Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Baxter Parp]

15 hours ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Not true. Before the referendum, The European Commissioner told the Scottish Parliament (in writing) said that an independent Scotland would have to go through the full application process under Article 48.

Under the Treaty of the EU, new applicants must demonstrate that they have complied all aspects European law. An independent Scotland would have to pass a whole raft of legislation to cover areas that are not currently devolved.

An independent Scotland would also have had to deal with the currency issue, i.e. deliver an independent currency. Post-Brexit, it's highly unlikely the EU would accept a currency union with rUK. It's a huge issue for IndyRef2 that the SNP has been avoiding in its post-Brexit EU policies.

Pish.  Scotland is already fully compliant with all EU laws and regulations (rather obviously) and the EU couldn't give a f**k about what currency you use so long as you promise you'll use the Euro at some point.

[Bishop Briggs]

9 minutes ago, jakedee said:

I'm sure he said something about an emergency budget in the event of Brexit. Politician says one thing and does another shocker.

It may have escaped your notice but Osborne is no longer Chancellor. He was finished from the moment that Cameron resigned on the morning after the Brexit vote. The decision to abandon's Osborne's plan for an emergency budget was Hammond's

A currency union would require Parliamentary approval via an Act of Parliament.  There are less than 60 SNP MPs in the Commons so they could not dictate terms. Such an Act would include a fiscal agreement, i.e. London's control of taxation and spending. And we were told that a Yes vote would deliver independence from Westminster!

[Bishop Briggs]

14 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Pish.  Scotland is already fully compliant with all EU laws and regulations (rather obviously) and the EU couldn't give a f**k about what currency you use so long as you promise you'll use the Euro at some point.

An independent Scotland would  be compliant in areas which are devolved to Holyrood. During the application process, Scotland would have demonstate compliance with all chapters of the acquis - https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-of-the-acquis_en. It would have to pass masses of legislation as Westminster's laws in many areas would no longer apply. The application process usually takes several years. In Scotland's case, it would take at least three years.

An independent Scotland's application would have to be approved by the other 27 states. If Britain had voted to Remain, rUK would have had a veto. Spain would veto an independent Scotland's application as it would set a precedent for Catalonian independence. Before the Calatonian "consultative" referendum  in November 2014, the EU said that independence would result in Catalonia leaving the EU and the Eurozone. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Bishop Briggs

[HTG]

What was said before the referendum by Osborne or anyone in government was irrelevant nonsense. For a start, if Cameron and Osborne were fallling on their swords over Brexit, they were never surviving the break up of the UK so, just like the £30bn cuts budget threat,  there is absolutely no chance that Westminster would have declined a proposal to steer a middle course through a transition period. They also threatened the imposition of a hard border at Berwick and Gretna  (because Scotland wouldn't be in the EU ... irony). Look at them scrambling now not to have a hard border with Ireland. It is absolutely not in the interests of rUK to refuse to engage in transition or to seek to cause unnecessary difficulty on trade, currency or anything else. Talking shite to put the fear into the voter was a speciality  of Cameron and Osborne. It's one reason why they fucked up Brexit and why Scotland won't be hoodwinked again. They're lying c***s.

[Baxter Parp]

13 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

An independent Scotland would  be compliant in areas which are devolved to Holyrood. During the application process, Scotland would have demonstate compliance with all chapters of the acquis - https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-of-the-acquis_en. It would have to pass masses of legislation as Westminster's laws in many areas would no longer apply. The application process usually takes several years. In Scotland's case, it would take at least three years.

An independent Scotland's application would have to be approved by the other 27 states. If Britain had voted to Remain, rUK would have had a veto. Spain would veto an independent Scotland's application as it would set a precedent for Catalonian independence. Before the Calatonian "consultative" referendum  in November 2014, the EU said that independence would result in Catalonia leaving the EU and the Eurozone. 

Utter pish. Scotland's laws are fully compliant already and adopting any reserved laws could be done in a single bill as per May's proposal for EU law.. The application process is as long as the EU finds convenient.  In the case of GDR, not long at all, in the case of Turkey, it's going to be long and drawn out because Turkey has issues.  There is no queue.  Spain has no interest in blocking a legally independent Scotland from joining the EU.  That's on record.

[George Parr]

The emergency budget hysteria was simply that. Having specialised in fear-mongering for much of his squalid career, Osborne simply assumed he'd get away with it again. One of the referendum's positive outcomes was that serial chancer being banished to oblivion. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Consolidate

[Bishop Briggs]

7 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Utter pish. Scotland's laws are fully compliant already and adopting any reserved laws could be done in a single bill as per May's proposal for EU law.. The application process is as long as the EU finds convenient.  In the case of GDR, not long at all, in the case of Turkey, it's going to be long and drawn out because Turkey has issues.  There is no queue.  Spain has no interest in blocking a legally independent Scotland from joining the EU.  That's on record.

Scotland's current are currently compliant but an independent Scotland would not be complaint with all 35 chapters of the acquis. It would have demonstrate compliance after completing separation from the UK. A Single Bill like May's would not be enough.  

The GDR did not apply to join the EU. It was absorbed into West Germany, an existing Member State. 

As for Spain

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu - "Alex Salmond's plans for an independent Scotland to smoothly join the European Union have been dealt a painful blow after the Scottish first minister's proposals were dismissed by Spain's prime minister.

"Mariano Rajoy said his government believed an independent Scotland could only apply to join the EU from outside the organisation as a new state, as he warned against regions of Europe embarking on "solo adventures in an uncertain future".

"Speaking at a joint press conference with the French president, François Hollande, Rajoy said: "It's very clear to me, as it is for everybody else in the world, that a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU, and that is good for Scottish citizens to know and for all EU citizens to know."

"Rajoy said EU treaties "apply only to member states that have agreed and ratified them, and if a part of one member state cleaves from the member state, it converts itself into a third part with relation to the EU."

"That is the law and that law applies."

He added: "In no way does it benefit our European regions and our citizens to propose divisions or solo adventures in an uncertain future in which the exit points may seem clear but the destination is unknown."

 

So the SNP's claims in the independence White Paper were total and utter nonsense. It claimed that full independence and EU membership could be achieved within 18 months. That's 18 months to negotiate a separation agreement, contractual arrangements with UK regulatory bodies, agencies etc, a currency union, a related fiscal treaty and full EU membership! That makes Brexit look very simple.

Post Brexit, Spain is more relaxed about an independent Scotland applying to join. It, outside the EU,  would no longer create a precedent for Catalonia. The Belgian Government, faced with its own Flemish independence movement, might have a different view.

[jakedee]

It may have escaped your notice but Osborne is no longer Chancellor. He was finished from the moment that Cameron resigned on the morning after the Brexit vote. The decision to abandon's Osborne's plan for an emergency budget was Hammond's

A currency union would require Parliamentary approval via an Act of Parliament. There are less than 60 SNP MPs in the Commons so they could not dictate terms. Such an Act would include a fiscal agreement, i.e. London's control of taxation and spending. And we were told that a Yes vote would deliver independence from Westminster!

It was you that quoted Osborne,so now he's not chancellor everything he said was pish ? Sterling is as much a currency of Scotland as it is the rest of the UK. I'm sure we can do the same as Canada,Australia etc. who "struggled" on with the £ until they were confident enough to have their own currency.It seems that a currency union being a benefit to both an IScotland and the rUK in the short to medium term has escaped your notice.

[Baxter Parp]

The usual pish.

However, you should acknowledge that "Spain will not veto an independent Scotland joining EU" http://archive.is/sUgld#selection-405.0-405.54 It's clear that Rajoy was talking about a region (Catalonia) not a legally independent nation (Scotland).

And you could point out which Aquis Scotland isn't compliant with too, that'd be nice.

[Bishop Briggs]

4 minutes ago, jakedee said:

It was you that quoted Osborne,so now he's not chancellor everything he said was pish ? Sterling is as much a currency of Scotland as it is the rest of the UK. I'm sure we can do the same as Canada,Australia etc. who "struggled" on with the £ until they were confident enough to have their own currency.It seems that a currency union being a benefit to both an IScotland and the rUK in the short to medium term has escaped your notice.

Not at all. Osborne would have decided the UK Government's policy had the Yes campaign in 2014. He would have remained as Chancellor up to Independence Day - early 2016 according to the timetable in the White Paper.

Let's assume that Osborne changed his mind. Sterling is the currency of the UK, underwritten by UK's taxpayer via the Bank of England as lender of last resort. By leaving the UK, an independent Scotland would have to agree a fiscal treaty as part of the currency to retain the Bank of England as lender of last resort. Such a treaty would have included restrictions on tax, spending and borrowing. And that's supposed to be independence?

Here's George Stiglitz on currency union - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37219612.

A Nobel prize-winning economist says Scotland's plans for a currency union with the UK during the independence campaign may have been a "mistake". Joseph Stiglitz is part of First Minster Nicola Sturgeon's council of economic advisors, and advised Alex Salmond when he was in office. He said Scotland should have looked at proposals for a "Scottish pound" as a transitional measure."

"Mr Stiglitz... won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001 and has recently published a book describing the euro as a threat to the future of Europe."

I advocate such an independent Scottish currency as a permanent solution rather than a transitional measure. 

[jakedee]

Not at all. Osborne would have decided the UK Government's policy had the Yes campaign in 2014. He would have remained as Chancellor up to Independence Day - early 2016 according to the timetable in the White Paper.

Let's assume that Osborne changed his mind. Sterling is the currency of the UK, underwritten by UK's taxpayer via the Bank of England as lender of last resort. By leaving the UK, an independent Scotland would have to agree a fiscal treaty as part of the currency to retain the Bank of England as lender of last resort. Such a treaty would have included restrictions on tax, spending and borrowing. And that's supposed to be independence?

Here's George Stiglitz on currency union - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37219612.

A Nobel prize-winning economist says Scotland's plans for a currency union with the UK during the independence campaign may have been a "mistake". Joseph Stiglitz is part of First Minster Nicola Sturgeon's council of economic advisors, and advised Alex Salmond when he was in office. He said Scotland should have looked at proposals for a "Scottish pound" as a transitional measure."

"Mr Stiglitz... won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001 and has recently published a book describing the euro as a threat to the future of Europe."

I advocate such an independent Scottish currency as a permanent solution rather than a transitional measure.

Cameron's resignation, then Osborne's sacking after Brexit, shows me that if the Independance result had been a Yes, then the same scenario could have been played out. As you stated above,different Chancellor,different outlook. The fact that the BofE were making contingency plans show's a union is possible.Without a currency union the UK's exit from the EU will be extremely difficult. Scotland's exit from the UK will be equally so.Independance,as Brexit will not be done overnight,but as many other countries have shown,it can be done and be a success.

[Bishop Briggs]

3 minutes ago, jakedee said:

Cameron's resignation, then Osborne's sacking after Brexit, shows me that if the Independance result had been a Yes, then the same scenario could have been played out. As you stated above,different Chancellor,different outlook. The fact that the BofE were making contingency plans show's a union is possible.Without a currency union the UK's exit from the EU will be extremely difficult. Scotland's exit from the UK will be equally so.Independance,as Brexit will not be done overnight,but as many other countries have shown,it can be done and be a success.

Not according to White Paper which said that independence would be achieved within 18 months of a Yes vote. The UK does not need a currency union with Scotland for Brexit. Scotland will still be part of the UK when Brexit is complete - by March 2019 if the current timetable is adhered to. An independent Scotland could join EFTA, the Single Market and the EEA easily. The application (and related domestic legislative) process to become a full Member of the EU would take at least 2 or 3 years, longer if an EU referendum was held. 

Scotland's exit from the UK will be more complex than Brexit. Scotland is governed by many UK regulatory bodies and agencies. It will have to set up independent equivalents or alternatives by Independence Day. The 18 month timescale in the White Paper was not credible nor deliverable. The White Paper's ridiculous claims undermined the Yes campaign and helped Better Together. 

[Baxter Parp]

11 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

 The 18 month timescale in the White Paper was not credible nor deliverable. The White Paper's ridiculous claims undermined the Yes campaign and helped Better Together. 

Again:  Who says? http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/independent-scotland-could-join-eu-in-18-months-1-3535302 'Independent Scotland could join EU in 18 months’

You're just full of statements that have no foundation in reality, aren't you?

[Bishop Briggs]

56 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

The usual pish.

However, you should acknowledge that "Spain will not veto an independent Scotland joining EU" http://archive.is/sUgld#selection-405.0-405.54 It's clear that Rajoy was talking about a region (Catalonia) not a legally independent nation (Scotland).

And you could point out which Aquis Scotland isn't compliant with too, that'd be nice.

Rajoy was talking about a region leaving a Member State and becoming an independent nation. Scotland is regarded as a region of the UK and EU, not a nation, by the EU's institutions.

Compliance with the acquis is a process that is undertaken chapter by chapter. The applicant has to demonstrate compliance with a chapter and, if satisfied, the EU then signs it off.

For a start, by having no central bank, an independent Scotland would not be compliant with chapter 17. "The acquis in the area of economic and monetary policy contains specific rules requiring the independence of central banks in Member States, prohibiting direct financing of the public sector by the central banks and prohibiting privileged access of the public sector to financial institutions. Member States are expected to co-ordinate their economic policies and are subject to the Stability and Growth Pact on fiscal surveillance. New Member States are also committed to complying with the criteria laid down in the Treaty in order to be able to adopt the euro in due course after accession. Until then, they will participate in the Economic and Monetary Union as a Member State with a derogation from the use of the euro and shall treat their exchange rates as a matter of common concern."

Chapter 33 would also be a challenge given Scotland's budget deficit.

"This chapter covers the rules concerning the financial resources necessary for the funding of the EU budget (‘own resources’). These resources are made up mainly from contributions from Member States based on traditional own resources from customs and agricultural duties and sugar levies; a resource based on value-added tax; and a resource based on the level of gross national income."

[jakedee]

Not according to White Paper which said that independence would be achieved within 18 months of a Yes vote. The UK does not need a currency union with Scotland for Brexit. Scotland will still be part of the UK when Brexit is complete - by March 2019 if the current timetable is adhered to. An independent Scotland could join EFTA, the Single Market and the EEA easily. The application (and related domestic legislative) process to become a full Member of the EU would take at least 2 or 3 years, longer if an EU referendum was held.

Scotland's exit from the UK will be more complex than Brexit. Scotland is governed by many UK regulatory bodies and agencies. It will have to set up independent equivalents or alternatives by Independence Day. The 18 month timescale in the White Paper was not credible nor deliverable. The White Paper's ridiculous claims undermined the Yes campaign and helped Better Together.

At least there was a white paper,which gave defined targets.No such preperation was done for Brexit. Whether these targets can be met remains to be seen. To use currency,EU membership,regulatory bodies etc as a reason that Independence is unachievable or would not be a success is disingenuous.

[Bishop Briggs]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

Again:  Who says? http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/independent-scotland-could-join-eu-in-18-months-1-3535302 'Independent Scotland could join EU in 18 months’

You're just full of statements that have no foundation in reality, aren't you?

Pat Cox FFS!  He'd been out of office for 10 years when he spouted that nonsense. 

His arguments were rubbished by the EU Commission's President and Vice-President. Yet again, here's the EU's official letter to the Scottish Parliament - https://www.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf.

The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 20041. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory. 

What part of that don't you understand?

[Bishop Briggs]

Just now, jakedee said:

At least there was a white paper,which gave defined targets.No such preperation was done for Brexit. Whether these targets can be met remains to be seen. To use currency,EU membership,regulatory bodies etc as a reason that Independence is unachievable or would not be a success is disingenuous.

For the independence referendum, the Scottish Government was advocating separation from the UK. In the EU referendum, the UK Government was advocated staying in the European Union, i.e. Remain, and produced documents to support its position. The SNP did not prepare for Brexit and this week's votes show that it will not even accept the result now. All the major parties, except UKIP, The Tories, Labour, thought that there was no chance of a Leave victory. That's why the preparations only began after Leave won - despite Remain being backed by the EUphile establishment (main parties, BBC, Guardian etc) and big business cronies like Goldman Sachs and Richard Branson.

[williemillersmoustache]

17 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

For the independence referendum, the Scottish Government was advocating separation from the UK. In the EU referendum, the UK Government was advocated staying in the European Union, i.e. Remain, and produced documents to support its position. The SNP did not prepare for Brexit and this week's votes show that it will not even accept the result now. All the major parties, except UKIP, The Tories, Labour, thought that there was no chance of a Leave victory. That's why the preparations only began after Leave won - despite Remain being backed by the EUphile establishment (main parties, BBC, Guardian etc) and big business cronies like Goldman Sachs and Richard Branson.

This will be why the only UK party leader that acted with any sort of decorum, responsibility or direction was Nicola Sturgeon following the vote.  Away with your pish, fools no-one.

[Baxter Parp]

38 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Pat Cox FFS!  He'd been out of office for 10 years when he spouted that nonsense. 

His arguments were rubbished by the EU Commission's President and Vice-President. Yet again, here's the EU's official letter to the Scottish Parliament - https://www.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf.

The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 20041. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory. 

What part of that don't you understand?

Which bit of that implies that Scotland couldn't join the EU? Or even might have a problem joining?  Or a timescale?

[Baxter Parp]

35 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

The SNP did not prepare for Brexit .

Pish.  Sturgeon made the Scottish Government's position clear the same day as the result.