Baxter Parp Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I actually take this as a tartan fear inspired story along the lines of 'the English, Westminster Torys are even plotting with the Ruskies against us' So you see the Sunday Herald as an Independence supporting newspaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 So you see the Sunday Herald as an Independence supporting newspaper? Don't know, never said it was; I made a comment on this particular story which for me is 'yes' leaning. It even includes a comment from the FM on a story based on an anon source to a Russian news agency then picked up by the Herald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Bojangles Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 That's weird. If you watch state sponsored (and even more overtly biased to towing the government line than the BBC) Russia Today, they have been very pro independence every time I've watched it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Like this quote from Alistair Darling in the Guardian today "Those who think it's over bar the shouting are seriously misleading themselves." Wonder if Reynard and HB agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Like this quote from Alistair Darling in the Guardian today "Those who think it's over bar the shouting are seriously misleading themselves." Wonder if Reynard and HB agree? We've been over this. Try finding a football manager that will admit the title is theirs with a 17 point lead and 6 games left. No one wants to be on a dressing room wall for motivation. What exactly do you expect Darling to say :- "Aye, it's in the bag - I'm just putting my feet up for the next few months - might come back in July or so and speak to you again, if I can be bothered likes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Interesting to see that dastardly pro-No media leading with the Putin story, which allowed Salmond to get a few punches in. I thought that didn't happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 We've been over this. Try finding a football manager that will admit the title is theirs with a 17 point lead and 6 games left. No one wants to be on a dressing room wall for motivation. What exactly do you expect Darling to say :- "Aye, it's in the bag - I'm just putting my feet up for the next few months - might come back in July or so and speak to you again, if I can be bothered likes". Except xbl RIP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Except xbl RIP. YOLO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I've already given you my view. And the most important line in the article. "And he adds that, if while it's true that the public statements from the Union (that is, the obligation to reapply for entry) have been clear with respect to the current legislation, "a realistic and efficient solution for an eventual independence must be found". This is just Sturgeon like fail. It acknowledges that the narrative he is trying to sell has no legal basis. What he is saying is, as I said above, "let's ignore the law and find another solution". It should also be noticed that for "a realistic and efficient solution for an eventual independence [to] be found" it requires EXACTLY THE SAME TREATY HURDLE of UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ALL EXISTING MEMBER STATES. So whatever the politics, the threshold of the Treaties remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 It should also be noticed that for "a realistic and efficient solution for an eventual independence [to] be found" it requires EXACTLY THE SAME TREATY HURDLE of UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ALL EXISTING MEMBER STATES. So whatever the politics, the threshold of the Treaties remains. Uh-huh, and which member state would veto Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Uh-huh, and which member state would veto Scotland? Veto Scotland from what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Veto Scotland from what? The EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 The EU. Depends entirely on the terms the respective parties are prepared to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Depends entirely on the terms the respective parties are prepared to accept. Which means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOGI IS GOD Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Really enjoyed this blog post talking about the 9 months ahead http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/stop-right-there/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Which means? If Scotland is prepared to accept the default terms of membership (including obligations concerning the Euro, Schengen and having no rebate whatsoever), probably none of them. If Scotland is going to insist on terms closer to or equivalent to, the membership terms held by the UK at the moment, potentially any of them, depending on who their incumbent governments are and what their attitude is towards such terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 If Scotland is prepared to accept the default terms of membership (including obligations concerning the Euro, Schengen and having no rebate whatsoever), probably none of them. If Scotland is going to insist on terms closer to or equivalent to, the membership terms held by the UK at the moment, potentially any of them, depending on who their incumbent governments are and what their attitude is towards such terms. What terms do other small countries have that have been recently admitted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 If Scotland is prepared to accept the default terms of membership (including obligations concerning the Euro, Schengen and having no rebate whatsoever), probably none of them. If Scotland is going to insist on terms closer to or equivalent to, the membership terms held by the UK at the moment, potentially any of them, depending on who their incumbent governments are and what their attitude is towards such terms. What is your opinion of how any change to these membership terms would affect the existing EU citizens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 What terms do other small countries have that have been recently admitted? Obligations to implement the Schengen rules, obligations to join the Euro on meeting convergence criteria (c.f. UK opt-out), no rebates, more restrictive CFP quotas among other things. What is your opinion of how any change to these membership terms would affect the existing EU citizens? Probably little if any, provided the membership terms were achieved without an interrupted period of being part of the territorial application of the EU treaties. The differences would be in respect of the obligations on their member-state and their fiscal entitlements and liabilities in respect of the EU budget. That translates into policy and expenditure considerations at a domestic level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Obligations to implement the Schengen rules, obligations to join the Euro on meeting convergence criteria (c.f. UK opt-out), no rebates, more restrictive CFP quotas among other things. Probably little if any, provided the membership terms were achieved without an interrupted period of being part of the territorial application of the EU treaties. The differences would be in respect of the obligations on their member-state and their fiscal entitlements and liabilities in respect of the EU budget. That translates into policy and expenditure considerations at a domestic level. Are you still trying to peddle this idea we'll be forced to join the Euro? Don't get me wrong, the statement in bold is correct, but as I and many others have repeatedly stated, one of those bits of criteria is voluntary( membership of the ERM II for at least two years). However, once again you have decided not to mention this because it fits your agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.