[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Cannot watch the video so cannot comment on it]
the first link says nothing about the issue and the second one is 50 + pages long

the second link has this

166.Assuming that Scotland would indeed have to accede to the EU as a new state, it would be a matter for the accession process whether it could do so on similar terms to the UK.
There is no rule that, for example, it would somehow automatically be entitled to the UK’s opt-outs from the euro or justice and home affairs. The terms of accession would have to be agreed with other Member States

Scottish independence would be an event without a clear precedent in EU law and is not clearly governed by any particular provisions of the EU treaties

the UK government have (exceptionally) published [b]formal independent legal opinions from academics and barristers that back them up[/b]

SNP continue to refuse to publish their own independent legal advice on the issue.

Scotland will be offered access under the conditions that apply to all new members.

That's not actually what the links say though is it. It's probably the most likely outcome but they do make reference to the fact this hasn't before and things may be fast tracked or concessions given etc. It's also stated that although the UK is likely to remain a member there may be pressure to have it's own terms renegotiated to reflect it's own reduced population and assets.

Scotland will be offered access under the conditions that apply to all new members....and will be under different conditions than those negotiated by the UK

The EU could literally do anything as it is politics and there is NO PRECEDENT for this scenario,no real rules and no ruling for them on what will or wont happen
You have no evidence to support that claim and you know it. Is this not what yo object to AS doing? well that and breathing.

Interesting stuff on how citizens are affected [ ninfan link]as the state may be a new member but the citizens are members...gives sufficient wiggle room for almost any scenario to be credible I would have thought but basically we do not know as they have remained neutral for the reasons stated above.

Which isn't really all that far from the SNP have been saying is it?

Well, to be fair you'd need to specify - the SNP have said a lot of things in the course of events, their position has gone from claiming that they would automatically inherit EU membership, to accepting that they would probably have to reapply, to claiming that iS and rUK would both have to reapply, to accepting that the rUK would continue with membership and iS would have to reapply but would be guaranteed entry, to claiming that Barosso was lying when he said that they would not be guaranteed entry, to then accepting that Barosso was technically telling the truth, but it was all a conspiracy by the rUK government and EU to undermine the Yes campaign

So, which version is it 'not far from'?

You may be right on the links WNB, I didn't open them. But if you are correct that a yes vote would alter the rUK's terms of membership, then perhaps the idea of "why do youse bother" can be out to bed once and for all.

We bother for very good reasons. It's our interests that are being negatively affected.

The European citizens' initiative allows one million EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU policies, by calling on the European Commission to make a legislative proposal.

http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/?lg=en

Are there a million STWers? 😆

But if you are correct that a yes vote would alter the rUK's terms of membership, then perhaps the idea of "why do youse bother" can be out to bed once and for all.

We bother for very good reasons. It's our interests that are being negatively affected.

I can't see it being a big problem, it's unlikely to change more than, say, the number of MEPs I'd of thought, but it's a possibility.

I can't see it being a big problem, it's unlikely to change more than, say, the number of MEPs I'd of thought, but it's a possibility.

I think Scotland would get 9, I think that's the minimum.

[quote=seosamh77 ]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.

Ah, an Edinburgh defence variation. I think it might save time if we assumed you weren't actually serious about any of your suggestions. Oh here we go:

no I reckon there will be 2 successor states.

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

[quote=whatnobeer ]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.

It would be able to do that because it would be in such a strong position in negotiations to rejoin the EU?

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » 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.
Ah, an Edinburgh defence variation. I think it might save time if we assumed you weren't actually serious about any of your suggestions. Oh here we go:

no I reckon there will be 2 successor states.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.

[quote=seosamh77 ]laugh all ye want, notable that none of the above points I raised have been addressed.

Maybe you can let us know when you're being serious then. Also addressed by whom? I refer you to my earlier point:

[quote=aracer ]how about you go away and find anybody sensible who agrees with your suggestions before you ask us on here to refute them.

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » laugh all ye want, notable that none of the above points I raised have been addressed.
Maybe you can let us know when you're being serious then. Also addressed by whom? I refer you to my earlier point:

aracer » how about you go away and find anybody sensible who agrees with your suggestions before you ask us on here to refute them.

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

It was mentioned in at least one of the links to legal opinion and couldn't be totally ruled out iirc.

It would be able to do that because it would be in such a strong position in negotiations to rejoin the EU?

FFS, we're not back to seriously suggesting Scotland wouldn't be allowed back in?

Try reading what I wrote, wnb

Try reading what I wrote, wnb

I read it fine thanks.

You seemed to be saying that we won't able to negotiate on fishing rights at all because we'll have to give them all away to be allowed back in?

The negotiation works both ways, I can't see Scotland signing up to a deal that would compromise one of its biggest assets, especially when the Spanish in particular need access to Scottish waters.

[quote=whatnobeer ]You seemed to be saying that we won't able to negotiate on fishing rights at all because we'll have to give them all away to be allowed back in?

Hmm, let me check...

Nope, definitely didn't write that.

The negotiation works both ways, I can't see Scotland signing up to a deal that would compromise one of its biggest assets, especially when the Spanish in particular need access to Scottish waters.

You reckon they'll stay out of the EU over that?

What are you saying then? You said we'll be in a weak position to negotiate. I disagreed.

No I don't think they'll stay out over that, but it would be massive kick in the teeth if the said "oh fine, we'll bend over and continue to get ****ed on fishing rights". It's not going to happen.

[quote=whatnobeer ]What are you saying then? You said we'll be in a weak position to negotiate. I disagreed.

yS appears pretty committed to rejoining the EU - you reckon you'll be dictating your terms to the EU for giving them the benefit of your company?

No I don't think they'll stay out over that, but it would be massive kick in the teeth if the said "oh fine, we'll bend over and continue to get **** on fishing rights". It's not going to happen.

So which is it, something on which they'll agree to what they're told to do, or something they'll make a stand over? Or are you reckoning to get better terms of membership than the UK currently has?

You're just playing silly buggers aren't you.

They want to join the EU. I suspect, due to things like the fishing waters the EU would like Scotland to join as well. They'll negotiate. Neither side will bend over.

I think we'll get more MEP that we currently have will be better able to represent our interests. It's unlikely that we get the same opt outs the UK currently has, but you never know. IANAL.

What won't happen though is one side totally dictating conditions and the other simply agreeing. That's pretty ****ing obvious.

[quote=whatnobeer ]You're just playing silly buggers aren't you.

No - simply providing some realism to counteract your optimism that iS would be able to negotiate better terms than the UK currently has on the basis that's what the people of Scotland want. I'm not sure you quite understand how "negotiating" the terms on which new members join the EU actually works.

I think we'll get more MEP that we currently have will be better able to represent our interests.

Ah, but will you get the European government that [b]you[/b] voted for?

I think we can all agree no one gets the EU govt they voted for....does it even have a ruling party in the parliament?? However much minor changes there are to MEP numbers will make next to no difference but they will get an independent seat at the big table as council of ministers and also a commissioner [ well currently all states do] and be the presidency every 15 years or so!!!! You can make the case either way IMHO but little difference seems the fairest assessment or perhaps more influence but paying more if you insist they will get less favourable terms.

[quote=Junkyard ]I think we can all agree no one gets the EU govt they voted for

Indeed, but surely you didn't miss the implied comparison between the claim about having some influence in the EU and the complaint about having none in the UK?

Oh dear looks like politicians do lie.
[url= http://tinyurl.com/lnvddrs ]Cameron hints at a currency union[/url]

but surely you didn't miss the implied comparison between the claim about having some influence in the EU and the complaint about having none in the UK?

[quote=fasternotfatter ]Oh dear looks like politicians do lie.

!news

Cameron hints at a currency union

Is that in some other story which you didn't link to?

Yeah, am confused. Not the most nonsensical post in the thread by a long way mind!

I missed it too tbh

fasternotfatter's link is interesting, I was particularly interested in this comment :

It would take up to 15 years for a cut in corporation tax to pay for itself, given the impact of a drop in company tax revenues on public spending.

I think we can safely assume that "jam tomorrow" will be official Scottish government policy should Yes Scotland win the vote in September.

Hmmm Jam tomorrow doesnt sound too bad compared to David Camerons war cry "we're all in this together"

they must be gutted to leave the balanced books of UK behind eh

Remind me in the UK its still austerity and GO is still making the tough choices for our future prosperity or has he declared this to be the plan and the goal and everything is fine.
Its not exactly radically different from what we have now is it.

"Scotland's economy could succeed under independence, and it would be in [the rest of the] UK's interests to facilitate that as far as possible," it concluded.

To those who say that means I am doing Scotland down, my reply is simple: we need more facts and less emotion in this debate," he said.

Jam tomorrow doesnt sound too bad

I think it's a vote winner.

And I suspect Alex Salmond also does.

As does every other party unless you are aware of one that stands saying it will be worse under them.

I'm not sure any party is claiming that we will be reaping the rewards of their policies in 15 years time.

And I seem to remember that the Tories are telling us how great things are right now........falling unemployment, more jobs than in any time in British history, fastest growing economy in the western world, falling inflation, falling petrol prices, cheaper beer, lower tax on bingo, no VAT on pasties. Could things get any better ?

Ernie;that looks like you have just given a summary of the link THM posted as up as to why we are better together. Now if you give me scouts honour that is all true,I will write a letter of apology to that nice Mr Cameron and change my vote.. 😀

Jam tomorrow you say, gets my vote.

In this together, never was and never will be.

Out of curiosity "more jobs than at any time in British history" is that as a percentage of population. Or just number of actual jobs? Because only one really counts.

Our school role has soared as there aren't any jobs for the potential leavers. Based on his history I would suspect Ernie was employing a degree of irony in that post,but he missed out the [s]olympics[/s] circuses to keep the mob happy.

I only do irony after 9am or my 2nd dump of the day. Whichever comes soonest.

2nd dump? too much fibre,or perhaps too many oats...

"A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people". Samuel Johnston 😀

I'll not go into detail about any hat tricks

I left out the Olympics duckman because that would have been jam yesterday. The Tory narrative is that we didn't have jam yesterday but we are having jam today. And as far as I can figure out according to them this is about as good as it gets, so don't expect much more.

Unless of course you live in Scotland in which case vote Yes and Salmond promises you jam tomorrow,
probably. But we won't go into detail. Just trust him.

.

piemonster - Member

Jam tomorrow you say, gets my vote.

I predict it will get the vote of very slightly more than half of the people living in Scotland in 6 months time. There's something very seductive about the promise of jam tomorrow. Specially if you avoid thinking too much about how you're going to get it.

Jam tomorrow definitely sounds enticing, and the published recipe looks pretty good, even if it is a bit untried 😉

I cant see any Jam today. The Tories have just announced a downward revision in longer term growth forecasts from OBR, a lot still need to be done to address the deficit especially if (as all parties are saying) we are looking to produce a budget surplus and the current upturn is not built on sustainable foundations. Not my idea of a picnic. All parties are broadly advancing the same solutions and none of them are predicting a speedy resolution to our economic challenges....

....all except one! In la, la land these issues dissolve away in an instant. Tax less, spend more, others backstop the obvious mismatch here and protect one of the main segments of your economy, oil revenues will be higher than others now suggest, pensions what pensions and the EU entry and the eventual adoption of the euro (for better or worse) is a relatively quick and easy process.

Forget Scotland, we should have wee eck in charge of the whole UK. The only other people who could pull this trick off are magicians. But here is a straight guy who can deliver utopia on a plate. Brilliant.

I cant see any Jam today.

You what ????

You mean that the Tories upbeat assessment is false ?

😯

EDIT : I've just checked THM and you're definitely wrong - Britain is "booming" :

[url= http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/12/05/why-so-sad-george-the-reasons-behind-the-chancellor-s-gloomy ]Osborne claims vindication amid booming economy[/url]

[i][b]Tories were jubilant as they realised the UK was experiencing the most substantial economic growth in the developed world........[/i][/b]

There's something very seductive about the promise of jam tomorrow

Forget Scotland, we should have wee eck in charge of the whole UK.

It's taken 85 pages, but finally like the monkeys with typewriters producing the works of Shakespeare you are talking sense! Well done THM. 😈