Fury as government withholds EU advice
The Scottish media is in full-on outcry mode at the Scottish Government for keeping things from the Scottish people with regard to the possible status of the country’s EU membership status in the event of independence, and to be fair it’s quite understandable when you read official statements like this:
“Whilst there is a strong public interest in seeing what legal advice has been provided to the Government on the implications of EU membership if Scotland were to achieve independence, we have concluded that this is outweighed by a strong public interest in the Government being able to seek free and frank legal advice.”
Of course, in the spirit of Scottish Labour’s creative editing of the First Minister’s words yesterday, we’ve deftly removed a word from that sentence so that it suits our purposes better. Specifically, in between “has been provided to the” and “Government”, we’ve removed the word “UK”.
We’re really not sure how the UK government’s actions differ in any way from those of the Scottish Government in respect of the same issue, particularly when a Scottish Office minister goes on to add that “I have not received formal representations on the possible status of an independent Scotland within the EU.”
It would seem, to the casual observer, that in both cases the respective governments have declined to seek out specific legal advice about an independent Scotland’s EU status, but have sought to conceal that information (or lack of information) from voters on the grounds that confidentiality ensures the government receives candid expert advice undistorted by public opinion.
So perhaps someone can explain to us why only one of them is currently subject to a huge nationwide media storm about it.
Because of the ” terms of the debate”?
Double standards, hypocrisy, spin, diffusion etc.
Or plain Bullshit.
Because Labour think the Scottish electorate is as stupid as they are?
‘So perhaps someone can explain to us why only one of them is currently subject to a huge nationwide media storm about it.’
And also why the older revelation only appears to have been published in The Courier (no, or not much, offence to that organ) over a year ago. Lazy, lazy media.
I get the impression that the SNP is trying to get the media and the opposition to whip themselves up into outrages, as often and as much as possible, so that by the time of the referendum, they will have cried wolf so many times that their credibility will have been destroyed. I just sense that Salmond is deliberately trying to wind them up, to make them fire off all their bullets, so by Autumn 2014 they will just be firing blanks….
Sometimes you wonder what really scares them, maybe the press will actually report the news accurately after 2014. One can live in hope. Too much of an incestious club that needs fresh blood.
muttley79 says:
‘so by Autumn 2014 they will just be firing blanks….’
Much of the opposition benches already give an impression of being neutered, and not just metaphorically.
Are you implying Jackie Baillie is actually a eunuch? That would explain a lot.
It’s simply down to The BBC looking for a story on what was otherwise a quiet news day. Raymond Buchanan covering the breaking story early in the morning of the 2 SNP List MSPs resigning from the party over the NATO vote.
In the afternoon after the Labour MSP made the Alex Salmond ‘lies’ accusations, jackie Bailly jumped up to bring these accusations forward. The BBC did not do any fact checking on the story, only reported the headline accusations. At this point labour went silent on the story, sat down and watched the BBC ask questions regarding the ‘lie’ with the Andrew Neil interview.
The quick video editing and dodgy audio done by Newsnight didn’t help the BBCs reporting. Now I will state that I am not terribly anti BBC, Brewer is a capable interviewer and is good at doing his research. If the interview with Nicola had been done with wide angle shots of both and allowing each to talk without interruption rather than the constant cutting from one to another with Nicola’s mike being muted and the video/audio going back to Brewer.
As soon as the BBC picked up this story, the print press piled in to get some headline stories – infact the BBC news pages constantly changed throughout the afternoon and evening to put a sensationalism on the story.
You have to now conclude that for the BBC and print media 1 + 1 = 5
If they had bothered to do some simple research then this would not have been a story. The only people that have been deceived are the public and we have been deceived by the BBC and press for trailing accusations made up by Labour politicians for political gain. Where were Labour yesterday afternoon and this morning? Standing back watching this story roll on!
@MajorBloodnok
Lol! Actually she’s in charge of the neutering. She’s been chasing after Malcolm Chisolm for months.
The damage limitation strategy at the moment appears to amount to:
1. Mr Salmond did not lie
2. Even if he did lie Labour did too.
Of course you are aware that yesterday’s events were damaging. The basic narrative is that the SNP gave the impression of having received advice, went to court to prevent the release of this non-existent advice, thereby wasting public money. This is what the public will remember when the exact wording of questions and answers has been forgotten.
“This is what the public will remember when the exact wording of questions and answers has been forgotten.”
What the public will remember is that Barcelona beat Celtic 2-1 in the 94th minute. If you imagine that ordinary people pay any attention to Labour’s endless cynical dishonest smears, the result of the 2011 election must have come as quite a shock to you. Seemingly so much so that you’ve entirely failed to learn any lesson from it. Fine by us.
@Effie Deans
“This is what the public will remember when the exact wording of questions and answers has been forgotten.”
Well quite. And that’s why your Unionist chums in Labour and the MSM work themselves up to this synthetic frenzy. It may work, but it didn’t in May 2011.
Got any thoughts on how the future of our nation might shape up, Effie?
It’s simply down to The BBC looking for a story on what was otherwise a quiet news day.
It wasn’t a “quiet news day”!
link to bbc.co.uk
On Tuesday, JFM published a letter it had sent to Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill detailing its complaints about the legal process.
It claimed the lord advocate at the time, Lord Boyd, who led the Lockerbie prosecution, gave information to the trial judges which members of his team knew to be false.
It concerned the contents of American CIA cables relating to the prosecution witness, Abdul Majid Giaka.
In its letter, JFM said: “It is submitted this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”
It makes similar claims about members of the prosecution team at the trial at Kamp Zeist in the Netherlands, and about police and forensic officers.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died in May JFM said its allegations “strike at the very heart of the Lockerbie investigation past and present”.
@Morag
I am afraid the silence, or virtual silence, from the Scottish media, over Lockerbie is not exactly reassuring for those who harbour doubts about the case and conviction of al-Megrahi. Contrast and compare this with the hysterical coverage of any half-arsed allegation about Salmond. You have to wonder why the media do not give prominence to what should have been the major headline from yesterday? After all nearly 300 people were brutally murdered by terrorists over Scottish soil, and there is severe doubts over whether Libya was even involved.
That was a major press conference, arranged about a week ago, with some seriously juicy details. It got one page buried on the BBC web site. So far as I know the only newspaper which has run the story today is the Times – of Malta!
link to timesofmalta.com
I’m not saying all this stushie was deliberately contrived to bury the Lockerbie revelations, but it’s certainly not true that they were struggling for something to fill the pages.
“It wasn’t a “quiet news day”!
Sorry Morag, that story didn’t register on my radar – I’m full of the cold, by the time I had looked at this site and Newsnet, the story being commented on was the ‘Salmond lie’ accusations. Watched the news a couple of times and did not pick up on the story that you high light. I am aware that you follow the lockerbie story closely. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will bow to your superior knowledge on the subject as you have been keeping closer tabs on this for some time. It looks like quite a big story indeed.
@Effie Deans
With respect, Effie, I’m struggling to see the “lie”. They sought advice and they published the advice they sought.
Ms Stihler wished to see any unpublished advice. The Scottish Government, in line with the Ministerial Code, did exactly what the UK Government did in response to a similar Freedom of Information request they received last year, and declined the request. It didn’t seem to bother anybody when the UK Government did this. The appeal itself concerns the principle of sticking to the Ministerial Code, not any existing or non-existing advice with respect to EU membership. The principle of importance in the Ministerial Code is about protecting professionals and civil servants.
The new legal advice being sought is to do with the changing context – i.e. would the view of Scottish membership of the EU be the same or different in any way given that the UK has now legally agreed to the holding of the referendum and to abide by the outcome. Obviously, this has huge implications for EU membership as it could affect current EU agreements. If the referendum were held without Westminster agreement or if Westminster were unwilling to abide by the outcomes, the EU might take a different view. So, it’s now possible to ask for more precise advice relevant to this particular change in circumstance.
I don’t think someone should be accused of lying simply because someone didn’t understand their answer.
Seemingly so much so that you’ve entirely failed to learn any lesson from it.
Oh come on Rev, the British establishment have a good century of experience in keeping countries seeking independence part of the ‘club’. The same tactics/strategy have been employed to varying extents on all such occasions. Success rate is a little questionable though.
I must admit I do fondly remember the sun setting when the flags were finally lowered in Hong Kong in 1997. Seemed symbolic what with the planned re-convening of the Scottish Parliament.
@Morag
Looks like a virtual news blackout on Lockerbie. They gave little coverage to John Ashton’s book as well, apart from MacAskill’s role in Megrahi’s release. The establishment should know that the truth usually eventually comes out, Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Birmingham Six etc being prime examples.
@Morag
I didn’t see anything about his either, Morag, though, like others, I’ve been down with the cold, so not following things to the same extent. I wish some investigating journalist would put his skills to good use and investigate why journalists and media in this country are, with a few exceptions, so generally appalling.
This is all part of the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that is the hallmark of unionism. The ‘currency issue’ is another good example. Throughout Europe, never mind the world, smaller countries have a wide range of currency arrangements that work perfectly well for them. Some are members of currency unions, some have their own currencies, some have currency pegs and, within this, some have open pegs and others have closed pegs. Indeed, many countries, and Denmark is a good example, have alternated between these different arrangements in their modern history. One of the many benefits of being a smaller country is that smaller countries have the flexibility to do this.
The common denominator for most of these smaller countries, though, is that they tend, as a rule, to share a currency with those larger countries with whom they do most of their trade, not least because this reduces the transactions costs of trade-related business. The last thing that exporters (and importers) want is to have to regularly conduct costly and inconvenient projections based on unstable exchange rates and the last thing that a national economy needs is an over-valued exchange rate that effectively penalises its export sector. Much simpler, and better for all concerned, to share a currency with your largest trading partner.
One of the many benefits of independence is that it gives Scotland economic options that we could never have as part of the UK. For example, at the moment, most of Scotland’s trade is conducted with the UK. But, with independence, that may change. If an independent Scotland chose to pursue an export-led growth or economic development strategy, it would make more sense to target Scotland’s exports at the EU, with a market of over 700 million than the rUK, with a market of 60 million. In that case, there would be a strong argument for an independent Scotland to join the euro if the EU ever became Scotland’s largest trading partner. It wouldn’t make sense for Scotland to join the euro now because Scotland has, by far, the lowest ratio of exports to GDP of any member country of the EU (this is one of the consequences of Scotland being part of the UK).
I, personally, would like to see an independent Scotland develop its economy with its own currency and its own central bank but, for various reasons, in the short-term at least, that would be much more risky than the easier and, in the short-term, more secure arrangement of remaining with sterling. But there’s no reason why the Scottish government couldn’t successfully sell this sterling arrangement as an interim measure to be re-visited at regular intervals as the export and trade-related profile of Scotland’s economy changes. That’s similar to what many other smaller countries have done, and there’s no reason why an independent Scotland should be any different.
The unionist strategy is to take a scattergun approach to every issue that is related to independence. Their objective is to identify areas of fear, doubt and uncertainty, however minor, and to amplify these in the public domain. They know that as long as sufficient fear, doubt and uncertainty exist in enough voters’ minds, they’ve still got a chance of securing a No vote. One of the problems for them is that anyone who cares to survey Scotland’s experience under successive British governments over the last 40 years would have to conclude that, whatever disasters unionists might hypothesis for an independent Scotland, they wouldn’t begin to compare with the numerous disasters that successive British governments have inflicted, and continue to inflict, on Scotland when it has been part of the UK. Start with the Labour government’s mismanagement of the devaluation of sterling in 1967 and work your way through every single year thereafter, and you’ll appreciate that, compared to Scotland’s experience as part of the UK in the last four decades or so, independence offers us opportunities that we can never even dream of as long as we’re part of the UK.
Screw the Unionists. Salmond has been keeping shtum about somebodies opinion for a few months. They kept quiet about the McCrone report for 30 YEARS! They buried Hillsborough for 23 YEARS what else are they hiding and how hypocritical can they get?
The only trouble is Alex can’t say he has been holding back on properly answering this question??? Everyone knows that since there is no precedent there is no black and white response, including as has been said the UK government! I just hope that with the referendum granted that a proper legal opinion can be offered?
And none of the media is willing to analyse and interpret what he has done and why. It’s simpler and possibly more damaging to run with the ‘lie’ line?
“went to court to prevent the release of this non-existent advice, thereby wasting public money”
Effie, if the government DID have advice, would that have constituted wasting public money? Or is it only a waste when there is no such advice? There are two logical outcomes of this line of argument:
1. Government SHOULD be allowed to refuse to confirm if it has legal advice on things, but only in cases where it does indeed have advice. But this means the denial is, in itself, an admittance that they have advice, meaning all a person has to do is ask if advice exists, and they will find out the answer.
2. Government SHOULD NOT be allowed to refuse to confirm if it has legal advice on things – people should just be allowed to demand to know, regardless of circumstances.
Which is it?
YesYesYes – I agree that the Sterling Zone idea should be floated more as an interim measure than a permanent solution. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with saying “we would keep Sterling for the moment, but if the Scottish economy started outperforming the UK economy very significantly, we would have the flexibility to start our own currency. That would be for the Scottish people to decide, however.”
It’s sort of the Government position, but it’s never pushed quite as firmly as that – it seems to be far more about sticking with Sterling, with “for the foreseeable future” more of an afterthought than a strength of the case.
I think what we experienced yesterday was the sudden release of a generous helping of negative, pent up energy by Scottish Labour, aided by their MSM supporters. With the (minimal) Olympic effect already in decay, early signs of poll shifts, a fantastic NATO debate in Perth and the signing of the historic Edinburgh agreement last week, unionist frustration and desperation have been at an all time high. With the Labour party now completely margnialised in the process, it is hardly surprising where the most toxic fumes are coming from. It only took a little spark (or rather, the appearance of a spark) to set it all off.
Am i the only one that finds the whole thing hilarious.
Watching this manufactured mock outrage is very entertaining.
And Stu is correct. The only ‘news’ being discussed in my workplace is the Celtic game from last night.
Doug Daniel
John Swinney said a while ago that he envisaged Scotland using Sterling for at least 10 years. Maybe he could put a bit more flesh on this?
I’m keen to know why the better together campaign has not sought legal advice on the status of Scotland with respect to the EU post independence. Could be a game changer for them if Scotland would have to re-apply.
I can understand the Scottish Government was constrained until the Edinburgh Agreement, but as opposition, unionist parties in Scotland have no such constraints.
I’m very disappointed in better together for this.
@Doug Daniel,
Agreed. It’s clear why the Scottish government is adopting this softly-softly approach. For most people who’re not already (fully) converted to independence, the government understands that independence is seen as a major change. The Scottish government needs to anchor a public mood of stability, certainty and security to the issue of independence, hence the timing and outcome of the NATO vote. Frustrating, for those of us who want to promote a bolder, more adventurous political and economic agenda as well as the prospect of independence ushering in significant change but, at the same time, understandable I suppose, in light of the unionists’ scattergun FUD approach.
@Luigi,
A good test of the Olympic ‘legacy’ is to ask your friends/family to see how many British medal winners they can remember from the Olympics. It’s better to do this face-to-face (they’ll cheat if it’s done on-line). I asked my sister this question a few weeks ago and the results were interesting. She remembered Chris Hoy and Bradley Wiggins. She also remembered Jessica Ennis, ‘Little Mo’ (she couldn’t remember his full name) and the kid who got the diving medal (she couldn’t remember his name either), and that was it. She’s an intelligent, middle-aged woman who isn’t a huge sports fan but she did watch much of the Olympics. I suspect she’s representative, though, of the vast majority of Scots and that’s only a few months after the event.
YesYesYes,
Worth noting: In 2010, a Spanish team (with a backbone of brilliant FC Barcelona players) won the FIFA World Cup. Barely two years later, the biggest ever march for Catalan independence has just taken place. Olympic legacy? Two years from now? Nah, I don’t think so.
Although the UK of GB was a state created by treaty it may well be the case that that treaty has no status in contemporary international law. Some have argued this in the past and suggested that the “Union” has no constitutional legality or basis in international law. Predating that law it exists because it exists and not because it has legal substance. A peculiarly muddled anglo-saxon affair open to a plethora of legal interpretations. Could we be living in a state whose foundation rests on a library of worm-eaten legal scrolls and books, existing by local custom, surviving by “default” and nothing else? All very Dan Brown..
Alasdair FB.
The Vienna Convention is retrospective and the current treaty of union dates from the early 1920’s when it was updated to account for the departure of Eire. So in reality, it’s not that old.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Also, when those discussions about Royals marrying catholics were underway it was noted widely that any changes to the rules in this regard would require an update to the treaty of union.
The fact that there has been no legal attempt to block the referendum (e.g. as per Spain) leaves me fairly content that the treaty is as valid today as it always has been. At least nobody is willing to give it a go in terms of challenging that…
@scottish_skier
Still looks like very muddy waters to me. The fact that neither party seems willing to publish suggests neither likes what they have been told. Honesty, from our side at least, ought to be expected. We proclaim sovereignty of the people, not parliament. Or is that just rhetoric….
“The fact that neither party seems willing to publish suggests neither likes what they have been told.”
Um, the entire point of the last 24 hours or so is that the Scottish Government hasn’t been told anything…
A little off topic here – I heard some of the “Call Kaye” programme on Radio Scotland this morning. The main topic for discussion was, of course, all this nonsense about alleged lies and who said what.
At one point a caller suggested that the BBC had been rather biased in how it had reported the whole matter, including on it’s Web pages, and in how interviewers behaved interrupting people who were trying to answer questions on what the facts actually were, etc. Ms Adams went in to a bit of a fluster, and after reading out all the headlines from every newspaper she could lay her hands on she said that it was the BBC’s job to reflect all that.
And here was me thinking that it was the BBC’s job to objectively present the facts of the matter rather than reflect the stuff printed in an openly biased printed press…….
Was I amused? Yes.
Was I surprised? Sadly, not.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell
I do find it difficult to believe that the Edinburgh government, given the iconic importance of this issue, has not done some research on this and been given off-the-record opinion, at least, from EU lawyers. If the London government has been taking legal advice I would bet Edinburgh has too. However, I am prepared to be dumbfounded.
@Alasdair.
Are you at the wind up?
What’s gets me about the whole issue is that the Unionists are now presenting it as the FM misleading the public re Scotland’s membership of the EU, not whether he actually had sought legal advice. Indeed, The Fat Princess herself, Jackie Baillie, is demanding an emergency statement to Holyrood on the matter and to publish all advice the government had received on the matter (so did Salmond seek advice or not? How can he publish advice he hasn’t sought?).
Is this because Baillie and co don’t think the Scottish public will grasp the subtleties of this issue or is it because they themselves don’t get it? Either way, what happens if the legal advice comes back and says that Salmond’s claims are perfectly correct? Not a single member of the BitterTogether camp will retain any credibility and Yes Scotland can dismiss each and every argument with a “look how wrong you were about that!”.
Yes, Scottish Labour’s bitter hatred of the SNP, and Salmond in particular, make them do stupid things but this will really play out as a last throw of the dice which has the potential to explode in their faces.
Make absolutely zero sense to me.
@Don McC
Don’t listen to Baillie, just another unionist Labour monkey. If they can’t see that these people are poison and a liability then they deserve hopefully everything that is coming their way.
@Don.
It makes perfect sense to the unionists if you have the MSM on side. They can generate loads of negative headlines that will stick in folks minds. So what if it is a load of shite? Their strategy is to throw as much mud as possible, and hope some of it sticks in the minds of the undecided.
This is only the start.
Has anyone seen Severin Carroll’s new article in the Guardian, he claims Scotland has a lengthy wait for EU membership? Is it rubbish or is there something in it? Quotes the Spanish FM. Guys a bit of a propagandist if you ask me.
@ Mutley
The spanish PM is not neutral and has been put i his box by the EU before.
Scotland would be treated in EXACTLY the same manner as the rUK since we would both be successor states.
We are already members, but the terms of membership would need to be renegotiated since Scotland would be taking 33% land mass, 70+% fishing zones, 90+% Oil, 64% Gas, 25% EUROPES Offshore Wind Potential, 25% EUROPES wave potential, 10% EUROPES Tidal potential, Exports (Food and Drink) that amount to most of the UK exports etc… etc…
Scotland would need to renegotiate terms for the CAP (That we dont benefit from now due to Thatchers rebate – a system whereby the rebate benefits London and losing the CAP money harms Scoltand, Wales, Northern Ireland and rural England).
We would need to re-negotiate the CFP – since it is presently biased heavily against our own fishermen etc…
muttley,
if you are able to comment on the Guardian – be cheeky and ask Severin if the Spanish PM’s advice would be legally binding? Or did he not take legal advice – just quoting possible hearsay?
Cheers Scott. Carroll says it is the Spanish Foreign Minister. Don’t suppose that makes much of a difference. Should Carroll just be ignored as he seems very biased?
@Adrian B
It is on the front page of the Guardian webpage. No comments so far. Carroll is up to his tricks again, says it is a blow for Scottish independence. He never writes any critical comments about the unionist parties, not one article about Lamont’s ‘something for nothing’ speech.
David, it was me was the caller on Call Kaye that you refer to. I’m afraid the previous callers opinions sidetracked me somewhat.
I am a strong supporter of independence. I’m not an SNP party member. However I’m struggling to understand what Mr Salmond refers to when he answers that they have sought legal advice “in terms of the debate”.
I recall one debate where (I think Ruth Davidson) produced a letter from someone at the EU confirming that the Scottish Government had not solicited advice from them as to Scotlands status within the EU after independence. What struck me was that Ms Davidson was willing to ask whether the question had been asked, but not to actually ask the question herself.
Is this the question which no one dares ask?
Sidetracked again…
Without understanding whether Mr Salmond answered truthfully, accurately or honestly, then I’m in no position to defend that.