SNP Referendum Nonsense

[the_r_sole]

Because it affects a few other significant pledges (such as keeping the pound and the BoE) and there is significant evidence out there to suggest what Salmond is saying is incorrect and a pipe dream. As mentioned a lot in this thread most points will be about negotiation with the UK, national debt for example, and no one knows how it will happen so it's a bit difficult to debate.

so one side has to give precise factual answers and the other can get away with no commitment to anything about anything?
If you read the link I posted it says there is evidence to support both theories - imo the Spanish can't possibly suggest anything else although Scotland is a nation and not a region so the debate is still to be had

 

[Stretch]

The issue over EU membership is simply scaremongering and the Spanish are causing a little scene because they are worried about Catalonia.

Interesting little piece in the usually right-wing, 'no' to independence Scotsman newspaper where the Governor of the BOE has welcomed talks with the Scottish Government over a currency union. So much for the 'naw' campaign and it's claims over the continued use of sterling, which would be in the interests of both Scotland and England .

There would be benefits of a currency union, but there would also be drawbacks. Just the same as there is with the Euro. This country has consistently rejected the idea of currency union with Europe (even before the Euro troubles when it looked more appealing). The benefits of the Euro are far larger than a currency union with Scotland.

Do the people of the rest of the UK get to have a say about a currency union with Scotland, or is it something you take from granted?

It may well be internal EU politics playing out over Scottish membership, but I assure you the politics are very real. A large part of the UKs inherent euroscepticism comes from having to deal with ********* like Rajoy.

Like many of the SNPs aspirations for an independent Scotland, the decisions can't be taken independently. "Negotiations" are going to be tough and are by no means a forgone conclusion.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

so one side has to give precise factual answers and the other can get away with no commitment to anything about anything?
If you read the link I posted it says there is evidence to support both theories - imo the Spanish can't possibly suggest anything else although Scotland is a nation and not a region so the debate is still to be had

The burden of proof is surely on the SNP, since their argument for Scotland seceding rests upon the validity of their claims about how a future Scotland might look. The Better Together campaign are arguing for the status quo and people already know how that looks.

If you want to present a new theory for mavity, you don't ask the scientific world to reprove the existing claim, you present compelling evidence for your own argument. That evidence is their weighed up.

As it stands, Salmond has not been able to give a clear picture of what will happen to Scotland after secession. Many of the claims he's made are simply assertions with no strong evidence to the support. In fact, on the questions of the EU, Sterling and so forth, there are strong arguments to the contrary.

 

[the_r_sole]

There would be benefits of a currency union, but there would also be drawbacks. Just the same as there is with the Euro. This country has consistently rejected the idea of currency union with Europe (even before the Euro troubles when it looked more appealing). The benefits of the Euro are far larger than a currency union with Scotland.

exactly, so why can't both sides admit that there will be discussions about this if the vote is for independence?
maybe the no campaign could outline what they would like to see from a currency union, rather than saying "it would be difficult to make work" and nothing else, all the yes campaign has done it outline it's preferred position it doesn't commit to it and accepts there will be discussion required

 

[the_r_sole]

The burden of proof is surely on the SNP, since their argument for Scotland seceding rests upon the validity of their claims about how a future Scotland might look. The Better Together campaign are arguing for the status quo and people already know how that looks.

If you want to present a new theory for mavity, you don't ask the scientific world to reprove the existing claim, you present compelling evidence for your own argument. That evidence is their weighed up.

As it stands, Salmond has not been able to give a clear picture of what will happen to Scotland after secession. Many of the claims he's made are simply assertions with no strong evidence to the support. In fact, on the questions of the EU, Sterling and so forth, there are strong arguments to the contrary.

You can't give definitive answers if the other side is not willing to debate/discuss/commit to anything - this is not a new scientific theory with definite outcomes, it's proposed change to a political system which requires discussion which is impossible when one side will not discuss.
We know the EU would be willing to open discussion, but only with both Scotland and the UK, but guess who's saying they won't do that? If they are so confident in their position it surely wouldn't hurt to have these discussions and allow the voters to see the actual positions of either side

 

[Schlong&Stable]

You can't give definitive answers if the other side is not willing to debate/discuss/commit to anything - this is not a new scientific theory with definite outcomes, it's proposed change to a political system which requires discussion which is impossible when one side will not discuss.
We know the EU would be willing to open discussion, but only with both Scotland and the UK, but guess who's saying they won't do that? If they are so confident in their position it surely wouldn't hurt to have these discussions and allow the voters to see the actual positions of either side

It would be downright foolish to have any debate on these issues before the will of the Scottish people is made clear.

It's also amusing that the Orkney's, Shetland and Western Isles are all discussing whether they'd remain the UK if the mainland seceded. Scotland might well end up a rump state in it's own right if the secession went ahead.

It's almost as though the SNP are oblivious to the massive historical cultural and social division between the lowlands, highlands and isles.

 

[Stretch]

exactly, so why can't both sides admit that there will be discussions about this if the vote is for independence?
maybe the no campaign could outline what they would like to see from a currency union, rather than saying "it would be difficult to make work" and nothing else, all the yes campaign has done it outline it's preferred position it doesn't commit to it and accepts there will be discussion required

If it were my decision, there would be no discussion. I wouldn't want a currency union with an independent country.

Although I don't want Scotland to vote yes, there would be benefits to the rest of the UK if it were to leave. It would be much harder to realize these benefits whilst still tethered to Scotland through a common currency.

A clean break would be the best policy for the remainder of the UK.

 

[the_r_sole]

It would be downright foolish to have any debate on these issues before the will of the Scottish people is made clear.

It's also amusing that the Orkney's, Shetland and Western Isles are all discussing whether they'd remain the UK if the mainland seceded. Scotland might well end up a rump state in it's own right if the secession went ahead.

so it's foolish to discuss the issues and let people know what they would be voting for if they vote to stay in the union?
sums up the no campaign strategy really, if we don't tell them anything hopefully they will be too scared to vote

 

[the_r_sole]

If it were my decision, there would be no discussion. I wouldn't want a currency union with an independent country.

Although I don't want Scotland to vote yes, there would be benefits to the rest of the UK if it were to leave. It would be much harder to realize these benefits whilst still tethered to Scotland through a common currency.

A clean break would be the best policy for the remainder of the UK.

So why will the rUK not come out and say that for definite?
It's because it's impossible for them to dismiss the fact that they will be required to negotiate.
For me I think in the short term a currency union makes sense but not necessarily over the longer term, that would depend on who is elected to govern Scotland after the vote

 

[wordy]

Thanks for taking the time to tell us how little you care.

You're welcome

 

[Schlong&Stable]

so it's foolish to discuss the issues and let people know what they would be voting for if they vote to stay in the union?
sums up the no campaign strategy really, if we don't tell them anything hopefully they will be too scared to vote

It would be a pretty big waste of time to negotiate until the will of the Scottish people is made clear, indeed. The UK government currently represents the Scottish people, so the Unionists might be unhappy to learn their parliament is negotiating with the SNP.

But at this rate, it might be that the secession Scotland ends up a complete rump state. If the Isles are saying they might stay in the UK, I cannot help but wonder if other areas will stay in the UK too.

 

[platypus]

But at this rate, it might be that the secession Scotland ends up a complete rump state. If the Isles are saying they might stay in the UK, I cannot help but wonder if other areas will stay in the UK too.

What level of autonomy would certain areas be given though?

 

[gjrc]

You do realise that there are a couple of years between a Yes vote and Independence itself?

Scotland until that time will remain apart of the UK. An EU member.

And will negotiate independent membership within.

It's not too hard.

there is a lot of utter nonsense in this thread. much of it written by you as it happens but this takes the biscuit.

IF Scotland votes for independence, yes there is a delay in that coming to pass but any negotiations you then undertake will be made on the basis of Scotland being OUTSIDE of the UK, because (guess what!) that's what you all just voted for!

no one is going to negotiate with an "independent Scotland" in those 18 months on the basis that they (for 18 months) are still part of the UK.

SCOTLAND IS NOT PART OF THE EU, THE UK IS.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

What level of autonomy would certain areas be given though?

Maybe they will want to become Crown Dependencies, maybe they will just want to remain part of the UK actual. Neither would be bad for the UK and in the case of the Shetland Isles entirely desirable, as they'd bring oil with them.

The SNP make the assumption that all of Scotland would join them in seceding, but there is no precedence for this being the case. It may be parts that strong Unionist areas of Scotland refuse secession.

 

[the_r_sole]

Maybe they will want to become Crown Dependencies, maybe they will just want to remain part of the UK actual. Neither would be bad for the UK and in the case of the Shetland Isles entirely desirable, as they'd bring oil with them.

The SNP make the assumption that all of Scotland would join them in seceding, but there is no precedence for this being the case. It may be parts that strong Unionist areas of Scotland refuse secession.

is the point in the vote not to allow Scotland to act on the will of the nation?

 

[grumpysculler]

A car full of passengers drives onto a ferry. Are the passengers on the ferry or just in the car?

Did those passengers have to buy individual tickets? Or does putting a vehicle on a ferry entitle all passengers within to a free ride?


This whole inside/outside debate is pointless. The SNP have detailed their two options, both of which are valid.

They could follow Article 49, which is the new state route. Almost certainly going to succeed, but you join the EU on its standard terms and have no opt-outs.

The preferred route is Article 48 which deals with treaty amendments. Essentially, the treaties would be rewritten as if Scotland had been a member all along. This route requires EVERY SINGLE EU COUNTRY to agree. I wrote it in caps, it must be true. If any country refuses then this approach fails. Spain has already said it won't. I think we can be sure other countries will attempt to use the opportunity to rejig things too. Perhaps France will only agree if the UK rebate is killed. And the UK will only agree if the rebate is left untouched. Oh dear. Or many other scenarios using agendas that are already well known.

Article 48 is not going to happen, but the SNP seem to think it is a fait accompli.

 

[Amp34]

so one side has to give precise factual answers and the other can get away with no commitment to anything about anything?
If you read the link I posted it says there is evidence to support both theories - imo the Spanish can't possibly suggest anything else although Scotland is a nation and not a region so the debate is still to be had

If your suggesting the no campaign are the ones giving the precise factual argument...

From your link:

He went on: "So, if we have the European Commission, the Court of Justice's Sir David Edward and the person appointed by the UK Government to say the timetable is realistic, I think that is reasonably substantial evidence that Scotland as a nation can negotiate its position to full membership within the European Union."

The key point being negotiate. No one is saying Scotland cannot be part of the EU, we are saying the negotiations are the issue. Salmond is saying Scotland will keep the pound, the opt out and the links with the BoE before any negotiation takes place. It is not in the interests of all other member states to agree to that. Which leads me on nicely to:

"What the First Minister doesn't understand is that it doesn't matter if he gets 15 member states on board, or 25, 26, or even 27. He needs the governments of every single one of 28 countries to agree to his demands.

THAT is the important bit (as has been repeated multiple times). Something the nationalists don't appear to be taking into consideration.

I don't know the full back story to this but the last bit is especially funny, if true however it shows the issues with Salmonds claims.

The First Minister "sold out" on terms when arguing for more powers in the Scotland Act, which transferred new powers to Holyrood, including limited tax responsibilities, he claimed.

"We all remember in this chamber his six red lines on the Scotland Act," Mr Rennie said.

"But he sold out on every single one of them - and that was only negotiating with one government.

"That's why he has been called the worst negotiator in the northern hemisphere."

 

[the_r_sole]

The key point being negotiate.

exactly what I am saying, there is no definite outcome, what they have done is outlined their preference - wouldn't it be much better if the UK government would ask the questions direct to the EU and then at least we would have better information to help decide?

 

[Amp34]

exactly what I am saying, there is no definite outcome, what they have done is outlined their preference - wouldn't it be much better if the UK government would ask the questions direct to the EU and then at least we would have better information to help decide?

Yes, and that will be done after any yes vote. Until then we have can only speculate from press releases and speeches by senior members of the EU and European governments, which, by and large are negative.

This is one reason why a second vote would have made far more sense. One vote in 2014 on whether Scotland should pursue being an independent nation and a second in 2016, after all the negotiations, to see if the Scottish public are happy with any agreements in place.

Unfortunately the vote is going to have to go on blind faith that what Salmond is promising will come to fruition. Many of those promises look shaky at best.

 

[Stretch]

So why will the rUK not come out and say that for definite?

I'm not the rest of the UK, so I can't really answer that.

It's because it's impossible for them to dismiss the fact that they will be required to negotiate.

Negotiations will only be required if both countries desire a formal currency union. If they don't, there isn't much to negotiate.