Alex Salmond: A second Scottish referendum is inevitible

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThePirateHulk said:
Anyway, Spain using it's veto to block an independent Scotland's EU membership would pretty much decimate their fishing industry since Scottish territorial waters are heavily fished by EU fleets.

Anyway, the Spanish Foreign Minister has already stated that they will not veto.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/304495/Spain-will-not-veto-an-independent-Scotland-joining-EU

People really should arm themselves with facts rather than parroting what they see somebody else say on t'internet.
Click to expand...

And you read that on the "t'internet"

well done.
 
ThePirateHulk said:
Anyway, Spain using it's veto to block an independent Scotland's EU membership would pretty much decimate their fishing industry since Scottish territorial waters are heavily fished by EU fleets.

Anyway, the Spanish Foreign Minister has already stated that they will not veto.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/304495/Spain-will-not-veto-an-independent-Scotland-joining-EU

People really should arm themselves with facts rather than parroting what they see somebody else say on t'internet.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is that Garcia-Margallo did not say they wouldn't veto Scotland. That "won't veto" bit is an Express headline summarising what the SNP tried to infer from Garcia-Margallo's comments.

What Garcia-Margallo actually did was draw a distinction between Scotland and Kosovo, because of the different constitutional basis for vetoing Kosovo. Kosovo was vetoed because it was a unilateral declaration of independence and that would set a precedent for Catalonia and/or Basques if accession hadn't been vetoed.

What Garcia-Margallo said was that because Scottish independence, if it happened, would have been a constitutional agreement between Westminster and Holyrood, that it was not the same situation as Kosovo and was therefore an internal UK matter not an issue for the Spanish government.

He did say that Kosovo should not be seen as indicative of an intention to veto, but he did not express an opinion either way as to whether they would veto or not. What he was actually doing was sending a signal in the other direction. His message was to Catalonia that the case of Scottish independence was not a precedent for Catalonia or the Basques, because the constitutional basis was different. In other words, Scotland is not a template for Catalonia because Scottish independence is being done by agreement, but there will be no agreement from Madrid on Catalonian independence.

Furthermore, since that Express article, both Garcia-Margallo and the Spanish PM Rajoy have gone out of their way, several times, to indicate that while internal UK matters aren't for them to comment on, that they are very clear indeed that Scottish EU accession should not be taken for granted, will not be automatic, will have to be done from outside the EU, and will be complicated, lengthy and not guaranteed, and will require a complex procedure, the satisfying of all 35 chapters of acquis, negotiation over terms, and the agreement of all 28 member states, and about 20 of those require full Parliamentary ratification.

Of course, their opinion may be completely academic because there is no chance of another Scottish independence referendum before the Spanish general election so they may not be the Spanish government by the time of another referendum anyway.

One last point. It's not just Spain that has secession concerns. There's concern in Belgium over Flanders, in Italy over the north and Venice, in Corsica, in Brittany, and others. Just one of those 28 voting no and that's that.

Among other things, Mariano Rajoy said
It's very clear to me, as it is for everybody else in the world, that a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU, and that is good for Scottish citizens to know and for all EU citizens to know.

....

[EU treaties] apply only to member states that have agreed and ratified them, and if a part of one member state cleaves from the member state, it converts itself into a third part with relation to the EU.

That is the law and that law applies.

....

In no way does it benefit our European regions and our citizens to propose divisions or solo adventures in an uncertain future in which the exit points may seem clear but the destination is unknown.
Click to expand...

And in a highly suggestive remark about Spain's position, he went on to add that he would expect David Cameron, as British PM, to adopt a similar stance towards any plans for an independent Catalonia to seek EU accession.
 
So if the Scots get a second Yes/No referendum, does this mean the voters who voted who stay part of the uk get a referendum every year on rejoining the uk? Seems completely ridiculous otherwise.
 
lovelyhead said:
As for whether or not Shetland and Orkney want to go their own separate way from Scotland, that is more unionist press propaganda that is simply untrue:

Click to expand...

errr why is the no a union jack, and the yes the Scottish flag if you're saying they would stay Scottish that looks like they want to stay British.
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
So if the Scots get a second Yes/No referendum, does this mean the voters who voted who stay part of the uk get a referendum every year on rejoining the uk? Seems completely ridiculous otherwise.
Click to expand...

If NO voters can group together in sufficient numbers in order to vote in a unionist party with a majority at Holyrood, then that party could have a manifesto commitment to hold another referendum.

That seems basically impossible the way things currently stand though, what with the unionist vote split multiple ways, the SNP's utter dominance of Scottish politics and the fact that the unionist parties are made up of complete laissez competent's!
 
My eyes are bleeding from reading that article. It's so poorly written.

still seems like a scumbag thing to do.
 
Last edited:
It's hardly pointless when there are still plenty of constructive posts on both sides.

If it was a few die-hard Scots separatists all agreeing with each other, then you'd have a point. Maybe because I've not been here long, I'm finding it interesting to engage with them, and we both get to see the other's opinions.

What would make more sense than closing it is for those that think it's not worth bothering with to not bother with it, and let the rest of us get on with it. Then, maybe it'd die naturally. If not, it suggests there is still a point.

After all, the refefendum may be over, but anyone that knows any Scots knows the issue sure isn't, whichever side they're on.
 
Aldav said:
And of course, cyberNats would never stoop so low. .... Oh, wait ....

Pick any large group of individuals and almost certainly there'll be an element that prove there are some villages missing their idiot. :D
Click to expand...

You are most welcome to post an example of Independence supporters actively trying to ruin someones business because the business owner said something they took offence to.

And no, boycotting a business is not the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom