Antlion Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 You are obviously, unlike me, pro-EU. The main barrier to EU membership could be financial, especially the currency issue. The North Sea revenues are well below the SNP's forecasts which would significantly affect Scotland's financial contribution to the EU budget. A truly independent Scotland would be free negotiate a trade agreement with Brussels on its own terms. Unlike now, it could control its own waters and fishing rights. The Common Fisheries Policy has been a disaster for fishing stocks, especially cod and haddock. An independent Scotland would also have control of its own borders. It would therefore be free to give citizens of all countries, including EU Members, rights of residency or Scottish citizenship. Norway and Switzerland have chosen to have freedom of movement with the EU. I'm pro EU in principle - specifically on the principle that it affords opportunities to live and work across the continent. However, I think debating Scotland's EU or non EU membership whilst we're a region of a member state, and Scotland cannot either join or leave by the will of its people, is an exercise in futility. We might as well debate what colour and cut of curtains we want in the Prime Minister of a sovereign Scotland's official residence, or whether we want Scotland to have a monarchy or become a republic. Until the Treaty of Union is dissolved, these are moot arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Basically unelected Lady Mone has now got more power than an elected scottish mp Surely she's a Scottish Lord? Would by funny if they introduced similar legislation in the lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 They don't "have the power to dictate the financing of everything". They still need a majority of the whole House of Commons to vote for any bill containing financial provisions. Both before such a bill even leaves the Commons and goes to the Lords and again at Ping Pong when it comes back. It is perfectly feasible that a party can have a majority in the parliament without having a majority on English items. Therefore my original post stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 The proper answer to the WLQ, if England is not willing to put up with the anomaly as the price to be paid to maintain the UK, is an English parliamemt and federalism. Effectively making Westminster the English parliament some of the time potentially in opposition to its role as the British one is a recipe for disaster for Unionism in the years ahead, which is why the DUP are so vociferously opposed to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Psychosis Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Bet Pete Wishart is regretting this interview now... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29616672 EVEL is an "inconsequential issue" that the "Scottish people couldn't care less about". Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Bet Pete Wishart is regretting this interview now... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29616672 EVEL is an "inconsequential issue" that the "Scottish people couldn't care less about". Oops. In principle, English votes for English laws is a solid idea and no one who supports Scottish independence could object to it - if it was done fairly and England had an equal devolution settlement with its own block grant and parliament. What the present EVEL does do (and it's a boon for Indy supporters) is mean the UK government has finally admitted that the idea of all MPs being equal, British MPs is dead. No more can the Tories (or any "No" campaign) kvetch about "narrow nationalism" or "division"; they've just happily divided the Commons by nationality themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Psychosis Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 In principle, English votes for English laws is a solid idea and no one who supports Scottish independence could object to it - if it was done fairly and England had an equal devolution settlement with its own block grant and parliament. What the present EVEL does do (and it's a boon for Indy supporters) is mean the UK government has finally admitted that the idea of all MPs being equal, British MPs is dead. No more can the Tories (or any "No" campaign) kvetch about "narrow nationalism" or "division"; they've just happily divided the Commons by nationality themselves. Well, yes, but that doesn't excuse Wishart from making a right Jeremy Hunt of himself by claiming that a major constitutional change is "inconsequential" or that Scottish voters wouldn't care about it. He could have made exactly the same points re: the vow without making himself look stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Its quite funny,evel goes through and some peoples first reaction is eeesssnnppeee bad,further proof that unionists dont care about Scotland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted October 24, 2015 Author Share Posted October 24, 2015 Then who did Alex speak to, he told us he had discussions. We all know unofficial discussions take place. If you claim we can't discuss anything with anyone until after the event you are an idiot. As for your last sentence that sums up how much of an arse you are. So run along. I can stick my tuppence worth on here. We asked unofficially for both EU membership and EFTA, EFTA aren't accepting anyone and the EU would have fast tracked us. Same rules, at some point unspecified we would have to join the Euro but they were completely relaxed if 'we never quite made the conditions' and never joined. Sweden in other words. One staffer at the EU was told by a senior official to 'just get on with it, you're in' as quite frankly, most of the EU is pissed off with Cameron and it would be a massive embarrassment to him. I reckon they were/are completely relaxed about the whole thing and it's the same for Catalonia, they just can't officially say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubic Pube Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 I can stick my tuppence worth on here. We asked unofficially for both EU membership and EFTA, EFTA aren't accepting anyone and the EU would have fast tracked us. Same rules, at some point unspecified we would have to join the Euro but they were completely relaxed if 'we never quite made the conditions' and never joined. Sweden in other words. One staffer at the EU was told by a senior official to 'just get on with it, you're in' as quite frankly, most of the EU is pissed off with Cameron and it would be a massive embarrassment to him. I reckon they were/are completely relaxed about the whole thing and it's the same for Catalonia, they just can't officially say it. Mr Rational, I accept everything you say, can you say / hint at where your information comes from? I know there has been rhetoric on both sides about how any future EU membership decision may go or indeed whether membership would be automatic given our unique circumstances. Any further information you could give would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted October 24, 2015 Author Share Posted October 24, 2015 Let's just say it was someone who worked in Brussels at the time and it was someone in the German government who was doing the talking. I haven't a scooby who the German was, but Dave was pissing half of the continent off and like you, I don't believe I was being spun a story. NATO - it also wouldn't have been an issue. Not to include us would have been madness as we are one of the gate posts of the G-I-UK SOSUS net, with a resurgent bear, well the NATO trigger net for subs going into the Atlantic would have gone and nobody wants that. A few MSPs were over in Oslo and spoke to Norwegian counterparts. They said that not to have us in would be a dereliction of duty by them and if we decided to stay out, it wouldn't look good to the neighbours either. it was just before the NATO vote and I believe it cemented the decision to change our position. Don't scare the horses. It's probably the reason why yes wasn't a hell of a lot more radical... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubic Pube Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Thanks, appreciate your answer. Food for further thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted October 24, 2015 Author Share Posted October 24, 2015 I haven't a clue what you are on about and have no wish to intrude on whatever wee spat you would appear to have with another poster. That was what I was told at the time. Seeing that Westminster MPs, senior establishment figures and the civil service had all been briefed on what to say if we had voted yes, plus the fact that the BoE had a contingency plan in place until the politicians had sorted it all out, I would reckon that the EU had the same in place. I would love to know what the plans and statements were going to be. I think we would have gotten a currency union for a set period of time, the trade off would have been Faslane. Once the emotion had been taken out of all, sensible heads would have taken over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted October 24, 2015 Author Share Posted October 24, 2015 The last bit about a currency union is just my opinion but it makes sense. We have something they want and vice versa. Neither side would have wanted economic chaos and a short term solution would have been found to stabilise both economies. We would have lost a bit of our banking sector, but gained a fair bit of inward investment as well, swings and roundabouts. We certainly wouldn't have got everything we wanted, but neither would have Westminster. All guesswork now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Its quite funny,evel goes through and some peoples first reaction is eeesssnnppeee bad,further proof that unionists dont care about Scotland Think you cybernats need a new insult thats all boring now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Think you cybernats need a new insult thats all boring now. Cybernat Truth hurts kev,the silence from kez etc about evel etc has been noted by most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Cybernat Truth hurts kev,the silence from kez etc about evel etc has been noted by most.He must still be living in 2014 - "teh CYBERNATZZZ". "You don't have to be stupid to be a BritNat, but it helps" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Think you cybernats need a new insult thats all boring now. Why would anyone need or want an insult that's boring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black and White Tragic Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 EVEL ...a misnomer that gives Middle Englanders a feel good factor. "We don't want these Jocks making decisions on what happens in our country!". Now, let's think about that. EVERY decision, for nearly 300 years, that was taken affecting Scotland by Westminster allowed our English friends not only a say but a near 10-1 majority influence. But that was okay. Truth is that they still had that influence, even before EVEL there was little chance to veto what the majority of English MPs voted for. Again this is due to the fact that they outnumber us by ten to one. Westminster is only considered the "UK parliament" by Englanders when making decisions on these little add on countries at England's disposal. For most intents and purposes Westminster is already considered as the English Parliament. Devolution redressed the balance a little but WM retains powers over the Scottish budget, Oil revenues, where to park the Ultimate Deterrent and our membership of EU and other bodies. After his speech of relief on the morning of 19th September 2014 David Cameron, jubilant that he had saved the Union, promptly went on to set the wheels in motion to break it. EVEL will be the catalyst to ensure that Scotland will one day be independent. "Lead the Union, don't leave the Union", they said. They missed out the caveat in the small print that said, "only if England's MPs make all the decisions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Cybernat Truth hurts kev,the silence from kez etc about evel etc has been noted by most. Scottish labour bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.