Scottish and Irish Independence

NYboro said:
I'd be surprised if you could find any differences.
Click to expand...
From everything I've seen that's being proposed in terms of replacement commercial regulations, the 'UK regs' are going to make the EU regs (we're used to being governed by) look light touch.
 
Nero said:
The SNP have pulled a blinder convincing people Scotland is run by the Tories. Everything except defence is organised, ran and decisions made in Edinburgh. Any policy mess or government failure is the SNP, but they dodge critics by blaming Westminster.

If another referendum is held, I just don't see how the SNP can solve the biggest issue last time; currency. If they continue using Sterling, their main bank is the Bank of England. How can that be independence if a foreign bank is setting monetary policy?

In addition, the SNP creating a narrative that Scottish Oil would create some utopia. That was based on a long gone price of Brent at approximately $90.
Click to expand...
"If they continue using Sterling, their main bank is the Bank of England. How can that be independence if a foreign bank is setting monetary policy?"
You are describing the situation for all Eurozone members. Joining the Euro means the end of independence.
 
JackG said:
"If they continue using Sterling, their main bank is the Bank of England. How can that be independence if a foreign bank is setting monetary policy?"
You are describing the situation for all Eurozone members. Joining the Euro means the end of independence.
Click to expand...
Plenty of countries use the US dollar as their de facto currency. Doesn't mean they slavishly follow US monetary policy.
 
NYboro said:
Plenty of countries use the US dollar as their de facto currency. Doesn't mean they slavishly follow US monetary policy.
Click to expand...
That's a good point and I did think of that, but Sterling/BOE was an argument the SNP lost badly last time.

Their argument for independence is partly based on big bad Westminster. It's a play on emotions, but if London is so bad, why are you sticking with the pound?
 
NYboro said:
Plenty of countries use the US dollar as their de facto currency. Doesn't mean they slavishly follow US monetary policy.
Click to expand...
If they genuinely use the US dollar as their de facto currency then they can no more run monetary policy independent of the Fed than Scotland can run monetary policy independent of the Bank of England.
 
JackG said:
"If they continue using Sterling, their main bank is the Bank of England. How can that be independence if a foreign bank is setting monetary policy?"
You are describing the situation for all Eurozone members. Joining the Euro means the end of independence.
Click to expand...
Hence the UK already had the best of both worlds. Out of the EURO and Schengen but part of the biggest economic area in the world.
 
Trug said:
The Irish government put the Treaty of Lisbon before the Irish people. The Irish people rejected it. The Irish government asked their MPs to find out why it was rejected. The Irish MPs duly asked their constituents the question. The constituents told their MPs what they wanted. The MPs went back to the Irish government with the feedback. The Irish government then went back to the EU and told them what the Irish people had said. The EU amended the Lisbon treaty to reflect the views of the Irish people. T Irish government then put the amended proposed treaty to their people. The people accepted the amendments and voted for the new treaty.
Ireland is a sovereign nation and exercised their sovereignty in this instance. That is something any EU memberhas a right to do.
When the Lisbon treaty was proposed the then British PM (Major?) , when pressed, refused point blank to have a referedum. That's it in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

So you agree it's a fact that the EU ploughed on with a version of the constitution despite it being rejected by voters and that only the Irish got to have a vote on Lisbon (my main points to Lefty).

The Irish people didn't get to vote on Lisbon due to the benevolence of their government it was because of their constitution, they had no choice. I would hazard a guess that if it hadn't been forced on them the Irish government would have denied their electorate a vote just like the rest. The French and the Dutch rejected the EU constitution and opinion polls in this country indicated we would so why would the politicians risk asking the people about Lisbon.

The text of the Lisbon treaty was never changed the Irish just got a few guarantees, a protocol on tax and they got to keep their commissioner.

The biggest change in reasons for voting yes from the first Lisbon referendum to the second had nothing to do with the above but was the economy which saw a jump from 3% thinking it was important to 20% . Not a surprise really considering their economy was collapsing by 2009 & the Irish government used a version of project fear.

Gordon Brown was prime minister at the time the Lisbon treaty was ratified. It was his decision not to hold a referendum & I would guess that was because he was pretty sure he would loose it.
 
BoroBosco said:
So you agree it's a fact that the EU ploughed on with a version of the constitution despite it being rejected by voters and that only the Irish got to have a vote on Lisbon (my main points to Lefty).

The Irish people didn't get to vote on Lisbon due to the benevolence of their government it was because of their constitution, they had no choice. I would hazard a guess that if it hadn't been forced on them the Irish government would have denied their electorate a vote just like the rest. The French and the Dutch rejected the EU constitution and opinion polls in this country indicated we would so why would the politicians risk asking the people about Lisbon.

The text of the Lisbon treaty was never changed the Irish just got a few guarantees, a protocol on tax and they got to keep their commissioner.

The biggest change in reasons for voting yes from the first Lisbon referendum to the second had nothing to do with the above but was the economy which saw a jump from 3% thinking it was important to 20% . Not a surprise really considering their economy was collapsing by 2009 & the Irish government used a version of project fear.

Gordon Brown was prime minister at the time the Lisbon treaty was ratified. It was his decision not to hold a referendum & I would guess that was because he was pretty sure he would loose it.
Click to expand...
So you agree it's a fact that the EU ploughed on with a version of the constitution despite it being rejected by voters and that only the Irish got to have a vote on Lisbon (my main points to Lefty). In your previous post you stated the the EU made the Irish vote again, then in your last post you stated that the Irish only voted again because of their constitution . There seems to be a contradiction there. Anyway.................................

..........................The original version was rejected by the Irish people. The revised version was accepted.

The revisions were about guaranteeing neutrality, tax laws, family laws, labour and social guarantees. These are the parts that the Irish people had concerns about and wanted concessions enshrined in law before they voted for the treaty. These were the parts that the EU then guaranteed and placed it bindingly within the treaty before sending the treaty back to Dublin for ratification.
You are correct about it being part of the Constitution ( oh to have one of those) and you are also correct about Brown being PM.
www.dw.com

Brussels summit – DW – 06/19/2009

Ireland and the Czech presidency of the European Union have reached a breakthrough deal on a set of guarantees to convince Irish voters to back the bloc's stalled Lisbon Treaty, diplomats at a summit in Brussels said.
www.dw.com www.dw.com
 
Trug said:
In your previous post you stated the the EU made the Irish vote again, then in your last post you stated that the Irish only voted again because of their constitution . There seems to be a contradiction there.
Click to expand...

I said they got the first vote on the Lisbon treaty because of their constitution. They voted No and at that point it could have all stopped but it didn't suit the politicians so they were made to vote again.

Trug said:
The revisions were about guaranteeing neutrality, tax laws, family laws, labour and social guarantees. These are the parts that the Irish people had concerns about and wanted concessions enshrined in law before they voted for the treaty. These were the parts that the EU then guaranteed and placed it bindingly within the treaty before sending the treaty back to Dublin for ratification.
You are correct about it being part of the Constitution ( oh to have one of those) and you are also correct about Brown being PM.
Click to expand...

Have a read of this report prepared for the Department of Foreign Affairs and you can see why people voted the way they did.

Important reasons for voting No:-
Neutrality and military issues 8% first ref 4% second ref.
Abortion issue 2% first ref 2% second ref.
Loss of Irish Commissioner 4% first ref 0% second ref.
Loss of control over taxation 3% first ref 0% second ref.

Important reasons for voting Yes
Good for economy/jobs/taxes/EU funding 3% first ref 20% second ref
Reassured guarantees 1% second ref.
 
Nero said:
Hence the UK already had the best of both worlds. Out of the EURO and Schengen but part of the biggest economic area in the world.
Click to expand...
I'll certainly agree with that! We'll never get that deal again, I'm afraid. If we rejoin at some future date it will be on worse terms.
 
JackG said:
"If they continue using Sterling, their main bank is the Bank of England. How can that be independence if a foreign bank is setting monetary policy?"
You are describing the situation for all Eurozone members. Joining the Euro means the end of independence.
Click to expand...
At least there is honesty in your conclusion.
 
HundredRoom said:
I don't think the staunchest pro EU advocate would argue that the EU is less bureaucratic than the UK.
But I have feeling someone will tell me otherwise
Click to expand...

I thought of this last night when I found out that Amazon have stopped selling alcohol in Northern Ireland (and are withdrawing other products soon) due to increased Brexit red tape...from the UK Government.
 
The EU point is rubbish as well as Nicola sturgeon wants independence for Scotland end of whether we had remained in the EU or not.

it’s a crusade with her a pathological obsession that taints everything’s she says it does even now the pandemic is just an excuse to put a bigger rift betwixt Edinburg and London.

so let’s not kid ourselves that this is some how about the EU as it’s not and never has been afterall her first referendum ( that she lost) was called whilst we were still in the EU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top