Re: FREEDOM!!!! [2]

by David H Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:41 pm

Probably the coolest lift I've ever gotten was somewhere up in Sutherland in the middle of nowhere in a light rain. A middle-aged man on an old bicycle stopped when I stuck out my thumb as a joke. He said, "Here's the way we do it in the Highlands."

He rode down to the next pole, leaned the bike against it and started walking. When i got the bike he'd walked to the next pole so I rode 2 poles down, left the bike for him and resumed my walk. We leap-frogged like that for several miles till we got to his brother's house where he borrowed the car without asking and drove me to the next village.

That kind of hospitality to a stranger makes you instantly feel like brothers!

Edit: When I started typing this, I intended to ask what you mean by the Highland Code.
Is it stated specifically, or is it just a way of living?
Are there consequences to breaking it?
Question

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:02 pm

Lovely story Dave. Nod

I think that sort of attitude is to found in any country where life was or is harsh.
Its a bit like neighbours in the modern world- people who live in rich well to do areas tend not to know their neighbours well, if at all. Whereas working or lower class areas you do, usually because you rely on one another more and it fosters more of a sense of community.

I have examples of that in my own life- when I stayed in Glasgow (which is a friendly city as cities go) I was in a decent area but my neighbours were people I nodded at in the hallway.
Where I am now is lower and working class and we have a communal veg path we all help out in and reap the harvest from and the chickens we take turns mucking out and feeding ect and all get eggs from and in the summer we have joint barbecues and stuff, its communal.
But if we were all rich I doubt it would be like that.

edit add- the Highland Code was an unwritten set of rules about how you treated strangers at your door. It included the bit about strangers moving concealed weapons to your sock in plain sight for example. It was severally frowned upon to turn anyone from your door if they called looking for help, even an enemy. And if you broke bread with a stranger, even an enemy, then for so long as they were under your roof it counted as a sort of tempoary peace treaty.

This last one is why the Massacre of Glencoe is sill such a sore point in Scottish history. The Campbells had gone into McDonald territory, and despite some severe differences between them politically the McDonalds housed them and broke bread with them.
Unfortunately the Campbells, who were awaiting their new orders got them- to kill the McDonalds.

The sin in everyone's eyes was not that they carried out their orders, but that they did so after having broken bread with them, and so they broke the Code.
Its never been forgotten, or forgiven.

by Bluebottle Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:37 pm

Interesting story, David. Nod

I found this article about the exchange of opinions on the EU membership and monitary union issue in the Scottish parlament quite interesting.

HE dispute over whether Scotland could keep sterling or achieve a smooth transition to EU membership in the event of Scottish independence has continued at Holyrood, with all three unionist parties attacking the SNP’s key proposals.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon defended the policies, both of which have been thrown into doubt in significant interventions in the past week.

She rejected claims by European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso that Scotland may find it “extremely difficult, if not impossible” to join the EU, arguing that he has no say in what would be a political decision for member states.

And she emphatically insisted Scotland would use sterling as currency despite the clear warning from Chancellor George Osborne, and the two other main UK political parties, that an independent Scotland would be “walking away” from the pound.

The controversial issues reached the Scottish Parliament on the first day of business since Mr Osborne’s currency refusal on Thursday and Mr Barroso’s comments on Sunday.

Sturgeon - ‘Scotland in EU is not an EC decision’

Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats all pushed Ms Sturgeon to explain why Scotland should expect an easy switch to EU statehood.

They also demanded to know how the SNP can promise a currency union if the other partner is not willing, and called for details of the cost to business if Scotland adopts a new currency.

On the EU, Ms Sturgeon said: “The decision on Scottish independence is for the Scottish people and the decision about continuing membership of the European Union will be for member states. These are not decisions for the European Commission.

“Of course, no member state has said it will seek to veto Scotland’s continuing membership.”

She described Scotland as a model European state and said refusing membership would be against the EU’s aims.

“We’ve contributed to the EU for 40 years but the suggestion is that simply as a result of exercising our democratic right to self-determination we would find ourselves outside,” she said.

“Not only is there no basis for that in the European treaties, or in common sense or the interests of the wider EU, or indeed in anything any member state has actually said, it would in fact be an absolute affront to democracy.

“I’d have thought any democrat, Yes or No, would have found that to be completely unacceptable.”

Denying Scotland continued membership would harm the EU, she claimed.

“Let’s not forget that we’re talking here about Scotland - Europe’s largest oil producer, the country with the biggest share of EU waters, the country whose renewable energy potential is key to the EU meeting its own renewable energy targets, a major exporter of premium products like whisky, and home to thousands upon thousands of EU nationals,” she said.

Labour - ‘Not for Yes camp to speak for others’

The exchanges were sparked by a question from Labour’s constitutional spokesman Drew Smith, who asked for a response to parliament about Mr Barroso’s comments.

“The problems the nationalist campaign has faced this week seem to be because of their failure to understand it’s not for them to assert the national interests of others,” he said.

MSPs also focused on the Chancellor’s argument that the rest of the UK would deny formal currency union with Scotland.

First Minister Alex Salmond, addressing a business audience in Aberdeen yesterday, highlighted an additional £500 million annual transaction cost to English business from a separate currency.

He called the extra burden a “George tax” as he attempted to “deconstruct” the UK Government position.

Unionist parties attacked the First Minister’s argument today by demanding to know details of the cost to business if Scotland adopts a new currency.

Conservative MSP Annabel Goldie, referring to a “Salmond tax”, said it is up to the SNP to spell out the costs to Scottish business.

But Ms Sturgeon said: “That’s not our proposal. One of the reasons we propose a sterling zone is so no English businesses nor Scottish businesses would have to incur transaction costs.”

Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie said Ms Sturgeon makes the case for the UK.

“She argues for the currency union, the Bank of England as a lender of last resort, they’re against transaction costs,” he said.

“I’m now pleased she now realises what we’ve been arguing for for a very long time.

“A nationalist banging the drum for keeping the UK as part of her argument for leaving the UK - hasn’t nationalist politics become a snake eating its own tail?”

Hyslop - ‘EU membership must continue’

Earlier, External Affairs Secretary Fiona Hyslop said: “It’s clear that Scotland benefits enormously from our membership of the EU in every area of life - from trade and jobs to health.

“But the EU also benefits hugely from having Scotland as part of it - and it is simply not credible to suggest that an independent Scotland, which has been part of the EU for 40 years and already meets all membership requirements, would not be warmly welcomed.”

She added: “Our membership of the European Union must continue - but the Prime Minister has made it clear that there is a real possibility of Scotland being removed from the EU by a future UK Government.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-eu-membership-row-continues-1-3310377

I think it's quite clear using Kosovo as an example was rather unhelpfull. After all we are talking about 5 million people who are already EU citizens here. Though EU citizenship while it exists is still a very abstract concept. So I don't necessarily think it will play a role. The question of wether Scotlands membership will be fast tracked seems mainly one of political will within the Union.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:50 pm

Its not just political will, there is provision for just such a system in the treaties, I shall have to dig it up but its Clause something or other, which is for exceptional circumstances which the SNP say their legal advisers agree that the first time a member state splits democratically and the new country wishes to retain membership that would indeed meet the criteria.
So EU law indicates that the option is there if the EU decides to take it, and the reasons Nicola Sturgeon outlines above are quite good ones for why they would take it.

by Bluebottle Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:56 pm

Certainly. And the Kosovo example get's even more silly when one considers the fact that Serbia isn't even a member state. And I think it's well pointed out by Sturgeon that the EU Comission (ie Barosso) has no say in this decision. It's a matter for the governements of the member states.

All in all that that comment by Barosso strikes me as rather strange.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:57 pm

I said at the time it sounded suspiciously close to the language of the No campaign, if I was really cynically I might even think they had a hand in writing it!

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:10 pm

David- in case you missed it, as its on the previous page now, I edited a reply to your questions about the Highland Code into the post immediately following it, as I didn't notice your edit asking about it until afterwards.

by Bluebottle Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:16 pm

Would be interested to read the SNPs legal argumet on the EU admission issue if you had a link or quote to it.

Just dug out my copy of the EU treaty.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:27 am

I wish I could help you Blue but my googlefu does not seem good enough as trying to find one bit of the huge Independence EU row on google is like looking for a needle in a haystick of needle shaped straw! Mad

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:48 am

Well the weirdest intervention yet-

(Shame he cant bring himself to actually live in the UK-just like Connery he should stay out of it too- and isnt Bowie one of the main activists for independence of other countries?)

And how BBC Newsnight choose to tackle it-

by azriel Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:07 am

David Bowie has been one of my long standing fav singers, but who ever this guy is, I loved the parody. As to this great speech we were expecting from Kate Moss from his serene highness D. Bowie ?? Eh ? that was it ? Save yer breath luvie for a wee snort in the ladies.

by Eldorion Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:27 am

Isn't David Bowie too busy with Martian politics to get involved in this? Razz

by Bluebottle Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:52 pm

That was.. weird.

The talk of Newsnight reminded me of this interview. Though it's a bit old.

"Certainly the picture of the patronising Englishman." Very Happy

And I like that they find eachother equally preposterous. Laughing

by Bluebottle Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:03 pm

On the EU thing. This is what the Scotish governement says.

3. The road to independent membership
3.1. Should a majority of voters endorse independence in the forthcoming
referendum, the Scottish Government will immediately seek discussions with
the UK, Member States and institutions of the EU to agree a process whereby
a smooth transition to full EU membership can take place on the date on
which Scotland becomes an independent State.

Membership from within
3.2. The discussions will therefore be held during the period in which
Scotland remains part of the UK and by extension, part of the EU.
3.3. The Scottish Government is committed to working with the UK
Government and the other EU Member States to ensure the transition to independent EU membership proceeds smoothly and avoids any disruption to
the continuity of Scotland‟s current position inside the EU single market,
including to the rights and interests of EU citizens and enterprises in Scotland.
Ensuring a smooth transition to independent EU membership will not only be
in the best interests of Scotland but will also be in the best interests of all
Member States and the EU in general.
3.4. The Scottish Government believes the 18-month period between the
referendum and formal independence provides sufficient time for the terms of
Scotland‟s membership of the EU to be agreed. It also provides sufficient
time for the Scottish Government to undertake the necessary legal and
institutional preparations for independent EU membership, albeit a large part
of this is already in place. Since devolution began in 1999, the Scottish
Government and Parliament, in conjunction with national regulatory agencies,
have demonstrated their capacity to transpose, implement, and enforce the
provisions of EU legislation efficiently and timeously.

The EU Treaties
3.5. The Scottish Government acknowledges that the EU Treaties make no
specific provision for the consequences for EU membership 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.
3.6. Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) provides the
legal basis, and defines the procedure, for a conventional enlargement where
the candidate country is seeking membership from outside the EU. By virtue
of having joined the EU in 1973 this is not the starting position from which the
Scottish Government will be pursuing independent EU membership.
Accordingly the Scottish Government at present, does not consider this as the
appropriate route to independent membership.
3.7. 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 TEU. 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.
3.8. Article 48 is therefore a relevant legal base through which to facilitate
the transition process, by allowing the EU Treaties to be amended through
ordinary revision procedure initiated by the United Kingdom Government with
assistance from the Scottish Government before Scotland becomes
independent to enable it to become a Member State at the point of
independence.
3.9. The Scottish Government will approach EU membership negotiations
operating on the principle of continuity of effect: that is a transition to
independent membership that is based on the EU Treaty obligations and
provisions that currently apply to Scotland under its present status as part of
the UK,
and without disruption to Scotland‟s current fully integrated standing
within the legal, economic, institutional, political and social framework of
the EU.
3.10. The Scottish Government recognises the European Parliament will play
its role under the treaties in the transition process. The procedures adopted
by the European Parliament in the context of German unification whilst not a
direct parallel are instructive in this respect, (more details in Annex 5)

Their legal argument basically boils down to as Scotland is already part of the Union the normal article 49 road to membership doesn't really apply to their situation. In which they are right, I would say. And in the period betwen a yes vote and independence one should negotiate a change in the EU treaty itself, after article 48. Allowing Scotland to enter the EU as a member state when the country gets independence.

Which I think is an interesting idea. It's certainly not normal procedure for the EU, but then again neither is Scotlands situation. Which has obviously not been given a solution in the treaty.

That some such solution is possible was also admitted by a high ranking EU official.

Scotland can legally negotiate a continuation of its current membership from within the European Union following a Yes vote, an EC official has confirmed.

Mario-Paulo Tenreiro, who is responsible for institutional questions at the Secretariat General of the European Commission has said it would be "legally possible" for such negotiations to take place whilst Scotland remained an EU member.

The official was responding to a direct question from a member of the public, who asked: "Does the President agree with me that, given Scotland is already in the EU and therefore meets criteria for membership, an independent Scotland would be able to negotiate its terms of membership of the European Union within the European Union?"

In a letter of reply, Mr Tenreiro said that whilst a change of treaties would be required - needing the approval of other members - that: "…as you say, it would of course be legally possible to re-negotiate the situation of UK and Scotland within the EU."

Official confirmation that there is no legal bar to negotiations taking place after a Yes vote will be seen as a significant blow to opponents of independence who have claimed that a Yes vote would see Scotland thrown out of the EU and having to re-apply.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8152-exclusive-ec-official-confirms-no-legal-barrier-to-continued-scottish-eu-membership

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:16 pm

Yeah the EU thing is a non starter, the SNP position at its simplest boil down to once independence is a reality pragmatism takes over and the political games stop- once it comes down to fishing waters, helping the EU meet its green targets, retaining EU citizens imagine someone going to the European Court to fight the case that denying us entry removed their rights as an EU citizen as their only crime was to exercise their lawful democratic right to vote in a referendum- I cant imagine anyone wants it to come to that sort of thing) a way will be found.

But the stuff you quote above doesn't get the media coverage so the No side can keep repeating the myth we will be outside the EU as soon as we vote YES and we will most likely not get back in.

Oddly its also why whenever people hear a full debate between the sides more people shift to YES- because in the debates the SNP get to put this stuff to the public directly and because its true the NO side cant match it by just claiming its not.
You might have noticed the NO side dont seem to want to do tv debates any more, and they have dried up.

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:28 am

Todays news from the file marked Things From The No Camp You Couldn't Make Up!'-

'The deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives Jackson Carlaw....The Conservative MSP said: "If we vote for independence in September, I'll be manning the barricades with Bill Kidd, because I will be a Scot in a country that has decided to vote for independence, and I will be arguing for us to keep the pound.
"I will be arguing for us to be automatically in the European Union.
Mr Carlaw was pressed by presenter Brian Taylor on whether or not it would be "rational and sensible" for an independent Scotland to keep the pound.
He responded: "Yes, but that's not the point. The point is, it will be the rest of the UK that will make the determination."- BBC

:facepalm:

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:35 am

Cameron is visiting Scotland! But not to speak to anyone- just to hold a Cabinet meeting here instead of in London- a fine example of Camerons gesture politics- the last time a PM bothered doing this was 1921 which shows how much they care! And only the third time they had deigned to come here in the entire history of Union.
Who is advising Cameron? How after 400 years can he know so little that almost everything he has said in the last few weeks has been an insult?

by Bluebottle Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:02 pm

It's certainly some PR offensive. Hopefully people will see how little there actually is behind the words.

As to sum up the EU issue, here are the articles in question.

Article 48

The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.

If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Article 49

Any European State which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) may apply to become a member of the Union. It shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by an absolute majority of its component members.

The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

What Scotland is claiming is as they are already a part of the Union article 49 entrance to the Union does not cover their situation. As such, and as the treaty has not made any rules covering the Scotish situation, the situation will have to be solved by directly amending the treaty. After article 48.

And they are, as you say, expecting a more pragmatical approach from the rest of the EU after a potential yes vote where both Sctoland and the rest of the UK will renegotiate their memebership position after the vote, but before Scotland gains independence.

And as the high ranking EU official said above, that sort of solution is completely possible. But it requires the support of all the EU memberstates. (See article 48)

by Mrs Figg Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:55 pm

What will Salmond do in response to a No vote?. The SNP would have to completely rethink the causes and solutions to Scotland’s economic and political problems, seeing as it can no longer refer to the Scottish people as oppressed and frustrated with the Union if the majority voted No.

What will Salmond do in the face of a possibly long and costly legal battle over the Crown Estates Portfolio owning the Scottish seabed? Westminster and presumably the Crown, ie the Queen, (although I dont think she personally owns territory but the Nation does), will not give up these legal rights without a fight, as is only natural, England having as much right as Scotland to protect their financial assets. If it lasts years and gets messy , what will he do? It certainly wont go as smoothly as he states.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:05 pm

What will Salmond do in response to a No vote?- Mrs Figg

This is not so simple as it may seem.
Given there has so far never been a majority in favour Independence you have to ask yourself why then the SNP have been in power in Scotland al this time, and why they massively increased their share of the vote, going from a minority administration to a majority one?

The answer is all the other parties are answerable to their London main party- everything they do in Scotland has to get clearance first from London.

When Labour and the lib dems were in charge of the devolved Scottish parliament noting happened. It was keep quiet, dont rock the boat just keep everything taking over.
When the SNP got in they did more for the Scottish people and economy in their first few years than Lab/libs had done in their entire term in charge.
The SNP, being a solely Scottish party dont have anyone to answer to or ask permission from save the people.
And Scots being canny saw that having a party in charge at Hollyrood who would fight for Scottish interests as opposed to ones who would only seek to maintain the status quo was a good thing- so we re-elected the SNP with more MSP's to keep doing that.
At least half of those currently in favour of voting NO still vote SNP at the Scottish elections for that reason.
If Scotland votes no that logic doesn't change. The SNP will still be the best option for running the devolved parliament.

As to the Crown rights to the seabed- first thing to note is just how unpopular it is here- all our assets and potential assets form the seabed go straight out the country- this is not only unfair but it also hinders any development or investment in this area as its not worth making the Crown richer.
However such things come under the 'assets' heading.
And would therefore be one of the areas open to negotiation as an asset should we vote Yes, as of course are all the liabilities including debts.

by Bluebottle Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:33 pm

That's one of the problems with this election, isn't it. Because if the Scottish vote no Westminister will use that as an excuse to limit any further devolution of power and maybe even start taking back already granted powers from the Scotish parlament.

And that is while, as Petty showed earlier, the large majority of the Scottish public wants a larger degree of devolution, even if they don't necessarily want independence.

That's why a No vote seems a bit daunting to the future of Scotland. And why people should think twice about voting no.

by Mrs Figg Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:49 pm

The reason I asked about Salmonds response to a No vote is based on my observations that he seems (my subjective view looking at it as an outsider) to use Scottish identity to neutralize the Unionists, he does this by making them look like a threat towards Scotland and creating an us and them divide between Scotland and the Union, making the independence debate fundamentally about identity. he seems to use Scottish history as an instrument to keep patriotic feelings on the front burner with the public in order to win the Yes vote. He seems to be using a grievance context where the SNP’s fight for independence is a continuation of the battle against the (English) Unionists. he seems to be saying the Union is a threat to Scottish interests and by focusing on grievances past and present, the focus is shifted from the uncertainties of the economic and political costs of Independence which are inconvenient for the SNP to tackle right now, to a focus on Scottish identity. and just how Scottish are you? debate.
(obviously this is just my opinion)
Salmond is canny and he focuses on the Unionists/Westminster as just continuing the looting of Scottish resources showing how the SNP shifts focus from threats to the party to threats to Scotland as a nation. He argues that Scotland does not benefit from having a Westminster government but when taking the economic factors of separation into consideration this might not be the case, its complicated and many factors are yet to be determined like the monetary stirling/EU/NATO debates, so not providing a full image of the pros and cons of independence.
He simply seems to blame the UK government for all economic problems, stressing that Scottish problems are a result of oppression by Westminster. Separating from the Union is thus the answer to Scotland’s economic problems he also adds on to the Scottish public’s percieved past and present grievances in order to get ahead in the political war of independence. He uses various methods from encouraging ethnic identity, encouraging frustration with the Union and defining the Union as a threat to Scotland.
The aim of this strategy is to neutralize opposition by framing the debate into a question of being Scottish enough. Therefore if people vote No how will he deal with this contradiction.
just musing on the other side of the coin.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:18 pm

He is using a grievance context where the SNP’s fight for independence is a continuation of the battle against the (English) Unionists.- Mrs Figg

I would be interested to see what evidence from Salmond has led you to this conclusion. scratch

The SNP's gripe, which has been painted by Unionists as nothing more than a Braveheart paint our arse blue stick two fingers at the English, is not that at all.
We are neither stupid nor naive enough to want to break up the Union over some historical chest beating.

At the heart of it is what Salmond repeats all the time "The best people to decide the future direction of Scotland are those who live and work there."
Thats not about hating the English, you can be English and live and work here, that's not a problem in anyway, the problem is the lack of democratic voice in the future direction of our country.
The problem is in being given a vote that is meaningless.
Whist at the same time being ruled by parties we never voted for who do set the direction of our countries future whether we like it or not (and its nearly always not or we would have voted for them in the first place!)

The debate has nothing at all to do with how Scottish you are- anyone on the electoral role in Scotland, regardless of where they are from originally will have the vote.
Why would Salmond or the SNP wish to upset potential Yes voters by making them feel unwanted?

by Mrs Figg Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:31 pm

'I would be interested to see what evidence from Salmond has led you to this conclusion'' Petty

I was referring to the 700th celebrations of Bannockburn

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:36 pm

Well that happens whether there is an referendum or not.
Its an anniversary.

And largely coincidental its close to the referendum as the timing was dictated by the Commonwealth Games which Scotland is hosting in the summer so its impractical to hold it then, combined by the amount of time the independent board recommended for allowing the people to debate the issues ahead of the vote. Autumn was the earliest available date as next year there is a UK General Election.

I havent heard Salmond going on about it though- just his opponents, who as I mentioned, would very much like to caricature everyone in favour of YES as jut a bunch of crazies painted blue and living in the past.

That might play in England due to ignorance but it doesnt play at all up here where people know perfectly well why they are voting one way or another.