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 News, Life and Society
Dave Coull

Foreign Affairs

Even the most independent of us can sometimes get involved in foreign affairs, and there can be risks involved in this. (In my case, one foreign affair led to me becoming a father for the first time, and another one led to matrimony....) Anyway, today's Scotsman has an article titled "SNP sets out vision of seat at top table of world leaders"
http://www.scotsman.com/latestnews/SNP--sets-out-vision.5629221.jp
Mike Russell was in Brussels to launch a Scottish Government document entitled "Europe and Foreign Affairs". I'm not going to quote the whole Scotsman article here just the bits I think are worth commenting on.
Quote:
Mike Russell said Scots could have a "dual citizenship" arrangement with the rest of the UK.
There's nothing new about this. Despite the process of Ireland becoming independent being a much more acrimonious one, when Ireland did become independent, everybody in Ireland, no matter which part of the UK they came from originally, became an Irish citizen. Also, everybody in Ireland was automatically entitled to be treated as British, get a British passport, etc. In later years, folk BORN in independent Ireland were not automatically entitled to a British passport (although they were of course entitled to travel to the UK without a passport). The exception to this "no British passport" were folk born in independent Ireland who served in the British forces. When I joined the RAF in February 1959, I was surprised to find that about one in five of my fellow recruits at recruit training camp were from the Republic of Ireland. They would all have been entitled to a British passport. Also, ALL Irish citizens living in the UK, more than half a million people, have always been, and still are, entitled to vote in UK elections.)
Quote:
In the document – entitled Europe and Foreign Affairs – Mr Russell also claims that an independent Scotland could share embassies and other facilities with the UK.
Makes sense. We paid for those buildings, why shouldn't we make use of them? There's no point in building, or buying, grandiose new constructions just as prestige projects.
Quote:
The report says Scotland would have a stronger place in the European Union with its own commissioner and more MEPs
Well of course it would. IF we want to remain in the EU. A matter to be decided by a referendum of the people of Scotland, AFTER independence.
Quote:
ignoring concerns that Scotland would have to renegotiate entry into the EU
Another way of looking at it is that the EU is going to have to negotiate to try to keep this very valuable member country.
Aventinian

Quote:
Makes sense. We paid for those buildings, why shouldn't we make use of them? There's no point in building, or buying, grandiose new constructions just as prestige projects.


That is indeed sensible. Essentially it's just another extension of the 'new union' ideas (indeed, wasn't it Mike Russell who came up with that phrase?). Whilst it doesn't much affect this particular issue, essentially the difference between federalism and independence in this context is that Nationalists want to equate 5 million people with 50 million, rather than have these joint bodies accountable to a democratic electorate.

Quote:
The report says Scotland would have a stronger place in the European Union with its own commissioner and more MEPs


Scotland would not get its 'own commissioner'. For one, the system of choosing Commissioners will be reformed and rotational in the future, but more importantly the idea of a nation having a Commissioner is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Commission. Commissioners are entirely independent of their member-state and work for the good of Europe, not their nations. I wonder quite how the SNP can advocate being involved in such an organisation.

Quote:
Another way of looking at it is that the EU is going to have to negotiate to try to keep this very valuable member country.


Yes, but that's a rather silly way of looking at it, considering Scotland needs the EU far more than the EU needs Scotland. Even in the eyes of most nationalists, a Scotland outside of the EU would be unthinkable - and indeed it is a matter upon which the SNP have nailed their colours very firmly to the mast on.
Holebender

Regardless of the internal politics of the SNP it is a fundamentally democratic organisation. As such it will follow the electorate's lead on the EU rather than imposing its own position on the electorate. In other words, Scotland's membership of the EU will be a matter for Scotland's voters to decide, not for any political party to dictate.
Alasdair

Holebender wrote:
Regardless of the internal politics of the SNP it is a fundamentally democratic organisation. As such it will follow the electorate's lead on the EU rather than imposing its own position on the electorate. In other words, Scotland's membership of the EU will be a matter for Scotland's voters to decide, not for any political party to dictate.


You presume the SNP would be in power in an ndependent Scotland.  It could easily be the fascist Labour or Tory parties.
Holebender

That is a fair point, but I was actually replying to Aventinian's statement that the SNP is avowedly pro-EU. It is true that a Labour or Tory government would probably be inclined to impose their preference on the voters (probably using their "mandate" as justification) but the SNP has a proven track record of wanting to consult the voters on major constitutional issues.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
In other words, Scotland's membership of the EU will be a matter for Scotland's voters to decide, not for any political party to dictate.


That's what you think. Salmond has already been away enquiring about the possiblity of a "Scottish Euro". Have you ever heard the likes? What's Scottish about a Euro?  

That asides, I sense an assumption that an independent Scotland would automatically be secured as an EU member.  Taking things a bit for granted there, I'd say.
landg

i know he's round but alex sure likes to have some cake, eat it and take some home as well.
Stevie

landg wrote:
i know he's round but alex sure likes to have some cake, eat it and take some home as well.


I applaud you for the genius of your argument.
Stevie

Fidget wrote:
Holebender wrote:
In other words, Scotland's membership of the EU will be a matter for Scotland's voters to decide, not for any political party to dictate.


That's what you think. Salmond has already been away enquiring about the possiblity of a "Scottish Euro". Have you ever heard the likes? What's Scottish about a Euro?  

That asides, I sense an assumption that an independent Scotland would automatically be secured as an EU member.  Taking things a bit for granted there, I'd say.


Scottish banks produce their own notes, why not the Euro instead.

Only problem, at the moment I don't think Europe would wish to touch any UK situated financial institution with a very long barge pole for many years to come.

France screwed up a bit, but the UK (Brown's financial acumen at work) mirrored the US and that is not a good thing.  A miserable budget deficit for years to come.

However, Europeans like Scotland and would welcome Scotland with open arms (after all they've let every other 'country' in), also you're promoting Thatcher's make them scared theme and it's accepted as nonsense by reasonable minded people and isn't even slightly credible).

As much fun as this is, look at the bad jokes in Gen Ban to really bring yourself down.

Alba gu bràth.
Fidget

Since Scottish banknotes technically aren't worth the paper they're printed on in terms of being legal tender, I'd say it's quite a big deal. That asides, Salmond's enquires about the possiblity of Scottish Euro leaves his "Independence" propaganda wanting: out of the clutches of westminster, straight into the arms of Brussels, is what it says to me, and with "independence" lost in translation.  

But anyway, the EU isn't about Scotland. It's about the EU and the conditions under which countries may apply for membership of.  Why should Scotland retain an automatic right to EU membership on its own when it wasn't a part of it on its own merits in the first place?
babykitten

Fidget wrote:
Since Scottish banknotes technically aren't worth the paper they're printed on in terms of being legal tender, I'd say it's quite a big deal. That asides, Salmond's enquires about the possiblity of Scottish Euro leaves his "Independence" propaganda wanting: out of the clutches of westminster, straight into the arms of Brussels, is what it says to me, and with "independence" lost in translation.  

But anyway, the EU isn't about Scotland. It's about the EU and the conditions under which countries may apply for membership of.  Why should Scotland retain an automatic right to EU membership on its own when it wasn't a part of it on its own merits in the first place?

Fidget, are you actually aware that NO bank notes are actually "legal tender" in Scotland, not even Bank of England notes?  Actually, Bank of England £1 notes ARE legal tender in Scotland, but since they are not produced any more, NO notes are legal tender in Scotland.

I rather think you have no idea what "legal tender" actually means.  Legal tender is something that HAS to be accepted to settle a debt.  No bank notes produced anywhere in the UK currently have that status in Scotland.  Therefore, Scottish notes are no more 'useless' than English notes in Scotland.

Your argument about why should Scotland retain an automatic right to EU membership when it wasn't a part of it on its own merits in the first place.  This argument has been dealt with in other threads where the precedent of Greenland having been forced to APPLY to leave was given.

However, do you realise that by your very own argument, the rump UK would also 'not qualify' due to it not being "a part of it on its own merits in the first place"?

Your comments smack of typical London-centric attitudes where Scotland is simply an appendage of London.  Scotland is currently and was at the time of EU membership (or EEC or whatever it was at the time) a PART of the state of the UK.  England, Wales and Northern Ireland was and is also a PART of the state of the UK.  Membership of the EU is NOT based on London, or England, or England/Wales/Northern Ireland.  It is based on the UK as a whole, including all those countries within the UK.

When Scotland leaves the UK, the UK will be no more.  I concede that the rump UK will likely be regarded as the "successor state", in the same way that Russia was regarded as the successor state of the Soviet Union.  However, this will not change the fact that both an independent Scotland and the rump UK will have to renegotiate the terms of their EU membership on Scottish Independence.

I don't for one second think that either will have to reapply to become members.  This is just totally against what the EU is all about, which is enlargement creating a trading/political bloc.
Fidget

Can you just stop for a minute? Stop and ponder at which point the "UK" came into being that is.  The UK came into being when Ireland joined and transformed it from Great Britain into the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland, but here's you with some mad notion that without Scotland, the UK would be no more.

As the saying goes, "don't talk romantic".
Holebender

Hold on... if the UK came into being when Ireland joined, that must surely mean it ceased to exist when Ireland left.

In actual fact, the United Kingdom came into being when the two kingdoms of Scotland and England became a single, united, kingdom so please stop making up history as you go along.
babykitten

Fidget wrote:
Can you just stop for a minute? Stop and ponder at which point the "UK" came into being that is.  The UK came into being when Ireland joined and transformed it from Great Britain into the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland, but here's you with some mad notion that without Scotland, the UK would be no more.

As the saying goes, "don't talk romantic".

Utter rubbish.  I have not said that the UK would be no more if Scotland left.  I said that the current UK would no longer exist.  i.e. it would be replaced by two states: Scotland and the remaining UK.  The remaining UK would probably still be called the "UK", and it would probably be regarded as the "successor state", but that is not guaranteed.

Which of the Czech Republic and Slovakia was regarded as the successor state to Czechoslovakia?  I would hazard a guess that neither became THE successor state.  They probably both were seen as successor states.

It is not guaranteed that the remaining UK would be the sole successor state in terms of treaties and their obligations.

Edit: here's a quick example for you.  I would guess that India and others may well take the opportunity to argue that the remaining UK should no longer have a permanent seat on the UN security council if Scotland leaves the UK.  There is really no justification for the UK and France to continue to have this post-war privilege any more.  Other much larger countries may take the opportunity to renegotiate treaties and insist on changes to international structures on the dissolution of the UK.  Therefore, the remaining UK may well not, if even only de facto, become THE successor state to the current UK.
Fidget

babykitten wrote:

Utter rubbish.  I have not said that the UK would be no more if Scotland left.  


babykitten wrote:


When Scotland leaves the UK, the UK will be no more.


I rest my case.
babykitten

Fidget wrote:
babykitten wrote:

Utter rubbish.  I have not said that the UK would be no more if Scotland left.  


babykitten wrote:


When Scotland leaves the UK, the UK will be no more.


I rest my case.


You are taking things out of context again.

The second statement, taken in its context meant "When Scotland leaves the UK, the [current state called] the UK will be no more.".  This is NOT the same as saying "there will not be a state called the UK.".

I am saying that the UK as it is today will no longer exist and be replaced by two states, one called "Scotland" and one called "the UK", which will not be the same state as "the UK" that existed before.

This is not difficult to understand.

I'm glad you've rested your case, because we all might get some relief from your puerile trolling.

Stop quoting things out of context to make childish points.  Stop quoting things in a way that makes it look like I am responding to somebody else.  Stop avoiding the actual points being debated by constructing false statements out of selected quotes assembled together out of context.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
[b]Hold on... if the UK came into being when Ireland joined, that must surely mean it ceased to exist when Ireland left

In actual fact, the United Kingdom came into being when the two kingdoms of Scotland and England became a single, united, kingdom so please stop making up history as you go along.


Ireland hasn't quite left though.. hence your passport says "United Kingdom of Great Britain [that'll be the Scotland/England part] and Northern Ireland.

It's important to note here that Great Britain is a Kingdom, Northern Ireland is the other, and together they are what make up the United Kingdom.

The UK would be no more only if N.I went back to the Republic, because then they'd only be a kingdom left - not a United Kingdom, but simply a Kingdom, called Great Britain.. just as it was before Ireland joined.

I think you need to consult your Act of the Union which clearly states that the kingdoms of Scotland and England shall join to form "a" Kingdom - called Great Britain, not called the United Kingdom.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
Great Britain is a Kingdom, Northern Ireland is the other, and together they are what make up the United Kingdom.
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. The peak of Unionism wasn't really reached until the 19th Century, during Victoria's reign, when you got folk naming things like the North British Hotel. That Victorian peak of Unionism passed long, long ago. I believe the North British Hotel changed its name to the Caledonian. As for Northern Ireland being "the other kingdom", complete codswallop. Even if we count Northern Ireland as being "Ulster", it was never at any time anything more than a Province, and a Province is what it remains to this day.
Fidget

You may research as many newspapers as you like. But the fact is that Scotland and England united to form a single kingdom... called Great Britain.  Not called the United Kingdom.  The United Kingdom was born when the Kingdom of Ireland united with the Kingdom of Great Britain.

However much that displeases you, it's there in black and white.
Stevie

Fidget wrote:
Since Scottish banknotes technically aren't worth the paper they're printed on in terms of being legal tender


Oh well, how about giving me all your Scottish bank notes and I'll give you the same weight in paper in return... no.  Thought not.

Scottish banknotes are legal tender... think before you speak.
Fidget

No they aren't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7841273.stm

Position changed, has it?
The Lithgae Jambo

Fidget wrote:
No they aren't.


In other words, they have the same status in Scotland   as English banknotes have.  Legal currency, but not legal tender.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
Scotland and England united to form a single kingdom.. called Great Britain

How come Scotland and England have always retained completely different legal systems?

How come there has never been a Church of Britain?
Stevie

Fidget wrote:
No they aren't.



I see you're soaring through the intellectual skies of argument and forging across the rushing heady streams of knowledge.  

Bravo.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
You may research as many newspapers as you like. But the fact is that Scotland and England united to form a single kingdom... called Great Britain.  Not called the United Kingdom.  The United Kingdom was born when the Kingdom of Ireland united with the Kingdom of Great Britain.

However much that displeases you, it's there in black and white.

There in black and white... indeed.

It's called the United Kingdom, not the United Kingdoms, because, as you say, the old kingdoms united to form a new kingdom. When Ireland joined all that changed was the name (from the United Kingdom of Great Britain to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland). It was still a single, united, kingdom. When Ireland left, the name changed again, but it was still a single, united, kingdom.

Right now there are two ancient kingdoms within the UK and that's what makes it a united kingdom. If either of those kingdoms leaves there will no longer be a united kingdom, there will only be a single kingdom with a couple of other countries.


I followed your advice and consulted the Act of Union and here's what it says:
Quote:
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...
Stevie

I'm a republican and all this kingdom stuff is irrelevant once we have a Scottish republic.

Viva la republicà.
Rinty

In terms of the EU, the "UK" that entered the EU is the one that has Scotland, England, Wales and NI.  So the arguments about what each term means or meant is pointless.

Other parts of "britain" such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not in the EU.  But they are included in old descriptions of 'kingdoms'.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a member of the EU.

It is pretty clear that Scotland would be in the EU unless it opted out, which would take negotiations a la Greenland.  Even just statying in will require a lot a paperwork and a lot of lawyers but will taken as granted.  I dont think the remainder of the UK will have the readjustment and renegotiating that Scotland will have.  They will be mainly 'as is' but with less assets, land and people, so will probably just continue 'as is'.

I think Russel's stab at a beginning of a conversation is a reasonable start, and he does bring up questions that tend to be used as distractions by pro-union commentators.
mairead

if Scottish banknotes are not legal tender then Someone must have palmed one off to me in error last week, and I must have passed it on in error to the shop that accepted it. Shocked Shocked
Stevie

Bravehand wrote:
Fidget wrote:
Since Scottish banknotes technically aren't worth the paper they're printed on in terms of being legal tender


Oh well, how about giving me all your Scottish bank notes and I'll give you the same weight in paper in return... no.  Thought not.

Scottish banknotes are legal tender... think before you speak.



Still willing to give you the paper weight for your Scottish banknotes...

Actually, the silly 'not legal tender' thingy you said :

They are legal, and it's not illegal to tender them, thus they are legal tender.

Fidget with a widget, not your digits.
Fidget

"Scottish Banknotes are legal currency – i.e. they are approved by the UK Parliament.  However, Scottish Bank notes are not Legal Tender, not even in Scotland.  In fact, no banknote whatsoever (including Bank of England notes!) qualifies for the term 'legal tender' north of the border and the Scottish economy seems to manage without that legal protection."

That is from the website of the committee of scotland's clearing bankers:

http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/legal_position.php

So.. as you were saying....?
Stevie

Quote:
The legal position with regard to Scottish Banknotes is as follows:

Scottish Banknotes are legal currency – i.e. they are approved by the UK Parliament.  However, Scottish Bank notes are not Legal Tender, not even in Scotland.  In fact, no banknote whatsoever (including Bank of England notes!) qualifies for the term 'legal tender' north of the border and the Scottish economy seems to manage without that legal protection.

HM Treasury is responsible for defining which notes have ‘legal tender’ status within the United Kingdom and the following extract from Bank of England’s website may help to clarify what is meant by “legal tender” and how little practical meaning the phrase has in everyday transactions.

“The term legal tender does not in itself govern the acceptability of banknotes in transactions. Whether or not notes have legal tender status, their acceptability as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved. Legal tender has a very narrow technical meaning in relation to the settlement of debt. If a debtor pays in legal tender the exact amount he owes under the terms of a contract, he has good defence in law if he is subsequently sued for non-payment of the debt. In ordinary everyday transactions, the term ‘legal tender’ has very little practical application.”
(Ref. www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/faqs.htm.)

It is also interesting to note that, if the strict rules governing legal tender were to be observed in a transaction, then the exact amount due would need to be tendered since no change can be demanded.

The majority of banknotes circulating in Scotland are issued by Scottish banks.   Scottish notes circulate and are accepted quite freely in Scotland and, for the most part, they are also readily accepted in England & Wales, although branches of Scottish banks there may not issue them.  However, you should not rely absolutely on Scottish notes being accepted outside Scotland and this is particularly true when travelling abroad.  Our general advice would be not to carry large amounts of banknotes of any description and to make use of facilities such as travellers’ cheques, credit/debit cards and ATM cards for access to funds whilst abroad.



Since you seem to be correct as far as the term 'legal tender', then I'll concede you're right and I'm wrong...  but do you have a point?  Or are you just desperately searching for silly ways to undermine the 'nats'?

Of course you are and it's irrelevant.

Scottish banknotes will be legal tender in an independent Scotland.
Alasdair

David Mundell is currently campaigning to have them made legal tender, i.e. so that they can't be refused in England.
babykitten

Bravehand wrote:
landg wrote:
i know he's round but alex sure likes to have some cake, eat it and take some home as well.


I applaud you for the genius of your argument.


LOL, it is utterly moronic, isn't it?
babykitten

Fidget wrote:
No they aren't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7841273.stm

Position changed, has it?

It was me that said NO notes are legal tender in Scotland, not Bravehand.  And I am correct.  No currently produced notes are legal tender in Scotland, not even English notes.

However, all notes produced today are legal CURRENCY.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
Page 1 of 1
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