Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where do you think Scotland will have to borrow money to pay for its vast public sector currently funded by London through the Barnett Formula ?
And without a central bank with lots of gold in its underground vaults what sort of interest rates do you think it will be charged as a high-risk borrower ?
And what will it use to pay those astronomical rates ?
All questions the SNP failed to answer in the referendum campaign.
The Barnett formula -is a refund of taxes raised in Scotland and paid directly to the UK treasury. It is not a grant, a subsidy or a handout by any stertch of the imagination, brainwashed?
You should be worried about how Little Britain will manage,
Todays news -
Chancellor Phillip Hammond told Reuters: “The report that the OBR have published this morning shows that even in the most benign version of a no-deal exit there would be a very significant hit to the UK economy, a very significant reduction in tax revenues and a big increase in our national debt – a recession caused by a no-deal Brexit.”
EU membership isn't governed by some international treaty that is overseen by the UN.
Turkey nor Greece can "sue" the EU for violating it's own laws.
You mean Rules - And the UN doesn't oversee them.
Actually I mean laws.
One of the foundational principles of the EU is that it is an organization of laws, it has to abide by its own rules. If it does not, then it can be prosecuted under the same laws as it prosecutes. If it could not be, then claims its tyrannical and arbitrary would have significant truth.
I think it may be prudent to research this topic, if you're interested.
Membership of the EU is 100% a decision of the EU, there is no international court nor UN body that has any jurisdiction over the matter.
But the European Courts do, and that's where a suits would land if the EC arbitrarily changed the criteria for Scotland. The whole point of accession criteria is to ensure a baseline of minimum standards that meets EU approval. Every applicant and member had to meet those criteria (except for ex post facto states declining certain criteria like common currency). Every current applicant applied under the clear knowledge that all applicants must meet those criteria, there is a legal agreement with the EU on that application, the EU just cannot change the rules for Scotland, because they're not rules but laws, that the member states AND the EC and EP must adhere too.
Read up on Magna Carta, you may have heard of it, it's the roots of rule of law. The law applies to both the governed and the governors. It's a critical aspect of modern democracy.
The concept of a non-member of the EU "sueing" to become a member is absurd in the extreme.
Nobody can compel the EU to take on members if it so wishes it does not want.
It is equally absurd to claim a non-member country can prevent the ascension of another country into the EU.
That's really all there is to say about it.
It is interesting that some people would find an Independent Scotland joining the EU so, threatening?
The concept of a non-member of the EU "sueing" to become a member is absurd in the extreme.
Nobody can compel the EU to take on members if it so wishes it does not want.
It is equally absurd to claim a non-member country can prevent the ascension of another country into the EU.
That's really all there is to say about it.
It is interesting that some people would find an Independent Scotland joining the EU so, threatening?
Applicants are not "non-members" they have a legal agreement of the requirements to achieve accession. If the EU arbitrarily change their requirements and do not equally apply it across all applicants you bet your ass they have a recourse to legal action in the European courts, which is the whole purpose of courts, to determine whether an action does or does not have legal standing.
Who's claiming a non-member can prevent accession? Non-sequitur? I said Greece would almost certainly block accession on Scotland given the economic devastation they've had to endure caused by the EUs financial requirements.
Every country that joins the EU does so on the basis of the accession treaty they negotiate with the EU.
Each incorporating different rules and timelines, including opt-outs.
Every country that joins the EU does so on the basis of the accession treaty they negotiate with the EU.
Each incorporating different rules and timelines, including opt-outs.
There are no opt outs for the financial stability, nor accepting the Euro as currency. As the EU has become larger its criteria have become more "this is what we need" take it or leave it.
One of the Copenhagen criteria I agree with is financial stability, otherwise you get into situations like Greece has.
The independence pals of cahpsuth3 are soaked in a emotional dose of nothingness here in Scotland. Our part of Gt Britain is the most highest taxed part of the place and is getting a financial "donation" by the UK government. Up here as I have had to repeatedly remind Scotland's economy depends 75% on the UK NOT Europe but this is ignored. Those Nats who are remainers (and not all of them by the way!) would be desperate to be in the EU like other small nations such as Ireland and others to get the donations. Just a pity so many public toilets dispensed with up here north of the border as would give the SNP something practical to do. What must also be reminded on a wider front is that us going out of the EU will affect the EU and they dashed well know it but ignore the admittance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.