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.

No. I made a claim based in something I once read somewhere

I have found a good source of data though

www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/annual.htm

Its all excel files though so I need to wait until I can have a look on my laptop (where's statistically when we need her)

Yep, that's the figures I was using too. Really interesting actually (god, I need a life).

waves

OK...Catches in the north east atlantic region by tonnage and country

linky

I think this is the right region, but it is very large as it covers everything north and east of a point in the mid atlantic roughly in line with the northern border of portugal

FannyFifer WWFD, Salmond wants an answer on the EU stuff, Westminster won't ask, only they are allowed to go to EU and get the definitive answer, they won't!

The procedure you are referring to as "going to the EU and getting the definitive answer" is presumably a Preliminary Ruling on interpretation of EU Treaty law, requested by a Member State to the European Court of Justice under Art 267 TFE.

Preliminary Rulings under Art 267 must be raised by a court or tribunal which in effect means that a legal case of some sort must already be in existence which raises a matter of treaty interpretation which the member state's court or tribunal cannot answer.

Other cases are brought by individuals against member states, or by member states against other member states, or by EU institutions against member states.

There appears to be no procedure for "Westminster" simply asking the ECJ for interpretation of the EU accession issue potentially affecting Scotland on independence yet, because it has not yet occurred, and also because it would breach the unwritten UK constitution which requires the constituent parts of the UK to work together in achieving joint aims.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/spanish-fish-barons-admit-taking-illegal-catches-in-uk-waters-7964246.html

I have some sympathy with the SNP re Spanish fishermen.

That might explain why we are struggling to find data on Spanish fish landings :)

Wonder why the Westminster cabinet is in Aberdeen today, flying in on an RAF jet, telling Scotland it's too wee & stupid to look after the oil ourselves.
This'll explain it eh, a quarter of ALL corporation tax in the UK comes from North Sea oil.

"The industry supports 440,000 jobs directly or indirectly and paid £11.2 billion in direct taxes in 2011 – 2012, almost a quarter of all corporation taxes received by the Exchequer."
www.gov.uk/government/speeches/written-ministerial-statement-by-edward-davey-review-of-uk-offshore-oil-and-gas-recovery

I can't believe people are being asked to vote on something so important, without all the details of how it will actually work, having been ironed out! Fair enough to offer the chance of independence with, say:

• membership of the EU agreed in principle
• currency sorted (Euro)
• a good financial plan that doesn't depend on a finite and rapidly diminishing resource (oil)

etc etc

But frankly crazy to just go 'let's be independent, we'll figure it out when we get there!' How is the ordinary person supposed to work out which option will be better for them?

I can't believe people are being asked to vote on something so important, without all the details of how it will actually work, having been ironed out

The problem is twofold:

The refusal of WM to "prenegotiate" ie sensibly discuss anything to do with independence

The uncertainty in the event of a No vote too: will the UK leave the EU after a referendum? How will the replacement to Barnett's affect finances? Will NHS Scotland continue to exist with the continuing privatisation if NHS England?...

That doesn't make sense ItsAllGoingToBeFine. Can you try and be more erudite?

bronya well yes, Westminster insisted on Scottish agreement in principle to independence, before any negotiations.

One can see how in some ways this makes sense -- after all negotiations would take up a lot of time, people and money, and with no mandate from the Scottish electorate in the first place, that would be difficult to justify.

On the other hand, it is now impossible for Scottish voters to make an informed decision, so 'No' will seem the safer option.

(And I write this as a convinced 'No' voter)

lessmissabs

Sorry, I will try and be more clear.

It is often stated (correctly) that there are many uncertainties about a Yes vote.

I was pointing out that

a) The Yes campaign cannot possibly answer all the what-ifs with a definite answer as WM will not discuss issues.

b) There are just as many uncertainties if people vote no

And I will also add a

c) Whether it is a Yes or a No in the long term what will happen depends on what party is voted in.

To conclude: There are no definites with a Yes or a No vote and it is unreasonable to expect them (although not unreasonable to want them).

No, ItsAllGoingToBeFine I meant under what part of our constitutional procedure or laws in place would you expect the UK Government to initiate these pre-negotiations on behalf of the SNP?

How will the replacement to Barnett's affect finances

What replacement to Barnett? Salmond demanded that the government guarantee the Barnett formula in perpetuity. Cameron responded that a change is "not on the horizon" but that he could not guarantee there will never be any changes. Given that no parliament can bind future parliaments that is all he can say in response to Salmond's demand. The SNP spinning that as letting the cat out of the bag that there will be a replacement following a no vote is pure sophistry.

Salmond knew perfectly well that no government can possibly guarantee Barnett unconditionally forever. His question was designed to get that response allowing him to raise the spectre of Barnett being replaced after a no vote.

will the UK leave the EU after a referendum?

Realistically there is no certainty about Scotland and the EU whichever way the vote goes. Following a Yes vote the EU may refuse to admit Scotland or may impose unacceptable conditions. Following a No vote the UK may choose to leave the EU.

Will NHS Scotland continue to exist with the continuing privatisation if NHS England?

Ignoring whether or not the NHS is being privatised within the normal meaning of the word, health is a devolved matter. The NHS in Scotland is very different from the NHS in England. Even if the NHS in England was completely abolished there is no reason for that to have any effect on NHS Scotland.

That analysis by Sir David Edward (who as a former Euro judge, is very well placed to analyse) is fascinating.

One point struck me in particular: Scottish waters are the largest territorial waters in the EU, significant as fishing grounds and in security terms.

It isn't all about Scotland going cap in hand to the EU: the EU will surely want to keep Scotland. Suggestions of it being a small rather meaningless place non one cares about are overstated, I think.

the EU will surely want to keep Scotland

It is by no means guaranteed that access to fishing grounds, etc. will outweigh concerns about encouraging regional breakaways. Remember that there are now 28 states in the EU many of which do not have any interest in Scottish fishing grounds or any other aspect of Scottish territorial waters. Every single one of those states has to agree to Scotland becoming a member.

Ignoring whether or not the NHS is being privatised within the normal meaning of the word, health is a devolved matter. The NHS in Scotland is very different from the NHS in England. Even if the NHS in England was completely abolished there is no reason for that to have any effect on NHS Scotland

I may well be wrong, but it was my understanding that money from WM that goes towards NHS Scotland is determined, at least in part, by how much money WM allocates to NHS England. As NHS England becomes more privatised, less money is allocated to it, and by extension, to NHS Scotland also.

No, ItsAllGoingToBeFine I meant under what part of our constitutional procedure or laws in place would you expect the UK Government to initiate these pre-negotiations on behalf of the SNP

I meant that it was impossible for Yes to be able to put forward exactly what would happen with independence. One of the reasons they cannot do this is because WM will not prenegotiate, for whatever reason.

That analysis by Sir David Edward (who as a former Euro judge, is very well placed to analyse) is fascinating.

Do you have a link, please?

Scottish waters are the largest territorial waters in the EU- I am sure that the maritime boundary would have to be re-negotiated in the event of independence. The White Paper, q559, says that 'the setting of maritime boundaries for an independent Scotland will be guided by international law.' So it's a bit premature to state Scotland's waters will be a selling point- we don't know what they are yet!

Suggestions of it being a small rather meaningless place non one cares about are overstated, I think.
Scottish population: 5 million
EU citizens: 500 million
The numbers speak for themselves.

That is my understanding of the roll on effect with NHS England being privatised, money available to NHS Scotland is on a percentage basis of spend in England/rUK so back door privatisation will happen.

Re territorial waters there is a good piece here

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070

Sorry, should have said, it was linked further up. Here it is again.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine I meant that it was impossible for Yes to be able to put forward exactly what would happen with independence. One of the reasons they cannot do this is because WM will not prenegotiate, for whatever reason

Why on earth would the Government of our country "pre-negotiate" to dissolve it, when there is no UK-wide remit from the population for it to do so? That would be very undemocratic. It is up to the independence supporters to ensure these questions are met, since they wish to change the status quo.

The UK might have an unwritten Constitution, but there are many protections and protocols within it which would prevent such "pre-negotiation" by the Government taking place. I am surprised you have not mentioned them, and dismissed them in some way. Instead I get the feeling that you are simply unaware of them. I would have thought that your wonderful education in Scotland would have made you aware of the UK constitution's main elements.

Perhaps you have an understanding of this word "pre-negotiate" that you keep using that is a different use from the norm. If so, can you explain what this is, since it seems so important to you?