The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

You seem pretty knowledgable about financial stuff like Corporation Tax.

As a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, you'd better tell me where I've went wrong (again)

To tell you were you'd gone wrong I'd have to understand your point first.

Currently, Scotland cannot set the rate of Corp Tax. That's the law as it stands for now and into the future (unless changed in the future).

The 'yes' campaign details its financial plans as cutting Corp Tax* to entice businesses to Scotland which is hoped to increase the Corp Tax take overall. The claims of iScotland's better future wealth is based solidly within this Corp Tax idea (much more so than the oil).

(* it's worth noting that the socialist wonderland that many 'yes' campaigners think they're getting has already stated its plan to cut taxes for the richest with this cut in Corp Tax. That's continuing with tory neo-liberalism, and not that socialist wonderland).

It's because of that that the rUK will not accept currency union. Why should the rUK support Scotland in stealing the rUK's tax base? There is no benefit of currency union to rUK which can make up for that.

That Corp Tax thing can be made to work, as Ireland has shown - but it doesn't mean that rUK will help Scotland do it. Why should it?

[russycarps]

That Corp Tax thing can be made to work, as Ireland has shown - but it doesn't mean that rUK will help Scotland do it. Why should it?

Cutting corp tax isnt the only reason Ireland made a success of it. They have a strong public sector and invested very wisely in education and infrastructure. Just slashing corp tax is nowhere near enough to entice the big companies in.

Loads of countries have slashed their corp tax rates and actually experienced a drop in foreign investment. Canada for one.

[eFestivals]

For the EU issues, and the currency union suggestion, try it this way (and while it might seem wacky, this is *exactly* how it works in law with such a long list of precedents it's certain Salmond is talking tosh) ....

You (Scotland) are in a successful band (the UK), that's signed to a record company (the EU).

You decide to leave the band.

Are you still a member of the band, with all the same rights to everything in the future that that the band has rights to? Nope. You leave all those things behind when you leave the band.

The band continues as the legal entity, and the band (and not you) keeps all of the rights into the future of that band. You as the leaver also leave the record contract that the band has and the record company does not have to give you a record contract as a solo artist.

Now, it might seem stupid or crude to lay things out in that way, but that is VERY DEFINITELY the legal reality of Scotland's position if it leaves.

If Scotland chooses to contest that in any court in the western world, they will lose. Guaranteed.

-------------

Salmond is a politician. He's perhaps the shrewdest and best politician within the UK. But...

When any politician promises you jam, jam, more jam and only jam, they're a liar.

Feel free to choose independence, but don't be so foolish as to believe everything the 'yes' campaign is telling you. That will only cause you to mug yourself and be disappointed when what you thought you were getting isn't delivered.

Edited February 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Cutting corp tax isnt the only reason Ireland made a success of it. They have a strong public sector and invested very wisely in education and infrastructure. Just slashing corp tax is nowhere near enough to entice the big companies in.

Loads of countries have slashed their corp tax rates and actually experienced a drop in foreign investment. Canada for one.

that's why I hinted that it's not a guaranteed success.

It might well be with Scotland, but we only get to find that out for sure after the fact of independence. That's why IMO making the choice about independence over these sorts of projections of a more-rosy future via independence is a foolish way to make that decision.

Make the decision to vote for independence on the basis of wanting to decide your own destiny whether that turns out to be good or bad, and that way you will never be disappointed.

Edited February 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

... but couldn't let this one go.

I've been taking a big interest in what newspapers have been publishing around any UKIP story, but mostly I've been reading the comments made by individuals to those articles. Because they're hilarious, so feckin' dumb to the facts of everything but claiming to know the facts of everything.

More recently, I've discovered that even more entertaining and stupid are many of the comments of many of the pro-independence posters of those newspapers . I can't know how typical those comments I read are for all pro-indies ... tho unfortunately, Buff is repeating many of the same myths (such as the ongoing legal situation of UK and Scotland in regard to the EU).

The very best I've seen are the below which are regularly referenced by pro-indy supporters as "facts", from a supposed serious academic (which only goes to show that stupidity can infect anyone)....

"The academic also challenged claims that Scottish membership of the EU could be prevented by objections from another state".

It would help him make an informed comment if he read the EU accession rules, where all states have a veto.

"Citing the example of Montenegro .... The referendum was agreed with Serbia, [Montenegro] left and there was no problem of recognition from the European Union."

There's a massive difference between being recognised as a sovereign state and being recognised as an EU member state.

"Prof Avery also used the example of East Germany ...."This was a case of enlargement of the EU without incorporation – the number of member states did not increase. Nevertheless, in this case a change was produced regarding the EU population, 16 million new Germans entered. In the Scottish case, the EU population will remain the same.”

He added of East Germany's inclusion: "This was a democratic process, the remaining member states accepted the most practical solution. They adopted a plan based in common sense, and in the case of Scotland common sense will also prevail.""

And yet this is the absolute opposite of what Scotland is doing. East Germany incorporated itself with an EU member state which altered or effected nothing of any EU treaties, which all remained the same.

A new sovereign state joining the EU requires new EU treaty agreements.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/8631-no-campaign-claims-on-indy-scotland-eu-membership-are-qnot-realisticq-says-expert

FFS, how feckin' stupid is that man? He understands nothing of sovereign treaties nor of EU rules and what amendment of those rules requires.

It's certainly the case that it would be pragmatic for the EU to just let Scotland in, but that can't happen without treaty changes and agreement from every other EU member state (and that would take at least as long as Scotland's accession via the current rules).

Edited February 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

This is the cripled Ireland we currently know?

eh? We are talking about lowering corporation tax to attract foreign investment. Something Ireland has undeniably excelled at.

[russycarps]

Just pointing out the Scots could play all the same cards and look forward to a future like irelands....

I agree with you there my fishy friend.

(though ireland is on the mend now, right?)

[eFestivals]

This is the cripled Ireland we currently know?

I dunno. But it's the same crippled Ireland as Salmond said he was going to imitate with an independent Scotland ... until the shit hit the fan that is.

A very similar story can be heard about RBS (Salmond's old employer). For years they were the outstanding Scottish business to be proud of, that is until a bunch of Scotsmen in RBS's Edinburgh HQ decided to buy a Dutch bank which came to bankrupt RBS - and were egged on buy that bank by Salmond, as a further good thing for Scotland.

But now, apparently, all the troubles at RBS were caused in London by tory-voting Englishmen as part of The Great Rip-off of Scotland By The English.

Funny that, isn't it?

(could Scotland have bailed out RBS, which it would have had to if a sovereign nation? No it couldn't, which is another of the reasons why an iScotland is wanting currency union - cos otherwise RBS will HAVE TO head south to survive).

There's a lot of complex issues, but that complexity is never addressed or admitted to by Salmond. He calls it all lies and he hopes that people foolishly believe him.

Edited February 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

This is some fine though inconsequential banter we're having while we wait for the important stuff, such as who will be playing 3rd top of the bill on Friday night at West Holts.

There is still a problem of some posters stating their opinion as if it were a fact - and not even backing their opinion up with any credible evidence.

At least I'm happy to fess up that this whole argument is based on hypotheses. Nothing has been decided because in essence there is nothing to decide (yet).

So tell me, what has changed since Aidan O’Neill QC provided this legal opinion to the UK Parliament ?

"6.3 Further, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights now has the same legal value as the Treaties (Article 6(1) Treaty on European Union ). The opening recitals to the Charter’s preamble are in the following terms (emphasis added):

The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice."

6.4 How do those considerations impact upon the question as to the effect, as a matter of EU law, of Scottish independence on the UK’s membership of the EU ? I would suggest that rather than analyse the matter from the classic viewpoint of public international law – which recognizes only States and international obligations as the subject and object of international rights and obligations – EU law requires one to look at the issue from the viewpoint of the individual EU citizen.

...and what about Arabella Thorp and Gavin Thompson, researchers in the International Affairs and Defence Section and the Economic Policy and Statistics Section of the House of Commons Library Research, who jointly authored - for the benefit of UK Parliamentarians - a short paper entitled Scotland, Independence and the EU . The authors considered the possible legal consequences for the EU and the UK of Scottish independence and state:

"This is a major question in the independence debate, and one to which there is no clear answer. There is no precedent for a devolved part of an EU Member State becoming independent and having to determine its membership of the EU as a separate entity, and the question has given rise to widely different views."

5.2 They note that there are at least three different possibilities under international law:

(i) Scotland is to be regarded as a wholly new State, with the remaining Union of England Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI) being treated in international law as a (territorially decreased) continuation of the UK. The authors cite the precedents of the 1947 partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, and of the 1962 translation of Algeria from a series of départements integrated into metropolitan France to an independent State.

(ii) Scotland and EWNI are each to be regarded as successor States to the divided UK. The authors refer in this context to the de-merger of the short-lived United Arab Republic (1958-1961) back into its original constituent States of Syria and Egypt

(iii) neither Scotland or EWNI are to be regarded as successor States to the dissolved UK. The authors here allude to the birth, in 1993, of two wholly new States, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, from the territory of the former Czechoslovakia.

5.3 On the first scenario (which Thorp and Thompson term "continuation and secession") EWNI as the "continuing UK" would retain the UK’s pre-secession treaty obligations and its membership of international organisations, including the EU and NATO, the Council of Europe, the UN and the IMF. Scotland would start with a blank slate in terms of treaty rights and obligations, and would have to apply to be admitted in its own right as a new member of all and any international organisations.

5.4 On the second scenario (which they call "separation") Scotland and EWNI would each succeed to the UK’s existing international commitments, and would each automatically accede to the international organisations of which the UK was a member, but now as two States rather than as one.

5.5 On the third scenario (which the authors describe as "dissolution") neither Scotland and EWNI would succeed to any of the UK’s international obligations or memberships. Both States, newly independent of each other, would have to sign anew any treaties they wished to be bound by, and enter into negotiations with any international organisations they wished to be members of.

5.6 Of course, as the precedents of the break-up of the former USSR and the break-down of the former Yugoslavia show, the reality is likely to be more complex and one which may change over time. In international politics, just as much as international law, context is everything.

..and look ! a link ! why can't you dudes do that ?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmscotaf/writev/referendum/rs13.htm

Edited February 25, 2014 by Buff124

[Buff124]

and a cheeky wee Tweet from Bob Mortimer the other day

bob mortimer ‏@RealBobMortimer · Feb 23

SCOTLAND: You have the chance to rid yourselves of this filth. FOREVER! #jealous

pic.twitter.com/ztfRYNMFrJ

Edited February 25, 2014 by Buff124

[Buff124]

Here's a 'just for fun' hypothetical scenario

IndyRef vote is a No, by about 61% to 39%, Turnout is 74%. Fair result, let's move on.

UK Westminter election in 2015. Tories get most seats, but are 3 short of an overall majority. Labour come second. UKIP grab a shock 5 seats. Lib Dems hold up a bit and hold 35 seats.

Tories get UKIP support to govern by promising an EU Referendum, to be held in October 2016

Scotland Act (2012) comes into force in January 2016, extending the powers of the Scotttish Government in terms of taxation and revenue raising powers.

EU Referendum votes to leave EU, but in Scotland the vote is 70% - 30% in favour of continued EU membership.

Anyone see any legal challenges or other ramifications to that result, given Aidan Quinn QC's point made earlier that "EU law requires one to look at the issue from the viewpoint of the individual EU citizen." ?

[eFestivals]

So tell me, what has changed since Aidan O’Neill QC provided this legal opinion to the UK Parliament ?

The interpretation you're putting onto it from what was meant.

At the heart of things is this...

There is no precedent for a devolved part of an EU Member State becoming independent and having to determine its membership of the EU as a separate entity

Spot on.

But what there is which is beyond all dispute and which gives the *ONLY* entry route to EU membership is the currently treatised entry procedure of the EU.

An entry procedure which has no way of 'fast tracking' an independent Scotland to EU membership, without first all member countries signing and ratifying new treaties to allow new membership methods.

5.2 They note that there are at least three different possibilities under international law:

which, I hope you've noted, give Scotland no current membership of the EU. Only the UK.

Further, the EU is not legally a sovereign body which can set its own rules. It's rules are 100% dependent on its member states, and can only be changed by new treaties with those member states.

Essentially, the EU's legal status can not permit option two even if international law stated that the independence process was 'separation' and not 'leaving' (not that it will anyway), because a bigger treaty breech would exist with the other member states than it would towards Scotland and rUK.

But even if option two applied the EU would find a way to ignore it, because it would rather keep the rUK within it than have to boot out both rUK and Scotland.

But you won't find any large body of viewpoint that does anything but say it's option one anyway. Finding some exceptions which say what you want to hear does not constitute a meaningful opinion.

5.3 On the first scenario (which Thorp and Thompson term "continuation and secession") EWNI as the "continuing UK" would retain the UK’s pre-secession treaty obligations and its membership of international organisations, including the EU and NATO, the Council of Europe, the UN and the IMF. Scotland would start with a blank slate in terms of treaty rights and obligations, and would have to apply to be admitted in its own right as a new member of all and any international organisations.

and all of those organisations have said what? That it's this option.

(unless you take the convenient view that what people of those organisations have said doesn't count cos it's different to what Salmond says ... which is *exactly* the view that yes campaigners have taken to currency union and the EU and other things too. It's hardly a credible position to merely repeat endlessly "they're lying").

5.4 On the second scenario (which they call "separation") Scotland and EWNI would each succeed to the UK’s existing international commitments, and would each automatically accede to the international organisations of which the UK was a member, but now as two States rather than as one.

in some instances this is what will probably happen, but only in the instances where there's a large "doesn't care" thing going on.

It's not possible for that to happen with the EU tho, because of its impact onto national sovereignty of each member state.

5.5 On the third scenario (which the authors describe as "dissolution") neither Scotland and EWNI would succeed to any of the UK’s international obligations or memberships. Both States, newly independent of each other, would have to sign anew any treaties they wished to be bound by, and enter into negotiations with any international organisations they wished to be members of.

The only way this might happen would be if Scotland used legal channels to try and fuck over the UK, on a "if it's going to happen to us, we're going to make sure you suffer too" basis.

That would be a mightily stupid position for Scotland to take, because it will be a position which will act against Scotland's best interests. It would be far FAR more stupid than then instant bri9nkmanship that Salmond is trying over the debt.

Oh, talking of those debts ... do note that not one of those scenarios absolves Scotland of its share of the UK's debts.

..and look ! a link ! why can't you dudes do that ?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmscotaf/writev/referendum/rs13.htm

Because one person's no-substance opinion is meaningless. So fucking much that the yes campaigners link to is meaningless.

I only had to read the title to see it's fatal flaw. Scotland is saying it's a separation referendum, yet Scotland doesn't decide the terms it leaves by. The UK does.

There is no legal scope for separation, there is only leaving. The rUK will not choose to undermine its own position for the benefit of Scotland.

You can scream that's unfair if you like, but you yes campaigners seem to like the pragmatism word. Try considering what pragmatism is from an rUK position or from a EU member state position, and you might start to get it.

Perhaps the likes of Dave Moron really does wish an independent Scotland ill, tho that's more likely to be Salmond's bullshit than fact. But if he does, I've not yet met another person in England who does wish failure and worse on Scotland.

But there's a big difference between wanting to be fair - which seems to be the case - and choosing to shit in our own dinner, which is what the yes campaign says we should do for their benefit.

[eFestivals]

and a cheeky wee Tweet from Bob Mortimer the other day

bob mortimer ‏@RealBobMortimer · Feb 23

SCOTLAND: You have the chance to rid yourselves of this filth. FOREVER! #jealous

pic.twitter.com/ztfRYNMFrJ

wow, person likes the thought of living under a different political scenario.

It must mean something big and of substance..

[eFestivals]

But, let's just say for the sake or argument, that Scotland won a legal challenge to get rights to use Sterling. What do you think might happen?

rUK would say to Scotland "here, you can have all of Sterling, and we'll create the nu-Groat and use that. We don't wish to take on the massive risk of underwriting a foreign country's debts when that country could not underwrite our debts because its economy is too small".

That might sound nuts, but it cause no financial issues anywhere, and avoids the currency union that will be politically unacceptable to the rUK on the basis of 25 years of anti-currency union propaganda.

And so Scotland would have the name of Sterling but none of the benefits.

The 'fight' for Sterling is one you can only win if rUK allows you to, and I can't see rUK allowing it.

Edited February 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Around currency union, iScotland says "English businesses won't thank rUK for adding £500Mpa in transaction costs to business with Scotland".

There's more than a few very pragmatic counters to this:-

1. the cost to Scottish business will be far greater, because they have a far greater proportion of their trade with rUK than rUK does with Scotland.

2. those costs don't disappear down a hole, they're paid to money men. Where's the biggest concentration of money men?

3. on the basis of the bail-out of Scottish bank RBS, it would take 90 years before that £500M a year (if it was all 'lost') would seem like a loss to rUK.

So, the costs aren't that great to England and are much bigger to Scotland, and removing those costs isn't only a gain.

The more pragmatically you look into things, the less pragmatic the yes campaign's claims turn out to be,

[Buff124]

"

You can scream that's unfair if you like,"

Who's screaming ? We're just having a natter.

[Buff124]

"So, the costs aren't that great to England and are much bigger to Scotland, and removing those costs isn't only a gain."

Wales ? Northern Ireland ?

[Buff124]

wow, person likes the thought of living under a different political scenario.

It must mean something big and of substance..

Note the words "cheeky" and "wee" (it means small)

[eFestivals]

Anyone see any legal challenges or other ramifications to that result, given Aidan Quinn QC's point made earlier that "EU law requires one to look at the issue from the viewpoint of the individual EU citizen." ?

There are no individual EU citizens, there are only the citizens of member states.

Unless you can show me your EU citizenship papers?

[Buff124]

Appreciate the amount of time you're putting into this.

[eFestivals]

"So, the costs aren't that great to England and are much bigger to Scotland, and removing those costs isn't only a gain."

Wales ? Northern Ireland ?

lol, that makes me laugh ... hasn't Scotland been screwed by the evil English tories?

[eFestivals]

"

You can scream that's unfair if you like,"

Who's screaming ? We're just having a natter.

I'm very pleased that we are just nattering.

That was me using an expression, to emphasise the response that often comes if anything of the yes campaign's words are disputed.

I'm merely pointing out that if Scotland is going to leave the UK on what it believes to be in its self-interest and will (very naturally) take a self-interested negotiating position with rUK over doing that, the rUK will also take a self-interested position.

That gets to mean that rUK won't role over and give Scotland everything it wants.

At the end of the day many of these things will be a negotiating position. And because Scotland will not get everything that the yes campaign claims within the negotiation which defines the terms of Scotland leaving, the yes campaign can forever claim that Scotland has been fucked over by England and any failure within iScotland can be squarely blamed on the English.

Which will suit Salmond jut fine ... that's worth bearing in mind!!!

It won't be true in any shape or form tho. All sovereign states have to fight their corner, and you don't always win. That's what being a sovereign state is all about.

Edited February 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Appreciate the amount of time you're putting into this.

I'm very interested in every aspect of it. If it goes ahead, because I've got no axe to grind with Scotland, it'll be an experience to see how it turns out on both sides of the border.

Both sides will suffer bad consequences from it, but both sides are perfectly able to ride those out. I definitely don't see it as disastrous for Scotland, but there are very definitely some big negatives that the yes campaign is telling porkies about or mis-representing to try and win the vote. You could almost call it "project hide-the-fear", from those who REALLY need to know what might scare them.

(as I've said, I reckon the decision should be made on an emotional level anyway. You either want to manage your own affair no matter how the4y might go, or you don't).

I'm not sure, for example, if you've grasped why iScotland is so keen for currency union (if not with rUK, then with anyone that'll have Scotland). It's primarily these two things...

1. that a scottish currency will be a petro-currency, which is not a good thing to be for investment and the like (the exchange rate will vary a lot with the varying price of oil). This is what Dave Moron was getting at with his "broad shoulders of the UK" thing yesterday, which unfortunately for Alex is an economic fact he's even realised. So his only comeback was at the man to try and stoke resentment of the English, and not anything of the point Dave Moron chose* to raise.

(* something he should have butted out of in my opinion. As PM he should leave that stuff to the 'no' campaign).

2. that Scotland is not able to underwrite a financial sector of the size it has currently.

Without a currency union - which is a lie for the yes campaign to promise without it having been agreed - then Scotland's immediate financial position worsens on independence.

Meanwhile, little of anything of an independent Scotland matters to the UK's economy. Sure, we'd like the balance of payments advantage the oil gives from within the UK, but if Scotland leaves the UK then currency union doesn't make anything better of that balance of payments problem from an rUK perspective. The rUK (like any sovereign state) has to try and balance its books against its own expenditure, not only within the currency it uses.

[Buff124]

lol, that makes me laugh ... hasn't Scotland been screwed by the evil English Old Etonian tories?

Fixed that for you

[Buff124]

Well, whatever's gonna be is whatever's gonna be. Peace, brothers and sisters. See you up in the Green Fields.