Scottish independence vote, September 18

Post Reply New Topic

I'd imagine they would negotiate entry into the EU before seccession. I imagine they would think of what currency to adopt as well before leaving. Obviously both the UK and Scotland would retain close economic ties, I think they would quickly negotiate a treaty to allow free travel to and from the UK and Scotland since there are many people who have work or family ties on the other side of the border.
And I don't think you are correct about the passports. You only need a passport if you are not a EU citizen (or from the Schengen area). I crossed EU "borders" many times without even owning a passport.

You may be able to travel freely on the continent if you are an EU citizen,but the UK has stricter regulations and you do still need a passport or national ID card to enter.
This is a link to visitbritain website which confirms this
http://www.visitbritain.com/en/Travel-tips/Customs-and-immigration/

If it's a Yes vote then a lot of compromises may have to be reached but as things stand both the UK and Spain have made suggestions about vetoing Scotland's application to the EU and the UK government are refusing a currency union.The SNP says in that case Scotland will refuse to accept any share of the UK's national debts,so it is all very messy !

Well, on the website you posted it says that an id card is enough to enter the UK. But the UK apparantly is not part of the Schengen area. In Schengen countries they have to let you in if you can make a reasonable case that you are a EU citizen, even an expired id card would do.
Strange that UK doesn't even take part in Schengen but has one of the loosest immigration policies of the EU.

Is that actually the case though? I know the public broadly have lot to say about immigration. But it is quite possible that other members states are quite a bit looser.

See we are self deprecating lot.

I think the key thing is EU members states pick and choose which of it laws it wants apply, except broadly countries like UK have been faithful despite a lot of unhappiness. Then there is countries like France, which traditionally have used the EU to pursue it national interest often at the expense of the other members.

In fact the only thing really Federalist about the EU, is not what is enacted but the politicking. The actual concept of the EU is a centralist bureaucracy, which by definition is the opposite of federalism.

The main reason given by the UK for not being in Schengen is the vulnerability as an island to illegal entry.Even an EU identity card is likely to be inspected closely to check that it's valid. Another strange thing about immingration policies is that the SNP want Scotland's to be even looser than the UK's,the idea being that we need to boost the population and we have plenty of space to accomodate people.

They would try, but they can't. They have to already be a state to negotiate, and the EU does not have to accept them before secession. It will want to see the convergent conditions[/quote].
It will scupper this too. And here is a nat source threatening the opposite, if wee have any European trouble: threatening a closed border and mass deportation of 400 000 British people. This is from the "wee blue book" that nats are now giving out in the street as an info source.
www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152772164613854&set=o.428552943945294&type=1&theater

Last edited by tern on 12 Sep 2014, 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Aren't land borders much more vulnerable to illegal entry? I'll post a funny pic of the Dutch-Belgian border below.
Besides, the main draw for illegal entry of the UK is their immigration system. That's why there are hordes of people in Calais trying to cross to the UK instead of remaining in France.

This is the border within the town of Baarle-Nassau:

.
[quote="trollcatman]"Obviously both the UK and Scotland would retain close economic ties, I think they would quickly negotiate a treaty to allow free travel to and from the UK and Scotland since there are many people who have work or family ties on the other side of the border.[/quote]It will scupper this too. And here is a nat source threatening the opposite, if wee have any European trouble: threatening a closed border and mass deportation of 400 000 British people. This is from the "wee blue book" that nats are now giving out in the street as an info source.
www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152772164613854&set=o.428552943945294&type=1&theater[/quote]

Maybe some of the crazies want to be all nasty to an independant Scotland, but it would make more sense for both sides to negotiate at least free trade and free movement of people for both countries. Otherwise it will just hurt them both, and in the end they are stuck on the same island and that's not going to change. I'm pretty sure the EU and NATO would want for Scotland to remain in their organisations as well.

The main draw is economic. It is not easy. People die regularly trying to get to UK.

If they are already in France. They could work illegal there too. We may loose people in the system but so do the the French. If anything our detention centers have been criticized.

Funny how nobody seems to mention that the Celtic people of Scotland are the native aboriginals that had their land stolen by the English as happening in Australia, North America, and many other places.

For me it's a native title issue as my ancestors were hunted like animals by the English on our own soil and had to flee to a foreign land to avoid being indiscriminately killed on mass. As a result, generations of us have grown up disconnected from our land and culture having to assimilate in an Anglo-Saxon culture and only speak the foreign language of English.

I know it's more complicated than just historical justice, but as a descendant of Scottish political refugees, that's how I feel about it.

.


Utter, utter nonsense.

What is in the Wee Blue Book is common sense. It's not in the EU's interests to expell us. We have abundant fisheries, oil, and a thriving export industry. Also, we buy things from them. Disenfrachising 5 million citizens who have simply exercised thier right to choose in a democratic process would send a terrible signal to the world and cause a lot of hassles for folk from the EU living here. But nobody is going to deport them! Because that would be SILLY. Loving how the Better Together slanderous tripe has even made it here. A reunified Germany had been admitted, from within, in 10 months. It's the same in reverse, what the devil makes you think that Scotland is so utterly crap and undesirable to the EU that they would deliberately try and make this awkward? We'll go in through the internal enlargement article, 48.

And to suggest the rest of the UK would basically advocate a rerun of the Alien Act of 1705 is also utter hogwash. That behaviour would damage thier economy as well, not to mention in all unlikelyhood make sterling sink like a stone and send the FTSE into meltdown.

The saddest thing in all this is how many Scottish people actually believe the whole too wee, too poor too stupid garbage that Westminster have trotted out.

Yes on the 18th!

SAOR ALBA!

That probably becuase that is total BS.

There were wars and insurgencies just like many historical nations at the time. This Hollywoodised version of the English, is not accurate, and also it is unfair to view the English only through mock historical glasses, as if they are not a modern people, without doing that with other nations. I'm not denying that the English did terrible regrettable things in the past, but so did the British which included many Scots.

However Scotland never had its land stolen. We never actually that successful in doing that doing that even if we wanted to. At one point England had a Scottish king and descendants.

This dynasty became unpopular in both Scotland and England, becuase both had started their Protestant movements, and there was a suspicion that they were trying to reinstate the Catholic dominance (despite being officially CoE).

Secondly regarding Scottish "celts". The Scottish are made of many historical cultures and groups including many the same cultures and groups that make up the English.

Celt is a cultural moment not a unique genetic group. It actually originated in central Europe, as did many of the culture that came to the British Isles.

Union only happened in 1707.

It was the done thing for European nations to want to be colonial powers. Scotland was no exception, it tried and didn't succeed. Scotland was in a tough financial position. becuase of the lost investment. Therefore they opted for Union. There is argument that they were coerced into into it. but the reality is they could have not done it and shunned offers, even if this wasn't a very good option. Also there was other previous Scottish initiatives before all this to form union, that fell through so it wasn't a total novel idea.

The key Scottish negotiating position for the Act of Union was access to colonial wealth. Also debt was essentially written off, by providing a lump sum to Scotland, which I calculated inflation to be 80 million GBP is today's money.

At the height of the East India Company in 1770s half of the writers were Scottish, which is remarkable given the relative populations of Scotland to England.

Most of the Scottish Nationalism today, may romantically hark back to some historical event and folk-law, but in reality is a movement that really only got going in the last century, and only became a serious moment in the 1980s. This is becuase of the decline of industry and the Labour movement coming being squeezed.

Scottish people today are no more like Picts than English are like Angles. In really has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Of course were are differences, but those differences continued under Union to this day. Such as Scots Law, and their church for example.

As a Scot I agree with 0 Equals True and I posted on another thread with a reply along the same lines

Verax wrote:
Funny how nobody seems to mention that the Celtic people of Scotland are the native aboriginals that had their land stolen by the English as happening in Australia, North America, and many other places.

That view of history is also shared by many Scots,however the reality is more complex. The vast majority of us are Lowlanders and our land has never been stolen by anyone and we've never spoken Gaelic.Only Highlanders spoke Gaelic and it was after their support of the Jacobite cause to claim the British throne that they indeed suffered terribly from retribution by the British (not specifically or just English). The 'British ' included the majority of Lowland Scots and fellow Highlanders who opposed the Jacobites.
It was in Victorian times that Scots in general began to look for more ways of differentiating themselves from England and the idea came about of promoting Highland culture and Celtic inheritance as being the 'default' image of Scotland as a whole.
The United Kingdom had been entered into willingly,partly after we basically ran out of money due to a failed colony in Panama.
I believe part of the Yes momentum is as much an attempt to once again seek recognition and differentiate us from England. It's not based on logical conclusions that in many ways we are already independent to a large extent with our own parliament,legal & education systems,health,policing and even international sports teams.
The likely outcome of the referendum is that all the publicity generated will serve the purpose of obtaining recognition while common sense and shared British values will prevail in a No majority,preserving a United Kingdom which in its own right is one of the oldest countries in the world.

1967. 80s were a low point again after the first home rule attempt failed in 1979.
In fact, the English throne was more valuable to a Scottish king than his own, so on inheriting it he moved there to rule both countries from England.

The union flag dates from then, the union of crowns 1603. As that was a time of rule by kings without continuous parliaments, Scotland obviously ceased to be independent then. It became ruled from London, more so than it is now in fact. That they needed a second union in 1707 was because during the intervening century continuous parliamentary government has emerged, carrying sovereignty with it. In fact it only emerged late in the period, in the crisis around the Dutch invasion in 1688, when both countries' parliaments had to take their separate decisions on agreeing to the change of dynasty. So by my reckoning, Scotland has not been independent for nearly all the time since 1603, it only was for a short and economically disastrous 19 year period 1688-1707.
As one of our diaspora, a descendant of the Clearances, you surely expected a nationalist movement on the diaspora's side, instead of the one we have, choosing to pursue an anti-outsider racist nationalist vote only interested in the folks who are still here. Our dispersal is exactly the way we have been oppressed as a people, yet nationalism's basis is to want to betray and not care about that at all.
Usual nat tactic of prexisting what other people will do from your view of their interests, even when it differs with their declared view of their interests.They don't want to make it easy for countries to join the EU with lots of opt-outs from its goals, and they don't want to encourage secessionitis in Europe with bits breaking off the other bigger EU states too, Catalonia, Basques, Venetia, North Italy, Flanders.
Yeah everything's oil whose price bounces around unpredicatbly but nearly always lower than SNP budgetary figures in the White Paper assume.
Sturgeon made that threat. Here is the news source. www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/sturgeon-warns-europeans-could-lose-right-to-stay-after-independence/
No parallel at all, that wasn't a new state signing up to join, it was teritory added to an existing state already belonging to all the agreements on where the EU was going..
It's not me who suggested that it's your own side's Wee Blue Book. When I expose it online, like on FB, I point out that there is no such threat from the British side and anyone in line to be affected would be British citizens already - the entire threat is from the Scottish nationalist side, to deport 400 000 folks from Scotland. That's printed in the book.

Scottish diaspora is complex. It can relate to colonialism they took part in, it can relate to religious evangelism, it can also relate to persecution by multiple forces. Not just the 'English' as a homogenous group.

I remember one American saying he hated the British Royalty, and pointed out his ancestor was expelled to the colonies. I pointed out that his ancestor was fighting for the king and was expelled by Cromwell. I am not royalist, I just think people have a very simplistic idea of the history, and tend to revert to an implied story.

Frogman is absolutely right for not piping in, just becuase he has Scottish ancestors means jack. he is an America, what matters to him is American issues. I don't think he made any assumption unlike another user I replied to.

YOUTUBE.COM: "Willie's Views On Scottish Independence | THE SIMPSONS | ANIMATION on FOX" (September 12, 2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vDzf-wSbk