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.

Thanks Angela I'll have a wee look tonight.

ItsAllGoingtoBeFine- did we not talk about maritime boundaries before? There are three ways to draw them, none of the three have precedent for the ICJ.

It is up to the independence supporters to ensure these questions are met, since they wish to change the status

I am not denying this in the slightest, just pointing out why it is not possible.

I am using the term pre-negotiate as that is the term that DC used.

Article15

Delimitation of the territorial sea between States

with opposite or adjacent coasts

Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.

www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

Article74

Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone

between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

1. The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.

2. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV.

3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.

4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of that agreement.

www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm

Article 38

1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

1. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.

www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0&#CHAPTER_II

I am using the term pre-negotiate as that is the term that DC used

Why? I wasn't aware that David Cameron set down the terminology to be used in the independence debate, and to be fair, he hasn't claimed to.

Its really difficult to know what you are actually referring to, if you repeatedly use rather obscure references which, while obviously having meaning for yourself, are perhaps not so well known out of context to the rest of the population.

lessmissabs I'm really sorry but I'm failing to understand the point you are trying to make?

Can you try and explain more simply so that I can understand?

Oh, how interesting. It still looks as though they have to be negotiated though, doesn't it?

Secession will probably come under 'historic title or other special circumstances' as well.

It is up to the independence supporters to ensure these questions are met, since they wish to change the status

I am not denying this in the slightest

Then why do you keep blaming Westminster for not 'asking the EU'?

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.

You are wrong on two counts!

Scotland receives a block grant from Westminster based on the Barnett formula. It can spend that money however it wants. Funding for NHS Scotland does not have to shadow funding for the NHS in England. Indeed, historically it has not always done so.

It is also not the case that less money is being allocated to the NHS. NHS funding has gone up every year this century and continues to rise.

What is true is that the Barnett formula means the funding per head received by Scotland is rising a little less rapidly than the rest of the UK. This is known as the Barnett squeeze. The difference is, however, small. It will take at least 30 years and possibly much longer before funding per head for Scotland is in line with the UK average.

Then why do you keep blaming Westminster for not 'asking the EU'

I am not blaming them per se. The issue is that Scotland cannot ask, so certainty can only come from WM asking which they won't.

they won't.

Or can't, for the reasons posted above?

What sort of answer do you think would be given? Currency- unknown. Maritime boundaries- unknown. Constitution- unknown. How could a decision be made?

Salmond is on a mahoosive ego trip and simply wants to 'go down in history' as the man who made Scotland independent whether it is advantageous for Scotland atm or not.

Mind, given the amount of shamelessly nationalistic tripe my kids are fed at school, you'd think the country had been set free to float in its own sea already....

*Or can't, for the reasons posted above?

What sort of answer do you think would be given? Currency- unknown. Maritime boundaries- unknown. Constitution- unknown. How could a decision be made*

I think we are posting at cross purposes here, and that we may actually be in agreement on this?

There can be no concrete answers until after the referendum, and until after negotiation, then longer term it all depends on the whims of the party in a power.

Folks demanding concrete answers from Yes are unreasonable/unrealistic.
It is unreasonable/unrealistic to say there are no uncertainties with a no vote.

The lack of concrete answers is not really anyone's fault, its just the way it has to be. Which is a bugger as it means we have to vote based on what we see as the probabilities based on our own reading and own analysis.

Are we?

Upthread you said: 'What could the WM government possibly gain from prolonging this uncertainty?

Personally, if WM were to officially ask the EU about an iScotlands place in the EU and the EU officially responded with no way would iScotland be in, then I would reconsider my vote.

Until WM asks, there will be equal amounts if experts saying one thing or the other, which is not particularly fair on the Scots as it just adds one more gamble they have to make.

So which is it?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine I'm getting the increasing impression that (a) Salmond only ever wanted DevoMax and more money via tax for his pet projects (b) the independence campaign is using people like you and hates people like me and (c) some old dinosaur class warfare campaigners who rarely see the light of day elsewhere now are having a riotous last fling leading up to the referendum. Oh, and (d) every country has its element of thuggery who will leap onto any suitable cause!

I won't pretend to know about the economic/political matters on this issue I'm just a normal bod, but if Scotland wants independence from the UK why doesn't AS or someone else have the answers to these questions. They want independence shouldn't they at least have some idea what they propose will happen in the event of a yes vote!
It's actually ridiculous and I find it hard to believe anyone would vote yes with this total uncertainty over crucial issues.
AS seems to want a lot from the UK which is a bit rich considering he can't wait to get out if it.

I have slightly changed my position between my two statements ;-) lessmissabs posted that there was no legal way that WM could answer any Of the questions. Given that she is a lawyer I accept that this may be the case.

As a side affect this uncertainty does benefit the unionists, but I accept that it may not be an evil ploy.

And it is unfair (if unavoidable) on Scots of all political persuasions that they can't know what they are voting for.

Cheers ItsAll.

Sorry for not being consistent :-) I learn loads from these threads, and because I keep learning I keep modifying what I think. You never know, I might even end up a No voter aye, right

When's the vote for English independence ? Did I miss it ? I love Scotland so please don't go.

Does not of it make you doubt your decision? I genuinely don't understand how you can look at the figures and say that it'll all work out.

Does not of it make you doubt your decision? I genuinely don't understand how you can look at the figures and say that it'll all work out

Of course! Especially with big things like when WM say no currency union. At the moment though I still think it will be pretty much even stevens. I don't think a Yes means that we will suddenly become some sort of socialist utopia, and I don't think it means we'll suddenly become a third world country.

So I'm still a Yes, on the basis things will be pretty much the same initially, with the potential to get much better a socialist utopia with a government that Scots actually voted for.

Disclaimer: I may change my position at any point in the future.

To be fair, it was perfectly open to Alex Salmond to set up a foundation, or institute a prize, for student lawyers to research the EU and currency issues. The answer may only have been a matter of opinion (nothing is certain before it goes before the courts) but there was nothing stopping him from doing so.

The EU and its courts, the ECJ and EC1stI, are not set up to answer random questions from constituent parts of member states.

The ECJ doesn't operate a system of judicial precedent, so even if there were any relevant previous decisions exactly in point (there aren't), it would still come down to a matter of applying Treaty principles and Van Gend en Loos, which is now so eminent it appears to have direct effect.

However what Alex Salmond should have taken advice on was getting the terminology in the White Paper correct (it uses ECJ where it should refer to the EC Commission and refers to the ECJ "supporting" Scottish independence, which is entirely inappropriate).

The answer may only have been a matter of opinion (nothing is certain before it goes before the courts) but there was nothing stopping him from doing so

Agreed. It is all opinion on both sides which isn't much help to us poor sods who have to make the decision.

However what Alex Salmond should have taken advice on was getting the terminology in the White Paper correct (it uses ECJ where it should refer to the EC Commission and refers to the ECJ "supporting" Scottish independence, which is entirely inappropriate)

Also agreed. I noticed a few wee typos that jarred. It gave the impression that it had been a bit rushed in the final stages. It should have been properly checked for errors before going to press. However, unlike you , I think that in the main it contains sensible arguments and an achievable vision for the future.