Scotland votes no to Independence

[muz379]

My point was not that the presence of 'independent academics' on the Yes or No side made their points more valid. Instead, it is when there is an absence of them that is notable, and where that was most obvious was on the future constitutional settlement part after a No vote. No academic would stand up and say that they believed the UK political establishment would fulfil all its promises and work together to form the best possible outcome even if it caused them electoral pain because a moderately-educated layman could look at the current situation and say that the parties were going to bungle the whole thing. The only people who said they believed that they would be able to fulfil these promises were the people making these promises.

However given that these promises where

A) inherantly political and as you have pointed out we all know that politicians are liable to make promises that they do not keep to and that applies to both sides . The constitutional settlement in the event of a No vote would have required negotiations on both sides . And any reasonably educated layman would also see that either westminister could backtrack on its promises or Holyrod could be unreasonably demanding in asking for another referendum sooner rather than later .

B)A lot of pledges where made late on in the campaign when the no campaign started to panic a bit because of a few ropey opinion polls . This didnt give academics a lot of time to formulate a proper opinion on them .

C)The consitutional settlement for scotland in the event of a No vote would have required a cross party consensus in Westminster and this is not something that can be counted on

D)The constitutional settlement for Scotland in the event of a No votes poses some important questions about the continuing UK constitution which constitutional Law experts have been arguing over for years . What suddenly makes you think a vote in a region of the Uk is going to settle those arguments .

On one hand, as soon as there is a Yes vote there is a crisis of legitimacy for the UK government to continue legislating for Scotland. In the event of that vote, I would imagine they would seek legislative consent motions from Holyrood on any important matters during the negotiation period in order to put these decisions' legitimacy beyond doubt. On the other hand, there is that need for the negotiations not to be be rushed, but it would be possible to deliver sovereignty before dealing with all issues. Dealing with all issues would take decades, as you would have to work out such minutae as whether Scotland or the rUK owns a specific painting in the National Collection. That sort of thing can be dealt with later, once it is either crucial or there is nothing else to do.

I was not under any impression that sovereignty only be delivered when every single issue was resolved . Some issues would no doubt only arrise after Sovereignty or some years down the line .

The Scottish Government believed that independence would take around 18 months to deliver. Some people did speculate that a very rough-and-ready solution could be done before the 2015 general election, in order to avoid the West-Lothian-Question-On-Steroids. Given that I argue things like EU membership would not be as difficult to agree as other people claim, I believe the 18 months is not implausible but obviously it would still leave some minor issues left unsettled until later.

I dont think in the event of A yes vote last month it could have been delivered in anywhere near 18 months . Lets not forget Westminster Parliament dissolves at the end of March for the general election , that would have left about 6 months to negotiate with the UK government , then depending on how or who the next government is formed of negotiations could start again in may . Personally I think negotiations would have taken something in the region of 2 years after the formation of the next government in may 2015, given that in that time both parliaments still also have their normal business to deliver as well as any other situations that arise .

The interesting problem here is that Scotland wants to have EU membership and people are saying that membership would be denied. If Scottish law said that it was a member of the EU, despite the EU not seeing Scotland as a member, what exactly happens? Such a thing has never happened before.

Well there are no provisions under EU law to expel a member state . But then would it even automatically be a member state . We just dont know because there is no precedent for a member state splitting and the ongoing membership status of the remaining parts .

I suppose if a member state was not to ratify a treaty amendment allowing Scotland to be a member then whilst Scotland could adopt all directives and regulations of the EU in domestic law it would not be allowed to have a say on matters as it would not be represented in the parliament . And it could not refer matters to the European court of justice . This to me would not seem very democratic .

However, the point I have been making (ad nauseum) is that the act of Scotland becoming an independent country within the EU does nothing for the other countries, other than setting a precedent for the situation after a legal referendum. If those countries' constitutions prohibit such a referendum, that precedent would never be able to be followed unless their constitution was amended to allow it. The Spanish constitutional court is not going to allow the Catalan referendum because Scotland voted Yes. Indeed, if any court were going to take notice this would already have happened given that the UK agreed to allow a referendum that would have resulted in Scotland legally becoming independent.

The point I was trying to make was that even if all countries ratified treaty Amendments allowing Scotland to be a member this process can still take time in some countries depending on the process that the treaty amendment has to go through to be ratified , some countries have readings in parliament as well as supreme court judgements on the matter . This inevitably will take time given that this will not be a priority matter to these countries and their parliaments and courts will also have the running of their own country to worry about . This certainly would not be something that could happen overnight even the ratification of treaties amongst all member states could take as long as a year to 18 months .

But the whole process of the independence being gained could give even more traction to campaigners within them countries . I get what you are saying , the precedent for a referendum already created the problems for these countries . However a referendum result for independence could put even more pressure on these countries governments to allow a referendum . It would only stoke up further tensions and excitement amongst those that wanted independence .

What would you as a yes voter think if voters in Catalonia had been given a referendum and had successfully become independent from Spain prior to the Scottish referendum being granted . It would certainly be difficult to ignore and would no doubt then be used as an argument that Scotland should also get its independence .

Another reason countries might veto Scottish membership is for economic reasons . Had a currency union not been agreed with the UK and Scotland was left with no option but to opt for the euro some powerful nations might have vetoed this depending on how sound the economic plans produced where . You have already seen how tensions amongst the more powerful EU nations have rose over EU bailouts for the likes of Greece . Would the Germans the French or the Italians want another weak economic country coming into the eurozone . This is another matter that would have taken a long time to negotiate over .

 

[danielnez1]

There has never been a direct precedent, and thus we must infer what would happen based upon other precedents. As there is no precedent, there is also no precedent to say that it would not be allowed, and what is not forbidden tends to be allowed by default.

Exactly, there is no president, and you can't guarantee the status quo.

The European Union overtly does not have a problem with legal and recognised separatist movements. It has accepted the Baltic countries in 2004, only twelve or so years after becoming independent from the Soviet Union without its initial co-operation. It has allowed Slovenia and Croatia, both members of the former Yugoslavia, to join as well, and it is engaged in negotiations with Montenegro, the latest fully-recognised independent state in Europe, for its eventual accession.

As I have said before, I can foresee a iScotland joining the EU, my question is under what terms and when. muz379's post above illustrates this.

The basis of the European Union is that Europe would be a place of peace and democracy. Scottish independence would fulfil both of these perfectly - the most peaceful separatist movement in history achieved through pure democracy.

What about the breakup of Czechoslovakia? Where would that fit in your romantic narrative?

The European Union affords special rights to the citizens of its member states that makes it not just an international organisation but a pseudo-sovereign supranational state, with its own judiciary, foreign representation, currency (in some countries, but the organisation does account in Euros) and direct elections for its own Parliament. As citizens of the European Union, you have a level of rights in other member states that makes you a quasi-citizen of them by default. These rights have never been removed from the citizens of any state in the current form of the EU as that supranational quasi-state - Algeria and Greenland left well before the EU developed to the state in which it is at the moment.

But the Scottish citizens would be leaving a member state, hence causing a potential quagmire.

On the day of independence, the same people, businesses and institutions will exist in Europe as the day before, with the only real difference being that the Scottish Parliament will be fully sovereign and able to change any law it has the support of its people to do so. Until such time as it changes a law, the laws of the UK will still apply. In the Republic of Ireland, UK law is still applied where it has not been amended, repealed or replaced by the Oireachtas.

To be fair, businesses (especially banks) would probably be more concerned about Currency, LOLR and so on.[/QUOTE]

The situation has never arisen that a state has been ejected from the EU without its consent, and the only situation in which that is currently legal would be for that country to abandon the various declarations of human rights. Scotland becoming an independent country would unequivocally not cause any problems for human rights, thus there is no justification for it, its institutions, people and economy, being expelled from the European Union.

To repeat a previous point: Scottish citizens would be leaving a member state, hence causing a potential quagmire.

The EU is based upon the idea that the whole of Europe should be united together to advance common interests and goals, regardless of the individual state borders. Had Scotland never joined England in the Act of Union, or it had gained independence before 1973, it would have been more than welcome to join the EU as well.

I'm sure it would have been, but I don't see how it is relevant, as Scotland joined the union first.

From a pure logistical perspective, uninterrupted EU membership requires no difficulty on the part of any individual person or business that uses their EU rights. Not allowing continued membership would cause unnecessary headaches for hundreds of thousands of people and for billions of pounds worth of economic activity, and in the current economic climate neither of these would be a good idea. If Scotland were always to be allowed in the EU anyway, it is nonsensical to force it to leave for a few years before re-entering for this reason. The only alternative would be for Scotland to be an EU member in all but name, beyond the status of Norway or other EEA members, which then raises the question of why you don't just make it even simpler for the whole Union and just let them in anyway.

As it has been pointed out before, this would be a unprecedented situation requiring consensus with all member states. Essential a iScotland would have chosen to inflict this on the rest of UK and ultimately the EU. As you allude to later on, you would have shattered the status quo, and we don't honestly know how it would all pan out.

This IMHO points to the ultimate failure of the Yes side, you cannot guarantee with a reasonable degree of confidence what exactly will happen. You cannot honestly say that all negotiations will go exactly your way and you'll get the best deal possible, instead it would be a journey into the unknown with potential risks, as well as potential as benefits. However, the failure to acknowledge any risks and assuming that everything will go smoothly is dreadfully naive, however if the SNP admitted that then it would have been game over from the start.

I cannot see how itis petulant to say that we could do such things when the No side clearly did not seem interested in good faith when saying they would put up border controls for no appreciable reason other than to cause fear.

Well I'm sure having a wildly different immigration policy is a good place to start.

How are you going to bite back harder? The harder you bite, the more likely we are to castrate you by dismantling your nukes. If you want everything to go down the pan, and for mutual assured destruction (of the figurative kind) to happen, then by all means continue but you wouldn't be winning. The least bad option is to look at things properly and engage in negotiations in full faith as well, with both parties ignoring the precise nature of what they said in the campaigns to ensure the best possible outcome for both parties. Anything less would cause us both damage, and that is not good for either of us.

If need be, we still have the capability of producing more Nuclear Weapons (i.e. Capenhurst for Uranium Enrichment, B205 and Pu stocks at Sellafield for old fashioned Plutonium bombs and the Atomic Weapons Establishment for making the bombs). It would be expensive, but we still have the facilities and feed materials to do it.

Your position seems to be that countries cannot be independent when strong economic links exist between the two of them. You are correct that no country, other than North and South Korea, can be truly independent of one another when they trade but your point could be extended to mean that Canada is not truly independent of the United States. Unlike the Commonwealth, where we left New Zealand et al to find their own trading partners, Scotland and the rUK could not diverge so much because their geographic closeness and similarity of markets means there will always be an enormous amount of trade between them.

We may in deed have normalised economic trade like between us and Ireland and the rest of the EU however in the aftermath of a Yes vote, I don't see how there will be much appetite on both sides to agree to close economic ties, especially since you would have essentially voted to sever the existing ones.

One of the things that would be most interesting after a Yes vote would be to see whether the rUK political establishment would be able to survive. Given that they had just lost the only battle that the entire establishment had fought together, I cannot see any voter trusting them any longer - especially if they then had to admit that a lot of what they said in the campaign was complete rubbish. Many Yes voters, myself included, hoped that a Yes outcome would trigger a political earthquake large enough to destroy the current establishment and from the ruins, the rUK would be able to adopt the sort of less bad establishment that made people confident to vote Yes in Scotland. That would mean electoral and House of Lords reform, of the sort never seen before in this country. In that case, the rUK would not be the 'cesspool' it is at the moment, and thus there is no problem in dealing with it. Even if it did not change significantly, the only thing that really causes problems is that political part and from a social, economic and geographic perspective it would be inevitable that we would have to share much of the existing Union. For example, Scottish car buyers would still buy UK-model cars with RHD and miles/hour on the speedometer.

I don't know about that, IMO the markets would have given both of us so much of a pounding that would have drowned out any assertion that the Yes side made. Likewise our political set up would not be a iScotland's concern, or vice versa. While our democracy may not be perfect, it is still a hell of a lot better than what other countries get. If this were Russia, I'm sure Salmond and co would have had an "unfortunate accident" years ago.

 

[NotATrainspott]

However given that these promises where

A) inherantly political and as you have pointed out we all know that politicians are liable to make promises that they do not keep to and that applies to both sides . The constitutional settlement in the event of a No vote would have required negotiations on both sides . And any reasonably educated layman would also see that either westminister could backtrack on its promises or Holyrod could be unreasonably demanding in asking for another referendum sooner rather than later .

B)A lot of pledges where made late on in the campaign when the no campaign started to panic a bit because of a few ropey opinion polls . This didnt give academics a lot of time to formulate a proper opinion on them .

C)The consitutional settlement for scotland in the event of a No vote would have required a cross party consensus in Westminster and this is not something that can be counted on

D)The constitutional settlement for Scotland in the event of a No votes poses some important questions about the continuing UK constitution which constitutional Law experts have been arguing over for years . What suddenly makes you think a vote in a region of the Uk is going to settle those arguments .

This is entirely true, and that is why it was so ridiculous for the Better Together side to campaign on the idea that all of this was not worth discussing. An enormous amount of time and effort was spent considering a post-Yes Scotland but almost none was spent considering a post-No Scotland, despite that being at all times the more likely option.

I dont think in the event of A yes vote last month it could have been delivered in anywhere near 18 months . Lets not forget Westminster Parliament dissolves at the end of March for the general election , that would have left about 6 months to negotiate with the UK government , then depending on how or who the next government is formed of negotiations could start again in may . Personally I think negotiations would have taken something in the region of 2 years after the formation of the next government in may 2015, given that in that time both parliaments still also have their normal business to deliver as well as any other situations that arise .

The effect of a Yes vote would be so cataclysmic on the UK political system that I don't think anything could be guaranteed about the future government. It would not be infeasible that the negotiation period would see a WWII-style national government, so that there would be no politicking. At the very least David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband will have lost their jobs and it would not be unreasonable that Parliament would vote it had no confidence in the government, given that it had just lost Scotland.

Well there are no provisions under EU law to expel a member state . But then would it even automatically be a member state . We just dont know because there is no precedent for a member state splitting and the ongoing membership status of the remaining parts .

We don't know, but we can use deductive logic and reasoning to look at the outcome of being allowed to stay and not allowed to stay and make a judgement that in all likelihood, the least difficult option for everyone would be for Scotland to have some sort of uninterrupted membership.

I suppose if a member state was not to ratify a treaty amendment allowing Scotland to be a member then whilst Scotland could adopt all directives and regulations of the EU in domestic law it would not be allowed to have a say on matters as it would not be represented in the parliament . And it could not refer matters to the European court of justice . This to me would not seem very democratic .

That's an important point. No country on earth was not going to accept the outcome of the referendum and accept Scotland as an independent state. It would be ludicrous for another EU state to not ratify the membership of an independent Scotland because no good would come of it.

The point I was trying to make was that even if all countries ratified treaty Amendments allowing Scotland to be a member this process can still take time in some countries depending on the process that the treaty amendment has to go through to be ratified , some countries have readings in parliament as well as supreme court judgements on the matter . This inevitably will take time given that this will not be a priority matter to these countries and their parliaments and courts will also have the running of their own country to worry about . This certainly would not be something that could happen overnight even the ratification of treaties amongst all member states could take as long as a year to 18 months .

I cannot see it being particularly difficult. No other EU member can legitimately deny Scotland a place and they would be making life difficult for the entire EU if they did. For there to be political problems, there would need to be a case against the acceptance of Scotland and that case doesn't stack up. Even in countries like France where national referenda are normally needed for these sorts of treaty changes, it would be difficult to imagine a situation where the supermajority does not exist in their legislature to bypass these provisions and accept Scotland without needing to ask their population. The idea of another state having a referendum on whether Scotland should be allowed to stay is likewise absurd - who would genuinely argue against it and have a plurality of the voters agree with them?

But the whole process of the independence being gained could give even more traction to campaigners within them countries . I get what you are saying , the precedent for a referendum already created the problems for these countries . However a referendum result for independence could put even more pressure on these countries governments to allow a referendum . It would only stoke up further tensions and excitement amongst those that wanted independence .

I very much disagree. The absolute fact of the matter is that if Scotland had voted Yes, it would have become a fully independent state with full international recognition. The Catalonians were ecstatic that we were given a vote at all, rather than actually needing us to vote Yes.

What would you as a yes voter think if voters in Catalonia had been given a referendum and had successfully become independent from Spain prior to the Scottish referendum being granted . It would certainly be difficult to ignore and would no doubt then be used as an argument that Scotland should also get its independence .

Another reason countries might veto Scottish membership is for economic reasons . Had a currency union not been agreed with the UK and Scotland was left with no option but to opt for the euro some powerful nations might have vetoed this depending on how sound the economic plans produced where . You have already seen how tensions amongst the more powerful EU nations have rose over EU bailouts for the likes of Greece . Would the Germans the French or the Italians want another weak economic country coming into the eurozone . This is another matter that would have taken a long time to negotiate over .

This is the argument why it is ridiculous to force an independent Scotland to join the Euro in order to join. Until such time as the economy is ready for such a measure, it would be premature and a bad idea. That time would come years, if not decades, after independence day (and can only happen after independence day anyway) and there would need to be some workable arrangement in the meantime. That arrangement could just be continued indefinitely if the circumstances required it. If a currency situation is going to fail, it is going to fail quickly or it will not fail at all. That is the power of international markets - if there had been any inkling about Grexit from the EU the markets would have forced it to happen.

Exactly, there is no president, and you can't guarantee the status quo.

We can't guarantee that we won't be hit by an asteroid and wiped off the face of the earth. Looking at the situation, the obvious outcome is that it is in the interests of the EU that we continue to be a member.

As I have said before, I can foresee a iScotland joining the EU, my question is under what terms and when. muz379's post above illustrates this.

Said terms will not involve Schengen or the Euro (in the relevant short-medium term). It will be over things like farming and fishing rebates and if necessary the Scottish Government would not force their hand on getting new concessions over what they get as part of the UK. Any UK concessions would be split between the rUK and Scotland depending on why those concessions exist.

What about the breakup of Czechoslovakia? Where would that fit in your romantic narrative?

We weren't in the totalitarian eastern bloc, so it's even more peaceful. Still relevant though, and since the EU has let both countries in it again clearly has no problem with legal separatist movements.

But the Scottish citizens would be leaving a member state, hence causing a potential quagmire.

A potential quagmire that only needs to be as large as the EU wants it to be. The less quagmire the better, and they have all the power to ensure that it goes as smoothly as possible since that is in their own interests.

To be fair, businesses (especially banks) would probably be more concerned about Currency, LOLR and so on.

I know they will, but a stable situation will be worked out on all these issues. The casino banks will move their headquarters to London and the rUK will be responsible for bailing them out once again. The remaining Scottish banking industry is perfectly proportional to our economy.

To repeat a previous point: Scottish citizens would be leaving a member state, hence causing a potential quagmire.

And again, that quagmire is only as big as the EU wants it to be.

I'm sure it would have been, but I don't see how it is relevant, as Scotland joined the union first.

My point is that there is no intrinsic structural reason why Scotland cannot be a member on its own. If Norway wants to join the EU it can join, as could Switzerland or the various microstates. It's not like Turkey or Morocco.

As it has been pointed out before, this would be a unprecedented situation requiring consensus with all member states. Essential a iScotland would have chosen to inflict this on the rest of UK and ultimately the EU. As you allude to later on, you would have shattered the status quo, and we don't honestly know how it would all pan out.

The people of Scotland would have democratically chosen to give the Scottish Parliament full sovereignty over the state. If the EU can't handle the inevitable breakup of the UK, how did it manage to absorb most of the former Eastern Bloc?

This IMHO points to the ultimate failure of the Yes side, you cannot guarantee with a reasonable degree of confidence what exactly will happen. You cannot honestly say that all negotiations will go exactly your way and you'll get the best deal possible, instead it would be a journey into the unknown with potential risks, as well as potential as benefits. However, the failure to acknowledge any risks and assuming that everything will go smoothly is dreadfully naive, however if the SNP admitted that then it would have been game over from the start.

We base our predictions on logical deduction and reasoning. Those logical deductions point towards the answers we give.

Well I'm sure having a wildly different immigration policy is a good place to start.

An immigration policy focussing on allowing high-skilled workers from other first-world countries to stay here to pay taxes. That so many of our foreign students, who have paid tens of thousands of pounds a year to study here, are then forced to leave because of the demand to keep out unskilled labour is a travesty. These workers aren't going to go on the dole down south when they'll all have high-paid jobs up here, paying taxes and improving the Scottish economy.

If need be, we still have the capability of producing more Nuclear Weapons (i.e. Capenhurst for Uranium Enrichment, B205 and Pu stocks at Sellafield for old fashioned Plutonium bombs and the Atomic Weapons Establishment for making the bombs). It would be expensive, but we still have the facilities and feed materials to do it.

You would need to build some new base first and procure a new delivery system and train up your military to use it. That would take a decade at least, and in that time you'll be the laughing stock of the world.

We may in deed have normalised economic trade like between us and Ireland and the rest of the EU however in the aftermath of a Yes vote, I don't see how there will be much appetite on both sides to agree to close economic ties, especially since you would have essentially voted to sever the existing ones.

Both sides won't agree on close economic ties: the realities of how markets work in Great Britain will dictate that because there will never be anything less than a full free-trade area between the two and other EU countries. Even UKIP know that the common market is a good idea, it's just the immigration they don't like.

I don't know about that, IMO the markets would have given both of us so much of a pounding that would have drowned out any assertion that the Yes side made. Likewise our political set up would not be a iScotland's concern, or vice versa. While our democracy may not be perfect, it is still a hell of a lot better than what other countries get. If this were Russia, I'm sure Salmond and co would have had an "unfortunate accident" years ago.

It's interesting that so much was made of how much the markets reacted after specific events when all those losses and gains were then cancelled out within days or weeks by normal market forces. Everyone knows that it won't be the end of the world - business leaders specifically said they thought that Brexit was more of a risk to them than Scottish independence.

 

[muz379]

This is entirely true, and that is why it was so ridiculous for the Better Together side to campaign on the idea that all of this was not worth discussing. An enormous amount of time and effort was spent considering a post-Yes Scotland but almost none was spent considering a post-No Scotland, despite that being at all times the more likely option.

Is that not the fault of both sides though , particularly the yes side who for obvious reasons would not really want to be seen discussing the event of a NO victory

The effect of a Yes vote would be so cataclysmic on the UK political system that I don't think anything could be guaranteed about the future government. It would not be infeasible that the negotiation period would see a WWII-style national government, so that there would be no politicking. At the very least David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband will have lost their jobs and it would not be unreasonable that Parliament would vote it had no confidence in the government, given that it had just lost Scotland.

I think a WW2 style national government would be infeasible , My point was that parliament dissolves in March for the general election . That means there is no government per se apart from ensuring that day to day things are looked after . I dont think it would have even been worthwhile to start any real negotiations before the new Government whoever they are to be decided . Not to mention even the Scottish Mp's would still have seats so would still be expected by their parties to be on the campaign trail although all in vain of course . In politics 6 months is not very long at all and this is roughly what it would have been between the referendum and Parliament dissolving . Nothing would get agreed in 6 months .

We don't know, but we can use deductive logic and reasoning to look at the outcome of being allowed to stay and not allowed to stay and make a judgement that in all likelihood, the least difficult option for everyone would be for Scotland to have some sort of uninterrupted membership.

Im with you on this , as I alluded to in my previous post I dont think that the scots would have been given independence constitutionally form Britain until a seamless transfer of rights for Scottish citizens was arranged . The Human rights act is as close as constitutional as legislation in the UK goes , and im not for one minute saying any Scottish government was going to commit atrocities against its people . However those rights could not just be removed from Scottish citizens without there being something equally as backed by the ECHR to cover them .

That's an important point. No country on earth was not going to accept the outcome of the referendum and accept Scotland as an independent state. It would be ludicrous for another EU state to not ratify the membership of an independent Scotland because no good would come of it.

In all likelihood this is true . However you never know how people are going to vote . Other countries have reached absurd voting decisions before on an international scale . I however like you do not envisage any EU member state wanting to interfere - and ill say more about why in a minute

I cannot see it being particularly difficult. No other EU member can legitimately deny Scotland a place and they would be making life difficult for the entire EU if they did. For there to be political problems, there would need to be a case against the acceptance of Scotland and that case doesn't stack up. Even in countries like France where national referenda are normally needed for these sorts of treaty changes, it would be difficult to imagine a situation where the supermajority does not exist in their legislature to bypass these provisions and accept Scotland without needing to ask their population. The idea of another state having a referendum on whether Scotland should be allowed to stay is likewise absurd - who would genuinely argue against it and have a plurality of the voters agree with them?

You've painfully missed the point entirely . In the point I made I was acknowledging that in all likelihood no other member state would want to interfere with Scotland's membership . However as you have acknowledged Scotland's joining of the EU might take place as a form of treaty amendment . And as you have alluded to some countries require referendums to take place for EU treaty changes . I dont envisage any problems in countries with this provision eventually ratifying the treaty amendment . What I was saying though is that these things can take their time .If several countries do require referendums then this wont happen overnight it could take a year or longer to actually carry out the referendum . And given for some countries it wont be as big a priority as it is for Scotland and the RUK it could take a lot longer than some envisaged . And dont forget as we already agreed it is highly likely that the UK would be able to relinquish its responsibility towards Scots citizens until an agreement on the EU is reached .

I very much disagree. The absolute fact of the matter is that if Scotland had voted Yes, it would have become a fully independent state with full international recognition. The Catalonians were ecstatic that we were given a vote at all, rather than actually needing us to vote Yes.

I very much disagree with you and actually think you've missed the point and actually agree with me here . And logically what you have said indicates so . If Catalonia was ecstatic you got a vote , imagine how much more excited it would get if you actually managed successfully win your independence . Would this not give even more hope to those in other EU countries that wanted to be independent .

I dont think spain/france / Netherlands would risk a veto on the Scottish membership of the EU because skeptics within their own countries would have said they where doing so for anti independence reasons that where relevant domestically , and we all know this would only give more of a voice to the independence movements within these countries .

But I think it is entirely false to suggest that Scotland actually going forward and gaining its independence would not give even more hope and traction to independence campaigns in other countries . Look how much hope , traction and voice the Better together devolution settlement has given to other regions of the UK .

This is the argument why it is ridiculous to force an independent Scotland to join the Euro in order to join. Until such time as the economy is ready for such a measure, it would be premature and a bad idea. That time would come years, if not decades, after independence day (and can only happen after independence day anyway) and there would need to be some workable arrangement in the meantime. That arrangement could just be continued indefinitely if the circumstances required it. If a currency situation is going to fail, it is going to fail quickly or it will not fail at all. That is the power of international markets - if there had been any inkling about Grexit from the EU the markets would have forced it to happen.

I agree , and like I said I dont think the Germans, French or Italians would have been too happy about admitting another potentially weak economy into the Euro Zone . If Scotland would have been to enter the Eurozone I also think this would have protracted negotiations as budgets and economic data would have had to have been deeply analyzed .

However it does remain that if a settlement with the UK for a currency union had not been reached this could have been the road Scotland was led down .

Personally I dont think the economic criteria would have been met eespecially with added scrutiny from Germany in the light of the almost collapse of the Eurozone , and so Scotland would have ultimately have to make some sacrifices in negotiations with the rUK to keep using the pound .

 

[St Rollox]

One local council by-election yesterday in Oban.
The first since the referendum.
The SNP won, taking 41% of the vote.

 

[Butts]

One local council by-election yesterday in Oban.
The first since the referendum.
The SNP won, taking 41% of the vote.

McCaigs Folly springs to mind

How were the rest of the votes split ?

 

[ExRes]

One local council by-election yesterday in Oban.
The first since the referendum.
The SNP won, taking 41% of the vote.

So the SNP share is falling since the independence vote then

 

[St Rollox]

So the SNP share is falling since the independence vote then

Looks to me like the unionist vote split all over the place.
A danger for unionism i pointed out a couple of weeks back.
Strange that in a safe liberal area the LibDems couldn't put a candidate up.

 

[danielnez1]

We can't guarantee that we won't be hit by an asteroid and wiped off the face of the earth. Looking at the situation, the obvious outcome is that it is in the interests of the EU that we continue to be a member.

Well of course not, but at the same time the SNP were trying to give the impression that everything would be handed to them on a sliver platter. Likewise Scotland's EU membership is though the union, it is not counted as a member state.

Said terms will not involve Schengen or the Euro (in the relevant short-medium term). It will be over things like farming and fishing rebates and if necessary the Scottish Government would not force their hand on getting new concessions over what they get as part of the UK. Any UK concessions would be split between the rUK and Scotland depending on why those concessions exist.

Again you are making the mistake of dressing up your own opinion as facts. We can only speculate.

We weren't in the totalitarian eastern bloc, so it's even more peaceful. Still relevant though, and since the EU has let both countries in it again clearly has no problem with legal separatist movements.

Err yes the EU did let them both in, using what I believe is the standard accession process.

A potential quagmire that only needs to be as large as the EU wants it to be. The less quagmire the better, and they have all the power to ensure that it goes as smoothly as possible since that is in their own interests.

That also applies to iScotland, perhaps even more so as you wouldn't want to end up being isolated. I'm sure its also reasonable to agree that iScotland wouldn't necessarily get everything it wanted in all of the negotiations.

I know they will, but a stable situation will be worked out on all these issues. The casino banks will move their headquarters to London and the rUK will be responsible for bailing them out once again. The remaining Scottish banking industry is perfectly proportional to our economy.

I can't help but feel your vail is slipping here. If the "casino banks" did move their HQ's then you admit there is a pretty high chance that it would cause some disruption to your economy.

My point is that there is no intrinsic structural reason why Scotland cannot be a member on its own. If Norway wants to join the EU it can join, as could Switzerland or the various microstates. It's not like Turkey or Morocco.

Of course a iScotland could be a member in it's own right, I wouldn't think otherwise.

The people of Scotland would have democratically chosen to give the Scottish Parliament full sovereignty over the state. If the EU can't handle the inevitable breakup of the UK, how did it manage to absorb most of the former Eastern Bloc?

Is a breakup inevitable? I'd say you'd have to substantially improve your case for separation first. You simply can't build a case on assertions and miss out contingencies.

Don't forget how long it took the Eastern block, bar East Germany to achieve the required political and economic stability.

We base our predictions on logical deduction and reasoning. Those logical deductions point towards the answers we give.

Really? The way people like yourself react to criticism (i.e the infamous "scaremongering" whitewashing statement) would suggest otherwise. Likewise you cannot perform logical deduction on variables that are not absolute facts. Realistically you can only make a premise based on your assumptions.

An immigration policy focussing on allowing high-skilled workers from other first-world countries to stay here to pay taxes. That so many of our foreign students, who have paid tens of thousands of pounds a year to study here, are then forced to leave because of the demand to keep out unskilled labour is a travesty. These workers aren't going to go on the dole down south when they'll all have high-paid jobs up here, paying taxes and improving the Scottish economy.

I'm not questing what immigration policy is right or not, it just seems reasonable that if iScotland had a wildly diverging immigration policy to the rUK, there would have to have some form of border control.

You would need to build some new base first and procure a new delivery system and train up your military to use it. That would take a decade at least, and in that time you'll be the laughing stock of the world.

Somehow I feel you would relish such a situation. However the point is that no matter what you do, we still have the capability. There would only be so much pain you could inflict to your primary trading partner.

Both sides won't agree on close economic ties: the realities of how markets work in Great Britain will dictate that because there will never be anything less than a full free-trade area between the two and other EU countries. Even UKIP know that the common market is a good idea, it's just the immigration they don't like.

That is your assertion, but in the aftermath of a yes vote, I feel many businesses will uproot to seek better stability, either to the UK in the case of Scotland voting yes, or to the continent if the UK leaves the EU.

It's interesting that so much was made of how much the markets reacted after specific events when all those losses and gains were then cancelled out within days or weeks by normal market forces. Everyone knows that it won't be the end of the world - business leaders specifically said they thought that Brexit was more of a risk to them than Scottish independence.

In the long run I'm sure things will even out. I guessing Businesses see us leaving the EU as more likely than a yes vote for Scottish Independence, and of course disrupting trade with a larger market.

 

[Butts]

Interesting to see Alex Salmond on Question Time from Liverpool last night.

He stated that he had not made up his mind whether to stand for Westminster at the next General Election when asked.

Rumour is that he would stand in LD Malcolm Bruce's seat of Gordon (he is standing down)

Would be good to someone with his charisma back in the House of Commons.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

McCaigs Folly springs to mind

Well, that particular edifice still stands with a commanding position on Battery Hill overlooking Oban and its waterfront. Such is the quality of stonework that it will outlast all the current matters in hand.

 

[St Rollox]

I always thought Labour made a mistake climbing into bed with the Tories over Scottish Independence.
Support a No vote but a joint campaign with the Tories was a loser in Labour areas.

Funnily enough i wouldn't be surprised someone in the Labour leadership takes a hit for losing every Labour seat in Glasgow and North Lanarkshire to a YES vote.

 

[Butts]

I always thought Labour made a mistake climbing into bed with the Tories over Scottish Independence.
Support a No vote but a joint campaign with the Tories was a loser in Labour areas.

Funnily enough i wouldn't be surprised someone in the Labour leadership takes a hit for losing every Labour seat in Glasgow and North Lanarkshire to a YES vote.

Dream on - that ain't going to happen

 

[St Rollox]

[/B]

Dream on - that ain't going to happen

All 7 Glasgow westminster seats are held by Labour MPs
All had a majority YES vote in the referendum.
Same North Lanarkshire.

And oh, the Scottish Labour leader quit about an hour ago.

Do keep up B.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And 6 days later the Scottish Labour deputy leader calls it quits.
Seems like meltdown for Labour in Scotland.
Maybe Jim Murphy MP can save them.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...tory-vow-as-poll-predicts-a-meltdown.25746221

Labour leadership frontrunner Jim Murphy has pledged to end Labour's losing streak as a poll says the number of MPs in Scotland could be slashed from 41 to four at next year's General Election.

Melt down for Labour predicted, Milliband is very much a dead man walking.

 

[St Rollox]

Jim Murphy as First Minister of Scotland would be interesting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Alistair Darling MP now retiring.

 

[GaryMcEwan]

Jim Murphy as First Minister of Scotland would be interesting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Alistair Darling MP now retiring.

Another blow to the Labour Party...

 

[Emyr]

Alistair Darling MP now retiring.

His eyebrows must have started catching up by now.

 

[ExRes]

Us nasty Sussex people are playing up again

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/298516-alex-salmond-effigy-to-be-burned-at-lewes-bonfire-celebrations/

 

[GatwickDepress]

Us nasty Sussex people are playing up again

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/298516-alex-salmond-effigy-to-be-burned-at-lewes-bonfire-celebrations/

"The Tory-controlled East Sussex County Council obviously view the First Minister - and the 45 per cent of Scots who voted Yes - as as big a threat to the Westminster establishment as Guy Fawkes, although it's unclear why poor Nessie has been targeted.

"It's a typical Tory attitude to Scotland, whether north or south of the border."

Um, I thought ESCC hadn't been Tory-controlled since Labour and UKIP gained seats in the 2013 local elections?

Nevertheless it's Lewes. They're awfully noveau riche over there...

 

[ExRes]

Um, I thought ESCC hadn't been Tory-controlled since Labour and UKIP gained seats in the 2013 local elections?

Nevertheless it's Lewes. They're awfully noveau riche over there...

Perhaps 'no overall control' is the new Conservative choice of name, or the Scottish - English translation anyway

 

[me123]

Us nasty Sussex people are playing up again

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/298516-alex-salmond-effigy-to-be-burned-at-lewes-bonfire-celebrations/

Disgusting. If anyone in Scotland tried something similar, there'd be cries of racism from all quarters. And people honestly still ask me why I voted "yes"? This is not purely political. This is a racist/xenophobic attack.

Equally worrying is that they've apparently been burning an effigy of the Pope for years beforehand? Now, I'm a strong atheist and have lots of strong words about the Catholic Church, but even I find that insensitive and utterly despicable.

24 hours ago, I had no feeling about the people of Lewes whatsoever. Now I just see them as utterly bigoted. And if any of you are reading, I warmly invite you to come up and try to do this in George Square.

 

[Butts]

Disgusting. If anyone in Scotland tried something similar, there'd be cries of racism from all quarters. And people honestly still ask me why I voted "yes"? This is not purely political. This is a racist/xenophobic attack.

Equally worrying is that they've apparently been burning an effigy of the Pope for years beforehand? Now, I'm a strong atheist and have lots of strong words about the Catholic Church, but even I find that insensitive and utterly despicable.

24 hours ago, I had no feeling about the people of Lewes whatsoever. Now I just see them as utterly bigoted. And if any of you are reading, I warmly invite you to come up and try to do this in George Square.

Have you had a sense of humour bypass ?

No doubt if they had been burning an effigy of Margaret Thatcher in Union Street you would have been equally vociferous in your protestations

 

[ExRes]

Disgusting. If anyone in Scotland tried something similar, there'd be cries of racism from all quarters. And people honestly still ask me why I voted "yes"? This is not purely political. This is a racist/xenophobic attack.

Equally worrying is that they've apparently been burning an effigy of the Pope for years beforehand? Now, I'm a strong atheist and have lots of strong words about the Catholic Church, but even I find that insensitive and utterly despicable.

24 hours ago, I had no feeling about the people of Lewes whatsoever. Now I just see them as utterly bigoted. And if any of you are reading, I warmly invite you to come up and try to do this in George Square.

Nice post

Bet you almost had people thinking you were being serious

 

[ainsworth74]

Does the same outrage apply to the burning of an effigy of David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010? If not why not?

 

[me123]

No doubt if they had been burning an effigy of Margaret Thatcher in Union Street you would have been equally vociferous in your protestations

Does the same outrage apply to the burning of an effigy of David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010? If not why not?

Yes. I actually think I did when it happened. Still a pretty vile thing to do.

Key differences here though. Salmond has done nothing to the people of Lewes, whereas Thatcher, Cameron and Clegg have done so to Scottish people. Secondly, those would be purely political statements as opposed to a attack on a nation (if you'll look closely, they aren't just burning Salmond, but also those of us who voted Yes (i.e. 45% of the Scottish population), and The Loch Ness Monster - which is tantamount . If I was to stand in the street and burn symbols of Englishness I'd be branded a racist.

And, as I've already said, the burning of the pope is simply a religious hate act and is utterly despicable.

 

[Oswyntail]

Yes. I actually think I did when it happened. Still a pretty vile thing to do.

Key differences here though. Salmond has done nothing to the people of Lewes, whereas Thatcher, Cameron and Clegg have done so to Scottish people. Secondly, those would be purely political statements as opposed to a attack on a nation (if you'll look closely, they aren't just burning Salmond, but also those of us who voted Yes (i.e. 45% of the Scottish population), and The Loch Ness Monster - which is tantamount . If I was to stand in the street and burn symbols of Englishness I'd be branded a racist.

And, as I've already said, the burning of the pope is simply a religious hate act and is utterly despicable.

Utter codswallop. If anything, it could be seen as a sign of affection. This is "the court of fools", a standard part of most western cultures for 2000 years. Occasionally a pompous ass objects, but only shows himself up as a pompous ass. In this case it is the po-faced Scottish who are showing themselves up. All credit to Salmond, who did see it for what it is, and turned the "outrage" into a joke about Nessie.

 

[Chew Chew]

I see that Weir Group are now cutting jobs.

During the referendum campaign they claimed that going independent would cost jobs so I would guess that some of their employees voted no due to this yet they will still be stuck into the job centre queue.

You can bet your bottom dollar that had we voted yes they'd have been using that as the reason.

As for Lewes, given their love of burning effigies of the Pope, crosses and No Popery banners they look like a bunch of backwards Troglodytes so it isn't really suprising what they wanted to do this year.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes. I actually think I did when it happened. Still a pretty vile thing to do.

Fair enough, I don't personally agree but I can see why someone would

 

[Butts]

Yes. I actually think I did when it happened. Still a pretty vile thing to do.

Key differences here though. Salmond has done nothing to the people of Lewes, whereas Thatcher, Cameron and Clegg have done so to Scottish people. Secondly, those would be purely political statements as opposed to a attack on a nation (if you'll look closely, they aren't just burning Salmond, but also those of us who voted Yes (i.e. 45% of the Scottish population), and The Loch Ness Monster - which is tantamount . If I was to stand in the street and burn symbols of Englishness I'd be branded a racist.

And, as I've already said, the burning of the pope is simply a religious hate act and is utterly despicable.

I notice you were in the minority for both Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City voted No

It strikes me that Aberdeen has done rather well over the last 30 years. I can remember it pre- "Union Square" et al.

Have you been to Cults, Rubislaw or Milltimber recently Million Pound Houses !!!