AntelopeValley @AchatAVendre I see your length of time for Scotland to enter the EU takes into account all the pre-discussions.
Its not "my length of time". Its a minimum time period of how long it takes. Although I suspect an independent Scotland would be there 20 years later still talking about obstacles to EU membership being overcome, and 30 years later, trying to join EFTA.
Those can happen while the process is negotiated for Scotland to leave England. That itself will take at least a few years.
I think someone better tell the EU this is going to happen, don't you?
I was actually listening to a debate yesterday about the legislature issue in Scotland. There appears to be a major lobby to sort that issue out even if Scotland remains within the UK. It was an interesting discussion.
I've read this several times and am still unsure what point is being made. A "major lobby", eh? That'll sort it then. The EU and countries such as Germany and Spain are well known for giving in to "major lobbies" which entail them donating large amounts of their tax revenue to 3rd party countries on the periphery of Europe, just because a few of them have holidayed there.
I am well aware of what being in the EU means. The UK used to be in it you know and my work dealt with the issue of competition with Europe. Membership of the EU brings major economic benefits and the UK is suffering now we are not members. I am also aware of the issues with certain countries joining the EU and why those countries who have applied to join are unlikely to ever be approved.
Thats strange, because I could lay a bet on the SNP - led Scottish Government being anti-EU competition law, because they keep passing legislation which contravenes it. Much of the licensing regime is in breach of Article 101 or 102 because it creates niche markets for favoured contractors. And of course many of the actual rules vary from local authority to local authority which doesn't even meet a basic rule of law test. The Scottish Government was criticised along with passing unclear legislation which required court action to interpret it by the Supreme Court recently (and that small form of oversight will be lost on independence).
I would expect to see the Scottish Government planning to get its own house into order before "lobbying" a few receptive MEPs, don't you?
Overall, I don't think people realise just how poor the democratic system in Scotland is now. The UK has an antiquated non-single document Constitution, which is unusual enough, but much of the oversight has been lost with devolution. Judicial review is far more restricted in Scotland than in England While a Scottish version of the Human Rights Act Section 6(2) can be found at Section 57(2) of the Scotland Act, this does not extend the public interest defence available to public authorities in Scotland which allows any ECHR incompatible measures to be struck down by the courts. This creates an issue of lack of accountability of the Scottish government for its decisions.
The chances of the EU accepting the only country with a unicameral legislature and no proper written modern constitution are slim to zero, so much so that again, you would think that the SNP would have addressed it in the many years they have had to do so. They haven't, because the present system allows them to do exactly what the UK Government do in the UK as a whole, in giving favours to certain friends and companies, etc..
I find it extremely depressing that the only arguments against a yes vote are scaremongering. No one is able to argue that Scotland will be better off staying in the UK. I think it is clearly because there are no benefits. It is all scaremongering of what if.
Without being rude, this is an almost lot more important to a lot of people's lives than whether you find it personally depressing that people don't share the same political views as yourself. According to your definition, any form of criticism is "scaremongering" and the fact that I have gone to some extent to explain the legalities and been accused of "scaremongering" is just bloody rude, never mind a weak argument. What you are actually trying to do is dupe the public, which is a hell of a lot more than depressing and really quite morally bankrupt.
As for scaremongering, here is the Scottish Government's response when they were consulted on the EU extension of Freedom of Information rights (which emanate from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, not the ECHR):
"“[...] more EU competence or action is viewed as unnecessary in order to enable citizens to access official environmental information within Scotland . . . While there may be some benefits, harmonising rules across the EU on rights to access environmental information has created confusion among staff in public bodies and members of the public... Harmonisation does not add to the information rights people already have in Scotland and almost all EIR requests come from people located in Scotland so there is no benefit in making it easier for people to make requests in various countries as there seems to be little demand for this . . . We believe Scottish legislation is more appropriate as Scotland already has very robust freedom of information legislation under FOISA which covers all information, including environmental information, and is designed specifically for Scottish circumstances.”
Disclaimer: Some of what I've written above has been published in real life, so don't go copying it as it will come up on a plagarism checker!