former political director of the European Policy Centre,

A 1999 Report on secret European lobbying practices, singled Crossick’s EPC out for condemnation saying: ” Contrary to the image of neutral observer of the European Union, which the EPC seeks to cultivate, [the] institute has a clear bias towards the interests of large corporations.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/European_Policy_Centre

If so, why should the status of the “rump UK” be any different to that of Scotland?

Do we really need to answer that one?

Oh please no not Nigel

As someone pointed out on Twitter, the UK won’t be a United Kingdom if Scotland leaves – Scotland and England are kingdoms, Wales is a principality and Northern Ireland is a province.

Anyhow, “definitely no currency union” didn’t last long – Cameron on the BBC just said “Now that a currency union is in doubt”, and Darling said “I don’t believe there will be a currency union”.

They don’t sound quite so certain as they did a few days ago 😉

There is nothing actually new in what Osborne and co said in the past few days. In the House of Lords report almost a year ago, the same issues were examined with the conclusion that

77. Continued use of sterling by an independent Scotland in monetary union with the rest of the UK is the stated preference of the Scottish Government. But it would raise complex problems of cross-border monetary policy, multiple financial regulators and taxpayer exposure and could only come about, if at all, on terms agreed by the UK Government. Arrangements should be clear before the referendum. But the proposal for the Scottish Government to exert some influence over the Bank of England, let alone the rest of the UK exchequer, is devoid of precedent and entirely fanciful.

So hardly a new issue that yS has had to deal with. They just chose to ignore it. Trouble is this is not some fictional bogeyman, it’s the real world and guess what it comes back less than a year later.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/15202.htm

I have to admit, that not having followed the independence thing all that closely I always assumed that Scotland would continue to use sterling, but have no effective control over it. I suspect that’s what most people expected – including lots of those in favour of independence (I note various comments from those on this thread using examples of places which have that sort of status as examples of why Scotland can do something different – and also the report Ben linked above which suggests something similar).

The question is, does the average man in the street actually understand the difference between that and being in a currency union? Is anything AS has said recently helping to clarify that issue?

epicyclo. I think that argument falls flat very early. You cannot expect the rUK to adopt the same status as iScotland without giving rUK a vote in the referendum. Most reasonable yes campaigners would probably accept this.

It would be the worst example of people being dictated to with no say at the ballot box that I can think of.

This article in the Guardian makes some very good points – especially about the issue of EU membership.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/scottish-referendum-independent-scaremongering-eu

athgray – Member
epicyclo. I think that argument falls flat very early. You cannot expect the rUK to adopt the same status as iScotland without giving rUK a vote in the referendum…

By the look of that article, it all depends on how the other members of the EU and NATO view the separation, not what an English government thinks.

It’s pretty clear from that article that the thinking is trending towards looking at it as separation of two sovereign states, with England not being the rUK and simply as the other party to the split.

Which comes down to the same rules for both, ie both in or both out. Which is fair, isn’t it?

As a Scot leaning towards the yes side, but still agonising, I welcome every constructive argument, but nothing infuriates me more than the rising torrent of unsubstantiated “facts” being presented by opponents of independence, serving no purpose other than to intimidate.

Again – the response to unsubstantiated facts from the no campaign seems to be to respond with a bunch of your own unsubstantiated ‘facts’. That article is pretty badly written and full of factual errors.

It’s pretty clear from that article that the thinking is trending towards looking at it as separation of two sovereign states, with England not being the rUK and simply as the other party to the split.

From which article? Aren’t you now just cherry picking opinions that you like and claiming they are ‘trending’? Never heard this view expressed elsewhere. And surely if this was the case then the rUK ought to get a vote?

Sounds like a tactic worthy of ‘project fear’. There’s so much BS being talked on both sides I don’t know how anyone is meant to make an informed decision.

Anyway, who gets the royals? AS i understand it she takes decent from the House of Stuart, i.e. she is Scottish, can the rUK bill Edinburgh for the costs?

mrmo – Member
Anyway, who gets the royals? AS i understand it she takes decent from the House of Stuart, i.e. she is Scottish, can the rUK bill Edinburgh for the costs?

Good question. Seems fair if we are keeping the royals we pay for their Scottish residences.

Right up until the first election in Scotland, then bye bye royalty… 🙂

grum
…From which article? Aren’t you now just cherry picking opinions that you like and claiming they are ‘trending’? Never heard this view expressed elsewhere…

It’s in here

The Guardian

Don’t know why you haven’t heard the view elsewhere, but it seems logical that if you have a union of 2 sovereign entities, then on separation they revert to previous status. Neither can pretend to be the whole.

is it me or is the Yes campaign looking increasingly shaky?

Britain’s two leading business organisations have dealt a blow to Alex Salmond in his fightback against the rejection by Britain’s three main political parties of a currency union with an independent Scotland.

The leaders of the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors both warned that a currency union would be “unstable” as David Cameron said that the Scottish first minister was “now a man without a plan”.

and their responses to the tough questions just getting all a bit bit denialist

Earlier a distinguished former judge of the European court of justice, Sir David Edward, said if Scotland voted for independence, there would be a period of separation between Scotland and the EU. “During that period there is no entity called Scotland that can negotiate with the EU, so the UK would have to negotiate the terms on which the new Scotland at the moment of separation can be a member state or not be a member state.”

He said it was arguable that at the moment of separation Scotland would fall out of the European Union with the extraordinary consequence that all its citizens were no longer members of the EU. In addition, thousands of commercial relationships would be under a different system of law.

He said it was grossly optimistic to suggest this negotiation could happen by March 2016, the timetable set out by the SNP.

Don’t know why you haven’t heard the view elsewhere, but it seems logical that if you have a union of 2 sovereign entities, then on separation they revert to previous status. Neither can pretend to be the whole.

Except rUK would be losing less than ten percent of its population. Hardly a fundamental shift is it. If you had a contract with a firm of solicitors and one of them left would your contract still be valid?

It’s pretty tenuous to claim the scenario is the same for iScotland and rUK surely. I’m not sure where you’ve got the idea this view is ‘trending’.

I started out broadly in favour of independence but the arguments seem less and less convincing by the day.

That Guardian article isn’t the best for instance take the statement below, it wouldn’t happen as you’d still be a UK citizen if you wanted. However, that doesn’t prevent Scotland from being required post independence to join the EU.

Scots living in Europe (and Europeans in Scotland) would suddenly have no automatic right to be there.

As for rUK being kicked out of NATO don’t make me laugh, you think with all that US/UK integrated infrastructure that they are going to kick them out. As for rUK and the EU they won’t be kicked out, but I could see the countries that don’t like the UK’s stance in Europe using it is an excuse to re-negotiate and change the terms. Which is why Scotlands decision matters for all of the UK, as we could all end up worse off from it.

grum – Member
Except rUK would be losing less than ten percent of its population…

England is not the UK.

It will be England and Scotland, the parties to the Union separating, not the UK and Scotland.

The point raised in that article is there will be no UK as we know it after Scotland leaves, ie what England chooses to call itself after Scotland goes is up to itself, but it will not have the same status as the current UK.

It’s unlikely to be a problem, because all this talk of Scotland being out of the EU and NATO is Westminster inspired scaremongering. They should be careful what they wish for though because we’ll both have the same entitlement, ie both in, or both out.

t’s pretty clear from that article that the thinking is trending towards looking at it as separation of two sovereign states, with England not being the rUK and simply as the other party to the split.

Its far from ‘pretty clear’ its an argument that is completely unsupported by anyone but a small group of nationalist campaigners surrounding the Scottish Govt.

The whole issue was looked into extensively by parliament, hearing extensive evidence from all parties and came to the conclusion that:

With the exception of the Scottish Government, all our witnesses concluded that the RUK would be the continuing state while Scotland would start afresh internationally.

And, tellingly, The Scottish Government has not issued a definitive view on this issue and indeed the Deputy First Minister confirmed in oral evidence that it had not sought official legal advice as to what position Scotland might find itself in

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/64306.htm

Whilst the same conclusion was drawn and published to the Office for the Advocate General for Scotland

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79417/Scotland_analysis_Devolution_and_the_implications_of_Scottish_Independan…__1_.pdf

With extensive legal advice

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf

Further to this, both Barosso and Van Rompuy have made public statements in their official EU roles that their understanding is that the UK will continue as successor state, while Scotland will be a new state.

Its fanciful to suggest that the argument otherwise is ‘trending’ – its simply another attempt at obfuscating the truth by Salmond and his mates, there’s no real support for the argument at all!

Some more tax statistics to go with IFS data above, this time from hmrc. I need to divide out by population as HMRC hasn’t done this, on quick inspection it confirms IFS anecdote that Scots pay more per head in tobacco and spirit taxes. It less elsewhere. IFS data shows English pay about 20% more per head in income tax than do the Scots (£2,400pa vs £2,000), consistent with South East having a higher proportion of large company HQ’s etc. Note per head calculation includes total population including children, pensioners etc. The IFS make reference to Scotland being more egalitarian as it has less well paid jobs (so less tax and less influential positions), I do find this perverse.

HMRC data

On the EU Scotland is not currently a member, it is not recognised by the EU as an independent state and member because it isn’t an independent state. The notion that it can separate from UK and somehow transport “it’s” membership. I have to laugh at all the Yes campaigners deriding the EU president who has made his and therefore the EU’s position clear, the EU position isn’t a surprise to me. Scotland will reapply and be subject to the new member rules which is euro membership, full adoption of all legislation and an assessment of their net contribution to the EU (this like everything else will be a fresh calculation without reference to the UK’s rebate)

On the Kingdom point as I posted before there where many Kingdoms within England, the United Kingdom will endure whatever the outcome of the referendum.

Further to this, both Barosso and Van Rompuy have made public statements in their official EU roles that their understanding is that the UK will continue as successor state, while Scotland will be a new state.

Given Barosso statements the other day misunderstanding the situation we’re in I wouldn’t take his views as gospel.

to be fair Baroso’s comments were aimed at the sepratist mvement(s) in Spain as much as Scotland, but I could see them exercising their veto at Scotland joining the EU just to ram it home.

I think there are many EU members who will veto Scotland’s application unless Scotland is writing a healthy cheque to Brussels.

jambalaya – Member
I think there are many EU members who will veto Scotland’s application unless Scotland is writing a healthy cheque to Brussels.

What as a bribe?

Or as our share of the financial commitment? No problem with that surely?

@epicyclo, I think as a country of 5m money for the EU coffers is the thing most attractive to Brussels. I think the contribution will be larger than most in Scotland realise as Scotland’s negotiating position is weak.

Ninfan this is from your own link

44. Specific guidance on what rules would apply to the Scottish situation has been difficult to extract from European Union institutions given their reluctance to become embroiled in what is currently perceived to be a domestic political controversy. The European Commission has stated that it would only be willing to respond to a specific request about a specific situation from an existing Member State and that so far, no such request has been forthcoming.[58]

This guidance has been “difficult to extract” because the UK government has not asked for it. Why not?

“It will be England and Scotland, the parties to the Union separating, not the UK and Scotland.”

You have it backward. Scotland will leave the UK. The UK is a single unitary country: it’s not a federation or union of sovereign states. Those predecessor states don’t exist any more. They are gone. You can’t unmake an omelette – only cut it into slices.

Can’t Scotland ask as an existing EU state?

Can’t Scotland ask as an existing EU state?

No because it isn’t and existing state. (see above)

gordihmor
This guidance has been “difficult to extract” because the UK government has not asked for it. Why not?

Because its not the UK governments problem, because they are too busy with other issues ? Scottish independence is an SNP agenda, it’s up to them to get the info they need. The SNP could engage with recent new joiners and countries who have been trying to join to gain information as to how the process works and how it’s likely to go fr them. In fact it’s a bit worrying they haven’t done so before, the “we are already members” position is/was always a bit daft. The UK government respect Scotland’s right to hold a referendum but its not up the them to ask questions on Scotlands behalf.

England is not the UK.

It will be England and Scotland, the parties to the Union separating, not the UK and Scotland.

You seem to have completely forgotten about Wales and Northern Ireland? The rest of the UK (Englend/Wales/NI) will continue as before, as the UK with full EU/NATO membership. This has been confirmed 100% already.

Scotland will not get EU/NATO/UN membership easily or automatically. This has also be confirmed 100% already (despite the fact that Alex Salmond wants to pull the wool over the voters eyes by making them think that all the people who actually make the decisions/rules and who currently disagree with him are wrong, liars or big bad bullies). Simples 😛

Jambalaya thanks for the links I agree its no consolation to find that Scotland is more egalitarian because our top earners get less than those in London and the south east. The aim is to raise the standard of living for the least well off.
If you look at Ninfans link though you ll see that the EU commission gives the definitive EU position on membership and not the EU president.

Gordihmor – I note that you only partially quoted that paragraph, so here’s the rest of it:

When pressed, the Commission has restricted itself to re-stating the formal position under EU law: that the EU is founded on the Treaties which apply only to the Member States who have agreed and ratified them. If part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be part of that state because it becomes a new independent state, the Treaties would no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory.[59] In 2012, the President of the European Commission, Jos Manuel Barroso said that “a new state, if it wants to join the EU has to apply to become a member of the EU, like any state”.[60] It is clear from these statements that there is no formal, automatic right to Scottish membership of the EU.

my bold!

Can’t Scotland ask as an existing EU state?

Scotland isn’t any more an existing EU state than northeastern Turin is.

rebel12 The UK government has not requested advice from those

who actually make the decisions/rules

on EU membership.

gordimhor – Member
This guidance has been “difficult to extract” because the UK government has not asked for it. Why not?

Do you think this is true, Gordi? I would put money on the fact that these discussions have taken place in great detail and great length, behind closed doors of course. It would be somewhat naive to imagine that the timing and content of Barosso’s comments in Sunday were random. All the interesting stuff takes place behind the scenes and the closed doors. We are merely left with the bland comments that those “who are meant to serve us” deem necessary to reveal!

The whole issue is stitched up well in advance. Rightly or wrongly, the EU will have little time for independent states muddying the water at a time when they want and need to push for much higher levels of interdependence.

Spain as much as Scotland, but I could see them exercising their veto at Scotland joining the EU just to ram it home.

The Spanish have already said that Scotland is totally different from Catalonia and they have no problem with what’s going on.

The rest of the UK (Englend/Wales/NI) will continue as before, as the UK with full EU/NATO membership. This has been confirmed 100% already.

Scotland will not get EU/NATO/UN membership easily or automatically.

I haven’t seen either of these things stated and confirmed 100% anywhere. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
There’s also been no indication or formal legal advice thats says it would be difficult. Can you even vote rebel12 or are you just trying to point score?

Gordimhor – I don’t know if you noticed this particularly succinct question from Paragraph 22

“if Ireland’s secession did not dissolve the United Kingdom, why would an independent Scotland have that effect?”

Says it all really!

Do you think this is true, Gordi? I would put money on the fact that these discussions have taken place in great detail and great length, behind closed doors of course. It would be somewhat naive to imagine that the timing and content of Barosso’s comments in Sunday were random. All the interesting stuff takes place behind the scenes and the closed doors. We are merely left with the bland comments that those “who are meant to serve us” deem necessary to reveal!

I suspect you’re right, but if that’s the case, and the case was favourable to yS then there’s not a chance that Westminster would release that advice.

Of course not, nor would the EU. But as his been pointed out lots of times above, the EU’s stall looks pretty clear to me. And the tablecloths are not saltires!!!

I find myself agreeing with ninfan – urghhh.

They should be careful what they wish for though because we’ll both have the same entitlement, ie both in, or both out.

Yet again – you state this as if it’s a fact. Any evidence for it other than one person’s opinion? It seems highly unlikely to me.

teamhurtmore – Member
2. No recognition of the counter argument of seperate currencies (tick). Not surprise there. Presenting one side of the argument and loading it with negative (and he talks about a positive story) and false descriptions

After “lecturing” those who know better and “bluffing” with a one-sided argument, wee eck gets the suitable feedback this morning. Must do better….F

In a direct challenge to the Scottish first minister, Salmond was told that his warnings of increased transaction charges for businesses on both sides of the border were outweighed by the disadvantages of creating a currency union outside a full political union.

But Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said: “While businesses on both sides of the border would regret new transaction costs resulting from an independent Scotland adopting a new currency, this inconvenience would pale in comparison to the financial danger of entering an unstable currency union..

Heaven forbid that there are two sides to the story!!! And not even the hint of the word “tax” from those in the know. Still, they probably also know how to read a balance sheet and the difference between assets and liabilities!