SNP Referendum Nonsense

Stretch said:
Because if you want people to back change, you need to have a credible plan.
Click to expand...

That's not really a suitable answer though, the positive case remains missing in action and it's not really good enough to stand on the status quo and say 'we have to do or say nothing' while demanding an answer on everything going into the future from the nationalists.

Like what will the Corporation Tax level be in an independent Scotland in 2017?

Err, what about the UK in 2015?

Nope, we're no telling you that.
 
Last edited:
Biohazard said:
It's an existing member, and the EU doesn't have the power to force a nation to join the prerequisite mechanisms.
Click to expand...

No, Scotland is not an existing member. The UK is currently a member however you want Scotland to leave the UK. Can you point to any evidence that suggests Scotland will be invited with open arms, as Lready pointed out the evidence suggests just the opposite... And no, Salmonds word is not gospel...
 
Amp34 said:
No, Scotland is not an existing member. The UK is currently a member however you want Scotland to leave the UK. Can you point to any evidence that suggests Scotland will be invited with open arms, as Lready pointed out the evidence suggests just the opposite... And no, Salmonds word is not gospel...
Click to expand...

Oh noes, not the successor state argument.

There is plenty evidence to suggest that Scotland will become a member more than likely very quickly, it's out there alongside the plenty of statements from people who disagree.

The only people who can obtain an answer is Westminster, and they refuse to do so thus keep the Scottish electorate in the dark.

I see no real legitimate reason for Scotland to be treated like an international pariah state as many seem to infer.
 
the_r_sole said:
but on the same token if you wait till the next election before hearing any plans you might be forced into change anyway
Click to expand...

Maybe.

I don't think rushing into badly thought out constitutional change, without a mandate from the people is very sensible for the long term. Especially given all indications suggest there will be opportunity for considered improvements at a later stage, if that's what people want.
 
D.P. said:
The last time I checked Scotland had a separate legal system, semi-separate health system (e.g. Free prescriptions), separate education system (from primary school right up to university)..................................
Click to expand...

Yes, no idea why they are so hell bent on full independence. These are 2 of the advantages they will stand to potentially lose when they lose funding they get from the government. The funds they raise through taxation alone in Scotland would not be enough to sustain such programmes unless Salmond is planing on taxing everyone to the hilt. There is a certain ammount of funding that scotland gerts from westminsters wallet that makes some of those nice things available the people that live there.

I say go for it and see how long before you need proping up by the ECB and are another puppet in Merkle's top pocket.
 
Biohazard said:
Oh noes, not the successor state argument.

There is plenty evidence to suggest that Scotland will become a member more than likely very quickly, it's out there alongside the plenty of statements from people who disagree.

The only people who can obtain an answer is Westminster, and they refuse to do so thus keep the Scottish electorate in the dark.

I see no real legitimate reason for Scotland to be treated like an international pariah state as many seem to infer.
Click to expand...

But the SNP have already announced their intended route - amending the treaty under Article 48. This indeed bypasses the "new state" problem and is a perfectly legitimate way to do it.

The important bit of Article 48 being:
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
Click to expand...

So if the rest of Europe don't agree (and goodness knows, there are enough agendas to really drag this out or kill it altogether) then that route is stuffed and they are back to Article 49 which is the "new entrant" route.

Where most people disagree is in the likelihood of getting an agreement under Article 48 and what terms would be attached. Scotland isn't realistically going to be excluded from the EU, but it could take a long time and we might well not get very favourable terms!
 
I had to laugh about the bit about the pound. No pound comrades if you leave bog off and have a Union with Republican Ireland or something. You can both go into more EU debt, and have your country's spending dictated to by Mother Russia , i mean the EU.

And what is this about the borders too? The whole 10,000 document is toilet roll in my opinion. Scotland have Holyrood its hardly the evil english king from braveheart here is it. And us Northern Irish have been hard done by Westminister as well. They screwed the most loyal part of Great Britain i do not know how many times so there is no lovey dovey blindness from most Unionists here yet we know togeather we are all stronger and richer. I do not think Britain will be Great without the Scottish, hell i suspect half my Genes are partly scottish, and that of roughly 17 or so American presidents as well so i really hope people vote no in 2014.
 
Last edited:
Rofflay said:
And what is this about the borders too? The whole 10,000 document is toilet roll in my opinion. Scotland have Holyrood its hardly the evil english king from braveheart here is it. And us Northern Irish have been hard done by Westminister as well.
Click to expand...

Exacltly, at least there has been a Scotsman governing the UK for 13 of the last 16 years!
 
grumpysculler said:
But the SNP have already announced their intended route - amending the treaty under Article 48. This indeed bypasses the "new state" problem and is a perfectly legitimate way to do it.

The important bit of Article 48 being:


So if the rest of Europe don't agree (and goodness knows, there are enough agendas to really drag this out or kill it altogether) then that route is stuffed and they are back to Article 49 which is the "new entrant" route.

Where most people disagree is in the likelihood of getting an agreement under Article 48 and what terms would be attached. Scotland isn't realistically going to be excluded from the EU, but it could take a long time and we might well not get very favourable terms!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there are too many agendas to get in the way!
 
Biohazard said:
And?
Click to expand...

Hardly ruled by the awful English who don't care about Scotland, eh? It's quite clear that the Scots have (rightly, in my opinion) had considerable influence in the United Kingdom. You get a lot more of a say about what happens where you live than a Cornishman does, for example!
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;25387082 said:
Hardly ruled by the awful English who don't care about Scotland, eh?
Click to expand...

The only people who seem to run about saying this are Unionists, or the English.

There may be inbalances in the UK electoral system, but that straw man is largely your own.

[TW]Fox;25387082 said:
It's quite clear that the Scots have (rightly, in my opinion) had considerable influence in the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly, Scots have a considerable influence throughout the globe. It doesn't matter who is where, but the end effect of that politik.

This isn't politics of ethnicity as much as people try to make it so.
 
Biohazard said:
There is plenty evidence to suggest that Scotland will become a member more than likely very quickly, it's out there alongside the plenty of statements from people who disagree.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no evidence what so ever.

Every single person of importance including heads of state have said clearly and categorically that if Scotland exits the UK it will not get a fast track to membership and will have to follow the new member state process, that means ALL 27 states voting yes.

The EU has also stated clearly that it cannot apply until negotiations on fiscal policy have been completed, which is about as far from certain as it gets.

Then throw in that all new member states must adopt the single currency and Scotland doesn't want it, do you seriously think that all 27 member states will vote yes?

Salmond seems to be utterly blind and deaf on this matter and has done absolutely nothing to address it other than to 'keep positive' and point to irrelavant examples of supposedly similar instances, principally because he has zero alternative and has proposed as much.

Its laughable at best and playing poker with the entire Scottish economy at worst.
 
I think you've been watching a different set of events than I have. The whole EU membership issue has been like a game of ping-pong in terms of who has said what.

Nobody can be forced to join the Euro either.
 
Biohazard said:
I think you've been watching a different set of events than I have. The whole EU membership issue has been like a game of ping-pong in terms of who has said what.

Nobody can be forced to join the Euro either.
Click to expand...

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/

All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom