Osbourne says no to currency union.

“There are also questions over how further devolution can and would be delivered in the event of a No vote.”

There you go Gordi, not that you needed it 😉 came after we wish they would stop talking bllx over currencies, tax, pensions, Uni fees. You know the little stuff….

(Tend to avoid the herald if I can though)

“What part of EU or Scottish law says that EU citizens are not allowed to live in Scotland if Scotland leaves?”
What part of Sturgeon’s comments says that?

What part of EU or Scottish law (here, UK migration law) says that EU citizens have a right to live in a non-EU state?

What part of EU or Scottish law (here, UK migration law) says that EU citizens have a right to live in a non-EU state?

You still don’t really ‘get’ this independence concept, do you? An independent Scotland would be in charge of its own immigration policy, you can set your immigration policy to allow anybody you like to stay.

If Scotland was outside ­Europe, they would lose the right to stay here.

UKIP and beyond aside. I don’t see either Labour or Conservatives sending home that much cheap labour. Or wanting to pay for the hassle.

I’d wager future restrictions on immigration tightening up. Not deportation. Which is more likely to have an impact on seasonal labour than those normally resident.

Still waiting for the yS bazooka…

It’s a skill (?) to make GO look consistently on top of his brief, but Shirley John Swinney can do a bit better than “GO has mishandled te recession” when cornered by questions about tax, pensions, currency etc

C’mon guys at least go down fighting. That was lame. The fiscal commission needs to earn its fees with an updated script for these poor fellows to follow.

Presumably had he been harsher you would have accused him of playing the man or portraying rUK as the bogeyman 😉

JY it is an implied threat towards EU nationals

What it the threat then- can you state it please ? It is a bland statement of the law pertaining to what it would mean if iS was not in the EU. Its the truth basically.

If the EU said if iS is not in the EU then they womt have free movement within the EU or be part of the common market is this also a threat or just a matter of fact?

Talking of the Law, time to add the Law Society of Scotland to the list

Is this now simply a list of groups that have asked questions?
None of the last few have even offered or taken a view on the vote so it has moved beyond tenuous.

What I like most about education is the way students learn to present evidence that supports their view rather than present things and claim they support their view.

It is a bland statement of the law pertaining to what it would mean if iS was not in the EU. Its the truth basically.

Ok, Junky again, which law says that If Scotland was not part of the ­EU, then EU citizens would lose the right to stay there?

If the EU said if iS is not in the EU then they womt have free movement within the EU or be part of the common market is this also a threat or just a matter of fact?

If Scotland leaves the EU, then as non EU citizens Scots would no longer have freedom of movement within the EU, however it does not follow that EU citizens would not have freedom of movement in Scotland, that would be entirely choice for the Scottish government,

As has already been said, a non-EU Scotland can set their own immigration policy to allow anybody they like to stay, including EU citizens.

Well no, because as pointed out, there’s no requirement for iS to send EU nationals home when it leaves the EU – that would be something they chose to do. They’re certainly within their rights to do so if they want, but the fact they could choose not to do it makes it a threat.

I’m still not sure if Ms Sturgeon realises quite how ludicrous she appears making such threats to an organisation she wants to allow her country to join.

which law says that If Scotland was not part of the ­EU, then EU citizens would lose the right to stay there.

The law is that if you are in the EU you get free movement so when you ask a [mis]leadign questioon liek that then the answer is none

Still i cannot go and live in Canada or the US or Peru because I am an EU citizen so it is a pointless question you ask.

that would be something they chose to do. They’re certainly within their rights to do so if they want, but the fact they could choose not to do it makes it a threat

And the EU would that would choose to do the same

TBH I do see the point being made [ it has some merit to be fair*] now but IMHO you have to try pretty hard to get upset by this / see it as a threat.

IMHO they are just the opposite sides of the same coin.
In the EU free movement within the EU and not in the EU not free movement within those countries.
Ie if iS was outside the EU they could also “choose” to ignore this fact but they wont either.

EDIT: I doubt the EU are as sensitive as you folk and wont feel threatened tbh

Hard to quote a law for a country that doesn’t yet exists, eh?

I’m not entirely clear on how immigration policy and the right work etc works in law, but surely removing the automatic freedom of movement rights of EU citizens would default to no right, which I assume is the default position for someone who is not a UK (or iScotland) national?

You could argue all day about whether there is a requirement to send people home, but just as Scotland could choose to do it, or not, the EU could can do the same when it comes to Scottish membership. The fact that you two or arguing over this is tiresome and extremely pedantic.

I agree IMHO it smells of trying to find an issue rather than being an issue

I assume we all accept that if iS or rUK leave the EU that free movement [ in both directions] stops.
I dont consider this to be any side threatening anyone tbh but just a statement of fact

Hahahahahah! The wheels have come off and gone rolling down the road 😆

Nicola says:

‘There are 160,000 EU nationals from other states living in Scotland, including some in the Commonwealth Games city of Glasgow’ ‘If Scotland was outside ­Europe, they would lose the right to stay here.”

Whereas in the Draft Constitution published by the Scottish Government:

(5) All persons lawfully resident within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Scotland on the
date when this Constitution comes into force shall be citizens of the Kingdom. The rules
governing the acquisition and loss of citizenship after that date, by birth, marriage, and
naturalisation, shall be determined by law; provided, that no citizen shall be deprived of
their citizenship, except by a voluntary act of renunciation, or by conviction for treason.

Oh, the SNP have so thought this one out

You don’t expect her to have read that do you? 😆

Well no. No particular reason why it should in one direction – only if the country involved actually chooses to do so. Which would admittedly be a fairly logical step if the country leaving the EU doesn’t intend to be part of the EU again.

Ah, the standard catch-all “we don’t know how we’re doing this despite asking you to vote on something we won’t give you the full details of, trust us”, because presumably it’s not possible to tell the voters what the intended laws of the new country will be. Except that in this case it seems Ms Sturgeon does know what the law of the new country will be (if we ignore the fact she doesn’t actually know what the draft constitution says).

I’m not entirely clear on how immigration policy and the right work etc works in law, but surely removing the automatic freedom of movement rights of EU citizens would default to no right

Only if that’s what you chose to do. Of course there is in general no such thing as EU law – such things are part of national law, hence the right of free movement is doubtless included in part of current UK law. When iS leaves the EU it would have to repeal laws which are a requirement of the EU if it chose to do so – the default position would surely be to continue to allow free movement.

The fact that you two or arguing over this is tiresome and extremely pedantic.

Well correct me if I’m wrong, but it wasn’t actually us who started this bluster over removing the rights of EU citizens.

All persons lawfully resident within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Scotland on the
date when this Constitution comes into force shall be citizens of the Kingdom.

If Scotland wasn’t in the EU and didn’t make allowances for letting EU nationals stay, then they wouldn’t be lawfully resident, so would have to leave.

It’s a pretty clear statement of fact given the situation we have at the moment. In the same way you lot making points about Scotland not being able to keep the benefits of UK institutions etc Sturgeon is merely pointing out that without cooperation EU citizens would lose the benefits that they gain when Scotland is in the EU.

If that’s threatening then so are all the calls from rUK about not being able to use or share x, y and z.

the default position would surely be to continue to allow free movement.

That’s your opinion, I would of thought the default would be to repeal all the acts, treaties and laws from which ever group is being left then choose which ones to keep, not the other way around.

Ninfan, sorry to interrupt your hysterical laughter but that text isn’t in the draft constitution- the references to “Kingdom of Scotland” would have tipped you off if you weren’t so keen to believe it. It’s uncredited but seems to be from someone’s blog of a fantasy constitution, written in 2010, for the nonexistant “new caledonia kingdom”.

(if ever you wanted proof that aracer and ninfan will accept without question anything they think goes against the Yes campaign, here it is…)

This is just the same nonsense as when the Scottish Government pointed out that EU fishing boats would lose access to Scottish waters. It’s not a “threat”, it’s just a simple statement of the bleedin obvious.

All persons lawfully resident

Not in the EU not lawfully resident there. Its not exactly rocket science.

Aracer IMHO you are trying hard here to find an issue with which to beat them as the Eu could actually choose to not do it as well

No particular reason why it should in one direction – only if the country involved actually chooses to do so.

so your argument is the EU has “no choice” and therefore its not a threat and the iS has a choice and therefore its a threat 😯 I do like to see you apply the same principle to each argument sadly its the what way favours my argument principle rather than a lucid one

I have nothing further to add on the issue

started this bluster over removing the rights of EU citizens.

They said if iS is not in the EU then it is not in the EU and the rules dont apply. this is hardly bluster and tbh I expected better from you

Northwind – taken from the draft constitution on the constitutional commission web site:

http://constitutionalcommission.org/production/byre/images/assets/file/Resources%20Folder/CC_Draft_Constitution.pdf

When iS leaves the EU it would have to repeal laws which are a requirement of the EU if it chose to do so – the default position would surely be to continue to allow free movement.

Yes all countries everywhere allow free movement across their borders [ without treaties or obligations] and it is clearly the default position of countries 🙄

Really …c’mon aracer not you as well 😉

It’s not a “threat”, it’s just a simple statement of the bleedin obvious.

THIS

So NOT as you claimed “the Draft Constitution published by the Scottish Government”, which can be found here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/06/8135/downloads

Well, if I’m wrong I’ll apologise – are we saying that the constitutional commission is not official?

The Constitutional Commission are not a part of the scottish government, they’re an unaffiliated, independent charity. 10 seconds of factchecking, but tbh it was pretty obviously not the real thing from the wording.

Out of curiosity, what was your source? If you google for scotland constitution you get a load of links to the scottish government website and news stories related… Was it a repost from somewhere else?

The Scottish Constitutional Commission is an independent and non-partisan think-tank, founded in 2005 by John Drummond, Chris Thomson and Canon Kenyon Wright, formerly of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The Scottish Constitutional Commission conducts research and advocacy on the establishment of a liberal and democratic Constitution for Scotland based upon the sovereignty of the Scottish people.
It is not to be confused with the Commission on Scottish Devolution (Calman Commission) which is an official commission established by the Scottish Parliament to review devolution

Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Constitutional_Commission

Not gloating or anything I did not know a thing about them one way or the other just posted as a fact

Hardly that obscure
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=scotland+draft+constitution

though I’ll hold my hand up to not checking when ninfan posted that

First link to it is on P5 for me Aracer, I guess we’re being search engine clevernessed. So fair point, I could be wrong on the obscurity.

Well, I can only apologise for the confusion – since there have been several ‘official’ independent commissions, such as the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/

First link for me – I’d never searched for such a thing before, so suspect my results might be cleaner than yours, but I have no idea how google’s algorithms work.

I can only apologise for the confusion

Respect and well played [ not sarcasm genuine]

Me neither tbh Aracer! I’ve never looked at the constitution before, but that text just screamed not legit.

Funny bit on the Scottish BBC news this morning. Quick snippet about the potential for a Houston style space port in Scotland and a quote from some UK Gov politician. Then a quote from Alex Salmond along the lines “only in an independant Scotland will space travel become a reality”. So do you hear that people – vote Yes and GET TO GO INTO SPACE !!

They really are getting amusingly desperate now. Or that was a misquote from a blatantly biased BBC, depending on your viewpoint. But I think we can all agree it was funny.

Keep up – the spaceport idea was several days ago 😉

If you’re looking for funny spaceport-related quotes, Danny Alexander wins with “Scotland has a proud association with space exploration. We celebrated Neil Armstrong’s Scottish ancestry when he became the first man on the Moon”

I can’t find the quote you mentioned in the BBC article.

You can’t find the quote I mentioned in the BBC article because it was on the BBC Scotland news this morning Ben, keep up yourself.

Ah, so the BBC is doing it’s usual thing of rehashing stories that weren’t taken seriously the first time 😉

If Danny Alexander wants to try space travel I will happily pay for a one way ticket 😀

Danny Alexander is a rocket.

Rocket: An idiot, someone who doesn’t really have a good grip on reality.

http://www.glasgowvant.com/glaswegian-dictionary-terms-and-phrases/

😀

John Cowan you naughty fellow

Somebody held on to that dirt for tactical use

Have we done the thing about Better Together’s “Grassroots” support yet? the bit where they bus the same bunch of people all over Scotland and hope no-one notices?

Toryglen:

Glenrothes:

Gladgow (?!):

Pollokshields:

Culloden:

And if you were wondering where this grassroots support was coming from:

I saw the cinema ads from both sides when they were still on. Cringeworthy.

And NEITHER side even bothered paying lip-service to an inclusion agenda, which is just plain laziness. Every single person in both commercials was white and under 30.(and I would say middle class but that would be an offensive judgement on my part). Or maybe that makes it clear where they think the battle lines are being drawn ?