Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Scottish Politics 2011-2017


Recommended Posts

I've got no idea why Salmond decided to make threats barring access to fishing grounds in that otherwise positive speech. 'Do what we ask or we'll make life difficult'?

Perhaps he was "floundering" :laugh:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Scottish-Irish Skier

    8874

  • mountain shadow

    1528

  • skifreak

    1435

  • frogesque

    1306

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And that ignorant, offensive, rant sums up exactly why the YES campaign failed  

Good god. What a load of boarish spiteful bile from bad losers has been posted during the night. I actually dread to think how Scotland would be run if this is representative of how the yes vote behav

I'm disappointed in the lack of grace shown by some across the net in accepting this No vote. A complete lack of any empathy and understanding as to why fellow Scots didn't vote Yes.   I personally

Posted Images

SS you can't separate out Salmond from the debate, essentially that's like separating out a leader in a general election. If Salmond gets caught out with his assertions put forward as facts that's going to impact some voters.

 

Really? Which ones?

 

The only one's I find commenting on how things are bad for Salmond / how this has put them off Yes is people who would never vote for independence because they are solid British. 

 

This is Scotland. Parties here have different policies and the system is proportional. Leaders matter much less here. It's not like UK politics.

 

This is a referendum on independence too.  

 

If it was based on satisfaction with the SNP / Salmond, we'd have a >60% Yes in the polls.

 

Don't make the same mistake as unionists Nick. The electorate are not stupid. They know fine well what this is about, just as they did in 1979 and 1997. Same for 2007 and 2011 when the press told them 'DO NOT VOTE SNP'.

I've got no idea why Salmond decided to make threats barring access to fishing grounds in that otherwise positive speech. 'Do what we ask or we'll make life difficult'?

 

Please provide threat quote.

 

In full of course, no cutting important bits out to suit.

Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got no idea why Salmond decided to make threats barring access to fishing grounds in that otherwise positive speech. 'Do what we ask or we'll make life difficult'?

I really don't understand what there was to gain by that. By all means when it comes to the time when negotiations start then its different but he really just seems to lack diplomacy. He needs unanimous agreement from 28 countries for Scotlands EU membership to continue, that in itself will take time, also his assertion that Scotland will keep the rebate and other things currently reserved for the UK. I'm sure the EU will just say yes to everything!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, out of interest, how do people think the former UK / remainder of the UK will get on in negotiations on membership of the EU?

 

What would be the name and flag of this new state? 'United Kingdom could work if Wales was made a Kingdom but the 'Union [with Scotland]' Flag?

 

The rebate will need a complete re-hash. I imagine this will be tough.

 

Also, fisheries as a bargaining chip won't carry much weight any more.

 

MEP numbers will need to be changed, probably by not a lot but still changes needed.

 

Of course this will all require ratification by all member states.

 

Will need Westminster to be diplomatic right now in case.

 

How quickly can this all be achieved? I think 18 months is realistic, at least for the main things.

 

Electing lots of UKIP MEPs next month would, well, hmm, I'm not sure if that will be helpful here.

Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

SS Salmond has made so many assertions put forward as facts, his latest on the EU, his assertion Scotland will have negotiated with the EU, it will take 18 months, sorted!

 

The Scottish government recognises that continued membership of the EU will require negotiations on the specific terms. That is only right and proper. But these negotiations will be completed within the 18-month period between a yes vote in September and achieving independence in March 2016," Salmond said. "Scotland will ask for continued membership on the basis of 'continuity of effect'".

 

"Five and a quarter million people ceasing to be EU citizens against their will â€¦ is more than absurd. There is simply no legal basis in the EU treaties for any such proposition. And it is against the founding principles of the European Union."

 

I'm sorry SS Salmond is delusional if he thinks the EU situation will be sorted out in 18 months. As for continuity of effect, not possible it has to be either chapter 48 or 49, either way every nation in the EU has to agree. I'm not saying its fair because the sensible decision is continued membership with a few side issues like the rebate etc negotiated. However that would set a precedent for other independence issues, you won't get 28 members to agree that.

 

The EU views Scotland as a region within the UK, the UK holds the Treaties, its clear from the advice what the situation is, the letter was in reply to a MSP request to Viviane Reding VP of the EU Commission.

 

Dear Ms McKelvie,

Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2014.

The European Union has been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The Commission, as the guardian of those treaties, is responsible for overseeing their implementation, including the implementation of provisions related to the accession of any European State to the Union.

The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.

Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the EU. If the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, an agreement is then negotiated between the applicant state and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the applicant state.

 

Its clear that Salmond will have to wait, he can't dictate when official independence happens because Scotland can't officially break up the Union until its rubberstamped negotiations with the EU.  Salmonds assertion of March 2016 is just his preferred date because he doesn't want any fall out to effect the May Scottish elections. If his promises turn out to be just wishes then it could get messy, I see a lot of acrimony and a messy divorce if theres a Yes. I'm sure the media will be happy though!

Edited by nick sussex
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please provide threat quote.

 

In full of course, no cutting important bits out to suit.

And the alternative – the fishing fleets of 12 countries being denied any access to Scottish waters. 

 Of course. I only made my post after clicking on your link and reading the entire speech. 'Being denied' - surely this 'blockade' is a decision taken by the Scottish government as a consequence of EU accession not quite going to their plan? It's not as it's the EU that would refuse to co-operate with an outside country over something like this should this outside country, for whatever reason, find itself without EU membership. 

Edited by Harve
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick surely you know by now that if Salmond saved a child from running under a bus the press would report he had pushed the child under the bus!Thats honestly how ridiculous they are with their anti Salmond agenda.Build up hate for an individual then turn the vote of a nation into a vote for the individual you have demonized to the public.That's the game Nick! Don't fall into the trap of hating Salmond its complete and utter fantasy.Somehow Salmond is pilloried and persecuted in Scotland yet Cameron and Lamont are allowed to carry on telling porkies and belittling our nation on a daily basis.We are back to Stockholm syndrome again.The press are sycophants to the British state!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick,

 

The UK government seems to assume it could just continue on if Scotland becomes independent.

 

So many assertions with no evidence to back this up.

 

We've discussed Scotland's position at length in this thread. Let's change tack as strangely, people seem not to want to discuss this issue.

 

What about the new country that comprises England (+Wales) and N. Ireland (a province of Scotland + England [+wales])? 

 Of course. I only made my post after clicking on your link and reading the entire speech. 'Being denied' - surely this 'blockade' is a decision taken by the Scottish government as a consequence of EU accession not quite going to their plan? It's not as it's the EU that would refuse to co-operate with an outside country over something like this should this outside country, for whatever reason, find itself without EU membership. 

 

Please quote the 'threat' in full context.

 

Really, it's easy. Ctrl+C then Ctrl+V.

Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick,

 

The UK government seems to assume it could just continue on if Scotland becomes independent.

 

So many assertions with no evidence to back this up.

 

We've discussed Scotland's position at length in this thread. Let's change tack as strangely, people seem not to want to discuss this issue.

 

What about the new country that comprises England (+Wales) and N. Ireland (a province of Scotland + England [+wales])? 

 

Please quote the 'threat' in full context.

 

Really, it's easy. Ctrl+C then Ctrl+V.

SS not to be blunt but the EU is not going to hack off the rUK by suggesting they will have to negotiate new terms, given the economy is the third largest in the EU and they don't want the UK to leave. Putting aside that it depends on who is classed as the continuing state, successor state etc.You could argue that both England and Scotland would be successor states, both then have to negotiate with the EU. Its not clear legally, heres a good article, I've linked to it because its fair to both sides, indeed its quite scathing of the Westminster position also critical of the Scottish government for allowing Westminster to frame themselves as the continuing state.

 

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/25/the-fiction-of-the-continuing-state/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye Nick.

 

For sure the EU doesn't want a Brexit. What I said is of course perfectly true though; neatly avoided in the MSM in the UK however.

 

As for Scotland - hey, the Ukraine is EU-OK but a country with a population who have been EU citizens for 40 years, which complies with all requirements, which has some of the most productive fisheries, which has the largest oil and gas reserves in the EU, which has 25% of European renewable power capacity..would be a problem according to the pro-UK parties. 

 

The full quote which people seem reluctant to post simply and clearly pointed out the absurdity of the pro-union position of Scotland being thrown out of the EU if it votes Yes and what legal problems that could cause. There was no threat, just a statement of reality. You want threats, be Scottish and listen to the pro-union campaign.

 

If Scotland votes Yes and becomes independent, then its politicians (and people) will be properly respected. They are already in Europe; just not in Britain. The pro-union campaign are ensuring this is clear....

 

Which is why, it would appear, we are watching a self-fulfilling prophesy develop. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SS its a clear threat and illegal under maritime law, Yes EU boats cant fish in those waters but Scotland cannot stop them crossing to reach Norwegian waters. Salmonds assertion is that they wouldn't even be allowed to access Scottish waters.

Total misunderstanding - it's not that Scotland would block the boats from sailing to Norwegian fishing grounds, it's that the right of access to Norwegian fisheries for EU boats is through a bilateral agreement that depends on Scotland being in the Common Fisheries Policy - which Scotland would not be if it where outwith the EU. Edited by skifreak
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting seeing the different views on Salmonds speech. I read it yesterday and thought it was very good, nothing in it struck me as threatening. I was kind of surprised therefore to see the line some newspapers were taking re the fishing comments.

The reality is that if Scotland isn't in the EU then lots of European fishermen are going to have to find somewhere else to ply thier trade. That's not a threat, its reality. Why would they continue to have the benefit of access to Scottish waters? As for the Norway situation, I'm assuming that rather than refuse transit, which would be illegal and impractical, the problem would be of the EU losing access to Norwiegen waters through a reciprocal agreement. Again I don't see a threat there, just a statement of reality in a situation that Salmond and Scotland do not want to see happen.

With regards to Salmond, I'm another that thinks he has his faults but I also think he's unfairly demonized by large sections of the media and public. However I won't be voting for or against independence based on whether or not I like Salmond any more than I will base the decision on whether I like or dislike Cameron, or whether I think Milliband is electable or not. Politicians come and go all the time, opportunities to decide the future of a nation come around rarely and should be about much more than petty squabbles about individuals!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all agree with that Ravelin.Unfortunately the British state don't want to play a straight ball.They want to trick and conive the public into a Salmond vs us situation.E said at the beginning the British state would play dirty and turn nasty if they were losing.Well that's where we are now.Hence Salmond is now a Putin lover.He wants to threaten the EU.The British state will be going through every corner of Salmonds life and conversations to create some kind of right wing dictator that is the opposite of what the Scottish government actually are.We've had project fear now its project smear!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it had to happen eventually. We have had aliens invading indie Scotland,World War 3 , third world debt,banned from Europe... Now Alexander appears in a kilt at a CBI (LOL) dinner. He has now compared the YES campaign to the Loch Ness monster. Nothing worse than a liar wearing a kilt. Shortbread tin Scotsman.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it had to happen eventually. We have had aliens invading indie Scotland,World War 3 , third world debt,banned from Europe... Now Alexander appears in a kilt at a CBI (LOL) dinner. He has now compared the YES campaign to the Loch Ness monster. Nothing worse than a liar wearing a kilt. Shortbread tin Scotsman.

 

Alternatively you could consider the NO campaign to be like Nessie i.e. you're just as likely to see Nessie as see a BT spokesperson attend a public referendum debate (http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-circular-argument/).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You actually see the Yes vote don't you so it can't be Nessy.

 

Alternatively you could consider the NO campaign to be like Nessie i.e. you're just as likely to see Nessie as see a BT spokesperson attend a public referendum debate (http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-circular-argument/).

Certainly looks like the NO campaign is like the pro Euro campaign and is lacking in ideas so comes out with silly statements and untruths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The smear campaign in full swing in the Scotsman.Salmond loves Murdoch and has respect for Ukip Farage.At the same time Cameron criticises Salmond for Putin remarks.Same Cameron who was linked with Russian leader over Scottish independence.To be honest I wondered when the dirty dirt digging campaign would start.This is the final throw of the dice for no.Link Salmond to every crackpot megalomaniac you can find.If this fails expect no side to implode.Alastair Campbell is now an agent for the no campaign to try and smear Salmond.The interview is nearly 2 months old!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The greater the attempts to smear Alex Salmond, the more Yes votes are generated; even from people who are not fans of Mr Salmond and would not vote SNP. The SNP government get the nod from up to 15% of the electorate that didn't and won't vote for them. It's because they respect them, and, most importantly, it is their government.

 

I'm puzzled as to why, after 7-10 years, that still hasn't clicked yet with the pro-union campaign / unionist parties. I mean Jeez, it failed in 2007. So, they try again even harder and it in part contributes to a landslide for the SNP in 2011. Now they are once again at it full pelt and for a vote that is so clearly nothing to do with Alex Salmond. At least 2007 and 2011 were actually about the SNP being elected. The referendum is nothing to do with that at all. What remains of the SNP - e.g. the centrist Social Democrats - will have to fight for votes in 2016 just like any other party.

 

I used to get really down when I saw concerted media smears against pro-indy politicians / parties. I was angry about how words were taken out of context etc and spun by every MSM outlet in a mass blitz of fabricated outrage. So frustrating - 'How can people believe this!'. Then it became obvious that people didn't believe it, just like I didn't. Not only that, but it made them more determined, just like it made me more determined.

 

I still remember that 'Vote SNP and you put Scotland's head in noose' headline of the Sun just ahead of 2007. This was the culmination of a huge, constant attack on the SNP due to polls showing they were potentially going to give Labour (who Murdoch was all palls with at the time) a run for it's money. I saw it and thought 'B*stards'. Then, just a short while later I recall pulling over to the side of the road to listen as the final results came in. A big smile crossed my face. The electorate had ignored the smear campaign and voted as they saw fit. It woz the Sun what won it for the SNP despite being totally anti-SNP.

 

The SNP should do well in next month's Euros, very likely the winner with 3/6 MEPs.

 

Meanwhile, in England, the English [ / British] National Party should take first place. 

 

Take a moment to think about that. It's very significant.

 

'Rebellion' (for want of a better word) is now not just confined to Scotland. UKIP and the SNP may be chalk and cheese policy-wise, but there are parallels here. People want change; they want to take more control democratically. Imperial Britain is approaching its final end.

 

Scotland's just further down the path. It doesn't need new parties to replace the old British elite ones. That has already happened; with >51% of votes going to these at the last general election.

 

As we have seen in polls, the process is now accelerating. It is feeding on itself. Next month the EU elections will take things up another gear and the speed of events in the run up to September will be dizzying. 

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you are right SS.I worry for some Scots though! Incidently the twin revolutions going on in RUK and Scotland are polar opposites in terms of political models.One UKIP is a right wing borderline racist agenda.The Scottish one is left wing and inclusive.Our countries are on different paths now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CBI 'No' registration cancelled:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27242350

Surely now the CBI must cease all activities which promote a no vote and remove all such material from their website. This is now way beyond farce and smacks of a cop-out by the Electoral Commission to avoid uncomfortable issues it would rather not have to deal with relating to the BBC? The time has come now for the Scottish Government to call in independent observers for the campaign period proper and out the BBC as the organ of 'Better Together' that it is.

Edited by skifreak
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't worry about the CBI too much. They are a dead organisation walking in Scotland. No one will take any interest in anything they say now. Pity the BBC can't just leave instead of dragging this out for some obscure reason. Well we know the reason the BBC are part of the official no campaign!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wings over Scotland is currently questioning the electoral commission as to whether newpapers etc should register as official campaigners for either side. For elections, they don't have to, but the rules of the referendum are different.

 

Wings planned to check with the EC about it's own status (and of course has had unionists shouting how it should do so) but as a media / news site with a clear stance, it's no different from e.g. the Daily Mail which has said it supports the union. 

 

Will be interesting to see how this pans out. 

 

Meanwhile, Wings readership stats for 2014 are phenomenal.

 

Unique visitors for 2014 coming up on 9% of the total electorate or over 20% of the regularly voting electorate.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/manhattan-skyline/

 

Posted Image

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...