This blog exclusively broke the news that Juncker was much more friendly to Scottish independence, and that was a major reason for Cameron’s bitter opposition.
Unionists were in frenzies of delight this past 24 hours at Juncker’s statement that he saw no further enlargement of the EU for five years. Wings Over Scotland has done an excellent job of summing up the triumphalism of the media and of every senior Unionist politician you can think of.
The BBC deserves the massive criticism it has been given for unionist bias, but James Cook of the BBC deserves credit for asking Juncker’s office whether his statement included Scotland. The reply could not have been more clear. Juncker did not include Scotland in that statement. As Juncker had said before, Scottish independence is a matter for democratic decision and is an internal EU matter. Juncker was talking abut the length of time it would take applicant nations to meet the acquis communitaire, or body of EU law, regulation and obligation. Scotland, by definition, already does meet the acquis.
All this Juncker’s office told the BBC explicitly. What is implicit, and self-evidently true, is that Scotland’s independence is not an enlargement, it is just Scotland remaining in, requiring some internal readjustment.
This ought to be good news for everyone – including the unionists.
I can understand that there are people who genuinely love Scotland, but wish for reasons of history to retain the United Kingdom. I even understand some of those honestly believe Scots will be wealthier and happier in the UK. I think they are very wrong, but entitled to that view and some people hold it sincerely.
But such genuine Unionists, should they lose the referendum, would surely wish Scotland to remain in the European Union? That already guarantees the continuance of all the most essential links between England and Scotland, in particular full freedom of movement and settlement and trade and citizens’ rights. It is also important for Scotland’s future prosperity.
Surely a real unionist would want to retain the Union, but still want Scotland to remain in the EU if it became independent?
But instead, every professional unionist politician was gloating at the entirely fictitious prospect of Scotland being kicked out of the EU. They were absolutely delighted at the prospect. They really hate Scotland.
There are decent unionists. But the professional politicians are not decent unionists. They were delighted at the very idea that Scotland might be kicked out of the EU. Because actually they hate, despise and fear Scotland and the Scots. For them, Scotland only exists to pay for their very comfortable public funded lifestyles. The idea they may lose their power, influence and above all their money, horrifies them.
“You are going to vote for the Union!! You are going to vote for me!! If not, you are going to SUFFER, you bastards, SUFFER!!!”
I have a prize of two hundred pounds available to the first person who can show me an instance of the media reporting Juncker’s clarification with the same prominence, space and energy they devoted to splashing the Unionist scare story.
…mercantilism…
Germany is extremely stupid. And doing rather better than the rest of the EU –
http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2012/04/21/german-mercantilism-and-the-failure-of-the-eurozone-guest-post-by-heiner-flassbeck/
I was born in England so I am neutral on the vote. I am however very concerned about the extent of media bias against the yes vote. In reality both sides have exaggerated their cases, therefore it is nice that Sir Tom Hunter is trying to have an accurate debate.
One thing that would not surprise me would be North Sea Oil output being talked up after a No vote win. I am sure some technocality will be cited.
Ba’al
I genuinely enjoyed that article, though his “new mercantilism” has nothing to do with mercantilism that I can fathom.
Still don’t see any agreement by you, Anon, to my proposed bet, and until you do so, IT IS NOT ON.
Not going to allow the current uncertainty to allow you to win no matter what happens.
his “new mercantilism” ..
It’s almost subliminal. But what I take to be the gist is that Germany, by adopting a semi-independent economic policy (while at the same time following a neoliberal economic model) is in market terms, in a very good position. If it had accepted the same inflation controls as most of the rest of the EU, it wouldn’t be. It’s not playing the EU game, IOW.
No need for border controls and tariffs if your neighbours are playing by different rules to you. Instant commercial advantage.
Oh, but please note, German wages haven’t risen to echo the purring of the fat cats…I’m not saying it’s a good arrangement.
http://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/german-real-wages.png?w=450&h=250
Tom, devo max is not on the ballot. the question is, “Should Scotland be an independent country”. The only options are YES and NO. For all the talk about more powers for Holyrood, There is nothing on the ballot about devo max. There is nothing to compel Westminster to grant devo max. The Scottish government wanted a 3rd question, which had to do with devo max or a some other guaranteed powers for Holyrood. Westminster nixed it. Why? Why are they making all these offers of more powers now? If we vote NO, more powers will not have been genuinely offered. IF Westminster grants them, which they will have no obligation to do, they may take them away after a time. If we vote YES, more powers are guaranteed. But Jim Callaghan’s daughter, Baroness Jay,tells us that independence is not guaranteed after a YES vote. We can certainly expect as many obstacles a possible to be put in the way. We may just have to have a UDI.
“But you live in Scotland and I would truly be very surprised if you had encountered any hatred.”
People here are no different to people everywhere else with all the same capacity to hate.
Now back to the matter I mentioned earlier of the arming of the police in Scotland.
http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/A-row-outside-McDonalds-Send-the-gun-squad-16072014.htm
If the Westminster government had been responsible for that there would be uproar, if the bobbies on the beat in English towns were routinely armed there would be uproar so how come the political activists turn a blind eye to Scotland becoming an armed police state?
“The idea they may lose their power, influence and above all their money, horrifies them.”
I suspect that that motivation informs pretty much all the words and deeds of the people who rise to the top of politics in this country, not just on the Unionism/Separatism issue, but across the board.
What about the timing of Gideon’s underwriting of a £230m loan to Ratcliffe’s Ineos, thus ‘guaranteeing 800 jobs’ according to the BBC this morning? Helpful for the Better Together campaign?
‘”Without doubt, this is one of the most important infrastructure projects of recent times in Scotland,” he said. Mr Ratcliffe said the benefits would not only come in the form of “protecting thousands of jobs in Scotland and across the UK” but boosting manufacturing.’
So it’s public money underwritten by the government?
‘The loan guarantee enables it to raise financing on £230m through a public bond issue specifically to cover the building of the import facility and storage tank.’
The tank is to store imported US shale gas.
Financing secured to build Europe’s largest ethane store in Grangemouth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-28331545
“What about the timing of Gideon’s underwriting of a £230m loan to Ratcliffe’s Ineos, thus ‘guaranteeing 800 jobs’ according to the BBC this morning? Helpful for the Better Together campaign?”
My opinion would be this is the result of the situation in Ukraine.
Europe would like to reduce their dependence on Russian gas and America would like to make lots of money selling us their gas. It means building terminals to take it.
Don’t think it has sod all to do with the referendum.
Roderick Russell
thanks for the link,
Freedom Freedom Freedom brand on sale is nothing like the advertised product it purports to be, in fact it is rotten product that is getting shoved down our throat by the monopoly Freedom corporation.
There appears to be a monstrous elephant (or two) in this particular room.
First, the Scots seems to assume that – their wealth will be based upon their ownership of North Sea Oil; second, they seem to assume that the British (London) Treasury will still support the bail-out of Scottish banks.
In the first instance; ALL the British taxpayers paid to open up the North Sea oil fields and ALL the British taxpayers deserve to reap the benefits. In the second instance, if the Scots want independence surely they should accept responsibility for their banks and repay the full amounts of the bail-outs to the British Treasury on the first day of independence and guarantee the deposits of other nationalities held in their banks.
It appears to me that the Scots interpret everything as if they will be allowed to have their cake AND eat it!
Bert.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/uk-government-launch-anti-independence-website-1-3481769
If the people voting in the referendum on Scotland vote for independence, it will be in Britan’s interest that they remain in the EU, as a country friendly to Britain – with their own currency, like Sweden, unless they prefer the Euro.
Still see non agreement by you, Anon, about the bet, so it’s off.
I am giving up on this site where Craig and others pick and choose about what I can post, and can be deleted.
Your £200 is safe, you can go ahead and spend it!