To think Alex Salmond is in his own private dream world?

[SpineInABap]

Ok so Alex Salmond wants an independent Scotland, and sets out his ideas.

Then all three Westminster parties tell him - "no you can't share the pound and be independent as well, it would be too unstable. Did you see what happened in Europe when they tried to share a currency between different countries with different economic policies? And those countries were trying to become more united, and in this case the two countries would be trying to split apart!"

Then a guy from the European Union remarks that it won't be plain sailing for an Independent Scotland to join the EU, as all the other members will have to agree - and many won't as they don't want to encourage their own splinter states to start asking for independence as well.

So two fairly serious problems. And what is Alex Salmon's reaction? Basically to go "Ner ner ner, you're all being mean and nasty and you don't really mean it. I think that if we all vote yes for an independent Scotland, then you will change your mind and let us share the pound, and let us join the EU. You're bluffing, and so I'm not coming up with a plan for what would happen if Scotland voted yes and we realised that, oops no...you weren't bluffing".

How can anyone think this man does not sound a bit bonkers? I'm English, but if I was Scottish I would be very worried about voting for someone who thinks nothing of destabilising a whole economy just to make a Political point.

In terms of international stuff it would be due a share of UK embassies

Wrong.

International law on secession says that State property remains the property of the continuator State (the rUK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).

Here

“the legal position is clear: the bodies that support the UK now … would continue to operate on behalf of the remainder of the UK on the same basis as before Scottish independence. If an independent Scottish state wanted to continue to receive services from UK institutions or utilise them to carry out functions in relation to Scotland, that would be a matter for negotiation and would have to be agreed with the continuing UK”

Scotland has its own legal infrastructure. It is a completely different legal system. What used to be called the House of Lords and is now called the Supreme Court is the final appellate court so a new Supreme Court would be needed.

Good point. Would there be any need for a further appeal court beyond the Inner House of the Court of Session if Scotland were not part of the UK?

As I said upthread, even though Scotland has its own legal system there are gaps that don't exist in Scottish law because they are covered by EU law. By effectively leaving the EU there would be things not enshrined currently in Scottish law.

""Scotland votes no then I would like to see England have its own devolved government. It is monstrously unfair that Scottish mps can vote on things like the English education system.

I also note you say England, what about Ireland and Wales? You know the remainder of the UK that people in favour of the No Vote want to stay oh so United"."

Northern Ireland and Wales already have their own assemblies. Hardly news just in and worrying that you have no idea that this happened well over a decade ago Mrs Magnificent.

Would there be any need for a further appeal court beyond the Inner House of the Court of Session if Scotland were not part of the UK?

The White Paper says 406. What will happen to Scottish cases currently referred to the UK Supreme Court?

Arrangements will be made to finalise Scottish cases already referred to the UK Supreme Court. The highest courts in an independent Scotland will be the Inner House of the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary (sitting as Court of Criminal Appeal), which will be known jointly as the Supreme Court of Scotland.

The UK Supreme Court will no longer have jurisdiction in Scotland. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will continue to have the same jurisdiction in Scotland.

If anyone is interested civil cases start either in the Sheriff court or the Outer House of the Court of Session (or in certain cases the Land Court)

Appeals from the Sheriff court go to the Sheriff Principal and then to the Inner House. Cases where the Outer House was court of first instance go to the Inner House so under this the line of appeals would be shortened.

Is a shorted appeals process a good or bad thing?

Genuine question.

Appeals to the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) are on point of law only. Not point of fact.

I think the White Paper at Art. 406 is wrong. Scotland would not be an EU member on independence, nor a ECHR signatory and there would be no right of appeal to the ECJ or to the ECHR. Appeals would therefore stop at the Inner House of the Court of Session unless other arrangements were put in place.

The White Paper also gets muddled where it discussed the ECJ "approving" of tuition fee differentials - it is not the duty of the ECJ to approve of such matters and anyway it would be the EU Commission who would deal with such matters as being illegal state aid under Art 87(3) of the Treaty, either by approving it or by finding the errant member state.

I am well aware of that. The way you have read the post is not how it was intended.

The point was you state what you want for England yet there is no mention of anything that you would like for the rest of the UK.

Or does that not concern you?

RedToothBrush Is a shorted appeals process a good or bad thing?

The House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) was frequently criticised for introducing English law doctrines into Scots law. But possibly appeal to the IH of CS is too limited and appeal to the ECJ or ECHR or even ICJ is probably a good idea in a modern European democracy.

None of this would happen quickly, as it hasn't been thought about in sufficient detail early enough in the timescale.

It would give parity if England had a devolved parliament like Scotland, Wales and northern Ireland. Seems perfectly sensible.

I've been reading the Law Society of Scotland's paper and it says re ECHR,

ECHR is the main treaty which protects human rights in Europe. Becoming party to ECHR depends on membership of the Council of Europe (CoE). Article 4 of the statute of the CoE provides that the Committee of Ministers should invite a new state to become a member of the CoE. However, ECHR could continue to apply uninterrupted following the declaration of independence and before Scotland becomes party to the CoE/ECHR. There are also 14 protocols additional to ECHR to which Scotland should become party. As party to ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) will have automatic jurisdiction to entertain individual as well as inter-state complaints concerning possible violations of ECHR by Scotland. Scotland could also bring cases before the ECtHR against other states.

here

What people forget is that salmond worked in banks, has a masters in economics where as Osborne was a fucking speech writer.. I cannot stand alex salmond but I cannot entirely ignore his comments. I personally am not concerned by the economic arguments being made, what worries a me is the negative rhetoric on the better together campaign, its been proven to be pushing no voters to the yes camp..

He worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland, hardly a ringing endorsement.

Oh, I don't for one second think he's stupid. I think he knows all this - but he wants independence, has been fighting for independence for decades and now he can literally smell it he's not going to waiver.

Even the smartest people can be...blinkered? Fixated? I think he believes that Scotland should be independent and as a result will say what he thinks he needs to say.

Sarahquilt - but Ireland was part of the headache for the Euro - along with Spain and greece - do you not remember all the bailouts to help stop ireland destabilising the euro? The euro countries may be morewary after that.

Salmond may be an economist, but he knows nothing about the law. Neither, it appears, do his advisors. It is flat wrong that iScotland would, by right, continue to be a member of the EU, and it is flat wrong to state that iScotland would be entitled as of right to a share of UK assets, including (for Pete's sake!) sterling. This is all common knowledge outside nationalist circles.

He is protesting because he has received a tactical setback. In order to persuade the undecided into the Yes camp, he has been keen to stress that actually nothing much will change - iScotland will keep the Queen, sterling, EU membership and open borders with the rUK. Now he has been told that some of these are not given, he is falling back on the old argument that Scotland is a victim.

I hope Scotland stays in the Union, and people won't vote yes on the basis of such pathetic nonsense, but democracy is democracy after all.

Also to add that being a resident of a small country (NZ) it is interesting to note that no one has really raised the problems small countries face. Scotland will be one such country. Small countries get buggered about by bigger countries; forced to sign bilateral trade deals, grant preferential tax treatment, relax visa controls, remove subsidies and tariffs and so on. Small countries also endure fluctuating prices and currencies that bob around like corks.

The UK is certainly not as powerful as it used to be, but it remains, comparatively speaking, a country with a lot of clout and cultural reach. It is a good thing to be part of that.

Frostedloop Tue 18-Feb-14 23:37:26
What people forget is that salmond worked in banks, has a masters in economics where as Osborne was a fucking speech writer

And? Just because you are academic doesn't mean you are actually good. Working in banks is a bit different to deciding to try and make your country independent.

The thing that Salmond actually wanted - and campaigned for - is a more devolved Scotland, not an Independent Scotland. When its been pointed out that Independence means something very different to his vision he has a problem.

If even the person who is leading the campaign for independence, doesn't really understand what independence means you have someone of a leadership problem and something of problem with your abilities. It doesn't matter what your background is, your current performance is the only thing you should be judged on.

Just because you are academic doesn't mean you are actually good. Working in banks is a bit different to deciding to try and make your country independent

I'd say these things make you a touch more qualified than someone whose experience is composed of junior data entry, speech writing and re-folding towels at Selfridge's (cf Osborne's CV).

Actually I think it depends. I think you can lack experience, but be better at your job if you know and accept that, if you are prepared to listen to the advice of a range of other people. You can have experience but this can make you a lesser person, if you rely on that alone and are too arrogant to listen to others.

I don't think that experience is necessarily the be all and end all.

I think that judging people on their current performance is the most important thing at the end of the day.

ToadInTheHole Also to add that being a resident of a small country (NZ) it is interesting to note that no one has really raised the problems small countries face. Scotland will be one such country. Small countries get buggered about by bigger countries; forced to sign bilateral trade deals, grant preferential tax treatment, relax visa controls, remove subsidies and tariffs and so on. Small countries also endure fluctuating prices and currencies that bob around like corks

Yes, its constantly pedalled in Scotland by the SNP that there is no other outcome than Scotland being an independent wealthy Eutopia. On the basis that Salmond seems to work on that if you say something it will "just happen".

What it its more like Lithuania: shrinking economy, mired in corruption and environmental problems: baltic-review.com/2010/03/lithuania-economic-problems-after-20-years-of-independence/

Or Latvia: with a 7% reduction in population and a 20% reduction in economic output since independence, despite being in the EU since 2004 (and costing us UK citizens money to bail out): baltic-review.com/2010/03/lithuania-economic-problems-after-20-years-of-independence/

In fact, I can't see why the Latvian example isn't used more in the independence debate than Sweden, since it has a similar socialist background and a population level closer to Scotland's than Sweden does, along with similar levels of non-working people of working age and state dominance.

I find the brainwashing the SNP is trying to do by constantly comparing Scotland to Scandinavia (it is not part of Scandinavia geographically and is ethnically more Celtic) racist. It is far more similar to Ireland, which Salmond used to use as an exemplar until its economy went bust, so Ireland is rarely mentioned by the SNP now.

Actually, I do suspect the reason Latvia isn't mentioned is that (a) many of the SNP supporters haven't travelled that much outside Scotland and (b) aren't that well read/have inquisitive minds. They have probably read a magazine article about Norway and perhaps seen a programme on tv about Sweden, but I doubt they have ever trudged through downtown Trondheim on a Sunday afternoon in the freezing rain (since road charging means no cars and busses are few and far between) or driven a round trip of 120 miles across the Norwegian border to get to a Swedish supermarket to actually get something worth buying at a cheaper price.