PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   Scottish independence Hamsterwheel. (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/541819-scottish-independence-hamsterwheel.html)

Wingswinger 2nd Aug 2014 11:01


Wingswinger,

Your attempt at smearing the SNP and anti - fascist campaigners is noted.
By whom, pray tell, and for what purpose? Am I to expect a knock at the door at 5 am? Is this a prelude to a cybernat assault?

Smear? I passed a few observations which are all in the public domain anyway.

Here's a taster. Enjoy:

Civil Liberty - An alternative history of Scottish nationalism

perthsaint 2nd Aug 2014 11:07

That's an interesting website, Wingswinger.

"This will come as a surprise to many of our friends based overseas but Great Britain is now one of the most repressive regimes in the world. We operate under the tyranny of political correctness which is just a floppy term for the repressive implementation of one single, dare we say, rather twisted, view of human society, which doesn't allow for dissent or opposition. The regime creates the framework within which they declare views are either acceptable and tolerated or unacceptable and repressed. It is a framework which defies common sense and is one which even declares that in a court of law, the truth shall be no defence."

No doubt they exist entirely on a diet of nuts and fruitcakes.

JFZ90 2nd Aug 2014 11:08

My point still stands, you are describing opportunistic negotiations to achieve a benefit to Scotland whilst pretending that is not the intent, and the benefits are accidental. It is transparent.

The EDI/GLA rogue airliner is not such a rabbit hole if you want to discuss how you would achieve it within Scotland. You discount Typhoons, so what are the options to address such a scenario?

1. ask for UK to do it?
2. buy new (non-Typhoon) interceptors to do the task?
3. not bother.

So what would be your approach?

I suspect it would be 1. ask UK to do it (i.e. rUK fund typhoons without any more scottish help - cost £Billions) in exchange for letting rUK use LFA and drop a few bombs on Garvie (cost to Scotland - £nil). You might think that sounds clever, but not very equitable between 'best pals', is it! It won't wash at the negotiating table either, you must think Westminster are stupid if you do.

VP959 2nd Aug 2014 11:15


Ok, VP959, I hold my hand up, I was wrong. Not 2 hours but certainly overnight.

"In July, leading academics and politicians from Denmark insisted that a newly independent Scotland would encounter no problems continuing its membership of the European Union. MP Rasmus Helveg Petersen said Scotland would find the process of acquiring its own membership "fairly quick" and a "mere formality".

The Danish government official said: "It would be very clear [...] it could happen overnight."

The spokesman on foreign affairs for the Denmark's Social Liberals added "The criteria is very objective, Scotland would qualify. If Scotland wants it, yes. It would be a mere formality."

Sorry for misleading you.
That is one verbal quote from one member state's representative.

The official position is spelt out unequivocally in an exchange of letters between the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament (see here: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4...Commission.pdf and the reply here: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4..._2014__pdf.pdf

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I can read and understand official correspondence that is crystal clear in its meaning.

The process may well be simplified, but there will still be a lot of negotiation.

For example, what will an independent Scotland contribute to European defence and peacekeeping?

What will it contribute to various EU funds?

What will it expect to receive in terms of development support, agricultural subsidies etc?

What currency will it expect to use?

If Scotland wants to be in the Euro zone, what will be the agreed value of whatever interim currency Scotland is using at the time of transition?

All of these elements will be very different from the terms of entry agreed for the UK as a whole, and all will need to be negotiated and and agreed. To imagine for one moment that this could all be done overnight is stretching things beyond the bounds of credulity. Even the SNP are saying that the best they can hope for is that it is negotiated and agreement reached within the term of the first independent Scottish Parliament (which I am assuming is 3 years). Estimates from the EU are that the process will take between 3 and 5 years.

During this period Scotland will be neither supported by the rUK nor supported by the EU, so it will need a robust plan to ensure that it is both viable and stands the best chance of obtaining favourable terms of entry to the EU (if that is what it chooses to do).

Granite City Express 2nd Aug 2014 11:24

If you are going to go down the rather pathetic route of trying to portray the modern SNP as fascist sympathisers, then the bible of pprune public opinion should be judged by the same standards:

http://tompride.files.wordpress.com/...lackshirts.jpg

As for the accusation that Yes supporters are brick lobbing thugs....
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...eted-in-moray/

perthsaint 2nd Aug 2014 11:27

The letter from Reding refers to an application by an independent state. Prior to becoming independent we will not be an independent state.

18 months is a very generous amount of time to negotiate the continuation of our membership. Overnight may be a stretch but a couple of months will be fine.

Wingswinger 2nd Aug 2014 11:29

It ain't no bible of mine,

PS,


No doubt they exist entirely on a diet of nuts and fruitcakes.
I think that opener on the Civil Liberty website is a not unreasonable view of the state of affairs in the UK, don't you? Some opinions, as we all know, are not allowed to be held.

perthsaint 2nd Aug 2014 11:31

Wingswinger,

I would say that view is paranoid nonsense.

Rob Courtney 2nd Aug 2014 11:44


18 months is a very generous amount of time to negotiate the continuation of our membership. Overnight may be a stretch but a couple of months will be fine.
Didnt Junker say no new members for 5 years?

ORAC 2nd Aug 2014 11:45

An informed discussion on the defence question. Long, but worthwhile.

RUSI's Trevor Taylor Gives Parliamentary Evidence on Defence Implications of Possible Scottish Independence

perthsaint 2nd Aug 2014 11:46

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

(not aimed at you, ORAC)

JFZ90 2nd Aug 2014 11:51


The letter from Reding refers to an application by an independent state. Prior to becoming independent we will not be an independent state.

18 months is a very generous amount of time to negotiate the continuation of our membership. Overnight may be a stretch but a couple of months will be fine.
The letter(s) from Reding, are in direct response to questions asked by McKelvie.

McKelvie is the SNP MSP who is the chair of the committee in the Scottish Government (SG) responsible for matters in the EU - including in this case how an independent Scotland would join the EU.

You need to read SNP McKelvie letters to see that:

1. They are official letters from the SG.
2. They are written in a rather amateur "let us in won't you, you have to" style that mimicks the rhetoric from Alex
3. They even tried to say "you can't kick Scots out of the EU, and they'll always be EU citizens".

You can see clearly in the EU responses that:

1. They represent official positions from the EU
2. The bully style carries no ice with the EU, they clearly find it childish. They dismiss the SNP plan to use Art 48, 49 will apply.
3. They also calmly stated why this would not be the case, explaining how Scot would be out, and therefore its citizens would no longer have EU status

MadsDad 2nd Aug 2014 11:55

Speaking of negatiations, this was in the Guardian the other day as an assessment of one possible outcome (of a 'Yes' result of the referendum. (Some likely, some possible, some not) so, for your discussion:-

"From the vantage point of 2024, the referendumís yes vote can be seen as the beginning of an unravelling, and a terrible waste of time":-

Scottish independence: Remember 2014, the last golden summer of the old Britain | Comment is free | The Guardian

VP959 2nd Aug 2014 11:55

perthsaint wrote:


The letter from Reding refers to an application by an independent state. Prior to becoming independent we will not be an independent state.

18 months is a very generous amount of time to negotiate the continuation of our membership. Overnight may be a stretch but a couple of months will be fine.
Agreed, but there will be a great deal of negotiation, some of which can only start post independence day, once the exact terms of independence have been implemented.

Viviane Reding has been very, very, clear on the requirements for membership under Article 49:

The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004 (ref C 84 E/422. Official Journal of the European Union (3/4/2004) )

The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.

Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the EU. If the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, an agreement is then negotiated between the applicant state and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the applicant state.
The conditions of admission for an independent Scotland would be radically different from those that applied to the UK when it first applied to join the EU (then the EEC) back in 1969. The EU has changed dramatically, has been caught up in the financial problems that have beset some newer members states, and is consequently likely to impose far tougher conditions on an application made by Scotland as a consequence.

When factors such as an Independent Scotlands lack of any capable defence force or assets, and inability to practically assist any EU sponsored peace keeping activity, together with not having an established currency at the time that it may wish to join, I can foresee that some EU member states may not look favourably on an application by Scotland to join.

Note that Viviane Reding has clearly spelt out that under an application made under Article 49 the European Council must act unanimously after consulting the European Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament. It would only take one or two states to object and the whole process could easily be drawn out for years, leaving Scotland in limbo, and having to negotiate its own trade agreements with any country it wished to do business with, including the rUK.

TomJoad 2nd Aug 2014 12:04


Originally Posted by JFZ90 (Post 8590351)
My point still stands, you are describing opportunistic negotiations to achieve a benefit to Scotland whilst pretending that is not the intent, and the benefits are accidental. It is transparent.

The EDI/GLA rogue airliner is not such a rabbit hole if you want to discuss how you would achieve it within Scotland. You discount Typhoons, so what are the options to address such a scenario?

1. ask for UK to do it?
2. buy new (non-Typhoon) interceptors to do the task?
3. not bother.

1. Do what - you are assuming the same risk presents.
2. See above, you further assume Scotland's risk measures are the same.
3. See 1 and 2 above


So what would be your approach?

I suspect it would be 1. ask UK to do it (i.e. rUK fund typhoons without any more scottish help - cost £Billions) in exchange for letting rUK use LFA and drop a few bombs on Garvie (cost to Scotland - £nil). You might think that sounds clever, but not very equitable between 'best pals', is it! It won't wash at the negotiating table either, you must think Westminster are stupid if you do.

The continuing narrative that suits your script. No, no pathological perception formulating there JF - evidence does suggest otherwise. It certainly is not washing - your bird is quacking and it's identified as a duck:)


Ah still digging in, your entrenching tool must be due renewal by now:E Firstly, do not impose the same risk nor risk categorisation on an independent Scotland as the UK presently chooses and most likely continued by rUK. Next you will be demanding Eire changes her defence policy.:=

That is your continuing mistake, it is a convenient one because it drives you to your desired solution. Do not impose that on Scotland. Transparent indeed.:=

Now put aside your "flights of fantasy" and return to the original point which you still evade; the rate at which you are going we will need gps to track you down with all your way points. You do of course realise that in your haste to dismiss the possibility of rUK negotiating such cooperative memoranda of understanding/host nation agreements you are identifying huge redundancy in MOD''s current spending. You imply that there clearly is no need for the Hebrides Rocket range, Cape Wrath ranges, Scottish LFA, nor indeed recruitment effort to the British Army to be expended in Scotland - my such largesse by the UK government - no wonder MOD is in a hole.;)

Tom

perthsaint 2nd Aug 2014 12:06

Article 49 isn't the issue though is it? The continuation of our membership will be agreed long before we become independent.

The idea that any state would look unfavourably upon us is a fantasy that wholly ignores the disruption to the single market that would be caused by our not being it.

renfrew 2nd Aug 2014 12:09

Rob Courtney

It has already been confirmed that Juncker was not referring to Scotland.
BBC News - Scottish independence: Jean-Claude Juncker 'not referring to Scotland'

JFZ90 2nd Aug 2014 12:16

ORAC, very good link. The text is available too. Some worrying implications:


Session 2013-14
Publications on the internet
Defence Committee - Minutes of EvidenceHC 198


Q224 Chair: On international collaboration on things such as the joint strike fighter, could Scottish companies continue winning those sorts of contracts? To what extent does it matter that the current United Kingdom is the tier 1 partner of the United States? Would winning those contracts still be possible for Scotland?

Professor Taylor: My quick reaction would be no.
This harks back to one of my initial concerns about this whole thing - a Yes would damage the Scottish parts of the UK defence supplier base.




Perthsaint said: Article 49 isn't the issue though is it? The continuation of our membership will be agreed long before we become independent.
Are you winding us up? How will the continuation of your membership be agreed? The letter from McKelvie to Reding was exactly about how the continuation of your membership will be managed (which has been clarified as reapplication under Article 49). It is exactly the issue. You can say it isn't (as per the training video above) as many times as you like, it won't make it true. Bananas are a root vegetable.

---

Tom, I take it your answer on EDI / GLA is "3. Not bother" as the threat won't arise or need dealing with in Scotland - either as it'll be friends with everyone, or just take the risk. Is that right? Eire has PC-9s, not sure they'd catch an airliner however. Who knows what agreements Eire has with the UK for AD? Italy get paid millions/year to help one of their neighbours with AD, so anything is possible. Not sure a few days use of a rocket range will cover it though.

I guess there has never been a terrorist attack at, e.g. GLA, so just taking the risk might be OK. Oh.

Interesting how you don't directly want to state that though. You've clearly done the course :) (don't enter into a debate...)

TomJoad 2nd Aug 2014 12:20


Originally Posted by renfrew (Post 8590439)
Rob Courtney

It has already been confirmed that Juncker was not referring to Scotland.
BBC News - Scottish independence: Jean-Claude Juncker 'not referring to Scotland'

Indeed it has and to the embarrassment of the Better Together camp who jumped in all haste on his first statement to support their position.

Anyone capable of rational thought should consider why would a protracted membership be in the EU's interest. It is quite desperate and sad in a way that Better Together still peddle this nonsense.

Tom

perthsaint 2nd Aug 2014 12:25

Isn't it just? Desperate and sad is all they've got though.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.