The UK - better together!

[mistermack]

This is like the scene from The Matrix with the repeating cat. You're having a re-run of a previous conversation with exactly the same non-arguments.

My only reply would guarantee an intervention by the moderators. I mean... if they're bored and want something to discuss, I can just go ahead...?

Mistermack... you're the son of a (BLEEP), from a (BLEEP)-shaped family tree. If the leaves of your family tree were shaken, there'd be the distinct smell of (BLEEP). That's how much of a (BLEEP) you are. Wake the (BLEEP) up and smell the (BLEEP) coffee, you (BLEEP) excuse of a bygone era of humanity.

How did I do?

Very well. If you were doing a twat impersonation.

[Red Celt]

This is like the scene from The Matrix with the repeating cat. You're having a re-run of a previous conversation with exactly the same non-arguments.

My only reply would guarantee an intervention by the moderators. I mean... if they're bored and want something to discuss, I can just go ahead...?

Mistermack... you're the son of a (BLEEP), from a (BLEEP)-shaped family tree. If the leaves of your family tree were shaken, there'd be the distinct smell of (BLEEP). That's how much of a (BLEEP) you are. Wake the (BLEEP) up and smell the (BLEEP) coffee, you (BLEEP) excuse of a bygone era of humanity.

How did I do?

Very well. If you were doing a twat impersonation.

I wouldn't dare challenge your prominence on that one. Your delivery, poise and consistency... truly unparalleled.

[klr]

This is like the scene from The Matrix with the repeating cat. You're having a re-run of a previous conversation with exactly the same non-arguments.

My only reply would guarantee an intervention by the moderators. I mean... if they're bored and want something to discuss, I can just go ahead...?

Mistermack... you're the son of a (BLEEP), from a (BLEEP)-shaped family tree. If the leaves of your family tree were shaken, there'd be the distinct smell of (BLEEP). That's how much of a (BLEEP) you are. Wake the (BLEEP) up and smell the (BLEEP) coffee, you (BLEEP) excuse of a bygone era of humanity.

How did I do?

Very well. If you were doing a twat impersonation.

(to both of you ...)

Anyway, here are Barroso's thoughts in full:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-20664907

[ronmcd]

At best it shows Salmond to be (uncharacteristically) incompetent. They should have been clear about this issue before the clock started to tick.

Well, I think the Scottish govt have tried to play down the possibility of being chucked out of international organisations, because the reality is it wont happen. But yes, they could have just said all this will be negotiated. Especially when you consider we arent electing a government in 2014, its just independence or not. So they want to hold all decisions about changing the status of Scotland interaction with such organisations etc until a govt actually gets to decide based on an electoral mandate.

But the reality is Scotland WILL stay in EU unless we want out. The terms are going to be negotiated, 5 million people will not have the same agreements as the current UK has.

Of course, will the UK even be intending leaving by 2014, who knows.

[klr]

I wonder what prompted Barroso to give such a clear statement*?

*For a politician, that is.

[ronmcd]

Wait, so a union cannot be dissolved by one (edit) PARTY TO it? How - pray - can the union then be dissoved, if one part wont let the other, or demands ALL must agree?

(I'm not laughing with you, btw ...)

It can't. That's EXACTLY the position. It doesn't matter in the slightest if you think it's funny.
If you think otherwise, I'd like to see your evidence.

The UK Parliament is the sovereign body in the UK. The Scottish Parliament has no power of unilateral independence.
You're living in a dream-world. You want it, so it must be so.

Like I said, it's just you spouting bollox from your daydreams.

If the Scottish people decide in a referendum that they want to return to being an independent country, what do you think will happen?

a) negotiations between Scottish & UK govt over assets and liabilities, followed by ratification in Holyrood & Westminister?

b) Westminister says no!

The Westminister parliament is SCOTLAND's parliament as well as the rest of UK. If Scotland votes yes, Westminister WILL ratify that decision. It is inconceivable that it would not. And the agreement between Salmond and Cameron actually states that both sides agree to the outcome.

[ronmcd]

I wonder what prompted Barroso to give such a clear statement*?

*For a politician, that is.

Have you seen the quotes? I got the impression he simply repeated past answers, including "we do not comment on specific cases". I note that a communications bod from the Scottish govt has said on twitter that they will be approaching the EU themselves (as UK refused to do it) to agree the way forward to ensure Scotland stays within the EU.

[ronmcd]

Anyway, here are Barroso's thoughts in full:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-20664907

On that page is a link to the comments from Brian Taylor, the BBCs Scottish Political Editor, the tartan Nick Robinson as it were (for those who know who Nick Robinson is).

However, his (Barroso's) opinion is, at the very minimum, interesting and influential. Taken to the maximum, it represents arguably a substantive challenge to the SNP position.

To be clear, the position of the SNP has long been that there would have to be negotiations, if only to sort out such basic matters as the number of MEPs to be sent by an independent Scotland to Brussels - and, via the peripatetic Parliament, to Strasbourg.

But Nationalists have insisted that an independent Scotland would start out within the EU - and would conclude the process in the same place. They depict these talks as amicable discussions among colleagues - rather than an external bid by a newcomer.

Talking privately to senior figures on both sides, I find very few - if any - who envisage that Scotland, post independence, would not ultimately retain EU membership. At issue is the timescale - and the terms.

He also points out Barroso isn't actually the one who would decide, personally. Realpolitik would be the decider I suspect.

[mistermack]

Wait, so a union cannot be dissolved by one (edit) PARTY TO it? How - pray - can the union then be dissoved, if one part wont let the other, or demands ALL must agree?

(I'm not laughing with you, btw ...)

It can't. That's EXACTLY the position. It doesn't matter in the slightest if you think it's funny.
If you think otherwise, I'd like to see your evidence.

The UK Parliament is the sovereign body in the UK. The Scottish Parliament has no power of unilateral independence.
You're living in a dream-world. You want it, so it must be so.

Like I said, it's just you spouting bollox from your daydreams.

If the Scottish people decide in a referendum that they want to return to being an independent country, what do you think will happen?

a) negotiations between Scottish & UK govt over assets and liabilities, followed by ratification in Holyrood & Westminister?

b) Westminister says no!

The Westminister parliament is SCOTLAND's parliament as well as the rest of UK. If Scotland votes yes, Westminister WILL ratify that decision. It is inconceivable that it would not. And the agreement between Salmond and Cameron actually states that both sides agree to the outcome.

See, you don't even understand the difference between cannot and will not.
You say cannot, and then, when I point out what bollocks it is, you change to will not.

Thanks. I take that as an acknowledgement that you have been talking bollocks. You're making progress.
Knowing you're talking bollocks is the first step to avoidance.

[ronmcd]

See, you don't even understand the difference between cannot and will not.
You say cannot, and then, when I point out what bollocks it is, you change to will not.

Thanks. I take that as an acknowledgement that you have been talking bollocks. You're making progress.
Knowing you're talking bollocks is the first step to avoidance.

Eh? cannot what? Prevent Scotland from becoming independent? No, Westminister cannot. And they will not.

Clear?

[mistermack]

Eh? cannot what? Prevent Scotland from becoming independent? No, Westminister cannot. And they will not.
Clear?

Clear as shit, and just as useful.
You posted this crap :

Wait, so a union cannot be dissolved by one (edit) PARTY TO it? How - pray - can the union then be dissoved, if one part wont let the other, or demands ALL must agree?

Which I rebutted, and the only proof you could come up with was, "oh, they will never do that".

Maybe they won't, but they could, if they wanted to.
Cameron can't bind the next parliament. It will be sovereign and can do as it chooses.
You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding the difference between what people will probably do, and what they CAN do.

Cameron has agreed to stand by the vote result. But he's not guaranteed to be in power then. The next government will PROBABLY stand by it. That's all. You use these terms like unthinkable and inconceiveable, as if what you thought could affect things.

Personally, I think Cameron really would LIKE Scottish independence. Even if he says the opposite.
He could easily have stuck out for a two-thirds majority required. Not just a one-single-vote majority.
It shows what's in his head. He loses five million population, but keeps himself in power for another ten years.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Rum]

Eh? cannot what? Prevent Scotland from becoming independent? No, Westminister cannot. And they will not.
Clear?

Clear as shit, and just as useful.
You posted this crap :

Wait, so a union cannot be dissolved by one (edit) PARTY TO it? How - pray - can the union then be dissoved, if one part wont let the other, or demands ALL must agree?

Which I rebutted, and the only proof you could come up with was, "oh, they will never do that".

Maybe they won't, but they could, if they wanted to.
Cameron can't bind the next parliament. It will be sovereign and can do as it chooses.
You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding the difference between what people will probably do, and what they CAN do.

Cameron has agreed to stand by the vote result. But he's not guaranteed to be in power then. The next government will PROBABLY stand by it. That's all. You use these terms like unthinkable and inconceiveable, as if what you thought could affect things.

Personally, I think Cameron really would LIKE Scottish independence. Even if he says the opposite.
He could easily have stuck out for a two-thirds majority required. Not just a one-single-vote majority.
It shows what's in his head. He loses five million population, but keeps himself in power for another ten years.

..and lives in history as the PM who allowed the union to break up?

I think not!

[ronmcd]

Maybe they won't, but they could, if they wanted to.

Of course they couldnt. If Scotland voted for independence then there is nothing Westminister could do. If prevented, Scotland could declare UDI, those who were against would likely be so furious they would support the UDI, and the international community would recognise Scotland as having exercised self determination. More importantly, Scotland CAN dissolve the union, as it entered legally into a union with England voluntarily in 1707, two parliaments passed the legal agreement. And Westminister is not sovereign.

The United Nations Charter enshrines the right of peoples to self-determination, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also guarantees peoples' right to change nationality; the UK is a signatory to both documents. Politicians in both the Scottish and British parliaments have endorsed the right of the Scottish people to self-determination, including former UK Prime Ministers John Major and Margaret Thatcher.[61] The Claim of Right 1989 was signed by every then-serving Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democrat MP, with the exception of Tam Dalyell. Johann Lamont stated in her December 2011 acceptance speech for the Scottish Labour leadership that "sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland".[62]

Cameron has agreed to stand by the vote result. But he's not guaranteed to be in power then. The next government will PROBABLY stand by it. That's all. You use these terms like unthinkable and inconceiveable, as if what you thought could affect things.

No. It would never happen, and if a politician said no after a yes vote, then it would be ignored. But it wont be.

Personally, I think Cameron really would LIKE Scottish independence. Even if he says the opposite.
He could easily have stuck out for a two-thirds majority required. Not just a one-single-vote majority.

you're funny.

[ronmcd]

Just finished watching Newsnight Scotland on BBC, three academics seemed quite astonished that Barroso said what he said, they suggested he had no authority to say it, and moreover he was making law up on the hoof as no laws exist to cover the situation Scotland is in.

Basically, they can't see how it is even possible to throw Scotland out.

Familiar ....

(edit - one was happy to see that the Deputy First Minister is requesting meeting with Barroso to sort this out. Cos it's nonsense)