Scottish Politics

[Quirinalian]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFive

The EU member state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will not exist once Scotland dissolves the Treaty of Union though so your statement is incorrect.

Actually it will. The state is not contingent upon a treaty for its existence. Nor indeed can the treaty be 'dissolved' - either unilaterally by one party, or by a party which, like the Kingdom of Scotland, no longer exists. Whether the treaty even applies any more is a point of legal debate: when two parties to a contract merge (as with a business) then the contract no longer exists. I would hold that as being the same with the Treaty of Union.

They can call the new state Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.

The UK will of course keep its ordinary name, just as it did after the Irish Free State became a separate country. It did not change until several years later, by Act of Parliament.

That is of course if the defacto independent Northern Ireland (after the dissolution of the treaty of union) wish to renegotiate a treaty of union with England and Wales.

It's fun to make things up.

In any effect the current UK membership shall see the sucessor states negotiating with the EU over their continued membership and all sucessor states will be in the 'same boat'.

Once again, the creation of a successor state involves a state ceasing to exist. There is no suggestion whatsoever that the UK Parliament would seek to dissolve the UK.

[Quirinalian]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFive

When Ireland dissolved that Treaty of Union

It didn't. Indeed, it didn't even get round to repealing the Acts of Union completely until 1983. These Acts remain law in the United Kingdom. The Treaty, insofar as it was, had no legal effect except to bind the two predecessor states into enacting the Acts of Union.

Crucially, the EU did not exist in 1927 and the UK was the leading world power in a time of empires setting the rules of the world and the UN did also not exist.

Sigh... the Irish Free State became independent in 1922. The UN may not have existed, but the League of Nations did - and guess what: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland retained its membership, whilst the Irish Free State had to apply for admission as a new state.

It seems your argument has now been fully blown out of the water.

Also Ireland did not take on any debt from the union when it left as a non sucessor state of the UK so if Scotland is not a sucessor state of the UK the same as England, Wales and Northern Ireland then we take none of the massive UK debt.

Debt is apportioned not by status but by negotiation. An independent Scotland would have the national debt which is agreed between it and the UK Government before independence.

Lawyers for the EU have stated that there will be renegotiations for both sucessor states to the current member state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Name them. Because the European Commission has said precisely the opposite. When you are accusing an Executive of acting against legal advice, one would generally expect at the very least you'd have had sight of that legal advice.

I have no doubt that there will be agreements over how to adjust the UK's number of MEPs and so forth. Scotland will, however, remain a new state and, unlike the UK, an accession state.

Originally Posted by JohnnyFive

Bitter Together seems more apt for the coalition of Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems fighting to keep Scotland dependent and subservient to Westminster instead of the country looking after our own affairs.

Scotland is not a dependent territory. Once again, you're happy to talk about international relations and law when you clearly don't understand it. What shines though most, however, is that you seem to be the bitter one here.

I would have also thought that as the NHS in Scotland has had Better Together as a slogan from the times of Labour then this should not be allowed to be used by the NO camp.

Shockingly, I don't think they did or could have trademarked those two words.

If that's how the world worked, the Scottish Government would be getting a cease and desist letter through the post from Jack Johnson, who wrote Better Together - the song - two years previously.

[Quirinalian]

Double post

[M_Riaz]

[Ultima]

The NO campaign appears to be a bizarre rip-off/parody of the YES campaign so far. The "normal people" they have supporting it are, eh, well...not inspiring? "Ahm no dain that cuz a huvnae done it afore". Yes...smashing. If you read the "personal statements" from all the normal people, it's blatantly obvious the same person has written and/or edited them. What a joke.

[Chris99]

Originally Posted by Quirinalian

Scotland will, however, remain a new state and, unlike the UK, an accession state.

Here is some more expert evidence contradicting your assertion that Scotland would be treated less favorably than RUK:
Scottish Affairs Committee
Subject: 'The Referendum on Separation for Scotland'

Patrick Layden TD QC, Scottish Law Commission, in written evidence said:
If Scotland were to become independent from the remainder of the UK (RUK) –
·It is not certain that either state would automatically be a Member State of the EU: that is a conclusion which does not lie within our gift;
·The situation would be covered by EU law, not international law, and there is provision in the Treaty which could be taken as covering the situation;
·Whatever formal legal route were taken-
the process would require detailed negotiation between all three entities – the EU, RUK and Scotland;

In his oral evidence he said "I think that both parts of the UK would be outside the European Union seeking to get in."

Prof Andrew Scott,professor of European Union studies and codirector of the Europa Institute in the school of law at the university of Edinburgh, in oral evidence on 16 May 2012:
"I would make a few observations. First, this is uncharted territory. All lawyers agree there is no provision in the treaty and no legal precedent for this particular situation. Lawyers in my experience are divided as to what the likely outcome would be. Some take the view, as Patrick has explained, that both parts of the former UK would find themselves in the same position outside the European treaties, and both would have to go through some kind of formal readmission process.
I take a different view, which is partly informed by the work of colleagues, such as Aidan O’Neill QC, who have argued quite strenuously that, on the basis of EU citizenship law, there is no provision within the treaty for citizens of the European Union to have that citizenship taken away from them. In a sense the treaty protects the citizens of the EU. His argument-I would not like to distort it or put words into his mouth-is that the citizenship provisions of the EU treaties provide a large degree of safety for Scottish citizens of the Union, and that would prevent Scotland, or the rest of the UK, being expelled or somehow excluded from the EU.
Added to that, the EU is going through a number of constitutional situations for which there is no provision in the treaty. It goes as far back as Algeria, through the Greenland situation, the Netherlands Antilles, which is an ongoing debate, and of course into the unification of Germany. On each occasion a solution has been found that met the wishes of the constituent parts. I think the European Union is very able to tackle this type of issue without going through or getting to a formal position where the court would be asked to adjudicate.
It is worth adding to that the situation under UK law. What would be the situation of Scottish independence in terms of the UK? Would the UK exist? I think Patrick is absolutely right that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would no longer exist. Both parts of the UK would be in the same situation, but my view is that both would be continuing members of the European Union. Of course they would have to negotiate; there would have to be treaty amendments, which would have to be unanimously agreed upon, but they would be negotiated from within rather than outside. That has implications, and doubtless we will come to them, for the opt-outs and the various privileges that perhaps the UK uniquely gets, particularly, for example, on the budget. My view is that Scotland would remain part of the EU, as would RUK, and negotiations would go forward on that basis. I would hope and expect them to be satisfactorily concluded very quickly.

[JohnnyFive]

Excellent post.

Quirinalian (AKA George Foulkes) seems to think he is living in the days of Empire in the 1920's and believes, as many do in the current UK government, that the UK will continue as before.

He forgets with his example of Ireland leaving the union it was a time when the UK was the largest power in the world with a toothless League of Nations in place and empires reaching all over the world (British, French, Japan, Belgian, USA etc).

He also forgets that Ireland was partitioned and faced a civil war prior to independence. He also seems conveniently forget that when comparing the Rep of Ireland to Scotland that they did not take any debt upon their indepndence.

There will off course be two successor when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is dissolved. (unless of course Northern Ireland go forward with their sovereignty referendum planned for 2016 which may just leave England and Wales).

The UK is a treaty state formed under international law between Scotland and England.

If Scotland was not a sucessor state of the current UK (along with the new state containing England, Wales and Northern Ireland) then Scotland would not take any of the current ~ £1 trillion debt from the current UK.

Quirinalian, please take your pick as a Scotland with a clean slate and no national debt would suit me fine!

[Chris99]

Increased trust in Scottish Government
24/06/2012

Four times as many people in Scotland trust the Scottish Government to act in Scotland’s best interests than trust the UK Government to do so, new research shows.

Trust in the Scottish Government has leapt from 61 per cent to 71 per cent over the past year, according to the latest annual Scottish Social Attitudes survey. Trust in the UK Government is at just 18 per cent.

Key findings from the 2011 survey show:

Seventy-one per cent of people trust the Scottish Government to act in Scotland’s best interests (up from 61 per cent in 2010), compared to just 18 per cent who trust the UK Government (down from 35 per cent in 2007).
Seventy-three per cent say the Scottish Government ought to have most influence over how Scotland is run, while 38 per cent think it does have the most influence. That 38 per cent figure means that, for the first time, the proportion who said the Scottish Government had the most influence over how Scotland is run was the same as the proportion who said it was the UK Government (also 38 per cent).
There has been a big increase in the number of people who think the Scottish Government listens to people’s views before taking decisions (up to 56 per cent from 45 per cent). Again, this was substantially higher than the proportion who said the same of the UK Government (19 per cent). There has also been an increase in people saying they trust the Scottish Government to make fair decisions (up to 46 per cent from 35 per cent).
Sixty per cent feel the Scottish Parliament gives ordinary people more say in how Scotland is governed – up from 42 per cent in 2010, and the highest recorded figure since devolution.
The proportion who trust the Scottish Government ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ to make fair decisions increased from 35 per cent in 2010 to 46 per cent in 2011.
There was an increase in awareness of the activities of the Scottish Government – 49 per cent said they had heard ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ about these in the last 12 months, in comparison with 38 per cent who said the same in 2010.
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said:

“These findings show that there is a clear public appetite for Scotland to have greater control over its own affairs – and that is exactly what independence offers. The people of Scotland no longer trust the UK Government to act in their best interests. Their trust lies with the Scottish Government, as they know we will listen to their views and act fairly.

“That is backed up by the numbers who responded to the consultation on the independence referendum. We have had a fantastic response from the people of Scotland, with over 21,000 contributions to the consultation – over seven times the number that responded to the UK Government’s consultation on the same issue.

“That positive response sent a clear signal that the people of Scotland believe the Scottish Parliament is the place to decide the terms and timing of the referendum – and that these should not be imposed by Westminster.

“The survey also shows that the economy remains the public’s highest priority, just as it remains ours. We will act on the trust that the people of Scotland have placed in us to continue to pursue policies that deliver jobs and sustainable economic growth. But we know we could do so much more if we achieved the full job-creating powers of an independent Scotland.”

Survey findings also showed that:

The most common response in relation to education and public transport was that standards had stayed the same in the last 12 months (39 per cent for health and public transport and 30 per cent for education).
Satisfaction with the NHS has increased in recent years and is now at its highest level since the Scottish Parliament was established (55 per cent in 1999, 40 per cent in 2005 and 56 per cent in 2011).
In 2011 compared with 2010, there was a slight improvement in views of the economy over the last year.
There was an increase in the proportion of people who thought that the general standard of living had fallen in the last year (67 per cent compared with 54 per cent in 2010), but people did not appear to feel more negative about their own personal standard of living (in 2007 the mean satisfaction score was 7.79 and in 2011 it was 7.75).
Related information

Read the headline findings and full report.



http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...-2011-24062012

[Quirinalian]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFive

Excellent post.

Quirinalian (AKA George Foulkes) seems to think he is living in the days of Empire in the 1920's and believes, as many do in the current UK government, that the UK will continue as before.

George Foulkes - well known middle-class Edinburgh-based, architecturally interested liberal who didn't support the creation of a Scottish Parliament.

He forgets with his example of Ireland leaving the union it was a time when the UK was the largest power in the world with a toothless League of Nations in place and empires reaching all over the world (British, French, Japan, Belgian, USA etc).

He also forgets that Ireland was partitioned and faced a civil war prior to independence. He also seems conveniently forget that when comparing the Rep of Ireland to Scotland that they did not take any debt upon their indepndence.

I have never forgotten any of these things, I just don't raise irrelevant matters which have no bearing on a point that I am attempting to make. I'd suggest you extended me the same courtesy - the opposite is generally known as "muddying the waters".

There will off course be two successor when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is dissolved. (unless of course Northern Ireland go forward with their sovereignty referendum planned for 2016 which may just leave England and Wales).

The UK is a treaty state formed under international law between Scotland and England.

Er, no it isn't, and there's only one body which can dissolve the UK - the UK's Parliament which has supreme legislative authority on such matters.

If Scotland was not a sucessor state of the current UK (along with the new state containing England, Wales and Northern Ireland) then Scotland would not take any of the current ~ £1 trillion debt from the current UK.

Quirinalian, please take your pick as a Scotland with a clean slate and no national debt would suit me fine!

Again, that's utter nonsense on debt. Shares of debt would be agreed beforehand by the UK Government and would be part of the conditions of an independence settlement. An independent Scotland's status vis-a-vis the UK would be irrelevant to that.

Now, an independent Scotland could choose not to repay the debt assigned to it - which is why such matters are generally agreed - but it would face the consequences in terms of becoming an utter pariah in terms of lending and outside investment.

[JohnnyFive]

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Not only are the anti-independence campaign using the Scottish NHS slogan Better Together which has been used for over four years.

http://www.bettertogetherscotland.com

To top that it now appears they are also using the exact same song as the YES campaign anthem the Big Country song "One Great Thing".

The difference is the YES campaign obtained copyright permission to use the song throughout the independence referendum campaign from EMI.

The SNP MP Pete Wishart was also once a member of Big Country before going on to find fame in Runrig.

The NO campaign said their tune used in its launch film "was categorically not the same tune" as One Great Thing.

They say the music was a new track called Down Under, by Scottish DJ/Producer Munroso, which "neither samples, nor uses, nor is inspired by Big Country".

Make you own mind up and click on this BBC link which compares the two.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18602260

[JohnnyFive]

Margo MacDonald once again hits the nail on the head calling Darling and the rest of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats anti-independence coalition “the abominable 'No' men”.

[Quirinalian]

Originally Posted by Chris99

Patrick Layden TD QC, Scottish Law Commission, in written evidence said:
If Scotland were to become independent from the remainder of the UK (RUK) –
·It is not certain that either state would automatically be a Member State of the EU: that is a conclusion which does not lie within our gift;
·The situation would be covered by EU law, not international law, and there is provision in the Treaty which could be taken as covering the situation;
·Whatever formal legal route were taken-
the process would require detailed negotiation between all three entities – the EU, RUK and Scotland

The EU has already stated its position, and the UK - although not having done so - is almost certain to come to one position: that Scotland will be a new state and the United Kingdom will continue to exist without it. Now, each party could theoretically change its position, but it is predictable enough that those with the relevant powers will continue accordingly.

What he is right about, however, is that it is entirely outwith the hands of any Scottish administration. I've got to say though, a 'both out' solution would in fact tie in just as well with my political stance - the problem is that I think it's legal nonsense.

I take a different view, which is partly informed by the work of colleagues, such as Aidan O’Neill QC, who have argued quite strenuously that, on the basis of EU citizenship law, there is no provision within the treaty for citizens of the European Union to have that citizenship taken away from them. In a sense the treaty protects the citizens of the EU. His argument-I would not like to distort it or put words into his mouth-is that the citizenship provisions of the EU treaties provide a large degree of safety for Scottish citizens of the Union, and that would prevent Scotland, or the rest of the UK, being expelled or somehow excluded from the EU.

It is bizarre to argue that citizenship - particularly citizenship entirely contingent on citizenship of a subsidiary body, in this case the member-state, rather than existing independently - can have any bearing on constitutional status. There are many people born in former British territories across the world who have retained their status as a British subject or some other status in our bizarre nationality laws. In no case, however, does that mean that their country of origin remains subject to the British state.

It is worth adding to that the situation under UK law. What would be the situation of Scottish independence in terms of the UK? Would the UK exist?I think Patrick is absolutely right that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would no longer exist.

I wonder how he came to this idea since it is well established that only Parliament would decide that, and there is no rational basis for making such a decision.

Both parts of the UK would be in the same situation, but my view is that both would be continuing members of the European Union. Of course they would have to negotiate; there would have to be treaty amendments, which would have to be unanimously agreed upon, but they would be negotiated from within rather than outside. That has implications, and doubtless we will come to them, for the opt-outs and the various privileges that perhaps the UK uniquely gets, particularly, for example, on the budget. My view is that Scotland would remain part of the EU, as would RUK, and negotiations would go forward on that basis. I would hope and expect them to be satisfactorily concluded very quickly.[/B]

In all honesty, once again you've found an argument that does not support your position that Scottish independence is no threat to Scotland's position in the EU. In fact, what you have quoted shows there are very real problems with maintaining the advantages of UK membership in such a scenario.

So, although two people may disagree on points of law - sometimes, it seems, rather spuriously - both point out, politically, that Scottish independence would endanger our opt-outs, rebate and privileges within the EU.

[Quirinalian]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFive

Not only are the anti-independence campaign using the Scottish NHS slogan Better Together which has been used for over four years.

A fact that no-one cares about. Least of all the SNP: when your using James Dornan MSP as your comment on a press release, I think it's quite obvious that you're just going through the motions! A bit like Labour putting one out in the name of John Pentland. Still, got to love the "unrelentingly positive" message.... oh, wait.

In other news: Yes Scotland is also the name of a travel accommodation business. One of the reasons why it's not Yesscotland.com.

Make you own mind up and click on this BBC link which compares the two.

They do sound similar, which is good enough reason for Better Together not to have used the song. It being pretty shite 1970s lager-flogging nonsense is, however, I think the reason that neither campaign should've used it.

[JohnnyFive]

Originally Posted by Quirinalian

the UK - although not having done so - is almost certain to come to one position: that Scotland will be a new state and the United Kingdom will continue to exist without it.

Now George if that is the position of the UK and those of you in the House of Lords then good luck with taking on all the UK debt which is currently over £1 trillion.

If they need Scotland to give them a loan then there will be an oil fund that can invest in buying some of their debt at 'reasonable' rates so they can run the rUK.

[jamie1371]

Alex Salmond's blueprint for the new Scottish Defence Force 'Navy' Fag Packet Plan - sent to me by the man himself! A Salmond

image hosted on flickr


thank you alex for this blue print for the new navy, we love you

[Ultima]

Originally Posted by jamie1371

Alex Salmond's blueprint for the new Scottish Defence Force 'Navy' Fag Packet Plan - sent to me by the man himself! A Salmond

image hosted on flickr


thank you alex for this blue print for the new navy, we love you

Bitter Together

[Ultima]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-18610027

Scottish independence: Blair Jenkins named Yes Scotland chief


Former BBC news chief Blair Jenkins is to run the official campaign to gain independence for Scotland.

He has been named chief executive of the Yes Scotland group, ahead of the referendum expected in autumn 2014.

The campaign, Mr Jenkins said, would be run with "discipline and integrity". He wants the debate to be free from "Punch 'n' Judy confrontations".

The 55-year-old formerly served as head of news and current affairs for both BBC Scotland and STV.

Yes Scotland also announced the former Labour MP and independent MSP Dennis Canavan will chair its advisory board, with its membership and remit due to be announced in the next few days.

The appointment of Mr Jenkins came after the launch of Yes Scotland a few weeks ago.

Mr Jenkins said: "For more than 30 years, my professional life has been about impartial journalism.

"I'm not a member of any party and I've never engaged in any form of political activity - but this is just too important.

"This is a once-in-a lifetime campaign for me, personally, and for the people of Scotland.

"They will be asked to make the most important decision for the future of our nation in more than 300 years and I am totally committed to ensuring they have the best possible information to help them make the right choice."

Mr Jenkins said Yes Scotland, to be headquartered in Glasgow, would be "represented and supported by people from across the political spectrum and none", and "will not be dominated by party politics".

He added: "I am determined the Yes campaign will be run with passion, discipline and integrity and our guiding principle will be to provide high quality information to the greatest number of Scots so that they can make an informed choice in 2014.

"Now that both sides have launched their campaigns, I sincerely hope we can have a sensible and mature debate free from Punch 'n' Judy confrontations - I want to run a campaign that all of Scotland can be proud of."

Mr Jenkins, who is also a fellow of the Carnegie UK Trust, a visiting professor of Journalism at Strathclyde University and a governor of Glasgow School of Art, is stepping back from all his other commitments to focus on the Yes Scotland campaign.

The referendum is being held after the SNP's landslide election win at last year's Scottish elections.

Mr Canavan added: "I very much look forward to working with Blair Jenkins who has the skills, experience and commitment to meet the challenge ahead."

Several senior executive positions in the Yes Scotland team are being advertised in the next few weeks.

Scottish Labour welcomed what they called "the first relaunch of the separation campaign".

[Due East]

Originally Posted by Ultima

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-18610027

Scottish independence: Blair Jenkins named Yes Scotland chief


Former BBC news chief Blair Jenkins is to run the official campaign to gain independence for Scotland.

He has been named chief executive of the Yes Scotland group, ahead of the referendum expected in autumn 2014.

The campaign, Mr Jenkins said, would be run with "discipline and integrity". He wants the debate to be free from "Punch 'n' Judy confrontations".

The 55-year-old formerly served as head of news and current affairs for both BBC Scotland and STV.

Yes Scotland also announced the former Labour MP and independent MSP Dennis Canavan will chair its advisory board, with its membership and remit due to be announced in the next few days.

The appointment of Mr Jenkins came after the launch of Yes Scotland a few weeks ago.

Mr Jenkins said: "For more than 30 years, my professional life has been about impartial journalism.

"I'm not a member of any party and I've never engaged in any form of political activity - but this is just too important.

"This is a once-in-a lifetime campaign for me, personally, and for the people of Scotland.

"They will be asked to make the most important decision for the future of our nation in more than 300 years and I am totally committed to ensuring they have the best possible information to help them make the right choice."

Mr Jenkins said Yes Scotland, to be headquartered in Glasgow, would be "represented and supported by people from across the political spectrum and none", and "will not be dominated by party politics".

He added: "I am determined the Yes campaign will be run with passion, discipline and integrity and our guiding principle will be to provide high quality information to the greatest number of Scots so that they can make an informed choice in 2014.

"Now that both sides have launched their campaigns, I sincerely hope we can have a sensible and mature debate free from Punch 'n' Judy confrontations - I want to run a campaign that all of Scotland can be proud of."

Mr Jenkins, who is also a fellow of the Carnegie UK Trust, a visiting professor of Journalism at Strathclyde University and a governor of Glasgow School of Art, is stepping back from all his other commitments to focus on the Yes Scotland campaign.

The referendum is being held after the SNP's landslide election win at last year's Scottish elections.

Mr Canavan added: "I very much look forward to working with Blair Jenkins who has the skills, experience and commitment to meet the challenge ahead."

Several senior executive positions in the Yes Scotland team are being advertised in the next few weeks.

Scottish Labour welcomed what they called "the first relaunch of the separation campaign".

I thought the BBC was chock full of pro-unionist lefties??

How did we let an SNP foot-soldier infiltrate the propaganda machine??

[Ultima]

Originally Posted by Due East

I thought the BBC was chock full of pro-unionist lefties??

How did we let an SNP foot-soldier infiltrate the propaganda machine??

What do you have against lefties? Are you implying unionism is left wing? British Nationalism, that is to say unionism, is right wing. Starting wars with weak vulnerable opponents to steal resources and maintain power is right wing. The SNP are left wing.

The BBC is indeed pro-unionist, the gentleman in question does not work for the BBC. Also, there are many sympathetic workers in the BBC, Daily Record etc. who tow the line because that's what employees do. There is far more sympathy to independence than you like to believe, Duey.

[Due East]

Originally Posted by Ultima

What do you have against lefties? Are you implying unionism is left wing? British Nationalism, that is to say unionism, is right wing. Starting wars with weak vulnerable opponents to steal resources and maintain power is right wing. The SNP are left wing.

The BBC is indeed pro-unionist, the gentleman in question does not work for the BBC. Also, there are many sympathetic workers in the BBC, Daily Record etc. who tow the line because that's what employees do. There is far more sympathy to independence than you like to believe, Duey.

I've certainly nothing against lefties since I would consider myself one. I'm just having a pop at the fact that both the SNP and the Tories seem to have respectively warped idea that the Beeb is against them (despite both having ex-bbc men as their spin-docs).

Also, you can't say supporting a united kingdom is 'right wing' when Labour are supporting it.

And, so far as i understand the SNP contain left and right within the party. Agreed many of their policies are left of centre but I understand there are right wing factions within.