Scottish Rugby Union

[irishref]

But has there ever been a case where a new member has all the necessary legal framework in place that is required when a new member joins the EU? The 10-year (is that average?) negotiation period you mention is down to new members not qualifying for membership due failing all or some of the EU acquis chapters and taking time to reorganise their domestic structures and systems of law, et al.

Outside of the political machinations, I'm sure that Scotland could very easily be fast-tracked into the EU based on this absolutely essential requirement. Scots law is already fully EU-ready.

 

[irishref]

agreed There is no way that the EU will let itself to lose territory, to get smaller.

the question is what price the EU will extract from Scotland -- adopting the Euro is my guess.

Already happened: they lost Greenland and Algeria in the past (due to changes in overseas territory/colony relationships) and the withdrawl of member states is enshrined in article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

 

[RobLev]

...

Roblev everyone can see Obama at work, what exactly JMB and his council does (or how much he's paid) remains nebulous.

I thought that JMB was the evil genius at the head of the machine oppressing the free peoples of Europe? But we can get onto their respective responsibilities (JMB's, at least, are pretty clear) later. You claimed that JMB was paid more than Obama; are you going to make good that claim, or abandon it?

He's certainly paid less than Cameron...:booty:

 

[RobLev]

agreed There is no way that the EU will let itself to lose territory, to get smaller.

...

Accession requires unanimity, and there are plenty of ways that members of the EU would be prepared to risk the EU losing territory, simply in order to prevent themselves losing territory; Spain, France, Belgium among them, as I've already pointed out.

 

[L'irlandais]

...You claimed that JMB was paid more than Obama; are you going to make good that claim, or abandon it?

He's certainly paid less than Cameron...:booty:

Are you saying he's taken a pay cut recently? Nobody knows exactly how much Mr; Obama takes home. It may be as much as 340 000 euros. So your 400k$ + free accomodation is probaly a better deal than Baroso's 371 000 € (Salary + 15% allowance + expenses.) Bear in mind this bloke going to get 190 000€ for 3 years after he steps down.

 

[Dixie]

You claimed that JMB was paid more than Obama...

He's certainly paid less than Cameron...:booty:

This discussion is getting surreal! RobLev, are you really suggesting that the British PM earns more than £295,000? Where on earth do you get that from? I'm pretty certain that Cameron gets less than £150,000 - which is low end senior manager pay, and probably why our PMs are all so piss poor.

 

[RobLev]

This discussion is getting surreal! RobLev, are you really suggesting that the British PM earns more than £295,000? Where on earth do you get that from? I'm pretty certain that Cameron gets less than £150,000 - which is low end senior manager pay, and probably why our PMs are all so piss poor.

The PM's salary, with his MP salary which he draws at the same time, is just short of £200k. He, for political purposes, doesn't draw the whole of it. The rest of his package - platinum plated pension (final salary based payable immediately on leaving office, not at age 55), office allowance payable on leaving office (£100k), MP pension, Central London accommodation, chauffeur-driven car etc etc - adds up, according to Hutton, to a package worth over £500k. Which was why Hutton cautioned against comparisons with the PM's income. That such comparisons continue to be made doesn't dilute the conclusion.

I agree that the pay of our elected representatives generally is poor for the responsibility involved; but they haven't got the political courage to say that the IPSA is right to say that.

 

[RobLev]

Are you saying he's taken a pay cut recently?

Nope - see my response to crossref.

Nobody knows exactly how much Mr; Obama takes home. It may be as much as 340 000 euros. So your 400k$ + free accomodation is probaly a better deal than Baroso's 371 000 € (Salary + 15% allowance + expenses.) Bear in mind this bloke going to get 190 000€ for 3 years after he steps down.

What's all this "no-one knows"; the POTUS's remuneration package is a matter of public record.

Obama will get a pension of over $200k pa (adjusted upwards with Cabinet member's salaries) for life as soon as he leaves office; with office allowances and secret service protection. Makes 190k Euros pa for 3 years look niggardly...

 

[RobLev]

Hutton's Fair Pay Review, at para 1.26, reads:

Government responses (both the previous and current administrations) have not been sufficient to quell the public outrage – itself the consequence of a distorted media narrative. Rather, there is a trend to compare the salaries of all public servants with that of the Prime Minister which makes matters worse – and feeds the narrative. This measure has the advantage of simplicity, but is profoundly flawed:

• Firstly, it does not capture the Prime Minister’s total remuneration – not least because David Cameron has chosen not to take the full salary to which he is entitled (£198,660). If the value of the Prime Minister’s living arrangements and allowances are included, his total remuneration would be significantly greater than even this higher salary: one estimate put it as over £580,000.

• Secondly, and more importantly, the Prime Ministers’ pay is not objectively linked to the value of his job, or to the need to recruit and retain individuals. The rate is determined by politics more than by responsibility, (hence Prime Ministers are prepared to accept a considerable ‘political discount’ to their salary). The Prime Minister’s salary has no relation to labour markets. There is not a shortage of applicants and no job specification and there is no market or recruitment process for Prime Ministers. Hence any comparison with a job for which pay is set by reference to a need to recruit and retain in a market is an invalid one.

 

[SimonSmith]

You want to be careful quoting facts and stuff. That's no way to have a discussion!

 

[Daftmedic]

I heard from a source near the White House *a drunk tramp* that Renegade is infact an Alien sent from a planet faaaarrrrrrrr away

 

[RobLev]

You want to be careful quoting facts and stuff. That's no way to have a discussion!

Sorry...:shrug:

 

[FlipFlop]

I also thought that the purpose of the 10 year "wait" was to get finances in order as well as law.

And currently Scotland doesn't have any full finances, so has no Debt - GDP ratio or any of the other "qualifiers" for EU membership. So how many years will they require for that? They also have no banking regulator, or any of the other financial regulators necessary, in place - unless they are going to "contract" it out to the FSA, BoE etc.

I don't think EU membership is such a slam dunk as others do, but also I think the EU is likely to allow them in quicker than the 10years. But I can't see them letting them have the opt outs the rUK has. (And on that note - I assume Thatchers "rebate" would be up for discussion again......)

 

[crossref]

I don't think EU membership is such a slam dunk as others do, but also I think the EU is likely to allow them in quicker than the 10years. But I can't see them letting them have the opt outs the rUK has. (And on that note - I assume Thatchers "rebate" would be up for discussion again......)

Scotland's situation would be without precedent, though.
I agree with you it's no slam dunk.
but the big picture is
1 - Scotland would very much want to be in the EU
2 - the EU would very much want Scotland in the EU

So I think a deal would be done.
But the negotiation of terms would be very interesting. I would see the EU having the upper hand and Scotland being forced to adopt the Euro.

It's a truly fascinating scenario and a 'yes' vote would be very exciting and the launch of a roller-coaster 18 months for Scotland.

Scotland adopting the Euro - or a 'groat' - would be very very interesting. Every other country adopting the Euro has abolished its old currency. this would be the first time a country has changed to the Euro, but with the old currency stil existing. That's very interesting. for example : If a scottish person has a private pension pot with £350k in it, I don't see any mechanism by which the Scottish governement could confiscate their citizen's private sterling assets, sell them, and give them back the Euros instead.

So scotland would be a Euro country with a lot of people on an individual basis continuing to be bound to the £

 

[Phil E]

If a scottish person has a private pension pot

Doesn't everyone in Scotland keep their savings under the mattress?

 

[crossref]

Doesn't everyone in Scotland keep their savings under the mattress?

yes, and same issue. Unlike the French, who couldn't hang on to their Francs even if they wanted to, all Scots will be free to keep their £.

And if their mortgage is in £, as well as keeping hold of any £ assets, they might want to be paid in £ too ...

 

[Daftmedic]

But Spain will veto entry. So Scotland won't be in.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...o-an-independent-Scotlands-EU-membership.html

 

[crossref]

well he was a bit self contradictory ..

Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.

He also predicted that the country would have to adopt the euro as the price for gaining full EU membership after a Yes vote

which is it?
my guess is his second prediction is correct, the first one wrong.
Spain will grumble but in the end things will be sorted and scotland allowed to stay.

but of course all is guesswork and prediction and no one knows for ceertain

 

[RobLev]

well he was a bit self contradictory ..



which is it?
my guess is his second prediction is correct, the first one wrong.
Spain will grumble but in the end things will be sorted and scotland allowed to stay.

but of course all is guesswork and prediction and no one knows for ceertain

Reading the whole report resolves the apparent contradiction (from later in the report):

In a statement released yesterday, Mr Quinn said all EU members would have to vote on Scotland's membership in their national parliaments, adding: "In my opinion, it is highly probable that at least two member states, maybe more, will vote no."

Mr Quinn said that Spain "will not want to create the precedent" of a region "deciding to leave and join the EU in their own right" given the secessionist movements in Catalonia and the Basque Country.

He added that Belgium is "extremely worried ... a Scottish precedent would really encourage the now very rich region of Flanders to secede from the Kingdom", adding: "This would impoverish Belgium."

Presuming all countries did approve membership, Mr Quinn said that Scotland would be "legally obliged" to join the euro if it met the correct economic conditions.

He's saying that even if all countries agreed, the Euro would be the price of membership.

I don't know why there's an assumption that other European parliamentarians would consider it so important to bring an independent Scotland into the EU that they'd increase the risk of the break-up of their own country.

There is no chance that Scotland will be allowed to "stay" in the EU following a yes vote. 18 months is insufficient time for that to happen even given a fair wind, since the whole of that time, and more, would be taken up with negotiating the terms on which Scotland leaves the UK - which would have to be established before Scotland's application for membership could be considered.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I was in Brussels on Friday with the European Commission for various meetings with some of the new teams in Media and Health "ministries".

Lunchtime discussion was mostly about Scotland and the impression I took away was very much wait and see, and that there are significant barriers to be overcome in acceptance precedent, financial qualification (my comment about Goldman Sachs and Greece went down well - NOT), and above all likely vetoes by Spain and Belgium.

The Euro was seen as a mandatory requirement, a period of at least 3 yrs after full independence needed as a consolidation period before any financial structure and governance could be reviewed, and a Norwegian / Swiss type relationship seen as the preference.

EC has much bigger fish to fry currently and focus is on for example Turkey , Iceland, Albania and rest of FRY (Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and perhaps Bosnia and Kosovo [which is still not recognised by all EU countries]). In all cases the negotiations are extensive and complex and a country has to meet the criteria which includes market economy, and goals of political and economic union ! The process for any country is expected to take up to 10 years for many, and longer for some. For Scotland it passes many of the base criteria as it is currently part of UK and in EU already but a new independence and government needs to be proven as still meeting them - by now I was beginning to glaze over.