To paraphrase the ill-fated Mary, Queen of Scots: "the theatre of the world is larger than this little realm". I severely doubt Juncker was talking about Scotland - it seemed to me an attempt to calm those across Europe (including England) who are Eurosceptic due to a belief in the EU's expansionist plans to bring in more poor Eastern countries (and more poor immigrants with access to open borders).
Juncker and the EU would be bonkers to allow Scotland to be outside the EU. Apart from the troubles it would cause for EU citizens, a Scotland outside the EU would hasten a UK exit. I can't imagine an already Eurosceptic majority in England not making political capital out of their closest neighbour escaping the Empire.
You could be right, but at the same time you might also be wrong. I don't know about you but when all you get are ambiguous comments from the EU that can be interpreted either way my spider sense starts a tingling. Why are they speaking in riddles?
Common sense dictates that the issue is of such importance that absolute clarity should have been given by now. Why should it boil down to you having to second guess what might happen? It's not fair on you for one thing.
I might be overly cautious and too cynical for my own good, but don't mistake caution for scaremongering when the source of those concerns could put them to bed quite easily but for some reason is choosing not to.
You could be right, but at the same time you might also be wrong. I don't know about you but when all you get are ambiguous comments from the EU that can be interpreted either way my spider sense starts a tingling. Why are they speaking in riddles?
Common sense dictates that the issue is of such importance that absolute clarity should have been given by now. Why should it boil down to you having to second guess what might happen? It's not fair on you for one thing.
I might be overly cautious and too cynical for my own good, but don't mistake caution for scaremongering when the source of those concerns could put them to bed quite easily but for some reason is choosing not to.
I agree - it IS something we should know with absolute certainty and straight from the horse's mouth. The problem is that the EU will only respond to enquiries from sovereign governments, and the UK has refused to seek clarification (either individually or jointly with the Scottish government) on Scotland's status post-Yes. Alas, the UK government is therefore the source of this concern and uncertainty. The question is: why won't it seek clarification for good or ill?
Work hasn't already begun. I think the contract will be finalised post referendum. If that's not an indication of intention,mi don't know what is.
that's story media are pushing but batch of warships is just waiting to get final signature, only thing holding it up is westminster dragging it's claws until September 19th & work has begun on the new ships
I agree - it IS something we should know with absolute certainty and straight from the horse's mouth. The problem is that the EU will only respond to enquiries from sovereign governments, and the UK has refused to seek clarification (either individually or jointly with the Scottish government) on Scotland's status post-Yes. Alas, the UK government is therefore the source of this concern and uncertainty. The question is: why won't it seek clarification for good or ill?
I can't see why the EU has to hide behind that formal request line. All they'd be doing is making a statement about themselves and the rules that apply. It's not as if they're being asked to make a snap decision outside of the agreement and begs the question how new countries make enquiries about the pros and cons of joining if no-one will talk to them.
I can see why the UK government doesn't want to play ball - they don't want Scotland to leave. It's a bit childish for sure but at the same time I can understand why they'd quite happily sit back and leave the SNP to do all the work. It's their cause - down to them to prove their case.
I agree - it IS something we should know with absolute certainty and straight from the horse's mouth. The problem is that the EU will only respond to enquiries from sovereign governments, and the UK has refused to seek clarification (either individually or jointly with the Scottish government) on Scotland's status post-Yes. Alas, the UK government is therefore the source of this concern and uncertainty. The question is: why won't it seek clarification for good or ill?
This is said quite a lot - it's the standard argument from the SNP - but the wider point is that it's actually impossible for the Commission to provide a concrete answer to that question even if they were asked to do so. The only thing we do know with any certainty at this point is that the decision would be made by the European Council and the Commission can't state months/years in advance what national governments will decide (some of which haven't even been elected yet, like in Sweden where they have parliamentary elections before our referendum).
That's just an impossible question to answer and both sides should be fully aware of that. Instead what we have is the usual party politics sideshow where the No side blames the SNP and the Yes side blames Westminster (for something that neither side has the capacity to actually solve). Who is correct in that argument is a complete irrelevance to the wider issue which is that we simply can't have a concrete answer at this point unless someone produces a crystal ball capable of reading the minds of 28 national governments.
I can't see why the EU has to hide behind that formal request line. All they'd be doing is making a statement about themselves and the rules that apply. It's not as if they're being asked to make a snap decision outside of the agreement and begs the question how new countries make enquiries about the pros and cons of joining if no-one will talk to them.
We criticise the Commission a lot in this country for overstepping its mandate, yet at the same time we seem to be suggesting here that the Commission should be able to make a statement on behalf of national governments, months/years prior to an actual negotiation, on what their joint policy should be. There are no rules to govern this situation so the only way a decision would be made is by all 28 national governments unanimously in the European Council.
Even if you asked all of the existing governments to make a concrete statement on it there's no reason why Spain, or Romania, or Cyprus, or Slovakia would want to do that unless it's absolutely necessary (given it would pointlessly inflame their own situations with minority populations).
Sometimes we have to take a step back from attacking whichever organisation/party we have a gripe against (the SNP, the UK government, the EU) and simply accept that isolated issues like this are just fundamentally uncertain by their very nature. Nobody has an answer to it - you either stick with what we have or you vote Yes and hope the negotiations produce terms that are acceptable.
Look at from another direction. In order to secure independence we need to persuade the undecided and those opposed to vote YES. There's no victory to be had in total and unrelenting opposition to people rather than the views they express. When the BBC, or some other organisation, report the truth then praising them for it helps reinforce the fact that they don't always do so.
I think you're right - in fact this is one of the great tactical blunders I see from some people at the grassroots level. There's a tendency among some people to assume that anyone who isn't already a believer is the enemy, but that's precisely the wrong attitude to have if you're trying to win over floating voters. I think the SNP and Yes Scotland realise that and they're running an inclusive campaign, but it's being let down in my view by the slightly abrasive nature of some of the online campaigning in particular.
I'm not convinced complaining about media bias in the first place is a good strategy in any case. It's the sort of thing that speaks to the hardcore of nationalist support: the more pro-independence you are the more likely you are to perceive reporting as being biased - whether it is or isn't. You don't have to believe the media is biased to support independence so I don't see what pinning that baggage to the concept actually achieves. I understand why pro-independence sites like Newsnet Scotland do it (the narrative is "everyone else is biased so come to us for the real story") but does it actually help bring floating voters over to the Yes side? I'm not so sure.
It doesn't help that sites like Newsnet Scotland and Business for Scotland willfully distort stories themselves - at best we have a situation where both the mainstream media and the pro-independence blogs are guilty of biased and misleading reporting which is just a recipe for voters tuning out and ignoring the campaign entirely.
I can't see why the EU has to hide behind that formal request line. All they'd be doing is making a statement about themselves and the rules that apply. It's not as if they're being asked to make a snap decision outside of the agreement and begs the question how new countries make enquiries about the pros and cons of joining if no-one will talk to them.
I can see why the UK government doesn't want to play ball - they don't want Scotland to leave. It's a bit childish for sure but at the same time I can understand why they'd quite happily sit back and leave the SNP to do all the work. It's their cause - down to them to prove their case.
Short answer: because it's the EU.
I agree, it's very childish and would go further and say it's an insult to the Scottish electorate. As you say, we deserve to know before we vote.
I agree, it's very childish and would go further and say it's an insult to the Scottish electorate. As you say, we deserve to know before we vote.
The real answer is as I said above - it's a question that's impossible to answer without 28 national governments negotiating a unanimous position on it.
Demanding the impossible and then bashing the EU (read the Commission) when they don't provide it is just a nonsense.
Even if you asked all of the existing governments to make a concrete statement on it there's no reason why Spain, or Romania, or Cyprus, or Slovakia would want to do that unless it's absolutely necessary (given it would pointlessly inflame their own situations with minority populations).
Spain have already laid the groundwork for dealing with a YES result in making distinctions between Scotland and Catalan. One might therefore assume that they thought that was either a wise precaution or, as you say, an absolute necessity.
The real answer is as I said above - it's a question that's impossible to answer without 28 national governments negotiating a unanimous position on it.
Given this is an unprecedented situation there's no absolute certainty that it'd require a unanimous position. It may be decided to go down the route of treaty amendment. The only question then is who makes that call and on what basis it's to be made. The default position in the EU is that a move is being made to QMV which means that in all probability the larger states will have more of a say than the smaller. Nor would I rely on the rules being etched in stone.
The real answer is as I said above - it's a question that's impossible to answer without 28 national governments negotiating a unanimous position on it.
That in itself would be a better answer than what's been given because the Scottish electorate would be better informed as to the gamble they are being asked to consider.
If it's a scenario that's not covered by the existing treaty then obviously it's for the member states to thrash out between them (should only take a decade or two the speed at which those thing seem to happen) but that's not the point.
Salmond tried sweeping this under the carpet as a given - basically a done deal. For that to be true it would have to be already covered in the existing treaties so in that instance an EU statement clarifying the point wouldn't be out of order or stepping on anyone's toes.
The only conclusion one can make is that the SNP were deliberately pulling wool, which is effectively them lying through their teeth without technically lying. They'll use the defence of it simply being supreme confidence and optimism, which from anyone else's perspective would be called bu!!sh1t.
He's an accomplished wordsmith is Mr Salmond and probably believes 100% in what he's trying to achieve. But,
a) that doesn't mean he's right and more importantly,
b) it doesn't give him the right to BS the electorate whether it's for all the right reasons or not.
Right from the start I've maintained that Scotland missed the independence boat to the promised land by about 40 years and that looking to bail on the UK now would be a disaster for both sides.
Surprize to say, I've not changed my mind.
That in itself would be a better answer than what's been given because the Scottish electorate would be better informed as to the gamble they are being asked to consider.
If it's a scenario that's not covered by the existing treaty then obviously it's for the member states to thrash out between them (should only take a decade or two the speed at which those thing seem to happen) but that's not the point.
Salmond tried sweeping this under the carpet as a given - basically a done deal. For that to be true it would have to be already covered in the existing treaties so in that instance an EU statement clarifying the point wouldn't be out of order or stepping on anyone's toes.
The only conclusion one can make is that the SNP were deliberately pulling wool, which is effectively them lying through their teeth without technically lying. They'll use the defence of it simply being supreme confidence and optimism, which from anyone else's perspective would be called bu!!sh1t.
He's an accomplished wordsmith is Mr Salmond and probably believes 100% in what he's trying to achieve. But,
a) that doesn't mean he's right and more importantly,
b) it doesn't give him the right to BS the electorate whether it's for all the right reasons or not.
Right from the start I've maintained that Scotland missed the independence boat to the promised land by about 40 years and that looking to bail on the UK now would be a disaster for both sides.
Surprize to say, I've not changed my mind.
Of course the SNP do lie. They are politicians after all
Their whole claim about legal advice on Scotland's entry to the EU was a total fabrication. And when close to being caught out they spent £20,000 to try and hide the fact.
I want Scotland to stay part of the UK but I would love the 'No' campaign to come out and say that they would support Scotland being part of the EU if the Scots wished that. It would be a positive statement and take quite a lot of the wind out of the sails of the 'always negative' accusations they get.
And given (irrelevant of whether we stay in the EU or not) that it would be a positive for us for an independent Scotland to be in the EU there is no reason not to come out and say it. It makes trade easier and it makes the whole currency question easier as it gives a definable answer from the UK government as to the future for the Scottish currency.
Of course the SNP do lie. They are politicians after all
Their whole claim about legal advice on Scotland's entry to the EU was a total fabrication. And when close to being caught out they spent £20,000 to try and hide the fact.
Ministers should always take account of the public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisers and the fact that release of the content of legal advice is likely to be appropriate only in highly compelling cases.
So not quite must be kept private, can't be made public.
You could argue that advice relating to entry into the eu of an independent Scotland is in the public interest and is a highly compelling case.
Look at from another direction. In order to secure independence we need to persuade the undecided and those opposed to vote YES. There's no victory to be had in total and unrelenting opposition to people rather than the views they express. When the BBC, or some other organisation, report the truth then praising them for it helps reinforce the fact that they don't always do so.
What about when the BBC report the truth and it doesn't suit the Yes side? Should they be pilloried for it?
Speak of reverting to type - when caught out on your inconsistency, you revert to the "you're attacking the person". Oh contraire - I'm pointing out the blatant flaws in your incomprehensible argument. You trim your sails to whatever the prevailing wind might be, no matter how much you contradict yourself. Incidentally, I also see "after my holiday" I was quite correct about you being wholly dishonest about having me on ignore. For the third time.
Nevertheless, if you are indeed happy with whatever Westminster gives or doesn't give, that really tells us all we need to know about the passionate Unionist. Whatever aspirations they might have take a back seat to protecting and preserving the Union, and whatever crumbs UK politicians might (or might not) offer will do. The dream "No" voter! Does it not make you even a little ashamed to be (supposedly) terribly keen on federalism but simultaneously happy with nothing at all for a decade, provided the Union is maintained?
Once again, you claim you're not against independence, just not at the moment. So why is making the UK foreign (as you claim it would be with independence) okay down the line but not now?
Same old Wooty, can't abide someone having an opinion thats not theirs and so attacks them.
How does this fit into your 'voter friendly' version of independence?:D
that's story media are pushing but batch of warships is just waiting to get final signature, only thing holding it up is westminster dragging it's claws until September 19th & work has begun on the new ships
Should we be voting for the benefit of multinational companies or for the people of Scotland?
in this specific case both
if Scotland goes independent and BAE are required to relocate their operations to Portsmouth then it hurts both BAE as they will incur extra costs and it hurts Scotland as jobs, skills and infrastructure will be lost
Comments
You could be right, but at the same time you might also be wrong. I don't know about you but when all you get are ambiguous comments from the EU that can be interpreted either way my spider sense starts a tingling. Why are they speaking in riddles?
Common sense dictates that the issue is of such importance that absolute clarity should have been given by now. Why should it boil down to you having to second guess what might happen? It's not fair on you for one thing.
I might be overly cautious and too cynical for my own good, but don't mistake caution for scaremongering when the source of those concerns could put them to bed quite easily but for some reason is choosing not to.
I agree - it IS something we should know with absolute certainty and straight from the horse's mouth. The problem is that the EU will only respond to enquiries from sovereign governments, and the UK has refused to seek clarification (either individually or jointly with the Scottish government) on Scotland's status post-Yes. Alas, the UK government is therefore the source of this concern and uncertainty. The question is: why won't it seek clarification for good or ill?
I can't see why the EU has to hide behind that formal request line. All they'd be doing is making a statement about themselves and the rules that apply. It's not as if they're being asked to make a snap decision outside of the agreement and begs the question how new countries make enquiries about the pros and cons of joining if no-one will talk to them.
I can see why the UK government doesn't want to play ball - they don't want Scotland to leave. It's a bit childish for sure but at the same time I can understand why they'd quite happily sit back and leave the SNP to do all the work. It's their cause - down to them to prove their case.
This is said quite a lot - it's the standard argument from the SNP - but the wider point is that it's actually impossible for the Commission to provide a concrete answer to that question even if they were asked to do so. The only thing we do know with any certainty at this point is that the decision would be made by the European Council and the Commission can't state months/years in advance what national governments will decide (some of which haven't even been elected yet, like in Sweden where they have parliamentary elections before our referendum).
That's just an impossible question to answer and both sides should be fully aware of that. Instead what we have is the usual party politics sideshow where the No side blames the SNP and the Yes side blames Westminster (for something that neither side has the capacity to actually solve). Who is correct in that argument is a complete irrelevance to the wider issue which is that we simply can't have a concrete answer at this point unless someone produces a crystal ball capable of reading the minds of 28 national governments.
We criticise the Commission a lot in this country for overstepping its mandate, yet at the same time we seem to be suggesting here that the Commission should be able to make a statement on behalf of national governments, months/years prior to an actual negotiation, on what their joint policy should be. There are no rules to govern this situation so the only way a decision would be made is by all 28 national governments unanimously in the European Council.
Even if you asked all of the existing governments to make a concrete statement on it there's no reason why Spain, or Romania, or Cyprus, or Slovakia would want to do that unless it's absolutely necessary (given it would pointlessly inflame their own situations with minority populations).
Sometimes we have to take a step back from attacking whichever organisation/party we have a gripe against (the SNP, the UK government, the EU) and simply accept that isolated issues like this are just fundamentally uncertain by their very nature. Nobody has an answer to it - you either stick with what we have or you vote Yes and hope the negotiations produce terms that are acceptable.
I think you're right - in fact this is one of the great tactical blunders I see from some people at the grassroots level. There's a tendency among some people to assume that anyone who isn't already a believer is the enemy, but that's precisely the wrong attitude to have if you're trying to win over floating voters. I think the SNP and Yes Scotland realise that and they're running an inclusive campaign, but it's being let down in my view by the slightly abrasive nature of some of the online campaigning in particular.
I'm not convinced complaining about media bias in the first place is a good strategy in any case. It's the sort of thing that speaks to the hardcore of nationalist support: the more pro-independence you are the more likely you are to perceive reporting as being biased - whether it is or isn't. You don't have to believe the media is biased to support independence so I don't see what pinning that baggage to the concept actually achieves. I understand why pro-independence sites like Newsnet Scotland do it (the narrative is "everyone else is biased so come to us for the real story") but does it actually help bring floating voters over to the Yes side? I'm not so sure.
It doesn't help that sites like Newsnet Scotland and Business for Scotland willfully distort stories themselves - at best we have a situation where both the mainstream media and the pro-independence blogs are guilty of biased and misleading reporting which is just a recipe for voters tuning out and ignoring the campaign entirely.
Short answer: because it's the EU.
I agree, it's very childish and would go further and say it's an insult to the Scottish electorate. As you say, we deserve to know before we vote.
The real answer is as I said above - it's a question that's impossible to answer without 28 national governments negotiating a unanimous position on it.
Demanding the impossible and then bashing the EU (read the Commission) when they don't provide it is just a nonsense.
Spain have already laid the groundwork for dealing with a YES result in making distinctions between Scotland and Catalan. One might therefore assume that they thought that was either a wise precaution or, as you say, an absolute necessity.
Given this is an unprecedented situation there's no absolute certainty that it'd require a unanimous position. It may be decided to go down the route of treaty amendment. The only question then is who makes that call and on what basis it's to be made. The default position in the EU is that a move is being made to QMV which means that in all probability the larger states will have more of a say than the smaller. Nor would I rely on the rules being etched in stone.
That in itself would be a better answer than what's been given because the Scottish electorate would be better informed as to the gamble they are being asked to consider.
If it's a scenario that's not covered by the existing treaty then obviously it's for the member states to thrash out between them (should only take a decade or two the speed at which those thing seem to happen) but that's not the point.
Salmond tried sweeping this under the carpet as a given - basically a done deal. For that to be true it would have to be already covered in the existing treaties so in that instance an EU statement clarifying the point wouldn't be out of order or stepping on anyone's toes.
The only conclusion one can make is that the SNP were deliberately pulling wool, which is effectively them lying through their teeth without technically lying. They'll use the defence of it simply being supreme confidence and optimism, which from anyone else's perspective would be called bu!!sh1t.
He's an accomplished wordsmith is Mr Salmond and probably believes 100% in what he's trying to achieve. But,
a) that doesn't mean he's right and more importantly,
b) it doesn't give him the right to BS the electorate whether it's for all the right reasons or not.
Right from the start I've maintained that Scotland missed the independence boat to the promised land by about 40 years and that looking to bail on the UK now would be a disaster for both sides.
Surprize to say, I've not changed my mind.
Their whole claim about legal advice on Scotland's entry to the EU was a total fabrication. And when close to being caught out they spent £20,000 to try and hide the fact.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10367759/Alex-Salmond-spent-20000-keeping-secret-non-existent-EU-legal-advice.html
And given (irrelevant of whether we stay in the EU or not) that it would be a positive for us for an independent Scotland to be in the EU there is no reason not to come out and say it. It makes trade easier and it makes the whole currency question easier as it gives a definable answer from the UK government as to the future for the Scottish currency.
What does the ministerial code say about disclosing legal advice?
Not quite this:
IT actually says:
Ministers should always take account of the public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisers and the fact that release of the content of legal advice is likely to be appropriate only in highly compelling cases.
So not quite must be kept private, can't be made public.
You could argue that advice relating to entry into the eu of an independent Scotland is in the public interest and is a highly compelling case.
What about when the BBC report the truth and it doesn't suit the Yes side? Should they be pilloried for it?
Really? Who would those that constantly refuse to pay their way be exactly?
Same old Wooty, can't abide someone having an opinion thats not theirs and so attacks them.
How does this fit into your 'voter friendly' version of independence?:D
'In terms of the business, it's better for us to remain in the union'
meanwhile ....
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/what-big-business-has-really-said-about-independence/
Go on and show me the proof of this then please.
in this specific case both
if Scotland goes independent and BAE are required to relocate their operations to Portsmouth then it hurts both BAE as they will incur extra costs and it hurts Scotland as jobs, skills and infrastructure will be lost