Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

black_taxi_2

you obviously don't remember gillion duffy

grey_gym_sock

planteria wrote: »

like it or not, Scotland will leave the EU if it leaves the UK.

you state this as is it's a fact, but it isn't. the negotiation about this would be "interesting", but i'd fully expect scotland to stay in the EU.

i'd place very little weight on barroso saying it would be "almost impossible". it's better for him to say that; then, if it happens, he can claim: "we achieved the impossible!" and if it doesn't happen, he hasn't promised something he couldn't deliver.

scott_lithgows

Triumph13 wrote: »

No problem with devo max, just as long as rUK gets it too. If you devolve any more powers to Scotland without tackling the West Lothian Question, then you'll start to get quite a head of steam behind a demand for a referendum on independence South of the border.

A federal U.K sounds good.....

black_taxi_2

would labour accept a federal UK

no labour MP would be allowed westminster

lejog2003

TCA wrote: »

As for ever having border controls along Hadrian's Wall, I'd like to think common sense would prevail and the example of the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland would be followed.

The Common Travel Area's continued existence is down to the fact that the UK and Ireland have harmonised immigration policy fror the last 90 years.

According to the White Paper, Scotland's immigration policy will be diverging substantially from the other two countries if it becomes independent,

Another example of the Nats covering their ears and assuring their constituency that it will be in everyone's interests for them to join the CTA when they are blatantly breaking the rules and acceptance is in the hands of other governments.

Triumph13

scott_lithgows wrote: »

A federal U.K sounds good.....

Just so long as it is on the US model whereby states are allowed to go bankrupt and default rather than being bailed out by the centre!

Marazan

CLAPTON wrote: »

another fantasy as to why every problem is some-one else's fault.

the formal view of the EU is as unlikely to clear up the issues as asking Alex or Nicola a question

it would probably comprise what we know: that Scotland would have to apply and meet the know conditions and then the member states would have to agree etc etc.

how would that move you forward?

Because then everyone would know what needs to be done.

The Yes Campaign can only speculate about what would need to be done, I can only speculate about what would need to be done, you can only speculate about what would need to be done, the No Campaign can only speculate about the outcome.

Westminster could clear it all up by contacting the EC. Once we actually know what needs to be done we could have a sensible debate about concrete facts an about whether Scotland could or could not meet the membership criteria in a reasonable time frame (or indeed - given the facts - whether we should attempt to apply given what Scotland would need to do).

If you do not see how that would move us forward then you do not actually want to have a debate about Scottish Independence.

CLAPTON

Marazan wrote: »

Because then everyone would know what needs to be done.

The Yes Campaign can only speculate about what would need to be done, I can only speculate about what would need to be done, you can only speculate about what would need to be done, the No Campaign can only speculate about the outcome.

Westminster could clear it all up by contacting the EC. Once we actually know what needs to be done we could have a sensible debate about concrete facts an about whether Scotland could or could not meet the membership criteria in a reasonable time frame (or indeed - given the facts - whether we should attempt to apply given what Scotland would need to do).

If you do not see how that would move us forward then you do not actually want to have a debate about Scottish Independence.

the membership criteria are well established: many countries have joined over the last few years: there are no secrets here

as joining requires the agreement of the current members there can be no certainty

cloud_dog

Marazan wrote: »

Westminster could clear it all up by contacting the EC.

This is common to a fair amount of the discussion..... Surely Holyrood should be instigating these discussions with the EC, its in their own interest to have a confirmed position (or perhaps not).

rpc

black_taxi wrote: »

10th January 2013

Alistair Darling on Newsnight: "Of course – of course it would be desirable to have a currency union . . . If you have independence or separation, of course the currency union is logical".

What a misquote out of context.

Nobody is currently arguing that an independent Scotland would best want a currency union (although plenty of the SNP want an independent tradeable currency). It is desirable for Scotland (as AD says).

The problem is that it is not at all desirable for rUK which is the current problem and he has never suggested otherwise.

Marazan wrote: »

Because then everyone would know what needs to be done.

The Yes Campaign can only speculate about what would need to be done, I can only speculate about what would need to be done, you can only speculate about what would need to be done, the No Campaign can only speculate about the outcome.

No speculation is needed - in order to secure the Article 38 treaty amendment Yes want, all member states have to agree to the terms. The EU cannot tell you what the member states will ratify.

The new member route is already spelled out in similar clarity.