Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

They're effectively saying that they cannot argue on better policies and win from that stance.

i disagree. what they are saying is "you're being lied to".

it's ridiculous to suggest that this is basically an inconsequential matter.

a fundamental question to answer for the SNP is what the terms of EU membership for an independent scotland would be. there is no need to set out a counter-argument to this because we already know what the EU membership terms for the UK are.

the SNP's position has long been that Scotland would join the EU and use the Euro as their currency. Understandably that position is now less attractive to voters given the state of the Euro.

So what the SNP have done is said "don't worry, we don't need to join the Euro". When questioned on this, given that the EU rules are that new member states have to sign up to the Euro, the SNP's position has been that they won't have to join the EU as new members and therefore they won't have to join the Euro. When asked how they know this, they have indicated and suggested that they have legal advice which confirms this to be the accurate position.

Then, when asked to disclose whether they have legal advice and what it says, they have refused. When ordered to so disclose by the scottish information commissioner, they have spent a load of money appealing against the decision and going to court. Taxpayer money.

Then it turns out that there never was any legal advice, that they haven't a clue whether their policy of joining the EU but not joining the Euro is actually achievable or not. To summarise, they have been lying to the electorate on a fundamental over-arching issue.

It is absolutely right that they are pulled up on this by other parties.

If the tories came out with a policy of giving every man woman and child in scotland £1,000,000 a year, and the SNP said "this is impossible to fund, what a stupid policy" you wouldn't say that the SNP were being negative. You would say they are being reasonable. You wouldn't say the SNP has no right to question the costing of the policy, and that they instead should set out their own policy and not comment on the tory policy.

If you only have positive campaigning with no negative campaigning the result is that every party will simply tell you ridiculous lies to get into power, as they are not going to be held to account for those lies.

If you chose to believe that fundamental lies about key policies are not an issue which will sway your vote, then that is your decision, but surely you want to know who has been lying to you about what. (mind you, with politicians you already know that - they have all been lying to you about everything).

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the SNP's position has long been that Scotland would join the EU and use the Euro as their currency. Understandably that position is now less attractive to voters given the state of the Euro.

The thing is, do we need to join the EU?

Norway has been cited as a similar economy / population as Scotland and they are not part of the EU.

Norway is not a member state of the European Union (EU), but is closely associated with the Union through its membership in the European Economic Area (EEA), in the context of being a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) member.

Norway's trade is dominated by the EU and Norway is the EU's 4th most important import partner. Norway to EU trade amounted to €91.85 billion in 2008, primarily energy supplies (only 14.1% is manufactured products). The EU's exports to Norway amounted to €43.58 billion, primarily manufactured products.[1]

robmatic

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The thing is, do we need to join the EU?

Norway has been cited as a similar economy / population as Scotland and they are not part of the EU.

I thought the point was that the SNP are firmly in favour of joining the EU - it's one of their fundamental policies and in their manifesto.

Loughton_Monkey

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The thing is, do we need to join the EU?.....

It's not really a question of 'need'. More a question of taking the sensible advice - never join a club that would accept you as a member.

My advice would be to try the British Commonwealth. They may accept you, but be careful of a black ball from Charles.

pqrdef

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The thing is, do we need to join the EU?

Norway has been cited as a similar economy / population as Scotland and they are not part of the EU.

Well if Westminster is too far away, Brussels must be worse. So why not secede from the EU while remaining within the UK? I'm sure Salmond could win a referendum on that.

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Interesting to see that Salmond has been shown up to be just as much of a conniving lying twit as any other politician. The SNP has taken no legal advice re: whether Scotland would need to reapply for EU membership, but has happily spent loads of taxpayers money attempting to cover up the fact that it hasn't received legal advice by claiming that there was legal advice but no-one was entitled to see it.

So either Salmond is dishonest because he has been implying all along that (supportive) legal advice was in place, or Salmond is dishonest because he has legal advice, it is not supportive, and he is pretending that it does not exist. Couldn't even summon up the courage to come clean in person either.

So, anyway, the SNP's policy of not joining the Euro is, and always has been, up in the air and they have no idea whether they can deliver it. Perhaps the SNP should spend some time talking to the EU and establishing what the position actually is instead of just lying to the electorate.

Oh they're all as bad as each other regarding stuff like this.. only ( quelle surprise ) the SNP seem to be getting far more mainstream coverage than the UK government..

UK Government accused of 'hypocrisy' for refusing to release legal advice on independence and the EU

The UK Government has blocked access to legal advice on whether Scotland could stay in the European Union after independence...The ban comes just weeks after Holyrood MSPs hit out at the SNP for imposing its own block on legal advice about Europe (link). And it means governments on both sides of the border are refusing to tell the voters the full story about Scotland's place in the EU.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Politics/article/19176/uk-government-accused-of-hypocrisy-for-refusing-to-release-legal-advice-on-independence-and-the-eu.html

Actually, the link below, written by : "Arabella Thorp and Gavin Thompson, researchers in the International Affairs and Defence Section and the Economic Policy and Statistics Section of the House of Commons Library Research" is the best piece I've read on Scotland, Eu etc etc stuff, but its a little bit of a wade through.. However, for interested parties, well worth a read.

http://eutopialaw.com/2011/11/14/685/

...it is suggested that the most likely position that the Luxembourg court would take, if faced with the question of Scottish independence, would be the second scenario – “separation”, as outlined by Thorp and Thompson above. That is to say that the CJEU would rule that Scotland and EWNI should each succeed to the UK’s existing membership of the EU, but now as two States rather than as one. Such a ruling by the Court would affirm the primacy of EU law over national and international law, confirm the role of the CJEU as the final arbiter on such weighty matters of State(s), and be presented as EU law re-connecting with, and protecting the acquired rights of, individual EU citizens.....

....So, contrary perhaps to the as yet unexpressed hopes of some UK Eurosceptics, Scottish independence is unlikely to provide either Scotland or the rest of the UK with a “get out of (EU-) gaol free” card. But the implications for the UK’s other international obligations, relations and memberships, would remain to be determined should Scotland ever leave the (British) Union.

Enjoy !!

zagubov

pqrdef wrote: »

Well if Westminster is too far away, Brussels must be worse. So why not secede from the EU while remaining within the UK? I'm sure Salmond could win a referendum on that.

I agree. The Greenland option. But then we'd have needed Home Rule (ie a Devo Max option on the referendum) which seemed to be one question too many.

Still our economic "masters" in Westminster know best how many questions we can afford to put on one ballot paper.:rotfl:

If someone else comes up with further constitutional options, I hope they don't moan about the cost of any new ballot!:D

Shakethedisease

I'm still at a loss why it matters so much ( Scotland/EU) to posters here and the media. Not when there are so many screeching about UK referendums to 'get us out of the EU' ad fintitum. Cameron hinting every so often he'll give one to appease them.

Then suddenly for Scotland it's 'yes but if Scotland goes independent it won't get into the EU' * engage smug mode * ? England wants out doesn't it ? Or so most of the papers and half the Tory party say.. And one political party is rivalling the Lib Dems poll-wise solely on the policy of getting the UK OUT of it.

So it's good to gloat about Scotland not possibly being admitted to the EU.. but England has a fair proportion, and that even includes many of the current party in power.. that want out.. Desperate for a referendum too ( which incidentally, they NEVER say that the rest of the EU should 'also have a say on' like they do with the Scottish one !!!).

It doesn't make sense to me.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm still at a loss why it matters so much ( Scotland/EU) to posters here and the media. Not when there are so many screeching about UK referendums to 'get us out of the EU' ad fintitum. Cameron hinting every so often he'll give one to appease them.

Then suddenly for Scotland it's 'yes but if Scotland goes independent it won't get into the EU' * engage smug mode * ? England wants out doesn't it ? Or so most of the papers and half the Tory party say.. And one political party is rivalling the Lib Dems poll-wise solely on the policy of getting the UK OUT of it.

So it's good to gloat about Scotland not possibly being admitted to the EU.. but England has a fair proportion, and that even includes many of the current party in power.. that want out.. Desperate for a referendum too ( which incidentally, they NEVER say that the rest of the EU should 'also have a say on' like they do with the Scottish one !!!).

It doesn't make sense to me.

I guess there is an outside chance that countries with secessionist regions might look to block EU membership but it seems unlikely to me.

The more likely outcome is that Scotland is offered a 'take it or leave it' package to join the EU. With everything that's going on with the EU right now, I imagine the last thing they'd be interested in is some protracted negotiations with a small nationalist political party leading one of the smaller EU countries.

Nationalists tend to be unreasonable, intractable, racist and generally a PITA. That the Scots Nats may not be is unlikely to cloud European minds.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

I guess there is an outside chance that countries with secessionist regions might look to block EU membership but it seems unlikely to me.

The more likely outcome is that Scotland is offered a 'take it or leave it' package to join the EU. With everything that's going on with the EU right now, I imagine the last thing they'd be interested in is some protracted negotiations with a small nationalist political party leading one of the smaller EU countries.

Nationalists tend to be unreasonable, intractable, racist and generally a PITA. That the Scots Nats may not be is unlikely to cloud European minds.

Seems ridiculous that anyone believes a relatively dry waterless country that gets half its fish from Scotland's going to block its entry into a trade bloc.

Be much better all round if they did though. Not sure what the advantages of EU membership are. There's better clubs to join and why the Nats don't offer a post-rteferndum on the EU/EFTA NATO membership beats me. It'd be a real vote-winner.