Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Coco]

That is why I included the '?', I wasn't sure.

 

So if we are not able to negotiate from within, before Independence day, will we then be out?

 

We have only been given 18 months or something to do this?! I have always thought the timetable was tight.

 

I think it is now generally accepted that the European Council (the member states) would have to vote unanimously for Scotland to negotiate for membership from within (through Article 48). This is why there is all the stuff about the views of the Spanish and Belgian Governments.

[TheMaganator]

Might be forced out by UKIP voters in England if we stay in the UK?

 

Unlikely - but when was the last time an EU poll was done in Scotland? I am not aware of one. Does Scotland even want to stay in?

 

It'd be interesting if apoll was done.

[TheMaganator]

I think it is now generally accepted that the European Council (the member states) would have to vote unanimously for Scotland to negotiate for membership from within (through Article 48). This is why there is all the stuff about the views of the Spanish and Belgian Governments.

 

Ah, fair enough.

 

I suppose we need unanimous agreement to be in whether we are negotiating from within, or from outside?

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Yes, it is easily laughed off (as was Hyslop's intervention) but as far as I am aware he has not been reprimanded by his party and his views mark a wider trend.

 

Not only is it a stupid thing to do, he announced it on twitter, where he will be followed by some who are equally as dim as him - and may join him. The point isnt so much that a few loonies will boycott a supermarket - it is the fact that it was the response - 'they've raised an issue we don't like, lets boycott'. And with that attitude, there will be some in the business community who will be fearful of speaking their mind on the issue. This is not the way the debate should be conducted.

 

Big supermarkets can look after themselves - if this had happened to a small business it would be a different issue.

 

But, sure, lets go for independence and it matters not how we get there - right?

 

The only folk that'll take it seriously are the motley crew of 'cybernats'; so as well as the proposal being laughed off and derided as it should be, the proponents of the boycott will be laughed off and derided as well - as they usually are.

 

If the SNP don't reprimand him then it's their problem. Although, I've not seen this episode mentioned again after it was said: I think it's been quickly forgotten.

 

Both sides have a minority who act like total cretins (similar to pretty much any political debate), who bring the debate as a whole down. Let's not pretend it's just one side.

 

That is why I included the '?', I wasn't sure.

 

So if we are not able to negotiate from within, before Independence day, will we then be out?

 

We have only been given 18 months or something to do this?! I have always thought the timetable was tight.

 

Same. It takes years between states signalling their intention to join the EU and actually assenting to full EU member status. Eighteen months is incredibly ambitious, predicated on the basis that we'll receive the same benefits the UK currently has a member e.g. the rebate.

 

It's an almost certainty that we won't get these benefits, so we'll have to negotiate. It'll take at least three years for us to negotiate our way into the EU, I'd imagine.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

 

That is why I included the '?', I wasn't sure.

 

So if we are not able to negotiate from within, before Independence day, will we then be out?

 

We have only been given 18 months or something to do this?! I have always thought the timetable was tight.

Apologies if it was a genuine question. We've given ourselves the 18 months which was more than enough for a number of countries who negotiated their independence. The timescale has been backed by UK experts who were asked to look into it and was described by them as "entirely reasonable".

In contrast to what many people in the no camp want us to think, it is highly reasonable to suggest a very smooth negotiation as we not only already fully comply with membership requirements but we would be looking for continued membership, this means not having to draw up anything from scratch. It's a completely sensible view with a timescale that other countries have achieved quicker.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

 

 

The only folk that'll take it seriously are the motley crew of 'cybernats'; so as well as the proposal being laughed off and derided as it should be, the proponents of the boycott will be laughed off and derided as well - as they usually are.

 

If the SNP don't reprimand him then it's their problem. Although, I've not seen this episode mentioned again after it was said: I think it's been quickly forgotten.

 

Both sides have a minority who act like total cretins (similar to pretty much any political debate), who bring the debate as a whole down. Let's not pretend it's just one side.

 

 

 

Same. It takes years between states signalling their intention to join the EU and actually assenting to full EU member status. Eighteen months is incredibly ambitious, predicated on the basis that we'll receive the same benefits the UK currently has a member e.g. the rebate.

 

It's an almost certainty that we won't get these benefits, so we'll have to negotiate. It'll take at least three years for us to negotiate our way into the EU, I'd imagine.

 

UK experts employed to look at the timescale would disagree with you. Let's stick to facts and not assertion with the means to scare people into a vote.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Saying that negotiations would *probably* take longer than eighteen months is not scaremongering ffs.

[TheMaganator]

UK experts employed to look at the timescale would disagree with you. Let's stick to facts and not assertion with the means to scare people into a vote.

 

In fairness, an estimated timescale, by experts or not, is not 'fact'.

 

I've said before - 300 years of union will take a while to untangle. The minute one side starts to not play ball, for whatever reason, or even if there is a substantial difference of opinion, there will be delays.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

Saying that negotiations would *probably* take longer than eighteen months is not scaremongering ffs.

 

Right above this post are two paragraphs that do. And the word 'probably' doesn't appear once either.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

 

 

In fairness, an estimated timescale, by experts or not, is not 'fact'.

 

I've said before - 300 years of union will take a while to untangle. The minute one side starts to not play ball, for whatever reason, or even if there is a substantial difference of opinion, there will be delays.

 

Precedent in timescale which is why the SNP chose 18 months (yes that's right, we weren't "given it" is fact. A large amount of countries have managed it so there is no reason why we can't. The length of the union makes no difference unless you have something to back that up with? In any case we're meant to be talking about EU membership, funny that we're being dragged off topic now somewhat.

[TheMaganator]

Precedent in timescale which is why the SNP chose 18 months (yes that's right, we weren't "given it" is fact. A large amount of countries have managed it so there is no reason why we can't. The length of the union makes no difference unless you have something to back that up with? In any case we're meant to be talking about EU membership, funny that we're being dragged off topic now somewhat.

It's not really that surprising - we are talking about EU membership - the issue of us not having negotiated in time was raised - and then we went onto the timetable in general.

 

The reason I raised the length of union, is that in that time we have acculated a lot of assets an liabilities (sure, we could have maybe done the same over 10 years but that wasn't the point I was making).

 

We have assets in just about every country in the globe, lots of our institutions are one, it will not be a straightforward process IMO. Fairly basic divorces can take years to unravel.

 

& this is not scaremongering before you say that again - it is merely a comment on my opinion of the timescales.

 

Happy to go back to discussing EU Membership if you exclusively want to discuss that - for whatever reason. I asked a question above that hasn't been answered and I would be interested to know what people thought:

 

If we do not negotiate terms with the EU come Independence day - will we then be out of the EU?

[Jambo, Goodbye]

Of new states that have become UN members since 1945, 30 have done so following a referendum, taking an average transition period from referendum to independence of 18 months. The most recent country in Europe to become independent is Montenegro in 2006. Seven of the 28 member states of the EU have become independent countries in the last 25 years

[TheMaganator]

Of new states that have become UN members since 1945, 30 have done so following a referendum, taking an average transition period from referendum to independence of 18 months. The most recent country in Europe to become independent is Montenegro in 2006. Seven of the 28 member states of the EU have become independent countries in the last 25 years

 

Ok - I suppose 'average' being the important word in that quote.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

I propose asking yes Scotland who will answer your question. But I think it's safe to say we have chosen a highly realistic and proper timescale based on how long it took 30 other countries.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Of new states that have become UN members since 1945, 30 have done so following a referendum, taking an average transition period from referendum to independence of 18 months. The most recent country in Europe to become independent is Montenegro in 2006. Seven of the 28 member states of the EU have become independent countries in the last 25 years

 

Accession to the UN is not the same as accession to the EU. In general, it's much more simpler gaining membership of the UN than the EU.

 

Montenegro is still an applicant country to the EU. Don't know what your point is.

[smallfaces]

I propose asking yes Scotland who will answer your question. But I think it's safe to say we have chosen a highly realistic and proper timescale based on how long it took 30 other countries.

 

Surely the point is, no matter how long new members took to either become affiliate or full members of the EU, none were trying to join with a pre-existing terms of condition.

e.g. veto, rebate etc that the UK currently holds.

[TheMaganator]

I propose asking yes Scotland who will answer your question. But I think it's safe to say we have chosen a highly realistic and proper timescale based on how long it took 30 other countries.

 

I had a quick look on their website and all I could find was this:

 

"Even the UK government?s expert European legal adviser has accepted that this timetable is ?realistic?. So Scotland?s EU membership will be secure by the time we are independent."

 

Also:

 

"Scotland already is part of the EU ? so there is no doubt that we meet all the requirements for"

 

Is it Scotland that is part of the EU, or is it Britain? Britain may meet the requirements and Scotland may not.

 

Nothing about what happens if we have not negotiated- just another assertion based on an experts 'realistic' timetable .

 

I will email them a full question and let you know what they come back with.

Edited December 11, 2013 by TheMaganator

[Jambo, Goodbye]

 

 

I had a quick look on their website and all I could find was this:

 

"Even the UK government?s expert European legal adviser has accepted that this timetable is ?realistic?. So Scotland?s EU membership will be secure by the time we are independent."

 

Nothing about what happens if we are not - just another assertion based on an experts 'realistic' timetable . I will email them a full question and let you know what they come back with.

 

You're quite right to email them. I'm glad they don't assert a 3 year timetable. That would just be silly now wouldn't it

[Jambo, Goodbye]

International examples show that countries can make significant constitutional changes happen quickly once a democratic decision is taken. Eighteen months is comparable to the time taken by other countries making the transition to independence. The fact we have preexisting conditions can arguably save time and simplify the process rather than prolong it. Unless of course you refuse to accept that it is in Scotland's, the UK's and indeed the EU's best interest to come to a mutual agreement.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

The fact we have preexisting conditions can arguably save time and simplify the process rather than prolong it.

 

I agree. I would not be surprised in the slightest if accession took longer, though.

 

Unless of course you refuse to accept that it is in Scotland's, the UK's and indeed the EU's best interest to come to a mutual agreement.

 

ffs of course it is.

 

I am merely sceptical of the eighteen month accession to the EU. I think an independent Scotland should be a part of the EU. I don't care if it takes eighteen months or three years, tbh.

[JamboX2]

 

No it has not. It has been accepted that we will negotiate from within the EU as we will not be out of it at any point before independence day. There is no precedent that says we'll be out and no sensible evidence to suggest a referendum result can automatically change your EU status. Let's not start making things up on what the yes campaign has said now.

 

There's no precedence the other way saying we can negotiate from within as we'd lack an indepedent government internationally to do so. It also opens a can of worms. Can Bavaria negotiate with the European Commission for a better deal than wider Germany if a mere constituent nation like Scotland can negotiate entry without statehood?

 

Only the EC can answer that. I doubt a negotiation from within is possible. That is not to say no entry at all. Its to say independence day may come before we even begin negotiating EU membership.

 

 

[JamboX2]

Of new states that have become UN members since 1945, 30 have done so following a referendum, taking an average transition period from referendum to independence of 18 months. The most recent country in Europe to become independent is Montenegro in 2006. Seven of the 28 member states of the EU have become independent countries in the last 25 years

 

One of those 7 is Croatia, acceeded this year. Took near a decade to join the EU. Our entry would be undoubtedly quicker. But perhaps not in 18months. 18 months is the timescale to seccede from the UK. Not to join the EU and NATO.

 

 

[TheMaganator]

One of those 7 is Croatia, acceeded this year. Took near a decade to join the EU. Our entry would be undoubtedly quicker. But perhaps not in 18months. 18 months is the timescale to seccede from the UK. Not to join the EU and NATO.

 

If that is the case - it could drastically change our position ie. we will potentially* be forced to leave the EU once we become independent from the UK and will then be negotiating from the outside.

 

 

*I said potentially before anyone jumps in with the perennial scaremongering reponse

[Alba gu Brath]

Still arguing about EU membership with a UK referendum on the horizon....

 

Saw this about the supermarkets btw...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/11/scotland-supermarkets-morrisons_n_4424751.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

 

Morrisons has become the first of the Big Four supermarket giants to suggest it could slash food prices in an independent Scotland.

 

Sorry Maganator! You seemed so jubilant at the 'news' yesterday...

 

A Tesco spokesperson told the Huffington Post UK no executive had spoken to the Financial Times for their report suggesting supermarkets would increase prices, adding: ?We?ve got a great business in Scotland and our job is to create the best offer for customers whatever the outcome of the referendum.?

 

It gets better...

 

[TheMaganator]

^^

Yes, I was jubilant, right enough.

 

So both the Huff & FT have unnamed sources. One saying prices will go up & one saying what every business the world over wants to do - the best business possible in the environment it operates in. Hardly a resounding victory for your point, is it?!

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/12/scottish-nationalisms-dangerous-cult-of-victimhood/

 

Alex Massie on fine form on the Nationalist cult of victimhood.

[JamboX2]

Still arguing about EU membership with a UK referendum on the horizon....

 

 

 

Which is exactly why the issue of the EU and benefits and disadvantages to Scotland of EU membership need debated now. The deabte we have seen in Scotland isn't pros or cons of EU membership but the process of gaining it. We shouldn't fear debating what it will mean being a member. We should be debating whether the EU, EFTA or total disassociation with it all are the best option for Scotland, not how long it'll take to get in, not if we can "negotiate from within to be a member by virtue of being a member as part of the UK", not we should because everyone else. An actual real discussion on this. Because, if I'm honest I'm starting to think Norway has a good deal in EFTA without opening it's fishing grounds to other nations and adopting a very liberal-capitalist approach to how we run our economy.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Which is exactly why the issue of the EU and benefits and disadvantages to Scotland of EU membership need debated now. The deabte we have seen in Scotland isn't pros or cons of EU membership but the process of gaining it. We shouldn't fear debating what it will mean being a member. We should be debating whether the EU, EFTA or total disassociation with it all are the best option for Scotland, not how long it'll take to get in, not if we can "negotiate from within to be a member by virtue of being a member as part of the UK", not we should because everyone else. An actual real discussion on this. Because, if I'm honest I'm starting to think Norway has a good deal in EFTA without opening it's fishing grounds to other nations and adopting a very liberal-capitalist approach to how we run our economy.

Good post.

 

I'm an EFTA man too.

 

Since it's been raised - I was at a lecture last year by Joan McAlpine - when asked about it, she'd never heard of EFTA. Genuine honest to God true story.

[Coco]

Is there a section in the White Paper on the expected Scotland contribution to the EU budget if we become a Member State post Independence? Is there a figure if the UK equivalent rebate is not applied?

[FWJ]

Is the problem with being outside the EU that if you want to trade with them you have to accept all their rules and regulations re products, goods and services but you have no say in what rules are made?

Sure, it doesn't seem to have done Norway and Switzerland any harm not being in the EU - but are they rich because they aren't in Europe or have they chosen not to join because they are rich enough without?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Is the problem with being outside the EU that if you want to trade with them you have to accept all their rules and regulations re products, goods and services but you have no say in what rules are made?

Sure, it doesn't seem to have done Norway and Switzerland any harm not being in the EU - but are they rich because they aren't in Europe or have they chosen not to join because they are rich enough without?

 

That's the rules of the single market. Funnily enough though, EFTA countries do not have to concern themselves with Euro convergence criteria, nor daft policies like the CAP or the CFP.

[JamboX2]

Good post.

 

I'm an EFTA man too.

 

Since it's been raised - I was at a lecture last year by Joan McAlpine - when asked about it, she'd never heard of EFTA. Genuine honest to God true story.

 

In fairness to Joan McAlpine, all she reads is SNP briefing papers, that appears to be her world view. I've seen people on here from Labour, the Tories and the Liberals called hacks, she certainly is the SNP's hack. Woeful politician in my opinion.

 

I'm not entirely sure on Europe at the moment. I think you should be part of forming the laws, so full membership is good, but I don't agree with all the economic decision making of the EU. It's increasingly becoming more powerful and influential and yet is less democratic. Power needs to be countered by democracy. If the Commission was formed from the Parliament, or ratified by the Parliament. Most decisions I believe made by the Commission aren't open to EU Parliamentary votes. I don't like that. Major reforms are needed.

 

EFTA seems a decent compromise to me. Norway gets a centre-left economy, no pressure to liberalise her nationalised industries and the free trade with the rest of Europe. Maybe Margo is right and that EFTA, not the EU is the way forward. Pity the debate on both sides is so stifled we can't even consider debating the pros and cons of where we lie on this. It'll be "yi cannae get in that way..." vs "Aw, naw we can. Look at this downloaded peice of paper ave got..." till the cows come home.

[JamboX2]

Is there a section in the White Paper on the expected Scotland contribution to the EU budget if we become a Member State post Independence? Is there a figure if the UK equivalent rebate is not applied?

 

I'd like to check in my copy, but even though it was ordered far too long ago, I still haven't got it. Anyone else struggling to get their copies through?

[jambos are go!]

There is no precedent for a country being forced to adopt the euro. In fact we couldn't adopt the euro if we wanted to as independently we have a to be members for a number of years first. The EU wants primarily, strong economic performance within itself. It won't achieve this by forcing currency change or by expelling citizens who have been in the EU for the last 40 years whilst simultaneously punching a massive hole in its own trade network. Anyone with any common sense can see why Scotland will continue to be a member of the EU. Unlike the rest of the UK which look likely to vote to leave at this time.

 

Sorry, but my understanding is that new member states have to commit to join the Euro foe some time. Are you challenging or trying to suggest that Scotland will retain membership. A fact that is disputed by many including member states who have a veto. Folk with common sense can make there mind up on that before they vote. Why don't the SNP have an open exchange of correspondence with the EC over membership issues and let the public see what the real position is?

 

Can you or anybody else answer the questions I asked of the YES campaign on Currency options if we cant Join the EC. Or will it be the same old 'It'll be alright on the Night" evasion.

 

Once we have got that out of the way we can discuss what an Independent Scotland will do if the rest of the UK leaves the EC as you suggest. First things first.

Edited December 11, 2013 by jambos are go!

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/11/scotland-supermarkets-morrisons_n_4424751.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

 

 

 

Sorry Maganator! You seemed so jubilant at the 'news' yesterday...

 

Found the original source for you

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/8448-food-prices-could-fall-in-independent-scotland-says-supermarket-giant

 

[redm]

No one in Scotland is neutral on this. Everyone has opinions. I'm sure there are unionist civil servants who worked on the White Paper and supported the Fiscal Commission. Did they have a conflict of interest?

 

The SNP can be pretty precious in this debate. I wonder if such a conflict would've been brought up by Ms Robinson if the guy had been in Academics for Yes or some such organisation. I doubt it.

 

This at the time seemed a response in a tit for tat way on the academic who wrote a "neutral" article for the Herald but it was later discovered he'd been paid by Yes Scotland.

& there's a chap on the law society committee that looks at independence issues that actively writes in support of independence. I'll PM his name to anyone that wants it.

 

To suggest a conflict of interest is unreal.

 

Head of St Andrews Uni spoke out:

 

http://www.telegraph...nce-debate.html

 

Google Mike Russell & you'll find articles about how he's treated those against his plans - though granted that's not an independence issue but shows how the SNP operate.

 

And you've ignored the SNP councillor calling for a boycott.

 

This certainly isn't the first or even second time we've heard of people concerned about speaking out.

 

You can apologise for them all you want - but this is not how this debate should be carried out & is pretty shocking.

 

The debate has been carried out in a ridiculously juvenile way on both sides thus far and I'm hoping that some sort of ceasefire on that nonsense can be found before we get into the final 9 months of campaigning. It drives me absolutely batty - it does nothing other than muddy the waters and draw the focus away from where it should be. I'm equally scathing of both parties on this count and I'm not apologising for any of that, but I do agree with the SNP position on this issue.

 

While everyone has opinions on independence there's a massive difference between sharing your opinions privately and then being an active participant in a professional capacity in anti-independence activities as part of the official no campaign. Those involved in official studies just can't compromise themselves in this way. It's nuts.

Edited December 11, 2013 by redm

[redm]

Is there a section in the White Paper on the expected Scotland contribution to the EU budget if we become a Member State post Independence? Is there a figure if the UK equivalent rebate is not applied?

 

Page 222:

 

"Scotland is likely to be a net financial contributor to the EU subject to negotiation on issues such as the rebate and Scottish take-up of EU funding programmes. The EU budget has been agreed until 2020. We see no reason for re-opening current budgetary arrangements. Prior to 2020, we consider that the division of the share of the UK rebate would be a matter for negotiation between the Scottish and Westminster governments."

[JamboX2]

The debate has been carried out in a ridiculously juvenile way on both sides thus far and I'm hoping that some sort of ceasefire on that nonsense can be found before we get into the final 9 months of campaigning. It drives me absolutely batty - it does nothing other than muddy the waters and draw the focus away from where it should be. I'm equally scathing of both parties on this count and I'm not apologising for any of that, but I do agree with the SNP position on this issue.

 

While everyone has opinions on independence there's a massive difference between sharing your opinions privately and then being an active participant in a professional capacity in anti-independence activities as part of the official no campaign. Those involved in official studies just can't compromise themselves in this way. It's nuts.

 

I don't think it does compromise him or his report. Does being a Conservative party member in a Trade Union compromise either's role in either institution if one is campaigning against policies of the other? Or can you have diverse affiliations?

 

It's not right to attack the guy for holding a position in a review of independence, with a broad base of academics on it, for his political beliefs. Should we ask the head of the IPPR how he'll vote in 2015 or that of the Joseph Rowntree foundation to assess how impartial their opinions are on the Coalition government's policies?

[JamboX2]

Page 222:

 

"Scotland is likely to be a net financial contributor to the EU subject to negotiation on issues such as the rebate and Scottish take-up of EU funding programmes. The EU budget has been agreed until 2020. We see no reason for re-opening current budgetary arrangements. Prior to 2020, we consider that the division of the share of the UK rebate would be a matter for negotiation between the Scottish and Westminster governments."

 

Why is that a matter for the UK and Scottish government's to debate? Surely it's got to be debated between us and the EU as to whether we retain elements of the UK's membership?

[Ulysses]

Found the original source for you

http://newsnetscotla...permarket-giant

 

Does that mean it's being spun by the nationalists?

 

What was the source of the original "story"?

[redm]

I don't think it does compromise him or his report. Does being a Conservative party member in a Trade Union compromise either's role in either institution if one is campaigning against policies of the other? Or can you have diverse affiliations?

 

It's not right to attack the guy for holding a position in a review of independence, with a broad base of academics on it, for his political beliefs. Should we ask the head of the IPPR how he'll vote in 2015 or that of the Joseph Rowntree foundation to assess how impartial their opinions are on the Coalition government's policies?

 

I'm not attacking him in the slightest, I just think he needs to consider his professional approach a little more carefully.

He's a third party supervisor, he's not a political professional and that's why he's working on this study in the first place.

 

I actually don't think it's that big a deal and it's just another example of the nonsense people are building up, exaggerating and using for mud slinging. The stuff that doesn't really matter but is being used to try and discredit each side of the debate rather than discussing the real issues. But if I had to take a side on it, I'd agree that it was a dodgy move on the part of the academic.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Does that mean it's being spun by the nationalists?

 

What was the source of the original "story"?

The Huffington Post quotes the Newsnet (nationalist website) article.

 

Newsnet contacted them after the FT article broke.

 

The guy from Morissons says the prices could go up or down

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Does that mean it's being spun by the nationalists?

 

What was the source of the original "story"?

The Huffington Post quotes the Newsnet (nationalist website) article.

 

Newsnet contacted them after the FT article broke.

 

The guy from Morissons says the prices could go up or down

[redm]

Why is that a matter for the UK and Scottish government's to debate? Surely it's got to be debated between us and the EU as to whether we retain elements of the UK's membership?

 

Only if you take the most awkward possible position on it. (Not a dig at you, more of the scaremongering attached to this issue.)

That joint membership takes Scotland into consideration, we are responsible for our share of the terms of that membership, stands to reason the most common sense approach would be to assume we continue with and take our share of those reponsibilities with us.

[redm]

The Huffington Post quotes the Newsnet (nationalist website) article.

 

Newsnet contacted them after the FT article broke.

 

The guy from Morissons says the prices could go up or down

 

Food prices are highly likely to go up anyway, I'm still not clear on why this is being used as some sort of shock tactic.

The food retail industry is highly competitive as it is, and one shift from one retailer will only see a benefit for another.

 

"Food prices may go up or down" - I'm pretty sure that can easily be applied to the rest of the UK too, regardless of the independence situation.

 

Also, the Morrisons comments included a caveat that a situation in which prices might go up in Scotland was mostly dependent on an increase in corporation tax because that would need to be offset by passing the cost off to the consumer. As we currently understand it, there are no plans to increase that. Quite the opposite.

Edited December 11, 2013 by redm

[Coco]

Page 222:

 

"Scotland is likely to be a net financial contributor to the EU subject to negotiation on issues such as the rebate and Scottish take-up of EU funding programmes. The EU budget has been agreed until 2020. We see no reason for re-opening current budgetary arrangements. Prior to 2020, we consider that the division of the share of the UK rebate would be a matter for negotiation between the Scottish and Westminster governments."

 

Thanks. It is interesting that they decided not to include the figures previously released on this subject which would show Scotland's contributions to the EU budget rising.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/peter-jones-the-eu-membership-plot-thickens-1-2830536

 

The idea that Scotland would share in the UK rebate until 2020 very strange too. That rebate is at least notionally because the share of agriculture in the UK was much lower than in Europe. Scotland's share of agriculture in GDP is about the same as the rest of Europe.

[redm]

Thanks. It is interesting that they decided not to include the figures previously released on this subject which would show Scotland's contributions to the EU budget rising.

http://www.scotsman....ckens-1-2830536

 

The idea that Scotland would share in the UK rebate until 2020 very strange too. That rebate is at least notionally because the share of agriculture in the UK was much lower than in Europe. Scotland's share of agriculture in GDP is about the same as the rest of Europe.

 

Rising, yes, but a rise proportionate to increased GDP.

 

Scotland's share of agriculture as a standalone issue is presumably something that can't be considered until our own membership comes to negotiation stage. Although it may well be a factor they focus on when negotiating the ongoing share with Westminster I suppose.

[JamboX2]

Only if you take the most awkward possible position on it. (Not a dig at you, more of the scaremongering attached to this issue.) That joint membership takes Scotland into consideration, we are responsible for our share of the terms of that membership, stands to reason the most common sense approach would be to assume we continue with and take our share of those reponsibilities with us.

 

But we aren't a joint member. Scotland as a constituent party of the United Kingdom is in the EU thanks to the UK being a signatory to the Treaties of Rome (via accession in the 1970s). Therefore they are the UK's terms, not Scotland's. Scotland will surely have to negotiate her own position. Much the same as Catalonia, the Basques or the Bavarians and Flems would need to should they ever achieve independence in Europe if they wish so.

 

There are many EU states resentful of the UK and Dutch rebates. It stands to reason there'd be pressure to reduce or drop it, perhaps in return for a favourable CFP deal.

 

In purist International Law we have no membership rights now, we are citizens of Europe because we are citizens of the UK. Scotland is a nation, but not an independent state, she herself has no rights and duties to the EU, the UK however, does - however the EU is a fudger and I'd expect fudging.

 

I'm not attacking him in the slightest, I just think he needs to consider his professional approach a little more carefully. He's a third party supervisor, he's not a political professional and that's why he's working on this study in the first place. I actually don't think it's that big a deal and it's just another example of the nonsense people are building up, exaggerating and using for mud slinging. The stuff that doesn't really matter but is being used to try and discredit each side of the debate rather than discussing the real issues. But if I had to take a side on it, I'd agree that it was a dodgy move on the part of the academic.

 

Agreed it's a side story. But if Bulmer can be paid to write articles in a neutral capacity by Yes Scotland then this bod can campaign for BT and be on a pannel of experts looking into independence imo.

[Coco]

Rising, yes, but a rise proportionate to increased GDP.

 

Scotland's share of agriculture as a standalone issue is presumably something that can't be considered until our own membership comes to negotiation stage. Although it may well be a factor they focus on when negotiating the ongoing share with Westminster I suppose.

 

The figures from the Scottish Government (not included in the White Paper) are that with rebate the net contribution would rise from ?124m to ?378m. Without rebate the net contribution would rise to ?673m. For context this is about twice what the public sector spends on science and technology or about a quarter of transport spending. It is a huge sum and it is clear why these figures have not been included in the Paper.

[redm]

But we aren't a joint member. Scotland as a constituent party of the United Kingdom is in the EU thanks to the UK being a signatory to the Treaties of Rome (via accession in the 1970s). Therefore they are the UK's terms, not Scotland's. Scotland will surely have to negotiate her own position. Much the same as Catalonia, the Basques or the Bavarians and Flems would need to should they ever achieve independence in Europe if they wish so.

 

There are many EU states resentful of the UK and Dutch rebates. It stands to reason there'd be pressure to reduce or drop it, perhaps in return for a favourable CFP deal.

 

In purist International Law we have no membership rights now, we are citizens of Europe because we are citizens of the UK. Scotland is a nation, but not an independent state, she herself has no rights and duties to the EU, the UK however, does - however the EU is a fudger and I'd expect fudging.

 

 

 

Agreed it's a side story. But if Bulmer can be paid to write articles in a neutral capacity by Yes Scotland then this bod can campaign for BT and be on a pannel of experts looking into independence imo.

 

Of course. What I meant was that we're joint members in the respect that the UK membership has taken Scotland's contribution into account in order to arrive at agreement on the terms of that membership. If Scotland was to become independent, a readjustment of the UK membership would have to be taken on that basis - a process that would presumably happen in parallel with our own membership negotiations. We have no automatic rights to membership but I'm yet to be sold on the idea that it would be an impossible thing to achieve.

[JamboX2]

Of course. What I meant was that we're joint members in the respect that the UK membership has taken Scotland's contribution into account in order to arrive at agreement on the terms of that membership. If Scotland was to become independent, a readjustment of the UK membership would have to be taken on that basis - a process that would presumably happen in parallel with our own membership negotiations. We have no automatic rights to membership but I'm yet to be sold on the idea that it would be an impossible thing to achieve.

 

It's not impossible to achieve. More do we really want it?

 

Personally, I think we need to look at the EU and membership long and hard. I'd probably continue to vote to stay in, but I still think we need and deserve to debate entry in Scotland separate of independence.