The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Despite continuing outrage from voters in Scotland that a poll paid for by the Cabinet Office Devolution Team has been buried, Westminster today again refused to reveal the poll's findings, leaving many to speculate that it shows support for the Union plummeting into a rancid, rat-infected abyss.

So no govt is allowed to carry out surveys for their own use now?

That aside, I'm absolutely loving the fact that the cybernuts believe it's the one and only poll in history that shows a yes victory.

Much more likely is that it shows support for indy falling, as all the other most-recent polls do.

Oh dear.

The poll by Ipsos Mori and paid for with money personally wrenched from the hands of starving Scottish children by millionaire, Eton-educated cabinet ministers, has begun to trend worldwide on social media, as the planet is gripped by the Scottish independence question.

Those social media morons should look at the other polls then.

You know, the ones that show indy losing. All of them. Every single one.

As a sop to voters, analysts and crazy people on the internet, the Cabinet Office this morning released a poll of what people thought the Buried Poll is about.

Something else that 99.999% of yes-ers can't understand, i'm guessing?

51% think it shows the Yes vote soaring to at least 15 points higher than No

17% think it shows that Scottish people consider David Cameron to be a dick

16% believe there is no poll and that someone, somewhere is just making shit up

15% believe the poll shows Westminster is preparing the case that iScotland will need to be known as the Former United Caledonian Kingdom (FUCK) Scotland

1% think the Cabinet Office are refusing to release the poll out of modesty as it shows the Yes vote flatlining

Political analysts, such as Dr Shackleton, believe that the #PublishThePoll fiasco is causing nothing but damage for Better Together.

and 99.99999% of yes-ers wrongly think yes is going to win? Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

Re EU membership, Article 48 and all that

Here's a backdoor of sorts.....

Following a ‘yes’ vote in the independence referendum (usual caveats apply), and in accordance with the ‘successor state’ doctrine, the European Council agrees that in the Treaty of Lisbon Scotland will be added to all mention of the UK when Scotland becomes independent.

This does not count as formal treaty amendment but only as a change in terminology. The success or otherwise of this legislative tactic would depend on whether all the member states agree to Scottish membership.

[LJS]

I really can't believe you are replying to what was clearly a joke.

it's from today's herald by the way - I didn't quote my source.

now as to this

PS: and in Scotland, support from 20% of the electorate gets called a landslide, and hailed as better democracy and that people are engaged.

Unlike you Neil, I keep my posts about independence & Scotland in this thread where they are relevant. Quite why you thought it was relevant in a thread about UKip, I have no idea.

Anyway it was a wee bit more than 20% & roughly in line with the % of the leading parties in the last 3 Westminster elections so even it it was relevant it is bollocks.

Oh, & Scotland's elections are effectively contested by 4 parties rather than 3 at Westminster so it is likely that the winning party will have a lower % vote.

Oh, & we normally count the votes of the number of people who vote, It's kind of how democracy works. You rather sneaky way of calculating % kind of implies that everyone who stayed at home drinking their Buckfast & watching Jeremy Kyle should somehow be counted as anti SNP

[eFestivals]

Re EU membership, Article 48 and all that

Here's a backdoor of sorts.....

Following a ‘yes’ vote in the independence referendum (usual caveats apply), and in accordance with the ‘successor state’ doctrine, the European Council agrees that in the Treaty of Lisbon Scotland will be added to all mention of the UK when Scotland becomes independent.

This does not count as formal treaty amendment but only as a change in terminology. The success or otherwise of this legislative tactic would depend on whether all the member states agree to Scottish membership.

it won't happen in that way - it CANNOT happen in that way, "legally". Even the SNP's EU favourite - Avery - says it can't.

And aside from that, it's not only a question about Scotland, it's a dilution of every existing member's power.

Given that the yes campaign believes it has a right to hold onto every single aspect of the union which might empower it, don't you think that every other sovereign state thinks the same in relation to the EU?

Or do double-standards apply here too, another piece of the fantasy where every country bends over and takes one just for the love of Scotland?

[LJS]

Re EU membership, Article 48 and all that

Here's a backdoor of sorts.....

Following a ‘yes’ vote in the independence referendum (usual caveats apply), and in accordance with the ‘successor state’ doctrine, the European Council agrees that in the Treaty of Lisbon Scotland will be added to all mention of the UK when Scotland becomes independent.

This does not count as formal treaty amendment but only as a change in terminology. The success or otherwise of this legislative tactic would depend on whether all the member states agree to Scottish membership.

You are wasting your time, Buff. Neil is the world's leading authority on the EU. It may appear that other "experts" hold somewhat differing views but in Neil's eyes they are all numpties.

I personally will be wasting no more time on the EU in this thread.!!

[eFestivals]

Unlike you Neil, I keep my posts about independence & Scotland in this thread where they are relevant. Quite why you thought it was relevant in a thread about UKip, I have no idea.

yes, I know you have no idea about how nationalists of all kinds operate, we've been round that one already.

Anyway it was a wee bit more than 20% & roughly in line with the % of the leading parties in the last 3 Westminster elections so even it it was relevant it is bollocks.

or altrernatively, you're talking bollocks.

My apologies for short-changing the SNP by 2%.

Which still puts them well short of the sort of endorsement that Westminster parties get - even from Westminster-hating Scotland.

And as for the politically-engageed Scotland, what's with the 51% turnout?

Oh, & Scotland's elections are effectively contested by 4 parties rather than 3 at Westminster so it is likely that the winning party will have a lower % vote.

and that a massive proportion of the voters who vote for the winner don't actually support that winner.

You can relive that Scotland experience later this week, but you'll pretend it's something else entirely. Oh well.

Oh, & we normally count the votes of the number of people who vote, It's kind of how democracy works.

True - and how engagement works too. Or doesn't, in Scotland.

Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26173004

Regarding the article 48 issue...

its all bollocks though until Neil says otherwise....

You see that Graham Avery who's quoted in that piece?

If you go and read more of his words elsewhere, he says that treaty changes are also required for article 48 to be used.

Guess what that means? A long delay as the new treaties are ratified in each member country, with preceding referendums in many of those member states.

Will the UK sign something like that off in the first 6 months after the vote? Very VERY unlikely, given the forthcoming GE. So that means 10 months at maximum for the whole process (agreement, referendums, ratification) - but other member states will also have their own domestic politics. It just ain't going to happen by March 2016.

But hey, when I agree with what you've linked to, you just call me wrong.

(PS: Alex's Bruges speech - now there's a thing! The lies just flowed from Alex's mouth, because his own version of Project Fear is needed to win the vote!).

Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You are wasting your time, Buff. Neil is the world's leading authority on the EU. It may appear that other "experts" hold somewhat differing views but in Neil's eyes they are all numpties.

What part of me accepting the words of Scotland's favourite EU expert is passing you by?

Avery says "article 48 and treaty changes". i've been saying "anything outside of article 49 needs treaty changes".

Do you or don't you accept the words of your own expert?

Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

Right. Time to line up another Aunt Sally, another moron to disagree with Neil

This particular fruitloop thinks that Scotland wouldn't be allowed to leave the EU until complex negotiations are completed

"....my opinion is that, in accordance with their obligations of good faith, sincere cooperation and solidarity, the EU institutions and all the Member States (including the UK as existing), would be obliged to enter into negotiations, before separation took effect, to determine the future relationship within the EU of the separate parts of the former UK and the other Member States.

The outcome of such negotiations, unless they failed utterly, would be agreed amendment of the existing Treaties, not a new Accession Treaty. The simplified revision procedure provided by Article 48 TEU would not apply, so ratification of the amended Treaties would be necessary.

Looking to the presumed intention of the Treaty-makers, I do not believe they can reasonably have intended that there must be prior negotiation in the case of withdrawal but none in the case of separation. They cannot have intended the paradoxical legal consequences of automatic exclusion suggested above (paragraphs 11-13) nor, at a more practical level, that the complex skein of relationships, liabilities and obligations created by EU law should be allowed to unravel without measures being taken to prevent it.

The length and complexity of the negotiation and ratification process cannot be predicted in advance. In part, it would depend on the goodwill of those involved. In part, it would depend on the extent to which issues were raised beyond those strictly necessary to regulate the future legal relationship of Scotland, RoUK, the EU institutions and the other Member States.

It would, of course, be necessary to decide how and by whom negotiations would be conducted. Formally speaking, until the moment of separation, the UK as existing would be the Member State on which the obligation to negotiate would fall, and with which the EU institutions and the other Member States would expect to negotiate. How this would be handled as between the constituent parts of the UK would itself be a matter for negotiation – equally in a spirit of good faith, sincere cooperation and respect for the concerns of other Member States.

In short, in so far as we are entitled to look for legal certainty, all that is certain is that EU law would require all parties to negotiate in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation before separation took place. The results of such negotiation are hardly, if at all, a matter of law."

Sir David Edward, KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE.

UK Judge at the European Court of Justice from 1992 to 2004

EDIT: linkie. http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/852/David-Edward-Scotland-and-the-European-Union.aspx

Edited May 19, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

If you want to use Avery's words, make sure you use them all!!

(Yes-ers have a BIG habit of quoting just half of something - the EU, CU, the debt, etc, etc, etc!)

for Scotland a modification of the EU Treaties would be necessary

(page 6, item 6)

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Graham_Avery_Written_Evidence.pdf

[eFestivals]

Right. Time to line up another Aunt Sally, another moron to disagree with Neil

This particular fruitloop thinks that Scotland wouldn't be allowed to leave the EU until complex negotiations are completed

as you say, a fruitloop.

Next?

[LJS]

What part of me accepting the words of Scotland's favourite EU expert is passing you by?

Avery says "article 48 and treaty changes". i've been saying "anything outside of article 49 needs treaty changes".

Do you or don't you accept the words of your own expert?

you pick the bits you like

ignore the bits you don't

& insult anyone who dares to disagree with you.

[eFestivals]

you pick the bits you like

ignore the bits you don't

PMSL.

That's the cybernat's trick - something both you and buff have done here.

You've both loved to state "all of the debt is the UK's, the treasury said so" - while ignoring the bit that follows those treasury words.

And you've done it with Avery's words too - where you quote his "Scotland will be in the EU" but forget about the "if 28 other countries all agree" and forget about the "and once all of those 28 countries have done all they need to do for any treaty change (referendums, internal ratification, etc)".

& insult anyone who dares to disagree with you.

I'll always call an idiot an idiot.

You know, like when someone says that Ireland had CU with the UK, or when they quote half of something, or when they read a poorly reported news piece such as Barry linked to.

But hey, don't worry. With Barry posting in this thread far more will go his way.

Edited May 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

Allowing a hypothetical iScotland to leave the EU sans a negotiated withdrawal flies in the face of all reason. It's extremely prejudicial the ethos of the Union.

Allowing a hypothetical iScotland to leave the EU at all also flies in the face of all reason. It's extremely prejudicial the ethos of the Union too.

Why chuck the Scots out only to let them back in after a few years ? Why go to all that bother ? Why set up a lot of administrative barrriers only to dismantle them a short (in Parliamentary terms) time later ?

The hypothetical arguments will be based around which mechanism works best to stop this from happening, not on whether 5 million EU citizens have become aliens overnight.

Principle innit

Edited May 19, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

I've just had the pleasure of a UKIP party political broadcast.

It finished "we believe the best people to run the UK are the British people themselves".

Does that ring any bells, yes-ers?

[eFestivals]

Allowing a hypothetical iScotland to leave the EU sans a negotiated withdrawal flies in the face of all reason. It's extremely prejudicial the ethos of the Union.

Allowing a hypothetical iScotland to leave the EU at all also flies in the face of all reason. It's extremely prejudicial the ethos of the Union too.

Why chuck the Scots out only to let them back in after a few years ? Why go to all that bother ? Why set up a lot of administrative barrriers only to dismantle them a short (in Parliamentary terms) time later ?

The hypothetical arguments will be based around which mechanism works best to stop this from happening, not on whether 5 million EU citizens have become aliens overnight.

Principle innit

Do Scotland's own choices and actions have any principles, or are principles only the things that others do for Scotland?

[LJS]

PMSL.

That's the cybernat's trick - something both you and buff have done here.

You've both loved to state "all of the debt is the UK's, the treasury said so" - while ignoring the bit that follows those treasury words.

And you've done it with Avery's words too - where you quote his "Scotland will be in the EU" but forget about the "if 28 other countries all agree" and forget about the "and once all of those 28 countries have done all they need to do for any treaty change (referendums, internal ratification, etc)".

I'll always call an idiot an idiot.

You know, like when someone says that Ireland had CU with the UK, or when they quote half of something, or when they read a poorly reported news piece such as Barry linked to.

But hey, don't worry. With Barry posting in this thread far more will go his way.

Dear Neil

you really are an arrogant idiot.

You have never got anything wrong in this entire debate, have you?

You have never quoted parts of things to suit you, have you?

You have never quoted poorly reported pieces, have you?

Of course not for you know it all, don't you?

you have also never twisted what I have said to make it easier for you to argue against, Have you?

e.g. "You've both loved to state "all of the debt is the UK's, the treasury said so"" never said it ...guess who's coming now...

or "And you've done it with Avery's words too" I linked to an extensive & unedited article by David Avery & also quoted other experts who you have chosen to ignore. Indeed all i have ever argued on the EU is that there are other informed opinions that contradict your pal Jose Manuel Barroso, You will not find any post from me suggesting that Scotland will waltz into the EU. Its a bit like everything else in this campaign - I take the view that the extreme opinions on either side can be disregarded. Incidentally, I haven't noticed you banging on about your old mate Barroso for a while - have the 2 of you fallen out?

& call me old fashioned, but calling people idiots because they disagree with you (like I did at the start of this piece) is the sort of thing primary school kids and..er .. idiots do. You are better than that so cut it out & I will return to being civil & polite.

love & peace

LJS

[Buff124]

PMSL.

That's the cybernat's trick - something both you and buff have done here.

a) I ain't a cybernat; and

b ) I thought this was the cybernats trick

Edited May 19, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

Why chuck the Scots out only to let them back in after a few years ? Why go to all that bother ? Why set up a lot of administrative barrriers only to dismantle them a short (in Parliamentary terms) time later ?

He only people setting up administrative barriers to people in Scotland being in the EU would be the Scottish people who vote yes.

There are no barrier s being created by anyone else, no one else is changing anything.

Boris loves you, for extending the stereotype.

[eFestivals]

a) I ain't a cybernat; and

b ) I thought this was the cybernats trick

Yours as well. Its what you've done.

[LJS]

I've just had the pleasure of a UKIP party political broadcast.

It finished "we believe the best people to run the UK are the British people themselves".

Does that ring any bells, yes-ers?

No, not really, Neil.

I do not wish to leave the EU, we do not oppose immigration & we believe the best people to run Scotland are the people who live in Scotland not the people who are Scottish. And you know what - that even includes the 450,000 English people who live here. And i believe they & the thousands of people from around he world who live in Scotland have more right to decide its future than Billy Connelly or Sean Connery, or my brother who has lived in England since 1968.

You have been told repeatedly by every Scot on here that we are not like Ukip in any way but yet again you continue to bang on & on with the same old pish.

You hate everything that Ukip stands for. So do I. You should understand that any attempt to link what I believe in with Ukip & how they campaign, what they believe in or anything to do with them will be taken by me as a personal insult.

[eFestivals]

You have never got anything wrong in this entire debate, have you?

I'd never claim perfection, and you're more than welcome to call me an idjut any time I am.

If those spouting idiocy are left thinking they're smart, that does no one any good.

[LJS]

I'd never claim perfection, and you're more than welcome to call me an idjut any time I am.

If those spouting idiocy are left thinking they're smart, that does no one any good.

if you are trying to speak Scots it is "eejit" not "idjut" (i think the Irish would claim it too- but then we are all Celts together)

[Buff124]

Rum business, all this hypothesising

[Buff124]

if you are trying to speak Scots it is "eejit" not "idjut" (i think the Irish would claim it too- but then we are all Celts together)

..and Picts