Scottish Independence discussion area

Peppa Pig

dubscottie wrote: »

Sorry a link to a pro independence website is not "proof"

I never said it was true. The "will have to reapply" links are all to pro union sites, like the English papers.
There is a direct quote from the Spanish foreign minister in my link,saying Spain do not have a problem.

Anyway, as I have already said I don't know what way it would go, so I cannot provide proof. You have said it won't happen for years, so it's only fair you back it up - if you can't you are either hoping it's true, scaremongering or talking bull****

You are very quick to demand proof to an opinion contrary to you so off you go

dubscottie

moxin wrote: »

Fascinating scaremongering right there. Is that you Mr Cameron?

That is one term I hope I will never hear again… Scaremongering..

The usual reply from the yes campaign when someone points out that the "vision" they have is bollox.

Guy:Incognito

Yogosan wrote: »

If Gordon D'Arcy left Leinster, you wouldn't say he is a "Brand new, and untested player..

I would if he turns his hand to an individual sport all of a sudden. Maybe just chuck him in to the Olympic team as a 100m sprinter in 2016 without ever seeing him run a race?

pedro1234

moxin wrote: »

Fascinating scaremongering right there. Is that you Mr Cameron?

Ignore them, they think Paddypower have people throughout Scotland carrying out exit polls for them so they can make a profit.

Lnaa

Lnaa wrote: »

Doubtful. If by some miraculous twist of fate Scotland votes yes its hard to envision the rest of the UK allowing a bankrupt Scotland back into the union.

When the union was first formed the crown took all of Scotland’s assets.

Lnaa

moxin wrote: »

Fascinating scaremongering right there. Is that you Mr Cameron?

Ahahahahaha... accusing me of being Davy Boy when I am for "yes" for the reason that I want to see further "break-up" of the United Kingdom with thoroughly deserved devolved forms of government for cities like Liverpool and Manchester is farcical.

However, I do wonder why any statement which isn't appreciated by the "yes" side is seen as scaremongering.

Just think about it for a moment. If you were in power in the UK would you accept a former part of your union back with open arms if it hit financial rocky water? That's not scaremongering, its harsh reality. That's not to say Scotland would become bankrupt. It is simply stating that if it did, the UK is hardly likely to want to drastically weaken its own economy by retaking it on board, to suggest otherwise is silliness.

namloc1980

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And there won't be any issues bumping them to the top of the queue?

Why not? They'll already have the legal frameworks in place and already apply and comply with EU laws and regulations. EU membership is not a queuing system. Or perhaps you could point out the relevant article in the Treaties that outlines this membership queue?

Lnaa

Deleted User wrote: »

When the union was first formed the crown took all of Scotland’s assets.

Yeah, a three hundred year old case study is just the basis for forming a modern day opinion :rolleyes:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyYgDi8z6Bc

dubscottie

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I never said it was true. The "will have to reapply" links are all to pro union sites, like the English papers.
There is a direct quote from the Spanish foreign minister in my link,saying Spain do not have a problem.

Anyway, as I have already said I don't know what way it would go, so I cannot provide proof. You have said it won't happen for years, so it's only fair you back it up - if you can't you are either hoping it's true, scaremongering or talking bull****

You are very quick to demand proof to an opinion contrary to you so off you go

Look at Turkey.. How long have they been waiting for membership now??

Ah Scaremongering again.. The yes love that word..

Being born and having lived in Scotland for two thirds of my life, I am I wrong to ask for more than speculation and "visions"..

Guy:Incognito

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why not? They'll already have the legal frameworks in place and already apply and comply with EU laws and regulations. EU membership is not a queuing system. Or perhaps you could point out the relevant article in the Treaties that outlines this membership queue?

Have they a financial history as an independent country to show they aren't a complete basket case that will end up a drain on the EU?

I doubt the EU will accept Alex Salmond say "ah it'll be grand lads"

Lnaa

pedro1234 wrote: »

Ignore them, they think Paddypower have people throughout Scotland carrying out exit polls for them so they can make a profit.

Yawn.

pablomakaveli

Deleted User wrote: »

When the union was first formed the crown took all of Scotland’s assets.

Not that they had much. Scotland went almost bankrupt from their colonial venture.

rgossip30

What's Rab gonna vote ?

namloc1980

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Have they a financial history as an independent country to show they aren't a complete basket case that will end up a drain on the EU?

I doubt the EU will accept Alex Salmond say "ah it'll be grand lads"

You mean like some of the eastern European countries that came in recently and immediately required eu financial support etc?

dubscottie

dubscottie wrote: »

Look at Turkey.. How long have they been waiting for membership now??

Ah Scaremongering again.. The yes love that word..

Being born and having lived in Scotland for two thirds of my life, I am I wrong to ask for more than speculation and "visions"..

Turkey, only about 5% European with an unstable eastern region.
Turkey and Scotland are two completely different situations.

moxin

dubscottie wrote: »

That is one term I hope I will never hear again… Scaremongering..

The usual reply from the yes campaign when someone points out that the "vision" they have is bollox.

Truth hurts. Stating bankruptcy for Scotland is downright belittling a whole nation implying that they cannot run their own affairs competently and prudently.

Just admit the real reason you need Scotland in the UK, Westminster is afraid of the loss of the oil revenue from the North Sea.

JONJO THE MISER

Have a feeling yes will sneak it, wont be the first time polls and bookies got it wrong.
Anyway going to stay up to watch the early returns.

namloc1980

dubscottie wrote: »

Look at Turkey.. How long have they been waiting for membership now??

Ah Scaremongering again.. The yes love that word..

Being born and having lived in Scotland for two thirds of my life, I am I wrong to ask for more than speculation and "visions"..

Because Turkey's laws and legal framework is a million miles from what is required of an eu member. Remember Scotland already has and implements eu law. Again a ridiculous comparison.

Peppa Pig

dubscottie wrote: »

Look at Turkey.. How long have they been waiting for membership now??

Ah Scaremongering again.. The yes love that word..

Being born and having lived in Scotland for two thirds of my life, I am I wrong to ask for more than speculation and "visions"..

Turkey has not already been in the EU for 41 years, so you are comparing apples with pencils.

You are simply scaremongering as you cannot back up your assertions.

Why am I wrong to ask for "more than speculation and "visions"". Is it because it is your opinion with no basis in reality.
Are you related to Psychic Sally by any chance?

dubscottie

moxin wrote: »

Truth hurts. Stating bankruptcy for Scotland is downright belittling a whole nation implying that they cannot run their own affairs competently and prudently.

Just admit the real reason you need Scotland in the UK, Westminster is afraid of the loss of the oil revenue from the North Sea.

I want Scotland to remain in the UK because, having been born and raised there, I think that it is in my countries best interests.

Ah the oil.. Scotland is aware that the UN decides territorial waters?

And that 20% of "Scottish" oil fields will be in rUK waters?

Or is that something else Alex Salmond is going to "negotiate" LOL

Lnaa

moxin wrote: »

Truth hurts. Stating bankruptcy for Scotland is downright belittling a whole nation implying that they cannot run their own affairs competently and prudently.

Just admit the real reason you need Scotland in the UK, Westminster is afraid of the loss of the oil revenue from the North Sea.

Who has stated bankruptcy? Suggesting bankruptcy is not scaremongering nor belittling. It is a political possibility for every nation on Earth. Sterling is weak at the moment, and a sterling crash could have devestating effects on the UK. That's not scaremongering, it is FACT. The Euro is brittle, and a Euro crash could have devestating effects on the Eurozone, particularly on Ireland, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. That's not scaremongering, it is FACT. The dollar is unstable at the moment, a dollar crash could have devestating effects on the USA. That is not scaremongering, it is FACT.

If long established economies are at risk of severe financial crisis, which could lead to bankruptcy, is it not just a teensy weensy bit naive to think it could be a possibility for a new country?

First Up

Yogosan wrote: »

Logic dictates that since Scotland is currently already EU compliant, then they should be allowed a smooth quick transition back into the EU if they want it.

If Gordon D'Arcy left Leinster, you wouldn't say he is a "Brand new, and untested player.

Edit- If the EU refused Scotland joining, then they are effectively saying they don't support democratic decisions. Dress it up any way you like, but that is how I personally would interpret a refusal of Scotland joining the EU. If anything, a yes vote should further bolster Scotlands credentials as a fair democratic society. Certainly more so than Spain for example.

Scotland is not "EU compliant" because it does not have a complete public administration framework. It will need to create new institutions to replace the functions currently delivered on a UK wide basis. There are (currently) 35 chapters in the EU Acquis and even if no other member state objects to a "fast track", Scotland will have to comply with all of them before it could be admitted.

The EU doesn't have to say no. it just doesn't have to say yes. Ask Turkey.
(Posted this before seeing above references to Turkey)

Lnaa

dubscottie wrote: »

I want Scotland to remain in the UK because, having been born and raised there, I think that it is in my countries best interests.

Ah the oil.. Scotland is aware that the UN decides territorial waters?

And that 20% of "Scottish" oil fields will be in rUK waters?

Or is that something else Alex Salmond is going to "negotiate" LOL

Ssshhhh... you're scaremongering .

First Up

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Have a feeling yes will sneak it, wont be the first time polls and bookies got it wrong.
Anyway going to stay up to watch the early returns.

You still have tine to get a bet on.

sjb25

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Have a feeling yes will sneak it, wont be the first time polls and bookies got it wrong.
Anyway going to stay up to watch the early returns.

Would love to see it realy for the cluster**** that will kick off lol but I can't see it I'd reckon it will be a no

Peppa Pig

dubscottie wrote: »

And that 20% of "Scottish" oil fields will be in rUK waters?

So rUK will have 92% of the population and lose 80% of its oil resources .....

No wonder there has been so much scare mongering going on

Lnaa

sjb25 wrote: »

Would love to see it realy for the cluster**** that will kick off lol but I can't see it I'd reckon it will be a no

Hopefully you're wrong and he's right. No is a vote for the current system. Even if I think no is a better vote for Scotland, I think yes could set off a domino effect which I would like to see where Liverpool, Manchester, Yorkshire and other major cities and regions get their own say in running their own affairs.

eire4

dubscottie wrote: »

Look at Turkey.. How long have they been waiting for membership now??

Ah Scaremongering again.. The yes love that word..

Being born and having lived in Scotland for two thirds of my life, I am I wrong to ask for more than speculation and "visions"..

Can you stop with the Turkey red herring. It has absolutely no relevance here in terms of EU membership. Their situation is completely different. The invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and continued occupation of a portion of Cyprus who themselves are now an EU member is a massive issue blocking their membership as well as a host of other issues.

Lnaa

Peppa Pig wrote: »

So rUK will have 92% of the population and lose 80% of its oil resources .....

No wonder there has been so much scare mongering going on

Yeah, but that 92% will include London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Belfast, Cardiff etc. and all the industry those areas encompass. This may come as news to some, but the UK economy is not built solely on Scottish oil. Its not like that 92% would be left without a pot to píss in.

JONJO THE MISER

First Up wrote: »

You still have tine to get a bet on.

Yeah i know but going to skip this one, too close to call for me.

sjb25

Lnaa wrote: »

Hopefully you're wrong and he's right. No is a vote for the current system. Even if I think no is a better vote for Scotland, I think yes could set off a domino effect which I would like to see where Liverpool, Manchester, Yorkshire and other major cities and regions get their own say in running their own affairs.

I hope I'm wrong

Peppa Pig

Lnaa wrote: »

Yeah, but that 92% will include London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Belfast, Cardiff etc. and all the industry those areas encompass. This may come as news to some, but the UK economy is not built solely on Scottish oil. Its not like that 92% would be left without a pot to píss in.

Of course not, but the 8% that leave would gain 72% more oil. Not a bad start.

Dozen Wicked Words

Peppa Pig wrote: »

So rUK will have 92% of the population and lose 80% of its oil resources .....

No wonder there has been so much scare mongering going on

Oil money would equate to roughly what Scotland gets from the rUK in tax revenues from the Barnett formula.

So wouldn't make much difference with yes or no vote.

moxin

The reason why the Pound fell in value last weekend upon that Yes lead in the poll is that the markets knew Westminster will have a giant hole of missing oil revenue in its balance sheet.

Peppa Pig

To lighten the mood, Humphrey Appleby was way ahead of his time

The Government's position' means 'the best explanation of past events that cannot be disproved by available facts.

Government is not a team. It is a loose confederation of warring tribes

It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them

Descentralisation of government = moving government offices into marginal constituencies

Definitely Cameron - and almost certainly Salmond as well

eeepaulo

moxin wrote: »

The reason why the Pound fell in value last weekend upon that Yes lead in the poll is that the markets knew Westminster will have a giant hole of missing oil revenue in its balance sheet.

Brilliant

oppenheimer1

First Up wrote: »

Scotland is not "EU compliant" because it does not have a complete public administration framework. It will need to create new institutions to replace the functions currently delivered on a UK wide basis. There are (currently) 35 chapters in the EU Acquis and even if no other member state objects to a "fast track", Scotland will have to comply with all of them before it could be admitted.

The EU doesn't have to say no. it just doesn't have to say yes. Ask Turkey.
(Posted this before seeing above references to Turkey)

Scotland would have to set up the public administration framework in the transition period anyway. I don't think people realise that whatever way the vote goes that Scotland will not be an independent country tomorrow. If yes prevail it will be a country in transition to independence. Its a transition that would take years, and why they will have ample time to meet all the chapters and have the opportunity to negotiate a smooth entry to the EU should they not automatically be admitted.

An independent Scotland would be an EU member on its first day of existence, of that I am sure. I am more sure of that then I am of the UK's continued membership - which is the greatest threat to Scotland staying in the EU.

First Up

Peppa Pig wrote: »

So rUK will have 92% of the population and lose 80% of its oil resources .....

No wonder there has been so much scare mongering going on

North Sea oil peaked 15 years ago. It will be gone in 25 years. Oil comprises about 7% of UK GDP. The UK will miss it but can live without it. Can Scotland?

dubscottie

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Oil money would equate to roughly what Scotland gets from the rUK in tax revenues from the Barnett formula.

So wouldn't make much difference with yes or no vote.

But you forget all the extra civil service, Air force etc that Salmond wants.

That aint cheap..

First Up

eire4 wrote: »

Can you stop with the Turkey red herring. It has absolutely no relevance here in terms of EU membership. Their situation is completely different. The invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and continued occupation of a portion of Cyprus who themselves are now an EU member is a massive issue blocking their membership as well as a host of other issues.

Just observing that the EU doesn't "refuse" membership and it wouldn't refuse Scotland. However that does not mean an application could not be left in limbo, as Turkey's is.

Guy:Incognito

moxin wrote: »

The reason why the Pound fell in value last weekend upon that Yes lead in the poll is that the markets knew Westminster will have a giant hole of missing oil revenue in its balance sheet.

But sure wont Scotland be keeping the pound anyway, whether the UK wants them too or not, so the pound will still have the same amount of oil money backing it.

It has probably been said already but I can't see how Scotland will be able to keep the Pound as well as become EU members. The EU have already said that there will be no more exemptions, so this would imply that they'll have to join the Euro if they want to become an EU member as an independent state.

Wurzelbert

dubscottie wrote: »

Look at Turkey.. How long have they been waiting for membership now??

Ah Scaremongering again.. The yes love that word..

Being born and having lived in Scotland for two thirds of my life, I am I wrong to ask for more than speculation and "visions"..

turkey? why should turkey ever become a member of the eu? turkey isn’t even a european country…scotland is.

(yeah yeah, i know a small part of turkey is geographically in europe…but that doesn’t make turkey a european nation, historically, culturally, ethnically and all…in fact, turkey – the ottoman empire - used to be europe’s nemesis and could only be defeated after centuries of war…)

moxin

First Up wrote: »

North Sea oil peaked 15 years ago. It will be gone in 25 years. Oil comprises about 7% of UK GDP. The UK will miss it but can live without it. Can Scotland?

There is more oil and gas out there including new oil finds.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/company-news/hurricane-hails-potential-of-new-shetland-oil-find.25339138

In your doomsday scenario, Scotland should be a more diverse economy by 2040 to weather any oil downturn. Doing so otherwise would be pretty stupid.

oppenheimer1

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But sure wont Scotland be keeping the pound anyway, whether the UK wants them too or not, so the pound will still have the same amount of oil money backing it.

As an interesting aside, if Scotland had gone independent in the 70's at the start of the oil boom, it would have had one of the strongest currencies in the world. That was the right time for a proper independence movement - Westminster has squandered all of that revenue since.

Frank Lee Midere

Karsini wrote: »

It has probably been said already but I can't see how Scotland will be able to keep the Pound as well as become EU members. The EU have already said that there will be no more exemptions, so this would imply that they'll have to join the Euro if they want to become an EU member as an independent state.

The exemplary successful euro.

Peppa Pig

First Up wrote: »

North Sea oil peaked 15 years ago. It will be gone in 25 years. Oil comprises about 7% of UK GDP. The UK will miss it but can live without it. Can Scotland?

But seriously (cos I don't know) how much of Scottish generated income is currently from oil?
Especially as computers, semi conductors and mobile phones used to be huge but have not contributed any income for years

BringBackMick

The Scottish will simply have the Scottish Pound, pegged to Sterling. It is better for them to control their own currency anyway and it will probably be stronger than the UK pound.

There is no way the EU could morally deny Scotland accession to Europe.

Guy:Incognito

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Westminster has squandered all of that revenue since.

That's called running a country .