they dont allow us to do what we want, have interest rates that suit us etc....Its our Euro, but they can keep their debts....we're oot

sorry - william - not meant to be condescending its just many of the commentators on here are not interesting in finding stuff out just in scoring debating points / goading / trolling folk

Yours was a good post with good points hence I answered and offered to give you more sources if you wanted them

Lost nuance in text discussions.

Being the successor state makes remaining in much easier - its the easier path for all to take. Currency as ever remains a huge issue you are right. We could do a Sweden and say we will take the euro but just keep on putting it off for ever. We could still use the pound but even without Westminster putting barriers in the way thats far from perfect or we could have a scottish pooond. My preference would be to take tre Euro but selling that to the public would be very hard

Non are particularly good options and this remains IMO the biggest issue

sBob - As junkyard says and also thats from when the circumstances are different.

Junkyard - lazarus

the fact that there are other views and this source has an internal reason to state this that is not repeated by other EU leaders. His opinion is not a fact neither is yours mine or TJ's.

you can use the one quote you can find and ignore all the others you don't like as you see fit but its a bit rich to accuse someone else of not liking some quotes.

For Scotland to become a member state would take the agreement of all 27 existing member states.
It would only take one to object, that's the point. I'm not ignoring other opinions on the subject but an infinite number of voices will still be shouted down by the one with the veto.

The biggest barrier of course is actually getting a majority for independence in a referendum. There has not been the movement in the polls many of us thought would happen

tjagain - Member

sBob - As junkyard says and also that's from when the circumstances were different.

"If the United Kingdom leaves"
How are our circumstances different from this viewpoint?

tjagain - Member

My preference would be to take the Euro

Reported for trolling.

teamhurtmore - Member
...Poor old Welsh (and N Irish) being forgotten all the time - and some say that the English are myopic!!...

It's not for the Scots to tell the Welsh or NI how to run their affairs, that'd be as obnoxious as having English Establishment nobs telling Scots how to run theirs.

Oh, wait... 🙂

tjagain, I concede that there comes a point where a special application process looks for all the world like Scotland becoming a successor state (Scotland applies and joins the EU on the same date the UK leaves) but there would be crucial differences as a successor state would, normally, be expected to take on all the responsibilities of the outgoing state. Its very unlikely that the EU would allow Scotland to enjoy the same vetoes and perks that the UK currently enjoys.

There is also the issue of timing. If HMG wins the Supreme Court decision and the PM triggers A50 straight away (unlikely I know) Do the Scottish government have enough time to broker a deal and then hold a referendum? do the Scottish electorate have sufficient time to come to an informed decision as to what to do next? I'm not convinced.

For Scotland to become a member state would take the agreement of all 27 existing member states.

I'm not ignoring other opinions on the subject but an infinite number of voices will still be shouted down by the one with the veto.

Do the Scottish government have enough time to broker a deal and then hold a referendum?

Yes time will be tight but its not insurmountable- none of this means I can predict the future but its nit outlandish to think they can do this in the time frame.

we are still discussing them RETAINING the UK membership

We're discussing them keeping something they don't have?
NOW it's all clear.
🙂

You have made your view clear you and TJ can repeat the same points for the next three pages as THM does hilarious sidebars

Don't mention THM, you'll get us detention!

i have no doubt you are speculating like he is

and i imagine continued membership will be easier to agree than an exit deal

just leave that here

sbob - Member
We're discussing them keeping something they don't have?
NOW it's all clear.

You're probably right, but there's another angle.

The UK is so because of a Treaty of Union in which the parties are supposedly equal. Scotland is not one of England's conquered subject countries, it's a supposed partner.

When a partnership breaks up it's normal for the assets etc to be distributed, so on that basis, Scotland does have a share in the UK's membership.

Maybe the Scottish govt diplomatic efforts should be in convincing EU countries that as the Treaty of Union has been breached on so many occasions it's high time it was dissolved, and that the EU recognise that the UK is a union of countries, not England and its possessions.

I don't get the point of this. We voted to stay in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU. This is done and dusted arguing about it is a total waste of time.

We're discussing them keeping something they don't have?
NOW it's all clear

just leave that here

Well the UK wont exist at that point will it

So one down, 27 member states to go! 😀

😆

One thing I have been thinking about is if England et al sans Scotland could apply for EU membership.
Many European politicians threatened that there would be no going back for the UK, but if the union dissolves could we not have both halves then apply for membership?
Maybe I should start another thread... 😀
29 member states and counting!

william - timing is an issue. So long as the independence referendum is won before the leaving date it should be OK

'tis an interesting one 'cos on one hand UK leaving the EU makes scottish membership of the EU easier but it also takes away Sturgeons ability to pick the timing. I think about midway thru the a50 process should be OK - gives enough time for the leavers case to be shown to be nonsense and foe everyone to see what a disaster it is and just about enough time to get agreement in principle for Scotland to stay in the EU

but if the union dissolves could we not have both halves then apply for membership?

Its a perfect outcome for all concerned

I imagine this is why the PM is being so quiet as she want to see the look on their faces when she reveals her plan for A50 to the EU personally

UK leaving the EU makes Scottish membership of the EU [s]easier[/s] possible.

😉

Tjagain. halfway through would give a year. cant see that being long enough to come to an agreement with HMG , draft and ratify a section 30 order, produce a white paper and hold a referendum.(although getting the bill through the scottish parliament should be a skoosh as they dont seem to have much else on)

of course that’s assuming its a two year process, most of the policy guys i have spoken to don’t believe that is an achievable timescale. very few believe it can be done within the lifetime of this parliament in fact

william

Westminster is told - agree or we do it on our own. Westminster playing hardball over another referendum would add a good few points onto the yes vote. No hold up there

Uk leaving the EU will be a two year process.

preparatory work has already been done for another referendum

I agree tho the timetable is tight and thats not going to make it easy.

The main issue as I see it is that the SNP have to reconcile 2 difficult things. 30% of SNP voters voted out in the euro referendum and 20%(ish)( no in the independence referendum

Somehow they have to find some answer to this before they can be confident of winning a vote

I don't get the point of this. We voted to stay in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU. This is done and dusted arguing about it is a total waste of time.

Unless you lost and were in the minority.

Don't mention THM, you'll get us detention!

sbob, dont worry, some can never accept responsibility for their own actions, much better to have scapegoats. Cant you see the trend.....

"The main issue as I see it is that the SNP have to reconcile 2 difficult things."

I think the main issue is having nearly lost the Scottish Referendum and lost the Brexit Referendum the establishment will never have another Referendum, ever, ever, ever again.

Rightly, in my opinion.

If Westminster play hardball they are gifting several % points to the Yes side. It could be done without westminster approval but it would be difficult and not binding on Westminster leaving Scotland to go to the UN

Sturgeon ain't gonna call one tho unless she is sure

I find it a little odd that it is (sadly) accepted that one referendum which produced a 48/52 split cannot be re-run & yet people are suggesting that one which was lost 45/55 can be re-addressed within a few years...

I think the main issue is having nearly lost the Scottish Referendum and lost the Brexit Referendum the establishment will never have another Referendum, ever, ever, ever again.

Rightly, in my opinion.

Given the amount of BS, agreed.

And politicians legislate against companies telling lies. Imagine a bank or a telephone company writing 670 pages of rubbish in attempt to fool their customers. The CEOs would be in the dock, faster that you can say "Alex Salmond".

I'm struggling to get my head around the successor state 'stuff'

Back before the indy referendum the EU gave a reply to the Scottish government regarding staying in the EU which stated;

“The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory. “

And the leave supporters jumped on the wording used insisting that it didn't apply to Scotland because Scotland is a country, not “part of the territory” or a “region” of the UK.

But now apparently according to the some “senior and influential EU politicians” Scotland will be a successor state;

“a successor state is a [b]totally new state[/b]. This is distinct from a continuing state, also known as a continuator, which despite change to its borders maintains the same legal personality and possess all its existing rights and obligations.”

My bold for emphasis, so what I am struggling with is if Scotland is currently recognised as a country, then how can it become a new (successor) state? I appreciate that the UK, England, Scotland or Wales and NI (THM 😉 ) are not signatories to the The Vienna Convention on Succession of States, so to a certain extent are free to make thing up as they go along, but I just can't see how this all adds up, I'm guessing the SNP must have some legal advice on the issue though 🙂

Sucessor state. Well someone has to pay the £363m per week. Also with Scotland being the sucessor state it would save the £60bn in future liabilities TJ says the UK has when it leaves the EU. Plus Scotland can have RBS back too, you have that for nothing as a parting gift. I have to say on that basis I'd be pro-Independence.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/807610243370930176?s=09

So Scotland is successful (in GDP per capita terms, at least) as part of the UK and that's a reason to break up the UK? Erm...

Perhaps we are only able to reach such dizzy heights of success [b]because [/b] we are part of the UK.

Boarding even more reason for you to join the EU and bolster their coffers and help pay for their disasterous mistakes.

I don't get the point of this. We voted to stay in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU. This is done and dusted arguing about it is a total waste of time.

@poah this is STW, it's not like the real world 🙂

" Imagine a bank or a telephone company writing 670 pages of rubbish in attempt to fool their customers. The CEOs would be in the dock"

Myopia THM or are you forgetting 2008 already?

I was driving past Fred the Shred's old house in Edinburgh recently Gordi - bought it off family of friends of mine. We don't need reminding on the rise, fall and fall or the Royal Bank of Scotland do we? Although those pretending that Scotland could survive without a lender of last resort are/were clearly suffering from myopia. That or total ignorance.

Well what happened to poor old Fred THM how quickly was he put in the dock? Were nt some other banks/bankers involved too.

I just can't see how this all adds up

In the first example the UK remains in the EU in the later some part of the UK leaves the EU but not all of it- ie some part of it[iS] can still claim accession /to still be a member under the previous treaty. Its not new its continuing all be it with some border changes to the "state/nation".
I am sure the EU can recognise who it wants to be this state- reality if not legally.

they are different scenarios basically

Not saying it will happen but the UK remaining in the EU and the UK leaving does make a difference to the debate iS would be having.

those pretending that Scotland could survive without a lender of last resort are/were clearly suffering from myopia.

One of the key reasons I voted no in the indyref. We need some certainty around central banking. The pound usage tit for tat stuff was embarrassing. I don't know what the answer is but there needs to be one. I'm assuming you don't think there is one.

Yes Gordi, the whole of Fred's Edinburgh mafia got away with murder. A real scandal. More bankers should have been convicted for their behaviour.

There is an answer bob, but at 1:15 it can wait until tomorrow. You won't find it in the book of dreams though.

Ah I see THM I thought there were some banks in London too, but perhaps not or maybe the London based ones all performed to the highest ethical standards.

BoardinBob http://positivemoney.org/our-proposals/

The pound usage tit for tat stuff was embarrassing. I don't know what the answer is but there needs to be one. I'm assuming you don't think there is one.

There's the short term solution that would be initially least damaging, but lead to long term problems and also prohibits EU membership (Panama model).

There's having a formal currency union, but rUK will never enter into that because it has no upside for them and the control they would exert over iScotland would be significant. No workable solution will ever be found here.

There's the solution that works the best in the long term, but would be incredibly painful initially backed by our own, new, central bank (new free float currency).

Then there's the Euro.

Personally, I don't like any of the options and this will always be one of the major weak points in any independence argument.

http://positivemoney.org/our-proposals

There were Gordi, there were.What we missed down here was a narcissist claiming that they could exist without a central bank providing the lender of last resort function. A crucial difference.

Ah I see THM I thought there were some banks in London too, but perhaps not or maybe the London based ones all performed to the highest ethical standards

Fred the Shred was a uniquely extreme example of unethical behaviour.

The main issue is the size of the banks relative to the economies within which they exist. The UK could do what it did only because of its size. An independent Scotland (if we assume the same size of financial sector as at present) would struggle to do the same.

Banks losing money - meh. Individuals and businesses getting hamstrung as cash is lost and the economy tanks due to loss of confidence - seriously bad.

THM It's strange then that none of these bankers have been put in the dock at all never mind as quickly as you claimed they would be.

irelanst - Member

I'm struggling to get my head around the successor state 'stuff'

It's a meaningless sound bite for people to latch onto and make them feel clever.

"Dog whistle racism" was the last one that came out of nowhere and was then suddenly repeated by the flock ad nauseam.
💡

Grumpysculler I reckon an independent Scotland with its own currency, and it's own independent central bank outside the euro but in the EU is my ideal scenario. I would also support independence outside the eu. I believe that a nation state should have control of the money supply through a central bank.
Agreed the positivemoney link is very simplified. More detail on pdf here

Although I voted Remain I believe the EU is too much under the influence of the banking sector.
TJ got it right when he said that brexit was a complex issue for the snp as approximately a third of independence supporters voted Leave.

When talking about RBS you must remember that it was not a "scottish" bank but a UK one. It did most of its business in England.

I wouldn't wish "positivemoney" on my worst enemy.

TJ Scottish management. Fred the Shred (so named as he bought businesses and fired people/cut costs) bought NatWest hence all the UK business (lots of SME lending). Their UK business was largely OK. He killed the bank with poor management/acquisition. The UK govt should have taken it over at a price of zero.

It's [succesor state]a meaningless sound bite for people to latch onto and make them feel clever.

a successor state is a totally new state. This is distinct from a continuing state, also known as a continuator, which despite change to its borders maintains the same legal personality and possess all its existing rights and obligations.

The argument previously was that if iS left then the rUK was the successor state - did i miss you getting outraged when this was pointed out in previous debates or did you understand it perfectly well then?

Did someone forget to tell Alex that RBS wasn't a Scottish bank - despite being headquartered there? He certainly used to boast about it being so.

Why was Alex so annoyed when it was leaked that they would move HQ to London if people voted foolishly? Was it because they we saying that they would not want to be a Scottish bank under those circumstances? or juts fancied a change?

Still at least now it is technically a UK bank now owned on our behalf!

How could we forget THM - back when Scotland was the 'Celtic Lion' economy 😆

[i]And of course we Scots are lucky enough to have the one of the best brands in the world - a global recognition and affection for our culture that money cannot buy.

Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term.[/i]

Said Alex, back in the days when he and Fred were best mates (indeed, the same days when Alex and The Donald were best mates too... you know what they say about how you can judge a man by the company he keeps)

[IMG] [/IMG]

Indeed Ninfan - poor judgement now acknowledged by him publicly. Few politicians will acknowledge they made mistakes - he has done.

I still find all the anti snp stuff funny. Because its being done by folk with poor knowledge they very rarely actually hit on the real mistakes the SNP have made.

Few politicians will acknowledge they made mistakes - he has done.

Problem is his failure to learn from them isn't it? Keeps on repeating the same political mistakes over and over again:

cozying up to dodgy & corrupt businessmen, gets fingers burned, starts cozying up to different dodgy businessmen,
Wasted public money to try and cover up embarrassing FOI's, makes an arse of himself, wastes more public money covering up embarrassing (lack of) legal advice.
Spends years campaigning for referendum that he loses, starts campaigning for another referendum

The cynic would say there's a pattern here... and that's before we get to his government presiding over widespread public sector abuse and corruption, of which you've been a victim yourself IIRC?

On the contrary there is a constant reminder for people to look at what the SNP does not what it says - reality not rhetoric, but that doesn't go down too well.

They will be accepting referendum results next!!!

can we discuss Dan hannan's praise of Iceland next?

Lots of politicians get things wrong- hard;y news- and few predicted the financial collapse- hardly news

This is hardly a trait specific to AS as even your hero is less than perfect in his praise of economic titans

How many bankers were prosecuted in the UK THM?

Dan hannan's praise of Iceland next?

You think that being a minor MEP carries the same sort of political responsibility and judgement as being the First Minister, responsible for the economy, jobs and safety of millions of people 😯

How many politicians do you know of that have publicly said - " I did this- it was a mistake"

Wasted public money to try and cover up embarrassing FOI's,

I am genuinely not sure AS is exceptional shit by politicians standards but i assume we can all agree he is tainted

Spends years campaigning for referendum that he loses, starts campaigning for another referendum

Its the same old truths/insults that we can level at any party /politicians as essentially we are proving politicians are dishonest and a bit crap. Is this really in any doubt irrespective of whose ribbon - or tie for THM- they wear?

[quote=tjagain ]How many politicians do you know of that have publicly said - " I did this- it was a mistake"

Did any of those who had dinner with THM and/or applied for jobs with him [ unsuccessfully] say this ?

BOris - released press statement saying he would adhere to decision then appealed

You're saying that Salmond is as much of a political arse as Boris 😆

i am saying he is not the only political arse with shortcomings.

Looks like we agree as you failed to defend either Boris or Dan the man Hannanahahahaha

Are we doing grown up yet?

How many politicians do you know of that have publicly said - " I did this- it was a mistake"

Nick Clegg. Would have been a great PM(*)

(*) At least by today's standards, which I agree is a fairly low bar.

Did he? The only one I can think of is a sort of half hearted part apology over the tuition fees promise. which was not " I made a mistake in voting for tuition fees having said I wouldn't" but instead " I should not have made the promise"

correct me if wrong.

its strange as for politicians, like on here, its seen as wrong to admit you were wrong/have changed your opinion as if it better to just spin defect etc when the facts counter your narrative

Not saying i admire AS in this scenario or Clegg but it is better to admit you were wrong than defend the indefensible as some do

The argument previously was that if iS left then the rUK was the successor state - did i miss you getting outraged when this was pointed out in previous debates or did you understand it perfectly well then?

I don't think it was. The rUK will be the continuing state if Scotland leaves, brexit doesn't change that.

"The rUK will be the continuing state if Scotland leaves, brexit doesn't change that "
Surely shome mistake

Even today we can surely all agree that Brexit doesn't mean that.....or at least not for very long

tjagain - Member

Did he? The only one I can think of is a sort of half hearted part apology over the tuition fees promise. which was not " I made a mistake in voting for tuition fees having said I wouldn't" but instead " I should not have made the promise"

correct me if wrong.

Hmmm, when I saw him speak he was saying he shouldn't have made that promise. Which seems fair enough to me. I never understood why people thought that in a coalition he would magically have free reign to do whatever he chose.

The irony is that all those holier-than-thou floating voters who switched sides at the 2015 election were fed a tasty sandwich of a Conservative majority swiftly followed by Brexit as a reward. Oops.

😯
What are you trying to say there?

The argument previously was that if iS left then the rUK was the successor state -

don't think it was. The rUK will be the continuing state if Scotland leaves,

brexit doesn't change that.

It's blindingly obvious that the UK leaving the EU changes whether there is a possibility of iS having successor state claim to the EU as the UKl has left and their is a membership "up for grabs"

Whether it happens is another debate bit its impossoble to not see the merits in the argument and its ludicrous to claim the UK leaving the EU has no impact on whether iS can have the Uk place as a succesor state

It's blindingly obvious that the UK leaving the EU changes whether there is a possibility of iS having successor state claim to the EU as the UKl has left and their is a membership "up for grabs"

So do we need a bus with £350m a week on the side again?

While what you suggest is legally possible (pretty much anything is as long as all member states agree), it wouldn't happen because not all member states would agree. Apart from some who would prefer not to see an independent Scotland within the EU (either because they compete with us or because they have their own separatist movement to worry about) but others would object because, one assumes, an independent Scotland would not take over the UK's membership in a financially neutral manner. You want the UK's seat? You can pay the UK's net contribution...

Indeed Grumpy I mentioned that, TJ himself suggested there where £60bn of future EU liabilities (there aren't but that's what some Remainers are suggesting) which the sucessor state would inherit.

You have disagreed and they just said what I said

No, you claimed that people were previously stating that rUK would be a successor state, I'm not aware people were claiming that. It is my understanding that rUK would be a continuing state. Continuing, and successor states are two different things in terms of international law.

It's blindingly obvious that the UK leaving the EU changes whether there is a possibility of iS having successor state claim to the EU

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. You seem to be referring to a Scotland taking the UKs place in the EU. I am questioning the claim that Scotland would become a successor state - as defined in international law.

We should settle it the old-fashioned way. Since Scotland has Faslane, I think it would all be over fairly quickly.

We have the codes though and everyone with serious hardware reports to Her Majesty in any case 🙂

jambalaya - Member
We have the codes though and everyone with serious hardware reports to Her Majesty in any case

Aye, but it's primitive technology, and this is Scotland, so someone should be able to hack up a guidance system using a Raspberry Pi and a mobile phone.

Which window would you like it to come through?

Incoming... 🙂

There are no codes (UK weapons are not fitted with a PAL). Launch orders come from Northwood, but the submarine crew are completely autonomous.

Leave it to the Glaswegians and they would either deep fry or drink the warheads...

Given that people focus on the wrong things when criticising the SNP (not that anything is their fault), what are the headlines today?

1. The failures of education policy
2. Donors and their tax affairs

Good to see that things are so different with the SNP. Rhetoric v reality.

I guess Swinney has apologised for the cock-up with one. So that's ok, all is forgiven.