The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

On the subject of borders I was interested to read what Danny Alexander had to say this week

Now, you probably wouldn’t have to drive through international check points every time you entered an independent Scotland…

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/danny-alexander-tells-road-haulage-association-you-are-the-ones-literally-driving-our-recovery

Theresa May says

"So that would mean border controls between a separate Scotland and the United Kingdom," she said. "Passport checks to visit friends and relatives. A literal and figurative barrier between our nations."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/14/passport-checks-needed-between-independent-scotland-and-england

who is right?

[Buff124]

Sir Graham Watson, Lib Dem MEP for South West England, on the indy ref EU question:

“Some say that Scotland will not become a member of the EU, some others say that Scotland will become a new member and some others say that Scotland will have to re-apply for membership.

“You can debate about the legal aspects in many different ways but politically, you cannot throw outside the EU a territory that is already part of the EU.”

The development comes as EU officials have admitted there is no documentation to support the view of European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. An FoI request has revealed the EU has not carried out any analysis on the issue of a member state being split into two parts

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/mep-claims-scotland-can-t-be-thrown-out-of-eu-1.375403

[LJS]

Sir Graham Watson, Lib Dem MEP for South West England, on the indy ref EU question:

“Some say that Scotland will not become a member of the EU, some others say that Scotland will become a new member and some others say that Scotland will have to re-apply for membership.

“You can debate about the legal aspects in many different ways but politically, you cannot throw outside the EU a territory that is already part of the EU.”

The development comes as EU officials have admitted there is no documentation to support the view of European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. An FoI request has revealed the EU has not carried out any analysis on the issue of a member state being split into two parts

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/mep-claims-scotland-can-t-be-thrown-out-of-eu-1.375403

And he is not alone:

"An INDEPENDENT Scotland will be able to join the European Union, according to Labour's most senior MEP."

"In an interview with the Sunday Herald, David Martin, Labour MEP for Scotland, effectively distanced himself from claims by the Better Together campaign - which he supports - that Scotland might fail to become a member of the EU after independence or be rejected by the European Commission.

He also said that Scotland will not have to join the euro or the Schengen common travel area in the event of a Yes vote. "My view is that Scotland, of course, would get into the EU eventually," he said. "It's not automatic, and would take several rounds of negotiations, but they're not going to force us to join Schengen. They're not going to force us to join the euro."

Martin's views carry considerable weight. First elected in 1984, he is Britain's most senior Labour MEP, and indeed the second-longest serving member of the entire European Parliament."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/labour-mep-independence-no-barrier-to-eu-membership.24250593

[LJS]

OK, so the No campaign's position on EU membership is looking a bit dodgy, The Machine gun Towers at Berwick appear to have been a wee bit of an exaggeration.

Presumably the rest of the "No" case is rock solid?

[LJS]

Danny Alexander... Same agreement as we have with Ireland I would imagine ....

What a relief Barry!!

As you will remember I have a seat by the fire in iScotland reserved for you with a malt of your choice waiting for you.

So glad our resistance forces won't have to smuggle you over the border.

[eFestivals]

I'm merely pointing out that the Vote No Borders astroturf campaign is suggesting - using the medium of adverts being shown in Scottish cinemas this weekend - that a citizen of a hypothetical iScotland would be stranded abroad if he/she lost their passport in,say, Rio de Janeiro. There is a Uk consulate in Rio, so the inference is that no assistance would be offered by a hypothetical rUK consular presence.

could it offer the same full service as a Scottish consulate? Nope. Like it or not, the representation for Scots abroad is very likely to be lesser as aq world average than exists for a UK citizen (as that's the case with the world's smaller countries).

But hey, not to worry. It's not like more than a handful of 'proud' Scots will be so proud of Scotland to actually give up their UK citizenship.

Isn't it great to take responsibility for yourselves when someone else is taking responsibility for you?

To infer that iScotand would be excluded is part of the polarisation of the argument.

Is the inference in the film, or in your head?

It's exceedingly likely to be the case that iScotland will have less representation around the world, and that will impact onto its citizens.

There's facts, and then there's inconvenient facts.

EDIT: I've also been made aware of recent advances in mobile telecommunications which, I'm told, allows citizens to contact a representative of their government from just about anywhere in the world. Well I never.

when there's mobile phone passports, get back to me. Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Well, I've made it pretty clear previously what my hopes are: & that I see it as a decision which will benefit Scotland in the long term.

But what is "will benefit Scotland in the long term" meant to actually mean?

Presumably, that's a measure that'll be made against the rUK?

Would that be about a greater GDP, or a 'fairer' distribution of that GDP? Or both?

Or something else?

In the short term success is simply getting the thing up & running successfully

PMSL - a village council can do that. The SNP have been telling England for 40+ years that Scotland isn't "too wee".

Existence is success? That's a new one on me.

- having a currency that works (whatever it is) :being in the EU : Getting through the first five years whilst avoiding the apocalyptic vision of Better Together.

So: success is the SNP not being liars, and success is the Scottish electorate not being fools for the lies.

Electing a Government that represents the people of Scotland :

you get when you vote in UK GE's.

"The people of Scotland" shouldn't even get the privileges they do within the nation we reside within, but privileges are repression, apparently..

Success will also be measured for me about how Scotland deals with the potential division with the long campaign may have caused and how well we keep the thousands of people who have taken an interest in politics for the first time in their lives enagaged.

So if the SNP are proven liars and iScotland is shit and poor, that'll still be a success on the basis y60ou give here? Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I believe those who believe in Independence are engaged in seeking "democratic support for changing the system"

that's kind of what a referendum is.

I'm not sure I get your point about redrawing lines - If the line is the border between Scotland & England no-one is suggesting we redraw that line which has remained unchanged for several hundred years. We won't even have to buy new road signs.

The nation state we live in is the UK. The UK is democratic*.

(* democratic, with a shit electoral system. All the same it's undeniably a version of democracy, where all versions have their faults).

And so there is no "Scotland" in regard to democracy, unless you firstly decide that there is a Scotland to then be able to make the claim that it's not getting democracy.

You can only believe there's a democratic deficit if you firstly decide there's a Scotland that should stand apart from the UK.

Do you see what i'm getting at? The whole idea of that democratic deficit is one that is invented by firstly redrawing the boundaries bto0 bring into existence that democratic deficit.

It's a smoke and mirrors trick by Salmond that is designed to have you hand power over to Salmond.

If it was about democracy, it would be about democracy in the democratic nation state, not about gaining power by dismembering the state.

[eFestivals]

On the subject of borders I was interested to read what Danny Alexander had to say this week

Theresa May says

who is right?

Which is right depends on the policies of iScotland only, and iScotland can't make up its own mind.

iScotland says it will join the (British Isles) Common Borders Scheme, but iScotland also contradicts that and says it will have a different immigration policy to rUK.

(iScotland also says that it'll join the EU, and the EU entry criteria says Schengen criteria only, no exceptions ... but there's no point in any EU confusion without iScotland first dealing with it's own confusion).

So iScotland gets border checkpoints with rUK, or it doesn't. The choice is yours.

Not mine or May's or Alexanders.

So, please do tell us whether you want those checkpoints or not, and then you'll be smarter than May or Alexander or me.

Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You can debate about the legal aspects in many different ways but politically, you cannot throw outside the EU a territory that is already part of the EU.

Why not?

If Scotland leaves the UK, by default it is leaving the EU.

That's Scotland's choice. There is no throwing out.

Or is the Scottish electorate politically and democratically inept? There is no right of membership of the EU, it's an agreement - a concept that nats seem to have difficulty understanding.

The development comes as EU officials have admitted there is no documentation to support the view of European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

except the Lisbon Treaty, which sets out the one and only entry criteria for the EU.

(along with saying there can be no exceptions to that criteria).

But there's no documentation, OK.

An FoI request has revealed the EU has not carried out any analysis on the issue of a member state being split into two parts

why should it? It's not the EU's concern. The only EU members are EU members.

[eFestivals]

And he is not alone:

"An INDEPENDENT Scotland will be able to join the European Union, according to Labour's most senior MEP."

there's very few people saying it couldn't join - not even Barroso (he said "difficult", because he recognises the political realities that exist).

But it's either the Lisbon Treaty route, or a new set of treaties and referendums in many member states (including the UK) where any one (just one) of those states can block iScotland.

He also said that Scotland will not have to join the euro or the Schengen common travel area in the event of a Yes vote.

he can suggest that's the case, but the only evidence is very solidly with the opposite view - and that remains the case unless there's new EU treaties to change the rules.

[eFestivals]

OK, so the No campaign's position on EU membership is looking a bit dodgy,

you're doing as well as fully signed-on cybernat. Comedy gold.

The *ONLY* EU entry option for iScotland is the Lisbon Treaty rules. That remains the case no matter what any individual says to the4 contrary.

The only dodgy thing around here is the way that yes-ers take some opinions as solid gold and dismiss other (often more solidly based in the facts) opinio0ns as bullying and bluster.

No matter how much you might believe that opinion, there remains just the one entry method until/if there's new treaties which might say different.

But if you want to lie to yourself, go ahead.

[LJS]

Is the inference in the film, or in your head?

Clearly in the film. Edited May 19, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

you're doing as well as fully signed-on cybernat. Comedy gold.

The *ONLY* EU entry option for iScotland is the Lisbon Treaty rules. That remains the case no matter what any individual says to the4 contrary.

The only dodgy thing around here is the way that yes-ers take some opinions as solid gold and dismiss other (often more solidly based in the facts) opinio0ns as bullying and bluster.

No matter how much you might believe that opinion, there remains just the one entry method until/if there's new treaties which might say different.

But if you want to lie to yourself, go ahead.

Neil knows best.

[eFestivals]

What a relief Barry!!

As you will remember I have a seat by the fire in iScotland reserved for you with a malt of your choice waiting for you.

So glad our resistance forces won't have to smuggle you over the border.

Your relief is mis-placed.

Your own sovereign govt (if you ever have one) holds the answer to border posts - so you need to ask them to decide on the current conflict in their plans.

Will iScotland follow the Common Borders, or will they have their own immigration policies?

Only there is where the answer lies.

[eFestivals]

If it works out well I will be on my way... Might be the only way my daughters can afford university.

Salmond has stated that iScotland plans to break EU law so that iScotland can keep on penalising the English for being English, exactly as the SG currently does.

But they don't hate England, apparently. I guess there's solid logic to that bit of Scottish racism. :lol:

Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Neil knows best.

Neil has read the Lisbon Treaty. Have you?

You don't like to hear it, but there's nothing that can over-ride those rules, apart from another treaty.

Even Salmond's own EU expert says that, but Scotland has switched off listening by that point in Avery's words - I guess that's that special Scottish political sophistication I keep hearing about, where the facts don't matter.

Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Clearly in the film.

And in the Rose-Tinted White Paper, don't forget the White Paper.

You know, where it says that iScotland will operate different immigration rules to the Common Borders agreement, which means it won't be a part of that Common Borders agreement.

[LJS]

Your relief is mis-placed.

Your own sovereign govt (if you ever have one) holds the answer to border posts - so you need to ask them to decide on the current conflict in their plans.

Will iScotland follow the Common Borders, or will they have their own immigration policies?

Only there is where the answer lies.

Of course, it will be subject to negotiation. Most sane people seem to be saying there are unlikely to be border controls.

Remember there is little or nothing either rUK or iSCO can do about EU immigration.

[LJS]

Salmond has stated that iScotland plans to break EU law so that iScotland can keep on penalising the English for being English, exactly as the SG currently does.

But they don't hate England, apparently. I guess there's solid logic to that bit of Scottish racism. :lol:

There is no need to drag the debate down by accusing anyone of racism.

That is a cyberbrit tactic.

[eFestivals]

Of course, it will be subject to negotiation.

I don't believe that's the case. Scotland either joins common borders in it's current form or iScotland is choosing to have borders between it and the UK.

It's Scotland that is making the choice to change things, it's not the UK choosing to change its immigration policies.

But let's put that aside for a moment, and just ask yourself this: in the current climate, do you think that the UK is amenable to weakening the immigration controls onto this island?

So: no negotiation: you're either in or out. Ask your future govt which it is: is iScotland forever to be a backwater*, or will there be border posts between iScotland and England?

(* the 'backwater' thing is something that the SNP recognise, that's no English slur on Scotland.... These things have to be said now and then because yes-ers don't follow what yes says, else I might as well put in a big order for fish).

Most sane people seem to be saying there are unlikely to be border controls.

PMSL .... sane is rational. The White Paper puts nothing rational forwards for borders - it says (like so much of the WP) "we'll have our cake and eat it".

Remember there is little or nothing either rUK or iSCO can do about EU immigration.

Remember there is little or nothing rUK can do about non-EU immigration from iScotland.

Oh. Yes there is. Put up a border.

Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

There is no need to drag the debate down by accusing anyone of racism.

That is a cyberbrit tactic.

so why is it that Scotland operates an anti-English racist policy, and intends to continue with it as an independent country (despite it being against EU law, you know, that thing you want to join)?

It must be love.

Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

So you are saying that if iScotland joined the EU they would have to implement the Schengen criteria ? That isn't true at all. Scotland can ask for and would almost certainly get an opt-out on that one.

All this talk of the EU entry criteria being fast and hard set in stone is bollocks.

Since the Lisbon Treaty, there is just one set of entry rules and those entry rules categorically state "no exceptions".

So yes, as things stand, if iScotland joins the EU, it *HAS TO* join Schengen (and the Euro - tho it doesn't qualify to join the Euro, so can't actually join the EU).

That is the irrefutable facts of the matter as they stand at this moment.

The only way that can change is via a change of the EU treaties.

Changes to EU treaties requires referendum to take place in many of the countries (including the UK). For iScotland to join the EU would require each of those to be won, and for each member govt to agree to all the treaty changes.

Salmond likes to pretend that there's an option via the EU courts, but there's not. That Court would have to rule the existing treaties null & void - which means the Court making the ruling has no juristiction.

The EU is "pooled sovereignty", tho by agreement (rather than literally pooled sovereignty). The dilution of that sovereignty via an extra member requires the agreement of the sovereign countries whose sovereignty is being diluted.

[eFestivals]

So the situation being discussed is the same as the current situation with Ireland... The idea we would ever have "real" border control with Scotland is as laughable as it is impractical.

It's not tho. This is another white paper "have our cake and eat it" thing.

iScotland says it'll join the Common Borders thing AND have it's own immigration policy.

Much like how iScotland says it'll use Sterling but be fiscally independent.

Much like how iScotland says its Universities will be independent but will have (proportionally) 50% extra of the UK's uni research budget.

Those sorts of things - pie in the sky.

Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

That sort of thing is already happening with Ireland and the world keeps on turning.

nope. It requires the co-operation that iScotland says in one place it'll give, and says in another place that it won't give.

Only one of those will hold true in the end, but which ever it is will impact on iScotland's ability to do all the things it says it'll do to make itself prosperous - and iScotland *needs* immigration to be the success it says it will be.

Even the white paper (paraphrased) says that iScotland has (just) 30 years to make itself prosperous, else its permanently in the shit.