British Politics

[Graeme]

If you actually bother to read the documents and articles you posted you'll find that none of them directly contradict anything I've said.

I didn't say Scotland would definitely not have to re-apply (although I did say there was some ambiguity around this). I said it probably wouldn't take "years" because we, unlike the other prospective countries on the list already meet the criteria (which I listed above). The Guardian article you quoted literally backs up exactly what I said:

“Jacqueline Minor, the European commission’s head of representation in the UK, said Scotland would need to formally apply after leaving the UK, although it could be fast-tracked because it already complies with EU rules and regulations...

There are a number of official candidate countries – Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, [but] they are still quite some way away from meeting the criteria for membership. And obviously were Scotland to become independent, they would join that list.

“Now, it might be easier for an independent Scotland to meet those criteria. The fact that all your legislation has to be in alignment with existing European rules would presumably not be too difficult for Scotland, compared with, say, Montenegro. And that might enable them to move faster than others.”

The sources you quoted from 2012 and 2014 (and the Politicshome article from 2017) really only indicate that Scotland would (probably) have to re-apply, they don't say "Scotland would have to re-apply and we'd make it as arduous for them as we possibly could". There may have been a bit of rhetoric to that effect in 2014 because the EU administration was keen to be seen to be respecting the 'side' of the UK Government. 

However, (as I said above) once the UK chose to leave the EU, the EU no longer had any interest in respecting the territorial integrity of the UK, and the commentary around Scotland applying for membership from senior EU figures has been pretty positive since then:

"Overall, an independent Scotland should have the prospect of a relatively swift and smooth route to re-joining the EU, subject to negotiating the substantive issues covered above. The politics of how the EU member states would look at Scotland’s application to re-join would also be much more constructive, not least in the face of Brexit. Accession would still require unanimity, and the future politics of different member states, including Spain, cannot be guaranteed. But, for now, the political reluctance expressed in Brussels in 2014 would not be replicated. And Scotland would be able to develop its bilateral relationships with the EU’s member states, as its accession talks proceeded."

https://www.scer.scot/database/ident-10897 - that article is more rooted in Political Science, and is also more recent, ergo more likely to provide an accurate reflection on the current state of affairs.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Graeme

[DieselDaisy]

26 minutes ago, Graeme said:

If you actually bother to read the documents and articles you posted you'll find that none of them directly contradict anything I've said.

I didn't say Scotland would definitely not have to re-apply (although I did say there was some ambiguity around this). I said it probably wouldn't take "years" because we, unlike the other prospective countries on the list already meet the criteria (which I listed above). The Guardian article you quoted literally backs up exactly what I said:

“Jacqueline Minor, the European commission’s head of representation in the UK, said Scotland would need to formally apply after leaving the UK, although it could be fast-tracked because it already complies with EU rules and regulations...

There are a number of official candidate countries – Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, [but] they are still quite some way away from meeting the criteria for membership. And obviously were Scotland to become independent, they would join that list.

“Now, it might be easier for an independent Scotland to meet those criteria. The fact that all your legislation has to be in alignment with existing European rules would presumably not be too difficult for Scotland, compared with, say, Montenegro. And that might enable them to move faster than others.”

The sources you quoted from 2012 and 2014 (and the Politicshome article from 2017) really only indicate that Scotland would (probably) have to re-apply, they don't say "Scotland would have to re-apply and we'd make it as arduous for them as we possibly could". There may have been a bit of rhetoric to that effect in 2014 because the EU administration was keen to be seen to be respecting the 'side' of the UK Government. 

However, (as I said above) once the UK chose to leave the EU, the EU no longer had any interest in respecting the territorial integrity of the UK, and the commentary around Scotland applying for membership from senior EU figures has been pretty positive since then:

"Overall, an independent Scotland should have the prospect of a relatively swift and smooth route to re-joining the EU, subject to negotiating the substantive issues covered above. The politics of how the EU member states would look at Scotland’s application to re-join would also be much more constructive, not least in the face of Brexit. Accession would still require unanimity, and the future politics of different member states, including Spain, cannot be guaranteed. But, for now, the political reluctance expressed in Brussels in 2014 would not be replicated. And Scotland would be able to develop its bilateral relationships with the EU’s member states, as its accession talks proceeded."

https://www.scer.scot/database/ident-10897 - that article is more rooted in Political Science, and is also more recent, ergo more likely to provide an accurate reflection on the current state of affairs.

You said,

5 hours ago, Graeme said:

 a second independence referendum as an alternative to leaving the EU.

A second independence referendum quite clearly cannot be an alternative to leaving since Scotland would have to reapply anyhow. 

By the way why didn't you post the counter-protest, of Scots carrying Union Jacks?

Edited May 6, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Dazey]

28 minutes ago, Graeme said:

If you actually bother to read the documents and articles you posted you'll find that none of them directly contradict anything I've said.

I didn't say Scotland would definitely not have to re-apply (although I did say there was some ambiguity around this). I said it probably wouldn't take "years" because we, unlike the other prospective countries on the list already meet the criteria (which I listed above). The Guardian article you quoted literally backs up exactly what I said:

“Jacqueline Minor, the European commission’s head of representation in the UK, said Scotland would need to formally apply after leaving the UK, although it could be fast-tracked because it already complies with EU rules and regulations...

There are a number of official candidate countries – Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, [but] they are still quite some way away from meeting the criteria for membership. And obviously were Scotland to become independent, they would join that list.

“Now, it might be easier for an independent Scotland to meet those criteria. The fact that all your legislation has to be in alignment with existing European rules would presumably not be too difficult for Scotland, compared with, say, Montenegro. And that might enable them to move faster than others.”

The sources you quoted from 2012 and 2014 (and the Politicshome article from 2017) really only indicate that Scotland would (probably) have to re-apply, they don't say "Scotland would have to re-apply and we'd make it as arduous for them as we possibly could". There may have been a bit of rhetoric to that effect in 2014 because the EU administration was keen to be seen to be respecting the 'side' of the UK Government. 

However, (as I said above) once the UK chose to leave the EU, the EU no longer had any interest in respecting the territorial integrity of the UK, and the commentary around Scotland applying for membership from senior EU figures has been pretty positive since then:

"Overall, an independent Scotland should have the prospect of a relatively swift and smooth route to re-joining the EU, subject to negotiating the substantive issues covered above. The politics of how the EU member states would look at Scotland’s application to re-join would also be much more constructive, not least in the face of Brexit. Accession would still require unanimity, and the future politics of different member states, including Spain, cannot be guaranteed. But, for now, the political reluctance expressed in Brussels in 2014 would not be replicated. And Scotland would be able to develop its bilateral relationships with the EU’s member states, as its accession talks proceeded."

https://www.scer.scot/database/ident-10897 - that article is more rooted in Political Science, and is also more recent, ergo more likely to provide an accurate reflection on the current state of affairs.

I say best of luck to Scotland. We’ve made our fucking bed and deserve to lie in it. Let’s not drag the poor fuckers down with us. My main concern is that Scottish independence gives the rest of us a Tory government for the next 100 years as the loss of the extra 59 constituencies along with a Corbyn led Labour Party pretty much fucks us forever. 

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

By the way why didn't you post the counter-protest, of Scots carrying Union Jacks?

Because unless they had a ship sailing down the street there were no Union Jacks.  

[soon]

And here when I saw the time lapse Scottish Independence video of the march, I just figured that a conspiracy person was bound to post "Its just 50 people marching in a loop, out of sight for most if it."

This actual political debate is a rather pleasing turn of events for a North American like myself.  

[DieselDaisy]

11 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I say best of luck to Scotland. We’ve made our fucking bed and deserve to lie in it. Let’s not drag the poor fuckers down with us. My main concern is that Scottish independence gives the rest of us a Tory government for the next 100 years as the loss of the extra 59 constituencies along with a Corbyn led Labour Party pretty much fucks us forever. 

And who is ''we''?

[Dazey]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And who is ''we''?

Well mostly you because I voted to remain. 

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Well mostly you because I voted to remain. 

The referendum wasn't by constituencies or home nations but a national popular vote. Thus,

- 38% of Scottish voters voted leave 

- 52.53% of Welsh voters voted leave

(Conversely 59.93% Londoners - London, England - voted remain).

The appropriation of ''remain'' by Scottish nationals (vis a vis England and leave) is factually dishonest and nefarious. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Dazey]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The referendum wasn't by constituencies or home nations but a national popular vote. Thus,

- 38% of Scottish voters voted leave 

- Wales voted leave

(Conversely London, England voted remain).

The appropriation of ''remain'' by Scottish nationals (vis a vis England and leave) is factually dishonest and nefarious. 

Well not really given that the country voted remain. My point being that I’d prefer to keep the union together but given that we seem to habitually fuck them over, maybe it’s time to let them do their own thing. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Dazey

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Well not really given that the country voters remain. My point being that I’d prefer to keep the union together but given that we seem to habitually fuck them over, maybe it’s time to let them do their own thing. 

I completely agree. 55.30% voted ''no'' to the referedum question ''should Scotland be an independent country?'' in 2014. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

The top 3 remainer constituencies were not even in Scotland. Streatham, Chuka's gaffe, voted remain to 79%. 

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I completely agree. 55.30% voted ''no'' to the referedum question ''should Scotland be an independent country?'' in 2014. 

I think they get second shot at it. The Brexit vote wasn’t a thing at the time and I suspect that the outcome of the independence vote would have been different given knowledge of the current situation. I don’t know why you’re arsed about it. Scottish independence would put Rees-Mogg, BoJo and their ilk in power for the next few decades. 

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The top 3 remainer constituencies were not even in Scotland. Streatham, Chuka's gaffe, voted remain to 79%. 

The only thing I know about Stretham is when Rodney pronounced it as St Reatham in Only Fools.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I think they get second shot at it. The Brexit vote wasn’t a thing at the time and I suspect that the outcome of the independence vote would have been different given knowledge of the current situation. I don’t know why you’re arsed about it. Scottish independence would put Rees-Mogg, BoJo and their ilk in power for the next few decades. 

I will always support the United Kingdom. I believe it to be one of the greatest things ever erected. I have Scottish military ancestry/family members so we are all very pro-Union. 

[soon]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I believe it to be one of the greatest things ever erected.

Oo er

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, soon said:

Oo er

England and Scotland had been locked in continuous conflict since the early middle ages, since approximately the 7th century until Dunbar 1650 perhaps. This ceased (albeit, minus two major Jacobite uprisings, the ''15'' and ''45'') upon Union in 1707. The English and Scottish militaries were instead merged and helped defeat tyrants such as Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler, and constituted part of NATO during the Cold War.

[Dazey]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

England and Scotland had been locked in continuous conflict since the early middle ages, since approximately the 7th century until Dunbar 1650 perhaps. This ceased (albeit, minus two major Jacobite uprisings, the ''15'' and ''45'') upon Union in 1707. The English and Scottish militaries were instead merged and helped defeat tyrants such as Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler, and constituted part of NATO during the Cold War.

YAWN!!!!!!!

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Dazey said:

YAWN!!!!!!!

Well we have come to expect intellectual conversation from you at all times. 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well we have come to expect intellectual conversation from you at all times. 

As opposed to you who gets a semi over some nonsense with zero modern relevance that happened in fucking 1707.  

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

As opposed to you who gets a semi over some nonsense with zero modern relevance that happened in fucking 1707.  

I believe the Union and all that it entails (e.g. the British Army) still exists - it exists as we speak - and many of those events occurred long after 1707. 

PS

Those events certainly do have relevance to the modern era. The world we live in was shaped by them.

Edited May 6, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Dazey]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I believe the Union and all that it entails (e.g. the British Army) still exists - it exists as we speak - and many of those events occurred long after 1707. 

BOOOORRRING!!!!!!

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

BOOOORRRING!!!!!!

Your cerebellum is working overtime tonight I see?

[soon]

27 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

England and Scotland had been locked in continuous conflict since the early middle ages, since approximately the 7th century until Dunbar 1650 perhaps. This ceased (albeit, minus two major Jacobite uprisings, the ''15'' and ''45'') upon Union in 1707. The English and Scottish militaries were instead merged and helped defeat tyrants such as Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler, and constituted part of NATO during the Cold War.

The Six Nations of Turtle Island (North America) have a similar story. Pre-colonization they were trading and warring tribes until a "man of peace appeared" and taught new teachings. This is where the term "bury the hatchet" comes from. They all did just that under a white pine tree (a tree known for healing that is jam packed with Vit C and other nutrients). 

The Six Nations have been at peace and living together and/or near each other since. There is the Six Nations reserve in South Ontario. And they continue to defend the land to this day. The Mohawk Warriors protect them and they practice non violent resistance to land theft and pollution. Their 3 Sisters soup is delicious!! As is their bannock - a fry bread recipe that the Iroquois traded from the Scottish settlers in fact, before spreading the recipe among most tribes including Six.

Many Six Nations fought in the Wars. Meaning that many fought in the Scottish Regiment if Im not mistaken!

Edited May 6, 2019 by soon

[Graeme]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

By the way why didn't you post the counter-protest, of Scots carrying Union Jacks?

Because there were about 40 of them.

That was all of them.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Graeme

[DieselDaisy]

11 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Because there were about 40 of them.

Well, it is like the EU lot: the more vociferous are the ones who lost the referenda.

[EvanG]

It's always fascinating to see how most pro-Euros are able to admit that the EU needs improvement, yet Eurosceptics can't admit that, for most countries, the EU has done a lot more good than harm.

[Len Cnut]

17 hours ago, Dazey said:

 

The only thing I know about Stretham is when Rodney pronounced it as St Reatham in Only Fools.

Did that actually happen?!