RugbyRebels

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
On your 1st para... the only thing that matters is moving away from England.

On your 2nd para... everyone is well aware that there was a good deal of voting for leave in order to push indy. At least 1 WM snp mp has publicly admitted it, and there are rumoured to be several more in the same boat.

That may be commonly known amongst SNP people, or north of the border, but it's completely absent from any discussion I've seen in media down here, where people talk about the great risk to Sturgeon of being too European because a fair few Nats voted leave.

Based on nothing other than a gut feeling, my guess would be that most in favour of an independent Scotland and Brexit, would likely see the former outweigh the latter if it came down to a second Indy ref.

That may be utter bollocks.

It almost certainly is, as it's my gut feeling too.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:They said absolutely explicitly on radio 4 yesterday that their policy is to be in the EU .

Someone should tell their foreign affairs spokesman at WM...

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... o-join-eu/

I think you're misunderstanding what he said. He was saying that they would mainatin continuous membership of EFTA, not that their aim was merely to join EFTA. If there's any headline in that it's the surreptitious dropping of the idea that they'd manage to maintain continuous membership of the EU.

My impression was that EFTA is seen as a starting point only. I think EuU membership is the final aim, but efta membership would require less diplomacy in the short term.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Someone should tell their foreign affairs spokesman at WM...

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... o-join-eu/

I think you're misunderstanding what he said. He was saying that they would mainatin continuous membership of EFTA, not that their aim was merely to join EFTA. If there's any headline in that it's the surreptitious dropping of the idea that they'd manage to maintain continuous membership of the EU.

My impression was that EFTA is seen as a starting point only. I think EuU membership is the final aim, but efta membership would require less diplomacy in the short term.

Exactly.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Someone should tell their foreign affairs spokesman at WM...

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... o-join-eu/

I think you're misunderstanding what he said. He was saying that they would mainatin continuous membership of EFTA, not that their aim was merely to join EFTA. If there's any headline in that it's the surreptitious dropping of the idea that they'd manage to maintain continuous membership of the EU.

My impression was that EFTA is seen as a starting point only. I think EuU membership is the final aim, but efta membership would require less diplomacy in the short term.

EFTA membership would suit me fine. The Norway model ticks most of the boxes without most of the downsides. That applies whether we're talking about an independent Scotland or the UK.

Whilst EFTA brings obligations without any real influence, I think that if it were offered, a fair rew brexiteers would take that. It would reassure those concerned over the loss of sovereignty and probably provide a majority the other way. Sadly that option won't suit the Tory right who just want a complete break and who are effectively calling the shots.

Didnt see it but seemingly Elsie has just been on sky news stating that iScot would apply for EU membership, so that seems to put that one to bed. One of the big questions now is whether the million Scots who voted to leave the EU will support independence or not.

Donny osmond wrote:Didnt see it but seemingly Elsie has just been on sky news stating that iScot would apply for EU membership, so that seems to put that one to bed. One of the big questions now is whether the million Scots who voted to leave the EU will support independence or not.

I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of those Scots who voted to leave the EU would (and did) vote to remain in the UK anyway. As I said before, most of the ones I know are the kind of Union Flag waving little Britishers that I detest. Some of them are even,...... English

Sandydragon wrote:Whilst EFTA brings obligations without any real influence, I think that if it were offered, a fair rew brexiteers would take that. It would reassure those concerned over the loss of sovereignty and probably provide a majority the other way. Sadly that option won't suit the Tory right who just want a complete break and who are effectively calling the shots.

You get even less sovereignty as a member of EFTA than a a member of the EU.

Didnt Baz vote to leave?

Anyway, wasn't actually looking for this but came across it anyway...

If I'm reading it properly, and there's every chance that I'm not, page 2 seems to suggest that 27% of Scots who voted to leave the EU are indy supporters.

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/58ceff51f12 ... ebsite.pdf

Ummm not sure that link will work... trying another one...

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cu ... ebsite.pdf

Donny osmond wrote:Didnt Baz vote to leave?

I have no idea.
I'm sure that there are plenty other people I know who voted to leave, but have chosen not to (a) openly admit it and (b) constantly drone on about snowflakes, pausing only to share dubious shit on Facebook.

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding what he said. He was saying that they would mainatin continuous membership of EFTA, not that their aim was merely to join EFTA. If there's any headline in that it's the surreptitious dropping of the idea that they'd manage to maintain continuous membership of the EU.

My impression was that EFTA is seen as a starting point only. I think EuU membership is the final aim, but efta membership would require less diplomacy in the short term.

EFTA membership would suit me fine. The Norway model ticks most of the boxes without most of the downsides. That applies whether we're talking about an independent Scotland or the UK.

What downsides do you think you avoid by the Norway model? It seems to me you get all thedownsides with no upside.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
My impression was that EFTA is seen as a starting point only. I think EuU membership is the final aim, but efta membership would require less diplomacy in the short term.

EFTA membership would suit me fine. The Norway model ticks most of the boxes without most of the downsides. That applies whether we're talking about an independent Scotland or the UK.

What downsides do you think you avoid by the Norway model? It seems to me you get all thedownsides with no upside.

If my understanding is correct (and it may not be), the downsides that could be avoided by an independent Scotland joining EFTA (EEA) rather than full EU membership are:
1. We would retain the ability to make trade agreements with non-EU countries. This would prevent trading issues with a fully brexited rUK.
2. We would not be forced into joining the Euro. Although, on reflection, the Euro does seem to work for the vast majority of member countries.
3. Membership cost would probably be significantly lower
4. We would not be bound by the Common Fisheries Policy, which would have the double advantage of placating the Fishing lobby while simultaneously showing the Spanish the stink-finger.

Stones of granite wrote: 1. We would retain the ability to make trade agreements with non-EU countries. This would prevent trading issues with a fully brexited rUK.

Sort of, EFTA doesn't have a common trade policy, rather each member agrees the framework in advance of each round of talks, and then once they've agreed the boundaries they negotiate one common agreement with whatever nation/block they're then dealing with. So you'd have sovereignty at the point of agreeing on parameters for trade talks ahead of the actual talks, but tbh one might easily have to accept some things one didn't like, though that's going to happen at some point in any set of such negotiations.

What it might mean for trade with the UK wouldn't be clear in advance

It really boils my p the way all those anti Brexit Scots
keeping going on about Scotland staying in the EU. Scotland
is not and has never been in the EU. All treaties, agreements etc
were signed by The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland Scotland does not appear in any of them as it does not
exist as an independent entity.

belgarion wrote:It really boils my p the way all those anti Brexit Scots
keeping going on about Scotland staying in the EU. Scotland
is not and has never been in the EU. All treaties, agreements etc
were signed by The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland Scotland does not appear in any of them as it does not
exist as an independent entity.

What is your point?


People living in Scotland in EU were recognised as citizens of a EU Country. People living in Scotland will probably be very similar to people living in Independent Scotland. EU has never forced citizens to leave.

Scotland is recognised as a Nation withing the UK by the EU.

Adder wrote:

belgarion wrote:It really boils my p the way all those anti Brexit Scots
keeping going on about Scotland staying in the EU. Scotland
is not and has never been in the EU. All treaties, agreements etc
were signed by The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland Scotland does not appear in any of them as it does not
exist as an independent entity.

What is your point?


People living in Scotland in EU were recognised as citizens of a EU Country. People living in Scotland will probably be very similar to people living in Independent Scotland. EU has never forced citizens to leave.

Scotland is recognised as a Nation withing the UK by the EU.

Is it recognised as a signatory to any treaties? Is it recognised as the Sovereign
power of the UK? Is it recognised as an independent nation within the EU? Because
if the answer to any of those questions is no then Scotland cannot stay in the EU
as it isn't in it to begin with.

belgarion wrote:

Adder wrote:

belgarion wrote:It really boils my p the way all those anti Brexit Scots
keeping going on about Scotland staying in the EU. Scotland
is not and has never been in the EU. All treaties, agreements etc
were signed by The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland Scotland does not appear in any of them as it does not
exist as an independent entity.

What is your point?


People living in Scotland in EU were recognised as citizens of a EU Country. People living in Scotland will probably be very similar to people living in Independent Scotland. EU has never forced citizens to leave.

Scotland is recognised as a Nation withing the UK by the EU.

Is it recognised as a signatory to any treaties? Is it recognised as the Sovereign
power of the UK? Is it recognised as an independent nation within the EU? Because
if the answer to any of those questions is no then Scotland cannot stay in the EU
as it isn't in it to begin with.

Lol. You don't make the rules as you go along. Scotland is recognised as an entity by the EU and that is what matters.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Stones of granite wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: EFTA membership would suit me fine. The Norway model ticks most of the boxes without most of the downsides. That applies whether we're talking about an independent Scotland or the UK.

What downsides do you think you avoid by the Norway model? It seems to me you get all thedownsides with no upside.

If my understanding is correct (and it may not be), the downsides that could be avoided by an independent Scotland joining EFTA (EEA) rather than full EU membership are:
1. We would retain the ability to make trade agreements with non-EU countries. This would prevent trading issues with a fully brexited rUK.
2. We would not be forced into joining the Euro. Although, on reflection, the Euro does seem to work for the vast majority of member countries.
3. Membership cost would probably be significantly lower
4. We would not be bound by the Common Fisheries Policy, which would have the double advantage of placating the Fishing lobby while simultaneously showing the Spanish the stink-finger.

How do you think the proceeds of the fishing grounds and oil fields will be split up following Scottish Independence? Likely be a bun fight if you ask me.

bruce wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: What downsides do you think you avoid by the Norway model? It seems to me you get all thedownsides with no upside.

If my understanding is correct (and it may not be), the downsides that could be avoided by an independent Scotland joining EFTA (EEA) rather than full EU membership are:
1. We would retain the ability to make trade agreements with non-EU countries. This would prevent trading issues with a fully brexited rUK.
2. We would not be forced into joining the Euro. Although, on reflection, the Euro does seem to work for the vast majority of member countries.
3. Membership cost would probably be significantly lower
4. We would not be bound by the Common Fisheries Policy, which would have the double advantage of placating the Fishing lobby while simultaneously showing the Spanish the stink-finger.

How do you think the proceeds of the fishing grounds and oil fields will be split up following Scottish Independence? Likely be a bun fight if you ask me.

The boundaries are already settled. The Scottish Adjacent Boundary Waters Order was enacted as a Statutory Instrument by the UK Government at the same time as the Scotland Act which enabled devolution.

Adder wrote:

belgarion wrote:

Adder wrote: What is your point?


People living in Scotland in EU were recognised as citizens of a EU Country. People living in Scotland will probably be very similar to people living in Independent Scotland. EU has never forced citizens to leave.

Scotland is recognised as a Nation withing the UK by the EU.

Is it recognised as a signatory to any treaties? Is it recognised as the Sovereign
power of the UK? Is it recognised as an independent nation within the EU? Because
if the answer to any of those questions is no then Scotland cannot stay in the EU
as it isn't in it to begin with.

Lol. You don't make the rules as you go along. Scotland is recognised as an entity by the EU and that is what matters.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

So if it is recognised as an entity why do people in the EU keep saying that if
Scotland becomes independent it would have to apply for membership? If it is
a recognised entity within the EU when it becomes independent it shouldn't
have to.

belgarion wrote:

Adder wrote:

belgarion wrote:
Is it recognised as a signatory to any treaties? Is it recognised as the Sovereign
power of the UK? Is it recognised as an independent nation within the EU? Because
if the answer to any of those questions is no then Scotland cannot stay in the EU
as it isn't in it to begin with.

Lol. You don't make the rules as you go along. Scotland is recognised as an entity by the EU and that is what matters.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

So if it is recognised as an entity why do people in the EU keep saying that if
Scotland becomes independent it would have to apply for membership? If it is
a recognised entity within the EU when it becomes independent it shouldn't
have to.

The EU has multiple voices. Truth is , it's the first time they come against this situation.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Wow not too far behind the times am I?

bruce wrote:Wow not too far behind the times am I?

To be fair, the bastards did sneak it in under the radar, thieving 6,000 sq miles of previously Scottish waters and several "not very important" oil fields, without so much as a debate in Parliament....

Stones of granite wrote:

bruce wrote:Wow not too far behind the times am I?

To be fair, the bastards did sneak it in under the radar, thieving 6,000 sq miles of previously Scottish waters and several "not very important" oil fields, without so much as a debate in Parliament....

At least you won't have to worry about the decommissioning of those "older, not very important " oil fields.

belgarion wrote:It really boils my p the way all those anti Brexit Scots
keeping going on about Scotland staying in the EU. Scotland
is not and has never been in the EU. All treaties, agreements etc
were signed by The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland Scotland does not appear in any of them as it does not
exist as an independent entity.

Is this iambic pentameter? If so, you are Shakespeare and I claim my pound of flesh.