You seriously think Scotland will not have a currency, the only independent country in the world to be in that position. Sounds a bit odd to me.
We need to define terms here.
CURRENCY UNION This has two important things 1) An agreement that banks can replenish its ATMs/used notes with a given currency from the central bank/mint, and 2) a government can issue debts in that given currency and print them to meet any shortfall
CURRENCY PEG A commitment by a government to exchange any amount of one currency for its currency at a fixed rate.
TENDER A private arrangent between buyer and seller about what currency they will use to complete the sale. For example, buying beans in a shop.
Nobody can stop the population of iScotland using GBP for tender. Nobody can stop the government of iScotland running a currency peg pegging its currency (SCP?) to GBP. You can have your own currency (SCP?) if you want (in fact, I fervently recommend it): nobody can stop you. You can operate a peg if you want: nobody can stop you.
But you can't have a currency union without rUK consent.
RUK can stop the government/banks of iScotland printing GBP to pay its debts, it can refuse to supply new GBP notes to the government/banks in iScotland, and it can prevent the government/banks of iScotland designating any paper it prints as being GBP. So iScotland won't be able to pay debts in GBP, print new GBP to cover them, or issue GBP from its cash machines, unless rUK permits.
You can print all the banknotes you want. But without rUK consent, it won't be GBP.
We know all the nuances but there i snot anything stopping Scotland, like all other countries in the world having a currency , some even use their own and someone else's as well. I clearly believe we will initially use the GBP in a deal / union whatever with rump UK , what will be the choice afterwards has yet to be defined.
PS: They cannot stop anyone buying pounds, and cannot stop Scotland paying in GBP either and could not stop them issuing them from cash machines that is just stupid. Only thing they could not do is print them , but they could print their own and use them internally at the same face value.
(Another lurker (10+ years), coming in from the cold.
Welcome inside to another lurker - the referendum is having the excellent effect of encouraging more contributors.
FWIW I think you overestimate the salience of the Scottish issue to most English voters. The SeanTs who feel passionately about it, or the West Lothian Question, or EV4EL, are a minority who are mostly already committed to a party - that's why the Tories, who would gain most from EV4EL, haqven't been pushing it. I also think that few people see palatable change from anyone, unfortunately - no sign whatever that young people are rushing to back the Tories, but also not anyone else. The Greens and UKIP benefit from that, as they purport to offer a simple solution, so some are inclined to give them a spin.
Thanks to Nick, Patrick, Charles and rotten borough for the welcome. Looking back, 10 years has gone very quickly....
I agree in part, Nick. Uneven political representation can work, and go unnoticed by all but us political geeks, but if groups who receive a disproportionate amount (power and or central govt funding) are seen to be grasping for more, it can permeate the popular consciousness. Hence post-92 EU settlement there has been more popular agitation against Brussels creep....
Yeah, the old ladies in front of my local Sainsbury's are talking of nothing else - only Brussels creep ! The price of Sprouts is more important to them.
You do know that a YES vote is catastrophic for Labour, don't you? I mean, that has occurred to you, right?
I don't. Since the war, only two elections, 1974 [Oct] and 2005, Labour would not have had a majority seats in England ! So, pah !!
Yougov did a non-Scot poll the other day. Labour would still win England.
In any case, Israeli Labour Party did not rule forever. Nor does Congress in India. Party's change according to people and people 's political instincts change due to their relative position in society.
How do you explain the Tory's position in Scotland and the North East ? Surely, there are more centre right voters there ?
Its ending in the political equivalent of divorce with neither side actively co-operating except on the most minimalist level. They are just waiting for the decree absolute to come through and the only reason why its been dragged out for so long is because both are terrified of their prospects at the next general election. That's not skill that's base survival instincts.
And as for their trustworthiness to look after our interests as much as I trusted them to provide this nation with a referendum on the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty.
I have this conversation with Mr Tyndall every so often, but perhaps you can enlighten me: what would be the point of having a referendum on the Lisbon treaty if the treaty had already been signed away by Brown?
It would have just been a waste of around one hundred million pounds. Winning referendums are hard at the best of times, and winning a pointless one would be exceptionally difficult. If it had been won (a big conditional in my mind), then the EU would just say: "Look, you've already signed it.W e're not going through all the rigmarole again." And they'd be right. You can't just sign something then turn around a few months later and renege on it.
Worse, if the referendum had been lost, it would have set back the cause of a true referendum for a few parliaments.
I want an EU referendum; I'll make my mind up how I'll vote at the time. The BOOers need to ensure it is the right referendum at the right time, and that they've got all their guns in position.
A pointless Lisbon referendum had none of the above.
This is supposed to be a pleasant site to debate politics, not an online brawl. I'm loath to stand in the way of free speech but enough is enough, all this is just in this thread.
"You are not right in the head, ........ Daily Mail reading halfwit spouts diahorrea."
"...the worry is as I understand it more to do with the intention that large companies be given the legal right to shoulder aside state organisations such as hospitals, or for that matter GP trusts"
TTIP is, if it ever happens, a free trade agreement between the EU and the USA. How that translates into private companies being able to forcibly take over public enterprises I don't know. Perhaps you could explain.
This is supposed to be a pleasant site to debate politics, not an online brawl. I'm loath to stand in the way of free speech but enough is enough, all this is just in this thread.
"You are not right in the head, fixated is probably a good description, get some dolls or monopoly or something and get a life...."
"That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea...."
"Whinge whinge whinge , the English disease, always imagining you are victims..."
"your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic"
"You really are thick then , I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but see you are a ramping cretinous halfwit, bye"
"Another wittering halfwit,"
"Why not Switzerland or Denmark, another sad visionless unionist viewpoint. Worry about your own shithole as you beg for more alms from your master."
"What can one expect from a bigoted dinosaur. Sad sacks like you are on the way out and hopefully we will be rid of you soon. You accurately portray the nasty BT mentality."
"Sad fanny writes gibberish, bet you are great at crushing grapes"
"Another thick fanny who must be either barking or on drugs"
"So says a big girls blouse"
"Civilised honest debate needs honest sensible people, not idiots that spread propaganda and lies as facts."
"Another blind Tory who likes to write drivel and pontificate and ridicule people's opinions but has skin as thin as rice paper when called out on her lies and delusions. Another of the stupid frothers on here who have limited horizons and cannot see beyond their narrow viewpoints and are unable to take any opposite opinions as anything other than an insult."
"Another thick Daily Mail reading halfwit spouts diahorrea."
Comments like that say far more about the person making them than they do about the recipients.
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Bit of poetic licence methinks, one side was Italian. They may perhaps have had some similar traits and customs as the Austrians but were Italians.
they were Austrians up to 1919. Then Mussolini decided to Italianise the place and dumped Italians in places like Bozen and Meran. But the Austrians are still in the majority and have their own political representation. Italy isn't offering them a referendum - it would lose.
During the period that Italy was on the Allied side, it was de facto annexed by Germany.
Poetic licence indeed.
But what am I to expect from malcolmg? He lies to everyone about Scottish independence, so why not lie to an Italian about Italy?
This is supposed to be a pleasant site to debate politics, not an online brawl. I'm loath to stand in the way of free speech but enough is enough, all this is just in this thread.
"You are not right in the head, ........ Daily Mail reading halfwit spouts diahorrea."
Agreed.
Are all those quotes from just one poster?
Yes all those two quotes were from me and turnip head has taken umbrage and is going to crush a grape any minute now. Man up you big jessies and stop greeting like big weans. Hinge and Bracket are bubbling , get the kleenex.
This is supposed to be a pleasant site to debate politics, not an online brawl. I'm loath to stand in the way of free speech but enough is enough, all this is just in this thread.
"You are not right in the head, fixated is probably a good description, get some dolls or monopoly or something and get a life...."
"That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea...."
"Whinge whinge whinge , the English disease, always imagining you are victims..."
"your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic"
"You really are thick then , I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but see you are a ramping cretinous halfwit, bye"
"Another wittering halfwit,"
"Why not Switzerland or Denmark, another sad visionless unionist viewpoint. Worry about your own shithole as you beg for more alms from your master."
"What can one expect from a bigoted dinosaur. Sad sacks like you are on the way out and hopefully we will be rid of you soon. You accurately portray the nasty BT mentality."
"Sad fanny writes gibberish, bet you are great at crushing grapes"
"Another thick fanny who must be either barking or on drugs"
"So says a big girls blouse"
"Civilised honest debate needs honest sensible people, not idiots that spread propaganda and lies as facts."
"Another blind Tory who likes to write drivel and pontificate and ridicule people's opinions but has skin as thin as rice paper when called out on her lies and delusions. Another of the stupid frothers on here who have limited horizons and cannot see beyond their narrow viewpoints and are unable to take any opposite opinions as anything other than an insult."
"Another thick Daily Mail reading halfwit spouts diahorrea."
Comments like that say far more about the person making them than they do about the recipients.
Mr. Beds, aye, the site could be more pleasant. Being civil is not only nicer, it also makes others more likely to take you seriously. Being horrid irks others and also diminishes oneself.
Unless it's me being horrid about Balls, at which times I speak for the nation, obviously.
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Bit of poetic licence methinks, one side was Italian. They may perhaps have had some similar traits and customs as the Austrians but were Italians.
they were Austrians up to 1919. Then Mussolini decided to Italianise the place and dumped Italians in places like Bozen and Meran. But the Austrians are still in the majority and have their own political representation. Italy isn't offering them a referendum - it would lose.
During the period that Italy was on the Allied side, it was de facto annexed by Germany.
Poetic licence indeed.
But what am I to expect from malcolmg? He lies to everyone about Scottish independence, so why not lie to an Italian about Italy?
OH nincompoop, you will have me blubbering like paul and mark soon. Boo Hoo someone said I told porkies.
This is supposed to be a pleasant site to debate politics, not an online brawl. I'm loath to stand in the way of free speech but enough is enough, all this is just in this thread.
"You are not right in the head, fixated is probably a good description, get some dolls or monopoly or something and get a life...."
"That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea...."
"Whinge whinge whinge , the English disease, always imagining you are victims..."
"your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic"
"You really are thick then , I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but see you are a ramping cretinous halfwit, bye"
"Another wittering halfwit,"
"Why not Switzerland or Denmark, another sad visionless unionist viewpoint. Worry about your own shithole as you beg for more alms from your master."
"What can one expect from a bigoted dinosaur. Sad sacks like you are on the way out and hopefully we will be rid of you soon. You accurately portray the nasty BT mentality."
"Sad fanny writes gibberish, bet you are great at crushing grapes"
"Another thick fanny who must be either barking or on drugs"
"So says a big girls blouse"
"Civilised honest debate needs honest sensible people, not idiots that spread propaganda and lies as facts."
"Another blind Tory who likes to write drivel and pontificate and ridicule people's opinions but has skin as thin as rice paper when called out on her lies and delusions. Another of the stupid frothers on here who have limited horizons and cannot see beyond their narrow viewpoints and are unable to take any opposite opinions as anything other than an insult."
"Another thick Daily Mail reading halfwit spouts diahorrea."
Comments like that say far more about the person making them than they do about the recipients.
What a sad sack that took the time to list them , certifiable for sure. He secretly enjoyed them before bubbling.
We will continue to trade with UK as exports, but at a lower level than now in the internal UK market. Other exports will remain approximately the same. The difference is a contraction of the economy, high unemployment and emigration and fewer resources for public services.
It is a known phenomenon that borders, however transparent and theoretical, reduce trade. iScotland can expect reduced trade with The FUK. Which means relative impoverishment all round.
Read your piece in the Spectator, Sean.
You mentioned the South Tyrol - "Austrians" both sides but different as one set are Italian citizens.
A friend of mine went on a skiing holiday in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. She thought she might go skiing in an Italian resort for a day. She told me she could certainly tell the difference between the people.
Bit of poetic licence methinks, one side was Italian. They may perhaps have had some similar traits and customs as the Austrians but were Italians.
they were Austrians up to 1919. Then Mussolini decided to Italianise the place and dumped Italians in places like Bozen and Meran. But the Austrians are still in the majority and have their own political representation. Italy isn't offering them a referendum - it would lose.
During the period that Italy was on the Allied side, it was de facto annexed by Germany.
Poetic licence indeed.
But what am I to expect from malcolmg? He lies to everyone about Scottish independence, so why not lie to an Italian about Italy?
OH nincompoop, you will have me blubbering like paul and mark soon. Boo Hoo someone said I told porkies.
How long have worked in The Scottish Diplomatic Service malc ?
Mr. Beds, aye, the site could be more pleasant. Being civil is not only nicer, it also makes others more likely to take you seriously. Being horrid irks others and also diminishes oneself.
Unless it's me being horrid about Balls, at which times I speak for the nation, obviously.
Tut Tut MD are you giving me a row there indirectly and in the 3rd party
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
In any case, how would Salmond's regime enforce its blockade on the North Sea to prevent Spanish fishermen from plying their trade?
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
you forgot the scallops, lobsters , langoustines, crabs , salmon etc. I see however that you are as politically astute as ever, you think they will use the Westminster way and succeed. LOL.
This is supposed to be a pleasant site to debate politics, not an online brawl. I'm loath to stand in the way of free speech but enough is enough, all this is just in this thread.
"You are not right in the head, fixated is probably a good description, get some dolls or monopoly or something and get a life...."
"That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea...."
"Whinge whinge whinge , the English disease, always imagining you are victims..."
"your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic"
"You really are thick then , I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but see you are a ramping cretinous halfwit, bye"
"Another wittering halfwit,"
"Why not Switzerland or Denmark, another sad visionless unionist viewpoint. Worry about your own shithole as you beg for more alms from your master."
"What can one expect from a bigoted dinosaur. Sad sacks like you are on the way out and hopefully we will be rid of you soon. You accurately portray the nasty BT mentality."
"Sad fanny writes gibberish, bet you are great at crushing grapes"
"Another thick fanny who must be either barking or on drugs"
"So says a big girls blouse"
"Civilised honest debate needs honest sensible people, not idiots that spread propaganda and lies as facts."
"Another blind Tory who likes to write drivel and pontificate and ridicule people's opinions but has skin as thin as rice paper when called out on her lies and delusions. Another of the stupid frothers on here who have limited horizons and cannot see beyond their narrow viewpoints and are unable to take any opposite opinions as anything other than an insult."
"Another thick Daily Mail reading halfwit spouts diahorrea."
Comments like that say far more about the person making them than they do about the recipients.
Not in this case you pillock
As it happens, I find a lot of your posts hilarious, but I'm not sure if that's intentional or not.
There's the minor matter of the vote, which will show the majority of Scots wish to stay in the UK.
I suspect you are correct, but by SO's reckoning he still would be having something taken away from him if there were a 70% YES vote. It seems odd to have one's identity based on alliance with those who do not want to be allied with you. Almost stalkerish....
This is supposed to be a pleasant site to debate politics, not an online brawl. I'm loath to stand in the way of free speech but enough is enough, all this is just in this thread.
"You are not right in the head, fixated is probably a good description, get some dolls or monopoly or something and get a life...."
"That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea...."
"Whinge whinge whinge , the English disease, always imagining you are victims..."
"your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic"
"You really are thick then , I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but see you are a ramping cretinous halfwit, bye"
"Another wittering halfwit,"
"Why not Switzerland or Denmark, another sad visionless unionist viewpoint. Worry about your own shithole as you beg for more alms from your master."
"What can one expect from a bigoted dinosaur. Sad sacks like you are on the way out and hopefully we will be rid of you soon. You accurately portray the nasty BT mentality."
"Sad fanny writes gibberish, bet you are great at crushing grapes"
"Another thick fanny who must be either barking or on drugs"
"So says a big girls blouse"
"Civilised honest debate needs honest sensible people, not idiots that spread propaganda and lies as facts."
"Another blind Tory who likes to write drivel and pontificate and ridicule people's opinions but has skin as thin as rice paper when called out on her lies and delusions. Another of the stupid frothers on here who have limited horizons and cannot see beyond their narrow viewpoints and are unable to take any opposite opinions as anything other than an insult."
"Another thick Daily Mail reading halfwit spouts diahorrea."
Comments like that say far more about the person making them than they do about the recipients.
Not in this case you pillock
As it happens, I find a lot of your posts hilarious, but I'm not sure if that's intentional or not.
I have been found out, I am really not Mr Angry of Scotchlandshire
This is supposed to be a pleasant site to debate politics, not an online brawl. I'm loath to stand in the way of free speech but enough is enough, all this is just in this thread.
"You are not right in the head, fixated is probably a good description, get some dolls or monopoly or something and get a life...."
"That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea...."
"Whinge whinge whinge , the English disease, always imagining you are victims..."
"your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic"
"You really are thick then , I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but see you are a ramping cretinous halfwit, bye"
"Another wittering halfwit,"
"Why not Switzerland or Denmark, another sad visionless unionist viewpoint. Worry about your own shithole as you beg for more alms from your master."
"What can one expect from a bigoted dinosaur. Sad sacks like you are on the way out and hopefully we will be rid of you soon. You accurately portray the nasty BT mentality."
"Sad fanny writes gibberish, bet you are great at crushing grapes"
"Another thick fanny who must be either barking or on drugs"
"So says a big girls blouse"
"Civilised honest debate needs honest sensible people, not idiots that spread propaganda and lies as facts."
"Another blind Tory who likes to write drivel and pontificate and ridicule people's opinions but has skin as thin as rice paper when called out on her lies and delusions. Another of the stupid frothers on here who have limited horizons and cannot see beyond their narrow viewpoints and are unable to take any opposite opinions as anything other than an insult."
"Another thick Daily Mail reading halfwit spouts diahorrea."
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
This is supposed to be a pleasant site to debate politics, not an online brawl. I'm loath to stand in the way of free speech but enough is enough, all this is just in this thread.
"You are not right in the head, fixated is probably a good description, get some dolls or monopoly or something and get a life...."
"That is just your confused racist brain ( lack of ) causing that mixed up idea...."
"Whinge whinge whinge , the English disease, always imagining you are victims..."
"your limited knowledge of business in Scotland is breathtaking , your misguided lies re hostility are pathetic"
"You really are thick then , I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but see you are a ramping cretinous halfwit, bye"
"Another wittering halfwit,"
"Why not Switzerland or Denmark, another sad visionless unionist viewpoint. Worry about your own shithole as you beg for more alms from your master."
"What can one expect from a bigoted dinosaur. Sad sacks like you are on the way out and hopefully we will be rid of you soon. You accurately portray the nasty BT mentality."
"Sad fanny writes gibberish, bet you are great at crushing grapes"
"Another thick fanny who must be either barking or on drugs"
"So says a big girls blouse"
"Civilised honest debate needs honest sensible people, not idiots that spread propaganda and lies as facts."
"Another blind Tory who likes to write drivel and pontificate and ridicule people's opinions but has skin as thin as rice paper when called out on her lies and delusions. Another of the stupid frothers on here who have limited horizons and cannot see beyond their narrow viewpoints and are unable to take any opposite opinions as anything other than an insult."
"Another thick Daily Mail reading halfwit spouts diahorrea."
Like!
Have you ever seen such a feeble response to that magnificent list, sounds like he could not punch his way out of a wet paper bag with assistance.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
Mr. G, I just prefer civility, as a rule. Nobody deserves abuse. Except Balls, obviously. And perhaps people who ludicrously claim Caesar was better than Hannibal (although they probably deserve sympathy, understanding, and psychiatric help).
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
Alex, If they want to keep their countries they better get voting yes to us joining pronto or there will be consequences.
There's the minor matter of the vote, which will show the majority of Scots wish to stay in the UK.
I suspect you are correct, but by SO's reckoning he still would be having something taken away from him if there were a 70% YES vote. It seems odd to have one's identity based on alliance with those who do not want to be allied with you. Almost stalkerish....
Well why should he feel any less attached to what he sees as his country than say malc ?
Just because britnats are a little less in your face doesn't mean they care any less passionately. Family is family and we all look out for each other.
And as for disguntled minorities, they're always there you don't balkanise your country just becasue some people can;t have what they want; you may try to accommodate them or you may just ignore them. If the people in the South or Scotland or the Orkneys didn't want to be in iScotland I can't see the scottish government letting them go because they ain't happy.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
I think he may mean access to Scottish fishing waters.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
Now you are catching on, you are not as stupid as your posts usually suggest
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
Alex, If they want to keep their countries they better get voting yes to us joining pronto or there will be consequences.
Consequences? Are you going to throw turnips at them?
Mr. G, I just prefer civility, as a rule. Nobody deserves abuse. Except Balls, obviously. And perhaps people who ludicrously claim Caesar was better than Hannibal (although they probably deserve sympathy, understanding, and psychiatric help).
MD, it is banter , these are just effete soft southern jessies, they whine about everything.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
There's the minor matter of the vote, which will show the majority of Scots wish to stay in the UK.
I suspect you are correct, but by SO's reckoning he still would be having something taken away from him if there were a 70% YES vote. It seems odd to have one's identity based on alliance with those who do not want to be allied with you. Almost stalkerish....
Well why should he feel any less attached to what he sees as his country than say malc ?
Just because britnats are a little less in your face doesn't mean they care any less passionately. Family is family and we all look out for each other.
And as for disguntled minorities, they're always there you don't balkanise your country just becasue some people can;t have what they want; you may try to accommodate them or you may just ignore them. If the people in the South or Scotland or the Orkneys didn't want to be in iScotland I can't see the scottish government letting them go because they ain't happy.
Hear Hear Alan, SO is perfectly entitled to his viewpoint and will genuinely feel bad when it happens. Away from all the fun and banter it is a sad day to have got to this but it is all down to Westminster troughers.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
Alex, If they want to keep their countries they better get voting yes to us joining pronto or there will be consequences.
Consequences? Are you going to throw turnips at them?
They'll have to. it will be the only currency they've got.
Mr. G, I just prefer civility, as a rule. Nobody deserves abuse. Except Balls, obviously. And perhaps people who ludicrously claim Caesar was better than Hannibal (although they probably deserve sympathy, understanding, and psychiatric help).
Thanks, Mr. D.. The first good laugh of the day.
P.S. A loser is defined as someone who lost. Hannibal was a loser. It isn't the heats that count its the final.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
Alex, If they want to keep their countries they better get voting yes to us joining pronto or there will be consequences.
Consequences? Are you going to throw turnips at them?
It is where the turnips will be inserted sideways that will be the consequence, two at a time.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
In any case, how would Salmond's regime enforce its blockade on the North Sea to prevent Spanish fishermen from plying their trade?
FOr all practical purposes, the EU will just not acknowledge the independence of Scotland. They have Treaties with the UK - regarding access to the territorial waters of the UK. They will expect those treaties to be honoured, and so Spanish fishermen will continue to claim access under EU treaties....
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
Alex, If they want to keep their countries they better get voting yes to us joining pronto or there will be consequences.
Consequences? Are you going to throw turnips at them?
Maybe they are going to commandeer the Nuclear Weapons?
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
If I was in their position I'd insist that Scotland join Schengen, and write the Accession Treaty so they don't have any wiggle room. That's a defensible position (since you're supposed to have to join, and other new entrants are cheating), frustrates independence, helps Spanish businesses and tourists (by removing tiresome border checks which promotes trade) and gets the English back for dicking everybody around when the Euro was on fire.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
Yep. I can't see the UK government vetoing Scottish EU membership. In fact, I can see it being one of the first no-brainer things agreed in the divorce negotiations.
An interesting question is whether Scotland can persuade us to be a positive voice with the EU for them in the Scotland-EU negotiations; in other words, not just not vetoing, but putting our weight behind their membership.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
I think he may mean access to Scottish fishing waters.
It might mean the Cod wars all over again. And Spain, Norway and Denmark would win.
We will use our second hand aircraft carrier obtained from our divorce settlement, load it with turnips and go give these johnny foreigners a right good doing. It will not be those RN chappies that cry when their ipods get taken away this time, it will be hairy arsed chaps with lots of thistles as back up.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
you forgot the scallops, lobsters , langoustines, crabs , salmon etc. I see however that you are as politically astute as ever, you think they will use the Westminster way and succeed. LOL.
A Spanish guy on Twitter has just told me he thinks Spain would veto Scottish EU membership - forever.
Funnily enough two Spanish senoritas just told me that Spain cannot wait for us to join and that we will be welcomed with open arms within 24 hours.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
And if they did that, it would be just another sign that the EU did not work, and hence persuade more of us that we should leave the EU.
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
Yep. I can't see the UK government vetoing Scottish EU membership. In fact, I can see it being one of the first no-brainer things agreed in the divorce negotiations.
An interesting question is whether Scotland can persuade us to be a positive voice with the EU for them in the Scotland-EU negotiations; in other words, not just not vetoing, but putting our weight behind their membership.
Yup, if Scotland still has a financial industry left after the dust has settled independence would produce more combined QMV votes for light regulation than the UK would have had.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
I think he may mean access to Scottish fishing waters.
It might mean the Cod wars all over again. And Spain, Norway and Denmark would win.
We will use our second hand aircraft carrier obtained from our divorce settlement, load it with turnips and go give these johnny foreigners a right good doing. It will not be those RN chappies that cry when their ipods get taken away this time, it will be hairy arsed chaps with lots of thistles as back up.
So that will be Scotland going to war with the EU... The EU that Salmond says they will automatically just stroll into...
How much of the crap Salmond spouts do you think he actually believes? 10%? 5%?
So, Yes has now said all the world banks are bluffing about the likely outcome of independence.
Everyone is lying or bluffing apart from the SNP.
Of course the SNP has never been caught out bluffing or lying...........
Floater , I know you cannot be polished , but that is one whopper you have just told, a few poxy UK banks is not all world banks. LOL you are not very bright. can I interest you in a job lot of £3 notes , today on sale for only £2 each. PS, or perhaps you are really Brown and smelly and you may actually believe it
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
I think he may mean access to Scottish fishing waters.
It might mean the Cod wars all over again. And Spain, Norway and Denmark would win.
We will use our second hand aircraft carrier obtained from our divorce settlement, load it with turnips and go give these johnny foreigners a right good doing. It will not be those RN chappies that cry when their ipods get taken away this time, it will be hairy arsed chaps with lots of thistles as back up.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
If I was in their position I'd insist that Scotland join Schengen, and write the Accession Treaty so they don't have any wiggle room. That's a defensible position (since you're supposed to have to join, and other new entrants are cheating), frustrates independence, helps Spanish businesses and tourists (by removing tiresome border checks which promotes trade) and gets the English back for dicking everybody around when the Euro was on fire.
Accession treaties are one of the few areas that require unanimity, are they not? So why would rUK sign up to something like that?
One question we have neglected for the last couple of days is Cameron's future.
[...]
He will go, either very swiftly - within a week of the vote, or within a few months (staying on just to ensure stability). The idea he might lead the Tories into the 2015 GE is delusional.
What would the time table for a Conservative leadership election be like? If Cameron resigned on October 1st, would his successor be in place before Christmas, or not until April?
Without knowing the exact dates, I can see two potential problems: the Christmas post, and manifesto writing time.
Trying to hold a postal ballot of party members in December could easily go badly wrong, votes getting held up by the flood of Christmas cards. In principle, the Royal Mail should be able to speed the postal ballots through, but that risks stories about photogenic children not getting their eagerly awaited cards and presents because of the Conservative party's leadership election.
The new leader will need some time to rewrite the manifesto, putting their stamp on it, and taking account of developments during the leadership campaign. Thus, it would be no good Cameron's successor taking charge the week before the General Election starts. They'll probably need at least a month, which also gives the new cabinet time to get to grips with its briefs.
Together, these factors may make the timetable for a leadership election pretty tight. How serious would these potential problems actually be, and how much leeway is there in the timetable?
A length of time a full Tory leadership election would take would depend on the number of candidates but I'd estimate a minimum of about 6 weeks: a week or so for nominations after Cameron announced his resignation, another week to 10 days for the various rounds of MPs balloting, and at least 4 weeks for the members' ballot. Even that would be pushing it, with printers not knowing who would be on the ballot papers to be sent to members until after the conclusion of Round 1. In reality, two months is probably more realistic.
That said, Michael Howard became leader in a matter of days. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happened were Cameron to go this time. One of the ironies of extending the amount of democracy in the process is that in some ways it's actually reduced it.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
And if they did that, it would be just another sign that the EU did not work, and hence persuade more of us that we should leave the EU.
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
LOL, you jest surely given the bile and vitriol for anything Scottish on here.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
A single country can't veto much any more, especially since Lisbon. The worst they can do is block future treaty change, but future treaties may be impossible with 28 members in any case, and you can normally work around it by making a treaty of less than the full EU instead.
As far as QMV votes went, Scotland would probably end up on the same side as rUK more often than not, as the two countries have a lot of interests in common.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
I think he may mean access to Scottish fishing waters.
It might mean the Cod wars all over again. And Spain, Norway and Denmark would win.
We will use our second hand aircraft carrier obtained from our divorce settlement, load it with turnips and go give these johnny foreigners a right good doing. It will not be those RN chappies that cry when their ipods get taken away this time, it will be hairy arsed chaps with lots of thistles as back up.
So that will be Scotland going to war with the EU... The EU that Salmond says they will automatically just stroll into...
How much of the crap Salmond spouts do you think he actually believes? 10%? 5%?
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
And if they did that, it would be just another sign that the EU did not work, and hence persuade more of us that we should leave the EU.
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
a failing Nat government which has promised paradise and delivered Albania will simply resort to the the usual trick of all failing govts and seek a foreign enemy to distract the public.
Which country do you think they are most likely to choose ?
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
I think he may mean access to Scottish fishing waters.
It might mean the Cod wars all over again. And Spain, Norway and Denmark would win.
We will use our second hand aircraft carrier obtained from our divorce settlement, load it with turnips and go give these johnny foreigners a right good doing. It will not be those RN chappies that cry when their ipods get taken away this time, it will be hairy arsed chaps with lots of thistles as back up.
We know all the nuances but there is not anything stopping Scotland, like all other countries in the world having a currency , some even use their own and someone else's as well.
I clearly believe we will initially use the GBP in a deal / union whatever with rump UK , what will be the choice afterwards has yet to be defined.
Agreed. The question then revolves around the definition of "initially": 6-24months would be my recommendation, and definitely before the provisional Scottish government becomes the government of iScotland and starts issuing debt by itself.
They...could not stop them issuing them from cash machines that is just stupid.
It isn't stupid. We're so used to money being fiat money and existing as digits in a computer we forget that eventually we have to translate them into foldy pieces of paper and little metal disks. To do this requires a central bank/mint: frayed old notes are sent to be burnt and replaced by crisp new ones, new coinage is minted as the old ones are lost. RUK/BOE/Royal Mint can refuse to replenish old notes and print new coinage when an iScotland bank requests it.
Only thing [iScotland] could not do is print them , but they could print their own and use them internally at the same face value.
Agreed. What you are describing is a currency peg, not a currency union: iScotland issues its own Scottish pound (SCP?), pegs it to GBP, everybody is happy. If that is your stance then we are not in disagreement, at least concerning feasibility - the wisdom of such a stance is questionable IMHO, but the ability to do so is not. But that is not a currency union, it's a currency peg, and the difference is non-trivial.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
Yep. I can't see the UK government vetoing Scottish EU membership. In fact, I can see it being one of the first no-brainer things agreed in the divorce negotiations.
An interesting question is whether Scotland can persuade us to be a positive voice with the EU for them in the Scotland-EU negotiations; in other words, not just not vetoing, but putting our weight behind their membership.
What could Scotland offer us in return?
Mind you even to discuss this is some sort insanity. Were not the Scots assured that come independence day they would automatically be members of the EU in their own right with all the opt-outs and terms that the UK had previously negotiated?
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
A single country can't veto much any more, especially since Lisbon. The worst they can do is block future treaty change, but future treaties may be impossible with 28 members in any case, and you can normally work around it by making a treaty of less than the full EU instead.
As far as QMV votes went, Scotland would probably end up on the same side as rUK more often than not, as the two countries have a lot of interests in common.
Has it ever occurred to you that roll over englishmen like yourself are seen as easily duped and that if you actually stood your ground occasionally or carried through a threat you'd be held in higher esteem ?
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
And if they did that, it would be just another sign that the EU did not work, and hence persuade more of us that we should leave the EU.
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
We know all the nuances but there is not anything stopping Scotland, like all other countries in the world having a currency , some even use their own and someone else's as well.
I clearly believe we will initially use the GBP in a deal / union whatever with rump UK , what will be the choice afterwards has yet to be defined.
Agreed. The question then revolves around the definition of "initially": 6-24months would be my recommendation, and definitely before the provisional Scottish government becomes the government of iScotland and starts issuing debt by itself.
They...could not stop them issuing them from cash machines that is just stupid.
It isn't stupid. We're so used to money being fiat money and existing as digits in a computer we forget that eventually we have to translate them into foldy pieces of paper and little metal disks. To do this requires a central bank/mint: frayed old notes are sent to be burnt and replaced by crisp new ones, new coinage is minted as the old ones are lost. RUK/BOE/Royal Mint can refuse to replenish old notes and print new coinage when an iScotland bank requests it.
Only thing [iScotland] could not do is print them , but they could print their own and use them internally at the same face value.
Agreed. What you are describing is a currency peg, not a currency union: iScotland issues its own Scottish pound (SCP?), pegs it to GBP, everybody is happy. If that is your stance then we are not in disagreement, at least concerning feasibility - the wisdom of such a stance is questionable IMHO, but the ability to do so is not. But that is not a currency union, it's a currency peg, and the difference is non-trivial.
So we agree on almost everything other than it being impossible stopping Scotland buying GBP.
The only remote similar precedent we have for what Scotland is contemplating is the "velvet divorce" of Czechia and Slovakia.
So, yes, when we wake up on Friday, if it is a YES vote, the sun will still rise and the Shard will still glitter. But then the pain will begin. Inevitably. And I reckon it will get worse over time, for quite a long time.
And there is a small but non-negligible risk that YES will actually start a ghastly chain reaction, that leads to an actual Depression.
No one knows how bad it might be. We just know it will be bad.
Freed of the crushing weight of their larger bullying partner they are flourishing.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
You know, malcolmg, I am beyond caring whether you believe any of this or not. I am almost beyond caring about the referendum. I doubt that anything said by anyone will now influence things, we are too far gone for that. The people must decide.
I'm just giving you the probabilities.
Sean , however your possibilities are always doom and gloom for Scotland, I on the other hand can see sunshine and happiness but expect to end up somewhere in the middle. The sky will not fall in , we WILL be in the EU for good or bad, and we will at least initially be using the pound. Stop fretting and upsetting yourself , rump UK will also survive.
Scotland will only be in the EU post-independence if it can negotiate a Treaty of Accession before then. That's uncharted territory and it would be foolhardy to make any categorical assertion either way.
In one sense, it should be relatively easy: EU law already applies in Scotland and Scottish law is already compliant with all the EU accession chapters. On the other, no state has ever gained membership in less than two years (excluding the original six), so that's a tight timeframe, especially for a government with no Foreign Office and which would also be engaged in negotiations with Westminster.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
And if they did that, it would be just another sign that the EU did not work, and hence persuade more of us that we should leave the EU.
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
a failing Nat government which has promised paradise and delivered Albania will simply resort to the the usual trick of all failing govts and seek a foreign enemy to distract the public.
Which country do you think they are most likely to choose ?
Alan , you are sounding all English and expecting to be a victim there, soft life down there is getting to you.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
If I was in their position I'd insist that Scotland join Schengen, and write the Accession Treaty so they don't have any wiggle room. That's a defensible position (since you're supposed to have to join, and other new entrants are cheating), frustrates independence, helps Spanish businesses and tourists (by removing tiresome border checks which promotes trade) and gets the English back for dicking everybody around when the Euro was on fire.
Accession treaties are one of the few areas that require unanimity, are they not? So why would rUK sign up to something like that?
Sure rUK could refuse, so if Spain won't back down and rUK won't back down you have stalemate and they can't join the EU.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
And if they did that, it would be just another sign that the EU did not work, and hence persuade more of us that we should leave the EU.
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
More like a kick up the erchie , have you seen the no hopers England enter in Eurovision
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
They will give a shit if it affects their fishing fleet.
The Spanish position is quite clear - automatic veto in the case of unilateral independence. No comment on the case of negotiated bilateral independence.
You really think the Spanish are so keen on Scottish haddock they will jeopardise the integrity of Spain to get it? Or is it the Arbroath Smokies? I forget which fish is more important to Spain than Spain itself.
Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. Catalunyan independence is on the march. Spanish politicians will do anything to keep this most prosperous region within Spain. The very best way to do that is to show the Catalans how difficult it is to re-enter the EU once you secede.
Lo and behold, here comes Scotland, the perfect opportunity for Spain to do exactly that.
you forgot the scallops, lobsters , langoustines, crabs , salmon etc. I see however that you are as politically astute as ever, you think they will use the Westminster way and succeed. LOL.
A Spanish guy on Twitter has just told me he thinks Spain would veto Scottish EU membership - forever.
The best example Spain can set Catalonia is to admit Scotland to the EU.
Scotland has followed exactly the opposite path of Cataolnia: peaceful; bilateral; inclusive. Letting Scotland in would send the message (given that Kosovo is never getting membership of the EU due to Spanish veto and so there would be the two ways visible) that there are two ways of doing things - in partnership and unilaterally. In partnership gets co-operation, unilaterally gets you frozen out.
If Spain vetos Scottish membership then they show to Catalonia that no matter what they do they would be frozen out - and Catalonia might decide that having seen the worst that could happen they say "fuck it we are doing it anyway" and unilateraly secede with all the chaos that would cause. If the agree to Scottish memebership then Catalonia is set an example which helps keep them in line.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
And if they did that, it would be just another sign that the EU did not work, and hence persuade more of us that we should leave the EU.
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
a failing Nat government which has promised paradise and delivered Albania will simply resort to the the usual trick of all failing govts and seek a foreign enemy to distract the public.
Which country do you think they are most likely to choose ?
Alan , you are sounding all English and expecting to be a victim there, soft life down there is getting to you.
not at all malc. I'm just trying to put some backbone in to these chaps down here.
The only remote similar precedent we have for what Scotland is contemplating is the "velvet divorce" of Czechia and Slovakia.
So, yes, when we wake up on Friday, if it is a YES vote, the sun will still rise and the Shard will still glitter. But then the pain will begin. Inevitably. And I reckon it will get worse over time, for quite a long time.
And there is a small but non-negligible risk that YES will actually start a ghastly chain reaction, that leads to an actual Depression.
No one knows how bad it might be. We just know it will be bad.
Freed of the crushing weight of their larger bullying partner they are flourishing.
The Spanish will fight hard to keep Spain together. This surely means making an example of Scotland, standing in the rain outside the EU. Madrid won't give a shit if this means Scots suffer.
You know, malcolmg, I am beyond caring whether you believe any of this or not. I am almost beyond caring about the referendum. I doubt that anything said by anyone will now influence things, we are too far gone for that. The people must decide.
I'm just giving you the probabilities.
Sean , however your possibilities are always doom and gloom for Scotland, I on the other hand can see sunshine and happiness but expect to end up somewhere in the middle. The sky will not fall in , we WILL be in the EU for good or bad, and we will at least initially be using the pound. Stop fretting and upsetting yourself , rump UK will also survive.
Scotland will only be in the EU post-independence if it can negotiate a Treaty of Accession before then. That's uncharted territory and it would be foolhardy to make any categorical assertion either way.
In one sense, it should be relatively easy: EU law already applies in Scotland and Scottish law is already compliant with all the EU accession chapters. On the other, no state has ever gained membership in less than two years (excluding the original six), so that's a tight timeframe, especially for a government with no Foreign Office and which would also be engaged in negotiations with Westminster.
LOL , you were doing well till I got to FO, then I split my sides, my 4 year old grandson could do as good a job as those turnips.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
And if they did that, it would be just another sign that the EU did not work, and hence persuade more of us that we should leave the EU.
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
A Scottish Douze Points would be nailed on. Eurovision is an excellent measure of the relative sizes of ethnic minorities within the competing countries.
Gordon Brown's speech at the Labour No event in Kirkcaldy: "None of us here should allow it to be said that anybody who votes no is less patriotic and less proud of our country. We are patriotic Scots. We've got a patriotic vision for the future We're proud of our institutions. We're patriotic, we're proud of Scotland. We are proud to that we share and cooperate as part of the United Kingdom."
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
A single country can't veto much any more, especially since Lisbon. The worst they can do is block future treaty change, but future treaties may be impossible with 28 members in any case, and you can normally work around it by making a treaty of less than the full EU instead.
As far as QMV votes went, Scotland would probably end up on the same side as rUK more often than not, as the two countries have a lot of interests in common.
Has it ever occurred to you that roll over englishmen like yourself are seen as easily duped and that if you actually stood your ground occasionally or carried through a threat you'd be held in higher esteem ?
This was the theory Cameron followed, but it's been tested and empirically disproved. He vetoed, they worked around him.
Well why should he feel any less attached to what he sees as his country than say malc ?
Just because britnats are a little less in your face doesn't mean they care any less passionately. Family is family and we all look out for each other.
And as for disguntled minorities, they're always there you don't balkanise your country just becasue some people can;t have what they want; you may try to accommodate them or you may just ignore them. If the people in the South or Scotland or the Orkneys didn't want to be in iScotland I can't see the scottish government letting them go because they ain't happy.
I'm not saying he shouldn't: I'm saying I don't understand it. We're talking about an identity issue and I can't empathise. As an Englishman in Scotland intending to vote YES who would have been happy to see Scotland (or Wales or Northern Ireland) vote to secede when I lived in England (most of my life to date) I find it very difficult to empathise.
If Scotland were to become independent (unlikely) and various islands sought independence, I'd be similarly ambivalent. Why on earth would I want to stand in their way or to think I know better than them what is in their interests? How does their expression of an existing lack of solidarity with me diminish my identity?
Well why should he feel any less attached to what he sees as his country than say malc ?
Just because britnats are a little less in your face doesn't mean they care any less passionately. Family is family and we all look out for each other.
And as for disguntled minorities, they're always there you don't balkanise your country just becasue some people can;t have what they want; you may try to accommodate them or you may just ignore them. If the people in the South or Scotland or the Orkneys didn't want to be in iScotland I can't see the scottish government letting them go because they ain't happy.
I'm not saying he shouldn't: I'm saying I don't understand it. We're talking about an identity issue and I can't empathise. As an Englishman in Scotland intending to vote YES who would have been happy to see Scotland (or Wales or Northern Ireland) vote to secede when I lived in England (most of my life to date) I find it very difficult to empathise.
If Scotland were to become independent (unlikely) and various islands sought independence, I'd be similarly ambivalent. Why on earth would I want to stand in their way or to think I know better than them what is in their interests? How does their expression of an existing lack of solidarity with me diminish my identity?
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
And if they did that, it would be just another sign that the EU did not work, and hence persuade more of us that we should leave the EU.
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
a failing Nat government which has promised paradise and delivered Albania will simply resort to the the usual trick of all failing govts and seek a foreign enemy to distract the public.
Which country do you think they are most likely to choose ?
Well, if we try to block their membership it'll make it even more likely, won't it? They'll have a justifiable reason to say we were agin them.
There are many difficult and troublesome points to be sorted in the divorce negotiations. Frankly, I see Scotland's membership of the EU as being small fry (to us, at least) in those negotiations, and a point that can be easily agreed to mutual satisfaction.
If Scotland plays silly buggers afterwards, well, that's their lookout. But it doesn't have to come to that, and we can still try to be honest partners. Automatically assuming ill-will on their part is foolish IMHO.
And where I'm scared that our politicians down here will be lily-livered about it. Like some misplaced hug-a-hoodie feel good thing.
Nope. If Scotland votes Yes, then they become a foreign land that we need to play hard ball with. Just like anyone else. We don't need to be dickheads about it, just not a pushover.
No residual sentimentality. That's not in our collective interest.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
Yep. I can't see the UK government vetoing Scottish EU membership. In fact, I can see it being one of the first no-brainer things agreed in the divorce negotiations.
An interesting question is whether Scotland can persuade us to be a positive voice with the EU for them in the Scotland-EU negotiations; in other words, not just not vetoing, but putting our weight behind their membership.
What could Scotland offer us in return?
Mind you even to discuss this is some sort insanity. Were not the Scots assured that come independence day they would automatically be members of the EU in their own right with all the opt-outs and terms that the UK had previously negotiated?
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
A single country can't veto much any more, especially since Lisbon. The worst they can do is block future treaty change, but future treaties may be impossible with 28 members in any case, and you can normally work around it by making a treaty of less than the full EU instead.
As far as QMV votes went, Scotland would probably end up on the same side as rUK more often than not, as the two countries have a lot of interests in common.
Has it ever occurred to you that roll over englishmen like yourself are seen as easily duped and that if you actually stood your ground occasionally or carried through a threat you'd be held in higher esteem ?
This was the theory Cameron followed, but it's been tested and empirically disproved. He vetoed, they worked around him.
Right, you don't think the fact that he said he didn't want to leave the EU gave away that he was bluffing ?
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
Yep. I can't see the UK government vetoing Scottish EU membership. In fact, I can see it being one of the first no-brainer things agreed in the divorce negotiations.
An interesting question is whether Scotland can persuade us to be a positive voice with the EU for them in the Scotland-EU negotiations; in other words, not just not vetoing, but putting our weight behind their membership.
What could Scotland offer us in return?
Mind you even to discuss this is some sort insanity. Were not the Scots assured that come independence day they would automatically be members of the EU in their own right with all the opt-outs and terms that the UK had previously negotiated?
I suspect if there is an issue of contention it will be immigration and free movement of labour and the porous borders of the EU to illegal immigrants with all the associated security concerns that brings. Should Scotland be forced to join Schengen fully (are new EU members required to?) then it would create the possibility of vast numbers of illegal immigrants attempting to access England via its land border with Scotland. As a result we could see the border guarded and Sangat type immigrant camps (the Mayor of Calais will likely pay additional travel costs to get rid of them) in the border counties of Scotland. Given the contention over immigration already, it is almost certainly going to be the issue which will fire up discontent between the two nations and the primary focus of Scotland's EU related membership..
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
A single country can't veto much any more, especially since Lisbon. The worst they can do is block future treaty change, but future treaties may be impossible with 28 members in any case, and you can normally work around it by making a treaty of less than the full EU instead.
As far as QMV votes went, Scotland would probably end up on the same side as rUK more often than not, as the two countries have a lot of interests in common.
Has it ever occurred to you that roll over englishmen like yourself are seen as easily duped and that if you actually stood your ground occasionally or carried through a threat you'd be held in higher esteem ?
This was the theory Cameron followed, but it's been tested and empirically disproved. He vetoed, they worked around him.
Right, you don't think the fact that he said he didn't want to leave the EU gave away that he was bluffing ?
The threat was to veto the treaty they were talking about. He wasn't bluffing - he carried it through, they just worked out how to do what they needed without a treaty.
Miss Plato, I agree. There's every chance the leaders here would just buckle and be 'nice', which amounts to deliberately getting a worse deal for their own country than they should. It'd be springtime for UKIP if they did.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
And if they did that, it would be just another sign that the EU did not work, and hence persuade more of us that we should leave the EU.
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
a failing Nat government which has promised paradise and delivered Albania will simply resort to the the usual trick of all failing govts and seek a foreign enemy to distract the public.
Which country do you think they are most likely to choose ?
Well, if we try to block their membership it'll make it even more likely, won't it? They'll have a justifiable reason to say we were agin them.
There are many difficult and troublesome points to be sorted in the divorce negotiations. Frankly, I see Scotland's membership of the EU as being small fry (to us, at least) in those negotiations, and a point that can be easily agreed to mutual satisfaction.
If Scotland plays silly buggers afterwards, well, that's their lookout. But it doesn't have to come to that, and we can still try to be honest partners. Automatically assuming ill-will on their part is foolish IMHO.
as is assuming goodwill on their part. the issue is to hold the negotiating card until we want to play it. I see no reason to give it away up front.
Is not the very fact of Scotland's secession likely to be enough to make many EU leaders (certainly in the institutions) hostile to the very idea of Scotland joining the EU? For many achieving a situation like Scotland has in the UK is their ultimate goal (albeit on a significantly larger scale) for all countries within the EU. And yet they (Scotland) will have just given that away. So they might see Scotland as seeking to enter for all the wrong reasons. And liable to be troublemakers and an obstacle to their goal.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
To be honest i don't really see why Scotland joining the EU should annoy the English in the slightest. Probably the one member of the EU who wouldn't have an interest in vetoeing them and wouldn't be particularly concerned about them maintaining opt outs from Schengen/Euro etc etc
are you naive ? About the worst thing rUK could do is let a Salmond govt in to the EU, they'd veto rUK on everything just because the could. they're better outside the tent where we can piss on them.
A single country can't veto much any more, especially since Lisbon. The worst they can do is block future treaty change, but future treaties may be impossible with 28 members in any case, and you can normally work around it by making a treaty of less than the full EU instead.
As far as QMV votes went, Scotland would probably end up on the same side as rUK more often than not, as the two countries have a lot of interests in common.
Has it ever occurred to you that roll over englishmen like yourself are seen as easily duped and that if you actually stood your ground occasionally or carried through a threat you'd be held in higher esteem ?
This was the theory Cameron followed, but it's been tested and empirically disproved. He vetoed, they worked around him.
Right, you don't think the fact that he said he didn't want to leave the EU gave away that he was bluffing ?
The threat was to veto the treaty they were talking about. He wasn't bluffing - he carried it through, they just worked out how to do what they needed without a treaty.
the bluff issue is actually simpler than that, they CAN work round him because they know he's not going to do anything about it.
And where I'm scared that our politicians down here will be lily-livered about it. Like some misplaced hug-a-hoodie feel good thing.
Nope. If Scotland votes Yes, then they become a foreign land that we need to play hard ball with. Just like anyone else. We don't need to be dickheads about it, just not a pushover.
No residual sentimentality. That's not in our collective interest.
Exactly, Miss P. If Scotland votes Yes then they will, come the day (and probably a good bit before), become a foreign country. As such to be treated in the same way as any other, no favours and no sentimentality on either side.
The threat was to veto the treaty they were talking about. He wasn't bluffing - he carried it through, they just worked out how to do what they needed without a treaty.
the bluff issue is actually simpler than that, they CAN work round him because they know he's not going to do anything about it.
I thought we were talking about vetos? He can threaten to leave if he wants. There's a limit to how much people will allow themselves to be pushed around, though. If Spain threatened to leave unless it got X, Y and Z, most people here would be saying "Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out". That's how most of the EU would respond to the British doing the same thing.
And where I'm scared that our politicians down here will be lily-livered about it. Like some misplaced hug-a-hoodie feel good thing.
Nope. If Scotland votes Yes, then they become a foreign land that we need to play hard ball with. Just like anyone else. We don't need to be dickheads about it, just not a pushover.
No residual sentimentality. That's not in our collective interest.
Exactly, Miss P. If Scotland votes Yes then they will, come the day (and probably a good bit before), become a foreign country. As such to be treated in the same way as any other, no favours and no sentimentality on either side.
The threat was to veto the treaty they were talking about. He wasn't bluffing - he carried it through, they just worked out how to do what they needed without a treaty.
the bluff issue is actually simpler than that, they CAN work round him because they know he's not going to do anything about it.
I thought we were talking about vetos? He can threaten to leave if he wants. There's a limit to how much people will allow themselves to be pushed around, though. If Spain threatened to leave unless it got X, Y and Z, most people here would be saying "Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out". That's how most of the EU would respond to the British doing the same thing.
the issue started on whether we should just vote Scotland in, you appeared to be of the view that the other EU nations would work round a UK veto. Accepting of course that other nations may also oppose automatic entry for iScotland.
as is assuming goodwill on their part. the issue is to hold the negotiating card until we want to play it. I see no reason to give it away up front.
The negotiations need to happen, and be concluded as soon as feasible. Delaying the divorce after a Yes vote - and particularly a strong yes vote - will do neither side any good and just increase rancour.
Scottish EU membership is small-fry to us. We have much bigger concerns that need to be addressed during the divorce.
It looks likely that Salmond and the SNP sold the Scottish electorate a pup on automatic EU membership. Vetoing it when that course of action hold little for us would allow them to transfer the blame onto us.
Instead, we can say: "They lied, but we're helping you." Even if that help is absolutely minimal in the non-action of not vetoing.
The EU is just a small part of the game we need to play.
The threat was to veto the treaty they were talking about. He wasn't bluffing - he carried it through, they just worked out how to do what they needed without a treaty.
the bluff issue is actually simpler than that, they CAN work round him because they know he's not going to do anything about it.
I thought we were talking about vetos? He can threaten to leave if he wants. There's a limit to how much people will allow themselves to be pushed around, though. If Spain threatened to leave unless it got X, Y and Z, most people here would be saying "Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out". That's how most of the EU would respond to the British doing the same thing.
Fine by me. If only we had a government with that level of gumption.
as is assuming goodwill on their part. the issue is to hold the negotiating card until we want to play it. I see no reason to give it away up front.
The negotiations need to happen, and be concluded as soon as feasible. Delaying the divorce after a Yes vote - and particularly a strong yes vote - will do neither side any good and just increase rancour.
Scottish EU membership is small-fry to us. We have much bigger concerns that need to be addressed during the divorce.
It looks likely that Salmond and the SNP sold the Scottish electorate a pup on automatic EU membership. Vetoing it when that course of action hold little for us would allow them to transfer the blame onto us.
Instead, we can say: "They lied, but we're helping you." Even if that help is absolutely minimal in the non-action of not vetoing.
The EU is just a small part of the game we need to play.
oh I'm all for a fast divorce March 2015 before the GE seems feasible.
but EU membership is more than small fry it's small to us maybe, but big to them.
The threat was to veto the treaty they were talking about. He wasn't bluffing - he carried it through, they just worked out how to do what they needed without a treaty.
the bluff issue is actually simpler than that, they CAN work round him because they know he's not going to do anything about it.
I thought we were talking about vetos? He can threaten to leave if he wants. There's a limit to how much people will allow themselves to be pushed around, though. If Spain threatened to leave unless it got X, Y and Z, most people here would be saying "Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out". That's how most of the EU would respond to the British doing the same thing.
the issue started on whether we should just vote Scotland in, you appeared to be of the view that the other EU nations would work round a UK veto. Accepting of course that other nations may also oppose automatic entry for iScotland.
Ah, no, I'm not saying other UK national would work around a UK veto on Scottish entry. That's the one place where the UK would have a meaningful veto if they wanted to use it, but they won't want to use it.
I took you to be talking about votes on things once Scotland had joined, where you thought if the UK let the Scots into the EU, the Scots would then proceed to use their veto against the UK, and my point was that the Scots wouldn't have a veto on anything meaningful that they could use against the UK even if they wanted to, because the EU rules don't work like that any more. (Apart from accession treaties.)
The threat was to veto the treaty they were talking about. He wasn't bluffing - he carried it through, they just worked out how to do what they needed without a treaty.
the bluff issue is actually simpler than that, they CAN work round him because they know he's not going to do anything about it.
I thought we were talking about vetos? He can threaten to leave if he wants. There's a limit to how much people will allow themselves to be pushed around, though. If Spain threatened to leave unless it got X, Y and Z, most people here would be saying "Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out". That's how most of the EU would respond to the British doing the same thing.
the issue started on whether we should just vote Scotland in, you appeared to be of the view that the other EU nations would work round a UK veto. Accepting of course that other nations may also oppose automatic entry for iScotland.
Ah, no, I'm not saying other UK national would work around a UK veto on Scottish entry. That's the one place where the UK would have a meaningful veto if they wanted to use it, but they won't want to use it.
I took you to be talking about votes on things once Scotland had joined, where you thought if the UK let the Scots into the EU, the Scots would then proceed to use their veto against the UK, and my point was that the Scots wouldn't have a veto on anything meaningful that they could use against the UK even if they wanted to, because the EU rules don't work like that any more. (Apart from accession treaties.)
my view is once in who can say, EU rules change constantly. But which is easier negotiating with 28 partners or 29, why make things more difficult for ourselves ? And I still think a failing Salmond govt will go the Kirchner route and seek foreign distraction to take the focus away from the home front.
This was the theory Cameron followed, but it's been tested and empirically disproved. He vetoed, they worked around him.
Right, you don't think the fact that he said he didn't want to leave the EU gave away that he was bluffing ?
The threat was to veto the treaty they were talking about. He wasn't bluffing - he carried it through, they just worked out how to do what they needed without a treaty.
the bluff issue is actually simpler than that, they CAN work round him because they know he's not going to do anything about it.
My pedantry gene is in full flow today, so please excuse me if I butt in. Two points:
1) Cameron's veto. He vetoed the EU fiscal union thingy treaty, which he was perfectly entitled to do. He then tried to stop a subset of the EU countries from setting up their own treaty and he tried to stop them using the institutions of the EU to run that subset treaty. Unfortunately for him, the principle of enhanced cooperation introduced in the Nice(?) treaty prevented him from doing so. Since neither he nor his legal advisors were up to speed on the EU they did not know this and got arsesmacked as a result. Unusually, I am quite sympathetic to Cameron on this point: he can't be expected to know everything and his legal should have pointed it out and didn't. So Cameron successfully vetoed a full-EU treaty, but could not prevent a partial subset-EU treaty.
2) Scottish accession to the EU. To join the EU requires a full-EU treaty and all 28 have to say yes. Spain can veto perpetually if it wants, and so can any of the others.
Old story but number 2 on the Most Read list on the BBC. Worth watching the video at the top of Joyce Thacker, who recently was questioned by Vaz et al.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120
The threat was to veto the treaty they were talking about. He wasn't bluffing - he carried it through, they just worked out how to do what they needed without a treaty.
the bluff issue is actually simpler than that, they CAN work round him because they know he's not going to do anything about it.
I thought we were talking about vetos? He can threaten to leave if he wants. There's a limit to how much people will allow themselves to be pushed around, though. If Spain threatened to leave unless it got X, Y and Z, most people here would be saying "Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out". That's how most of the EU would respond to the British doing the same thing.
I don't know why you're assuming it's a zero-sum game. Juncker, Tusk and Merkel seem reasonably receptive to the idea of a renegotiated settlement.
This was the theory Cameron followed, but it's been tested and empirically disproved. He vetoed, they worked around him.
Right, you don't think the fact that he said he didn't want to leave the EU gave away that he was bluffing ?
The threat was to veto the treaty they were talking about. He wasn't bluffing - he carried it through, they just worked out how to do what they needed without a treaty.
the bluff issue is actually simpler than that, they CAN work round him because they know he's not going to do anything about it.
My pedantry gene is in full flow today, so please excuse me if I butt in. Two points:
1) Cameron's veto. He vetoed the EU fiscal union thingy treaty, which he was perfectly entitled to do. He then tried to stop a subset of the EU countries from setting up their own treaty and he tried to stop them using the institutions of the EU to run that subset treaty. Unfortunately for him, the principle of enhanced cooperation introduced in the Nice(?) treaty prevented him from doing so. Since neither he nor his legal advisors were up to speed on the EU they did not know this and got arsesmacked as a result. Unusually, I am quite sympathetic to Cameron on this point: he can't be expected to know everything and his legal should have pointed it out and didn't. So Cameron successfully vetoed a full-EU treaty, but could not prevent a partial subset-EU treaty.
2) Scottish accession to the EU. To join the EU requires a full-EU treaty and all 28 have to say yes. Spain can veto perpetually if it wants, and so can any of the others.
Scotland can be vetoed in perpetuity by others, but if we want to guarantee it we vote it ourselves.
Here's a weird potential scenario: Yes wins Cameron resigns Osborne becomes PM within days [prolonged contest is out of the question, so it'd probably be him or perhaps Hague] He's tough on the Scots England likes that, and decides to vote for him Osborne wins the next election
He'll've seen what happened with David Davis stepping aside for Michael Howard and won't want to throw away his chance, if he can help it.
Comments
I clearly believe we will initially use the GBP in a deal / union whatever with rump UK , what will be the choice afterwards has yet to be defined.
PS: They cannot stop anyone buying pounds, and cannot stop Scotland paying in GBP either and could not stop them issuing them from cash machines that is just stupid. Only thing they could not do is print them , but they could print their own and use them internally at the same face value.
Yougov did a non-Scot poll the other day. Labour would still win England.
In any case, Israeli Labour Party did not rule forever. Nor does Congress in India. Party's change according to people and people 's political instincts change due to their relative position in society.
How do you explain the Tory's position in Scotland and the North East ? Surely, there are more centre right voters there ?
It would have just been a waste of around one hundred million pounds. Winning referendums are hard at the best of times, and winning a pointless one would be exceptionally difficult. If it had been won (a big conditional in my mind), then the EU would just say: "Look, you've already signed it.W e're not going through all the rigmarole again." And they'd be right. You can't just sign something then turn around a few months later and renege on it.
Worse, if the referendum had been lost, it would have set back the cause of a true referendum for a few parliaments.
I want an EU referendum; I'll make my mind up how I'll vote at the time. The BOOers need to ensure it is the right referendum at the right time, and that they've got all their guns in position.
A pointless Lisbon referendum had none of the above.
Agreed.
Are all those quotes from just one poster?
"...the worry is as I understand it more to do with the intention that large companies be given the legal right to shoulder aside state organisations such as hospitals, or for that matter GP trusts"
TTIP is, if it ever happens, a free trade agreement between the EU and the USA. How that translates into private companies being able to forcibly take over public enterprises I don't know. Perhaps you could explain.
Poetic licence indeed.
But what am I to expect from malcolmg? He lies to everyone about Scottish independence, so why not lie to an Italian about Italy?
Agreed.
Are all those quotes from just one poster?
Yes all those two quotes were from me and turnip head has taken umbrage and is going to crush a grape any minute now. Man up you big jessies and stop greeting like big weans. Hinge and Bracket are bubbling , get the kleenex.
Not in this case you pillock
Unless it's me being horrid about Balls, at which times I speak for the nation, obviously.
What a sad sack that took the time to list them , certifiable for sure. He secretly enjoyed them before bubbling.
As it happens, I find a lot of your posts hilarious, but I'm not sure if that's intentional or not.
I have been found out, I am really not Mr Angry of Scotchlandshire
Have you ever seen such a feeble response to that magnificent list, sounds like he could not punch his way out of a wet paper bag with assistance.
OR various persons in the EU will make it very easy for Scotland to join, just to annoy the English...
Just because britnats are a little less in your face doesn't mean they care any less passionately. Family is family and we all look out for each other.
And as for disguntled minorities, they're always there you don't balkanise your country just becasue some people can;t have what they want; you may try to accommodate them or you may just ignore them. If the people in the South or Scotland or the Orkneys didn't want to be in iScotland I can't see the scottish government letting them go because they ain't happy.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/snp-in-threat-to-block-foreign-fishing-boats-from-north-sea.21443529
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/28/alex-salmond-fisheries-eu-scotland
It might mean the Cod wars all over again. And Spain, Norway and Denmark would win.
Consequences? Are you going to throw turnips at them?
P.S. A loser is defined as someone who lost. Hannibal was a loser. It isn't the heats that count its the final.
An interesting question is whether Scotland can persuade us to be a positive voice with the EU for them in the Scotland-EU negotiations; in other words, not just not vetoing, but putting our weight behind their membership.
Everyone is lying or bluffing apart from the SNP.
Of course the SNP has never been caught out bluffing or lying...........
Besides, it assumes that Scotland would want to p*ss the rest of the UK off. That may not be the case, depending on how things go. There is still a possibility that we might be friends after any split, despite how some of our Scottish contingent act.
How much of the crap Salmond spouts do you think he actually believes? 10%? 5%?
PS, or perhaps you are really Brown and smelly and you may actually believe it
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Punt_gun.jpg
or this:
http://shootingfix.com.au/forum/download/file.php?id=121
;-)
That said, Michael Howard became leader in a matter of days. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happened were Cameron to go this time. One of the ironies of extending the amount of democracy in the process is that in some ways it's actually reduced it.
As far as QMV votes went, Scotland would probably end up on the same side as rUK more often than not, as the two countries have a lot of interests in common.
Which country do you think they are most likely to choose ?
Mind you even to discuss this is some sort insanity. Were not the Scots assured that come independence day they would automatically be members of the EU in their own right with all the opt-outs and terms that the UK had previously negotiated?
To use a trivial analogy, would Scotland give us 12pts in Eurovision?
I doubt it.
In one sense, it should be relatively easy: EU law already applies in Scotland and Scottish law is already compliant with all the EU accession chapters. On the other, no state has ever gained membership in less than two years (excluding the original six), so that's a tight timeframe, especially for a government with no Foreign Office and which would also be engaged in negotiations with Westminster.
Scotland has followed exactly the opposite path of Cataolnia: peaceful; bilateral; inclusive. Letting Scotland in would send the message (given that Kosovo is never getting membership of the EU due to Spanish veto and so there would be the two ways visible) that there are two ways of doing things - in partnership and unilaterally. In partnership gets co-operation, unilaterally gets you frozen out.
If Spain vetos Scottish membership then they show to Catalonia that no matter what they do they would be frozen out - and Catalonia might decide that having seen the worst that could happen they say "fuck it we are doing it anyway" and unilateraly secede with all the chaos that would cause. If the agree to Scottish memebership then Catalonia is set an example which helps keep them in line.
Gordon Brown's speech at the Labour No event in Kirkcaldy: "None of us here should allow it to be said that anybody who votes no is less patriotic and less proud of our country. We are patriotic Scots. We've got a patriotic vision for the future We're proud of our institutions. We're patriotic, we're proud of Scotland. We are proud to that we share and cooperate as part of the United Kingdom."
If Scotland were to become independent (unlikely) and various islands sought independence, I'd be similarly ambivalent. Why on earth would I want to stand in their way or to think I know better than them what is in their interests? How does their expression of an existing lack of solidarity with me diminish my identity?
£80,000 sitting at 1.28 come a market movement
There are many difficult and troublesome points to be sorted in the divorce negotiations. Frankly, I see Scotland's membership of the EU as being small fry (to us, at least) in those negotiations, and a point that can be easily agreed to mutual satisfaction.
If Scotland plays silly buggers afterwards, well, that's their lookout. But it doesn't have to come to that, and we can still try to be honest partners. Automatically assuming ill-will on their part is foolish IMHO.
And where I'm scared that our politicians down here will be lily-livered about it. Like some misplaced hug-a-hoodie feel good thing.
Nope. If Scotland votes Yes, then they become a foreign land that we need to play hard ball with. Just like anyone else. We don't need to be dickheads about it, just not a pushover.
No residual sentimentality. That's not in our collective interest.
Scottish EU membership is small-fry to us. We have much bigger concerns that need to be addressed during the divorce.
It looks likely that Salmond and the SNP sold the Scottish electorate a pup on automatic EU membership. Vetoing it when that course of action hold little for us would allow them to transfer the blame onto us.
Instead, we can say: "They lied, but we're helping you." Even if that help is absolutely minimal in the non-action of not vetoing.
The EU is just a small part of the game we need to play.
but EU membership is more than small fry it's small to us maybe, but big to them.
I took you to be talking about votes on things once Scotland had joined, where you thought if the UK let the Scots into the EU, the Scots would then proceed to use their veto against the UK, and my point was that the Scots wouldn't have a veto on anything meaningful that they could use against the UK even if they wanted to, because the EU rules don't work like that any more. (Apart from accession treaties.)
1) Cameron's veto. He vetoed the EU fiscal union thingy treaty, which he was perfectly entitled to do. He then tried to stop a subset of the EU countries from setting up their own treaty and he tried to stop them using the institutions of the EU to run that subset treaty. Unfortunately for him, the principle of enhanced cooperation introduced in the Nice(?) treaty prevented him from doing so. Since neither he nor his legal advisors were up to speed on the EU they did not know this and got arsesmacked as a result. Unusually, I am quite sympathetic to Cameron on this point: he can't be expected to know everything and his legal should have pointed it out and didn't. So Cameron successfully vetoed a full-EU treaty, but could not prevent a partial subset-EU treaty.
2) Scottish accession to the EU. To join the EU requires a full-EU treaty and all 28 have to say yes. Spain can veto perpetually if it wants, and so can any of the others.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120
Yes wins
Cameron resigns
Osborne becomes PM within days [prolonged contest is out of the question, so it'd probably be him or perhaps Hague]
He's tough on the Scots
England likes that, and decides to vote for him
Osborne wins the next election
He'll've seen what happened with David Davis stepping aside for Michael Howard and won't want to throw away his chance, if he can help it.