Matters the people in the street may not have considered before the Referendum.

In article ,
(NY) wrote:

I wonder what passports for Scottish people will say if
independence goes ahead. Presumably Scottish people's nationality
will no longer be "British" (or "UK" as America insists you write
on one of their immigration forms). Will they have to have their
passports re-issued by a Scottish passport office and with
nationality "Scottish"?

Yes they will - and I'll be the first in the queue to apply for one.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

"Ulrich Onken" wrote in message
...
On 12.09.2014 02:54, David Kennedy wrote:
On 11/09/2014 07:29, Ulrich Onken wrote:


So there is obviously no need for fences or excessive controls at EU
external
borders. In my view, such nightmare scenarios are incredible and in
the end
undermine the arguments of the "Better together" campaign. Would it
not be
better to create forward-looking scenarios: What could be achieved in
future
if the Scots decide to stay within the UK?
[...]
How are you finding it here on Earth Ulrich? Enjoying it so far?

Tell me, is it in any way like your own planet?

David, I don't think that the two of us are living on different planets. I
have lived in the UK and other parts of this world and have crossed
national borders several hundred times in my life, both fenced and open
ones.

The EU does seal off its external borders against immmigrants in the
Mediterranean and in Eastern Europe. This includes fences in some parts
and strict border controls in others. But there would be no reason to do
so at the Scottish / rUK border after a Yes vote. There is no significant
number of illegal immigrants coming from the north - unless the Scots
would let them enter at airports or harbours. Why should they do so?

Er because Alex Slamond, who is First Minister, has stated that it is / will
be his government's policy to do so.

For most people from warmer climes, Scotland is a cold hard palce to move
to, but it would provide a convenient back door into England.


Otherwise, why is there no fence between Sweden (EU) and Norway (non-EU),
in spite of a huge open coastline in Norway? There are just hills, wetland
and a few roads at the Swedish border (similar to the Lake District) - and
no hurdles that would prevent you from crossing that EU external wherever
you like. It has been the same in pre-Schengen times. Sorry, but to me
this fence scenario at a future Scottish border is good for a joke, but
not credible.

Quite a good analogy for once. They were one country until IIRC 1905. OTOH
neither has an open doors immigration policy and a fence would be even less
feasible than between England and Scotland. At least in our case it has
been tried before, albeit with the resource of a huge empire to build it...

The USA has a fence with Mexico, but not with Canada.


Regards,
Uli

On 12.09.2014 22:06, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Ulrich Onken" wrote in message
...

The EU does seal off its external borders against immmigrants in the
Mediterranean and in Eastern Europe. This includes fences in some parts
and strict border controls in others. But there would be no reason to do
so at the Scottish / rUK border after a Yes vote. There is no significant
number of illegal immigrants coming from the north - unless the Scots
would let them enter at airports or harbours. Why should they do so?

Er because Alex Slamond, who is First Minister, has stated that it is / will
be his government's policy to do so.

Hmm, illegal immigrants - can you provide a source? Salmond tells he
wants to increase annual immigration from 10000 to 24000 (based on about
5 million people living in Scotland). This is still a modest figure
compared to Norway with an annual immigration of 47000, also based on a
population about 5 million (source: Wikipedia). Why then is there no
fence at the EU border to Norway?

For most people from warmer climes, Scotland is a cold hard palce to move
to, but it would provide a convenient back door into England.

Yes, it will be more attractive than Scotland to many, not only because
of temperatures. But still I don't see how and why a significant number
of illegal immigrants would be able to enter Scotland in the first place.

Regards,
Uli

On 12/09/2014 19:52, Ulrich Onken wrote:
On 12.09.2014 02:54, David Kennedy wrote:
On 11/09/2014 07:29, Ulrich Onken wrote:


So there is obviously no need for fences or excessive controls at EU
external
borders. In my view, such nightmare scenarios are incredible and in
the end
undermine the arguments of the "Better together" campaign. Would it
not be
better to create forward-looking scenarios: What could be achieved in
future
if the Scots decide to stay within the UK?
[...]
How are you finding it here on Earth Ulrich? Enjoying it so far?

Tell me, is it in any way like your own planet?

David, I don't think that the two of us are living on different planets. I
have lived in the UK and other parts of this world and have crossed national
borders several hundred times in my life, both fenced and open ones.

The EU does seal off its external borders against immmigrants in the
Mediterranean and in Eastern Europe. This includes fences in some parts and
strict border controls in others. But there would be no reason to do so at the
Scottish / rUK border after a Yes vote. There is no significant number of
illegal immigrants coming from the north - unless the Scots would let them
enter at airports or harbours. Why should they do so?

Otherwise, why is there no fence between Sweden (EU) and Norway (non-EU), in
spite of a huge open coastline in Norway? There are just hills, wetland and a
few roads at the Swedish border (similar to the Lake District) - and no
hurdles that would prevent you from crossing that EU external wherever you
like. It has been the same in pre-Schengen times. Sorry, but to me this fence
scenario at a future Scottish border is good for a joke, but not credible.

Regards,
Uli
When was the last time you saw hundreds of people in Sweeden or Norway
clambering into the back of lorries?

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On 12/09/2014 11:43, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:01:38 +0100, David Kennedy
wrote:

On 12/09/2014 10:56, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 01:59:47 +0100, David Kennedy
wrote:

On 11/09/2014 17:24, charles wrote:
In article , Martin
wrote:
Why shouldn't she be Queen of Scotland? Nobody has said Scotland won't be
a member of the Commonwealth. Nobody has mentioned President or
reinstating the Stuarts as monarchs either, yet.

So Waitrose says their supermarkets will be more expensive in Scotland
because it will be foreign. They need to learn lessons from Lidl, Aldi
and Ikea. whose prices are the same right across Europe.

Wrong.

They price locally. Their prices are higher in central London than outside.
Not on everything admittedly but on a good many things.

In Jersey, M&S keep their goods priced the same as on the mainland - no VAT
but higher freighting costs


M&S prices, Lidl prices, Aldi prices and Ikea prices are all identical to UK
prices in The Netherlands and Germany.

Identical to which store?

In the case of Lidl and Aldi, Dutch outlets compared to stores in Yorkshire.

M&S mail order. There's a £4 delivery charge to NL. Prices in the Amsterdam,
store are identical to mail order price.

Ikea you can look up in their catalogues. There's an occasional difference for
example when Ikea NL lost the first digit of the price of an office chair and
then halved that price when they dumped the end of the range.
Prices will vary slightly due to exchange rate fluctuations
There are some exceptions, anything containing alcohol that is not just sold
locally is more expensive in UK, but you can work out why. Tobacco products
depend on the local tax.

I can show you different prices in different M & S Stores in the UK without
the bother of going to Europe.

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

The current "privatisations*" are Labour's, although of course selective
amnesia means they now protest against implementation of their own
policy!

Not quite. The Tories have continued the process adding new ways for
private capital to vampire on the NHS. ...at least south of the line.

The key point in this context, though, is that the Scottish Parliament has
already had and used the power to block those changes from happening in
Scotland. Despite Salmon's scare-mongering.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , tim.....
wrote:


What the don't know is whether the lawyers will successfully argue that
Scotland never "left" and as such the Spanish (and others) wont get a
chance to veto them "joining"

The snag being that the 'judges' any such lawyers would have to pursuade
will ultimately be the national government leaders *as currently arranged*.
Their concerns won't be legal nicities or 'fairness'. It will be what the
impact may be in their own countries for their own power-bases. They make
the rules.

One reason politicians like the EU is that it gives them cover and
plausible deniability. Unpopular decisions can be "blamed on the EU" when
in fact the decisions are made stemming from the National leaders doing
deals away from public scrutiny. Its why politicians often tend to become
less keen on leaving the EU as they get used to being in power.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
wrote:


What the don't know is whether the lawyers will successfully argue that
Scotland never "left" and as such the Spanish (and others) wont get a
chance to veto them "joining"

The snag being that the 'judges' any such lawyers would have to pursuade
will ultimately be the national government leaders *as currently
arranged*.

That's why I said what I said

The Scots could (possibly) successfully argue that the rules of the EU allow
them to continue with their membership without it having to go to the
scrutiny of the other countries.

I accept that once it does get to the point where the other countries can
veto it the Scots will have a problem, but Salmond's line is that it IS
legally possible to rejoin without having to do this.

I'm not saying that I think he is right. I am just saying that it is not a
complete impossibility (and that no-one, whichever side of the argument they
are on, knows the answer because no-one has asked the question before)

In article , tim.....
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
wrote:


What the don't know is whether the lawyers will successfully argue
that Scotland never "left" and as such the Spanish (and others) wont
get a chance to veto them "joining"

The snag being that the 'judges' any such lawyers would have to
pursuade will ultimately be the national government leaders *as
currently arranged*.

That's why I said what I said

The Scots could (possibly) successfully argue that the rules of the EU
allow them to continue with their membership without it having to go to
the scrutiny of the other countries.

I accept that once it does get to the point where the other countries
can veto it the Scots will have a problem, but Salmond's line is that
it IS legally possible to rejoin without having to do this.

Yes, all so in theory. Alas, 'might' doesn't mean 'will certainly happen'.
cf below.


I'm not saying that I think he is right. I am just saying that it is
not a complete impossibility (and that no-one, whichever side of the
argument they are on, knows the answer because no-one has asked the
question before)

Yes, all kinds of things are "possible" in the sense that we can't
establish in advance that they are totally impossible. It is 'possible'
that I 'might' win a sprint race with a top Olympic sprinter... if he fell
over and broke his leg. That said, it would still be a challenge!

From quantum mechanics it is 'possible' that my cup of tea will suddenly
transport itself though a wall to the next room, leaving both wall and cup
of tea intact. I'm not expecting it to happen soon, though.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

From quantum mechanics it is 'possible' that my cup of tea will suddenly
transport itself though a wall to the next room, leaving both wall and cup
of tea intact. I'm not expecting it to happen soon, though.

So the quantum mechanics hypothesis, when exposed to real life
observations, proves incorrect? A bit like global warming for the last
18 years then.

Bill