A letter to the Electoral Commission
FAO John McCormick
Last week you were widely quoted in the press on the subject of voters being informed in advance by both parties in the independence debate of the repercussions of their respective positions winning the vote. For example, your press release stated:
“The Commission has therefore recommended that the UK and Scottish Governments should clarify what process will follow the referendum, for either outcome, so that people have that information before they vote.”
Although your words seem clear to me, they seem not to have been understood by the No campaign. Ruth Davidson and Alistair Darling, for example, have both in recent days indicated their refusal to detail any proposed new devolution settlement, should Scotland reject independence, until AFTER the referendum.
Ms Davidson went so far as to suggest in one TV interview that she thought your comments meant people were unsure whether there would still be a UK Prime Minister after a No vote, and whether UK laws would still apply. As it appears extremely obvious that the “default” position in the event of a No vote would be that everything stayed the same as it is now, it seems unlikely that those were in fact the questions your respondents were asking.
But as we were not privy to your testing, we don’t know specifically which information voters were requesting be made available to them. I wonder, then, if it might be possible for you to issue some clarification on the matter, at least in broad terms.
A great many members of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments were extremely vociferous before the publication of your report in insisting that its recommendations be followed in full by all sides. It would perhaps therefore be valuable if you could be more specific about what sort of information your quote above referred to.
Thanking you in advance,
Rev. Stuart Campbell
———————————–
Will be interesting to see if they respond and address these issues.
Hmmm…I’ll be watching this space
Why is my Tweet no registering?
Cripes!
I wonder if all your generous benefactors realised they were funding your version of the Time Waster Letters?
Why not write to your council next complaining about your next door neighbour’s zoo…
Just as a matter of interest, do you think it entirely acceptable that folk in England should meddle with OUR referendum?
Just as a matter of interest, do you think it entirely acceptable that your party, almost in it’s entirety at the Section 30 debate, were calling for the Scottish Government to adhere to the Electoral Commission’s advice, yet those same people now refuse to abide by that same advice?
Yet another attempt by Grahamski to derail a thread onto a different subject. Too obvious. Fail.
Poor old Grumpski appears lost. Your flatulent moaning would be better served on the Daily Mail website where you can meet and greet other likeminded molluscs.
For those with the wit to realise the importance of a level playing field and holding everyone to the same standards your letters response, or indeed telling lack of one, will prove most informative Rev.
Grahamski,do you think the media in England will meddle with our referendum?
Come on Grahamski, time to show off your moth collection and get your wallet out – dig deep now !
Or maybe your just too unhappy about people living in England having an opinion. I wonder if your disgust extends to certain labour peers in the HoL ?
Hmm, unionists, happy to be a user, but not too happy to put their hands in their pocket. No surprise there then.
I wonder if the Labour Party’s benefactors would be happy about Grahamski’s time wasting here? After all, don’t they pay him to man the Scotsman’s comments 24/7? Is that not what he is paid for?
Good start to your comment Grahamski – Cripes. straight out of the comics, Dandy or Beano?
And followed by something about suburban zoos. and then a muddying question about meddling.
No comment from you on the EC’s recommendation as quoted above? Do you agree with the recommendation?
There you have:
A straightforward recommendation from the Electoral Commission.
A straightforward question to you on whether you agree with the EC recommendation.
A straight forward answer from you a possibility?
Hey, o great see’r of Falkirk,
how many blogs have you set up which now gather dust in some ignored corner of cyberspace?
how many blogs have you set up that could garner roughly £10k in donations within a day?
I note your use of the pejorative term ‘meddle’… We tend to see it as ‘shining a light on the lies, hypocrisy, spin and prounion bias’ displayed across the mainstream media.
Your fear is palpable.
hope that helps,
now back on topic… Nice work Rev. Will be an interesting response no doubt.
Mr Velofello
I accept the EC’s report and recommendations.
Strange that those who advocate Scotland remaining in the UK consider the much vaunted (by those who advocate Scotland remaining in the UK) UK Electoral Commission a waste of time and unresponsive to the concerns of the electorate. It’s certainly not a great advert for the union if even unionists are saying the union’s important institutions are crap.
Mr McHaggis
I have one blog.
It’s at: http://grahamskisreferendum.blogspot.co.uk/
You’re cordially invited to visit.
Please behave yourself if you do…
It is amazing that the No campaign made so much fuss about the S.G accepting the E.C’s recommendations, even handing in a 27,000 petition, only to disregard those very same recommendations. The rejection of spelling out what a No vote means has been emphatic by Darling and co. The silence from the media has been deafening.
@velofello
I have asked Grahamski on other blogs to answer this question:
Given that the pro-dependency parties ALL insisted that the Scottish Government accept ALL the Electoral Commission findings, SIGHT UNSEEN, does he think that following the SG’s acceptance of ALL the recommendations, the rejection of some of these EC recommendations by the pro-dependency parties is hypocritical? Still awaiting an answer, but I do not think I will get one.
It really is pointless trying to ‘discuss’ or debate anything with him
Well according to a recent interview with Mr Darling its not the job of the no campaign to make any promises on behalf of the UK government or define jointly a UK alternative for the Scottish electorate. Apparently that would be for each UK party to define and place in their separate manifestos post referendum. Hmmmmmm, does beg the question, just what are you there for? Perhaps, if he was a helpful sort of chap, he could gather the stances of the three main parties and offer them up to the Scottish electorate? Except, oh wait now…………. Labour only have plans to put together a committee on possible further powers for Holyrood, the Liberals have had multiple ongoing committees and the Conservatives are only possibly, mibbees (no promises mind) thinking about, perhaps looking at what further useless powers may be devolved.
“I accept the EC’s report and recommendations.”
Doesn’t that put you in an awfully awkward position with regards the Party you so vociferously support? Darling is saying it is NOT the job of the NO campaign to do exactly what the EC, which he’d previously lauded as the last word on the matter, said it should do.
And the rest of your party, who also previously held the EC in such high regard, are now saying that no plans for future devolution or otherwise will be announced until after the referendum.
I’d say your position, given you’re such an avid Labour activist, is difficult to maintain at best. You seem to be in opposition with the views of every elected member of your party that has cared to voice an opinion on the issue.
O/T but this is quite funny
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/scots-will-get-constitutional-right-to-blame-thatcher-2013011656398
Scots will get constitutional right to blame Thatcher
Cripes, yaroo, I say, all you chaps over at the fourth form remove had better watch out dontcher know. Those pesky Cybernat fellows over at the Wingy thingy are getting themselves organised. Better get the fifth Together to stop their little game.
Hoy! you little oick. Nip over to Hootsmon house and see if my fag is around anywhere!
Oooer thats enough.
I’m not entirely sure what you expect the No campaign to say about ‘processes’, other than the planned UK and Scottish general elections would take place as currently scheduled. What other processes do you have in mind? I certainly wouldn’t expect to see any explicit policy commitments made by the individual parties.
“I’m not entirely sure what you expect the No campaign to say about ‘processes’, other than the planned UK and Scottish general elections would take place as currently scheduled.”
Indeed. Except that such a thing is so staggeringly obvious that it seems unlikely to have been one of the issues reported by the EC as being of serious concern to voters. They were absolutely clear that BOTH campaigns had questions to answer, which is why I’ve simply asked for more clarity on what they were. Try to keep up, Willie.
….but you expect specifics from the YES side? Even though before the Edinburgh Agreement it was glaringly obvious from every poll conducted on the matter that the MAJORITY of the electorate wanted something more than the status quo?
O great see’r of Falkirk,
I did take a quick look but only found tumbleweed, nutcases and a blogger who prefers abusive language and hatred to reasoned articles devoid of spin…
you got any predictions on the result of the referendum? <stop that sniggering at the back>
@WillieZ
I certainly wouldn’t expect to see any explicit policy commitments made by the individual parties.
I’d tend to agree. Also, for unionist parties, policies in manifestos are rarely implemented anyway; they’re just largely for show ahead of elections. Everyone knows that.
It’s a huge mistake however that the pro-union parties are not at least cobbling together a basic new mutually agreed devo package ahead of the referendum as not doing this is likely to be the major tipping factor towards a Yes vote being delivered. That is very obvious, even to prominent unionists who’ve openly stated so.
@Grahamski
Are your comments an accurate reflection of the way you address others in real life?
If you think that the letter is a waste of time could you explain why? Is it because you know the answer? If so, please tell us.
Do you think that it’s right for David Cameron to have a say in the referendum?
Have you ever considered putting a constructive argument together or is your whole political belief founded on a pathological dislike of the SNP and the wider independence movement?
I don’t expect you to answer these questions as straight answers appear to be something you have an aversion towards. Or maybe you will change your ways and answer each and every question in a considered, polite and friendly manner.
@Willie
So, what do you make of the “NO” campaign insisting that the SNP should have a policy on everything when it is NOT necessarily the SNP that will be in government after the referendum. The referendum in about CHOICE, not about every minuscule policy proposal.
To some extent I would accept why the NOers do not want to state anything that MIGHT happen to Scotland after a NO vote, but it is THEY who offered this ‘carrot’ to the Scottish voters. They can not now refuse to indicate what this ‘carrot’ will comprise. In effect they are stating that the “status quo” is NOT in fact the current status quo. So what is it?
That’s all the Scottish voters need to hear. But instead they get silence on what NO means. It certainly DOES NOT mean more of what we have now. “Jam tomorrow” promises are no longer acceptable.
@S-S
just read that link you gave about the right to blame Maggie T. Do we have to wait ’til she’s dead before we can piss on her? Personally I was going to pour a bottle of best malt over her but pass it through my kidneys first. Do I still qualify?
Stuart, I expect the concerns of voters are massively skewed to the processes should a “YES” vote win, not “NO”. I’d imagine the Electoral Commission was just being careful to be seen to be even handed in its recommendations.
Then again, if the naysayers won’t tell us officially then we should put some words in their mouths just as they would do if the shoe was on the other foot.
I seriously worry about planning remaining adevolved matter and we all know how fond of nuclear energy the westminster troika are.
@Willie Zwigerland
My understanding is that the ECs advice was directed to both the Scottish and UK govts. Only one of which is following said advice to the letter. What Mr Darling is refusing to do is define any favourable outline of future devolved powers. Mainly because no such offers currently exist jointly or separately and also because he’s quite happy painting pictures of biblical carnage should Scotland become independent.
@Willie Zwigerland
Do you have any proof for these assertions?
Are ‘don’t know’ voters not equally concerned about a future in the UK and an independent one?
You’re seriously suggesting that the EC just threw that recommendation in so as not to appear pro-Union?
@WillieZ
Stuart, I expect the concerns of voters are massively skewed to the processes should a “YES” vote win, not “NO”.
You might think that’s the case at first guess, but it’s not. People are weighing up two options as that is what is being presented to them. Remaining in the UK carries as much uncertainty as leaving it (economy, EU status, who will be in charge at number 10, what will happen to welfare, pensions, the NHS etc). Note the recent poll which showed a strong majority for Yes if the Tories are to lead the UK government again post 2015; this is a classic example of people considering what happens if Scotland remains in the union and weighing that up against independence.
Even if one of the UK parties proposes something which looks good devo-wise (which is impossible as there can’t be more meaningful devolution so long as Scots MPs sit in Westminster), what are the chances of them actually winning in 2015 so being in a position to implement that? Should the English, Welsh and N. Irish not get a vote on it too? The current set-up is already very unfair on England, with Scots blocking their favoured party’s majority, while enjoying a large degree of autonomy themselves; that can’t be pushed further. Even a party did manage to come up with a workable devo considerably more, did get to power and so was in a position to implement that, would they do it? As noted earlier, the UK electorate don’t trust Westminster parties to implement policies and this is particularly the case in Scotland where trust in Westminster is the lowest out of the whole of the UK.
Nope, it’s status quo getting progressively worse as austerity bites, most likely with a Tory Government again, or independence. That’s the choice.
The truth is that voters in Scotland are entitled to know what a No vote means. Surely it is not hard to understand this point?
“I expect the concerns of voters are massively skewed to the processes should a “YES” vote win, not “NO”. I’d imagine the Electoral Commission was just being careful to be seen to be even handed in its recommendations.”
I don’t imagine they’re inclined to lie just to spare people’s feelings. If they are, they shouldn’t be in the job. But I’m sure we’ll find out in their reply. They didn’t say the concerns were equal, merely that they existed on both sides.
I believe the concerns from the devo-max supporters will be predominantly centred on the consequences of a No vote. And bear in mind how large a proportion of the population appear to be or have been devo-max supporters.
From the point of view of a devo-max supporter, they sort of know what a Yes entails. It delivers everything they wanted, but it goes a bit further than they have felt comfortable with.
They need to know what a No entails. If they reject the offer of “all and more”, how much of what they want are they actually likely to get? The answer, “vote No and then we’ll maybe tell you” goes nowhere near to address the issue.
Willie, I can’t believe you don’t realise this.
Have you seen this Stu.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm
Why do the Unionist trolls always disappear when asked questions?
@Keef
I’m sure that the BBC will run with that as it’s headline article today.
Seriously Cuphook?
What does remaining part of the union mean to the Scottish electorate?
Don’t know about anyone else, but if I was either undecided or a devo max adherent and nobody was willing to give me a straight answer to that straight question, I’d be inclined to think they’re not being entirely honest with me on the state of our union.
This really isn’t about party politics. We’re already well aware that the UK has been poorly run for decades by both parties concerned and is basically an economic and socially unjust shambles. A shambles lorded over by the rich and powerful, political elites who frankly don’t give a flyin’……. about who’s starving or freezing to death in any given part of ‘their’ sceptred isle. What the electorate of Scotland would kindly like to know of either the Westminster parliament or the no campaign is basically why should we stay and what future vision do you offer?
Do the no camp or their masters actually have a plan to bring any democratic balance or prosperity to the UK??? We’ve seen how well the SG have coped with pocket money over the past five years, they’ve consistently managed to outperform Westminster in governance, creating near unheard of popularity and trust for a sitting party of government. Their only problem has been converting this popularity and trust into a vote for independence. So taking this into consideration would it be too much for the undecided or the devo max voter to expect an answer from a government and unionist parties they’ve placed their trust in for so long?
Well if there is nothing else on offer, where do they go?
That’s been around a while now. It’s usually dismissed as “just some bloke’s personal opinion”.
morag,
lots of people pick for the middle option when faced with three choices in an opinion poll, doesn’t translate for a massive demand from the scottish public for yet another round of constitutional upheaval in the form of Devo-Max.
Scottish skier has listed all the problems with going down that route.
For the ordinary punter who doesn’t eat, sleep and drink every little thing about Scottish independence it’s largely irrelevant.
Willie, you seem to have appointed yourself the judge of what’s relevant or important to Scottish voters. I think that’s quite presumptious.
The fact is that repeated opinion polls have indicated strong support for more powers for the Scottish parliament. You seem to dismiss that as just “people picking the middle option”, but that’s disingenuous in the extreme.
The unionist parties are all over the place on whether there will be any further powers for the Scottish parliament after a No vote. Sometimes Calman is a line in the sand, sometimes all sorts of goodies are being hinted at. This is not good enough.
I maintain that this is exactly what the EC was talking about, at least as much as it was talking about fuller details of an independent Scotland. If in fact there will be nothing more than Calman, voters are entitled to be told that. If on the other hand there will be further offers, they are also entitled to be told that too.
The uninost parties are trying to foll the electorate into voting No, by hinting at future goodies they almost certainly have neither the intention nor the ability to deliver. This is not in any way complying with the EC recommendations.
The passage from the EC press release clearly refers to the Scottish and UK governments, not the Yes and No campaigns. Darling is right on this one.
Morag’s right, and another thing that people want to know is what the exact position is on the EU. We have the Yes camp saying we’ll be able to negotiate from within the EU since we won’t actually be independent until 2016, and we have the No camp saying… Well, it’s not entirely clear. Have they accepted the point we’ll be welcomed into the EU or haven’t they? Are they saying we’ll be kicked out and made to apply from square one and be out of the EU for years, or are they just nitpicking over the difference between “automatic membership” and “negotiate our continued membership”?
We don’t know who’s right without asking the EU to comment on the specific scenario. Unfortunately, the only people who can do that – the UK government – are the ones refusing to cooperate, despite telling us beforehand that the EC’s advice was, in fact, a RULING, to which everyone must adhere. Except them, apparently.
@Willie Zwigerland
The Electoral Commission didn’t mean what it said and people who indicate support for further devolution don’t really mean it.
Seriously, you’re just making things up.
@Keef
no.
Nice find though. Definitely a document worth keeping handy.
@WillieZ
For the ordinary punter who doesn’t eat, sleep and drink every little thing about Scottish independence it’s largely irrelevant.
Yes, who looks like winning the next UK GE is probably the most crucial thing to the average Joe. If it’s the Tories, Scotland’s off. If it’s Labour, a close run thing according to polls.
Although the unionist parties are doing themselves no favours by not putting forward a concrete devo plan ahead of the referendum; if they want to keep Scotland in the union that is anyway. If they manage to pull off a narrow no vote, the Scots will just elect the SNP again, possibly at both Westminster in addition to Holyrood (SNP remain comfortably ahead for both in polls) to keep fighting the case for more powers. If that does not work, it’ll be independence.
This will not go away until it’s resolved. The status quo will not resolve it. For 60+ years the status quo has not been sufficient, hence two devolution referenda both yielding yes votes with the majority for that increasing massively second time around. Alongside that we have the domestic vote in Scotland climbing steadily over that period to go above 51% for parties advocating independence in May 2011, with no decline in this vote share since then.
The UK will need to evolve to accommodate Scotland’s desire for additional autonomy or it will come to an end. I just can’t see it changing to do that; there is no will as the current system suits Labour and the Tories just fine. In addition, the Tories appear to no longer care really whether Scotland stays or goes, if not actually encouraging Scotland’s departure. From Ed’s One Nation Tory stuff, it would seem he no longer cares either. This is confirmed by the reluctance of the UK big two to try and keep Scotland in the union by putting together a new constitutional proposal. Instead, they’re willing to accept the end of Britain in the near future. After all, to try and stop it would be to reduce their own power in largest part [England], e.g. by setting up a federation with PR-type home national [one for England too] and UK federal parliaments.
The blunt truth I reckon is that the No campaign are attempting to do another 1979 hatchet job on the people of Scotland. Unless we get a detailed idea of what a No vote means them it is difficult to come to any other conclusion.
The passage from the EC press release clearly refers to the Scottish and UK governments, not the Yes and No campaigns. Darling is right on this one.
That’s quite true, and rightly so. The Yes and No campaigns have no power to deliver anything. Only the elected governments can do that.
The thing is, if there is a No vote, the Scottish government has no power to promise anything. All it can do is say, if you vote No, you’ll get whatever Westminster decides to give you. Better go ask them what that is.
“The passage from the EC press release clearly refers to the Scottish and UK governments, not the Yes and No campaigns.”
So why was Blair Jenkins being grilled about it?
If I was in Mr Darling’s shoes I would be very reluctant to spell out what a Yes vote would preface, because I would have to explain to our English, Welsh and NI neighbours that the rUK economy would have to continue without the Scottish contribution to the Westminster coffers.
Fracking the English countryside and tapping the Severn bore won’t produce enough energy without a serious expansion of and dependence on other energy sources.
I would have to explain how the Westminster parliament (listed 19th in the Economist Democracy index in 2010 – so much for the mother of parliaments) which has evolved as an organisation to run an empire, has to finally face reality and become a more representative legislature to its new constituency.
It is therefore important that while the Yes campaign commits itself to presenting a positive message about self determination it should be crystal clear that a No vote will ensure the continuation of an inadequate and unrepresentative form of parliamentary government, disastrous economic policy, increasing inequality and the most destructive approach to the health and welfare of our citizens that any of us have seen.
Mr Daniel
You seem confused.
And no wonder, the party you support, the SNP used to claim that a separate Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU with no need for negotiations. They even claimed that they had legal advice to support that claim.
Then they claimed that it wouldn’t be automatic and there would need to be negotiations but still they claimed they had legal advice to back up that claim.
Then they admitted they had no legal advice to back up their claims but claimed they would be meeting the EU to discuss matters and anyway they could negotiate with the EU while still part of the UK.
Then the EU told them they wouldn’t meet them because they were part of a member state and they only negotiate with member states.
So what’s all this stuff the SNP are claiming about negotiating while still part of the UK?
It’s as if they’re making this stuff up as they go along…
@Grahamski
Did you not bother to read the UK parliamentary publication which Keef linked to? It would be good to have a clear analysis of it from you.
‘So what’s all this stuff the SNP are claiming about negotiating while still part of the UK?’
9. It follows that negotiations on the terms of Scottish membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence. We do not know at this stage how long that period would be; complicated negotiations between Edinburgh and London would have to take place; but we may guess that not more than one or two years be needed.
Graham Avery, Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission
Well, it certainly looks like someone makes it up as they go along.
No doubt Willie Z will be along soon to claim that that statement clearly means the opposite.
““I expect the concerns of voters are massively skewed to the processes should a “YES” vote win, not “NO”. I’”
I really doubt that. I’m sure many voters have concerns about independence itself, along the lines of “will we be better off”, “how will it affect me”, “what will happen to x,y and z”, “will it be worth the upheaval”? Yes voters may share some of those concerns. I know, even as a very definite Yes voter I sometimes wake up in one of those night panics wondering if I’m on the right side!
That’s a normal, human reaction to change. You deal with it by looking at, or thinking again about, the pros and cons and likelihoods and confirming to yourself that, yes, it’s the better of the two options. For me, it wins by a long way: all the arguments are on the Yes side while there appear to be none on the No side. Some of us were devo-max simply because it took away the appearance of radical change, and was something in which there was practically no heat to the debate, and we would always have been pro-independence once we looked at the full facts.
But when it comes to the actual vote, the Yes or the No, I have no uncertainty at all about what a Yes means. It means independence, and finally becoming the same as every other country. The uncertainties about that are exactly the same uncertainties as any other independent country has, theUKincluded. It is perfectly clear all powers and sovereignty will transfer fromWestminsterto Holyrood – something that will be a lot more efficient and less complex than devolution!
What a No means I have absolutely no idea. Going by statements from those on the No side it could mean anything from Holyrood being abolished to full federalism or anything at all in between. I suspect it simply means “no change to the constitution beyond the Scotland Act” but what does that mean for Barnett? How will continuing Tory privatization affect things? Will we end up outside the EU? There is huge uncertainty even to “no change to the constitution”. However it would be a huge step forward if the No parties at least state that’s what a No means.
I responded to the Scottish governments consultation back last year when I was very much in the devo-max camp, and my response was about the uncertainty of what a No means, and that for the vote to be fair and democratic, the electorate had to know what it means. So I’d be surprised if I was the only one with that concern.
@cuphook.
This Grahamski chap is utterly indoctrinated and is unable, cannot, will not or is just plain incapable of listening to anything that challenges his perception.
He is an unthinking BritNAT of the worst sort and clearly doesn’t give a damn about debate.
Politically he is sick…. very.
Sorry, bit of an essay there!
Certain people are going to get a bit of a shock when Dave releases the EU’s conclusion on Scotland and the rUK’s respective positions post dissolution of the treaty of union ahead of the referendum.
It’s like they can’t see they’re being set up for one hell of a fall, which I find astonishing.
Personally, I feel being chucked out of the EU might be not such a bad thing as Scotland would be debt-free given the final decision was that it was not a successor state. Pity that won’t happen. But then you can’t have your cake and eat it.
“The passage from the EC press release clearly refers to the Scottish and UK governments, not the Yes and No campaigns.”
So why was Blair Jenkins being grilled about it?
I don’t know what ‘grilling’ you’re referring to.
“the SNP used to claim that a separate Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU with no need for negotiations”
[citation required]
“still they claimed they had legal advice to back up that claim”
[citation required]
“Then they admitted they had no legal advice to back up their claims but claimed they would be meeting the EU to discuss matters and anyway they could negotiate with the EU while still part of the UK.”
[citation required]
Mr Avery’s report seemed quite conclusive and in almost full agreement with the Scottish Governments consistent position. There is absolutely nothing preventing Westminster from getting out the old notepaper and putting in a formal request for a ruling right now. In fact if they are right in their own consistent line then one of the Scottish Governments flagship policies bites the dust, the FM gets dragged through the press backwards and Labour looks forwards to many years of rubbing the SNPs face in it all.
On the other hand if, as we suspect, Westminster has been needlessly scaremongering and using its media connections to relentlessly attack the FM, Scottish Government and the independence movement over this issue, this may just explain his lack of haste. I mean at that point the PM, Westminster and about 90% of the UK press would be severely compromised.
“The passage from the EC press release clearly refers to the Scottish and UK governments, not the Yes and No campaigns.”
So why was Blair Jenkins being grilled about it?
I don’t know what ‘grilling’ you’re referring to.
“the SNP used to claim that a separate Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU with no need for negotiations”
What really bugs me is that Johann Lamont gets away with making this kind of assertion (no actually, lets call it what it is – a lie) every week in FMQs. Despite even my dodgy memory being able to recall Scottish government documents from years ago that said we’d have to negotiate. All of them run by legal advisers. I also remember endless FMQ discussions with Salmond patiently pointing out that yes, we would have to negotiate with the EU – and we would want to do so – but it will happen from within the EU.
Not a thing has changed in what the Scottish government have said and are saying, yet Labour and the media are allowed to get away with constantly repeating accusations of lying, when it’s patently them doing the lying. I’ve moved from anger to disbelief to utter boredom on the issue in the main. But when I see Lamont do it yet again on FMQ it makes me want to chuck my laptop out the window.
scottish_skier- How long do you reckon the UK gov can hold out not asking the EU for their formal opinion? Obviously the BBC will put them under no pressure but if they wait too long they could torpedo ‘Better Together’ by obfuscating so much as to be seen as scared of the truth. Or is that maybe what they want 😉
scottish_skier
Your theory about the Tories wanfing, and helping towards, independence is attractive (for obvious reasons), but I’m not yet convinced it is no more than a case of arrogance, ignorance and complacency in expecting a ‘No’ vote.
Tonight’s Question Time from Stirling
Mickey Moore (Lib Dems)
Huzma Yousaf (SNP)
Lord Falconer (Lab)
Mary McLeod (Tory MP for Brentford & Isleworth)
Brian Soutar (Stagecoach boss)
Nae doubt given his famous referendum campaign and the Gay Marriage Vote this week….
Tomorrow’s Hootsman headline
‘Major SNP Donor against Gay Marriage’
Even though we know the SNP Govt is bringing forward Gay Marriage legislation you just know the next couple of days assorted empty vessels on the Labour front bench will be urging the SNp to distance itself/expel this bigot…..even though 7 of the 22 Labour No’s on Tuesday were Scottish MP’s
O/T but typical BBC even when we do have a question time it will be dominated by UK/English topics and supporters.
Tonight’s Question Time from Stirling
Mickey Moore (Lib Dems) OK
Huzma Yousaf (SNP) OK
Lord Falconer (Lab) Who ???
Mary McLeod (Tory MP for Brentford & Isleworth) Who?????
Brian Soutar (Stagecoach boss) OK
Where is johann?? In her bunker??
Last night I got the support of Braco and Christian Wright, for a citizen’s petition aimed at highlighting the pro-union media bias threatening the democratic process of the referendum. Along with Bill C and myself, we felt that this would be a way of denting the alleged credibility of the pro-unionist media.
As I am something of an essentialist, I do love efficiency. For that reason, I think the reluctance/refusal of the unionist parties to comply with the EC, should also be included in the petition as a concern. Does anyone else feel this would be a good idea?
@Jack.
I suspect they’ve already asked. It may take some time for the EU to give a full response as it needs to consult member states; Spain will look for some reassurance etc.
Of course the UK government will ask/will have asked as they need to know the status of the rUK never mind Scotland. After all ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and N. Ireland’ will cease to exist in name, population, territory, MEPs allocation, even flag… Dave couldn’t head over to EU summits and sit down in front of a union jack talking about the UKoGB like nothing had happened; people would snigger if not openly burst out laughing.
What the Scottish Government can do is once they believe the UK government have received said info, if Dave is reluctant to share, then they FOI for it. What could Westminster do then? If they block the FOI that will look really, really bad as it means they are hiding something and presumably it’s good news for Scotland. Nope, better Dave releases it at just the right moment to make Darling look like an idiot and assure the Scots a Yes is not so scary.
It will come out one way or another, probably sooner than later.
Remember, there are 60,000 EU citizens living here. Take for Example TOTAL’s office up in Aberdeen; every third voice is French. I imagine they might be slightly concerned about whether they need to shut down operations as they can’t operate in a Scotland suddenly cast out of the EU never mind potentially having to shut off the gas to England (due to sudden trade barriers), plunging large swathes of it into the cold and/or dark. If you think about the ramifications even a little bit, you can see how the ‘you’ll get chucked out’ line is the biggest pile of dung going. When this becomes completely clear, those spreading said dung will be really deep in it, i.e. better together.
Dave’s EU referendum is only the first torpedo on this theme.
@craig
Looks like the production staff have decided the gay marriage vote will play big for their UK audience ………the Tory seems to work for Maria Miller who led the debate and well Soutar for his views I reckon, and of course Falconer, Blair’s big pal, no real interest it seems to focus on Scotland
Scottish skier
I think your point that if an independent Scotland is not a successor state then Scotland will not take over any of the UK debt ie we will start without a debt of £ 100 Billion deserves more emphasis. Sure we will not be able to argue for a share of UK assets other than those already in Scottish territory ( it is a bit unfortunate that some of the ones we have – like Trident – we do not want) but for a country with no Government debt and priceless energy assets borrowing at very favourable rates will be no problem. This will spark off an employment boom as we start to manufacture naval and other assets which we decide we require.
In these circumstances we could be relaxed about whether in or out of europe but as Scotland would still be in the UK until 2016, any negotiations with the EU until that time are obviously from a position within the EU. I have more justification for believing from all I have read and heard and from my 30 years of living on mainland Europe that the EU would welcome Scotland than the nay sayers, Barosso et al not withstanding, have for claiming that Scotland would not be wanted.
scottish_skier: Yes it’s highly likely the UK gov know exactly what will happen, it is too important a question to leave to chance. I honestly fail to see how to the dung spreading over the EU will cause anything but desolation for the No campaign. Surely anyone who knows a little about EU law will realise in the absence of explicit treaty provisions, a decision will be made in the spirit of previous treaties- undeniably one which ensures stability and not one which inexplicably throws millions of people out of the EU. The fact that the No camp have already spent so much airtime hyperventilating over this means a fatal credibility loss is inevitable when the news comes. Not for Dave and co, their fate will decided by England in 2015, but for Darling who will be left up the creek by the Tories.
“the SNP used to claim that a separate Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU with no need for negotiations”
[citation required]
From Scottish Parliament archive:
Irene Oldfather: The minister said that Scotland would automatically become a member of the European Union.
Nicola Sturgeon: Indeed I did.
Irene Oldfather: You would not require to renegotiate.
Nicola Sturgeon: No.
“Then they admitted they had no legal advice to back up their claims but claimed they would be meeting the EU to discuss matters and anyway they could negotiate with the EU while still part of the UK.”
[citation required]
Ms Sturgeon’s statement to Holyrood: “..its view that an independent Scotland will continue in membership of the European Union but has not sought specific legal advice. “
@Jack
Aye. Scottish Labour are left with no choice but to ‘trust’ the Tories in helping then keep the UK together as it’s the Tories in charge; Labour are powerless.
Would you trust the Tories to help you keep up to 59 non Tory MPs in Westminster, particularly given that if the Tories do manage to pull off a win or lead the next UK government those 59 MPs are going to vanish anyway according to polls?
I think I should emphasise that it’s not specifically the Tories as a whole want Scotland gone (although plenty of them do personally down in the shires), it’s just they’ve not got a lot of choice. One of the main reasons we are facing a referendum is the fact that they’re back. If they were in majority there would not be the slightest doubt about the outcome of 2014; we’d be sailing towards a big yes in all the polls. That’s exactly the position Scotland was in last time the Tories were in office and why Labour and the Libs refused to put independence as an option in the 1997 referendum. If the Tories are to continue to govern the UK it must be without Scotland. Dave knows it and Alex knows it. Dave may not like it (I understand George is quite happy though), but there’s feck all he can do as of course his party wants to win. Best make the most of a bad situation.
Notice the increasing hysteria in Scottish Labour? Why, when the polls appear to show we’d get a no vote? Because those with half a brain are quite aware they are at the mercy of the Tories and in all probability are going to be shafted. But as Willie would say ‘Whit can ye dae?’
I waited patiently for a poll asking if people would vote for independence if the Tories were going to win again. When it came along it gave exactly the answer expected, i.e. a strong majority for independence and that during what seem to be the peak scores for ‘No’ in polls. There will have been other polls; a lot of them, asking all sorts of hypothetical questions like this. We don’t get to see these, but Dave, Alex and Darling will. They will not make for good reading if you support the union.
OT.
I have just come in and find on attempting to view FMQs on Democracy Live that it does not not get past the first minute. BBC gremlins again?
“[citation required]”
You missed one.
It has been mentioned previously, that ‘technically’ the electoral commission asked the respective governments to outline events following the vote. However, having said that, is it not encumbent upon the NO (bitter together) campaign, to outline just what people will be voting for, if they vote NO??
In this referendum there will be two choices. The YES campaign have outlined what will happen if I vote YES, but the NO (bitter together) campaign have yet to explain what I might be voting for if I vote NO.
You see, even if we ignore the fact that the UK Government have NOT adhered to the recommendations of the electoral commission, that fact remains, that if the NO campaign want my vote in 2014, they will need to explain what it will mean, in just as much detail as the YES campaign have already done.
At present, vote YES, and you know what will happen. Vote NO, and you have absolutely no idea what will happen.
This is a serious deficiency on the part of the NO campaign, and something which I believe can be milked endlessly.
@Grahamski
Why are you so selective about answering questions? If you want a debate it requires you to engage in it, not to run away when the questions are too difficult.
Can I expect you to answer any questions that I’ve asked you in this thread? All of them would be good.
Cracking wee pic on Radical Independence Conference’s facebook page….
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=476414669086423&set=a.364562403604984.82285.344965625564662&type=1&theater
Mr cuphook
“Did you not bother to read the UK parliamentary publication whichKeef linked to?”
I did – it was a paper presented to a UK parliament committee from an academic.
His opinion is interesting but irrelevant.
The EU membership issue really is farcical:
The Unionists, and the UK government, by implication or by direct statements,demanded that the Scottish government should accept the Electoral Commission (EC) recommendations.
The EC issued their report and called on the two governments to make clear their policies on the Yes or No outcome of the referendum.
The Scottish government agrees to this request, the UK government declines.
Meantime the European Community declines to advise on whether Scotland and her 5 million EU citizens, having voted for independence, would continue to be a member of the EU.
The Scottish government has clearly indicated its wish for an independent Scotland to continue as a member of the EU.
The UK government on the other hand has decided upon a referendum on whether to continue as an EU member.
In reality what would cause the EU to expel 5 million of its citizens? Non-compliance with what?… anything come to mind anyone?
Would the EU really expel a nation of 5 million citizens because they voted for independence?
I think the EU sitting on its hands over this is unrealistic. They are behaving like a golf club/bowling club committee wrangling over procedure. The member countries of the EU should be pressing the EU beaurocrats to face reality and state its position.
ireland has spoken, albiet not necessarily voluntarily, and the sky hasn’t fallen.
@Grahamski
An academic and Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission – who also happens to share the same opinion as the SNP.
I’m guessing that he knows more about the subject than yourself. You clearly disagree with his thoughts on the matter so it would help if you let us know whose opinion it is which informs your own view and why?
And there is clearly no Mr in front of Cuphook so you can drop the condescension.
Mr Cuphook
I mean no disrespect by using Mr.
Anyhoo, this from The Times:
12 January 2013
“An academic hailed by the SNP as supporting their claim that an independent Scotland would enjoy automatic membership of the EU does not represent the views of Brussels, the European Commission president has said.José Manuel Barroso said that while Graham Avery was entitled to his “personal opinion”, it was not that of the commission.”
So there you have it: who to believe, the President of the EU Commission or a retired official who held an honorary title…
Avery was plainly giving a personal opinion which Barroso has not countered, in fact he has stated on numerous occassions that he has not given an opinion on Scotland, personal or official. Why pretend otherwise?
Which leaves my question unanswered. You believe Avery and the SNP to be wrong. Why, and based on whose opinion?
Your continued use of Mr when I asked you to drop it is petty and disrespectful – as well you know.
Why on earth do you keep rising to this Grahamski? It, (gender neutral), set-out to knacker any developing threads a time long ago, when the Scotsman was as yet still a semblance of a paper and it’s trying it again on here. If memory serves me right an appearance was also made on NNS. It’s part of a merry gang of nutters. Just don’t feed it.
@Barontorc
Call it research. I’m curious about the self-delusion prevelant in the No campaign.
The poster formerly known as Mr Cuphook,
I believe Mr Avery is wrong because his views are contrary to the views expressed by every current EU official and (non-nationalist) politician I’ve seen.
@Grahamski
I’ll ignore the fact that you’re a disrespectful arse and ask again.
Who in the EU has given an opinion on Scotland and why do you believe that particular opinion? Barroso hasn’t, even though you try to pretend otherwise. I have an email from the President’s office saying that no position has been stated.
And it’s hardly news that you believe Unionist politicians over Nationalist ones so that’s just a silly argument.
There’s probably about as many people who would be swayed to voting for independence as there are who would be swayed the other way at the prospect of Scotland being forcibly removed from the EU.
I say forcibly removed as that’s what it would require, i.e. the EU would need to find all those British passport holders who were ‘Scots’ so they could remove their European passport/citizenship. For this they’d need to set certain criteria as to who was a Scot and who was not. They’d then have to send out the police (presumably some sort of invasion force as I can’t see the Scots police doing this) to try and forcibly remove passports from those people. Of course this would likely require lots of warrants and court cases for every individual disputing the removal of their European citizenship. For example, an Englishman living in Scotland who got his passport 5 years ago in Glasgow who voted No in the referendum might be on the list of ‘Scots’ due to his address. Maybe he was born in London but one parent was a Scot. He’d have quite a good argument about still being European.
Of course in response to this, the Scottish government could go about finding everyone in Scotland with a European passport and start evicting them; they’d not have a valid visa now would they. What if they are married or have kids with Scots though? I guess families would just be torn apart. Also, are the police going to go to Grangemouth and shut the plant down there by removing all European staff? My colleague’s wife is senior engineer on the pipeline and she’s French. They’d could then go to the Shell, TOTAL offices etc in Aberdeen and round up all the French Germans, Danes etc and send them to the airport. Ok, the UK would run out of oil and gas damn quick, crippling its economy, but hey ho, needs be. Scotland must be chucked oot!
Instantly across Europe, people who could be deemed ‘Scots’ under the decided criteria would need to be ejected too, leaving jobs and homes. Presumably the local police forces would have to eject them, although again I’m sure most cases would end up being disputed in court over who exactly was a Scot and who was not.
Then of course, were looking at up to 5.2 million cases going before the ECHR.
I suppose trade tarrifs might suddenly apply too, causing huge additional costs for European businesses operating in Scotland. Same suddenly applies for any oil, gas and power being exported by Scotland, causing terrible economic damage in surrounding countries which import that.
All very sensible of course as Scotland would need to be chucked out. It just would ok. Come on you know that needs to the case; some folk have said so which makes it true.
Hold on, this is ridiculous. What a stupid fecking idea. Christ I sound like Grahamski.
I’m gonna keep this post for repeated use —->
Folks, If Grahamski came on this thread and told me Real Madrid were going to smash Broxburn Slaughterhouse and Tannery 2nd XI Reserves Ladies 6-0 in next seasons Champions League final, I’d put my mortgage on the ladies.
If the SNP said ‘Night follows day’, Grahamski would clearly argue that this was a pompous decision of the fat egotistical curry muncher Salmondski and assert his deeply held view that quite rightly, day follows night.
He is a fantasist, a Walter Mitty, an egocentric political activist so blinded by faith he has lost all reason and sensibility. He spins like no other, trolls poorly and has all the predictive qualities and track record of mystic meg.
Ergo, If Grahamski warns that Scotland would be chucked out the EU and have to scratch and beg its way back in, its a stone-waller that won’t happen.
Trust me.
Senor Cuphook,
The President of the EU Commission has given his opinion on a newly independent country’s route into the EU.
So now we know how a newly independent country gets into the EU.
Are you really not following this?
@Grahamski
Barroso has stated that that was not an opinion on Scotland’s case. He has stated this quite clearly. As I said, I have an email from his office confirming this. You could email and get the same confirmation.
Who are the other EU officials you claim stated advice contrary to Avery’s, and why do you believe those over Avery’s?
Grahamski, who is going to remove Scotland from the EU and how exactly? I’m really quite keen to know.
We can start with defining who’s a Scot and who’s not. Any suggestions for this? Someone living in Scotland is obvious not an option (there’s a french woman making tea in my kitchen, been here 12 years for example and my neighbour comes from England). Nobody has Scottish passports so that’s out. Anyone with a British passport will still be European unless the rest of Britain gets sent out too, so that’s scuppered things somewhat. Ok, maybe Scottish parents? But what if you were born in England? Ok, so that’s a non-starter.
Who will come to remove EU citizenship from me, Lothian and Borders finest? Will they need a warrant. Who will authorise them to do this?
Come on, tell us how it would all work. Or have you not thought this through?
Mr Skier
Scotland is not currently a member of the EU.
So you’re right, it can’t be thrown out of something it’s not in.
Rev, I know that you will remove posts for trolling, but I beg you not to remove Grahamski’s deliberate trolling of Cuphook. Its pretty useful to see that hes as much a disruptive, negative, shit stirring unionist here as he is on The Scotsman forums.
Monsieur Cuphook,
“Barroso has stated that that was not an opinion on Scotland’s case.”
Not quite.
He said it was not specifically about Scotland.
He said it was about any newly independent country.
Are you really not getting this?
Grahamski says:
Mr Cuphook
I mean no disrespect by using Mr.
Anyhoo, this from The Times:
12 January 2013
“An academic hailed by the SNP as supporting their claim that an independent Scotland would enjoy automatic membership of the EU does not represent the views of Brussels, the European Commission president has said.José Manuel Barroso said that while Graham Avery was entitled to his “personal opinion”, it was not that of the commission.”
So there you have it: who to believe, the President of the EU Commission or a retired official who held an honorary title…
And this will be Mr Barroso’s decision will it?
Truth is that all sides can wheel out all the “experts” and high ranking officials they like.
The member states will decide how this pans out based solely on what Scotland is worth to them.
Based on that premise Scotland will still be in the EU 🙂
There you are, argument over. Can we move on now?
@Grahamski
I’m running with you here. Scotland’s out upon independence. The newly independent Kingdom of Britain and N. Ireland (or maybe Kingdom of England, Wales and Ireland) – flag as yet to be confirmed – is out too.
Please explain how that works in terms of removing these new countries from the EU and stripping EU citizenship from their citizens. I’m keen to know.
rabb,
the great see’r of Falkirk knows Scotland will remain in the EU
he wants Scotland to stay in the EU
he knows there is a pretty good chance the UK Government will take us out of the EU
hes shitting bricks at the prospect, but would won’t drop any particular stick to beat the SNP with
he’s taking the piss as always
he doesn’t give a shit about independence, he simply hates the SNP and everythng they do
If Labour proposed independence and the SNP opposed it, he’d support it with every fibre of his being and would, effectively be on these forums delivering the very same stuff we all believe in
He’s a nutcase
An obsessive
A ‘hate SNP at ALL costs’ tinfoil hat wearer
a sheep
a follower
a troll
The EC say this on their website:
“The research also showed that voters want factual information ahead of the referendum. In the event of a “Yes” vote there would be a range of issues to be resolved within the UK and internationally about the terms of independence.”
(my italics)
How will a YES vote affect my citizenship & Scotland’s status in the EU? Well, the EU formally offered to resolve that particular international question.
The EU just needs permission from the “member country”, the UK state, to tell us. Fine – the UK government thinks we’re entitled to know the effect a YES vote will have: they keep saying so.
The UK government insist that everyone should abide by the Electoral Commission’s advice — and now the EC have advised that we should know as much as possible what effect a YES vote will have.
It’s great that the government are keen we should know what a YES vote entails, and it’s great we can have one important question resolved with authority – straight from the horse’s mouth.
Well, I’m waiting.
@Grahamski
‘He said it was not specifically about Scotland.’ Can you supply a link to the quote?
If Barroso did indeed say this why do you believe it over the opinion given by Avery?
I’m pretty sure that this is Barroso’s opinion:
‘It is not the role of the Commission to express a position on questions of internal organisation related to the constitutional arrangements in the Member States. Concerning certain scenarios such as the separation of one part of a Member State or the creation of a new State, these would not be neutral as regards the EU Treaties. The Commission would express its opinion on the legal consequences under EU law, on request from a Member State detailing a precise scenario. Concerning the general question of the accession of States to the European Union, the Commission recalls that this must be fully in line with the rules and procedures foreseen by the EU Treaties.’
Note the word ‘foreseen’. Scotland’s scenario was not foreseen in any EU treaty.
Mr Skier,
There isn’t a newly independent UK.
The UK as member state remains.
This is a genuine question:
Barroso states that “NEW” states must apply. But Scotland is hardly a NEW state is it? It is in fact one of the oldest countries in the world. It remains a state as a partner to a Union of Parliaments, a Treaty accepted worldwide. So, Barroso can be technically quite correct, but absolutely wrong about the SPECIFIC case of Scotland, which is why he states repeatedly that he, and his officials ARE NOT referring to Scotland.
There is of course one way to put this to bed once and for all, and that is for the UK government to release the opinion they already have from the EU on Scotland’s position (of if they have not yet asked, to do so).
So, ask the direct question, get the definitive answer. What’s the problem, Dave?
Herr cuphook,
From the BBC website:
“What I (Barosso) said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country – I am not referring now to any specific one – wants to become an independent state, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules – that is obvious.”
Asked whether an independent country would have to renegotiate its terms, Mr Barroso said: “Yes.”.
When further asked whether that negotiation would be from “inside” the EU, the president responded: “We are a union of states, so if there is a new state, of course, that state has to apply for membership and negotiate the conditions with other member states.
“For European Union purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and has to negotiate with the EU.”
Mr Barroso also said that, if Scotland became independent, the rest of the UK would not have to negotiate a new position, because of the “principle of the continuity of the state”.
@McHaggis
If Falkirk votes No, does it get to stay in the EU?
My best mate is from there, is/was? a definite no voter, yet hangs his head in shame at the mince that the pro-union campaign are coming out with. I suspect in time he’ll turn and it will be the mince that did it.
He’s not the only one I’ve met of that opinion. Yup, the pro-union campaign are turning definite no voters to yes voters. How stupid and incompetent is that.
I foresee a heartbreaking episode of unrequited love between Mr Barroso and Mr Grahamski is inevitable. Popcorn time.
Mr Alpinal
“But Scotland is hardly a NEW state is it?”
It is in the terms of this debate..
What would the ‘continuing state’ of the rUK be called Grahamski?
What would it’s flag be?
Or is Dave going to go over there and sit behind his wee union flag and ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and N. Ireland’ name plate like nothing has happened.
How humiliating and embarrassing Britain’s a laughing stock in Europe already, but that would really take the biscuit.
Back in the 70’s during the campaign for a Scottish Parliament there was a trade union activist called Archie Birt who was always writing letters to the press in support of the nefarious ‘Scotland is British’ campaign; he was just an earlier version of this ‘Grahamski’ pest.
Archie Birt’s arguments were as spurious as this ‘Grahamski’ knob.
It was that rare old patriot Wendy Wood, as I recall, who said that Archie Birt was nothing more than a ”mischief maker”.
‘Grahamski’ is a mischief maker out of the same nest of vipers. Ignore him.
Mr Skier
Since it’s not going to happen it’s all a bit academic.
What did the UK change its name to when Eire left?
Probably that..
This letter is about the consequences of the most far-reaching civic decision those who vote in this referendum will ever make in their entire lives.
These good folks, earnest citizens all, have a right to know as much as possible about what the consequences of that action will be.
It is incumbent upon the principals of both campaigns to do their utmost to ensure the electorate in possession of all of the known facts before they vote.
The refusal of the NO campaign to do so evinces their contempt for the democratic process, for the Electoral Commission (whom, until a few days ago, they asserted was She who must be obeyed), and for the people of Scotland.
As others he are and elsewhere have noted, this leaves the YES camp free to define the NO outcome, since the Unionists refuse to define it themselves.
. . . .
Top of the list of consequences are further Westminster-actioned cuts, without end, into the foreseeable future, regardless of the party in power there.
There will be we know, a re-jigging of the Barnett formula leading to a substantial reduction in the block grant, further divesting Scotland of the monies needed to maintain existing services.
This will mean an end to prescriptions free at the point of service.
The end of at-home services for the elderly.
The end of free tuition for university students.
The end of free bus passes for the over-sixties.
The Unionist parties will argue a no vote gives them a mandate to implement the following:
The repatriation of devolved powers back to Westminster to neuter Nationalist power (curtailing “SNP mischief-making”) to put an end to the Scottish Question once and for all.
A vote NO will mean the effective end of the Scottish Parliament stripped of power and its diminution to a wee pretendy parliament (thus proving Billy Connolly right after all).
Scottish representation in the Westminster Parliament will be reduced to 50 MPs initially and will continue to decline as Scotland’s population continues to comprise a smaller and smaller portion of the greater English state.
Per their current existing confidential agreement, there will be concerted and coordinated efforts by Labour and the Tories to end Scotland’s status as a country within the UK, and to recast it as just other northern region of Britain.
Precedent gives us every reason to be concerned that, especially if we remain, or ever again, become uppity, Westminster may retaliate with a policy of managed decline of Scotland’s economy a la Geoffrey Howe et Liverpool during the Thatcher regime.
The unacceptable risk is that this nation will be permanently subsumed as a neglected and reviled low-opportunity Celtic backwater of a Greater England.
These are the outcomes that would likely follow a NO vote in November 2014 and it will well serve Scots to remember it.
Mr Bounds
I appreciate having to defend the least likely scenario in virtually every instance must be tiring.
However, can I humbly suggest that is no excuse for your abusive post?
The Scottish National Party, presently in power in the Scottish Government, plans on holding an referendum on the independence of Scotland from the United Kingdom, a EU member state, in late 2014. If a majority vote for independence, this will be the first time the European Union will have to deal with the breakup of any existing EU member state. There are no clear agreements or treaties covering such a scenario.
Without any formal process for handling the breakup of any member state, the European Commission has offered, if requested by a member state, to provide an official view on the EU’s position on Scottish EU membership in the event of its independence from the UK. The Scottish Government has requested that UK Prime Minister David Cameron place this request, but to date this request has not been made.
The YES campaign, which is led by Blair Jenkins, has argued that Scotland would continue as a member state following a YES vote as Scotland would remain compliant with all EU Principles as outlined in TEU Article 2 and there are no provisions to exclude a state in the existing EU agreements. During the period between a YES vote and formal independence, the Scottish Government could engage in negotiations, from within the EU, on the terms of their continuing membership in the EU. Several EU heads of state have expressed their opinion that this position is reasonable, but there has been no official comment on this view from the EU Commission. The Scottish SNP Government and the Yes Campaign have both declared that continuation of membership in the EU is their preference.
The No Campaign (Better Together), led by Alistair Darling, has argued that any vote for independence would automatically place Scotland out of the EU as a new State, and Scotland would have to renegotiate entry. Although there is no clear legal process for how this exit process for Scotland would be enacted. Comments by several EU officials and other heads of EU member states appear to echo the NO Campaign view, but again there has been no official comment from the EU Commission.
So, no official process and the only ‘team’ who can genuinely find out, choose not to. I wonder why.
Goodnight o great see’r of Falkirk…
@Grahamski
Sorry, but the statement I posted superseded that one. In fact, it was made by Mr Barroso to emphasise the fact that he was generalising and not talking about Scotland’s case.
You still haven’t answered though. Why would you believe his opinion over Avery’s?
And who are all the other ‘current EU officials’ whose views you put so much store in? What did they say and can you provide the links?
And can you point to the EU treaties which foresaw Scottish independence?
Oh it’s going to happen Grahamski, if not in 2014 then not long after. If you can’t see it, you need to read up a bit; look at the bigger picture. So far everything that was predicted ahead of devolution has come to pass. All we were waiting on was for the Tories to return. When Dave walked out into the Rose Garden with Nick, there was only one thing that was going to happen next.
(In 1927 the new treaties of union were completed, marking the start of the current phase of the union, with the new state being called ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as opposed to Ireland. To save face following this humiliation, even though Ireland was gone, the St. Patrick’s cross was kept, even though that’s not the cross of ulster.)
By the way, do you trust the Tories? Do you believe they are truly hoping to keep all those non-Tory MPs to block them again in 2015? Do you think they want to help Labour win the next election or maybe have the SNP hold the balance of power in blighty?
Never trust a Tory. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
“However, can I humbly suggest that is no excuse for your abusive post?”
wowser – I don’t think my trollometer can register such a low score… wait, wait… 0.5 out of 10 – a new record low.
stir, stir, stir then out pops self-righteous indignation. Haven’t seen such poor trolling since t’internet was but a few bulletin boards.
Grahamski makes his stand on the fact that Mr Avery’s opinion is just a personal opinion.
It is, but a very informed opinion. As things stand, there are only more or less personal opinions bandied about, some of them better informed than others. The EU has not voiced an official opinion, and will not do so until the member state (UK) asks for it. Maybe the UK gov’t have already asked for it and are waiting for an answer. Or are sitting on it, because it’s not what they wanted to hear. Who knows?
However, Mr Avery’s well-informed personal opinion seems to me to be pretty close to what will actually happen. Common sense and political pragmatism point one way only. The EU is keen to embrace all European countries and have them join. Why would they want to chuck out a newly independent, resource-rich country with a developed democracy that has actually been a member for 40 years? It just doesn’t make sense. (Except to the NO Better Together crowd.)
The EU has no “laws”, or treaties or mechanisms for the Scottish case, it’s unique. But so was the German reunification, for instance, and the EU took it in their stride. Quickly and with minimal fuss.
In case Scotland votes YES, of course there’ll need to be negotiations. Number of MEPs, Commissioners, Shengen, euro, fishing, CAP etc. but I’d think the EU would be loath to see Scotland go the way of Norway. rUK, or EWNI would also have to renegotiate… Isn’t that what David Cameron is already preparing to do?
Signor Cuphook
Why do I take the views of the present President of the EU Commission who speaks on behalf of the EU Commission and is backed by a battery of lawyers and diplomats over the personal opinion of a retired academic with an honorary title?
Oh, I don’t know…
Anyhoo, it’s been a blast and thank you for the exchange of views.
It’s past ten and time for bed.
Goodnight.
Grahamski says:
“What I (Barosso) said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country – I am not referring now to any specific one – wants to become an independent sate, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules – that is obvious” (my highlighting)
Why is anyone wasting their time with this bampot? He/she appears to completely misunderstand the most basic concepts of the independence debate. Principally, he/she appears to want to deny that Scotland is a country. Instead, he/she appears to be defining the UK as a country, rather than a political union of countries. As such, he/she is either delusional or is ignorant of the Act of Union which he/she appears to hold to so dearly.
Just tell him where to go and lets get on with debating more relevant and important issues.
Don’t feed the troll…
@Grahamski
And yet, as Barroso has repeatedly stated, he gave no opinion on Scotland’s case.
You’re a peculiar man, and display a mindset that seems to run through the No campaign. I’m so glad that you’re helping them.
I hope you manage to get a comfortable night’s sleep under the bridge.
Haw @Grahamski
AH WISNAE TALKIN ABBOT SCOTLAND OK, YA CHOOB.
@Muttley79
I actually found it quite instructive.
I’m now all out of goats.
Grahamski’s just trying to convince himself independence is not going to happen, not us.
He’s harmless enough.
The thing I find curious is Grahamski and other NO Better Together folk insisting that in the event of a YES vote, Scotland would not be a successor state re. the EU but a completely new state and therefore be thrown out of the EU, having to apply from scratch.
Do they not realise that if Scotland, indeed, was a completely new state, it’d have 0% of the UK’s assets, except those that are geographically in Scotland (such as oil and gas and WMD) and 0% of the UK’s liabilities, such as government debt.
The NO Betters Together can’t have it both ways. Either Scotland is a successor state and takes its fair share of debt, and negotiates EU terms from within, or it is not, takes no debt and negotiates from without.
Trying to dicuss our Nation’s right to independence with Grahamshit is as useless as trying to explain the colour of a rose to a blind person. Worse in fact, because he/she/it has no interest in learning.
Grahamspit is like a spoilt child who demands attention. Pay him/her/thing no heed.
I’m not sure if it would be fair to express my views on Grahamski when he’s not here. I’ll save them for next time he trolls.
Is it just me or is there a lack of manners and decorum in many of the No campaign? I’ve met a few in real life and they were just rude at the mention of Yes. Why the hostility? I’m usually quite nice to people unless they’ve proven themselves an arse.
“Is it just me or is there a lack of manners and decorum in many of the No campaign? I’ve met a few in real life and they were just rude at the mention of Yes. Why the hostility?”
Because they have to try to de-normalise the idea and make it seem ludicrous and offensive.
Yeah, I’ve been coming to that conclusion without wanting to. The dehumanising of indy supporters is part of the pattern too. It’s easier to hate a cybernat than a fellow human being – and all indy supporters are cybernats.
I just find it dispiriting at times. It does cheer me up though knowing that this approach is going to fail them.
Ah’m gettin richt brooned aff wi fowk like thon radge @Grahamski pittin wurds in ma mooth. Ah’ve nivver yince mentioned Scotland! Even thon daft Irish wummin thocht she wiz echoin ma thochts – Ah soon pit her richt tho, efter ah hud a wee keek intae yer Act o Union n that.
Actually, was it Jeff over at Better Nation who wrote the article about the good nationalist and the bad nationalist? That fits the pattern too.
Can we ask a favour of the people of France or Sweeden, to get their Governments to clarify Scotlands position with the EU? There must be plenty of countries in the EU sick of Cameron.
I have no interest in countering arguments from people like Grahamski, he could dissemble for Great Britain, (and in many regards is.)
He’s either really clever or really stupid, the kind of commentary beneath a story as above will mostly put the undecided off, they’ll look at the length of it and leave (as the actress said to the bishop.)
On the other hand, you only need to scratch the surface to see the paucity of his argument, if a person was prepared to get over that initial urge to close the window and read on even three or four comments down; they’d soon realise the truth of the situation.
I think in the end, better together will be the architects of their own downfall, abetted by people like Grahamski. The kind of hair splitting arguments they deploy will only take them so far, they are as likely to move no voters over to the yes side (or to don’t knows) as they are; to put people off reading websites like this at all.
Last night I told a a friend who was a firm ‘no’ and is now a ‘don’t know’ that I contributed my own real money to this site, he seemed surprised then asked for some links to articles, which I’m happy to send on. Turns out paying for something does lend credibility in the eyes of some, its a price I’ll pay gladly given what I believe a no vote would mean in 2014.
That is all.
Apologies but this is completely O/T
Cast your mind back to the old man pictured in the Daily Record a few weeks ago where it was claimed he was left lying cold in a trolley for 11 hours without being treated?
I had an interesting conversation this morning with a neighbour of a member of staff who works in the A&E in the Glasgow Royal and she paints a very different picture.
If true then the Daily Record failed to mention that it took the staff a number of hours to clean the old man up (he was caked in dirt some of which was his own!). They had to strip him and bathe him before they could even begin treating him. The 11 hours claimed by the Daily Record is simply not true. The staff were discusted with the Daily Record & the BBC.
As for the cold corridor he was left in. I myself was left in the very same corridor just before Christmas after being taken in by ambulance (Long story but I am fine) and let me assure you, it was anything but cold!
I can also verify that the staff (from doctors to porters) were all courteous and attentive despite it being a busy Friday night for them!
Entirely my opinion but this suggests the MSM are a bunch of scaremongering liars hell bent on destroying the reputation and confidence of their own people.
Who are the ("Tractor" - Ed)s?
I tried to read all the comments but gave up,a third of the way through,as it seemed to me that all we had was some saying all should abide by the EC,s recommendations,and I agree all should.Then we have those of the unionist persuasion making up excuses as to why the Westminster party is allowed to make the rules and then break them,the word is hypocrisy.
I have no trust in the media in Scotland they have failed to play straight with us all,in their blind obedience to the Labour party,which is just a division of the Westminster party.
Just made my third FOI request to the European Parliament asking for disclosure of all correspondance to and from the parliament from the UK government with specific regards to Scottish Independence.
Let’s hope I am third time lucky 🙂