FREEDOM!!!! [2]

if you want offensive how about ....You great Haggis Honking Heather Hogger? now THATS offensive   

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

She isnt the only redhead in this discussion!

And therein lies the root of the problem, methinks!  

like what? - Mrs Figg

Your stereotypical view that we are nursing ancient grudges against the english. Its a myth. It doesn't happen. And to a Scot, to be painted as some blue face painted, flag waver with no more intelligence than to harken back to ancient battles when making a hugely important decision like this is offensive. It insults our intelligence, the seriousness with which we are taking this choice and insults the vibrant multicultural country we now are.

We like the english, its Westminster we have a problem with.


Haggis Honking Heather Hogger- Figg

Thats not offensive, I won that title fair and square in the 1999 Highland Games!   

well I certainly dont think all the Scottish hate the English or go round painted blue, although a very small minority probably do lets be honest. I think Scotland is a great country and I hope everything works out ok, but I cant help thinking that Devomax would be so much better for everyone.

cant help thinking that Devomax would be so much better for everyone- Mrs Figg


And a 70% majority of people in Scotland would agree with you- but Westminster wouldn't put the option on the ballot paper- you'll need to take that one up with Cameron.

And RUK might if its a YES vote want to ask him why not.

Mrs Figg wrote:well I certainly dont think all the Scottish hate the English or go round painted blue, although a very small minority probably do lets be honest. I think Scotland is a great country and I hope everything works out ok, but I cant help thinking that Devomax would be so much better for everyone.

It probably would, but then you guys would have to admit that we Americans were right about federalism all along, and no one really wants that.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:cant help thinking that Devomax would be so much better for everyone- Mrs Figg


And a 70% majority of people in Scotland would agree with you- but Westminster wouldn't put the option on the ballot paper.

It does seem like the obvious solution, but I can see why it would take a brave politician to actually authorize the vote that would almost certainly start the process. It would be an act that would be likely to carve your name into the history books as "capitulating", right up there with Boris Yeltsin.

Even if the the devolution is completely inevitable, I can imagine any normal Prime Minister praying before they go to bed each evening, "Please Lord, not on MY watch!"

Eldorion wrote:
It probably would, but then you guys would have to admit that we Americans were right about federalism all along, and no one really wants that.

   You said it better than I did, Eldo!  

I can imagine any normal Prime Minister praying before they go to bed each evening, "Please Lord, not on MY watch!"- David

Surely better than to be the PM in charge who presides over the break up of the Union.
I dont think Cameron wants that next to his name in the history books, but by running from the devomax option he has put a lot of people who really dont want to vote for the status quo, but would not have voted for independence had devomax been there to choose, in a tricky position.

"but then you guys would have to admit that we Americans were right about federalism all along, and no one really wants that."- Eldo


Hey your country is basically a Scottish idea! Constitution based n Scottish enlightenment thought, part written by Scots, or by people mentored by Scots, and nicks heavily from the Declaration of Arbroath. Youre just a Scottish Masonic experiment that got out of hand 

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
I dont think Cameron wants that next to his name in the history books, but by running from the devomax option he has put a lot of people who really dont want to vote for the status quo, but would not have voted for independence had devomax been there to choose, in a tricky position.

I think that's a very interesting point. It's no doubt, in my view, that Westminister would have seen the exclusion of Devomax as a victory. But just the uncertainity you describe and the fact that continued existence as part of the UK with a Conservative governement will probably see Sctoland get less and not more devolution. I'm not sure it will turn out to have been a good idea for them at all.

It kind of forces the Scottish people to choose betwen less and more devolution. And the majority wants more.

So what will people say when faced with the alternatives of too much and less? That's the question, I guess.

Thats very much it Blue- Cameron is banking that those voters who want more devolution but not independence wont risk plunging into independence.
For this reason Cameron has been offering jam tomorrow- he keeps promising if we vote NO we will get more devolved powers- but he refuses to tell us what they are, when we might see them, or even if we will see them.
And as he might not even be PM by the end of next year he is not really in a position to make any promises as a government cannot commit another government to a promise.

For me the lack of the devomax option tells you everything you need to know.
Cameron might be full of 'we love you Scotland we want you to stay' but the reason devomax is not an option is that Scotland would cease to take money from the Treasury and instead keep all the revenue raised here and use that instead.
So from the Treasury point of view its as good as independence- they want the money from Scotlands wealth.
The Treasury will never give Scotland full devolution for this reason- its of no benefit to them to do so.

Seriously though, I like federalism and I think it would be a good fit for the UK. You guys are already halfway there in a lot of respects.

Interesting side issue brewing on the referendum that has received, so far, little coverage.

The other day the Scottish Civil Service had a vote on whether to come out in favour of No, Yes or remain Neutral. The vote narrowly went for remaining Neutral, but with almost a third voting to come out for Yes.
However the No vote was exactly 0.
Not a single Scottish Civil Servant voted to come out in support of a No vote.
And the civil servants of course are the only people who ever see the real numbers or know how things are actually run. So it was an interesting vote in itself.

But the really interesting bit is a story buried away on the news today-

'A committee of MPs has announced an inquiry into the impartiality of civil servants in Scotland.
The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) said it would look at the "challenges" facing civil servants during the referendum campaign.
he committee said it would look at five key issues. It said it will:

• consider the dual obligations of civil servants in the Scottish government to their ministers and to the UK Civil Service as a whole;

• explore what "impartiality and objectivity" mean in practice for civil servants working on the referendum on independence;

• examine how the Civil Service Code will be enforced, and complaints of alleged breaches of the code examined;

• scrutinise the leadership of the Civil Service in relation to the referendum on independence; and

• consider what lessons the Civil Service can take from the referendum on independence when planning for any future referendums."- BBC

Guess Westminster is bringing down the boot!

I don't have to mention "Yes, Minister" again, do I.   

There was an article in fjordlandian news tody about Salmond and Cameron both being in Aberdeen, but not meeting. The article itself isn't all that intersting, but I quite liked this part:

In another opinion poll the Scottish people were asked whch country they felt Scotland was most like. 33% of SNP voters said Norway, only 16% England/Brittain.

http://www.nrk.no/verden/en-olje-men-to-planer-for-skottland-1.11566850

Ayup Jase...

Sorry, i havent been around in a while, but i had to mention while i was, how interesting it was that the current head of the commission said a fortnight or so ago, that scotland wasnt going to be breaking the joining rules like it thought it was entitled to. And thats how it should be. If nothing else, and scots should have known this, that the EU loves its rules, if nothing else, LOL. As I said, scotland doesnt have the right to sneak in via the back door when a country like Ukraine, currently ripping itself apart, trying to rid itself of russian influence, will no doubt have to meet all the 35 articles even after its eventual bloody rebirth. Jim Currie said as much too at the select committee the other day, so its something that you pro Independence guys need to take on board.

I'm still curious if there is a reason other than saltiness why a country that is already part of the EU and operating in accordance with EU laws but then secedes from its parent country should be treated the same as a country outside the union that is still trying to reach the political and economic thresholds for membership.

That's kind of the point, Eldo. There isn't, really. And the more I hear the argument that there is, the less I agree with it.

The fact of the matter is that the article for new nations joining the EU, art. 49, doesn't really apply to the Scottish situation as, as you say, Scotland's currently a part of the EU. The EU treaty hasn't really provided the solution for the Scottish situation, which is why the Scottish governement is arguing their case must be solved by a changing the treaty itself directly before Scotland and the UK go their seperate ways. After art. 48. A change like that is needed to solve the change in the UKs membership situation anyway. Such a treaty change needs the approval of very memeber states parliment, but no more.  

I think where people misstep is in that they don't understand that these matters will be solved after a yes vote, but before Scotland become independent.

And the EU commision has itself agred that this is a legally viable solution.

As far as I can understand Barossos comment.. Well, I find them hard to understand at all actually.

The articles in question, and the comment from the EU commision from earlier in the thread.

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.

Bluebottle wrote:

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

how interesting it was that the current head of the commission said a fortnight or so ago, that Scotland wasn't going to be breaking the joining rules like it thought it was entitled to- Feanor

As Blue has pointed out Feanor this is not a clear cut matter within EU rules. There are no existing EU rules covering this to break.
And the Commissioners opinion, and comparing Scotland to Kosovo has been rolled back by several other high ranking EU officials, he seems to have gone a bit rogue with that statement and does not have the backing of the EU.
And whilst any treaty amendment would require all members signing up to it it is far more likely than the rewriting of treaty Cameron is proposing next year in the EU referendum (which Merkel all but ruled out entirely yesterday) and so far not a single EU country has actually said it would veto Scotland making such a bid.
And its unlikely they will as being the democratic country who stands up and bars 5 million existing EU citizens for joining on the grounds they made a democratic choice is not going to make said country look too good and it goes against the basic principles of the EU.

The only thing I can think of is that Barosso might have been commenting on the possibility of fast tracking an article 49 road to membership for a Scotland outside the Union.   

But I might be giving his comment too much credit. It might have been simply political.

I think political only.

He must know we would not be applying from outside- if Scotland votes independence there is an 18 month period of negotiations with Westminster to follow before actual Independence, so for those 18 months we would still be members as part of the UK (which we'd still belong to) and will negotiate our position within the EU in that 18 month period.
Technically we would never not be members, just altering the basis on which our membership is based, from part of the UK to an independent state- and Barosso must be aware of that.

Yeah, I think that's most likely too.

It's a bit disapointing that such a high ranking EU official would make such a clearly political statement though.

Money talks.
Besides Germany the UK is the next biggest contributor to the EU budget.
I suspect a bit of leaning was done to get that statement made publicly.

And holding the EU membership vote over their heads, as well. It is possible.

This is a bit old, but I remember liking this Salmond interview at the time. Talks about the Declaration of Arbroath and Scottish independence.

Yeah he is quite an amiable fellow is Salmond, most of the time.