The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The numbers rarely lie.

It would be surprising to see a Yes vote to independence from the UK.

Many years (more than article 50) to disentangle the Union. Questionable economy, reduced government revenue, loss of currency control, and probably many more issues people more learned than myself can point out.

Although Scotland did vote to remain in a UK referendum I can't see Sturgeon's actions as anything other than grandstanding at the moment. It doesn't help Scotland as it introduces even more uncertainty than that of the rest of the UK and there is no indication of a swing and no formal indication that an indy ref will even take place, only lectures from a nationalist first minister with that particular single issue agenda.

Assuming she manages to stop the UK leaving the EU. Surely that then means no indy ref? Ever. The once in a lifetime vote is just that. If Scotland blocks the will of the majority of the UK I think the knives will be out for Nicola and her merry men.

Remaining in the Union but slapping down the democratic vote of the British people will make Scotland a pariah in the Union. Blocking the democratic vote, they may as well leave, I could only see a Tory government (because Scotland votes SNP) punishing/ignoring Scotland on many issues. The nationalist political party is divisive in the Union, and if the Scottish remain they will have to answer for that.

Scotland has a choice to make. The EU or the UK. That's it am afraid at the moment. Scotland wishes to remain in the EU, Sturgeon is duty bound to explore all options for Scotland in terms of staying.

Sturgeon has to act quickly before Article 50 is invoked. Since I suspect that she's going to have a go, with the full support of most of the Scottish Govt, at making sure that Scotland isn't included in Article 50 when the button is pressed. Ambitious, but again, uncharted waters. And surely better than waiting eons for Westminster to get their act together and be dragged into years of EU leaving talks, only to have to reverse them later should Scotland decide to leave the UK.

England and Wales voted to Leave. That will be up to Westminster to deal with. But I think the Scottish Govt are of a mind to go over their heads with this one.

TrickyTree83

There is no mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty other than article 50 for a member to leave the EU. Article 50 explicitly states that the member state has to initiate it. If we choose to get our ducks in a row first, pre-negotiate with the US, India, China, Aus, etc... what is to stop us? Nothing. Then we're in a much better bargaining position when we finally do issue article 50.

Scottish secession would look less favourable if the rest of the UK has managed to strike bi-lateral deals worth £trillions with billions of people.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

it is a surprise that the EU parliament (full of europhiles) praise a sycophantic speech in favour of the EU.

but with Scotland being keen to assume the UK contribution payments, in exchange for EU students edging out Scottish ones at their own Unis, it certainly make sense to make as many friends as possible.

Any payment will be adjusted to the size of Scotland. As for the rest, with ar result of 62/38% in terms of staying in the EU. I guess so.

ruggedtoast

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

There is no mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty other than article 50 for a member to leave the EU. Article 50 explicitly states that the member state has to initiate it. If we choose to get out ducks in a row first, pre-negotiate with the US, India, China, Aus, etc... what is to stop us? Nothing. Then we're in a much better bargaining position when we finally do issue article 50.

Scottish secession would look less favourable if the rest of the UK has managed to strike bi-lateral deals worth £trillions with billions of people.

The people we need to establish deals with are the EU member states. None of whom will talk to us until Article 50.

We export more to Luxembourg than we do to India.

What many people who haven't lived and worked in the East don't realise is that the UK because of its past has a very hard time gaining traction at government level there and many of our main exports are approved at government level (Finance and Defence).

The Indians had a grand old time almost buying the Eurofighter and then switching to the French equivalent. There were a lot of news items about how David Cameron himself (who had spent two weeks looking bewildered as part of a UK trade delegation) had begged the Indian government for the acquisition.

The East is not an easy market for us. The US and EU is, or was.

We now dont have a trade agreement with either of them.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

There is no mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty other than article 50 for a member to leave the EU. Article 50 explicitly states that the member state has to initiate it. If we choose to get out ducks in a row first, pre-negotiate with the US, India, China, Aus, etc... what is to stop us? Nothing. Then we're in a much better bargaining position when we finally do issue article 50.

Scottish secession would look less favourable if the rest of the UK has managed to strike bi-lateral deals worth £trillions with billions of people.

Uncharted waters, there are no 'rules'. A member leaving the Eu is unprecedented. So don't get too hung up on anything which 'must' or 'must not' happen. Because you don't know.

Imo Sturgeon and the Scottish Govt will try to inherit the UK's membership. I'm sure the Scottish Govt have been working behind the scenes for a while, reading small print and legalities on a possible Brexit scenario ( as evidenced by the fact Nicola Strugeon knew exactly what she was going to do the morning the vote was in ).

Like I say, an ambitious strategy and may not fly. But then, these are uncertain times anyway. So worth a go. Sturgeon has been very keen to emphasise that she's starting from the position of Scotland staying... not leaving and reapplying. I suspect something like the below is being examined for possiblities.

Although Article 50 TEU only prescribes the procedure for a Member State (e.g. the UK) to leave the EU, this provision can also serve to govern the withdrawal of only a part of a state (e.g. England, Wales and Northern-Ireland) and as a legal basis to keep an independent Scotland in the EU in the context of a Brexit – under the condition that there is a political consensus for this among the three parties involved (i.e. the EU, Scotland and the UK minus Scotland). The negotiations foreseen in Article 50 TEU would then have two main aims: defining the EU’s relationship with the UK (minus Scotland) post-Brexit and adapting the terms of the UK’s EU membership to Scotland (i.e. adjusting them to Scotland’s size). While under international law, Scotland would become a new legal entity, in the EU legal order it could remain being regarded as the Member State that joined in 1973.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/a-brexit-could-make-it-easier-for-scotland-to-join-the-eu-as-an-independent-state/

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The people we need to establish deals with are the EU member states. None of whom will talk to us until Article 50.

We export more to Luxembourg than we do to India.

What many people who haven't lived and worked in the East don't realise is that the UK because of its past has a very hard time gaining traction at government level there and many of our main exports are approved at government level (Finance and Defence).

The Indians had a grand old time almost buying the Eurofighter and then switching to the French equivalent. There were a lot of news items about how David Cameron himself (who had spent two weeks looking bewildered as part of a UK trade delegation) had begged the Indian government for the acquisition.

The East is not an easy market for us. The US and EU is, or was.

We now dont have a trade agreement with either of them.

There are positives and negatives but India as a particular example are not completely closed to the idea.

https://next.ft.com/content/d35362a0-3c57-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0

I see no reason to bow down to Junker, they were unwilling to negotiate a deal which would see us remain in the EU and they are unwilling to negotiate prior to issuing article 50. So we must now get our affairs in order. Negotiate with the world, issue article 50, negotiate with the EU and ratify everything. In that order.

We must look to the rest of the world for trade if the EU is going to become an obstacle after the referendum, instead of clinging to some hope of stopping article 50 by dividing the nation.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Uncharted waters, there are no 'rules'. A member leaving the Eu is unprecedented. So don't get too hung up on anything which 'must' or 'must not' happen. Because you don't know.

Imo Sturgeon and the Scottish Govt will try to inherit the UK's membership. I'm sure the Scottish Govt have been working behind the scenes for a while, reading small print and legalities on a possible Brexit scenario ( as evidenced by the fact Nicola Strugeon knew exactly what she was going to do the morning the vote was in ).

Like I say, an ambitious strategy and may not fly. But then, these are uncertain times anyway. So worth a go. Sturgeon has been very keen to emphasise that she's starting from the position of Scotland staying... not leaving and reapplying. I suspect something like the below is being examined for possiblities.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/a-brexit-could-make-it-easier-for-scotland-to-join-the-eu-as-an-independent-state/

What Nicola is implying is that this

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland-commission-idUKKCN0ZB0LA

never took place.

Scotland wants to negotiate with the EU prior to article 50. Junker has banned all EU institutions doing this.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/684044/Brexit-EU-boss-Jean-Claude-Juncker-Britain-Article-50-Nigel-Farage-EU-referendum-Ukip

All the evidence stacks up against Sturgeons position.

The UK is the member, not Scotland. A vague interpretation of article 50 doesn't change that and Westminster retains legislative supremacy, whether the Scottish parliament likes that or not.


Scotland will have to become independent first it seems. And that raises ugly questions around currency for sure. A supplicant to sterling or the euro?

ruggedtoast

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

There are positives and negatives but India as a particular example are not completely closed to the idea.

https://next.ft.com/content/d35362a0-3c57-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0

I see no reason to bow down to Junker, they were unwilling to negotiate a deal which would see us remain in the EU and they are unwilling to negotiate prior to issuing article 50. So we must now get our affairs in order. Negotiate with the world, issue article 50, negotiate with the EU and ratify everything. In that order.

We must look to the rest of the world for trade if the EU is going to become an obstacle after the referendum, instead of clinging to some hope of stopping article 50 by dividing the nation.

The nation is already divided. I would rather it be divided and I can still pay my mortgage.

Nothing the leave campaign offered can be delivered upon. There is no £350 million a week. There will be no reduction in immigration. We will be worse off financially. The UK will break up. It is not possible to sign any trade deals more advantageous than the ones we have now.

Is that what people actually want?

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

What Nicola is implying is that this

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland-commission-idUKKCN0ZB0LA

never took place.

Scotland wants to negotiate with the EU prior to article 50. Junker has banned all EU institutions doing this.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/684044/Brexit-EU-boss-Jean-Claude-Juncker-Britain-Article-50-Nigel-Farage-EU-referendum-Ukip

All the evidence stacks up against Sturgeons position.

The UK is the member, not Scotland. A vague interpretation of article 50 doesn't change that and Westminster retains legislative supremacy, whether the Scottish parliament likes that or not.


Scotland will have to become independent first it seems. And that raises ugly questions around currency for sure. A supplicant to sterling or the euro?

She lands in Brussels tomorrow. I think Juncker might have been referring to UK Westminster representatives.

Colin Mackay ‏@STVColin 55m55 minutes ago First Minister @NicolaSturgeon heading to Brussels tomorrow for meetings with senior Eurocrats

.@NicolaSturgeon meeting European Parliament President Martin Shultz. Expects to meet Juncker soon

Colin Mackay ‏@STVColin 53m53 minutes ago
.@NicolaSturgeon also meeting Guy Verhofstadt leader of the Liberals in Euro Parly tomorrow

Scotland won't be leaving the EU without a fight I'm afraid. And like I say, it's only my own opinion that she'll be seeking to make sure that Scotland won't be included if Article 50 is invoked. Negotiating instead to stay and perhaps take over the UK's membership ( with large modifications ).

Shakethedisease

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The nation is already divided. I would rather it be divided and I can still pay my mortgage.

Nothing the leave campaign offered can be delivered upon. There is no £350 million a week. There will be no reduction in immigration. We will be worse off financially. The UK will break up. It is not possible to sign any trade deals more advantageous than the ones we have now.

Is that what people actually want?

I honestly think there's a good chance there will be a row back or some sort of fudge done. But who knows.