Tuesday, 28 February 2012 20:48
164 Comments
By G.A.Ponsonby 
The European Commission has given its strongest indication yet that an independent Scotland will inherit the same status as that of the remainder of the UK.
An official statement from the Commission has confirmed that Scotland is already considered an equal party with the rest of the UK whatever the result of the independence referendum, but that the Commission could make no comment on the actual specifics until the result of the referendum was known.
In an official response to a question from Catalan MEP Ramon Tremosa I Balcells, the Commission referred to Scotland and the rest of United Kingdom as “the parties concerned” and described other member states as their “European Union partners”.
The official statement read: “At the present time, the Commission is not able to express any view on the specific issue raised by the Honourable Member given that the terms and result of any future referendum are unknown, as is the nature of the possible future relationships between the parties concerned and between those parties and European Union partners.
The Commission would recall in this context that the terms of any European Union Treaty are decided by the Member States of the European Union.”
The statement has been welcomed by SNP President Ian Hudghton who said it was in line with legal opinion that Scotland and the rest of the UK would be considered equal successor states in the event of independence.
Mr Hudghton, who is an MEP, criticised what he termed the scare stories being peddled by the anti-independence parties and said:
"The Commission is right not to speculate on the outcome of the referendum given that the Scottish government's consultation is still ongoing, and it is not the EU's role to pre-empt the democratic will of the Scottish people.
"A number of supporters of the anti-independence parties have attempted to spread scare stories about Scotland's future role in the EU - and they would perhaps be better advised not to pre-empt that democratic will.
"The Commission make clear however that they regard both Scotland and the rUK equally as 'the parties concerned'.
"They go on to speak of the future relationship 'between those parties and European Union partners' - again implying both that Scotland and rUK are being treated equally and that the rest of the EU remain 'partners'.
"As a matter of fact Scotland, together with the rest of the UK, is already a member of the EU. The Commission states that the terms of the European Treaties are decided by its Member States - and both Scotland and the rUK will play their role as equal Member States in amending those Treaties to take account of the two successor states post-independence".
Scotland’s role in Europe has been hotly debated recently with power giant SSE claiming that EU membership was one of the areas that caused it concern.
This statement, although not definitive, is crucial in that the Commission has confirmed already that it acknowledges Scotland as an existing separate entity.
The wording of the statement is a blow to the Unionist argument which has claimed that the UK is seen by the European Commission as a single state and that Scotland is not recognised in its own right, but rather as a region or territory that will leave the parent.
The statement will be seen by independence supporters as confirmation that neither Scotland nor England’s nation status disappeared when the act of Union was signed, and thus both will remain equal EU partners.
However Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Moore claimed it showed there would be no automtic guarantee of entry.
The Lib Dem MP said: "The Scottish Government need to face up to the fact there is no automatic guarantee of EU membership for a separate Scotland.
"This is one of the many doubts that hang over the whole independence project. When it comes to the fundamental building blocks like our currency, our defence forces and our EU membership there is a fog of uncertainty."
Comments
#
2012-02-28 23:18
.. exc use me everyone...its really important that evryone reads this article by .. Lord Forsyth.. in the Telegraph. telegraph.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-02-29 00:50
Read the comments on this Torygraph story and wanted to punch my poor laptop and scream! Well done to the folk from here who added some truth and reason to it all!
#
2012-02-29 04:52
wow, shouldn't have read that before going to bed, going to be fighting in my sleep. If they're upset about tuition fees shouldn't it be the ConDems they have a go at?
#
2012-02-29 06:47
The Elastic Scotland Bill, this would flood our Uni's with English students with a referendum vote and most would vote No
#
2012-02-28 19:02
The unionist political parties and their MSM acolytes in the BBC etc. are playing a silly and dangerous game with their never ending scare stories which have the propensity to backfire when put to the actual test. For by doing so they are in grave danger of completely losing whatever credibility they have left.
They would be far better advised to drop their scaremongering nonsense and instead join into a proper grown up debate on the future economic and social government of Scotland referendum if they really want to be taken seriously.
They would be far better advised to drop their scaremongering nonsense and instead join into a proper grown up debate on the future economic and social government of Scotland referendum if they really want to be taken seriously.
#
2012-02-28 19:09
This can't be right - We have been repeatedly informed by the BBC that an independent Scotland would be a world pariah.
As my granny used to say - "Your lies will find you out". :)
As my granny used to say - "Your lies will find you out". :)
#
2012-02-28 23:45
As my granny used to say - "Your lies will find you out". :)
As i keep saying keep the head and all will come good .
As i keep saying keep the head and all will come good .
#
2012-02-29 09:24
fifestevie I agree 100% mate. Let us all keep our heads and let the rest make fools of themselves.
#
2012-02-28 19:11
"Anti-independentists " sounds a bit nearer the mark than "unionists" - accentuates the negative just like they do.
#
2012-02-28 19:20
good news :)
and o/t
there is a show I watched this morning on bbc iplayer called 'Empire: A Taste for Power' with Paxman. Surprisingly for the BBC it was quite critical of the imperialism of the empire. Didn't say much for it and even suggested now we're still a bit gung-ho for war.
There are more episodes to come so hopefully there is more criticism to come. I doubt it will mention the England/Scotland relationship however.
If only the news would have a bit more of this attitude. That's what people are watching every day.
Also, I noticed that once or twice Paxman slipped and said England instead of Britain when referring to who ruled a said territory; which made me wonder.
I wonder if in the history of the UK a Scot has ever said Scotland beat Germany in the war or referred to the UK or Britain as Scotland by mistake.
I somehow doubt it.
and o/t
there is a show I watched this morning on bbc iplayer called 'Empire: A Taste for Power' with Paxman. Surprisingly for the BBC it was quite critical of the imperialism of the empire. Didn't say much for it and even suggested now we're still a bit gung-ho for war.
There are more episodes to come so hopefully there is more criticism to come. I doubt it will mention the England/Scotland relationship however.
If only the news would have a bit more of this attitude. That's what people are watching every day.
Also, I noticed that once or twice Paxman slipped and said England instead of Britain when referring to who ruled a said territory; which made me wonder.
I wonder if in the history of the UK a Scot has ever said Scotland beat Germany in the war or referred to the UK or Britain as Scotland by mistake.
I somehow doubt it.
#
2012-02-28 22:27
There is an article in the Radio Times about this.
Paxman states "imperialism is such an unfashionable thing...Nobody wants to be ruled by foreigners, do they?"
That'll be anyone but the Scots then Jeremy?
We're just supposed to relish rule by our superiors, eh?
Paxman states "imperialism is such an unfashionable thing...Nobody wants to be ruled by foreigners, do they?"
That'll be anyone but the Scots then Jeremy?
We're just supposed to relish rule by our superiors, eh?
#
2012-02-29 06:25
This show is to be shown on Australian TV
Tonight. I intend to watch it.
Hi to everyone I am new as a comentator but I have been reading this forum for ages
looking forward to Independant Scotland
Tonight. I intend to watch it.
Hi to everyone I am new as a comentator but I have been reading this forum for ages
looking forward to Independant Scotland
#
2012-02-29 09:33
Here he is having a typical dig at the Scots
www.youtube.com/.../
Noticed on Monday there he described the French language as 'guff' so it isn't just us, although we seem to have pride of place.
www.youtube.com/.../
Noticed on Monday there he described the French language as 'guff' so it isn't just us, although we seem to have pride of place.
#
2012-02-28 19:24
Er, where in the Commission statement is the word "equal"?
Are you aware that "partners" does not equate to "members"?
Have you read the bit which says:
"The Commission would recall in this context that the terms of any European Union Treaty are decided by the Member States of the European Union.”
i.e. there is NO automaticity.
Are you aware that "partners" does not equate to "members"?
Have you read the bit which says:
"The Commission would recall in this context that the terms of any European Union Treaty are decided by the Member States of the European Union.”
i.e. there is NO automaticity.
#
2012-02-29 14:20
Quoting oldnat:
You took the words right off my keyboard, oldnat. Back to the drawing board 357ms in your continuing efforts to belittle Scotland in favour of your awfully importantLondonshire - oops sorry - England.
"i.e. there is NO automaticity" - for either of "the parties concerned".
You took the words right off my keyboard, oldnat. Back to the drawing board 357ms in your continuing efforts to belittle Scotland in favour of your awfully important
#
2012-02-28 23:15
Quoting 357ms:
Do you not think that Scotland and England are equal?
And if you do not, can you expand on what gave you that impression.................is it that up until Devolution, Westminster believed itself to be the "superior" government. And a lot of people still laboured (pun intended) under that misapprehension until the SNP came to Government and made it clear again. There are those of us who have never swayed from our belief that we could make our own way in the world already. I hope you will continue to visit here and other sites where you can glean knowledge and facts which have obviously never been presented to you.
Nice to see you here, welcome to the debate.
Er, where in the Commission statement is the word "equal"?
Are you aware that "partners" does not equate to "members"?
Have you read the bit which says:
"The Commission would recall in this context that the terms of any European Union Treaty are decided by the Member States of the European Union.”
i.e. there is NO automaticity.
Do you not think that Scotland and England are equal?
And if you do not, can you expand on what gave you that impression.................is it that up until Devolution, Westminster believed itself to be the "superior" government. And a lot of people still laboured (pun intended) under that misapprehension until the SNP came to Government and made it clear again. There are those of us who have never swayed from our belief that we could make our own way in the world already. I hope you will continue to visit here and other sites where you can glean knowledge and facts which have obviously never been presented to you.
Nice to see you here, welcome to the debate.
#
2012-02-28 19:27
"confirmation that neither Scotland nor England’s nation status disappeared when the act of Union was signed"
"Nation" has no legal meaning.
States are recognised by other states.
If anyone could point out any state which has recognised "Scotland" as a state since 1707, I'd be awfully grateful.
"Nation" has no legal meaning.
States are recognised by other states.
If anyone could point out any state which has recognised "Scotland" as a state since 1707, I'd be awfully grateful.
#
2012-02-28 20:26
Yes, you are correct, Westminster is irrelevant in terms of recognition of Scotland as a new state should the result be 'yes', i.e. the recognition would come from other countries and this would apply to the rUK and Scotland; both of which have never been recognised as states since 1707.
Incidentally, anyone know why it's called the 'United Nations'?
Maybe because 'United States' applies to federations such as Germany, the USA etc, ergo 'Nation' is a better descriptor?
Incidentally, anyone know why it's called the 'United Nations'?
Maybe because 'United States' applies to federations such as Germany, the USA etc, ergo 'Nation' is a better descriptor?
#
2012-02-28 22:09
SS
"rUK and Scotland; both of which have never been recognised as a states since 1707."
True quality - 10/10 on that one!
"rUK and Scotland; both of which have never been recognised as a states since 1707."
True quality - 10/10 on that one!
#
2012-02-28 22:14
Nobody cares if you think "nation is a better descriptor".
Both the EU and UN describe their members as "Member States".
www.un.org/.../index.shtml
And as for precedents:
in 1921 the UK of GB and NI was recognised by the entire world as the successor state to the UK of GB and I. Its membership of bodies such as the League of Nations continued uninterrupted.
The new Irish Free State, however, had to apply for membership...
Got that?
Both the EU and UN describe their members as "Member States".
www.un.org/.../index.shtml
And as for precedents:
in 1921 the UK of GB and NI was recognised by the entire world as the successor state to the UK of GB and I. Its membership of bodies such as the League of Nations continued uninterrupted.
The new Irish Free State, however, had to apply for membership...
Got that?
#
2012-02-28 23:03
It's fair to say the circumstances under which the Irish Free State was formed (rebel grouping forcing independence) was different to a future dissolution of the current GB & NI (mutually agreed revocation of an international treaty). One suspects that the Irish leadership had no interest in being seen as a successor state (in the same way that, say Czechoslovakia was dissolved)
#
2012-02-29 07:34
Quoting 357ms:
Well I am just sitting here with my fingers crossed that when Scotland is independent that the League of Nations sitting in London accepts that. Of course I think that El Duce and Der Fuhrer may side with England on this.
Nobody cares if you think "nation is a better descriptor".
Both the EU and UN describe their members as "Member States".
www.un.org/.../index.shtml
And as for precedents:
in 1921 the UK of GB and NI was recognised by the entire world as the successor state to the UK of GB and I. Its membership of bodies such as the League of Nations continued uninterrupted.
The new Irish Free State, however, had to apply for membership...
Got that?
Well I am just sitting here with my fingers crossed that when Scotland is independent that the League of Nations sitting in London accepts that. Of course I think that El Duce and Der Fuhrer may side with England on this.
#
2012-02-29 08:55
You seem awfully angry and upset 357ms. Is something wrong? Maybe we can help/advise.
Personally, I'd have thought the proposed concept that Scotland 'is not an equal' succussor state to the rUK, if true, would be an argument in support of independence. Why would Scots wish to live in a country which was a 'lesser' one than others, unequal to its neighbour(s), i.e. it was a 'colony'?
Of course Scotland not being an equal successor state would bring benefits, namely it would be debt-free on independence; just like the Eire case you put forward.
Personally, I'd have thought the proposed concept that Scotland 'is not an equal' succussor state to the rUK, if true, would be an argument in support of independence. Why would Scots wish to live in a country which was a 'lesser' one than others, unequal to its neighbour(s), i.e. it was a 'colony'?
Of course Scotland not being an equal successor state would bring benefits, namely it would be debt-free on independence; just like the Eire case you put forward.
#
2012-02-28 23:14
@357ms:
"'Nation has no legal meaning'"
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/.../
Please check facts before posting.
You will also note that the UN has a reference "historical nations"
Then you said "If anyone could point out any state which has recognised "Scotland" as a state since 1707, I'd be awfully grateful."
I apoligise I forgot your other question - as a "Brit Nat" would the UK Government work for you.
www.fco.gov.uk/.../search
In the third line you'll notice you can select "Scotland" in the drop down menu as "countries" the Westminster government can enter treaties with.
As someone else said today, truth will out.
"'Nation has no legal meaning'"
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/.../
Please check facts before posting.
You will also note that the UN has a reference "historical nations"
Then you said "If anyone could point out any state which has recognised "Scotland" as a state since 1707, I'd be awfully grateful."
I apoligise I forgot your other question - as a "Brit Nat" would the UK Government work for you.
www.fco.gov.uk/.../search
In the third line you'll notice you can select "Scotland" in the drop down menu as "countries" the Westminster government can enter treaties with.
As someone else said today, truth will out.
#
2012-02-29 00:14
Where do you get the "Nation has no legal meaning" from. That's a bit loopy isn't it?
I cite the American declaration of independence where it talks about "One Nation.....". Does that not have legal meaning???
I think that you are trying to dredge up an argument made of nothing. I welcome the debate but it is only excercise for the mind. I have seen nothing that you've contributed as adding to the debate so far.
As to the recognition of Scotland as a nation since 1707 is easy. The Sovereign people of Scotland recognise that. Don't worry 357ms, it'll soon be over, the 30 odd months will fly by and then we'll see what we'll see. I'm betting that we win independence easily.
I cite the American declaration of independence where it talks about "One Nation.....". Does that not have legal meaning???
I think that you are trying to dredge up an argument made of nothing. I welcome the debate but it is only excercise for the mind. I have seen nothing that you've contributed as adding to the debate so far.
As to the recognition of Scotland as a nation since 1707 is easy. The Sovereign people of Scotland recognise that. Don't worry 357ms, it'll soon be over, the 30 odd months will fly by and then we'll see what we'll see. I'm betting that we win independence easily.
#
2012-02-29 10:13
If anyone could point out any state which has recognised "Scotland" as a state since 1707, I'd be awfully grateful.
Ok 357ms or should it be sm753. Cant remember from school exact year but was taught that The Holy See at Vatican City STATE recognised SCOTLAND as a sovereign Nation State upon the RC Restoration to Scotland in 1873/1874 ish.
Given that The Vatican was at the time THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY of International Law, over to you!
Ok 357ms or should it be sm753. Cant remember from school exact year but was taught that The Holy See at Vatican City STATE recognised SCOTLAND as a sovereign Nation State upon the RC Restoration to Scotland in 1873/1874 ish.
Given that The Vatican was at the time THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY of International Law, over to you!
#
2012-02-29 11:06
Who are these people? Really?
I am sure I am not alone in welcoming true debate, but I have seen scant evidence of any kind of debate from 'the dark side of the force', just a litany of character assassinations and acidic condescension. The likes of the sm753 blog, and all his sad wee tagged mates that post over at the Hootsmon, bring precisely nothing to the conversation, not even to their own now untenable unionist positions.
I have some bad news for them: Attacking Salmond and the SNP won't work. I've watched the debate closely over the last year or so, and recently I've witnessed a paradigm shift in the on-line pro-independence camp. Despite the best efforts of our media, support for the SNP has grown exponentially as evidenced by their almost ridiculous polling levels, but what is far more interesting is the shear volume of very active 'cybernats' who, while standing shoulder to shoulder with their card carrying SNP buddies, openly say that while they will vote Yes in the referendum, they have no intentions whatsoever of voting for SNP in an independent Scotland.
It's geme's a bogie for the union. The unionists aren't fighting a battle on one front, but on as many fronts as there are independence supporters, Scots from every political hue who now realise en masse that, euphemistically , they have been very badly let down by the Westminster elite.
Twice I have seen the phrase 'the truth will out' on this thread, and apt it is. The independence movement has taken it's first real breath, it has arms and legs and teeth, and over the next 2 years it will learn to use them and there is not a thing the unionists can do to stop it.
I am sure I am not alone in welcoming true debate, but I have seen scant evidence of any kind of debate from 'the dark side of the force', just a litany of character assassinations and acidic condescension. The likes of the sm753 blog, and all his sad wee tagged mates that post over at the Hootsmon, bring precisely nothing to the conversation, not even to their own now untenable unionist positions.
I have some bad news for them: Attacking Salmond and the SNP won't work. I've watched the debate closely over the last year or so, and recently I've witnessed a paradigm shift in the on-line pro-independence camp. Despite the best efforts of our media, support for the SNP has grown exponentially as evidenced by their almost ridiculous polling levels, but what is far more interesting is the shear volume of very active 'cybernats' who, while standing shoulder to shoulder with their card carrying SNP buddies, openly say that while they will vote Yes in the referendum, they have no intentions whatsoever of voting for SNP in an independent Scotland.
It's geme's a bogie for the union. The unionists aren't fighting a battle on one front, but on as many fronts as there are independence supporters, Scots from every political hue who now realise en masse that, euphemistically , they have been very badly let down by the Westminster elite.
Twice I have seen the phrase 'the truth will out' on this thread, and apt it is. The independence movement has taken it's first real breath, it has arms and legs and teeth, and over the next 2 years it will learn to use them and there is not a thing the unionists can do to stop it.
#
2012-02-29 21:00
Quoting manxbhoy:
Ok 357ms or should it be sm753. Cant remember from school exact year but was taught that The Holy See at Vatican City STATE recognised SCOTLAND as a sovereign Nation State upon the RC Restoration to Scotland in 1873/1874 ish.
Given that The Vatican was at the time THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY of International Law, over to you!
Er, you really think that the Vatican was the "HIGHEST AUTHORITY of International Law" in, er , 1873 or thereabouts?
Ooo, my aching sides. Don't be ridiculous; tell us all what role the "Vatican" had in sorting out the Franco-Prussian War, Danish-German War and so on.
As for the rest of your statement, it is nonsense. Churches recognise "nations" and "provinces" in an ecclesiastical sense; it has nothing to do with whether sovereign states choose to recognise other sovereign states as likewise.
Fail.
If anyone could point out any state which has recognised "Scotland" as a state since 1707, I'd be awfully grateful.
Ok 357ms or should it be sm753. Cant remember from school exact year but was taught that The Holy See at Vatican City STATE recognised SCOTLAND as a sovereign Nation State upon the RC Restoration to Scotland in 1873/1874 ish.
Given that The Vatican was at the time THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY of International Law, over to you!
Er, you really think that the Vatican was the "HIGHEST AUTHORITY of International Law" in, er , 1873 or thereabouts?
Ooo, my aching sides. Don't be ridiculous; tell us all what role the "Vatican" had in sorting out the Franco-Prussian War, Danish-German War and so on.
As for the rest of your statement, it is nonsense. Churches recognise "nations" and "provinces" in an ecclesiastical sense; it has nothing to do with whether sovereign states choose to recognise other sovereign states as likewise.
Fail.
#
2012-02-29 12:13
356 ms - Once again you fail to distinguish between lawful and legal.
Any State that has a consul in Scotland.
Any State that has a consul in Scotland.
#
2012-02-28 19:48
O/T On Reporting Scotland, the launch of the Devo Plus campaign..... the very last sentence of the report.....(set in a super market) "the devo plus people hope their power shifting plan will prove so popular that voters refuse to buy Independence when the referendum comes".... so they are assuming that Devo plus will take votes from the Independence side and none from the status quo.....
I don't know why I watch it, it just makes my blood pressure go up! Dark room calling... who has the key?
I don't know why I watch it, it just makes my blood pressure go up! Dark room calling... who has the key?
#
2012-02-28 20:29
I also noticed Glen Campbell refering to 'Independence' and 'Independence Lite', the difference being , according to Campbell, is that 'Independence Lite' would keep the pound and the Queen as head of State.Clearly on an agenda is Campbell, either that or he is an idiot, as full Independence, would still see the Queen as head of state and retaining the pound (which is what has been debated ad nauseum). Dont know where he gets peddling the idea that full independence would mean no Queen and no pound. 'Independence Lite' I think was his invented phrase.
Thankfully when Scotland becomes fully independent and the Queen opens the new parliament of the Indpendent county, Campbell will be hawking his Cv to anyone that will listen to him
Thankfully when Scotland becomes fully independent and the Queen opens the new parliament of the Indpendent county, Campbell will be hawking his Cv to anyone that will listen to him
#
2012-02-28 20:44
He was quoting from the Devo plus website. In order to present themselves as "being in the middle", they had to create 3 labels for positions giving less Scottish autonomy, and 3 for positions giving more.
#
2012-02-28 21:03
Remember, too, that the DevoPlus campaigners do not wish a question on DevoPlus included in the Indpenedence Referendum but that it should be put forward when we all say 'no'. In other words, more jam tomorrow. What variety, I wonder?
#
2012-02-28 22:17
Just don't watch it. I watch BBC Scotlandshire less and less these days. Its so called news service is blatant unionist propaganda, while its sports news is mainly old firm this, old firm that(yawn).
I get everything I need to know off the internet, and when it comes to scottish news, Newsnet Scotland keeps me informed.
I get everything I need to know off the internet, and when it comes to scottish news, Newsnet Scotland keeps me informed.
#
2012-02-28 19:54
Another scare story debunked, the relentless negativity and implication that somehow we are unable to stand free, or that are better off letting another country making our decisions on our behalf really gets on my thrupenny bits!!
I saw the launch of the latest pro union group and did not seem to be exactly bursting at the seams with interested parties.
Independence all the way for me and nothing will ever change that.
I saw the launch of the latest pro union group and did not seem to be exactly bursting at the seams with interested parties.
Independence all the way for me and nothing will ever change that.
#
2012-02-28 20:00
With you on that peter
But i think there will be quite a few who favour devo whatever plus/max im pretty sure it will not make the ballot paper though wonder how they will feel then
Im sure this has been the first ecks plan all along someone takes the bait and runs with it only to find it wasnt a tasty worm but a plastic fake
But i think there will be quite a few who favour devo whatever plus/max im pretty sure it will not make the ballot paper though wonder how they will feel then
Im sure this has been the first ecks plan all along someone takes the bait and runs with it only to find it wasnt a tasty worm but a plastic fake
#
2012-02-28 20:07
If this is an important development, which I think it is, will it get onto any BBC or ITV news?
#
2012-02-28 20:13
I still believe that the SNP need to make it completely clear that there will be a vote on EU membership.
#
2012-02-28 20:35
Why should there be a vote on EU membership?
The important thing is to focus hard on gaining independence, then seeing what the EU will do in terms of honouring rebates and increasing the number of MEP that Scotland should have.
It will be about what the EU can bring to the table after we become independent. There is no point in starting in on what we should be doing after independence, before we have actually acheived it!.
For the time being the position is clear that Scotland will be a full member of the EU as an independent state.
Its when the hangover subsides from the party, then we can assess whats best for the independent Scotland, but only then
The important thing is to focus hard on gaining independence, then seeing what the EU will do in terms of honouring rebates and increasing the number of MEP that Scotland should have.
It will be about what the EU can bring to the table after we become independent. There is no point in starting in on what we should be doing after independence, before we have actually acheived it!.
For the time being the position is clear that Scotland will be a full member of the EU as an independent state.
Its when the hangover subsides from the party, then we can assess whats best for the independent Scotland, but only then
#
2012-02-28 22:33
Why should there be a vote?
Because there are a considerable number of people - including me - that would much prefer an independent Scotland has the same relationship with the EU as Norway has and if a vote is offered then that will cause a lot of people to be much more inclined to vote "Yes" in the indy referendum.
Because there are a considerable number of people - including me - that would much prefer an independent Scotland has the same relationship with the EU as Norway has and if a vote is offered then that will cause a lot of people to be much more inclined to vote "Yes" in the indy referendum.
#
2012-02-29 00:46
So, you don't really want independence unless it's on your terms?
Some people say they'll vote no unless Scotland will be a republic.
Some people say they'll vote no unless Scotland will keep the Queen as head of state.
Some people say they'll vote no unless Scotland will leave the EU....
You get my drift. You can't please everyone. Much better to vote yes, and then apply democracy to the result.
Some people say they'll vote no unless Scotland will be a republic.
Some people say they'll vote no unless Scotland will keep the Queen as head of state.
Some people say they'll vote no unless Scotland will leave the EU....
You get my drift. You can't please everyone. Much better to vote yes, and then apply democracy to the result.
#
2012-02-29 13:36
OS.
I agree with Wee Scamp - but go farther, there should be a vote not only on EU membership but on any constitiutional aspect we may in future encounter.
I also believe each generation has a right to reconsider it as it needs, perhaps every quarter century if enough show interest.
Then I believe that any future constitutional change should be required to pass a constitutional hurdle of 2/3 of the electorate passing it.
I agree with Wee Scamp - but go farther, there should be a vote not only on EU membership but on any constitiutional aspect we may in future encounter.
I also believe each generation has a right to reconsider it as it needs, perhaps every quarter century if enough show interest.
Then I believe that any future constitutional change should be required to pass a constitutional hurdle of 2/3 of the electorate passing it.
#
2012-02-28 20:26
First things first WS, without independence it's an irrelevance. The Tories have been promising a Euro vote for yonks.
#
2012-02-28 20:30
Erm, unless there's more to this story than is being presented here I think it's a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly, to read the commission's refusal to address the issue as any sort of official position just because they used the word 'parties'.
#
2012-02-28 21:08
Agreed. The Commission doesn't make it "clear however that they regard both Scotland and the rUK equally as 'the parties concerned'". It only makes it clear that it is aware that there are two parties concerned.
When they "go on to speak of the future relationship 'between those parties and European Union partners'" they are not implying either "that Scotland and rUK are being treated equally" or "that the rest of the EU remain 'partners'" with Scotland or the UK, they are only stating the obvious, which is that the other countries in the EU remain partners with each other in the EU.
This is a non-statement spun very optimistically by Ian Hudghton.
When they "go on to speak of the future relationship 'between those parties and European Union partners'" they are not implying either "that Scotland and rUK are being treated equally" or "that the rest of the EU remain 'partners'" with Scotland or the UK, they are only stating the obvious, which is that the other countries in the EU remain partners with each other in the EU.
This is a non-statement spun very optimistically by Ian Hudghton.
#
2012-02-28 20:32
news.bbc.co.uk/.../8756700.stm
Is anyone watching this?
Scotland bill committee stage.
Lord Lang just described the bill as a 'Trojan horse'.
Interesting viewing
Is anyone watching this?
Scotland bill committee stage.
Lord Lang just described the bill as a 'Trojan horse'.
Interesting viewing
#
2012-02-28 21:05
What a parcel of rogues.
This is some of the most sickening television I have ever watched.
This is some of the most sickening television I have ever watched.
#
2012-02-28 22:40
Forsyths contempt for Holyrood is palpable.Foulkes is near hysterical at points.
It starts back up at 9:40pm
news.bbc.co.uk/.../default.stm
It starts back up at 9:40pm
news.bbc.co.uk/.../default.stm
#
2012-02-28 22:10
publications.parliament.uk/.../...
I don't know if these amendments are current but it would appear that westminster are planning a referendum for us?????
THE EARL OF CAITHNESS
[Amendments 89 and 90 are amendments to Amendment 88]
89
Line 8, at end insert—
“(2A) A referendum held under subsection (2) shall be advisory.
(2B) If a referendum held under subsection (2) results in a “yes” vote, the Prime Minister shall cause a further referendum, with the same question, to be held throughout the United Kingdom.
(2C) The result of a referendum held under subsection (2B) shall be binding.”
LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK
91
Insert the following new Clause—
“Referendum about Scottish independence
(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council, on the advice of the Prime Minister, cause a referendum to be held throughout Scotland about whether Scotland should become independent of the rest of the United Kingdom.
(2) Such a referendum can only be held within 24 months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) The question that is to appear on the ballot paper is—
Do you want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom?
(4) For further provision about a referendum held by virtue of subsection (1), Schedule (Referendums under this Act) applies.
(5) An Order in Council under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
[Amendments 92 and 93 are amendments to Amendment 91]
I don't know if these amendments are current but it would appear that westminster are planning a referendum for us?????
THE EARL OF CAITHNESS
[Amendments 89 and 90 are amendments to Amendment 88]
89
Line 8, at end insert—
“(2A) A referendum held under subsection (2) shall be advisory.
(2B) If a referendum held under subsection (2) results in a “yes” vote, the Prime Minister shall cause a further referendum, with the same question, to be held throughout the United Kingdom.
(2C) The result of a referendum held under subsection (2B) shall be binding.”
LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK
91
Insert the following new Clause—
“Referendum about Scottish independence
(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council, on the advice of the Prime Minister, cause a referendum to be held throughout Scotland about whether Scotland should become independent of the rest of the United Kingdom.
(2) Such a referendum can only be held within 24 months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) The question that is to appear on the ballot paper is—
Do you want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom?
(4) For further provision about a referendum held by virtue of subsection (1), Schedule (Referendums under this Act) applies.
(5) An Order in Council under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
[Amendments 92 and 93 are amendments to Amendment 91]
#
2012-02-29 01:24
Its truely amazing the characters that come out of the woodwork In this case Lord Lang, working away in the background, but we never see him in the media.
#
2012-02-28 20:48
It should be noted that the main thrust of the unionists arguement that Scotland could or would not have automatic membership, is the stance that Scotland is merely a 'region of the UK' (that even comes from Scottish unionists, like David Martin MEP)
Totally ignoring that fact that Scotland and England are equal partner countries of the UK
Its this point that should be ploughed into the unionists that Scotland is most definately not a region, that when Scotland becomes independent, that will mean the end of the UK as such, not even a 'rUK', it will be Scotland and will be England, who will be both equal successor states to the UK and will be treated equally in any and ALL memberships, such as the EU, NATO and the UN
Scotland should not shirk from that, if it does, then it taken that it doesnt want to play a part in shaping the world.
Dont be surprised if English politicians think that it will be England that will retain a seat on the security council or its current memberships of all world organisations. Scotland has to ensure that it can also retain a seat on the security council and membership of all organisations that teh Uk currently enjoy's. It has that right.
Ive mentioned NATO and Im aware that some dont think that Scotland should be a member, well I think it should, it doesnt mean that it will take part in any or all operations, but can decide on case by case basis, after all there are 27 countries in NATO and can assure you not all take part in operations.
My thinking is that Scotland should not be pushing its way to the front, it should be AT the front and dominate in all that goes on
Totally ignoring that fact that Scotland and England are equal partner countries of the UK
Its this point that should be ploughed into the unionists that Scotland is most definately not a region, that when Scotland becomes independent, that will mean the end of the UK as such, not even a 'rUK', it will be Scotland and will be England, who will be both equal successor states to the UK and will be treated equally in any and ALL memberships, such as the EU, NATO and the UN
Scotland should not shirk from that, if it does, then it taken that it doesnt want to play a part in shaping the world.
Dont be surprised if English politicians think that it will be England that will retain a seat on the security council or its current memberships of all world organisations. Scotland has to ensure that it can also retain a seat on the security council and membership of all organisations that teh Uk currently enjoy's. It has that right.
Ive mentioned NATO and Im aware that some dont think that Scotland should be a member, well I think it should, it doesnt mean that it will take part in any or all operations, but can decide on case by case basis, after all there are 27 countries in NATO and can assure you not all take part in operations.
My thinking is that Scotland should not be pushing its way to the front, it should be AT the front and dominate in all that goes on
#
2012-02-28 21:42
I agree with parts but don't jump to too many conclusions.
The UK will end but England is not the Successor state while Scotland becomes a state. England + Wales will have to come with a name for itself and this will be the state of " X and Northern Ireland" as opposed to GB and NI as it is now.
However doesn't matter what it is called but it is not 'England'.
Security council: The UK is on shoogly hook as it is and I cannot see successor South UK + Scotland each having seats. The most likely outcome to me is that E+W+NI will remain short term but its influence will be greatly reduced. Then at some time the security council is likely to be remoulded. Just my layman's opinion :-/
NATO: Scotlands position in the North atlantic is of strategic importance so membership of Nato would seem to be welcomed if we felt it was in our interest. I feel it is in our interest.
The UK will end but England is not the Successor state while Scotland becomes a state. England + Wales will have to come with a name for itself and this will be the state of " X and Northern Ireland" as opposed to GB and NI as it is now.
However doesn't matter what it is called but it is not 'England'.
Security council: The UK is on shoogly hook as it is and I cannot see successor South UK + Scotland each having seats. The most likely outcome to me is that E+W+NI will remain short term but its influence will be greatly reduced. Then at some time the security council is likely to be remoulded. Just my layman's opinion :-/
NATO: Scotlands position in the North atlantic is of strategic importance so membership of Nato would seem to be welcomed if we felt it was in our interest. I feel it is in our interest.
#
2012-02-29 00:28
I love that, EWNI !!! That's what it could be called.
Instead of calling it rUK, call it EWNI as in "ewe" (of sheep).
The European Commission would now have a name to call what is left after Scotland declares independence.
Instead of calling it rUK, call it EWNI as in "ewe" (of sheep).
The European Commission would now have a name to call what is left after Scotland declares independence.
#
2012-02-29 02:09
If you strip back the 300 years to the status before the Treaty of Union, you will come back to the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.
Both seperate and independent Kingdom's, sharing the same monarch.
The only difference between then and now is Northern Ireland. In order to understand what will happen, you have to understand what the situation was at teh moment the Treaty was agreed. Because in effect what were trying to acheive through independence is the dissalution of that Treaty and ending the union with England. Northern Ireland is a province, an apendage to the UK, that is it is a province of England AND Scotland (if you think of the UK , in terms of 'England AND Scotland', then it should start to fall in to place). The politicians in Northern Ireland are already cottoning on to the reality of whats happening and the possabilty of the union between Scotland and England ending. Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister of N Ireland has already stated that he wants them to have a referendum in 2016, to decide what N.Ireland should do, with the obvious preference of merging with the Republic. It is certainly likely that they will not choose to be a province of England, they may go for a 'half way house' situation and choose to be semi-autonomous.
England, officially will revert to its title of the Kingdom of England, as will Scotland will be officially the Kingdom of Scotland, as that was there official titles at the time of the Treaty of Union.
Ive not mentioned Wales, basically because Wales actually doesnt have any status (which may upset our Welsh cousins), but the fact is Wales is an integral part of England
[http://www.scotshistoryonl ine.co.uk/union.html]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Engl and]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scot land]
England cannot cal itself anything other than the Kingdom of England, anything else would be utterly foolish
In terms of 'successor states' both England and Scotland ARE successor states to the defunct union, known as the UK.
So the reality of the redrawn map will be that we will have The Kingdom of Scotland, The Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) and The Semi-automous state of N.Ireland (N.Ireland will be entirely subject to the 2016 referendum)
As for the seat on the UN Security council, there are two ways that can go, either it will be shared by both Scotland and England or put up for complete member rotation
Both seperate and independent Kingdom's, sharing the same monarch.
The only difference between then and now is Northern Ireland. In order to understand what will happen, you have to understand what the situation was at teh moment the Treaty was agreed. Because in effect what were trying to acheive through independence is the dissalution of that Treaty and ending the union with England. Northern Ireland is a province, an apendage to the UK, that is it is a province of England AND Scotland (if you think of the UK , in terms of 'England AND Scotland', then it should start to fall in to place). The politicians in Northern Ireland are already cottoning on to the reality of whats happening and the possabilty of the union between Scotland and England ending. Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister of N Ireland has already stated that he wants them to have a referendum in 2016, to decide what N.Ireland should do, with the obvious preference of merging with the Republic. It is certainly likely that they will not choose to be a province of England, they may go for a 'half way house' situation and choose to be semi-autonomous.
England, officially will revert to its title of the Kingdom of England, as will Scotland will be officially the Kingdom of Scotland, as that was there official titles at the time of the Treaty of Union.
Ive not mentioned Wales, basically because Wales actually doesnt have any status (which may upset our Welsh cousins), but the fact is Wales is an integral part of England
[http://www.scotshistoryonl ine.co.uk/union.html]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Engl and]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scot land]
England cannot cal itself anything other than the Kingdom of England, anything else would be utterly foolish
In terms of 'successor states' both England and Scotland ARE successor states to the defunct union, known as the UK.
So the reality of the redrawn map will be that we will have The Kingdom of Scotland, The Kingdom of England (which includes Wales) and The Semi-automous state of N.Ireland (N.Ireland will be entirely subject to the 2016 referendum)
As for the seat on the UN Security council, there are two ways that can go, either it will be shared by both Scotland and England or put up for complete member rotation
#
2012-02-29 02:17
The UN would decide what happened with the UK's permanent seat on the Security Council.
It might well be that they would decide that it would be a good opportunity to restructure away from the SC still being controlled by the victorious countries of WWII, 70 years on from the end of the war.
Converting the French/UK seats into a single EU seat, plus an additional seat to be shared among other countries would be sensible.
It might well be that they would decide that it would be a good opportunity to restructure away from the SC still being controlled by the victorious countries of WWII, 70 years on from the end of the war.
Converting the French/UK seats into a single EU seat, plus an additional seat to be shared among other countries would be sensible.
#
2012-02-29 13:42
oldnat
Expect a single French/English seat, shared and rotating - they're already in joint defence compacts and preparing for energy ones as well.
The UK seat might well become a floating veto seat, which other nations meeting certain criteria obtain for a set period.
Expect a single French/English seat, shared and rotating - they're already in joint defence compacts and preparing for energy ones as well.
The UK seat might well become a floating veto seat, which other nations meeting certain criteria obtain for a set period.
#
2012-02-28 20:49
I think it's been mentioned elsewhere, but any sane person would have realised that the EU isn't going to banish the nation with the most oil in Europe, and the most productive fishing grounds. I relish the negotations with the EU when they come as I believe we are in a very strong position.
#
2012-02-28 21:31
Quoting parsonrussell:
Why?
Oil is bought and sold by companies, not countries.
Do you think EU companies pay any more for Norwegian (outside EU) oil than they do for Danish (inside EU)?
I think it's been mentioned elsewhere, but any sane person would have realised that the EU isn't going to banish the nation with the most oil in Europe
Why?
Oil is bought and sold by companies, not countries.
Do you think EU companies pay any more for Norwegian (outside EU) oil than they do for Danish (inside EU)?
#
2012-02-28 22:43
Quoting 357ms:
ParsonRussel didnt say that, so I m not sure where your coming from 357ms. It is the tax and royalties which go to the Westminster government, and how much goes to them? Norway has its own state oil company, Statoil, and for a nation of 4.5 m, they have undertaken the biggest engineering projects in the world, inhouse, and have re-invested back to Norway, the Norwegians even build their own rigs, rather than going to Spain, Italy or China, and ofcourse they dont give all their rights to Sweden or Germany. Their engineering projects make the UKs look laughable, they have far higher R&D and their living standards are the best in the world, Scotland can still be like this, we can learn a lot from Norway, and other Scandinavian countries.
Quoting parsonrussell:I think it's been mentioned elsewhere, but any sane person would have realised that the EU isn't going to banish the nation with the most oil in Europe
Why?
Oil is bought and sold by companies, not countries.
Do you think EU companies pay any more for Norwegian (outside EU) oil than they do for Danish (inside EU)?
ParsonRussel didnt say that, so I m not sure where your coming from 357ms. It is the tax and royalties which go to the Westminster government, and how much goes to them? Norway has its own state oil company, Statoil, and for a nation of 4.5 m, they have undertaken the biggest engineering projects in the world, inhouse, and have re-invested back to Norway, the Norwegians even build their own rigs, rather than going to Spain, Italy or China, and ofcourse they dont give all their rights to Sweden or Germany. Their engineering projects make the UKs look laughable, they have far higher R&D and their living standards are the best in the world, Scotland can still be like this, we can learn a lot from Norway, and other Scandinavian countries.
#
2012-02-28 23:00
"Oil is bought and sold by companies, not countries."
UK and USA are the only notable oil producing countries who do not have a controlling stake in domestic production, i.e. a national oil company. So yes, in the UK, plc 'companies' sell the oil, making profits for people all over the world. Elsewhere, in fact largely everywhere else, the country that produces the oil takes its majority share of the profit. Think Statoil or Saudi Aramco...
UK and USA are the only notable oil producing countries who do not have a controlling stake in domestic production, i.e. a national oil company. So yes, in the UK, plc 'companies' sell the oil, making profits for people all over the world. Elsewhere, in fact largely everywhere else, the country that produces the oil takes its majority share of the profit. Think Statoil or Saudi Aramco...
#
2012-02-28 23:56
Quoting scottish_skier:
Yes, good ol' Britain decided to sell all it's nationalised Oil corporation. It also sold its nationalised Gas, electricity, coal, Telephone, Water, British Airways, Steel Production, Rolls Royce, Thomas Cook and Rail monopolies which had reduced taxation and increased employment but it suffered from a lack of government will power to reinvest and modernise. Go figure?
"Oil is bought and sold by companies, not countries."
UK and USA are the only notable oil producing countries who do not have a controlling stake in domestic production, i.e. a national oil company. So yes, in the UK, plc 'companies' sell the oil, making profits for people all over the world. Elsewhere, in fact largely everywhere else, the country that produces the oil takes its majority share of the profit. Think Statoil or Saudi Aramco...
Yes, good ol' Britain decided to sell all it's nationalised Oil corporation. It also sold its nationalised Gas, electricity, coal, Telephone, Water, British Airways, Steel Production, Rolls Royce, Thomas Cook and Rail monopolies which had reduced taxation and increased employment but it suffered from a lack of government will power to reinvest and modernise. Go figure?
#
2012-02-28 23:39
@357ms:
You are correct, but as has been proven so many times by past "oil crises" the countries control the rate of flow.
They also control the price by internal taxes - so they can effectively stop production by simply doubling or tripling taxes.
Doubt it? Look at what happened in Scotland after Westminster's last tax grab.
You are correct, but as has been proven so many times by past "oil crises" the countries control the rate of flow.
They also control the price by internal taxes - so they can effectively stop production by simply doubling or tripling taxes.
Doubt it? Look at what happened in Scotland after Westminster's last tax grab.
#
2012-02-29 14:48
Good point parsonrussell. The main EU fishing nations who have enthusiasticall y joined in the overfishing of our once rich waters, would be very reluctant to find these fishing grounds closed to their fleets, if Scotland were deemed to be barred from membership of the EU, post independence.
The Westminster UK government, on the other hand, have repeatedly over the years failed to support or protect the Scottish fishing industry. So, if we are still IN the EU after independence, we will be able to negotiate the best possible deals for our fishermen; if not automatically a member, should we vote to join in a subsequent referendum, as promised by the SNP government, our fishing grounds will be a powerful bargaining chip, quite apart from our energy resources, etc.
The Westminster UK government, on the other hand, have repeatedly over the years failed to support or protect the Scottish fishing industry. So, if we are still IN the EU after independence, we will be able to negotiate the best possible deals for our fishermen; if not automatically a member, should we vote to join in a subsequent referendum, as promised by the SNP government, our fishing grounds will be a powerful bargaining chip, quite apart from our energy resources, etc.
#
2012-02-28 20:56
Unsurprisingly the Telegraph, twists the story
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
Simon Johnson the Telegraphs Scottish Political Editor, spins for all he is worth, emphasising Scotland's membership, but ignoring England's membership
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
Simon Johnson the Telegraphs Scottish Political Editor, spins for all he is worth, emphasising Scotland's membership, but ignoring England's membership
#
2012-02-28 21:39
Today really does mark the end of the union with the introduction of DEVO+, introduced not a Nationalist splinter group, but by doyens of the unionist establishment in Scotland.
Forget Calman, forget Scotland Bill they have been dead in they water for months now. Our choices are DEVO+, DEVO MAX or INDEPENDENCE.
The DEVO Brothers highlight the fact that union as we know it is over and the choices left for the Scottish public are so near to Independence they show the SNP has been right all along.
In which case they must be right about Independence so let's vote for that.
In short, let's VOTE YES.
Forget Calman, forget Scotland Bill they have been dead in they water for months now. Our choices are DEVO+, DEVO MAX or INDEPENDENCE.
The DEVO Brothers highlight the fact that union as we know it is over and the choices left for the Scottish public are so near to Independence they show the SNP has been right all along.
In which case they must be right about Independence so let's vote for that.
In short, let's VOTE YES.
#
2012-02-28 22:02
Quoting ButeHouse:
No the Union is far from over because only we can end it and only in one way. There is only one choice which can be made which is in Scotland's power to grant. Any thing else, devo +, devo max, devo whatever is Westminster's gift.
If we don't vote for independence we will get nothing. Westminster will make us suffer for daring to try and usurp their power.
Devo + is just another conjurer's trick to distract the audience from the sleight of hand.
Our choices are DEVO+, DEVO MAX or INDEPENDENCE.
The DEVO Brothers highlight the fact that union as we know it is over and the choices left for the Scottish public are so near to Independence they show the SNP has been right all along.
No the Union is far from over because only we can end it and only in one way. There is only one choice which can be made which is in Scotland's power to grant. Any thing else, devo +, devo max, devo whatever is Westminster's gift.
If we don't vote for independence we will get nothing. Westminster will make us suffer for daring to try and usurp their power.
Devo + is just another conjurer's trick to distract the audience from the sleight of hand.
#
2012-02-29 13:50
@ Fungus:
It is possible you misunderstand.
If Scotland votes for Devo - whatever then that is what we get.
Effectively WE are changing, unilateraly, the terms of bilateral treaty.
Precedent is simple, the other party to the treaty can then either accept the changes [they won't] or terminate the treaty [they will, the backbenchers and public opinion will have it no other way I can see].
All we need do is set a reasonable timescale, say 6 months, for acceptance or rejection.
In any case, the present Union is over.
It's likely pressure was put behind the scenes by US for this, and camerons change of heart to come about.
The large governmental meetings are just starting to happen there which consider the implications of this constitutional "adjustment".
It is possible you misunderstand.
If Scotland votes for Devo - whatever then that is what we get.
Effectively WE are changing, unilateraly, the terms of bilateral treaty.
Precedent is simple, the other party to the treaty can then either accept the changes [they won't] or terminate the treaty [they will, the backbenchers and public opinion will have it no other way I can see].
All we need do is set a reasonable timescale, say 6 months, for acceptance or rejection.
In any case, the present Union is over.
It's likely pressure was put behind the scenes by US for this, and camerons change of heart to come about.
The large governmental meetings are just starting to happen there which consider the implications of this constitutional "adjustment".
#
2012-02-28 21:41
While I have been reading NNS everyday for the past few years this is my first comment. This story along with the statement of the Spanish Foreign Minister should in my opinion be widly cieculated to all foreign news agencies as at least they might publish it unlike the BBC.
O/T CAN you PLEASE use a proper map of Scotland in your articles? Shetland (and Fair Isle, Flannens and Rockall as well) is part of Scotland. The country does not stop at Orkney as per your map? In fact if anyone of the many companies that produce Scotland Map products (ie T shirts, Tea Towels etc) reads NNS please use a proper Map! Shetland does not live in a box off Aberdeen? It may seem a small point, but with much of our oil and other natural resources located in this area and the fact that we seek support for the SNP here as everywhere in the country, please do not alienate people by always ignoring them
O/T CAN you PLEASE use a proper map of Scotland in your articles? Shetland (and Fair Isle, Flannens and Rockall as well) is part of Scotland. The country does not stop at Orkney as per your map? In fact if anyone of the many companies that produce Scotland Map products (ie T shirts, Tea Towels etc) reads NNS please use a proper Map! Shetland does not live in a box off Aberdeen? It may seem a small point, but with much of our oil and other natural resources located in this area and the fact that we seek support for the SNP here as everywhere in the country, please do not alienate people by always ignoring them
#
2012-02-28 23:21
Quoting Fridary:
A warm welcome - and I don't know about where you are but it was perishing cold here today. And that nice young man on the BBC promised me a "higher than normal temperatures, Spring Day!)
While I have been reading NNS everyday for the past few years this is my first comment. This story along with the statement of the Spanish Foreign Minister should in my opinion be widly cieculated to all foreign news agencies as at least they might publish it unlike the BBC.
O/T CAN you PLEASE use a proper map of Scotland in your articles? Shetland (and Fair Isle, Flannens and Rockall as well) is part of Scotland. The country does not stop at Orkney as per your map? In fact if anyone of the many companies that produce Scotland Map products (ie T shirts, Tea Towels etc) reads NNS please use a proper Map! Shetland does not live in a box off Aberdeen? It may seem a small point, but with much of our oil and other natural resources located in this area and the fact that we seek support for the SNP here as everywhere in the country, please do not alienate people by always ignoring them
A warm welcome - and I don't know about where you are but it was perishing cold here today. And that nice young man on the BBC promised me a "higher than normal temperatures, Spring Day!)
#
2012-02-28 23:43
Quoting Fridary:
Hardly a small point Fridary and please post some more!!! In fact your points are as important as ending the fish-eye version of the UK map used by all our media, Met Office and education services. Here's to getting the scale of Scotland's mainland and all her important isles onto the Maps of Scotland with the seas between included, that Scots may realise the enormous size of their massive wealth creating nation.
O/T CAN you PLEASE use a proper map of Scotland in your articles? Shetland (and Fair Isle, Flannens and Rockall as well) is part of Scotland. The country does not stop at Orkney as per your map? In fact if anyone of the many companies that produce Scotland Map products (ie T shirts, Tea Towels etc) reads NNS please use a proper Map! Shetland does not live in a box off Aberdeen? It may seem a small point,
Hardly a small point Fridary and please post some more!!! In fact your points are as important as ending the fish-eye version of the UK map used by all our media, Met Office and education services. Here's to getting the scale of Scotland's mainland and all her important isles onto the Maps of Scotland with the seas between included, that Scots may realise the enormous size of their massive wealth creating nation.
#
2012-02-28 21:56
The statement from the Commission:
Quote:
I think the author of the article has over-egged the substance of this statement from the EU Commission.
It is a bland holding statement which does not contain the word 'equal'.
Furthermore it states quite clearly that the commission cannot express any view until the 'terms and results' of the referendum are known and until the exact nature of the 'possible future relationship' between an independent Scotland and the rUK (i.e. 'the parties') is known. As well as the possible future relationships between those parties and the EU is known. The latter probably covers the possibility that one or both of the parties would vote to withdraw from the EU.
So not quite the ringing endorsement that some interpretations would have us believe.
Quote:
“At the present time, the Commission is not able to express any view on the specific issue raised by the Honourable Member given that the terms and result of any future referendum are unknown, as is the nature of the possible future relationships between the parties concerned and between those parties and European Union partners.
The Commission would recall in this context that the terms of any European Union Treaty are decided by the Member States of the European Union.”
I think the author of the article has over-egged the substance of this statement from the EU Commission.
It is a bland holding statement which does not contain the word 'equal'.
Furthermore it states quite clearly that the commission cannot express any view until the 'terms and results' of the referendum are known and until the exact nature of the 'possible future relationship' between an independent Scotland and the rUK (i.e. 'the parties') is known. As well as the possible future relationships between those parties and the EU is known. The latter probably covers the possibility that one or both of the parties would vote to withdraw from the EU.
So not quite the ringing endorsement that some interpretations would have us believe.
#
2012-02-28 22:28
Agreed. But it does take us a step further.
Many of us have always said that, at the end of the day, it would be a political decision by the member states of the EU.
As 357ms pointed out "there is no automaticity", in this very new situation for any part of the UK. The common argument by many Unionists that Scotland (and Scotland alone) would have to apply for membership, would have to adopt the euro and Schengen are blown away by this statement.
Equally the SNP stance that we are already in the EU, and that there are no mechanisms for expelling parts of existing member states, while true, isn't bolstered by the statement.
Given the statement by the Spanish government (who, like the rest of the EU don't want to be dragged into the argument) there is no evidence that anyone would want to remove part of the existing EU from membership.
While anything is possible in this world, we need to look at what is likely.
Many of us have always said that, at the end of the day, it would be a political decision by the member states of the EU.
As 357ms pointed out "there is no automaticity", in this very new situation for any part of the UK. The common argument by many Unionists that Scotland (and Scotland alone) would have to apply for membership, would have to adopt the euro and Schengen are blown away by this statement.
Equally the SNP stance that we are already in the EU, and that there are no mechanisms for expelling parts of existing member states, while true, isn't bolstered by the statement.
Given the statement by the Spanish government (who, like the rest of the EU don't want to be dragged into the argument) there is no evidence that anyone would want to remove part of the existing EU from membership.
While anything is possible in this world, we need to look at what is likely.
#
2012-02-28 22:55
"What is likely" is that the rather large, powerful and significant UK would be recognised by the rest of the EU and world as the Successor State.
As it was in 1921.
Meanwhile the small, puny and insignificant "independent" Scotland - whose existence would set all sorts of troublesome precedents for other EU States - would probably be required by those EU States to jump through some hoops for EU membership.
Such as the Euro, and losing the Scottish share of the existing UK budget rebate.
Please do not mention "oil" in reply; EU states derive absolutely no benefit from the fact that Danish oil is produced in the EU while Norwegian oil is produced without.
As it was in 1921.
Meanwhile the small, puny and insignificant "independent" Scotland - whose existence would set all sorts of troublesome precedents for other EU States - would probably be required by those EU States to jump through some hoops for EU membership.
Such as the Euro, and losing the Scottish share of the existing UK budget rebate.
Please do not mention "oil" in reply; EU states derive absolutely no benefit from the fact that Danish oil is produced in the EU while Norwegian oil is produced without.
#
2012-02-28 23:06
You are entitled to your opinion that Scotland is "small, puny and insignificant".
Indeed you should publish that opinion extremely widely, regularly and persistently!
Indeed you should publish that opinion extremely widely, regularly and persistently!
#
2012-02-29 10:49
Quoting oldnat:
he does as sm753 on the hootsmon. typical trolling behaviour for a few years now.
You are entitled to your opinion that Scotland is "small, puny and insignificant".
Indeed you should publish that opinion extremely widely, regularly and persistently!
he does as sm753 on the hootsmon. typical trolling behaviour for a few years now.
#
2012-02-28 23:19
Oil !
Sorry 357 - you shouldn't tempt people. Oil may not make a difference in the EU - but it makes one heck of a difference to Scotland. Personally, I have my doubts about the EU and hope that on independence another referendum is held to see if we want to go through a process of joining or whatever situation we find ourselves in.
If you want to continue using terms like 'puny, insignificant' and so on - then you won't get much debate here. By all means put your views forward but maybe a little less of the rhetoric ? Only a thought.
Sorry 357 - you shouldn't tempt people. Oil may not make a difference in the EU - but it makes one heck of a difference to Scotland. Personally, I have my doubts about the EU and hope that on independence another referendum is held to see if we want to go through a process of joining or whatever situation we find ourselves in.
If you want to continue using terms like 'puny, insignificant' and so on - then you won't get much debate here. By all means put your views forward but maybe a little less of the rhetoric ? Only a thought.
#
2012-02-29 02:50
357ms
So we will not be liable to any share of the national debt then?
As in 1921.
So we will not be liable to any share of the national debt then?
As in 1921.
#
2012-02-29 10:18
357ms
Your fantasising and wish for total Scottish failure is quite vomit inducing. You have been hacking at that particular coal face for years through your many thousands of posts on The Scotsman, your failed blog and now in the Telegraph.
For someone to harbour such ill will towards a country soon to be independent and self sufficient, suggest to me a deep personal hatred that borders on racism. Your rhetoric is exactly that of Lord Foulkes, who we know has dedicated most of his life to bringing down The Scottish Government, and now to sabotaging the Scotland bill. His behaviour when he lounged in Holyrood was like that of a Rock Ape on speed, he is not missed from that place. The sooner we get shot of him and his ilk the better this country will be. That reason on it's own is enough to make me vote YES for independence.
Your fantasising and wish for total Scottish failure is quite vomit inducing. You have been hacking at that particular coal face for years through your many thousands of posts on The Scotsman, your failed blog and now in the Telegraph.
For someone to harbour such ill will towards a country soon to be independent and self sufficient, suggest to me a deep personal hatred that borders on racism. Your rhetoric is exactly that of Lord Foulkes, who we know has dedicated most of his life to bringing down The Scottish Government, and now to sabotaging the Scotland bill. His behaviour when he lounged in Holyrood was like that of a Rock Ape on speed, he is not missed from that place. The sooner we get shot of him and his ilk the better this country will be. That reason on it's own is enough to make me vote YES for independence.
#
2012-02-29 11:38
DonaldMhor, "For someone to harbour such ill will towards a country soon to be independent and self sufficient, suggest to me" that said person has something to lose, personally, from that country's emancipation.....for example, a secure position within a political party, or... a paid position AT ALL within the the machinations of the UK government.
It would difficult for anyone to have respect for such a person, were such a person to exist of course.
It would difficult for anyone to have respect for such a person, were such a person to exist of course.
#
2012-02-28 23:02
Spain will recognise Scotland if the settlement is mutually and legally agreed between the parties concerned. What they will not accept, as apparently is the case of Kosovo, is a unilateral declaration of independence.
#
2012-02-28 22:08
I'm sorry. I just cannot resist - "Who cares?".
An independent Scotland will have oil and gas to take to market. And marine produce. And renewable energy. And agricultural produce. And so on.
Within or outwith the EU Scotland's produce will sell and so Scotland will prosper.
What I do think is needed is for some enterprising young Scots to produce a horrific black and white, snotters and all, film on Trident and the weapons store at Coulport, The destructive potential and the cost.
Devo-something or other enables Westminster to continue playing war games. The dual benefit of neutering Westminster sans Trident, and the cost benefit to Scots households needs to be put before the voters.
An independent Scotland will have oil and gas to take to market. And marine produce. And renewable energy. And agricultural produce. And so on.
Within or outwith the EU Scotland's produce will sell and so Scotland will prosper.
What I do think is needed is for some enterprising young Scots to produce a horrific black and white, snotters and all, film on Trident and the weapons store at Coulport, The destructive potential and the cost.
Devo-something or other enables Westminster to continue playing war games. The dual benefit of neutering Westminster sans Trident, and the cost benefit to Scots households needs to be put before the voters.
#
2012-02-28 22:34
Hold your noses!
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
[It's useful to other readers to give some explanation of what any link is about. NNS Mod Team]
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
[It's useful to other readers to give some explanation of what any link is about. NNS Mod Team]
#
2012-02-28 23:14
With two PhD students currently under my supervision, I find what is happening in England very sad. This is a travesty.
Education is not a commodity.
Education is not a commodity.
#
2012-02-28 22:39
bbc.co.uk/.../...
I can't be bothered with any of them in this video, but just to show the selective reporting in the text, as opposed to the clip, ie "I want Independence..."
I can't be bothered with any of them in this video, but just to show the selective reporting in the text, as opposed to the clip, ie "I want Independence..."
#
2012-02-28 22:50
The EU isnt the real issue, and its unionist scaremongering that brings this debate about. Scotland is in Europe, Europe wont have a problem with us, but if we are looking for European support against the Union, forget it, other countries will not get involved, unless there is any nastiness developing.
We have to tear into the real issues that concern Scotland, and the Unionists have to start giving the answers.
We have to tear into the real issues that concern Scotland, and the Unionists have to start giving the answers.
#
2012-02-28 23:15
O/T
I just read Lucy Adams in the Herald and I get the distinct impression that she now realises that the point she missed yesterday was what came out of Newsnight Scotland, (Glenn Campbell of all people), that the source of the accusation was part of the previous Libyan government.
When the author of the book was asked if there was any reason the Scottish Government would gain or want to quash the Magrahi appeal, his answer was a definite NO. The governments of the UK, USA and Libya are the ones who want to kill the truth from coming out. I wonder why ?
Our Scottish criminal justice system is clearly less than blameless in this case, but that will be rectified.
KM, in his position, can do nothing less than than support the verdict at this stage, based on the evidence presented in court. Once the report is published, (which he has never set eyes on), and the black corners of the case get thrown into the spotlight, I believe KM is just the man to read the Riot Act to those deserving it and restore Scotlands pride in our justice system.
Name and shame the guilty, wherever they are.
I just read Lucy Adams in the Herald and I get the distinct impression that she now realises that the point she missed yesterday was what came out of Newsnight Scotland, (Glenn Campbell of all people), that the source of the accusation was part of the previous Libyan government.
When the author of the book was asked if there was any reason the Scottish Government would gain or want to quash the Magrahi appeal, his answer was a definite NO. The governments of the UK, USA and Libya are the ones who want to kill the truth from coming out. I wonder why ?
Our Scottish criminal justice system is clearly less than blameless in this case, but that will be rectified.
KM, in his position, can do nothing less than than support the verdict at this stage, based on the evidence presented in court. Once the report is published, (which he has never set eyes on), and the black corners of the case get thrown into the spotlight, I believe KM is just the man to read the Riot Act to those deserving it and restore Scotlands pride in our justice system.
Name and shame the guilty, wherever they are.
#
2012-02-29 00:58
Well, the terms of the PTA, negotiated between Blair, Straw and the Gaddafi regime, were very weird. Unlike most treaties of that nature, an application could not be initiated by the prisoner, but only by his own government. And all appeals had to be off the table.
This almost seems like a deliberate trap to allow the Libyan government to force Megrahi to drop the appeal - Libya applies for repatriation under the PTA, but Megrahi has to drop the appeal first. Libya says, OK up to you, but if you lose the appeal don't come crying to us to make another application. If you were Megrahi, and had already been royally screwed over by the Scottish courts twice, what would you do?
Of course, all that was before the cancer diagnosis, and the possibility of compassionate release, but it's interesting. Why might the Gaddafi regime have wanted a lever they could use to make Megrahi drop the appeal? And if they did, it's maybe not so far a stretch to think they were still trying that line even when compassionate release was on the table.
On the other hand, it's possible al-Obedi had a conversation with MacAskill in which the former was a bit confused between the PTA requirements and compassionate release, and relayed a Chinese Whispers version to Megrahi.
There are so many possibilities it's hard to know what might have happened.
This almost seems like a deliberate trap to allow the Libyan government to force Megrahi to drop the appeal - Libya applies for repatriation under the PTA, but Megrahi has to drop the appeal first. Libya says, OK up to you, but if you lose the appeal don't come crying to us to make another application. If you were Megrahi, and had already been royally screwed over by the Scottish courts twice, what would you do?
Of course, all that was before the cancer diagnosis, and the possibility of compassionate release, but it's interesting. Why might the Gaddafi regime have wanted a lever they could use to make Megrahi drop the appeal? And if they did, it's maybe not so far a stretch to think they were still trying that line even when compassionate release was on the table.
On the other hand, it's possible al-Obedi had a conversation with MacAskill in which the former was a bit confused between the PTA requirements and compassionate release, and relayed a Chinese Whispers version to Megrahi.
There are so many possibilities it's hard to know what might have happened.
#
2012-02-29 02:47
Megrahi was released in August 2009 and if you look through the documents released by the SG you will see one (in Arabic but with an English translation) that Megrahi signed dated in March 2009 in which he states that if granted PTO he would drop his appeal. The rules for considering PTO stated that before it could be considered then no appeals could be outstanding (not the exact wording but what it means in this case). KM also reminded Megrahi of this condition during the prison visit, it is also documented.
#
2012-02-28 23:24
I'm just a pleb but the status of Scotland and the Former UK is easy enough to be looked into beyond the careful non words from the EU in the article.
Are we supposed to believe that the EU will simply wait until the day of the referendum result in 2014 to start working on two potential successor states of the EU that are indeed equal regardless of the negative spin from one commentator here....................both Scotland AND the Former UK are absolutely equal in the respect that the EU has thus far failed to provide a definitive statement about either of them after an Independence YES in 2014.
Westminster (or Moore's selective Scotland only scenario) can make what they like in their negative spin but the Former UK in an Independence YES situation can't boast about this announcement either!
Unless I missed a meeting?
This isn't a EU stance that can remain for the next two years by any means- it buys them time but they'll have to say something, and endorsing Westminster alone would be a strange stance to take for a number of reasons including legality over what entails EU citizenship.
Honest!
Are we supposed to believe that the EU will simply wait until the day of the referendum result in 2014 to start working on two potential successor states of the EU that are indeed equal regardless of the negative spin from one commentator here....................both Scotland AND the Former UK are absolutely equal in the respect that the EU has thus far failed to provide a definitive statement about either of them after an Independence YES in 2014.
Westminster (or Moore's selective Scotland only scenario) can make what they like in their negative spin but the Former UK in an Independence YES situation can't boast about this announcement either!
Unless I missed a meeting?
This isn't a EU stance that can remain for the next two years by any means- it buys them time but they'll have to say something, and endorsing Westminster alone would be a strange stance to take for a number of reasons including legality over what entails EU citizenship.
Honest!
#
2012-02-28 23:25
What will the remainder of the UK be called in the event of Scotland's "Independence Day"? It can't be rUK any more than it can be Australia I did hear the name "Ceylon" is currently free as the British hankered for that name in the now Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
What will the remainder of the UK be called in the event of Scotland's "Independence Day"? It can't be rUK any more than it can be Australia I did hear the name "Ceylon" is currently free as the British hankered for that name in the now Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
What will the remainder of the UK be called in the event of Scotland's "Independence Day"? It can't be rUK any more than it can be Australia I did hear the name "Ceylon" is currently free as the British hankered for that name in the now Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
What will the remainder of the UK be called in the event of Scotland's "Independence Day"? It can't be rUK any more than it can be Australia I did hear the name "Ceylon" is currently free as the British hankered for that name in the now Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
What will the remainder of the UK be called in the event of Scotland's "Independence Day"? It can't be rUK any more than it can be Australia I did hear the name "Ceylon" is currently free as the British hankered for that name in the now Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
#
2012-02-29 00:04
They can still call themselves Britain. It was always an invented term to assimilate conquered nations into an English identity.
#
2012-02-29 00:11
Slightly off topic. BBC's Countyfile had Matt Baker announcing that Cornwall has the longest coastline of any county in the UK. Some mistake here surely, thought Coky, and checked it out. Cornwall 600 miles.
Argyle 3,000 miles, almost the same as France.
Do they employ researchers at the BBC or just make this guff up on the hoof.
Sent an email pointing this out. Nae reply as yet!
Argyle 3,000 miles, almost the same as France.
Do they employ researchers at the BBC or just make this guff up on the hoof.
Sent an email pointing this out. Nae reply as yet!
#
2012-02-29 00:30
CNJ -
Ah but, Argyll is no longer a "county". It's (with Bute) a "Council Area". Not the same, is it?
Ah but then again, Cornwall has never been a "county". It's a conquered Duchy.
Kernow livra bys vykken!
Ah but, Argyll is no longer a "county". It's (with Bute) a "Council Area". Not the same, is it?
Ah but then again, Cornwall has never been a "county". It's a conquered Duchy.
Kernow livra bys vykken!
#
2012-02-29 00:45
Edna, You're nit picking here, it's even bigger noo!
Cornwall was never a duchy until the English conquered it.
Shetland has a coastline of nearly 1,700 miles.
Hope you had a good Celtic Connections.
Cornwall was never a duchy until the English conquered it.
Shetland has a coastline of nearly 1,700 miles.
Hope you had a good Celtic Connections.
#
2012-02-29 00:59
Tom Shields Diary had a wee competition about that years ago. The winner was....
Waningland.
Waningland.
#
2012-02-29 01:00
Have you got a problem with your PC .Scot?
Have you got a problem with your PC .Scot?
I reckon EWNI as in ewe as in sheep would be good. In reality, what does it matter what they call themselves? I only worry about our friends in Wales in all of this as I feel that NI will be okay irregardless because of their strong unionist (westminster) ties.
Have you got a problem with your PC .Scot?
I reckon EWNI as in ewe as in sheep would be good. In reality, what does it matter what they call themselves? I only worry about our friends in Wales in all of this as I feel that NI will be okay irregardless because of their strong unionist (westminster) ties.
#
2012-02-29 14:03
I'd go for Kingdom of Ewan.
There's no NI until they decide their future.
ENgland - WAles - ENWA or Ewan.
Other interesting anagrams appreciated - need a chuckle today.
It's either that or Wales accepts being formally part of the Kingdom of England and elects to be subsumed into it.
There's no NI until they decide their future.
ENgland - WAles - ENWA or Ewan.
Other interesting anagrams appreciated - need a chuckle today.
It's either that or Wales accepts being formally part of the Kingdom of England and elects to be subsumed into it.
#
2012-02-28 23:39
o/t
BBC at it again..
Preview Headlines for Newsnight Scotland shown before Newsnight.
to paraphrase:
'What is the difference between devo plus and devo max other than terms designed to confuse us?'
Would like to hear it again as he was mumbling a bit just to make sure it was as I heard it. Don't like that wording one bit as it implies it may be the Scottish Government that are wanting to confuse the public even though devo plus isn't being proposed by them, but most don't know that.
BBC at it again..
Preview Headlines for Newsnight Scotland shown before Newsnight.
to paraphrase:
'What is the difference between devo plus and devo max other than terms designed to confuse us?'
Would like to hear it again as he was mumbling a bit just to make sure it was as I heard it. Don't like that wording one bit as it implies it may be the Scottish Government that are wanting to confuse the public even though devo plus isn't being proposed by them, but most don't know that.
#
2012-02-29 00:15
Who are these people that the media think are so easily confused? I'm assuming the journos aren't claiming to be so dense that they're confused themselves, so it must be some ordinary, idiotic, punters they have in mind. In which case, those punters are likely to be equally confused by terms like 'status quo' ("I thought they were a band?") and will probably spoil their ballot paper by stabbing blindly at it with the wrong end of the pencil.
#
2012-02-29 00:29
This pretty much seems to be the line the BBC will continue to run with devo max/plus. Reporter on Good Morning Scotland today spent a fair bit of his interview with a supporter of devo plus on how this option would cause 'confusion'. Has echos of the AV referendum where a perfectly comprehensible voting system to anyone with a mental age older than 10 was made out to be more complex than quantum physics.
#
2012-02-28 23:55
O/T
Lord Foulkes wanted to add an ammendment forcing the Scottish Government to call itself the 'Devolved Scottish Government'. This is nothing but complete and utter disrespect for our parliament, government and democracy. Lord Wallace of Tankerness, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, Lord Forsyth of Drumleand and the Earl of Caithness have done nothing but attempt vandalise this bill in the Lords to belittle Scotland and ensure that Westminster dominates Scotland. Every ammendent aimed at denegrating our country which were introduced by these rogues should be printed and put up for all to see. Should be worth a majority voting for independence.
Lord Foulkes wanted to add an ammendment forcing the Scottish Government to call itself the 'Devolved Scottish Government'. This is nothing but complete and utter disrespect for our parliament, government and democracy. Lord Wallace of Tankerness, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, Lord Forsyth of Drumleand and the Earl of Caithness have done nothing but attempt vandalise this bill in the Lords to belittle Scotland and ensure that Westminster dominates Scotland. Every ammendent aimed at denegrating our country which were introduced by these rogues should be printed and put up for all to see. Should be worth a majority voting for independence.
#
2012-02-29 08:31
Every ammendent aimed at denegrating our country which were introduced by these rogues should be printed and put up for all to see. Should be worth a majority voting for independence.
Knock yourself out....after reading some of these you will want to.
publications.parliament.uk/.../...
Knock yourself out....after reading some of these you will want to.
publications.parliament.uk/.../...
#
2012-02-29 00:00
I used to think there should be a third question. I did say though once they seen the game was up the dependency parties would go for Devo-Max for a number of reasons. It's ambiguous. It can be delayed for years and it can be taken back. Now I believe there must only be 2 questions if there is we will win.
#
2012-02-29 00:09
Not bad news on the EU front and pretty much as I understood the situation. That this would be a fairly new problem for them and that it would take consideration on the membership of both new entities by the commission as and when there is a definite result. To be honest though EFTA - EU, personally won't change my voting intention.
#
2012-02-29 00:18
One thing I picked up on in one of the links. Any new member state of the EU must adopt the Euro. Is this true anybody?
#
2012-02-29 00:26
I seem to remember there has been discussions about this recently, Islegard. I am assuming that you are raising this question with regard to an Independent Scotland becoming a member of the E.U.
If my, drastically failing :D memory, serves me right I believe that an Independent Scotland would not have to join the Euro on day one.
I don't think Sweden, an E.U. member, is a member of the Euro. I understand they had a referendum, oh no it's the "R" word :D, on whether or not join some time ago and the vote went against joining. So there is no way we would be forced into the Euro post Independence.
If my, drastically failing :D memory, serves me right I believe that an Independent Scotland would not have to join the Euro on day one.
I don't think Sweden, an E.U. member, is a member of the Euro. I understand they had a referendum, oh no it's the "R" word :D, on whether or not join some time ago and the vote went against joining. So there is no way we would be forced into the Euro post Independence.
#
2012-02-29 00:36
Hi Arb the link was to the Torygraph who appeared to indicate any new members over the last 3 years must join the Euro. Obviously where the british media is concerned you have to check the facts.
#
2012-02-29 00:51
I would still say no Islegard.
They are doing this"pondering" over joining the Euro as part of their scaremongering against Independence.
What they forget is "what is good for the goose is hood for the gander".
In other words if we had to join the Euro as they infer then so would the rUK. Something they conveniently forget. When ever they try and make out that an Independent Scotland would have to do "this or that" they are talking through their fear that rUK would have to do the same. This is something they are incapable of computing!
They are doing this"pondering" over joining the Euro as part of their scaremongering against Independence.
What they forget is "what is good for the goose is hood for the gander".
In other words if we had to join the Euro as they infer then so would the rUK. Something they conveniently forget. When ever they try and make out that an Independent Scotland would have to do "this or that" they are talking through their fear that rUK would have to do the same. This is something they are incapable of computing!
#
2012-02-29 00:42
I'm not an expert on this area but I'm sure that in the case of Sweden (and indeed any member of the EU) a commitment to joining the euro is expected of all members but there is a loophole that allows members to stay out. The Maastrict treaty requires member states to join the euro but to do so the member state has to join the exchange rate mechanism. Joining the ERM is entirely voluntary so if a country decides not to join the ERM it doesn't have to join the euro. Indeed even if a country did join the ERM that isn't even a guarantee the EU will allow it to join the euro if certain economic conditions aren't met such as the debt to GDP ratio.
Worth mentioning to tories who are hell-bent on imposing their paranoid fantasies about the EU on the Scottish Independence debate.
Worth mentioning to tories who are hell-bent on imposing their paranoid fantasies about the EU on the Scottish Independence debate.
#
2012-02-29 00:36
"...Any new member state of the EU must adopt the Euro. Is this true anybody?"
This has been denied and supported ad nauseum in the media.
It seems there is no definitve conclusion as yet, but the answer depends on which side of the independence argument you are on.
This has been denied and supported ad nauseum in the media.
It seems there is no definitve conclusion as yet, but the answer depends on which side of the independence argument you are on.
#
2012-02-29 02:00
Yes and no.
Effectively any new member must.
Scotland would not be a "new" member.
Everything may still be up for negotiating.
However, even new members, although they must agree to adopt the Euro are under no statutory time limit.
Effectively adoption can be delayed "for ever".
As the member would then have a veto, they can stop adoption of a statutory time limit.
Effectively it's a non-rule.
Effectively any new member must.
Scotland would not be a "new" member.
Everything may still be up for negotiating.
However, even new members, although they must agree to adopt the Euro are under no statutory time limit.
Effectively adoption can be delayed "for ever".
As the member would then have a veto, they can stop adoption of a statutory time limit.
Effectively it's a non-rule.
#
2012-02-29 04:01
Yes, except that the December meeting of the Council effectively decided that there was no longer a veto. Any one using the veto were held to be unwilling to be in the club. What will happen if the Irish vote No in their referendum ( they have to have one under their Constitution ) is far from clear. On past performance they will be told to keep on having votes until they get the result that the Commission wants.
So no vetos in future!
So no vetos in future!
#
2012-02-29 00:23
Just thought I'd post this. It's an article written by A Tory Scot in Spain,. In fact he's the chairman of Conservatives Abroad in Spain.
intereconomia.com/.../...
I found the article really pathetic in that it is deliberately presenting misinformation tailored for a right-wing, centralist Spanish audience. It's good to know what's being spun abroad.
If automatic translation doesn't give you an idea of what he's saying, I'd be happy to post a translation.
intereconomia.com/.../...
I found the article really pathetic in that it is deliberately presenting misinformation tailored for a right-wing, centralist Spanish audience. It's good to know what's being spun abroad.
If automatic translation doesn't give you an idea of what he's saying, I'd be happy to post a translation.
#
2012-02-29 00:57
breadandcheese -
Thanks for the laugh. It's just the same old, same old uninformed rubbish.
I see we are now "Fifth Columnists"! That probably brought the loudest guffaw.
I wasn't sure what the loony was trying to say in the last sentence -
¿Por qué excluirnos de una nación tan próspera y prestigiosa que tanto hemos contribuido los escoceses a crear?
Is he really saying that we shouldn't exclude ourselves from a "nation" because we helped to create it? We helped to create the USA as well but we're not part of that.
Thanks for the laugh. It's just the same old, same old uninformed rubbish.
I see we are now "Fifth Columnists"! That probably brought the loudest guffaw.
I wasn't sure what the loony was trying to say in the last sentence -
¿Por qué excluirnos de una nación tan próspera y prestigiosa que tanto hemos contribuido los escoceses a crear?
Is he really saying that we shouldn't exclude ourselves from a "nation" because we helped to create it? We helped to create the USA as well but we're not part of that.
#
2012-02-29 01:08
Quoting breadandcheese:
I wondered where all the Rangers FC Directors ended up ?!
Just thought I'd post this. It's an article written by A Tory Scot in Spain,. In fact he's the chairman of Conservatives Abroad in Spain.
intereconomia.com/.../...
I found the article really pathetic in that it is deliberately presenting misinformation tailored for a right-wing, centralist Spanish audience. It's good to know what's being spun abroad.
If automatic translation doesn't give you an idea of what he's saying, I'd be happy to post a translation.
I wondered where all the Rangers FC Directors ended up ?!
#
2012-02-29 01:44
Ugh! Intereconomía! Famous for ultra-right flame throwing. Notice the newspaper has a separate section for church news. In the Spanish context at least, that says it all.
#
2012-02-29 01:06
Lest we forget!
facebook.com/.../...
This is what they did to us in 1979. We need to ensure that they NEVER do this to Scotland ever again!
facebook.com/.../...
This is what they did to us in 1979. We need to ensure that they NEVER do this to Scotland ever again!
#
2012-02-29 11:19
I seem to recall that he was one of those who "defected" to the SDP and was then never heard of again, losing his seat in the '83 UK General Election.
It is of, I suppose, some comfort that he didn't get his expected reward as a time-served Labour MP in being Vermined.
It is of, I suppose, some comfort that he didn't get his expected reward as a time-served Labour MP in being Vermined.
#
2012-02-29 01:55
Great fun on the Reality Check series, the extremely well informed and articulate "Cybernats" are leaving the rest of the commentators well behind.
#
2012-02-29 07:52
Aye dropped a little ray of sunshine on there masel'. Hand and Shrimp, Sneekyboy and maisiedotts had a field day. On to the BBC subject today. I think they'll be horrified to discover we'll be quite happy to see the back of them. :)
#
2012-02-29 01:41
In the 1707 act which was ratified by two sovereign states to create GB, is there a paragraph/line which states that if one side is unhappy with the aggreement they may give notice of termination of the agreed contract and then after the appropriate period of time leave???
I'm not sure of what really is in the act in this respect.
Could someone from the legalnats help out?
I'm not sure of what really is in the act in this respect.
Could someone from the legalnats help out?
#
2012-02-29 01:46
Nope. Unfortunately the 18th century commissioners would never have thought in those terms.
#
2012-02-29 11:00
Firstly, I'll tell you, I'm not a legal nat, so this is what I know from my own research. I hope it helps.
The starting point in all of this, is to understand the nature of the union between England and Scotland. Invariably, commentators both in England, Scotland and abroad, make the mistake of confusing the situation in Scotland with that of say, Quebec or Catalunya in Spain. The situation with Scotland and England is very different.
Scotland and England and the union which binds them together is I believe almost unique in the world, in that it was a VOLUNTARY agreement between two sovereign nations, Scotland and England. We could talk long and hard about how the Scottish signatories were bribed by England, and were not democratically elected into power, but that is another matter. The fact is the sovereign parliament of Scotland and the sovereign parliament of England both agreed separately via acts in each parliament to the terms of an international treaty between the two nations - the treaty of union. It needs to be stressed how important this difference is between the Scottish situation and the situation found elsewhere around the world. For example, when countries have been previously taken over by force by another nation, and then later they set out to once again become independent, is very different.
It is also very different from distinct 'regions' or areas within single unified countries, which for cultural, historic or other reasons wish to break free. The situation with Scotland and England is very, very different to all of those typical scenarios.
The mistake which many ill-informed unionists make is to mistakenly think that the treaty caused Scotland to cease to exist as a nation - it didn't, in the same way England didn't cease to exist under the terms of the treaty.
In international law, such a treaty as the union treaty of 1707 is considered like a contract in many ways, and as such, the contract can be ended by either party as desired. It is essentially that simple. This has been seen many times around the world, and is NOT unusual. If it were not the case, that countries could have the right to unilaterally end treaties with other nations, then it is highly unlikely any country would ever sign ANY treaty.
The use of such treaties between nations, are a way of showing mutual consent to an objective, but whenever such a treaty no longer meets the needs of either party, then unilaterally they may withdraw.
The break up of treaties between nation states, is something governed by international law, and its offspring, the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which has been ratified by 111 countries. It is also based upon legal principles upheld by the UN and other international bodies.
The Vienna convention was the product of the UN, and essentially formalises in one document, the key elements of international law on treaties.
Importantly, the Vienna convention is NOT retroactive, as set out in article 4 of the Vienna convention, and so on a purely technical basis, it could be argued that the treaty of 1707, is not covered. Whilst technically that is true, the principles of international law on treaties upon which the Vienna convention are based are clear in their intent. It would be wholly ridiculous for London to say, that as the Vienna convention itself is not retroactive, Scotland cannot unilaterally end the treaty of union, as that in itself would go against every accepted principle of international law on treaties between nation states, as upheld by bodies such as the UN, the international court of justice in the Hague, and the council of Europe.
It should be noted that were such a dispute to arise, then the final arbiter would likely be the international court of justice in The hague, and NOT some court in England.
In addition, and this IS important, the treaty articles have been repeatedly broken by Westminster over and over again, despite Westminster having NO authority to do so. In many ways, the treaty is, by their actions, effectively null and void anyway.
So, essentially, to answer your question, either Scotland or England, could tomorrow if they so choose, decide to end the treaty of union of 1707.
The important point about the union between Scotland and England is it is an international treaty between two nations, and as such the treaty is NOT governed by domestic (English or Scots) law.
untreaty.un.org/.../...
legislation.gov.uk/.../...
legislation.gov.uk/.../...
www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/.../
I hope this helps.
The starting point in all of this, is to understand the nature of the union between England and Scotland. Invariably, commentators both in England, Scotland and abroad, make the mistake of confusing the situation in Scotland with that of say, Quebec or Catalunya in Spain. The situation with Scotland and England is very different.
Scotland and England and the union which binds them together is I believe almost unique in the world, in that it was a VOLUNTARY agreement between two sovereign nations, Scotland and England. We could talk long and hard about how the Scottish signatories were bribed by England, and were not democratically elected into power, but that is another matter. The fact is the sovereign parliament of Scotland and the sovereign parliament of England both agreed separately via acts in each parliament to the terms of an international treaty between the two nations - the treaty of union. It needs to be stressed how important this difference is between the Scottish situation and the situation found elsewhere around the world. For example, when countries have been previously taken over by force by another nation, and then later they set out to once again become independent, is very different.
It is also very different from distinct 'regions' or areas within single unified countries, which for cultural, historic or other reasons wish to break free. The situation with Scotland and England is very, very different to all of those typical scenarios.
The mistake which many ill-informed unionists make is to mistakenly think that the treaty caused Scotland to cease to exist as a nation - it didn't, in the same way England didn't cease to exist under the terms of the treaty.
In international law, such a treaty as the union treaty of 1707 is considered like a contract in many ways, and as such, the contract can be ended by either party as desired. It is essentially that simple. This has been seen many times around the world, and is NOT unusual. If it were not the case, that countries could have the right to unilaterally end treaties with other nations, then it is highly unlikely any country would ever sign ANY treaty.
The use of such treaties between nations, are a way of showing mutual consent to an objective, but whenever such a treaty no longer meets the needs of either party, then unilaterally they may withdraw.
The break up of treaties between nation states, is something governed by international law, and its offspring, the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which has been ratified by 111 countries. It is also based upon legal principles upheld by the UN and other international bodies.
The Vienna convention was the product of the UN, and essentially formalises in one document, the key elements of international law on treaties.
Importantly, the Vienna convention is NOT retroactive, as set out in article 4 of the Vienna convention, and so on a purely technical basis, it could be argued that the treaty of 1707, is not covered. Whilst technically that is true, the principles of international law on treaties upon which the Vienna convention are based are clear in their intent. It would be wholly ridiculous for London to say, that as the Vienna convention itself is not retroactive, Scotland cannot unilaterally end the treaty of union, as that in itself would go against every accepted principle of international law on treaties between nation states, as upheld by bodies such as the UN, the international court of justice in the Hague, and the council of Europe.
It should be noted that were such a dispute to arise, then the final arbiter would likely be the international court of justice in The hague, and NOT some court in England.
In addition, and this IS important, the treaty articles have been repeatedly broken by Westminster over and over again, despite Westminster having NO authority to do so. In many ways, the treaty is, by their actions, effectively null and void anyway.
So, essentially, to answer your question, either Scotland or England, could tomorrow if they so choose, decide to end the treaty of union of 1707.
The important point about the union between Scotland and England is it is an international treaty between two nations, and as such the treaty is NOT governed by domestic (English or Scots) law.
untreaty.un.org/.../...
legislation.gov.uk/.../...
legislation.gov.uk/.../...
www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/.../
I hope this helps.
#
2012-02-29 19:28
Quoting Robert Louis:
Cobblers.
How can a "treaty" still exist when the two parties have merged into one state?
It simply becomes part of their domestic legislation. Oh, arguably an "entrenched" piece of constitutional legislation, but with no external locus.
And in fact your links simply confirm this. There is a Scottish Act of Union with England and an English Act of Union with Scotland; where is the signed "Treaty"?
Doesn't exist, does it?
And since you folks are so fond of picking over ancient legal details, try reading the Acts:
"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and FOREVER AFTER be UNITED INTO ONE KINGDOM by the Name of Great Britain "
It doesn't talk about "merging parliaments", but "uniting kingdoms".
Oh, and it's "forever after", so if you believe that this stuff is all "entrenched" then you're all breaking it.
The important point about the union between Scotland and England is it is an international treaty between two nations, and as such the treaty is NOT governed by domestic (English or Scots) law.
Cobblers.
How can a "treaty" still exist when the two parties have merged into one state?
It simply becomes part of their domestic legislation. Oh, arguably an "entrenched" piece of constitutional legislation, but with no external locus.
And in fact your links simply confirm this. There is a Scottish Act of Union with England and an English Act of Union with Scotland; where is the signed "Treaty"?
Doesn't exist, does it?
And since you folks are so fond of picking over ancient legal details, try reading the Acts:
"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and FOREVER AFTER be UNITED INTO ONE KINGDOM by the Name of Great Britain "
It doesn't talk about "merging parliaments", but "uniting kingdoms".
Oh, and it's "forever after", so if you believe that this stuff is all "entrenched" then you're all breaking it.
#
2012-02-29 14:08
No - but under International Treaty law, any treaty (Bi-Lateral) can be amended or ended by any signatory at any time "with proper notice".
That's a plain English version - the real text is a bit more windy.
That's a plain English version - the real text is a bit more windy.
#
2012-02-29 02:26
Only been reading this website for the past few months.It has been very interesting to see so many voicing the opinions on independance that have been my own for many years. My only regret is that living outside Scotland ( and probably not being back in time for 2014 } I like many others who regard themselves as Scottish through and through will not be able to vote in the referendum. Although I understand the reasoning behind this ( where would you draw the line at who in the Scottish diaspora would be eligible) it is a deep personal regret.
I hope that those who are able to vote make the best use of this opportunity and restore Scotland to its proper place as a sovereign state. It should be seen as a righting of a great wrong done to the wishes of the populace of our country in 1707.
Perhaps also it would be good to reflect that Scotland till then was seen as a threat to the state to the south,England. Talking to my own family it is disturbing that so little Scottish history has been taught over the past decades since I was in school!
I hope that those who are able to vote make the best use of this opportunity and restore Scotland to its proper place as a sovereign state. It should be seen as a righting of a great wrong done to the wishes of the populace of our country in 1707.
Perhaps also it would be good to reflect that Scotland till then was seen as a threat to the state to the south,England. Talking to my own family it is disturbing that so little Scottish history has been taught over the past decades since I was in school!
#
2012-02-29 11:09
Well said. It is indeed sad, that entire generations of Scots were not taught the history of Scotland properly.
#
2012-02-29 03:01
Just a tad O/T but might interest some
In the Scottish Sun, they report that Jack McConnell has having a spot of bother with an elderly neighbour in Stirling over a small coal shed
The bit I found funny was this '
He said: "I am loving being back here. I've had a really friendly reception in the town. It's been really quite emotional", I bet it has Jack, I bet it has...
thescottishsun.co.uk/.../...
In the Scottish Sun, they report that Jack McConnell has having a spot of bother with an elderly neighbour in Stirling over a small coal shed
The bit I found funny was this '
He said: "I am loving being back here. I've had a really friendly reception in the town. It's been really quite emotional", I bet it has Jack, I bet it has...
thescottishsun.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-02-29 03:10
Just looking at Glasgow Life - hey yet another Glasgow 'arms length labour operation'
CSG Board glasgowlife.org.uk/.../...
CSG CIC Board
glasgowlife.org.uk/.../...
CSG Board glasgowlife.org.uk/.../...
CSG CIC Board
glasgowlife.org.uk/.../...
#
2012-02-29 13:11
The story about the Baron and his law suit is in the herald too. Seems to be a spat over a coal cellar.
#
2012-02-29 07:32
OT I just switched on the telly and stumbled on the Lords discussing Wales.
Jim Wallace appeared to be the Front bench spokesman and when he spoke the caption said "Wales spokesman". What is his job these days?
Jim Wallace appeared to be the Front bench spokesman and when he spoke the caption said "Wales spokesman". What is his job these days?
#
2012-02-29 10:19
Pace pictic-1 2012-02-29 00:41
In the 1707 act which was ratified by two sovereign states to create GB, is there a paragraph/line which states that if one side is unhappy with the aggreement they may give notice of termination of the agreed contract and then after the appropriate period of time leave???
It may not be well known, but by 1713 it had dawned on the Scottish parliamentarian s that the Union had in fact failed to advance or protect Scottish economic interests.
A motion to repeal the Act of Union on the 2nd June, 1713 was defeated by four proxy votes.
Perhaps the biggest 'If only?' in our history.
In the 1707 act which was ratified by two sovereign states to create GB, is there a paragraph/line which states that if one side is unhappy with the aggreement they may give notice of termination of the agreed contract and then after the appropriate period of time leave???
It may not be well known, but by 1713 it had dawned on the Scottish parliamentarian s that the Union had in fact failed to advance or protect Scottish economic interests.
A motion to repeal the Act of Union on the 2nd June, 1713 was defeated by four proxy votes.
Perhaps the biggest 'If only?' in our history.
#
2012-02-29 11:11
Just out of interests, does anybody have access to the text of that motion in parliament??
#
2012-02-29 17:02
Bob Louis -DP - Arraniki
Thanks for the info :-)
"Scotland and England and the union which binds them together is I believe almost unique in the world, in that it was a VOLUNTARY agreement between two sovereign nations, Scotland and England."
"The fact is the sovereign parliament of Scotland and the sovereign parliament of England both agreed separately via acts in each parliament to the terms of an international treaty between the two nations - the treaty of union."
= This means we still have up to this present day after 298 years a treaty of two equal partners. The size of the populations etc being of no importance.
"Importantly, the Vienna convention is NOT retroactive, as set out in article 4 of the Vienna convention, and so on a purely technical basis, it could be argued that the treaty of 1707, is not covered. Whilst technically that is true, the principles of international law on treaties upon which the Vienna convention are based are clear in their intent. It would be wholly ridiculous for London to say, that as the Vienna convention itself is not retroactive, Scotland cannot unilaterally end the treaty of union, as that in itself would go against every accepted principle of international law on treaties between nation states, as upheld by bodies such as the UN, the international court of justice in the Hague, and the council of Europe."
= The SG could therefore bring in a motion to repeal the act as Arraniki with his example showed.
"It may not be well known, but by 1713 it had dawned on the Scottish parliamentarian s that the Union had in fact failed to advance or protect Scottish economic interests.
A motion to repeal the Act of Union on the 2nd June, 1713 was defeated by four proxy votes."
The equal partnership which still exists in its original treaty form has de facto mutated over the years into a non-treaty in which the English believe 100% they subjugated the Scots and as such we must ask permission to hold a referendum.
Seems to be planted in many Scottish heads as well.
Apart from the asset-debt-tax discussion, WHY doesn't AS then simply tell Westminster K.I.S.S we're going ...??
Thanks for the info :-)
"Scotland and England and the union which binds them together is I believe almost unique in the world, in that it was a VOLUNTARY agreement between two sovereign nations, Scotland and England."
"The fact is the sovereign parliament of Scotland and the sovereign parliament of England both agreed separately via acts in each parliament to the terms of an international treaty between the two nations - the treaty of union."
= This means we still have up to this present day after 298 years a treaty of two equal partners. The size of the populations etc being of no importance.
"Importantly, the Vienna convention is NOT retroactive, as set out in article 4 of the Vienna convention, and so on a purely technical basis, it could be argued that the treaty of 1707, is not covered. Whilst technically that is true, the principles of international law on treaties upon which the Vienna convention are based are clear in their intent. It would be wholly ridiculous for London to say, that as the Vienna convention itself is not retroactive, Scotland cannot unilaterally end the treaty of union, as that in itself would go against every accepted principle of international law on treaties between nation states, as upheld by bodies such as the UN, the international court of justice in the Hague, and the council of Europe."
= The SG could therefore bring in a motion to repeal the act as Arraniki with his example showed.
"It may not be well known, but by 1713 it had dawned on the Scottish parliamentarian s that the Union had in fact failed to advance or protect Scottish economic interests.
A motion to repeal the Act of Union on the 2nd June, 1713 was defeated by four proxy votes."
The equal partnership which still exists in its original treaty form has de facto mutated over the years into a non-treaty in which the English believe 100% they subjugated the Scots and as such we must ask permission to hold a referendum.
Seems to be planted in many Scottish heads as well.
Apart from the asset-debt-tax discussion, WHY doesn't AS then simply tell Westminster K.I.S.S we're going ...??
#
2012-02-29 19:20
Quoting deepwater:
Oh Hazel, you are such an unintentional hoot.
First of all, your link to an, er, free online dictionary (which is hilarious in itself) says NOTHING about any defined legal status for the term "nation". It says quite a lot about the meaning of "state", though.
And then you're trying to claim that the presence of the word "Scotland" in a generic drop-down list is evidence of....
....what, exactly?
The real kicker is that when you search for treaties between the UK and Scotland the result, of course, is "O results."
(Which of course is correct, since the Acts of Union have had no existence as a "Treaty" since the two parties merged into one state. Isn't that right?)
As they say, please check facts before posting and remember truth will always out.
@357ms:
"'Nation has no legal meaning'"
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/.../
Please check facts before posting.
...
www.fco.gov.uk/.../search
In the third line you'll notice you can select "Scotland" in the drop down menu as "countries" the Westminster government can enter treaties with.
As someone else said today, truth will out.
Oh Hazel, you are such an unintentional hoot.
First of all, your link to an, er, free online dictionary (which is hilarious in itself) says NOTHING about any defined legal status for the term "nation". It says quite a lot about the meaning of "state", though.
And then you're trying to claim that the presence of the word "Scotland" in a generic drop-down list is evidence of....
....what, exactly?
The real kicker is that when you search for treaties between the UK and Scotland the result, of course, is "O results."
(Which of course is correct, since the Acts of Union have had no existence as a "Treaty" since the two parties merged into one state. Isn't that right?)
As they say, please check facts before posting and remember truth will always out.
#
2012-03-02 22:27
Quote:
Gotta love Catalonians, we've got friends all over Europe rooting for us. Just as we are rooting for them.
In an official response to a question from Catalan MEP Ramon Tremosa I Balcells, the Commission referred to Scotland and the rest of United Kingdom as “the parties concerned” and described other member states as their “European Union partners”.
Gotta love Catalonians, we've got friends all over Europe rooting for us. Just as we are rooting for them.
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- What Kind of European and Brit...
The comments about the "European project... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Another positive story from BBC Radio5 o... - Independence not just possible...
Well 'gogsy' the SNP are "lacking in pop... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Reposting similar reply to Nautilus yest... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Whilst this in no way lets BBC Scotland ... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
This is par for the course for the BBC -... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Naughtie's interview with the FM of this... - What Kind of European and Brit...
As always you are left with the feeling ... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
It did not take long for someone to der... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
So former Labour chancellors views are n... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Alex Salmond sets out economic case for ... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
I heard this interview with Alex Salmond... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
I suppose first of all I was actually su... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Blighty is not known as Perfidious Albio... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
GogsyBroon; I was a young keen engineer ... - Labour party lied over true wo...
That should have read "unprecedented". - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Alex has a world audience today, so I am... - Barclays and HSBC financing la...
See this: www.youtube.com/.../ (http://w... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
"The guy is 95, so probably doesn't even... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
GogsyBroon "they had no idea how much oi...