In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:

On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:

-It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British
NHS).

Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again.

That one is a serious concern. The NHS in Scotland is a devolved matter
and is run very differently from the NHS south of the border.

-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)
etc. etc.


It can't be chucked out because it is not in. And that is not anything
to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU.

An interesting one, since the EU apparently has no provision for
rescinding EU citizenship, which UK nationals in Scotland currently
enjoy. AIUI the EU hasn't actually made a statement on the matter and
that's one of the complicating factors.

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 03:11:53 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc.
etc.

My understanding of the EU position, which is a very difficult read as
this would be the first split of an existing EU member state so there is
no precedent, is that the existing state (E,W&NI) would remain in the EU,
but that the breakaway state (Scotland) would have to apply for EU
membership.

I believe part of reasoning behind this is that the rest of the Schengen /
Euro EU see this as a way of imposing Schengen / Euro on the UK (E,W&NI),
because Scotland will be required as a new entrant to commit to both
Schengen and the Euro. This in turn means that England will have to close
the border with Scotland and trade with Scotland will become a Euro /
Sterling exchange if the UK (E,W&NI) wishes to remain outside of Schengen
and retain Sterling.

In other words, Salmond is being played as a pawn by the Schengen / Euro
block of the EC in an attempt to make Westminster play on their terms.

But this is only my belief. I'm sure there are those who are more
politically aware than I who will be amongst the first to state that such
machinations would never be dreamt of by the Euro / Schengen block in the
EU.

--
Denis McMahon,

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:02:44 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:13:33 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......"
wrote:


"Aurora" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Aurora" wrote

However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the
inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot
option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The
residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or
join the nearby City. As it is we will never know.

You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to
disagree!

The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national
level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London
Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old
boroughs was not an option -

IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate
contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their
chosen parish, municipality, and county

But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their
"vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions

and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at
the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they
are going to be if they vote yes!

What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No"
campaign ?

Surely much less than those propagated by the Yes campaign?

Such as ...... ?

According to the No campaign :-
-Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching
Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders").

Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this?

Ruth Davidson :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650

I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is
Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see
any resemblance to reality.

-It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British
NHS).

Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again.

The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems,
each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS"
(Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to
appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are
great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned
to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency
treatment has ceased.

-It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU
clampdown started).

You are conflating two separate issues.

Tell the "No" campaign.

-The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether
Scotland stays in the UK or not)

But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims..

Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's
version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of
stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly
a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years
ago :-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Shetland is part of Scotland. It became part of the UK as part of
Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the
1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ?

-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)
etc. etc.


It can't be chucked out because it is not in.

The people are already in as you will find with passports marked
"European Union" and which use our own language.

And that is not anything
to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU.

There has never been a competent and authoritative opinion.

Such as ...... ?

According to the No campaign :-
-Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching
Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders").

Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this?

Ruth Davidson :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650

She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get
the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts.


I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is
Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see
any resemblance to reality.

Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is?


-It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British
NHS).

Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again.

The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems,
each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS"
(Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to
appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are
great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned
to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency
treatment has ceased.

-It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU
clampdown started).

You are conflating two separate issues.

Tell the "No" campaign.

Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making?


-The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether
Scotland stays in the UK or not)

But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims..

Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's
version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of
stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly
a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years
ago :-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Shetland is part of Scotland.

Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the
inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland.

It became part of the UK as part of
Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the
1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ?

This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond.


-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)
etc. etc.


It can't be chucked out because it is not in.

The people are already in as you will find with passports marked
"European Union" and which use our own language.

Who's language? And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be
Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily
be EU.


And that is not anything
to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU.

There has never been a competent and authoritative opinion.


Either way but Salmond claims there's no problem with absolutely zero
backing for his arguemnt.

All irrelevant really. Whichever way the vote goes the other side can
dispute the legality of the vote and they certainly will.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:

-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)

Germany didn't re-form. The Laender in the Democratic Republic all
signed up for the Federal Republic's
not-quite-in-theory-but-in-practice-a-constitution, which had been
written with the specific aim of enabling this to happen at some point,
and thus the Laender became part of the Federal Republic. The current
Germany is actually "West Germany", but with more territory than it used
to have.

An equivalent might be if all 50 US states decided to transfer their
allegiance to Canada, leaving nothing behind for the US national
government to govern.

The biggest lie in the Scottish campaign seems to be the belief that
many people in England are all that bothered... (although maybe the
monks at Buckfast are worried about any future import tariffs Scotland
might impose?).
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:


Such as ...... ?

According to the No campaign :-
-Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching
Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders").

Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this?

Ruth Davidson :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650

She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get
the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts.

"However, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she believed
independence would lead to the loss of popular TV programmes or result
in households paying more for big sporting events and "our favourite
dramas".
Her tabloid allies might have changed that to more specific wording
but I don't think she was referring to The Sky at Night.


I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is
Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see
any resemblance to reality.

Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is?


-It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British
NHS).

Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again.

The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems,
each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS"
(Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to
appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are
great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned
to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency
treatment has ceased.

-It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU
clampdown started).

You are conflating two separate issues.

Tell the "No" campaign.

Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making?


-The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether
Scotland stays in the UK or not)

But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims..

Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's
version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of
stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly
a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years
ago :-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Shetland is part of Scotland.

Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the
inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland.

Just like Yorkshire v. England then ?

It became part of the UK as part of
Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the
1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ?

This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond.

He isn't trying to split up Scotland unlike anyone who tries to remove
any of the islands.


-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)
etc. etc.


It can't be chucked out because it is not in.

The people are already in as you will find with passports marked
"European Union" and which use our own language.

Who's language?

Nobody is language.

And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be
Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily
be EU.

You presume incorrectly.


And that is not anything
to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU.

There has never been a competent and authoritative opinion.


Either way but Salmond claims there's no problem with absolutely zero
backing for his arguemnt.

All irrelevant really. Whichever way the vote goes the other side can
dispute the legality of the vote and they certainly will.

On what grounds ? Are you aware of a secret plot to swing the vote
using Darling's imaginary million extra Scots ?

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:14:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:

-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)

Germany didn't re-form. The Laender in the Democratic Republic all
signed up for the Federal Republic's
not-quite-in-theory-but-in-practice-a-constitution, which had been
written with the specific aim of enabling this to happen at some point,
and thus the Laender became part of the Federal Republic. The current
Germany is actually "West Germany",

ITYM the German Federal Republic, created in 1949 and to which the
Bundestag seems to refer in the present tense :-
https://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/ar...ism/index.html
as does the UK :-
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxtreaties/in-force/germany.pdf
[UK/FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY DOUBLE TAXATION CONVENTION
SIGNED 30 MARCH 2010]

but with more territory than it used to have.

Thus it physically reformed along with all the EU-related consequences
of doing so. How many MEPs were there for GDR constituencies before
re-union ?

An equivalent might be if all 50 US states decided to transfer their
allegiance to Canada, leaving nothing behind for the US national
government to govern.

About as likely as Barking seceding from the Union and joining Serbia?

The biggest lie in the Scottish campaign seems to be the belief that
many people in England are all that bothered...

Indeed, there is little of the "everybody's talking about it" as
implied by Bitter Together and the Unionist tabloids (at least in
their kilted editions).

(although maybe the
monks at Buckfast are worried about any future import tariffs Scotland
might impose?).

They must be cacking themselves at the thought of having to establish
a new user base. Mossside ? Toxteth ?

On 13/01/2014 18:17, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:


Such as ...... ?

According to the No campaign :-
-Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching
Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders").

Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this?

Ruth Davidson :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650

She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get
the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts.

"However, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she believed
independence would lead to the loss of popular TV programmes or result
in households paying more for big sporting events and "our favourite
dramas".
Her tabloid allies might have changed that to more specific wording
but I don't think she was referring to The Sky at Night.

Or her opponents could have set up a straw man. Especially given it was
Hyslop who brought up the subject of Eastenders. And neither side
mentioned satellite.


I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is
Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see
any resemblance to reality.

Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is?


-It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British
NHS).

Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again.

The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems,
each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS"
(Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to
appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are
great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned
to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency
treatment has ceased.

-It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU
clampdown started).

You are conflating two separate issues.

Tell the "No" campaign.

Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making?


-The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether
Scotland stays in the UK or not)

But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims..

Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's
version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of
stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly
a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years
ago :-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Shetland is part of Scotland.

Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the
inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland.

Just like Yorkshire v. England then ?

Yorkshire thinks it is England, the rest is just incidental.


It became part of the UK as part of
Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the
1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ?

This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond.

He isn't trying to split up Scotland unlike anyone who tries to remove
any of the islands.


-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)
etc. etc.


It can't be chucked out because it is not in.

The people are already in as you will find with passports marked
"European Union" and which use our own language.

Who's language?

Nobody is language.

So the language of who exactly then?


And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be
Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily
be EU.

You presume incorrectly.

That Salmond won't get his way? Glad to see you are coming round.




And that is not anything
to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU.

There has never been a competent and authoritative opinion.


Either way but Salmond claims there's no problem with absolutely zero
backing for his arguemnt.

All irrelevant really. Whichever way the vote goes the other side can
dispute the legality of the vote and they certainly will.

On what grounds ? Are you aware of a secret plot to swing the vote
using Darling's imaginary million extra Scots ?


No just a legal loophole neither side is admitting to. Presumably in
the hope that the other lot haven't noticed.

You don't need secret plots when both sides are equally incompetent.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 13/01/2014 18:49, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:14:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:

-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)

Germany didn't re-form. The Laender in the Democratic Republic all
signed up for the Federal Republic's
not-quite-in-theory-but-in-practice-a-constitution, which had been
written with the specific aim of enabling this to happen at some point,
and thus the Laender became part of the Federal Republic. The current
Germany is actually "West Germany",

ITYM the German Federal Republic,

Which is what I wrote.

In case the names are confusing you, "West Germany" was an English
language colloquial term for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (or, in
English, Federal Republic of Germany) pre-October 1990. This is the
country which still exists.

East Germany was a colloquial term for the Deutsche Demokratische
Republik (German Democratic Republic). This no longer exists, since its
constituent elements all joined the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (IIRC the
legal details for various parts of the urban area of Berlin were
technically slightly more complex, but that doesn't matter).

Presumably someone has thought about what to do if the governor of
Kaliningrad oblast were ever to come knocking on the Reichstag door
clutching a signed print-out of the basic law.

created in 1949 and to which the
Bundestag seems to refer in the present tense :-

Of course they refer to it in the present tense. Just as the Sejm refers
to the Rzeczpospolita Polska in the present tense.

but with more territory than it used to have.

Thus it physically reformed

No, it kept going on as before, but bigger. That is the point. I've
actually come across Germans who object to the English phrase "German
reunification", as from a German legal and constitutional perspective
that does not accurately reflect what happened.

along with all the EU-related consequences
of doing so. How many MEPs were there for GDR constituencies before
re-union ?

There never were any GDR(/DDR/East Germany/Soviet zone/whatever) MEPs.
See above.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......"
wrote:


"Aurora" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Aurora" wrote

However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the
inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot
option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The
residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or
join the nearby City. As it is we will never know.

You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to
disagree!

The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national
level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London
Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old
boroughs was not an option -

IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate
contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their
chosen parish, municipality, and county

But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their
"vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions

and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at
the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they
are going to be if they vote yes!

What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No"
campaign ?

I wouldn't know what the no campaign is saying

they are conspicuous by the absence down south

whereas everything the Salmon says seems to get reported by the (English)
nationals

tim