Osbourne says no to currency union.

Yawn…make sensible points will you rather than the cheap shit you are doing now.

Shows how stacked the electoral system is in favour of Labour then…

No party has been in government for the last 200 years more than the Tories, and certainly they have been in power most of the post-war period. If the electoral system was indeed stacked in the Labour Party’s favour then the Tories have had more than ample time to do something about it.

gordimhor – Member

Sbob you raised the point that Scotland in your opinion doesn’t comply with conditions to be a member of the EU.

Did I? 😆

At this moment Scotland is part of the UK , an EU member state. If any part of the UK didn’t comply with the conditions to be a member the EU would have to take action against the member state ie the UK.

Where do you get this from? To borrow from someone else’s point, what if Ernie’s house doesn’t comply with the conditions to be a member the EU? Or maybe my bedroom is anti-EU superstate, so what?

Scotland clearly meets the requirements for EU membership as part of the Uk.

Massive logical fallacy.

One condition that it doesn’t meet for membership in its own right is being an independent state which will hopefully be put right soon.

I hope the people get what they ask for.

grum – Member

So imagine how annoying it is for northerners especially to constantly be told that ‘you lot always vote Tory’

Yep, that’s very stupid- I’d have thought most people realise it’s not the case. But taking England as a whole, after all your post you still can’t dispute that’s where the Tory MPs and Tory governments come from. We’re doing our best but we’ve only got one left to vote out 😉

I hope the people get what they ask for.

Well that’s one thing we do agree on

No party has been in government for the last 200 years more than the Tories, and certainly they have been in power most of the post-war period. If the electoral system was indeed stacked in the Labour Party’s favour then the Tories have had more than ample time to do something about it.

But the Labour party is only a hundred years old!

Scotland clearly meets the requirements for EU membership as part of the Uk.
Massive logical fallacy.

I need an explanation of which fallacy and why. It just reads as true tbh

Can you just state what your view is rather than us try and work it out by a process of elimination.

Scotland does not have EU membership, the UK does.
Scotland is not the UK.
The UK meets the requirements for EU membership.
This does not mean that every constituent part of the UK meets the requirements for EU membership (ernie’s house).

Why are you finding this so difficult to understand?

But the Labour party is only a hundred years old!

And ? What’s the relevance of that comment ?

I repeat, no other party have been in power more than the Tories for the last 200 years, and in the 70 years since the end of WW2 they have been in government most of the time. If the electoral system is really stacked against their favour then they have had more than enough time to do something about it.

Scotland does not have EU membership, the UK does.
Scotland is not the UK.
The UK meets the requirements for EU membership.
This does not mean that every constituent part of the UK meets the requirements for EU membership (ernie’s house).

Why are you finding this so difficult to understand?

EU membership is open to any recognized European democracy that meets the Copenhagen criteria and adopts the acquis communautaire. Scotland has been within the EU/ EC for over forty years and does meet these criteria.

http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu

I’m not sure why one Scottish chap’s opinion on matters regarding the EU holds more weight than one of the most senior EU officials, the most senior EU official, and current EU legislation.

It’s like trying to drive a car with no bonnet.
A policeman tells you it’s illegal.
A judge tells you it’s illegal.
The law tells you it is illegal.

But it’s ok ’cause Dave the mechanic says so.

whatnobeer your link deals primarily with the comments made by Jose Manuel Barroso which included that it would be, quote : “extremely difficult, if not impossible” for an independent Scotland to join the EU. That opinion has been widely discredited and is not shared by Better Together. So I don’t know why you’ve brought up comments regarding the opinion of this one individual. How about focusing on what Better Together are saying ?

ernie_lynch – Because Barroso keeps on getting mentioned in this thread, despite, as you acknowledge, being widely discredited. The comments are aimed at sbob tbh.

The author of the article is hardly just the man on the street, he’s a professor providing an unbiased opinion based in fact.

Scotland does not have EU membership, the UK does.
Scotland is not the UK.

Two simple questions for you
what makes up the UK [ as they must be in the EU]?

When you go to Scotland are you in the EU or not in the EU
Your being silly now , its in the EU, as part of the UK, and iS needs to apply
to say anything else is not a logical fallacy it is to just be wrong

BTW I am still waiting for your proof of logical fallacy – you have had enough to time to read a list from google which one are you claiming?

Read the statements I made.
Do you actually disagree with any of them?
If so, please state which ones and why.
Maybe we can then go somewhere with it.

Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

I dont think the forum needs us doing a quote off despite your kind invitation 😉

I note you are not answering the simple questions posed and again note there is no mention of the logical fallacy

Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

I think we are both in danger of this tbh
What is controversial about saying Scotland is in the EU [ as it is part of the UK] and iS needs to apply to join?

Your being silly now , its in the EU, as part of the UK, and iS needs to apply

I get it now, you are just being pointlessly argumentative.

Gordimhor’s innaccuracy was a fallacy of division.
As you asked, I’ll assume you already knew this and are just looking for more ways to pointlessly argue, because you enjoy it.

What is controversial about saying Scotland is in the EU

What is the point if not to mislead?

I’ll refer you yet again to Ernie’s house.

Northwind – Member

What evidence is that then? It’s clear that the rules that currently exist don’t adequately cover the situation. It’s clear that there is no precedent. And it’s clear that the will of the EU will be to welcome Scotland- the disruption of doing otherwise would be huge, at a time when the EU is trying to expand, and facing enough internal challenges already. It’s also clear that a new state emerging from an EU member is not the same as a new member from outwith the EU.

So where’s the evidence against? All quoting treaties does is reinforce my first and last points, as far as I can see.

Then it boils down to a difference of opinion.
I’ve read the treaties and in my opinion they most certainly do cover the situation, quite adequately.

I’ll refer you yet again to Ernie’s house.

Ernie’s house is neither a recognized European democracy nor does it meet the Copenhagen criteria. Unlike Scotland, which if it were independent, it would.

I get it now, you are just being pointlessly argumentative.

That sounds like you tbh.

It’s a lovely little house

Ernie’s house is neither a recognized European democracy nor does it meet the Copenhagen criteria. Unlike Scotland, which if it were independent, it would.

So an independent Scotland would be guaranteed membership under EU law?
No other caveats hidden away?

That sounds like you tbh.

But what is controversial about saying ernie’s house is in the EU?

I do a mean Ernie impression BTW. 8)

(The Sesame St. character, not the poster)

So an independent Scotland would be guaranteed membership under EU law?
No other caveats hidden away?

Oh I give up. If you’ve read JY posts, my posts, the opinion from the Professor on the link I posted a few pages back and still want to argue about it then you can do it with out me. I think the situation is pretty clear.

There’s no precedent. Scotland would have to apply but do so from within the EU. The EU would likely look favourably on the application.

whatnobeer – Member

Oh I give up. If you’ve read JY posts, my posts, the opinion from the Professor on the link I posted a few pages back and still want to argue about it then you can do it with out me. I think the situation is pretty clear.

So do I.

There’s no precedent.

There doesn’t need to be, the situation is covered in the treaties.

Scotland would have to apply but do so from within the EU. The EU would likely look favourably on the application.

The EU probably would, but certain member states might not. Your Scottish prof might be able to predict the future political behaviour of foreign countries, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

There doesn’t need to be, the situation is covered in the treaties.

I must of missed that then, because I couldn’t find it.

our Scottish prof might be able to predict the future political behaviour of foreign countries, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

I have no idea if he’s Scottish or not, but I would bet on his opinion over yours any day, unless you’re equally qualified?
Professor Michael Keating

sbob – Member
There doesn’t need to be, the situation is covered in the treaties.

I cast more that enough ambiguity on that about 30 pages ago. No one was able to answer any of my questions, the treaties don’t cover it.

Btw, this has officially turned into the dullest debate on scottish independence on the interweb.

I must of missed that then, because I couldn’t find it.

Have another look, they are all available online. I don’t have time to link, I’m off to work, sorry.

And you’ll forgive me for holding the opinion of EU officials and what is stated in the treaties over the opinions of you and Junkyard.

Not that I’m even sure that Junkyard actually disagrees with me by this point. 😆

I would bet on his opinion over yours any day

How about the opinion of the European Commission of Justice Fundamental Right and Citizenship, who as guardian of the treaties are responsible for overseeing their implementation, including the implementation of provisions related to the accession of any European State to the Union ?

According to them :

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.[/i]

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf

So this comment is false :

Scotland would have to apply but do so from within the EU.

Unless of course the European Commission itself doesn’t know what it’s talking about. You decide.

Although I should point out the irony of the Yes camp having so little faith in the opinion of an institution which they are clearly so desperate to join.

You’ve missed the point. The day after a yes vote Scotland does not automatically become independent. There is a period of negotiation. As Scotland is already a part of the EU (As part of the UK) then this negation will happen from within the EU. Though, as is rightly pointed out Scotland itself is not an individual member so there would be no doubt be discussions on how that would be done.

Also remember that this is the EU we’re talking about, they can quite easily change the rules any time they want if they thought it would a good idea to do so.

FWIW, my opinion is based mostly on this research which summerieses very nicely the differing opionions on the matter and makes it quite clear than exsisting treaties do not cover this situation.

ESRC Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change
Briefing Paper
2 December
2013
Accession of an Independent Scotland to the European Union
View of the Legal Issues

There is a period of negotiation.

And negotiation always goes exactly the way you want it, of course, nobody has to make concessions…

they can quite easily change the rules any time they want if they thought it would a good idea to do so.

That argument applies both ways, surely?

What you can’t get away from is that like it or not there remains throughout the process the distinct possibility that one of the existing member nations will blackball Scottish membership for their own domestic reasons.

As, I believe, an important point of reference, there are currently five accession states

Turkey – applied 1987, declared eligible 1997, accession negotiations began 2005
Iceland, applied 2009, negotiations began 2010
Macedonia applied 2004, favourable opinion given to membership by EU in 05, negotiations began 2009
Montenegro applied 2008, favourable opinion 2010, negotiations began 2012
Serbia, applied 2009, negotiations began this year.

Scotlands 18 month timescale looks somewhat less realistic when you look at those numbers!

That argument applies both ways, surely?

What you can’t get away from is that like it or not there remains throughout the process the distinct possibility that one of the existing member nations will blackball Scottish membership for their own domestic reasons.

Of course the possibility is there but it’s not being given any serious credibility by any of the ‘experts’ except on here.

The day after a yes vote Scotland does not automatically become independent. There is a period of negotiation.

18 months isn’t it ? Also according to the EU :

For the 13 successful accessions since 1995 the time span from the submission of the individual membership applications until the accession dates was less than 8 years in the shortest case (Slovenia) and nearly 14 years in the longest cases (Malta and Cyprus)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2014-001676&language=EN

.

they can quite easily change the rules

Yes of course, they will change the rules. Why didn’t I think of that ?

So there you have it – none of the rules governing the EU membership matter, because they can be changed anytime.

So there you have it – none of the rules governing the EU membership matter, because they can be changed anytime.

When it’s beneficial to do so, why wouldn’t they. As the expert legal opinion points out having a period where Scotland wasn’t a member wouldn’t be good news for anyone involved.

18 months isn’t it ? Also according to the EU :

For the 13 successful accessions since 1995 the time span from the submission of the individual membership applications until the accession dates was less than 8 years in the shortest case (Slovenia) and nearly 14 years in the longest cases (Malta and Cyprus)

All of whom were applying as individual states outwith the EU. None of them are the same as Scotland.

It’s all been said before, over and over again. I guess no one on the internet likes to admit they’re wrong.

It’s all been said before, over and over again. I guess no one on the internet likes to admit they’re wrong.

Indeed…

All of whom were applying as individual states outwith the EU.

Scotland will be outside the EU. Let me repeat the advise from the EU Commission :

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.

Which presumably explains why you think it’s important to point out that the rules can easily be changed, ie, the existing rules don’t backup your argument.

Ernie nailed it two pages ago – neither the UK today nor iS would qualify for membership as new states. YS supporters can make unpleasant remarks and suppositions as per. But as always yS answer the question for you. The criteria for EuroZone membership are laid out (Article 140 of TFEU) on the SGov website with the “fact” that Scotland does not, indeed cannot, meet them.

Of course, then comes the bluster bit that it doesn’t matter anyway. Which is crazy in two ways. The first is obvious, the second less so.

So we have one area that satisfies the criteria for a successful currency union (the UK) and one that doesn’t (the EuroZone). To help the EZ move closer to meeting the criteria we had the Maastricht Criteria and then A140 for new members such as iS.. Of course the flagrant breach of the former is why the € will utlimately fail (google Fr debate over past 48 hours).

But the yS argument is that (1) it doesn’t matter, there will be the usual fudge (maybe, maybe not) but (2) joining something that by design cannot work is a better than remaining in one that does.

It beggars belief. But if people want to vote for such clear nonsense that is there prerogative. But don’t say that you were not warned.

I get it now, you are just being pointlessly argumentative.

I can but aspire to make peacemaking non argumentative statements like that

I’ll refer you yet again to Ernie’s house.

If ernie runs a business from his house and uses that as the registered address is the business in the EU ?

The comment ernie is using clearly states that at independence the treaties will no longer apply to that state – not that they never applied that they no longer apply so can we put to bed the daft notion that currently it is not in the EU as it is in the UK?

So an independent Scotland would be guaranteed membership under EU law?

The poster did not say that why not argue about whether it does or does not meet the criteria as that is what they said.

And you’ll forgive me for holding the opinion of EU officials and what is stated in the treaties over the opinions of you and Junkyard.

Not that I’m even sure that Junkyard actually disagrees with me by this point.
Ah your right it is in indeed me trying to make this a pointlessly personal argument….can you forgive me the childish digs?
So far you have claimed to be an expert, read them all and not quoted from them…would you be convinced if AS did this?

Scotlands 18 month timescale looks somewhat less realistic when you look at those numbers!

Except for the fact they their citizens are EU citizens and Scotland complies with EU rules and is in…comparing chalk and cheese is a bit pointless.
There is no precedent for this scenario.

joining something that by design cannot work is a better than remaining in one that does.

after how many years of operation will you consider the eu zone to work just out of interest?

teamhurtmore – Member

Ernie nailed it two pages ago – neither the UK today nor iS would qualify for membership as new states. YS supporters can make unpleasant remarks and suppositions as per. But as always yS answer the question for you. The criteria for EuroZone membership are laid out (Article 140 of TFEU) on the SGov website with the “fact” that Scotland does not, indeed cannot, meet them.

What on earth are you talking about here? We don’t want to join the euro, but that’s fine, because we would not be required to. And you know all that. So why are you suddenly talking about euro membership criteria as if it’s relevant to the conversation?

So why are you suddenly talking about euro membership criteria as if it’s relevant to the conversation?

Because under EU rules new member states must comply with certain requirements, including, quote :

Membership presupposes the candidate’s ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

And “monetary union” is defined by the EU as :

Coordination of economic policy-making between Member States
Coordination of fiscal policies, notably through limits on government debt and deficit.
An independent monetary policy run by the European Central Bank (ECB)
The single currency and the euro area

Economic and Monetary Union

If you don’t want monetary union then don’t apply to be a member of the EU.