Scottish Independence

dlouth15

Godge wrote: »

Agreed.

Sometimes I wonder how easily people disregard other countries' interests.

We got it for years with the everyone in Europe loves the Irish stuff but when the **** hit the fan, they looked after their own interests as a rational person would expect. The same applies to the Scottish issue.

I have to ask you whether you actually believe in all seriousness in the event of a yes vote that Belgium is going to refuse to negotiate with Scotland or the UK on behalf of Scotland on the basis of their crumbling domestic affairs which is entirely of their own making.

First Up

In all seriousness, yes they very well might. And they very well might not be the only ones.

dlouth15

First Up wrote: »

In all seriousness, yes they very well might. And they very well might not be the only ones.

Well at least you're honest.

It might be worth having a look at the video on this page from a Scottish parliamentary committee meeting with Jim Currie, former director general of the European Commission and former negotiator with the council of ministers. This is someone, I think you will agree, is someone who would be expected to know what he's talking about. The video is worth watching as an antidote to the somewhat buffoonish Barroso.

Anyway in the discussion Curry is in no doubt that negotations would occur. The vast bulk of the discussion is about what sort of deal would be reached vis a vis the Euro, rebates and so on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26278237

First Up

Inasmuch as he was stating the legal situation - i.e that agreement on an accession must be unanimous, Barroso was 100% accurate.
Whether or not such unanimity will be forthcoming for Scottish accession is a matter of opinion and Barroso has given his.
Of course there will be negotiation; how that might go is a matter of opinion too. Some opinions may be more soundly based than others, some might be politically motivated (on all sides.) The ones I'd be concerned about are those based on wishful thinking.

Godge

dlouth15 wrote: »

I have to ask you whether you actually believe in all seriousness in the event of a yes vote that Belgium is going to refuse to negotiate with Scotland or the UK on behalf of Scotland on the basis of their crumbling domestic affairs which is entirely of their own making.

Yes, why is that so hard for you to understand?

They owe Scotland nothing, they want to protect the integrity of their own country. As do the Spanish, the French and the eastern Europeans.

Think of our financial crisis and the Germans. We have been going around effectively asking for the German taxpayer to pick up the bill and the Germans have found 2,000 ways to tell us to get lost. We were left with the bill because as soon as the crisis happened, it was you're on your own lads with this one.

At the end of the day, each country acts in its own interest. And do you know what is more? Do you think the UK negotiators behind closed doors will be telling their European friends to accept Scotland's application? Like hell they will, no matter what they say in public.

As for the Jim Curry video, I didn't even bother watching as with that surname he certainly wasn't from a continental European country.

dlouth15

First Up wrote: »

Inasmuch as he was stating the legal situation - i.e that agreement on an accession must be unanimous, Barroso was 100% accurate.
Whether or not such unanimity will be forthcoming for Scottish accession is a matter of opinion and Barroso has given his.

Which was that such an agreement would be next to impossible. He used the example of Kosovo to back up his view which subsequently even the Spanish foreign minister has made clear is not comparable to the Scottish situation. Barroso failed to give a balanced opinion on the issue and tried to pre-empt the results of future negotiation. He clearly is not a neutral observer.

Of course there will be negotiation; how that might go is a matter of opinion too. Some opinions may be more soundly based than others, some might be politically motivated (on all sides.) The ones I'd be concerned about are those based on wishful thinking.

It seems clear that among the less soundly based opinions here are those from Barroso.

First Up

dlouth15 wrote: »

Which was that such an agreement would be next to impossible. He used the example of Kosovo to back up his view which subsequently even the Spanish foreign minister has made clear is not comparable to the Scottish situation. Barroso failed to give a balanced opinion on the issue and tried to pre-empt the results of future negotiation. He clearly is not a neutral observer.
It seems clear that among the less soundly based opinions here are those from Barroso.

Barroso doesn't have a vote but he knows the people who do. Instead of shooting the messenger the yes campaign would be more usefully engaged in asking his help in meeting them.

djpbarry

dlouth15 wrote: »

It might be worth having a look at the video on this page from a Scottish parliamentary committee meeting with Jim Currie, former director general of the European Commission and former negotiator with the council of ministers. This is someone, I think you will agree, is someone who would be expected to know what he's talking about. The video is worth watching as an antidote to the somewhat buffoonish Barroso.

Why should the opinion of the current President of the EU Commission be dismissed in favour of that of a Scottish ex-Director General of the Commission?

dlouth15

djpbarry wrote: »

Why should the opinion of the current President of the EU Commission be dismissed in favour of that of a Scottish ex-Director General of the Commission?

I don't know whether everything Barroso says needs to be dismissed but I think his remarks about the Spanish don't stand up to scrutiny. The Spanish foreign minister said since Barroso's interview that the Scottish independence issue is not comparable to anything in Spain. I'm not sure, therefore, in what sense we should take Barroso's remarks seriously.

dlouth15

Godge wrote: »

And do you know what is more? Do you think the UK negotiators behind closed doors will be telling their European friends to accept Scotland's application? Like hell they will, no matter what they say in public.

Why do you think it would be in the UK's interest to do that?

djpbarry

dlouth15 wrote: »

I don't know whether everything Barroso says needs to be dismissed but I think his remarks about the Spanish don't stand up to scrutiny.

He said that Spain has not recognised Kosovo - in what sense does that not stand up to scrutiny?

dlouth15

djpbarry wrote: »

He said that Spain has not recognised Kosovo - in what sense does that not stand up to scrutiny?

He was trying to draw a parallel with Scotland which the Spanish foreign minister later said did not apply.

djpbarry

dlouth15 wrote: »

He was trying to draw a parallel with Scotland which the Spanish foreign minister later said did not apply.

Doesn't it? Why hasn't Spain recognised Kosovo?

dlouth15

djpbarry wrote: »

Doesn't it? Why hasn't Spain recognised Kosovo?

Here's what he said:

“If Scotland becomes independent in accordance with the legal and institutional procedures, it will ask for admission [to the EU]. If that process has indeed been legal, that request can be considered. If not, then not”

also

“We don’t interfere in other countries’ internal affairs. If Britain’s constitutional order allows – and it seems that it does allow – Scotland to choose independence, we have nothing to say about this.”

He doesn't explicitly mention Kosovo but he's clearly saying that full recognition will be given to an independent Scotland and that their request to join the EU will be considered.

djpbarry

dlouth15 wrote: »

He doesn't explicitly mention Kosovo...

He explicitly mentioned Spain's refusal to recognise Kosovo:

We have seen Spain has been opposing even the recognition of Kosovo, for instance. So it is to some extent a similar case because it's a new country and so I believe it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, a new member state coming out of our countries getting the agreement of the others.

dlouth15

djpbarry wrote: »

He explicitly mentioned Spain's refusal to recognise Kosovo:

That was Barroso saying that. I was quoting the Spanish foreign minister where he said that full recognition would be given to Scotland in the event of independence and that their EU application would be considered. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Although the Spanish foreign minister doesn't explicitly mention Kosovo in his response, it is clear that Scotland is not going to be treated in the same way.

Godge

dlouth15 wrote: »

He was trying to draw a parallel with Scotland which the Spanish foreign minister later said did not apply.

But you still don't get it. Of course he would say that.

Spain's approach will be quite simple.

(1) In public, say that Scotland is different to Spain, in case Scotland actually gets in.
(2) In private, in the negotiations, make it as difficult as possible to block Scotland, you know vetos are rarely used because negotiations never get far enough for them to be needed.

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.

The reason Barrosso's words carry weight is that he has no axe to grind. He is not Scottish. He doesn't need to be re-elected in a popular vote. What he needs to do is protect the interests of the EU countries and say the things that they can't or don't want to say in public.

dlouth15

Godge wrote: »

The reason Barrosso's words carry weight is that he has no axe to grind. He is not Scottish. He doesn't need to be re-elected in a popular vote. What he needs to do is protect the interests of the EU countries and say the things that they can't or don't want to say in public.

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.

dlouth15

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.

I agree. But asking other's to put their hands in their pocket is highly unpopular among the electorates in Europe for very understandable reasons. The entry into the EU of a country that is not a member in its own right but currently participates as a part of a larger entity is not particularly controversial. If anything there's less uncertainty involved than a country that is coming fresh from the outside. The machinery for accepting new countries into the EU is in place a long time. Slovenia and the Czech republic who were once one country were both accepted into the EU without issue. True, neither part was ever a member to start with, but the principle of a country splitting in a peaceful and democratic manner does not seem to be an issue for the EU.

First Up

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

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.