The politically manufactured storm in a Holyrood thimble, which sprung up on the 23rd of October, when instigated by labour and supported by the full might of the Condem coalition, the BBC and the Brit Nat Media..which means just about everybody else bar those of a Scottish Independence mind..Has gone from Hurricane force to post shivering Scottish storm and has been sustained artificially by intermittent gusts of bullshit ever since. The allegations that Alex Salmond blatantly lied over legal advice received, have been proven baseless. And yet still they persist over a week later? The very simple question you have to ask yourself is this…Why??
The first answer is obvious..They see Alex Salmond as the greatest threat to their lives of privilege in British Society. A lot of Unionists stand to personally lose a lot, if Scotland becomes Independent. The Lords and Mps at Westminster all lose their jobs, their perks and a very nice standard of living..thank you very much.
secondly: Those at the very highest of power in the British establishment stand to lose a hell of a lot more! Their positions of power and Influence will either be lost, or diminished massively, both in the Uk and Internationally.
There is very obviously been a politically agreed strategy between all of those Brit NAts in the Better Together campaign. Indeed, so united are they now, that Labour, the Tories and the LibDems have almost melded into one party. They have indeed decided that they are all better together. So we are faced looking at a centre right coalition on the Brit Nat side versus a center left coalition on the YES side…and the main strategic weapon of choice that the Britanats have agreed on, is the Negative politics derived from US Republican party campaigns. Attack the Man, not the ball.
Thereby an all out assault on Alex Salmond personally and by extension the whole SNP and also the YES campaign.
The idea is to damage Alex Salmond and the SNP governments high level of Trustworthiness, by casting doubt on his and the SNP governments honesty and competence.
Hence the disgraceful language they used to attack him personally ion parliament and on TV.
However this attack, which has been so loud, so over the top,so unbelievably stupid at times, has been sustained far longer than anyone could possibly expect or predict, given their total lack of substance. So much so, that even Henry McLeish decried it, and rubbished it on STV news and Scotland Tonight.
If there is no real basis for it? Why, why, why? are they still persisting in flogging a dead horse? It makes no sense whatsoever, or does it?
when a whole load of noise occurs for no apparent reason, the further question arises…What are they hiding? what do they not want us to know?
Think McCrone Report! How that was buried for 30 plus years, to stop scotland going it alone.
Ok..this is nowhere near that scale of dishonesty and underhandedness, but I suspect we have found the reason for the past weeks diversionary tactics by the Unionist cabal.
The answer lies in papers published by the British Foreign Office House of Commons committee on the 17th of October, on the subject of
HC 643 The foreign policy implications of and for a separate Scotland
The written paper by Graham Avery, Honorary Director General of the European Commission, is perfectly clear on the issue of Scotlands membership of the EU in the event of becoming Independent.
Scotland would Indeed remain part of the EU, and would continue to do so, unless we ourselves decided otherwise.
It clearly sets out some very telling statements, which I will quote directly.
“Publications > Commons Select Committees > Foreign Affairs > Foreign Affairs
HC 643 The foreign policy implications of and for a separate Scotland
Graham Avery, Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission
1. The object of this note is to clarify the procedure by which, following a referendum in which the Scottish people vote in favour of independence, Scotland could become a member of the European Union. Although the note touches on wider issues such as the terms of Scotland’s membership and the attitude of the EU member states and institutions, it focuses on the question of the procedure for Scotland’s accession.
2. In the debate on Scottish independence it is natural that opponents tend to exaggerate the difficulties of EU membership, while proponents tend to minimise them. This note tries to address the subject as objectively as possible. In summary it argues that:
· 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
3. The author a Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission. He worked for 40 years as a senior official in Whitehall and Brussels, and took part in successive negotiations for EU enlargement”
” 6. However, for Scotland a modification of the EU Treaties would be necessary, if only to provide for Scottish representation in the EU institutions (number of members of European Parliament, number of votes in Council of Ministers, etc.).
7. At this point we need to consider the timing and procedure for such Treaty changes. Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with Scottish independence. For practical and political reasons the idea of Scotland leaving the EU, and subsequently applying to join it, is not feasible. From the practical point of view, it would require complicated temporary arrangements for a new relationship between the EU (including the rest of the UK) and Scotland (outside the EU) including the possibility of controls at the frontier with England. Neither the EU (including the rest of the UK.) nor Scotland would have an interest in creating such an anomaly.
8. From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership.
9. It follows that negotiations on the terms of Scottish membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence. We do not know at this stage how long that period would be; complicated negotiations between Edinburgh and London would have to take place; but we may guess that not more than one or two years be needed. ”
” 13. In accession negotiations with non-member countries the EU has always strongly resisted other changes or opt-outs from the basic Treaties; at this stage it remains to be seen what might be requested by Scottish representatives concerning the euro or the Schengen area of free movement of persons. Without embarking here on a discussion of the implications for Scotland of these policies, we may note that although new member states are required to accept them in principle, they do not become members of the eurozone or Schengen immediately on accession, and are not permitted to do so. Joining the euro or Schengen depends on a series of criteria that are examined in the years following accession. ”
In short.. The British Government knew, the LABCONDEM coalition knew, a full week before the nonsense and shenanigans at Holyrood, that an Independent Scotland would most certainly be part of the European Union, no question!
Sure there are many questions they don’t know the answer to, but on this score..They knew!
That the people of Scotland have 40years acquired rights as European Citizens..and you just can’t go kicking them all out!
For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission
That arrangements for an Independent Scotlands continuation of membership of the EU would have to be simultaneously in place at the advent of Independence.
That there was no possibility of Scotland being required to immediately take up the Euro. In fact it wouldn’t be either considered or permitted for quite some considerable time, even if Scotland wanted to!
They Knew..That there is no need nor desirability for border posts between Scotland and the rUK.
So the new question is…WHY has this not been Major news all over the news channels and the Media?
Why..knowing all this..were they persisting in calling Alex Salmond a bare faced liar?
Why..was Brewer et al and the BBC so intent on a ludicrous witch hunt? And feigning confusion over the question of who was right on Europe? When they already knew, this and other papers which have been published make the position clear. They had access to these papers, as they are all in the public domain on the British Governments own website!
And they must be deluded, if they even expect anyone to believe that they didn’t know.
So …Who are the Liars? The answer is clear..and it is not Alex Salmond or the Scottish Government.
Now ..the next question…Who Do you Trust? And what else are they not telling us?