Forum menu
So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the opt-out and CTA would continue with an independent Scotland.
No it isn't. This has been done to death on here, iScotland will be a new state, it won't just inherit stuff it wants from the UK.
Now that the Schengen Agreement is part of the acquis communautaire, the Agreement has, for its EU members, lost the status of a treaty,
New EU member states do not sign the Schengen Agreement as such; instead, they are bound to implement the Schengen rules as part of the pre-existing body of EU law, which every new entrant is required to accept.
No it isn't. This has been done to death on here, iScotland will be a new state, it won't just inherit stuff it wants from the UK.
iScotland will be a new state, but the EU is pragmatic and sensible - as with EU membership it makes most sense to maintain the status quo.
but the EU is pragmatic and sensible
It really isn't! They couldn't even agree on where the key offices would be physically located. 🙄
You can't assume we'll receive an opt-out. Just, it doesn't really seem to matter. Having an open border with the UK prevents us from joining schengen in itself, it's nicely self-fulfilling.
Sorry if I am stating the bleedin obvious or being very thick.
But is there not a country on this earth that we will not let its people into this country.
And if so what if Scotland is happy to allow them in .
How would when then stop them crossing into England.
By the look of it, the North of England will benefit from an independent Scotland.
Think of the job opportunities! That border is going to need a lot of machine gun psychopaths, barbed wire knitters, and qualified rubber stamp bastards.
Much more economic activity than the piddling one off job painting the Welcome to Scotland sign.
Seems to be a lot of hoop jumping being done to avoid the assumption that the sensible thing will be done.
30 days to go...
iScotland will be a new state, but the EU is pragmatic and sensible - as with EU membership it makes most sense to maintain the status quo.
The status quo is that the UK is an EU member state and Scotland is neither a state nor a member state of the EU.
So you'll be voting No then, Ben?
Junkyard - WTF are you on about?
Sorry i was just trying to add some facts to your view
The rUK has an opt out of Schengen.
You mean the Uk and I know, it is in my post.
iScotland will not if it joins the EU.
Did you see the map of EU countries not in the area? Did you?
Therefore, there will be no controls for movement from Continental Europe to iScotland.
See above supposition.
This would mean rUK would have to put some kind of physical border in place between rUK and iScotland, if it is to control the movement of people from Continental Europe
Ah right i get your argument now ah well that will cost you and smart a bit.
No it isn't. This has been done to death on here, iScotland will be a new state, it won't just inherit stuff it wants from the UK.
The only possible /sensible agreement we could make is that no one can predict what the EU will do
As noted there are technical opt outs and criteria to meet so it can sign up to it but never implement.
You overstate your case somewhat.
the new member is also debatable as iS would be "new" but all its citizens wont. Plenty of fudge room for the EU who, as far as i am aware, have no explicit rules for this scenario [ nor did they for german unification]
You cannot give opinion as if it is fact. No one knows what iS would get from the EU with opinions ranging from **** off to welcome aboard just as you are.
The status quo is that the UK is an EU member state and Scotland is neither a state nor a member state of the EU.
I think we have done this to death and the problem is the people of that area are in the EU as is that area. This means it is an internal applicant [ it will be in the EU when it asks but under the UK] and this is unique. By virtue of the Union it is in the EU
I think we have done that point to death tbh.
it will be in the EU when it asks but under the UK
iScotland doesn't exist and won't exist until it leaves the UK. There's no such thing as an "internal applicant". You're very confused. 😆
Still done to death and I dont think mockery will help the debate , make sus change out mind or help us predict the outcome
the iS application will be unique and unlike others for reasons that dont need stating [ and have been stated many times when we debate this point]
NW - from a few posts back, the FC writes many pages on currency options in which there is one para on sterlingisation - and that isn't dismissing the option. Fortunately they are a bit more sensible than your interpretation suggests.
The status quo is that the UK is an EU member state and Scotland is neither a state nor a member state of the EU
The status quo is that I am an EU citizen and also able to travel to the rest of the UK and Ireland under the CTA. The EU doesn't want the bureaucratic hassle of renouncing the EU citizenship of 5 million people, only to admit us almost immediately, not to mention all the other hassles if Scotland were to leave the EU.
But while we're discussing the EU (and since no-one seems interested in the future of the NHS) how about the story that big US banks are making contingency plans to move to Ireland in the event of the UK leaving the EU?
The status quo is that I am an EU citizen
I'm actually very interested in the NHS.
Oh, and from what I've just seen. The Yes/No roadside billboard war is about to step up a gear.
Interested, but given it is a devolved issue so Scotland can vary funding if it wishes. Even if Barnett changes. What is a bigger deal is that [url= http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/history-nhs-spending-uk ]NHS funding[/url] has been rising pretty much since it was born and at some point we have to have some sensible debate about what we want from it and what we want to pay. Treating all aspects of it as sacred doesn't help us get the best from it.since no-one seems interested in the future of the NHS
Your story about US banks is interesting. But as the EU is supposed to be getting its financial transaction tax proposal back on the rails, they might later find reasons for that not to be appealing.
That's addressed in great detail in the link I posted - twice - but here it is again:
http://burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/why-voting-no-threatens-scotlands-nhs/
Summary: The NHS in Scotland is devolved, but the purse strings are not.
Read it, though - if I was in England I'd be furious about what was happening.
In other news, No voters are scared of spiders:
😀
The NHS in Scotland is devolved, but the purse strings are not.
Yes they are - Scotland already has the power to vary income tax rates by up to 3p, but has chosen not to do so, and the Scotland act 2012 gave them further tax raising powers that will come into force regardless of the referendum result, so those purse strings are already devolved into Scottish control!
Read the article.
Much use of the Daily Mail Sad Face (TM):
😉
I did, although I found it quite a contrived argument on the funding impact for Scotland.Read it, though - if I was in England I'd be furious about what was happening
The status quo is that I am an EU citizen
Nope, you are not an EU citizen. You are a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. the UK is a member of the EU and as such it has agreed that certain travel rights with other nations. If Scotland leaves the UK then there is no certainty that any existing rights will be maintained.
From a purely practical point of view, I would suspect that Scotland would be allowed to join the EU from the date that they left the UK. However it is unlikely that they would inherit all the same terms as the UK has (and will continue to have).
While the EU may require you to join Schengen agreement, I suspect that Scotland will be allowed to opt out and be part of the CTA with the UK and Eire.
But (and it is a big but) we don't know and until the Scottish Government has been given the mandate to discuss the terms of Independence no one knows what the conclusions will be. It won't be the 'perfect' solution as envisaged by Salmon since he is making the assumption that Scotland will get everything it wants. Equally it won't be the doomsday settlement as some on the extreme end of the No are saying that it will be.
Remember that this will all take time. The existing timescales was put forward with consultations with any other parties. There us the UK, EU, UN, NATO, WTO, IMF, .... and many, many other organisations to talk to and reach agreement. And if any party drags their feet, because they can't be bothered then this will have an impact on Scotland.
With a month to go, it appears to me that both sides of the argument have fought themselves to a standstill.
There seems to be a desperate rush now to find any story or article that may have a tenuous link should the outcome go one way or another and putting it out as relevant.
if Scotland raised taxes would it just not go into the UK pot?ninfan - Member
The NHS in Scotland is devolved, but the purse strings are not.
Yes they are - Scotland already has the power to vary income tax rates by up to 3p, but has chosen not to do so,
No, its a devolved issue - they get to keep it and would be able to add to the block grant they receive from Westminster to supplement Scottish government spending (or obviously would have to fund it out of their block grant if they decided on a lower tax rate)
Nope, you are not an EU citizen. You are a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. the UK is a member of the EU and as such it has agreed that certain travel rights with other nations. If
Wrong. Individuals are citizens of the EU. Hence the great difficulty in throwing ~4.5m citizens out of the EU when there is no mechanism for it.
If the yes vote wins, how long will take Scotland to become completely independent of the rest of the uk.
Hence the great difficulty in throwing ~4.5m citizens out of the EU when there is no mechanism for it.
There's also no mechanism for allowing a newly independent state automagic membership of the EU, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.
Make your mind up.
ninfan - Member
No, its a devolved issue - they get to keep it and would be able to add to the block grant they receive from Westminster to supplement Scottish government spending (or obviously would have to fund it out of their block grant if they decided on a lower tax rate)
Interesting take on it.
http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-uselessness-of-the-scottish-variable-rate/
Last year the Scottish Govt spent 11.9 billion on the NHS and brought in 10.8 billion in income tax. The current power allowing tax variance of upto +/-3% would be ineffective for at least a year as the cost of setting up a system and collection would be greater than the amount raised. Even with the powers from the 2012 act the Scottish Government could only raise less than 10%of it's spend on the NHS through raising income tax. That's assuming that Westminster doesn't change the tax thresholds as that power remains with Westminster. The Barnett formula is that any variation in public spending in England is automatically matched on a % of the UK population basis in Scotland Wales or Northern Ireland meaning that spending cuts in England could largely wipe out budget increases through an income tax rise in Scotland Sources for Scottish govt income Business for Scotland and for spending on the NHS The Scotsman
There's also no mechanism for allowing a newly independent state automagic membership of the EU, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.
Who said anything about a newly independent Scotland getting automatic membership of the EU? My feeling is that Scotland's membership will be negotiated from within in the period between a Yes vote and Independence Day.
In 2011-12, total tax revenue generated in Scotland (onshore and offshore) was £56.9 billion
From http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/06/9241/4
So enough to pay for a few NHSs.
Agreed Wanmankylung it's just that the tax varying powers are completely ineffective as Westminster still controls 85% of the tax take in Scotland
Wrong. Individuals are citizens of the EU
Are you sure? The EU explanation makes a very strong link with citizenship of a member state. So, by implication, those in a state ceasing to be a member state would cease to have EU citizenship. Academic point if / when Scotland gets in, but not something to be taken for granted.
[url= http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/ ]http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/[/url]
There's that, and then there's the fact that using those tax raising powers to increase income tax in a Scotland which is part of the UK would be political suicide.
If the yes vote wins, how long will take Scotland to become completely independent of the rest of the uk.
They've said 18 months but it won't happen
They won't get a lot of work done on a "Scotland" bill in 2015 due to the General election
Parliament will be dissolved in March so they'll really have to wait until autumn 2015 to start the serious work
WML - an interesting read. But it is not certainty. It uses words like "opinion" and "believe". To quote its own opening position:
[i]Within EU law, there exists no precedent for what happens when a territory of an existing Member State becomes independent, and wishes to retain EU membership, and the treaties do not provide for such an event. The process by which a separate Scotland may become a member of the EU is therefore subject to speculation.[/i]
Speculation. That includes that paper itself. I don't think anyone seriously expects Scotland not to get in, just when, how and on what terms. Assertion of rights and entitlements when negotiation seems the only certainty is well wide of the mark.
Oldbloke - the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. Everything else is speculation. Why should the Yes side need to provide certainties when nobody else does?
Well, they're making a proposal to change the world a fair bit. Some evidence they can deliver on their vision would be handy and there really isn't that much. Why does no-one else need to do it? Well, they're not proposing to change the world.
You said you were sure. You may well be, but there's no evidential basis for it. I'm sure industrial quantities of political and diplomatic fudge will get Scotland in the EU in the end, but on what terms and when is anyone's guess.
Surely its not about providing certainties, but showing that you've considered and taken into account the effects of the uncertainties.
The 'what if' scenarios!
And thats where the white paper and the yes movement in general is failing. Anyone proposing such a big change as independence needs to have worked out their Rumsfelds.
Some evidence they can deliver on their vision would be handy and there really isn't that much.
What a sentence! Some evidence.... really isn't that much. If you truly believed that there was no evidence then you would have said that there was no evidence...
It seems so much of what will happen if the yes vote happens is pure speculation and conjecture.
How long has this been in the making, could not have any theoretical talks have taken place with the eu before hand or would Europe not even entertain the idea before the yes vote goes through. Also currency how has a rock solid plan not been agreed before the vote.
It seems to me asking the Scottish people to vote yes is asking for a huge leap of faith. And if they do it will be a huge vote of confidence in their politicians as here the general consensus is you cannot trust them as far as you can throw them.
That might be because there are many areas covered in the white paper and there is some evidence. I don't believe there's no evidence. Just nowhere near enough to make the case credible.