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

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

See I read this and in particular this stood out in the context of iScotland:

I highlighted the part I'm questioning in bold.

Then there's the monitoring and assessment phase, which Scotland would surely need to go through too. Especially since iScotland would be unable to prove they had price stability, sustainable public finances and external accounts.

Scotland isn't looking to join as a new country.

And on the topic of the LSE's interpretation, that's all it is. The LSE have stated in that particular excerpt that

But this really isn't the case, they appear to be clutching at straws. When the president of the EU Council and heads of state within the council tell you this isn't the case and the LSE interpret the rules to say that it might be possible, surely it's more relevant that the guys in charge of the EU, those who make the rules, are correct rather than someone interpreting the EU's own rules differently to the EU themselves?

It's all in the Article 50 negotiations. At some point IF they ever go ahead, Scotland will hold a referendum and then will ask to be removed from reference to Article 50, possibly NI as well. Article 50 is for counties leaving. It's Articles 48 and 49 that are used for joining. I doubt Scotland will be asked to invoke either.

An advisory can be held, for sure. But there is no legal mechanism to enforce the PM or anyone else to recognise it.

Well at least you recognise that Holyrood can call a referendum so that's progress. Westminster can recognise it or not. But not recognising it wouldn't help matters much.

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Article 1 of the UN Charter.

Pretty much why triggering article 50 would probably require an act of parliament in order to make it happen. I would be surprised if we (the UK) invoked article 50 without an act of parliament.

Brexit means Brexit though. It's becoming increasing clear though that if those that fought for a Leave vote are now backing off scared of what they've unleashed.

It's certainly possible that EFTA may not, it's unlikely as the bloc will want to trade with us as much as we want to trade with them. It doesn't seem sensible to raise tariff barriers at all. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen but the sensible approach would be to agree a deal involving single market membership and all that entails.

And I would have thought that anyone with a stake in Scotland would be all about the detail, particularly the economic detail. Everyone pretty much knows what the EU is about politically, and iScotland will be subservient to the EU in the same way the UK is at the moment. The greatest unknown would be the economic detail. If GERS is incorrect as you say then that's a problem for the EU accession criteria (see above), if GERS is correct (even with a degree of inaccuracy) they highlight glaring problems with the public finances, again a problem for the EU accession criteria.

Scotland won't be asking for to join via Article 48 or 49, nor will Scotland want to be included in leaving via Article 50. These are unprecedented times, and there are no rules to follow. This is all new ground.

So unless there's an answer for the public finances (tax increase/spending cuts/magic sofa money) iScotland may not be automatically guaranteed EU membership as many appear to think they would.

We'll see. These are all coming up on my twitter feed just now. So you never know. :cool:

Michael Roth MdB ‏@MiRo_SPD 3h3 hours ago A very warm welcome to Berlin! Fruitful talks with #Scotland's First Minister @NicolaSturgeon, a committed European.

Philip Oltermann ‏@philipoltermann 2h2 hours ago Looks like German foreign office managed to clear a date in their diary for Sturgeon ahead of Johnson, Davis or Fox

Michael Gray ‏@GrayInGlasgow 3h3 hours ago The vice-chancellor of Germany @sigmargabriel has said that an independent Scotland would be welcome in the European Union

JOHN NICOLSON M.P. Verified account ‏@MrJohnNicolson JOHN NICOLSON M.P. Retweeted Kevin O'Donnell
Not so. Both Gunther Krichbaum and Sigmar Gabriel have now explicitly said Scotland would be welcomed.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland isn't looking to join as a new country.

It's all in the Article 50 negotiations. At some point IF they ever go ahead, Scotland will hold a referendum and then will ask to be removed from reference to Article 50, possibly NI as well. Article 50 is for counties leaving. It's Articles 48 and 49 that are used for joining. I doubt Scotland will be asked to invoke either.

Well at least you recognise that Holyrood can call a referendum so that's progress. Westminster can recognise it or not. But not recognising it wouldn't help matters much.

Article 1 of the UN Charter.

Brexit means Brexit though. It's becoming increasing clear though that if those that fought for a Leave vote are now backing off scared of what they've unleashed.

Scotland won't be asking for to join via Article 48 or 49, nor will Scotland want to be included in leaving via Article 50. These are unprecedented times, and there are no rules to follow. This is all new ground.

We'll see. These are all coming up on my twitter feed just now. So you never know. :cool:

Article 50 applies to the UK. For it not to apply to Scotland, you'll need to be independent. Reverse Greenland wouldn't work for the EU constitutionally, as the UK parliament has supremacy over Holyrood and would have a veto on the EU council by proxy.

There is only a slim chance that something can be worked out and the rules bent to allow Scotland to remain without first having to leave the EU.

It would require the EU to circumvent their own rules around accession as Scotland would not be the UK, the economics will differ and you won't have the ability to alter GBP like the UK does, a brand new currency does not equal stability of price either (another criterion of EU membership). Plus if that were the case you would inherit all the UK's current concessions, the French might have something to say about that one. I can't see the EU giving Scotland special treatment like that, the other newly joined members would have a right to feel aggrieved by this treatment too, so it may not even pass a majority vote if it even gets that far.

Out of all the possible permutations it's the least likely to happen isn't it.

And yes, the UN charter would be an avenue to go down if you held a referendum and it wasn't recognised by the UK government. However that could be contested legally and it could take a long time to sort out, with no guarantee of success.

It's no use picking a position and sticking to it absolutely, such as you're doing, when the position you've picked is the absolute best possible outcome of a potential unknown, and to pull it off a series of unprecedented events in the history of the UK and the EU must take place in order to achieve it many of them with low probability. Whilst we live in 'uncertain times' or 'uncharted waters', it's still slightly unreasonable to hold such a position so staunchly without recognising the probable pitfalls that await iScotland.

It would be nice to see some pragmatism.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Article 50 applies to the UK.

It does. But if Scotland votes to leave the UK then it only applies to the parts that want to leave.

For it not to apply to Scotland, you'll need to be independent.

Yes, that's right.

Reverse Greenland wouldn't work for the EU constitutionally, as the UK parliament has supremacy over Holyrood and would have a veto on the EU council by proxy.

There is only a slim chance that something can be worked out and the rules bent to allow Scotland to remain without first having to leave the EU.

There are no rules. Article 50 has never been enacted before. What makes you think that you know better than anyone else what the rules are ?

Scotland as it stands, does not want to be part of Article 50.

It would require the EU to circumvent their own rules around accession as Scotland would not be the UK, the economics will differ and you won't have the ability to alter GBP like the UK does, a brand new currency does not equal stability of price either (another criterion of EU membership). Plus if that were the case you would inherit all the UK's current concessions, the French might have something to say about that one. I can't see the EU giving Scotland special treatment like that, the other newly joined members would have a right to feel aggrieved by this treatment too, so it may not even pass a majority vote if it even gets that far.

Out of all the possible permutations it's the least likely to happen isn't it.

There are no rules for this. You're wishful thinking.

And yes, the UN charter would be an avenue to go down if you held a referendum and it wasn't recognised by the UK government. However that could be contested legally and it could take a long time to sort out, with no guarantee of success.

It's no use picking a position and sticking to it absolutely, such as you're doing, when the position you've picked is the absolute best possible outcome of a potential unknown, and to pull it off a series of unprecedented events in the history of the UK and the EU must take place in order to achieve it many of them with low probability. Whilst we live in 'uncertain times' or 'uncharted waters', it's still slightly unreasonable to hold such a position so staunchly without recognising the probable pitfalls that await iScotland.

It would be nice to see some pragmatism.

But I think I am being pragmatic and perhaps it's others that are over complicating things where there is no reason to.

1) Brexit vote

2) Article 50 triggered.

3) Scotland has referendum and ( hopefully ) votes for independence.

4) England and Wales leave the EU.

5) Scotland doesn't.

Where's the problem or lack of pragmatism there ? In essence you think the EU will cause Scotland problems in remaining. I don't. And you've never fully explained why you think the EU wouldn't want Scotland to remain within it. Except for rules you think already exist in a situation that has never faced the EU before.

Even the fact that Sturgeon was in Berlin today having a meeting with German minsters who were then openly tweeting about 'warm welcome's' and committed Europeans is totally changed days from 2014. The fact that the meeting took place at all is significant in itself. Direct and not through Westminster, that's a first.

Mistermeaner

As a minimum I would expect the EU to require Scotland to be independently fiscally sound before 'remaining' in the above scenario (to avoid inheriting another Greece)

Here in lies the rub, and also the issue with separation from england and wales.

All of the economic arguments against Scotland leaving england: primarily having what would be a huge budget deficit, but also all the issues around currency etc - all of which have never been answered (both during the into ref, in the years since and not least on this thread) - would need to be addressed other wise the EU would just end up as the new england in funding Scottish spending policies where its tax policy does not match.

Why would the EU want scotland?

Add to this the fact that if the EU is to 'punish' England at all for brexit (and cut off its nose a little in the process) the impact for an EU Scotland would be huge due to its reliance on england for trade.

As with all your arguments shake you are noit able to address the basic high level principles of iscotlands finances - it spends more than it earns. Without England Scots would suffer significant financial hardship.

elantan

Mistermeaner wrote: »

As a minimum I would expect the EU to require Scotland to be independently fiscally sound before 'remaining' in the above scenario (to avoid inheriting another Greece)

Here in lies the rub, and also the issue with separation from england and wales.

All of the economic arguments against Scotland leaving england: primarily having what would be a huge budget deficit, but also all the issues around currency etc - all of which have never been answered (both during the into ref, in the years since and not least on this thread) - would need to be addressed other wise the EU would just end up as the new england in funding Scottish spending policies where its tax policy does not match.

Why would the EU want scotland?

Add to this the fact that if the EU is to 'punish' England at all for brexit (and cut off its nose a little in the process) the impact for an EU Scotland would be huge due to its reliance on england for trade.

As with all your arguments shake you are noit able to address the basic high level principles of iscotlands finances - it spends more than it earns. Without England Scots would suffer significant financial hardship.

Your making this a Scotland/ England arguement .... try not to muddy the already muddy waters ... it isn't a Scotland V's England arguement ... much as some people try and make out it is

Mistermeaner

No I'm not. Did you read the post?

elantan

Yes ... you said Scotland leaving England ... Scotland does not belong to England ... much as you may wish bit did

TrickyTree83

Looks like you're turning it into Scotland vs England, using words like 'belong' and claiming he wishes Scotland did belong to England.

ash28

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It does. But if Scotland votes to leave the UK then it only applies to the parts that want to leave.

Yes, that's right.

There are no rules. Article 50 has never been enacted before. What makes you think that you know better than anyone else what the rules are ?

Scotland as it stands, does not want to be part of Article 50.

There are no rules for this. You're wishful thinking.

But I think I am being pragmatic and perhaps it's others that are over complicating things where there is no reason to.

1) Brexit vote

2) Article 50 triggered.

3) Scotland has referendum and ( hopefully ) votes for independence.

4) England and Wales leave the EU.

5) Scotland doesn't.

Where's the problem or lack of pragmatism there ? In essence you think the EU will cause Scotland problems in remaining. I don't. And you've never fully explained why you think the EU wouldn't want Scotland to remain within it. Except for rules you think already exist in a situation that has never faced the EU before.

Even the fact that Sturgeon was in Berlin today having a meeting with German minsters who were then openly tweeting about 'warm welcome's' and committed Europeans is totally changed days from 2014. The fact that the meeting took place at all is significant in itself. Direct and not through Westminster, that's a first.

Regardless of what you would like to happen the chances are it won't happen in the way you want. Nicola Sturgeon met with Michael Roth
yesterday, one of the German foreign minister's underlings and for me the most telling thing he said was:

"I hope that the UK finds a way forward that will benefit Europe as a whole in the end"

The rest was just fluff.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/nicola-sturgeon-hailed-as-dedicated-pro-european-in-berlin-1-4198631

Ms Sturgeon did an interview on Tagesthemen yesterday, the interviewer mentioned the fact Ms Sturgeon didn't meet with any important people and also mentioned Spain would block any move. However, Ms Sturgeon said independence was only one option. Same old tag lines.....

https://twitter.com/tagesthemen/status/763062307584827392

Shakethedisease

Mistermeaner wrote: »

As a minimum I would expect the EU to require Scotland to be independently fiscally sound before 'remaining' in the above scenario (to avoid inheriting another Greece)

Here in lies the rub, and also the issue with separation from england and wales.

All of the economic arguments against Scotland leaving england: primarily having what would be a huge budget deficit, but also all the issues around currency etc - all of which have never been answered (both during the into ref, in the years since and not least on this thread) - would need to be addressed other wise the EU would just end up as the new england in funding Scottish spending policies where its tax policy does not match.

Why would the EU want scotland?

Add to this the fact that if the EU is to 'punish' England at all for brexit (and cut off its nose a little in the process) the impact for an EU Scotland would be huge due to its reliance on england for trade.

As with all your arguments shake you are noit able to address the basic high level principles of iscotlands finances - it spends more than it earns. Without England Scots would suffer significant financial hardship.

I've posted screeds of stuff and links to articles discussing Scotland's finances over the last 3 or 4 years. Most of which are simply dismissed as coming from pro-independence sources and therefore not worth consideration. I gave up on that front long ago.

The currency question is under review. It's looking like Scotland will go for it's own next time round, with a transitional peg to Sterling short term. Both the SNP and the Greens are launching independence drives this autumn. The Greens wanted a new currency last time.

A SECOND campaign for independence is to be launched this autumn with a mass mail drop and social media push presenting a new case to voters created in the wake of the European Union referendum turmoil.The Scottish Greens are behind the ambitious initiative, drawn up under the banner of Green Yes2, which is being planned ahead of talks between the party leadership and the First Minister in Edinburgh.
Leaflets, posters and social media graphics to be deployed are being designed with the key focus on “the democratic deficit” existing in the UK and the lack of stability Britain faces following the Brexit vote on 23 June.

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/fresh-case-for-scottish-independence-to-be-launched-in-the-autumn.20995


So I guess there will be some answers there. As for remaining in the EU. As stated before is looking like either splitting with the UK OR splitting with the EU is going to cause significant financial hardship whatever happens. So any independence campaign will no doubt concentrate positioning itself as the lesser of two very bad choices in the wake of the Brexit vote. But one that has to be made.
The EU will play a large part in swaying that referendum either way depending on their position. All those No voting farmers last time. What will they do if asked again.