Will RoUK really give up some of its financial freedom to the independant Scots?

zagubov

I'm getting bored can we move into reality.

The EU's flexible enough to incorporate totalitarian states the minute they've joined an existing state. They've also accepted people in an occupied territory that never applied to join,

They had no exit strategy for any region and had to invent two mechanisms when Denmark needed a get-out clause for Greenland.

The EU is fundamentally expansionist. It may delay countries that wish to get access especially if they are a poor fit, (but East germnany indicates otherwise) but the only exits have involved a violent civil war (Algeria) or two years of negotiations (Greenland).

If Scotland can just saunter out due to internal UK rearrangements that's the beginning of the disintegration of the EU. They'll have their brown trousers on when they think of this.

So, keep believing in the "expulsion of Scotland" with the removal of one-sixth of Germany's oil imports.

But believe me you'll need to believe really really hard to make up for the slightly annoying fact that it's about as likely as a asteroid made up of ten-pound notes crashing through our atmosphere and wiping put all the platypuses in Britian in one collision.:eek:

Generali wrote: »

The EU have been completely clear on what would happen if Scotland leaves the UK: they'd have to reapply under the 2004 rules.

It doesn't matter what English or Scottish politicians have to say on the matter, the rules are very simple. 'England' would be the successor state so would remain in the EU, Scotland would be the secessionist state so would have to apply if they wanted to be members of the EU.

Under the 2004 rules that would mean joining the ERM before taking the Euro as the currency.

Luckily Scotland will not be voting for independence any time soon so this is all moot.

If it was that clear, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops. It's like the moonlandings. the best evidence is that lack of counterevidence.

The EU would freak out at the thought of any part leaving without some central hold over it. It just ain't going to happen. The SNP know it, the Yes campaign know it, the EU know it and everybody else in the world with an IQ greater than their shoe size knows it.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

I'm getting bored can we move into reality.

The EU's flexible enough to incorporate totalitarian states the minute they've joined an existing state. They've also accepted people in an occupied territory that never applied to join,

They had no exit strategy for any region and had to invent two mechanisms when Denmark needed a get-out clause for Greenland.

The EU is fundamentally expansionist. It may delay countries that wish to get access especially if they are a poor fit, (but East germnany indicates otherwise) but the only exits have involved a violent civil war (Algeria) or two years of negotiations (Greenland).

If Scotland can just saunter out due to internal UK rearrangements that's the beginning of the disintegration of the EU. They'll have their brown trousers on when they think of this.

So, keep believing in the "expulsion of Scotland" with the removal of one-sixth of Germany's oil imports.

But believe me you'll need to believe really really hard to make up for the slightly annoying fact that it's about as likely as a asteroid made up of ten-pound notes crashing through our atmosphere and wiping put all the platypuses in Britian in one collision.:eek:



If it was that clear, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops. It's like the moonlandings. the best evidence is that lack of counterevidence.

The EU would freak out at the thought of any part leaving without some central hold over it. It just ain't going to happen. The SNP know it, the Yes campaign know it, the EU know it and everybody else in the world with an IQ greater than their shoe size knows it.

I'm not saying that Scotland would be prevented from joining the EU, although there is an outside chance, what I am saying is that they would have to apply to join. Mr Barroso agrees with me and as head of the EC he should know the rules:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20664907

A letter from Mr Barosso to the House of Lords economic committee, which is examining the independence question, also confirmed his position that a new independent state would "become a third country with respect to the EU".


Mr Barroso, when asked by the BBC whether Scotland's membership would be "nodded through", responded: "I did not comment on specific situations of member states because I very much respect that it is their right, their sovereign right to decide about their organisation.


"What I said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country - I am not referring now to any specific one - wants to become an independent state, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules - that is obvious."


Asked whether an independent country would have to renegotiate its terms, Mr Barroso said: "Yes.".


When further asked whether that negotiation would be from "inside" the EU, the president responded: "We are a union of states, so if there is a new state, of course, that state has to apply for membership and negotiate the conditions with other member states.


"For European Union purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and has to negotiate with the EU."


Mr Barroso also said that, if Scotland became independent, the rest of the UK would not have to negotiate a new position, because of the "principle of the continuity of the state".

So Mr Barroso specifically stated to a question from the House of Lords what the constitutional position of Scotland would be. Nats don't like the answer but it is a fact.

From the horse's mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXR6_5u1p-k

BobQ

While its true that an independent Scotland should in principle be easily admitted to the EU, its absurd to pretend that this will happen in a seamless way. At best there will be a fast track process, all of negotiations will go well, no nations will object to them joining etc. In this case it will probably take a year or two. But in reality, there will be delays as there always are in EU politics. One nation will object for a trivial reason, other nations will take longer to pass the revised constitution, there will be a failure of the RoUK to agree on the number of MEPs or whatever.

Even if things go smoothly there will need to be a commitment to transition to the Euro as this is mandatory for all new entrants.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

I'm not saying that Scotland would be prevented from joining the EU, although there is an outside chance, what I am saying is that they would have to apply to join. Mr Barroso agrees with me and as head of the EC he should know the rules:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20664907



So Mr Barroso specifically stated to a question from the House of Lords what the constitutional position of Scotland would be. Nats don't like the answer but it is a fact.

From the horse's mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXR6_5u1p-k

Well keep believing that, and put some special effort into it.

I'm trying really hard to disbelieve it because Scotland will be so much better off outside the EU but no matter how hard I try I just don't see that happening or at least not as easily and automatically as I'd like.


The minute a country starts suggesting that areas/ regions/ subdivisions could just wander off is the same minute that everything is going to go under the microscope and the fissile members are going to get the hairdryer treatment.

Scotland's about as likely to stumble out of the EU as Scooby's likely to find a real ghost intead of a janitor in a ghost costume

Generali

The point isn't that Scotland won't be allowed into the EU. It's that Scotland won't be allowed in under the terms they're claiming.

Not that it matters as Scotland is showing no inclination to vote to be independent.

sharnad

andybenw wrote: »

Scotland is already in the EU. In the unlikely event of a yes vote transition will be pretty seemless. Remember there were no vetos when East Germany became part of Germany. As for the bbc, a freesat box and dish will sort that. A bit like the poles living in Britain can still get prigrammes via satellite. The shared sterling would also happen pretty easily I feel. Its a shame the No campaign focusses on fear politics as they could quite easily run a positive campaign.

The terms and conditions may not be seemlees when you have to rejoin the eu. Also Scotland having to get its own currency may not be easy

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Crikey Zag, I really don't know why you're being so blinkered as to the very real dangers of separation here.

I don't doubt for a second that Scotland would survive, but I also know for a fact that the nats are spinning an almighty fairy tale here about the outcomes.

I have no doubt that in the event of the Yes vote prevailing.....

-Scotland would be out of the EU and have to apply for membership from scratch.

-- We'd get membership, but lose all the opt outs and special deals the UK has.

-We'd be allowed to use the pound, but only as a transitional currency to the Euro

-Some deal would be struck with the RoUK for transitional pound usage, but there would be no say in monetary policy and if not quite no lender of last resort status from the BOE, at best a very minimal status far worse than what Scottish banks can access today

-Borrowing costs would be higher for both individuals and the Scottish state

-Taxes would rise, services would be cut, and the deficit would likely worsen anyway.... as per IFS report

-Personal freedoms would be lost (the inevitable result of the nanny state tendencies Scottish politicians show again and again)

-Business investment would shrink, many businesses I know are already making contingency plans, and most of them involve reducing investment and head count, or in some cases pulling out altogether.

-Unemployment would rise.

-The economy would worsen, as costs of doing business in two countries instead of one make a lot of cross border businesses less viable and we simply don't have the economy of scale to justify duplicating resources.

And for what?

Most people in Scotland are quite happy being British and have no desire to change that.

I genuinely believe that I'd be worse off financially, with fewer career prospects, a lower standard of living, paying higher taxes, for worse services, in a more repressive and less free society if Scotland gets independence.

mrginge

It's not often i would agree with hamish, but this time he's bang on the money imo.

Generali

I agree with Hamish too but there's one thing that everybody's overlooked.

If Scotland joins the EU she'll need to agree to join the Euro. To join the Euro she'll need to do the whole convergence thing. Part of that is 3(?) years membership of the ERM. Scotland wouldn't be able to join the ERM if using the Pound.

Perhaps the EU would make an exemption of some sort but it isn't a given.

adouglasmhor

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In truth. No idea.

My level is more the basics.

For instance, the BBC. Apparently, when independent, Scots will still be able to view the BBC. Again, because the SNP say so.

The question over whether they would pay for this appears to be no, as it's the "British" Broadcasting Corporation.
.

I have watched the BBC in Dublin, Cork and Tralee many times. I think they gained independence in the 1920s and they are certainly not British.