Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5
Discussion
Calvib said:
What utter nonsense.
There is a market of 5.5M people in Scotland. Companies like markets and people like stuff. Regardless of what you like to think, people will not boycott Scotland out of spite.
As you were...
But look at the flip side of that argument - if independence makes it more difficult (import restrictions), more complicated (tax, currency conversions etc) and ultimately more expensive to trade with Scotland - businesses (and to a lesser degree - individuals) will have few qualms about going elsewhere - because after all, it's just "markets" and "stuff".There is a market of 5.5M people in Scotland. Companies like markets and people like stuff. Regardless of what you like to think, people will not boycott Scotland out of spite.
As you were...
Whilst they may not do it out of spite - it may happen anyway.
Calvib said:
Oh FFS:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...
For someone commenting on this topic, you don't appear be up with recent important events!
let me quote that in beautiful detailhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...
For someone commenting on this topic, you don't appear be up with recent important events!
"Mr Juncker's office confirmed to the BBC that his remarks were referring to countries already in an accession process with the EU and not to a hypothetical case involving Scotland.
Do you understand the word hypothetical ?
Also what about this?
Letter from the EU said:
Dear Ms McKelvie,
The European Union has been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The Commission, as the guardian of those treaties, is responsible for overseeing their implementation, including the implementation of provisions related to the accession of any European State to the Union.
The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.
In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.
Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the EU. If the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, an agreement is then negotiated between the applicant state and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the applicant state.
Yours sincerely
European Commission
is this hard to understand?The European Union has been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The Commission, as the guardian of those treaties, is responsible for overseeing their implementation, including the implementation of provisions related to the accession of any European State to the Union.
The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.
In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.
Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the EU. If the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, an agreement is then negotiated between the applicant state and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the applicant state.
Yours sincerely
European Commission
and even if you do ignore it then
can you answer the following question
If 6 million Chinese people decide to live in scotland. Is Scotland part of china?
you of course ignore this
Alpacaman said:
Calvib said:
The biggest lies are coming from the Unionist side. Have you thread the Better Together propaganda leaflet - just full of out-and-out lies!
OK I'll take the bait please tell us what in the Better Together leaflet is an out and out lie? A little evidence as to why it is a lie would be useful, and preferably not some rubbish from wings over Scotland or Alex going you're scaremongering.Alpacaman said:
Any chance of an answer as to what these lies are? Since it is full of them it must be easy to find them, or do you think they are lies because they don't agree with your views?
1 does it say everyone in scotland will earn a billion pounds a dayif not go to 2
2 does it say all tory voters will be hung from lampposts
if not then it is a LIE
Calvib said:
My experience of BT is that all they are willing to talk about is pensions and the pound. Ask them about Trident, UK coming out of the EU, social inequality (indeed any topic other than the ones they have clearly been briefed on) and they can't or won't debate. It is pathetic.
I had my mind ultimately changed by some Yes campaigners at a stand they had in Inverness. Young vibrant folk who were super enthusiastic about the potential for an independent Scotland and very able to address every issue I threw at them. The contrast to the old codgers manning the nearby BT stand was night and day - tweed suits and home county accents - so out of touch.
LOL I think Calvib is actually a wind up merchant going by some recent replies. I had my mind ultimately changed by some Yes campaigners at a stand they had in Inverness. Young vibrant folk who were super enthusiastic about the potential for an independent Scotland and very able to address every issue I threw at them. The contrast to the old codgers manning the nearby BT stand was night and day - tweed suits and home county accents - so out of touch.
But this one is begging for a bite.
"very able to address every issue I threw at them."
Really? Do share these pearls of wisdom - interesting that the SNP itself is not able to address every issue, they would be very interested if you have found some guys on a stall in Inverness who have discovered the keys to independence.
"Ask them about Trident, UK coming out of the EU, social inequality (indeed any topic other than the ones they have clearly been briefed on) and they can't or won't debate."
Lets do those then now, if you want to debate. Lets take social inequality and ask what the SNP will do in an independent Scotland that it can't (and isn't by the way) doing now?
Do share and let some debate begin!
Oh, that one is easy. Fully within the SNP's power, and child's play to achieve...
Collapse the economy through setting up a new currency with no history, and an untested lender of last resort. Carry on spending on all the stuff currently, and increase by lots. After a couple of years, economy collapses with hyperinflation, and everyone will be equal.
Equally poor, but hey, all equal.
Next!
Collapse the economy through setting up a new currency with no history, and an untested lender of last resort. Carry on spending on all the stuff currently, and increase by lots. After a couple of years, economy collapses with hyperinflation, and everyone will be equal.
Equally poor, but hey, all equal.
Next!
I'm very partial to decent whisky and spend a few hundred a year on it. My money now goes here http://www.englishwhisky.co.uk/ and lovely it is too. That's few less groats in King Alex's pocket.
rovermorris999 said:
I'm very partial to decent whisky and spend a few hundred a year on it. My money now goes here http://www.englishwhisky.co.uk/ and lovely it is too. That's few less groats in King Alex's pocket.
There are some very nice whiskys popping up. I had a rather nice bottle of Japanese whisky a couple of years ago that I happened upon in Tesco - easily as good as some Scotch whiskies I have had over the years.Something tells me the English, Welsh and Irish whisky/whiskey industries are going to see a bit more growth off the back of this referendum.
I too probably spend a couple of hundred on whisky (primarily scotch) over the course of a year - a little more last year given I indulged in a bottle of Glenmorangie Signet. Would I change my buying habit based on the result of the referendum - possibly - the constant whining from nationalist 'victims' does tend to sour the dram somewhat.
Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 21st July 19:40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_whisky
Since around 2007 - there have been a number of English whiskey companies set up.
What else happened in 2007 that might have kick started demand? Oh yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_g...
Some clever forward thinking there - spotted a gap emerging in the market nearly 10 years ahead of possible independence. Just enough time to get their 10 year old malts ready.
McWigglebum4th said:
Calvib said:
Oh FFS:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...
For someone commenting on this topic, you don't appear be up with recent important events!
let me quote that in beautiful detailhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...
For someone commenting on this topic, you don't appear be up with recent important events!
"Mr Juncker's office confirmed to the BBC that his remarks were referring to countries already in an accession process with the EU and not to a hypothetical case involving Scotland.
Do you understand the word hypothetical ?
Also what about this?
Letter from the EU said:
Dear Ms McKelvie,
The European Union has been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The Commission, as the guardian of those treaties, is responsible for overseeing their implementation, including the implementation of provisions related to the accession of any European State to the Union.
The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.
In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.
Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the EU. If the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, an agreement is then negotiated between the applicant state and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the applicant state.
Yours sincerely
European Commission
is this hard to understand?The European Union has been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The Commission, as the guardian of those treaties, is responsible for overseeing their implementation, including the implementation of provisions related to the accession of any European State to the Union.
The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.
In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.
Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the EU. If the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, an agreement is then negotiated between the applicant state and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the applicant state.
Yours sincerely
European Commission
and even if you do ignore it then
can you answer the following question
If 6 million Chinese people decide to live in scotland. Is Scotland part of china?
you of course ignore this
Check out the sugar in Irn Bru, might help you kick the habit.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-...
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-...
Borghetto said:
For years I've bought Baxter's soups - not anymore I now buy Aunt Amy's - not going to put Baxter's out of business, but I doubt I'm alone in now deliberately choosing not to buy Scottish.
I shall be boycotting them too - they support the no vote. 19th Sept will be a day of reckoning!///ajd said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_whisky
Since around 2007 - there have been a number of English whiskey companies set up.
What else happened in 2007 that might have kick started demand? Oh yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_g...
Some clever forward thinking there - spotted a gap emerging in the market nearly 10 years ahead of possible independence. Just enough time to get their 10 year old malts ready.
Meanwhile:Since around 2007 - there have been a number of English whiskey companies set up.
What else happened in 2007 that might have kick started demand? Oh yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_g...
Some clever forward thinking there - spotted a gap emerging in the market nearly 10 years ahead of possible independence. Just enough time to get their 10 year old malts ready.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-bus...
Don't think the malt whisky industry is going anywhere.
It just proves what an emotional issue maintaining the union is for most folk posting on here - that they would seek revenge for a yes vote by stopping buying Scottish products. Toys out of the pram.
It might to worth noting that the Scottish food and drink industry makes up 30% of that of the UK and is only getting stronger (despite the alleged 'uncertainty' of the looming referendum).
rUK needs Scotland more than vice versa. Otherwise Westmonster would not be pulling out all the stops in trying to get us to stay.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff