Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes yes

Probably already been said but id guess the negative Spanish view is based on helping to get a No vote and so taking the steam out of internal Spanish independence movements
the opposite, surely. A yes vote giving fresh impetus to the catalan and basque calls for a peacful autonomy
 
Probably already been said but id guess the negative Spanish view is based on helping to get a No vote and so taking the steam out of internal Spanish independence movements

When/if it comes to it, I can't see Madrid actually trying to block Scotland's membership application.
 
If Scotland is to be allowed to remain within the EU, what concessions would the rest of the EU expect to extract from it, and potentially from the rest of the UK, for allowing this to happen?

I'd expect the UK rebate would be on bargaining chip that would need to be sacrificed.

The voting rights in the council for ministers would also look to be a likely sticking point, the UK has 29 votes, the same as Germany, France, Italy. Denmark, Finland, Slovakia have similar populations to scotland and have 7 votes, which would presumably be the level of votes that Scotland would expect to have, but if those 7 votes were taken from the UK allocation that would leave the rest of the UK with only 22 votes, which would be significantly below Spain and Poland on 27 votes, despite those countries having 10 and 20 million lower populations than the rest of the UK.

So that would be a pretty big sticking point, unless Scotland or the rUK were prepared to sacrifice voting rights, as I doubt the rest of the EU would be prepared to increase the overall voting rights to UK and Scotland. I think this is what happened when Germany unified, which is why Germany has the same votes as UK, France and Italy despite having 15-20 million more people now, but I'm struggling to confirm this.

details of council of ministers voting rights
 
Implications for the rest of us...

If scotland leave and historically we've giving them 1600 quid in extra benefits due to the xxx formula, how much will we receive when they stop getting paid this money. Can anyone do the maths? Its something to do with population count and %'s.

I hope the politicians give it to us!
 
Implications for the rest of us...

If scotland leave and historically we've giving them 1600 quid in extra benefits due to the xxx formula, how much will we receive when they stop getting paid this money. Can anyone do the maths? Its something to do with population count and %'s.

I hope the politicians give it to us!
negative money because they'd take the vast majority of the North Sea oil revenue, which more than makes up for the extra government funding. ie we'll be worse off.
 
the opposite, surely. A yes vote giving fresh impetus to the catalan and basque calls for a peacful autonomy
im tired so not sure why you think its opposite...
the campaign itself has already created that impetus - the Spanish Prime Minister who has been "warning" Scotland is, id have thought, against any greater catalan and basque independence (correct me if im wrong)...any sounds out of madrid now are pure politics Id bet and wont necessarily reflect the post-Yes vote reality
 
Fuck all, Scotland contributes more than it gets back

Such claims are a matter of context, once Scotland becomes independent the landscape changes no matter whether Scotland is a net contributor or net debtor.
 
I'd expect it would dawn on rUK politicians at some stage how desperately they actually need Scotland to stay within the EU.

Otherwise they'd be entirely free to set their own VAT rates etc and the UK would have to rapidly negotiate bilateral trade, security etc. agreement with Scotland, meaning that it's probably going to be far simpler all around if Scotland does just remain in the EU.

It's certainly not just a issue that would impact on Scotland.
 
I'd expect it would dawn on rUK politicians at some stage how desperately they actually need Scotland to stay within the EU.

Otherwise they'd be entirely free to set their own VAT rates etc and the UK would have to rapidly negotiate bilateral trade, security etc. agreement with Scotland, meaning that it's probably going to be far simpler all around if Scotland does just remain in the EU.

It's certainly not just a issue that would impact on Scotland.
Scotland still has a substantial fishing fleet and would have some very large waters that would be outside the common fisheries policy.
 
Scotland still has a substantial fishing fleet and would have some very large waters that would be outside the common fisheries policy.
It is a huge area of ocean that would be being lost to the common fisheries policy.

1024px-Scottish_eez.PNG



And the UK hasn't got a hope in hell of meeting its renewables obligations without the scottish contribution.... not that this will be a deciding point, but...
 
Just a final point on the EU question - the dominant question in the EU for roughly four years has been its (or more to the point the eurozone's) friability.

Destabilising national/regional popular movements are anathema to Brussels (see UKIP).

The idea that you can break up a MS and then gain automatic readmission is so unpalatable that it has not been countenanced in any serious way to date.

It would undermine the rule of EU law to provide special dispensation to Scotland, especially in light of the broader EU strategy of enlargement.

Brussels doesn't have much time for such focused national/regional separatism precisely because the logic of EU integration involves claiming incrementally more sovereignty from national governments.
 
Just a final point on the EU question - the dominant question in the EU for roughly four years has been its (or more to the point the eurozone's) friability.

Destabilising national/regional popular movements are anathema to Brussels (see UKIP).

The idea that you can break up a MS and then gain automatic readmission is so unpalatable that it has not been countenanced in any serious way to date.

It would undermine the rule of EU law to provide special dispensation to Scotland, especially in light of the broader EU strategy of enlargement.

Brussels doesn't have much time for such focused national/regional separatism precisely because the logic of EU integration involves claiming incrementally more sovereignty from national governments.
How closely do you think the Eu actually sticks to Eu law? Esp as regards membership criteria for things and all those nanas?

You seem like an incredibly naive person.
 
Just a final point on the EU question - the dominant question in the EU for roughly four years has been its (or more to the point the eurozone's) friability.

Destabilising national/regional popular movements are anathema to Brussels (see UKIP).

Yuval Noah Harari makes this idea into a wider point in his new book, Sapiens:

'[If] safeguarding human rights and protecting the interests of the entire human species should be the guiding light of politics, having close to 200 independent states is a hindrance rather than a help.'
 
How closely do you think the Eu actually sticks to Eu law? Esp as regards membership criteria for things and all those nanas?

Still with the bananas, eh?

Yep, but that's a fair point. It is political after all - rule of law and politics are inextricably interlinked.

However, one needs to be realistic on what the current policy priorities of the EU are - here are Juncker's 10: http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/priorities/index_en.htm - and the wider strategy of the EU, as seen most saliently on its eastern borders.
 
Yuval Noah Harari makes this idea into a wider point in his new book, Sapiens:

'[If] safeguarding human rights and protecting the interests of the entire human species should be the guiding light of politics, having close to 200 independent states is a hindrance rather than a help.'
This is news? The EU doesn't like anti-eu stuff, or stuff that might lead to anti-eu outcomes. Are you diamond's boss? Did you need the appeal to authority?
 
Still with the bananas, eh?

Yep, but that's a fair point. It is political after all - rule of law and politics are inextricably interlinked.

However, one needs to be realistic on what the current policy priorities of the EU are - here are Juncker's 10: http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/priorities/index_en.htm - and the wider strategy of the EU, as seen most saliently on its eastern borders.
Do you mean to answer my question by saying nah not that closely, so you making a point of how it always sticks by the law closely and so will in this case looks a bit daft?
 
Do you mean to answer my question by saying nah not that closely, so you making a point of how it always sticks by the law closely and so will in this case looks a bit daft?

I think one needs to be realistic. The EU is about integration fundamentally.

If you start turning over tables and marching off to a national tune, you won't get much sympathy.
 
I'm not sure how that was inconsistent. Please clarify.
a) The EU closely follows the law and will in this case - that's what the EU is based on.
b) OK it doesn't and won't when it doesn't think it is in its best interest to do so- it makes it's mind up politically.

Please respond. Don't know what to do next.
 
a) The EU closely follows the law and will in this case - that's what the EU is based on.
b) OK it doesn't and won't when it doesn't think it is in its best interest to do so- it makes it's mind up politically.

Please respond. Don't know what to do next.

On the whole rule a) applies with the exception of rule b).

One then has to take a view on which is more or likely - that is the heart of this aspect of the debate.

At the moment rule a) re: admission and integration is dominant because the more you undermine it with individual/special cases, the more you undermine the whole body of EU law.

My view is that rule a) will tend to lead towards iScotland having a very difficult job of gaining admission on the basis that the "yes" camp has advanced, and certainly not in the timetable that is proposed.
 
Point a) isn't a rule - it's an assertion from you. It is either true or not.
Point b) is not a rule either - it is you admitting that the assertion from you in a) is not true.

Thus any other stuff based on a) is wrong.

I'm better than you at this.
 
Back
Top Bottom