Brexit delayed

[Mellsblue]

It is an interesting debate seeing one side argue for independence in a different union while the other side argue for freedom from a foreign union while remaining in another one.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Apart from the word "Union", they are not remotely the same thing.

I agree. But that is not how the debate is going to go.


Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Agreed. Just as in the EU referendum, it'll come down to a couple of headlines (immigration v emergency Brexit budget) rather than a nuanced debate about the positives and negatives of each position.

[Mellsblue]

Apart from the word "Union", they are not remotely the same thing.

I agree. But that is not how the debate is going to go.

To make my position clear, being part French-part Scottish living in Bulgaria I have a positive attitude towards the EU. I also support scottish independence. I will not pretend to be unbiased. I do appreciate that both choices come with different risks and challenges.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

until after the UK has left the EU,

Do you think this actually makes any substantial difference? (Genuine question, not politics board passive aggression) An independent Scotland would've been out of the EU, anyway.

[Stones of granite]

I agree. But that is not how the debate is going to go.

To make my position clear, being part French-part Scottish living in Bulgaria I have a positive attitude towards the EU. I also support scottish independence. I will not pretend to be unbiased. I do appreciate that both choices come with different risks and challenges.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

until after the UK has left the EU,

Do you think this actually makes any substantial difference? (Genuine question, not politics board passive aggression) An independent Scotland would've been out of the EU, anyway.

I think it makes a huge difference to the starting point of the negotiations with the EU. Negotiating from the position of a member wishing to remain (the position in 2014) would be politically much different from negotiating from the position of a former member trying to get back in (potentially the position in 2019).

[Adder]

Do you think this actually makes any substantial difference? (Genuine question, not politics board passive aggression)

Well, being in the EU facilitates access to a strong market and makes Scotland more attractive to external investments so it would say yes.

An independent Scotland would've been out of the EU, anyway.

That was a big debate, as there were quite a lot of questions around it. The EU has never lost "citizens", could they remove existing EU citizens from the EU against their will?/ is the UK still the UK without Scotland? Both sides would have different answers and would find different EU Officials to back them up with their private interpretation.

[Mellsblue]

Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

[Stones of granite]

Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

[Mellsblue]

Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

I agree that the EU would've probably found a way round it* but it's a big leap of faith for the electorate. I'd imagine most people's default position when weighing it all up would be that the legal position would trump the hope that the EU would fudge it. At worst, you'd have unionists defaulting to the legal position and the separatists defaulting to the technical/the EU will fudge it position and it therefore becomes a none issue. If that were the case, I go back to my point that a vote from inside the EU or outside the EU wouldn't make that much difference. Of course, you are closer to the action up there but it is how I read it.

*off topic, I know. But one of my big bugbears with the EU is rigidity with which rules must be stuck to (and rightly so), unless bending the rules suits the grand project.

[Stones of granite]

Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

I agree that the EU would've probably found a way round it* but it's a big leap of faith for the electorate. I'd imagine most people's default position when weighing it all up would be that the legal position would trump the hope that the EU would fudge it. At worst, you'd have unionists defaulting to the legal position and the separatists defaulting to the technical/the EU will fudge it position and it therefore becomes a none issue. If that were the case, I go back to my point that a vote from inside the EU or outside the EU wouldn't make that much difference. Of course, you are closer to the action up there but it is how I read it.

*off topic, I know. But one of my big bugbears with the EU is rigidity with which rules must be stuck to (and rightly so), unless bending the rules suits the grand project.

Sure, we have a different perspective. The leap of faith that you describe is no different, though, to the leap of faith taken by the pro-Brexit voters, who have decided that the potential economic chaos (in the case of a hard Brexit, as yet unevaluated) of leaving the EU is outweighed by the benefit of not having Polish delis on the High Street.

[Sandydragon]

Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

Although, politically that would have been balanced by the noise made by the Spanish who would not want to be seen to support the right of autonomous regions breaking away and becoming EU members that easily. In reality, I suspect it would have been a long and torturous case via the European Court.

[jared_7]

Meanwhile, in Westminster, the UK Government continue to give lessons on what it means to be REALLY incompetent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 30626.html

Brexit Secretary David Davis has stunned MPs by admitting the Government has done no economic assessment of crashing out of the EU with ‘no deal’.

Giving evidence to MPs, Mr Davis insisted it was not possible to calculate the impact of the Brexit talks failing – adding: “I may be able to do so in about a year’s time.”
...
Mr Davis hinted no assessment of the Brexit options will be carried out, saying: “You don’t need a piece of paper with numbers on it to have an economic assessment.”

With idiots like this in charge, we're fucked.

Stunning.

Just moved my savings over to NZ. Good luck bois. The EU is going to chew you up and spit you out at the negotiating table.

I came here in 1997 and had to pay $3.30 for £1.00.

I can't afford to go back.

Same here. When I arrived my salary was more than I could earn elsewhere and sending money home every month made me almost cream my pants. Now, there isn't a single country in the western world where I couldn't make more money than the laughable salaries here. The imminent move to the US gets more depressing by the day as they raise their interest rates, and therefore dollar.

[Stones of granite]

Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

Although, politically that would have been balanced by the noise made by the Spanish who would not want to be seen to support the right of autonomous regions breaking away and becoming EU members that easily. In reality, I suspect it would have been a long and torturous case via the European Court.

I don't know about "balanced", but I take your point about the Spanish wishing to throw a spanner in the works. In the end, I think that the Spanish would realise that losing access to North Sea and Eastern Atlantic fishing grounds would too high a price to pay for intransigence.

[Mellsblue]

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

I agree that the EU would've probably found a way round it* but it's a big leap of faith for the electorate. I'd imagine most people's default position when weighing it all up would be that the legal position would trump the hope that the EU would fudge it. At worst, you'd have unionists defaulting to the legal position and the separatists defaulting to the technical/the EU will fudge it position and it therefore becomes a none issue. If that were the case, I go back to my point that a vote from inside the EU or outside the EU wouldn't make that much difference. Of course, you are closer to the action up there but it is how I read it.

*off topic, I know. But one of my big bugbears with the EU is rigidity with which rules must be stuck to (and rightly so), unless bending the rules suits the grand project.

Sure, we have a different perspective. The leap of faith that you describe is no different, though, to the leap of faith taken by the pro-Brexit voters, who have decided that the potential economic chaos (in the case of a hard Brexit, as yet unevaluated) of leaving the EU is outweighed by the benefit of not having Polish delis on the High Street.

True, I suppose the only difference is that those Scots are taking a leap of faith to not lose something rather than those Brexiteers who took the leap of faith wanted to gain (in their eyes) something. That's coming at the decision from two very different angles, psychologically speaking.

[Len]

Stunning.

Just moved my savings over to NZ. Good luck bois. The EU is going to chew you up and spit you out at the negotiating table.

I came here in 1997 and had to pay $3.30 for £1.00.

I can't afford to go back.

Same here. When I arrived my salary was more than I could earn elsewhere and sending money home every month made me almost cream my pants. Now, there isn't a single country in the western world where I couldn't make more money than the laughable salaries here. The imminent move to the US gets more depressing by the day as they raise their interest rates, and therefore dollar.

Brexiters would be stoked you're leaving except you're one of the good ones. E.g white and a native English speaker. They really are cunts and I hope they get proper fucked.

[Stones of granite]

I agree that the EU would've probably found a way round it* but it's a big leap of faith for the electorate. I'd imagine most people's default position when weighing it all up would be that the legal position would trump the hope that the EU would fudge it. At worst, you'd have unionists defaulting to the legal position and the separatists defaulting to the technical/the EU will fudge it position and it therefore becomes a none issue. If that were the case, I go back to my point that a vote from inside the EU or outside the EU wouldn't make that much difference. Of course, you are closer to the action up there but it is how I read it.

*off topic, I know. But one of my big bugbears with the EU is rigidity with which rules must be stuck to (and rightly so), unless bending the rules suits the grand project.

Sure, we have a different perspective. The leap of faith that you describe is no different, though, to the leap of faith taken by the pro-Brexit voters, who have decided that the potential economic chaos (in the case of a hard Brexit, as yet unevaluated) of leaving the EU is outweighed by the benefit of not having Polish delis on the High Street.

True, I suppose the only difference is that those Scots are taking a leap of faith to not lose something rather than those Brexiteers who took the leap of faith wanted to gain (in their eyes) something. That's coming at the decision from two very different angles, psychologically speaking.

I don't think there is much difference really. Scots in favour of independence also look at it from the perspective of gain - gaining independence. Both are happy to downplay the economic risk to achieve what they hope to gain.
Personally, in 2014 I believed the economic risk to Scotland was relatively low and massively overstated by the Remain camp. Now, I believe the economic risk of leaving the EU is relatively large for the UK, and as I said before, as a consequence, is also large for Scotland leaving the UK because of the sequence of events.

[Mellsblue]

Sure, we have a different perspective. The leap of faith that you describe is no different, though, to the leap of faith taken by the pro-Brexit voters, who have decided that the potential economic chaos (in the case of a hard Brexit, as yet unevaluated) of leaving the EU is outweighed by the benefit of not having Polish delis on the High Street.

True, I suppose the only difference is that those Scots are taking a leap of faith to not lose something rather than those Brexiteers who took the leap of faith wanted to gain (in their eyes) something. That's coming at the decision from two very different angles, psychologically speaking.

I don't think there is much difference really. Scots in favour of independence also look at it from the perspective of gain - gaining independence. Both are happy to downplay the economic risk to achieve what they hope to gain.
Personally, in 2014 I believed the economic risk to Scotland was relatively low and massively overstated by the Remain camp. Now, I believe the economic risk of leaving the EU is relatively large for the UK, and as I said before, as a consequence, is also large for Scotland leaving the UK because of the sequence of events.

But we're not talking about economic risk. We're talking about a vote as a member vs a vote when not a member, which has then moved to leap of faith to stay in the union v leap of faith to get a Brexit that stops the free movement of people.
One is a leap of faith to keep something and one is a leap of faith to gain something. It's widely accepted that people are more reticent about taking that leap when there is a possibility you may lose something.

It's like gambling your house on the toss of a coin but with different rules. The first scenario is best of three, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, two/one heads and you keep your house, all tails and you lose your house and move to a bed sit. The second scenario is best of three as well, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, anything else you just get to keep your house. Which gamble are the general public most likely to take.

If your telling me overriding issue for Scots is getting rid of the right of centre English regardless of the fallout then this is all irrelevant but if being in the EU is as important as Sturgeon is making out then risk aversion is incredibly important.

[Stones of granite]

True, I suppose the only difference is that those Scots are taking a leap of faith to not lose something rather than those Brexiteers who took the leap of faith wanted to gain (in their eyes) something. That's coming at the decision from two very different angles, psychologically speaking.

I don't think there is much difference really. Scots in favour of independence also look at it from the perspective of gain - gaining independence. Both are happy to downplay the economic risk to achieve what they hope to gain.
Personally, in 2014 I believed the economic risk to Scotland was relatively low and massively overstated by the Remain camp. Now, I believe the economic risk of leaving the EU is relatively large for the UK, and as I said before, as a consequence, is also large for Scotland leaving the UK because of the sequence of events.

But we're not talking about economic risk. We're talking about a vote as a member vs a vote when not a member, which has then moved to leap of faith to stay in the union v leap of faith to get a Brexit that stops the free movement of people.
One is a leap of faith to keep something and one is a leap of faith to gain something. It's widely accepted that people are more reticent about taking that leap when there is a possibility you may lose something.

It's like gambling your house on the toss of a coin but with different rules. The first scenario is best of three, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, two/one heads and you keep your house, all tails and you lose your house and move to a bed sit. The second scenario is best of three as well, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, anything else you just get to keep your house. Which gamble are the general public most likely to take.

If your telling me overriding issue for Scots is getting rid of the right of centre English regardless of the fallout then this is all irrelevant but if being in the EU is as important as Sturgeon is making out then risk aversion is incredibly important.

So, you kind of hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph. For most pro-independence Scots, the main objective is to gain sovereign control from Westminster, and yes, the majority of them consider the English to be inherently right-wing (whether this is so or not is another discussion). A significant minority of pro-independence Scots are also anti-EU, and if you look closely you will be able to detect a slight change in the rhetoric from Sturgeon away from EU membership at all costs towards wishing a close working relationship with the EU.
I probably don't need to point out that much of the pro-EU rhetoric is political opportunism as anything else.

[Mellsblue]

I don't think there is much difference really. Scots in favour of independence also look at it from the perspective of gain - gaining independence. Both are happy to downplay the economic risk to achieve what they hope to gain.
Personally, in 2014 I believed the economic risk to Scotland was relatively low and massively overstated by the Remain camp. Now, I believe the economic risk of leaving the EU is relatively large for the UK, and as I said before, as a consequence, is also large for Scotland leaving the UK because of the sequence of events.

But we're not talking about economic risk. We're talking about a vote as a member vs a vote when not a member, which has then moved to leap of faith to stay in the union v leap of faith to get a Brexit that stops the free movement of people.
One is a leap of faith to keep something and one is a leap of faith to gain something. It's widely accepted that people are more reticent about taking that leap when there is a possibility you may lose something.

It's like gambling your house on the toss of a coin but with different rules. The first scenario is best of three, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, two/one heads and you keep your house, all tails and you lose your house and move to a bed sit. The second scenario is best of three as well, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, anything else you just get to keep your house. Which gamble are the general public most likely to take.

If your telling me overriding issue for Scots is getting rid of the right of centre English regardless of the fallout then this is all irrelevant but if being in the EU is as important as Sturgeon is making out then risk aversion is incredibly important.

So, you kind of hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph. For most pro-independence Scots, the main objective is to gain sovereign control from Westminster, and yes, the majority of them consider the English to be inherently right-wing (whether this is so or not is another discussion). A significant minority of pro-independence Scots are also anti-EU, and if you look closely you will be able to detect a slight change in the rhetoric from Sturgeon away from EU membership at all costs towards wishing a close working relationship with the EU.
I probably don't need to point out that much of the pro-EU rhetoric is political opportunism as anything else.

Ah, right. I may have been looking at this from slightly the wrong angle. Yes, I was suprised when I saw that circa a third of pro-independence Scots were pro-Brexit.

I have noted the move away from full EU membership. I thought this was due to a realisation that gaining access to the EU would be difficult to deliver in the short term but, now you've pointed it out, I can see the link between a third of pro-independence voters being anti-EU and the move to the EFTA.
It's a good tactical move from Sturgeon, not that I would expect anything else.

If I were the government, and looking at it from that angle, I'd argue that now the Scots are not so wedded to the EU a referendum before we leave the EU is not required as we may end up with something very close to the EFTA in all but name. Conversely, if we do leave without a far ranging deal the govt would be pretty much duty bound to allow a referendum. It's a tricky hand May has to play and everything I've seen of her so far, both at the Home Office and at no10, makes me think she doesn't have the tact and diplomacy skills to come out on top.

[Digby]

May says it would be unfair to have the Scottish people vote in a referendum when they wouldn't know what the outcome of our new deal with the EU will look like, which whilst I suspect isn't what May is trying to say sounds like saying the Brexit referendum isn't of value as voters didn't and don't know what the outcome of the new deal with the EU will look like

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Continued membership of the EU whilst leaving the UK was an extremely tough sell to the likes of Spain and Belgium with separatist movements.

Continued membership of the EU when the UK is fucking off is a much easier sell. No one else with a separatist movement is going to leave so they won't be worried about the precedent. Rapid accession if the Scots are dragged out by Britain and have to apply as an independent country might be a darned sight more difficult to do.

My guess is that Sturgeon has calculated this. She therefore needs the referendum to happen before the UK actually leaves so that Scotland can negotiate staying put. I imagine she has also calculated that there will be a flood of currently UK businesses who will head north in a nanosecond if Scotland are staying in the EU as an independent country.

[Sandydragon]

Continued membership of the EU whilst leaving the UK was an extremely tough sell to the likes of Spain and Belgium with separatist movements.

Continued membership of the EU when the UK is fucking off is a much easier sell. No one else with a separatist movement is going to leave so they won't be worried about the precedent. Rapid accession if the Scots are dragged out by Britain and have to apply as an independent country might be a darned sight more difficult to do.

My guess is that Sturgeon has calculated this. She therefore needs the referendum to happen before the UK actually leaves so that Scotland can negotiate staying put. I imagine she has also calculated that there will be a flood of currently UK businesses who will head north in a nanosecond if Scotland are staying in the EU as an independent country.

To be counted against the risks of adopting the euro vs another currency, although such a move does remove one source of pressure from the Scottish government, provided adopting the euro was acceptable to the Scots.

[Donny osmond]

Not sure theres been any "official" announcement but chat round the fire is that snp will push for efta membership for iscot rather than eu. A la norway. Elsie (Sturgeon) is desperate not to alienate the million or so scots who voted to leave the eu, so presumably reckons efta will come across as a decent enough halfway house that she can sell to europhobe and sceptic alike. Eu membership seems to be off the table for now.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Continued membership of the EU whilst leaving the UK was an extremely tough sell to the likes of Spain and Belgium with separatist movements.

Continued membership of the EU when the UK is fucking off is a much easier sell. No one else with a separatist movement is going to leave so they won't be worried about the precedent. Rapid accession if the Scots are dragged out by Britain and have to apply as an independent country might be a darned sight more difficult to do.

My guess is that Sturgeon has calculated this. She therefore needs the referendum to happen before the UK actually leaves so that Scotland can negotiate staying put. I imagine she has also calculated that there will be a flood of currently UK businesses who will head north in a nanosecond if Scotland are staying in the EU as an independent country.

To be counted against the risks of adopting the euro vs another currency, although such a move does remove one source of pressure from the Scottish government, provided adopting the euro was acceptable to the Scots.

Given the state of the pound, I'm not sure anyone will be that terrified of having to commit to having the euro at some point in the future if they meet the financial criteria. The Scots Nats could even make a virtue of being forced to only if their economy is operating well.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Not sure theres been any "official" announcement but chat round the fire is that snp will push for efta membership for iscot rather than eu. A la norway. Elsie (Sturgeon) is desperate not to alienate the million or so scots who voted to leave the eu, so presumably reckons efta will come across as a decent enough halfway house that she can sell to europhobe and sceptic alike. Eu membership seems to be off the table for now.

That would be stupid as you effectively end up a prisoner with no say which is what independence is supposed to be a move away from.

I am somewhat surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility that rather a lot of those Scottish "leave" votes might have been cast precisely in order to get a second independence referendum.

[Donny osmond]

Not sure theres been any "official" announcement but chat round the fire is that snp will push for efta membership for iscot rather than eu. A la norway. Elsie (Sturgeon) is desperate not to alienate the million or so scots who voted to leave the eu, so presumably reckons efta will come across as a decent enough halfway house that she can sell to europhobe and sceptic alike. Eu membership seems to be off the table for now.

That would be stupid as you effectively end up a prisoner with no say which is what independence is supposed to be a move away from.

I am somewhat surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility that rather a lot of those Scottish "leave" votes might have been cast precisely in order to get a second independence referendum.

On your 1st para... the only thing that matters is moving away from England.

On your 2nd para... everyone is well aware that there was a good deal of voting for leave in order to push indy. At least 1 WM snp mp has publicly admitted it, and there are rumoured to be several more in the same boat.

[Sandydragon]

Continued membership of the EU whilst leaving the UK was an extremely tough sell to the likes of Spain and Belgium with separatist movements.

Continued membership of the EU when the UK is fucking off is a much easier sell. No one else with a separatist movement is going to leave so they won't be worried about the precedent. Rapid accession if the Scots are dragged out by Britain and have to apply as an independent country might be a darned sight more difficult to do.

My guess is that Sturgeon has calculated this. She therefore needs the referendum to happen before the UK actually leaves so that Scotland can negotiate staying put. I imagine she has also calculated that there will be a flood of currently UK businesses who will head north in a nanosecond if Scotland are staying in the EU as an independent country.

To be counted against the risks of adopting the euro vs another currency, although such a move does remove one source of pressure from the Scottish government, provided adopting the euro was acceptable to the Scots.

Given the state of the pound, I'm not sure anyone will be that terrified of having to commit to having the euro at some point in the future if they meet the financial criteria. The Scots Nats could even make a virtue of being forced to only if their economy is operating well.

Memories would have to be short to forget the problems Greece has had. Not being in charge of your own currency limits your options if you run into trouble.