Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8

[r11co]

Troubleatmill said:

Which brings us back to the EU saying that an independent Scotland is at the back of the queue for membership.

Indeed. Bosnia filed their application to join in 2003 and are still waiting. Montenegro 2005. Serbia 2007......

[Edinburger]

HD Adam said:

Welcome back Uppityburger

Not me!

As you were. 😁

[gofasterrosssco]

r11co said:

In other news, I see Salmond is trying to take the credit for last week's pantomime. Why is that not surprising at all?

Edited by r11co on Monday 18th June 12:33

He's more like his ex-mate Trump then he'd care to acknowledge - hubris shines through..

Also like this bit (as if they aren't supposed to be there to represent their constituents)

"Too many of the current crop of MPs then seemed intent on winning the gold star for good attendance rather than independence."

[Uppity]

b2hbm said:

Uppity said:

They do seem like obvious benefits but any economy of scale can only work if it is designed for the benefit of those partaking in it. That means that these activities have to be performed or designed with at least some consideration of the benefit they would afford Scotland - and that takes us right back to the representation problem. With only 59 MPs out of 650, Scotland has no significant political role or weight within the current union.

Ok.... so how many MPs would you consider to be fair ? You (Scotland) have roughly 8% of the UK population and 9% of the MPs at the moment. That strikes me that you're over represented but just for interest how many would you think is a fair number ? 70 ? and how much greater impact do you think those extra 11 MPs would make in a house of 661 MPs ?

You've hit the nail on the head. Increasing the number of MPs isn't really an option because it would lead to a democratic imbalance that other countries would rightfully to object to. So we are always going to be in this situation and Scotland's wishes will always be outnumbered.

Up until recently, this imbalance was partly addressed by devolution. Powers in certain policy areas were reserved to Westminster and powers in other policy areas devolved to the Scottish Govt. What has changed is that Westminster is bypassing the devolution agreement because it doesn't fit with its requirements and it is taking control in devolved policy areas against the express wishes of the Scottish Govt (including Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens). Which means devolution is fatally undermined - who would have confidence they wouldn't just do it again when it suits them? What's to stop them?

Uppity said:

Nope - my point re representation refers. As an example, we need more migrants - never going to happen. Westminster needs to keep the anti-immigration element happy and Scotland's needs are irrelevant

b2hbm said:

The simple facts are that you can have as many immigrants as you want...

Afraid not, immigration is a reserved power. And the current supply is going to dry up post-brexit

[gofasterrosssco]

Uppity said:

Up until recently, this imbalance was partly addressed by devolution. Powers in certain policy areas were reserved to Westminster and powers in other policy areas devolved to the Scottish Govt. What has changed is that Westminster is bypassing the devolution agreement because it doesn't fit with its requirements and it is taking control in devolved policy areas against the express wishes of the Scottish Govt (including Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens). Which means devolution is fatally undermined - who would have confidence they wouldn't just do it again when it suits them? What's to stop them?

Uppity said:

Nope - my point re representation refers. As an example, we need more migrants - never going to happen. Westminster needs to keep the anti-immigration element happy and Scotland's needs are irrelevant

b2hbm said:

The simple facts are that you can have as many immigrants as you want...

Afraid not, immigration is a reserved power. And the current supply is going to dry up post-brexit

You are incorrect and missing the point. There was a 3-way split, with some policy areas residing with the EU, much of it to do with standardisation which oils the wheels of the 'internal market'. As we are leaving the EU, we need to ensure all the different devolved admins don't head off in different directions with certain policies typically relating to UK-wide markets, as that would be potentially bad and cause unneeded disruption.

The point in any 'devolution agreement' is that there needs to be agreement. Since there was no agreement (there was by Wales, but then they are not lead by nationalists), nothing can be devolved. The Sewel convention is just that, a convention. Which never accounted for such a huge political shift as Brexit. Not surprising as outwards political tone is always set to 'outrage and belligerence' from the SNP administration.

It's a sensible and pragmatic solution to agree a small proportion (85% goes DIRECTLY to devolved admins) is subject to further discussion. As Brexit is against the clock, there is no time or political resource to sort out all of these things right now.

Could you please name me one policy area (that's what they are, not 'powers') which the Scot gov. will no longer be able to legislate for? Just one... Please..

[Uppity]

Troubleatmill said:

Which brings us back to the EU saying that an independent Scotland is at the back of the queue for membership.

The queue is a myth - doesn't exist. All that is required is for applicant countries to meet the 'acquis', the ‘body of common rights and obligations’ binding EU member states together. A summary of the process is:

1) Firstly it must be accepted as a candidate.
2) It must then enter formal negotiations, which require the adoption of EU law and preparations to enforce it together with any other reforms necessary to meet membership conditions.
3) After these are agreed by the existing member states it may then join.

It's more complicated than the above suggests, but there is no queue. If there was, there would be 16 countries stuck behind Turkey in the application process. Turkey has not met the 'acquis' and has been leapfrogged by numerous countries (e.g Sweden, Finland, Cyprus) that applied after them

Edited by Uppity on Monday 18th June 14:02

[technodup]

r11co said:

Brexit has thrown in to sharp focus what happens when you break away from a union that then has no reason whatsoever to play nice and grant concessions.

It's certainly sobering to think the current whining from the Yes side would only be the very thin end of a very thick wedge if they were ever to win a referendum.

If they think they get treated harshly by 'Westminster' (i.e. England) now, come negotiation time I think they might reflect on that.

Whether you voted Brexit or not, the thought that anyone has any appetite for more of the same (and at the same time) is a strange one. The thing Scotland needs is less politics, not more.

[r11co]

Uppity said:

1) Firstly it must be accepted as a candidate.
2) It must then enter formal negotiations, which require the adoption of EU law and preparations to enforce it together with any other reforms necessary to meet membership conditions.
3) After these are agreed by the existing member states it may then join.

It's more complicated than the above suggests, but there is no queue

You are correct - there is no 'queue' but what there is is a raft of nations who have applied to join but a decade or so later still fail to meet the criteria because their governments are finding it politically difficult to cow-tow to the EU conditions and keep their voters happy enough to remain in power.

That the SNP are still prevaricating on currency (because in reality they know Scotland would have to ditch the Pound as soon as possible, set up its own currency and then when it is fiscally sound join the Euro - something they hinted at in the Growth Commission Report but went down like a lead balloon with both their own members and the voting public in general) tells you everything you need to know.

Basically it becomes "we will not be dictated to by Westminster Brussels/Berlin/Madrid."

Edited by r11co on Monday 18th June 14:34

[andy_s]

technodup said:

Whether you voted Brexit or not, the thought that anyone has any appetite for more of the same (and at the same time) is a strange one. The thing Scotland needs is less politics, not more.

Amen to that.

[Alpacaman]

I have a feeling every time I come on here recently that I have fallen through a hole in space and we are back in 2014.

[r11co]

Alpacaman said:

I have a feeling every time I come on here recently that I have fallen through a hole in space and we are back in 2014.

That's nothing. The SNats want to take us back to 1707.

[dromong]

andy_s said:

Amen to that.

And especially the devious and deceitful type of politics that the SNP peddle.

You are in a rather lonely position on here Uppity, I don't think you will be convincing
many to change their minds. That's a pity for Uppity

[SBDJ]

Uppity said:

Afraid not, immigration is a reserved power. And the current supply is going to dry up post-brexit

I think you're completely missing the point here. Immigration may be a reserved power, especially with regards to non-EU migration, however we have had FMoL for a long time now with the EU and Scotland has completely failed to tempt those migrants to settle there. That has absolutely nothing to do with reserved immigration powers - unless of course EU migration is the wrong kind for you?

The fact most migrants choose not to settle in Scotland can't really be blamed on Westminster and was the case long before Brexit was ever on the cards.

[Uppity]

gofasterrosssco said:

You are incorrect and missing the point. There was a 3-way split, with some policy areas residing with the EU, much of it to do with standardisation which oils the wheels of the 'internal market'. As we are leaving the EU, we need to ensure all the different devolved admins don't head off in different directions with certain policies typically relating to UK-wide markets, as that would be potentially bad and cause unneeded disruption.

The point in any 'devolution agreement' is that there needs to be agreement. Since there was no agreement (there was by Wales, but then they are not lead by nationalists), nothing can be devolved. The Sewel convention is just that, a convention. Which never accounted for such a huge political shift as Brexit. Not surprising as outwards political tone is always set to 'outrage and belligerence' from the SNP administration.

It's a sensible and pragmatic solution to agree a small proportion (85% goes DIRECTLY to devolved admins) is subject to further discussion. As Brexit is against the clock, there is no time or political resource to sort out all of these things right now.

Could you please name me one policy area (that's what they are, not 'powers') which the Scot gov. will no longer be able to legislate for? Just one... Please..

Fisheries Management & Support
Policies and Regulations relating to rules relating to the sustainability of fisheries (quotas), access
to waters, conservation measures, enforcement and financial support.

[Uppity]

SBDJ said:

Uppity said:

Afraid not, immigration is a reserved power. And the current supply is going to dry up post-brexit

I think you're completely missing the point here. Immigration may be a reserved power, especially with regards to non-EU migration, however we have had FMoL for a long time now with the EU and Scotland has completely failed to tempt those migrants to settle there. That has absolutely nothing to do with reserved immigration powers - unless of course EU migration is the wrong kind for you?

The fact most migrants choose not to settle in Scotland can't really be blamed on Westminster and was the case long before Brexit was ever on the cards.

It's an ongoing requirement - not a one-off

[b2hbm]

Uppity said:

Nope - my point re representation refers. As an example, we need more migrants - never going to happen. Westminster needs to keep the anti-immigration element happy and Scotland's needs are irrelevant

b2hbm said:

The simple facts are that you can have as many immigrants as you want...

Uppity said:

Afraid not, immigration is a reserved power. And the current supply is going to dry up post-brexit

With respect, you're missing the point, this is nothing to do with future immigration being a reserved power.

Granted, you're perfectly correct that from 2019/20/21 or whatever then EU immigration into the whole of the UK will most likely be controlled by Westminster and again you're correct that Westminster is extremely unlikely to raise the numbers just for Scotland.

But the real point is that we've had plenty of net immigration from the EU over the last 40+ years and looking at the distributions, very few of them want to live in Scotland. So why is this going to change from 2019 onwards, do you suddenly expect Scotland to become a magnet for EU workers ? If so then I wouldn't worry, there's plenty south of the border who will be free to come on up.

The lack or restriction on EU immigrant workers for Scotland is a red herring and just something else the SNP are using to batter Westminster with. The reality is that you might want lots of cheap EU labour, but apparently they don't want Scotland. The issue here isn't for Westminster to change the rules, it's for Scotland to make itself an attractive place for EU workers which will presumably mean competitive tax regimes and wages better than England. Do that and you'll see them flooding in.

Edited by b2hbm on Tuesday 19th June 06:51

[57 Chevy]

hoagypubdog said:

I'm moving to live there next week so hope they don't mind English immigrants.

8.6% of us living in Scotland are English. The main source of migration and therefore who the Scottish Government should be appealing to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotla...

[57 Chevy]

Ot they could try and get some of the 708,000 Scots living in England to come back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Englan...

[hoagypubdog]

57 Chevy said:

Ot they could try and get some of the 708,000 Scots living in England to come back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Englan...

Bringing one back with me, every little helps

[r11co]

Uppity said:

gofasterrosssco said:

Could you please name me one policy area (that's what they are, not 'powers') which the Scot gov. will no longer be able to legislate for? Just one... Please..

Fisheries Management & Support
Policies and Regulations relating to rules relating to the sustainability of fisheries (quotas), access
to waters, conservation measures, enforcement and financial support.

Wrong. So wrong. It was a trick question as the answer always was none (why do I need to point this out??) Devolution post-dates the UK joining the EU so ScotGov was never able to legislate on the above. You cannot lose what you never had.