This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Sheffield or Southampton for electronics and Computer engineering?
- Favourite nature documentary
- The McDonalds Thread Mk II
- TSR Goes Green: What's your favourite animal?
- TSR Goes Green: What stops you accessing nature?
- Welcome to Part-Time and Temporary Employment
- OFFICIAL St Andrews University offers 2024
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Jobs II
- TSR Goes Green! Mk II - 2024 Hub thread
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- Official UEA Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Cambridge CS chances
- OCR A-Level History Unit 3 (Y301-Y321) - 24th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Modern Studies Higher
- Edinburgh vs Durham
- What was the last film you watched Mk. III
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Medicine Wiki [currently a Work In Progress]
Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing? - Mk II
Scroll to see replies
Regardless of current rules which say new members must join the currency, the EU also stipulates that no member can do so without first being a member of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years.ERM participation, however, is not compulsory for new members. And therefore any country joining the EU – whether as a successor state or from scratch – which doesn't want to join the Euro can simply elect to remain outwith the ERM, and therefore put off joining the Euro indefinitely.
Original post by DorianGrayism
Well, that is what I said at the beginning. They would have to wait for 10-15 years before joining.
They would have to wait as a prospective member because countries like Spain will not agree to change the constitution to allow them to immediately join.
They would have to wait as a prospective member because countries like Spain will not agree to change the constitution to allow them to immediately join.
Still haven't backed up your 'facts', just talking in vague generalities about what you THINK will happen!
Original post by Boab
Still haven't backed up your 'facts', just talking in vague generalities about what you THINK will happen!
Well, not what I think. What the Spanish Prime minister thinks.
The Spanish Prime Minister has already said you would be outside the EU.
HE has already said you would have rejoin as a prospective member. That means waiting for 10-15 years.
Why do you care anyway? It is not as if you want to be part of the EU.
Original post by Boab
Regardless of current rules which say new members must join the currency, the EU also stipulates that no member can do so without first being a member of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years.ERM participation, however, is not compulsory for new members. And therefore any country joining the EU – whether as a successor state or from scratch – which doesn't want to join the Euro can simply elect to remain outwith the ERM, and therefore put off joining the Euro indefinitely.
Which is a loophole that has been noticed by all an sundry. That might remain, it might now. I'd be surprised if the EU allowed states to join the EU without on the same day joining ERM II.
Although why Scotland is interested in joining the EU is a bit beyond me...
A leading academic has challenged claims that a newly independent Scotland would be expelled from the European Union.
Giving evidence to the European & External Relations Committee, Professor Michael Keating said suggestions that Scotland would find itself outside of the EU for any period of time were "unrealistic" and that such a scenario was "in nobody's interest ".
The academic, who is Professor of Politics at the University of Aberdeen dismissed claims by the anti-independence campaign, saying "it is simply in nobody's interest to create a hole in the single market, to disrupt all the relationships between Scotland and the European Union simply to put them back in place again. Everybody would lose out of this."
Professor Keating also dismissed claims from the No camp that an independent Scotland would be forced to join Schengen, stating that "remaining outside Schengen and in the common travel area is a lot more easier to negotiate than getting into Schengen."
He added, "…there's no question of being forced into Schengen unwillingly because you've got to be willing to meet all the obligations of it – so I don't think that would be a problem."
Professor Keating also made clear that negotiating for an independent Scotland to maintain similar terms to the UK would be easier than negotiating a new set of terms, stating "that actually simplifies matters – it doesn't complicate matters – it simplifies matters because you already have a template there."
According to the academic, "Scotland would not, and could not, be excluded from the EU". Professor Keating, in his written submission also said that a prolonged accession process would not be necessary.
The reasons listed included:
* There is no reason for other EU states to refuse to recognise Scotland if the UK has done so.
* An independent, democratic Scotland, recognised by all member states and conforming with the acquis communautaire could hardly be excluded from the EU simply because it had exercised its democratic rights.
* Independence would occur after a transition period (seen now as two years) in which details of EU membership could be negotiated.
* It would not be in the interest of the rUK, other member states or business to disrupt the internal market or to change the status of EU citizens living, working and studying in Scotland.
* Neither Scotland nor rUK is going to erect customs posts.
* Scottish citizens are EU citizens and could not be deprived of their rights arbitrarily. EU rather than international law might be relevant here.
* A fast-track form of accession could be agreed, either by the accession process or by treaty amendment.
Giving evidence to the European & External Relations Committee, Professor Michael Keating said suggestions that Scotland would find itself outside of the EU for any period of time were "unrealistic" and that such a scenario was "in nobody's interest ".
The academic, who is Professor of Politics at the University of Aberdeen dismissed claims by the anti-independence campaign, saying "it is simply in nobody's interest to create a hole in the single market, to disrupt all the relationships between Scotland and the European Union simply to put them back in place again. Everybody would lose out of this."
Professor Keating also dismissed claims from the No camp that an independent Scotland would be forced to join Schengen, stating that "remaining outside Schengen and in the common travel area is a lot more easier to negotiate than getting into Schengen."
He added, "…there's no question of being forced into Schengen unwillingly because you've got to be willing to meet all the obligations of it – so I don't think that would be a problem."
Professor Keating also made clear that negotiating for an independent Scotland to maintain similar terms to the UK would be easier than negotiating a new set of terms, stating "that actually simplifies matters – it doesn't complicate matters – it simplifies matters because you already have a template there."
According to the academic, "Scotland would not, and could not, be excluded from the EU". Professor Keating, in his written submission also said that a prolonged accession process would not be necessary.
The reasons listed included:
* There is no reason for other EU states to refuse to recognise Scotland if the UK has done so.
* An independent, democratic Scotland, recognised by all member states and conforming with the acquis communautaire could hardly be excluded from the EU simply because it had exercised its democratic rights.
* Independence would occur after a transition period (seen now as two years) in which details of EU membership could be negotiated.
* It would not be in the interest of the rUK, other member states or business to disrupt the internal market or to change the status of EU citizens living, working and studying in Scotland.
* Neither Scotland nor rUK is going to erect customs posts.
* Scottish citizens are EU citizens and could not be deprived of their rights arbitrarily. EU rather than international law might be relevant here.
* A fast-track form of accession could be agreed, either by the accession process or by treaty amendment.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Boab
Because he has backed up neither of those facts I asked. Pretty simple really! 
They backed up the one (the only one you asked them to back up) about not being able to get automatic entry/swift re-entry...
Original post by Quady
They backed up the one (the only one you asked them to back up) about not being able to get automatic entry/swift re-entry...
1 out of 3, which was the irrelevant one anyway. Well done!
You understand they weren't facts, right?
Original post by Boab
A leading academic has challenged claims that a newly independent Scotland would be expelled from the European Union.
Giving evidence to the European & External Relations Committee, Professor Michael Keating said suggestions that Scotland would find itself outside of the EU for any period of time were "unrealistic" and that such a scenario was "in nobody's interest ".
The academic, who is Professor of Politics at the University of Aberdeen dismissed claims by the anti-independence campaign, saying "it is simply in nobody's interest to create a hole in the single market, to disrupt all the relationships between Scotland and the European Union simply to put them back in place again. Everybody would lose out of this."
Professor Keating also dismissed claims from the No camp that an independent Scotland would be forced to join Schengen, stating that "remaining outside Schengen and in the common travel area is a lot more easier to negotiate than getting into Schengen."
He added, "…there's no question of being forced into Schengen unwillingly because you've got to be willing to meet all the obligations of it – so I don't think that would be a problem."
Professor Keating also made clear that negotiating for an independent Scotland to maintain similar terms to the UK would be easier than negotiating a new set of terms, stating "that actually simplifies matters – it doesn't complicate matters – it simplifies matters because you already have a template there."
According to the academic, "Scotland would not, and could not, be excluded from the EU". Professor Keating, in his written submission also said that a prolonged accession process would not be necessary.
The reasons listed included:
* There is no reason for other EU states to refuse to recognise Scotland if the UK has done so.
* An independent, democratic Scotland, recognised by all member states and conforming with the acquis communautaire could hardly be excluded from the EU simply because it had exercised its democratic rights.
* Independence would occur after a transition period (seen now as two years) in which details of EU membership could be negotiated.
* It would not be in the interest of the rUK, other member states or business to disrupt the internal market or to change the status of EU citizens living, working and studying in Scotland.
* Neither Scotland nor rUK is going to erect customs posts.
* Scottish citizens are EU citizens and could not be deprived of their rights arbitrarily. EU rather than international law might be relevant here.
* A fast-track form of accession could be agreed, either by the accession process or by treaty amendment.
Giving evidence to the European & External Relations Committee, Professor Michael Keating said suggestions that Scotland would find itself outside of the EU for any period of time were "unrealistic" and that such a scenario was "in nobody's interest ".
The academic, who is Professor of Politics at the University of Aberdeen dismissed claims by the anti-independence campaign, saying "it is simply in nobody's interest to create a hole in the single market, to disrupt all the relationships between Scotland and the European Union simply to put them back in place again. Everybody would lose out of this."
Professor Keating also dismissed claims from the No camp that an independent Scotland would be forced to join Schengen, stating that "remaining outside Schengen and in the common travel area is a lot more easier to negotiate than getting into Schengen."
He added, "…there's no question of being forced into Schengen unwillingly because you've got to be willing to meet all the obligations of it – so I don't think that would be a problem."
Professor Keating also made clear that negotiating for an independent Scotland to maintain similar terms to the UK would be easier than negotiating a new set of terms, stating "that actually simplifies matters – it doesn't complicate matters – it simplifies matters because you already have a template there."
According to the academic, "Scotland would not, and could not, be excluded from the EU". Professor Keating, in his written submission also said that a prolonged accession process would not be necessary.
The reasons listed included:
* There is no reason for other EU states to refuse to recognise Scotland if the UK has done so.
* An independent, democratic Scotland, recognised by all member states and conforming with the acquis communautaire could hardly be excluded from the EU simply because it had exercised its democratic rights.
* Independence would occur after a transition period (seen now as two years) in which details of EU membership could be negotiated.
* It would not be in the interest of the rUK, other member states or business to disrupt the internal market or to change the status of EU citizens living, working and studying in Scotland.
* Neither Scotland nor rUK is going to erect customs posts.
* Scottish citizens are EU citizens and could not be deprived of their rights arbitrarily. EU rather than international law might be relevant here.
* A fast-track form of accession could be agreed, either by the accession process or by treaty amendment.
Professor Michael Keating of Aberdeen University?
Sounds as impartial as they come
Original post by DorianGrayism
Well, you won't remain in.
So the question should be , in 10-15 years, when we rejoin the EU and etc?
So the question should be , in 10-15 years, when we rejoin the EU and etc?
Not necessarily true
Original post by Snagprophet
Well yeah, I assume it doesn't have to be fully installed on the day of joining the EU. And I assume people would have to follow through with this plan to use the Euro because countries would simply make a plan and then instantly scrap it, or never implement it.
Considering we, the UK, needed a special opt out just to remain using the pound, it would be highly amusing if Scotland just got around this by just having a plan forever but never implementing it.
Considering we, the UK, needed a special opt out just to remain using the pound, it would be highly amusing if Scotland just got around this by just having a plan forever but never implementing it.
The law rarely bends well to pseudo-pedantic trickery!
What I mean by that is that the requirement is fairly clear: accession states agree to move toward the requirements of monetary union. They may take different steps about it, or vary the timeframe within reason, but they still have to do it.
Indeed, the very idea put forward by the Scottish nationalists that we could somehow make such an agreement and renege on it - as one of our first diplomatic actions as a new state - is really quite absurd.
Original post by Boab
Regardless of current rules which say new members must join the currency, the EU also stipulates that no member can do so without first being a member of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years.ERM participation, however, is not compulsory for new members. And therefore any country joining the EU – whether as a successor state or from scratch – which doesn't want to join the Euro can simply elect to remain outwith the ERM, and therefore put off joining the Euro indefinitely.
It is a step towards something which has been agreed. If I agree to meet someone at the pub, it contains the implicit agreement that I will take the necessary steps to do so: walking out my front door, entering the building and so on. Were we committed to joining the Euro, we would equally have committed to joining ERM II.
The problem with this is that it is explicitly currency based. Without an independent currency, you cannot enter ERM II (at least not of your state's own volition). So that proviso could not even be sensibly applied to an independent Scotland.
Original post by DorianGrayism
You were not moaning about First Past the Post.
You were moaning about the people that you voted for.
You were moaning about the people that you voted for.
I am moaning about the Westminister system in general, I think with independence we can change our political system for the better.
Original post by Boab
1 out of 3, which was the irrelevant one anyway. Well done!
You understand they weren't facts, right?
You understand they weren't facts, right?
No, you only asked for facts when quoting about one of the points.
There are no real facts in this debate, when it comes to the future, its just crystal ball stuff.
However, theres nobody in the EU institutions (excluding SNP MEPs) thats said entry would be automatic or fast tracked. While they have said it wouldn't, which is as close as fact as you can get.
Original post by Quady
No, you only asked for facts when quoting about one of the points.
Nope, asked him to explain them all. Thanks for your help!
There are no real facts in this debate, when it comes to the future, its just crystal ball stuff.
Nope, asked him to explain them all. Thanks for your help!
There are no real facts in this debate, when it comes to the future, its just crystal ball stuff.
Bingo!!!!
At least someone gets it!
Original post by L i b
It is a step towards something which has been agreed. If I agree to meet someone at the pub, it contains the implicit agreement that I will take the necessary steps to do so: walking out my front door, entering the building and so on. Were we committed to joining the Euro, we would equally have committed to joining ERM II.
The problem with this is that it is explicitly currency based. Without an independent currency, you cannot enter ERM II (at least not of your state's own volition). So that proviso could not even be sensibly applied to an independent Scotland.
The problem with this is that it is explicitly currency based. Without an independent currency, you cannot enter ERM II (at least not of your state's own volition). So that proviso could not even be sensibly applied to an independent Scotland.
Thats a good point, makes it more likely Scotland would get an exemption on that tbh
Original post by DorianGrayism
I stated that the Scottish wouldn't be allowed to join immediately as fact. They would have join as a prospective member state. That is fact.
This is also not a fact, merely your reading on the situation.
* Scottish citizens are EU citizens and could not be deprived of their rights arbitrarily. EU rather than international law might be relevant here.
* A fast-track form of accession could be agreed, either by the accession process or by treaty amendment.
Original post by Boab
Bingo!!!!
At least someone gets it!
At least someone gets it!
No you didn't.
And the crystal ball stuff cuts both ways.
Yes saying it'll be easy-peasy is as daft saying Scotland can be independent by March '16 with a currency union, EU membership and independent Revenue Scotland and Welfare system as anyone on the No side saying independence would mean going to hell in a handcart.
Original post by Boab
This is also not a fact, merely your reading on the situation.
* Scottish citizens are EU citizens and could not be deprived of their rights arbitrarily. EU rather than international law might be relevant here.
* A fast-track form of accession could be agreed, either by the accession process or by treaty amendment.
* Scottish citizens are EU citizens and could not be deprived of their rights arbitrarily. EU rather than international law might be relevant here.
* A fast-track form of accession could be agreed, either by the accession process or by treaty amendment.
Its possible the citizens could retain their EU citizenship within the UK membership as British citizens. Thats different to Scotland being an EU member state.
A fast track form of Euro adoption could be agreed too.
Anything can happen, doesn't mean its likely.
Original post by Boab
This is also not a fact, merely your reading on the situation.
* Scottish citizens are EU citizens and could not be deprived of their rights arbitrarily. EU rather than international law might be relevant here.
* A fast-track form of accession could be agreed, either by the accession process or by treaty amendment.
* Scottish citizens are EU citizens and could not be deprived of their rights arbitrarily. EU rather than international law might be relevant here.
* A fast-track form of accession could be agreed, either by the accession process or by treaty amendment.
Well, they are not being deprived arbitrarily. They are choosing to the leave the UK.
Hahahaa.
The second point PROVES what I have been saying. All the member states have to agree to change the accession process or treaty to allow Scotland to immediately rejoin. Otherwise they have to join as a prospective member.
Spain have already said that they would have join as a prospective member.
Original post by Quady
No you didn't.
And the crystal ball stuff cuts both ways.
Yes saying it'll be easy-peasy is as daft saying Scotland can be independent by March '16 with a currency union, EU membership and independent Revenue Scotland and Welfare system as anyone on the No side saying independence would mean going to hell in a handcart.
And the crystal ball stuff cuts both ways.
Yes saying it'll be easy-peasy is as daft saying Scotland can be independent by March '16 with a currency union, EU membership and independent Revenue Scotland and Welfare system as anyone on the No side saying independence would mean going to hell in a handcart.
Boab
Well done, and your other two facts please?
Weird how I can remember what I said, but do feel free to keep butting in!
And YES don't say it will be easy peasy, never have they, in fact Salmond says quite often 'nobody is saying it will be easy'. What YES say generally is that their approach is the common sense approach, and generally, I agree.
Original post by sauzee_4
We (UK) are about to spend billions of pounds building a Trident replacement. It is such a silly thing to spend money on when it will never be used.
On your point about the 19th century it's not the 19th century any more and most people in Scotland (and England to be fair) don't want to constantly enter wars which have nothing to do with us.
We have a chance to escape policies such as these and use the money we would be spending on them more sensibly.
And no we're not oppressed but a Scottish Government with full control over the matters discussed (and others) results in more political autonomy which is what we want.
It's not an anti-English thing (I know some English people are viewing it that way which is a shame).
I think one glance at the European election results in England shows even English voters are fed up of the Westminster parties. This is our chance to have the type of political change of direction they are looking for.
On your point about the 19th century it's not the 19th century any more and most people in Scotland (and England to be fair) don't want to constantly enter wars which have nothing to do with us.
We have a chance to escape policies such as these and use the money we would be spending on them more sensibly.
And no we're not oppressed but a Scottish Government with full control over the matters discussed (and others) results in more political autonomy which is what we want.
It's not an anti-English thing (I know some English people are viewing it that way which is a shame).
I think one glance at the European election results in England shows even English voters are fed up of the Westminster parties. This is our chance to have the type of political change of direction they are looking for.
I support Trident, to say we don't need it now is silly. And I think you should be independent.
Just saying my opinion, that the case for Scottish independence is weak compared to many other countries. I bet California doesn't like subsidising Mississippi, but then there's no major Californian independence movement.
Related discussions
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Sheffield or Southampton for electronics and Computer engineering?
- Favourite nature documentary
- The McDonalds Thread Mk II
- TSR Goes Green: What's your favourite animal?
- TSR Goes Green: What stops you accessing nature?
- Welcome to Part-Time and Temporary Employment
- OFFICIAL St Andrews University offers 2024
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Jobs II
- TSR Goes Green! Mk II - 2024 Hub thread
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- Official UEA Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Cambridge CS chances
- OCR A-Level History Unit 3 (Y301-Y321) - 24th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Modern Studies Higher
- Edinburgh vs Durham
- What was the last film you watched Mk. III
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Medicine Wiki [currently a Work In Progress]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
