Forum menu
Wonder if they have anything to say about stripping 5 million people of their EU citizenship that you seem so confident they can do?
No one will be stripping 5 million people of their EU citizenship. If 5 million people decide they wish to leave an EU member state then it's them who are relinquishing their EU citizenship, even if it's unintentional.
Show me the treaties that say this?
Plus we can't just leave without negotiation. Says that in the treaties also.
ninfan - Member
"Our referendum is only to do with leaving the union of the united kingdom."
Which is part of the EU.You leave us, you leave the EU
Thats how it works
do you get it yet?
You seem a man of conviction, so maybe you should put some money on that. Let us know what odds you are offered.
20 quid to yer favourite charity? Ye gemme?
Why don't you? - Paddypower are offering you 3/1
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/scottish-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1292126
They're not even offering bets against it 😆
I don't gamble. If anyone is willing to take the bet offered I'll honour that. 🙂
strikes me that when it comes to this negotiation we just say. BTW we don't actually want to leave. Problem solved.Article 50 1.Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. XX , X 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218
Or am I missing the treaty that allows a part of Europe to be kicked out following a consented referendum.
That would seem slightly at odds with the EUs democratic principles, no? I can quote those too if you like? 😆
Anyhow, I think I've presented enough ambiguity this evening without receiving any answers. 
night night.
You're not a member state!
Ffs do I need go a find treaties about the borders of the EU now? 😀
Just admit that its far from certain and legal battles will need to be fought if it doesn't go how we like it. Its far from the cut and dried we are told from the no campaign.
So why is an SNP politician requesting advise then - of what possible use is it to her ?
Probably trying to get a definitive answer on a matter of fact to stop folk accusing them of making stuff up and being vague 💡
Do you think it has worked ?
Plus we can't just leave without negotiation. Says that in the treaties also.
The UK won't be leaving the EU. I don't understand why you can't get your head round that.
Besides, I don't know why you are getting so worked up about EU membership. I have no doubt at all that an independent Scotland would be offered EU membership, it might be fast tracked or it might not, that's the only real uncertainty imo.
And the terms will almost certainly be less favourable than the existing ones for the UK are. But I don't suppose that this matters too much as the entire argument for Scottish independence appears to be based on being "free" and living in a "democracy" and a load of other emotive misuse of words, and very little about being better off.
Ernie. Show me the treaty that states that rUK continues as the successor state please?
In lieu of that I'd suggest that there is legal battle number 1.
[quote=seosamh77 ]Ernie. Show me the treaty that states that rUK continues as the successor state please?
In lieu of that I'd suggest that there is legal battle number 1.
You reckon there's a realistic chance that the state who's residents haven't been given a vote on leaving anything will be considered to be the one which has chosen to become independent? Sometimes you really are living on cloud cuckoo land with your ideas - how about you go away and find anybody sensible who agrees with your suggestions before you ask us on here to refute them.
The bottom line is, this isn't a situation the EU rules cover adequately, and it'll be a point of [i]interesting discussion[/i]. But since we want to be in the EU, and the EU certainly wants us, it's kind of hard to imagine where the will to force us out will come from.
(the EU would certainly rather we don't leave the UK, of course, but that's another question entirely and one which colours matters now)
And for everyone pointing at articles and trying to work with the uncertainty therein- the articles aren't divine writ, if the EU wants us in (which by and large it will, I think we'll agree) then it is within their scope to create an article of secession or a treaty of accelerated entry to their satisfaction. Especially where the alternative would be to end up being forced in a direction nobody wants, by rules that were never meant to have that effect. That's the fun thing about being a lawmaking and rulemaking body.
Yes yes, Spain, but the obvious truth is that Scotland and Catalunya are not directly comparable, and the Spanish have taken (undemocratic and ethically dismal) steps to ensure that already, so they really gain very little in practical terms by seriously resisting Scotland's entry/retention in the EU.
Meanwhile, they would quite like to keep their fishing industry, which is largely dependent on the access to the north atlantic fisheries which they gain through our EU membership. It'd be a very brave Spanish politician who makes hundreds of thousands of people unemployed with a single vote.
The Spanish do have good reasons to not want us to be independent- as well as their own independence issues, they've benefited massively from the UK's willingness to barter away scottish fisheries. Oh hey, is this a good time to mention that Scotland weirdly has 87% of UK fisheries yet receives only 40% of the european fisheries funding? (distribution set by Westminster, dur)
So in short- we want in, the eu wants us in, and the eu makes the rules. And those who claim to oppose it have little reason to do so and great reason not to. So where really is the issue?
I've previously linked to EU articles that state that splitting from the UK would mean leaving the EU, if you don't believe me just check my posting history.
I don't have a major problem with Scotland becoming independent, I just don't think it's a good idea, for either country.
seosamh77 - MemberErnie. Show me the treaty that states that rUK continues as the successor state please?
There is nothing to state.
We're a member now and if a small faction wants to do their own thing then it doesn't affect us, it affects you.
no I reckon there will be 2 successor states. But unlike the no campaign I can admit that's only an opinion that's still to be tested.aracer - Member
seosamh77 » Ernie. Show me the treaty that states that rUK continues as the successor state please?
In lieu of that I'd suggest that there is legal battle number 1.
You reckon there's a realistic chance that the state who's residents haven't been given a vote on leaving anything will be considered to be the one which has chosen to become independent? Sometimes you really are living on cloud cuckoo land with your ideas - how about you go away and find anybody sensible who agrees with your suggestions before you ask us on here to refute them
Ernie asked why this is important. Its not particularly as an issue. But as a demonstration of utter bollocks from the no camp. Well, it works quite nicely as a microcosm.
when Germany was reunited it became a new state
No, it didn't.
The bottom line is, this isn't a situation the EU rules cover adequately, and it'll be a point of interesting discussion. But since we want to be in the EU, and the EU certainly wants us, it's kind of hard to imagine where the will to force us out will come from.
There are no legal barriers to iScotland's entry to the EU, only political ones. There's enough international law jurisprudence on the entry and exit from intergovernmental organisations to keep everyone happy. None of this is unprecedented.
In any case, there will be sufficient time between any successful referendum and formal independence to negotiate seamless accession to the EU by iScotland, and there is sufficient political will to make it happen.
The suggestion that Scottish secession will mean the UK has to reapply for membership of the EU (or any other organisation) is complete nonsense.
In other news http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independence-snp-bullied-bosses-over-currency-1-3362675
They have a long history of bullying and suppressing dissenters. Nothing new there. It's why the word bully slips off their tongues so easily and a classic symptom of bullying itself ie, use the accusation to hide your own actions. School teachers will recognise that a mile off.
Given there is no issue with EU, it's puzzling why the Europeans keep making one of it rather than saying, "there is no issue, bienvenue nos amis ecossais." All very odd, they should listen to Alex. It's all very easy, trust him, it's in the BoD.
teamhurtmore - Member
They have a long history of bullying and suppressing dissenters. Nothing new there. It's why the word bully slips off their tongues so easily and a classic symptom of bullying itself ie, use the accusation to hide your own actions. School teachers will recognise that a mile off.
In your opinion, has the no campaign been all sweetness and light?
konabunny - MemberThe suggestion that Scottish secession will mean the UK has to reapply for membership of the EU (or any other organisation) is complete nonsense.
Absolutely. It's no less ridiculous than a lot of the no campaign nonsense about eu membership but I think anyone that seriously gives it the time of day needs to take a look at themselves. Some folks just seem to use it as a "fighting stupidity with stupidity" argument but that's... well, stupid.
Course, it is easy to see that the UK's position in the EU would be changed, and not for the better- with David Cameron insisting he's going to renegotiate that anyway, that could lead to interesting places. But that's a whole different thing.
The suggestion that Scottish secession will mean the UK has to reapply for membership of the EU (or any other organisation) is complete nonsense.
I do agree, I only suggest that as counter to the nonsense that Scotland will end up out in the cold with a begging bowl.
Either scenario is fantasy.
In your opinion, has the no campaign been all sweetness and light?
A good question. An excellent place to start to answer is the written material that is supposed to help us make informed decisions. Allegedly, this is all negative stuff. Looking at the example I posted a couple of pages back, this doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, I struggled to find a anything other than positive comments. No one took the opportunity to disagree either, so I guess that's not a bad consensus, so far.
Anyway, I heard form a mate in Edinburgh that yS have a new trump card. Offers of free tickets on the Souter [s]Knightbuses[/s], sorry Nightbuses for all the yes voters. Not sure if it's true. Free buses tickets would hardly be good for the tram!
Scotland should become part of Ukraine. I hear they're looking for new territory and they're in pre-accession talks with the EU already.
Either scenario is fantasy.
The scenario that Scotland as a new independent state will have to apply to join the EU isn't fantasy. Nor is the claim that Scotland will almost certainly have less favourable entry conditions than those enjoyed at the present by the UK.
Ukraine is interesting isn't it? Look behind the scenes at what happens/has happened/will happen in Ukraine and the EUs willingness to open its arms and wallets. Then compare this with the lukewarm (at best) reactions to the idea of an iS. Not really cricket, that!!!!!
ernie_lynch - Member
The scenario that Scotland as a new independent state will have to apply to join the EU isn't fantasy. Nor is the claim that Scotland will almost certainly have less favourable entry conditions than those enjoyed at the present by the UK.
True Ernie, but you seem to be missing the point. Inconvenient facts must be suppressed in favour of thought-speak (assets!) and historical revisionism (RBS). It has been decreed.
Still no treaty to back this up?The scenario that Scotland as a new independent state will have to apply to join the EU isn't fantasy.
I've still to see a fact produced?True Ernie, but you seem to be missing the point. Inconvenient facts must be suppressed in favour of thought-speak
I agree seosamh, Ernie and I are both waiting for the facts to support independence too! Do you think that they might arrive before the actual vote?
THM nothing will ever arrive , on the yes side, that will satisfy your criteria except perhaps AS declaring he is a liar and he made it all up. Its as likely as you changing tact though
You reckon there's a realistic chance that the state who's residents haven't been given a vote on leaving anything will be considered to be the one which has chosen to become independent? Sometimes you really are living on cloud cuckoo land with your ideas - how about you go away and find anybody sensible who agrees with your suggestions before you ask us on here to refute them.POSTED 8 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
Northwind - Member - Block User - Quote
The bottom line is, this isn't a situation the EU rules cover adequately, and it'll be a point of interesting discussion. But since we want to be in the EU, and the EU certainly wants us, it's kind of hard to imagine where the will to force us out will come from.
these two pretty much sum it up
I doubt anyone really thinks either state wont be in the EU if they want to be in it as the EU is expansionist in nature
They do not have rules to either allow this nor ban this so we have to go with what is the most likely outcome which is that both states are in the EU- its a certain for rUK
Nor is the claim that Scotland will almost certainly have less favourable entry conditions than those enjoyed at the present by the UK.
PROOF PLEASE? I note neither your nor THM demand the same rigorous standard of proof for this assertion or any that supports your view...interesting eh-what does THM say when AS he does this? Have you documentary evidence to back this assertion up ?
You dont take the opportunity to disagree with or refute my points so I guess I can credibly call that a consensus position then eh 🙄No one took the opportunity to disagree either, so I guess that's not a bad consensus, so far
Then compare this with the lukewarm (at best) reactions to the idea of an iS. Not really cricket, that!!!!!
Are you now criticising the EU for remaining neutral on an internal matter of devolution for a member state ? Its almost like you will spin any situation to suit your agenda ...not that this will remind you of anyone 😆 Seriously what do you expect them to do but sit on the fence and not interfere...not least due to the UK position of renegotiation and dislike of interference from the EU. They are not going to do anything to hasten your exit nor inflame tensions are they. It would be injudicious to say the least for them to interfere here and we both know it. There stated neutrality is clearly what we would expect them to do in this scenario. I am not sure you can infer anything from this beyond them being politically savvy. They cannot say what they will do till someone asks and that will have to be UK - not going to happen or iS cannot happen till after the vote.
In your opinion, has the no campaign been all sweetness and light?A good question. An excellent place to start to answer is the written material that is supposed to help us make informed decisions. Allegedly, this is all negative stuff. Looking at the example I posted a couple of pages back, this doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, I struggled to find a anything other than positive comments.
So is the spearhead of the Unionist campaign, better together, author of many of these positive comments? Or is their campaign inconvenient for you to dwell on when painting the no campaign as positive? As for The UK examples that they put up,they are very positive, but don't stand up to any more scrutiny than your poster boy of the revolution.They claim that we are weathering the Global economic crisis are somewhat tempered by the fact that foodbank use has doubled in the whole of the UK. ,
The BT campaign seems pretty lacklustre to me. The UK government analysis however tends to stand up better to scrutiny. It was pretty positive too, wasn't it? I guess you also agree as you haven't falsified any of the specific points yet.
Compared to other countries, we have weathered the crisis relatively well although those oversized banks remain a problem. Just imagine.....oh no, that's not allowed in fantasy land.
It really depends on whether you compare us to Germany or Greece as to whether we have weathered it well. Mixed I would say.
We have been mid table a sort of Man u season and GO is probably as competent as Moyes and just as charismatic 😉
I think we can all agree that the facts or propaganda each side use [ depending on who you support]are positive to their position as no one is as daft/honest as say negative things about their own view in public life hence we get such polarised debates between the camps.
Its also probably fair to say the no campaign has been more negative - it would have been whatever they did as AS message is one of constant ambrosia after the vote so anything would appear negative compared to that. That said calling it project fear tells you whether they were doing a positive or a negative campaign
No document to prove iS will get worse conditions then but happy to keep claiming it ? An example of a positive message? and what would you say if AS did this?
The BT campaign seems pretty lacklustre to me. The UK government analysis however tends to stand up better to scrutiny. It was pretty positive too, wasn't it? I guess you also agree as you haven't falsified any of the specific points yet.
Nope,it was BS, like your attempts to claim that this
teamhurtmore - Member
Pretty typical budget with only one big surprise - the (positive IMO) pension changes. Great to see savers for once being recognised ditto Isas etc. Otherwise positive short term economic news offset by slightly negative longer term projections. Fiscally neutral - give with one hand, take any with the other. A bit of politics - obvious pander to the active "silver" vote and the welfare cap "trap" and finally the hidden skulduggery - "hiding away" interest payments to the BOE (tut, tut).
Otherwise deficit better but still poor and more austerity to come (at best half way through) whoever wins in 2015. Plus ca change
on GO on a completly different thread on the budget constituted
WNB, shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made of GOs policies. But if it helps to make a false point, feel free.
Re, Osbourne I will simply invite you to open a few relevant threads. The evidence is there. I hope you will take this invitation even if you have rejected the one to raise the game.
Seem to be a lot of people at it eh?
It's not just the formatting that is confused there Duckman.
Edit for edit: well at least the formatting is now improved.
(Given the the point you seem to be objecting to is where I suggested checking relevant threads (note the plural), it seems odd that you chose to ignore that especially when I also only chose the most recent and relevant one as an example. But I do accept that to have recognised this would have falsified your argument from the start, which is not ideal. So I see what you needed to do (misrepresent) and why.)
No document to prove iS will get worse conditions then but happy to keep claiming it ? ?
Junky, we can go all the way back to page 4 for that
With his written evidence here: - [u]please pay particular evidence to the video evidence about not being able to continue the existing opt outs[/u] - if you lose the existing opt-outs, then you're signing up to worse conditions, its that simple!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/643we13.htm
and the formal legal opinion given to government
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf
An example of a positive message? and what would you say if AS did this?
We've said it before - the UK government have (exceptionally) published formal independent legal opinions from academics and barristers that back them up, the SNP [b]continue[/b] to refuse to publish their own independent legal advice on the issue.
Why do you think that is?
Excellent THM,love what you did there,and for all to see.
In your opinion, has the no campaign been all sweetness and light?
Will iScotland accede to the Djibouti Convention on the Non-Proliferation of Whataboutery?
Excellent THM,love what you did there,and for all to see.
So did I, quite restrained given the circumstances. And anyone CAN see your constant misquoting and misrepresentation. Seems like a pre-requisite for lots of yS arguments though TBF. You are in good company.
With his written evidence here: - please pay particular evidence to the video evidence about not being able to continue the existing opt outs - if you lose the existing opt-outs, then you're signing up to worse conditions, its that simple!http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/643we13.htm
and the formal legal opinion given to government
An example of a positive message? and what would you say if AS did this?
A lot of "could"'s and "might" in the formal legal opinion there.
Losing the opt outs would be a different but it's not less democracy as someone was suggesting earlier. iScotland would also be able to properly negotiate for the things that impact it the most, such as fishing rights which the UK government has been inadequate.
A lot of "could"'s and "might" in the formal legal opinion there.
Makes you wonder why SNP are so reluctant to let us see see their own (alternative?) formal legal opinion, doesn't it?
Makes you wonder why SNP are so reluctant to let us see see their own (alternative?) formal legal opinion, doesn't it?
Not really, I think we all know why they won't release it. If, as I suspect, it says the same things as the above, I wouldn't release it either.
As the end of the day both documents say that Scotland would, if it wanted, become a member of the EU after a set of negotiations. It's also pointed out that there is no precedent, it's just (informed) opinion and that things can change. Which isn't really all that far from the SNP have been saying is it?
Pretty much but not quite WNB - Scotland will be offered access under the conditions that apply to all new members. There will be some negotiation on some details. This will take time - probably more that than SNP predict and more in line with the projections made by those more experienced in these areas - and will be under different conditions than those negotiated by the UK. The latter will still apply to rUK but not to a new state such as iS.