Jump to content

Norgethistle

Eu Referendum

EU, should we stay or should we go  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Now the referendum has been called what's your thoughts?

    • Stay in
      29
    • Time to leave
      18


Recommended Posts

"...the idea that there’s somehow a contradiction in believing in independence for Scotland, while also supporting membership of the European Union.

 

This of course ignores the obvious point that all 28 members of the European Union – by definition - are independent countries. 9 of them have smaller populations than Scotland.

 

The fundamental principle of the EU – that independent nations work together for a common good..." Nicola sturgeon 29/2/16

 

The financial and political ideology and strategy of SYRIZA in Greece is one that can be critiqued and debated as good or bad for long term Greek prosperity. However, what is certain is that they are the legitimate government of Greece, having won the most seats at two elections in 2015 and forming a coalition government with the Independent group.

 

The reason for the second elections was Prime Minister Tsipras' resignation, following his decision to accept a bail-out package from the ESM. It was a package that contained larger pension cuts and tax increases than the one rejected by Greek voters (61% to 39% and by majority in all regions) in the hastily arranged referendum on bailout conditions which followed his party's first election. SYRIZA's success was secured by campaigning that it would resist the existing bailout programme and negotiate better terms for Greece.

 

Whatever argument might be put concerning what's best for Greece, the fact is that a perceivable majority of her citizens' opinions and hopes have been compromised. They have certainly lost their grip on the much cherished "levers of fiscal autonomy" Mr Swinney demands to secure our "independence".

 

Mr Tsipras' led the "No" campaign by claiming, "On Sunday, we are not simply deciding to remain in Europe -- we are deciding to live with dignity in Europe". It would seem, sadly for Greece, that in securing a dignity within and for the "common good" of the EU and Eurozone, they have had to sacrifice control of their destiny.

 

Perhaps the EU knows best?

 

ETA : Greece has a registered electorate approximately twice that of Scotland.

Edited by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...support for the European Union in Scotland seems to be significantly higher than in the rest of the UK."

 

Well... perhaps... we'll see soon .... However. did you know that in the 1975 referendum on Membership of the EC ( we have never been asked before about the EU directly and treaties have been signed outwith the scope or detail of elected government manifestos) the only two constituent counties in the whole of the UK to vote "NO" were The Shetland Islands and The Western Isles.

 

Out of the four home nations, Scotland ranked 2nd only to Northern Ireland for "No" with approximately 42% voting to stay away. England voted to join with nearly 70%.

 

Times have changed and so have the institutions we are voting about. However, I do not like the ethereal implication that is made by some that Granny and Papa were old fashioned, xenophobic simpletons with no experience or understanding of the way of the modern world and that youthful ambition, invention, visionary hope and experimentation should lead the way.

 

There is a difference between building on and improving what we have inherited and trading it for the shiny new and untried. When the UK joined the EU in 1973, we had 20% of the votes. Today we only have 9.5% of the votes. British MEPs voted against 576 EU proposals between 2009 and 2014, but 485 still passed and became law.

 

egzh1f.jpg

 

Are we really getting "stronger in Europe" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland is already seen as a kind of pseudo-member state by the EU.

 

The Office of the European Commission in Scotland was set up in 1975, and acts as a bridge between the people, politicians, businesses and organisations of Scotland and the departments and personnel of the EU institution based in Brussels.

 

The Scottish Government's Europe Division is responsible for advising Scottish Government Ministers, public sector officials and the people of Scotland on EU affairs and engagement. It ensures that Scotland's interests on EU matters are effectively represented in Scotland, Brussels and with the UK Government and Devolved Administrations. Europe Division also has a representation office in Brussels.

 

The European and External Relations Committee of The Scottish Parliament, established on 1st June, 2011, has a remit to consider and report on: proposals for European Communities legislation; the implementation of European Communities legislation; any European Communities or European Union issue; the development and implementation of the Scottish Administration's links with countries and territories outside Scotland, the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations; and co-ordination of the international activities of the Scottish Administration.

 

Nicola Sturgeon, in her forward to the "Scotland in Europe" document published by the SNP executive prior to the Scottish referendum, "What really matters to Scotland is that it has an independent government directly involved in that process [EU administration and legislation] looking after Scotland's particular interests.". However, it would appear looking at these reports - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-accounting-blunder-loses-45million-6297557#hujUiOzogQFRsrdK.97 , http://www.orcadian.co.uk/2016/03/european-commission-to-investigate-possible-fines-over-scottish-government-farming-payments-crisis/ , that Scotland is indeed not being best served under the current system.

 

If there have been, as a SNP spokesman commented in relation to one of these reports, some public bodies "unable to adequately account for all the funding they received and spent", is the extra bureaucracy involved in EU distribution of finance is worth the bother or is in any way fairer, easier, practical or more dependable than our situation within the UK.

 

The crux of the matter is the dilution of sovereignty and fiscal autonomy. The SNP claim to be fighting to achieve more power for Scotland yet they are actively participating in a system and promoting a future for Scotland which only moves the seat of sovereignty and makes negotiations on such matters more complex and the competition for self-determination more populous. That is not more power for Scotland. That is more power within the EU.

 

Is it better to be a big fish in a small pond with access to the ocean of a small fish in a big pond that thinks it's a sea?

 

6f08zn.jpg

Edited by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back.

 

How much is the argument. Being in the EU costs money but does it also create trade, jobs and investment that are worth more, right? Well... We can be pretty sure about how much cash we put in, but it’s far harder to be sure about how much comes back in economic benefits. “There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK’s EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal”,according to The House of Commons Library.

 

So lets talk cash. The UK treasury reports in 2015 the UK government paid £13billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was £4.5. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.5billion. Without the UK rebate ( we are not alone in benefiting from rebates, Germany, Austria, The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark have similar systems in place ) we would have been liable for £18 billion in contributions.

 

As well as the dough the government gets to play with, the EU also "invests" or donates to the private sector, in the guise of "research grants" or other pseudo philanthropic gestures of good meaning. Guess it kind of depends on your political view if this indeed does meet with the general concept of re-distribution of wealth, however, in 2013 this amounted to an estimated further £1.4billion that made it back to Blighty.

 

Regardless of the amounts, the money we put in or get back will be spent on things our national governments may or may not choose to fund if we left the EU. It’s fair enough to look at the net contribution in isolation and then speculate on other benefits of union membership, but, what we get back isn’t fully under our control. I guess it's a bit like buying gift vouchers or book tokens.

 

For example, in 2014-2020, the UK will manage seventeen operational programmes under the EU Cohesion policy. Of these, six will receive funding from the European Regional Development Fund and six from the European social fund. The investment priorities for the UK are set out in the Partnership Agreement with the European Commission.

 

In other words, as members of the EU we are committed to make the EU more "cohesive" ( I think that means "all the same really", but I think the EU means "more equal" :wall::unknw: ) and have to propose to the EU high heid yins what we're going to towards that end. They will release some of the money we have given them if they think they are good things or we agree to what they think are better things, but not enough to cover all the things that they think are worthy of cash. However, if we have to spend extra dough on projects that exceed our EU budget or complete the projects that overspent, they will endorse them as being a good thing by putting a blue flag with 12 stars on the marketing so the people won't be afraid that it's un european. They will allow us some discretion on what to spend it on but only within their guidelines of good practice and targeted worthy causes and areas http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1300&from=EN, :white_flag:

 

.... sorry .... I rant..... However, the EU thinks Wales is more worthy of your cash than Scotland, and the Highlands gets more per head than the central belt. Maybe it's just the last dry wretches of the common agricultural policy hangover, but the in 1985, around 70% of the EC budget went on agriculture. Countries including Britain have argued that less money should be used to subsidise farmers and wanted a shift towards EU spending on "growth and jobs". However, farm subsidies are expected to account for around38% of the EU budget between 2014 and 2020, or around €363bn of the €960bn total.... yeah ... i get we need food .... but that's takin the piss.... remember the so called "grain mountains" and "wine lakes" of the 80s.... I thought we were ment to be working on a reduction of waste.....

 

Anyhoo ... Gorgeous George Galloway delights in referring to Westminster as "the mother of all parliaments" .... The EU is "The Godfather" .... ba-dum cha! :partyhat:

Edited by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have completely ruined this thread, and that's coming from someone who will be voting to leave.

 

By all means state your opinion like everyone else, but nearly every post here is from you and each one is about 7 paragraphs long at least. No one likes being constantly preached to and you'll notice that everyone has now just lost interest in the thread altogether.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd vote to stay out, it's worked well for Norway

 

In the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum you went to great lengths to tell us all that Norway was struggling and that it was not a good model for an independent Scotland.

 

But now I see it's a good model for an "independent" Britain.

 

Hmm, very clear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum you went to great lengths to tell us all that Norway was struggling and that it was not a good model for an independent Scotland.

 

But now I see it's a good model for an "independent" Britain.

 

Hmm, very clear.

 

Norway is struggling due to its reliance on oil as its main income, but farming, pensions, fishing,work laws, taxes are fully controlled by Norway not the EU, it can fully trade as EEA. If Norway was in EU the oil fund (which is being drawn down at an alarming rate) would not be there, as the EU would stipulate it gets a heavy stake of revenue. Leaving Norway in a worse position than today

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norway is struggling due to its reliance on oil as its main income, but farming, pensions, fishing,work laws, taxes are fully controlled by Norway not the EU, it can fully trade as EEA. If Norway was in EU the oil fund (which is being drawn down at an alarming rate) would not be there, as the EU would stipulate it gets a heavy stake of revenue. Leaving Norway in a worse position than today

 

So it's good that farming, pensions, fishing, work laws, taxes are fully controlled by Norway (in addition to oil), but in Scotland's case all those things should be controlled by England.

 

Hmm, very clear.

Edited by Jaggernaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's good that farming, pensions, fishing, work laws, taxes are fully controlled by Norway (in addition to oil), but in Scotland's case all those things should be controlled by England.

 

Hmm, very clear.

 

Surely not hard to understand, scotland with its deficit and debt couldn't afford to go it alone. Norway has never been in the EU and so wouldn't have to absorb the shock that there would be to the economy, Which the uk with its bigger economic base would be able to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So it's good that farming, pensions, fishing, work laws, taxes are fully controlled by Norway (in addition to oil), but in Scotland's case all those things should be controlled by England.

 

Hmm, very clear.

 

And thanks to Westminster some of the rules that have been forced on the smaller nations within the EU have never came into the UK or Scotland, VAT on kids clothes for an example.

Things aren't controlled by England they are controlled by a UK elected government and a Scottish parliament, which is far better than being ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels

Edited by Norgethistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thanks to Westminster some of the rules that have been forced on the smaller nations within the EU have never came into the UK or Scotland, VAT on kids clothes for an example.

Things aren't controlled by England they are controlled by a UK elected government and a Scottish parliament, which is far better than being ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels

 

Unelected "Lords" are OK to rule over Scotland.

 

Hmm, very clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Unelected "Lords" are OK to rule over Scotland.

 

Hmm, very clear.

 

Scotland controls its own tax, it's own health service, it's own education, it's own police to name a few. The fact Scotland's NHS, schools and Police are underperforming against the rest of the U.K. tells its own story

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

At least it has a second chamber unlike the bastion of democracy that is holyrood.

So an unelected second chamber makes a parliament more democratic? Grand logic there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland controls its own tax, it's own health service, it's own education, it's own police to name a few. The fact Scotland's NHS, schools and Police are underperforming against the rest of the U.K. tells its own story

 

That is just britnat rubbish. The "too wee, too poor, too stupid" bubbles to the surface again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That is just britnat rubbish. The "too wee, too poor, too stupid" bubbles to the surface again.

 

No it's not "Britnat" rubbish, our emergency services are a shambles since nationalization and have lost their tax free status, our education results are going in the opposite direction of the rest of the U.K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So an unelected second chamber makes a parliament more democratic? Grand logic there.

 

oh dear, where did i say that, i said a second chamber, something that should have been sorted years ago in holyrood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That is just britnat rubbish. The "too wee, too poor, too stupid" bubbles to the surface again.

 

Why do you want to be ruled by others?

 

See what I did there? I know its pretty boring but seems to be Maj of arguments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have completely ruined this thread, and that's coming from someone who will be voting to leave.

 

By all means state your opinion like everyone else, but nearly every post here is from you and each one is about 7 paragraphs long at least. No one likes being constantly preached to and you'll notice that everyone has now just lost interest in the thread altogether.

 

I was aware of the state of the thread, but do not concede that I have in anyway "ruined" it.

 

Perhaps championing the Great British stereotypes of - speaking when one is spoken to, curbing one's enthusiasm, maintaining a dignified silence and haulding yer tongue - is one tactic to tackle the imminent referendum on how we are governed. However, the O.P. in addition to the poll, encouraged thoughts and given that opportunity I have attempted to truly engage and offer opinion on how this decision might affect one's day to day life. In many of my posts I have ended with a question, encouraging a challenge rather than imposing my beliefs.

 

In my last post I apologise for "ranting". But in my defence I have included some pretty pictures and illustrations, perhaps for those of the twitter generation who may baulk at the effort of digesting 7 paragraphs of another's thoughts.

 

I share your apparent dismay that others have not participated fully, and addressed this previously in a 2 line post when simply quoting the Scottish First Minister "...one of the things we learned quickly about referendums in Scotland, is that if people are encouraged to and given the opportunity to truly engage in the issues, and realise the potential impact, good or bad, on their own day to day lives, then it is possible to generate a thriving democratic debate...".

 

At about 1000 views and counting this remains in fact one of the more popular and most visited threads in the "general chat" section of the site. ... 30 voters, 10/11 posters. Fairy nuff, I say. Perhaps some folks are still deliberating and yet to form a conclusive opinion. I do not see that as any reason to restrain one's views in the interim.

 

The floor remains open and I won't be the one to discourage participation or flirt with censure.

 

Solidarity comrade. :thumbsup2:

Edited by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

244toyf.jpgisis

 

If the Lords are elected ... What's the point?

 

A second house should be different in nature.

 

I'm all for reforming the Lords, but the point of it is not to be more democratic. It is there to offer scrutiny not to block, and should be independent of the electoral process in order to hold the executive to account in times of weak or divided opposition in the commons.

 

Democracy is vital, but can be the victim of mob rule, extreme policy and minority oppression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not "Britnat" rubbish, our emergency services are a shambles since nationalization and have lost their tax free status, our education results are going in the opposite direction of the rest of the U.K.

 

You post garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which bit and try to show some proof please.

 

You won't accept the answers that show your britnat garbage to be exactly that.

 

The NHS in Scotland is outperforming the equivalent in Scotland on just about every front. Where are the threatened doctors' strikes in Scotland that are seen in England?

 

More Scottish schoolchildren than ever before are successfully qualifying for university places. OECD report in December 1915 showed Scottish schoolchildren to be above international averages in reading and science. Scottish education seen to be above national averages in equity of education outcomes. Room for improvement, as everywhere, but Scottish education was seen to be near to "world class."

 

From the International Business Times, Jan 29th, 2016:

Young people in England have 'lowest literacy levels' in developed world says OECD

 

Now as you and Norgethistle like nothing more than putting Scotland down at every opportunity compared to your beloved England, I know you won't like those FACTS, but you should face reality at least now and then. These positive situations are achieved while Westminster continues to remove most of Scotland's wealth to fund vanity projects in southern and central England, to build nuclear submarines which serve no purpose, and to ensure that the privileged lifestyles of a few rich snobs are maintained at all costs.

 

Or maybe you want to see more people dying on hospital trolleys, as occurs down south.

Edited by Jaggernaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×