Monday 17 February 2014

Mr Barroso's comments regarding an Independent Scotland's membership of the EU

Does Mr Barroso have the power to veto Scottish membership of the EU?

Absolutely not!  That decision will be one for the 28 member states.  Mr Barroso, as President of the Commission has no vote on this matter.  (Indeed, his second term as President of the Commission ends in October and it is expected - though not certain - that he will move on).

 So what exactly did Mr Barroso say?

In bizarre comments, Mr Barroso sought to suggest securing support from 28 member states would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible” based on Spain’s decision not to recognise Kosovo as independent.  His logic was that Spain would take a similar approach to Scotland.  This is, on a number of levels, absolutely absurd.

Does Mr Barroso speak for Spain?

Absolutely not.  Mr Barroso is a former Prime Minister of Portugal who some may recall came to international attention when he hosted the infamous Azores summit between Bush, Blair and Anzar, paving the way for the invasion of Iraq.  


What has the Spanish government actually said?

It’s just two weeks since the Spanish foreign minister said pretty much the opposite of what Barroso is predicting.  As the Financial Times reminds us today: “Spanish officials have highlighted the fact that the UK has said it would give its blessing to Scottish independence if the nationalist win September’s referendum, a situation in sharp contrast with Spain and Catalonia’s independence campaign and with Kosovo’s exist from Serbia”.  They have never said that they would veto Scottish membership.  And of course, Spain had no problem with Croatia joining the EU last year.

The Spanish government draws a clear distinction between the referendum process mutually agreed by Scottish and UK governments and other independence movements who are not recognised by the state.  

What’s the argument about then?

There has been almost no dispute that Scotland would be a member of the EU.  Debate has centred on the precise process of how Scotland gets there, because the situation is a new one for the EU.  But it is a pragmatic organisation.  Remember, on reunification it took only around 10 months for East Germany to be fully absorbed into the EU in another novel situation.  And that process was infinitely more difficult because East Germany had never been a member of the EU.  Scotland has been part of the EU for moere than 40 years and fully complies with all the legal requirements!
 
The Scottish Government proposes an 18-month period of negotiations between September’s referendum and independence day in March 2016.  This means by the time Scotland becomes independent, its ongoing membership of the EU will already have been tied up.

  What do the experts say?

The UK Government legal adviser Professor James Crawford has accepted that the Scottish Government’s proposed 18 month timetable is “realistic”.  

Former EU judge Sir David Edward has rejected the idea that there would be some “midnight hour” when suddenly all our EU rights would be extinguished, and indeed all the rights of EU citizens coming to Scotland.  Sir David said EU law “would require all parties to negotiate in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation” prior to independence.  There would be no need for an accession treaty but amendment to existing treaties before independence day.  

Graham Avery, Honorary Director General of the European Commission, senior member of St Antony's College in Oxford,  and a senior adviser at the European Policy Centre in Brussels worked for 40 years as a senior official in Whitehall and Brussels, and took part in successive negotiations for EU enlargement.  In his evidence to a Westminster committee he argued:
  • “Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with independence
  • Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens
  • For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission
  • Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence
  • The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries”.
 
Even the adviser to the No campaign Professor Jim Gallagher has said “it seems pretty likely that Scotland would be an EU member state, probably after an accelerated set of accession negotiations”.

The real risk to Scotland’s EU membership

And of course the real risk to Scotland’s EU membership is the proposed UK-wide referendum on whether to exit the EU.  Just as we are regularly outvoted at Westminster elections, there is a real possibility that we could be outvoted in any such referendum and taken out of the common market against our will and against our interests.


A Sterling Area the sensible option – for everyone

A currency union is the sensible option for all



A currency union is the sensible option for all - with Scotland and remaining UK continuing to use the £ within an agreed framework of shared input into cooperative financial supervision, and agreed fiscal rules.   

The right choice for Scotland and for the remaining UK


The proposals for a formal currency union came from internationally renowned economists including Sir James Mirrlees.  Sir James won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1996.  You can read the full proposals of Sir James and his colleagues in the Fiscal Commission’s First Report here.  On 13th February 2014 Sir James confirms in the Scotsman that a currency union is the right choice for Scotland AND for remaining UK.  


It is surely the most logical option


Sir James explains:  “Political debate will take place on the issue of a currency union. Technical discussions will continue.  A continuation of sterling in its present area, which would be a benefit for all parts of the UK, is surely the most logical option. Politics may cloud that view as the referendum approaches”.


And people across the UK agree

A poll from December 2013 shows that 71% of people in the rest of the UK supported a formal currency union after Scotland votes Yes.  The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey in 2013 found 79% of Scotland’s people thought Scotland should retain the pound after Yes.  

Why a currency union would be “a benefit for all parts of the UK”

  • A different currency would increase the costs for UK companies exporting to Scotland
The remaining part of the UK exports almost £60 billion of goods and services each year to Scotland. Even straightforward currency transaction costs would take £500 million per year from businesses in England and endanger thousands of jobs.
  • Maintaining a ‘level playing field’
Businesses on either side of the border will compete on a level playing field as neither will benefit from gaining an artificial advantage from currency devaluation.  
  • Price transparency helps competition – lowering prices and boosting productivity in both countries
Consumers are better placed to compare similar goods on both sides of the border, boosting competition and choice
  • Both Treasuries will benefit from keeping trade easier and cost free
Because it’s good for the economy, currency union is also good for BOTH treasuries
  • Shared Sterling supports an integrated labour market across the Sterling Area
Using the same currency eases movement throughout – for workers and indeed tourists and other visitors.
  • Oil and gas make a massive £30 billion contribution to the Sterling balance of payments.

We can use the £ anyway


And what some fail to remember is that Scotland cannot be stopped from using the £ anyway.  As a fully tradable currency we don’t need George Osborne’s permission to carry on using it.  However, as explained above, the currency union has added advantages of shared input into cooperative financial supervision, and agreed fiscal rules.   




Has Osborne even read the Fiscal Commission Report?


As we know, the Bank of England has been in technical discussions with the Scottish Government as it draws up its proposals.  The UK Treasury has refused to take part in any such discussions – no wonder parts of his speech suggest that Mr Osborne hasn’t even read the Fiscal Commission proposals.  

And his analysis in some areas is factually wrong – for example, the contribution of Scotland’s financial services to our national wealth is grossly overstated by the chancellor. It’s actually not significantly different to the UK.

Issues such as financial stability, lender of last resort facilities, deposit protection schemes and fiscal sustainability have all been addressed in the Fiscal Commission proposals.  In short, everything that Osborne has queried has already been addressed.  

Why we know Osborne’s doing this for political reasons alone


A currency union works for all, and is wanted by all.  That’s why we know Osborne’s doing this for political reasons alone.  

Former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish has called Osborne’s bluff and said Scots "shouldn't be fooled" by the suggestion that a currency union could not be worked out.  
 
He told BBC Scotland: "This is entirely political and of course consistent with the unionist campaign. This is negative, it is about spreading fears and scare stories.  What we require from the unionist parties is a bit of statesmanship and quite frankly their behaviour so far falls well short of that."

Gains of Yes: 3: Media Bias



 I am for YES because I want Scotland to have a mainstream media that actually promotes the interests of Scotland to the Scots and not the exact opposite as has been the case so far throughout the Scottish Independence Referendum, and long before. 

This is generally insidious and on many occasions subliminal but there have been many more obvious cases. 


The one that sticks in my mind at this moment as it was such a whopper was the Independence March and Rally on 21.09.2013. As I wasn't there due to illness and lack of money I thought I would watch live coverage on the BBC News Channel. Nothing was mentioned not then or in later UK wide bulletins, the latter applying also to ITV News and Sky News. It was only when I got to the RT news channel (yes the one based in Moscow, Russia) that there was live coverage from the event. 


It is a sad day when no UK broadcaster is showed an event occurring in their own country involving between 20000 and 30000 of their own citizens. I am sure if this number marched through London it would have received blanket coverage.

A YES vote is the only way to change this.


Gains of Yes: 2 : Westminster has lost touch with its People





I am for YES because the London political parties have offered Scotland very little since the end of the 1970s. 


There is very little difference between the Self-servatives, Lavender Labour and the Fib Dems on so many policies – i.e. all their platforms are based on a neo-liberal agenda that seems alien to many Scots even if many of them go out and vote for these parties in the hope that they may offer something different. 


 At least in Scotland we have the SNP Government who have done what they can, with the few powers they actually have, and have offered more than Waste-monster has in years…

  1. Free Prescriptions
  2. Abolition of tuition fees for further and higher education
  3. Council tax freeze
  4. Balanced budget (how different from the UK as a whole)
  5. Preservation of free personal care despite budget cuts from Westminster
  6. Public sector NHS wherever possible 
  7. Abolition of bridge tolls (including Forth, Tay, Erskine and Skye)
  8. Improved capital spending to help the economy
  9. Protection from some of the worst ravages of the austerity programme, and cuts in the welfare system being foisted on Scotland by a Government it did not vote for. I am very aware that this cannot go on forever (another reason to vote YES).
  10. And there are many more.
Vote YES to continue this work. Vote NO to stall it and perhaps have it all destroyed due to Westminster austerity cuts.





Gains of YES: 1 1979 and Mrs T




I am YES because In 1979 Scotland had a referendum on whether it wanted a Scottish Assembly. 

A majority of Scots voted in favour of this.

But Scotland didn’t get it due to the infamous 40% of registered voters rule which meant the dead voted NO, those too ill to get to the polling station voted NO, those that couldn’t be bothered voting voted NO, and those that couldn’t make a decision voted NO. This rule has never been used in any election or referendum before or since, not even the one when the UK voted to join the European Community.


How can anybody trust Westminster (also called Waste-monster) after they ignored the will of the Scottish electorate in a democratic vote? 

After this betrayal of the Scottish people by the Labour Government the SNP and Liberals voted with the Conservatives to force a General Election and we ended up with Mrs Thatcher and a neo-liberal agenda ever since.

The only way this will change is by voting YES.