RISE NOW AND BE A NATION AGAIN !

If Scotland defaults on its share of the UK debt where are they going to borrow money from to run the country on day one of independence or does Eck already have an arrangement with Wonga? All the money that is in Scotland is ours and will remain that way after independence. Equally there will be a proportion of the assets of the Bank of England that will fall to an independent Scotland. It would have been a share of the gold reserves at one time but a socialist prime minister has already given that away. That is all Scotland is entitled to and all that the SNP can guarantee. We can carry on using the pounds we have and if it makes trade easier we can buy more pounds to help us trade just as we can buy dollars or euros. Without a currency union there will be no Scottish Central Bank to stand behind the pound and Scottish banks. Borrowing from anywhere other than the Bank of England, at whatever rate they want to set, will be extremely difficult.

A new country does not have a credit history. That is why Eck needs a currency union because Scotland would then still have the good credit history of the Bank of England behind it. That is why there is no plan B. No other solution is viable in today's global markets. The rest of the UK has a plan B. They have already said that they will take responsibility for the current UK debt in the event that Eck is not bluffing about defaulting on our share of that debt. Without a plan B what in effect he is asking voter's to do is play Russian roulette with their finances. If you have no savings, don't own your own home, don't have a company pension and work for the public service go ahead and vote Yes. The worst that can happen is you will pay more for your foreign currency to go on holiday and you will have to keep voting SNP to keep your job. Everybody else needs to vote No unless of course you enjoy the excitement of a very long odds bet.
 
So, first no £.

Now no EU.

The European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso rules it out.

The SNP's stance is Scotland would negotiate a transition into the EU.

Barrosso states its not a negotiation process, Scotland would have to apply to join.

"If there is a new country, a new state, coming out of a current member state it will have to apply."

"Accession to the European Union will have to be approved by all other member states of the European Union."

"Of course it will be extremely difficult to get the approval of all the other member states to have a new member coming from one member state... I believe it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, a new member state coming out of one of our countries getting the agreement of the others."

Does the independence campaign have one credible policy?
 
Just come back from birthday party at penicuik every body still voting no what's all this crazy propaganda I had a honest chat with all cousins and friend. This backbiting yes campaign is turning us all off wee eck and his daft minions. So guys not everybody north of the border is so caught up in this debacle. I think smiley Eck and Cameron should have pistols at dawn. perhaps?!!!!
 
FFS Scotland ........Kosovo

o homem é um asno
by derekbateman
Surely the Barroso story isn’t…a story? He hasn’t said anything new and to anybody who has been following this for the last two years, this is status quo. The main point seems to be that he appears on a London television programme, one watched by London political hacks desperate for Monday morning copy and he says something easily spun into an anti-Salmond, anti-Scottish top line so who cares if it isn’t new? To be fair, to most of the knee-jerk hacks writing this stuff it will be new because they have no idea what has been said in Scotland’s far-off, indecipherable referendum catfight. And for the BBC the imperative is to publicise their own output rather than quibble about veracity. Interestingly, what is missing from the versions I’ve read so far is the question: Why? Why would Scotland find it difficult, perhaps impossible to have full EU membership?

This question isn’t asked because to a metropolitan observer, the very idea of independence is daft anyway so anything that backs up that prejudice goes unchallenged. If there is a variation in his latest deliberate attempt to influence the outcome of a vote in a member state it is that he puts the problem down, not to process, but to politics. Somebody, Spain he implies, will veto Scotland so therefore it is probably impossible for Scotland to get membership. But that country’s foreign minister has said they have no locus and no interest in blocking Scotland so long as independence is secured through a legal process. Presumably the Commission President doesn’t believe statements from his member states’ foreign ministries. (Does Andrew Marr receive any pre-interview briefings, or is he too important like Mr Naughtie?).

What was somewhat galling to those of us who are Europhiles and look to Brussels to provide some leadership on international matters, is the linking of Scotland with Kosovo, where a million ethnic Albanians fled or were forcefully driven out, more than 11,000 deaths have been reported to the UN prosecutor, nine Serbian and Yugoslavian commanders have been indicted for crimes against humanity and in one the accused were charged with murder of 919 identified Kosovo Albanian civilians aged from one to 93, both male and female. Kosovo declared UDI, it did not got through a legal process and is in such a relatively poor state that the EU is nursing it towards normalization. Does that sound like Scotland? The most outspoken country opposed to Kosovo’s recognition is Spain which objects to any EU or NATO initiative on which refers to it as a state.

Just where the comparison is found between Kosovo, created from the fire of war, and exemplary, modern Scotland, meeting every acquis and with a 40-year record of membership is hard to say if you are applying logic, rather than Barroso weasel words. Isn’t it also a little presumptious of Spain, a member since only 1986, to imply blocking us?

I’m still amazed that Barroso’s constant campaigning on behalf of the UK and thereby breaking the rules by interfering in a member state, goes unremarked. He always adds, after pointedly suggesting the Scots can forget it, that he doesn’t have a role and it is up to the voters. The way to do this according to the rules is to ask the legal services people to give a legal judgement and inform the Scots before they vote. Instead he gives us his oily smile and pretends he is acting independently. No complaints are made about this incessant political interference even though the British government objects to EU involvement in every aspect of life.

We should be ready for another EU intervention as the European Parliament is about to reveal its legal advice. this is interesting as we have Barroso for the Commission making his view known, no the Parliament and yet nobody has asked for legal advice from the Council which is the body responsible for membership. MEPs are pushing for this which sounds like a good idea and indeed, who knows, it may be. But be aware it is the direct result of campaigning but our stalwart Scottish Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler who, along with their Tory chum Struan Stevenson, are furiously working the corridors to ensure their own country will be a pariah in Europe - such patriotism. Their joint letter go this under way and it was originally blocked because the legal people din't want to get involved before any formal approach from the UK. But then it was forced through committee by Tories and Lib Dems and Socialists so there are grounds to be suspicious that they think they will get a negative ruling to suit their argument against their own country. We know from experience that the Unionist MEPs have no love of their own country being a force in Europe - our number of MEPs would actually increase - and they have studiously avoided anything that could be construed as constructive, democratic engagement with our national referendum, preferring to play the supplicant role to Cameron's British state interests.

The forces of authority are lining up against Scotland as once they did against devolution so courage and nerve is required. But I'll tell you one thing that is now clear - the only way to earn respect in the world is to be a sovereign state in your own right because without that status you count for nothing and, as Osborne and Barroso make abundantly clear. The only status they respect is independence otherwise they treat you like trash.
 
They can take our £ they can take our right to be in the EU, but they'll never take our freedom!!! :blast
 
Very soon the pro-independence brigade will have to accept that independence will need to actually mean independence and not a pawn state under the yoke of the EU. Telling that the SNP haven't been proposing that all along.

At an independence debate last Friday I asked why the campaign was not for full independence like the Norway model. The response form the Yes speaker was that all counties have political alliances, Norway is a part of NATO. I felt like yelling at the guy that NATO is a military alliance not a political one. Heaven help us.
 
It will be interesting to hear Salmond's analysis of the SNP position today. Let's hope it's a bit more credible than the responses so far such as bluff, bullying, preposterous, nonesense etc.

It's also suggested that the recent events will improve the Yes vote as Scotland is being victimised :comfort

On the other hand I think it has woken up rUK. Scotland is planning to break away from the Union with threats of defaulting on debt and requiring rUK to accept the financial risks of this new nation.

When do the citizens of rUK get a say in this one-sided proposal?
 
Cooperman said:
It will be interesting to hear Salmond's analysis of the SNP position today. Let's hope it's a bit more credible than the responses so far such as bluff, bullying, preposterous, nonesense etc.

It's also suggested that the recent events will improve the Yes vote as Scotland is being victimised :comfort

On the other hand I think it has woken up rUK. Scotland is planning to break away from the Union with threats of defaulting on debt and requiring rUK to accept the financial risks of this new nation.

When do the citizens of rUK get a say in this one-sided proposal?
Click to expand...

We absolutely should have a say. Can someone tell me what other " sovereign state" has access to the benefits of pound, and the Bank of England ?
I can honestly say that Scotland are entitled to independence if that is their want, but no way are they entitled to retaining the UK pound as governed by the Bank of England.

No I'm afraid independence means exactly that. Build a nice big bank in a Scottish city and call it the bank of Scotland .
I mean whoever got a divorce and kept a joint bank account with their ex ? :rolleyes:

Mr Salmond is danger mouse. :blast
 
Captain Black said:
We absolutely should have a say. Can someone tell me what other " sovereign state" has access to the benefits of pound, and the Bank of England ?
I can honestly say that Scotland are entitled to independence if that is their want, but no way are they entitled to retaining the UK pound as governed by the Bank of England.

No I'm afraid independence means exactly that. Build a nice big bank in a Scottish city and call it the bank of Scotland .
I mean whoever got a divorce and kept a joint bank account with their ex ? :rolleyes:

Mr Salmond is danger mouse. :blast
Click to expand...

So what makes you think the pound "belongs" to England only ? Its as much Scotlands as it is Englands. More of the typical English attitude AFAIC.
 
It is governed by the Bank of England. There is a clue in the name. You could always ask it to be renamed The bank of the Rest of the UK but it would not change the fact that it is an instrument of the Westminster government. Get real tell the voters of Scotland what currency their pensions will be paid in the month after independence and who will guarantee the first £85,000 of deposits in Scottish banks. Otherwise you risk a run on the banks in the remote possibility that a Yes vote seems likely. It will make the Northern Rock queues look like a small family gathering by comparison. You do remember those queues don't you? You do remember the collapse of Icelandic banks don't you? Do you remember Lehman Brothers failure? Three weeks after that the UK chancellor called Royal bank of Scotland to ask how close they were to going under. He was told 'Well, maybe two or three hours' - and they were the biggest bank in the world at the time. That is how quickly financial institutions go under and having the government tell people not to worry it's all bluff and bluster won't stop people and companies rushing to withdraw their cash just in case. Usually there is indeed no need to panic and given a couple of good weeks the banks might have been able to continue but public sentiment does not work like that in a panic or are Yes voters some other breed who will say "It's OK I trust the SNP, there is no need to panic and I am going to leave my cash in a Scottish bank out of a patriotic duty to help my country". Aye right!!!!!
 
Delboy777 said:
So what makes you think the pound "belongs" to England only ? Its as much Scotlands as it is Englands. More of the typical English attitude AFAIC.
Click to expand...

Well I have no particular axe to grind. I don't want to see the break up of the UK but if that's Scotland's democratic choice then then I would sincerely wish you well. However, the pound Sterling is surely the currency of the United Kingdom which Scotland would potentially leave. I just don't see how it can be argued that there is a right for Scotland to use the UK's currency when it has voluntarily left it. The only argument I have picked up on is that it would be in the "best interests" of all of the UK (as it currently stands). I would have thought this was highly debatable. If I leave the golf club, I wouldn't expect to be able to use the greens even if it would be in my best interests.

Things will no doubt change before September but at the moment, it looks to me like the "Yes" argument is unravelling. A likely "No" on both Sterling and EU membership is being countered by the Scottish Government with a "yes, but they don't really mean it" argument. Salmond might be right but it's one hell of a gamble.
 
Delboy777 said:
So what makes you think the pound "belongs" to England only ? Its as much Scotlands as it is Englands. More of the typical English attitude AFAIC.
Click to expand...

The US dollar is the US dollar

The Hong Kong Dollar Is the Hong Kong Dollar

The Singapore Dollar is the Singapore Dollar.

The Cypriot pound (was) the Cypriot pound.

The UK pound is the UK pound.

The Scottish pound ( if that's what you want to call it) is fine but it will have to be a Scottish pound
With your own central bank in Scotland.
It's not a question of " typical English attitude :blagblah" if you go independent it should be exactly that.
Anyway if you feel " typical English" I'd have thought that would suit you.
 
Toddy said:
http://aworkingclassman.co.uk/uk-govt-report-currency-union-benefits-ruk/

Watch the video.
Click to expand...


The problem for Salmond is he needs someone to push on for the benefit of Scotland. If Scotland become independent and have no ties with the Bank of England just who does he push on ?
It's fecking crazy, he's got what he wanted ie the vote for independence. He now wants the rest of the UK to fall in line with his wishes should they become independent! :blast

Why should the UK give a shit about a country who wants feck all to do with it ( us) ?

Nah sorry Mr Salmond you make you bed you lay on it, don't see your arse if we don't want to be on it with you.

Just what say do England have in this separation ?

He's started one huge snowball rolling that's for sure......
 
Back to Barroso

Does Mr Barroso have the power to veto Scottish membership of the EU?

Absolutely not! That decision will be one for the 28 member states. Mr Barroso, as President of the Commission has no vote on this matter. (Indeed, his second term as President of the Commission ends in October and it is expected - though not certain - that he will move on).

So what exactly did Mr Barroso say?

In bizarre comments, Mr Barroso sought to suggest securing support from 28 member states would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible” based on Spain’s decision not to recognise Kosovo as independent. His logic was that Spain would take a similar approach to Scotland.

This is, on a number of levels, absolutely absurd.

Does Mr Barroso speak for Spain?

Absolutely not. Mr Barroso is a former Prime Minister of Portugal who some may recall came to international attention when he hosted the infamous Azores summit between Bush, Blair and Anzar, paving the way for the invasion of Iraq.

What has the Spanish government actually said?

It’s just two weeks since the Spanish foreign minister said pretty much the opposite of what Barroso is predicting. As the Financial Times reminds us today: “Spanish officials have highlighted the fact that the UK has said it would give its blessing to Scottish independence if the nationalist win September’s referendum, a situation in sharp contrast with Spain and Catalonia’s independence campaign and with Kosovo’s exist from Serbia”. They have never said that they would veto Scottish membership. And of course, Spain had no problem with Croatia joining the EU last year.

The Spanish government draws a clear distinction between the referendum process mutually agreed by Scottish and UK governments and other independence movements who are not recognised by the state.

What’s the argument about then?

There has been almost no dispute that Scotland would be a member of the EU. Debate has centred on the precise process of how Scotland gets there, because the situation is a new one for the EU. But it is a pragmatic organisation. Remember, on reunification it took only around 10 months for East Germany to be fully absorbed into the EU in another novel situation. And that process was infinitely more difficult because East Germany had never been a member of the EU. Scotland has been part of the EU for moere than 40 years and fully complies with all the legal requirements!


The Scottish Government proposes an 18-month period of negotiations between September’s referendum and independence day in March 2016. This means by the time Scotland becomes independent, its ongoing membership of the EU will already have been tied up.


What do the experts say?

The UK Government legal adviser Professor James Crawford has accepted that the Scottish Government’s proposed 18 month timetable is “realistic”.

Former EU judge Sir David Edward has rejected the idea that there would be some “midnight hour” when suddenly all our EU rights would be extinguished, and indeed all the rights of EU citizens coming to Scotland. Sir David said EU law “would require all parties to negotiate in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation” prior to independence. There would be no need for an accession treaty but amendment to existing treaties before independence day.

Graham Avery, Honorary Director General of the European Commission, senior member of St Antony's College in Oxford, and a senior adviser at the European Policy Centre in Brussels worked for 40 years as a senior official in Whitehall and Brussels, and took part in successive negotiations for EU enlargement. In his evidence to a Westminster committee he argued:

“Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with independence

Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens

For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission

Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence

The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries”.


Even the adviser to the No campaign Professor Jim Gallagher has said “it seems pretty likely that Scotland would be an EU member state, probably after an accelerated set of accession negotiations”.

The real risk to Scotland’s EU membership

And of course the real risk to Scotland’s EU membership is the proposed UK-wide referendum on whether to exit the EU. Just as we are regularly outvoted at Westminster elections, there is a real possibility that we could be outvoted in any such referendum and taken out of the common market against our will and against our interests.
 
Nippy Normans supply Touratech, Wunderlich, Desert Fox and many other makes of accessories.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PhaedrusMC
My Route To R1150GS Ownership, And My First Impressions Now That I Have One
2
Replies
31
Views
10,420
GreatScot
GreatScot
Spain and Morocco: a lot of miles, not a lot of time
Replies
5
Views
4,473
agfoxx
A ramble around Romania and the Balkans
2
Replies
30
Views
15,649
Drumacoon Lad.
louisdut
So I wanted to be a Romaniac!!
2
Replies
37
Views
5,332
chrisjk
chrisjk
Anyone else getting 'check oil' every now and again
2 3
Replies
42
Views
6,387
Flipfly
Flipfly


Back
Top Bottom