Indyref Part 4

[SantanaLopez]

Evening all :)

Sorry, ignore "before the EU". Typo.

But there's nothing to disagree on... the EU simply isn't set up to field such an enquiry.

Again, it seems to me, that Alec says "It will be ok, no problem, don't worry about it, they will do as we want". And all the YES believers fall into line.
Sorry I don't believe its that easy.

I for one wouldn't hesitate to challenge before the EU any decisions which deprived me of accrued rights as an EU citizen

You would still be an EU citizen though - unless the position on citizenship shifts, as I understand it there is no intention to strip British citizenship from Scots should we vote for independence. Therefore we'd still be British citizens, and we'd still be EU citizens as a result. But our country would not automatically be a member state.

And just to clarify, my point was meant to say it is unreasonable to expect a country in this position (UK) to pre-negotiate anything publicly ahead of the vote. They'll wait to see what happens on 19 September.

And by 19 September I mean when the votes will be counted by. It's late & I'm tired.

I for one wouldn't hesitate to challenge before the EU any decisions which deprived me of accrued rights as an EU citizen

I wish Yes campaigners would stop doing this.

The EU is not expelling Scotland/ depriving Scots of anything.

If you vote yes, you are the ones choosing to become a brand new country and leave the UK behind. This means leaving behind all of the institutions of the UK and the benefits of being a citizen of the UK.

These arguments about the pound and the EU may be very interesting to us, but are rather pointless in the grand scheme of things, since the vast majority of voters are not looking at the issues that closely.
They are being persuaded to vote on simple idealism, and will only find out what they have actually chosen long after the event.

I don't believe that even Salmond is much bothered about such issues. His mission is to go down in history as the man who won independence for Scotland, and he'll be very happy to achieve that as an end in itself.

Oldlady - I think it would be political suicide for WM to award contracts to iScotland instead of it's own people (ruk). In the same way it would not be tolerated by the Scots if iScotland awarded contracts to the ruk to the disadvantage of their own countrypeople. There's a lot of hardship south of the border, you know.
I believe that a Yes result will be very damaging to future rank and file relationships between Scotland and ruk. At the moment ruk have been kept very resolutely out of the debate but this will change once they can claim a legitimate interest in the settlements.

I wish Yes campaigners would stop doing this.

But they won't, Santana. They just can't understand it.

They are being persuaded to vote on simple idealism, and will only find out what they have actually chosen long after the event.

I think this is only semi true. There are some voters who would always vote yes - who fundamentally believe Scotland should be separate and that's that. But there are also a lot who believe in the White Paper and the vision Salmond has set out. Earlier tonight I saw someone on Facebook outlining their "reasons they were voting yes" and amongst them was "we WILL be in a currency union because it doesn't make sense for rUK to say no." There were several other examples too that suggested that had believed the SNP stances and hadn't really looked further. It wasn't "I hope" or "I think" it was "this is a fact" which was really worrying.

They are being persuaded to vote on simple idealism, and will only find out what they have actually chosen long after the event.

I worry about this. So many people think it's okay to walk away from the debt, that of course we'll simultaneously be in Schengen and the CTA, and so on. I read an article a few weeks ago about a family with young kids who were certain they'd be better off.

There's a lot of yes campaigners who recognise that it will take as long as 25 years (yes, a yes campaigner told me this!) and have decided that's fine, independence is worth it for them. But there's also a lot of people voting yes who have been deceived. What's going to happen to them?

PlasticPinkFlamingo, interesting post. Thanks.

What Westminster/Better Together say now and what they say between 19/9/14 and 26/3/16, factoring in the May 2015 general election, in the event of a yes vote will not be the same thing.

I'm saying you'll get 36%. One of us cannot be wrong.

Team Scotland-Yes, I agree. They will have to appease millions of voters in ruk while at the same time successfully negotiate a good deal for both iscotland and ruk.

I'd expect that if the result were a Yes there would be a fairly rapid and clear separation of the Scottish parties from their Westminster counterparts, and the 2015 election would at least partially be fought by the UK parties on the deal that would be thrashed out for rUK. The timing makes it particularly unpleasant for us I think - a potential change of power half way through negotiations and a general election which would give people on the rest of the UK a way to express their opinion. I'd be very surprised if we were given an easy ride as a result.

Davros, my response to your article is that it is well out of date, Barroso is, or soon will be, out of offfice, and Junker is fine with our democratic decision-making.

Feelingmellow, hugely unpopular policies such as the bedroom tax, the illegal war in Iraq etc have not been "political suicide", I don't see why giving the odd contract (on sound business grounds) to an iScotland would be. A one-day stushie, gone with tomorrow's chips, and no more.

I mentioned this afternoon that I don't understand why threatening to be horrible to us (ruin our economy, construct unnecessary boundaries, obstruct EU membership etc) should we say Yes, would be more likely to make Scots want to stay in the union, and likened it to an abusive relationship. No responses to that?

No one is being horrible to Scotland at the moment. But you have to ask yourself why would rUK political parties looking to their remaining electorate want to do iScotland any favours?

In the interests of having good neighbours/trading partners? I'm not saying we'd expect "favours", but the threats that are being issued simply confirm that I really don't want to continue to be ruled by "people like that".

I mean WM, btw, I know some English folk are of the "Off you fuck, then" feeling (have a couple of friends who feel that way, and I understand why), I know some will be genuinely sad, I suspect the vast majority don't much care atm.

But as a campaign initiative to persuade us to say No, I'm not seeing the value.

Come on, Scots Nats, tell me how you'd make this better. I'd really, really like to know. My mind is not closed, and the referendum is less than a fortnight away.

Florascotia - just re your query above a couple of pages back : the referendum isn't about voting for the Scot Nats or their policies down the line. I'm not an SNP supporter but I'll be voting yes. I'm voting this way because I believe that in an independent Scotland, we will have a much better chance to influence policies and decisions. Independent government first, then you can vote for the party and policies you think are best for your family and community. There is no way we can ever have the input into Westminster decision-making that we could have in an independent Scotland. I see that you live in a remote/rural area of Scotland. I live in the Highlands and I am convinced that independence is our best option as we will have a much better opportunity then to explain our needs and push for what we need.

Old lady WM isn't issuing any threats, they are merely responding to Salmonds statements and assertions about what he believes will happen if the vote goes his way. Disagreeing with the opposition is not the same as issuing threats.

Countries act in their own perceived interests, and compete with other countries. For example last year Salmond pledged to undercut the rUK's rate of corporation tax in order to encourage companies to relocate to iScotland.
It isn't "threatening to be horrible" to point out that rUK will act in its own interests after Scottish independence, and that in some cases rUK's interests will be in conflict with iScotlands.

There have been countless threats and instances of scaremongering from the No campaign and from Westminster. In the event of a Yes vote, however, pragmatism will set in. The fact is that Scotland is a key market for rUK, it would be advantageous for rUK for Scotland to take a share of UK debts in return for an advantageous currency arrangement, and it will be sensible generally for rUK to come to mutually beneficial arrangements with us. Did you see Robert Peston's report on the implications of a Yes vote on rUK this evening? IMO it will be far more of an even-handed negotiation than we are being led to believe. Otherwise rUK may be cutting of its nose to spite its face.

As for the EU, pragmatism will come into play there too IMO. Note that some of the strongest views have come from Spain who have their own pressures for independence within their borders and don't want to see an independent Scotland encouraging the Catalonians. The EU has an interest in not reducing its area and interests too in keeping an oil producing country with large renewables potential, considerable fishing resources and many other assets within the fold. Personally, I'm not sold on us staying in the EU, or at least not as full members, as I have seen Switzerland making the most of its bilateral agreements with the EU while retaining far more sovereignty that a full EU member has. But either way, I'm not going to be frightened off voting for independence by people with a vested interest in discouraging self-determination within the EU.

I acknowledge your points, feeling and fester, but still don't understand how any of this is an argument to make us vote No. There's a difference between doing the best you can for your own country (rUK, and totally understand those points) and deliberately making things difficult for your next-door neighbours. (Why would rUK block EU membership for us? How does that benefit their citizens?)

Why would/should we choose to remain governed by people who are willing to fuck us up as much as possible if we say Yes?