One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.

[kni]

And how would you 'unmake' someone an EU citizen? It has never happened before. The only vaguely similar situation is Germany. West Germany was the member state and when it and the bankrupt DDR reunified into the state we know today it took its place. It became its successor state.

 

Now, in the event of Scottish independence it tends to be automatically assumed that EWNI would be the natural successor state to the UK; but why? Like Scotland, it is a different entity from the UK. Scotland has as legitimate a claim to being an UK successor state as EWNI.

 

As for your other points, this is a segment from a post I made a few months ago:

 

 

 

http://www.wearethis...post__p__146079

 

Citizens of a Member State cease to be citizens of the EU if that Member State leaves the European Union. The mechanism for leaving is set out in detail in the Lisbon Treaty. Scotland, by leaving the United Kingdom, would cease to be in the EU because its citizens had voted to leave the Member State. The citizens of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would remain in the United Kingdom and bound by the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.

 

You claim that Scots who are living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are going to be made illegal aliens in the rUK. That is not true. They are citizens of the United Kingdom with EU passports and their country of birth is irrelevant. They are in the same position as those who were born in outside the UK but who now have UK citizenship. The same principle applies to Scots with British cItizenship who are living in other EU countries. The SNP have disenfranchised them from the referendum.

 

In practice, having left the EU, Scotland would need to create its own citizenship scheme and issue new Scottish passports. Citizens of other EU Member States who are resident in Scotland would simply have to apply for visas like any non-Scottish citizen, e.g. Americans, Canadians and Australians. EU citizens living in Scotland (even for a few months only), unlike Scots living in rUK and abroad, do have a vote in the referendum.

 

Scots who are living in other countries would have to apply for Scottish citizenship, possibly having dual nationality. I have friends who have dual nationality, i.e. Britain and another country, e.g. the US and Israel. It is a perfectly reasonable solution legally and practically.

 

On the issue of borders, an independent Scotland could enter into a separate agreements with the rUK and the EU. Norway and Switzerland, not in the EU, joined the Schengen Area and has no border controls. Scotland could join the Schengen Area too even though Britain is not currently a member.

 

Hope this is clear.

Edited February 19, 2014 by kni

[Jaggernaut]

Accusing me of lying is a ridiculous tactic to evade the key points on EU law. Do you really want me to post the relevant sections of the Lisbon Treaty?

 

I worked European politics, including Brussels, for several years. My contacts include around twenty MEPs in four different British parties. Three are very close friends whom I have known for over 20 years. Satisfied now?

 

If you see an accusation that you are lying in anything I've written, then there is no point in continuing.

[Jaggernaut]

None of the unionists on this thread have commented on the result of this poll so far. Given that Jags supporters are likely to be representative of the Scots population at large, how do they feel about the fact that more than 2/3 are going to vote Yes?

[kni]

None of the unionists on this thread have commented on the result of this poll so far. Given that Jags supporters are likely to be representative of the Scots population at large, how do they feel about the fact that more than 2/3 are going to vote Yes?

 

Having professional qualifications in market research and been a client of all the major polling companies, I can only describe that statement as sheer and utter nonsense. The only poll that could be representative of the Scots population would one that is truly national and has a minimum of 1,000 respondents in a random sample, i.e. to produce a standard error of less than 3%. 63 votes from a self selecting sample would have a massive standard error, well over 20%.

 

Statistically, the value of this thread's poll is zero. The only polls worth considering are those conducted by reputable firms, i.e. members of the Market Research Society. From personal experience, I rate ICM above Yougov, Populus and ComRes in that order. There are variations in their polling methodologies (particularly weighting) that can skew their results. MORI is excellent for testing advertising messages. The rest are not worth considering.

Edited February 19, 2014 by kni

[Norgethistle]

With respect Norge, the answers to all the questions you put there can be found in the white paper. They may not be the answers you wish to see, but they are there.

 

My problem is that what the white paper states does not add up financialy, this is what (As you say) the SNP want to happen, but the SNP do not control the rest of the UK, the EU, the World Banks or NATO all of who (Plus more) will have their say as to how the White Paper Scotland will integrate with them, the SNP believe because its in their White Paper and they have had a few think tanks then what they state will all come true.

 

I had a think tank that stated I should have Monday's and Fridays off work and be paid more, the think tank (People sharing my views) agreed this would be good for all as on Mondays I am tired and not productive, Fridays my mind is on the football so not as productive, and getting more money enabled me to pay more tax via Income tax plus more to the bars boosting the local economy.

I can't understand why my employers are bullying me into saying this cannot happen and if I decide not to come in on Mondays & Fridays not only will they not give me my pay rise they will fire me.

[kni]

If you see an accusation that you are lying in anything I've written, then there is no point in continuing.

 

It was clear that you did not believe me. Perhaps you do not wish to continue because you have no facts, e.g. in EU treaties and law, to back up your arguments.

 

Btw, I was pro-EU at first but dealing with MEPs, officials etc made me realise that it was an undemocratic and authoritarian Leviathan with huge imperialistic ambitions.

[Colognejag]

Citizens of a Member State cease to be citizens of the EU if that Member State leaves the European Union. The mechanism for leaving is set out in detail in the Lisbon Treaty. Scotland, by leaving the United Kingdom, would cease to be in the EU because its citizens had voted to leave the Member State. The citizens of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would remain in the United Kingdom and bound by the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.

 

You claim that Scots who are living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are going to be made illegal aliens in the rUK. That is not true. They are citizens of the United Kingdom with EU passports and their country of birth is irrelevant. They are in the same position as those who were born in outside the UK but who now have UK citizenship. The same principle applies to Scots with British cItizenship who are living in other EU countries. The SNP have disenfranchised them from the referendum.

 

In practice, having left the EU, Scotland would need to create its own citizenship scheme and issue new Scottish passports. Citizens of other EU Member States who are resident in Scotland would simply have to apply for visas like any non-Scottish citizen, e.g. Americans, Canadians and Australians. EU citizens living in Scotland (even for a few months only), unlike Scots living in rUK and abroad, do have a vote in the referendum.

 

Scots who are living in other countries would have to apply for Scottish citizenship, possibly having dual nationality. I have friends who have dual nationality, i.e. Britain and another country, e.g. the US and Israel. It is a perfectly reasonable solution legally and practically.

 

On the issue of borders, an independent Scotland could enter into a separate agreements with the rUK and the EU. Norway and Switzerland, not in the EU, joined the Schengen Area and has no border controls. Scotland could join the Schengen Area too even though Britain is not currently a member.

 

Hope this is clear.

 

Kni - I have wondered if it is possible to have dual nationality between two EU member states? I think you can have both an Irish and UK passport if you are from N. Ireland (?), although that situation is unique on many levels. If Scotland were to be independent and in the EU, could you theoretically have a Scottish and, say, German passport, assuming you would qualify for both?

[kni]

Kni - I have wondered if it is possible to have dual nationality between two EU member states? I think you can have both an Irish and UK passport if you are from N. Ireland (?), although that situation is unique on many levels. If Scotland were to be independent and in the EU, could you theoretically have a Scottish and, say, German passport, assuming you would qualify for both?

 

Yes to all questions but it depends on the nationality laws of the individual Member States. This long and detailed Wikipedia article seems to be a reasonable summary. It shows how complex the rules and laws are, especially in Germany. Scroll down to the EU and EFTA section for each country's laws. As a Scot living in Germany, you could choose to remain a British and, therefore, an EU citizen after independence.

Edited February 19, 2014 by kni

[Jaggernaut]

Having professional qualifications in market research and been a client of all the major polling companies, I can only describe that statement as sheer and utter nonsense. The only poll that could be representative of the Scots population would one that is truly national and has a minimum of 1,000 respondents in a random sample, i.e. to produce a standard error of less than 3%. 63 votes from a self selecting sample would have a massive standard error, well over 20%.

 

Statistically, the value of this thread's poll is zero. The only polls worth considering are those conducted by reputable firms, i.e. members of the Market Research Society. From personal experience, I rate ICM above Yougov, Populus and ComRes in that order. There are variations in their polling methodologies (particularly weighting) that can skew their results. MORI is excellent for testing advertising messages. The rest are not worth considering.

 

Are there any polls that indicate a majority "no" vote that you approve of, by any chance?

[Jaggernaut]

It was clear that you did not believe me. Perhaps you do not wish to continue because you have no facts, e.g. in EU treaties and law, to back up your arguments.

 

Btw, I was pro-EU at first but dealing with MEPs, officials etc made me realise that it was an undemocratic and authoritarian Leviathan with huge imperialistic ambitions.

 

Clear that I did not believe you in your head only. You have no facts either, only people's opinions, and my guess is that you probably associate preferentially with like-minded people. Barroso only stated his opinion, which is a politically motivated one. Many people think he is wrong. He has no special powers.

[kni]

Are there any polls that indicate a majority "no" vote that you approve of, by any chance?

 

Yes, the ones that have been carried out by the firms that I mentioned. UK Polling Report is a good source of Scottish polling information. The latest ICM polls are particularly interesting.

[kni]

Clear that I did not believe you in your head only. You have no facts either, only people's opinions, and my guess is that you probably associate preferentially with like-minded people. Barroso only stated his opinion, which is a politically motivated one. Many people think he is wrong. He has no special powers.

 

Article 17 of The Lisbon Treaty gives the Commission massive powers. Barroso, as President, has the power to decide how the Commission is organised to exercise those powers. I have emboldened the relevant parts below. Please explain how Salmond can over-turn those powers and the other terms of the Treaty (see the linked pdf).

 

 

Article 17.

 

"1. The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. It shall ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them. It shall oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It shall execute the budget and manage programmes. It shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions, as laid down in the Treaties. With the exception of the common foreign and security policy, and other cases provided for in the Treaties, it shall ensure the Union’s external representation. It shall initiate the Union’s annual and multi annual programming with a view to achieving inter-institutional agreements.

 

2. Union legislative acts may only be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. Other acts shall be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal where the Treaties so provide.

 

6. The President of the Commission shall:

 

a. lay down guidelines within which the Commission is to work;

b. decide on the internal organisation of the Commission, ensuring that it acts consistently, efficiently and as a collegiate body;

c. appoint Vice-Presidents, other than the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, from among the members of the Commission.

Edited February 19, 2014 by kni

[Jaggernaut]

Article 17 of The Lisbon Treaty gives the Commission massive powers. Barroso, as President, has the power to decide how the Commission is organised to exercise those powers. I have emboldened the relevant parts below. Please explain how Salmond can over-turn those powers and the other terms of the Treaty (see the linked pdf).

 

 

Article 17.

 

"1. The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. It shall ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them. It shall oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It shall execute the budget and manage programmes. It shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions, as laid down in the Treaties. With the exception of the common foreign and security policy, and other cases provided for in the Treaties, it shall ensure the Union’s external representation. It shall initiate the Union’s annual and multi annual programming with a view to achieving inter-institutional agreements.

 

2. Union legislative acts may only be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. Other acts shall be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal where the Treaties so provide.

 

6. The President of the Commission shall:

 

a. lay down guidelines within which the Commission is to work;

b. decide on the internal organisation of the Commission, ensuring that it acts consistently, efficiently and as a collegiate body;

c. appoint Vice-Presidents, other than the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, from among the members of the Commission.

 

Why are you claiming that alex Salmond wants to "overthrow" anything? That's the kind of language that diminishes the credibility of all of your posts. There is nothing in anything that you've put in bold that indicates that Scotland would be expelled from the EU. He has an organising role, nothing more, nothing less. He cannot veto anything, and he cannot impose on people how to vote.

[Norgethistle]

Why are you claiming that alex Salmond wants to "overthrow" anything? That's the kind of language that diminishes the credibility of all of your posts. There is nothing in anything that you've put in bold that indicates that Scotland would be expelled from the EU. He has an organising role, nothing more, nothing less. He cannot veto anything, and he cannot impose on people how to vote.

 

Over-turn was the phrase, massively different for overthrow

 

No one mentions being expelled, Scotland as an Independant nation is not in the EU so it cannot be expelled, it has to gain entry through the Lisbon Treaty

[kni]

Why are you claiming that alex Salmond wants to "overthrow" anything? That's the kind of language that diminishes the credibility of all of your posts. There is nothing in anything that you've put in bold that indicates that Scotland would be expelled from the EU. He has an organising role, nothing more, nothing less. He cannot veto anything, and he cannot impose on people how to vote.

 

I said over-turn, not overthrow - two very different words. I never said that Barroso can veto anything or impose on people how to vote. The Commission has the power and takes the decisions and Barroso, as President, has a huge influence. Why are you unable to read what I said properly and putting words into my mouth?

 

Scotland would not be expelled from the EU. It would leave voluntarily as a result of leaving the United Kingdom, a Member State. For Scotland to remain in the EU after the referendum, a Member State, the European Parliament or Commission would need to propose to amend the Lisbon Treaty. The complicated procedure is described here.

 

Such amendments would changing the application procedures and the associated economic and financial requirements, particularly the requirement to join the Euro. Such amendments, if passed would create precedents for other countries who have applied to join the EU.

 

The amendments would require the unanimous support of all the Member States, including the UK, via an Inter-governmental conference. Given the above precedents, that unanimous support would be virtually impossible to obtain - the key point that Barroso was making in his BBC interview. It's not he personally who would stop an independent Scotland re-joining immediately - it would be the other Member States in an IGC.

 

Btw, the UK, if it voted to leave after Cameron's promised referendum, would have to follow the procedures in the Lisbon Treaty. Leaving the UK is the quickest and easiest way for Scotland to leave the EU, a key reason why I support true independence.

 

(Edited after checking EU documents and obtaining a key link)

Edited February 19, 2014 by kni

[Jaggernaut]

Thanks for correcting my wording.

 

I might be wrong, but has any other country that has already been in the EU applied for amendments of the type that would be required for Scotland to be fast-tracked (whether that is desirable or not)? If not, then why would it create precedents? Presumably the amendments would be for specifically for cases such as Scotland's, not for countries who have never been a member of the EU in any shape or form. Also presumably, the Scottish Government has studied the issue and consider it to be feasible.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[kni]

Thanks for correcting my wording.

 

I might be wrong, but has any other country that has already been in the EU applied for amendments of the type that would be required for Scotland to be fast-tracked (whether that is desirable or not)? If not, then why would it create precedents? Presumably the amendments would be for specifically for cases such as Scotland's, not for countries who have never been a member of the EU in any shape or form. Also presumably, the Scottish Government has studied the issue and consider it to be feasible.

 

The Parliament, Commission or UK (not Scotland) as the Member State would need to propose the amendments that you suggest. They would create precedents for other regions who vote to secede from Member States - Catalonia being the obvious example.

 

In any case, an independent Scotland would never have been a Member State. As such, it could/would/should be treated as a new applicant and have to meet the new Members' criteria including the requirement to join the Euro. Spain will make such an argument and it is one of the most powerful voices in the Council.

 

The issue is not necessarily one of "feasibility" - it's being able to deliver the required unanimity in the IGC. Let's assume that Salmond can persuade Cameron to propose those amendments. What could Scotland offer Spain or possible dissenters to secure their support? Would Salmond threaten to impose higher taxes on flights from Scottish airports to/from Spain and the Canary Islands?

Edited February 19, 2014 by kni

[Jaggernaut]

The Parliament, Commission or UK (not Scotland) as the Member State would need to propose the amendments that you suggest. They would create precedents for other regions who vote to secede from Member States - Catalonia being the obvious example.

 

In any case, an independent Scotland would never have been a Member State. As such, it could/would/should be treated as a new applicant and have to meet the new Members' criteria including the requirement to join the Euro. Spain will make such an argument and it is one of the most powerful voices in the Council.

 

The issue is not necessarily one of "feasibility" - it's being able to deliver the required unanimity in the IGC. Let's assume that Salmond can persuade Cameron to propose those amendments. What could Scotland offer Spain or possible dissenters to secure their support? Would Salmond threaten to impose higher taxes on flights from Scottish airports to/from Spain and the Canary Islands?

 

Who knows what will happen in the event of a Yes vote (though I shudder what will happen to Scotland in the event of a no vote)? Nobody has said anything definite; the "no currency union" unionists can promise anything, Barosso claiming it would be "very difficult if not impossible" for Scotland to be in the EU holds no power to make that so; nobody can say anything definite.

[kni]

Who knows what will happen in the event of a Yes vote (though I shudder what will happen to Scotland in the event of a no vote)? Nobody has said anything definite; the "no currency union" unionists can promise anything, Barosso claiming it would be "very difficult if not impossible" for Scotland to be in the EU holds no power to make that so; nobody can say anything definite.

 

The power, as I explained above, lies with the Member States who will vote on any proposed amendments to the Lisbon Treaty.

 

However, Salmond has no power to propose any amendments. Cameron will certainly not do it. With only 2 MEPs out of a total of 754 (750 from June 2014), the SNP has negligible influence in the Parliament so that option is out.

 

That leaves the Commission whose President has been attacked by Salmond, Sturgeon et all for merely stating his perception of the political reality. What an own goal!! Salmond is the Dick Campbell of Scottish politics, totally out of his depth at the top level.

[Norgethistle]

Who knows what will happen in the event of a Yes vote (though I shudder what will happen to Scotland in the event of a no vote)? Nobody has said anything definite; the "no currency union" unionists can promise anything,

 

Emm the "No Currency Union" unionists happen to be the Bank of England and the 3 major parties in the UK, unless there is a snap general election before October and the greens get in then I think these guys may have the final say

[kni]

I must admit to admiring Jaggernaut immensely for his devoted loyalty, almost Leninist, to the SNP's "party lines". Perhaps he could explain why he supports a currency union and EU membership. I would also be interested whether he would prefer Scotland to join the Euro rather than have its own currency.

[Norgethistle]

I must admit to admiring Jaggernaut immensely for his devoted loyalty, almost Leninist, to the SNP's "party lines". Perhaps he could explain why he supports a currency union and EU membership. I would also be interested whether he would prefer Scotland to join the Euro rather than have its own currency.

 

Cause Alex says so

[Jaggernaut]

The power, as I explained above, lies with the Member States who will vote on any proposed amendments to the Lisbon Treaty.

 

However, Salmond has no power to propose any amendments. Cameron will certainly not do it. With only 2 MEPs out of a total of 754 (750 from June 2014), the SNP has negligible influence in the Parliament so that option is out.

 

That leaves the Commission whose President has been attacked by Salmond, Sturgeon et all for merely stating his perception of the political reality. What an own goal!! Salmond is the Dick Campbell of Scottish politics, totally out of his depth at the top level.

 

I'm afraid that your raging pro-Westimster-rules-over-Scotland-OK! stance becomes clearer with every post you make. But maybe that's your aim, so good luck. The result of this poll at least suggests that you're not having much of an effect.

[Jaggernaut]

I must admit to admiring Jaggernaut immensely for his devoted loyalty, almost Leninist, to the SNP's "party lines". Perhaps he could explain why he supports a currency union and EU membership. I would also be interested whether he would prefer Scotland to join the Euro rather than have its own currency.

 

Kni,

 

To tell you the truth, I DON'T CARE. Regaining Scotland's position as an independent nation like other nations in the UN is what drives my position. I don't care (much) if the SNP, the Tories, The Lib Dems, The Greens, or the Raving Looney Party forms the next government in an independent Scotland. Whoever it is will be judged at the following election. My main desire is for Scottish people to be able to vote for their own policies and see them implemented, rather than get over-ridden by the south-east of England at every turn because their interests are in the south-east of England. Do you really feel that the large share of the UK population there really considers that what Scots consider important is a priority for them? Scotland will never be able to implement its own policies because of the inequitable share of votes in the UK set-up.

[kni]

I'm afraid that your raging pro-Westimster-rules-over-Scotland-OK! stance becomes clearer with every post you make. But maybe that's your aim, so good luck. The result of this poll at least suggests that you're not having much of an effect.

 

What have I said to justify your pro-Westminster smear? Yet again, I am forced to repeat my support for real independence, i.e. Scotland to leave the UK and EU and to have its own currency. Currency union will give the Treasury in Whitehall great control over Scotland's economy so it's you who is the pro-Westminster poster on here.

 

This thread's poll, for the reasons that I set out earlier, is irrelevant. It is a self-selecting sample. I am not trying to influence the poll, just debunking the SNP's claims that it can deliver a currency union and EU membership. By contrast you have not provided any hard evidence to support your claims and arguments.