Scotland's first minister has said a second independence referendum is "highly likely" after the UK voted to leave the EU. The Scottish cabinet would meet on Saturday to discuss its next steps.
Printable View
Scotland's first minister has said a second independence referendum is "highly likely" after the UK voted to leave the EU. The Scottish cabinet would meet on Saturday to discuss its next steps.
The sooner the better, make Scotland an attractive proposition for any businesses south of the border considering relocation to an EU state.
Might be best reading this as it is not straight forward. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/poli...p/index_en.htm
Not an easy procedure read this. http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/...u/index_en.htm
Thanks for the article, it should make it clear to everyone that gaining EU membership is not an easy done deal, but a complex situation which takes considerable time same as EU withdrawal which is even complex and a very time consuming lengthy process. Maybe some folk think its as easy as a phone call on Monday to EU and we are off...no more EU ta ta.......be prepared for a lengthy tortuous withdrawal process which will make lawyers fortunes
I could be wrong but is thee not a lot more regulations etc for new members to adopt.
We would have to go to the euro for a start.
The Dutch want their bite at a Euro exit now as well.
How will the EU regroup to fill the cash void the UK will leave.
Yes no time table is specifically mentioned but the specifics, are a country wishing to join the EU submits a membership application to the Council, and an indy scotland would be a new country ie agreed Eu / UK wide precedents wont count, we would have to start from scratch, actually if we move to go we need to disentangle ourselves from rUK as we are and will be part of rUK unitl we get indy. The Commission then assesses the applicant’s ability to meet the Copenhagen criteria. If the Commission’s opinion is positive, the Council must then agree upon a negotiating mandate. Negotiations are then formally opened on a subject-by-subject basis.
Due to the huge volume of EU rules and regulations each candidate country must adopt as national law, the negotiations take time to complete. The candidates are supported financially, administratively and technically during this pre-accession period. So its not an over night easy process, of course it can be done but we have to be realistic here, the process is long. Incidentally there is nothing to stop the EU offering rUK an "acceptable" deal at any time which may prove acceptable to any new government as the withdrawal process itself for rUK is even more complex, whats stopping them is they would have to do other deals with other countries who have strong anti EU parties, legally the EU can do this but it may prove politically a bridge to far, and whose to say who will be in power in a couple of years and would they withdraw the leave card /have another referendum on renewed EU pledges reforms. One things for sure, today marks a core split in tories to much has been said...will UKIP lift real pro leave voters scunnered with tory infighting blue on blue fighting. UKIP are 100% EU out same cannot be said of Tories or indeed labour. So we sorta "out" but can be cajoled into staying given time and circumstances well in theory anyway
Yep adopting the euro and then European Central Bank over rule is mandatory, you raise an interesting point re UK cash hole, could be filled by tarrif charges / increased membership fees and remember other countries are lining up to get in. Heres a point for you, think about it the other way, who will plug the EU infrastructure investment projects in UK ( usually in rural areas )...a right wing tory government.....nah nah ! Look at Cornwall The county has received £1bn of aid over the past 15 years with more than £400m in the pipeline until 2020 because of its relatively weak economy.Cornwall Council leader John Pollard said he wanted "investment equal to that provided by the EU programme".....and they voted to leave !!!!!!
[QUOTE=Alrock;1149673]Probably will have to do a bit of tinkering around the edges & as for the Euro, that would probably be a price worth paying. Besides, will we really want to
Its the euro thats causing all hell all over EU, and like it or not you have to adopt sine die no questions. The pound given underlying strenghts of UK economy is fine but its off the agenda As for tinkering around the edges I really wish this was true but thats not what the official EU process states, I've been involved in EU projects and they are a bureaucratic nightmare to manage, so Id imagine the entry process / disentangling ourselves from UK fulfilling entry criteria would be a long slow tortous process, the EU has fixed time and its everyday work going on, its not as if theyd put a "lets get scotland in quick department together, your dealing with turning a huge oil tanker here, this is a direct quote from thedocument : the huge volume of EU rules and regulations each candidate country must adopt as national law, negotiations take time to complete...says it all
Which bit of remaining in the EU is becoming a new member?
Whatever the case, this time the discussions will take place between Scotland and the EU, other countries leaders directly rather than through WM. This means that unlike the Indyref we are likely to get answers to some of these questions. If you remember last time WM refused to ask and Scotland was unable to do so: This is a different situation.
Yes it is a different situation, assuming an indy scotland, we go direct through the process ourselves, lets not rake over the past its gone, what questions do you mean, the application criteria is clearly spelled out in the Copenhagen agreement /application process. All I am saying is, assuming we are indy, the process is lengthy and thats quoting from source docs.
You Are assuming that we are applying from OUTSIDE the EU. It may be that we can get the referendum done before the rest of the U.K. Leaves, depending on how long it is until they trigger Article 50.
I am interested to see the information that comes back from the EU on whether they will try to keep us come what may or whether they will make Scotland apply from outside. One of the reasons for saying we would have to apply from outside the EU during the last Indyref was that the UK would have a veto and that the EU would not want to piss off the rest of the U.K. That is not going to be the case this time. It's fascinating.
EU seem to be hard on rUK handing in section 50 asap to minimise uncertainties. then experts predict at least 4 years to get out, so that gives the time to get indy ref done but we would surely be a new state and treated that way, anyway we have to disentangle ourselves from rUK and rUK EU laws which would legally surely apply to the new state of Scotland as an independant country ? Of course it would be good if EU accepted us as is, and shortened a complex process but I doubt it. As I said whats past is past no point in rakin it up, we are now through the looking glass and have to deal with new complex unknowns. Come Saturday SNP position on how they will play this one will be clearer
I hope so but I believe it's 2 years from the Article 50 being invoked unless there is a unanimous vote to extend that. I'm not sure we will get that.
Apparently Herr Merkel is calming the german and euro hawks, adopting a pragmatic approach in tone and language.".in her first public address since the nation backed a Leave vote, the German chancellor called for Brussels to maintain "close future relations" with Britain. SHe says its not in EU interesst to alienate rUK so hints of accomodating rUK well we will see.
Time to leave the UK, let them got on with whatever they want to got on with. The scaremongering is not so frightening the second time round.
If every no voter took the same line then Scotland would be perpetually locked into a Stockholm Syndrome type of relationship with the other UK countries. Lock in against its will, gradually getting worse and worse, raped of its resources, not filling its full potential and finally refusing to leave the situation because we think the captors are really nice people.
That would be insane.
Locked in against its will!
Hang on a minute here fella, the majority of Scottish folk wanted to stay as part of the UK, that is democracy and has to be respected.
As part of the very same democracy, 51.9% of the UK folk wanted to leave Europe, again this is democracy and I also respect and accept that.
Indyref2014 was a con when they broke purda with the last minute Vow. It was illegal but nothing was done about it. Despite all the fearmongering the Yes Campaign ran apositive informed campaign to go from 20 points behind to getting a lead in the polls only to have a panic-driven pseudo version of devomax thrust upon us through the vow.
There has been a material change to those arrangements in 2014, if you haven't noticed, and Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK has fundimentally changed since last night because the tories which we have rejected in Scotland will now determine the nature of all the laws that return to Westminster. Whilst 56/59 MPs are pro-indy MPs and Scotland voted an overall majority of pro-indy MSPs in 2016. If you think it is situation normal then you are seriously misguided.
Why would you want Scotland to be tied to a union that is so at political odds to the wishes of its population? We are an open welcoming nation with a proportionally represented form of government. The majority of rest of the UK have opted to endorse a undemocratic form of government with extra powers on a xenophobic and isolationist ticket, now who wants that unless you are xenophobic? It is politically perverse unless you see the Act of Union as some sacred institution that cannot be touched. Which is such a form of dysfunctional thinking if the union causes more distress than it causes happiness.
I think we need to calm down and that's hard to do because I have been alternatively furious and devastated today. Mi16 is right. It is not automatic that remain voters will be yes voters. It is true that there are many who will but there is still work to do. In addition for those who do not want a 2nd referendum, you need to understand that we were told staying in the union will protect EU membership and that has been proved not to be the case. That is a fundamental change which, had it happened in ten years would maybe not have been so critical but actually is.
There has to be an honest debate. We must be respectful of each other's views. For anyone reconsidering their Indy ref vote we wanted you with us then and we want you with us now but we are not going to assume any right to your vote. We will work hard to make the case for Indy ref 2 and you can make your choice like everyone else.
Had we voted yes in 2014 on the oil based budget we would be in a right old mess today.
a barrel worth less than half of what it was then and many 10s of thousands of jobs lost
back then it was a leap of faith job, with no solid figures.
give us the actual figures be it good or bad and then I may be prepared to at least consider it.
what I won't consider is a wing and a prayer.
Had we got independence in 2014 then we would have taken control of the oil. We would be receiving all the revenue of the oil at the current price. I've no pHD in maths but I do not need a calculator to work out that that is much more favourable than receiving a twelfth of the revenue at twice the price.
I'm certainly not going to even start to discuss issues or make arguments for an Indy Scotland, I'm too tired and too miserable. I'm off to France next week. I'm tempted not to even come back.
Take time, breathe let's see what actually happens.
I'm even going to send xxxxxxes
we would have built a budget based on the higher price, the backside would have fallen out of oil, we would have tens of thousands no longer contributing to the system and now draining it. Then there are the businesses that were to leave as well.
all in all we would have been right up a certain creek
Before you go you should enlighten yourself to some of the other eurosceptic countries views, here is a bit of non British news... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...eaves-the-e-u/
If's and buts are useless, better folk than you or me have and did get their calculators out on more than oil and did not come to your conclusions, that must carry some weight in your conclusions. Democracy is a funny thing, except when it doesn't go the way you want I suppose.
Are you really suggesting I hadn't read that already? I thought you might have known me better by now. :)
Something to to chill to
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oHs98TEYecM
Where have you been? No we wouldn't have. The policy would have been to have an oil fund to build up over time to take out the worst effects the highs and lows from the oil price. I'm surprised you didn't know this as it was explained that many times unless you chose not to listen. Virtually every other country does this except I believe the UK and Iraq.
In order to build an oil fund you will need a decent oil price?
If you are making very little from the l then there is very little to save especially when you are funding the state from the oil price also.
I haven't seen the SNP's budget vision can you enlighten the facts and figures?
So the oil fund would build up slowly just now which is eactlly the pace you would expect when the oil price is low. You are reinforcing the need for an oil fund. The oil was not a major feature of the budget anyway, it was always meant to be a bonus, especially under a green government..