Theresa May’s Threats

by craig on March 15, 2014 12:18 pm in Uncategorized

The problem with not being independent is that Scotland would continue to be ruled by people like Theresa May. Her threat to close the border is a patent bluff, and motivated by racism.  Her fear is that “Buried deep in Alex Salmond’s white paper is the admission that, just like the last Labour government, a separate Scotland would pursue a looser immigration policy.”

It is neither hidden nor an admission.  Scotland welcomes immigrants who contribute to its economy and its culture.  Scotland doesn’t have a politics of pandering to racists. That is one of the things which so many Scots want to get away from.

There is no way that independent Scotland will be forced out of the EU.  First, there are no grounds for the assumption that WENI will be the successor state and Scotland a legal new entity; the Czechs and Slovaks, for example, both inherited the entire treaty obligations of the former Czechoslovakia.  But even if Scotland did have to reapply – which I doubt strongly – Scotland already meets the acquis communitaire, by definition.  The Commission report establishing that would be prepared in the transitional period between the referendum and actual independence, and Scotland’s application and acceptance would be a same day process.  If Spain wanted to stop that – and many anti-Catalan Spanish politicians are intelligent enough to realize that extreme hostility to the Scots would provoke more, not less, Catalan nationalism – Spain does not have the political clout within the EU, and is in too dependent a position to isolate itself by a veto.

I worked for four years as First Secretary in the British Embassy in Warsaw specifically on Polish preparations for EU entry, and I know what I am talking about – indeed I have no doubt I know a great deal more about EU accession than Teresa May.  I also know that there is enormous sympathy for Scottish nationalism right across the EU’s international relations community, be it national politicians and diplomats or EU staff.  You would be surprised just how much ground has been quietly prepared by Scottish diplomats and civil servants in advance, sotto voce, in our spare time! With Scotland firmly committed to the EU, and the Conservative Party committed to a referendum on leaving, those who believe the EU’s sympathies lie more with May than with Scotland are deluded.

Actually nobody does really believe that, the propagandists of the mainstream media merely want you to believe it.

 

Tweet this post

87 Comments

  1. Also, isn’t it strange how Tories seem to think it’s a great threat that Scotland might not continue to be in the EU? It underlines how serious they actually aren’t about the referendum and how it’s just being put up to pander to the Ukip fringe and, perhaps, as a negotiating tactic to use with the rest of the EU.

  2. She had a Scottish great grandfather, David Paterson, or Patterson, born in Clackmannanshire.

    http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/2013/famous-family-trees-theresa-may/

    Her mother was called Zaidee which the blogger refers to as ‘of Middle East origins’.

    There is little mention on the web of her husband, Philip May.

  3. He is here accompanying her to Thatcher’s funeral

    http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/ln/20130417/170413_news_thatcher_st_pauls_15/theresa-may-philip-may-margaret-thatchers-funeral_3612051.jpg

    and at Jonathan Shalit’s party at the V&A. Shalit is an agent in the entertainment world.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00285/105274036_May_285895b.jpg

  4. Westminster simply doesn’t understand the mind-set of the Scots. Threats will backfire, and only add to the size of the Yes majority.
    Nemo me impune laccesit.

  5. There is choreography in their campaign. Hammond now.

    15 March 2014

    Scottish Tory conference: ‘Yes’ defence plan not credible, says Hammond

    Scottish Tory Party conference
    Tories ‘to continue cutting deficit’
    PM in pledge to No vote Scotland
    Davidson would stand after Yes
    May says Scots Tories ‘fighting fit’

    UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has said the Scottish government’s defence plans under independence are not credible.

    He delivered his message to the Scottish Conservative Party conference.

    Mr Hammond told delegates that the defence industry in Scotland employed about 12,600 people, generating sales in excess of £1.8bn a year.

    A “Yes” Scotland under SNP rule would get rid of Trident and would establish a 15,000-strong defence force.

    /..
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26593000

  6. @Mary.
    To a London Tory, Scotlands defence plans could never be credible. They are a defence force, not an attack/invading force.

  7. Scottish UK diplomats using their spare time to plot against the UK government? So we could have some fine posturing by May and Cameron or Miliband that they must remain at her Majesty’s pleasure in Belmarsh or Long Lartin awaiting extradition to Scotland.

    Tory government is not racist, it’s people-ist, and always has been.

  8. Tell David Babbs of 38 Degrees what you think of our electoral system and of our parliament.

    ‘What’s gone wrong with politics in the UK? An influential committee of MPs have asked me to give evidence to them next week. They’re investigating why so many people choose not to vote or to get involved in the formal political process. Please can you help decide what I should say?

    I have a hunch that I’ll have to tell the MPs some home truths. Lots of 38 Degrees members have told me before that they feel there are big problems with our democracy and our politicians. That’s certainly how I feel.

    I want to be sure I’m speaking for all 38 Degrees members, not just giving my own opinions. So what do you think? Do you think there are enough candidates worth voting for? Is it easy enough to vote? Are traditional political parties past their sell by date? What could be done?

    Please take a couple of minutes to fill out this quick survey about voting and elections. I’d really appreciate getting your thoughts by Monday. Click here to get started:
    https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee-poll#petition

    The number of people who vote in elections has been declining for decades. At the last election over one third of people didn’t vote. Membership of political parties is at an all time low. As is trust in politicians.

    Yet groups like 38 Degrees prove that we haven’t all become apathetic. We might not all like party politics, but we do care about the future of our country and our democracy. 38 Degrees members come together to stand up for what we believe in in ever-greater numbers.

    The ‘Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee’* wants to look into these trends. Why is party politics so unpopular? What turns people off voting? Could people-powered groups like 38 Degrees have something to teach parliament?

    I want to be speaking for thousands of people from across the UK. Whatever your view, this is a chance to be heard together. The more of us that take part the more weight our views will carry and the more the MPs are likely to listen. Please take the quick survey now.

    ~~

    *The only decent MP on the committee is Paul Flynn as far as I can see.
    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/membership/

  9. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    15 Mar, 2014 - 3:10 pm

    Craig

    “the Czechs and Slovaks, for example, both inherited the entire treaty obligations of the former Czechoslovakia.”
    ______________________

    Whatever Treaty obligations you were thinking about could obviously not have been those arising out of the EU-Czech Republic and EU-Slovakia Accession Treaties, since the latter did not exist when Czechoslovakia broke up.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    i”ndeed I have no doubt I know a great deal more about EU accession than Teresa May. I also know that there is enormous sympathy for Scottish nationalism right across the EU’s international relations community, be it national politicians and diplomats or EU staff.”

    _________________

    Well, it would not be profitable to start a discussion on who knows more about acceding to the EU, but I take leave to query your assertion about ‘enormous sympathy’ for Scottish nationalism. I’d take the view that the majority of people concerned with EU affairs see this whole thing as a rather interesting, mainly technical matter; sympathy or antipathy don’t really come into it.

  10. @Guano.
    You mean like this? The British government urging foreign embassies to speak out against Scottish self-determination?
    http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8710-british-embassy-caught-asking-spanish-press-to-undermine-scottish-independence

  11. Mr. Salmon recently gave a speech in which he quoted statistics showing that Norway’s per capita standard of living (GDP) is 85% higher than Scotland’s. When I was a boy, Scots were clearly better off than Norwegians.

    Today Norwegians are nearly twice as well off as Scots despite Norway not being in the EU. The difference is mainly due to the oil. Though I think there are other factors too – such as the huge burden that paying for the London Establishment imposes on all UK residents.

    Be that as it may, as in Norway, Scots would be far better of economically even outside the EU and without the Pound. But neither of those scenarios are going to happen. As a matter of fact Scots are quite popular in Europe whereas the London government is increasingly seen as a “Pain in the neck” because it won’t cooperate with the other members on too many issues. As for the pound: without the revenues from Scots oil, England would have a constant balance of payments crises. So the rest of the UK would be desperate for Scots to continue to use the pound, and everybody in the EU would want the Scots to stay.

  12. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    15 Mar, 2014 - 3:37 pm

    [craigmurray.org.uk: Off-topic comments have been removed. Habbabkuk is currently subject to pre-moderation to preserve the topic. Comments removed: Habbabkuk 5, Mary, Doug Scorgie, Juteman, Herbie; 1 each.]

  13. Alex Massie has a good rant about this in The Spectator:

    “Theresa May’s grubby little warning: an independent Scotland will be out in the cold”

    “It is a good thing that government ministers come to Scotland sometimes. It is a bad thing that they insist on opening their mouths when they do. Earlier this year we endured the spectacle of Philip Hammond making an arse of himself; today it has been Theresa May’s turn to make one wish cabinet ministers would, just occasionally, contemplate the virtue of silence.”

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/10/theresa-mays-grubby-little-warning-independent-scotland-will-be-left-out-in-the-cold/

    Anyway, I’m sure all readers will wish the Scots well in their desire for self-determination, as of course they’ll wish the Crimeans well in their similar vote tomorrow.

  14. The message from Westminster seems consistent: “Scotland, we love you and we want you to stay in the UK. But if you leave we will hate you, and act in every way to disadvantage you”.

    Odd that.

  15. Dr Andrew Neal addressed May’s threat last year and found it wanting:

    The Home Secretary is disingenuous to claim that an independent Scotland would be left out of the loop on our island’s security, writes Dr Andrew Neal:

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/comment-scotland-wouldn-t-be-out-of-security-loop-1-3184490?utm_content=buffer865d0&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

    Interesting article and particularly the references to the paper outlining the UK security architecture and of course the way in which politicians are subject to the whims of the security state for what are I’m afraid very dark reasons.

    http://www.referendum.ed.ac.uk/scotland-wouldnt-be-out-of-security-loop/

  16. “Scotland already meets the acquis communitaire, by definition”

    You think? It requires a free press. Does anyone qualify?

  17. Scots NHS staff to receive pay rise denied to Englisn
    By Reevel Alderson
    BBC Scotland’s social affairs correspondent
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26563639

    The above comes from a BBC webpage entitled ‘Scottish Politics Index’.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland/scotland_politics/

    It includes this -

    Defence committee to question Hammond on Vulcan

    MoD ‘to lose’ environment powers
    Q&A: What and where is Vulcan?
    Apology demanded over nuclear fault

    MPs are to question the UK government and Ministry of Defence’s handling of an incident at the Vulcan submarine reactor test site.

    A radioactive discharge discovered at a test reactor at the site adjacent to Dounreay in Caithness in 2012 was made public last week.

    The House of Commons’ defence committee will send its questions to Defence Secretary Philip Hammond.

    The Scottish government has criticised UK ministers and the MoD.

    It is now making plans to remove the MoD’s powers for environmental regulation on radioactivity in Scotland.

    /..
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-26575901

  18. Resident Dissident

    15 Mar, 2014 - 5:13 pm

    Craig

    When Barroso said

    “In case there is a new country, a new state coming out of a current member state, it will have to apply and – this is very important – the application and the accession to the European Union would have to be approved by all the other member states,”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10641833/Jose-Manuel-Barroso-nearly-impossible-for-Scotland-to-join-EU.html

    Do you really believe that he hadn’t been correctly briefed by his EU mandarin as to the process required by EU legislation? If so, why?

  19. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    15 Mar, 2014 - 5:16 pm

    Rodrick Russell

    Your posts touches on GDP and implies – through the comparison with Norway – that an independent Scotland’s GDP would be much higher (for oil-related reasons) than it is as a part of the UK.

    You are aware, I imagine, that if that is correct Scotland is likely to become one of the highest net contributors to the EU budget, and that the remainder of the UK would become a lower net contributor than at present?

  20. Hong Kong was a Scottish creation, and perhaps Scotland can manage independence. Of course HK was founded on piracy and drug running and was an incredibly laissez faire environment far removed from the current Scottish politics. If they free themselves of the UK and at the same time free themselves of conventional left and right wing political thought perhaps they can make something of Scotland, but it would be a shame to see Scotland go. I hope they don’t, but will support them if they do. IN the meanwhile they really need to spend a bit more time on their rugby.

  21. “Scotland welcomes immigrants who contribute to its economy and its culture. Scotland doesn’t have a politics of pandering to racists. That is one of the things which so many Scots want to get away from.”

    Yet people are much more enthusiastic about immigrating to England- compare the proportions of immigrants in the populations of the two countries. If Scotland intends to encourage immigrants and England does not, then either Scotland will have to take steps to ensure they do not leave or England will have to take steps to ensure immigrants do not come to Scotland as a means of immigrating to England. Apart from border controls, what measures would you suggest?

  22. ” Apart from border controls, what measures would you suggest?”
    Increase economic opportunities in Scotland, so folk aren’t forced to leave in search of employment?

  23. @ Habbabkuk 5:16 PM

    If Scotland’s standard of living reached Norwegian levels, nearly doubling as a result of the oil, then she could well afford to pay a little more to the EU.

    Economically I think Scotland benefited in the first 200 years of the Union. The plain fact is that belonging to the UK has not been economically beneficial to Scotland for most of the last century. Over centralization has pumped the economic lifeblood out of Britain’s regions, including Scotland. The City has prospered while the rest of Britain has stagnated. It is time now for Scotland to make its own way; particularly as this is the brief moment in history in which Scotland will have the investment funds (oil) to really invest for its future.

    But for me it’s about more than just economics. I’m not anti-English. In fact I am an anglophile. My late mother, an LSE graduate in the 1930s, came from Norfolk. Most of you know my own well-witnessed history of how London oligarchs – with too much power, and too little brains – have subverted the security / intelligence services to use Stasi style persecution methods against decent citizens.

    It’s not just my problem. What these London establishment buggers have demonstrated is that they can override rule of law and democracy at will. Click on my signature for a description of their methods.

    Behaviour like this is symptomatic of a society that after 300 years has gone rotten and needs changed. As the 6’ 4” guy who skidded a truck at me a few years ago shouted – this is because “you don’t know your place”. And he is bloody right about that – my place is as an equal citizen. I want to live in a free society and that’s not England anymore.

  24. Mods: done.

  25. Resident Dissident

    Actually I know for sure he was speaking without a brief

  26. Habbabkuk

    What a curious non-point. The Czech and Slovak Republics each accepted all treaty obligations of the former Czechoslovakia. Of course that did not include not yet existent EU treaties, but had there been any, they would have been included in the process, which was by deposition at the UN. The Czech and Slovak model is the one I would expect Scotland and WENI to follow – it is much more relevant than the Soviet model which is what the unionists are trying to kid us is applicable.

  27. The problem here is that neither the Czech Republic or Slovakia actually sought successor nation status, mainly because both wanted shot of their Warsaw Pact obligations. A better example might be the break up of the Soviet Union in which case the UN recognised Russia as the successor state because it had the largest population and largest land mass.

    “Scotland’s application and acceptance would be a same day process. ”

    Yeah right; this is the EU we’re talking about. Whenever did they do anything within a day?

  28. Kempe

    Whenever did they expel a single unwilling citizen? Their entire dynamic is one of enlargement – dream on. And again you are taking the politically unrealistic view that other member states of the UN don’t like Scotland, and do like the English, and would wish to disadvantage the Scots. Believe me, in the real world of diplomacy, the opposite is the case.

  29. It’s not a matter of who is liked the most, I dare say Russia has no shortage of enemies at the UN, but of international law.

    I don’t doubt that the EU’s policy is one of enlargement but it’s a bureaucratic juggernaut that moves at a rate that would embarrass a snail. How long did Poland’s negotiations take? Fifteen years wasn’t it?

  30. Craig, I live in Central England and do you think I want to be “led” by the Teresa Mays of this world? They are worse than useless and I loathe them, but like every other person on this island there is nobody I can vote for to get rid of them. We have identikit, self-serving, pompous, homicidal kleptocrats at the top of all main parties and we’re stuck with them. It is almost impossible for anyone honest, sensible – and certainly not nice – to get elected, so such people simply don’t bother. I can only guess what May has said by reading your post above, so though I haven’t heard about it I can judge that it is quite horrible and downright silly. I suggest that people put their heads together on what can be done to rectify our political system. There can be no separatism in fact or practice. It is little more than a fantasy, however many parliaments we dot about the place. All that does is get us even more politicians – Oh, goody! What for? This island is too small, nobody is going anywhere and everybody here is stuck with each other whether we like it or not. We should have administrative systems which reflect that reality and not get side-tracked by non-issues which do nothing to address the real problems either of this country or the globe and which will do nothing to benefit the people of this country.

    I was reading ‘Murder in Samarkand’ last year, and there is a bit in there where you recall sitting in a café or something in London, watching the crowd go by. I can’t remember exactly, but you said something about the bombing of the war and ‘my people’. What went wrong?

  31. Could we not make this referendum more inclusive by allowing anyone north (or west) of Birmingham a vote on ‘independence’? Ramsgate would be truly doomed.

  32. pete fairhurst

    15 Mar, 2014 - 8:36 pm

    There are 2 massive problems with Scottish “Independence” as currently on offer:

    1. The Queen will still be head of state

    2. Scotland will not have its own currency

    What sort of independence is that? Still tied to the corrupt Saxe Cobury Gotha’s? Still tied to the corrupt Money Power? Its certainly not Sovereignty. Its certainly not Freedom.

    Wake up Scots. “Independence” is not enough

  33. Pete,

    Of course you are right. But independence is a necessary step towards getting rid of the Queen, the pound and NATO. How do we do that without independence?

  34. First, there are no grounds for the assumption that WENI will be the successor state and Scotland a legal new entity; the Czechs and Slovaks, for example, both inherited the entire treaty obligations of the former Czechoslovakia.

    A closer analogy would be Russia, which inherited all the treaty rights and obligations of the USSR.

    Can Alec Salmond please declare as soon as possible that the first £85000 in people’s bank accounts in Scotland will continue to enjoy the protection that they do now, under the UK government’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

    Salmond needs to say explicitly that his guarantee does NOT depend on anything the rump UK government, or the EU, might do.

    You cannot expect people to vote to make their bank accounts less safe.

    If Salmond is telling the truth when he says that the Scottish economy is as sound as a rock and as buoyant as a beach ball, he needs to put his mouth where his…er…where his mouth is, and issue this guarantee right now.

    Otherwise even the lard-arsed nationalism aroused by the Commonwealth Games won’t save him.

    I mean all the credit ratings agencies are wrong…and the EU lawyers are wrong…and of course “Westminster” and the “London media” (euphemisms for ‘FEB’ of course) are all wrong…

    …so…will people’s bank accounts stay as safe as they are now? Yes or no?

    The ‘promises’ on this matter in the ‘Scotland’s Future’ document are obviously worth nothing.

    People should demand a guarantee at least as strong as the UK government’s one, right now.

    Meanwhile, is that a giraffe I just spotted, flying past my window? :-)

  35. pete fairhurst

    15 Mar, 2014 - 9:10 pm

    Well said Richard at 8.28.

    Ordinary people should stick together. Its the only chance that we’ve got against this corrupt, psychopathic, kleptocracy that pretends to run the show now. Divide and rule has always been their game.

    Democracy is in crisis because our so called representatives, whose theoretical job is to represent our views to government, actually do the exact opposite – they represent governments views to us. We have the worst of all worlds. We are ruled by an unelected elite, who are largely invisible and who are entirely unaccountable

  36. pete fairhurst

    15 Mar, 2014 - 9:17 pm

    Craig

    Do you seriously believe that you will get rid of the Queen and the Money Power and Nato if “Independence” is achieved? You surely know better than that? You know how these people work far better than I do I think.

    Freedom is not on offer. And never will be in my opinion. We need to stick together not split apart. One look at the map tells you that

  37. “Of course you are right. But independence is a necessary step towards getting rid of the Queen, the pound and NATO. How do we do that without independence?”

    Wouldn’t it be dishonest and undemocratic to say Scotland would keep the monarchy before the referendum then abolish it afterwards?

    I’m no great fan of the monarchy myself but I know they are immensely popular with the masses, you can tell by how many newspapers they sell.

    If Scotland is planning on becoming a republic then shouldn’t it say that on the manifesto?

  38. Out of a 5.3m population, with a voter registration of 74% and a 65% expected turnout, only 1.25m YES votes are required. Any good politician could target the following segments to reach the magic total.

    1) Nationalists
    2) Unionised workers re guaranteed rights
    3) Civil servants and Local government workers
    4) Teachers
    5) Students
    6) Pro-internet anti NSA anti USA
    7) Anti-war
    8) Anti-nuclear weapons
    9) Pro BDS Pro Palestine
    10)Greens
    11)ring fence pensions
    12)ring fence NHS
    13)In fact Cameron already lost Scotland with his tribal speech in the Knesset, no Scot really wants to be part of the emerging NWO

    All the uncertainty may be removed by reminding the voters that the parting will not be less than a slow steady five year process, not some overnight chaos.

  39. @The Numbers. Anti-NSA? How about anti-GCHQ? But take a look at the Scottish Government’s Lilliputian Scotland’s Futuredocument.

    As for anti-USA, they could easily say they’re going to be neutral. They love mentioning NATO members Denmark and Norway. How about mentioning neutral Switzerland, Sweden, and Ireland?

    Their weasel words about nuclear-armed US naval vessels are worth reading for their amusement value. Basically yes, they are planning to allow the US military to bring nuclear weapons to Scottish ports whenever it wants.

    Here you go:

    282. Will NATO members with nuclear-armed vessels be allowed
    to enter Scottish waters or dock at Scottish ports?

    It is our firm position that an independent Scotland should not host nuclear weapons and we would only join NATO on that
    basis. While the presence of nuclear weapons on a particular vessel is never confirmed by any country, we would expect any visiting vessel to respect the rules that are laid down by the government of an independent Scotland.

    While they are both strong advocates for nuclear disarmament, both Norway and Denmark allow NATO vessels to visit their ports without confirming or denying whether they carry nuclear weapons. We intend that Scotland will adopt a similar approach as Denmark and Norway in this respect.

    That is horse-shit. Denmark and New Zealand both used to insist that no US vessels could come to their ports unless the US assured them they were not carrying nuclear weapons.

    Scotland could do the fucking same. Instead you get horse-shit about being ‘strong advocates’ of nuclear disarmament, which is utterly worthless.

    Oh and they boast (page 488) that they will continue after ‘independence’ to work “very closely” with GCHQ, MI5 and MI6.

    What kind of ‘independence proposal’ is it that says ‘we will work ever so closely with a foreign country’s spies and receivers of information gained by torture‘?

  40. @Peter Fairhurst – I agree: divide and rule has indeed always been their game, and that is certainly what’s going on here.

    All nationalism is xenophobic. No exceptions. There’s no ‘clean’ nationalism based on human values.

    All nationalism stinks, even if some Scottish nationalists like to put stickers on their cars saying ‘Ecosse’ and ‘Skottland’.

    All nationalism encourages an alliance between working class people in an area and their exploiters – or more exactly, between working class people in an area and the idiots in the national assembly or on the telly who do a ‘local’ job for what is a centralised global dictatorship.

    Every nation is a brand and is consciously managed as such.

    If I didn’t think things would be worse in Scotland if the vote went ‘yes’, I would continue the position I’ve had on bourgeois elections all my life, which is ‘don’t vote – it only encourages them’. As it happens, I may make an exception and vote…vote ‘no’.

  41. Off-topic: Ukraine:

    OSCE official Dunja Mijatović has said that

    national security concerns should not be used at the expense of media freedom.

    I read that statement on RT. It’s so incredibly stupid that I checked whether it was genuine. It is.

    Everyone has the right to receive information from as many sources as he or she wishes,” Mijatovic said.

    I am a card-carrying cynic, and even my jaw is dropping at the sheer level of idiocy of Mijatovic’s statement.

  42. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    16 Mar, 2014 - 12:04 am

    @ Roderick Russell, Juteman and Resident Dissident

    @ Roderick Russell

    “If Scotland’s standard of living reached Norwegian levels, nearly doubling as a result of the oil, then she could well afford to pay a little more to the EU.”
    _____________

    The first part of that is hypothetical and in my opinion, unrealistic. Be that as it may, though, Scotland would be paying a lot and not a little more; this is a function of how the receipts side of the EU budget operates. Furthermore, there will be no chance of an independent Scotland obtaining a UK-style rebate on its budgetary contributions.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Juteman

    “Re Barruso, this might answer a few questions.
    http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8881-barroso-eu-indy-comments-fuelled-by-personal-agenda-says-french-mp
    _______________

    That particular squib has already been aired on a previous thread; its repetition means that it deserves some comment, all the more so since it is not serious.

    Firstly, the two MEPs in question – Lemaire (PS) and Garriaud-Maylam (UMP) spoke in a personal capacity (they are of course perfectly entitled to do so) and not on behalf of their European parliamentary groupings.

    Secondly, when Garriaud-Maylalm said “If Scotland votes for independence, it will stay in the EU”, she did not mean to say – as Craig seems to believe – that Scotland will just carry on as if nothing happened. She meant that Scotland will wish to stay in the UK, that it will undergo the normal application procedures governing accession applications (these are likely to be rapid, because as has been said, Scotland already applies the acquis communautaire), that it will be found eligible (again, rapidly) and that there will be unanimous agreement to admit her to membership. So, “stay in” in that sense: she will leave first and then rapidly (re)join.

    Thirdly, Lemaire citicizes Barroso as follows : “I don’t think it was up to President Barroso to say what he thinks about it”.

    This is nonsense. Barroso, as President of the Commission, is fully entitled to say what he thinks about not Scottish independence per se but about the (EU) legal consequences of Scotland leaving the UK and the process for rejoining.

    Lemaire then throws a bit of mud by hinting that Barroso wants to snuggle up to David Cameron because he might be angling for the NATO SG job. Well, this is her take on a political opponent and remains purely speculative. But even if it were the case that Barroso is after that job, he would be wasting his time: he has no chance (and not because of hypothetical opposition from David Cameron).
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Resident Dissident

    Your understanding – that Barroso was correctly briefed on the EU Treaty processes involved – is of course correct.

    Actually, I do not think that the Telegraph article you referred to was written in good faith. A good example of this is that it contains words suggesting that Spain blocked Kosova’s “accession”…whereas what in fact happened was that Spain has (still) not recognised Kosovo as an independent country. So – non-recognition and not blocking accession.

  43. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    16 Mar, 2014 - 12:05 am

    Craig

    “What a curious non-point. The Czech and Slovak Republics each accepted all treaty obligations of the former Czechoslovakia. Of course that did not include not yet existent EU treaties, but had there been any, they would have been included in the process, which was by deposition at the UN.”
    _________________

    Not curious at all, Craig, and I’ll explain why.

    Let us suppose that Czechoslovakia has been a member of the EC pursuant to a EC-Czechoslovakia Accession Treaty. Now, the Separation Law (or Separation Treaty, call it what you will) voted by the Czechoslovak parliament could have talked about the new Czech Republic and the new Slovakia assuming the obligations flowing from the obligations of the EC-Czechoslovakia Treaty as much as it wanted, but that would not have changed the fact that one of the two parties to that Treaty (ie, Czechslovakia) no longer existed. Hence that Treaty no longer had an object. Hence both the Czech Republic and Slovakia would have had to negotiate new Accession Treaties leading to membership.

    In the case of an independent Scotland , however, the position is different: the two parties to the EC (as was)-UK Accession Treaty subsist – ie, both the EU and the UK still exis – the only difference being that the geographical extent of the UK has changed.

  44. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    16 Mar, 2014 - 12:06 am

    Kempe

    “I don’t doubt that the EU’s policy is one of enlargement but it’s a bureaucratic juggernaut that moves at a rate that would embarrass a snail. How long did Poland’s negotiations take? Fifteen years wasn’t it?”
    _______________

    To be fair, I think you’re making the same mostake as Craig and some others, ie, you’re making invalid comparisons. The accession processes for candidate states are indeed long, one of the reasons being that the process of verifying that the candidate state conforms to the acquis communautaire is a long and painstaking process. For example, the EU wants to see the appropriate legislation in place in the candidate state (there are over 30 so-called “chapters” which have to be successfully verified and concluded).

    Now, the Scottish case is not the same because, as has already been correctly pointed out, Scotland – as part of the UK – already applies the acquis communautaire. So what remains, essentially, are matters like budgetary contributions, fishing quotas, the setting up of various regulatory bodies, etc, etc; these are essentially technical points although some of them are of course likely to be the subject of hard negotiation. But nothing like the Polish process.

  45. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    16 Mar, 2014 - 12:07 am

    Craig writes

    “Her threat to close the border is a patent bluff, and motivated by racism.”
    ________________________

    Now it would perhaps have been helpful if we had got more detail from Craig on exactly what Theresa May said. To provide back up for the rest of his post.

    But let us assume that she gave no detail and merely said what Craig said (“close the border”).

    At present, EU member states are free, generally speaking, to conduct their own immigration policies vis à vis non-EU member states. Vis à vis other EU member states, the principle of free movement applies.

    Neither of the above two elements will change in the event of Scottish independence. Hence

    1/. If an independent Scotland were to remain outside the EU, the UK would be perfectly entitled to apply whatever immigration limitations it liked to Scottish nationals;

    2/. If it were to join the EU, then its nationals would be able to circulate freely throughout the EU, including the UK.

    As far as physical borders controls are concerned, the UK would be entitled to introduce these on the UK-Scotland border even if Scotland were to join the EU:this is because the UK is not part of the Schengen area.

    Conclusion : even if Theresa May is bluffing, she is on a solid legal foundation

  46. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    16 Mar, 2014 - 12:08 am

    N_

    This is the second time you have posted on the evasions and weasel words in the Scottish govt’s so-called comprehensive, tell-things-as-they-are document.

    You are absolutely right. I wonder if you would agree with me that those weasel words and statements – they are legion – demonstrate that those on this blog who think that Scottish politicians are a nobler, more moral and somehow higher order of humans than English politicians are just deluding themselves?

  47. Bob Crow = obituary? – eulogy? – ‘swan song?’ or enmity?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io_wwkPZwWI

    Posted on the Conservative web-site.

  48. Habakkuk says “In the case of an independent Scotland , however, the position is different: the two parties to the EC (as was)-UK Accession Treaty subsist – ie, both the EU and the UK still exis – the only difference being that the geographical extent of the UK has changed.”

    Except that one of the parties- the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland- will no longer exist. The original United Kingdom was the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Everything- every act, treaty, debt, agreement made, such as the membership of Northern Ireland- that followed stems from that and will have to be parcelled up between successor states if it divides. It’s something advocates for Scottish independence don’t like to discuss, though. Logically there either would be two successor states and both would be parts of the EU or neither would be.
    My own guess is that Barroso and others emphasise Scotland’s hypothetical departure from the EU and the rest of the UK’s hypothetical continuation because they think Scotland would apply for membership and accept new terms under these conditions if they were not in the EU, but the rest of the UK wouldn’t.

  49. You are surely correct, an independent Scotland would be, or would become, an EU member. But is that really what the Scotch want? Instead of having great influence within the democratic UK, they will have negligible influence within the undemocratic EU. Seems a truly bizarre choice.

    Better would be to promote maximum devolution of power within a UK confederation of regions including the Highlands and Islands, England North, Mid and South, both left and right, Wales North and South, London and Northern Ireland. That would be truly democratic and would provide every region greater freedom than can be achieved by busting up the UK and subordinating the parts to the EU.

  50. According to this source, the idea that Scotland’s going to be rich from N. Sea oil is a delusion:

    The SNP’s main economic platform is that Scotland should own the revenue from North Sea oil and gas, making it a petro-dollar paradise equivalent to Norway. Although they have similar populations (5.05 million for Norway, 5.3 million for Scotland), the hydrocarbon revenues are massively different. Norway’s government gathered $40 billion in 2013 (according to the BBC) while the UK made $10.8 billion (according to the Financial Times), a fall of 40 per cent from 2012. Current predictions? Further falls, to £3.3 billion ($5.5 billion) in 2016/17, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    There’s no amount of careful stewardship that is going to magic $5.5 billion into $40 billion, when many of the North Sea rigs are at the end of their life and production levels are falling.”

    Still, by achieving independence, they’ll get rid of the queen — maybe (as if it mattered) and go back to using nails for currency. As for Nato, they may be out of it but they’ll still have NATO military installations on their territory, including England’s nuclear subs.

  51. But maybe an independent Scotland will appoint Craig Murray ambassador to England. LOL

  52. Ireland, hopefully!

  53. BrianFujisan

    16 Mar, 2014 - 7:01 am

    At Grass roots .. Most All From the Inverclyde area Is Yes…

  54. It’s not very clear what all the fuss over Scotland and the EU is about.

    I can certainly see why some member governments are screaming; the UK, Spain, Belgium etc. These old sloths have a lot to lose as individual states on the world stage and within the EU.

    But why would the EU as a body or even its Parliament and Commission be bothered. Surely a Europe of the regions would be much better from their perspective.

    A dream fulfilled, as it were.

    It appears not even superannuated former employees can explain the problem.

  55. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    16 Mar, 2014 - 8:01 am

    Hector

    “”Habakkuk says “In the case of an independent Scotland , however, the position is different: the two parties to the EC (as was)-UK Accession Treaty subsist – ie, both the EU and the UK still exis – the only difference being that the geographical extent of the UK has changed.”

    Except that one of the parties- the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland- will no longer exist.”
    ___________________

    No, that is incorrect. That was the point of my post. Both parties to the EC(as was)-EC Accession Treaty still exist.

    Take another example. Let us pretend that the Baltic states were to withdraw from the European Union (under Russian pressure, for example): would this mean that the EU no longer exists – and that all the former Member States would have to start all over again and renegotiate a European Union? Of course not. The EU would still exist, albeit with an altered geographical extent.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Everything- every act, treaty, debt, agreement made, such as the membership of Northern Ireland- that followed stems from that and will have to be parcelled up between successor states if it divides.”

    _______________________

    Again, incorrect. Most elements of the EU – UK arrangements (eg, the application of the acquis communautaire in the UK) would continue unaffected. To be sure, there would need to be adjustments, but these are essentially of a technical nature (to use my previous examples again, the UK budgetary contribution, fisheries arrangements and so on).

    Hope this clarifies.

  56. I hate it when people’s instincts are to raise the race card over a debate on immigration. Why must it be racist to discuss such a salient issue? I am black and I am not naive -I know certainly that there are racists in both the Conservative and UKIP parties- but racism becomes irrelevant when addressing the facts of such a big issue as immigration. The left immediately throws up the race card as a tool to side step the immigration debate and not engage with facts. You don’t need to study rocket science to know that unless the newly joining EU countries of Eastern Europe grow economically to be on par with the West, the immigration flow towards the West will be domestically economically unsustainable in terms of the welfare state and unemployment. The UK over the previous decade has experienced excessively high net immigration! So what is wrong with the Home Secretary pragmatically saying that if Scotland becomes independent, adopts a looser immigration policy, negotiates new treaties with the EU(which I am sure will contain an imposition by the EU Commission of all the latest integrationist policies due to Barosso’s federalist ideology) while the UK under the Tories will be doing the exact opposite of all of that, she will have to use checks on the Scottish-UK border to ensure Scotland isn’t exploited as a wide open doorway into the UK?

    Craig I want you to sincerely face the facts of the issue and not just throw up the race card. That’s a low blow. I have British citizenship but I have only just used it recently to come to the UK and study. So I am technically an immigrant. I think its only immigrants to the UK who can genuinely attest to the weakness of the UK’s immigration and asylum policy and how it has been mercilessly exploited by people of foreign countries. Yet the liberal left is dogmatically stuck to its universalist ideology and scared to engage in any debate which has just a tiny element of race for fear of appearing racist. Personally I think what UKIP says about immigration is logically sound- leaving the EU is the only way for the UK to genuinely have real control of its borders as a sovereign state. But, I think in the larger scheme of things, when all the economic benefits are taken into account, EU immigration and regulation, although economically disastrous are outweighed by the huge trade benefits the UK gains from EU membership.

  57. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    16 Mar, 2014 - 8:22 am

    For what it’s worth, just to clarify further:

    1/. I have no strong feelings about whether Scotland should leave the UK or not. I should note in passing, however – this has already been touched on in previous threads – that independence would be likely to consolidate a permanent Conservative majority in the UL parliament (which could be an argument for saying that the entire UK should vote on the question).

    2/. It would of course be helpful if the voters of Scotland were in possession of all the pros and cons of taking such a decision, based on objective and clear information. This is unlikely to happen, as the pronouncements of the UK govt on the one hand and the document of the Scottish govt so far have made fairly clear.
    And, of course, certain implications will remain unclear by their very nature – there is the element of a leap in the dark.

    3/. Although the situation would be entirely unprecedented, the EU lawyers would certainly be able to devise a legal construction which would allow the “gap” between Scotland leaving the UK and its admission back into the EU to be reduced to a minimum. Negotiations could take place in the interval between a yes vote and Scotland (re)joining in order to so reduce. To be noted however that a new EU-Scotland Treaty needs not only to be signed but also – subsequently – ratified by all 28 Member States. Here, experience has shown that the time necessary varies considerably between Member States, procedures varying from lightening speed to quite a long time.

  58. Well.

    So now we can all agree that a secession of Scotland from the EU is not a real problem for the EU at all.

    Why did anyone bring it up.

    It’s purely a problem for the UK, and some other member states who are facing similar internal difficulties.

    For the EU it’s no more than an administrative problem.

    But interestingly, the EU has found cast upon itself the Gorby/Yeltsin dilemma.

    Those old drivers of the European project would not have found themselves in that position, and that tells you all you need to know about the difference between today’s crop of greasy pole bureaucrats and real leaders.

    There’s a lesson there in terms of comparisons between Obama and Putin as well, albeit of a much more dangerous kind.

  59. First EU should be UK, obviously.

  60. “”It is [censorship],” Jaani Riordan, a barrister specialising in technology litigation, told Wired.co.uk. “Removal of lawful material by government simply because it offends governmental or public policy is without justification.”

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/15/government-web-censorship

  61. “How to stop NSA spying through your webcam”

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/14/nsa-spying-webcam

  62. For what it’s worth, just to clarify further:

    1/. I have no strong feelings about whether Scotland should leave the UK or not. I should note in passing, however – this has already been touched on in previous threads – that independence would be likely to consolidate a permanent Conservative majority in the UL parliament (which could be an argument for saying that the entire UK should vote on the question).

    Habba makes a good point.

  63. Craig,

    An excellent piece as usual.

    Scotland will vote YES in September because it is the best thing for us to build the country we want and not have policies we do not vote for imposed on us.

    If the RUK government wishes to be spiteful and impose restrictions on us then so be it, we will have to live with it. However, by there actions ye shall know them and it will show them up for who they are.

    If however we vote No; then god help us for these spiteful politicians in Westminster will strip us of powers and impose further cuts on us.

    Vote YES in September; remember, the Better Together campaign don’t call themselves “Project Fear” for nothing

    CraigE

  64. Sorry Craig, but you are just indulging in wishful thinking about the EU. Firstly it wouldn’t be forced out. It would be leaving a Member State and forming a new non-member state. That is fairly straightforward and it’s foolish to pretend otherwise. There are arguments to be had about whether it yet qualifies for membership and, if so, whether other MS would let it in on the nod. Personally, I think the politics of it would say not, but that’s for others to decide. What I do know is that burying your head in the nationalist sand over the EU doesn’t help anyone. Nor does the obvious victim mentality.

  65. well said Richard at 8:28, for the reasons you mention those few bothered and principled are now throwing in the towel, they had enough. Party politicians ride on and work with this disollution as it is the only way they can get their few supporters to vote, by dropping 6 tons of leaflets, lying and promising the earth, and by fraud through the postal voting system.

    Give me a randomly selected lottocracy tommorrow!

    I also agree with OEM, racism is inherent in most EU states due to their colonial past and records of slavery, still pratcised today in this and other countries, whether its gangmasters in the Fenlands withholding payslips, or Middle eastern princes retaining pay and passports of their domestic slaves.

    That immigration has a special place on an island, is historic. What is going on here is party political jousting with immigration. Whilst all parties have no solution they are tinkering and sticky plastering their social policies to suit their specific rabid line.

    Those who think that Independence will rid Scotland of its sectarianism, its religious relics whipping up nasty fervours for 400 years, should realise that such favouritism and jockality will be seen as the religious racismn it is.

    Scotland could acess the EU within a month, there I agree with Craig, they could choose the Euro. But why should they wait with disolving the royal estates and their reliance on paegantry? Why should they want to replace such theatre by electing their own head of state?

  66. @Hab

    This is the second time you have posted on the evasions and weasel words in the Scottish govt’s so-called comprehensive, tell-things-as-they-are document.

    You are absolutely right. I wonder if you would agree with me that those weasel words and statements – they are legion – demonstrate that those on this blog who think that Scottish politicians are a nobler, more moral and somehow higher order of humans than English politicians are just deluding themselves?

    I don’t think those statements say anything about anybody here (except that some of them are probably in the intended market for such statements), but I do agree that many pro-independence Scots hold exactly the view that you ascribe to them, and yes I have encountered it here on this blog.

    They joke and say “we’re above you”. Meaning “to the north” as well as “superior”. And the English are “down below”. Er, yes mate, ha ha, very witty. When you hear that – and you can hear it even from educated people – it’s kind of embarrassing!

    The most ambitious Scots leave Scotland, and that’s been the case for a long long time.

    The ‘independence first, and then we’ll get rid of the monarchy, leave NATO, etc. afterwards‘ position has always been ridiculous.

    I was quite surprised to see it coming from Craig.

    A vote for independence is not in any way a vote against the monarchy and NATO, any more than that could be said of a vote for the union.

    A lot could be said about referenda and how the ‘time for a change‘ side, in circumstances where a lot of people actually want a change, presents a bunch of proposals which is such a crock of politician-style bullshit, lies, and cocky stupidity that, in the end, people vote for the status quo, i.e. for the ‘better the devil you know‘.

    I hope the racist feeling against English people doesn’t increase drastically after the referendum. In North Wales, and even in parts of South Wales, there are many areas where English people aren’t welcome.

    In England, racist attacks on non-whites increase at the time of big-market international sporting competitions.

    The reason the referendum is being held this year is not to do with the Battle of Bannockburn. It’s because of the Commonwealth Games, where England and Scotland field separate teams.

    In Scotland, there is just as much racism as there is in England. Fewer people get stabbed, is about all you can say, which is of course a good thing. But that’s probably to do with social geography. There’s just as much talk of “Pakis”. Anyone who doubts that, please try travelling on late-night buses in Glasgow for a week.

    Or find some inner-city schools which take a lot of white and a lot of non-white pupils and ask white parents what they think about that and what criticisms they would make of how it works in practice.

    If you do, you will hear a lot of racism.

    I hope Craig doesn’t credentialise himself by saying he’s travelled oh so widely in the schemes (council or ex-council estates, some of which are enormous) and he knows to the contrary. If he does, he’ll be wrong.

    Scottish nationalism is his intellectual weak point. We probably all have them. That and he’d like a job as McAmbassador of course. Or maybe McHigh Commissioner?

    A common view of English people in Scotland is that they’re all right so long as they don’t start demanding things or telling Scots what’s what.

    The most boneheaded Scottish nationalists find it hard just to accept people as people, even though most of them assert otherwise. They associate English accents with racism against Scottish people. That is in most cases a complete load of rubbish. Most English people living in Scotland have little problem with Scottish people, and they live in Scotland because they like it there, which obviously includes liking a lot of the culture and a lot of the people.

    Of course an English person in Scotland is just as likely to be racist against “Pakis” as a Scottish person is.

    But the Scottish person, if they are racist against the English, will probably take the view that the “Pakis” are better than the “English”. It’s commonly heard from shopkeepers of Pakistani origin in Scotland that when Pakistan beats England at cricket, “everyone’s” happy. Scottish people come into their shops and say “Hey, Pakistan beat England! Nice one!”

    I should of course underline that some Scottish people are NOT racist against the English and have ample sense NOT to watch sport on the telly.

    As with many things, it’s only the arseholes who cause the problem, and many people are NOT arseholes.

    An English person who stands their ground in a discussion with a certain type of Scot is seen as being an annoying stuck-up English bastard just because the English person hasn’t keeled over and accepted that, at the end of the day, it’s Scotland for the Scots and he, as an English person, is merely tolerated so long as he doesn’t step out of line.

    In other words, the English person is a foreigner and should either pass Norman Tebbit’s cricket test or accept that the most he can ever aspire to is being allowed to offer an advisory opinion to the ubermensch and then be told whether it’s accepted or not.

    Even lefty Scottish nationalists back some form of the cricket test. Sometimes they get right narky when this is pointed out to them.

    In fact the English person might hold the view that a road should be widened, or taxes should be increased, or this or that change should be made (or not made) to government policy, for reasons which have zero to do with their English nationality. He might just be a person who lives somewhere and has views on stuff. And why the hell shouldn’t he? He may well have some kind of view that he’s living in his own country too: Britain. Many Scottish people don’t like English people in Scotland going around with that idea in their heads!

    But the saltire has been waved and the Scottish person of the anti-English type has been persuaded by the opinion formers, with little effort. In other words, he holds his view because someone sold it to him wrapped in a saltire. People don’t like admitting to that kind of idiocy. He is, in a word, stupid. All racists are stupid. Anti-English Scottish racists are no exception.

    In our illustrative dialogue, the anti-English Scot can’t face up to the fact that the English person might be more rational and aware than he is, and might hold his view for some other reason than someone has sold it to him wrapped in the flag of St George.

    Scottish nationalists often say that English people don’t make a distinction between English nationalism and British nationalism.

    The only way in which that is true is that sometimes some English people who aren’t thinking too much of what they’re saying might refer to the country Britain (you know, the country that has international relations, passports, borders, and stuff) as being “England“. While that riles Scottish nationalists to the max (and in fact it often also annoys non-nationalists like myself), actually it isn’t as bad as it sounds, because nobody actually believes Scotland is or should be in England. The English person has just forgotten about the existence of the small-population country to the north. I mean should they really be treated as if they were Cecil Rhodes or Rudyard Kipling or a Tory scumbag for that? After all, they have been subjected to conditioning too. In most cases they don’t mean to put anyone down and will immediately correct themselves when challenged. Some of them probably learn something.

    The ‘chips on the Scottish shoulder’ thing is widely known south of the border. I’m sorry, but this is one of the psychological trait with which Scottish nationalism is associated, for many of its adherents.

    That’s why, the last I heard, there was the extraordinary position that the polls were showing a majority in England in favour of Scottish independence, and a majority in Scotland against! Does anyone know of any parallels to that? I don’t.

    There is an oft-heard Scottish view that “foreigners are welcome, so long as they contribute to Scottish society”. They’re ‘welcome’ as ‘new Scots’. That is, of course, a case of speaking with forked tongues.

    Any pro-independence types reading this, how about you address the issue of racism in Scotland, including anti-English racism? Start by admitting it exists.

    When an English person ‘insists’ on something, then sometimes the chips on the Scottish shoulder start growing into boulders, and the person is denounced along the lines that ‘you would say that, because you’re English‘, even though the person’s Englishness probably has fuck-all to do with what they’re saying. It’s as though Englishness is the first and last thing the Scottish anti-English type sees, a bit like when a black person says something and the main thing for a white racist is that the person is black.

  67. racism is inherent in most EU states due to their colonial past and records of slavery

    How on earth did you arrive at that view?

    Racism is easily as bad in the Czech republic, Poland or Switzerland as it is in Russia – and worse than it is in Britain.

    I have met dark-skinned Asian people married to white people who have got out of the Czech republic because the racism against them was so pervasive there.

  68. “I have met dark-skinned Asian people married to white people who have got out of the Czech republic because the racism against them was so pervasive there.”

    I know somebody had the same problem in Dundee. Couldn’t walk down the street together without being spat at.

  69. You misunderstand me, Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!- apologies for thinking you a minor prophet. The UK was established as the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 by the political union of England and Scotland. Everything that has happened since then has been with the agreement and acquiescence of Scotland. The departure of Scotland means the break-up and division of everything that has accrued to the UK and every agreement and treaty the UK has made since 1707.

  70. “The departure of Scotland means the break-up and division of everything that has accrued to the UK and every agreement and treaty the UK has made since 1707.”

    Well no, that’s the whole point of a successor state, one that takes on all the obligations.

    Habb, I only used Poland as an example because Craig mentioned that he’d been involved in the negotiations. The fastest accession to the EU so far have been Austria, Sweden and Finland who were able to accede a mere two years after negotiations began (having had to wait a month for them to start). The idea that Scotland’s application could be dealt with in a day or even a month is laughable.

  71. Everything that has happened since (1707) has been with the agreement and acquiescence of Scotland.

    If that were true, you should be able to say what precise entity expressed its agreement in what precise form.

    Can you even show that the entity acted as a person in any way whatsoever after 1707?

    If you want independence, you leave and you become a country that is foreign to ‘WENI’.

    Instead, we get SNP politicians saying things like yes, they want Scottish passports, and they want people’s passports to have “Scotland” written on them when they get renewed.

    And they want so many percent of the army.

    And they want access to intelligence collected by GCHQ. I’m not making this up!

    It might help if you considered what kind of entity ‘Scotland’ is, rather than going by irrational feelings that you love it and that it dates back beyond the dawn of recorded time, as almost all nationalists like to believe.

    The departure of Scotland means the break-up and division of everything that has accrued to the UK and every agreement and treaty the UK has made since 1707.

    What does it mean to break up or divide a treaty? Your vocabulary and emotions are running ahead of your understanding.

    Russia took over the Soviet seat in the Security Council and all other obligations and rights that were held by the USSR under international treaties.

    After the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, Germany continued to pay reparations to the UK even when Ireland left the union known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 3 years later, to be replaced in a new union by Northern Ireland.

    If you’d been the German government’s lawyer, you’d have told them to bang the table like true zealots of the law and tell the British ambassador that from now on they were sending a proportion of the reparations payments to London and another proportion to Dublin, right?

    Your problem is that your premise is wrong. The political regime in Britain isn’t really a union. That’s only true when words are used vaguely. It’s a single entity. No union has signed a treaty. There has been no ‘agreement’ by constituent parts of the ‘union’ to any treaty signed by the ‘union’, and you are mistaken to think otherwise. Scottish independence would mean that a bit breaks off. Not leaves the union, but breaks off from the united entity.

    Stop saying the English won’t let you do stuff. That’s not what’s happening. That idiotic theme comes up again and again.

    For example, it comes up in the discussion of the currency. The Scottish authorities have no right to demand a currency union with WENI. What they have is a right to suggest negotiations to try to achieve one, and they may get rebuffed if the other party isn’t interested. Tough. That’s international relations for you.

    The truth is that the Scottish Government’s published plan for ‘independence’ isn’t for real independence at all. If Scotland becomes independent, the Scottish authorities should be prepared to run their own monetary policy – and they should certainly run their own citizenship.

    Quit with thinking you can have your cake and eat it. Having a brass plate on your door because your dad got you into the freemasons doesn’t make you sharp or knowledgeable. Grow up.

  72. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    16 Mar, 2014 - 3:04 pm

    N_

    ““racism is inherent in most EU states due to their colonial past and records of slavery”

    How on earth did you arrive at that view?

    Racism is easily as bad in the Czech republic, Poland or Switzerland as it is in Russia – and worse than it is in Britain.

    I have met dark-skinned Asian people married to white people who have got out of the Czech republic because the racism against them was so pervasive there.”

    ____________________

    Excellent points, N_.

    May I also point out that racism and slavery pre-date, by a very, very long time, the formation of European countries. I have heard that the tribes of Israel were taken into Egypt in slavery (where did I read that?); Arab traders in the Middle Ages and later were active in the negro slave trade; ancient Athens ran on slaves. And so on.

    But no, of course, its all the fault of the West again! :)

  73. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    16 Mar, 2014 - 3:10 pm

    Hector

    “The departure of Scotland means the break-up and division of everything that has accrued to the UK and every agreement and treaty the UK has made since 1707.”
    ___________________

    That is incorrect. To take just one example (in one of Craig’s former fields, as it happens): the UK is a party to the Law of the Sea Convention – is it your contention that this Convention will become null and void as far as the UK is concerned?

  74. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    16 Mar, 2014 - 3:13 pm

    Kempe

    Thanks for that. But I think I may have dealt with that in point 3 of my post at 08h22 this morning?

  75. “the UK is a party to the Law of the Sea Convention – is it your contention that this Convention will become null and void as far as the UK is concerned?”

    Yes, Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!, unless the new states formed from the former UK accept it in their articles of division. After all, as one question to be dealt with will be the division of what are now British territorial waters one of the parties involved may find it in their interest not to accept it.

  76. @Hab – Agreed on the long history of racism and slavery.

    Another example outside of the West is the prevalence of slavery in Africa before the western slave traders arrived.

    I don’t know of any ethnic group in which leaders were given the chance to get a slice of the slave action and all of the said leaders said no thanks.

    As well as Hebrews being enslaved, other Hebrews also kept slaves – there are rules governing slavery in the Hebrew Bible or ‘Old Testament’ as Christians call it. Theoretically the line was that Jewish slaves should be redeemed (there was no such line regarding non-Jewish slaves), but in an odd echo of 20th century history, often the Jewish leaders dragged their feet or thought of reasons to change the line…for ever so temporary and contingent reasons of course! Not sure why you mention only “Arab” involvement in the negro slave trade. There was Jewish involvement too (OK, some of the Jews were Arabs, but some weren’t), and of course there was also black involvement, which sometimes those involved in black studies are prone to forget or skim over.

  77. It was John Major, about twenty years ago, who suggested that he was opposed to separatism despite the fact that it would probably give his party a majority in the remainder of the U.K. for the foreseeable future. He was suggesting – honestly or otherwise – that he put the welfare of the country and her people before party political advantage.

    My suspicion is that the present lot have made a similar calculation but have reversed Major’s priorities. I have no way of actually knowing, and I certainly can’t prove it, but I suspect Cameron and his chums at best don’t care about Scottish separatism and at worst are actually hoping that it happens. Every time they open their kissers to speak “for” the union they don’t just say something clumsy and counter-productive, they do so with an unpleasantness which is totally uncalled for. Once is a gaffe, twice looks particularly incompetent, but more often than that and something else – something unspoken – is going on.

    If this hunch is right, then Salmond, who comes across like as wily a politician who ever stood on a soapbox, knows it. They are handing him ammo, he’s using it, they know he knows and he knows they know and if the gap can be closed between “no” and “yes”, they both get what they want. The people of these islands, however, wake up to exactly the same real problems as they have now and exactly the same self-serving morons not trying to solve them. After separatism, what will they think of next to divert the sheeple? Bets anyone?

  78. @Hector. You are indulging in the same wishful thinking as Craig. A small part of the UK will (perhaps) be leaving. That has no bearing at all on treaties signed by the existing state.

  79. Aristotle “And they want so many percent of the army.

    And they want access to intelligence collected by GCHQ. I’m not making this up!”

    I was thinking about how a would be independent sets up its secret service prior to gaining independence. In particular how this would work in Scotland. Obviously it would ppear to be prima facie illegal to set up a quasi state secret service prior to independence, yet without it wouldn’t independence be pretty shallow. I don’t know if as Aristotle seems to suggest Scotland seeks a buy in to British intelligence and nothing else, or whether it has or will have its own SSS (Scottish Secret Service) which would want a buy in. When you start to think about this its difficult not to think that there may be some elements of the deeper state who are not altogether not so fussed about ‘independence’; perhaps it serves some particular end.

  80. Look it’s going to be swings and roundabouts whatever happens.

    These people who can only see positive about independence and negative about the union I would not believe a word they say and visa versa.

    When we need rational debate all we get is fanatics promoting their own Fantasy Islands.

    First get the referendum over. Should the people of Scotland vote for independence, which is by no means a foregone conclusion as some seem to think, well then that is when the horse trading begins and I don’t think anyone can predict the outcome of that no matter how clever they claim to be.

  81. Britain will be forced to abandon its nuclear weapons if Scotland becomes independent,

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10701826/Scottish-yes-vote-will-force-Britain-to-abandon-nuclear-weapons.html

    That’t enough to mzke any sane person support Scottish independence !

    This quote sums up everything that is wrong with Britain today;

    “Today, we can still say with pride that the Armed Forces are one of the great UK brands”

  82. Andrew Marr the BBC stooge for the powers-that-be.

    BBC presenter Andrew Marr accused of breaking guidelines on referendum coverage

    Sunday, 16 March 2014 16:37

    A BBC presenter is at the centre of a row after appearing to voice his own opinion on the issue of a newly independent Scotland’s membership of the European Union.

    In an interview with First Minister Alex Salmond, Andrew Marr ended an exchange with Mr Salmond on EU membership by saying he believed a Yes vote would see Scotland forced out of the EU and finding it hard to get back in.

    “I think it will be quite hard to get back in, I have to say”, viewers heard the BBC man say.

    /..

    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8891-bbc-presenter-andrew-marr-accused-of-breaking-guidelines-on-referendum-coverage

  83. Theresa has been busy again.

    UK arrests Iranian journalist over ‘traitor’ complaint
    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/03/16/354912/uk-detains-mirtaleb-over-traitor-claim/

    The vortex sucks ever lower.

  84. Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!

    17 Mar, 2014 - 11:59 am

    N_

    “Not sure why you mention only “Arab” involvement in the negro slave trade. There was Jewish involvement too”
    ___________________

    Nothing sinister there, N_ ; it was simply the example that came to mind. Happy to accept your further example of Jewish slave traders.

  85. “A BBC presenter is at the centre of a row after appearing to voice his own opinion on the issue of a newly independent Scotland’s membership of the European Union.”

    That’s his job, he interviews people and gives the opposing viewpoint.

    Really the Nationalists screaming “bias” at any opposing viewpoint is getting increasingly like Israel screaming “antisemitism” at any criticism of Israel.

  86. I see the Scottish Conservatives are saying they will stop free prescriptions if they get into power.

    Personally I believe that would be a good thing. At the moment rich people in Edinburgh who can well afford to pay for their medicines get them free while young mothers in the Highlands have to travel over a hundred miles to give birth because there isn’t enough money left in the health budget to keep their maternity unit open.

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted by Expathos