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

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Maybe so. But you bleat constantly about Westminster Tory imposed austerity. Difficult to see how Brussels austerity differs. Not a pic 'n mix where you can choose the bits you like. May well undermine the SNP's plans to compete with the UK.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/node/4287/

That isn't a barrier to EU membership. I fail to understand why these myths regarding deficits/EU membership and Scotland 'having' to join the Euro after all this time are still being pushed as if they are fact.

They aren't. It's well past time to admit that they are myths instead of repeating them.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're funny too. What fiscal membership rules ? And who's joining the Euro ? Did you really vote the Leave the EU on an informed basis or on the basis of newspaper spin because I'm beginning to wonder with respect, just how informed you are about the EU.

Fiscal rules are for joining the Eurozone. If Scotland does have deficit issues then a deficit reduction plan will be negotiated. But a deficit is no barrier in itself to EU membership.
The Euro, can be deferred indefinitely by not voluntarily participating in the ERM. Many countries haven't erm volunteered yet and are still EU members.

Did you really not know about the above ? Serious question.

Have a look at the rules and policy for Euro use and EU membership post 2020.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Have a look at the rules and policy for Euro use and EU membership post 2020.

Scotland ( hypothetically ) would only just be dealing with getting it's own new currency up and running. Very difficult to see where 'joining the Euro' after firstly participating for two full and stable years in the ERM would come into play at all within the next 5 to even 10 years.

I think you're clutching at straws here. Both on membership, given what has recently been said from various areas of the EU and on Scotland having to join the Euro.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland ( hypothetically ) would only just be dealing with getting it's own new currency up and running. Very difficult to see where 'joining the Euro' after firstly participating for two full and stable years in the ERM would come into play at all within the next 5 to even 10 years.

I think you're clutching at straws here. Both on membership, given what has recently been said from various areas of the EU and on Scotland having to join the Euro.

In a hypothetical scenario of an independent Scotland with its own currency, yes Scotland would only just be getting to grips with that.

If as Theresa May has suggested that the next independence referendum take place after 2019, the timeline becomes fraught with difficulty for the independence supporter.

Membership of the EU (certainly post 2020) comes with baggage. It comes with a mandatory (not deferred promise) commitment to join the Eurozone. By that time the amount of EU member states that do not use the Euro will be counted on one hand out of 27/28+ members. There might be a transitional period involved but it certainly wouldn't be that of the current membership who have deferred for decades after a promise to move or having never given an explicit "No" to the Euro (such as the UK situation prior to 23rd June 2016).

Articles 139 and 140 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union state that accession members will have to use the Euro. The only exceptions to this are members with what they call a derogation, such as the UK. The argument as I understood was previously that Scotland would inherit the UK's membership status and therefore its derogation of the Euro (which was not indefinite). However it's recently come to light and it appears everyone including the SNP and Nicola agree that Scotland would be a new EU member, an accession country, inheriting no derogation rights. The reason for my mentioning 2020 is that there is agreement from most EU members to use the Euro by that point, only countries who have an opt-out or (derogation) will not and new opt-outs are not being allowed.

The fiscal rules on EU membership are quite clear. They're on the EU website, of course they can (and have priors for this) bend or break the rules for Scotland. The European Fiscal Compact (odd name) stipulates the 3% GDP deficit as a rule for Eurozone membership. So since Eurozone membership is a must for accession members, certainly post 2020, Scotland will not inherit the UK's derogation and the European Fiscal Compact states that new members must adhere to certain rules and targets either iScotland will comply and raise taxes/lower spending to do so or iScotland will not be allowed to join the EU without the EU yet again breaking its own rules.

Edit: I understood what you were saying and why, the current circumstances of current EU members would lead people to believe that what you said, about promising to join and deferring to be allowed. But reading the treaties (sad and boring, but sometimes necessary) shows this to not be the case.

The countries you cite as examples of those not joining the Euro are because they were previously given the derogation (opt-out) option. That's not happening now as stipulated by article 139 and 140 of TFEU (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT) the whole argument against automatic adoption of the Euro in the independence debate centres around inheriting this derogation right, but there will be no inheritance it would need to be negotiated separately and supposedly by unanimous decision as others have gone through this process and had to comply where iScotland would be asking for that to be waived.

I hope that's clear enough for you that I do understand the process and for iScotland what is at stake. It would appear that EEA/EFTA membership would be the best iScotland could hope for post independence until the deficit is resolved to at or below 3%, or the EU ignores its own treaties for the accession of iScotland.

And of course we all know from the EU referendum debates that EEA/EFTA membership would be "democracy by facsimile" as the Norwegians put it. Going from having a say in Westminster to having none in the EEA/EFTA. Not to mention - that's not what Scot's apparently voted for according to Nicola, the SNP, pro-independence supporters, etc... They voted for "Scotland" to stay in the EU (apparently).

Too Long Didn't Read: Look at article 139 and 140 of the "Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union". Opt-outs are no longer allowed and must be inherited, and recently everyone (including the SNP) have acknowledged that iScotland would be a new EU member state who would have to comply with accession rules. Which means:

- must join the Euro
- must comply with the European Fiscal Compact
- would not have a derogation/opt-out/promissory note or any other derivative of "not joining the Euro straight away"

cogito

Hammer. Nail. Head.

one of the biggest problems for an independent Scotland though is that to fund their deficit, they would have to borrow money from someone and who will that be and how much interest would they have to pay? We can guess that they might try to negotiate a transitional arrangement with the UK (in which case there should only be one answer) to enable them to negotiate a transitional arrangement to join the EU using the EEA/EFTA route.

IveSeenTheLight

To your points below

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ah.
It would appear that you are a prevaricator then. I would suggest that your perception of the appearance is incorrect. I am not a prevaricator, I'm simply stating my opinion and offering debate on points. Indeed you are taking the prevaricator position by stating your opinion as a fact rather than a point of debate
May I very politely suggest you re-read before replying to a post?
I would suggest likewise

Firstly because nowhere have I said or suggested that you asked a question; my "No" was a response to your entire post.A very prevarication statement in a debate
Which like others you have posted, including the one above are incorrect in their entirety.I politely disagree and suggest the points succinctly instead of simply dismissing them in their entirety without offering any salient points of differing view on the matter

Another because it is so sad to see a response in debate which includes the by now tired phrase "An unelected Pm".
Please clarify if you would how any British PM is elected?
Its very simple. A PM is elected when they stand for an election as party leader at that time. Theresa May has not yet done so. I had more faith and trust in Cameron that I do of May. I trust you accept that the leader of a party can influence decisions in the voting booth. On that basis, Theresa May will remain an unelected PM until she stands as the party leader at the next GE. P.S. I understand she won the vote of the conservative MP's, but my point was from the whole electorate

So I sadly draw the conclusion that you are another poster who attempts to drown out debate by use of multiple and largely irrelevant posts.Conclude as you like. I think you fear persons who have a differing opinion to yourself. If I had your mindset, I might conclude that it was very dictatorship minded of you.
Not unusual in this thread where you are in good company.
Fortunately enough of us are usually available to neutralise the intended effects of this. LOL, there are no intended effects, just good open debate. State your point, debate saliently and have an educated and open minded view

Good day sir

IveSeenTheLight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Get over yourself AMSJ you're chatting on a forum not trying to negotiate a peace process at the UN lol. :rotfl:

ISTL I'm afraid there are some posters here that enjoy deviating from the topic and issues at hand in favour of potting at individual posters and posting styles rather than really debating anything of any substance. Even to the extent of starting threads for other forum members to pass judgement about them.

Tiresome in the extreme but there you go. But threads like these would never last long if everyone stooped into personal grievance. You know the way it is having been a poster here for several years already, but a heads up just in case.

I see that.
This forum has not changed in the couple of years I have been away.
Maybe only some users or usernames have changed.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

. If Scotland does have deficit issues then a deficit reduction plan will be negotiated. ...

A 9.5% fiscal deficit requires immediate action. Either this hypothetical independent Scotland implements the necessary tax increases and/or spending cuts to get it under control, or it defaults and and implements the necessary tax increases and/or spending cuts ordered by the IMF.

The EU already has one Greece. It doesn't want another one.:)

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..ISTL I'm afraid there are some posters here that enjoy deviating from the topic and issues at hand in favour of potting at individual posters and posting styles rather than really debating anything of any substance..

And you would be that poster.:)

You constantly avoid debating anything of any substance at all.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

... Which means:

- must join the Euro
- must comply with the European Fiscal Compact
- would not have a derogation/opt-out/promissory note or any other derivative of "not joining the Euro straight away"

You are correct. But you are probably wasting your time trying to explain such things to the shaking one.

P.S. Although I would point out that "EEA/EFTA membership" isn't some easy option. EFTA membership, assuming this hypothetical independent Scotland's application was accepted, only grants the right to apply for EEA membership. Which means reaching agreement with the other 27 EU/EEA members, being the same 27 countries that you would need to reach agreement with to sign up for the EU itself.

The only point in going down the EEA/EFTA route would be if this
hypothetical independent Scotland wanted to avoid signing up for the CAP and CFP.

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

And you would be that poster.:)

You constantly avoid debating anything of any substance at all.



You are correct. But you are probably wasting your time trying to explain such things to the shaking one.

P.S. Although I would point out that "EEA/EFTA membership" isn't some easy option. EFTA membership, assuming this hypothetical independent Scotland's application was accepted, only grants the right to apply for EEA membership. Which means reaching agreement with the other 27 EU/EEA members, being the same 27 countries that you would need to reach agreement with to sign up for the EU itself.

The only point in going down the EEA/EFTA route would be if this
hypothetical independent Scotland wanted to avoid signing up for the CAP and CFP.

Let's not forget that EFTA doesn't insist on joining the Euro, makes joining Schengen an option not a requirement, and EEA membership doesn't require all of the 27 countries to agree, as Croatia's membership ably demonstrates.