Scottish Independence

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

But if you don't mind me saying so, the arguments you put forward are weak and repeating them over and over again doesn't make them strong arguments.

What you seem to have in your head is that Scotland becoming independent is a hugely controversial thing among the peoples of Europe. I've seen no evidence for that. Certainly neither you nor anyone else on this thread has put forward any. The sort of thing you would reasonably expect to read would be editorials in newspapers and the like in European countries opposing Scottish independence on the basis of national self-interest.

The reason it would not be controversial is that the rUK is willingly ceding Scotland in the event of a yes vote. It is being done in a fully legal and democratic way.

All I've seen is your "theory" that there would be a lot of animosity towards an independent Scotland and none of this theory takes into account the pragmatic interest of maintaining continuity to the greatest degree possible.

It isn't about animosity and the peoples of Europe for the most part couldn't give a toss. But it isn't a "theory" either. The simple, stark fact is that Scotland will cease to be a member of the EU on the day it ceases to be part of the UK. If it wishes to join the EU it will have to go through a full accession process. The political realities of Europe (both within and outwith the current EU) mean that they will have to take their place in a queue and go through exactly the same process as anyone else. They may be better equipped than some to deal with that process but there will be no short cuts, no bending of rules and no favouritism.

Whether or not the likes of Spain or Belgium raise serious objections is conjecture but even without that, the road back to Europe for Scotland will not be a short or straightforward one.

In the meantime, they could lose a lot of business in England (especially if they lose the pound) and US and other international investors will be very nervous about putting their money into a potentially isolated Scotland.

Richard

dlouth15 wrote: »

The rUK (name to be determined) would remain as part of the EU but under terms that would have to be renegotiated.

No. It would be the successor state. Like Russia was to the Soviet Union. The former inherited the latter's membership of stuff.

First Up

cmore123 wrote: »

Two points.... first, we hear that the uk would not allow the new Scottish state to use sterling. That can't be right - we pegged our pound exactly to sterling from its inception to 1979. Secondly, if other EU countries could potentially block this separation, even if the scots voted for it and the rest of the uk didn't object, does that mean that (as a separate issue) a future agreement - however far away it might be - to reunite Ireland could be blocked by Finland, Austria or Malta?

Pegging a new Scottish currency to sterling is not the same as sharing a currency. It would still involve exchange mechanisms. When the Irish pound was pegged to sterling, the English currency was accepted here but not vice versa.

Member states of the EU have no say in Scotland's decision about independence. They do however have a big say in letting them into the EU as a separate country.

Richard

cmore123 wrote: »

Two points.... first, we hear that the uk would not allow the new Scottish state to use sterling. That can't be right - we pegged our pound exactly to sterling from its inception to 1979. Secondly, if other EU countries could potentially block this separation, even if the scots voted for it and the rest of the uk didn't object, does that mean that (as a separate issue) a future agreement - however far away it might be - to reunite Ireland could be blocked by Finland, Austria or Malta?

They can't block the use of sterling, but without agreement, Scots won't be able to sell bonds etc internationally.

cmore123

Fair enough, firstup. Maybe, then, they could adopt a similar mechanism; call it a Scottish pound. The new Scottish government just has to make it policy that until they join the euro (assuming they want to), they pin their pound to the £.

I hear what you're saying too, about other countries say in it all. That's my take on it too.

However, and in answer to other posters too, an alternative might be for the current Scottish assembly to lobby for special admission on the basis that no would-be EU member yet, has ever come from being in the EU previously.

jmayo

dlouth15 wrote: »

But remember that Scotland as part of the UK has been a long standing member of the EU. If they gain independence they will have already have implemented all the EU laws. There will little to negotiate in terms of the normal criteria for entry into the EU and most states will be happy to have Scotland as a member. The EU as a whole will look bad if they try to exclude Scotland after a yes vote.

The EU as an institution and it's member states couldn't give two fecks what it looks like half the time.
Remember in the 90s they were able to tolerate genocide in a central European state bordering it's members, even though they had been spouting for years about "never again" letting such a thing happen.

dlouth15 wrote: »

There is also the legal obligation of states to negotiate in good faith and I can't see the position you're assuming Spain would adopt post referendum to be such.

Jesus H C are you really that naive ?

Spain has two possible breakaway regions.
They have had a guerilla terrorist campaign for years in one region.
The last thing they want is the option that breakaway states can get an easy entry into the EU where they can partake in regional grant schemes, etc.

dlouth15 wrote: »

...
On the political side, by good faith I mean that negotiators are required to negotiate within the spirit of the EU not merely their own narrow national interests. Remember that Scotland will still be part of the UK while much of the preliminary negotiations are taking place.

What is this crapology you keep coming out with about "good faith" ?
As others have tried to explain when push comes to shove national interests trumps everything.
We do not live some utopia and the EU certainly isn't anywhere near it.
Hell have you ever looked at CAP negogiations or World trade talks ?

Godge

cmore123 wrote: »

Fair enough, firstup. Maybe, then, they could adopt a similar mechanism; call it a Scottish pound. The new Scottish government just has to make it policy that until they join the euro (assuming they want to), they pin their pound to the £.

I hear what you're saying too, about other countries say in it all. That's my take on it too.

However, and in answer to other posters too, an alternative might be for the current Scottish assembly to lobby for special admission on the basis that no would-be EU member yet, has ever come from being in the EU previously.

On your latter point, why would Belgium or Spain wish to agree a fast-track process for that kind of situation? How would that be in their national interest?

In these things, as I keep saying, forget about what Scotland wants, forget about what Scotland deserves, focus on what do the people who decide (the Member States) want. And that is to protect their own national interest. So to understand whether Scotland can gain quick access to the EU, you need to know next to nothing about Scotland but a lot about the internal domestic situation in other Member States.

dlouth15

jmayo wrote: »

Spain has two possible breakaway regions.
They have had a guerilla terrorist campaign for years in one region.
The last thing they want is the option that breakaway states can get an easy entry into the EU where they can partake in regional grant schemes, etc.

So on that basis you would have expected Spain to have refused entry to Slovenia and Croatia, countries that unilaterally declared independence from Yugoslavia? And Scotland isn't even separating unilaterally in that way. If it does separate it will be with the full agreement of the UK authorities. Yet you believe Spain to have a big problem here to the extent they are willing to disrupt the working of the rest of the EU. Can you see why I can't bring myself to go along with the view that Scotland's entry will be hugely problematical as opposed to it's exclusion.

What is this crapology you keep coming out with about "good faith"?
As others have tried to explain when push comes to shove national interests trumps everything.
We do not live some utopia and the EU certainly isn't anywhere near it.
Hell have you ever looked at CAP negogiations or World trade talks ?

Negotiating in good faith doesn't mean not representing your own national interests. It simply means that they can't simply refuse to negotiate or put up spurious objections for the sake of stalling the talks in the hopes that they collapse.

A Dub in Glasgo

http://news.stv.tv/politics/265247-david-cameron-would-support-an-independent-scotlands-eu-membership/

'David Cameron would "absolutely" support an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, he told STV Political Editor Bernard Ponsonby'

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Do you want me to join the dots for you?

Just wondered how you felt about it being a long process, and what might happen in the meantime.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

So on that basis you would have expected Spain to have refused entry to Slovenia and Croatia, countries that unilaterally declared independence from Yugoslavia? And Scotland isn't even separating unilaterally in that way. If it does separate it will be with the full agreement of the UK authorities. Yet you believe Spain to have a big problem here to the extent they are willing to disrupt the working of the rest of the EU. Can you see why I can't bring myself to go along with the view that Scotland's entry will be hugely problematical as opposed to it's exclusion.

Negotiating in good faith doesn't mean not representing your own national interests. It simply means that they can't simply refuse to negotiate or put up spurious objections for the sake of stalling the talks in the hopes that they collapse.

Slovenia and Croatia were already republics within a federation and had become independent countries before joining. Yugoslavia was not in the EU.

A Dub in Glasgo

First Up wrote: »

Just wondered how you felt about it being a long process, and what might happen in the meantime.

If it comes to it, acceptable. I have already said that the opinion needs a legal view and that legal view is not forthcoming as the UK Government has refused to ask the EU. The Scottish Government cannot ask the EU for the legal view

bobcoffee

funny how that the main point was around OIL and GAS.
very little about anything else.
Cameron playing the nice boy, wonder if that attitude would change if YES was passed.

Alex commented "every country in history who discovered Oil and Gas has gotten substantially richer"....
that really make me think, Ireland is getting robbed blind with do believe the second worse deal with some african country being the worse.
Wonder how much he would make of it if Scotland gets independence.

First Up

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If it comes to it, acceptable. I have already said that the opinion needs a legal view and that legal view is not forthcoming as the UK Government has refused to ask the EU. The Scottish Government cannot ask the EU for the legal view

Legal view on what?

Lemming

dlouth15 wrote: »

Negotiating in good faith doesn't mean not representing your own national interests. It simply means that they can't simply refuse to negotiate or put up spurious objections for the sake of stalling the talks in the hopes that they collapse.

Um, yes. Yes they can. Welcome to the utopian world sewer of international political maneouvering. Dlouth, several posters - myself included - have repeatedly tried to explain to you that the other member states of the EU couldn't give two rats asses what Scotland does or does not do up until it starts to affect them in some way. If they perceive that effect as being negative, you can bet your bottom dollar - and you can then go and borrow the life savings of a mob boss to bet too - that those countries will then act in their best interests. If they feel their best interest is a veto by any other name, or a straight up veto, then so be it.

Do not mistake silence for positive, wishful thinking from the other states. That silence is them watching from the sidelines. What way they'll turn wont be known until push comes to shove and by then it'll be far, far too late if it's not in a manner that is to Scotland Salmond's benefit

bobcoffee

Norway, instead of being burdened by debt like the UK is at the moment, has an oil fund of £550bn, about £100,000 for every man, woman and child in Norway.

While, Under International Law, the Irish Nation owns a very large area, over 220 Million Acres (or 25%) of the European Continental Shelf, and under International Law, any Oil, Gas, or Minerals found within or beneath our Exclusive Economic Zone belongs to the Irish Nation.
Ireland has discovered Oil and Gas reserves which could be worth up to $1 TRILLION dollars at current prices

Would calling it.. getting robbed blind even be accurate?

K-9

First Up wrote: »

I hope you read it carefully.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Of course I did, you are great for looking down on others

First Up wrote: »

All the way to the last sentence?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Do you want me to join the dots for you?

Mod:

Cut out the smart Aleck replies please, no need for them.

First Up

bobcoffee wrote: »

Norway, instead of being burdened by debt like the UK is at the moment, has an oil fund of £550bn, about £100,000 for every man, woman and child in Norway.

While, Under International Law, the Irish Nation owns a very large area, over 220 Million Acres (or 25%) of the European Continental Shelf, and under International Law, any Oil, Gas, or Minerals found within or beneath our Exclusive Economic Zone belongs to the Irish Nation.
Ireland has discovered Oil and Gas reserves which could be worth up to $1 TRILLION dollars at current prices

Would calling it.. getting robbed blind even be accurate?

Who are you blaming for this? As I understand it, the deals on Irish licenses were done many years ago under a very different government and with no interference from the EU.
I don't carry any brief for those involved but I suspect they would say that at the time, they were the only terms under which exploration would happen.
I'm open to additional information about it but I fail to see what this has to do with Scotland.

dlouth15

Lemming wrote: »

Um, yes. Yes they can. Welcome to the utopian world sewer of international political maneouvering. Dlouth, several posters - myself included - have repeatedly tried to explain to you that the other member states of the EU couldn't give two rats asses what Scotland does or does not do up until it starts to affect them in some way. If they perceive that effect as being negative, you can bet your bottom dollar - and you can then go and borrow the life savings of a mob boss to bet too - that those countries will then act in their best interests. If they feel their best interest is a veto by any other name, or a straight up veto, then so be it.

I've never argued that they would not negotiate with their national interests mind. I have argued against the idea that, for example, Spains national interest lies entirely with keeping Scotland out in order discourage separatist movements within their borders. I've argued that this is easily outweighed by the problems associated with excluding Scotland.

On the issue of negotiating in good faith, we've the opinion of the former judge:

19. On those assumptions, my opinion is that, in accordance with their obligations of good faith, sincere cooperation and solidarity, the EU institutions and all the Member States (including the UK asexisting), would be obliged to enter into negotiations, before separation took effect, to determine the future relationship within the EU of the separate parts of the former UK and the other Member States.
20. The outcome of such negotiations, unless they failed utterly, would be agreed amendment of the existing Treaties, not a new Accession Treaty. The simplified revision procedure provided by Article 48 TEU would not apply, so ratification of the amended Treaties would be necessary.

(source)



Now I don't hold this to be the formal legal opinion of the EU in the matter, but I do place a fair bit of weight on it.

Do not mistake silence for positive, wishful thinking from the other states. That silence is them watching from the sidelines. What way they'll turn wont be known until push comes to shove and by then it'll be far, far too late if it's not in a manner that is to Scotland Salmond's benefit

I agree that we can't interpret silence as positive support for a future Scotland's entry, but nor can we interpret it as a negative. What we don't have is any actual evidence that there's significant negative sentiment out there.

bobcoffee

oh well then you might have missed "A Dub in Glasgo" post

Seems Scotland and England find the Oil/gas reserves to be of importance.
Alex.. the guy leading this campaign (I presume) is making it a major point to the Scottish people.

Going by our delightful deal we got I'm worried Scotland people will get shafted by Alex and Co.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

I've never argued that they would not negotiate with their national interests mind. I have argued against the idea that, for example, Spains national interest lies entirely with keeping Scotland out in order discourage separatist movements within their borders. I've argued that this is easily outweighed by the problems associated with excluding Scotland.

On the issue of negotiating in good faith, we've the opinion of the former judge:




(source)



Now I don't hold this to be the formal legal opinion of the EU in the matter, but I do place a fair bit of weight on it.


I agree that we can't interpret silence as positive support for a future Scotland's entry, but nor can we interpret it as a negative. What we don't have is any actual evidence that there's significant negative sentiment out there.

The EU, nor any member state is under no obligation to negotiate within any fixed time frame and certainly not one set by the applicant. I would not be surprised if they told Scotland that an application can only be submitted after it has become independent. Otherwise the EU would be expected to negotiate with a country that does not exist. Who in the pre-independence period would be authorised to negotiate on Scotland's behalf?
I think it extremely unlikely that a preferential, fast track for Scotland would be tolerated. It would set an appalling precedent.

dlouth15

First Up wrote: »

Slovenia and Croatia were already republics within a federation and had become independent countries before joining. Yugoslavia was not in the EU.

So from Spain's point of view, a country splitting even unilaterally is perfectly OK, but a country within the EU doing the same is a great evil? I don't think this makes a huge amount of sense. Yes Britain is in the EU but it's potential separation is being done (and I've said this a few times before) in a perfectly legal manner. After the yes vote, should one occur, there will be no further claim on Scottish territory. The only similarity between the UK and Spain is that they are both in the EU but the differences are far greater than that. This is why other considerations to do with the continuation of trade and good relations will override what is after all only speculation on your part.

bobcoffee

Spain is made up of 3 cultures, Spanish, Basque, Catalonia.
3 separate languages (similar enough).
Basque is more like a "rebel county" and people with in those borders do want their own independence for a long time.
Catalonia is a RICH county, that could easily be its own country with little difficulty. They also want their own independence.

Now the above might be slightly wrong but the direction is solid.
Spain those not want either to leave and it does cause enough friction within Spain.
EU has taken a back seat and seems to support Spain functioning as a whole.
(tin foil hat on) I believe its more got to do with Spain financial issues (which it does have them).
Also that is where Spain fears Scotland getting independence, because its been trying to keep Spain whole for a long time.

dlouth15

First Up wrote: »

The EU, nor any member state is under no obligation to negotiate within any fixed time frame and certainly not one set by the applicant. I would not be surprised if they told Scotland that an application can only be submitted after it has become independent. Otherwise the EU would be expected to negotiate with a country that does not exist. Who in the pre-independence period would be authorised to negotiate on Scotland's behalf?
I think it extremely unlikely that a preferential, fast track for Scotland would be tolerated. It would set an appalling precedent.

You see the basic premise that there's general animosity towards Scotland joining is one that I reject on the basis that there's no evidence to date for it. I said earlier that you would expect to see editorials in newspapers on the great danger should Scotland be accepted for whatever reason. But I would accept other evidence. And even if there were such evidence, we would still need to judge it in the context of an ongoing referendum campaign.

Another poster said earlier that the UK of course would oppose an EU application but Cameron has since come out and flatly denied this. He could have easily stayed silent and let the uncertainty do it's job on the Scottish electorate. Of course it was never likely that they would oppose membership to begin with. It would not be in their interests to do so as I've argued at length here. The last thing they want is border controls and legal problems for people and companies if Scotland were to have a spell outside the EU.

Therefore the UK would seek to commence negotiations prior to the actual breakup with a view that Scotland's entry would be as seamless as possible preferably before the date of full independence. There is provision for this in EU legislation.

It does assume some political will on the part of other EU countries, but the general history has been that if a country satisfies the technical requirements they tend to be admitted fairly easily. And, like I've said before, there's a fair amount of unnecessary disruption if they don't sort it fairly quickly.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

So from Spain's point of view, a country splitting even unilaterally is perfectly OK, but a country within the EU doing the same is a great evil? I don't think this makes a huge amount of sense. Yes Britain is in the EU but it's potential separation is being done (and I've said this a few times before) in a perfectly legal manner. After the yes vote, should one occur, there will be no further claim on Scottish territory. The only similarity between the UK and Spain is that they are both in the EU but the differences are far greater than that. This is why other considerations to do with the continuation of trade and good relations will override what is after all only speculation on your part.

Slovenia joined the EU 14 years after it left the Yugoslav Federation, by when the Yugoslav Federation was a distant memory. Croatia joined 24 years after it became independent. The Scots may not appreciate the analogies.

bobcoffee

dlouth15 is kind of right on that it already has been in the EU under UK and should help it fast track back in on its own.
those other 2 countries are completely different scenarios because of this.
Spain will try and do something about it, maybe in a "passive aggressive" way rather then direct "no" as others mentioned.
That time spent out of EU might be crippling for Scotland with "help" from the IMF/EU financial wise.
Also dloth15 point about England helping out Scotland during its independence stage is interesting.
It does make sense for England to play "hard ball" until the elections vote YES, then completely changing its tune.
Both live in the same "eco system" kind of mentality.

Seems voting for independence won't be for a while.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

You see the basic premise that there's general animosity towards Scotland joining is one that I reject on the basis that there's no evidence to date for it. I said earlier that you would expect to see editorials in newspapers on the great danger should Scotland be accepted for whatever reason. But I would accept other evidence. And even if there were such evidence, we would still need to judge it in the context of an ongoing referendum campaign.

Another poster said earlier that the UK of course would oppose an EU application but Cameron has since come out and flatly denied this. He could have easily stayed silent and let the uncertainty do it's job on the Scottish electorate. Of course it was never likely that they would oppose membership to begin with. It would not be in their interests to do so as I've argued at length here. The last thing they want is border controls and legal problems for people and companies if Scotland were to have a spell outside the EU.

Therefore the UK would seek to commence negotiations prior to the actual breakup with a view that Scotland's entry would be as seamless as possible preferably before the date of full independence. There is provision for this in EU legislation.

It does assume some political will on the part of other EU countries, but the general history has been that if a country satisfies the technical requirements they tend to be admitted fairly easily. And, like I've said before, there's a fair amount of unnecessary disruption if they don't sort it fairly quickly.

The idea of "general animosity" is yours alone. The issues surrounding Scottish secession, withdrawal from the EU and subsequent re-application will set precedents that will resonate across the EU and the wider Europe for years to come. If you think it is going to be waved through because everyone wants to be nice, I fear you are in for some disappointment.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

You see the basic premise that there's general animosity towards Scotland joining is one that I reject on the basis that there's no evidence to date for it. I said earlier that you would expect to see editorials in newspapers on the great danger should Scotland be accepted for whatever reason. But I would accept other evidence. And even if there were such evidence, we would still need to judge it in the context of an ongoing referendum campaign.

Another poster said earlier that the UK of course would oppose an EU application but Cameron has since come out and flatly denied this. He could have easily stayed silent and let the uncertainty do it's job on the Scottish electorate. Of course it was never likely that they would oppose membership to begin with. It would not be in their interests to do so as I've argued at length here. The last thing they want is border controls and legal problems for people and companies if Scotland were to have a spell outside the EU.

Therefore the UK would seek to commence negotiations prior to the actual breakup with a view that Scotland's entry would be as seamless as possible preferably before the date of full independence. There is provision for this in EU legislation.

It does assume some political will on the part of other EU countries, but the general history has been that if a country satisfies the technical requirements they tend to be admitted fairly easily. And, like I've said before, there's a fair amount of unnecessary disruption if they don't sort it fairly quickly.

Has this not been quoted yet?

Alex Salmond's plans for an independent Scotland to smoothly join the European Union have been dealt a painful blow after the Scottish first minister's proposals were dismissed by Spain's prime minister.

Mariano Rajoy said his government believed an independent Scotland could only apply to join the EU from outside the organisation as a new state, as he warned against regions of Europe embarking on "solo adventures in an uncertain future".

His intervention confirms long-held suspicions that the Madrid government will resist the Scottish government's plans because of its rejection of Catalonian independence, which has seen large marches in Barcelona in favour of secession.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu

It's pretty widely accepted, as far as I can see, that Spain is unwilling to encourage Scottish independence for fear of encouraging Catalonian independence. That doesn't mean it's unpopular - I would imagine the support in Catalonia for it is very high, for example.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's pretty widely accepted, as far as I can see, that Spain is unwilling to encourage Scottish independence for fear of encouraging Catalonian independence.

I'm not sure you've been following the discussion but sure it is fairly clear that Spain would rather a no vote and I've already said this. Fewer marches in Barcelona by Catalan nationalists and so on. Hence this sort of statement. It is not evidence, imo, that they would block entry in the event of a yes vote however, which is a different matter entirely. Indeed they have later said that they would not block entry.

Another example is the UK, that has been put forward as a country that would block entry. All the mainstream UK parties are officially against Scottish independence but Cameron himself (thanks Dub in Glasgow) has said that not only would he not block Scottish EU entry but would be backing it strongly.

Lemming

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'm not sure you've been following the discussion but sure it is fairly clear that Spain would rather a no vote and I've already said this. Fewer marches in Barcelona by Catalan nationalists and so on. Hence this sort of statement. It is not evidence, imo, that they would block entry in the event of a yes vote however, which is a different matter entirely. Indeed they have later said that they would not block entry.

DLouth, do you honestly expect that Spain would "prefer" a no-vote but then go "ah shurrre aren'twe all grand and shure aren't we great friends really? No harm done, lets go drinkin'together begorrah"?! No. Not by a wide, wide country mile.

I cannot fathom how you can possibly interpret Spain's position on this as being so absolutely bi-polar. They have absolutely no influence in any independence vote, so are rightly unable to do anything until Scotland were to cede and apply for EU membership. Given their own internal issues, do you honestly think they'll turn around and play happy neighbours? If you do I have a great deal on London bridge for you. Just for you, and at a special knock-down lo-lo price for today only.

dlouth15

Lemming wrote: »

DLouth, do you honestly expect that Spain would "prefer" a no-vote but then go "ah shurrre aren'twe all grand and shure aren't we great friends really? No harm done, lets go drinkin'together begorrah"?! No. Not by a wide, wide country mile.

I cannot fathom how you can possibly interpret Spain's position on this as being so absolutely bi-polar. They have absolutely no influence in any independence vote, so are rightly unable to do anything until Scotland were to cede and apply for EU membership. Given their own internal issues, do you honestly think they'll turn around and play happy neighbours? If you do I have a great deal on London bridge for you. Just for you, and at a special knock-down lo-lo price for today only.

I'm not sure what you mean by "they have absolutely no influence in any independence vote". Of course they do. It might be considered bad form but there's no law against the Spanish government saying things in order to influence the citizens of another country.

Before the referendum they are trying to influence the result. After the referendum they are looking after their own pragmatic interest. These need not be the same thing.

I expect the same of the UK. Assuming a yes result, the UK will be have to accept the result and realise there's nothing to be gained by punishing Scotland and will work constructively with them. Up until that point, no end of dangers will be hinted at.

I would be interested in Godge's comments on Cameron's remarks. I think Godge maintained that the UK would do its utmost to make an EU entry difficult for Scotland.

I don't see this as bi-polar either. I would only consider it such if they fundamentally changed their position without any change in political reality.

The only question worth asking is whether in the event of a "yes" it is more in Spain's interest to accept Scotland's entry or more in their interest to oppose it. What they say now in terms of vague hints at difficulty is something to which I would attach little weight.

Had they said they would without question block Scotland's entry, well I might be tempted to take seriously. But they've said nothing along those lines.

Lemming

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "they have absolutely no influence in any independence vote". Of course they do. It might be considered bad form but there's no law against the Spanish government saying things in order to influence the citizens of another country.

Before the referendum they are trying to influence the result. After the referendum they are looking after their own pragmatic interest. These need not be the same thing.

The Spanish government has absolutely no influence in any independence vote. They carry absolutely no ability to vote in the matter and therefore have no influence in so far as the question being put to the Scottish people.

What has not been sold to the Scottish people - and Salmond has been extrordinarily reckless in this - is the reality that whilst the question of independence is theirs, and theirs alone rightly, they haven't gotten agreement from anyone else affected on the practical realities that come along with any new found independence. And suddenly, the electorate having been fed a pup in the dark of night are now facing the cold light of day as those other nations affected do start to give their opinions.

So no. Spain has no influence in the question of independence. They do however have a say on matters of EU membership, and NATO. Neither of which Scotland has started serious discussions over yet because the soverign nation does not officially exist yet. Last I heard, EU membership was not the raison d'etre for independence. Of course the cynic might point out that Salmond is playing a cynical game of "can I have a bertie bowl please" and he knows that unless he sugar coats any possible "yes" outcome to high-heaven, people will tell him to get on his bike.

I expect the same of the UK. Assuming a yes result, the UK will be have to accept the result and realise there's nothing to be gained by punishing Scotland and will work constructively with them. Up until that point, no end of dangers will be hinted at.

Whilst I don't envisage any draconian border drama between Scotland and the UK, I do not think for a moment that Westminister will play quite so nicely. They may smile and say "please", "thank you", and "have a nice day", but there'll be plenty of fake smiles out and about for quite a few years whilst making life as miserable as possible for Salmond's government.

I would be interested in Godge's comments on Cameron's remarks. I think Godge maintained that the UK would do its utmost to make an EU entry difficult for Scotland.

That would be a distinct and highly likely possibility. There is no nice way of dealing with what is essentially a break-up. It may be done in an orderly and civil fashion, but it will not be buddy-buddy, drinks after work either.

I don't see this as bi-polar either. I would only consider it such if they fundamentally changed their position without any change in political reality.

Your stance on Spain is odd to say the least, and the best I can describe it is as being bi-polar. On the one hand you acknowledge that they do not want a yes vote. And then on the other hand seem to think that if a yes vote is passed it'll be business as usual and how Spain will suddenly welcome the fledgling Scotland with open arms whilst throwing concerns about its own borders to the wind. THAT is bi-polar. Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but no etc.

There is a bloody reason why Spain (among others) won't be eager to see a yes vote!!!!

The only question worth asking is whether in the event of a "yes" it is more in Spain's interest to accept Scotland's entry or more in their interest to oppose it. What they say now in terms of vague hints at difficulty is something to which I would attach little weight.

Had they said they would without question block Scotland's entry, well I might be tempted to take seriously. But they've said nothing along those lines.

/sigh

Do you think that ANY other country with concerns is going to say ANYTHING before the results of any referendum are held? No, because that would weaken their hand.

bobcoffee

Do like the "bertie bowl" comment and it concerns me too.
Not sure if it is more to do with a "power hungry" party or actually looking out for Scotland's best interests.

Lemming

bobcoffee wrote: »

Do like the "bertie bowl" comment and it concerns me too.
Not sure if it is more to do with a "power hungry" party or actually looking out for Scotland's best interests.

It's not a power hungry SNP per-se; Salmond has been banging on about having an independence vote for a very, very, very long time. By long time I mean before he was even a known political name. This whole referendum is a design of his making.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'm not sure you've been following the discussion but sure it is fairly clear that Spain would rather a no vote and I've already said this. Fewer marches in Barcelona by Catalan nationalists and so on. Hence this sort of statement. It is not evidence, imo, that they would block entry in the event of a yes vote however, which is a different matter entirely. Indeed they have later said that they would not block entry.

Another example is the UK, that has been put forward as a country that would block entry. All the mainstream UK parties are officially against Scottish independence but Cameron himself (thanks Dub in Glasgow) has said that not only would he not block Scottish EU entry but would be backing it strongly.

Last time I looked, the Spanish had said that they had no official position. However, the logic for the Spanish is very straightforward - if Scotland becomes independent, then the question of its EU entry is open. If Scotland is simply voted straight into the EU, then the same would be expected to be true for Catalonia. And Scottish independence and EU application would, based on recent events, precede any such move by Catalonia.

I cannot see that Spain can possibly choose to encourage Catalonian (and Basque) separatism - which means that Spain either directly blocks Scottish entry, or encourages others to do so. And there are other Member States with separatist movements.

Having said that, there's no doubt that Scotland would qualify for EU membership, so it's equally hard to see the political brass neck being mustered to refuse them in a clear display of national self-interest.

Which, to me, argues that the actual outcome would be the other EU countries making Scotland jump through absolutely all the accession hoops with every last i dotted and every last t crossed, and with no maintenance of current UK opt-outs such as the euro. Schengen I'm not sure about, and that would be an interesting one - practically speaking, I suspect that one would go by the board, and Scotland would join the UK-Ireland Free Movement Area.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo

It is stretching reality to say that Spain (or Barroso) has absolutley no influence on the independence vote. They may not be campaigning but they do have influence and they are using that influence.

Godge

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "they have absolutely no influence in any independence vote". Of course they do. It might be considered bad form but there's no law against the Spanish government saying things in order to influence the citizens of another country.

Before the referendum they are trying to influence the result. After the referendum they are looking after their own pragmatic interest. These need not be the same thing.

I expect the same of the UK. Assuming a yes result, the UK will be have to accept the result and realise there's nothing to be gained by punishing Scotland and will work constructively with them. Up until that point, no end of dangers will be hinted at.

I would be interested in Godge's comments on Cameron's remarks. I think Godge maintained that the UK would do its utmost to make an EU entry difficult for Scotland.

I don't see this as bi-polar either. I would only consider it such if they fundamentally changed their position without any change in political reality.

The only question worth asking is whether in the event of a "yes" it is more in Spain's interest to accept Scotland's entry or more in their interest to oppose it. What they say now in terms of vague hints at difficulty is something to which I would attach little weight.

Had they said they would without question block Scotland's entry, well I might be tempted to take seriously. But they've said nothing along those lines.

I have told you many times on this thread that what is said in public differs to what happens behind closed doors in Europe.

The example I keep giving is the recent banking crisis in Ireland. For years you had European leaders acknowledging the special position of Ireland, recognising the great sacrifices of the Irish people, something should be done for Ireland, it was different to all the rest. Yet in all that happened, and we got some help in lengthening loans etc., not one European taxpayer put their hand into their pocket and helped us out.

I have to respect the Germans and Merkel because they were upfront all along about no special deals. It was the others who said encouraging things in public and said different things behind closed doors. I pointed out several times over the last few years that European taxpayers would not put their hands in their pockets and no matter what was said at European councils, all we could expect was things that cost them nothing, which is what we got. (And by the way, I have no problem with that, we made this mess, we have to clear it up).

And the same thing applies to whatever Cameron or Barrosso or the Spanish Prime Minister says. They will all respect the will of the Scottish people as they respected the will of the Irish people to elect a government that stupidly guaranteed the banks. They will all say that a path to joining the EU is there for Scotland, they are all politicians remember and what they don't say is as important as what they do say. And nobody has said that Scotland remains a member of the EU the day after the independence vote. It is what happens behind closed doors that is important.

So when we are back here in 10 years time congratulating Scotland on having moved to Stage 2 of its accession negotiations having conceded that Spanish trawlers can fish inside the 12-mile limit or something else, then you might understand. Of course, the Scottish people have first to vote yes to independence.

First Up

If (in the increasingly unlikely event that) Scotland votes Yes, it will have chosen to leave both the UK and the EU. As far as mainland Europe is concerned, that is a regional, internal issue that has little or no impact on them. Scotland wasn't in Shengen anyway, so it is not as if passport controls would suddenly re-appear at Scottish Airports for those going to fish, golf or walk the hills.

European consumers would be hard pressed to name a Scottish product other than whisky. European companies selling to Scotland treat it as a small, somewhat awkward region of the UK and cover it from central marketing and distribution bases in England. If Scotland disappeared tomorrow, it would barely register. In short, Scottish independence really does not matter to anyone except the Scots, other than (and to a much lesser extent) the English, Welsh and N Irish. (It would also have a disastrous impact on attracting foreign investment.)

What does however matter to the rest of Europe is that if it were to happen AND if Scotland could re-enter the EU as easily as some here believe. That would both potentially open a Pandora's Box of secessionist regions within the EU and seriously disrupt the complex, sensitive and carefully orchestrated process by which the EU is dealing with future expansion - countries with a lot more to be concerned with than Scotland does.

The notion that a region already in the EU could tear up the agreements, suit itself in terms of whatever exit deal it does with it's former parent and then walk back in through another open door to open arms is naive, fanciful tosh.

However I feel I have now written this same point in half a dozen posts and it seems no closer to getting through. It is also all quite academic - Scotland would be nuts to vote Yes and I know from extensive personal experience that most Scots are not nuts. The latest poll shows a whopping 17% support for a Yes vote in Aberdeen - the center of the oil/gas industry.

Godge

First Up wrote: »

If (in the increasingly unlikely event that) Scotland votes Yes, it will have chosen to leave both the UK and the EU. As far as mainland Europe is concerned, that is a regional, internal issue that has little or no impact on them. Scotland wasn't in Shengen anyway, so it is not as if passport controls would suddenly re-appear at Scottish Airports for those going to fish, golf or walk the hills.

European consumers would be hard pressed to name a Scottish product other than whisky. European companies selling to Scotland treat it as a small, somewhat awkward region of the UK and cover it from central marketing and distribution bases in England. If Scotland disappeared tomorrow, it would barely register. In short, Scottish independence really does not matter to anyone except the Scots, other than (and to a much lesser extent) the English, Welsh and N Irish. (It would also have a disastrous impact on attracting foreign investment.)

What does however matter to the rest of Europe is that if it were to happen AND if Scotland could re-enter the EU as easily as some here believe. That would both potentially open a Pandora's Box of secessionist regions within the EU and seriously disrupt the complex, sensitive and carefully orchestrated process by which the EU is dealing with future expansion - countries with a lot more to be concerned with than Scotland does.

The notion that a region already in the EU could tear up the agreements, suit itself in terms of whatever exit deal it does with it's former parent and then walk back in through another open door to open arms is naive, fanciful tosh.

However I feel I have now written this same point in half a dozen posts and it seems to closer to getting through. It is also all quite academic - Scotland would be nuts to vote Yes and I know from extensive personal experience that most Scots are not nuts. The latest poll shows a whopping 17% support for a Yes vote in Aberdeen - the center of the oil/gas industry.

Excellent post.

The arguments are going round in circles.

jmayo

dlouth15 wrote: »

So on that basis you would have expected Spain to have refused entry to Slovenia and Croatia, countries that unilaterally declared independence from Yugoslavia?

Yugoslavia was made up of six Socialist Republics: SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, SR Croatia, SR Macedonia, SR Montenegro, SR Slovenia, and SR Serbia.
There was also two Socialist Autonomous Provinces Vojvodina and Kosovo which were part of Serbia.
From 1974 to 1990 these two provinces were treated as the other federal members of the federation.
After the breakup of Yugoslavia they were subsummed into Serbia.

Yugoslavia had only became an internationally recognised state in the 1920s after WW1.
On the other hand Spain became an offical united state in 1715 after the Spanish War of Succession.

As another poster has said how long did it take those former Yugoslav republics to gain entry to EU and these were from a former country that never was a member of the EU?

dlouth15 wrote: »

And Scotland isn't even separating unilaterally in that way. If it does separate it will be with the full agreement of the UK authorities. Yet you believe Spain to have a big problem here to the extent they are willing to disrupt the working of the rest of the EU. Can you see why I can't bring myself to go along with the view that Scotland's entry will be hugely problematical as opposed to it's exclusion.

Negotiating in good faith doesn't mean not representing your own national interests. It simply means that they can't simply refuse to negotiate or put up spurious objections for the sake of stalling the talks in the hopes that they collapse.

Of course they are not going to go on world TV and proclaim their objection, but what they do behind closed doors may be a world of difference.
A country will do what it has to do to protect it's interests.
And just remember Spain is a large country which will probably be backed by France and Italy, two other large members which would have areas that might be in the mood for independence down the road.
Then we can add in Belgium, Greece and maybe a few more.

bobcoffee wrote: »

Spain is made up of 3 cultures, Spanish, Basque, Catalonia.
3 separate languages (similar enough).
Basque is more like a "rebel county" and people with in those borders do want their own independence for a long time.
Catalonia is a RICH county, that could easily be its own country with little difficulty. They also want their own independence.

Basque region is not that poor either and is doing quiet well at the moment AFAIK.
Also you are forgetting Galicia which does have it's own language and degree of autonomy.

bobcoffee wrote: »

Now the above might be slightly wrong but the direction is solid.
Spain those not want either to leave and it does cause enough friction within Spain.
EU has taken a back seat and seems to support Spain functioning as a whole.
(tin foil hat on) I believe its more got to do with Spain financial issues (which it does have them).
Also that is where Spain fears Scotland getting independence, because its been trying to keep Spain whole for a long time.

Spain without Catalonia and probably even Basque region would be in a pretty bad shape, so there is no way Madrid can afford to let them go.

Madam

Why do you all assume that it's only the Scots who have the vote? There are many nationalities with that right(myself included). I'm one of those 'undecided' but kind of lean more to a yes vote but its a long time between now and September - god knows how many times I may change my mind:( Tbh most people living here that I know are only interested in keeping their jobs - everything else is incidental. Carry on with the circle thing though;)

Lemming

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having said that, there's no doubt that Scotland would qualify for EU membership, so it's equally hard to see the political brass neck being mustered to refuse them in a clear display of national self-interest.

Which, to me, argues that the actual outcome would be the other EU countries making Scotland jump through absolutely all the accession hoops with every last i dotted and every last t crossed, and with no maintenance of current UK opt-outs such as the euro. Schengen I'm not sure about, and that would be an interesting one - practically speaking, I suspect that one would go by the board, and Scotland would join the UK-Ireland Free Movement Area.

Whislt not disagreeing with anything in particular (I agree with it for the most part), I'm not so sure that we might not see an actual balls-to-the-wall veto used given the last five bumpy years for the EU in general with countries far less cosied up to one another. Given that Spain is already in financial difficulties, with the largest unemployment figures in the EU, and stands to lose a considerable amount of wealth with regional succession movements they may view themselves as having been backed into a corner so to speak.

What I think is far more likely than a brazen veto is unrealistic terms on EU membership applied.

First Up

Lemming wrote: »

Whislt not disagreeing with anything in particular (I agree with it for the most part), I'm not so sure that we might not see an actual balls-to-the-wall veto used given the last five bumpy years for the EU in general with countries far less cosied up to one another. Given that Spain is already in financial difficulties, with the largest unemployment figures in the EU, and stands to lose a considerable amount of wealth with regional succession movements they may view themselves as having been backed into a corner so to speak.

What I think is far more likely than a brazen veto is unrealistic terms on EU membership applied.

Maybe not unrealistic (as in impossible) but certainly tough enough to set the ground rules for other secessions, or admission of new members with potential secessionist issues. The lawyers will have a field day with this.

sfakiaman

Just a thought, but as part of the UK's entry deal to the EEC (as I think it was called then) fishing rights in Scottish waters were included. If Scotland becomes independent and outwith the EU those rights will disappear. This will also mean that the agreement between the UK and Europe cannot be delivered by the rUK. This surely means that the rUK can no longer meet its treaty obligations and will have to renegotiate entry to the EU.

Fratton Fred

sfakiaman wrote: »

Just a thought, but as part of the UK's entry deal to the EEC (as I think it was called then) fishing rights in Scottish waters were included. If Scotland becomes independent and outwith the EU those rights will disappear. This will also mean that the agreement between the UK and Europe cannot be delivered by the rUK. This surely means that the rUK can no longer meet its treaty obligations and will have to renegotiate entry to the EU.

Renegotiate its deal maybe, but not entry.

partyguinness

I am thinking back over the countries that have achieved independence or acquired it over the past 50 years or so. I cannot recall the debate leading up to it dominated by economics in the way this debate is (just my own Lady Book history). There is something fundamentally wrong here.

That's why I cannot feel that the Yes campaign is doomed and the whole campaign is decidedly grubby.

Surely the true nature of independence is about a race of people wishing to ascert their independence and take control over their destiny regardless of the implications. I dont think that is as naive as it sounds.

If the Scots truly want independence (which I doubt) then arguments about oil, EU, sterling etc are moot.

bobcoffee

That is a very interesting indeed, fishing rights is on the EU agenda along with other things too.
Well I know Ireland's fishing rights has big ties with Spain, not sure if Scotland does too.

One thing is for certain if Scotland go for a YES, we will get to see some true colours of our member states.
Also how correct/incorrect tin foil hat people are :P

Fratton Fred

bobcoffee wrote: »

That is a very interesting indeed, fishing rights is on the EU agenda along with other things too.
Well I know Ireland's fishing rights has big ties with Spain, not sure if Scotland does too.

One thing is for certain if Scotland go for a YES, we will get to see some true colours of our member states.
Also how correct/incorrect tin foil hat people are :P

I'm not sure what the treaties state, but I'm pretty sure it is more a case of where you can and can't fish in respect to territorial waters. The rUK will still be allowing fishing in its waters, but they have changed.

How has that broken the treaty?

partyguinness

Independence debates are so last century.:)

bobcoffee

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure what the treaties state, but I'm pretty sure it is more a case of where you can and can't fish in respect to territorial waters. The rUK will still be allowing fishing in its waters, but they have changed.

How has that broken the treaty?

No idea.. how has that broken the treaty.. is that directed at me?

Spain has one of the largest fishing fleets in the EU, so that is where I'm bringing them into the conversation.