[Closed] SNP & Brexit????

Do the Scottish government have enough time to broker a deal and then hold a referendum?

Yes time will be tight but its not insurmountable- none of this means I can predict the future but its nit outlandish to think they can do this in the time frame.

we are still discussing them RETAINING the UK membership

We're discussing them keeping something they don't have?
NOW it's all clear.
🙂

You have made your view clear you and TJ can repeat the same points for the next three pages as THM does hilarious sidebars

Don't mention THM, you'll get us detention!

i have no doubt you are speculating like he is

and i imagine continued membership will be easier to agree than an exit deal

just leave that here

sbob - Member
We're discussing them keeping something they don't have?
NOW it's all clear.

You're probably right, but there's another angle.

The UK is so because of a Treaty of Union in which the parties are supposedly equal. Scotland is not one of England's conquered subject countries, it's a supposed partner.

When a partnership breaks up it's normal for the assets etc to be distributed, so on that basis, Scotland does have a share in the UK's membership.

Maybe the Scottish govt diplomatic efforts should be in convincing EU countries that as the Treaty of Union has been breached on so many occasions it's high time it was dissolved, and that the EU recognise that the UK is a union of countries, not England and its possessions.

I don't get the point of this. We voted to stay in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU. This is done and dusted arguing about it is a total waste of time.

We're discussing them keeping something they don't have?
NOW it's all clear

just leave that here

Well the UK wont exist at that point will it

So one down, 27 member states to go! 😀

😆

One thing I have been thinking about is if England et al sans Scotland could apply for EU membership.
Many European politicians threatened that there would be no going back for the UK, but if the union dissolves could we not have both halves then apply for membership?
Maybe I should start another thread... 😀
29 member states and counting!

william - timing is an issue. So long as the independence referendum is won before the leaving date it should be OK

'tis an interesting one 'cos on one hand UK leaving the EU makes scottish membership of the EU easier but it also takes away Sturgeons ability to pick the timing. I think about midway thru the a50 process should be OK - gives enough time for the leavers case to be shown to be nonsense and foe everyone to see what a disaster it is and just about enough time to get agreement in principle for Scotland to stay in the EU

but if the union dissolves could we not have both halves then apply for membership?

Its a perfect outcome for all concerned

I imagine this is why the PM is being so quiet as she want to see the look on their faces when she reveals her plan for A50 to the EU personally

UK leaving the EU makes Scottish membership of the EU [s]easier[/s] possible.

😉

Tjagain. halfway through would give a year. cant see that being long enough to come to an agreement with HMG , draft and ratify a section 30 order, produce a white paper and hold a referendum.(although getting the bill through the scottish parliament should be a skoosh as they dont seem to have much else on)

of course that’s assuming its a two year process, most of the policy guys i have spoken to don’t believe that is an achievable timescale. very few believe it can be done within the lifetime of this parliament in fact

william

Westminster is told - agree or we do it on our own. Westminster playing hardball over another referendum would add a good few points onto the yes vote. No hold up there

Uk leaving the EU will be a two year process.

preparatory work has already been done for another referendum

I agree tho the timetable is tight and thats not going to make it easy.

The main issue as I see it is that the SNP have to reconcile 2 difficult things. 30% of SNP voters voted out in the euro referendum and 20%(ish)( no in the independence referendum

Somehow they have to find some answer to this before they can be confident of winning a vote

I don't get the point of this. We voted to stay in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU. This is done and dusted arguing about it is a total waste of time.

Unless you lost and were in the minority.

Don't mention THM, you'll get us detention!

sbob, dont worry, some can never accept responsibility for their own actions, much better to have scapegoats. Cant you see the trend.....

"The main issue as I see it is that the SNP have to reconcile 2 difficult things."

I think the main issue is having nearly lost the Scottish Referendum and lost the Brexit Referendum the establishment will never have another Referendum, ever, ever, ever again.

Rightly, in my opinion.

If Westminster play hardball they are gifting several % points to the Yes side. It could be done without westminster approval but it would be difficult and not binding on Westminster leaving Scotland to go to the UN

Sturgeon ain't gonna call one tho unless she is sure

I find it a little odd that it is (sadly) accepted that one referendum which produced a 48/52 split cannot be re-run & yet people are suggesting that one which was lost 45/55 can be re-addressed within a few years...

I think the main issue is having nearly lost the Scottish Referendum and lost the Brexit Referendum the establishment will never have another Referendum, ever, ever, ever again.

Rightly, in my opinion.

Given the amount of BS, agreed.

And politicians legislate against companies telling lies. Imagine a bank or a telephone company writing 670 pages of rubbish in attempt to fool their customers. The CEOs would be in the dock, faster that you can say "Alex Salmond".

I'm struggling to get my head around the successor state 'stuff'

Back before the indy referendum the EU gave a reply to the Scottish government regarding staying in the EU which stated;

“The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory. “

And the leave supporters jumped on the wording used insisting that it didn't apply to Scotland because Scotland is a country, not “part of the territory” or a “region” of the UK.

But now apparently according to the some “senior and influential EU politicians” Scotland will be a successor state;

“a successor state is a [b]totally new state[/b]. This is distinct from a continuing state, also known as a continuator, which despite change to its borders maintains the same legal personality and possess all its existing rights and obligations.”

My bold for emphasis, so what I am struggling with is if Scotland is currently recognised as a country, then how can it become a new (successor) state? I appreciate that the UK, England, Scotland or Wales and NI (THM 😉 ) are not signatories to the The Vienna Convention on Succession of States, so to a certain extent are free to make thing up as they go along, but I just can't see how this all adds up, I'm guessing the SNP must have some legal advice on the issue though 🙂

Sucessor state. Well someone has to pay the £363m per week. Also with Scotland being the sucessor state it would save the £60bn in future liabilities TJ says the UK has when it leaves the EU. Plus Scotland can have RBS back too, you have that for nothing as a parting gift. I have to say on that basis I'd be pro-Independence.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/807610243370930176?s=09

So Scotland is successful (in GDP per capita terms, at least) as part of the UK and that's a reason to break up the UK? Erm...

Perhaps we are only able to reach such dizzy heights of success [b]because [/b] we are part of the UK.

Boarding even more reason for you to join the EU and bolster their coffers and help pay for their disasterous mistakes.

I don't get the point of this. We voted to stay in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU. This is done and dusted arguing about it is a total waste of time.

@poah this is STW, it's not like the real world 🙂

" Imagine a bank or a telephone company writing 670 pages of rubbish in attempt to fool their customers. The CEOs would be in the dock"

Myopia THM or are you forgetting 2008 already?

I was driving past Fred the Shred's old house in Edinburgh recently Gordi - bought it off family of friends of mine. We don't need reminding on the rise, fall and fall or the Royal Bank of Scotland do we? Although those pretending that Scotland could survive without a lender of last resort are/were clearly suffering from myopia. That or total ignorance.

Well what happened to poor old Fred THM how quickly was he put in the dock? Were nt some other banks/bankers involved too.

I just can't see how this all adds up

In the first example the UK remains in the EU in the later some part of the UK leaves the EU but not all of it- ie some part of it[iS] can still claim accession /to still be a member under the previous treaty. Its not new its continuing all be it with some border changes to the "state/nation".
I am sure the EU can recognise who it wants to be this state- reality if not legally.

they are different scenarios basically

Not saying it will happen but the UK remaining in the EU and the UK leaving does make a difference to the debate iS would be having.

those pretending that Scotland could survive without a lender of last resort are/were clearly suffering from myopia.

One of the key reasons I voted no in the indyref. We need some certainty around central banking. The pound usage tit for tat stuff was embarrassing. I don't know what the answer is but there needs to be one. I'm assuming you don't think there is one.

Yes Gordi, the whole of Fred's Edinburgh mafia got away with murder. A real scandal. More bankers should have been convicted for their behaviour.

There is an answer bob, but at 1:15 it can wait until tomorrow. You won't find it in the book of dreams though.

Ah I see THM I thought there were some banks in London too, but perhaps not or maybe the London based ones all performed to the highest ethical standards.

BoardinBob http://positivemoney.org/our-proposals/

The pound usage tit for tat stuff was embarrassing. I don't know what the answer is but there needs to be one. I'm assuming you don't think there is one.

There's the short term solution that would be initially least damaging, but lead to long term problems and also prohibits EU membership (Panama model).

There's having a formal currency union, but rUK will never enter into that because it has no upside for them and the control they would exert over iScotland would be significant. No workable solution will ever be found here.

There's the solution that works the best in the long term, but would be incredibly painful initially backed by our own, new, central bank (new free float currency).

Then there's the Euro.

Personally, I don't like any of the options and this will always be one of the major weak points in any independence argument.

http://positivemoney.org/our-proposals

There were Gordi, there were.What we missed down here was a narcissist claiming that they could exist without a central bank providing the lender of last resort function. A crucial difference.

Ah I see THM I thought there were some banks in London too, but perhaps not or maybe the London based ones all performed to the highest ethical standards

Fred the Shred was a uniquely extreme example of unethical behaviour.

The main issue is the size of the banks relative to the economies within which they exist. The UK could do what it did only because of its size. An independent Scotland (if we assume the same size of financial sector as at present) would struggle to do the same.

Banks losing money - meh. Individuals and businesses getting hamstrung as cash is lost and the economy tanks due to loss of confidence - seriously bad.

THM It's strange then that none of these bankers have been put in the dock at all never mind as quickly as you claimed they would be.

irelanst - Member

I'm struggling to get my head around the successor state 'stuff'

It's a meaningless sound bite for people to latch onto and make them feel clever.

"Dog whistle racism" was the last one that came out of nowhere and was then suddenly repeated by the flock ad nauseam.
💡

Grumpysculler I reckon an independent Scotland with its own currency, and it's own independent central bank outside the euro but in the EU is my ideal scenario. I would also support independence outside the eu. I believe that a nation state should have control of the money supply through a central bank.
Agreed the positivemoney link is very simplified. More detail on pdf here

Although I voted Remain I believe the EU is too much under the influence of the banking sector.
TJ got it right when he said that brexit was a complex issue for the snp as approximately a third of independence supporters voted Leave.

When talking about RBS you must remember that it was not a "scottish" bank but a UK one. It did most of its business in England.

I wouldn't wish "positivemoney" on my worst enemy.

TJ Scottish management. Fred the Shred (so named as he bought businesses and fired people/cut costs) bought NatWest hence all the UK business (lots of SME lending). Their UK business was largely OK. He killed the bank with poor management/acquisition. The UK govt should have taken it over at a price of zero.

It's [succesor state]a meaningless sound bite for people to latch onto and make them feel clever.

a successor state is a totally new state. This is distinct from a continuing state, also known as a continuator, which despite change to its borders maintains the same legal personality and possess all its existing rights and obligations.

The argument previously was that if iS left then the rUK was the successor state - did i miss you getting outraged when this was pointed out in previous debates or did you understand it perfectly well then?

Did someone forget to tell Alex that RBS wasn't a Scottish bank - despite being headquartered there? He certainly used to boast about it being so.

Why was Alex so annoyed when it was leaked that they would move HQ to London if people voted foolishly? Was it because they we saying that they would not want to be a Scottish bank under those circumstances? or juts fancied a change?

Still at least now it is technically a UK bank now owned on our behalf!

How could we forget THM - back when Scotland was the 'Celtic Lion' economy 😆

[i]And of course we Scots are lucky enough to have the one of the best brands in the world - a global recognition and affection for our culture that money cannot buy.

Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term.[/i]

Said Alex, back in the days when he and Fred were best mates (indeed, the same days when Alex and The Donald were best mates too... you know what they say about how you can judge a man by the company he keeps)

[IMG] [/IMG]

Indeed Ninfan - poor judgement now acknowledged by him publicly. Few politicians will acknowledge they made mistakes - he has done.

I still find all the anti snp stuff funny. Because its being done by folk with poor knowledge they very rarely actually hit on the real mistakes the SNP have made.