Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/06/uk-lowest-paid-classed-not-working-enough wrote:"DWP internal documents seen by the Guardian reveal that people earning between £330 and around £950 a month – just under the rate of the national minimum wage for a 35-hour week – could be mandated to attend jobcentre meetings where their working habits will be examined as part of the universal credit programme.

Some of those deemed to be "not working enough" could also be instructed to take on extra training – and if they fail to complete tasks they could be stripped of their UC benefits in a move which departmental insiders conceded is controversial."

Not content with vilifying the disabled, the sick, and the unemployed in the tabloid press; not content with instigating(under the previous Labour government) and continuing(under the present Tory government) the incompetent, cruel, and expensive Work Capability Assessment administered by ATOS, 40% of whom's decisions are overturned at the first appeal(and no wonder when they routinely judge the terminally ill, the in-continual-pain wheelchair bound, and people with serious mental disorders as "fit for work"); now the UK government have decided -in an economy where there are between 7 and 10 actively-looking-for-work unemployed people for every vacancy and more presently-employed people every day are shunted on to zero-hours contracts which offer no guarantee of work at all but demand constant availability to come in for a shift at a moment's notice and often preclude the worker from taking any other jobs- that the working poor, people who are barely scraping by with the one part-time job they were able to find in this awful economy, aren't trying hard enough, and they are now planning to force them to attend the Jobcentre to be "reviewed" by the ever-helpful staff there, with them given the power to take away the already means-tested pittance of social security benefits that were allowing them to not have to choose between eating and heating their homes.

Now my half-heartedly Unionist friends fully in the thrall of "Project Fear"(this is the actual name used to refer to the "Better Together" anti-independence campaign's strategy during one of their meetings) tell me, as I used to tell others, that voting for Independence based on the current government's policies is folly, because we might find ourselves with a different government at the next general elections.

But will we? The Tory-led Coalition support Austerity economics, so does Labour. The Tory-led Coalition support cutting back the welfare state on an ongoing basis, so does Labour. The Tory-led Coalition propose an in-out referendum on Europe, Labour abstained from the vote and refuse to commit to a policy. The Tory-led Coalition continues to ease the private sector into our education system, Labour started the process themselves and won't give their official position. The Tory-led Coalition is trying to rush through the privatisation of the Royal Mail in the face of 96% opposition from its employees and 70% opposition from the general public, Labour's opposition has been half-hearted and prevaricating. The Tory-led Coalition has instituted the ridiculous so-called "bedroom tax"(91% of Scottish MPs voted against), Labour will barely discuss the matter let alone commit to repealing it if they attain office.

In all of these issues, and many more, the opinion of the Scottish people differs markedly, often overwhelmingly, from the government's. Our devolved Parliament is almost entirely composed of left-of-centre parties, elected using a system of proportional representation unlike Westminster. The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if the next UK Parliament is a Tory majority, a Labour majority, or another hung-parliament-coalition, they all intend to pursue broadly similar economic and social policies, because they all know that the election is won or lost based on a handful of "middle-English" marginal seats with substantial numbers of "floating voters" who hold broadly right-of-centre opinions and favour Greater London/SE England-focused legislation. That's not the fault of the English, it's just a fact of the UK's unrepresentative "first past the post" electoral system; the Tories know their stronghold seats have a big enough majority to survive any normal swing in public opinion, and so does the Labour party, so when crafting their policies they feel safe ignoring everyone bar the few seats which actually have a chance of changing hands, and the result is a Tory party unashamed of its relentless vilification of the vulnerable, and a Labour party with a coat of red so thin you can scratch it off to see the hastily-covered Tory Royal Blue with a fingernail.

The next argument that always arises is "solidarity". The Scots cannot be selfish and abandon our poor defenceless brothers and sisters south of the border to an endless Tory majority, we're told. But the absence of Scottish MPs from the UK Parliament in all the elections since the rise of the Labour Party in the early 1920's would have changed the results of those elections only twice, in both cases turning a tiny(3-5 seat) majority for one party or the other into a hung parliament. If the people of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland want a Labour majority at Westminster, they can have it any time they want without any help from Scotland. Even putting that aside, the argument has a whiff of impropriety about it; afterall, if Scottish MP's really were a deciding factor in Westminster elections, wouldn't it be just as wrong for us to impose a Labour government on a UK that would have otherwise voted for another choice as it is that Scotland only gets the government it votes for 52% of the time because the voters of England and to a lesser extent Wales decided on the Tories?

There's a perception that supporters of Scottish Independence are all jimmy-hat-wearing, Braveheart-watching, kilt-wearing "Scots Wahey" England-haters, hell it's a perception I held myself until earlier this year when I began to pay attention to the actual arguments. The reality is that more and more people are coming to realise, as I have with this latest vile policy, that the only way Scotland will ever get the Scandinavian-style Social Democracy that we've been voting for year-in-year-out for decades now is by stepping back from the City financier-dominated Westminster government and giving it a go by ourselves.

It will take a generation or some true catastrophe to change the political culture of the UK; the cash for honours scandal couldn't change it, the expenses scandal couldn't change it, even the global financial crisis just further ingrained the inequality of our society and the callousness and remoteness of the political class, but we can, by remaking it to serve our needs and aspirations and reflect the political will of the Scottish people. It is a risk, we could fail, all the disaster stories Better Together constantly bleat about in the press may come to pass; but if the status quo we're being asked to "risk" is another decade or more of austerity, Europhobia, and inequality, I've come to believe that's a risk worth taking.

I've been pretty sick of all talk of the independence referendum for at least a year now, neither side can give me a good argument, and really I don't see either side offering a decent solution to the real issues at hand.

Though I loathe Cameron and the Tories, and can in most instances tolerate Salmon, I just don't see us being all that better off independent. As for each sides argument, both seem to be just be poor attempts to discredit or dismiss the other sides equally flimsy argument. I'm not on board with any Scottish Nationalism, or any of this Unionist crap.

Nothing will change.

Good luck with that. Sincerely.

I can't be bothered to endorse Quebec sovereignty, honestly, because it's only based on intolerance of other ethnic groups (including the english in our own province).

The similarities are there, though. And in my mind, you'll always be the land that gave us David Hume, so good for you.

And you're right, if you never take any risks, you never run the chance of finding out if something is indeed better or not. How will it work for passports, and currency?

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Good luck with that. Sincerely.

I can't be bothered to endorse Quebec sovereignty, honestly, because it's only based on intolerance of other ethnic groups (including the english in our own province).

Our history, our different cultural, legal, religious, political and linguistic background might come before intolerance in the mind of many. The vast majority of people I know amongst the IPSO are for an intercultural approach to sovereignty.

The reason that i'm voting for independence is the right-wing politics that encircle "British politics", if you look at any map that shows the seats by party, you see that the center-left Labor party win most of the seats in Scotland, meanwhile in England it's all Conservative seats, and the rise of UKIP is in England mostly as well, British politics does not reflect Scottish views.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Good luck with that. Sincerely.

I can't be bothered to endorse Quebec sovereignty, honestly, because it's only based on intolerance of other ethnic groups (including the english in our own province).

The similarities are there, though. And in my mind, you'll always be the land that gave us David Hume, so good for you.

And you're right, if you never take any risks, you never run the chance of finding out if something is indeed better or not. How will it work for passports, and currency?

At the moment, the SNP(Scottish National Party) position is that, if elected following a Yes result, their policy would be to negotiate a currency-share/union with the former UK to keep the pound and continue to use the Bank of England(being as it is ostensibly independent of the government) as a central bank. The Yes Campaign also plays host to the Greens, the SSP, a fair few Independents(in the sense of lacking a party affiliation), and a Labour faction who are breaking their party line, so there are other opinions/options; some favour joining the Euro right off if possible, others think keeping the pound is fine for a period of time to maintain economic stability until they can develop and finalise plans for our own currency and central bank-analogue, others keeping the pound for now and going for the Euro later.

The passport situation shouldn't be a real issue, in all likelyhood we'll have negotiated full membership of the EU by the time we reached our Independence Day so would be part of the common travel area; there are scare stories being put about by the Better Together campaign that we'd have to apply to join from scratch and it would take years and years blah blah, but as it stands there's no mechanism within the EU to deprive an arbitrary population of their citizenship, the EU upholds the right to self-determination on principle and in law, and there are no obvious reasons they'd want to refuse membership to an oil-producing country with a strong modern service economy, the only real issues at the moment are the Spanish government throwing their weight around(since they fear any positive stance towards Scottish independence would further fuel the demands for Catalan independence), and the fact that the EU Commission won't give their opinion on the matter until the current nation state asks for it which the UK government won't so as to allow them to continue to present a narrative of uncertainty. A new Scottish state would issue its own passports like any other, and there would be some form of dual-citizenship options available(what form they take is still up for debate; some say that, as Scottish citizenship wouldn't exist until after a Yes vote, the UK would have to offer dual-citizenship to anyone in Scotland, the more reasonable position in my view is that dual-citizenship options would only exist for people born in other parts of what is presently the UK).

 kamakazepanda wrote:
I've been pretty sick of all talk of the independence referendum for at least a year now, neither side can give me a good argument, and really I don't see either side offering a decent solution to the real issues at hand.

Though I loathe Cameron and the Tories, and can in most instances tolerate Salmon, I just don't see us being all that better off independent. As for each sides argument, both seem to be just be poor attempts to discredit or dismiss the other sides equally flimsy argument. I'm not on board with any Scottish Nationalism, or any of this Unionist crap.

Nothing will change.

If you have any particular questions, I can see if I can find answers for you from both camps; you're right that there tends to be rather more posturing than facts a lot of the time.

And not to stoop to scaremongering, but there is actually a possibility that things will change; a No vote could result in the Scottish Parliament losing some or all of the autonomy it has at the moment. Reps from the Local Council Association in England have indicated they intend to lobby for such an outcome as well as the abolition of the Barnett Formula, and there have been a few disturbing quotes from Unionist politicians talking about how the "ideal outcome" of a No vote would be it acting as the first step in rolling back Devolution in all parts of the UK.

Say you guys do get your independence, how will those on assistance be better off? Is Scotland better off financially if it free's itself from England? How would that work? Not knowing how the situation is on the island, I'm curious.

Here in the states, the economy is essentially in the dump. I work one full time job, a part time job, as well as a small side business. Getting on assistance has always been a fear of mine as my father thought it was making oneself subservient to the state and he worked to make sure we didnt have to fall into it. Section 8 housing scares me.

I've not made up my mind on independence, but it does seem that Scotland is evolving into a left of centre Nordic state where the main export is energy, and parts of England are leaning towards becoming a right of centre corporate/banking hub. Both approaches are certainly interesting, and only time will tell what's more viable.

I think as the overarching political ideologies divide us further it's only a matter of time before devolution max or full blown independence, and along the way I do think it's sadly bringing up old grievances or hurts which no longer matter.

I'm also concerned that with the current global economic climate it's not the best time to consider independence.

Regardless, if the plans The Guardian mention are passed it's simply another blow to a portion of society that's already struggling and vilified by a government desperate to give a face to the massive economic problems we all face.

You guys are better off staying in Union. Salmond is leading Scotland into the clutches of Brussels while repeating all the mistakes of Westminster on a smaller scale.
Given that the SNP are fully supportive of Polish and Urdu being just as Scottish as Lallans and Gaelic, what is it he's trying to achieve by independence that can't be done now? He's certainly not trying to strengthen some mythical traditional Scottish identity so what is his goal? Devolution for the sake of it? Scotland for everybody but the English?

Interestingly it seems that independence has more support amongst the English than the actual people of Scotland.

I'm sure the 700 year celebrations next year though will be spectacular whatever happens.

Just don't use chemical weapons in a possible Civil War....

On a serious note. Since I'm an American and with Spaemaniak. How would that go about? I can still see the same currency being used for a bit till someone goes euro...if its still around

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Say you guys do get your independence, how will those on assistance be better off? Is Scotland better off financially if it free's itself from England? How would that work? Not knowing how the situation is on the island, I'm curious.

Here in the states, the economy is essentially in the dump. I work one full time job, a part time job, as well as a small side business. Getting on assistance has always been a fear of mine as my father thought it was making oneself subservient to the state and he worked to make sure we didnt have to fall into it. Section 8 housing scares me.

Well, again that depends on which party comes to power in the post-Independence general election, as well as what rights we choose to enshrine in our written constitution. There's broad but not universal support for a concept called the "Common Weal", which is essentially a slightly more left-wing variation on Social Democracy. The advocates for Independence among the business community understandably take a more centrist tack, but even in that subset there is still a recognition that Scotland would benefit from a strong welfare state; it appears some businesspeople still grasp the idea that a happy, healthy workforce is a benefit to them. At the moment, the devolved Parliament has powers over some areas, like Health and Education, but not others like Welfare and Taxation. We've used what powers we have to keep NHS Scotland as a free universal service; in England and Wales, a person will have to fork over anywhere up to £7.50 in order to fill a prescription from their doctor for medication, here prescriptions are free at the point of access. The UK government has brought in tuition fees of up to £9000 per annum for higher education, while in Scotland we used our devolved powers to ensure access to college and university is based on a person's ability to learn, not their ability to pay.

The issue is that without those other powers, we're reaching the limits of what we can do. Currently, all taxes raised in Scotland go to the UK Treasury with the tax from the rest of the UK, and then the Treasury issues the Scottish Parliament with a "block grant" which forms their entire budget. Without full control of our own finances, the result is that the Scottish government has to "rob Peter to pay Paul" if they want to do something new, since the only way to gain access to "new" revenue is to reduce the portion of the budget that funds something else. An example is the recent institution by the UK government of the so-called "bedroom tax", essentially, if you're in receipt of housing benefit and the government determines you have a "spare" bedroom, they begin to dock the amount of benefit you receive. That sounds perfectly reasonable, until you realise that A; the policy has very little flexibility in it to account for odd but not drastically uncommon situations like, for example, a disabled person who needs the additional room to store vital medical equipment, or who has to have an extra room for their full-time carer, and B; there aren't enough social housing or budget private sector rentals available to give people the opportunity to vacate their supposedly-too-large existing residence for something smaller, meaning they are stuck where they are and are forced to use their energy or food budget to make up the shortfall in rent. The Scottish government tried to mitigate the policy, but they could only manage to find £20 million of the £50-100 million it would take to do so in the budgets of those areas we have control over.

Even those meagre bulwarks against austerity are under threat, since the ostensibly-left-wing party on the UK-national stage support most of the policies we're trying to mitigate, and their Scottish sub-party in the devolved parliament is now indicating it is considering scrapping all of the attempted mitigations if they were to come to power.

Whether we'd be better off financially is one of those areas where there's a lot of back and forth but not much clarity. At the moment, excluding oil revenues completely, Scotland has a rate of tax per-head of population that is 99% of the UK average; only London and the South East of England raise more per-person than us. Including oil, based on an average price over the last few years, it would be about 118%. The Unionists usually counter by pointing out that public spending in Scotland would account for almost all of that larger estimate, which is factual, but to which independence advocates respond with the point that a lot of that public spending is set by Westminster rather than Edinburgh, and so could be reduced, reallocated, or ameliorated with a different tax regime if Scotland could control its own spending and revenue collection. They also point to the fact that Scotland has 25% of the renewable energy capacity of the entire EU, a resource we've barely even begun to exploit yet. The figures at the moment range from each of us being on average £1 a week worse off under independence(the figure put forward by the UK Chancellor, and so a wee bit suspect), to £800 a year better off(which comes from the Scottish National Party, and so despite having a better basis in reality by my estimation, is still somewhat suspect), both figures assume nothing else were to change other than Independence being achieved.

And that's really what it comes down to for me; nothing is certain, nothing is ever certain, but the opportunity to perhaps create the type of society we simply can't have while within the UK is worth the risk when you consider just how divergent mainstream UK politics has become from mainstream Scottish politics.

cadbren wrote:
You guys are better off staying in Union. Salmond is leading Scotland into the clutches of Brussels while repeating all the mistakes of Westminster on a smaller scale.
Given that the SNP are fully supportive of Polish and Urdu being just as Scottish as Lallans and Gaelic, what is it he's trying to achieve by independence that can't be done now? He's certainly not trying to strengthen some mythical traditional Scottish identity so what is his goal? Devolution for the sake of it? Scotland for everybody but the English?

Interestingly it seems that independence has more support amongst the English than the actual people of Scotland.

I'm sure the 700 year celebrations next year though will be spectacular whatever happens.

Scottish Independence would be based on Civic Nationalism, not Ethnic Nationalism; anyone who lives here is just as Scottish as someone who happened to have been born here, it has nothing to do with the English. And point of fact; recent polling suggests the gap is narrowing between yes/no voters, and that those who currently declare as "don't know" are more likely to vote yes when they feel they have all the facts. I don't think it will be a landslide by any means, the relentless lies and negativity of the Better Together campaign will preclude that, but I'll remind people that "the polls" were showing a projected Labour victory at the last two Scottish elections right up until the moment that the SNP won, the second time with a majority(something the system at Holyrood was supposed to render virtually impossible).

I don't know British politics as well as I'd like, but as a resident of Southern Illinois I'm more than familiar with a large urban center with a vastly different political leaning calling the shots for people with whom they have nothing in common save for some vague geographical proximity. I may not agree with your politics (or I might...I can't really figure out what some of the issues here are) but I can certainly empathize with your struggle. Do you really feel that independence will be the best thing? (There has been talk for years of Southern Illinois breaking away to become a separate state, but anyone with some common sense knows that it would mean economic disaster.) Is it a similar situation there, or is there a cohesive plan for independence?

 Yodhrin wrote:


Scottish Independence would be based on Civic Nationalism, not Ethnic Nationalism

That's my point, Scotland doesn't have a particularly different culture to England. What separates the two is the traditional Celtic elements of Scottish culture, otherwise Scots and English share common germanic culture and the Celtic part takes a definite back seat for most Scots. The rest is the same culture that is global.
So what I'm asking is, what is the point in declaring independence? Back in the day it was definitely ethnic nationalism that was the reason for separating from the Union. With Scotland trying to be multi-cultural that negates that original desire for Scots to decide what happens in Scotland as anyone can now be a Scot if they live there. 6 million English could move north and form a majority and impose their will as new Scots as would be their right. It's hardly what the guys that fought at Bannockburn had in mind though.
You can only take civic nationalism so far before it becomes meaningless. A definitive people need more than who they pay their taxes to to define them.

cadbren wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


Scottish Independence would be based on Civic Nationalism, not Ethnic Nationalism

That's my point, Scotland doesn't have a particularly different culture to England. What separates the two is the traditional Celtic elements of Scottish culture, otherwise Scots and English share common germanic culture and the Celtic part takes a definite back seat for most Scots. The rest is the same culture that is global.
So what I'm asking is, what is the point in declaring independence? Back in the day it was definitely ethnic nationalism that was the reason for separating from the Union. With Scotland trying to be multi-cultural that negates that original desire for Scots to decide what happens in Scotland as anyone can now be a Scot if they live there. 6 million English could move north and form a majority and impose their will as new Scots as would be their right. It's hardly what the guys that fought at Bannockburn had in mind though.
You can only take civic nationalism so far before it becomes meaningless. A definitive people need more than who they pay their taxes to to define them.

Which is fine and well for parades and elementary school projects, but as far as systems of civic governments go, 'who you pay your taxes to' seems like a dandy way to define who you are. If you've got a system where your taxes are going to a government which is not representing the interests of your people, then it seems reasonable to seek redress. If, in this case, separating the disaffected portion into an independent nation can help to relieve the situation, then that seems like it should definitely be an option to be considered.

Here's a question I've got, as an outsider to all this: In the event of Scottish independence, what kind of shift would that see to foreign relations? I'm assuming that there is at least a visible group of 'probables' that would head up any new government, and at least a reasonable notion of what kind of system would go into place. (Are these assumptions off base?) How would this new government approach, say, old treaties? Would they honor treaties that they were previously bound to, when they were part of the UK? The national independence angle isn't a situation I have any real experience with, so I'm actually really curious about this.

I don't know what an independent Scottish Government will do about honoring treaties but I know that currently an independent Scotland would be kicked out of the EU the moment they break from the rest of the UK.

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:
I don't know what an independent Scottish Government will do about honoring treaties but I know that currently an independent Scotland would be kicked out of the EU the moment they break from the rest of the UK.

M.

Oh, well, it's certainly nice to have someone from the European Commission here on humble old Dakka Dakka

Really though I'd love to hear your reasoning/evidence for this, since Better Together have been claiming that exact thing for months now with no sign of either.

And Cadbren, I've already explained the differences in culture, at some length. Also I disagree that civic nationalism results in a "meaningless" society; choosing to define yourself by your beliefs on the composition of a just society is no less valid than choosing to define yourself by something as completely arbitrary as where you happened to be born. And yes, sure, 6million Englishmen could stream over the border the moment we attain independence in order to impose a Tory government on us out of nothing more than pure spite, but that's about as likely as 6million Groobledreks from Planet Warrgarble landing in Edinburgh on Independence Day in order to impose a Gribvillian Party government on us.

Articles 4.2 and 52 of the Maastrich Treaty seem to disagree with you about who belongs to the EU but if that's not good.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-separate-scotland-must-apply-to-join-eu-warns-brussels-1-2677200

Apparently they already wrote a letter.

EU wrote:“If a territory of a member state ceases to be part of that member state because it has become an independent state then the treaties would cease to apply to that territory.”

M.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I've already explained the differences in culture, at some length. Also I disagree that civic nationalism results in a "meaningless" society; choosing to define yourself by your beliefs on the composition of a just society is no less valid than choosing to define yourself by something as completely arbitrary as where you happened to be born.

You've described civic nationalism. Ascribing to identity based solely on where you were born. Ethnic nationalism can cross borders but is primarily about people who share common culture and beliefs (made easier with common history) which is far more important than basing your society on who is immediately next to you - they could be fascists, communists, islamists. Just because they share your geographical space doesn't mean they're on board with you and your civilisation.

And yes, sure, 6million Englishmen could stream over the border the moment we attain independence in order to impose a Tory government on us out of nothing more than pure spite, but that's about as likely as 6million Groobledreks from Planet Warrgarble landing in Edinburgh on Independence Day in order to impose a Gribvillian Party government on us.

So you admit it's possible.

Anyway, why sheer spite, maybe they want to be Scottish, and an independent Scotland is the best chance they have to flee England without having to learn a new language or travel overseas.

 Miguelsan wrote:
Articles 4.2 and 52 of the Maastrich Treaty seem to disagree with you about who belongs to the EU but if that's not good.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-separate-scotland-must-apply-to-join-eu-warns-brussels-1-2677200

Apparently they already wrote a letter.

EU wrote:“If a territory of a member state ceases to be part of that member state because it has become an independent state then the treaties would cease to apply to that territory.”

M.

Article 4.2 of the Maastrich Treaty regards the logistical framework for regulation governing the European central banking system, and article 52 concerns exchange rates of currencies. I'm struggling to see the relevance.

And the full text of that letter is as follows;

Dear Lord Tugendhat,

Thank you for your letter of 29 October and for inviting the European Commission to contribute in the context of the Economic Affairs Committee’s inquiry into “The Economic Implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence.

The Committee will understand that it is not the role of the European Commission to express a position on questions of internal organisation related to the constitutional arrangements of a particular Member State.

Whilst refraining from comment on possible future scenarios, the European Commission has expressed its views in general in response to several parliamentary questions from Members of the European Parliament. In these replies the European Commission has noted that scenarios such as the separation of one part of a Member State or the creation of a new state would not be neutral as regards the EU Treaties. The European Commission would express its opinion on the legal consequences under EU law upon request from a Member State detailing a precise scenario.

The EU is founded on the Treaties which apply only to the Member States who have agreed and ratified them. If part of the territory of a Member State would cease to be part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the Treaties would no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory.

Under Artide 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the EU. If the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously, an agreement is then negotiated between the applicant state and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the applicant state.

On a more personal note, thank you for your good wishes, which I would warmly reciprocate.

Yours sincerely,

José Manuel BARROSO

Relevant comments bolded. Automatic membership has not been the position of the SNP for some time, and it has never been the official stance of the Yes campaign(to my knowledge). However, your comment was that you "know" Scotland would be "kicked out of the EU the moment they break from the rest of the UK", and the letter, when read in full, does not support that. It talks in generalities, but will not commit to specific comment without a request from the UK government(which has not yet been forthcoming).

It is worth pointing out as well that, to my recollection, the "views in general" which were "expressed in response to...questions from MEPs" were the opinions of Mr Barroso himself as to what the opinions of the Commission would be in such a hypothetical scenario, not actually the views of the Commission itself, and that said expression was prompted by questions from Spanish MEPs hostile to the prospect of Catalan independence, a view that Mr Barroso shares wholeheartedly.

This was a question I studied quite intensively as it was one of my main concerns when I was still in favour of the Union, and I'm satisfied that there isn't a credible obstacle to Scotland attaining EU membership.

" If part of the territory of a Member State would cease to be part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the Treaties would no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory. "

It is clear from this sentence that after independence Scotland would not be a member of the EU because it would not be subject to the treaties. If Scotland wanted to join the EU it would have to apply, which application would I think be likely to succeed fairly easily.

My mistake I had the Treaty of the EU open but typed Maastrich I don't know why.

Still as KK just pointed out my point stands. I never said that and independent Scotland wouldn't be allowed back in the EU. I wrote that in the moment it leaves the UK, it's the moment Scotland is out of the Union. It's even on the letter you posted, a sentence you might have skipped.

The EU is founded on the Treaties which apply only to the Member States who have agreed and ratified them. If part of the territory of a Member State would cease to be part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the Treaties would no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory

If this is not being kicked out of the Union I think we need a new dictionary.

On the other hand I think KK is being very optimistic about Scotland rejoining the EU easily, Croatia just joined 10 years after submiting their official request (and a few more of courting the EU) with no significant opposition so if the split with the UK is not amiable the chances of Scotland joining are close to 0 as new members need the unanimous vote of the member states in case you forgot.

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:
Croatia just joined 10 years after submiting their official request (and a few more of courting the EU) with no significant opposition so if the split with the UK is not amiable the chances of Scotland joining are close to 0 as new members need the unanimous vote of the member states in case you forgot.

M.

Poor example, Croatia was never part of the EEC or early EU. It was part of Yugoslavia and there was some pretty nasty fighting that when on when they broke away including ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Muslims. It wasn't just Bosnia where that happened. Scotland on the other hand has been a part of the community from the beginning. The question that should be asked is would the rest of the UK have to sign up as a new member too. Scotland can't break away from the United Kingdom. Scotland can choose to be independent which nullifies the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom refers to England and Scotland. The blue in the flag of Union is from the Scottish St Andrew's cross. The UK would cease to exist as well - or at least it should.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-polls-blow-for-snp-1-3099478


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Scotland voted for independence from the Union, would there have to be another vote to become a republic?

"The United Kingdom consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

versus

"The United Kingdom consists of two countries: England and Scotland."

Uhuh.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
"The United Kingdom consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

versus

"The United Kingdom consists of two countries: England and Scotland."

Uhuh.

Come now Whitey, you know silly little facts aren't allowed to get in the way of a good rant!

In a theoretical split, who gets the nukes?

cadbren wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:
Croatia just joined 10 years after submiting their official request (and a few more of courting the EU) with no significant opposition so if the split with the UK is not amiable the chances of Scotland joining are close to 0 as new members need the unanimous vote of the member states in case you forgot.

M.

Poor example, Croatia was never part of the EEC or early EU. It was part of Yugoslavia and there was some pretty nasty fighting that when on when they broke away including ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Muslims. It wasn't just Bosnia where that happened. Scotland on the other hand has been a part of the community from the beginning. The question that should be asked is would the rest of the UK have to sign up as a new member too. Scotland can't break away from the United Kingdom. Scotland can choose to be independent which nullifies the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom refers to England and Scotland. The blue in the flag of Union is from the Scottish St Andrew's cross. The UK would cease to exist as well - or at least it should.

Poland signs the first agreements with the EEC in 1989 and starts the approach to joining the EU in 1994 before joining in 2004, so another 10 years but I guess Poland is a poor example too because they are polish or something.
BTW nice move forgetting half the members of the UK.

M.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-polls-blow-for-snp-1-3099478


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Scotland voted for independence from the Union, would there have to be another vote to become a republic?

Yes. Voting for Independence is not voting for the SNP, or the Greens, or anyone else, it's merely a vote in favour of allowing us that choice. Whether or not we'd need another referendum to rid ourselves of the monarchy, or if it could be achieved through the normal parliamentary process, will depend on whether or not the monarchy makes it into the written constitution.

As for the Hootsmon, they're good at picking out the statistics that can be interpreted in different ways and putting a decidedly Unionist spin on them. For instance, they cast an "unchanged" proportion of Yes votes in the Ipsos MORI poll as unequivocally negative. Putting aside that averaging out the polls since the announcement of the referendum shows a two point increase in support, you could just as easily put the Nat-spin on things by saying that support for Independence is unchanged despite an unprecedentedly negative campaign by Better Together and a questionably impartial editorial policy among the Scottish press.

Polls are useful as snapshots of opinion, as ways of informing strategy, but the media use polls as blunt instruments and always have, regardless of the topic. It's certainly an indication that the Yes campaign needs to step up its game at countering the misinformation being put about by Better Together(a good example was a recent debate hosted by BBC Radio 5 Live; Anas Sanwar claimed in response to an audience question that a report by a respected charity claimed A; that the devolved Scottish parliament already had all the legislative tools needed to solve child poverty in Scotland, and B; that they had accused the Scottish government of being focused on Independence to the detriment of the running of the country. The report actually stated the exact opposite in the case of A - that the really useful powers were still in the hands of Westminster, and in regards to B their only mention of the Independence debate was to mention it as an ideal opportunity to highlight inequality and poverty. Sanwar hasn't retracted his comments, let alone apologised for deliberately misrepresenting their findings, despite the fact the charity have contacted him about it, and there's yet to be any mention of it in the newspapers or on the BBC that I've found).

The mock referendum in Aberdeen's schools is actually more concerning. There's been some complaining online by a few parents that certain schools were handing out Better Together campaign literature but not Yes Scotland stuff, but that's not been substantiated and from the tone of their writing I'd suspect said parents are avowed Yes supporters, so I'm not putting much stock in it at the moment. I actually think it was a mistake for Salmond to bring 16 and 17 year olds into the vote for the referendum, at least in the sense of political strategy(ethically it was probably the right thing to do, since the SNP had committed to lowering the voting age regardless, so waiting until after the referendum when it's such an important question wouldn't really have been on). A few have tried to suggest that the SNP lowered the voting age because they thought they'd get a landslide from the youth vote, but I doubt they'd be that daft frankly; teens in Scotland are still probably a bit to the left, on the whole, compared to some other parts of the UK, but most of them won't have the deep distrust of the Tories that people in their 20's and older have, nor did most of them get an opportunity to watch Labour's swing to the right since their election in '97 under Blair, so they're probably going to be as hard to convince as a demographic as the older "we fought the Nazis together!" pro-Union group.

I need to go back into my research file before I'm comfortable disputing your position Miguelsan, so I'll concede provisionally while I do that. If I can't find enough to support my argument I'll post again to say so.

Personally I distrust the Tories despite my being English, and I distrust New Labour as well.

Traditionally, young people are more left wing. If Salmond has misjudged that, in including 16 year olds, it tells you something about his skills as a politician.

I'm thinking a lot of the votes will be coming from those that just want to scarper from the Tories before they drag us down any further (quote this away with your objections...). If Westminster shows some signs of getting its act together that may just garner some more votes for the Better Together campaign, but their hardly gaining any support handling government as they are now. I'm doubting that Scotland will gain Independence based solely on the people's loathing for the Tory party though, as on that same token we'd be losing a portion of the other countries in the union as well.

Perhaps if the vote fails another one could be done on giving Holyrood more powers over itself. Given that this has already been discarded due to the argument that that would require votes in Northern Ireland and Wales, its a pity that Independence is all that's up there.