The Economic Case for an Independent Scotland

[PaulIsclosed]

What are you actually suggesting here?

I'm simply trying to explain that currency relationships are unrelated to this. Scotland does not meaningfully have a "card" to play here about debts, because any perceived advantage is annulled by the UK government's powers to veto their membership of certain crucial international organisations. The quid pro quo is "don't shirk the debt and we won't block your EU membership. Currency doesn't come into it.

The problem with this analysis of the situation is that you're assuming that Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU. This point it still up for contention as there is no precedent and EU leguslation surrounding the issue is open to interpretation. Hence whether Scotland is forced to apply or is immediately admitted under the pretence that it is already a member state will be determined by politicking.

[ayrmad]

I'm not suggesting we won't be in the EU or that Scotland can use the pound sterling if it pleases. These are not the same as what you're claiming about the currency union and the terms of membership.

There will be negotiations, what the result will be is unknown, share of debt and assets will be central in these negotiations, so our wee £31.5 billion cut of QE only strengthens our case as does the UK being in debt for the whole of the national debt. I'm quite sure more levers will become known to us as time passes but that'll do for now.

[H_B]

The problem with this analysis of the situation is that you're assuming that Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU.

Which they will. The law on this is settled.

[PaulIsclosed]

Which they will. The law on this is settled.

Please do direct me to the specific EU statute that deals with the issue of succession of a member state.

[H_B]

Please do direct me to the specific EU statute that deals with the issue of succession of a member state.

There is none. I'm not sure how that helps your point though.

I can explain to you how state succession works in International Law if you have someone to interpret English into Moron for you.

[Wee Bully]

Which they will. The law on this is settled.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the argument, this point is nonsense.

But you knew that anyway.

[H_B]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the argument, this point is nonsense.

But you knew that anyway.

Even the SNP don't dispute the law on this now.

They have abandoned their previous nonsensical lies about inheriting the UK's treaty rights and obligations.

But you knew that anyway.

[PaulIsclosed]

There is none. I'm not sure how that helps your point though.

I can explain to you how state succession works in International Law if you have someone to interpret English into Moron for you.

Exactly there is no precedent or statute that clearly defines what should happen, therefore the outcome will be determined by politicking within the EU, as I've already stated. Your challenge of this assertion and the fact that you didn't know that the Bank of England was a private limited company, hence an asset, proves beyond doubt that you are the moron.

[H_B]

Note also that the law on this has never been in dispute.

What proponents of the Sheffer and Sturgeon school of idiocy tried to peddle was a political solution, not a legal one.

[H_B]

Exactly there is no precedent or statute that clearly defines what should happen, therefore the outcome will be determined by politicking within the EU, as I've already stated. Your challenge of this assertion and the fact that you didn't know that the Bank of England was a private limited company, hence an asset, proves beyond doubt that you are the moron.

The Bank of England is not an asset. Repeating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.

[PaulIsclosed]

The Bank of England is not an asset. Repeating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.

Do you even know what a private limited company is?

[HardyBamboo]

Note also that the law on this has never been in dispute.

What proponents of the Sheffer and Sturgeon school of idiocy tried to peddle was a political solution, not a legal one.

From the White Paper - is this SG's current position or has it been superceded?

"The Scottish situation is sui generis. There is no specific

provision within the EU Treaties for the situation where, by a

consensual and lawful constitutional process, the democratically

determined majority view in part of the territory of an existing

member state is that it should become an independent country.

Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union provides the

legal basis, and defines the procedure, for a conventional

enlargement where the candidate country is seeking

membership from outside the EU. As Scotland joined the EU

in 1973 this is not the starting position from which the Scottish

Government will be pursuing independent EU membership.

Article 49 does not appear to be the appropriate legal base on

which to facilitate Scotland’s transition to full EU membership.

The alternative to an Article 49 procedure, and a legal basis

that the Scottish Government considers is appropriate to the

prospective circumstances, is that Scotland’s transition to full

membership is secured under the general provisions of Article

48. Article 48 provides for a Treaty amendment to be agreed

by common accord on the part of the representatives of the

governments of the member states.

Article 48 is therefore a suitable legal route to facilitate the

transition process, by allowing the EU Treaties to be amended

through ordinary revision procedure before Scotland becomes

independent, to enable it to become a member state at the point

of independence.

The Scottish Government recognises it will be for the EU

member states, meeting under the auspices of the Council,

to take forward the most appropriate procedure under which

an independent Scotland will become a signatory to the EU

Treaties at the point at which it becomes independent, taking

into account Scotland’s status as an EU jurisdiction of 40 years

standing. The European Parliament will also play its role in

Scotland’s transition."

[H_B]

This changes completely the SNP's previous position on EU membership.

John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond have all previously stated that Scotland would inherit the UK's treaty rights and obligations on secession.

Scotland wouldn't have to negotiate entry to the EU - it would automatically have entry, along with rUK. They also claimed Scotland would inherit the UK's current membership rights (including opt outs).

They now accept this is utter nonsense and they lied to people by claiming this. Hence they have accepted they need to negotiate their entry to the EU. They do not contend that the UK requires to do so.

The only point of dispute now is the mechanism of Scotland's accession and the timescale.

[HardyBamboo]

This changes completely the SNP's previous position on EU membership.

John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond have all previously stated that Scotland would inherit the UK's treaty rights and obligations on secession.

Scotland wouldn't have to negotiate entry to the EU - it would automatically have entry, along with rUK. They also claimed Scotland would inherit the UK's current membership rights (including opt outs).

They now accept this is utter nonsense and they lied to people by claiming this. Hence they have accepted they need to negotiate their entry to the EU. They do not contend that the UK requires to do so.

The only point of dispute now is the mechanism of Scotland's accession and the timescale.

So, are you saying that, in the light of advice taken they have changed their position to a more tenable one in time to put it in what will be seen as their defining document, Scotlands Future, sent to every household in Scotland so everybody knows exactly what their position is on this & multiple other subjects?

[Ad Lib]

Which ones?

Inter alia, the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

[Ad Lib]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the argument, this point is nonsense.

But you knew that anyway.

Well it is actually. The White Paper essentially concedes that, absent a Treaty change, which requires unanimity of member-states, a fresh application will be necessary as a matter of EU law to become a member-state.

Incidentally, Professor Kenneth Armstrong, Professor of European Union law at Cambridge, spoke before the Scottish Affairs Committee just this afternoon. He pointed out that it is if anything less in the interests of the SNP to seek a treaty change, given their critique of EU matters having to be initiated through the UK, because such a position would precisely require the UK to initiate that treaty change through its own institutional channels. Conversely, a fresh application would concern only direct negotiations between the Scottish Government and the EU, which would be much cleaner and in respect of which the Scottish negotiators would exercise more direct control.

[H_B]

So, are you saying that, in the light of advice taken they have changed their position to a more tenable one in time to put it in what will be seen as their defining document, Scotlands Future, sent to every household in Scotland so everybody knows exactly what their position is on this & multiple other subjects?

What "advice" is this in light of that wasn't available when they lied to people?

They haven't amended their ludicrous position because of different "advice". They have amended it because they were being laughed at and looked like a joke mob.

Their current position still isn't right incidentally. It's just less wrong.

[HardyBamboo]

What "advice" is this in light of that wasn't available when they lied to people?

They haven't amended their ludicrous position because of different "advice". They have amended it because they were being laughed at and looked like a joke mob.

Their current position still isn't right incidentally. It's just less wrong.

Probably taken advice from Guys like you H_B. You call it a lie maybe others would call it a U-Turn. Do you not think it is a good thing if a politician changes something that is, (or maybe), wrong to something that is right (or at least less wrong)?

[Baxter Parp]

What "advice" is this in light of that wasn't available when they lied to people?

 

They haven't amended their ludicrous position because of different "advice". They have amended it because they were being laughed at and looked like a joke mob.

 

Their current position still isn't right incidentally. It's just less wrong.

Essentially you're saying that politicians should not change their views in the light of new evidence because that makes them liars.

Fuckwit.

[HardyBamboo]

Inter alia, the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Maybe the SG should be talking to the Ruskies eh...? Which other important organisations that the UK have a veto on are there?