The Results of the UK's European Members Election 2019.

[Ninurta]

The Act of Union has no provision for asking for permission.
Permission is not required under international law.
WM is implying that Scotland has to ask permission, but legally that is not the case.
Up until now, the Scottish Government has been playing by the book. Making sure that it doesn't give WM any grounds for dispute or action. But, in answer to your question "if you have to ask permission to be free, how free are you going to be?" That, in a nutshell is our point. We do not recognise the implication that we as a sovereign state have to seek anyone's permission. If we decide that we want freedom, then we will have it. End of.

An admirable sentiment, and I really mean that. I think the same way, coming from the American South. Around 1860, we all thought the same way down here, and the entire southern tier of US states declared independence from the US... but, despite provisions of the law allowing for that to be, the US contested that decision, vigorously. It was a rough four years after that, and a MUCH rougher 15 or 20 years after those four. 600,000 people died in the 4 year war, entire homesteads were razed to the ground, entire towns decimated and burned. Bodies lay sprawled and rotting in fields and ashes by the dozens for the crows and buzzards to dine on. The US, in order to make sure we had learned our lesson, subjected us to another 12 years of military rule which turned out not to be nearly as much fun as it sounds, and it really doesn't even sound like very much fun. 140 years later, we still haven't fully recovered.

I'm pretty sure the US has a vested interest in ensuring that we never fully recover.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, nor am I saying don't do it - that is a decision for the Scots to make, not me. All I'm saying is go into it with eyes wide open, and never underestimate the ruthlessness of your opponents, nor over-estimate their honor. Those same caveats apply to your "friends" as well. Either estimate can lead to a very bad series of days during which you may be disabused of chivalrous notions like "the law is fair and always honored". The law always has, and always will, favor the man with the most gunpowder - and the most willingness to employ it - when it comes right down to brass tacks.

It is now 2019.
By provision of the Act of Union, Scotland is an equal partner in UNION with England.
We are NOT a colony or subservient state like the US used to be.
To achieve Independence, all we have to do is dissolve the Union by voting to do so and letting the rest of the world know.

We in the American South were, too - on paper. As it turned out, that paper was not even worth the paper it was written on. We thought the same process as you outlined for Scotland would yield the same results you believe it will.

As we found out in the end, that wasn't the case. Paper only has a value that honorable men place in it, and most men are not as honorable as we would like them to be. Now we have a firmer grasp of the pecking order, and realize that the only things which are truly yours are the things you can retain against force... and that force may be directed at you by your "bestest buddies" in an instant. Because of that, we chose our "bestest buddies" carefully, and with through evaluation.

I'm not sure that you've completely understood our current or future position in relation to the EU.
We are already in the EU (as part of the UK).
They most certainly are NOT our masters (in the way that WM thinks that WM IS our master.)
The EU has no say/control whatsoever over how we spend our tax revenues (WM does!) I don't know why you'd think that they do, because that's not how it works.
The EU has no right to any of our resources at all (unless they BUY them from us when we DECIDE to sell them) unlike WM who have asset-stripped Scotland for decades.
Membership of the EU allows free and equal trade between its members, so an Independent Scotland could benefit from having free access to the EU marketplace.

I'll reply to this more fully below, but you are probably right, I most likely have no concept of what the EU is, nor a firm grasp on how it runs.

LOL
Scotland has massive Oil (and Gas) reserves AND huge potential for wind, hydro, wave, tidal etc energy production.
The vast majority of the UK's energy reserves lie in RECOGNISED SCOTTISH TERRITORY.
It belongs to Scotland under international law. There is NO DISPUTE whatsoever about that.
It is NOT up to WM to "let it go, gratis" as it does not belong to WM. (They won't like us leaving the UK and taking it with us, that's for sure! But, under International law... what can they do about it??)
The EU would have no more right to take control of Scottish Oil/Gas etc than anyone else and there is no precedent whatsoever for them doing so. (Unlike the US!)
On the contrary, the EU would rather have Scotland within the EU, as it strengthens the EU having a member state with so much energy resources at its disposal.

Yes, yes they WOULD rather have Scotland within the EU! That is almost my entire point! Just as the UK would rather have Scotland in the UK...

Now, admittedly I have an imperfect understanding of just what sort of animal the EU is (or claims to be), I think you may not have a firm grasp on how "International Law" works. It is entirely, ENTIRELY, based upon treaty obligations, and treaties can be exited as easily as they are entered, obligations incurred and agreed to abrogated on a whim. Ask an American Indian what value treaties have. It's not like you can just hire a barrister in the middle of a war and take them to court... and if you could, tell me where that court is located? Who - what government - enforces the court's decision?

I appreciate your take on the subject, but as I already said... we are treated like subjects of WM, but we are not treated as subjects of the EU. (In what specific areas do you feel that members of the EU are "subjects" being told what to do? I would be very interested in that.)

Just wondering...
Do you think that Germany is NOT Independent?
Do you think that France is NOT Independent?
Austria? Belgium? Denmark? Finland? Ireland? Italy? The Netherlands? Spain? etc etc

Independence doesn't mean being alone, it means having the right to choose for yourself which clubs you join.

G

Well sir, with my imperfect understanding of what the EU is, or claims to be, that is EXACTLY what I think - but I'm always open to education. What IS it? What does it do? Does it not promulgate rules and regulations? Does it not have a central government or governing committee? Is there no one presiding over it? If there is, what is he or she called - what is their title? Are they elected, or appointed? Is the EU lawless, i.e. without laws? If so, how do they enforce anything at all? Of what use are they? Do they not collect taxes? If not, how on Earth do they fund themselves? If they do collect taxes, what happens if you tell them to go to hell, and get their tax collectors off of your lawn?


My experience of government has been bigger polities eating smaller polities, and thereby increasing their own size and power. Therefore I see the EU as an analogue to the US - a "national" government composed of member states, which are themselves further subdivided into smaller political units, like municipalities and counties - and that may be where I am going off the rails in my conception of it. Those larger states always make rules or laws that override the rules or laws of the smaller political units, and we generally end up paying taxes to all of the political units larger than our individual families, and being forced more or less to obey all of their laws and regulations.

Please educate me on what the EU is and/or does, so that I can get a firmer grasp on this situation.

P.S. - I'm fairly certain the EU will be willing to assist Scotland in the rebellion against the UK. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that it will not be viewed as "rebellion" by Westminster. You know how testy those governing types can get when their constituents get the notion that they can do as they please without government permission - if you don't know, I do! When they see Scotland leaving, and taking their tax base with them, it's fairly certain to get pretty dicey. What if Wales and Northern Ireland were to get that same notion in their heads? The UK would have to do something to cut that off at the knees. Be careful of accepting EU aid, however, for who will assist you when it comes time to rebel against THEM? Economic combines rarely ever remain merely economic combines - take a look at US history for a glimpse of how that goes. We started out as a loose confederation of independent states with a weak federal government whose only function was to regulate commerce between those states and present a united front for negotiation with foreign powers, but where did it go from there?

.

[Wallfire]

Ok this is a bit long winded but it does show how the EU changes the rules to suit its ends. Part about the EU underlined in red by me. Its mostly about Sweden but I think it suits all of Europe

When democracy becomes the enemy of politicians

Published June 2, 2019 at 21.35
COLUMN. Many politicians - especially liberal ones - are not comfortable with the majority deciding. The governing establishment believes that rights belong to the sphere of power of nomenclature, which democracy should not interfere with.


Trying to maximize an outcome against a goal is often quite straightforward. With two goals, it is important to decide which one should be prioritized and to which one should be taken less account. This can be described as a dilemma. At three goals it is often about what should be prioritized.

Within economics there are a number of trilemmen. In a number of issues, two desirable goals may be compatible, they will not even be a dilemma where a result can only be increased at the expense of the second goal. But the third goal puts the spanner in the wheel for the other two. Each of the three goals can be combined with the other two, but only with one of them at a time. A goal falls outside the three possible lines that include two goals and excludes the third.

Graphically, we have a triangle with three possible choices represented by the three sides of the triangle. If we choose baseline A between goal 2 and goal 3 then goal 1 becomes impossible (when choosing another line then one of the other goals falls outside the practical possibilities).

An economic trilemma is (1) free capital movements, (2) controlled exchange rate and (3) monetary independence. Many economists like all three, but they are forced to prioritize a desirable goal, the reasoning becomes clearer if we use a more private example as the housing issue. One can start by presenting three attractive wishes: central location, generous areas and a low rent.

However, it becomes difficult to find objects that meet all three criteria. You have to think more closely about what to choose from. The central location? Generous surfaces? A low rent? Reduced to two goals, the problem is more manageable and less of a desire dream.

Our politicians are torn between three goals for the political system. One goal is to maintain democracy, even it may even be developed. Breaking its guiding principles not only raises opposition in the population but also the politicians' learned views. Introducing a post-democracy does not come up as explicit proposals when formulating a new party program.

Another goal that attracts politicians is to be perceived as a progressive leadership. The politicians want to stand for leadership that raises international admiration. Sweden and many other countries are facing a number of challenges, and it is about phasing out the old society and shaping it new with energy conversion, artificial intelligence and constant retraining. There is a need for a transformational policy in which the politicians show action and leadership.

The third common goal is to safeguard the rule of law. Though it should be changed on things, this should be done under ordered forms. Although it changes, goals and rules should be as intact as possible. We formulate an international order of ideals such as human rights and a large set of international rules and goals such as Agenda 2030.

Some conservatives see legal power as a way to curb political. Many see a potential conflict between the state (politicians) and the deep state (authorities and courts). The Right considered that a number of institutions needed protection against an excess of democracy: the throne, the altar and the money bag. In the past, many conservatives saw an EU accession and a constitutional court with which the deep state's legal machinery could curb leftist activists.

In many countries, however, lawyers in courts have not been braked against reforms, but on the contrary driven a legalistic reformism which is based on moralism rather than on political traditions. With frequent ties between politicians and lawyers / officials, the division of roles between them becomes quite unclear.

Much speaks for a delay effect. Yesterday's political innovator broke through in politics, but it took longer to advance in the other hierarchies. Therefore, today's political elite will soon also take over the deep state. An illustrative example is Turkey, which established a strictly secular state which, however, after a long period of religious political domination gradually becomes an increasingly Muslim state. Culture and politics strongly influence each other.

But today, the nomenclature in Sweden believes it can handle this in a skilful way.
One trend we can see is that the politicians end up in the same situation as the homeowner. Three goals are too much. What seems to be removed is democracy which is a bit erratic. The people have a tendency to not uphold the political leadership nor the legal one.

In the past, democracy was seen either as a support for a socialist equality policy or as support for a tax revolution. Today neither the left nor the right is convinced that democracy is on their side. Yes, it seems like a challenger group is a bit of the people's favorite. It is a development that politicians dislike. Democracy becomes a potential enemy.

The EU had the ambition that the new constitution for the EU would be given legitimacy through a referendum. After the defeat in Holland and France in 2005, they changed tracks and the rules were introduced, but without democratic voting.

When it comes to appointing people to important posts in the Commission, the EU chooses a collegial process that cannot face public setbacks. As you know, Sweden has only advisory referendums. Like democracy, but also a non-democratic resort if the people vote wrong.

A democratic debate is not just a debate but also a part of the division of power. The Swedish government order states that "all public power is based on the people". If it is to be interpreted constructively, it is that the majority of people "get the right", their will break through in the decisions. No system, nor democracy, is infallible so sometimes the people's decision can be "wrong".

If you want to keep democracy it is difficult to solve this in any other way than that the people can make a review and change a failed decision.
All liberals are not comfortable with the majority deciding, they are afraid of a majority repression of minorities.

Previously, a problem was that the rich were so few and the poor so many, but despite this imbalance, democracies worked quite well. Society did not degenerate through democracy into a communist dictatorship. Now the criticism of democracy is emerging in new ways.

We get a number of ethnic and sexual minorities that democratic doctors consider need to be protected from democracy. The enthusiasm in the establishment is not so wholehearted for the voters, and many prefer to see themselves as a (well-paid) lawyer for an exposed group of victims. Yet, these doubts against the majority have not resulted in opposing democratic elections, but freedom of expression is not accepted without limitations.

Some people and groups may be criticized, but not others.
Previously, criticized groups defended themselves with the fact that they contributed to the community's public utility. They were not privileged, but today such arguments are seen as for utilitarian. We have a pseudo-religious debate on rights.

Many people see themselves as underprivileged. The governing establishment believes that rights belong to the sphere of power of nomenclature, which democracy should not interfere with. They seek to prevent certain opinions by demonizing them instead of arguing and trying to convince a majority. They do not believe they can win an honest debate so they create a dishonest.

The establishment sees its opinion on what is right and good as morally superior. This is because they see themselves as morally superior. But they attribute great opportunities to the sub-men to win the debate unless it is surrounded by pointers and clear instructions from the people's guardians, ie the politicians.

Democracy is perceived as unreliable. It is a mechanism that allows a policy that can threaten both the existing politician class and the existing regulatory system. However, democracy can be eroded and gradually abolished.
JAN TULLBERG

source

[BIAD]

...Please educate me on what the EU is and/or does, so that I can get a firmer grasp on this situation...

Forgive me for jumping in front of Gordi's reply.

In my opinion, the European Union is the United States of America during the early 1900's.

The acquirement of States is reasonably complete and now the solidification of power is the important factor.
Decisions -such as the US's commitment to Prohibition, are being made on behalf of the EU's 'citizens' in Brussels
without seeking permission from those the decrees will effect. Granted, in some areas, those effects will have
ramifications globally, but this is how you assert oneself on the world's stage as an equal power.

The problem with the EU is it's taking the sovereignty of countries and constructing its own dominion without
asking those individual countries at ground level. Trade deals and standards of business is one thing, but diluting
cultures, favouring laws to suit an agenda and wielding the power to punish individual countries[states] should -in
my opinion, belong to those countries.

There's quite a distance between demanding straight cucumbers and the length of candle wicks, to telling people
what they can and can't view on the internet. It's electronic book-burning and we've seen that before.

INMHO

[gordi]

I think Wallfire may be referring to this 2017 BBC article and ones like it. (Forgive me for answering on WF's behalf).

EU to sue Poland, Hungary and Czechs for refusing refugee quotas....

BBC:

And this from 2018...

Macron pushes to PUNISH EU nations with FINES if they refuse migrants.


From 2017...
ECJ upholds EU’s right to force member states to take in refugees.

Thanks Phil,
That's exactly what I've been asking for... Evidence!

Now, from my first skim-read over...

That first article (and the ones linked from it) state that EU members VOTED in 2015 to allow an increased number of migrants to be MOVED FROM Italy, Greece and Hungary into other EU member states? Yes?

Which is exactly how I described the issue earlier:

"The EU doesn't have any power to force members to take refugees/immigrants from outside of the EU.

Much of the refugee crisis (for example in Sweden) has been caused by individual countries allowing migrants to settle in their countries, even allowing them citizenship - which in turn gives them access to the rest of the EU."

They are talking about migrants who have already landed and been given assistance in Italy/Greece etc. being allowed to then move on to the other EU states.

The EU Members VOTED on whether it was fair on some of it's members (Italy/Greece etc) to bear the brunt of the refugee crisis alone, and came up with the decision that the load should be spread among those other EU member states who had already agreed to be bound by such decisions. And that the load would be spread proportionately in relation to population / wealth of each member state along with the number of Asylum Seeker applications received.

Ireland, Denmark and the UK have not agreed to be bound by these rules and therefore do not have to abide by the decision - it isn't FORCED onto any state that didn't originally agree to be bound by the outcome of EU votes on migration etc.

Any member states that DID agree to abide by EU rulings on migration etc and who then refuse to be bound by the decisions that are made would likely be subject to fines imposed by the European Court of Justice but would also have a Right To Appeal under EU law.

That doesn't really sound to me like what Wallfire said:

"They change laws as they want, for exsamble the refugee crisis, they tell country's to take refugees or else..."

The EU voted on whether to share the migrant load that was already there.
The vast majority of member states agreed to share the load.
3 or 4 didn't like the ruling, but had already agreed to be bound by it under the terms of their membership.

What should the EU have done?
Left Italy and Greece to fend for themselves?
Turned a blind eye?
Helped to send the migrants back to their own countries?
Nothing?

It's a difficult one.

I'm aware that I may be coming across here as a supporter of the EU?
Probably because everyone else who has commented has mainly been posting anti-EU sentiments which I've then been questioning?

I'd just like to re-iterate that I am NOT Pro-EU, (nor Anti-EU).

I didn't vote in the EU Brexit Referendum because I believed that there was not enough information (from either side) to make a reasonably informed decision.

There was also a great deal of lying, mis-information, rumour-mongering, insinuation, bitching, and name-calling with very little substance / fact / evidence to back-up or support it.

I am still very firmly of the opinion that I was correct in my assessment and subsequent decision regarding all of that.

Where I find myself now is that I am a citizen of a Nation (which is currently a member of the EU) being dragged out of the EU against our will by an "equal" partner in our UK Union which just does not want to listen to us.

If the UK leaves the EU, taking Scotland with it... then we (Scots) will be subject to any new trade deals etc that the UK Govt at Westminster decides to make (without our agreement).
We will have no say whatsoever if WM sells off our Health Service, our Fisheries, our Food Hygiene / Quality / Health & Safety Standards, our Ban on Fracking, our Employment protection laws, pensions, free movement etc etc etc etc

Everything that Scotland stands for could be thrown onto the garbage heap.
The ONLY way for Scotland to protect all of that is to get Independence from the UK.
Being in the EU doesn't immediately threaten any of that AFAIK?? So I think that's why the Scottish Govt's preferred position would be independence from the UK with continued membership of the EU.

I'm still (personally) on the fence about the EU, but haven't yet seen anything substantial enough to make me understand the decision to Brexit without further clarity of what the alternative would/will be!

G

[gordi]

Well sir, with my imperfect understanding of what the EU is, or claims to be, that is EXACTLY what I think - but I'm always open to education. What IS it? What does it do? Does it not promulgate rules and regulations? Does it not have a central government or governing committee? Is there no one presiding over it? If there is, what is he or she called - what is their title? Are they elected, or appointed? Is the EU lawless, i.e. without laws? If so, how do they enforce anything at all? Of what use are they? Do they not collect taxes? If not, how on Earth do they fund themselves? If they do collect taxes, what happens if you tell them to go to hell, and get their tax collectors off of your lawn?


My experience of government has been bigger polities eating smaller polities, and thereby increasing their own size and power. Therefore I see the EU as an analogue to the US - a "national" government composed of member states, which are themselves further subdivided into smaller political units, like municipalities and counties - and that may be where I am going off the rails in my conception of it. Those larger states always make rules or laws that override the rules or laws of the smaller political units, and we generally end up paying taxes to all of the political units larger than our individual families, and being forced more or less to obey all of their laws and regulations.

Please educate me on what the EU is and/or does, so that I can get a firmer grasp on this situation....

Hi Nin!
Jings - How to educate someone on the EU??? uhhhm.... GREAT question!

OK - here's a good starting point in the form of an outline article by the BBC...

LINK to BBC HERE

Quick summary:
It grew out of the desire to make sure Europe wasn't engulfed in war ever again, by bringing European Nations together via trade & commerce shortly after the end of WWII.
It expanded quite quickly and became the "Common Market" where member states could freely trade their goods/services to one another.
It now has 28 members who have all negotiated their own membership deals.
It is administered / controlled by 4 bodies: the EU Parliament, Council, Court and Commission.
It is funded by contributions from the member states.
The contributions are largely based on the size/population of each member state with Germany contributing the most, then France, UK and Italy...
The EU spends its budgets on a variety of things from Research & Training, through Agriculture/Rural Development Funding to Financial Support for Poorer Regions and Defense.
It allows free trade/access to other members markets and free movement of citizens across the EU.

The UK, (like other members) has negotiated it's own deal to be a member of the EU.
The UK is therefore NOT bound to join the Euro (single currency) nor is it bound to abide by the decisions on migration etc known as The Schengen Treaty.

There is obviously a LOT more to it than that - but that's maybe the bones of it covered?
 
G

[Wallfire]

Its true the EU has done a lot of good but this last 8 years or so it has been spending its time to make sure  of the destruction of all cultures in the EU block and replacing them with islam.
As I see it the EU is dieing, if the people who love there cultures and countries get into power that it can be saved and war can be stopped, if not then with in 10 years Europe will join together and go to war to save Europe.

[Ninurta]

If the UK leaves the EU, taking Scotland with it... then we (Scots) will be subject to any new trade deals etc that the UK Govt at Westminster decides to make (without our agreement).
We will have no say whatsoever if WM sells off our Health Service, our Fisheries, our Food Hygiene / Quality / Health & Safety Standards, our Ban on Fracking, our Employment protection laws, pensions, free movement etc etc etc etc

Hi Gordi!

Welcome to America!

Of course, like Scotland, the US didn't START out like that - it evolved into that as the central government seized more and more power over what were originally independent and co-equal states, which are what the former colonies became upon their independence. The central federal government started out small and weak, just a regulator of commerce between the independent states, and even that took a lot of negotiating...

... but now, here we are, what we are. The southern states bucked against that developing power and declared their own independence, and that didn't go as well as we wished. In the aftermath of that war, the power and authority of the central government was pretty much set in stone.

Just a word to the wise, a lesson from history.

It will probably be tomorrow before I can get to a reply to your next post below.

.

[Ninurta]

Hi Nin!
Jings - How to educate someone on the EU??? uhhhm.... GREAT question!

OK - here's a good starting point in the form of an outline article by the BBC...

LINK to BBC HERE

That was a pretty informative article, and I thank you for it.

There were, to my mind, some disturbing aspects, however. The article almost sounds as if the EU is merely an economic combine and philanthropic organization. The worrisome parts may be in the details and choice of words. Hitting some of it in the high points of your summary:

It is administered / controlled by 4 bodies: the EU Parliament, Council, Court and Commission.

Here, the disturbing choice of words are "EU Parliament" and "Court". Somewhat less so, "Commission". I'm not real familiar with some European terms, but unless I miss my guess, a "parliament" is an organ of government. "Courts" derive all their legitimacy from a government - else they are simply unauthorized "kangaroo courts". "Commissions" are usually, although not perhaps always, named and organized by a government for certain purposes. Taken together, these terms would seem to indicate that the EU is not merely an economic combine, it is an actual government, or "super-government" meaning it governs over a collection of states. We have the same thing here, called a "Federal government". When a nation makes itself subservient to such a super-government, it is no longer a sovereign nation, it then becomes a state, a subdivision of a larger government, which then becomes a "nation", taking over the sovereignty of the former nations, now it's constituent parts.

I also noted in the article that the EU can somehow prevent constituent states from entering trade agreements with other parties. It mentioned "emerging markets" like China and India specifically. If they can keep you from making whatever friends you like, then you no longer have sovereignty.

It is funded by contributions from the member states.
The contributions are largely based on the size/population of each member state with Germany contributing the most, then France, UK and Italy...

The size of a "contribution" is determined by the contributor. When the super-government determines how much a contributor can contribute, that is called a "tax". This appears to be a problem of semantics. Who determines the size of a contribution here - the member state, or the EU? That will tell you whether it is really a "contribution", or whether it is really a "tax".

According to the BBC article, the EU then kicks back to nations a portion of their "contribution". I find that odd, but it is done here, too, by the Federal government. What is the purpose of taking your money just to give it back to you? I submit that the only purpose of that is to show you who is really boss, who really controls your life. It appears to me to be a control measure, and a statement at the same time.

The EU spends its budgets on a variety of things from Research & Training, through Agriculture/Rural Development Funding to Financial Support for Poorer Regions and Defense.
It allows free trade/access to other members markets and free movement of citizens across the EU.

The federal government does that here, too. It's another control measure, designed to demonstrate that Big Brother knows better than you how to spend YOUR money. The key takeaway is that the Federal government does it, and to a lesser degree the state governments.

The UK, (like other members) has negotiated it's own deal to be a member of the EU.
The UK is therefore NOT bound to join the Euro (single currency) nor is it bound to abide by the decisions on migration etc known as The Schengen Treaty.

There is obviously a LOT more to it than that - but that's maybe the bones of it covered?
 
G

That is lovely that the UK still gets to use the Pound rather than the Euro. What do both the Pound and the Euro represent? I believe they represent a value, usually based in gold. The EU does not care what you call your currency, they care only about the underlying gold - they want YOURS to be THEIRS, and care nary a whit what you call it, as long as you keep it coming into their coffers. That is another hallmark of a government, and has been since the days of kings, long before the days of parliaments. A skunk by any other name still smells the same whether Pounds or Euros, whether Kings or Parliaments... or an American "Congress", for that matter. They are all the same thing, whatever the name.

Now, as for the Schengen Treaty, it appears to me that the UK was way ahead of the EU there, and already had an overburden of immigrants, so there was no real reason to hold the UK to that treaty. Hell, if they had, the EU might have had to take some of the UK's immigrant burden onto themselves! The UK appears to already have a superabundance of immigrants, and it seems that ALL of them have a case of the red-ass at this Tommy Robinson character I keep hearing about. No need to distribute immigrants to the UK, so no need to enter them into the treaty that did so.

All in all, I'm not against Scotland Independence, I just think it will be a mistake, and a grave one, to simply trade UK overlordship for EU overlordship. I just don't see the advantage of turning over your sovereignty from one supergovernment to another. Neither one will look out for the best interests of Scotland - the only and entire purpose of a government is to sustain ITSELF, at the expense of it's subjects. The further removed that government gets from you, the citizen, the less it will benefit you, or care about you or your well being at all.

If Scotland is to gain independence, then Scotland should maintain it's independence, and it's sovereignty. Otherwise, you're just pissing into the wind in my opinion.

.