Scottish Independence

dlouth15

First Up wrote: »

Can you run me through again why you believe Spain could not veto Scottish accession?

No. You need to engage with the reasons I've already given that they would most likely not use the veto at the outset.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

No. You need to engage with the reasons I've already given that they would most likely not use the veto at the outset.

So what you mean is you think they wouldn't use the veto.

Don't you think that is a bit different to saying they "can't block Scotland"?

dlouth15

First Up wrote: »

So what you mean is you think they wouldn't use the veto.

Don't you think that is a bit different to saying they "can't block Scotland"?

I do believe that legally Spain would run into problems if it simply refused to negotiate at the outset. Some of these problems would be legal as well as political although much of the discussion has been on the political dimension.

But Spain isn't even saying at this stage that they have any intention but to negotiate constructively with Scotland or the UK and they have distanced themselves publicly from Barroso's comments.

djpbarry

dlouth15 wrote: »

Talk is cheap…

And yet you are placing a tremendous amount of significance on a sound-bite from a Spanish Minister?

dlouth15 wrote: »

Slovenia and the Czech republic who were once one country...

No, Slovakia and the Czech Republic were.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

I do believe that legally Spain would run into problems if it simply refused to negotiate at the outset. Some of these problems would be legal as well as political although much of the discussion has been on the political dimension.

But Spain isn't even saying at this stage that they have any intention but to negotiate constructively with Scotland or the UK and they have distanced themselves publicly from Barroso's comments.

You seem to be equating negotiation with the final decision. Of course Spain - and the other member states with secessionist concerns - would join in whatever negotiation process takes place - and not just because they had to. They would use those negotiations as a platform to voice their concerns and to send whatever political messages they need for their own domestic agenda.

What ultimately would matter would be the vote on admitting Scotland - if it hadn't already been killed in committee, like Turkey has. (Not formally "killed" of course - just postponed indefinitely.) If it came to a vote they could then say no - citing all the reasons they had voiced during the negotiations.

Godge

dlouth15 wrote: »

Talk is cheap and I think you are failing to distinguish between what is going on now which is cheap attempts to influence the vote and what would happen after a potential yes vote when the political landscape would have changed. Barroso in making his remarks does not stand to lose if he is proved wrong. No doubt he is hoping that a no vote is returned but even in the event of a yes, he's phrased his remarks in a sufficiently weasely way that he can't really be hauled up on them. This is why I don't place a lot of weight on his comments. I can fully see why he made them and he might even believe them, but they don't amount to much. I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bull**** on Barroso here.

As to how Spain might actually act in the event of a yes vote. Well they've said in public that they fully recognise Scotland's right to independence should that be the outcome in the UK. They've said that they will engage in negotiations should Scotland join. They can't therefore veto membership at the outset as some have tried to claim on on this thread and I have disputed. I think we can put that one to bed.

I can agree that Scotland becoming independent is somewhat inconvenient for a country with its own separatist movements but I think we need to keep this in proportion. Yes they might try to give Barroso behind the scenes the impression that they would happily block Scotland's entry - and I think that might have been done in this case. But again, talk is cheap, especially behind the scenes talk. They have nothing to lose by doing this.

But should a yes vote occur, they will then need to weigh up the cost of having Scotland as a member with the cost of blocking Scotland.

As already mentioned, they can't block Scotland at the outset. They can try to find technical reasons why Scotland shouldn't join. I'm not sure what those might be and no one has come up with any on this thread. They can try and obfuscate the talks, but this will come at a political cost in terms of their relations with other countries who don't have the problems of Spain. They can't use the issue of Catalonia or the Basque country in the negotiations themselves because this is not something that Scotland can do anything about.

My own view is that if a yes vote is returned, Spain will engage relatively constructively with Scotland, since to do otherwise would harm their relations with other countries. They might have preferred that a no vote had instead passed but now they need to face up to the political reality of an independent Scotland engaging constructively with the EU.

Can you tell me the last time any country openly used a veto?

How many times did the Germans come over here and tell us how wonderfully well we were handling the crisis and that Europe owed us and how many times behind the scenes did they block any attempt to compensate us?

Spain is not alone. Its views will be shared by many others from genuine fears in Belgium to nationalistic paranoia in Greece. In between you will have the UK who won't be happy at losing Scotland and fearful of a Welsh or Northern Irish approach.

You have forgotten that we won't want to make it easy for Scotland either. We don't want Northern Ireland having a third option other than union with ourselves or their current set-up.

The list of countries from France and Italy to the Romanians and Poles who won't like Scottish independence is long, so long as to make Scottish accession to the EU impractical.

But all the time we will hear European leaders talking at length about how they respect the views of the Scottish people and passing motions to support them and encouraging further negotiations to remove the barriers and sending more investigative teams and giving a few trade concessions but letting them in? They will have to wait.

Lemming

dlouth15 wrote: »

Talk is cheap

And it would wise to apply that when listening to the moon, stars, and everything that Salmond has promised the Scottish people. A moon, stars, and everything that also involves other countries agreeing ....

Incidentally, a veto is a veto. Reasons are neither required nor needing found in technical details. Very much a case of "A5, B5, BC5, and I've just sunk your battleship".

dlouth15

Godge wrote: »

Can you tell me the last time any country openly used a veto?

How many times did the Germans come over here and tell us how wonderfully well we were handling the crisis and that Europe owed us and how many times behind the scenes did they block any attempt to compensate us?

But the Germans have always been open about their views on the topic of retrospective payments to Ireland. They have also made out that their approach is the best for Europe (the Swabian housewife and all that).

For it to be a comparable scenario, you need to explain how Spain might try to make out that excluding Scotland or hampering their attempts to join is also somehow good for Europe.

Spain is not alone. Its views will be shared by many others from genuine fears in Belgium to nationalistic paranoia in Greece. In between you will have the UK who won't be happy at losing Scotland and fearful of a Welsh or Northern Irish approach.

You have forgotten that we won't want to make it easy for Scotland either. We don't want Northern Ireland having a third option other than union with ourselves or their current set-up.

The list of countries from France and Italy to the Romanians and Poles who won't like Scottish independence is long, so long as to make Scottish accession to the EU impractical.

But all the time we will hear European leaders talking at length about how they respect the views of the Scottish people and passing motions to support them and encouraging further negotiations to remove the barriers and sending more investigative teams and giving a few trade concessions but letting them in? They will have to wait.

I'm not going to get into speculation about the individual concerns of each and every country you've mentioned. We don't know their positions and the extent to which their concerns about separatist movements outweigh other interests. I don't, for example, see it being in the rUK's economic interest to have Scotland outside the trade bloc given the business relationships that exist across the border. They can say what they want now but if a yes vote were to be passed, things would have to change. They would have to deal with the new situation.

View

Godge wrote: »

Look at all the sympathy Ireland got in its financial crisis, Ireland is a special case, blah, blah, blah, the Irish people have been great, blah, blah, blah, but did one European taxpayer have to put his hand in his pocket to help the Irish out? No.

EU taxpayers did have to put their hands into their pockets to help us out. They had to borrow the money to put into the EFSF and EFSM which was loaned to us and they acted as guarantors of those loans made to us. All that cost them money and exposed them to serious risk. A number of them have even had their debt levels downgraded subsequently which means their debt interest repayments have gone up.

All that extra risk costs those taxpayers money.

Many of the taxpayers in those member states have lower income per head (as measured by per capita GDP) then we did at the time so this was a case of poorer EU citizens bailing us out because we wanted to continue borrowing rather than make much tougher cut-backs at the time.

dlouth15

Lemming wrote: »

And it would wise to apply that when listening to the moon, stars, and everything that Salmond has promised the Scottish people. A moon, stars, and everything that also involves other countries agreeing ....

Sure Salmond may be wrong on a number of things but Spain have publicly distanced themselves from Barosso's statements.

Incidentally, a veto is a veto. Reasons are neither required nor needing found in technical details. Very much a case of "A5, B5, BC5, and I've just sunk your battleship".

But sometimes, unlike the game of Battleships, there are consequences for trying to use it. How is the country using it going to look? How is the EU going to look if Scotland is excluded not due to any fault of its own but rather due to the internal failures of certain member states. How is that constructively engaging with an aspirant EU member that has already implemented and is working with most EU legislation to date? And it has already been authoritatively suggested that EU countries have an obligation to engage constructively.

Lemming

dlouth15 wrote: »

Sure Salmond may be wrong on a number of things but Spain have publicly distanced themselves from Barosso's statements.

Spain are simply playing state politics by not showing their real hand. We'll see that when push comes to shove; which brings me on to ...

But sometimes, unlike the game of Battleships, there are consequences for trying to use it. How is the country using it going to look? How is the EU going to look if Scotland is excluded not due to any fault of its own but rather due to the internal failures of certain member states. How is that constructively engaging with an aspirant EU member that has already implemented and is working with most EU legislation to date? And it has already been authoritatively suggested that EU countries have an obligation to engage constructively.

That's an awful lot of rhetoric about the EU and not an awful lot about the consequences for Scotland. But lets play this game for a moment ...

The EU wont look bad at all. It'll be those member states that have blocked accession. The same way that Scotland could if it were a member. A lot of people seem to be making a great deal of noise about how Scotland already has a lot of EU legislation in place therefore shure why can't we be givin' it a bit o'de ault fheesttrack to be shure?! The same way that if Switzerland turned around tomorrow and applied for membership (they wont), they'd have to go through the same process despite having a great deal of compliance with EU law already.

As for those member states that might carry out a veto; they would make negotation as awkward, drawn out, and painful as possible to make matters fail before it got to veto. But if they are that way inclined and convinced having failed to do the above, they will use the veto as a last resort. Nation states act in their own best interests. Sometimes those interests coincide or have benign effects elsewhere, but the bottom line is self-interest. The same self-interest that Salmond has tried to use in threatening both the resf of the UK, the EU, and NATO already vis-a-vis membership or continued access to existing processes/facilities to try and get his way. If he had the power of veto he would have unquestionably used it by now, whatever anyone else thinks be damned.

I'm curious; who is this voice of authority of which you speak?

dlouth15

Lemming wrote: »

Spain are simply playing state politics by not showing their real hand. We'll see that when push comes to shove; which brings me on to ...

You are right that we'll see.

That's an awful lot of rhetoric about the EU and not an awful lot about the consequences for Scotland. But lets play this game for a moment ...

The EU wont look bad at all. It'll be those member states that have blocked accession. The same way that Scotland could if it were a member. A lot of people seem to be making a great deal of noise about how Scotland already has a lot of EU legislation in place therefore shure why can't we be givin' it a bit o'de ault fheesttrack to be shure?! The same way that if Switzerland turned around tomorrow and applied for membership (they wont), they'd have to go through the same process despite having a great deal of compliance with EU law already.

I would have to see some sort of comparison of compliance with EU law and Swiss law in order to agree with this. They certainly have various free trade agreements in place and this would have involved legislation on their part, but whether it is comparable to the sort of compliance Scotland will have upon independence is another thing.

Scotland and its courts will have had decades of dealing with EU legislation. I think this is probably unique for any aspirant country.

As for those member states that might carry out a veto; they would make negotation as awkward, drawn out, and painful as possible to make matters fail before it got to veto.

And what do you think the effect this might have on relations within Europe, most of whom don't want to spend time in protracted and pointless negotiations?

But if they are that way inclined and convinced having failed to do the above, they will use the veto as a last resort. Nation states act in their own best interests. Sometimes those interests coincide or have benign effects elsewhere, but the bottom line is self-interest.

Whilst I agree that nation's act in their own interests, I think you are defining the interest of the Spanish too narrowly in this regard. Sure in an ideal world from their perspective it would be better not to have any instances of separation in another European country but to believe that they can gain significantly after this has happened by blocking entry of what will be regarded by others as a perfectly legitimate country is another thing entirely.

Yes it is true that breakaway nationalists will gain confidence as a result of a yes vote but Spain blocking Scotland from EU entry is not going to change that. If Spain had a legitimate reason for doing so (for example human rights) then that would be one thing but Spain blocking for purely internal political reasons if anything would backfire on them.

I'm curious; who is this voice of authority of which you speak?

It is an opinion given by Sir David Edward a former judge with Court of Justice of the European Union, a body with the responsibility of interpreting EU law.

Lemming

dlouth15 wrote: »

You are right that we'll see. I would have to see some sort of comparison of compliance with EU law and Swiss law in order to agree with this. They certainly have various free trade agreements in place and this would have involved legislation on their part, but whether it is comparable to the sort of compliance Scotland will have upon independence is another thing.

The Swiss, as part of their free trade agreements, have to comply with EU legislation. An argument that the British anti-EU lobby seem to wilfully ignore in suggesting that Britain can leave the EU but still do free-trade without all the red tape.

I am not sure of any mention of Scotland within the framework of the EU; only Great Britain. So why Salmond seems to think that Scotland can just waltz in is another matter. What about representation? EU offices? etc. etc. None of that exists, and whilst the logistics of it are not a particularly difficult obstacle to overcome; the EU political body representative is another matter. It cannot just be reshaped on the fly to suit any given accession state desire to integrate on their timeframe, not anybody else's.

And what do you think the effect this might have on relations within Europe, most of whom don't want to spend time in protracted and pointless negotiations?

Well, that's kind of the point of dragging out negotiations ... everyone else gets fed up and then gives up. And then lo and behold, negotiations either stalemate or collapse. And one set of actors have gotten exactly what they wanted.

Whilst I agree that nation's act in their own interests, I think you are defining the interest of the Spanish too narrowly in this regard. Sure in an ideal world from their perspective it would be better not to have any instances of separation in another European country but to believe that they can gain significantly after this has happened by blocking entry of what will be regarded by others as a perfectly legitimate country is another thing entirely.

I shall repeat. Nation states generally act in their self-interest. If that includes veto'ing an accession application so be it. Also, why do you think it's just the Spanish that might have issue?

Yes it is true that breakaway nationalists will gain confidence as a result of a yes vote but Spain blocking Scotland from EU entry is not going to change that. If Spain had a legitimate reason for doing so (for example human rights) then that would be one thing but Spain blocking for purely internal political reasons if anything would backfire on them.

Spain (or anyone else) blocking Scotland sets precedent. And that is a very, very important point to note. On top of that, how do you think a veto would backfire on Spain considering that all member states have the power of veto?

It is an opinion given by Sir David Edward a former judge with Court of Justice of the European Union, a body with the responsibility of interpreting EU law.

Is that his legal opinion? Or his opinion? And before you rush to respond to that; there is a very significant difference between the two.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

You are right that we'll see. I would have to see some sort of comparison of compliance with EU law and Swiss law in order to agree with this. They certainly have various free trade agreements in place and this would have involved legislation on their part, but whether it is comparable to the sort of compliance Scotland will have upon independence is another thing.

Scotland and its courts will have had decades of dealing with EU legislation. I think this is probably unique for any aspirant country.
And what do you think the effect this might have on relations within Europe, most of whom don't want to spend time in protracted and pointless negotiations? Whilst I agree that nation's act in their own interests, I think you are defining the interest of the Spanish too narrowly in this regard. Sure in an ideal world from their perspective it would be better not to have any instances of separation in another European country but to believe that they can gain significantly after this has happened by blocking entry of what will be regarded by others as a perfectly legitimate country is another thing entirely.


Yes it is true that breakaway nationalists will gain confidence as a result of a yes vote but Spain blocking Scotland from EU entry is not going to change that. If Spain had a legitimate reason for doing so (for example human rights) then that would be one thing but Spain blocking for purely internal political reasons if anything would backfire on them.

It is an opinion given by Sir David Edward a former judge with Court of Justice of the European Union, a body with the responsibility of interpreting EU law.

You continue to misunderstand the implications. You are viewing it entirely from the perspective of the Scottish situation, whereas the member states and the EU must consider the wider political and legal consequences.

There is nothing in EU legislation to provide for an application from a country that previously formed part of a member state. Scotland's application will be treated exactly the same way as any other because there is simply no other way to do it. Whatever happens with a Scottish application would form the legal basis and precedent for applications from potentially any number of seccessions, either from current or possible future members. The EU would have to legislate for Scotland in a way that covers every conceivable eventuality. Good news for lawyers but very bad news for everyone else.
It isn't about keeping Scotland out per se. It's about what letting Scotland in would open the door to.

dlouth15

Lemming wrote: »

The Swiss, as part of their free trade agreements, have to comply with EU legislation. An argument that the British anti-EU lobby seem to wilfully ignore in suggesting that Britain can leave the EU but still do free-trade without all the red tape.

I could be proved wrong but I don't think on the Swiss statute books you have the whole raft of EU legislation transcribed into national law. Nor have they had to comply with the various treaties over the years. They have a set of treaties specific to EU-Swiss relations. Whilst they might find it easier than say Khazakhstan to bring about compliance, I don't think they would find it easier than members of the EEA like Norway, and certainly not Scotland. Citizens of Scotland will not only have adopted this EU legislation in order to gain entry but will have been living under it and testing it in the courts since the UK joined almost four decade ago. Of all the countries to apply to join, we probably know most about how Scotland will operate under EU legislation because that is exactly what they have been doing.

I am not sure of any mention of Scotland within the framework of the EU; only Great Britain. So why Salmond seems to think that Scotland can just waltz in is another matter. What about representation? EU offices? etc. etc. None of that exists, and whilst the logistics of it are not a particularly difficult obstacle to overcome; the EU political body representative is another matter. It cannot just be reshaped on the fly to suit any given accession state desire to integrate on their timeframe, not anybody else's.

But remember this will have to be done anyway to incorporate the rump United Kingdom. They will need to negotiate a reduced representation in the European parliament, new levels of rebate and an number of other issues. It will make sense, assuming there's a degree of pragmatism on the part of the EU to discuss these together. A useful starting point that other countries would not have is that the overall representation for the combined entity is already established.

As for the timescale, it is also in the interests of the EU to conclude these as quickly as possible to minimise disruption. To have Scotland revert to an independent state and it's citizens abroad lose their rights and EU citizens in Scotland lose theirs would be highly disruptive, embarrassing and unnecessary. Fishing rights and a number of other issues have also been mentioned. There are business relationships between Scotland and member states that would be affected.

As an aside, I think we need to get it out of our heads that there's a general dislike of the idea of Scotland joining the EU. This seems to be an underlying theme here. Even Barroso has not claimed this. I have not seen any evidence for it.

Well, that's kind of the point of dragging out negotiations ... everyone else gets fed up and then gives up. And then lo and behold, negotiations either stalemate or collapse. And one set of actors have gotten exactly what they wanted.

But I can't see this happening without damage to Spain's relations with other countries who do want to engage constructively.

I shall repeat. Nation states generally act in their self-interest. If that includes veto'ing an accession application so be it. Also, why do you think it's just the Spanish that might have issue?

But you are presuming to know what is in their interest. I think you are defining their interests in a very narrow fashion. Whilst I would agree, and I've said this already, they may prefer the Scottish to vote no, it does not mean that they want the newly independent Scots out of the EU indefinitely. I don't think it makes sense for them to do so. I don't think it helps deal fundamentally with nationalists in Catalonia and elsewhere for one thing. It will be viewed, and rightly so, as unfair treatment of a genuine EU application by Scotland and from the Catalan nationalists point of view, another reason that the Spanish government can't be trusted.

Spain (or anyone else) blocking Scotland sets precedent. And that is a very, very important point to note. On top of that, how do you think a veto would backfire on Spain considering that all member states have the power of veto?

It would set an unfortunate precedent, in my opinion. It would also show that Spain is not always interest in reasonable discussion to resolve their differences. Continuity and lack of disruption and not creating unfortunate precedents will be what the other member states will be trying to achieve and I think Spain, although they have separatist issues, will also be operating along these lines.

Is that his legal opinion? Or his opinion? And before you rush to respond to that; there is a very significant difference between the two.

For this discussion I'm happy to treat it merely as the opinion of someone who has served as a judge in a court charged with the interpreting of European law. If you want to treat it as a full legal opinion I'm happy with that too, but it is not necessary in my view.

Godge

dlouth15 wrote: »

It would set an unfortunate precedent, in my opinion. It would also show that Spain is not always interest in reasonable discussion to resolve their differences. Continuity and lack of disruption and not creating unfortunate precedents will be what the other member states will be trying to achieve and I think Spain, although they have separatist issues, will also be operating along these lines.
.

Spain has been given as one example. They will be joined by many others. Belgium, France, Italy, Greece, Ireland, UK, Romania, Greece, Germany, Poland, will all have problems with Scottish accession for various reasons.

Can you give me one example of any EU nation that would welcome Scottish accession?

Can you give me any good reason why the EU would want Scotland, any more than they want Iceland?

dlouth15

Godge wrote: »

Spain has been given as one example. They will be joined by many others. Belgium, France, Italy, Greece, Ireland, UK, Romania, Greece, Germany, Poland, will all have problems with Scottish accession for various reasons.

Can you give me one example of any EU nation that would welcome Scottish accession?

I think your above list is a bit far fetched. I doubt very much Ireland would object for example. As for the other countries, well some of them might have a few uppity regions but I doubt if Scotland's entry would be a big deal. It looks to me like you are blowing things way out of proportion here.

Can you give me any good reason why the EU would want Scotland, any more than they want Iceland?

I don't want to be rude but you've got the issue of Iceland and the EU almost totally backwards.

First Up

Godge wrote: »

Spain has been given as one example. They will be joined by many others. Belgium, France, Italy, Greece, Ireland, UK, Romania, Greece, Germany, Poland, will all have problems with Scottish accession for various reasons.

Can you give me one example of any EU nation that would welcome Scottish accession?

Can you give me any good reason why the EU would want Scotland, any more than they want Iceland?

The UK does little to endear itself to the rest of the EU at the best of times. The Scottish nonsense is seen as a self indulgent family tiff that threatens all sorts of problems for people with a lot more important things to worry about.
If they think the rest of Europe gives a rats about their insecurities over cultural identity,.or share of oil revenues or anything else they are deluding themselves.

A Dub in Glasgo

Christ almighty, if the EU want to be spiteful and deny that Scotland is already part of it or deny entry if they feel they are not, well Scotland can live outside of the EU then. A lot of people here sound resentful that the Scots have a vote on independence

Sheldons Brain

Can you give me one example of any EU nation that would welcome Scottish accession?

I don't see why the likes of Denmark, which hasn't joined the Euro etc, should not welcome another country of similar size which also wishes to join the EU.

If the Scottish people wish to reorganise their governmental arrangements in a democratic way, while continuing to respect the EU regulations, the EU loses all credibility if it tries to throw them out or makes it difficult for them.

Godge

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Christ almighty, if the EU want to be spiteful and deny that Scotland is already part of it or deny entry if they feel they are not, well Scotland can live outside of the EU then. A lot of people here sound resentful that the Scots have a vote on independence

Really don't care what the Scots do, just trying to add reality to what will happen afterwards.

dlouth15

scotty_irish wrote: »

i live in scotland, have a lot of hardcore SNP friends and even they aren't pushing for independence. back when there was lots of oil it would've made economic sense - scotland doesn't have a massive amount of industry - methinks a serious decline in living standards is what independence will translate to. also, not a chance of there being a referendum in the next few years, let alex salmond sprout all the BS he wants - i'll eat my socks if there is - you can hold me to this.

Someone posted this back in 2011. I wonder if more than a "few years" has passed or does scotty_irish now have to look up sock recipes?

A Dub in Glasgo

Godge wrote: »

Really don't care what the Scots do

Could have fooled me

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Christ almighty, if the EU want to be spiteful and deny that Scotland is already part of it or deny entry if they feel they are not, well Scotland can live outside of the EU then. A lot of people here sound resentful that the Scots have a vote on independence

The Scots can vote as often as they like about whatever they like. They would just be well advised to properly consider the consequences. Giving England the two fingers might make some feel good but it isn't a strategy for nation building.
As far as much of Europe is concerned, if Scotland wants to throw it's toys out of it's comfortable pram, it can bloody well pick them up itself.
The message is "take your argument outside boys, we have enough to do without cleaning your blood off our carpet."

First Up

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I don't see why the likes of Denmark, which hasn't joined the Euro etc, should not welcome another country of similar size which also wishes to join the EU.

If the Scottish people wish to reorganise their governmental arrangements in a democratic way, while continuing to respect the EU regulations, the EU loses all credibility if it tries to throw them out or makes it difficult for them.

Becoming a different country is somewhat more than "re-organising their governmental arrangements." The EU won't be throwing them out, they will be taking themselves out.
The EU won't be making it any more difficult for them to get in than it will for any other applicant. But it won't be making it any easier either.
But that's just the EU (as in the Commission). The 28 member states will each make up their own mind.

bobcoffee

Well as a gamer I get to talk to lots of people around the world and with that I do bump into the few scotish people.
I have yet to meet one that is 100% for it.
So far it was either, do not want to leave or not sure what will happen if they do.

My answer was... "well you guys will sure no what real corruption is if you do leave"
Not much has changed that answer, look at what our own parties have done to our country.

We are basically getting our own oil stolen off us and all being sponsored and backed by the EU.
Also all the laws brought in by the EU to make that last few years "legal".

Godge

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Could have fooled me

you see, I really don't. I have only posted on this thread because it was full of ridiculous assertions that leaving the UK would make no difference to EU membership.

As someone who knows a little about how the EU works and a neutral on the independence referendum, I was just pointing out how naive and silly the belief that nothing would change with regards to the EU.

The UK is a member of the EU. Let us keep it simple.

Leaving the UK = Leaving the EU
Joining the EU (or rejoining) is not a simple process compared to 40 years ago.
A number of member states would have legitimate concerns based around self-interest to lead them to resist Scottish re-entry.
This wouldn't necessarily manifest itself in vetos but in making negotiations difficult.
For example, it wouldn't be beyond Spain to insist on a renegotiation in its favour of certain fishing rights deals around these islands in order to permit Scottish re-entry.

Sheldons Brain

For example, it wouldn't be beyond Spain to insist on a renegotiation in its favour of certain fishing rights deals around these islands in order to permit Scottish re-entry.

Scotland should get 10% of Gibraltar and they could give this to Spain.

A Dub in Glasgo

This might be the deal clincher for Scottish independence

Scofflaw

bobcoffee wrote: »

Well as a gamer I get to talk to lots of people around the world and with that I do bump into the few scotish people.
I have yet to meet one that is 100% for it.
So far it was either, do not want to leave or not sure what will happen if they do.

My answer was... "well you guys will sure no what real corruption is if you do leave"
Not much has changed that answer, look at what our own parties have done to our country.

We are basically getting our own oil stolen off us and all being sponsored and backed by the EU.
Also all the laws brought in by the EU to make that last few years "legal".

What supposed EU laws are these, and what exactly are they supposed to do? Are you referring to the obligation to hold strategic reserves of oil and gas?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bobcoffee

Once the "crisis" kicked in there was new laws passed with in the EU.
The exact names of these laws I don't know and tbh don't really want to either.
However if they did not bring in these new "laws" then a lot of the illegal death that was not ours.
Could not be passed on to us and thus things had to change.
Was brought in during the whole entire "need to monitor funs" approach which EU still don't.

Would have been nice to bring in laws that made those who are dealing with EU funds, responsible under EU court.
But that would only bring in some more justice.
During a time were making illegal unguaranteed loans from England/Netherlands and other main EU states a top priority.

First Up

bobcoffee wrote: »

Once the "crisis" kicked in there was new laws passed with in the EU.
The exact names of these laws I don't know and tbh don't really want to either.
However if they did not bring in these new "laws" then a lot of the illegal death that was not ours.
Could not be passed on to us and thus things had to change.
Was brought in during the whole entire "need to monitor funs" approach which EU still don't.

Would have been nice to bring in laws that made those who are dealing with EU funds, responsible under EU court.
But that would only bring in some more justice.
During a time were making illegal unguaranteed loans from England/Netherlands and other main EU states a top priority.

I would be grateful if you could explain what you mean a bit more clearly because I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

bobcoffee

this thread is about scotland and really if you have no idea what im talking about then you might not get the information your looking for.
google european crisis brings in new laws

quick list of new laws

very long read but lots of info, covers way more then just the crisis

During this time in Europe, which a lot of people don't know is that there was a really high chance of a banking systems being created that was above ALL laws within Europe.

My point is scotland will really know what corruption is, because a lot of ours is backed by the European Union as it created loopholes for them to go play with.

First Up

bobcoffee wrote: »

this thread is about scotland and really if you have no idea what im talking about then you might not get the information your looking for.
google european crisis brings in new laws

quick list of new laws

very long read but lots of info, covers way more then just the crisis

During this time in Europe, which a lot of people don't know is that there was a really high chance of a banking systems being created that was above ALL laws within Europe.

My point is scotland will really know what corruption is, because a lot of ours is backed by the European Union as it created loopholes for them to go play with.

Nope, sorry, not good enough. If you have a point to make, then make it. Vague references and allegations and pointing to websites mean noting.

bobcoffee

says you, I'm sorry for not "holding hands" here.
Do not believe I'm hear to make things easier on you.
If its not good enough, try using google your self.


Scotland will know what real corruption is like.
We have one of the worse oil deals in the world and all backed by european union.

Iwasfrozen

bobcoffee wrote: »

says you, I'm sorry for not "holding hands" here.
Do not believe I'm hear to make things easier on you.
If its not good enough, try using google your self.


Scotland will know what real corruption is like.
We have one of the worse oil deals in the world and all backed by european union.

If you make a claim or accusation here and you want people to take what you say seriously instead of just soapbox. Then you have to be able to back up and support your claims with facts and evidence when challenged. Pointing people to Google, especially when you don't even know the name of these supposed laws is simply not sufficient.

bobcoffee

Tbh I'm guna stop after this but you guys are wrong.
I'm not posting this here for you.
If you don't see things like me that is fine, just short and sweet to those who do.
Not creating spoapbox just pointing things out.

Most things people call facts I do not, vice a versa..

dlouth15

bobcoffee wrote: »

Scotland will know what real corruption is like.
We have one of the worse oil deals in the world and all backed by european union.

This is a good point but I think there's a danger of assuming that Scotland would be dealing with the EU in the same way as Ireland.

bobcoffee

that is also a good point, not sure how much different dealings the would get.
Since scotland is just a part of an island, according the google its 5mil in population so its not economic power house at all.
Even with Ireland and oil deal, we do get a lot of funds of the EU (even with out the crisis).
For all of my life (30) Ive seen plenty of "projects" paid for by the EU.

I would dare say that scotland would get even less "support", which might not be such a bad thing :P

View

dlouth15 wrote: »

This is a good point but I think there's a danger of assuming that Scotland would be dealing with the EU in the same way as Ireland.

No it is not a "good point", it is inane drivel as the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with oil deals concluded by the individual member states of the EU (so long as those deals don't directly contravene EU law).

bobcoffee

So when the EU enforces Irish government to continue on a dogy contract with a spanish construction company (m50) for not keeping up to their end of the deal. That is drivel?

Yes the EU didn't get involved once, which is my point, they should have gotten involved it quite clear that having one of the worse deals going (afircan countries are comparison).
Along with violence, over handed security + garda involvement, human rights being chucked out the window.
Is something the EU DOES get involved with and since the lack of involvement I consider that a "sponsorship".

So I believe that Scotland will see similar corruption that we see (if we want to) everyday.
There politicians will just use loopholes and as long as big corporations are happy so will EU.
Why cause its a tiny population off some random Island which doesn't really hold much value/weight in the EU mindset.

Suppose history being written by the winners, is drivel too?

View

bobcoffee wrote: »

So when the EU enforces Irish government to continue on a dogy contract with a spanish construction company (m50) for not keeping up to their end of the deal. That is drivel?

What exactly are you going on about now?

The basis of all contract law is both parties have to fulfil their obligations and the courts are there to resolve any disputes. How did the courts rule in the case you are alluding to?

bobcoffee wrote: »

Yes the EU didn't get involved once, which is my point, they should have gotten involved

The EU has no power to get involved unless the member states of the EU have given it the legal competence to do so.

It isn't Superman, there to save us from the ills of us exercising our sovereignity. Instead, it is entirely up to us to do so wisely.

If you have problems with what you regard as "illegalities", the courts - both domestic and EU - are there to handle breeches of either sets of laws.

dlouth15

bobcoffee wrote: »

Why cause its a tiny population off some random Island which doesn't really hold much value/weight in the EU mindset.

I can understand this point of view. We might feel that we've been pushed around by the EU. I'm thinking here of the banking crisis as a prime example. But when you look into it, our politicians seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate quite unreasonable demands. Whilst I can't predict how Scotland will deal with the EU, there's no reason that they won't deal with an appropriate level of robustness when looking after their own interests.

First Up

View wrote: »

What exactly are you going on about now?

The basis of all contract law is both parties have to fulfil their obligations and the courts are there to resolve any disputes. How did the courts rule in the case you are alluding to?



The EU has no power to get involved unless the member states of the EU have given it the legal competence to do so.

It isn't Superman, there to save us from the ills of us exercising our sovereignity. Instead, it is entirely up to us to do so wisely.

If you have problems with what you regard as "illegalities", the courts - both domestic and EU - are there to handle breeches of either sets of laws.

There seems to be a few agendas running here, none of which has much to do with Scotland. Vague grumbles, incoherently expressed don't constitute an argument. Until posters can string a few sentences together that contain some facts and make some sense they are best ignored.

bobcoffee

so why you continuing on while not talk about either scotland but vague grumbles...

some of us don't need to right paragraphs to talk about things.

comparing scotland independence to Irelands corrupt independence and relating around oil is not so "out there" as you seem to think.
Since both have oil and one of scotland issues is also around their own oil reserves and having england controlling them.

While some here seem to believe we have a functioning government I do not and I know others don't either.
I can easily see scotland having their own corruption issues which wouldn't hold in England (not like they ain't got their own issues).
But since they went for independence new laws would have to be written up.
Which leaves room for new loopholes to be placed for greedy politicians.
Happens all the time, nama is perfect example of something illegal getting created.
Sure EU done report there recently on how they agree that what was done to Ireland was against human rights.. but it was done.. so....

First Up

bobcoffee wrote: »

so why you continuing on while not talk about either scotland but vague grumbles...

some of us don't need to right paragraphs to talk about things.

comparing scotland independence to Irelands corrupt independence and relating around oil is not so "out there" as you seem to think.
Since both have oil and one of scotland issues is also around their own oil reserves and having england controlling them.

While some here seem to believe we have a functioning government I do not and I know others don't either.
I can easily see scotland having their own corruption issues which wouldn't hold in England (not like they ain't got their own issues).
But since they went for independence new laws would have to be written up.
Which leaves room for new loopholes to be placed for greedy politicians.
Happens all the time, nama is perfect example of something illegal getting created.
Sure EU done report there recently on how they agree that what was done to Irelan
d was against human rights.. but it was done.. so....

Would I be correct in thinking that English is not your first language? If that is the case we can make allowances but some of what you write borders on gibberish and your grammar and spelling are atrocious. Maybe there are some good points buried in some of your posts but they are so badly written as to be next to impossible to follow.
Not meaning to give offence but you can't have a debate like that.

bobcoffee

yes you can, people can.
what you mean is YOU can't have a debate because grammar is not on par with YOUR standards.

how do I know that the above is something of just "stirring the pot".
well see if people are lost on things, genuinely lost on things they like to pick them out.
so that they can be found.
others however notice the lack of literature and try and play on that note to exempt them selves from looking like they are trying to do stuff that would normally violate the code of conduct.

If you would like people to stop talking giberish and vague grumbles you might want to look at a mirror.
I've tried to explain the connection between the two, you don't seem to see it, which is fine.
But making out that points are not valid because there not structured FOR YOU is just childs play.

Scotland in my opinion would be better off where they are but just use this "independence" to get a better footing within the British State.

First Up

bobcoffee wrote: »

yes you can, people can.
what you mean is YOU can't have a debate because grammar is not on par with YOUR standards.

how do I know that the above is something of just "stirring the pot".
well see if people are lost on things, genuinely lost on things they like to pick them out.
so that they can be found.
other however notice the lack of literature and try and play on that note to exempt them selves from looking like they are trying to do stuff that would normally violate the code of conduct.

I you would like people to stop talking giberish and vague grumbles you might want to look at a mirror.
I've tried to explain the connection between the two, you don't seem to see it, which is fine.
But making out that points are not valid because there not structured FOR YOU is just childs play.

Scotland in my opinion would be better off where they are but just use this "independence" to get a better footing within the British State.

I'm suggesting that if you want to get your point across you should take a bit more care in writing your posts. Do you even read them before you submit them?
Your audience might take you more seriously if you paid it respect by making sure you make some sort of sense.

A Dub in Glasgo

'Should Scotland Leave The United Kingdom?'



http://noscotland.net/

Maybe reverse psycology or a high-jacked poll :pac:

Iwasfrozen

bobcoffee wrote: »

yes you can, people can.
what you mean is YOU can't have a debate because grammar is not on par with YOUR standards.

how do I know that the above is something of just "stirring the pot".
well see if people are lost on things, genuinely lost on things they like to pick them out.
so that they can be found.
others however notice the lack of literature and try and play on that note to exempt them selves from looking like they are trying to do stuff that would normally violate the code of conduct.

If you would like people to stop talking giberish and vague grumbles you might want to look at a mirror.
I've tried to explain the connection between the two, you don't seem to see it, which is fine.
But making out that points are not valid because there not structured FOR YOU is just childs play.

Scotland in my opinion would be better off where they are but just use this "independence" to get a better footing within the British State.

I have to agree with First up, no disrespect but the general grammar, spelling and construction of your post are awful and it makes what you're trying to say very hard in follow. Actually I'm still not sure. Something about oil?