Printable View
I can't take the 'Catalan' argument too serious. The EU may have no interest in breaking up its members, and Spain certainly may feel uneasy about a break up of the UK but it would go against the basic tenets of the EU to exclude a country for no other reason than that its people used their right to self-determination.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
A veto against Scottish membership on that basis would be a clear violation of the Copenhagen criteria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26215963
Hah, this is great.
I found this a bit more interesting : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ney-warns.html , it goes for both referenda; trying to re-negotiate your standing deal with a unwilling ex-partner is bound to cause damages. Of course, we know that the 'wut-burger' (great German term for angry people) will only discard such concerns as scare-mongering but the risks are as real as the damage will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
For this reason I am actually happy that the Swiss vote went the way it did; it's a great chance for everybody to see with their own eyes what happens in international relations if you really piss off your opponent.
That's the thing with vetoes though, if a nation wields on then that's it for now at least - and its not pre-set criteria that determines it but the self-interest of the relevant nations. Just like France vetoing the UK from the predecessor of the EU until France changed leader. It wouldn't take too long before there's a change of leadership in Madrid and they change vote but if they want to be dicks about it they're quite able to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
That being so; would a Spanish veto force Scotland back into the UK? Would the treath of a Spanish veto be a serious consideration to the voters? We've just seen in Switzerland that even direct warnings of the consequences by the people who could make those consequences happen were ignored. I doubt very much the Spanish government is going to interfere in the campaign on either side, so that means pro-unionists will invoke that possibility. I think Scottish nationalists will just laugh it away.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Also, what people who bring up the 'Spanish veto' seem to forget is that Kosovo is a state that unilaterally declared independence. Schotland would be doing nothing close to that, so that using Kosovo as a precedent for Scotland is a bit strange.
A Spanish veto could only be wielded (its already been threatened) after a Yes vote. Even if it happens I can't see a Yes vote being overturned.
Would it be a consideration? Yes. Doubt harms those who want change in a referendum, if people are uncertain they stick with the status quo. This is a boon for the No vote. Which was already winning.
From last year: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...lex-salmond-eu
The full statement of Rajoy is not as clear cut as it seems in the Guardian article. Before he starts talking about the effect of a yes vote placing Scotland outside of the EU he also says that 'of course we have to accept the will of the British people'. In the article in El Pais it's made painfully clear the message is to Catalunya, not to Scotland. Which doesn't mean that if there is a perfect storm (Rajoy is still in power and not dependent on the Catalunyan nationalists AND having to deal with accute plans for independence of Catalunya) then a veto might ensue. But even then one has to note that there can be no doubt about the legality of a Scottish referendum, where a Catalunyan referendum would violate the Spanish constitution.
A no-vote in Catalunya for independence may remove the Spanish blockade alltogether. And let's not forget Gibraltar.
I can't help but feel that if Salmond had been a bit more up front about what was actually involved in joining the EU, he'd not be having the problems he's now having.
Nationalism and honesty rarely go together.
I think the thing is that it's bloody difficult to know what will happen if the Scots vote for independence. It's not like we have all that much experience with nations wanting to cancel their involvement in their own constitutional arrangement while still wanting to stay in the EU. On the other side, the SNP seems to be quite willing to overstate its leverage on the EU. We may allow them to join/stay in, but that doesn't mean we're automatically going to give them the same deal as the UK.
Just thought on the notion of the Sterlingzone, until just a few years ago the position of the SNP was that an independent Scotland would join the euro, not keep the pound. The Eurozone is and always has been a monetary union so no problem.
Until the recent economic crisis has blown the credibility of the Euro this side of the Channel. The notion of adopting the Euro is a non-starter now even for the Nationalists so they're stuck with a problem. To which they've switched from their originally preferred currency union to their fictitious one that doesn't exist.
The irony is that it'd be far more credible if they'd stuck with the Euro as their plan. Joining the Euro wouldn't need to retain the pound and invent a currency union where it doesn't exist. Joining the Euro would mean the acquis and EU membership would have been much easier to achieve.
Am I missing something here or does not every new country that joins the EU agree to eventually adopt the euro?
Indeed. Which the SNP were intending to do anyway. But now they're not so their new claim is that as a legacy part of the EU, they'd get the same arrangements of the UK.
Their argument in-between was that as all Scots were citizens of the EU (since Maastricht) leaving the UK would not end the EU citizenship they already had. Which everyone pointed out to be wrong.
Indeed, the citizenship of the Union is, despite all the hysteria of a certain ilk of eurosceptics about it, dependent on having the citizenship of one of its members tates. If Scotland is not a member state then by definition Scottish citizens are not Union citizens.
As for the euro; yes it's true in essence. However the Swedish example shows that the rule is not set in stone even though it's written in the treaties. A far more relevant question is; would an independent Scotland qualify to be a member of the Eurozone immediately after joining the EU? I would think there are some serious obstacles for them to join that particular section of the club. They don't have a stable currency (at least not once they are independent because then they have no currency), we don't know if they are aligned enough get a green light from the ECB/EC/Council. It's not like other countries that joined the EU got the euro on the day they made it into the EU.
Given they don't want it, currently, that's a moot question.
Want or don't want isn't relevant; they can't have it.
Want or don't want is precisely what is relevant and why can't is moot to the independence debate. I don't want my boot filled with manure, if you tell me I can't it's irrelevant. If everyone on both sides of the debate agrees they don't want the euro then being unable to get the euro doesn't matter one jot. The only way it'd matter is potentially helping the Yes side by negating the awkward question of what if the EU demands euro membership committal as a membership criterion.
It is very relevant because it takes the euro out of the equation; the euro is not the alternative to sterling. The alternative to sterling is a scottish currendy. And given that you won't let them be part of a sterling zone, independence means they will have to start with their own central bank issuing their own currency. Let's not forget you brought up the euro without making clear that that notion was a non-starter.
The euro is taken out of the equation by nobody wanting it.
I brought up the Euro in relation to it being policy years ago.
No, it never was in it. They don't qualify. Using the euro at all either way in the debate was a mere sign of dishonesty of whoever brought it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Anyway, you need to reply to my posts any longer. I may technically not be able to block your posts, but I will never again engage in any conversation on any subject with you again. I will also keep myself from indirect comments on what you write in the future.