Independance Referendum "everyone will respect"

[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/concordats/Referendum-on-independence

[rob murray]

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/concordats/Referendum-on-independence

IN 2014 the case for indy was laid out in a document of over 600 pages spelling out the many ways Scotland would be allegedly better off alone, fair play to SNP on at least giving the detail, now the case for independence is simply to be independent/ gain independence for the sole purpose of being independent, all pretense of any gains from being independence have been dropped !!!

[rob murray]

Two years on from the referendum on Scottish independence, Nicola Sturgeon used an article in the Sunday Herald to set out the case for another vote.
The First Minister argued “the case for full self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, of national wealth and balance sheets and of passing political fads and trends”. SO independence for independence sake, afterall what more can you expect from a nationalist party.

Interestingly Salmon is trying to bounce STurgeon into calling indy 2 in 2018, more cautious SNP MSP's suggest holding out until 2020 next general election, to see the tory government post brexit landscape, so a lot of water has to flow until then, and a lot can go right or wrong for SNP but if the hard liners are trumpeting indy for indys sake then even if they have a vote in 2020 sanity will prevail scots have proved they are more cautious than to vote indy for indys sake !

[Oddquine]

Why would anyone respect the result of a referendum which was not undertaken by the Better Together crowd in a spirit of honesty and integrity? Much the same can be said of the result of the EU referendum as well. The YES side was maybe over optimistic in its ideas of how grown-up the Westminster Government would be in the event of success....not so different, in fact from the Brexit side's over optimistic assumption that we can get a deal with the EU which will let us dictate our terms and change nothing but the number of EU immigrants.

What most of us YES voters remember about what was said and what happened is that the status quo, which was voted for in the indyref no longer exists and the promises made have not been fulfilled.

When a campaign has been fought on cries of "the only way to stay in the EU is to vote NO", and even that ever-so truthful Carmichael said "There is no question of a referendum[on the EU]. There is no mechanism for the Conservatives to deliver a referendum in 2017. That is the hard political fact"...the Brexit vote alone has changed the status quo for which we voted.

What about "our UK Welfare state offers better protection for pensioners, the disabled and unemployed". How has that worked out for those on zero hours contracts, the disabled losing their mobility cars, the terminally ill being obliged to work until they die, those who committed suicide due to the sanctions regime, the increase in the numbers using foodbanks (which are just about the only growth industry in the UK atm.) etc? How has that worked out for a Scottish Government having to use a limited income to try to ameliorate the effects of Government benefit decisions on Scots?

And what about pensions...remember the "our pensions are safer and more secure within the UK"? Followed almost immediately after the result with headlines like "new pension crisis on the way", "pension crisis to last for 20 years", "pension shock for millions", "death of the decent pension", "betrayed by pension reforms" and of course the "now it's work to 75" and even "keep on working until you are 80".

What about "being part of the UK is good for the Scottish renewables industry" and "our larger energy market makes supporting Scotland's renewable industry more affordable", given the subsequent subsidy cuts? And what is fair in an "equal partnership" when power producers in Scotland get charged
to access the grid and power producers in the south get paid to do so?

And then we get to "defence industry jobs are best protected by remaining in the UK"...resulting in Scotland getting the deepest military service cuts in the UK...plus the promised frigate contracts for the Clyde being first cut and now put on the back burner..and the proposed sale of the Kinloss army base and of Fort George....rather than the promised increase in the numbers at Kinloss?

And jobs...let's talk about jobs....do you remember the "protect jobs:vote NO" banners, or the graphics produced by Better Together proclaiming "I'm voting NO to protect our NHS, our pensions and our jobs" and the oft repeated statement that Scotland had to have "the broad shoulders" of the UK to support it? So where was the UK when what was left of the steel industry entered its death throes and when the oil industry shed jobs by the thousands? Remember the "1400 jobs in HMRC in Cumbernauld are dependent on us staying in the UK" and the current modernisation of HMRC which will, by 2020 have closed most of their offices in Scotland removing a couple of thousand jobs....which appear to be going to be shipped to Croydon. But of course they still support 520 jobs at Faslane coddling the "nuclear deterrent" at great cost....and other job losses are just fine, as the UK shoulders obviously aren't broad enough to support everything.

Then what about that Vow? you know...the one which turned out to be nothing like "a modern form of home rule"....the one which got through Westminster giving little of use or ornament, just more to pay out with no more coming in to pay it, without raising taxes or cutting other services...the one the SNP, the Labour MP and the LibDem MP tabled 120 amendments to improve, only to have them all defeated by the Unionist parties.

And the love-bombing! Do you remember the love bombing.....the legion of "celebrities" pleading for us not to leave? And Cameron in the Daily Fail saying "We desperately want you to stay."....only to turn up after we voted for the status quo to tell us that he was introducing EVEL (a cheap way to have an English Parliament without having to pay for more MPs, civil servants and the necessary buildings, as Scotland, Wales and NI have to do)...when pretty much all of the "English only" laws equating to those devolved to Scotland, have Barnett consequences.

So three years on, the status quo we voted for no longer exists....so why should we respect the result?

Did the Westminster Government itself respect all their weasel words?

Do we live in a UK in which we are remaining in the EU,in which the UK Government is protecting our jobs generally, and in the renewable and military defence industries in particular? Do we live in a UK where the the age of retirement hasn't been increased, with more increases in the pipeline, where the terminally ill and disabled are permitted to have a life without the stress of trying to find a scarce job, where people don't end up using foodbanks because sanctions, often for as little as being a few minutes late for an "appointment" have removed their income? Do we live in a country where we are "equal partners" in a Union, rather than, as now, an unwelcome addition to the English Parliament...and in which it is unlikely that a Scottish constituency MP will ever be PM...or even in the Cabinet, given the EVEL rule which would mean they couldn't vote on the laws they are instrumental in introducing, if they are deemed by English MPs to be "English only applicable"

Bet JK Rowling is glad we don't expect her to produce anything but fiction, when she said "My guess is that, if we vote to stay, we will be in the heady position of the spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go. I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay" Aye, right! :roll:

So explain to me why what has come to pass since the NO vote is a situation to be respected? :confused

[rob murray]

Why would anyone respect the result of a referendum which was not undertaken by the Better Together crowd in a spirit of honesty and integrity? Much the same can be said of the result of the EU referendum as well. The YES side was maybe over optimistic in its ideas of how grown-up the Westminster Government would be in the event of success....not so different, in fact from the Brexit side's over optimistic assumption that we can get a deal with the EU which will let us dictate our terms and change nothing but the number of EU immigrants.

What most of us YES voters remember about what was said and what happened is that the status quo, which was voted for in the indyref no longer exists and the promises made have not been fulfilled.

When a campaign has been fought on cries of "the only way to stay in the EU is to vote NO", and even that ever-so truthful Carmichael said "There is no question of a referendum[on the EU]. There is no mechanism for the Conservatives to deliver a referendum in 2017. That is the hard political fact"...the Brexit vote alone has changed the status quo for which we voted.

What about "our UK Welfare state offers better protection for pensioners, the disabled and unemployed". How has that worked out for those on zero hours contracts, the disabled losing their mobility cars, the terminally ill being obliged to work until they die, those who committed suicide due to the sanctions regime, the increase in the numbers using foodbanks (which are just about the only growth industry in the UK atm.) etc? How has that worked out for a Scottish Government having to use a limited income to try to ameliorate the effects of Government benefit decisions on Scots?

And what about pensions...remember the "our pensions are safer and more secure within the UK"? Followed almost immediately after the result with headlines like "new pension crisis on the way", "pension crisis to last for 20 years", "pension shock for millions", "death of the decent pension", "betrayed by pension reforms" and of course the "now it's work to 75" and even "keep on working until you are 80".

What about "being part of the UK is good for the Scottish renewables industry" and "our larger energy market makes supporting Scotland's renewable industry more affordable", given the subsequent subsidy cuts? And what is fair in an "equal partnership" when power producers in Scotland get charged
to access the grid and power producers in the south get paid to do so?

And then we get to "defence industry jobs are best protected by remaining in the UK"...resulting in Scotland getting the deepest military service cuts in the UK...plus the promised frigate contracts for the Clyde being first cut and now put on the back burner..and the proposed sale of the Kinloss army base and of Fort George....rather than the promised increase in the numbers at Kinloss?

And jobs...let's talk about jobs....do you remember the "protect jobs:vote NO" banners, or the graphics produced by Better Together proclaiming "I'm voting NO to protect our NHS, our pensions and our jobs" and the oft repeated statement that Scotland had to have "the broad shoulders" of the UK to support it? So where was the UK when what was left of the steel industry entered its death throes and when the oil industry shed jobs by the thousands? Remember the "1400 jobs in HMRC in Cumbernauld are dependent on us staying in the UK" and the current modernisation of HMRC which will, by 2020 have closed most of their offices in Scotland removing a couple of thousand jobs....which appear to be going to be shipped to Croydon. But of course they still support 520 jobs at Faslane coddling the "nuclear deterrent" at great cost....and other job losses are just fine, as the UK shoulders obviously aren't broad enough to support everything.

Then what about that Vow? you know...the one which turned out to be nothing like "a modern form of home rule"....the one which got through Westminster giving little of use or ornament, just more to pay out with no more coming in to pay it, without raising taxes or cutting other services...the one the SNP, the Labour MP and the LibDem MP tabled 120 amendments to improve, only to have them all defeated by the Unionist parties.

And the love-bombing! Do you remember the love bombing.....the legion of "celebrities" pleading for us not to leave? And Cameron in the Daily Fail saying "We desperately want you to stay."....only to turn up after we voted for the status quo to tell us that he was introducing EVEL (a cheap way to have an English Parliament without having to pay for more MPs, civil servants and the necessary buildings, as Scotland, Wales and NI have to do)...when pretty much all of the "English only" laws equating to those devolved to Scotland, have Barnett consequences.

So three years on, the status quo we voted for no longer exists....so why should we respect the result?

Did the Westminster Government itself respect all their weasel words?

Do we live in a UK in which we are remaining in the EU,in which the UK Government is protecting our jobs generally, and in the renewable and military defence industries in particular? Do we live in a UK where the the age of retirement hasn't been increased, with more increases in the pipeline, where the terminally ill and disabled are permitted to have a life without the stress of trying to find a scarce job, where people don't end up using foodbanks because sanctions, often for as little as being a few minutes late for an "appointment" have removed their income? Do we live in a country where we are "equal partners" in a Union, rather than, as now, an unwelcome addition to the English Parliament...and in which it is unlikely that a Scottish constituency MP will ever be PM...or even in the Cabinet, given the EVEL rule which would mean they couldn't vote on the laws they are instrumental in introducing, if they are deemed by English MPs to be "English only applicable"

Bet JK Rowling is glad we don't expect her to produce anything but fiction, when she said "My guess is that, if we vote to stay, we will be in the heady position of the spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go. I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay" Aye, right! :roll:

So explain to me why what has come to pass since the NO vote is a situation to be respected? :confused

You make good points and yes the landscape has changed dramatically, if the oil price was at an 2014 $100 plus a barrel, then given Brexit alone, never mind the undelivered promises and misrule you allude to, I would have expected indy2 asap as the SNP would be in a powerful position, but its not turning out that way , so assuming everything you've written is correct the fiscal sums dont add up at the moment,the economic timing is out, revenues are down and cuts are a comming. If what you say is accurate then why is the "cautious" wing of the SNP waiting until at least 2020 to instigate indy2, if things are so bad, why not go the Salmon route, indy 2 in 2018 why wait until a tory victory in 2020 (thats the tactics being adopted ) and progress indy2 on the fact that we will be ruled by a party which does not reflect Scotland's landscape. Oh..and both sides in 2014 "lied" just as both sides lied in the EU referendum, so yep indy2 will come in time, but lets have a truthful engagement this time around, and respect its outcome whatever it maybe.

[rob murray]

We will know the post Brexit landscape fully within next 4/5 years, so 2020 as a minimum for indy2 is sensible anything sooner is just reckless, and indy2 will be fought on how different an EU (once we're in ) Scotland will look like / measure up against continuing involvement in the new UK landscape. The best of 2 bad choices as I see it 1 Stay in a tory dominated ( thanks Corbynistas !!! ) UK or 2 Get out and eventually ( once we get in ) surrender key fiscal based policy powers to the EU and European Central bank.

[rob murray]

We will know the post Brexit landscape fully within next 4/5 years, so 2020 as a minimum for indy2 is sensible anything sooner is just reckless, and indy2 will be fought on how different an EU (once we're in ) Scotland will look like / measure up against continuing involvement in the new UK landscape. The best of 2 bad choices as I see it 1 Stay in a tory dominated ( thanks Corbynistas !!! ) UK or 2 Get out and eventually ( once we get in ) surrender key fiscal based policy powers to the EU and European Central bank.

SNP MSP 's qoutes : "We have to be really careful and not rush this. It's unlikely we'll get what we want from the Brexit process but we have to build a solid economic case for independence among those who voted No in 2014. That looks like a second referendum after 2020. The polls show they're not there yet. The bottom line is: we can't afford to lose another one." So why is Sturgeon comming out with the indy for indys sake arguement when more informed party MSP's obviously see the battleground as being fought on the economic case Sturgeon ( yet again ) the case for full self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, of national wealth and balance sheets and of passing political fads and trends”. SO independence for independence sake, after all what more can you expect from a nationalist party.....IS this a case of throwing red meat to the committed yessers if so thats no way to make converts, she's sounding more Salmon like by the day !

[bekisman]

Oddquine, sorry fell asleep reading your dirge, burble as much as you like, not fair, boo hoo etc etc bottom line:


deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect


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..

Oh yes just seen this:
An SNP MP Joanna Cherry has been criticised for defending a comedy rap group's use of the word "dyke" to describe Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson.The Witserface group referred to Ms Davidson, who is openly gay, as "Dykey D" at the launch of a pro-independence organisation at the weekend. Oh come on grow up!!!!!

[Oddquine]

SNP MSP 's qoutes : "We have to be really careful and not rush this. It's unlikely we'll get what we want from the Brexit process but we have to build a solid economic case for independence among those who voted No in 2014. That looks like a second referendum after 2020. The polls show they're not there yet. The bottom line is: we can't afford to lose another one." So why is Sturgeon comming out with the indy for indys sake arguement when more informed party MSP's obviously see the battleground as being fought on the economic case Sturgeon ( yet again ) the case for full self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, of national wealth and balance sheets and of passing political fads and trends”. SO independence for independence sake, after all what more can you expect from a nationalist party.....IS this a case of throwing red meat to the committed yessers if so thats no way to make converts, she's sounding more Salmon like by the day !

It would depend on how long it takes to trigger article 50 and how the negotiations are going. I suspect if the UK gets the deal they are claiming they are going to get, which seems little short of all the EU benefits without any of the costs...like freedom of movement, following EU laws, and having to hand over money, it won't happen until we see how it goes.

Can you see the Tories going into next year's council elections without having triggered Brexit, because I can't...as the Brexiteers will surely punish them at the ballot box. so a May 2017 trigger would make it more like before mid 2019. At least there is the blessing that it won't be a two year high profile campaign, though likely a low-key one from now to whenever....and one I'm hoping won't produce another tome like the White Paper....the activists won't have time to read it.

But how things change in a couple of years....in 2014, Mundell was saying "Leaving the EU would be an absolute disaster for Scotland" and now he is saying " Brexit has amazing possibilities for Scotland." I think politicians are a bit like weather vanes which move with the prevailing wind. :)

[Oddquine]

We will know the post Brexit landscape fully within next 4/5 years, so 2020 as a minimum for indy2 is sensible anything sooner is just reckless, and indy2 will be fought on how different an EU (once we're in ) Scotland will look like / measure up against continuing involvement in the new UK landscape. The best of 2 bad choices as I see it 1 Stay in a tory dominated ( thanks Corbynistas !!! ) UK or 2 Get out and eventually ( once we get in ) surrender key fiscal based policy powers to the EU and European Central bank.


What key fiscal based policy powers do we hand to the EU and European Central Bank? I've heard this time and again, but I have never been able to find anything bar indirect taxation, which is considered necessary to harmonise competition.....and we can veto changes to that anyway.

[rob murray]

What key fiscal based policy powers do we hand to the EU and European Central Bank? I've heard this time and again, but I have never been able to find anything bar indirect taxation, which is considered necessary to harmonise competition.....and we can veto changes to that anyway.

If deficit > 3% then Central Bank / EU can enforce austerity / cuts so as to get the deficit within the 3% indirectly directing policies...like Greece for example well thats my understanding

[rob murray]

It would depend on how long it takes to trigger article 50 and how the negotiations are going. I suspect if the UK gets the deal they are claiming they are going to get, which seems little short of all the EU benefits without any of the costs...like freedom of movement, following EU laws, and having to hand over money, it won't happen until we see how it goes.

Can you see the Tories going into next year's council elections without having triggered Brexit, because I can't...as the Brexiteers will surely punish them at the ballot box. so a May 2017 trigger would make it more like before mid 2019. At least there is the blessing that it won't be a two year high profile campaign, though likely a low-key one from now to whenever....and one I'm hoping won't produce another tome like the White Paper....the activists won't have time to read it.

But how things change in a couple of years....in 2014, Mundell was saying "Leaving the EU would be an absolute disaster for Scotland" and now he is saying " Brexit has amazing possibilities for Scotland." I think politicians are a bit like weather vanes which move with the prevailing wind. :)

WOuld agree with the weather vanes bit, but we both have to agree that an economic case has to be built prior to indy, indy for indys sake is a death wish for SNP surely ?

[bekisman]

just in case anyone (SNP?) forgets:
14 September 2014 Last updated at 10:05 BST
SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity".

Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum. (Blinking heck how fast do these nationalist breed ???!!!

[rob murray]

Oddquine, sorry fell asleep reading your dirge, burble as much as you like, not fair, boo hoo etc etc bottom line:


deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect


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..

Oh yes just seen this:
An SNP MP Joanna Cherry has been criticised for defending a comedy rap group's use of the word "dyke" to describe Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson.The Witserface group referred to Ms Davidson, who is openly gay, as "Dykey D" at the launch of a pro-independence organisation at the weekend. Oh come on grow up!!!!!

the case for full self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, of national wealth and balance sheets and of passing political fads and trends”. INdy for indys sake the real honest face of the SNP..... the SNP's raison d'etre at least we all know where we stand now

[rob murray]

If deficit > 3% then Central Bank / EU can enforce austerity / cuts so as to get the deficit within the 3% indirectly directing policies...like Greece for example well thats my understanding

eg The EU central bank can set / influence monetary policy

[rob murray]

What key fiscal based policy powers do we hand to the EU and European Central Bank? I've heard this time and again, but I have never been able to find anything bar indirect taxation, which is considered necessary to harmonise competition.....and we can veto changes to that anyway.

We dont hand them over, they go as part of joining as well as adopting the euro, no exceptions and Scotland doenst have the economic clout to extract any concessions over joining terms

[rob murray]

just in case anyone (SNP?) forgets:
14 September 2014 Last updated at 10:05 BST
SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity".

Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum. (Blinking heck how fast do these nationalist breed ???!!!

I accept the point that things have changed drastically since 2014 with BREXIT and if SNP were genuine I would see their case for arguing for indy2 but STurgeon has said its indy for indys sake, so forget about BREXIT, its been indy for indy all along

[Shabbychic]

Oddquine, sorry fell asleep reading your dirge, burble as much as you like, not fair, boo hoo etc etc bottom line:

Bottom line.......perhaps you might have learned something if you had stayed awake?



Oh yes just seen this:
An SNP MP Joanna Cherry has been criticised for defending a comedy rap group's use of the word "dyke" to describe Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson.The Witserface group referred to Ms Davidson, who is openly gay, as "Dykey D" at the launch of a pro-independence organisation at the weekend. Oh come on grow up!!!!!

So, this would be the Lesbian SNP MP who "was not offended" by a sketch written by a Lesbian and then presented by another Lesbian, referring to yet another Lesbian? These Lesbians nowadays sure are Homophobic!!!! I think I know who should grow up.

[rob murray]

I accept the point that things have changed drastically since 2014 with BREXIT and if SNP were genuine I would see their case for arguing for indy2 but STurgeon has said its indy for indys sake, so forget about BREXIT, its been indy for indy all along

None the less I acknowledge that the SNP are working on an indy2 white paper that will spell out how an independent Scotland could operate a growing economy and answer the question as to what currency the country would use. So I'm passing no comments until the gist is made public, then fair debate should commence.

[Oddquine]

If deficit > 3% then Central Bank / EU can enforce austerity / cuts so as to get the deficit within the 3% indirectly directing policies...like Greece for example well thats my understanding

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.

[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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_policy) for the currency union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_union), some co-operation does take place through theEurogroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurogroup), 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_policy) for the currency union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_union), some co-operation does take place through theEurogroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurogroup), 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/euro/adoption/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 integrationAn 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/euro/adoption/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/concordats/Referendum-on-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":roll:

[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":roll:

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.

[rob murray]

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.

Yes we should re visit the situation, things have changed, as regards another referendum, and was proven last time around, both sides will lie, you cant airbrush out some of the porkies that came from nationalists and aspects of media are now closer to nats than last time round as well. Or are you saying only nats tell the truth ? All politicians "bend the truth" to suit their positions, we all know that through experience. I look forward to nat doc in December re BREXIT options as they will be ahead of rUK and should seal a march on them . As regards WM, I dont really know whats going on, as does 99.99999% of the population so cant compare nats options with UK. When its comes down to it an increase in a yes vote will be determined by how people see the economics, uncertainty and hassle. I still suspect that there will be no indy2 vote unless polls shift dramatically as it would be political suicidal calling indy 2 against the run of play, still its Sturgeons choice ultimately

[bekisman]

Not quite sure is it "Fefty Lovies" or Leftie Luvvies'?