[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Gordihmor - I note that you only partially quoted that paragraph, so here's the rest of it:

[b]When pressed, the Commission has restricted itself to re-stating the formal position under EU law[/b]: that the EU is founded on the Treaties which apply only to the Member States who have agreed and ratified them. If part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be part of that state because it becomes a new independent state, the Treaties would no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory.[59] In 2012, the President of the European Commission, Jos Manuel Barroso said that "a new state, if it wants to join the EU has to apply to become a member of the EU, like any state".[60] It is clear from these statements that there is no formal, automatic right to Scottish membership of the EU.

my bold!

Can't Scotland ask as an existing EU state?

rebel12 The UK government has not requested advice from those

who actually make the decisions/rules

gordimhor - Member
This guidance has been "difficult to extract" because the UK government has not asked for it. Why not?

Do you think this is true, Gordi? I would put money on the fact that these discussions have taken place in great detail and great length, behind closed doors of course. It would be somewhat naive to imagine that the timing and content of Barosso's comments in Sunday were random. All the interesting stuff takes place behind the scenes and the closed doors. We are merely left with the bland comments that those "who are meant to serve us" deem necessary to reveal!

The whole issue is stitched up well in advance. Rightly or wrongly, the EU will have little time for independent states muddying the water at a time when they want and need to push for much higher levels of interdependence.

Spain as much as Scotland, but I could see them exercising their veto at Scotland joining the EU just to ram it home.

The Spanish have already said that Scotland is totally different from Catalonia and they have no problem with what's going on.

The rest of the UK (Englend/Wales/NI) will continue as before, as the UK with full EU/NATO membership. This has been confirmed 100% already.

Scotland will not get EU/NATO/UN membership easily or automatically.

I haven't seen either of these things stated and confirmed 100% anywhere. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
There's also been no indication or formal legal advice thats says it would be difficult. Can you even vote rebel12 or are you just trying to point score?

Gordimhor - I don't know if you noticed this particularly succinct question from Paragraph 22

"if Ireland's secession did not dissolve the United Kingdom, why would an independent Scotland have that effect?"

Says it all really!

Do you think this is true, Gordi? I would put money on the fact that these discussions have taken place in great detail and great length, behind closed doors of course. It would be somewhat naive to imagine that the timing and content of Barosso's comments in Sunday were random. All the interesting stuff takes place behind the scenes and the closed doors. We are merely left with the bland comments that those "who are meant to serve us" deem necessary to reveal!

I suspect you're right, but if that's the case, and the case was favourable to yS then there's not a chance that Westminster would release that advice.

Of course not, nor would the EU. But as his been pointed out lots of times above, the EU's stall looks pretty clear to me. And the tablecloths are not saltires!!!

I find myself agreeing with ninfan - urghhh.

They should be careful what they wish for though because we'll both have the same entitlement, ie both in, or both out.

Yet again - you state this as if it's a fact. Any evidence for it other than one person's opinion? It seems highly unlikely to me.

teamhurtmore - Member
2. No recognition of the counter argument of seperate currencies (tick). Not surprise there. Presenting one side of the argument and loading it with negative (and he talks about a positive story) and false descriptions

After "lecturing" those who know better and "bluffing" with a one-sided argument, wee eck gets the suitable feedback this morning. Must do better....F

In a direct challenge to the Scottish first minister, Salmond was told that his warnings of increased transaction charges for businesses on both sides of the border were outweighed by the disadvantages of creating a currency union outside a full political union.

But Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said: "While businesses on both sides of the border would regret new transaction costs resulting from an independent Scotland adopting a new currency, this inconvenience would pale in comparison to the financial danger of entering an unstable currency union..

Heaven forbid that there are two sides to the story!!! And not even the hint of the word "tax" from those in the know. Still, they probably also know how to read a balance sheet and the difference between assets and liabilities!

1000!

But as his been pointed out lost if times above, the EU's stall looks pretty clear to me. And the tablecloths are not saltires!!!

Looks pretty fine from what I can see. 2 years ish to negotiate the terms of entry from within the EU as part of the UK otherwise you have a ridiculous situation which I'm sure they wouldnt let pass.

[url= http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/henry-mcleish-slams-claims-independent-3157395 ]http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/henry-mcleish-slams-claims-independent-3157395[/url]

Even Henry McLeish has weighed in saying how wrong Barroso's comments were and how a solution will be found.

Ninfan yes I saw that paragraph. I don't think the UK would be dissolved I suspect there would be some renegotiation of the UK position within the EU should the UK vote to remain.I acknowledge that there's lots of other legal advice there but the point is that the existing state the UK has not requested the advice from the commission. Why not?
The silence is deafening. It seems that markets deserve clarity from the UK government but not us voters.
Maybe whatnobeer has the right answer

2 years ish to negotiate the terms

How does that compare with other nations that are undergoing the accession process?

13 years so far for Macedonia
4 years so far for Iceland
9 years so far for Montenegro
5 years so far for Serbia

2 years ish to negotiate the terms

How does that compare with other nations that are undergoing the accession process?

13 years so far for Macedonia
4 years so far for Iceland
9 years so far for Montenegro
5 years so far for Serbia

May 2015 Westminster election will get in the way of any negotiations and the next Scottish election is May 2016. The chance of concluding anything politically or diplomatically between September 2014 and May 2016 is pretty close to nil.

but the point is that the existing state the UK has not requested the advice from the commission. Why not?

Because it's the job of the YES campaign pushing for independence to ask the question, not for the UK to ask the question on the YES campaign's behalf.

Same if an employee leaves a company that's ISO 9001 approved to go self employed in competition with the employer - is it the job of the company to check whether the employee will still retain his ISO 9001 certification for his new business?

Anyway why should the question need to be asked? - the rules on EU membership are quite clear that Scotland would not be given automatic membership.

The worrying thing for Scotland is that the rest of the UK will still retain it's EU membership and as a result will have a say as to whether an independent Scotland can actually join. Scotland, outside of the EU will have very little say in the matter.

The silence is deafening. It seems that markets deserve clarity from the UK government but not us voters.

What silence? The UK and European Commission have recently made the situation quite clear to the people of Scotland about both EU membership and the Currency Union. What part of this don't you understand?

epicyclo. People in rUK should surely get a vote in the referendum if it will automatically have to reapply for EU membership following a yes vote?

Would you still assert that Spain would adopt a positive stance to Scotland membership if that was official position, knowing that Spain would be left out in the cold following possible Catalan independence?

Spain may currently be saying it is a matter for the people of Scotland, but if they were to learn that some Scots suggest they may be out of the EU following a Catalan breakaway their stance would undoubtadly change.

Our depleted fish stocks would have to be made of solid gold for them to even contemplate it. We are more likely to see detente between Spain and the UK, than Spain legitimising dear leaders politically naive assertions.

While it's fun to point out the possibilities of the consequences of an independent Scotland, the reality is the separation issues will be handled politically by the EU and NATO members and not on strictly legal grounds.

I could imagine the NATO powers would not be enthusiastic about a country like Scotland whose territorial waters and land mass project so much into the North Atlantic would be quick to reject Scottish membership.

The EU countries don't have an exact precedent to a separation like this. Do you really believe they'll want to exclude Scotland?

There are quite a few Scots who would welcome complete independence so that we were in a similar position to Norway. After all markets are world wide these days, and the world is much bigger than the EU. So exclusion from the EU is not seen as a deal breaker by many Scots.

So why has this issue not been legally clarified? Because only the only body that can ask the EU for clarification is a member state.

The UK is the member state at the moment, and it has not requested clarification.

If they had done so, and the opinion was that Scotland would be out, then you can be sure this would be getting trumpeted around the country and the legal opinion waved under Salmond's nose.

Edit:

athgray - Member
epicyclo. People in rUK should surely get a vote in the referendum if it will automatically have to reapply for EU membership following a yes vote?...

Your leaders obviously didn't think your opinion mattered or they would have insisted on it.

No advice sought. Really? From the government website

Independent legal opinion sought and published by the UK Government in the first paper in this series clarified that in the event of Scotland becoming a new, independent state, the rest of the UK would continue as before, retaining the rights and obligations of the UK as it currently stands, and its membership of international organisations and institutions would continue on existing terms.

In the event of a vote for independence, in the eyes of the world and in law, Scotland would become an entirely new state. An independent Scottish state would have to start afresh in terms of its formal alliances and links with every other sovereign state, including the UK.

When a new state comes into existence, it is of fundamental importance that it is recognised by other states. Recognition is a formal, political act, with important legal effects. The UK’s membership of key international organisations and involvement in treaties would be largely unaffected by Scottish independence. The UK would no longer have any obligation to represent Scottish interests as it currently does.

As a new state, an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the international institutions and organisations it both wished and was eligible to join. In some cases this wouldbe straightforward; in others, notably the EU, it would not

The yS would not want anyone to read on, but the report goes on to explain why the interests of Scotland are best served under the current structure in a "positive and constructive manner."

Rebel 12 the yes campaign can not ask the question I quoted from Ninfans link above but heres the relevant part again

The European Commission has stated that it would only be willing to respond to a specific request about a specific situation from an existing Member State and that so far, no such request has been forthcoming.[58]

larified that in the event of Scotland becoming a new, independent state, the rest of the UK would continue as before, retaining the rights and obligations of the UK as it currently stands

I am wondering how many pages /years of hypothetical debate you lot can sustain

rebel12 - Member
but the point is that the existing state the UK has not requested the advice from the commission. Why not?
Because it's the job of the YES campaign pushing for independence to ask the question, not for the UK to ask the question on the YES campaign's behalf.

Same if an employee leaves a company that's ISO 9001 approved to go self employed in competition with the employer - is it the job of the company to check whether the employee will still retain his ISO 9001 certification for his new business?

Anyway why should the question need to be asked? - the rules on EU membership are quite clear that Scotland would not be given automatic membership.

The worrying thing for Scotland is that the rest of the UK will still retain it's EU membership and as a result will have a say as to whether an independent Scotland can actually join. Scotland, outside of the EU will have very little say in the matter.

The silence is deafening. It seems that markets deserve clarity from the UK government but not us voters.
What silence? The UK and European Commission have recently made the situation quite clear to the people of Scotland about both EU membership and the Currency Union. What part of this don't you understand?

Scotland will get into the EU no bother, might not be automatic, but it will happen. Your scaremongering is complete nonsense.

You seem to have Scotland as leaving the UK. But that's not exactly what is happening. If scotland votes to split it will be an amicable split agreed in law. Ie. 2 successor states.

Why does England automatically assume the right of successor state?

Strikes me that's a big massive legal argument you seem to be ignoring.

Junkyard - lazarus
...I am wondering how many pages /years of hypothetical debate you lot can sustain

Simple to answer.

The independence movement is over 100 years old.

We will not stop until it is achieved.

As the Financial Times points out

[img] [/img]

So they accept that international law says the debt is theirs

rUK has already accepted that, but it is also expected that iScotland would then pay the treasury for their share.

I don't think anyone seriously doubts that iScotland will get into the EU it's just on what terms and conditions e.g. Euro, rebate.....

To be honest after all these pages the real point of argument appears to be whether Scotland is a country or not, and importantly whether the rest of Europe / the World thinks it is.

So they accept that international law says the debt is theirs

I am wondering how many pages /years of hypothetical debate you lot can sustain

Wasn't that dealt with 20-something pages ago, the debt would legaly be with the rUK, but Scotland would have to pay its (lets call it moral rather than legal) share in order to convince creditors it was safe to lend to. If they didn't pay it, no bank in it's right mind would lend them money.

dragon - Member
So they accept that international law says the debt is theirs
rUK has already accepted that, but it is also expected that iScotland would then pay the treasury for their share.

Exactly dragon, but sadly the yS BS makes it hard for some folk to understand what is happening and/or what will happen. A deliberate ploy that clearly works.....

You can't split the debt. Debt is issued under precise terms. You cannot just say ok for 10% (for sake of argument) of bond holders, your debt is no longer being honoured by the rUK but by another new country. Not only would that be absurd and unworkable, but it WOULD BE a DEFAULT. And at least one party in all this is not threatening that in practice or theory. There are some grown ups left in the play house.

If they didn't pay it, no bank in it's right mind would lend them money.

There seem to be two totally contrary opinions on this:

- No-one would lend Scotland any money because Scotland refused to pay the rUK a share of the rUK's debt.

- Banks would be falling over themselves to lend Scotland money, because Scotland would have zero debts, loads of assets, and had prudently not encumbered themselves with an agreement to pay a share of another country's debt.

Now obviously both those can't be true 😉

You can't split the debt.

I think we both know that debt splitting is being talked about in those terms because it's an easy concept to understand even if the exact way that the debt would be paid off is not a split, but an agreement to pay a %. Ben has it right imo.

On the contrary, it's neither easy to understand nor obvious as this thread shows.

Obviously Ben, the first is almost 100% correct, the second is almost 100% incorrect. The serious commentators on the yS side don't even talk about it. It's only those who need bluster to hide behind and even then they have to lie about the status of currencies etc to see if people are silly enough to swallow the BS. Sadly, they are.....

I disagree with THM _ legally the debt [ as your link showed]is not scotlands so they have not walked away from anything/defaulted/done anything.
They have negotiated shrewdly and wisely to the best benefit of their citizens would a business be punished for doing this? Seen as risky? seen as not to be trusted?

TBH it is fanciful to think that the nefarious forces of capitalism wont be willing to lend to them /anyone

To claim your view is obvious and 100% is misleading.

Sudan and South Sudan haven't yet been able to decide who carries which share of the debt, so as far as I know it currently all remains with the North. The South currently has a better credit rating. Given that most of the funds are owed not to banks but other investors that may have no bearing on this argument, but I found it interesting.

- Banks would be falling over themselves to lend Scotland money, because Scotland would have zero debts, loads of assets, and had prudently not encumbered themselves with an agreement to pay a share of another country's debt.

Simply won't happen, iScotland will be paying for it's debt end of, so can we end this dead end point. You seem to think that rUK don't have friends in high places, iScotland would be so screwed over by the international community it wouldn't be funny. SNP are only saying they wouldn't pay the to try and bolster their position when negotiating, they don't really mean it, to think otherwise is twp.

SNP are only saying they wouldn't pay the to try and bolster their position when negotiating,

I suspect it depends on how "helpful" rUK are to their wish list

Both sides will have the opportunity to bite of their nose to spite their face but I doubt either will do it.

Some interesting facts and discussion around the idea that an independent Scotland wouldn't be able to bail out big failing banks:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/why-did-the-banks-only-become-scottish-after-they-failed/

One additional question yet to be answered (in fact I havent even seen it asked) is what will happen to UK's EU contribution. I expect the EU will say, certainly initially, the UK has to honour it's current commitment. This will be a side door way of abolishing/reducing our current rebate. How this impact's Scotland's application to join I'm not sure but it could be the EU sees Scotland's contribution as yet more gravy and thus worth having.

That banking article is laughable as it is based on Scottish banks having been regulated differently under iScotland which of course is an unknown.

Both sides will have the opportunity to bite of their nose to spite their face but I doubt either will do it.

Agreed, although don't think rUK won't hold the stronger hand both politically and in other ways.

That banking article is laudable as it is points out the fact that the so called Scottish banks were actually largely operating in England or internationally and there is no way Scotland would have been on the hook for them if it had been independent when they failed.

So the EU will only give the information about iScotland joining the EU to an existing member state. Has the UK asked for this information and is keeping quiet, or is it waiting for the Scottish Parliament to ask the question.
I suspect the Scottsh Parliament hasn't asked the question or otherwise the SNP would be very publicly telling us about further bullying from Westminster. Has anybody got any facts on this.

The Scottish Parliament can't ask, as it doesn't represent an existing member state. The UK government could ask, but have chosen not to.

However, as has been discussed, it's not a simple yes or no question - it'd be a matter for discussion and negotiation.

That banking article is laudable as it is points out the fact that the so called Scottish banks were actually largely operating in England or internationally and there is no way Scotland would have been on the hook for them if it had been independent when they failed.

Utter rubbish as see what happened with the Icelandic and Irish banks just for starters. It also ignores the fact that whether they are based in Scotland now, you are in effect saying you'd have been happy to overnight have 2 of the big 3 banks in Scotland wiped out, where would you and businesses be going to get money from to pay their bills? Sure rUK I suspect would have stumped up some cash as they did to the Irish banks, but it would be on their terms and with expectation that iScotland would put money in also. So go and take that article and flush it down the virtual toilet where it belongs.

Utter rubbish as see what happened with the Icelandic and Irish banks just for starters.

Did you even read the article? The point is that Irish and Icelandic banks were based in Ireland and Iceland, "Scottish" banks were really UK banks with the majority of their employees, assets and taxes paid outside of Scotland.

You seem rather angry about it.

bencooper - Member

The Scottish Parliament can't ask, as it doesn't represent an existing member state. The UK government could ask, but have chosen not to.

although don't think rUK won't hold the stronger hand both politically and in other ways

My view remains all this is just unknown and will be sorted after the event

the real reason it is unknown is because the UK refused to negotiate so that folk would not be sure what they were voting for hoping that fear and uncertainty would lead to them voting for the status quo - to be fair its a canny political strategy if somewhat dubiou sin terms of democracy.
Wee ecks policy of it will be brilliant if they just stopped bullying us is equally wise politically and poor democratically

I suppose the no can claim success in that a vote for independence is a leap into the dark - whether this attracts or repels voters remains to be seen

Dragon is correct. That is a ridiculous article not only because it mis-understands history and fails to understand how bank regulation currently works, but more importantly how it will work in the future particularly with banks with operations in different countries.

In fact it is hardly worth reading past the subtitle, since wee eck used to wax lyrical about the Scottish banks well before the crisis and was actively encouraging goodwin's hubris with the doomed acquisition of ABN Amro. Scottish banks did not become Scottish as a result of the crisis, so the central premise is falsifiable right from the start.

Among crocks, that article ranks up with the best of them.

[img] [/img]