MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
When did this rUK thing start??? 😉
Or England joins Schengen
Duckman:
Free from the burden of ScotlandEngland would apparantly be a land of high-speed rail links and honey,according to Zokes
Erm? When did I say this? Or are we inventing things again
(who would appear to be in OZ)
I do. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though, or are any Scots south of the border automatically English by nationality? Though funnily enough, they won't be allowed to vote in the referendum:
[url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0038/00386123.pdf ]
[/url]This reflects the internationally accepted principle that the franchise for constitutional referendums should be determined by residency and the Scottish Government’s view that sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland.
All new entrants to the EU are obliged to sign up for Schengen
You presume Scotland will be allowed to join the EU!
How big does a thread have to be before it develops an echo like that?
Dunno but here is the echos answer
[url= http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4183-spanish-foreign-minister-reports-spain-would-veto-scots-membership-of-eu-are-qabsolutely-falseq ]The Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, José Manuel García-Margallo, yesterday characterised as "absolutely false" reports in the British media that Spain would veto Scottish membership of the EU. The report had been originally published in the London based Independent, and repeated by a number of other news outlets.[/url]
Or England joins Schengen
Not sure England has that choice, but the UK minus Scotland might have a view.
fair point rio
Please have a large pinch of salt to hand but this is interesting.
[url= http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4106-rump-uk-would-have-to-renegotiate-eu-membership ]However, speaking to the French news agency AFP, senior officials within the EU have said that the rump UK would find itself in an identical position to a newly independent Scotland, and that both would have to renegotiate the terms of their entry into the EU.
In an attempt to ramp up the pressure on the Scots, Unionists have claimed that Scotland's entry could be blocked by a veto from a single member state. However this was dismissed by lawyers for the EU who said an independent Scotland could be treated as one of two successor states, and that a separate seat for Edinburgh would require only a simple majority vote. No single EU member would have a veto. [/url]
The unnamed (and possibly fictitious) "EU lawyers" are wrong. There would not be a successor state as the UK would remain as a state; even if E&W&NI were a successor state, there is no problem about it retaining its membership of international organisations without re-applying. There are tons of precedents for this in international law in the last thirty years alone.
E&W&NI could easily join Schengen if it wanted. Ireland would join Schengen too - they only didn't join to preserve the common travel area with NI and GB.
Incidentally, part of the arrangements for Irish independence included the common travel area and the provision that UK citizens could vote in Irish elections and vice versa. There's no reason why a similar arrangement couldn't be established after Scottish independence too.
Frankly, all of these issues are distractions from the core question of whether it's a good idea or not. None of them is unprecedented and all of them are practically addressable if the political will is there.
The Germans remained members of the EC after they greatly changed their borders with the unification of East & West.
I really don't see how it wouldn't be the same if a country reduced it's borders and part of it went a separate way
both would have to renegotiate the terms of their entry into the EU.
That would be fantastic for rUK. I dearly hope it's correct.
konabunny - MemberThe unnamed (and possibly fictitious) "EU lawyers" are wrong. There would not be a successor state as the UK would remain as a state;
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to give it its full name, would no longer exist.
Saw the interview and Alex came off looking OK on it. Paxman looked like a tetchy caracature of himself.
I fail to see how Scotland would benefit from independence. For a start, we would have only one main political party who actually wanted independence, so what happens if SNP lose their majority at the first election after independence? Either the opposition parties execute a humiliating climb down for the sake of governing the country sensibly (hah!) or they execute a humiliating plea to join the Union again. Either way it would be an embarrassment to be called a Scot (current views on the chain-smoking deep-fried-everything violent stereotype notwithstanding).
The good news is that the majority of Scots also fail to see how Scotland would benefit from Independence. The double good news is that Alex Salmond is one of them. So whilst he's rattling the sabre for Scottish interests it's all good - indeed this is what he should be doing.
CmD just needs to insist on a starkly-worded plebiscite along the lines of 'Do you want Scotland to leave the union of Great Britain yes or no' and that'll be that - binned. Alex gets carried out on his shield and gets to save face.
What we don't want is a biscuit-arsed third option on the ballot that gives some vague sort of mandate that can be dragged on for the next 20 years.
You mean you dont want the people to have all the options on the table..Can you run this democracy idea past me again?
The new statesman has a couple of interesting articles today on both AS and more interestingly on "the question".
You mean you dont want the people to have all the options on the table..Can you run this democracy idea past me again?
Well I suppose then that you could put 101 questions on the ballot
Do you want Devo-micro?
Do you want to return to a feudal system
Do you want to close our borders with England
etc.
etc.
haven't trawled the thread but has anyone mentioned the High Speed Rail link yet? How can the SNP campign for the UK government to build it all the way north of the border when the main beneficiary would be Scotland. Surely it would be up to the Scottish government to fund it?
You mean you dont want the people to have all the options on the table.
"Do you want independence?"
a) Yes
b) No
c) Maybe
I'm not sure how (c) helps the matter? For once, this is a political question to which only a simple yes/no is required.
Why are you guys so desperate to ridicule and to try to find fault?
It really is rather amusing the logical leaps some folk are making here. that and the total lack of understanding of the issues
it is the devo max question to which i refer zokes. The unionist dont want as it will likely to be a yes vote.
Seems reasonable to ask about that as well in a referendum on union membership
Why are you guys so desperate to ridicule and to try to find fault?It really is rather amusing the logical leaps some folk are making here. that and the total lack of understanding of the issues
Isn't that what democracy is all about? 😀
Why? Was offering a referendum on Devo-Max an SNP election manifesto promise Junky?
Or did it only come to the forefront once they realised they were likely to lose the referendum they promised?
It really is rather amusing the logical leaps some folk are making here.
Would it not be fair to suggest that that allegation applies to [i]both[/i] sides of the discussion TJ?
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to give it its full name, would no longer exist.
The state would still exist, even if it chose to rename itself.
No it wouldn't! great Britain is the landmass - the main island. It would no longer be a united kingdom of great Britain as a part of great Britain would no longer be united with the rest of it.
On the 3rd question..
Salmond and the SNP don't want a 3rd option on the paper.
There is a significant body of opinion in Scotland in favour of [i]more[/i] devolution. The dependence parties kicked off the Calman Commission in order to head the SNP off at the pass, thinking that a few extra levers to play with would satisfy the current demand. That has now been overtaken by events.
Now that "the people" have got used to the idea that more powers [i]could[/i] be devolved, what do you think their reaction will be when the dependence parties and the UK Government prevent that from appearing as an option in a referendum? With an added bit of grudge politics then in place, I suspect that many (enough?) will opt for full independence.
It's an SNP-led trap.
It will be the United Kingdom of Even Better Britain and Northern Ireland
😆
The "Great" in GB refers to "greater" = larger. So it'll actually be the United Kingdom of Little Britain and Northern Ireland. That has a much better ring to it!
Was offering a referendum on Devo-Max an SNP election manifesto promise Junky?
can i post up your link that proves manifesto pledges are not legal...and some think you argue just to score points 😉
Perhaps you are accusing a politician of trying to win a vote now...hopefully this madness wont catch on amongst those principled paragons 😉
banter aside of course he is doing it for political reasons he is a politician - just like CMD was/is doing the same with forcing the vote
yes they are large logical leaps on this debate on both sides
Think Calman is dead in the water now Druidh? I really can see no redeeming features in it and can anyone make a case for it making sense?
I thought [i]all[/i] the parties were now promising more than Calman?
Thing is, we've been down this road before - in 1979.
The campaign for a "no" vote was much helped by an assurance by former Prime Minister Lord Home of the Hirsel that a future Conservative Government would introduce legislation which would meet the objections. This pledge, made by Lord Home in a personal capacity, was not honoured by the Conservatives when they came to power a few months later.
it is the devo max question to which i refer zokes.
On this, it's my possibly flawed understanding that they can vote on it all they like, but Westminster isn't obliged to act on it one iota. And why should it? Why devolve more powers whilst still ultimately having to foot the financial bill if things go wrong? c.f. Celtic tigers...
Anyway, why would Scotland still want to be politically joined to England whilst claiming more independence? Why not just become independent if that's what's wanted, or don't if it's not. Hence:
"Do you want independence?"a) Yes
b) No
It would no longer be a united kingdom of great Britain as a part of great Britain would no longer be united with the rest of it.
It doesn't matter. Scotland would secede from the state. The state would not cease to exist. The state's name is irrelevant.
I believe you are correct. The last devolution settlement was outlined by Westminster and the (two part)referendum was to determine whether or not "the people" wanted it.zokes - Member
> it is the devo max question to which i refer zokes.
On this, it's my possibly flawed understanding that they can vote on it all they like, but Westminster isn't obliged to act on it one iota.
That doesn't prevent another, further, devolution package being agreed between Westminster and Holyrood and again being put to a referendum whether that is also in 2014 or not. Is there not a possibility that the dependence parties will do this rather than face the possible complete break-up of the UK?
Why devolve more powers whilst still ultimately having to foot the financial bill if things go wrong?
errmmm- I don't know how this could occur. Scotland now has a set amount of money to spend and cannot overspend -it has no money raising power. Overspend the money will simply run out.
Under devo max ( I hate that phrase) if Scotland ran out of money it would have the ability to raise more thru raising taxes, borrowing or whatever. there would be no financial dependence on England
Scotland now has a set amount of money to spend and cannot overspend -it has no money raising power. Overspend the money will simply run out.Under devo max ( I hate that phrase) if Scotland ran out of money it would have the ability to raise more thru raising taxes
Dit-durr (Family Fortunes sound).
The Scottish Parliament already has the power to raise revenue in addition to the funding formula by way of the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_variable_rate ]Scottish Variable Rate[/url]. It could, also, reduce the basic rate of tax.
I would be happy to see Scotland secede from the Union and gain all she demanded - on the proviso that Alex Salmond is forced to have TJ walking behind him everywhere and saying "Oooh, you don't want to do it like that!" (Harry Enfield stylee) at every policy decision! 😆
^ Personally I would like indepenence to happen only for the SNP to bring in a mandatory helmet law 😆
I'm no fan of Salmond, but I thought he did well in front of a typically obnoxious Paxo. The likening of him to Mugabe was crass and offensive to the people who have suffered under his rule. I'm surprised Salmond didn't tell him to f*** off and walk out.
TBH I think the interview raises more questions of Paxo's salary than Salmonds policies. There didn't seem to be much intellectual content to his questioning, and I'm sure if we just want someone to be obnoxious, there are a number of characters on STW who would do it for a lot less then Paxo.
Actually TJ you are wrong on one point.
Great Britain is the name of a political construct, should Scotland leave the Union this would no longer exist.
However, Britain is the name of the Island that Scotland inhabits, If Scotland wishes to leave Britain you are going to need quite a lot of ships and an uninhabited landmass somewhere...
..There is always the South Pole! 😛
And as I pointed out on another thread, if Scotland gains independence, the rest will become Little Britain.
Seems apt 😀
Call it what you like - you'll still have TJ - we still gain! 😛
It is economics, not culture, that will determine the future – and that looks less good for Mr Salmond’s independence case. Scotland could certainly survive. [b]It would be wealthier in terms of gross domestic product per head than Italy, New Zealand or Spain and close to the UK average.[/b] But even if it received most of the revenue flowing from North Sea oil, a diminishing resource that lies in its waters, it would be [b]likely to face austerity. As a newly independent small country with large fiscal deficits and high public debt, it would not command a triple A credit rating and would thus face higher borrowing costs than the UK. To reduce this, it is likely to have to cut public spending.[/b]Mr Salmond wants Scotland to keep sterling until it decides to join the euro. [b]But it would have to do this either without agreement, meaning it would have no central bank as lender of last resort, or by an accord under which the residual UK would insist on strict fiscal rules, meaning Scotland would enjoy independence in neither monetary nor taxation terms. [/b]The regulation of financial services would also be an issue. Scotland is home to several large institutions, including Royal Bank of Scotland and assurers such as Standard Life. An independent Scotland would have a limited ability to stand behind deposits.
And what of devo max? That is the vaguest option. A Scotland bill currently going through Westminster will give Scotland’s parliament at Holyrood in Edinburgh the power to raise about 35 per cent of tax in Scotland. Devo max would probably increase that to at least 60 per cent.Under one variant proposed by Reform Scotland, a think-tank, Holyrood would control most taxes, including income tax and corporation tax, leaving Westminster with value added tax and national insurance. But to avoid deep public spending cuts, Scotland would need its “geographical share” of oil revenues. Professor Arthur Midwinter, a former adviser to Holyrood’s finance committee, says devo max would be a “recipe for political conflict with the UK”.
Some food for thought from today's FT.
if Scotland gains independence, the rest will become Little Britain.
That already exists - Brittany/Bretagne.
[img][url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7148/6778510133_18d34386e5_b.jp g" target="_blank">
Crikey, still on!
Put them Scots to hard labour while the chance is still available before they run free.
😆
Top Trollin.
There is a quote up there about having a basket case country as a neighbour. You should be scared of that, we have one already and it is truly horrendous.
I see Dave is at it again:
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/16/david-cameron-scottish-independence-flaws ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/16/david-cameron-scottish-independence-flaws[/url]
Not great arguments imo.
Not great arguments imo.
It doesn't matter. The point is to talk about something that is not the economy and not the total lack of ConLibDem coherent policy.
I was surprised that I quite liked Salmond's response to Cameron - he likes Cameron's talk of respect and looks forward to giving him the opportunity to demonstrate respect in his actions.
I mean, goading Cameron into backing up spin with action - simple but genius. Everyone knows that Cameron is basically incapable of backing anything he says with action.
On a lighter note, I wonder if Cameron will emphasise the Scots roots of his name by turning up in an inappropriate tartan?
Why wait Mr Cameron? If you have some proposals, put them on the table in time for 2014 and let the Scottish public decide what they prefer?Mr Cameron said the independence issue had to be dealt with simply, saying: "We have to settle that question before then going on and asking, I think quite legitimately, is there more that we can do to improve the devolved settlement?"Are there powers that could be devolved, how can we make the United Kingdom work better?"
igm - no surprise really - Salmond is good political operator - makes the rest of the UK politicians look as ineffective as they are
He runs rings round Cameron
TJ - not surprised Salmond can run rings round the Cameron. More surprised that I liked his response. Having met Salmond years ago, I've always found him an obnoxious little swine. Good political operator though.
Sadly I doubt Salmond is actually any more effective when it comes to it than Cameron, Minibrand or the other one.
🙂
muddydwarf - Member
...However, Britain is the name of the Island that Scotland inhabits, If Scotland wishes to leave Britain you are going to need quite a lot of ships and an uninhabited landmass somewhere...
We could build a ruddy great moat across the country. Call it the Disunion Canal.
It's been tried before. The Romans built a useful barrier to keep the barbarians out. We Scots were puzzled as to why they kindly did this for us as we were well capable of dealing with those barbarians. 🙂
Or in other words, no amount of logical argument is going to stop this process.
Scots are going to vote according to their existing beliefs about independence, and all the verbiage in the Murdoch press and scare mongering by local quislings is for nought.
