SNP Referendum Nonsense

[scorza]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/01/scotland-vote-yes-scottish-independence

I feel totally like this a lot of the time

I really want Scotland to go for it. Those of us who live in the north of England look south and see the same thing. An England effectively shrunk to the Greater London area. It exists within the invisible forcefield of the M25, and these days is a cruel and surreal place. Much of it is owned and managed remotely by billionaires on the other side of the planet. The greed of absentee landlords crushing the life out of it. Centrifugal "market forces" flinging the poor out. Meanwhile, capitalism's own ruthless geology creates archipelagos of conspicuous wealth for the world's idle rich.

And who presides over England's microcosm, this chaparal of breadline and bunga-bunga? Why, the quintessential Englishman. A gurgling loaf with a sheepdog's haircut and a repertoire of Latin bum jokes. If you had to name a person who was the absolute opposite of Scottish, it would be Boris ... Johnson, hands down.

 

[[TW]Fox]

If other countries can do it

Which countries have joined the EU after the adoption of the Euro and are not expected to ever join the single currency?

 

[[TW]Fox]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/01/scotland-vote-yes-scottish-independence

I feel totally like this a lot of the time

I think people just need to get over it, otherwise if the Scottish get what they want they'll just change to whinging about how 'its like only Edinburgh matters' just because Edinburgh will be the seat of power.

So the capital city is important, big deal. It's also where Scots have held the highest office of the land for the majority of many posters lives...

 

[the_r_sole]

I think people just need to get over it, otherwise if the Scottish get what they want they'll just change to whinging about how 'its like only Edinburgh matters' just because Edinburgh will be the seat of power.

So the capital city is important, big deal. It's also where Scots have held the highest office of the land for the majority of many posters lives...

to be fair that's not really going to be an issue with Scotland - and it's not really an argument for the union either!

 

[Angilion]

You said it.

"Scotland simply isn't important enough to the EU."
...

You are not too stupid to realise that taking a few words out of context can change the meaning.

So I am going to assume that you are doing it deliberately because you know you have no rational counter-argument to my posts and thus know that all you can do is try to discredit me by making false statements about what I have written.

Just in case anyone thinks there's any substance to your claims, I'll quote what I actually wrote:

It's blinkered idealism at best to assume that every country in the EU would go against the best interests of the EU (and in some cases against the best interests of their own country as well) in order to benefit Scotland. Why on earth would they? Every single country would have a veto on the issue - Scotland would need every single one of them to grant Scotland special preferential treatment that would threaten the stability of the EU as a whole and several member states individually. It's a daft idea. Scotland's membership would not be worth the cost. It would be a small country with a correspondingly small economy. There are cities with bigger populations and bigger economies. Scotland simply isn't important enough to the EU.

and I'll provide a link to the post in question so that anyone who cares can verify it:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25407742&postcount=366

 

[Angilion]

[..]
It's not that it hasn't happened, or it isn't there, it's all in the other thread.

You made an unsubstantiated wild claim, namely that many people in this thread and outside it have said that the semi-independent Scotland proposed by some people would be treated as an international pariah state.

There is no evidence of anyone making any such claim in this thread.

You were repeatedly pressed for any evidence to support your claim and refused to provide any.

Now you say that it's somewhere in another thread with almost 800 posts.

You're just wasting my time. If you had any evidence, you'd use it.

 

[Angilion]

to be fair that's not really going to be an issue with Scotland [..]

Why not? It's an issue (to varying degrees) with every other country, so what's different about Scotland? The main seat of power has to go somewhere and there are always local perceptions (often justified) that different areas are treated differently.

 

[Biohazard]

Which countries have joined the EU after the adoption of the Euro and are not expected to ever join the single currency?

That's a false question, Scotland would not be joining but continuing its membership (as amended) by negotiation in the advent of a Yes vote. There is no mechanism for nations to leave the EU, and would remain a priority for the EU to clarify and ratify the position for its own citizens.

The Euro and its adoption is riddled not only with varying degrees of example, and in the case of Bulgaria currently refusing to oblige if I were to answer your question, but there are also clear legal loopholes exploited by Sweden and the exchange rate mechanism, or to bargaining in the case of ourselves and Denmark through the Edinburgh agreement 1992. Lithunia is currently refusing to progress the matter at all until the outcome of the crisis is apparent, or you could do a Gordon Brown and just invent your own criteria for adoption that would never be fulfilled. Or the stance taken by the Czech Republic who have clearly stated it is a sovereign matter irrespective of the EU obligation. Or Sweden that the matter would have to go to referendum first as well.

Wouldn't it be perverse if the place where some of these 'special terms' were agreed for other small nations was in itself refused any notion of it's own 'preference'?

The political scene left after the Eurozone disaster is also a very different, slightly more humbled, one than what we experienced in the first years of fiscal and monetary expansion.

It isn't as simple, or accurate, to say that Scotland votes Yes and is expelled from the EU and to get back in would have to join the Euro. The mechanism for Scotland to leave doesn't exist, it would remain apart of the UK (notwithstanding its own referendum) and would negotiate from within.

I find the current two sided approach to reporting the EU as hilarious, I think George put it a little better than myself;

EU scaremongers have own agenda

I AM a citizen of the European Union. I have been since 1973. In fact, of the 28 current members of the EU, the vast majority (19) joined after Scotland did. Scotland complies with all the many rules – legal, economic, political and social – required of each EU member state. In fact, we have a better track record of compliance than many other countries. Scots have long been at the centre of promoting European collaboration. David Maxwell Fyfe, a canny Scots lawyer, was instrumental in drafting the European Convention on Human Rights.

Why then should there be any doubt regarding Scottish membership of the EU if we vote Yes to dissolving the 1707 Union with England next September? Would there need to be discussions with Brussels over Scotland’s financial contribution and voting rights in the EU? Obviously – but the same would go for the down-sized remainder of the UK. Such a tidying up-operation could surely be done in parallel with the negotiations being conducted between Holyrood and Westminster regarding independence itself. Why would either Europe or rUK want it otherwise?

Of course, political life is not so simple. There are vested interests that want to make the process of formalising EU membership and de-merging from the UK more difficult for Scotland than it need be, or should be. I just want you to realise that the creation of such roadblocks – real or imaginary – has nothing whatsoever to do with Scotland’s ability to be a good EU member, comply with EU rules, or play a constructive role in European affairs.

So when it’s inferred you should not vote Yes because Scotland’s continued membership of the European club would be put in jeopardy you are being – not to fudge the issue – blackmailed. It’s a nasty word for a nasty piece of politics. Those doing the political blackmailing also have a poor regard for the intelligence of the average Scottish voter.

Consider a lurid headline yesterday in one of the big London dailies: “Spanish PM: Independent Scotland would be kicked out of the EU.” The article went on: “Scotland would be kicked out of the European Union if it voted for independence, Spanish Prime Minister says, contradicting Alex Salmond’s claims membership would be seamless … Mr Rajoy’s intervention is severely damaging for Mr Salmond as it would mean Scotland having to apply from scratch for EU membership, a process that would take years, and having to negotiate its own opt-out from the euro”.

The newspaper I quote, like most of the London press, is rabidly anti-EU. Its leader column carried the following diatribe last week: “The lifting of restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian immigration in the coming New Year has crystallised in the minds of many voters just how powerless we can be in the face of an ever-expanding European Union.” The leader page even went on to praise David Cameron for wanting an in/out referendum on EU membership.

Surely the London newspaper’s response to Mariano Rajoy’s comments on Scotland should be something like: “Voting Yes means escape from daft Brussels bureaucrats.” Or “Up yours, Rajoy, we prefer the freedom to control our own borders!”

On the contrary – even though it hates the EU and its works, alleging a threat to Britain’s racial purity and way of life – it deliberately used the threat of an independent Scotland being thrust out of the EU as an argument for voting No. Do London leader writers think Scots are naive? Answer: I think they do.

According to the latest opinion poll – which uses the exact wording in the Tory draft bill for an in/out EU referendum – 36 per cent of UK voters say they will vote Yes (to stay) but 45 per cent will vote No (to leave).

That means that even if Scots stick with the UK, the current likelihood is that English voters will take us out of Europe anyway. And the anti-European London press will be whooping for joy. The very same press that keeps trying to frighten Scots voters with dark tales about how difficult it will be for Alex Salmond to negotiate continued EU membership.

What of the intervention of Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish Prime Minister? Again, we have someone who is not concerned with the facts of Scotland’s European credentials – Scotland was in the EU before Spain. In fact, Scotland was a democracy before Spain was. Mr Rajoy leads a country with 56 per cent youth unemployment and 0.1 per cent growth. He needs to talk to John Swinney about how to run an economy.

According to the polls, 80 per cent of Catalan citizens would like to hold a self-determination referendum. In the last Catalan elections, parties proposing a self-determination referendum received 80 per cent of the votes. But Mr Rajoy is refusing to countenance such a referendum.

Mr Rajoy’s threat to force an independent Scotland out of the EU has nothing to do with Scotland and everything to do with blackmailing Catalan democrats into dropping their threat to hold a referendum anyway. I have a smidgen of understanding for his position. The old Francoist Right in Spain still exists and is making grumbling noises about a coup if the uppity Catalans exercise their democratic right to vote on self-determination. A desperate Mr Rajoy is using Scotland as a stick to beat the Catalans. He’d be better to use the example of Scottish democracy in action as a stick to beat the fascists.

The debate regarding independent Scotland’s future relations with the EU is being deliberately obfuscated. There is nothing in the EU treaties that covers a member state dissolving into its constituent parts. Politicians such as Mr Rajoy can express all the personal opinions they want but the only constitutional body that can adjudicate on the treaties is the European Court of Justice. My advice to Scots is this: set your own course and don’t be bullied by those with agendas of their own.

 

[the_r_sole]

Why not? It's an issue (to varying degrees) with every other country, so what's different about Scotland? The main seat of power has to go somewhere and there are always local perceptions (often justified) that different areas are treated differently.

well, if you look at our population I don't see it being an issue, edinburgh whilst our capital isn't our largest city and aberdeen plays a fairly significant role in scotland... and there isn't such a difference in any area as between scotland/england or london/any other uk city - I think we would be capable enough of not bickering if we could implement policies that were supported by the general population...

 

[Biohazard]

You are not too stupid to realise that taking a few words out of context can change the meaning.

So I am going to assume that you are doing it deliberately because you know you have no rational counter-argument to my posts and thus know that all you can do is try to discredit me by making false statements about what I have written.

Just in case anyone thinks there's any substance to your claims, I'll quote what I actually wrote:



and I'll provide a link to the post in question so that anyone who cares can verify it:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25407742&postcount=366

Doesn't really matter, that's the nub of what you had to say. If you boil it all away, Scotland lost in endless years of EU bureaucracy because it's just too unimportant.

And I disagree, surprise surprise.

 

[Biohazard]

You made an unsubstantiated wild claim, namely that many people in this thread and outside it have said that the semi-independent Scotland proposed by some people would be treated as an international pariah state.

There is no evidence of anyone making any such claim in this thread.

You were repeatedly pressed for any evidence to support your claim and refused to provide any.

Now you say that it's somewhere in another thread with almost 800 posts.

You're just wasting my time. If you had any evidence, you'd use it.

See my other post?

There have been all sorts of redicious statements, from threats that North Korea could somehow attack Scotland (Cameron) to preemptively bombing Scotland in the face of invasion (Some **** in the Lords) to countless scare stories about how Europe is ultimately going to savage Scotland for taking democracy in to its own hands, to increased levels of terror and an inability to offer rounded security services (May), various reasonings as to why Scotland would be economically catastrophic if it would go alone (Moore, Alexander, Darling), to threats of bits of Scotland being annexed willy nilly by the MOD and so forth.

It's not that it hasn't happened, or it isn't there, it's all in the other thread.

If that isn't treating a nation like some sort of dodgy outcast I don't know what is.

If it's a difference of opinion, fine, lets discuss that. What I'm not doing is duplicating a lot of effort because of your catcalling and whining. I've got precious little free time as it is.

 

[[TW]Fox]

That's a false question,

It sounds like the answer is 'No countries' then.

Scotland would not be joining but continuing its membership (

Scotland is not a member of the European Union. The United Kingdom is, and Scotland is voting on whether to leave the UK or not. The UK will continue without Scotland, as is right and proper given the fact the rest of the UK has zero say in what happens, so it's hardly appropriate that the UK would cease to exist on the say so of 10% of its population.

 

[RDM]

There is no mechanism for nations to leave the EU, and would remain a priority for the EU to clarify and ratify the position for its own citizens.

This is incorrect, the Lisbon Treaty introduced a method of withdrawal.

 

[Biohazard]

It sounds like the answer is 'No countries' then.

You aren't a silly boy, I'm sure you can read my response just adequately.

The answer was clearly yes, but that it was a straw man in any case.

Scotland is not a member of the European Union. The United Kingdom is, and Scotland is voting on whether to leave the UK or not. The UK will continue without Scotland, as is right and proper given the fact the rest of the UK has zero say in what happens, so it's hardly appropriate that the UK would cease to exist on the say so of 10% of its population.

I'm not sure how this fits in, Scotland is voting to leave the UK but would remain in the UK until years after. It is this period of time we are discussing.

The UK will continue, nobody suggests it will vanish, but the legal succession of both Scotland and rUK are open to fierce debate.

 

[Biohazard]

This is incorrect, the Lisbon Treaty introduced a method of withdrawal.

Expulsion [which was the context]?

Remember, Scotland isn't the member state here so couldn't invoke the withdrawal clause.

 

[the_r_sole]

Scotland is not a member of the European Union. The United Kingdom is, and Scotland is voting on whether to leave the UK or not.

that is not an argument that I've heard in any of the debates between politicians or from news outlets - I have heard different opinions on reasons that the rUK would have to renegotiate with the EU, and that there is no reason why Scotland wouldn't be considered as part of the UK during these discussions - from everything I've seen or read it seems to be accepted that Scotland would be negotiating as a part of the UK and therefore as a member of the EU (or at least, that this route is legally possible)

 

[Raumarik]

The UK will continue, nobody suggests it will vanish, but the legal succession of both Scotland and rUK are open to fierce debate.

If Scotland votes to leave (which I doubt it will), then it's leaving the UK, it by doing so is no longer part of the EU.

I really can't see which part of that is difficult to understand, yes it may be that those living in Scotland remain in the EU until the final separation date, that some agreement could be found to allow them to continue, but that's far from guaranteed and without that agreement they aren't EU citizens and Scotland isn't in the EU when it's finally "independent".

 

[Biohazard]

If Scotland votes to leave (which I doubt it will), then it's leaving the UK, it by doing so is no longer part of the EU.

I really can't see which part of that is difficult to understand, yes it may be that those living in Scotland remain in the EU until the final separation date, that some agreement could be found to allow them to continue, but that's far from guaranteed and without that agreement they aren't EU citizens and Scotland isn't in the EU when it's finally "independent".

If is voting to leave years down the line, if that helps.

 

[RDM]

Expulsion [which was the context]?

Remember, Scotland isn't the member state here so couldn't invoke the withdrawal clause.

I was responding to "no mechanism for a country to leave" which there now is. The "withdrawal" procedures could just as easily be invoked for expulsion if need be.

At the end of the day the situation is unprecedented and there are no procedures currently in place for the break up of a member state. The only occasions where it has happened in the past have been overseas territories (which left the EU). It is completely uncharted territories so making bold pronouncements either way is a bit foolish. Regardless of what happens a treaty change will probably be necessary which will mean agreement by all member states. Which could be problematic as several have their own separatist problems they wouldn't want to encourage by making independence easy.

 

[Biohazard]

I was responding to "no mechanism for a country to leave" which there now is. The "withdrawal" procedures could just as easily be invoked for expulsion if need be.

At the end of the day the situation is unprecedented and there are no procedures currently in place for the break up of a member state. The only occasions where it has happened in the past have been overseas territories (which left the EU). It is completely uncharted territories so making bold pronouncements either way is a bit foolish. Regardless of what happens a treaty change will probably be necessary which will mean agreement by all member states. Which could be problematic as several have their own separatist problems they wouldn't want to encourage by making independence easy.

I should have finished that sentence with in those circumstances. I thought the context was enough. My apologies.

It is unprecedented, which is why I don't think it's going to be the issue made out to be. Especially seeing as self determination is a principle the EU would be on such a level mad to reject.