Independance Referendum "everyone will respect"

[Sgitheanach]

I voted for independence but then voted to leave the eu . SNP want independence from westminster but are willing to be controlled by Brussel's (Merkel). I'm willing to wait and see how brexit turns out before considering how I would vote in indy 2.

[rob murray]

Only for countries in the EuroZone. The UK is not in the EuroZone....and a post independence Scotland doesn't have to be either....all they have to do is not meet the criteria....like a few other EU countries haven't for years.

EU membership stipulates entrants to adopt the euro and therefore be regulated by The ECB, which , sets the monetary policy of the zone. The principal task of the ECB is to keep inflation under control. Though there is no common representation, governance or fiscal policy for the currency union, some co-operation does take place through theEurogroup, which makes political decisions regarding the eurozone and the euro. The Eurogroup is composed of the finance ministers of eurozone states, but in emergencies, national leaders also form the Eurogroup. True not all EU members are in the eurozone but as I understand it new entrants have to adopt the euro / ECB regulation.

[Oddquine]

EU membership stipulates entrants to adopt the euro and therefore be regulated by The ECB, which , sets the monetary policy of the zone. The principal task of the ECB is to keep inflation under control. Though there is no common representation, governance or fiscal policy for the currency union, some co-operation does take place through theEurogroup, which makes political decisions regarding the eurozone and the euro. The Eurogroup is composed of the finance ministers of eurozone states, but in emergencies, national leaders also form the Eurogroup. True not all EU members are in the eurozone but as I understand it new entrants have to adopt the euro / ECB regulation.

Sure they have, Rob....that has been the case since 1999......however....The Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II) was set up on 1 January 1999 as a successor to ERM to ensure that exchange rate fluctuations between the euro and other EU currencies do not disrupt economic stability within the single market, and to help non euro-area countries prepare themselves for participation in the euro area.

The convergence criterion on exchange rate stability requires participation in ERM II. Participation in ERM II is voluntary although, as one of the convergence criteria for entry to the euro area, a country must participate in the mechanism without severe tensions for at least two years before it can qualify to adopt the euro.

Sweden is not yet in the euro area, as it has not made the necessary changes to its central bank legislation and it does not meet the convergence criterion related to participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II). However, under the Treaty, Sweden is required to adopt the euro once it fulfills the necessary conditions.

The Treaty does not specify a particular timetable for joining the euro area, but leaves it to Member States to develop their own strategies for meeting the conditiosn for euro adoption.

And first we need an independent central bank.

[rob murray]

Sure they have, Rob....that has been the case since 1999......however....The Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II) was set up on 1 January 1999 as a successor to ERM to ensure that exchange rate fluctuations between the euro and other EU currencies do not disrupt economic stability within the single market, and to help non euro-area countries prepare themselves for participation in the euro area.

The convergence criterion on exchange rate stability requires participation in ERM II. Participation in ERM II is voluntary although, as one of the convergence criteria for entry to the euro area, a country must participate in the mechanism without severe tensions for at least two years before it can qualify to adopt the euro.

Sweden is not yet in the euro area, as it has not made the necessary changes to its central bank legislation and it does not meet the convergence criterion related to participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II). However, under the Treaty, Sweden is required to adopt the euro once it fulfills the necessary conditions.

The Treaty does not specify a particular timetable for joining the euro area, but leaves it to Member States to develop their own strategies for meeting the conditiosn for euro adoption.

And first we need an independent central bank.

THanks, I thought entry was centered around adopting the euro, a long but required process ? : I got below from here :
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/...n/index_en.htm

"The euro area includes those EU Member States that have adopted the single currency. But the euro area is not static – under the Treaty, all EU Member States have to join the euro area once the necessary conditions are fulfilled, except Denmark and the United Kingdom which have negotiated an 'opt-out' clause that allows them to remain outside the euro area.Sweden is also expected to join the euro area in the future, but has not yet qualified.
Progressive enlargement, progressive integration

An accession country that plans to join the Union must align many aspects of its society – social, economic and political – with those of EU Member States. Much of this alignment is aimed at ensuring that an accession country can operate successfully within the Union’s single market for goods, services, capital and labour – accession is a process of integration.
Adopting the euro and joining the euro area takes integration a step further – it is a process of much closer economic integration with the other euro-area Member States. Adopting the euro also demands extensive preparations; in particular it requires economic and legal convergence.

[Oddquine]

THanks, I thought entry was centered around adopting the euro, a long but required process ? : I got below from here :
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/...n/index_en.htm

"The euro area includes those EU Member States that have adopted the single currency. But the euro area is not static – under the Treaty, all EU Member States have to join the euro area once the necessary conditions are fulfilled, except Denmark and the United Kingdom which have negotiated an 'opt-out' clause that allows them to remain outside the euro area.Sweden is also expected to join the euro area in the future, but has not yet qualified.
Progressive enlargement, progressive integration

An accession country that plans to join the Union must align many aspects of its society – social, economic and political – with those of EU Member States. Much of this alignment is aimed at ensuring that an accession country can operate successfully within the Union’s single market for goods, services, capital and labour – accession is a process of integration.
Adopting the euro and joining the euro area takes integration a step further – it is a process of much closer economic integration with the other euro-area Member States. Adopting the euro also demands extensive preparations; in particular it requires economic and legal convergence.

Entry is predicated on saying you will join the euro....as it always has been. That equates to Cameron saying stuff like "no top-down reorganisation of the NHS" "I wouldn't change child benefit, I wouldn't means test it, I don't think that's a good idea". and "a bigger army for a safer Britain" and not taking any notice of what he said once he got in. Imo, the only benefit in joining the Euro, would be for those who think debt you can afford to pay the interest on is unacceptable, because of the limiting of the percentage of debt to GDP ratio.

Afaik, only economic alignment is stuff which would influence the single market.......like standardising VAT rates within certain defined parameters in some areas.... and it is the same with legal convergence. The EU can prohibit states from having or creating unjustified barriers to the free movement of goods,persons, services and capital or can legislate to remove obstacles to free movement created by divergent national laws.

There are derogations/justifications a country can use to not apply the law in all cases within the four freedoms, such as breaching public policy, public security, public health and the like. The UK already has an "a la carte" version of the EU, expanded more in the pre-referendum negotiations, given it has the greatest number of opt-outs from legislation than any other member, (which doesn't endear them to many other members.)

I suspect, however, that they will struggle to get the "a la carte" deal in the Brexit negotiations as they appear to assume they will.

[bekisman]

[QUOTE=Shabbychic;1154647]
Bottom line.......perhaps you might have learned something if you had stayed awake?

Learned something? I often wonder why certain people who suffer in such a terrible terrible country, ruled by an elite from far away Westminster, who live in a place that's been joined with England for over 300 years (basically 'cos they were skint) don't simply up sticks and move to the Summerland they envision..Lets face it, this Brexit stuff will take a couple of years to sort out (Forget about an early UK election, it ain't going to happen, fixed terms and ll that) and during these 'negotiations' the Scottish Fishermen will be, most likely, get back one hell of a lot of what they lost., think they for starters will be rather tetchy. Really there's no way another Independence Referendum will happen during exit negotiations, can it honestly be seen that The UK parliament will sanction another after the Edinburgh Agreement (which the Scottish government signed) that the result will be respected - forget about this nonsense of "that was a personal opinion of Salmond, Sturgeon uncle tom Cobly and all" - it was a legal signed document..
So yes did find it rather tiresome - just the usual platitudes

[rob murray]

Entry is predicated on saying you will join the euro....as it always has been. That equates to Cameron saying stuff like "no top-down reorganisation of the NHS" "I wouldn't change child benefit, I wouldn't means test it, I don't think that's a good idea". and "a bigger army for a safer Britain" and not taking any notice of what he said once he got in. Imo, the only benefit in joining the Euro, would be for those who think debt you can afford to pay the interest on is unacceptable, because of the limiting of the percentage of debt to GDP ratio.

Afaik, only economic alignment is stuff which would influence the single market.......like standardising VAT rates within certain defined parameters in some areas.... and it is the same with legal convergence. The EU can prohibit states from having or creating unjustified barriers to the free movement of goods,persons, services and capital or can legislate to remove obstacles to free movement created by divergent national laws.

There are derogations/justifications a country can use to not apply the law in all cases within the four freedoms, such as breaching public policy, public security, public health and the like. The UK already has an "a la carte" version of the EU, expanded more in the pre-referendum negotiations, given it has the greatest number of opt-outs from legislation than any other member, (which doesn't endear them to many other members.)

I suspect, however, that they will struggle to get the "a la carte" deal in the Brexit negotiations as they appear to assume they will.

We can only speculate, as it will take considerable time /negotiations for final outcome to be established, maybe they will get an a la carte deal maybe not, point is we wont know until the dust settles. Just as we dont know indy2 contents / justification ( ie currency / economy etc ) until the SNP conclude their exercise and publish the Indy / EU membership case.

[bekisman]

Just seen Salmon wittering on about another 'independence referendum', so had a look at the actual Edinburgh Agreement (link at bottom), just a couple of years have passed and his agreeing to "A result that everyone will respect" shows conclusively what a liar he is, he is NOT a man of his word, he has not respected in anyway the result. But I suppose the SNP's raison d'etre is to get independence at any costs.. the mere fact of honesty, integrity just goes out of the window - one wonders where this minority government will be in a few years..



Edinburgh, 15 October 2012

The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.
The governments are agreed that the referendum should:

• have a clear legal base
• be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament
• be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people
• deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect

http://www.gov.scot/About/Government...n-independence

STILL waiting for someone to explain why the Scottish Government LIED? And nothing was said 'ah but material things have changed' crap.. they did NOT honour the agreement; simply.. Mention this as my grandson (24 and living in Canada) was just saying he thought the Scotch (sic) had had their Independence Referendum? - I said think it was "the best of three"

[Oddquine]

STILL waiting for someone to explain why the Scottish Government LIED? And nothing was said 'ah but material things have changed' crap.. they did NOT honour the agreement; simply.. Mention this as my grandson (24 and living in Canada) was just saying he thought the Scotch (sic) had had their Independence Referendum? - I said think it was "the best of three"

The result was not one we could all respect and was not a fair test of the views of people in Scotland...ergo the "contract" if such it was, was broken.

It could never have been a decisive test as decisive means settling an issue...and no government can ever settle an issue to preclude any other Government from revisiting it.

And as it turned out, the status quo.....which many voted for, no longer exists, and the promises, including those contained in the VOW which moved others to vote NO, have lived up to even the most pessimistic expectations.

So explain to me why we should not revisit the question, particularly given the list of promises and assurances binned by Westminster spokesmen after they got the vote they wanted.

[rob murray]

The result was not one we could all respect and was not a fair test of the views of people in Scotland...ergo the "contract" if such it was, was broken.

It could never have been a decisive test as decisive means settling an issue...and no government can ever settle an issue to preclude any other Government from revisiting it.

And as it turned out, the status quo.....which many voted for, no longer exists, and the promises, including those contained in the VOW which moved others to vote NO, have lived up to even the most pessimistic expectations.

So explain to me why we should not revisit the question, particularly given the list of promises and assurances binned by Westminster spokesmen after they got the vote they wanted.

I agree with you, things have changed since 2014, and there should be another referendum as the "game" has changed, but people need to know what BREXIT actually is / will be, and also need to know SNP alternatives, then a vote, but not before we know both sides of the situation surely ? That should put the issue to bed once and for all, however polls show that leave UK stands at 45% same as 2014 so SNP / Sturgeon has a very hard call to make on when or if to have an independence referendum.

[tonkatojo]

I agree with you, things have changed since 2014, and there should be another referendum as the "game" has changed, but people need to know what BREXIT actually is / will be, and also need to know SNP alternatives, then a vote, but not before we know both sides of the situation surely ? That should put the issue to bed once and for all, however polls show that leave UK stands at 45% same as 2014 so SNP / Sturgeon has a very hard call to make on when or if to have an independence referendum.

I think she will chicken out and crow about this forever more.

[rob murray]

I think she will chicken out and crow about this forever more.

Polls are currently not in indy favour, according to some sources, still stuck at 45%, but polls are proved wrong, sturgeon has a very tough call to make on this

[bekisman]

[QUOTE=Oddquine;1156775]The result was not one we could all respect and was not a fair test of the views of people in Scotland...ergo the "contract" if such it was, was broken.

It could never have been a decisive test as decisive means settling an issue...and no government can ever settle an issue to preclude any other Government from revisiting it.

And as it turned out, the status quo.....which many voted for, no longer exists, and the promises, including those contained in the VOW which moved others to vote NO, have lived up to even the most pessimistic expectations.

So explain to me why we should not revisit the question, particularly given the list of promises and assurances binned by Westminster spokesmen after they got the vote they wanted.[/QUOTE your reply is totally without merit; Edinburgh, 15 October 2012

The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.
The governments are agreed that the referendum should:

• have a clear legal base
• be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament
• be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people
• deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect

[bekisman]

"So explain to me why we should not revisit the question" (oddquine) 'cos your lot said they would accept the result? duh?

[Oddquine]

"So explain to me why we should not revisit the question" (oddquine) 'cos your lot said they would accept the result? duh?

And once we get a referendum without lies and scaremongering and a fair crack of the whip in the UK media, it may well be considered a fair test.....but the last one wasn't by a country mile.

And don't bother repeating that Edinburgh Agreement for a third time......you will get the same response. Westminster didn't keep its side of the bargain.

Just explain to me why we should not revisit the question, particularly given the list of promises and assurances binned by Westminster spokesmen after they got the vote they wanted.

[tonkatojo]

And once we get a referendum without lies and scaremongering and a fair crack of the whip in the UK media, it may well be considered a fair test.....but the last one wasn't by a country mile.

And don't bother repeating that Edinburgh Agreement for a third time......you will get the same response. Westminster didn't keep its side of the bargain.

Just explain to me why we should not revisit the question, particularly given the list of promises and assurances binned by Westminster spokesmen after they got the vote they wanted.

Why not raise the question another way in Westminster but have a UK wide referendum on the subject include all the regions that are not happy at present IE: Northern Ireland, Scotland , Wales even include the English and guarantee the outcome you all require/want. I bet you will not, but do tell me why you will not, if you can.

[Oddquine]

Why not raise the question another way in Westminster but have a UK wide referendum on the subject include all the regions that are not happy at present IE: Northern Ireland, Scotland , Wales even include the English and guarantee the outcome you all require/want. I bet you will not, but do tell me why you will not, if you can.

Because the UK is not a country and Scotland is not a region of it...and even if it was, our independence has nothing to do with the preferences of any other part of the Union, any more than there had to be an EU wide referendum to decide if the UK was to be allowed to Brexit.

The EU is a representative democracy, in which the UK has a voice, influence, a veto, the ability to negotiate opt-outs and the ability to form alliances with other countries to stop or amend laws over which they have no veto....an organisation which has set up rules specifically to ensure there is no way that any single country can impose anything on all the others. It is not perfect, by any means, but is most definitely an improvement on our sovereign state for the countries within it.

What passes for democracy in the UK is dictat by England...we are not a sovereign UK....we are a sovereign England, and Scotland, Wales and NI are treated as much like regions of England as are Yorkshire or Cornwall. Changing the name did not and does not change the fact that Scotland has from day one of the Union, been subject to the dictat of English constituency representatives doing what suited England, even down to having no agreed constitution and leaving it up to a predominantly English Parliament to make the rules up on the hoof where necessary. If, as some Scottish representatives tried to negotiate at the time of Union, a federal system had been initiated and formalised, we may very well not be in this situation now, but the self-serving in the Scottish Government of the time voted to benefit themselves and not the people as a whole (so not a lot has changed in 300 and odd years).

As a result the UK is still stuck in 1707, with four countries bound together by bits of paper which hand all the power to the biggest one, not because the population of any of the countries wanted a Union, but because England offered no other option. It could be said that England continued that same 1707 mindset when Westminster refused to allow a third question on the ballot paper in 2014.....the one question on which the majority of the Scottish People would have agreed...as near a federal system as dammit..and that would have been the settled will of the Scottish people enacted and lasting for probably a lot more than a generation...but that would have lost England complete control over Scotland.

I am amazed that Unionists as a whole, but particularly those who voted to leave the EU in particular, practise wilful hypocrisy and obduracy, when they do not/will not even recognise that Scotland (and Wales and NI) is in a worse position within the UK, than they would be in the EU as separate nations, because the UK is not a representative democracy,but a sovereign England which treats the other three countries the way the UK treated its colonies in the days of empire....they too had no voice, no influence, no veto on anything, however much it impacted on them, no ability to negotiate anything, and could always be over-ruled by the UK's representative in their country. In Scotland's case, the only difference is no Governer representing the Crown, because it is not needed, as we can always be eternally outvoted by the English constituency representatives...something more than amply illustrated by the fact that, out of 59 MPS in Westminster representing Scottish constituencies, 58 of them voted for amendments put forward during the passage of the Smith Commission/Scotland 2016 Bill and only one voted against.....and that single one, and the unelected House of Lords, dictated the composition of the Scotland 2016 Bill.

Some of those votes were lost in the House of Commons by as much as 504 votes to 58. That could never have happened in an EU Parliament, one country outvoting all the rest on its own.......and I rest my case.

[tonkatojo]

Because the UK is not a country and Scotland is not a region of it...and even if it was, our independence has nothing to do with the preferences of any other part of the Union, any more than there had to be an EU wide referendum to decide if the UK was to be allowed to Brexit.

The EU is a representative democracy, in which the UK has a voice, influence, a veto, the ability to negotiate opt-outs and the ability to form alliances with other countries to stop or amend laws over which they have no veto....an organisation which has set up rules specifically to ensure there is no way that any single country can impose anything on all the others. It is not perfect, by any means, but is most definitely an improvement on our sovereign state for the countries within it.

What passes for democracy in the UK is dictat by England...we are not a sovereign UK....we are a sovereign England, and Scotland, Wales and NI are treated as much like regions of England as are Yorkshire or Cornwall. Changing the name did not and does not change the fact that Scotland has from day one of the Union has been subject to the dictat of English constituency representatives doing what suited England, even down to having no agreed constitution and leaving it up to a predominantly English Parliament to make the rules up on the hoof where necessary. If, as some Scottish representatives tried to negotiate at the time of Union, a federal system had been initiated and formalised, we may very well not be in this situation now, but the self-serving in the Scottish Government of the time voted to benefit themselves and not the people as a whole (so not a lot has changed in 300 and odd years).

As a result the UK is still stuck in 1707, with four countries bound together by bits of paper which hand all the power to the biggest one, not because the population of any of the countries wanted a Union, but because England offered no other option. It could be said that England continued that same 1707 mindset when Westminster refused to allow a third question on the ballot paper in 2014.....the one question on which the majority of the Scottish People would have agreed...as near a federal system as dammit..and that would have been the settled will of the Scottish people enacted and lasting for probably a lot more than a generation...but that would have lost England complete control over Scotland.

I am amazed that Unionists as a whole, but particularly those who voted to leave the EU in particular, practise wilful hypocrisy and obduracy, when they do not/will not even recognise that Scotland (and Wales and NI) is in a worse position within the UK, than they would be in the EU as separate nations, because the UK is not a representative democracy,but a sovereign England which treats the other three countries the way the UK treated its colonies in the days of empire....they too had no voice, no influence, no veto on anything, however much it impacted on them, and no ability to negotiate anything, because they will always be eternally outvoted by the English constituency representatives...something more than amply illustrated by the fact that, out of 59 MPS in Westminster representing Scottish constituencies, 58 of them voted for amendments put forward during the passage of the Smith Commission/Scotland 2016 Bill and only one voted against.....and that single one, and the unelected House of Lords, dictated the composition of the Scotland 2016 Bill.

Some of those votes were lost in the House of Commons by as much as 504 votes to 58. That could never have happened in an EU Parliament, one country outvoting all the rest on its own.......and I rest my case.

I thought as much, you's just want to whinge on about independence I doubt you's even want it, quoting history is nowt. Your right I made a mistake quoting regions but Get on with it and raise my suggestion in the Houses of Parliament in Westminster if you actually want independence. I doubt you have the inclination or gumption to do it as you will get what you say you want, I don't think there will be any if's or but's on the outcome if you did get a UK referendum, so do it. and that would settle the EU subject as well, you could get on with your personal membership instead of bleating on about how wonderful it is. I put forward my case not resting it.

[Rheghead]

Before the last Scottish Referendum, the Better Together Campaign convinced a majority of Scottish voters that being part of the UK would guarantee the strength of Scotland's currency and would guarantee Scotland's place in the EU. Well that didn't turn out as planned, did it?

Well a lot of Scottish voters are now thinking, "Fool me once? Shame on you! Fool me twice? Shame on me!"

It is going to be a different result next time because people are waking up to the Unionist lies. We are going to take back control of Scotland.

[tonkatojo]

Before the last Scottish Referendum, the Better Together Campaign convinced a majority of Scottish voters that being part of the UK would guarantee the strength of Scotland's currency and would guarantee Scotland's place in the EU. Well that didn't turn out as planned, did it?

Well a lot of Scottish voters are now thinking, "Fool me once? Shame on you! Fool me twice? Shame on me!"

It is going to a different result next time because people are waking up to the Unionist lies. We are going to take back control of Scotland.

You could be right, the better together ones probably were the no-go stay put EU ones, why risk another failure involve the whole UK it will sort the whole lot at once. Just think Scotland on it's own free to join any other union it wants, Northern Ireland free to join up with the south with all the repercussions that will involve (probably splinter groups forming a Northern Irish lib army blowing up parts of the South), Wales can make its mind up, a wee bit more difficult border problem but not insurmountable. Harmony at last.