Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

TCA

DCodd wrote: »

You see I don't believe that only Westminster can ask the question. Every new member negotiates prior to becoming a member, there is an EU commissioner office in Edingburgh representing the needs and wants of Scotland now. Are you truly saying that IF the EU wanted to answer the question that they couldn't?

Is it not more likely that the EU are not answering the question prior to the referendum in order to placate certain member states within the EU?

As posted already by Marazan:

http://www.scotreferendum.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CAB08_0122142752_001.pdf

TCA

Archi_Bald wrote: »

You seem know more about this than I do, but I have never heard any of the Yes campaign complaining that they demanded an answer and none was forthcoming because Westminster blocked it. Have you got any links regarding this matter?

I don't know if there's copies of request correspondence between Holyrood and Westminster floating around on the internet and I'm not about to start searching, but the reply to Sturgeon as posted again below is proof enough of what's required. I would doubt the SNP would sit on it without a formal request to Westminster:

http://www.scotreferendum.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CAB08_0122142752_001.pdf

DCodd

TCA wrote: »

As posted already by Marazan:

http://www.scotreferendum.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CAB08_0122142752_001.pdf

I've read that already but it doesn't change my view or point.

If Westminster can ask the question as per the criteria set down in that document, then so could Scottish MEP's as representatives of the current member state. The fact that no answer has been given suggests that the "precise scenario" required can't be provided by anyone as yet (including Westminster) or if the YES campaign is to be believed and that scenario is available then the EU are fudging the issue and don't want to answer.

TCA

lejog2003 wrote: »

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.

Not sure how you classify "diverging substantially" but I very much doubt whether Scotland would diverge so far as to mean they required borders with rUK. Again this is something for discussion but guess what? Westminster don't want to. But you say the Nats are blatantly breaking the rules. What rules? Immigration rules? A negotiated independence settlement would cover all aspects of any split and no cast-in-stone Scottish immigration policy even exists yet. The White Paper is a proposal. Once again you're another who very quickly assumes a worst case scenario.

Archi_Bald

I can understand that Barroso declines to discuss anything with a Deputy. If the matter isn't important enough for Salmond, why should Barroso be bothered?

Barroso has been rather consistent with his message, and I would think he could be quite irritated with a second-rank person telling him he doesn't know how the EU works. Barroso would also be completely of his rocker if he said anything other than what he said - - there are 27 other countries who have a say. Might be unusual for Sturgeon/Salmon that others are allowed a say, but that's how democracy works.

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

I am beginning to conclude that neither Salmond nor Sturgeon have actually any interest in staying within the EU. They are just saying it because the idea seems to go down well with their supporters. If they were serious, they could go on a charm offensive to the leaders of the other 27 countries, and they'd soon find out what the position of the leaders is. Though I would think it would be next to impossible at present to get any of the 27 to take any position other than the one Barroso has already communicated.

grey_gym_sock

actually, i don't think a charm offensive would make sense at this stage. because other EU governments wouldn't like to upset the UK government by appearing to support scottish independence before the referendum takes place. if the SNP win the vote, it would be the time for "charm".

Marazan

DCodd wrote: »

I've read that already but it doesn't change my view or point.

If Westminster can ask the question as per the criteria set down in that document, then so could Scottish MEP's as representatives of the current member state. The fact that no answer has been given suggests that the "precise scenario" required can't be provided by anyone as yet (including Westminster) or if the YES campaign is to be believed and that scenario is available then the EU are fudging the issue and don't want to answer.

Individual MEPs are not a Member State. Only the UK government can ask.

TCA

DCodd wrote: »

I've read that already but it doesn't change my view or point.

If Westminster can ask the question as per the criteria set down in that document, then so could Scottish MEP's as representatives of the current member state. The fact that no answer has been given suggests that the "precise scenario" required can't be provided by anyone as yet (including Westminster) or if the YES campaign is to be believed and that scenario is available then the EU are fudging the issue and don't want to answer.

Precise scenario upon request from a Member State. Emphasis on the latter. It's pretty clear. So you're saying Westminster (or even Holyrood) are incapable of articulating the situation should Scotland vote Yes? Don't think so.

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I can understand that Barroso declines to discuss anything with a Deputy. If the matter isn't important enough for Salmond, why should Barroso be bothered?

Ridiculous comment. And the reply is clear. Member State request. Not sure how many ways I (or Marazan) can repeat this.

black_taxi_2

misquote Alastair darling

ok here's another

http://s925.photobucket.com/user/hellohulot/media/lord-george-robertson-image-1-440646149-1165340-1-01_zps09deb64a.jpg.html

lejog2003

TCA wrote: »

Not sure how you classify "diverging substantially" but I very much doubt whether Scotland would diverge so far as to mean they required borders with rUK.

Another failure to accept a real problem. Just deny the problem exists.

Yes Scotland believes that UK immigration policy is not appropriate for Scotland.

There are no circumstances in which the Scottish Government would countenance any measure being taken that jeopardized the ability of citizens across the rUK and Ireland to move freely across the borders as they are presently able to do

The two just aren't compatible. The CTA has never been the subject of a formal treaty, but there was an informal agreement in 1923 that Ireland would enforce British immigration policy after independence. After WWII the UK refused to reinstate the CTA until 1952 when immigration rules were harmonised again. In 1962 Ireland passed the Aliens Order as the UK passed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. And so on.....