Osbourne says no to currency union.

(For clarity, take it as read that I have zero interest in trolls)

Talking of distancing oneself, time to ditch the DO?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/06/scottish-pro-independence-group-yes-vote-alex-salmond

Out of interest, what is dear nicola up to? She seems quiet these days or is that just biased media coverage for the sassenachs?

Scotland have no more or less MEP’s after independence than it does before. Given this its influence has not changed in that chamber- perhaps you wish to claim UKIP speak for them

The point is not the influence in EU. It is comparing the influence over the ultimate lawmaker before and after independence. Unlike the current position where Scotland has influence in the UK to affect how EU legislation is absorbed into law, which includes various opt outs and vetos, the draft constitution effectively says EU law goes straight into effect and Scotland will have negligible influence there.

Nice obvious statistical trick there irelanst or does Scotland really have an elctorate of 33,330,000

Scotland have no more or less MEP’s after independence than it does before

Actually, thats another unsettled issue, given that the the size of the EP is capped at 751 members…

We’re back to the parliamentary evidence from Dr Khushal Murkens on page five of the thread here – still not tackled by the YS believers.

Doesn’t seem that unsettled- the minimum number under the Lisbon Treaty is 6, which Scotland has already. So unless there’s a further change in treaty, we’ll have at least the same representation.

The actual representation’s a matter for the accession treaties but Croatia’s a good example of a recent joiner and received 12 seats (reducing to 11) despite being a fair bit smaller than Scotland. This took the parliament a little over its cap but changes in representation were made across other existing members to make room. No country Scotland’s size currently has less than 13 seats.

So while yes we can’t predict with certainty how many seats we’d receive, we can be certain that it won’t be less, and in all likelihood it’ll be more.

Barring changes of treaty of course but that takes time and afaik there’s no changes in progress so it’s very unlikely we’d enter under anything but the current Lisbon rules.

does Scotland really have an elctorate of 33,330,000

The UK had ~30million voters in the last election, hence “total number of voters”

Northwind:

Doesn’t seem that unsettled

Immediately followed by:

we can’t predict with certainty how many seats we’d receive, we can be certain that it won’t be less, and in all likelihood it’ll be more.

So, which is it? is it settled, or not?

Perhaps you need to reread the “no more or less” bit and reflect on your position?

take it as read that I have zero interest in trolls

I have zero interest in being called a troll and no one lese on this thread has said this to me
A number have said the same objections to you that i do.
Its also hard to tell if you are are ignoring me as you are happy to reply to me /mention what I said/ insult me whilst pointing out you are ignoring me [ as in the quote above] whilst calling me a troll.
FWIW trolling is against the rules you have reported me for this I assume ? What did they say I have heard nothing FWIW which is what u suspect you heard back in reply.

@ old bloke
thanks I get your point now. Ignoring the fact it depends on what iS negotiate as well for their membership – we dont know so lets not second guess and just run with your point and assume they have no opt outs. In this case it is a trade off between influence at the EU top table and opt outs. You could argue it either way which is the least [ or most] influence. I am not sure which I think is tbh .I do get the point you are making. It is not unreasonable and it is not without merit.

EDIT: That said I now have bandwith and the full quote is this

Section 24 maintains the position of European Union law in an independent Scotland. It provides that directly effective EU law forms part of Scots law which, in turn, must not be inconsistent with EU law. This is the same as the position of Scotland at present as part of the UK and as part of the EU, and reflects the effect of the European Communities Act 1972. This section ensures that when Scotland, for Independence Day, changes its status within the EU from being part of a Member State to being a distinct Member State, the effect of EU law and all the rights, powers and obligations flowing from the EU Treaties will seamlessly carry on from Scotland as part of the UK to Scotland as a Member State of the EU.

It does not seem to be saying what you claim it is saying. Furthermore you could argue it either ways to whether they maintain the opt outs as they are just syaing look we comply with the EU now and we will when we join.
I think you have been selective with your quote and i think it was poor to stop your quote at the point you did.
irelanst you present a sophist argument

the fact remains that if Scotland was independent it would not have a Tory govt. Everytime that Westminster is not labour it is England giving Scotland their govt. Nothing you have said counters the point that is the most serious ceeding of power any country can give away.
If you wish to address that point i may actually reply :P.

It does not seem to be saying what you claim it is saying. Furthermore you could argue it either ways to whether they maintain the opt outs as they are just syaing look we comply with the EU now and we will when we join.
I think you have been selective with your quote and i think it was poor to stop your quote at the point you did.

I didn’t stop a quote – the rest of what you list there isn’t in the draft I got from the ScotGovt website as it is draft legislation only, not an explanation as you seem to have, and I hope the link I gave earlier works. I think the wording you quote is flawed in the sense that it asserts there’s going to be no change in status. That suggests current UK opt outs and vetos can be retained. That may be the ScotGovt view but it is far from certain as none of the newer members have any.

I’m not sure what influence at the top table is worth. I may have missed it but I haven’t seen what ScotGovt would propose as being different about Europe with its influence. That ought to be articulated so we can consider if it is worth the change.

I got it by Googgling your quote and it is the top hit [ well from the Scottish givt naturally googles powerful algorithm gives me this thread

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/06/8135/4

That may be the ScotGovt view but it is far from certain as none of the newer members have any.

Dont disagree but it is a new situation and predicting what the EU will do is a far from exact science 😉 they could do anything and nothign would surprise me.

I’m not sure what influence at the top table is worth.

Neither am I but it will be better than not having it seeing as all members demand and get it.

I may have missed it but I haven’t seen what ScotGovt would propose as being different about Europe with its influence. That ought to be articulated so we can consider if it is worth the change.

Again I think that is the more powerful critique as it is a strange mix of lets be independent but nothing will actually change. It makes little sense even for aspirational political gibberish. We will got it alone but keep all the ties/link and not change anything really ah go will you no give it a wee go.

ninfan – Member

So, which is it? is it settled, or not?

It is, as I say, not that unsettled. We’ll certainly have no less; we can expect to have more. The question is exactly how many more. Precedent suggests roughly twice as many. So they key questions are settled- the exact detail is to be confirmed. Unless you think it’s a dealbreaker whether we have 11 MEPs or 13.

You know Junkyard, you’re sounding remarkably like THM in that last para. Might we have consensus?

Wisdom comes to all in the end OB, the only difference is the time it takes! A bit to go yet though…..

Unless you think it’s a dealbreaker whether we have 11 MEPs or 13

Dealbraker for me, or dealbreaker for one of the other 27 EU nations that might have to lose a seat to give extra to Scotland, but you have to rely on to vote in favour of your EU membership

And now we’re back to Alex’s crack negotiation team that walks away with everything it wants…

Currency union is still not happening, there is still no plan B and the polls are still saying a no vote will win. Do any nats feel like they have lost already?

ninfan – Member

And now we’re back to Alex’s crack negotiation team that walks away with everything it wants…

Pretty weak effort Ninfan- by treaty and by precedent I’ve shown this is exactly how it works, instead of just making vague allusions with no foundation why not give one reason why it would suddenly be different for Scotland? Presumably you’ve got evidence of the long list of countries that didn’t want Croatia in because they’d lose a vote?

There’s an element of negotiation in the exact numbers but the principles are all set out clearly in treaty, and the precedent is clear and uncontroversial.

You know Junkyard, you’re sounding remarkably like THM in that last para. Might we have consensus?

Well I have agreed with that part of his assessment directly about 40 ish pages ago [ its the only tome he did not cry troll iirc] when we were asked if anyone had changed their minds. IIRC he said the same thing then and it is still bloody funny.

FWIW there is no shame in learning something in 200 pages of discussing and i have no idea why , on stw only, altering a view, if only slightly is seen as a weakness.

One last pointless plead THM decide if you wish to ignore me or engage rather than ignore me via simply shitty sniping

Why do I still need my saltire shin pads if you dont respond to me trolls 😕

Would that be the same Croatia that applied for EU membership in 2003, entered negotiations in 2004, finished accession negotiations in June 2011, signed the paperwork in December 2011, and finally completed accession in July 2013

You see, thats the problem, you have to stick that in your proposed 18 month timeframe and smoke it…

Clearly scotland has some advantages
1. it complies with all EU riules so it does not need time to harmonise.
2. Its citizens [ if not it lets not do that again eh] is in the EU

This might just make it a wee bit easier or at least make it considerably different from your example. Everyone knows this

Furthermore the EU does what the EU wants from cancelling referendum not going its way making a constitution not a constitution and makign sure everyone passed the EU tests

no one can fudge liek the EU and pn that point surely we all agree.

PS I seem to recall someone wise said we should say nothing as the EU has sat on a massive fence pre the vote 😉

Thats my point irelanst you are comparing the difference in size of the labour vote in Scotland only versus the combined tory/Liberal vote in Scotland only with the size of the uk electorate

Yep, nothing strengthens an argument quite like a clumsy change of subject 😆

Comparing Croatia’s accession process to Scotland’s likely one is just absurd, when Croatia entered the process it was in the full knowledge that they were nowhere close to qualifying as a member. No wonder, coming off the back of a bloody war of independence- the accession process was also delayed by war crimes investigations. So that’s a really strong argument you have there.

Still took over two years from end of negotiations to accession… 18months from signing to accession

Scotland’s got to get the whole thing done inside that timeframe, there is absolutely no precedent for any country going through the process in the timescale proposed, even IF everything in the negotiations went Scotlands way.

The fastest ever EU accession was that of Finland, which waited just two years and nine months to
move from its application for membership, to formal agreement, to ratification, to formal
accession.

no one can fudge liek the EU

Quite. I suspect they will. How long it takes and who wins the battle of give and take to get all the governments to agree is the challenge.

EU would need to know what iScotland would look like to agree the terms of joining. Full terms of separation from UK won’t be possible in 18 months, let alone clarity on the economic status of iScotland which would be needed to cover small details like contributions.

Interim measures – almost certainly. Final accession – years away and on uncertain terms.

there is absolutely no precedent for any country going through the process in the timescale proposed

FTFY

It is still not the same as an external new member for reasons that dont need explaining , even to you 😉
FWIW I would have imagined that the nearest we can get is East and west Germany reunification

Remind us what happened then

http://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol2/No1/art1.pdf

nice article on the fudge they employed with that scenario

@ OB if the EU has the will it will find a way it always does

Whether this is right, fair , within their rules, correct etc they care little as they find a way.*

It is clearly faster with a current [ lets not do that again] member as clearly it meets all the legal etc requiremnts so it has to be quicker than a new entrant.

* my guess is some weird fudge based on citizenship of scottish nationals to the EU type argument as they have no way of stripping this from us when we do not want to leave.

They can’t have the pound.

They can’t have the Euro.

They need a new familiar sounding currency.

They could call it the Giro.

I don’t doubt you’re right JY on the people and politics fudge, but on the quite important issues of the level of Scottish contributions and the proportion of the EU budget it receives, it is likely to take time to post results and agree what that implies.

Otherwise, the conversation might be:
EU: So, you want to join. We see from your referendum publications that you think Scotland’s one of the wealthiest nations and you’re going to improve poverty and social equality. That’s nice.
iS: Yup, all good.
EU: Great. As you’re so rich, and in fact richer than the UK was, you’ll be able to pay more than your proportional UK share. And as you’ve less social need, you’ll not be wanting as much back. Welcome in.
iS: Eh? That’s not what we meant.
EU: Well, what did you mean? Either you’re rich or you’re not. Either you have social need or you don’t. Make up your mind.
iS: Can we think about it?

Full Scotland Scoreboard
Party Seats Gain Loss Net Votes % +/-%
Labour 41 0 0 0 1,035,528 42.0 +2.5
Liberal Democrat 11 0 0 0 465,471 18.9 -3.7
Scottish National Party 6 0 0 0 491,386 19.9 +2.3
Conservative 1 0 0 0 412,855 16.7 +0.9
UK Independence Party 0 0 0 0 17,223 0.7 +0.3
Green 0 0 0 0 16,827 0.7 -0.3
British National Party 0 0 0 0 8,910 0.4 +0.3
Trade Unionist and Socia0 0 0 0 3,530 0.1
Scottish Socialist Party0 0 0 0 3,157 0.1 -1.7
Christian Party 0 0 0 0 835 0.0
Others 0 0 0 0 10,000 0.4 -0.6
Turnout 2,465,722 63.8 +3.0

After 59 of 59 seats declared.

Election 2010
Results
Parties and issues

Find your result
Constituency List
Irelanst Stats from 2010 general election for Scotland seems the bbc think Labour polled 157202 votes more than tory and liberal combined. Incidentally thats 6.4% of the scottish vote

Adam Smith Institute says independent Scotland should keep the pound without rUK’s permission[/url].

Ben, as AS is so keen on referring to the Fiscal Commission, let’s see what they had to say about that idea. Here’s a bit from the Technical Annex you can get from this link. Rejected in one paragraph.

International evidence suggests that informal monetary unions tend to be adopted by
transition economies or small territories with a special relationship with a larger trading
partner (e.g. between the UK and Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man). Advanced
economies of a significant scale tend not to operate in such a monetary framework. Though
an option in the short-term, it is not likely to be a long-term solution. The focus of the
discussion below is therefore set within the context of a formal monetary union.

This ‘sterlingization’ would emulate a number of Latin American countries that use the US Dollar without an official agreement with the US government.

So Scotland is going to leave a union with one of the largest economies in the world and base it’s new economy on that of a banana republic? 😕

Because Scottish banks would not have access to a currency-printing lender of last resort, they would have to make their own provisions for illiquidity, and would necessarily act more prudently.

Oh yes we all trust the bankers to do the right thing don’t we .
🙄

One of the worst cases of blind nationalism I have ever seen.

Worth remembering that Scotland has some history with Panama 😉

One of the worst cases of blind nationalism I have ever seen

You have no idea who the Adam Smith Institute are, do you?

Dr Madsen Pirie is President of the Adam Smith Institute, and was one of three Scots graduates working in the US who founded the Institute in 1977.

Based in London but run by Scots. Not saying Scots should not write just that they might be slightly biased. 😉

I have heard of them and I doubt many other people have. Minor articles offering support such as this are not evidence a currency union is going to happen. The fact remains a currency union is not in the interest of the rUK.

Troll, I would simply ask you listen to your own advice earlier,,,,

Junkyard – lazarus 
…..you are bringing nothing to the table Please learn from this and actually say something worth saying or shh and let the grown ups discuss. Again do not mistake this statement as an attempt to get a reply from you and/or interest in your opinion.
POSTED 7 HOURS AGO #

Couldn’t have phrased it better

Have we really got to the level of desperation that the Panama option is being seriously discussed?!? How sad….,

Nice use of cut and paste [and no context] lets see the full quote shall we as I was not being as rude as you wished to suggest.

chewk everyone is saying you are bringing nothing to the table Please learn from this and actually say something worth saying or shh and let the grown ups discuss.

Again do not mistake this statement as an attempt to get a reply from you and/or interest in your opinion.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/conservative-friends-of-israel/page/6#post-6217819
It also got an agreement next post, unlike any of yours to me.

I have yet to see anyone agree with your troll claim on this thread but i have read them repeat my objections.

PFFFT evidence eh

Couldn’t have phrased it better

Dont put yourself down I am sure if you put the effort in you would manage to insult me if you really tried 😉

Junkyard – lazarus

Nice use of cut and paste [and no context] lets see the full quote shall we as I was not being as rude as you wished to suggest.

Oi Junkyard … why are you dragging me into this thread?

What did I say? Where? 😯

Are you trying to show off the quote you used on me on other thread? Are you getting inflated?

Please don’t let your inflated ego take over or I will knock it down few notches. 😈

Are you inviting me to play?

Nope. I don’t agree with you. 😆

Meanwhile…..

teamhurtmore – Member

Meanwhile…..

Ya, not sure why I have been dragged into this thread as I want to read what’s going on to see if there is any debate between Salmond vs Darling last night …

Jessuss … 😯

Junkyard have you turned into a troll now?

I think that explains why we said that on the other thread

are you both stalking me [ there is no jokey paranoid emoticon]

According to THM but no one else has agreed.

Junkyard – lazarus

I think that explains why we said that on the other thread

are you both stalking me [ there is no jokey paranoid emoticon]

Why are you dragging me onto this thread?

Leave the comment on other thread there rather then cross posting …

I have not mentioned anything so far unless you are inviting me to play? Yes?

😈