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

.string.

abz88 wrote: »

Except its not a union of equals. Certain policies require a unanimous vote (which means 1 member can effectively veto the vote of everyone else) and on other issues proposed by the Commission or the EU's High Representative there is the double majority rule that requires 55 % of the members of the Council vote in favour (i.e. 16 out of 28); and the members of the Council voting in favour represent EU countries representing at least 65 % of the total EU population (which gives more of a say to countries with a larger population eg German, France, Italy, UK (not now) and Spain).

When the Council votes on a proposal not coming from the Commission or the High Representative it needs "at least 72 % of Council members vote in favor and they represent at least 65 % of the EU population." (again, favoring larger countries due to population size)

Yes all relevant.

The Council of Ministers does not subscribe to the idea of a collection of equal nations; but then, some might say that the European Parliament allows for individual EMP votes to count in that august body, and surely Scotland's voice will be loud and clear.(as the SNP bedazzled imagine).

I really can't be bothered to work out the exact numbers, but no doubt enthusiasts of the European advantage for Scotland will be pleased to do so, or will they also not bother, not because of my reason of not researching the obvious, but being afraid to admit to the democratic disadvantage Scotland would face.

In the UK Parliament *% of MPs are Scottish, whereas in the European Parliament *% would be Scottish. Please someone fill in the *s to show the relevant Scottish influence in Europe is wonderfully enhanced in the EU

Not that the European "Parliament" is relevant.

Contrast the need for the Government in the UK to get Parliamentary approval for Brexit etc. with the indiference of the Council of Ministers to get approval from the EU Parliament before signing on the dotted line.

The Council of Ministers just takes a Rubber Stamp from the EU Parliament for granted. That Parliament is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

... and so would Natland.

By the way, for those who have not met, or chosen to forget the name, Natland is what the SNP are aiming for, not Scotland, but a mythical "Natland" where money continues to flow from a oil, which is rapidly becoming a to-be-avoided industry peddling a surplus commodity, where support from the UK continues unabated (culturally, trade, and, yes money) , where deficit magically vanishes without huge tax increases over several years, and where debts are magicked away, and where Scotland's influence is merged into the much greater good of the bulk of Europe.

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

That cannot happen. Scotland is not a member of the eu. And before you say we are leaving NI in the eu, that is purely for the transition period.

Nothing would have stopped England leaving Britain (and the EU) whilst leaving Britain in the EU.


NI is going to be aligned to the EU forever unless someone can square that circle.

abz88

[QUOTE=Herzlos;76761554]Nothing would have stopped England leaving Britain (and the EU) whilst leaving Britain in the EU.[/QUOTE]

Technically, England (and Wales) could have left the UK while leaving the rest of the UK (Scotland and N. Ireland) in the EU. However, for that to happen there would have had to have been two independence votes (one for Wales and one for England) as well as/prior to/after the EU referendum.

Essentially 2 UK countries voted out and 2 voted in. The fact the larger country voting out swayed the balance is no different from the way Germany can push the EU in a certain way more than Malta can.

Again, there is no true Union of Equals anywhere, as they simply don't work!

Fran_Klee

Herzlos wrote: »

Nothing would have stopped England leaving Britain (and the EU) whilst leaving Britain in the EU.


NI is going to be aligned to the EU forever unless someone can square that circle.

I don't know if it's intentional or not but you're really funny.

For the first there's the little matter of the EU and while it's very nice that you try to make the rules up for them, you need to remember that England and the counties that make up the United Kingdom agreed upon a referendum in the HoP so that the whole UK is (for now) still part of the EU and must play by their rules.
Since the referendum was agreed by UK member countries compliant with EU requirements and no argument was put forward before the referendum, it's a little bit late to be saying "but".
You didn't tell either the rUK or the EU of your possible intent to stay beforehand.

For the last, it's looking likely that NI is only going to be aligned with the EU until the end of the transition period, i.e. until the end of this year.
Unless the EU reach a trade deal which would make continuing alignment either necessary or practical.
At the moment the chances of that aren't exactly great.


The argument you're trying falls down because it is unworkable.
So 2 (minor) parts of a 4-way union wanted something else?
What about the divisions within those parts - the counties within the countries?
What about the towns within the counties?
As you can see, at the most polite it is problematic; I can just see Scotland being divided into two with the southern counties and some islands wanting to remain in the union.
If the independence group insist on going their own way, how will they cope with that?

Shakethedisease

Fran_Klee wrote: »

I don't know if it's intentional or not but you're really funny.

For the first there's the little matter of the EU and while it's very nice that you try to make the rules up for them, you need to remember that England and the counties that make up the United Kingdom agreed upon a referendum in the HoP so that the whole UK is (for now) still part of the EU and must play by their rules.
Since the referendum was agreed by UK member countries compliant with EU requirements and no argument was put forward before the referendum, it's a little bit late to be saying "but".
You didn't tell either the rUK or the EU of your possible intent to stay beforehand.

For the last, it's looking likely that NI is only going to be aligned with the EU until the end of the transition period, i.e. until the end of this year.
Unless the EU reach a trade deal which would make continuing alignment either necessary or practical.
At the moment the chances of that aren't exactly great.


The argument you're trying falls down because it is unworkable.
So 2 (minor) parts of a 4-way union wanted something else?
What about the divisions within those parts - the counties within the countries?
What about the towns within the counties?
As you can see, at the most polite it is problematic; I can just see Scotland being divided into two with the southern counties and some islands wanting to remain in the union.
If the independence group insist on going their own way, how will they cope with that?

If the SNP have any sense they'll go for EFTA membership first rather than full EU. There's been a lot of 'visits' to Norway by MSP's. So I do think it's a path they'll seriously consider following. It neutralises the all 'hard border' carp and the CFP stuff. And also brings Yes/Leave voters back into the picture.


As for 'divisions' within Scotland re counties, towns or islands wanting to stay in the UK. The arguments you're using above are total nonsense. What legally went in to the UK with Scotland will absolutely come out with it upon independence. ALL of it. Any 'area' that wishes to stay in the UK are free to set up their own political party and campaign on the issue in Holyrood. Once they have built sufficent support, only then would 'independence/remain' in Dumfries and Galloway or wherever become a political consideration. Worth remembering at this point though, that it took the SNP the best part of 86 years...

Moe_The_Bartender

”
If the SNP have any sense they'll go for EFTA membership first rather than full EU. There's been a lot of 'visits' to Norway by MSP's. So I do think it's a path they'll seriously consider following. It neutralises the all 'hard border' carp and the CFP stuff. And also brings Yes/Leave voters back into the picture.

Don’t you think you might be jumping the gun a bit?

zagubov

EFTA turned up at a lot of SNP conferences. The UK and lots of other countries used it as a waiting room for EEC membership many moons ago. No restrictions on currencies (two of its members share the Swiss Franc) or need to join the euro. No restrictions on travel areas Norway and Iceland are in the Nordic Passport Union as well as Schengen, and Switzerland and Leightenstein have open borders and customs union and share consular services abroad.

Why it's not being seen as a more accessible short-term (and maybe more long-term) location for Scotland, or for that matter the UK seems like a wasted opportunity.

abz88

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If the SNP have any sense they'll go for EFTA membership first rather than full EU. There's been a lot of 'visits' to Norway by MSP's. So I do think it's a path they'll seriously consider following. It neutralises the all 'hard border' carp and the CFP stuff. And also brings Yes/Leave voters back into the picture.

They should probably focus on trying to figure out how to get an IndyRef2 first. Especially as their manifesto specifically said they had to have a legal transfer of powers for it to be meaningful, especially for the EU. And then trying to figure out how to swing the last vote 5.6% in their favour, especially considering they didn't get more than 50% of the votes at the last election (and before you bring up first past the post, that's not how a referendum would work, they need more than 50% of the vote.) Actually a mandate for another referendum would probably be the best starting point, something they are missing.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As for 'divisions' within Scotland re counties, towns or islands wanting to stay in the UK. The arguments you're using above are total nonsense. What legally went in to the UK with Scotland will absolutely come out with it upon independence. ALL of it. Any 'area' that wishes to stay in the UK are free to set up their own political party and campaign on the issue in Holyrood. Once they have built sufficent support, only then would 'independence/remain' in Dumfries and Galloway or wherever become a political consideration. Worth remembering at this point though, that it took the SNP the best part of 86 years...

What legally went into the EU as the UK will absolutely come out with it in Brexit, all of it! The SNP and Indy supporters are trying to force another vote precisely because they don't like that statement, but are fine to use the same statement to rip out parts of Scotland that want to remain? Completely hypocritical and "nonsensical"
Take Orkney and Sheltand, they have NEVER returned a vote for the SNP, they have had Unionist party candidates for longer than the SNP has been a party! They returned the largest No vote in the last IndyRef and have shown no signs of changing this point. They don't need to campaign to remain in the UK as they have been voting that way for over 200 years and clearly have "sufficient support"

zagubov

The SNP must have resurged in the polls in Scotland, seeing as how the unionists only ever pretend to be concerned about Shetland when Scotland's getting close to the emergency exit.

Pockets of Tories in Perthshire and labour voters in the Gorbals are magically immune to this heartwarming sympathy and concern.

abz88

zagubov wrote: »

The SNP must have resurged in the polls in Scotland, seeing as how the unionists only ever pretend to be concerned about Shetland when Scotland's getting close to the emergency exit.

Pockets of Tories in Perthshire and labour voters in the Gorbals are magically immune to this heartwarming sympathy and concern.

All of the borders, the north, Orkney and Shetland and the majority of the North East, so not just "pockets of Tories in Perthshire". All Unionists returning constituencies that don't want Indy and don't see the benefits of a central belt centred Scotland compared to a London centred UK.

No one thinks Scotland is getting close to an emergency exit, bar a few extreme nationalists.