Indyref Part 4

[SantanaLopez]

Evening all :)

Oh lord, just seen Facebook re the debate. Yes side thought they were brilliant, No side thought they were brilliant. Both criticise the other. Insults get exchanged. Someone swears.

It may get heated on here occasionally but I think we do pretty well.

FWIW I feel Scottish and TBH I identify more as European than British. I struggle to identify anything that I'd lose by having England as a peer country in the EU rather than as a larger partner. I have loads of English pals and relatives but I don't relate any differently to them than I do to my eg Belgian/Danish pals....

I think there would be a difference between South Korea and an independent Scotland though.

Scotland would just be too close to home. It's only a hour away if you fly, probably a bit less. There's huge political baggage.

Whereas Korea... it's far away. Yeah, there would be an outcry, but it's a safe distance away, if you know what I mean.

"Olli Rehn, European Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, said keeping the pound without consent from Westminster "would simply not be possible" because EU membership requires countries to have access to an independent central bank."

One of the more recent members has no central bank. I think it's Montegro. They just don't participate in the ECB meetings.

the BT facebookers were very busy - they had the Salmond delivering a pizza post out within minutes! It's always the way on FB...each side thinks they were triumphant.

Again, I'm not arguing that any orders 'should' or 'will' go to the Clyde. Just pointing out, Sallying, that this it not a matter of fact.

"There is just no way that could happen again if Scotland becomes a foreign country. When the UK government orders new ships from BAE, it can specify where they will be built, and it will."

It is not, ultimately, the public who will decide who is awarded defence contracts. There may be a bit of consternation, but if it is economically and strategically expedient to build them on the Clyde, then that's where they might be built. The government may like to specify to BAE systems where they want the orders to go, but there's a process of negotiation there, and the alternative, as I've mentioned, is for the order to go to a 'foreign' company elsewhere. If the government reinvests in Portsmouth then that's all well and good for people in Portsmouth. I'm not arguing against that. Just pointing out that all of this remains to be seen, and guessed at.

Would be nice if the EU could be as forthright on membership and terms generally. Only the UK government has the right to ask, and it has declined to do so. People can draw their own conclusions. I think it's very unfair of UK govt.

Montenegro isn't a member yet. It's on the list of those next to join.

The UK cannot "just ask". The EU doesn't work like this.

There's definitely someone with no central bank....

I honestly don't get why people don't understand why the UK wouldn't ask about this ahead of time. The UK is hoping that they will never have to go through the negotiations on Scottish independence.

Why would they seek to make the separatists' job easier?

Wider defence related questions while we are on the subject.
Who will control the defence of iScotland airspace?
How will the two air forces interact on a daily basis - as they will have to?
With two frigates, its highly likely that one (or more) will be in dock / overhaul - what happens then?
MI5 - and internal security againt terrorism. What provisions are in place?
What resources / information will they share with rUK agencies ?

Picking up on grovel's earlier point
Flora raises a good point. I couldn't work out what has been troubling me beyond Yes against No (and Edinburgh against Westminster). After following a couple of forums I now sense that the Yes campaign has (cleverly) tapped into the grievances of a whole range of disparate groups against the Union. There is no coherent vision for iScotland. There are lots of different visions. If there is a Yes vote, I'll wager that "Yes" against "Yes" will be the ugliest struggle.

Possibly relevant article about the 1995 Quebec referendum and the different views on what a yes vote would mean. The question voted on back then was a lot less clear though.

www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/08/29/yes_vote_in_1995_quebec_referendum_could_have_meant_sovereigntist_chaos_hbert.html

I really don't know davros but it is fascinating as someone else said how little discussion I've seen on defence, and what I have seen has mainly concentrated on Trident and shipbuilding.

I'm not sure that public outrage about gvt contracts being given to "Scotland" would make a blind bit of difference. A million people marched in London against the Iraq war, it still happened. The bedroom tax is massively unpopular, it's still in place. There's the new Jarrow March to save the English NHS, is that achieving policy changes in WM?

It is not, ultimately, the public who will decide who is awarded defence contracts. There may be a bit of consternation, but if it is economically and strategically expedient to build them on the Clyde, then that's where they might be built.

Have it your own way Criseyde, but I had to laugh at your "bit of consternation". I know how much anger there was around Portsmouth last time, and that was for a UK based contract. We'll see...

It is so depressing. Friends I've known for years get into fb arguments about the referendum. My mum has been asked whether she will have a vote, and asked to explain why she deserves one by neighbours she has lived near for the last 29 years (she is English but has lived in Scotland for 29 years). People go on about how great it is that everyone is so politically engaged but all I see is conflict. And I hate conflict.

Santana, it is absolutely is how the EU works.
But the key point is - yes, it would make the "separatists' " job easier.... Because the answer would be favourable. They'd rather leave it muddy.

PlasticPink, you think the EU answer would make the job of separatists easier? So do I. No worries at all about EU membership.

Washngo - you could live round here, where Nobody mentions it At All.

Santana, it is absolutely is how the EU works.

No it's not.

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.

Exactly oldlady.
I for one wouldn't hesitate to challenge before the EU any decisions which deprived me of accrued rights as an EU citizen - and that means not just membership, but membership as I currently enjoy it, purely for exercising my human right of self determination. Straßburg and Luxembourg courts.

But you can't negotiate membership timings and membership terms ahead of time. All you could hope to get is an indicative response about potential timetables and even then might change depending on the political considerations at the time.

I do think iScotland would be treated differently that other accession states given it's already compliant with most EU regulations. It would still have some significant hurdles to climb, much of which would only become clear as the negotiations between rUK and iScotland progressed and which could be influenced by domestic politics in other EU countries at the time.

Montenegro isn't a member yet. It's on the list of those next to join.

And it's already using the Euro!

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on it, Santana.

They'd rather leave it muddy

No, it just is muddy. They can't negotiate an exit, or an entrance, with a country which from the perspective of the EU doesn't really exist at this point in time i.e. Scotland right now couldn't be a member state because it is not a separate country of its own. The answer is by no means guaranteed to be favourable because there are considerable complexities, uncertainties about issue which are very significant to the EU (like currency union), oh and the small matter of the other member states who all get a say.

Salmond's "we'll be in on our terms guaranteed" approach to the EU is laughably simplistic.

OldLady
what is your response to this then ?
metro.co.uk/2014/02/16/jose-manuel-barroso-questions-alex-salmonds-european-union-plans-4306523/

"it would be ‘extremely difficult, if not impossible’ for an independent Scotland to get the necessary approval from member states for it to join the European Union, Jose Manuel Barroso believes."