Forum menu
I know, but as the debate has moved back from the trivial to the meaty issues, it is worth a reminder.
Does anyone need the second debate? Last night achieved little (other than pricking the obvious bubble), AS has no answers to the central questions and nothing will change there, why waste any more time and money? The whole thing is a vanity project, it doesn't need an expensive trim.
Given Salmonds performance against Darling, I reckon they should roll out Blair 😀
(whispers, or even Gordon... shudder)
It is indeed and I admire your patience and persistence. Just, don't hold you breath for an answer!
It was actually 16.7 % and No in an democracy the losers do not get the govt they wanted.
HTH
No, it was ~10% of the POPULATION – I was quite considered about that. What’s the proportion of the UK population based in Scotland, ~10% again.
So your standpoint seems to be that if 10% of one population don’t get what they want then the Westminster brand of democracy is failing them, but if 10% of another population don’t get what they want it’s democracy in action.
Oldbloke Which draft Scottish Constitution are you quoting ? There are two at least on the net.
Jambalaya Can you quote from or link to documents or media clips from the SNP which feature anti english language? As for being anti elitist ...if that means wanting a fairer society i am all for it.
Gordimhor - I'm looking at the document from the Scottish Government website entitled "THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE BILL: A CONSULTATION ON AN INTERIM CONSTITUTION FOR SCOTLAND".
[url=www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00452762.pdf]this one[/url]
you had the government you voted for for 10 years with Scots
I am still not in Scotland
Oh 10 years well that should be enough then to be democratic 😕
We don't always individually get the government we vote
Scotlands price for union is to get the govt they do not vote for for roughly 50% of the time. Its a high price and i doubt the english would pay it hence the opt outs fro the EU for example. Whatever you wish to call it democracy is a stretch and i is legitimate point.
but the two points above effectively remove the role of Scottish Parliament in adopting EU legislation.
Not getting your point here tbh every EU country [ opt outs aside] has to comply with EU legislation whether you do this directly or vote to do it you still do it. I am not sure a "rubber stamping exercise" is actually critical to a functioning democracy.
So please explain how moving from a position where you get legislation from a body on which you have c. 9% representation is less empowering than adopting legislation automatically from a body on which you have <1% representation?
OK I will do it again but it si still the same point
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 😉
It also then gets representation at the head of states and via commisioners as a member state of the EU.
By any judge it has greater representation after independence than before.
Does anyone need the second debate?
NO one does but we wont be able to stop it.
Have the vote now and we can get on with living in one of the most successful unions in modern history
Give it 300 years and you will say that about the EU and Euro
PS the USA may disagree as well on best union [ both points tongue in cheek to be clear]
If you could point me to proposals any body of the EU governance regime is considering, that would be handy.
The EU’s standard decision-making procedure is known as 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure’ (ex "codecision"). This means that the directly elected European Parliament has to approve EU legislation together with the Council (the governments of the 28 EU countries). The Commission drafts and implements EU legislation.
http://europa.eu/eu-law/index_en.htm
It would be 19 with iS and they would have a voice there. That as far as i can tell is more influence and not less.
it has various ways to pass various laws to be clear
Quick guide here
http://www.out-law.com/page-7766
mt - Member
Has Scotland ever thrived before or after the union? Was it better under the union before the last one hundred years?...
The big problem with bandying figures about is that there are so many opposing sides to them and political interpretations.
There is however one set of figures that are incontestable and apolitical. The census returns.
I don't think you can call a country thriving when many of its population have to move out of it to make their living.
For the last 100 years Scotland's population has remained almost static, while that of England has risen by 40%.
As for Yorkshire, that's up to the residents of that region, but I'd agree it doesn't seem to have had a fair shake. Maybe you should be pressing for devolved regional govt?
This whole independence business could have been headed off at the pass if more devolution had been one of the choices.
But it wasn't. We got an all or nothing choice, so we'll take the all, thanks. We will make it work, and it will be better in the long run.
As we have seen again last night JM Keynes' view remain true and at the heart of the debate. T
KDM is spitting in the ocean of global capitalism. you can't outspend the market. let it go, mate
Just, don't hold you breath for an answer!
Should i just insult him , call troll and then say I am ignoring him 😀
That is how you answer someone then 😉
Oh the irony
your ability to do the things you object to clearly knows no limits and you have a blind spot the size of a small planet.
You do often make me laugh with your post though so thanks
FWIW i dont feel the need to avoid difficult questions by simply insulting posters as troll as I am able to defend what i say on here and dont need to hide behind that tactic. A number of folk have called you out on this and no one else has called me a troll. read into that what you will
i am saying that currently scotland does not have the govt they voted for and nothing is giving away power more than that scenarioSo your standpoint seems to be that if 10% of one population don’t get what they want then the Westminster brand of democracy is failing them, but if 10% of another population don’t get what they want it’s democracy in action.
Can you counter that at without a red herring/moving the goalposts?
i notice you have chosen to run with this rather than address the actual point 🙄
Scotlands price for union is to get the govt they do not vote for for roughly 50% of the time. Its a high price and i doubt the english would pay it hence the opt outs fro the EU for example. Whatever you wish to call it democracy is a stretch and i is legitimate point.
Hmm, England certainly have paid it on occasion, indeed we are paying it now, plus we've spent a hugely disproportionate amount of our time under Scottish Prime Ministers (7/52) and England has still done nothing to solve the infamous West Lothian question
edit
i am saying that currently scotland does not have the govt they voted for and nothing is giving away power more than that scenario
Currently England doesn't have the government they voted for!
England has still done nothing to solve the infamous West Lothian question
England has the power to change that, if you are looking for an explanation as to why it hasnt changed already ask The Labour Party.
ninfan - Member
...Currently England doesn't have the government they voted for!
Yes, independence for Scotland will be good for England too. 🙂
Yes, independence for Scotland will be good for England too. 🙂
Hey, I'm all for a permanent Tory government 😈
Yes, independence for Scotland will be good for England too.
er, no. it would leave us with a Conservative government forever.
(coughs up some sick)
(Dear, dear, if the cap fits and all that (in this case clearly not)....for clarity oldbloke, I was OF COURSE referring to official sources when talking about proper answers and holding breath. No need to wait for unofficial stuff, that's just for entertainment though)
KB, happy to let JMK go at the right moment. Given that his comments are central and completely relevant to the current debate, this is not it.
Hey, I'm all for a permanent Tory government
[ american voice] are you some kind of Liberal and have you gone soft on us[american voice] 😉
for clarity
No one could accuse you of not talking clearly on here now could they .....oh wait ...passes cap 😉
I was OF COURSE referring to official sources when talking about proper answers and holding breath
Forgive me its sometimes very hard to tell whether you are insulting him or me 😛
DP
I am saying that currently scotland does not have the govt they voted for and nothing is giving away power more than that scenario
Which as a statement is correct, very few people voted for the SNP government 😉 . But what you originally said was,
IMHO and I assume anyone who looks at democracy nothing is ceeding control more than getting a govt you did not vote for time and time and time again
“Time and time and time again” many people in Scotland have the UK government they voted for. In the last election only ~100k people more voted Lab than the combined Con/Dem count (in Scotland) that’s 0.3% of the total number of voters.
Can you counter that at without a red herring/moving the goalposts?
It’s not moving the goalposts, as you stated, “in an democracy the losers do not get the govt they wanted” and in any democracy you have to accept the possibility that the outcome of an election might be a result that you (or any given block of 10% or less of the electorate) didn’t vote for.
i notice you have chosen to run with this rather than address the actual point
Because the basic premise of your opening statement is wrong, many people in Scotland DO get the government they vote for ”time and time and time again” so these people aren’t ceding any power they are benefitting from a democratic system which has favoured their views.
Edited, as I just don't care.
Not in response to anything recent. Just mleh.
(For clarity, take it as read that I have zero interest in trolls)
Talking of distancing oneself, time to ditch the DO?
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.
[s]Nice[/s] 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 - MemberSo, 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 - MemberAnd 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 [s] me [/s] 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.
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.no one can fudge liek the EU
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 [s]for any country going through the process in the timescale proposed[/s]
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
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.