The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

We've probably got a better chance of being in the EU in 10 years with independence than if we stay in the UK, if the English continue their love affair with Nigel Farage.

[eFestivals]

I think you might find though that Scotland is treated as a special case.... Given they are already members via the UK membership.

Scotland are not members.

But yes, I don't doubt that there'll be some members very happy to see Scotland treated as a special case. It might even be all members.

Nothing of that 'special case' scenario says that the current EU rules can be ignored. If they want to make Scotland a special case they'll need to agree treaty changes to enable Scotland to be treated as that special case.

(and it's worth bearing in mind that any new 'special case' rules will be open to other 'special cases' in the future - something the likes of Spain, Belgium, France & Germany [and probably others] will want to give serious considerations about)

Treaty changes take time. Treaty changes require referendums wi5thin some countries and these take time.

There's not a hope in hell of all of that happening in the 18 months between a yes vote and iDay, particularly when they'll be a UK general election slap-bang in the middle of that timeframe.

The rules are really aimed at nations who would be new to the EU zone. Not sure they will be enforced for iScotland.

There's only one set of rules for entry. The rules always apply.

If they want to make up new rules that takes time (as I said above).

Not saying they will or won't. Just saying we don't know and the member nations are free to make exceptions if they all agree.

yep, they're free to make exceptions, but they take time.

But it's also worth noting just how much of the entry requirements Scotland does not meet (around sovereign state institutions, and a history of stability), and how many of the current members had their own entry delayed around those same matters.

Just don't think the rules are quite as factual as you say when it comes to iScotland.

You are Alex Salmond and I claim my five pounds. ;lol:

Really, that's complete head in the sand stuff. The EU is not (legally) a sovereign institution, it is a treaty institution. That means that the EU itself cannot just make something up and have it happen, it has to put its ideas to its members for them to agree; after agreement those changes have to be treaty-ised and signed by each member. This is not a quick process.

I don't think we have any precedent do we?

There is no precedent, nope. There are the rules, and only the rules.

Those rules stipulate only one entry procedure. Those rules apply unless amended (by treaty).

It's hard to imagine the major nations in the EU not wanting Scotland as part of the EU specially given concerns over energy security etc.

I've yet to hear any nation say that it doesn't want Scotland inside the EU ... but that's not been said about Kosovo* either, tho it's yet to have an accession path agreed.

(* Spain has said it doesn't want Kosovo - but only in a 'not yet' sense).

There's been lots of other countries it's wanted inside too, and all of those countries have got inside only by working to the EU rules.

[eFestivals]

I think the tough line we put out there regarding currency union etc will clearly soften when it comes to dealing with iScotland. I think the tough line in general will be shown to have been a bit bullshitty if it happens.

You might be right, but it only becomes proven bullshit that point, and not before.

What we can certainly say is that all major rUK parties are against CU without political and fiscal convergence - whilst iScotland plans divergence.

What those parties have stated is a consistent policy line that goes way beyond just Scotland. It's certainly not a "project fear" thing, even if it happens to be the case that not using the UK pound scares some Scots.

[LJS]

SCOTLAND could set itself up as an independent country within 18 months of a yes vote.

That’s according to the legal expert hired by the UK Government to say breaking up would be a complicated and lengthy affair.

In a major blunder yesterday, Professor James Crawford said he agreed with the SNP that negotiating all the deals could be done in a year and a half.

The Cambridge academic was hired by David Cameron to write a 58-page report. It concluded Scotland would have to start again as a new state if there was separation in 2014.

The SNP position is that Scotland will be able to negotiate continued membership while still part of the UK, in the transitional period after a Yes vote but before independence is declared, perhaps 18 months later.

Expert opinion on whether this is legal or practical is sharply divided. Veteran EU negotiator Graham Avery, the European Commission’s honorary director general, backs the SNP’s position, as does Sir David Edward, a former British judge at the European Court of Justice.

SENIOR European Conservatives, including a key ally of Prime Minister David Cameron, have dismissed claims by Jose Manuel Barroso that an independent Scotland could be kept out of the EU.

The Commission president has faced a growing continental backlash since he declared last month that Scottish membership would be "difficult if not impossible".

Now, in a morale-booster for the Yes campaign, Mr Barroso's assertions have come under direct fire from former Czech president Vaclav Klaus and Joelle Garriaud-Maylam, a senior French senator specialising in foreign policy.

all from page 1 of a google search - quoted from channel 4, Daily record, Scottish Herald - none of which are pro independence. I do not claim they prove Scotland can waltz into the EU but they do suggest there are more & better qualified people than me disputing your "indisputable" facts,

There are no facts, only interpretations.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

Mark Twain

[eFestivals]

I think energy security will be a big issue.

but not a big enough issue for the EU to do everything it can to make a country with 10 times the oil and gas of Scotland to be an EU member.

[eFestivals]

We've probably got a better chance of being in the EU in 10 years with independence than if we stay in the UK, if the English continue their love affair with Nigel Farage.

yep, he's loved soo soo much just look at all the seats he has.

While his "it's all mine" Scottish cousins hold power up there.

[eFestivals]

I might move north if it's working out well for iScotland

then you'd be going against 500 years of history.

[eFestivals]

It wouldn't take a treaty change if they view iScotland as a special case.

yeah, while Scotland is celebrating just gaining its own sovereignty, 28 countries within Europe are queued up waiting for it to hand Scotland some of their own sovereignty too.

The EU can do what the fuck it likes as long as all members agree.

yep - and for the agreements to be formalised always takes a lot of time.

It's the time that's the most pertinent point here, not that they might (and it's only a 'might') all agree.

But also think its bollocks of the highest just to point to the "rules" as if Scotland was Turkey and say they would be treated just the same.

with the rules that exist currently both Turkey and Scotland have to enter by identical criteria and method.

Edited April 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

all from page 1 of a google search - quoted from channel 4, Daily record, Scottish Herald - none of which are pro independence. I do not claim they prove Scotland can waltz into the EU but they do suggest there are more & better qualified people than me disputing your "indisputable" facts,

from what you just quoted:-

Veteran EU negotiator Graham Avery, the European Commission’s honorary director general, backs the SNP’s position

Now read these words of Avery:

"Avery claims the Yes and No camps both mislead. He writes: "I realised some time ago that the EU is used in the Scottish debate in a misleading way, with 'unionists' presenting the EU as a major handicap to independence, and 'independentists' adopting a simplistic approach to the EU."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/top-euro-official-scotland-will-add-clout-once-in-eu.23760619

Avery - the "expert" that yes love to (mis)quote has actually stated that treaty changes would be required - but you nwever read that part in any of the 'yes' stuff.

As I keep saying, there's a huge amount of selectivity going on from the yes side.

[LJS]

Avery claims the Yes and No camps both mislead.

As I've said all along ... both sides mislead - of course they do- The yes camp will inevitable talk up the benefits just as the no camp will exaggerate the pitfalls.

[eFestivals]

As I've said all along ... both sides mislead - of course they do- The yes camp will inevitable talk up the benefits just as the no camp will exaggerate the pitfalls.

but you say you've got experts that back up what yes claims, but even the experts they and you choose to quote don't back up those claims.

It's for the yes campaign to make their case. If they're only able to make their case with bullshit as they're doing with Avery's words, they have no case.

It seems that the yes campaign is degenerating into only "we bullshit less than you" (and that's not true either; it's the opposite), and nothing else.

It's hardly the positive case for independence they claimed they had, is it?

There is a positive case to be made, but as soon as there's false claims about what others will do for iScotland it all turns to shit.

[LJS]

At this point I need to make a personal statement. In the debate on Scotland’s constitutional future – and on independentism in general – it is difficult to maintain the role of an ‘independent analyst’. Discussion polarises the opposing camps of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’, and whatever a neutral commentator says or writes tends to be seized by one side or the other for polemical use. Although this may be inevitable in the rough-and-tumble of political debate, there must still surely be a place for truly independent analysis. In my case, I have contributed to discussion of the question ‘how could Scotland join the EU’ not because I am partisan on the matter of Scottish independence, but because I believe that decisions on important questions such as independence should be enlightened by well-informed analysis.

I realised some time ago that the EU is used in the Scottish debate in a misleading way, with ‘unionists’ presenting the EU as a major handicap to Scottish independence, and ‘independentists’ adopting a simplistic approach to the EU. That is why I submitted evidence to parliamentary committees, in London in 2012 and in Edinburgh in 2014, outlining my ideas on how an independent Scotland could join the European Union. My view on this issue, in brief, is that if Scotland votes for independence, the common sense solution is for its EU membership to come into force on the same day as its independence, and that it would not be in the interest of the EU and its member states to oblige the Scottish people to leave the EU and apply for membership from outside.[5]

Given that these same arguments were espoused by the Scottish government in its 2013 White Paper ‘Scotland’s Future’, my position has been interpreted as support for Scottish independence. However, I am not a supporter of the Scottish National Party, or of any political party, and my position on Scottish independence is neutral. In my youth, I lived for some years in Scotland but I was born in Wales and am now resident in England. I have no vote in the Scottish referendum and I try to approach the question of Scottish independence as objectively as possible.

quoted from Independentism and the European Union

Graham Avery

22nd March 2014

seems pretty clear to me.

Again, I am not claiming Scotland's admission to the EU is certain from Independence day. I am simply pointing out that, contrary to your repeated "facts", there is a significant body of opinion (more knowledgeable then me & who knows maybe more knowledgeable then you) who suggest it is at least possible. As we have all agreed, it will be up for negotiation after the referendum.

I believe on a wide variety of issues the position of rUK after a yes vote will inevitably be different as its motivation will no longer be to prevent a Yes vote, rather to find the best way forward for rUK in the new world.

Of course I do not know what the outcome of it all will any more than you do or the Yes/No campaigns do.

[LJS]

I might move north if it's working out well for iScotland

I'll save a seat by the fire for you!

[kaosmark2]

I'd be shocked if Spain agree to let iScotland in with no complications/hoops/conditions. Not because they have anything against Scotland, but they want to keep 2 separatist movements within their own country shut down.

[eFestivals]

seems pretty clear to me.

Common sense is always pretty clear, but common sense doesn't always match the rules tho. Avery has stated a "common sense" view of what would make sense to happen.

If you go searching for further words of Avery (rather than an edited version to say what the yes campaign wants you to believe) you'll find him very clearly state that treaty changes would be required for that "common sense" solution.

What he doesn't address in any of it is timescales. You merely have to look at previous treaty changes to see that his "common sense" view quickly falls apart as anything which can be reasonably expected to happen.

Again, I am not claiming Scotland's admission to the EU is certain from Independence day. I am simply pointing out that, contrary to your repeated "facts", there is a significant body of opinion (more knowledgeable then me & who knows maybe more knowledgeable then you) who suggest it is at least possible. As we have all agreed, it will be up for negotiation after the referendum.

If you care to read back thru this thread you'll find me repeatedly state that it's possible. It would require treaty changes to be 'possible' (because treaty changes are the only way around the current entry rules).

What makes it improbable before iDay is every other treaty change the EU has made. These always take time, not least because of many members having to hold referendums (as the UK will also have to do for the next change and onwards).

In theory it's all very easy - agreement on new treaty; referendums &/or ratification by member states; done.

The practice will be slooooow, the normal slow for these sorts of things - even if it's given the utmost urgency. A request will be made to call a meeting. A meeting will eventually be held many months down the line when everyone has free time and no other business. There will be arguments, because each of those member states has its own interests to consider and not just iScotland's (because the new rules will apply to more than just iScotland). There will be to-ing and fro-ing between meeting attendees and their home govts, and changes demanded, and then re-considered and agreed. Etc, etc, etc.

Then member states will have to pass legislation to allow the referendum. Then the referendum has to be arranged, with a long-ish public consultation/debating period, so that people know what they're voting for. Not all of these referendums might be won on the first vote (see previous refs for proof), and so will need a cooling off time before they're re-run on a slightly different basis.

Then ratification legislation will have to be passed in member countries, where in many it's exceedingly difficult to go from 1st vote to active-in-law in a short time (the UK included).

Only then can the EU open the door to Scotland with that "common sense" solution.

Easy, eh?

I believe on a wide variety of issues the position of rUK after a yes vote will inevitably be different as its motivation will no longer be to prevent a Yes vote, rather to find the best way forward for rUK in the new world.

I dare say you're right, tho the yes campaign is kidding itself in thinking that there's any huge desire to prevent a yes vote for anything beyond the most practical of reasons. There'll be costs and pain onto rUK from the process just as there will be onto iScotland, and why put yourself thru that if you don't need to?

Similarly, the yes campaign is kidding itself in thinking that what might be good for an iScotland will apply the same to rUK (which it does an awful lot in the white paper). When iScotland creates that barrier, rUK will act in its own best interests and not iScotland's.

So when (for example) the yes campaign say a CU will happen, with "because rUK business won't accept the transaction costs" as the justification (as it does), they're forgetting that the same reasoning applies to the Euro which the UK rejected - and so it's clearly not a good enough reason in itself.

Much the same applies with many of the other reasons given for CU. Another is the balance of payments for Sterling - completely forgetting that the same balance of payments deficit will exist for rUK whether we share a currency or not; a CU would solve nothing of that, tho it might delay (but only delay) the pain a little.

Of course I do not know what the outcome of it all will any more than you do or the Yes/No campaigns do.

I'm certainly wary of saying that yes will lose this far away from the vote, even tho yes is still a fair way off being able to win by all indicators.

An anecdotal view I'm forming on the basis of newspaper comments* is that there's a lot of porkie telling going on by Scots to one another for how they'll vote. It seems to be the case that the 'no'-ers don't feel the need to tell others they'll vote no, but because of what might be called some over-enthusiastic 'yes'-ers they feel it's easier to say they'll vote yes if asked to say one way or another. So perhaps there might be a shock within the result.

(* whether there's anything in that in wider society I don't know).

I'd quite like Scotland to vote yes from an 'interested' perspective, just to see how all of it went.

And if I were Scottish I think I'd be seriously considering voting yes to lose the tory-ism, tho my brain tells me that's an anti-democratic thing to be doing, a rejection of the ideal of democracy and not better democracy, because no matter which govt is in power there are always some opposed to it. It's ultimately a vote for me me me-ism.

Edited April 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Thanks again for your opinion.

Just for the record nothing I have quoted here has come from the Yes campaign or any other pro independence sources. I have deliberately avoided doing this as I have already acknowledged that both campaigns will inevitably be creative with truth.

Mr Avery's quote was not

edited. It was a direct quote from a long article. He seems to me to make it clear that in his opinion Scotland joking the EU on iDay is possible.

Your opinion is that it isn't.

We are in uncharted territory here. So there is no precedent. Your position is based on the premise that Scotland would be treated in the same way as Turkey despite having been a member of the Eu for years as part of the UK. There is a body of credible opinion that suggests this may not be the case.

We will clearly have to agree to differ on this one.

Edited April 2, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Just for the record nothing I have quoted here has come from the Yes campaign or any other pro independence sources.

Do you think?

With all the very many words that could be spoken about the EU, it's a bit odd that everyone seems to pull out the exact same selective Avery quotes. You can find the exact same words already posted in this thread by someone else.

Mr Avery's quote was not

edited. It was a direct quote from a long article.

that was edited.

There are only selective parts of all of Avery's words being presented - the selective parts which say what the 'yes' campaign want them to say, not what Avery actually said!!!!

Avery himself says yes are mis-representing his words, to suggest that getting in the EU is simpler than it will be.

We are in uncharted territory here. So there is no precedent. Your position is based on the premise that Scotland would be treated in the same way as Turkey despite having been a member of the Eu for years as part of the UK. There is a body of credible opinion that suggests this may not be the case.

I'm saying there are rules, and rules that cannot be ignored. That's what Avery says too.

I'm saying those rules can be changed. That's what Avery says too (and the yes campaign gets on-message on this one, but only this one).

I'm saying that changing the rules cannot possibly be done in 18 months. Avery lives on cloud-cuckoo-land, unless someone is going to show me any other 18 months start to finish EU treaty change (which they can't).

If you want to see normal political life as some sort of punishment for Scotland because it's being treated like any other state such as Turkey, I can see a pattern emerging amongst those who might vote yes and it's not pretty.

Edited April 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Let's try that another simpler way...

There's a whole range of stated possibilities for iScotland and the EU.

At the good-for-iScotland end there is Avery, and at the bad-for-iScotland end there is Barisso saying "difficult" or whatever it was.

The reality could be anywhere between those two extremes.

Yet 'yes' brings out Avery and just Avery, and put all their faith in just his words (tho a selective version of them) because they say what iScotland wants.

And even Avery says that 'yes' are mis-reprsenting his words.

There's leaps of faith and then there's walking around with your eyes shut.

Edited April 2, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Perhaps you could help me. I can't find anywhere where Graham Avery says anything significantly at odds with the quote I posted. Can you point me on the right direction please?

Also, I see you have nothing to say on the other quotes in my initial post quoting Avery.

Its just that I'm sure you said Avery was the only one ever quoted

[eFestivals]

Its just that I'm sure you said Avery was the only one ever quoted

Over-statement perhaps, but he's certainly the most often quoted - because his words can be adapted into the yes campaign's message.

And yet he's just one man. So why so often quoted, even tho his words are far from explicit?

Perhaps you could help me. I can't find anywhere where Graham Avery says anything significantly at odds with the quote I posted

The problem is not the words, it's the interpretation of the words.

The words actually say nothing other than express the aspiration that it would be common sense to somehow keep Scotland within the EU. As an EU enthusiast that would obviously be his view.

I don't think there's anyone that disagrees that it would be common sense, given that iScotland wishes to be in the EU. But if common sense was all that counted there would never be the need for treaties in the first place.

Avery's 'common sense' view goes on to say it will require treaty changes, but he doesn't have the common sense to say how long they'll take.

Somehow you must have decided that these changes can be breezed thru from Avery's words, even tho he doesn't say that?

Avery's words don't actually support the conclusion you're taking from them. If they did, you'd be able to show me when they've done a start-to-finish treaty change in less than 18 months.

[LJS]

Avery's 'common sense' view goes on to say it will require treaty changes, but he doesn't have the common sense to say how long they'll take.

Nah, still can't find it. Must be those Yes blinkers I am wearing.

Somehow you must have decided that these changes can be breezed thru from Avery's words, even tho he doesn't say that?

My view on this issue, in brief, is that if Scotland votes for independence, the common sense solution is for its EU membership to come into force on the same day as its independence, and that it would not be in the interest of the EU and its member states to oblige the Scottish people to leave the EU and apply for membership from outside.

GRAHAM AVERY

Honorary Director General of the European Commission, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre,

Brussels, and Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford.

He began his career in public service in London in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, where

he took part in the British negotiations for membership of the European Communities, and was Private

Secretary to successive Ministers (Fred Peart, John Silkin).

Mr. Avery joined the European Commission in Brussels in 1973 as a member of the cabinet of

Christopher Soames, Vice-President responsible for external relations. He was Adviser and then Deputy

Head of Cabinet of Roy Jenkins, President of the Commission in 1977-80.

He led the task force which made the Commission’s report to the European Council in 1992 on Europe

and the Challenge of Enlargement, coordinated its Opinions in 1997 on the applications for membership

by countries of Central and Eastern Europe and contributed to the report Agenda 2000. He was author of

the report Policies for an Enlarged Union in 2001, and piloted the report Enlarging the European Union

presented to the Commission by Wim Kok in 2003.

He#'s better qualified to give an opinion than I am. But you say

Avery lives on cloud-cuckoo-land,

Tell me about your qualifications on the EU

[LJS]

I'd be shocked if Spain agree to let iScotland in with no complications/hoops/conditions. Not because they have anything against Scotland, but they want to keep 2 separatist movements within their own country shut down.

The warning from the president of the European commission, José Manuel Barroso, that an application by an independent Scotland to join the European Union would be "difficult if not impossible" to negotiate is both politically maladroit and unlikely to improve Barrosso's lamentable record in running the EU's executive for the past 10 years as he now prepares to leave office.

In seeking to frighten Scottish voters with dire predictions that the Spanish government might veto any Scottish EU membership application, he was, of course, merely mimicking identical declarations by David Cameron and the main Scottish unionist leaders. They have all stressed that Madrid would probably block Scotland for fear that otherwise the growing movement for Catalan independence would become irresistible.

But the language being used by the Spanish government does not support these dire predictions. In a recent interview the Spanish foreign minister, José Manuel Garcia-Margallo, stated that a Scottish EU application should be considered in the event of a Yes victory in the referendum. He went on to insist: "If Britain's constitutional order allows – and it seems that it does – Scotland to choose independence, we have nothing to say about this."

More strikingly he went out of his way to distance himself from suggestions that the Scottish and Catalan cases were inseparable for Madrid. "The two issues are 'fundamentally different'," he declared.

quoted from the Guardian.

Also the Spanish like our fish, (sorry barry) although they cook them all wrong - can you believe they do not batter & deep fry them.! Hoots!

[eFestivals]

Tell me about your qualifications on the EU

I asked first: show me a fast treaty change to make Avery's view hold up in any reality?

[LJS]

Now, Lets's move on to Alex Salmond & the democratic Deficit.

He has been accused of being "in bed" with Rupert Murdoch & the Leveson Enquiry was pretty scathing about that relationship. The defence is that Bskyb or news international or one or both employ 6,000 people in Scotland he was only doing his job.

Am I going to rush to his defence?

No

I'm sure he is to some extent guilty as charged.

The problem is the bed he was in with Rupert has been pretty busy with UK politicians over the years. When Maggie wasn't in bed with Reagan she was in bed with Murdoch, Pretty sure Tony Blair's stains are on the sheets somewhere.

SoAlec is not whiter than white but that is no reason to vote NO, indeed you can make a pretty good argument that Scottish politics has been less tainted by corruption & scandal than UK politics over the past few years

However, ;lets be clear Yes or No - we will be governed by politicians & they are best treated with a healthy dose of suspicion.

Now here is the interesting bit: when the SNP won the 2011 Holyrood election they polled 45% of the votes winning 69 seats & winning an overall majority.

Why is that remarkable?... 2 reasons

1: the Scottish electoral system, was designed to make it almost impossible for one party to win an overall majority the assumption being that this would be the Labour Party but Alex & his gang did it.

2: No Westminster government has achieved as high a vote share since 1970 when Ted Heath's Tories won with 46% of the vote- & bear in mind that was virtually a 2 party battle not the 4 party (if you exclude the greens) that the SNP were fighting.

If Alec is so bad why do people vote for him? could it be that the SNP have actually done pretty well at running what they are allowed to run of the country?

I am not & never have been a member of the SNP. Don't particularly like the man, but do think he is at least a match for Cameron Clegg & Milliband.

Incidentally in the 2010 Westminster Election the Tories got 16.7% of the vote in Scotland & 1 MP & that is who is governing us.

Democracy?

[eFestivals]

quoted from the Guardian.

Also the Spanish like our fish, (sorry barry) although they cook them all wrong - can you believe they do not batter & deep fry them.! Hoots!

It might be quoted from the Guardian, but it's also written on the basis that because Barroso's giving an opinion that's close to the enemy's (Cameron's), by default his opinion must be wrong. It's a stupid basis.

And by any "EU qualifications" measurement, the Commission's President out-rank's an only-bureaucrat who is also (in EU terms) long-retired like Avery.

So are you working from that qualifications thing you just asked me about, or are you merely selecting the convenient?

(That's not me supporting Barroso's view btw, it's me using it to demonstrate the selectivity of the view you've gone with. Tho it should be noted he's better placed than anyone to know both the bureaucratic and political feelings, and the private ones and not just any public ones).

---

As far as that Spanish statement goes, it's worth reading what it says and not what it might be imagined to say.

It talks about "a Scottish EU application".

You have to refer to the Lisbon Treaty to find out when it becomes legally possible for "a Scottish EU application" to be made - when it's a sovereign state and not before.

Nothing of that Spanish statement says "we will support a raft of treaty changes to allow iScotland a fast membership path".

There's just about no one who thinks that iScotland would be forever banished to outside the EU, but there's also almost no one saying all the criteria Scotland doesn't meet can be ignored, either. Not even Avery.