Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

Donate to our new server appeal.


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Tartan Tory

Could Spain veto Scotland?

Today's Daily Hate-Mail was headlined with a story claiming that the SNP's wish for an independent Scotland to be an EU member could be damaged by existing EU states with secessionist movements, principally Spain, vetoing any membership applications. Spain, after all, does not recognise Kosovo as an independent state. It also brought up the SNP's oppositon to NATO as another source of tension.

In a way, their right. The Spanish government is likely to do this if it feels it will stop the Catalans and the Basque from getting any ideas. But on the other hand, Greenland joined the EU upon recieving greater autonomy from Denmark (though did later leave) and Scotland would not be the only member state unaffiliated with NATO.

What does everyone think about this?
landg

of course spain can veto this and probably would. salmond seems to have spent too much time with the tartan army and is of the belief that those cheeky and loveable scots will get what they want and be cheered along the way.
Holebender

Fish.

Scotland has fish, Spain wants fish.

Will Spain cut off its fishermen's noses to spite its secessionists' faces?
Reluctant Hero

If Scotland were to adopt the Euro though, it could put a whole new spin on things.
Fidget

Re: Could Spain veto Scotland?

Tartan Tory wrote:
Today's Daily Hate-Mail was headlined with a story claiming that the SNP's wish for an independent Scotland to be an EU member could be damaged by existing EU states with secessionist movements, principally Spain, vetoing any membership applications. Spain, after all, does not recognise Kosovo as an independent state. It also brought up the SNP's oppositon to NATO as another source of tension.

In a way, their right. The Spanish government is likely to do this if it feels it will stop the Catalans and the Basque from getting any ideas. But on the other hand, Greenland joined the EU upon recieving greater autonomy from Denmark (though did later leave) and Scotland would not be the only member state unaffiliated with NATO.

What does everyone think about this?


The daily mail does have a point. I think there's a misconception that Scotand would automatically be eligible for EU membership if it became independent of the rest of the UK, but the reality is that Scotland would have no automatic right to EU membership.  At worst Scotland might even have to negotiate its terms of entry to the EU in the same way as any other country, and that would take years.  And whilst there's nothing to say that Scotland wouldn't be welcomed as an EU country, other countries, understandably, might not be too keen to see auto-membership granted to breakaway factions.
landg

alex salmon.fishmonger and general whore of scottish rainbow trout.
alex salmon.geddit.salmon.....
hahahahhaha
Fidget

you're so original, I think I love you!  PDT_Aliboronz_11

landg

fair enough.
Corby Boy

I don't think it greatly matters. I work in Europe a lot, Norway, Switzerland and Lichenstein don't do too badly for not being in the EU. Doesn't stop trade or free movement.

They're the only two tangible benefits of being in the EU.

So, I would be happy Scotland being outwith the EU. We could have tartan passports rather than burgundy ones Very Happy

To be honest, I think the EU would not want the oil reserves off Scottish coasts to be outwith its sphere of influence.

Also, the fish point is fair comment vis a vis Espana.
babykitten

The same old tired arguments from unionists.  Of course ANY member state could veto membership but just think what the consequences of that could be.  It's a bit like how the Queen has a 'right' to veto any legislation.  It's a theoretical power which would soon be removed if it was exercised in a frivolous way.

Those who think that Spain (or someone else) would veto Scotland's membership of the EU forget the example of Greenland which had to APPLY TO LEAVE the EU on gaining greater autonomy.  Scotland is ALREADY in the EU.  Therefore it is almost certain that the status quo would continue on independence.

Of course Scotland would need to renegotatiate the TERMS of membership, but membership will amost certainly continue unless a decision is made BY Scotland to leave.

The remaining UK would also have to renegotiate the TERMS of membership, but will still remain a member while this is done.

We also have to remember that the EU is all about enlargement and would gladly have every European country as a member, perhaps even Russia.

To argue that Scotland would need to wait behind the claims of the likes of Turkey and other '2nd world' (for want of a different term) countries is utter nonsense.  Scotland ALREADY fulfills the criteria of being an EU member and IS already a member.

I see virtually no circumstances in which Scotland would be forced to leave and reapply.  This is NOT the same as having to renegotiate the TERMS of membership.
Fidget

Been drinking again?
babykitten

Fidget wrote:
Been drinking again?

Can we mark Fidget as a troll?  He is clearly not interested in debate of any kind.

He is provided with clear, strong arguments about something and all he can come up with is puerile nonsense like the above.

In my argument, I acknowledge that Spain, or indeed anywhere else, could veto Scotland's membership of the EU.  However I also point out firstly, how unlikely I think that is, and secondly, how unlikely would the opportunity to even veto membership would be, given that, in my view, membership for both an independent Scotland and a rump UK would continue, with simply the terms being renegotiated.

But no, I've been "drinking again".  Laughably pathetic.
Dave Coull

babykitten wrote:
The same old tired arguments from unionists.  Of course ANY member state could veto membership but just think what the consequences of that could be.  It's a bit like how the Queen has a 'right' to veto any legislation.  It's a theoretical power which would soon be removed if it was exercised in a frivolous way.
Yes, their arguments are old, and yes, their arguments are tired. But it's the best they can come up with.
babykitten wrote:
Those who think that Spain (or someone else) would veto Scotland's membership of the EU forget the example of Greenland which had to APPLY TO LEAVE the EU on gaining greater autonomy.
Yes, the precedent has already been set. Any territory which has been part of a member state remains a part of the EU even if that territory's status with regard to the aforementioned member state changes. Furthermore, if it wants to quit the EU, then it has to go through a long drawn out process of negotiating its exit, in order to be able to leave. If that was true for Greenland, then it would be true with bells and whistles on for the territory with most of the EU's oil and gas as well as most of the EU's fish.
Fidget

babykitten wrote:
Fidget wrote:
Been drinking again?

Can we mark Fidget as a troll?  He is clearly not interested in debate of any kind.

He is provided with clear, strong arguments about something and all he can come up with is puerile nonsense like the above.

In my argument, I acknowledge that Spain, or indeed anywhere else, could veto Scotland's membership of the EU.  However I also point out firstly, how unlikely I think that is, and secondly, how unlikely would the opportunity to even veto membership would be, given that, in my view, membership for both an independent Scotland and a rump UK would continue, with simply the terms being renegotiated.

But no, I've been "drinking again".  Laughably pathetic.


Yes, I thought you had.  But let's not dwell on that.  Moving on... "In my argument, I acknowledge that Spain, or indeed anywhere else, could veto Scotland's membership of the EU.  However I also point out firstly, how unlikely I think that is"  

Why? What's so unlikely about it? Why do you think Scotland should have auto membership of the EU?  Why?

And again I say, it is not  about Scotland, it's about the EU and procedures for countries joining it. To allow one country to just simply by-pass those procedures sets a dangerous precedent.

"in my view, membership for both an independent Scotland and a rump UK would continue, with simply the terms being renegotiated."  

Membership for a rump UK would certainly continue, and for a host of reasons.  An auto-membership for any state that used to be part of another state is a different thing.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
Why do you think Scotland should have auto membership of the EU?
What you mean is
Quote:
Why do you think Scotland   will   have auto membership of the EU?
There is no  "should"  about it. As it happens, I'm far from convinced of the benefits of EU membership. I think that, AFTER we are independent, we should have a referendum on whether we want EU membership or not. When the time for that referendum comes, so far as myself and a lot of other folk are concerned, both the EU and pro-EU Scottish politicians are going to have a hard time trying to persuade us. But although I am far from convinced of the benefits of EU membership, I recognise the simple fact that Scotland will be a member, at least to begin with.
Fidget wrote:
it's about the EU and procedures for countries joining it.
No it isn't
.
It's about the procedures for countries LEAVING the EU. The precedent has already been set. Greenland, which was a member as part of the territory of Denmark, wanted to leave the EU, and had to negotiate its way out. Therefore, any territory which has been part of a member state remains a part of the EU even if that territory's status with regard to the aforementioned member state changes. Furthermore, if the territory wants to quit the EU, then it has to go through a long drawn out process of negotiating its exit, in order to be able to leave.

Yes, if Scotland remains a member, the terms will have to be re-negotiated. And if we don't get terms we like, then we leave. But the point is that, during the period when negotiations are going on, whether these negotiations are about the terms for leaving or the terms for continuing membership, WHILE the negotiations are going on, Scotland will be a member of the EU. Just like Greenland was.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
Why do you think Scotland should have auto membership of the EU?  Why?

Do you actually know how to read? You are completely ignoring the precedent of Greenland, which has been quoted several times. Greenland is your "why", and if that isn't enough for you take a look at Scotland's resources and the EU's appetite for those resources.
babykitten

Fidget wrote:

Yes, I thought you had.  But let's not dwell on that.  Moving on... "In my argument, I acknowledge that Spain, or indeed anywhere else, could veto Scotland's membership of the EU.  However I also point out firstly, how unlikely I think that is"  

Why? What's so unlikely about it? Why do you think Scotland should have auto membership of the EU?  Why?

And again I say, it is not  about Scotland, it's about the EU and procedures for countries joining it. To allow one country to just simply by-pass those procedures sets a dangerous precedent.

"in my view, membership for both an independent Scotland and a rump UK would continue, with simply the terms being renegotiated."  

Membership for a rump UK would certainly continue, and for a host of reasons.  An auto-membership for any state that used to be part of another state is a different thing.


You thought I had?  What are you on about?

Have you actually read anything I've written?  I've given you my reasons why Scotland will not be kicked out of the EU on independence.

How about YOU give the reasons why Scotland would NOT remain a member of the EU on independence?  Also tell us why this is different from the rump UK (I would suggest that simply using the "successor state" argument says nothing at all about Scotland's 'fate').

Then, while you're at it, tell us why you think that Scotland SHOULDN'T.  You touch on "by-passing" the normal procedures and how this is dangerous.

I would say there is absolutely no "by-passing" going on at all, given that Scotland currently has membership of the EU.  Quite how an existing EU member remaining a part of the EU is "dangerous" is beyond me.

Even if you truly do believe that Scotland remaining a member IS "by-passing" then this is still not "dangerous" as clearly Scotland ALREADY fulfills the criteria of membership.  There is no reason why Scotland would no longer fulfill these criteria on independence.

You have got a bee in your bonnet about this.  I'm not quite sure why.  Are you a Scottish Unionist who is trying to put obstacles in the way of independence?  Are you an English Nationalist taking offence at Scotland potentially speaking for herself?  Just what is your problem with Scotland and the EU?

For the record, I'm not great fan of the EU either, and would advocate a referendum on membership after independence, but it is clear to me that Scotland will remain a member immediately come independence.
babykitten

Holebender wrote:
Fidget wrote:
Why do you think Scotland should have auto membership of the EU?  Why?

Do you actually know how to read? You are completely ignoring the precedent of Greenland, which has been quoted several times. Greenland is your "why", and if that isn't enough for you take a look at Scotland's resources and the EU's appetite for those resources.


And if that isn't good enough, then perhaps he can explain the logic behind the EU kicking out current members because of constitutional change when the EU is all about enlargement at every opportunity.
Fidget

babykitten wrote:


Have you actually read anything I've written?


Yes.  It's wanting.. and long.
Fidget

babykitten wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Fidget wrote:
Why do you think Scotland should have auto membership of the EU?  Why?

Do you actually know how to read? You are completely ignoring the precedent of Greenland, which has been quoted several times. Greenland is your "why", and if that isn't enough for you take a look at Scotland's resources and the EU's appetite for those resources.


And if that isn't good enough, then perhaps he can explain the logic behind the EU kicking out current members because of constitutional change when the EU is all about enlargement at every opportunity.


Which current members have been kicked out?
Fidget

babykitten wrote:


And if that isn't good enough, then perhaps he can explain the logic behind the EU kicking out current members because of constitutional change when the EU is all about enlargement at every opportunity.


Which current members have been kicked out?

Is silence supposed to be golden or deafening?  Laughing
Holebender

But you are the one arguing that a current member would be kicked out, so aren't you just undermining your own position?
voiceofourown

Oh dear Fidget. I think you may have misunderstood Babykitten's point.
Whilst not wishing to speak for anyone else, I think it's fairly clear that Babykitten was asking YOU to explain why current members of the EU would be kicked out if their constitutional position changed.
I'm certainly unaware of such a precedent.
The fact that you then posit that point as a challenge to Babykitten's position reveals how vacuous your argument is.
It seems you proceed on this forum simply by gainsaying rather than engaging with the issues - or, indeed, engaging your brain).
Shagpile

Simple, at the moment. This union is a member of the European one.

The onus is on an independent Scotland to chose to remain a member of the European one after it has left the British one.

It's simple really.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
But you are the one arguing that a current member would be kicked out, so aren't you just undermining your own position?


voiceofourown wrote:
Oh dear Fidget. I think you may have misunderstood Babykitten's point.
Whilst not wishing to speak for anyone else, I think it's fairly clear that Babykitten was asking YOU to explain why current members of the EU would be kicked out if their constitutional position changed.
I'm certainly unaware of such a precedent.
The fact that you then posit that point as a challenge to Babykitten's position reveals how vacuous your argument is.
It seems you proceed on this forum simply by gainsaying rather than engaging with the issues - or, indeed, engaging your brain).



It wouldn't be a case of a current member being kicked out, it would be a case of a newly created state having to apply for membership. Independent Scotland would no longer be part of the UK - and it would be the rump UK that would retain membership of the EU.  There is quite a big difference there.
SouthernJock

Just to put my tuppence (old money) worth in.
Ive often seen many references to 'UK Rump State'
I think it would be helpfule if we all recognised the fact that we are actually talking about England or the Kingdom of England.
In 1707 the act of Union that brought about the 'United Kingdom' was the political union of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.
Wales as such is already an integral part of the Kingdom of England as being a Princepality.
So with Scotland removing itself from the Union. there will not be a 'United Kingdom' as there will not be more than one Kingdom to be United!
So post Independence, we will or should have the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.
What about Northern Ireland? well interestingly it could ask to join either the Kingdom of England OR the Kingdom of Scotland in some economic pact. This is something the politicians of Northern Ireland will have to come to terms with as the being of Northern Ireland was an eventual result of the partition of the Ireland which had joined the Union after the setting up of the UK. This could also apply to all crown colonies that were established after 1707.
Northern Ireland may want to be quasi independent of everyone, or it may want some loose agreement with the Republic to the South. You see the arguement of the prodestant politicians of wanting to remain part of the United Kingdom, becomes very very fluid, when there is NO United Kingdom. So they may put there bit in with England or have an agreement with Scotland, which ever is the most palatable for them.

An Independent Scotand will establish a completely different look to europe
Fidget

SouthernJock wrote:
Just to put my tuppence (old money) worth in.
Ive often seen many references to 'UK Rump State'
I think it would be helpfule if we all recognised the fact that we are actually talking about England or the Kingdom of England.
In 1707 the act of Union that brought about the 'United Kingdom' was the political union of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.


No, it didn't.  The Act of the union brought about a Kingdom - a Kingdom called Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
The Act of the union brought about a Kingdom - a Kingdom called Great Britain
That is what the most fanatical Unionists fondly imagine, but it was never really true, not even at the height of Unionism. The Act of Union itself, quite deliberately, at the insistence of the Scottish unionist delegates who negotiated the Treaty of Union with representatives of the English Parliament, prevented the development of a homogenous single kingdom, by specifying the areas in which the two kingdoms would ALWAYS remain separate   -   for instance, that there would be a Church of Scotland, and a Church of England, but not a Church of Britain. Also, the Act of Union specifically kept Scottish law and English law separate. For my history dissertation at university, I researched Scottish newspapers of the late 18th Century, both the "news" stories and the readers' letters. Now remember, this was at a time when Scotland and England were united, but  before  the Union with Ireland in 1801. In my research, I came across several references to things like the need to strengthen "the defence of these united kingdoms"   -   PLURAL. Apparently, even committed Unionists, in the late 18th Century, thought of Scotland and England as two distinct kingdoms, two UNITED kingdoms certaintly, but two kingdoms nevertheless. Let's face it, the idea of a single, homogenous British kingdom is one that was stillborn right from the start, didn't even succeed in getting rid of the idea of two kingdoms at the height of the British Empire, and, now that the heyday of British Unionism is long past, it is an idea that must be counted as a failed experiment.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget wrote:
The Act of the union brought about a Kingdom - a Kingdom called Great Britain
That is what the most fanatical Unionists fondly imagine, but it was never really true, not even at the height of Unionism.


Sorry Chap, but the words in black and white say different from what you preferred they said.
Stevie

Once Scotland is an independent nation the Spanish won't be looking to make enemies with other nearby nations.

Another thing, Europeans generally like the Scots, it's Britain they don't like.

A fait accompli of politics that doesn't merit thinking about.
Stevie

Incidentally, Great Britain was named after the Roman general Britanicus.  

Great doesn't mean brilliant, it just means bigger than little Britain.

I'm not sure what other little Britain is being referred to but the term Great Britain has nothing to do with kingdoms and all to do with a name of a general who died about 2000 years ago.
Fidget

"Eurpoeans generally like the Scots".

Well there we have it! That's Scotland into the EU then in the event of independence.

In fact.. the world over generally like the Scots.... to laugh at.  Libya especially at the moment.
Stevie

landg wrote:
alex salmon.fishmonger and general whore of scottish rainbow trout.
alex salmon.geddit.salmon.....
hahahahhaha


Oh God... name 'jokes'... or at least trying to be...
Stevie

Fidget wrote:
"Eurpoeans generally like the Scots".

Well there we have it! That's Scotland into the EU then in the event of independence.


Yes.
Dave Coull

Bravehand wrote:
Great doesn't mean brilliant, it just means bigger than little Britain. I'm not sure what other little Britain is being referred to
Brittany.

French province with Celtic roots, facing the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean.

In French, "Britain" and "Brittany" are the identical same word, "Bretagne"  -  pronounced something like Brittannia.

When William The Conqueror conquered England in 1066, the language of the ruling class of England became French. French remained the language of the ruling class of England for hundreds of years.

The Norman-French rulers of England had a word in French for the country they ruled, they called it "Angleterre". But what if the Norman-French wanted a word to refer to the whole island, including Scotland, in fact, what if they specifically wanted to imply some sort of claim to Scotland? They couldn't call it "Bretagne", because that was already the name of a Province on the other side of the Channel where they had connections (and possessions).

So they called it "Grand Bretagne"    -    Big Britain. To distinguish it from the littler Britain.

Much, much later, when the ruling class of England finally got around to speaking English, they (MIS-?)translated "Grande Bretagne" as "Great Britain".
Dave Coull

I wrote:
The Act of Union itself, quite deliberately, at the insistence of the Scottish unionist delegates who negotiated the Treaty of Union with representatives of the English Parliament, PREVENTED the development of a homogenous single kingdom, by specifying the areas in which the two kingdoms would ALWAYS remain separate   -   for instance, that there would be a Church of Scotland, and a Church of England, but not a Church of Britain.
Fidget wrote:
the words in black and white say different from what you preferred
It's not a question of what I "prefer". It's a question of historical fact. Are you claiming that there has been, and that there is today, a Church of Britain? Who is the Head of the Church of Britain which you imagine exists?
Stevie

Somebody told me there was another little Britain on the other side of the world somewhere but the Bretagne thing sounds right.
The Lithgae Jambo

Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote:
The Act of Union itself, quite deliberately, at the insistence of the Scottish unionist delegates who negotiated the Treaty of Union with representatives of the English Parliament, PREVENTED the development of a homogenous single kingdom, by specifying the areas in which the two kingdoms would ALWAYS remain separate   -   for instance, that there would be a Church of Scotland, and a Church of England, but not a Church of Britain.
Fidget wrote:
the words in black and white say different from what you preferred
It's not a question of what I "prefer". It's a question of historical fact. Are you claiming that there has been, and that there is today, a Church of Britain? Who is the Head of the Church of Britain which you imagine exists?



Though the Act ensured the existence of separate Churches,  Article 1 states

That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedSta.../Acts/asp/1707/casp_17070007_en_1

However, the term "Great Britain" was coined long, long, long before then.
Dave Coull

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
the term "Great Britain" was coined long, long, long before then.
Yes.
By the French.
To distinguish the bigger one from little Britain.
Alasdair

Fidget wrote:
SouthernJock wrote:
Just to put my tuppence (old money) worth in.
Ive often seen many references to 'UK Rump State'
I think it would be helpfule if we all recognised the fact that we are actually talking about England or the Kingdom of England.
In 1707 the act of Union that brought about the 'United Kingdom' was the political union of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.


No, it didn't.  The Act of the union brought about a Kingdom - a Kingdom called Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.


And there was me thinking that the union of crowns in 1603 brought created the united kingdom, and the act in 1707 merely brought together the parliaments ...
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
Holebender wrote:
But you are the one arguing that a current member would be kicked out, so aren't you just undermining your own position?


voiceofourown wrote:
Oh dear Fidget. I think you may have misunderstood Babykitten's point.
Whilst not wishing to speak for anyone else, I think it's fairly clear that Babykitten was asking YOU to explain why current members of the EU would be kicked out if their constitutional position changed.
I'm certainly unaware of such a precedent.
The fact that you then posit that point as a challenge to Babykitten's position reveals how vacuous your argument is.
It seems you proceed on this forum simply by gainsaying rather than engaging with the issues - or, indeed, engaging your brain).



It wouldn't be a case of a current member being kicked out, it would be a case of a newly created state having to apply for membership. Independent Scotland would no longer be part of the UK - and it would be the rump UK that would retain membership of the EU.  There is quite a big difference there.

Scotland is, right now, part of the EU. Does anyone deny that?

Greenland was, at one time, part of the EU. When its constitutional status changed in relation to Denmark Greenland remained part of the EU and had to actively negotiate its exit. Explain why Scotland's situation is any different.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget wrote:
The Act of the union brought about a Kingdom - a Kingdom called Great Britain
That is what the most fanatical Unionists fondly imagine, but it was never really true, not even at the height of Unionism.


Sorry Chap, but the words in black and white say different from what you preferred they said.


Here's what it actually says in black and white:
The Act of Union wrote:
Article 1

I. That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.

Article 2

II. That the Succession to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of the Dominions thereunto belonging after Her Most Sacred Majesty, and in default of Issue of Her Majesty be, remain and continue to the Most Excellent Princess Sophia Electoress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover...
Dave Coull

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
Though the Act ensured the existence of separate Churches,  Article 1 states

That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain
I know the Act says that. I know that was the AIM . My point is that the aim failed, and, indeed, that failure was built into the Act itself from the very start. In 1707, religion was a far more important part of everyday life than it is today. You ran the risk of being punished in various ways for not attending the established church, the church ran such schools as existed, the church ran such social services as existed, etc etc. In the context where religion, and specifically the established church, played such a hige part in the life of the kingdom, you couldn't really have a united kingdom without a united established church. Yet the Act of Union left a situation where Scotland was officially presbyterian and England was officially episcopalian. The Act of Union left a situation where the monarch was officially Head of the Church of England, while the Church of Scotland officially stated that its one and only Head was Christ Jesus, and it acknowledged "no Earthly Head". Therefore, in religious matters, Scotland and England remained separate kingdoms. That failure to create a single, unified kingdom was there right from the start, in the Act of Union itself.

Another very important way in which there remained two distinct kingdoms was the legal systems. The Scottish legal system remained separate from English law. You still had a situation where, in Scotland, a jury consisted of 15 folk, but in England of only 12. You still had a situation where, in criminal trials, that jury had 3 possible verdicts available to them, not 2 as in England. You still had Scottish law separate in hundreds of ways from English law, and this continued to be the case throughout the period of existence of the "United Kingdom".

Now, I'm not saying the "United Kingdom" could have succeeded, if there had been an attempt to "unify" in religion and law. As a matter of fact, I think the failure would have been swifter and more drastic. My point is simply that, despite Scotland and England supposedly having been abolished, nothing of the sort ever actually happened, in the late 18th Century even Unionists referred to "THESE United KINGDOMS", plural, Scotland didn't even cease to exist in the 19th Century heyday of the British Empire, and the idea of an incorporating Union has been in retreat ever since then.
Cruachan

"and forever after" .....or at least until 2010 Smile
Fidget

Holebender wrote:

Scotland is, right now, part of the EU. Does anyone deny that?

Greenland was, at one time, part of the EU. When its constitutional status changed in relation to Denmark Greenland remained part of the EU and had to actively negotiate its exit. Explain why Scotland's situation is any different.


Scotland is part of the EU as part of the UK. The UK is the member state, not Scotland. Its independence would mean that it is no longer part of the member state and be a completely separate state in its own right.  That is not the same position as was with Greenland because Greenland remained a part of Denmark.  The same would not be true with Scottish independence and the UK. The position with Greenland is also why it was Denmark, not Greenland, that had to negotiate Greeland's exit from the EU due to member states not being allowed to secede without the agreement of all other member states.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Fish.

Scotland has fish, Spain wants fish.

Will Spain cut off its fishermen's noses to spite its secessionists' faces?


Rather buggers up the SNP belief that they can negotiate exclusive control over Scottish fisheries and remain an EU member state.

babykitten wrote:
The same old tired arguments from unionists.  Of course ANY member state could veto membership but just think what the consequences of that could be.  It's a bit like how the Queen has a 'right' to veto any legislation.  It's a theoretical power which would soon be removed if it was exercised in a frivolous way.


Of course it isn't theoretical. Nor, in fact, is it even a 'veto' as such - it's a positive vote to include a new state. But no only that - since the Treaty-imposed limit on membership has been reached, Scotland joining would also require a completely new treaty to be drafted to that effect.

Quote:
Those who think that Spain (or someone else) would veto Scotland's membership of the EU forget the example of Greenland which had to APPLY TO LEAVE the EU on gaining greater autonomy.  Scotland is ALREADY in the EU.  Therefore it is almost certain that the status quo would continue on independence.


No it's not 'almost certain' - you are clearly completely ignorant of international law.

Quote:
The remaining UK would also have to renegotiate the TERMS of membership, but will still remain a member while this is done.


No they wouldn't. Again, try reading even the most basic information about something before offering up 'facts' on it. The UK would remain unchanged, its obligations and privileges in international law would be unaltered.

The amount of unashamed ignorance on this forum can be bloody annoying at times.

Quote:
To argue that Scotland would need to wait behind the claims of the likes of Turkey and other '2nd world' (for want of a different term) countries is utter nonsense.  Scotland ALREADY fulfills the criteria of being an EU member and IS already a member.


That's not strictly true. The UK would not satisfy the Copenhagen criteria which new member-states are expected to fulfill. It has a great deal of privileges and opt-outs which are not afforded to new members.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Greenland was, at one time, part of the EU. When its constitutional status changed in relation to Denmark Greenland remained part of the EU and had to actively negotiate its exit. Explain why Scotland's situation is any different.


Greenland was never fully part of Denmark, but a possession. It remains a possession of Denmark; simply with greater autonomy. The two are completely different situations - and indeed, both are completely normal.
Aventinian

Alasdair wrote:
Fidget wrote:
No, it didn't.  The Act of the union brought about a Kingdom - a Kingdom called Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.


And there was me thinking that the union of crowns in 1603 brought created the united kingdom, and the act in 1707 merely brought together the parliaments ...


The name of the country from 1707-1801 was ambiguous. It may have been the Kingdom of Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain or just plain old Great Britain. It wasn't the sort of thing that mattered much back then - or indeed, even more recently - it took five years for the UKGBI to change its name to the UKGBNI after the southern Irish left.

But after 1603, there was not a 'united kingdom'. The were two separate Kingdoms that shared a monarch. That said, in anticipation of a Parliamentary Union, James VI took upon the subsidiary title of 'King of Great Britain', which all the Stewarts held. But at that time he was a King without a Kingdom, in regard to Great Britain.
Alasdair

Aventinian wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Fidget wrote:
No, it didn't.  The Act of the union brought about a Kingdom - a Kingdom called Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.


And there was me thinking that the union of crowns in 1603 brought created the united kingdom, and the act in 1707 merely brought together the parliaments ...


The name of the country from 1707-1801 was ambiguous. It may have been the Kingdom of Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain or just plain old Great Britain. It wasn't the sort of thing that mattered much back then - or indeed, even more recently - it took five years for the UKGBI to change its name to the UKGBNI after the southern Irish left.

But after 1603, there was not a 'united kingdom'. The were two separate Kingdoms that shared a monarch. That said, in anticipation of a Parliamentary Union, James VI took upon the subsidiary title of 'King of Great Britain', which all the Stewarts held. But at that time he was a King without a Kingdom, in regard to Great Britain.


Thanks Av, every day's a school day Very Happy
Fidget

All this adamancy from the nats about scotland most definately, and without a doubt and that, automatically being a member of the EU if it becomes independent has got me wondering what their idea of an "independent" Scotland actually is.  

Automatic membership would mean governed from Brussels instead of Westminster.  So where does their notion of "independence" fit in with that?

Stevie

Fidget wrote:
Automatic membership would mean governed from Brussels instead of Westminster.  So where does their notion of "independence" fit in with that?



What a load of silly Brit nat rot.

I take it  you're a UKIPPER at heart even though you vote labour.

Of course voting Labour is the same politically as voting Tory these days (give or take a spending cut or two).

Of course, that in effect makes you a Tory by default in all but name.

When using 'nats' in a derogatory way, think that you're one, it's just you're a Brit Nat.
landg

are we still going on about the fish. next it'll be something about the other thing thats running out...
Fidget

Bravehand wrote:
Fidget wrote:
Automatic membership would mean governed from Brussels instead of Westminster.  So where does their notion of "independence" fit in with that?



What a load of silly Brit nat rot.

I take it  you're a UKIPPER at heart even though you vote labour.

Of course voting Labour is the same politically as voting Tory these days (give or take a spending cut or two).

Of course, that in effect makes you a Tory by default in all but name.

When using 'nats' in a derogatory way, think that you're one, it's just you're a Brit Nat.


It's ok, you can describe me as Brit Nat or UKIPPER if you want. Doesn't mean anything to me. It's new to me as well that some people find 'nats' derogatory in meaning Nationlist.  I thought it was just an abbreviation.

You haven't said anything yet about what your idea of independence is in the face of Brussels, and not Westminster rule. What are your thoughts on that?
landg

hahaha never saw that britnatrot.pffffffffft.
Alasdair

given that apparently 70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells anyway, isn't westminster largely irrelevant?
Stevie

[quote="Fidget"]
Bravehand wrote:
Fidget wrote:
Automatic membership would mean governed from Brussels instead of Westminster.  So where does their notion of "independence" fit in with that?



You haven't said anything yet about what your idea of independence is in the face of Brussels, and not Westminster rule. What are your thoughts on that?


Independence is independence, except that as Europeans we can act as a large European group and put trade tariffs on the Asian nation and thus increase manufacturing jobs in Europe.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
All this adamancy from the nats about scotland most definately, and without a doubt and that, automatically being a member of the EU if it becomes independent has got me wondering what their idea of an "independent" Scotland actually is.  

Automatic membership would mean governed from Brussels instead of Westminster.  So where does their notion of "independence" fit in with that?


Hilarious! You spend days arguing that Scotland would be booted out of the EU if it dared become independent and then you flip and say we'd be under the Brussels jackboot.

Whichever way Scotland goes will be up to the voters who live in Scotland, not the corrupt Westminster system, nor the equally corrupt EU.
landg

Alasdair wrote:
given that apparently 70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells anyway, isn't westminster largely irrelevant?


so whats the point of 'independence'?
i really am enjoying your stuff.
Dave Coull

landg wrote:
whats the point of 'independence'?
The point of independence is to have a greater degree of control over how society affects our lives than is possible with Scotland being a small part of the grossly centralised and authoritarian British state. The question of Scotland's relationship with the EU is certainly one that will have to be addressed, but it can only be properly addressed through a referendum AFTER Scotland becomes independent from the British state. As long as Scotland remains part of the British state, we do not have sufficient control over our own destiny to be able to take a decision regarding the EU.
Alasdair

landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
given that apparently 70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells anyway, isn't westminster largely irrelevant?


so whats the point of 'independence'?
i really am enjoying your stuff.


Rolling Eyes

must i spell it out?  better yet just read Dave's post above.  I don't believe I ever said i thought an independent Scotland shold be part of Europe, I said:

"... isn't westminster largely irrelevant?"

why don't you answer the question instead of attacking the poster for some sort of implication that hasn't been made or the point you wish had been made.
landg

Dave Coull wrote:
landg wrote:
whats the point of 'independence'?
The point of independence is to have a greater degree of control over how society affects our lives than is possible with Scotland being a small part of the grossly centralised and authoritarian British state. The question of Scotland's relationship with the EU is certainly one that will have to be addressed, but it can only be properly addressed through a referendum AFTER Scotland becomes independent from the British state. As long as Scotland remains part of the British state, we do not have sufficient control over our own destiny to be able to take a decision regarding the EU.



but,but,but alisdair just said that '70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells' and that makes westminster irelevant. so in the unlikely event of scotland becoming indeoendent would be it be completely independent or would it hand over 70% of decidion making to the EU? or maybe mr. salmon would do a special deal with scottish oil and haddock and join the EU but arrange that we remain independant of brussels policies...........................
alisdair said it,not me.
Alasdair

landg wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
landg wrote:
whats the point of 'independence'?
The point of independence is to have a greater degree of control over how society affects our lives than is possible with Scotland being a small part of the grossly centralised and authoritarian British state. The question of Scotland's relationship with the EU is certainly one that will have to be addressed, but it can only be properly addressed through a referendum AFTER Scotland becomes independent from the British state. As long as Scotland remains part of the British state, we do not have sufficient control over our own destiny to be able to take a decision regarding the EU.



but,but,but alisdair just said that '70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells' and that makes westminster irelevant. so in the unlikely event of scotland becoming indeoendent would be it be completely independent or would it hand over 70% of decidion making to the EU? or maybe mr. salmon would do a special deal with scottish oil and haddock and join the EU but arrange that we remain independant of brussels policies...........................
alisdair said it,not me.


No!  You said it.

If 70% of legislation originates from Brussells and we control much of our own day-to-day affairs then what is the point of Westminster?  Answer the question.
Holebender

I wish some posters would manage to grasp the basic fact that Scotland is in the EU right now. How would leaving the UK but remaining in the EU "hand over 70% of decidion (sic) making to the EU"? I am not declaring a position for or against EU membership, I am simply stating that remaining in the EU would not change our relationship with the EU so why should it be seen as some sort of obstacle to changing our relationship with the UK?
landg

Alasdair wrote:
given that apparently 70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells anyway, isn't westminster largely irrelevant?


as irrelevant as holyrood in an 'independent' scotland?
stop digging son.
magister ludi

stop digging!.....   magic!

looks to me it's you that's in the hole, Landg.
Stevie

The important legislatrion e.g. military, fiscal, legal that affects our daily lives is the domain of sovereign parliaments (these parliaments also have a veto).

If you're saying quantity (70%) then maybe... the bureaucrats have nothing better to do than legislate (when they're actually present).

Anyway, the Brit (and it is largely the Brits islander mentality) paranoia over Brussels is exaggerated, still one wonders what they do...
Shagpile

landg wrote:
but,but,but alisdair just said that '70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells' and that makes westminster irelevant. so in the unlikely event of scotland becoming indeoendent would be it be completely independent or would it hand over 70% of decidion making to the EU? or maybe mr. salmon would do a special deal with scottish oil and haddock and join the EU but arrange that we remain independant of brussels policies...........................
alisdair said it,not me.


Scotland, with it's separate legal system etc., as part of the UK. Would (unfortunately IMHO) remain part of the EU. It would be more independent within the EU, than it is at present. Scotland would not be kicked out the EU, because as part of the UK, we, like England and her Territories, as part of a politically united UK are signatory to the same treaties.

We ought to persue the same path as Switzerland, able to enjoy all the benefits of free trade and movement of labour. Whilst being a fully independent state...... however THAT is my opinion.

Unionists want Scotland to remain in the EU, as part of a UK with NO say at all at the European top table. AND would tell us we would be LESS independent on our own!

The fact is, even if the EU could kick us out they wouldn't. It would mean completely redrawing the EU map. It is the EU which would seek to negotiate with an independent Scotland international boundaries etc. Much easier to accept Scotland at the top table as an equal member in negotiations over fish, oil, water and energy........ and all the other nooks and crannies Westminster negotiates away on our behalf to our detriment and for the benefit of London and the South East.
Alasdair

landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
given that apparently 70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells anyway, isn't westminster largely irrelevant?


as irrelevant as holyrood in an 'independent' scotland?
stop digging son.


That's not an answer. Furthermore it makes no sense, given my intial statement about domestic matters already being governed from Holyrood.  Are you saying that in an independent Scotland Holyrood would have LESS powers?  Bizarre.
babykitten

Fidget wrote:

Scotland is part of the EU as part of the UK. The UK is the member state, not Scotland. Its independence would mean that it is no longer part of the member state and be a completely separate state in its own right.  That is not the same position as was with Greenland because Greenland remained a part of Denmark.  The same would not be true with Scottish independence and the UK. The position with Greenland is also why it was Denmark, not Greenland, that had to negotiate Greeland's exit from the EU due to member states not being allowed to secede without the agreement of all other member states.

Finally Fidget actually engages in debate.  How refreshing.  Furthermore, his arguments actually have some merit.

There are indeed differences in the situations given, but I maintain that these differences are not important in this debate.

The EU is all about enlargement.  It is still true that Greenland leaving the EU had to be negotiated.  The EU has thus demonstrated that it does not want its influence to reduce.  No member has ever left the EU, and indeed there is currently no formal way of a member leaving.

There is merit in the argument that Scottish independence would result in a new state being created called "Scotland", with the rump UK continuing essentially as before.  I don't see how this can automatically translate to Scotland being a 'new-born' state with no relationships to any other states.

The world operates on more than just the concept of states interacting with each other.  Are people forgetting that Scots are currently EU citizens?  Regardless of Scotland becoming a new state, we are all under the umbrella of the EU on a personal basis.

The argument that, since Scotland would become a new state, then the technicality is that that state is not an EU member is, I would argue, mere speculation.

Aventinian wrote:
Of course it isn't theoretical. Nor, in fact, is it even a 'veto' as such - it's a positive vote to include a new state. But no only that - since the Treaty-imposed limit on membership has been reached, Scotland joining would also require a completely new treaty to be drafted to that effect.


So what?  Iceland's membership of the EU is currently being rushed in, even though it miserably fails the public debt requirements.  This is the sort of proof that shows that even states themselves regard the law as being a mere technicality when it suits them.  Do I even need to mention Iraq as another example of the 'law' not being worth a damn?


Aventinian wrote:
No it's not 'almost certain' - you are clearly completely ignorant of international law.


There is no such thing as international law.  I would have expected you to know that.  International law is a term that's bandied about to give the impression that states are bound by certain things.  In reality all that exists are gentlemen's agreements that certain things should happen and certain behaviours should be adhered to.  The EU is no different in this respect.

When it suits, so-called international law is simply ignored, e.g. when invading Iraq.

You can bandy about all these rules of the EU all you like, but if one of them has to be ignored then it is.  Have you ever thought that the EU might just regard the UK as having been split into two states, both of which retain membership, and everything else is simply adjusted accordingly?

Are you seriously saying that the EU will say to itself "Oh no!  This piece of paper says that we can only have 25 members so Scotland will have to leave."?  Are you really arguing that this would happen?

Don't you think it incredibly likely that the status quo would be maintained and simply that negotiations would happen to adjust whatever needs adjusted?  Don't people realise that generally the status quo prevails in everything?  That's why we've been part of the UK for so long!

Those wanting independence have been told everything from "it's not legally possible for Scotland to leave the UK" to "disentangling our ties would be impossible" and are now being told that independence would lead to instant dismissal from another union, the EU, and that somehow that is not only possible, but likely.

Here's a prediction I can confidently make.  On the first day of an independent Scotland, everything will be the same as the day before.  The sun will rise as it did the day before, people will go to work just as before, the shops will open just as before, Scotland will still be in the EU.

Things will change, but gradually.

Aventinian wrote:
No they wouldn't. Again, try reading even the most basic information about something before offering up 'facts' on it. The UK would remain unchanged, its obligations and privileges in international law would be unaltered.

The amount of unashamed ignorance on this forum can be bloody annoying at times.


The UK would remain unchanged?  The UK wouldn't renegotiate it's terms and finances with the EU?  The UK's treaties with other countries would remain unchanged, even though its coastline would be drastically reduced, for example?  The UK's relationship with the US would be unchanged, even though the nuclear deterrant will have to be moved?

I think it's you that ignorant.  You bang on and on about 'the law' and what it says.  Who cares what the law says?  Obviously many people don't, or else there would never be any crime.  States don't care about it either as I've already demonstrated.

The law often contradicts itself.  That alone is proof that often the law is not worth the paper it is written on not to mention unenforceable.  It's impossible to enforce two contradictory laws.

Aventinian wrote:
That's not strictly true. The UK would not satisfy the Copenhagen criteria which new member-states are expected to fulfill. It has a great deal of privileges and opt-outs which are not afforded to new members.


Yeah, yeah.  You're actually helping out my arguments here.  You're effectively saying that the EU law is 'this', but the UK doesn't have to obey that bit.  The only difference is that we are 'allowed' to not obey that bit.

Don't you think that maybe the EU might just ignore the things like the 25 member limit (or maybe change it to 26?)?  Surely that sort of adjustment to maintain the status quo is infinitely more likely than the upheaval of expelling a member and making them join the back of the queue.
babykitten

Fidget wrote:


It's ok, you can describe me as Brit Nat or UKIPPER if you want. Doesn't mean anything to me. It's new to me as well that some people find 'nats' derogatory in meaning Nationlist.  I thought it was just an abbreviation.

You haven't said anything yet about what your idea of independence is in the face of Brussels, and not Westminster rule. What are your thoughts on that?


Fidget, it's incredibly simple.  The idea is to become a separate nation state, like all the other members of the EU.  What's so hard to understand about that?  There is no contradiction between wanting to leave a wholly incoporating union which shields the country's very existence from the international stage, and desiring to be a member of the EU as an independent state.  The two unions are, presently, entirely different.

I'm no huge fan of the EU myself.  I think some sort of union/arrangement/association of European states is desireable.  I have no desire for a single EU state however, which is clearly the direction, if not the final destination, to which the EU is currently heading.

British nationalists are a funny lot.  I agree with their desires not to be part of an EU single state, but I would perhaps disagree with how far along that route they think we may have gone.  However, the really curious thing is that any British nationalist I've ever heard arguing against this, fails to see that Scotland and the Scottish nation (if you accept that 'nations' exist which clearly they all do as they regard the UK as a nation), are already subject to this all-encompasing union that they fear for the UK.  But I guess they don't accept that such a thing as the Scottish nation exists.
babykitten

Shagpile wrote:

Scotland, with it's separate legal system etc., as part of the UK. Would (unfortunately IMHO) remain part of the EU. It would be more independent within the EU, than it is at present. Scotland would not be kicked out the EU, because as part of the UK, we, like England and her Territories, as part of a politically united UK are signatory to the same treaties.

We ought to persue the same path as Switzerland, able to enjoy all the benefits of free trade and movement of labour. Whilst being a fully independent state...... however THAT is my opinion.

Unionists want Scotland to remain in the EU, as part of a UK with NO say at all at the European top table. AND would tell us we would be LESS independent on our own!

The fact is, even if the EU could kick us out they wouldn't. It would mean completely redrawing the EU map. It is the EU which would seek to negotiate with an independent Scotland international boundaries etc. Much easier to accept Scotland at the top table as an equal member in negotiations over fish, oil, water and energy........ and all the other nooks and crannies Westminster negotiates away on our behalf to our detriment and for the benefit of London and the South East.

Perhaps EFTA would be a suitable alternative.  I don't know too much about it, but I get the impression that it is more like what the EU originally was, i.e. an arrangement to faciliate trade.  The clue is in the names I guess and also in the name changes of the EU.

On another note, I feel I must address the worst case scenario of Scotland being expelled from the EU.  (Forgive my indulgence in emotive terms like "expulsion", but I'm returning some of the "separatist" terminology we hear so much of.)

I did a little reading about Norway (not a member of the EU).  Norway implements much of EU legislation.  It is party to the Schengen agreement.  As far as I'm aware, Norwegians can work in the EU.  In short, they have all the benefits (and obligations) of EU membership WITHOUT EU membership.  This is the EEA, the European Economic Area.

Even Switzerland, which is not in the EEA, has its own agreements with the EU, in order to facilitate trade and to cooperate on issues of mutual interest and benefit.

This argument that an independent Scotland would firstly be expelled from the EU, and then suffer isolation from Europe afterwards should be obviously complete and utter nonsense.

Even if we had to leave the EU it would be no big deal, because there are other methods of participating in European trade and 'being a European' than the EU, or even EFTA.

What's next?  An independent Scotland wouldn't be in the UN?  (BTW, this isn't directed at Shagpile!  I just tagged it on to his comments about the EU.)
Dave Coull

babykitten wrote:
Here's a prediction I can confidently make.  On the first day of an independent Scotland, everything will be the same as the day before.  The sun will rise as it did the day before, people will go to work just as before, the shops will open just as before, Scotland will still be in the EU. Things will change, but gradually.
Actually, I think there is a distinct possibility some folk might treat the first day of an independent Scotland as a holiday, whether it has been officially declared as such or not. But yes, the second day of independence should be pretty much back to normal, although some folk might have hangovers. But you're right about still being in the EU   -   whether we want to be or not! That would be one of the things that might "change, but gradually".
babykitten wrote:
Here's a prediction
You say "prediction". I'm willing to say "bet". I bet we will still effectively be citizens of the EU the day after independence. Let's say, a bet of twenty pounds. Or 20 euros, if that is preferred. But I doubt very much if any of the Unionists who pretend to believe we will automatically be "out of Europe" will take the bet.
Shagpile

babykitten wrote:
Fidget wrote:


It's ok, you can describe me as Brit Nat or UKIPPER if you want. Doesn't mean anything to me. It's new to me as well that some people find 'nats' derogatory in meaning Nationlist.  I thought it was just an abbreviation.

You haven't said anything yet about what your idea of independence is in the face of Brussels, and not Westminster rule. What are your thoughts on that?


Fidget, it's incredibly simple.  The idea is to become a separate nation state, like all the other members of the EU.  What's so hard to understand about that?  There is no contradiction between wanting to leave a wholly incoporating union which shields the country's very existence from the international stage, and desiring to be a member of the EU as an independent state.  The two unions are, presently, entirely different.

I'm no huge fan of the EU myself.  I think some sort of union/arrangement/association of European states is desireable.  I have no desire for a single EU state however, which is clearly the direction, if not the final destination, to which the EU is currently heading.

British nationalists are a funny lot.  I agree with their desires not to be part of an EU single state, but I would perhaps disagree with how far along that route they think we may have gone.  However, the really curious thing is that any British nationalist I've ever heard arguing against this, fails to see that Scotland and the Scottish nation (if you accept that 'nations' exist which clearly they all do as they regard the UK as a nation), are already subject to this all-encompasing union that they fear for the UK.  But I guess they don't accept that such a thing as the Scottish nation exists.


Exactly!

Which is WHY unionists go to great lengths to overly complicate a concept so simple. Hence seats at the UN, kicked out of the EU, not being able to watch East Enders on the box......... and your oil is not very much and it's running out anyway.

All evedence of the bottom of the barrel being scraped so thin, a thimble full of common sense causes it to leak like a sieve.
Holebender

Babykitten - good arguments well made. Well done.
Rinty

aye, spot on dave, that about sums it up and wraps it up.
landg

Dave Coull wrote:
babykitten wrote:
Here's a prediction I can confidently make.  On the first day of an independent Scotland, everything will be the same as the day before.  The sun will rise as it did the day before, people will go to work just as before, the shops will open just as before, Scotland will still be in the EU. Things will change, but gradually.
Actually, I think there is a distinct possibility some folk might treat the first day of an independent Scotland as a holiday, whether it has been officially declared as such or not. But yes, the second day of independence should be pretty much back to normal, although some folk might have hangovers. But you're right about still being in the EU   -   whether we want to be or not! That would be one of the things that might "change, but gradually".
babykitten wrote:
Here's a prediction
You say "prediction". I'm willing to say "bet". I bet we will still effectively be citizens of the EU the day after independence. Let's say, a bet of twenty pounds. Or 20 euros, if that is preferred. But I doubt very much if any of the Unionists who pretend to believe we will automatically be "out of Europe" will take the bet.



pointless as independence will not happen, i would bet 1000 euros, £1000 AND $1000 it won't. my winnings will be spent on drink and other nicw things.
landg

Alasdair wrote:
landg wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
landg wrote:
whats the point of 'independence'?
The point of independence is to have a greater degree of control over how society affects our lives than is possible with Scotland being a small part of the grossly centralised and authoritarian British state. The question of Scotland's relationship with the EU is certainly one that will have to be addressed, but it can only be properly addressed through a referendum AFTER Scotland becomes independent from the British state. As long as Scotland remains part of the British state, we do not have sufficient control over our own destiny to be able to take a decision regarding the EU.



but,but,but alisdair just said that '70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells' and that makes westminster irelevant. so in the unlikely event of scotland becoming indeoendent would be it be completely independent or would it hand over 70% of decidion making to the EU? or maybe mr. salmon would do a special deal with scottish oil and haddock and join the EU but arrange that we remain independant of brussels policies...........................
alisdair said it,not me.


No!  You said it.

If 70% of legislation originates from Brussells and we control much of our own day-to-day affairs then what is the point of Westminster?  Answer the question.


70% of an independent scotlands legislation will come from brussellss as well, again what is the point? YOU SAID IT!!!!! my suspicion is that xenophobia is so set in stone with nationalists that would take 'freeeeeeeeeeeeeedom' from westminster and to spite their face be run from brussells. cringeworthy.
Dave Coull

I wrote
Quote:
I bet we will still effectively be citizens of the EU the day after independence. Let's say, a bet of twenty pounds. Or 20 euros, if that is preferred. But I doubt very much if any of the Unionists who pretend to believe we will automatically be "out of Europe" will take the bet.
landg wrote:
pointless as independence will not happen, i would bet 1000 euros, £1000 AND $1000 it won't.
No you wouldn't.

First of all, you can't bet that independence will "never" happen, because "never" is a very long time, and you would never be able to collect on your bet. You would have to bet that it won't happen within a specified time frame   -   for example, that it won't happen within ten years.

But there is another reason why YOU  saying "I bet" is completely meaningless. It is completely meaningless because there is no such person as "landg". It's just a pseudo-name somebody is using on the internet to cover up their real identity. For a bet to have any meaning, it has to be capable of being collected. Therefore, for a bet to have any meaning, it has to be made by a real, identifiable person, with a real, identifiable address.

When I say "I bet", that's a genuine bet. When YOU say "I bet", that's just meaningless bravado.
Holebender

landg wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
babykitten wrote:
Here's a prediction I can confidently make.  On the first day of an independent Scotland, everything will be the same as the day before.  The sun will rise as it did the day before, people will go to work just as before, the shops will open just as before, Scotland will still be in the EU. Things will change, but gradually.
Actually, I think there is a distinct possibility some folk might treat the first day of an independent Scotland as a holiday, whether it has been officially declared as such or not. But yes, the second day of independence should be pretty much back to normal, although some folk might have hangovers. But you're right about still being in the EU   -   whether we want to be or not! That would be one of the things that might "change, but gradually".
babykitten wrote:
Here's a prediction
You say "prediction". I'm willing to say "bet". I bet we will still effectively be citizens of the EU the day after independence. Let's say, a bet of twenty pounds. Or 20 euros, if that is preferred. But I doubt very much if any of the Unionists who pretend to believe we will automatically be "out of Europe" will take the bet.



pointless as independence will not happen, i would bet 1000 euros, £1000 AND $1000 it won't. my winnings will be spent on drink and other nicw things.


Go on then, put up or shut up. Three Thousand of whatever currency you prefer that independence will happen within a reasonable timeframe - let's say ten years shall we? If you agree, I'll pm you my personal details and you can do likewise, and the bet is on.
landg

Holebender wrote:
landg wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
babykitten wrote:
Here's a prediction I can confidently make.  On the first day of an independent Scotland, everything will be the same as the day before.  The sun will rise as it did the day before, people will go to work just as before, the shops will open just as before, Scotland will still be in the EU. Things will change, but gradually.
Actually, I think there is a distinct possibility some folk might treat the first day of an independent Scotland as a holiday, whether it has been officially declared as such or not. But yes, the second day of independence should be pretty much back to normal, although some folk might have hangovers. But you're right about still being in the EU   -   whether we want to be or not! That would be one of the things that might "change, but gradually".
babykitten wrote:
Here's a prediction
You say "prediction". I'm willing to say "bet". I bet we will still effectively be citizens of the EU the day after independence. Let's say, a bet of twenty pounds. Or 20 euros, if that is preferred. But I doubt very much if any of the Unionists who pretend to believe we will automatically be "out of Europe" will take the bet.



pointless as independence will not happen, i would bet 1000 euros, £1000 AND $1000 it won't. my winnings will be spent on drink and other nicw things.


Go on then, put up or shut up. Three Thousand of whatever currency you prefer that independence will happen within a reasonable timeframe - let's say ten years shall we? If you agree, I'll pm you my personal details and you can do likewise, and the bet is on.



you shall not be getting my persoanl details and i have no wish for yours, i will however in the spirit of niceness place a bet when i find one online or in a local bookie that scotland will not be independent withing 50 years, all being well my reasonably expected lifespan. i'll lose the slip and forget about the bet in years to come i suspect but i'll enjoy placing it.
it's not gonna happen and the snp will be out at the next holyrood cooncil election.
Dave Coull

I wrote
Quote:
I bet we will still effectively be citizens of the EU the day after independence. Let's say, a bet of twenty pounds. Or 20 euros, if that is preferred.
"landg" responded with some hot air, so I wrote
Quote:
For a bet to have any meaning, it has to be capable of being collected. Therefore, for a bet to have any meaning, it has to be made by a real, identifiable person, with a real, identifiable address. When I say "I bet", that's a genuine bet. When YOU say "I bet", that's just meaningless bravado.
Holebender then told "landg"
Quote:
put up or shut up. Three Thousand of whatever currency you prefer that independence will happen within a reasonable timeframe - let's say ten years shall we? If you agree, I'll pm you my personal details and you can do likewise, and the bet is on.
Now  THAT  is a genuine bet. Just like mine was. I said 20 quid, Holebender says THREE THOUSAND , that just reflects the difference between my circumstances and his, but I know he is completely genuine. Me and the missus have been at Holebender's house, met his charming wife, they've got a nice place, and I'm sure he really could and would come up with three thousand for this bet.
Holebender

In other words you're all mouth. If you're worried about giving out personal details, choose a trusted third party and we'll make the bet through him or her. Mind you, we must both pay the money up front or the bet is off. Deal?
Holebender

Dave, it was landg who suggested the stake. I'm just accepting his wager.
Alasdair

landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
landg wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
landg wrote:
whats the point of 'independence'?
The point of independence is to have a greater degree of control over how society affects our lives than is possible with Scotland being a small part of the grossly centralised and authoritarian British state. The question of Scotland's relationship with the EU is certainly one that will have to be addressed, but it can only be properly addressed through a referendum AFTER Scotland becomes independent from the British state. As long as Scotland remains part of the British state, we do not have sufficient control over our own destiny to be able to take a decision regarding the EU.



but,but,but alisdair just said that '70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells' and that makes westminster irelevant. so in the unlikely event of scotland becoming indeoendent would be it be completely independent or would it hand over 70% of decidion making to the EU? or maybe mr. salmon would do a special deal with scottish oil and haddock and join the EU but arrange that we remain independant of brussels policies...........................
alisdair said it,not me.


No!  You said it.

If 70% of legislation originates from Brussells and we control much of our own day-to-day affairs then what is the point of Westminster?  Answer the question.


70% of an independent scotlands legislation will come from brussellss as well, again what is the point? YOU SAID IT!!!!! my suspicion is that xenophobia is so set in stone with nationalists that would take 'freeeeeeeeeeeeeedom' from westminster and to spite their face be run from brussells. cringeworthy.


Your getting there, I think.  Legislation would still come from Brussells it just won't be coming through the auspices and with thanks of Westminster ... I think we might be able to interpret the EU's edicts ourselves if that was the way we went.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to tell us all just what the point of Westminster is in all this?

Incidentally, I don't think I ever said I was in favour of full european integration.  I would hope that an independent Scotland would be given a say in the matter.
Dave Coull

Holebender offered this deal to "landg"
Quote:
If you're worried about giving out personal details, choose a trusted third party and we'll make the bet through him or her. Mind you, we must both pay the money up front or the bet is off. Deal?
So, you would both be providing three thousand quid up front and you would need somebody to look after this six thousand pounds for both of you until ten years elapses, or until Scotland becomes independent, whichever comes sooner? I would offer to do this, but, to be honest,   I   wouldn't trust me with six thousand quid. I would trust me with sixteen quid to go to the chippy for fish suppers, but not £6000 on a long term basis. Besides, with advancing years and uncertain health, I might not be around in another ten years. I suppose the money would have to be put in an account in some bank you think is unlikely to collapse, with some trusted legal firm (not just an individual lawyer, they're as mortal as the rest of us) having access when Scotland becomes independent, or at the end of ten years (whichever comes sooner), to pay the winner of the bet (or their heirs and successors).
Shagpile

Alasdair wrote:
Your getting there, I think.  Legislation would still come from Brussells it just won't be coming through the auspices and with thanks of Westminster ... I think we might be able to interpret the EU's edicts ourselves if that was the way we went.


Exactly right....... cut out the middle man! (That's if an independent Scotland CHOSE to be a member of the EU)  Wink

Quote:
Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to tell us all just what the point of Westminster is in all this?


Me too. I want to know exactly what the incontrovertable benefits the UK offers Scotland. Particularly with respect to membership of the EU, but also as opposed to being independent; whether within or outwith the EU.

PS I don't believe "Landg" will ever get it....... never mind 'get there'.
Dave Coull

Holebender wrote:
Dave, it was landg who suggested the stake. I'm just accepting his wager.

Right, now I see where the figure of 3,000 came from, it did come from "landg", who claimed he would be willing to bet 1000 euros, plus 1000 pounds,
AND  1000 dollars, that independence won't happen
landg wrote:
independence will not happen, i would bet 1000 euros, £1000 AND $1000 it won't.
and you said
Quote:
Go on then, put up or shut up. Three Thousand of whatever currency you prefer that independence will happen within a reasonable timeframe - let's say ten years shall we?
Now, since the figure of 3000 came from "landg" himself, and since "landg" has said he doesn't believe independence will happen in 50 years, never mind in 10, you were giving him what ought to have been, for him, an easy bet.   IF   he was really confident in his prediction that independence won't happen,  and   IF   he wasn't just blowing out hot air about being willing to bet on this.
landg

Alasdair wrote:
landg wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
landg wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
landg wrote:
whats the point of 'independence'?
The point of independence is to have a greater degree of control over how society affects our lives than is possible with Scotland being a small part of the grossly centralised and authoritarian British state. The question of Scotland's relationship with the EU is certainly one that will have to be addressed, but it can only be properly addressed through a referendum AFTER Scotland becomes independent from the British state. As long as Scotland remains part of the British state, we do not have sufficient control over our own destiny to be able to take a decision regarding the EU.



but,but,but alisdair just said that '70% of legislation comes as a direct result of brussells' and that makes westminster irelevant. so in the unlikely event of scotland becoming indeoendent would be it be completely independent or would it hand over 70% of decidion making to the EU? or maybe mr. salmon would do a special deal with scottish oil and haddock and join the EU but arrange that we remain independant of brussels policies...........................
alisdair said it,not me.


No!  You said it.

If 70% of legislation originates from Brussells and we control much of our own day-to-day affairs then what is the point of Westminster?  Answer the question.


70% of an independent scotlands legislation will come from brussellss as well, again what is the point? YOU SAID IT!!!!! my suspicion is that xenophobia is so set in stone with nationalists that would take 'freeeeeeeeeeeeeedom' from westminster and to spite their face be run from brussells. cringeworthy.


Your getting there, I think.  Legislation would still come from Brussells it just won't be coming through the auspices and with thanks of Westminster ... I think we might be able to interpret the EU's edicts ourselves if that was the way we went.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to tell us all just what the point of Westminster is in all this?

Incidentally, I don't think I ever said I was in favour of full european integration.  I would hope that an independent Scotland would be given a say in the matter.


it is the seat of the uk governemt, you know, the uk that scotland is in, rember?
but id scotland remains in the eu if it votes for independence (FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM). i'm sure you'll be delighted with a similarly irrelevent hollywood.
landg

opened a paddypower account (only online bookie offering odds on scotland voting yes on scottish referendum in 2010 - nothing on full independence that i can find - happy if you can point me in the right direction). £50 bet placed if any referendum happens in 2010 it will be a no vote.

and, no, i'n not giving 3 grand to who could be prince nguduka from nigeria. soryy.
Dave Coull

landg wrote:
independence will not happen, i would bet 1000 euros, £1000 AND $1000 it won't.

Working this out and putting it into terms of the currency that most of us are most familiar with, it seems 1000 euros works out about £900, and 1000 dollars works out at about £613, so "1000 euros, £1000 AND $1000" works out at a total of about £2513, more or less. "landg" was claiming that he would bet more than two and a half thousand pounds against independence.

landg wrote:
£50 bet placed

Fifty?

That's one  HELLUVA  come down from over two and a half thousand, isn't it?

It has been conclusively proved (again) that your bravado is meaningless hot air.
Aventinian

Alasdair wrote:
If 70% of legislation originates from Brussells and we control much of our own day-to-day affairs then what is the point of Westminster?  Answer the question.


That statistic isn't remotely true. Whilst the EU has a hand in (and I say 'a hand in' in its widest sense) a range of issues which produce a lot of regulatory output - the dull bulk of legislation these days - it still has no such predominance, not even close. The only way a person could come to such a figure is by thinking "Oh, the economy? Well, that's sort of the common market, isn't it? Yeah. Legislation on the economy? Oh look, there's a provision made for some obscure Directive. Let's bundle this in the 'EU' pile".

Anyway, it's a nonsense statistic. Even if it was true, it doesn't show any actual importance: if they're making verbose regulations on the shape of bananas, who cares? It's the important issues people bother with.
Aventinian

babykitten wrote:
There is no such thing as international law.  I would have expected you to know that.  International law is a term that's bandied about to give the impression that states are bound by certain things.  In reality all that exists are gentlemen's agreements that certain things should happen and certain behaviours should be adhered to.  The EU is no different in this respect.


Of course international law exists - indeed, not only does it exist, states can be effectively punished for non-conformity, men can be sent to the noose by it. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the EU: the Union has its own legal system and courts structure; the actions of institutions can be reviewed by the European Court of Justice. The Community institutions cannot act unlawfully.

Quote:
You can bandy about all these rules of the EU all you like, but if one of them has to be ignored then it is.  Have you ever thought that the EU might just regard the UK as having been split into two states, both of which retain membership, and everything else is simply adjusted accordingly?


If a state was divided, with no successor state, then neither would take membership of international organisations. Moreover, as I have pointed out, the EU is alr?eady at its legislatively imposed member-limit.

Quote:
Are you seriously saying that the EU will say to itself "Oh no!  This piece of paper says that we can only have 25 members so Scotland will have to leave."?  Are you really arguing that this would happen


Yes. Whether Scotland is then readmitted is a different matter, but ultimately I trust the institutions of the EU to act lawfully and not to overtly break the law - and if they do, I expect other institutions to exercise proper oversight and to prevent such a thing.

Quote:
are now being told that independence would lead to instant dismissal from another union, the EU, and that somehow that is not only possible, but likely.


Certain, actually.

Quote:
I think it's you that ignorant.  You bang on and on about 'the law' and what it says.  Who cares what the law says?


People who care about civilised governance.

Quote:
The law often contradicts itself.  That alone is proof that often the law is not worth the paper it is written on not to mention unenforceable.  It's impossible to enforce two contradictory laws.


In Britain, it is impossible for the law to contradict itself. It may require interpretation, but no contradiction is present.

Quote:
Yeah, yeah.  You're actually helping out my arguments here.  You're effectively saying that the EU law is 'this', but the UK doesn't have to obey that bit.  The only difference is that we are 'allowed' to not obey that bit.


The UK has negotiated and gained its opt-outs through entirely legal means.

Of course, exceptions could be made for Scotland in future treaties, if not the extant ones as the UK has - but why would they? These exceptions are despised by not only the EU institutions, but the other member-states. Knowing that they are in an advantageous bargaining position - and let's not pretend they are not; the SNP's economic and even social policy hinges entirely on Scotland being a member-state - they will have the power to cut back on these privileges that they so desperately want.

The UK rebate insofar as it applies to Scotland: how'd you like to see the back of that one? Proportionately - by the "Scottish Government"'s own figures - that rebate is worth €479 million to Scotland. Or the Schengen opt-out? Border guards at Gretna could become a realistic necessity. Being forced into the Economic and Monetary Union whether it is advantageous to us or not?

I suspect many nationalists may have a problem with such blunt international strong-arming. Personally, I don't - I'm no great fan of opt outs - but then again, I'm hardly the target market for Nat propaganda. I'm not sure if the SNP hierarchy are just ignorant or are actually being massively disingenuous regarding the international response to Scottish independence.

What all this demonstrates is that even for Scottish nationalists the British union is valuable and should be defended.
Shagpile

Aventinian wrote:
Anyway, it's a nonsense statistic. Even if it was true, it doesn't show any actual importance: if they're making verbose regulations on the shape of bananas, who cares? It's the important issues people bother with.


Like working time directives, Devolution, Post Office privitisation (in fact everything privitisation), Duty convergence, Tax convergence, (some) Trade agreements...... like your bananas, environmental directives, how we must treat our water directives........ and do the Great British public get a say? A lot less than the European Parliament, and IT doesn't get much of a say. Our Westminster Parliament? Well no! Bound by treaty to implement these Directives.

So exactly mow big-a-percent is it actually Aventinian?
Shagpile

Aventinian wrote:
as I have pointed out, the EU is alr?eady at its legislatively imposed member-limit.


And.........

The council of ministers; I'll guarentee you, will accept an independent Scotland within the EU.

Think of it this way. A company has an agreed budget for the fiscal year. Something unexpected pops up. The budget seriously needs to be re-addressed. An extra-ordinary meeting will be conviened, and changes made.

Quote:
The UK has negotiated and gained its opt-outs through entirely legal means.


And the Irish could see themselves as the only permanent member in the council of ministers, and be the EUs only "Neutral" state if they ratify the Lisbon Treaty........ again, as you say..... "entirely legal means".

Makes the anti-democratic UK look like a 'limp dick' though.

Quote:
Or the Schengen opt-out? Border guards at Gretna could become a realistic necessity. Being forced into the Economic and Monetary Union whether it is advantageous to us or not?


More scaremongering........ An independent Scotland would inherit the same opt-outs as the UK we were part of when joining.

Or how about this....... Scotland, on independence would be debt free! A new country, why not? That is if we follow YOUR logic.
Shagpile

Even English nationalists (as do the Scots) want to see some kind of "Council of the British Isles" post independence. It's streaching border controls to the Nth degree of stupidity as a scaremongering tactic.

Devolution IS an EU Directive........ They can't take it away if that devolved will of the Scots IS to CHOOSE to be an independent State.

It's CIVILISED after all.  Wink

AND leagl.  Very Happy
Aventinian

Shagpile wrote:
The council of ministers; I'll guarentee you, will accept an independent Scotland within the EU.

Think of it this way. A company has an agreed budget for the fiscal year. Something unexpected pops up. The budget seriously needs to be re-addressed. An extra-ordinary meeting will be conviened, and changes made.


The Council of Ministers doesn't have the authority to accept an independent Scotland as a member-state.

But more importantly, I recognise Scotland will most likely eventually be accepted in as a member-state if it wanted to be - the real issue is about on what status that membership will be based.

Quote:
More scaremongering........ An independent Scotland would inherit the same opt-outs as the UK we were part of when joining.


And on what possible basis do you make this bold claim?

Quote:
Or how about this....... Scotland, on independence would be debt free! A new country, why not? That is if we follow YOUR logic.


That's not my logic at all. Newly sovereign states inherit obligations; they do not inherit membership of organisations.

Shagpile wrote:
Even English nationalists (as do the Scots) want to see some kind of "Council of the British Isles" post independence. It's streaching border controls to the Nth degree of stupidity as a scaremongering tactic.


The point is if Scotland - as other new member-states all are - is forced into the Schengen system then there will be no realistic alternative to border controls. The UK certainly shows no willingness to enter Schengen and has jealously guarded its opt-out on that basis even in recent years.

Quote:
Devolution IS an EU Directive........ They can't take it away if that devolved will of the Scots IS to CHOOSE to be an independent State.


Devolution has nothing to do with the European Union. The UK Parliament decided that, for themselves.
landg

Aventinian wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
If 70% of legislation originates from Brussells and we control much of our own day-to-day affairs then what is the point of Westminster?  Answer the question.


That statistic isn't remotely true. Whilst the EU has a hand in (and I say 'a hand in' in its widest sense) a range of issues which produce a lot of regulatory output - the dull bulk of legislation these days - it still has no such predominance, not even close. The only way a person could come to such a figure is by thinking "Oh, the economy? Well, that's sort of the common market, isn't it? Yeah. Legislation on the economy? Oh look, there's a provision made for some obscure Directive. Let's bundle this in the 'EU' pile".

Anyway, it's a nonsense statistic. Even if it was true, it doesn't show any actual importance: if they're making verbose regulations on the shape of bananas, who cares? It's the important issues people bother with.


well said that man. alisdait telt AGAIN.
Alasdair

landg wrote:
well said that man. alisdait telt AGAIN.


Ah well, I've got a lot of respect for Av he has opinions that he can justify and debate (even if I don't agree with him (her?)), also I can accept when I'm wrong ... although I'm not convinced I am on this occassion, however, until I can back up the 70% claim I'll let it lie.

I'll tell you what, why don't you try telling me yourself instead of waiting for someone else to pick up on something I say?  I'm still waiting ...
Alasdair

Aventinian wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
If 70% of legislation originates from Brussells and we control much of our own day-to-day affairs then what is the point of Westminster?  Answer the question.


That statistic isn't remotely true. Whilst the EU has a hand in (and I say 'a hand in' in its widest sense) a range of issues which produce a lot of regulatory output - the dull bulk of legislation these days - it still has no such predominance, not even close. The only way a person could come to such a figure is by thinking "Oh, the economy? Well, that's sort of the common market, isn't it? Yeah. Legislation on the economy? Oh look, there's a provision made for some obscure Directive. Let's bundle this in the 'EU' pile".

Anyway, it's a nonsense statistic. Even if it was true, it doesn't show any actual importance: if they're making verbose regulations on the shape of bananas, who cares? It's the important issues people bother with.


Well, it would seem that according to German MEP Jorgo Chatzimarkakis that 85% of German legislation originates n Brussells, admittedly it's not the UK, however it will have to do for comparitive purposes given that the UK government has said that it:

Quote:
It would entail disproportionate cost to research and compile the percentage of UK legislation originating in the European Union.


This was seemingly in response to a question from Lord Stoddart, may be found here about 2/3's of the way down the page.

Admittedly it also adds that:

Quote:
It has been estimated that around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector stems from legislation agreed by Ministers in Brussels, but this is a category of legislation which is more likely than legislation in general to have originated in the EU. It is likely that the overall proportion is therefore much lower.


Of course the figure they provide is no more than an estimate and I would be inclined to take it with a healthy pinch of salt given the govt pro-european position.  Also worth noting that the estimate also only covers "impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector "

Even if it is only 50% though my original point stands.  What is the point of Westminster in all this given that most of what effects our day-to-day lives eminates from Holyrood and the rest seemingly eminates from Europe ? What does that leave, defence and foreign affairs?  

Well given that Labour has been so keen to sign us up to the eu constitution/reform treaty/whatever they're calling it this weather and that this has sought to take over elements of these then why oh why do we need Westminster?


Incidentally I believe the directives governing the shape of our food were repealed, stupid bloody directive if ever there was one!
landg

ah, westminster is now 50% effective.flip-flop/flip-flop.

lets make up the facts as we go along to suit the agenda.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence Page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics