The real threat to EU membership
Scotland’s future within (or outside) the European Union (EU) has once again hit the headlines, with the Scotsman reporting that “the European Commission has written to a House of Lords committee stating that if Scots voters back independence, existing treaties which cover the UK’s EU membership will ‘cease to apply’”.
The Scotland Office is quoted in the article as saying that Scots have the right to know the full implications for Scotland if it were to “leave the UK family”. But just before we reach the meat of this topic, it’s rather disingenuous to claim that standing on your own two feet is akin to leaving a family.
When our sons and daughters grow up and make decisions for themselves, it’s the mark of a developing, mature relationship, not of abandonment. An internationalist, co-operative Scotland would seek the same relationship, as is already shared with the other nations on the British Isles through the British-Irish Council.
Anyway, pedantry aside, we must remember that the Scotland Office’s argument should cut both ways. It looks likely that, regardless of who wins the next Westminster election, there will be a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. David Cameron, under fire from the right wing of his party and the growing prominence of UKIP, has all but promised one should the Conservatives emerge victorious; senior Labour MPs have suggested holding one and Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats promised one in their 2010 manifesto.
Opinion polls consistently show that, although the small number of Scots in each survey are more evenly divided on EU membership, a strong plurality of UK voters would vote to leave the EU in a referendum. For example, in the latest YouGov poll, this antipathy towards the EU translates into outright majorities in favour of withdrawal in the North of England and the South of England and 48% in the Midlands and Wales. This ‘cold house’ is hardly surprising, given that the UK press, whose attitudes towards Europe range from critically supportive to spluttering outrage, can hardly be described as being well-disposed towards Europe.
So, given that both major parties at Westminster would hold a referendum on EU membership after the next election and that there’s a consistent public and media majority in the UK in favour of leaving the EU, why do the No campaign continue to show their concern over Scottish EU membership? Surely it’s more at threat as part of the UK than as an independent country?
Of course, an independent Scotland would need to negotiate new terms of membership, as the Scottish Government itself says. However, it would do so from within the UK (and the EU) in the 2 years between the referendum result and the planned first elections for an independent Scottish Parliament in May 2016.
To suggest that the EU would be willing to perform an expensive and elaborate hokey-cokey, where Scotland was in, out and then in again, is ludicrous. Given the human, financial and natural resources that Scotland contributes to the EU at a time of uncertainty and financial instability across Europe, does anybody honestly expect the EU to wilfully eject a long-standing partner of almost 40 years?
Over the next 2 years, there will be attempts to obfuscate the debate by attempting to boil down 50 years of complex European treaties into doom-laden, doubt-ridden claims about Scottish membership of the EU while ignoring the very real threat posed by Westminster sabre-rattling. I hope, and believe, that the people of Scotland can see through the scaremongering and apply the common sense logic that has served us well in the past.
.
Jean Urquhart is an independent list MSP for the Highlands. A version of this piece also appears on her own blog.
Jean Urquhart should do the decent thing and leave parliament so that the SNP list seat can be given to an SNP MSP in accordance wit the will of the people who voted in the last election.
As noted before, I disagree. And I don’t think it’s a very courteous way to welcome a guest poster.
I can’t see Scotland being forced out of the EU against its will (unless the UK holds a referendum on it before 2014 and drags us out). For one thing the EU will not willingly give up on any country, particularly a country that conforms to all accession criteria and has done so for more than 40 years, and which is already a member.
Secondly, what will happen to the thousands of EU citizens living and working in Scotland whose status, all of a sudden, will become very difficult indeed if Scotland is not in the EU. This is all just Unionist scaremongering, trying to make the Scottish Government appear incompetent, which tactic surely the Scottish public is heartily sick of by now.
I agree with Stu; John Lyons, that was a very rude post to begin the thread with. Regardless of how anyone feels about Ms. Urquhart’s resignation from the SNP, she is a guest here and should enjoy the hospitality for which Scots are rightly renowned.
Welcome, Jean. WoS can occasionally produce some (over)heated debate, but the quality of the articles is very high and well worth a read. An excellent contribution to the debate from you today, thanks.
John Lyons says:
6 December, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Jean Urquhart should do the decent thing and leave parliament so that the SNP list seat can be given to an SNP MSP in accordance wit the will of the people who voted in the last election.
As a highlander who voted SNP on the list vote, I agree with John Lyons. I did not vote for an individual or an independent. I voted for a member of the SNP which is what got Jean elected. Her principles are laudable– or would be–if she was principled enough to admit that she was elected to represent the SNP and if she cannot do so, should resign.
Good point, Major Bloodnok, and one I hadn’t thought of. If there are many EU citizens living in Scotland due to free borders, it will cause repatriation problems for other EU member countries. (NB: the EU appear too be denying they sent such a letter at the moment)
In my own view, I’m agnostic about EU membership. It offered an element of protection from the ravages of Thatcherism. If we have independence, we won’t need it. And the Norwegian option might be worth consideration.
If we’re NOT the successor state, we have no debt, no deficit, no treaty obligations and a 200 mile exclusive fishing zone. Then we can reconsider what treaties we want to join. The fisheries industry could certainly do with greater protection that it received within the EU at the moment.
Frankly, I could live with that!
Groundhog Day yet again. The Scotsman should win an award for recycling the same story over and over.
‘if Scots voters back independence, existing treaties which cover the UK’s EU membership will ‘cease to apply’”.’ It will apply to the rump UK as the treaties were made by the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland and that won’t exist after Independence.
What I’m reading is that an independent Scotland will renegotiate its agreements with the EU. Well, I’d fully expect that. The needs of a small country of 5 million people with its own distinct economy will, of course, be different from those of a state of 60 million people with an economy geared largely towards the requirements of the south-east of England. It would be very strange if a country became independent and didn’t want to renegotiate its treaties. However, that is not what the Scotsman is, dishonestly, implying. It is implying that renegotiating treaties is the same thing as leaving the EU. I would think that that would be a very different process altogether.
So the rUK will still have the same number of MEPs, the same rebate etc even though it’s had a large bit of its landmass lopped off taking 8.4% of it’s population with it? Will it even be allowed to keep the union jack as its flag and the name ‘UK of GB’ to sort of pretend nothing has happened?
Seems to me an independent Scotland would negotiate its new position in the EU with the rUK doing the re-negotiating, unless I missed previously negotiated treaties between an independent Scotland and the EU.
In the end this will be a geo-political, not a “legal” decision, as the “law” in the EU is somewhat of a moveable feast! The politics of this IMHO, is that Scotland IN the EU will be a net contributor, and Germany for one, would welcome some additional support in that area. (As should the rUK! – assuming it’s still there).
In addition the vast Oil, Gas, and Renewable energy resources of Scotland will not idly be set aside by the EU members.
But in any case, the report in the Scotsman is about a letter that has not been sent, to answer a question that we do not know, to an unelected committee of the HoL whose membership is, let’s be polite, less than naturally inclined towards the Scottish Government’s position on Independence. This is such a non-story as to not even be an ink-spot in the nib of a real journalist. So, no change there then!
To think we have another 22 months of this tripe to come.
Tony
“In the end this will be a geo-political, not a “legal” decision, as the “law” in the EU is somewhat of a moveable feast!”
Precisely. No matter what any laws say, the simple reality is that if the EU wants us in we’ll be in, and if it wants us out we’ll be out. I don’t believe there’s one chance in a thousand that it wants us out, so whatever needs to happen will happen. And that will NOT be expulsion and reapplication, because that’s utterly insane on every level for all concerned.
As others have already said, anybody who thinks Scotland will be summarily ejected from the EU probably also runs from scarecrows, thinks a boogeyman lives under their bed, or is Danny Alexander.
However, unsurprisingly BBC Radio Scotland ran with this canard as their main headline this morning, their report replete with the usual “SNP spokesperson ‘insists’ that X is the case”, just to make them sound extra defensive..
Bridget Hennessey & John Lyons
I’m also a Highlander who voted SNP on the list, and did so on the basis of the SNP’s support for independence. As long as Jean Urquhart and John Finnie continue to support the SNP at Holyrood, and continue to fight for independence, I fully accept the stance they’ve taken.
They have made a sacrifice for their principles – neither of them will be on the SNP list at the next election, whether it be for a devolved or independent government.
I’m really not seeing why the EU in or out is such a crunch issue to the opposition. As Jean points out above (Welcome Jean, by the way), pretty much a majority of opinion down south is for slingin’ it’s hook. Westminster really can’t have the argument all ways. I’m with Aplinal on this anyhoo, if we want in at all, then it will be decided by geopolitics/realpolitik in the end.
Most likely a killer blow on this issue in terms of the independence debate would be for the SG to declare for an EU referendum in their white paper. Takes this argument out of the game almost entirely at that point.
I’m in the curious position of agreeing wholeheartedly with what Jean says, but also with John Lyons and Brigit Hennesy above. I don’t find it discourteous for posters who are concerned to bring up their concerns about the status of the “NATO 2”; if she’s strong willed enough to take the step of resigning, she is surely big enough to accept criticism of her actions here and elsewhere.
The status of EU citizens in a Scotland which has been denied membership is an important point, as is the one which makes clear that if we are not a successor state, then we equally should;t have ANY liability for rUK’s debts and can start with a clean slate.
I have a feeling that some in the EU and England might start to reconsider their stance over the next 24 months as these two points (and others) are debated more widely.
Realistically, there’s not a chance in hell of Scotland leaving the EU, and anybody who thinks there is clearly doesn’t understand how politics and international relations work. Everybody in the EU – particularly rUK – will lose out if Scotland leaves the EU.
However, “realistically, Scotland won’t get chucked out of the EU” and “Scotland will definitely remain a member of the EU” are two different things, and unfortunately I think the (pretty understandable) propensity of some indy campaigners to make out the latter situation is true rather than the former has played a part in allowing unionists to drag this silly business out longer than it should have been.
Regardless of the Scottish Government’s official position and whether or not we think SNP politicians have tried to be a bit too clever in how they word things, we can’t deny that there have been at least some people who have talked as if Scotland’s continuation in the EU is merely a matter of dotting an I and crossing a T, rather than the result of a negotiation process. All done with the best intentions of course, but it just gives the unionists ammunition when they can then point to Treaty X and say “ahhh, but look at this!” – saying “well yeah, but what I mean is it’s totally unrealistic to think we’ll get chucked out” when you’ve previously said “we won’t get chucked out” doesn’t look good. Besides, the next two years have to see us trusting undecided voters to be able to smell bullshit when it comes up.
(I’m not entirely sure who that’s aimed at, but it’s something I’ve been thinking ever since seeing folk tweeting about the Scotsman article.)
Incidentally, I see Jenny Marra has been tweeting about how Scotland would be forced to join the Euro (https://twitter.com/JennyMarra/status/276652118255992832). Maybe she’s too thick to understand that several EU nations have used the “joining ERM II is not mandatory” loophole to avoid this, but the alternative is she’s consciously telling porky pies in order to further the unionist cause. Perish the thought…
I welcome Jean’s contribution, but have to say some of the comments are making me nervous -In my egotistical way, I keep thinking it’s me they’re referring to. It’s quite unnerving!
With public opinion on Europe on a current downward shift, it does not seem wise for the No-campaigners to keep pressing this issue. This over-used tool in the unionist scare box could backfire big time. Which audience are they playing to exactly? It seems that certain, influential no-campaigners are still fearful of that old “independence in Europe” chestnut that was offered by the SNP many moons ago. Some ancient politicians are still fighting the 1990s battles. It may have escaped their attention, but things have moved on. Many undecided voters and devomax supporters may not be quite ready for Scottish independence just yet, but they are no longer afraid of it. Roll on 2014.
Given the amount of upheaval that has been seen in Europe (fall of communism, balkans, etc) in the time that the EU has been around and given that it has adapted to the changing circumstances each time – it has surely proven to be an organisation based on pragmatism above all else and so I can’t see why that would be abandoned in the singular case of Scotland.
This EU scare story stuff surely can’t be flogged for two years…..
The actual quote from the linked Scotsman article is:
“…the European Commission has written a letter intended for a House of Lords committee”
So the HoL hasn’t actually received a letter from the EC and in the Telegraph there is an interesting snippet about the letter which says:
“The European Commission, which has attempted to stay out of the referendum battle, denied drafting the correspondence but the Scotsman newspaper claimed to have a copy.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9726289/Scotland-would-have-to-apply-to-EU-and-lose-UKs-opt-out-after-separation.html
So it’s an unreceived letter which the EC deny writing. Odd.
“I’m in the curious position of agreeing wholeheartedly with what Jean says, but also with John Lyons and Brigit Hennesy above. I don’t find it discourteous for posters who are concerned to bring up their concerns about the status of the “NATO 2?”
It’s an ad-hominem attack. The article has absolutely nothing to do with NATO. It probably wouldn’t have seemed as bad if it hadn’t been the first comment, but either way it’s irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
@Doug
I had a quick gander at the Telegraph article and the first page of comments and gave up. My life is not worth putting through so much ignorant bile. HoHum, time for a drink.
Whenever anyone states baldly that Spain would veto Scotland’s EU membership (another old canard) my stock one word answer is “fish”. Scotland has the biggest fishery in the EU and Spain has the biggest fishing fleet. They are not going to cut themselves off from that resource, although I would expect Scotland to negotiate hard for much more favourable treatment than the UK ever did.
The Spanish are not going to say “goodbye, and thanks for all the fish”.
“My life is not worth putting through so much ignorant bile”
Just given up myself trying to debate online with what must be the only Tory in Fife.
Whats that saying about arguing with a pig?
Anyway, on the EU I’m really not that interested… as someone has said, if they want us in we’ll get in… if they don’t we won’t AND the Scottish people will likely have a say on the matter.
Further, this is a dangerous one for the no camp given the recent rise of the UKIP…
To me, its no better than a side issue in the indy debate but for some people, it seems to be centre stage.
When you think about it, the UK press en masse is against the EU and against an independent Scotland, which seems to suggest that they think that, for those of us who live on these islands, the best deal is Westminster.
Oh my god.
Rev, I fully agree that the issue of a post independence Scotland in the EU is a political decision, but there still is a legal issue here. Currently I am a citizen of the EU, with all the rights that that status gives me. I have yet to see anyone point me to the part of the Treaty of Lisbon that tells me how those rights can be removed from me. The EU has no mechanism to strip me of my EU citizenship. Remember it took two years and an international treaty just to allow Greenland to leave the EU, and they wanted to go!
I liked scottish_skier’s point that, as Scotland will have to negotiate, like as not, then the RUK will nevertheless have to re-negotiate everything, e.g. reducing the number of MEPs from 72 down to 66 (or perhaps down to nil…, steady…) but also, surely, without Scotland they can reduce their contributions to the EU coffers as well?
So getting rid of Scotland could well be portrayed as a) no more handouts for those impoverished Scottish subsidy junkies (sic) and b) a chance to re-negotiate a justifiable reduction in the RUK’s EU membership fee.
Could be a win-win scenario in the home counties…
@Tearlach
Clearly, you missed the small print which says that anyone in that situation who wants to remain an EU citizen has to be forcibly reassigned as Belgian, and suffer the opprobrium of Jeremy Clarkson for an eternity.
As we’re talking about the EU have you seen this video of a Danish(?) MEP tearing Nigel Farage a new arsehole?
Discourtesy is taking the countries democratic elections results and tossing them in the bin when it suits you.
John Park had the deceny to resign so Labour could replace him with a new list seat MSP. Jean Urquhart denies the SNP thier rightful nmber of parliamentary member and she denies me the representation I voted for.
Had she won a constinuency, where people put thier vote next to her name she could remain as an independant, but not one single person in this country voted for her. Frankly remaining in place should lead to her being charged with Fraud.
In a statement to Newsnet Scotland, the EC spokesman said: “President Barroso has been invited to contribute to the House of Lords inquiry on the economic Implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence. The President has not yet replied.
“The Commission position is well known and set out in the series of responses given to European parliamentary questions. The Commission has been very clear that we do not comment on specific situations but can only give a view in general”.
He added: “So to be clear – no reply has been decided or sent by the President yet so the Scotsman story is incorrect.”
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6388-eexclusive-scotsman-eu-membership-story-qincorrectq-says-ec
Look at the top line on page one of your passport. What does it say?
Will they all be blocked at Indy day+1? Really
I’ve been a silent reader of this blog for some time now. I turn to it when newspaper’s coverage of the Independence question depresses me totally. However, reading the articles and comments here also depresses me sometimes, because all are usually so intelligent, rational and full of common-sense that I am left wondering whether my elected representatives, and the whole of the UK press, are either complete morons or completely dishonest—not a heartening thought.
Today you have disappointed me. I guess there is a rule on sticking to a subject you chose? And stating your opinion about your own elected representative is considered an attack?
There is an anomaly with list representatives which should be looked at. They are elected almost anonymously—you never know how many you are going to get, therefore do not know who— they are elected to represent a party. If they resign as John Park did they are replaced from the list.
They are foot soldiers not elected for their own sake. Many highlanders felt disenfranchised when the 2 SNP MSP’s quit the party. Unlike Garve I didn’t vote SNP only on the independence question, (sorry), and I attacked no one, just defended John Lyons legitimate and shared point of view.If they resign from the party that they were elected to represent, they should be replaced by others on the list who can.
I am shocked at the tone of the Rev Stuart’s response. It is in itself everything it has accused me of being. I’ve been thinking about it since I commented, and I feel I have no choice but to resign from this blog.
“It’s an ad-hominem attack. The article has absolutely nothing to do with NATO. It probably wouldn’t have seemed as bad if it hadn’t been the first comment, but either way it’s irrelevant to the subject under discussion
Seems you’re being a tad precious to me; her opinion carries more weight because of her position and in the view of many she’s squatting in a seat she isn’t entitled to. Whether it’s the first post is neither here nor there.. unless of course WoS is going to become as touchy as NNS. Like it or not what she does from now on will be seen thru the lens of her actions, which many including myself and others above feel have given ammunition to the No camp and the forces of reaction.
Can we set up a new Press Complaints Commission with teeth pronto, so we can take action against the Britsman’s (nee Scotsman) dubious article?
@Luigi
With public opinion on Europe on a current downward shift, it does not seem wise for the No-campaigners to keep pressing this issue. This over-used tool in the unionist scare box could backfire big time. Which audience are they playing to exactly?
This is the point I cannot understand. Why has Ruth Davidson, in particular, made such a big fuss about the EU issue? In the last year it has become clearer and clearer that many in the Conservative Party want out of the EU altogether. Surely she has picked up on this? Why make it such a big issue in the No campaign and not be aware of the ramifications over the issue? Only this week Boris Johnson has said he thinks there should be a referendum on EU membership. It now looks like there will be a referendum on the EU in the next five years. If there is a No vote in our referendum on independence, how can the No parties in Scotland possibly campaign to withdraw from the EU after making such a fuss about it? If the No campaign get their wish and there is a no vote on independence, what happens if Scotland votes to stay in the EU and England votes to withdraw from the EU?
Here is the video where a someone asks about the letter at the EC Midday Briefing today (6th December).
He asks about the letter from the House of Lords.
The reply from the EU spokesman is that President Barroso has been invited to contribute to the HOL about the implications of Scottish independence (yes, he actually says independence, not secession or separation) but says he cannot confirm or comment on such a matter because such a letter because no letter has been sent (yet).
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/player/streaming.cfm?type=ebsvod&sid=217694
@ Jean
Thank you for allowing this article a wider audience, its good to see some common sense regarding the EU as a discussion.
It seems that Scotland making decisions on this subject is causing wide spread panic and the usual nonsense that our opponents specialise in. The standard of reporting by the BBC today has been extremely poor. I hope that Channel 4 will manage a more impartial report tonight at 7pm.
I cannot for the life of me understand why we would want to listen to some of these small minded people who cannot see life outside of the Westminster box – their track-record to date is poor and the Scottish population do not trust them to the right thing for Scotland as a nation.
Bridget,
Thanks for Sticking up for me, but don’t abandon wings. In over a year of reading this is the first time I’ve disagreed with Stu (Well actually it’s not, but it’s the first time I’ve been annoyed enough about it to feel like quitting.) I put it down to him still having the flu and my views on list seats and these two in particular being very strong. (Also I’m naturally grumpy!)
Come back tomorrow and I’m sure all will be well.
Stu,
Sorry if I was rude, but I’m not interested in anything this usurper of democracy has to say. Besides which, it’s the internet! I was very polite by normal internet standards! I guess that’s a risk with Guest authors. Please tell me tomorrows article isn’t by John Finnie!
“John Park had the deceny to resign so Labour could replace him with a new list seat MSP”
John Park changed his job. Jean Urquhart didn’t. I’ve said before that I understand and respect the argument that says she and John Finnie should have resigned, though I disagree with it. There’s a perfectly valid case to be made for it.
However, when someone has graciously contributed an excellent piece on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT to Wings Over Scotland, I consider it rude for the first comment to be a personal attack on them over an unrelated matter.
This is NOT an SNP blog, it’s a pro-independence one. Jean Urquhart is still fully committed to Scottish independence, and deserves to be treated with respect, as do all our contributors.
If you have a problem with her views on NATO or her actions with regard to the party, there are any number of avenues by which you can contact her to express your opinion, and frankly ought to have done by now, given that she resigned from the SNP a considerable number of weeks ago.
Nobody’s comment has been censored or deleted, nor will they be. But this is my site, and I damn well reserve the right to say when I think people are being discourteous. If anyone doesn’t like that, don’t let the door hit you on the backside on the way out.
Bridget,
I’d echo John’s comments; don’t let the fact that Rev. Stu occasionally goes off on one prompt you to abandon the site. In general WoS does a great job. There are many people who agree totally with where you are coming from, and I don’t think it’s inappropriate for it to be raised here at all.
On this matter I happen to agree with Jennie’s views, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the platform to put those views forward is one she shouldn’t have.
“Besides which, it’s the internet! I was very polite by normal internet standards”
As was my response. I don’t want to fall out with anyone, but I will NOT having people coming onto my site and angrily demanding freedom of speech for everyone but me.
“On this matter I happen to agree with Jennie’s views, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the platform to put those views forward is one she shouldn’t have. “
The platform to put those views forward is this site, and I get to say who stands on it. I’d have published the piece whether Jean was an independent MSP, an SNP one or not an MSP at all.
I am close to the end of my tolerance for this debate. Subsequent comments may be moved to the page they should have been posted on in the first place:
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/here-comes-some-ado/
Thank you John Lyons and Galen10 for your kind words….
Fair enough Rev. Stu, your game, your rules I guess…. taking your ball home in a fit of pique seems something of an over-reaction; perhaps Bridget was right after all!
She certainly seems a bit better balanced and pleasanter than you.
I’d have thought that people would be applauding a MSP who obviously has integrity on one of her reasons for joining a particular club which then changed one of its rules made it impossible to maintain that club membership, I wish there were lots more like her as we might have a better democracy.
I resigned from a blog once, but nobody noticed.
“taking your ball home in a fit of pique seems something of an over-reaction”
In what way have I done that? I haven’t closed down the site, I haven’t deleted or censored any comments, I haven’t banned anyone and I haven’t insulted anyone. I’ve expressed a view that I consider some commenters to be acting discourteously, and also that I won’t tolerate people laying down the law to me about how to run my own website. Bridget is so far the only person flouncing off in a huff.
Looks like the season of goodwill is kicking in again?
Thank you Jean. Good article. Don’t agree with you on NATO and voted the other way but respect your position. The Unionist angler on the EU is consistent and illogical but as ever it frighteneds the horses. As i have said any times before the EU and NATO for that matter will always obfuscate on this issue. It’s diplomacy. T,he SG should say so and simply state would the EU maker it difficult for Scotand when all sorts of weak countries have been allowed membership? I also I agree that a promise of a EU referendum post referendum would be a good idea and I suspect make Mr Fu**ing Barosso be a little more circumspect????
Rev Stu,
I have a lot of time for you and your site, and usually find myself in full agreement with the content and the folks who post here. You have however in this instance it seems to me over-reacted, or at the very least been snippy with people to the extent that one resigned from the blog. Whether it’s attributable to the ‘flu, or your perception that they were being discourteous, your reaction seemed more discourteous still, like telling them not to let the door hit them on the backside on the way out.
At the end of the day people have to feel comfortable about coming on here, even if they are disagreeing about things. I just think you could have handled it better, and have thought so a few times in the past on other posts that got a bit heated.
Like I said, your site, your rules; however people come here because it’s different from and usually better than the likes of NNS – don’t let your ability to fly off the handle make them think otherwise!
I think it is perhaps time to look beyond the NATO issue and the resignations (however strongly people feel about it). The referendum is in less than two years time, it is going to be a real struggle to win. We know that most of the media are going to be biased against the Yes campaign. This is a heartfelt plea for unity of purpose folks! 😀
@Major
Liked your comment about resigning. 😀
@John Lyons
Is it not it a little presumptious to infer that those list votes were in no way influenced by the SNP’s pre election stance on NATO that Ms Urquhart resigned over?
On topic:
There is an article on this issue at Newsnet stating that the European Commission are saying the Scotsman article is incorrect. I can only hope the Scotsman get taken to court.
“don’t let your ability to fly off the handle make them think otherwise!”
I’m still waiting to hear in what way I’ve “flown off the handle”. I’ve calmly expressed a view and clarified who sets the rules on this site: it’s me. Anything else you’re inferring is entirely your own doing.
Dear MajorBloodnok–
am so sorry no one noticed you when you resigned from a blog….. Probably it was because you didn’t flounce enough in your huff. And getting hit by the door on your way out is essential to being noticed!! Better luck next time….
And yes, Jeannie, it must be Christmas!
And Galen10, good luck…x
@Macart
I’m really not seeing why the EU in or out is such a crunch issue to the opposition
Aye, they seem blissfully unaware of this. It’s not as if you blow up if you are not in the EU. In fact, you’d probably not even notice if the government sneakily pulled the country out.
@Bridget Hennessy
As you said earlier, Bridget, this blog is frequented by bright, intelligent people and that includes yourself and John. It’s true that sometimes we have disagreements and pull each other up for being rude or using bad language, so in that sense, we self-moderate, as thankfully Stu generally doesn’t. We may disagree at times, but at the end of the day, we’re generally brothers in arms and mourn our casualties. I tend to look on it as practice for when I get abuse from the unionist side (which is getting more vitriolic by the minute).
I hope you will reconsider and continue posting comments as I was really pleased to see another female name – there aren’t that many of us posting on the site. C’mon the wimmin!
Sorry guys and girls, but there is nothing that the Rev has said or done here to argue with. This is still one of the best sites to talk about these issues in respectful debate – all of which is absent on the pro-dependency blogs and MSM.
Let’s keep a bit of perspective please.
@Bridget: “I am shocked at the tone of the Rev Stuart’s response. It is in itself everything it has accused me of being. I’ve been thinking about it since I commented, and I feel I have no choice but to resign from this blog.”
I am rather shocked at your (over)reaction as well. What exactly did Rev Stu post that ‘shocked’ you so much that you decided to post a comment saying you wee a long time lurker, and then post again to “resign” from the blog? I have sympathy with your point of view about the “NATO2” (will we start referring to this as Natogate? I do hope not.) But the article was of interest and has NOTHING to do with jean’s position on NATO.
To that extent I agree with Rev Stu that John could have been more circumspect, and should have made his feelings clear to Jean direct, or on her own blog. I did find it rather rude and useless to the issue under discussion.
Time for some quiet reflection, everyone?
“What exactly did Rev Stu post that ‘shocked’ you so much”
I’m rather curious about that too. Here are the two comments I made before Bridget said that:
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-real-threat-to-eu-membership/#comment-142122
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-real-threat-to-eu-membership/#comment-142228
I’m absolutely buggered if I can work out what’s “shocking” or constitutes “flying off the handle” in either one. Please, someone quote it back to me. Or, preferably, get back to discussing the EU.
Rev Stu: Pour yourself a wee dram and contemplate on the success of your site.
Dear All–Jeannie in particular. Thanks for the kindnesses, and major Bloodstok thank you for making me laugh. I had no intention of drawing attention to myself, I took exception to Rev. Stuart’s aggressive response to John Lyons (whose views I share), and then the most surprising, shocking (without judgement as in elevated surprise), reactions came my way. I neither flounce nor am I in a huff, the use of the term ‘resign’ from the blog was half in jest (not the leaving part) but the resigning being a reference to the ‘SNP two’. I feel more and more unsafe as this goes on. Galen10 is absolutely right in that I have been made to feel very unsafe on my first post here. I think I don’t need any more stress in my life. If anybody wants to understand what I am talking about (Aplinal) the information is already on the blog. I wish you all very well and hope to be a fellow citizen of an independent Scotland before the decade is out. Take Care all. Merry Christmas!
@Bridget
I hope my comment didn’t contribute to you feeling that way. It was intended to show that there are different views in the Highlands on this matter, not that yours was less valid than mine. It’s worth noting that some of those who voted for the SNP on the list ballot did so because of the SNP’s anti-NATO stance. Forcing Jean to resign would be disenfranchising them. Whatever this situation is, it’s not a simple good/bad one.
” I took exception to Rev. Stuart’s aggressive response”
At the risk of sounding “aggressive” again, that’s simply bollocks. Please quote me the aggressive part. I said that I didn’t think his comment was very courteous, and that was all. If THAT counts as some sort of brutish cyber-bullying now, it’s time we packed society into boxes and let the cockroaches have a go.
If it’s true that we will not automatically be admitted to the EU then that is wonderful news, so wonderful that I’m afraid it’s very unlikely to be true. Real life is not so kind – if the bastards can get you I’m afraid they usually do.
Anyway I hope that after independence we are outside the EU and I hope we all (whatever our views on the matter) campaign for no entry without a referendum. It’s an easy scenario for a referendum – surely no government can be empowered to bargain away national sovereigny? To attempt a little substance: do you believe the Kinnocks are worth <a href=”http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192894/Revealed-How-Kinnocks-enjoyed-astonishing-10m-ride-EU-gravy-train.html”>this</a> to you? And the silly Brussels parliament is entirely populated with such creatures. It makes Westminster look Spartan and constructive.
If anybody wants to understand what I am talking about (Aplinal) the information is already on the blog
At the risk of sounding obtuse (I am NOT being sarky) can you explain what you mean? I have read all the comments several times and am none the wiser. Of course I may just be thick 😉
@major bloodnok
I suppose you’ll be grinning all over your chops at being elevated to Major Bloodstok. Sook!
Dear Rev,
As a lurker on your site for some time I need to break cover due to the coverage of the Non-Letter,(that was never written or received in-response to what I don’t know), allowed by our fair and impartial national broadcaster.
I am spewin’ to put it politely, at the fact that the same recording of Ramondo Buchanan telling us fabrications and untruths,(he was obviously unaware at the time of recording),has been put out in every half-hour bulletin.
I first heard it at 6a.m.this morning, I sent in a text asking why they were putting out an UN-verified story as their top-billing but no mention or reply! I arrived home at 7p.m. and the same recording was on again!!!
It was just too much, but that feels much better getting it off my chest.
Is there a radio station that gives Scottish News without all the guff DJ commercial nonsense, if there is a station worth listening to please let us know.
Cheers Iain.
Sorry for bringing the conversation back to the topic at hand (no, not the “he said, she said” one, the EU one) but I think I’ve finally sussed why the Onionists are making such an issue of this (again!). Surely it’s just another manifestation of the “too poor, too wee, too stupid” argument? After all, it’s bad enough we’re trying to strive out on our own without the guiding hand of Westminster to keep us on the straight and narrow but to cut ourself off from the EU as well? That’s a step too far.
In terms of the whole “we’re in, we’re out, we’re shaking it all about”, the Commission seem to “imply” different things depending on who they’re speaking to. Like other posters have already said, it’ll all come down to whether the rest of the EU think it’s a good thing or a bad thing (in terms of their own self interests) for Scotland to be a member. Spain is unlikely to cut its nose off out of spite, Germany would welcome another net contributor, rUK would object (as, according to the no campaign, the English are spiteful and huffy) if they’re still members themselves so interesting times lie ahead.
1) Jean Urquhart’s article was very informative and interesting.
2) She and Mr. Finnie should have resigned their seats. At best they displayed fuzzy logic that masqueraded as principle. We can’t have people being elected for whatever Party only to have them resign from that Party because they disagree with a democratic vote for a policy change, and continue to collect wages when they are no longer prepared to represent the democratic views of the Party that put them there in the first place. It was the SNP that put them there. That and other people’s money and time. They should have moved out of the way and let in two people who were and are prepared to follow the democratic wish of the SNP delegates at their Party conference.
3) Stu. Would you consider it ‘courteous’ to allow Auld Nick himself to post on your site and welcome him as a guest poster, or would you be ‘discourteous’ and tell him to go back to Hell? Just a thought.
Don McC,
You may remember that, barely two weeks ago, Alex Salmond was being called a “liar” over the question of advice on EU membership post independence. Well, well, now we have anon-existent letter, written by a non-existent EU “official”! Someone has certainly been telling porkies, and it isn’t Alex Salmond! Apologies are due (I’m not holding my breath).
I am afraid there is a lot of precious egos on show here – well it is Scotland after all. I am a friend of Jean Urquhart and I think what she did along with John Finnie was heartfelt but wrong. Kenny MacAskill got it right. We can’t do anything about NATO unless we first achieve Independence. So it I accept the fact that resignations on a side issue is a bit of a luxury. That can be applied to bloggers too of course!
Strength to you Stuart for continuing to produce the best Indy blog on the Internet.
Second the motion for cockroaches to have a go. 😉
You lucky devil MajorBloodnok.
I’ve been blackballed from every blog I’ve tried to join so I’ve never been able to resign from one.
Great genesis of BBC Scotland story today on the phantom EC letter, based on Scotsman story:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/584941/diff/0/1
Pmcrek,
Yes, possibly, but based on my own experience, NATO had nothing to do with my vote, nor the votes of anyone else who voted SNP that I know. I do not recall Alex Salmond promoting the NATO position nor do I recall anyone in the party opposing the position at the time of the last election, so whilst I accept being in or out of NATO might matter to some, I doubt that, if the current position had been the SNP stance at the time of the election the result would be much different, and as Jean and John are the first two named highland list SNP msp’s any votes lost on the NATO issue would have resulted in Mike Mckenzie missing out. It’s fair to say then that these two seats should be returned to the party that actually won them.
@Edulis – “Kenny MacAskill got it right. We can’t do anything about NATO unless we first achieve independence”. Spot on as far as I am concerned and that goes for a whole lot more e.g. social justice, use of North Sea oil revenues, creating employment etc. etc. Jeannie is right “we are brothers in arms” (and sisters Jeannie), the one goal we all want is independence. Let’s stick to arguing with the unionists, this is too good a site for squabbling.
O/t Scotland Tonight has a business survey on independence at 10 30. Might be interesting.
Out of interest, but wouldn’t it be a little odd to want to be part of the EU if it did not want Scotland to be part of it particularly? If remaining part of it did require us to be first chucked out as members of 40 years, then be put through a gruelling re-entry process which forced us to adopt treaties to the detriment of our country, including a new currency not at a suitable time or with unwanted conditions etc…. Well, I’d venture to suggest it would be very strange to consider the EU worthy of joining and clearly not a good idea for Scotland.
It would be a bit like the attitude ‘You can’t have the £ after independence’ or ‘We’ll take shetland off you if you try to leave’. Puzzles me as to why some think this sort of stuff will encourage Scots to stick with the union rather than wish to quietly make an exit.
Nail on the head, s_s.
Maybe it would just be easier to follow the Greenland example – tell them we want to leave then let them spend the next two years trying to stop us- we’ve had plenty of practice at this, after all.
Oh dear just had a long debate on Facebook with a Unionist friend and a relative, nothing positive to offer just abuse and talking Scotland down. I think we are getting to them!
Apart from the football stuff this is the best and most informative Scottish Politics blog by miles. But nobody’s perfect
The EU stuff is irrelevant scare stories that a) is of little interest to anybody and b) will be forgotten about in a month like all the other scare stories.
My reaction to the ‘resignations’ of Finnie and Urquhart are informed by the question ‘did this hurt the cause of Scottish Independence, or hinder it’.
Given that the Unionist fraternity were all over it like a rash, and that the unionist press were already spewing a deluge of smears against the SNP in particular and the Yes movement in general, and this provided yet another arrow for them to shoot – it clearly hindered it (albeit little impact on the polls). The stupid thing is that the actual implementation of the NATO decision will ONLY be a practical issue if and when we obtain Independence, and depending on the composition of the Scottish Government thereafter. In that context resignation after defeat in a democratic vote just seems like puerile teenage politics and egotistical grandstanding.
And Yes I know it’s Stuart’s blog, and Yes he can set the rules (but been wrong tonight).
@John Lyons
The analysis is fair enough however your premise still lies on top of prose, in this case a hypothetical scenario and anecdotal evidence. Might we not say in such hypotheticals that there is no difference logically between a list MSP resigning from a party and keeping their seat and a party changing a longstanding policy after an election?
If the SNP NATO vote was taking place after Scottish independence, would the result be the same? I dinnae think so.
Welcome Jean. Though I don’t entirely share your view on Trident, I strongly approve of you following your principles. About all the faffle with the EU:
The Scottish Government is indeed going to have to write to the EU expressing concern, and the “EU Commission”, in whatever “official” form actually genuinely and legally exists such that it can make any definitive statements without full member state consultation, is going to have to make it very clear that no “official” statements exist about Scotland’s membership.
The form of separation, secession or dissolution isn’t known yet, so the most that could be given is some general statements that may, or may not, apply to the actual situation.
Meanwhile people like me – undecided about whether we want to stay in the EU or not – are getting well hacked off with the EU for leaving this situation carry on for around 11 months now, and not proactively discouraging biased media scaremongering , misrepresentation and outright lies.
In the event the EU may be desperate to keep us. We should have a referendum about membership, and may vote to leave. Their actions – and in fact inactions – make that more likely.
The Scotsman’s latest story is that Prodi said in 2004 said the European treaties will no longer apply to any part of a member state which becomes independent in its own right. Prodi’s response was to a question by Eluned Morgan to the Commission about Algeria gaining independence from France. The answer came to light again after a question by Labour’s MEP David Martin.
Original Question:
12 February 2004 P-0524/04
WRITTEN QUESTION by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission
Subject: The Constitution Answer(s)
Can the Commission confirm that, if a Member State were to divide as a result of a region democratically gaining independence, that the precedent set by Algeria would apply?
Can the Commission explain what exactly happened in the Algeria case?
Could the Commission confirm whether a newly independent region would have to leave the EU and then apply for accession afresh?
Would an application of this type require a renegotiation of the treaties at an IGC and the unanimous agreement of the 25 Member States?
Original Answer:
1 March 2004 P-0524/2004
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
The European Communities and the European Union have been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The treaties apply to the Member States (Article 299 of the EC Treaty). When a part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that state, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.
Under article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European State which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the Union. An application of this type requires, if the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously, a negotiation on an agreement between the Applicant State and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the Applicant State.
David Martin’s Question:
Parliamentary questions
25 October 2012 P-009756-12
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
David Martin (S&D)
Subject: Independent states and EU membership Answer(s)
Can the Commission confirm whether it continues to hold the view, as expressed by Romano Prodi in 2004, that ‘when a part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that state, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory’(1)?
(1) Romano Prodi on behalf of the Commission, 1 March 2004 (OJ C 84, 3.4.2004), in response to Written Question P-0524/2004.
Last updated: 30 November 2012
Barroso’s Answer:
EN
P-009756/2012
P-009862/2012
Answer given by Mr Barroso
on behalf of the Commission
(3.12.2012)
Yes. The legal context has not changed since 2004 as the Lisbon Treaty has not introduced any change in this respect. Therefore the Commission can confirm its position as expressed in 2004 in the reply to the written question P-0524/04 .
It appears that we get to keep all the fish and the oil.
DougtheDoug:
From Aug 2011 to Jul 2012, daily circulations of the following in Scotland:
Daily Telegraph – 9.8 per cent drop = 22,172 to 19,747;
The Guardian – 19.8 per cent drop = 15,480 to 12,411;
Independent – 53.7 per cent drop = 8,172 to 3,783;
The Scotsman – 14.6 per cent drop = 42,056 to 35,895;
The Times – 15.6 per cent drop = 23,775 to 20,071.
I’ve had the odd look at the Telegraph recently, and have seen some, just some, better reporting of the Scottish Independence issue. Perhaps their drop of “only” 10% compared to much bigger drops by other papers is causing them to adopt a little less of an anti-Scottish stance. They were on their way to beating the Times in Scotland, and catching up on the Scotsman!
BBC Scotlandshire has conducted a more detailed examination
http://www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/city-news/100-kiech.html
Interesting to look back at business views in 1997 before the devolution referendum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/09/0907/devolution.shtml
“76% of businesses believe a double-yes vote in Thursday’s referendum would harm the climate for business in Scotland.”
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!
“But this is my site, and I damn well reserve the right to say when I think people are being discourteous. If anyone doesn’t like that, don’t let the door hit you on the backside on the way out.”
Ooops.
Of course, the interesting thing is that a forum or blog is only as good as its posters, including them being active and – comfortable – posting in it. Yes it gets vigorous at times, but the thing about a good forum is – NOBODY owns it, but in fact everybody does.
I remember on UseNet an extremely active and, well, let’s just say vigorous, group, and it was suggested we set up a moderated version of it. So a couple of others and I took it to news.groups was it, or news.news? I forget now, and proposed it and so on. I was asked to moderate but was far too, errrrrrrrr, vigorous a poster myself so politely declined. But that moderated group only ever got about 20 postings and then ran out of steam. I wouldn’t be surprised if the original group is still going.
Mmmmm.
Thought for a moment there I’d been the victim of a mischievous hacker and been spoofed to one of the less genteel discussion groups on the interweb. Hellish weather we’ve been having….
I think the Scotmans misreporting of the facts has been influenced by their editorial and house position on Scottish Independence, the current Scottish Government and the SNP party. If that is the case they should reflect on it and take action to correct it. It is quite acceptable for them to have an editorial position and to offer an interpretation and analysis of the facts they choose to report. It is not acceptable for them to misreport the facts or to fabricate them.
I think Mr Barosso’s opinions too are more than a little coloured by his position on Spanish domestic politics. Whatever his standing and popularity as a domestic politician he clearly falls short, in this at least, of having the qualities of a statesman that his EU role requires. I would imagine that he will be assigned, pronto, some additional diplomatic staff and advisors to better inform his views and assist with their translation before his next public outing. Even so an Iberian perspective on Europes current economic crisis and future prospects should give us all an opportunity to re-assess current models of fiscal and monetary propriety and the husbandry of the national wealth and well-being and so I wait with anticipation to learn what sagely advice he has for our noble lords on the red benches when he addresses them on economic matters.
@scottish_skier
Sorry not to get back sooner skier, got in late last night and didn’t have the will to check last posts.
You know if you lined 100 people up off the street and asked them what are our trade and political links to the EU, I’m willing to bet that better than 75% would have no clue and the remaining 25% would have only a reasonable idea. I honestly think the plain fact is that most people really don’t give a monkey’s. They just know we can buy German cars, French wine, something, something, something, subsidies and grants. Something, something, something Brussels n’ courts an their all out to get us (if you read the Mail). As you say most probably wouldn’t notice if the guv sneekily pulled us out. 😉
@oldnat – I know what you are saying but the problem is that poll was pre-devolved government this poll is pre-independence (hopefully). Call Kaye is asking “is this a warning?”. Unionist propaganda will milk this until it is dry. Could be a blessing in disguise however, if it is a wake up call to the YES campaign to engage with the business community.
I do not think that for 1 minute Scotland would be accepted, into the EU when becoming Independent. We have too much of what they want, we and our resources would be an asset to them.
However, for me the question really is, do we need to have such close bonds with Europe. I suggest not. My much preferred route would be EFTA, absolutely no doubt about it.
Why would we wish to change one grasping landlord for another.
Independence should be just that, we need to be in sole charge of all we own.
It would be a kind of treachery to gain our own resources, only to hand them to others, subsequently Scots would never be able to capitalise on their own resources for the betterment of our own people.
Just think of all the things we need, well, let us just see it as “better everything”
In the Union we have been used and abused in subtle and not so subtle ways for centuries. The greed of Westminster and it’s hanger on’s are the real cause of our default with the “Union”. For if we had been more treated as a partner than a slave, the our lives would have been better, leading to little reason to go Independent.
However, the excesses of our elite must be paid for, and then some. They are detached from the harsh reality of life.
Westminster will be belittled when Scotland leaves the Union, but it has been their fault, let them weep for what they have lost.
However, we do not need to restart another Union, we need our own Independence, we need to be friendly with all nations and we will be, but through EFTA.
Here is a link to show how many times the bbc changed their story yesterday 10 times:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/584941/diff/0/1
Have sent the link to call kaye and reminded her we pay for these untruths
Would you believe that the toady (sorry, today) programme on radio 4 this AM reported that the mail was today carrying the same story!
They did so without explanation of it’s having been discredited by the EU’s denying having sent any such letter
Something I don’t get – why is the EU bending over backwards to hang onto Greece with all its problems but making noises that Scotland, with all its resources would need to leave?
Yesterday The Herald published a piecs by Martin Williams spreading the manure about the Brussles letter. He even quotes several sections and paragraphs of this non existing letter. I have written to the Herald asking them to explain how a reporter can quote from a non existing letter and asking for a retraction and an apology for misleading their readership. Keep an eye out for Porcine airships
It’s front page of the Scotsman today again (Friday). I didn’t buy it – I just saw it on the news stand at Waverly on my way somewhere (the stud farm if you must know Bridget, turkey basters akimbo).
I’ve got to say, I’m in complete agreement with Stu in regards to the first comment, as well as the subsequent over-reactions to his responses to it. Highland SNP voters are obviously entitled to their view about Jean’s decision to resign from the party (although it merely promotes the idea that list MSPs are second-class MSPs, and the logical conclusion is they should never even vote against their party in parliament), but this piece was not about the SNP or NATO – it was just a fellow independence supporter writing an excellent post about a unionist scaremongering tactic.
If the first comment on an article I had contributed to this site was just an ad hominem attack making absolutely no attempt to engage with the piece I’d just written, I’d think “why did I bother?” Consider how frustrating it is when you’re watching a TV debate and someone in the audience won’t shut up about some personal aggrievance that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that is being discussed. That’s how the first comment came across, and to a lesser extent the subsequent ones (“lesser” due to the issue having been raised).
Still, all Stu did was air his disagreement at the comment – on many (most?) other blogs (one in particular comes to mind…), the comment would just have been binned and the author given a warning about making personal attacks. People perhaps forget that this remains a personal blog, run at some personal expense by one person. We are all guests here, and like any guest, we can all be asked to leave if we overstep the mark. That Stu chooses not to do so (except in extreme circumstances) is one of the reasons this is such a good blog. But it isn’t a mutual appreciation society where everyone has the right to post free of criticism, and anyone who thinks it is should really reconsider getting involved in internet discourse, or at the very least create their own blog where they can delete any comments that disagree with them.
Incidentally, on one forum I used to moderate, making a public declaration that you were “leaving the blog” would have been the most effective way of getting yourself banned – and hilariously, it would always be met by a begging email, asking for the ban to be lifted. “I’m not playing” might have worked when we were children, but it is rightly met with derision on the internet. Kudos to all those who disagree with Stu but keep posting anyway – you’re using the internet correctly.
“I do not think that for 1 minute Scotland would be accepted, into the EU when becoming Independent. We have too much of what they want, we and our resources would be an asset to them.”
You may have missed a fairly important word out of that first sentence, Les.
@Doug Daniel
Great comment.
Your post summed up exactly what I was thinking.
Thank you… because I was losing the will to go on…
I think James Cook’s piece on the EU membership issue is actually a pretty good summary of an issue which is generating a hell of a lot more heat than light. Unlike most of us “anoraks”, the minutiae of these discussions probably seems pretty arcane and/or boring.
It is interesting that Cook’s conclusion in his piece struck a chord however:
” It is not clear whether Mr Barroso’s comments reflect his personal political position or the EC’s formal legal position. The EC refuses to publish its legal advice on an independent Scotland’s potential membership, saying it will only do so if it receives a request from a European Union member. That would mean the UK government, which refuses to make such a request, saying it has no need to consider how Scottish independence, which it opposes, would work. Perhaps more strangely the Scottish government has refused even to lobby Whitehall to ask Brussels for the advice.
I always wonder if those who say Scotland should join EFTA instead of the EU actually understand what it is membership of each organisation does and doesn’t provide. If EFTA is so great, why did the UK, Denmark, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and Finland leave it to join the EU, why is Iceland likely to leave to join the EU, and why have Norway and Switzerland both had multiple referendums on joining the EU? And do those who speak about EFTA want to be EFTA members like Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland (i.e. part of the EEA as well), or like Switzerland?
I’m not necessarily saying we SHOULDN’T be going for EFTA membership instead of EU membership, but I do get the feeling that a lot of people who propose this simply think that because Norway is in EFTA, that automatically makes it better than the EU. It’s not helped by the fact that the UK press is possibly even more hostile and ignorant towards the EU than it is towards Scottish independence…
Easy way to turn this on its head. Replace Scotland with England.
If England went independent, then this rUK would still remain within EU as the successor state?
Total shit.
@ Doug Daniel
Agreed. Now, back to the topic in hand . . 😉
“But that moderated group only ever got about 20 postings and then ran out of steam.”
Nobody has been moderated here. But this is not a “forum”, and it’s not a Usenet discussion group, and it’s not a democracy. I will NOT be told who I can and can’t give a platform to on it. I hope we’re all absolutely clear on that.
@ Doug
Iceland is exploring joining but may yet be derailed by the CFP.
Their reasoning was that they want to change to the Euro to get a more stable currency…
I know, I know, but long term they may be right.
But remember, Norway and Switzerland have multiple referendums on it but EFTA has won out on all occassions.
P.S. It would have to be membership through the EEA system. Easier to switch over since we are already compliant.
PMcrek,
Again, you are right, but, the party changed policy in consultation with it’s members. I doubt those who quit over the matter consulted anyone. As list seat MSPs they have no constituents and therefore don’t really have anyone to consult. If a Constituency MSP had resigned the party after consultation with constituents and retained the seat because they had the support of those constituents I would accept that. But it’s not the case is it?
Doug,
fair enough. In future, do I wait for the second post or the third post before making an attack? Or is it higher? And when does a contributor stop becoming a guest and become a regular? Is it okay to attack Scott Minto (no offense Scott!) in the first comment as he’s had loads of articles on here and therefore can’t really be considered a guest? What are the thresholds? And where is the rules page that explains them?
I stand by what I said. Those are my beliefs.
I apologise to Stu for the upset I have caused him, he’s a good guy.
I disagree that I should not take every opportunity to express my displeasure at Jean Urquhart. If the piece was written by the CEO of starbucks would it have contained a request that posters don’t mention Tax? Sustained pressure at every opporunity brings change. I’d like to change who Ms Urquharts is employed by. And I’m not alone.
The EU is playing hard to get. They want us to view membership as some sort of glittering prize.
EFTA may be a better option, but seems to have its disadvantages in that we would have to accept EU decisions we would have no say in making.
I believe an Independent Scotland will be in a very strong position regarding the EU and we should consider staying out, while negotiating our own bilateral treaties with EU, EFTA, individual counties (e.g.England), etc.
A referendum campaign would be the best way to thrash all this out.
“What are the thresholds? And where is the rules page that explains them?”
The threshold is ordinary civilised human behaviour. It shouldn’t need explaining. Jean Urquhart provides plenty of means by which she can be contacted, there’s absolutely no need for anyone to personally attack her in a public place when she’s speaking on a completely unrelated matter.
If you want to sustain pressure on her over the NATO issue, nobody’s stopping you starting your own site where you can go on about it 24/7 if you like. But this is my house, and I’d like guests to be treated with respect. At the very minimum, that means posting comments on the subject of her resignation in the perfectly good article that already exists about it, not just spewing them everywhere. You wouldn’t – I presume – attack her in the comments on a Rangers story, and there’s no more justification for doing it in this one.
@Major Bloodnok
Good luck down the stud farm today. Glad to see you’re being sensible and using a turkey baster – it’s freezing out there.
“but seems to have its disadvantages in that we would have to accept EU decisions we would have no say in making.”
Not entirely true. Tune in tomorrow for a response on that.
Back on topic – here is a link to the letter that was sent by the Economic Affairs Committee on 29 October 2012 to Hose Manuel Barrosso – http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/economic-affairs/ScottishIndependence/EA55_Letter_to_EU_President_20121029.pdf
Today the Record talks about Scottish membership of the EU as a ‘quagmire of uncertainty’. There is only a guddle because politicians are unable to be honest. The truth is that we don’t know for sure what would happen, but the balance of probabilities is that Scotland would remain in the EU. Other countries might try to get Scotland to join the Euro, and England might try to persuade the rest of the EU to kick Scotland out, but both these things are unlikely. Muddying the waters to panic the populace is pure politics.
As for Jean’s personal situation. I generally dislike the practice of elected members quitting their parties or crossing the floor without facing a re-election but, it does uphold the important principle that members are beholden to nobody but the electorate at a general election. This principle is sometimes abused, but I am fond of independence of thought in elected members, the alternative is that members may as well park their brains at the chamber door and do absolutely everything their party leadership tells them.
Jean and John’s standing down has also had a positive consequence (to me), in that Jean and John have joined forces with the Greens and Margo to form a ‘group’ in Parliament. Now as far as the Parliament rules go, five is the magic number, to get full representation. So now Patrick Harvie (or any other of the five) will now get an automatic question at FMQs, can put forward party motions for debate, etc. There will now be an extra pro-independence force in Parliament which is a good thing in my opinion, easily worth the short-term bad headlines.
John – argh! I wrote a big reply here and it got chewed up somehow. Stu’s pretty much covered it anyway.
And Craig P pretty much nails why it’s important list MSPs don’t get turned into mere vote fodder.
This is all nonsense. Let me turn it around and people can think on these questions.
If Scotland on its announcement of independence was suddenly told by Brussels you are no longer in the EU. How would they know who was from where ? Our passports are all EU ones today. Are they really saying that English folk living in Scotland(~10%) would be excluded. Does that mean that Scots living in England(you know who you are) are in or out of the EU…
The EU are currently in the process of bankrupting the EU to keep Greece in the EU. How can it be imaginable in any circumstances that we as full members of the EU would be somehow excluded.
Imagine the so called worst case where we are treated not as a successor but a breakaway state, this would potentially pose issues with immediate EU membership(how potentially Catalonia will find itself in due to a ‘hostile’ breakaway). However in this scenario we would also no longer be required to take any liabilities of the UK. We’d also retain all assets in Scotland…Imagine the uproar in rUK. It would be almost worth it just to see the outpourings.
The duplicity of the people using this as a scare story is breathtaking, as is stated in the original article. The biggest actual threat to EU membership is actually Westminster and the Jeremy Clarkston brigade.
The Herald has pretty much buried its original article but the comments page on there tells you all you need to know. We have statements form the usual suspects around England keeping Faslane , Scotland not being a recognized country(i kid you not)…its utter tripe. Issues like EU will be easy as all sides want it and need it to happen. The people who don’t want it will have been defeated in the YES vote and will no longer be visible.
“I wrote a big reply here and it got chewed up somehow”
I’ve trained myself to copy all long comments or posts to the clipboard before I hit Send or Publish. It comes in handy for disconnects, WordPress bugs, irritating registration/login procedures, and of course keeping a record of all those comments that never ge to see the light of day on Better Nation, LabourHame etc. It’s a good habit to cultivate.
Kenny: some excellent points there. I might work that up into some sort of article on “The Day Scotland Was Kicked Out Of The EU”, unless you fancy having a go yourself.
“You wouldn’t – I presume – attack her in the comments on a Rangers story, and there’s no more justification for doing it in this one.”
If she wrote it I would, and that’s why I said my piece on this thread.
“If she wrote it I would”
And I’d criticise your rudeness then too. There are no circumstances I can think of where ad-hominem attacks are acceptable in civilised conversation.
Spot on Kenny. In regards to the questions it would raise in regards to EU membership elsewhere, I would suggest that the last thing the EU wants to do is to make leaving it look like a piece of cake. While Scotland continuing membership seamlessly might remove a stick used on other independence movements, the reverse – showing an easy way of getting out of the EU – might just lead to an explosion of breakaway movements throughout Europe, as regions of places like Greece that are unhappy with the EU would suddenly see a shortcut to removing EU influence.
There’s simply nothing to be gained by EU states by kicking Scotland out of the EU.
Stu – aye, I sometimes do that, but not quite as militantly as I perhaps should!
Circus on the politics show.
Don’t know who was on the video link but in response to BrilloPad reading “The Letter” live on air, (So that numpties believe there is a letter!) the interviewee stated.
Firstly that Letter doesnt exist
Secondly thats just a “Black Bag” job by the Scotsman!
First Class
Now standby for more black bag jobs in the next two years
“There are no circumstances I can think of where ad-hominem attacks are acceptable in civilised conversation.”
What does Ad-hominem mean?
I thought it meant arguing against what someone says by attacking them personally, or dismissing thier arguements completely because of who they are.
I haven’t at any point said “This articles is a load of rubbish because Jean Urquhart is a moron” nor have I said “What the jiminy does Jean Urquhart know about europe?” because the answer is “A lot more than me.”
Her arguement sounds plausable and I find myself agreeing with what she says. I haven’t attacked her by calling her fat or a Nazi or any of the other insults you often see directed towards politicians.
I simply said she defies the will of the people who voted in the last election and should quit as an MSP. I didn’t then go on to say “and therefore this whole article is bunkum.” Nor did I post a picture of a snotty-nosed greeting wean and claim it was her.
She shouldn’t be allowed in our parliament as she’s there under false pretences. The people of the Highlands voted for an SNP MSP. They haven’t got one. That’s undemocratic. If we allow Democracy to be tossed aside like this cause she’s ‘one of ours’ then we have to accept it when Democracy is tossed aside by ‘one of thiers’.
If an individual (Or two individuals!) make a big deal out of having principles they should have them in all things, not just those that suit them or buy fifteen minutes of fame.
Interesting article by George Kerevan in regards to whether Scotland should go for EU or EFTA membership. This actually fleshes out some of the reasoning behind why we might choose either route, although it’s clear George has a preference (EFTA).
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/george-kerevan-our-future-could-be-brighter-without-europe-1-2679431
I don’t agree that the first comment was an ad hominem, in fact I don’t think any of the comments were ad hominems. An ad hominem is like: “dadsarmy, your childish ignorance is only matched by your pervasive body odours, bad breath and mean disposition. And you’re ugly to boot. Did I say boot? Yes, you’re a withered old boot, and the world would be a beteter place if you’d never been born”.
Sorry, not great, I’m a bit out of practice. Well, years, really.
As for being off topic, no, not at all, the article isn’t by Jean Urquhart. it’s by Jean Urquhart MSP.
But – I agree with John Lyons and Bridget Hennessy – they voted for SNP on the list, and now they don’t have what they voted for.
But – I agree with Craig P, and more, I like rebels, and I think Holyrood itself is a better place for having two rebels,
I think there was just one SNP MSP who called for their resignations, so it seems the SNP itslef doesn’t mind. In the case of FPTP, or the actual constituency MSP, people vote for the candidate as well as the party, so I don’t think there’s any problem with the MSP / MP staying on.
But the list MSP is, it seems to me, 100% correct whichever way it goes. Which means there’s a problem, Houston, we have a problem. There appears to be no ethical guid in existence for what a list MSP should do if they resigne their party allegiance.
Seems to me this is a subject for a cross-party debate, in Holyrood. But not now please, just in case …….
“I don’t agree that the first comment was an ad hominem”
Then you need to look it up too. An ad hominem attack is simply an attack on the messenger rather than the message. It doesn’t have to contain vulgar abuse. There wasn’t a word of criticism of Jean’s article on EU membership, only of her personally.
There is precedent for a list MSP resigning his/her party and remaining an MSP. In fact I can’t think of any who have resigned their party and quit Holyrood.
All of which is a pointless diversion from the subject of the article.
“Then you need to look it up too. An ad hominem attack is simply an attack on the messenger rather than the message”
According to your definition, which seems to be a strict translation of the latin: “to the person”, yours is an indirect ad hominem on me …….
Whatever!
Toys and prams. 🙂
Ya boo sucks! Mmm, thumb.
Labour MP Eluned Morgan got very interested on the issue of independence movements in EU member states and asked three written questions in the European Parliament on the topic of member states splitting up. Two in 2004 and one in 2007. I’m quite interested in why she asked the questions in 2004 because there was no real nationalist threat in either Scotland or Wales at that time. The idea that the SNP would get (minority) control of the Scottish parliament in 2007 wasn’t even a cloud on the horizon and Plaid have never come close to taking the Welsh Assembly. However maybe even then Labour could see the straws in the wind.
Both 2004 answers say the same thing. A newly independent part of an existing member state would be out in the cold. However the direct question in from Eluned Morgan 2007 on what happens to Scotland if it becomes independent gets avoided by Barroso as an issue of international law.
Labour MEP David Martin asks another question on the constitutional issue in 2012 but he deliberately avoids asking a direct question on Scottish independence as Eluned Morgan did in 2007 and just asks for confirmation of Prodi’s answer in 2004. He gets this from Barroso who is happy to affirm an existing answer. David Martin must have known that a direct question on Scottish independence would have been given the same answer as Eluned Morgan got in 2007.
For all the triumphalist shouting from the unionist side about Prodi’s answer the one they don’t mention is the answer in 2007 from Barroso to Eluned Morgan, “These questions raise a number of issues concerning international law. It is not Commission practice to give an opinion on purely hypothetical cases.”
It appears Labour in the European Parliament have been interested in what happens to Scotland and the EU after independence for a number of years.
I’ve put all the questions and answers below with links.
http://tinyurl.com/c7qgodr
12 February 2004 P-0524/04
WRITTEN QUESTION by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission
Subject: The Constitution Answer(s)
Can the Commission confirm that, if a Member State were to divide as a result of a region democratically gaining independence, that the precedent set by Algeria would apply?
Can the Commission explain what exactly happened in the Algeria case?
Could the Commission confirm whether a newly independent region would have to leave the EU and then apply for accession afresh?
Would an application of this type require a renegotiation of the treaties at an IGC and the unanimous agreement of the 25 Member States?
1 March 2004 P-0524/2004
Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
The European Communities and the European Union have been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The treaties apply to the Member States (Article 299 of the EC Treaty). When a part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that state, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory. Under article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European State which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the Union. An application of this type requires, if the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously, a negotiation on an agreement between the Applicant State and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the Applicant State.
http://tinyurl.com/czor7v6
10 March 2004 P-0860/04
WRITTEN QUESTION by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission
Subject: The Constitution and funding Answer(s)
In your answer to my written question P-0524/04(1), you detail the constitutional position of a region of the current EU, if it were to become a fully independent state. Could you clarify the position of such a state, in relation to EU funding?
Specifically; if a region within the EU were to become an independent state (therefore outside of the EU), what would happen to the European funding it had been receiving? Would the funding stop immediately, or would it continue to the end of the funding programme, for example the 2000-2006 Structural Funds programme?
What EU funds would a newly independent state be eligible for?
22 April 2004 P-0860/2004
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
If part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be part of that State, for example, because that territory becomes an independent state, it would no longer covered by the Treaty of accession. Accordingly, the EC Treaty will no longer apply to that territory, including Article 158. Article 158 of the EC Treaty states that the Community shall aim at strengthening its economic and social cohesion. Article 159 provides for that action to be supported through the Structural Funds. This article clearly rules out the use of the Structural Funds outside the territory of the European Union. The principal instruments for Community support for countries outside the Union are found under Heading 4 of the budget, “External Action”, or, in the case of aid to candidate countries, under Heading 7, “Pre-accession instruments”.
http://tinyurl.com/btk8pjd
22 March 2007 P-1625/07
WRITTEN QUESTION by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission
Subject: Separation of Member States Answer(s)
Can the Commission confirm that, in the event of part of a Member State becoming independent, e.g. Wales, Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica, or Flanders, its status in the European Union would have to be negotiated with all of the Member States?
In particular, can it confirm that only a Treaty amendment, agreed, and ratified by every Member State, could determine whether it would be entitled to Member State status, whether it would be allocated a member of the Commission and how many votes it might have in the Council and seats in the European Parliament?
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, can the Commission confirm that it would be the larger part of the Member State concerned that would be the successor state?
Would Community law still apply to the Member State, and would it lose any EU funding received?
26 April 2007 P-1625/2007
Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission
These questions raise a number of issues concerning international law. It is not Commission practice to give an opinion on purely hypothetical cases.
http://tinyurl.com/c33s5qg
25 October 2012 P-009756-12
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
David Martin (S&D)
Subject: Independent states and EU membership Answer(s)
Can the Commission confirm whether it continues to hold the view, as expressed by Romano Prodi in 2004, that ‘when a part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that state, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory’(1)?
(1) Romano Prodi on behalf of the Commission, 1 March 2004 (OJ C 84, 3.4.2004), in response to Written Question P-0524/2004
P-009862/2012
Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission (3.12.2012)
Yes. The legal context has not changed since 2004 as the Lisbon Treaty has not introduced any change in this respect. Therefore the Commission can confirm its position as expressed in 2004 in the reply to the written question P-0524/04.
ad hominem
Have just got in and up to date.
No, Stu. You are wrong on this one and yes, I have looked it up.
An ad-hominem attack is one “against the person” in order to dismiss or invalidate his/her argument, As John Lyons points out, he clearly did not do this.
You have confused an ad-hominem attack and a personal attack.
But it’s been an informative read, as always.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks DougtheDug
I looked up the 2004 ones so to post links on the Guardian (Iain McWhirter!). If I’d waited I could have saved myself the trouble.
The 2007 answer is practically a definitive answer, probably the most specifically definitive answer of all the misquoted ones over the last year.
Same as Barroso’s totally misquoted BBC interview, something like:
“I see no country leaving the EU; I see plenty of countries wanting to join”.
Just one last thing and I promise I’ll let it go.
Jean Urquhart, who promised to side with the SNP on all thngs except NATO which was the issue she resigned the party over has voted against the SNP budget and sided with Labour and the Tories causing a defeat of the party she was elected to represent.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/snp-budget-defeat-embarrassment.19636520
I only mention this in the hopes that those of you who are not bothered one way or the other now realise this situation should never be allowed to arise and a list MSP who resigns thier party should also be forced to give up thier seat.
And yes Stu, I will be taking this matter up with her elsewhere.
@John Lyons
As normal the Herald doesn’t give the full story.
http://jeanurquharthighlandsandislandsmsp.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/blog-the-finance-committee-budget-votes/
Please read carefully.
Thanks Adrian.
Unfortunately it seems that as well as Voting with the Unionsts Jean Urquhart is picking up some of thier other habits like banning people they have no answer for. I can’t get on to that page to make a comment.
No wonder people become dissilusioned with politics and don’t bother going out to vote. It’s worthless when it’s open to this kind of treatment.
Thanks for that John Lyons and Adrian B. I agree with Jean. And there is too much politics in these Committees, which even in the House of Commons, seem to get a large amount of cross-party concensus. In that respect, at the moment, Holyrood is inferior to Westminster, sad to say. That needs to change back for the better.
“Unfortunately it seems that as well as Voting with the Unionsts Jean Urquhart is picking up some of thier other habits like banning people they have no answer for. I can’t get on to that page to make a comment.”
She’s tweeted that she’s having some technical problems with the page. If you can’t get onto the page at all, that doesn’t seem like it would be a banning thing. How would you know who to ban if they haven’t posted a comment yet?
The server was busy earlier, it took a couple of goes to get the page to load – but it did load. Think the problems were more to to with a header picture not loading in the correct place. She removed it. She was heading north this morning for an event so don’t know if comments would be checked prior to being published or not.
John, I know that you think that she should resign as a list MSP as she has resigned from the SNP – I see and understand your point of view on this. I would like to add that as the SNP changed its long held view on NATO, then that was a step to far for her – she certainly doesn’t blindly follow party lines for that I do have some admiration for her. I don’t agree with her about resigning from the party over this and I was initially annoyed that she became an independent. She is clearly doing what she feels is the right thing.
I am more annoyed that opposition list MSPs can become party leaders overnight. The system needs changed and adapted to better reflect the role of list MSPs as votes for a party rather than an individual candidate. Its not the most pressing issue right now in my mind anyway.