Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Kossove ... Spain no

Espanya no podrà vetar l'adhesió de Kossove a la UE

La UE negocia des d'avui un acord d'associació de Kossove, que per primera vegada no serà ratificat pels estats membres, per evitar que el vetin
Joost Korte, director general d'ampliació comunitària ha obert aquest matí a Pristina a les negociacions entre la Unió Europea i Kossove per a un acord d'associació. Malgrat l'oposició de l'estat espanyol la Comissió Europea ha fixat la primavera de 2014 per a tancar l'acord i presentar-lo al Consell i el Parlament. L'acord seria un primer pas i significaria la creació d'una àrea de lliure intercanvi de béns, serveis i capitals entre Kossove i la Unió Europea.
Des de Brussel·les el comissari d'ampliació Stefan Fuele ha dit que  'amb l'inici d'aquesta negociació obrim una pàgina nova en les relacions entre Kossove i la Unió Europea'. Fuele ha dit també que aquest 'és un clar reconeixement dels progressos fets per Kossove pel que fa a reformes clau i també pel que fa a la normalització de les relacions amb Sèrbia'. Kossove ara iniciarà l'adaptació de la seva legislació a les regles europees en matèria de mercat, competència, propietat intel·lectual i industrial, protecció dels consumidors i condicions de treball.
Negocia directament la Unió Europea, no els seus estats
Per a evitar problemes amb l'estat espanyol i els altres quatre estats que encara no reconeixen Kossove la negociació és europea, sense participació dels estats membres, i el document final serà signat només per la Unió Europea, com a entitat legal, cosa que pot fer des del Tractat de Lisboa de 2007, però que no havia fet mai. Així els estats que no reconeixen Kossove no estaran obligats a fer-ho de manera indirecta però tampoc podran vetar l'acord i impedir que entri en vigor.
Aquest és un format únic en les negociacions d'adhesió fetes fins ara per la Unió Europea ja que totes les negociacions d'adhesió havien de ser ratificades pels estats membres abans d'entrar en vigor. Espanya s'ha oposat a aquesta negociació i al canvi de mètode, sense cap resultat.
Les negociacions constaran de tres o quatre rondes negociadores a Pristina i a Brussel·les i després de l'acord Kossove gaudirà d'una àrea de comerç conjunt i serà considerat un país candidat a la integració completa dins la UE, que en tot cas es produirà després d'unes altres negociacions, encara més complexes. La delegació europea s'ha reunit avui a Pristina amb el primer ministre Hashim Thaci i amb Vlora Citaku, ministra de relacions europees del govern kossovès.

Al Quebec els sorprèn la moderació dels catalans vers els atacs de Madrid

 

Al Quebec els sorprèn la moderació dels catalans vers els atacs de Madrid #Dretadecidir

dimecres 30 d’octubre de 2013 Imatge en línia 1

Alain G. Gagnon és un dels experts internacionals en processos d'independència i de reconeixement de nacions sense estat. Quebequès i professor de ciències polítiques a la Universitat del Quebec a Montreal, és aquests dies a Barcelona per a participar en unes jornades acadèmiques del Centre d'Estudis Històrics Internacionals (CEHI) de la Universitat de Barcelona que porten per títol 'Formació de nous estats al món del segle XXI?'. Fa molts anys que estudia el cas del nostre país i fins i tot parla i es defensa amb més de quatre paraules en català. En aquesta entrevista es declara admirat per la moderació dels catalans i la capacitat de resistència vers els atacs del govern espanyol. I afirma que justament aquesta actitud legitima el procés sobiranista al món, mentre l'estat espanyol es desacredita. 'Al Quebec seria senzillament inadmissible que se'ns negués el dret de decidir', diu. I avisa que cal una solució urgent, la que sigui, perquè la situació, per als catalans, ja és insostenible.

—Ara que sou a Barcelona, després d'anys d'estudiar el cas català, quin ambient hi heu trobat?
—M'impressiona la capacitat dels catalans de ser encara tan constructius. Malgrat la posició dura de Madrid, continua havent-hi per part dels catalans una forta voluntat d'asseure's, negociar i dialogar. Per mi és impressionant. És a dir, no renuncieu a parlar. Trobo que és una actitud molt civil, molt democràtica. Ateses les circumstàncies, m'impressiona i ho trobo admirable.

—L'oposició frontal del govern espanyol legitima encara més el procés?
—Si ho comparem amb el cas escocès, per exemple, no té res a veure. El parlament britànic accepta sense cap dificultat que els escocesos puguin votar. I això fa, al capdavall, que els escocesos no ho visquin amb el mateix entusiasme que aquí, on hi ha una oposició molt forta per part de l'estat espanyol, que intenta aturar la veu dels ciutadans. I com més es tanqui en banda el govern espanyol, més es radicalitzaran les posicions i més desig d'independència hi haurà. Per això m'impressiona la capacitat dels catalans de mantenir la reivindicació des d'una òptica dialogant i des de les institucions. He de confessar que em sorprèn la moderació dels catalans vers els atacs de Madrid.

—Insinueu que som massa moderats i que hauríem de tirar pel dret?
—No, perquè aquesta moderació és la millor estratègia per a obtenir suport internacional. Com més pacients i moderats us mantingueu els catalans, més es desprestigiarà Espanya vers el món. Amb aquest fer, Espanya es desacredita tota sola en els medis internacionals. Catalunya té tot el dret de ser consultada sobre el seu futur perquè és una de nacions històriques fundadores de l'Espanya actual. I per tant cal escoltar democràticament la seva veu. És molt senzill.

—Tenint en compte la immobilitat del govern espanyol, que no sembla que ens vulgui deixar votar, quin hauria de ser el camí cap a una Catalunya independent?
—És un camí llarg. Si l'objectiu fos de trobar una posició molt millor de Catalunya dins Espanya, amb més poder, el camí probablement seria més fàcil. Però en ambdós casos cal encara fer molta feina, molta socialització i diàleg. I com que de diàleg per part del govern espanyol no n'hi ha, pren força l'opció independentista. Aquesta manca de diàleg reforça i legitima les aspiracions d'independència. En aquest sentit, d'alguna manera Madrid empeny Catalunya cap a la independència.

—Us la imagineu aviat, una Catalunya independent?
—M'agradaria tenir una bola de vidre... Puc dir que en els últims vint anys hem vist néixer molts estats nous. Però també penso que el futur pot anar cap a la creació d'estats multinacionals. En el cas d'Espanya això és tot un desafiament, perquè parlem d'un país vell, però d'una democràcia jove i fràgil. I això en aquests moments fa mal a Espanya, que s'hauria de presentar al món com una democràcia avançada i no ho fa.

—En cas d'independència, el govern espanyol diu que Catalunya quedaria fora de la Unió Europea i totalment aïllada. Què hi dieu?
—Això forma part de l'estratègia del govern espanyol de mirar de convèncer els catalans que la independència no els convé. El Canadà va fer això mateix quan el Quebec va votar l'any 1995. Però si hagués guanyat el sí tothom hauria volgut el Quebec com a soci econòmic, començant pel Canadà, per molt que digués el contrari. I també els Estats Units, que depenen en bona part dels recursos naturals del Quebec. Els Estats Units volen aquests recursos a un preu raonable, amb un Quebec independent o no. Necessiten el Quebec de soci. Catalunya es troba igual, perquè és un punt clau de l'economia europea. I Espanya hauria de travessar Catalunya per tenir accés al mercat europeu. Per tant, a Espanya li convé de tenir bones relacions amb Catalunya. Aquest és un punt clau. En el món actual, l'opció més intel·ligent és compartir els recursos. Per tant, no crec en cap cas que Catalunya pogués quedar-se aïllada.

—El cas català hi té cap impacte, al Quebec?
—Mirat des del Quebec, el fet que més ens sorprèn és que no hi hagi el dret de decidir. Per a nosaltres seria senzillament inadmissible. M'imagino que es troben igual de sorpresos al Regne Unit.

—Però ara el govern canadenc vol canviar la llei precisament per limitar el dret de decidir del poble quebequès…
—Sí, és un intent de canviar alguns termes de la llei. Un dels més polèmics és el que diu que el referèndum es guanya amb un 50% dels vots més un. Però històricament al Quebec ha estat sempre així. I ara hi ha una batalla política sobre aquesta qüestió, perquè cada partit pren posicions. Sigui com sigui, el dret de decidir difícilment podrà ser tocat, no ho admetríem.

http://www.vilaweb.cat/noticia/4152977/20131030/alain-gagnon-em-sorpren-moderacio-catalans-vers-atacs-madrid.html

Cadena Catalana per a la Independència de Catalunya


Zure ustez, nahitaez, herri galdeketa egingo da 2014an?

2013-10-23
Josep Maria Vila d'Abadal. Independentziaren Aldeko Udalerrien Elkarteko presidentea

«CiU apurtzea ez da arazo bat; jarrerak argitu egin behar dira»

Vic-eko alkatea Errenterian izan da, Batera Baik gonbidatuta, independentziari buruz hitz egiten. Argi dauka Katalunian atzera bueltarik gabeko prozesu batean daudela.
Xabin Makazaga Donostia
/ ANDONI CANELLADA / ARGAZKI PRESS
Josep Antoni Duran i Lleidari Unioko presidentetza lehiatzeko aurkeztu zen iaz, baina UDCko egiturarekin etsita, alderdia utzi eta MDC Kataluniako Mugimendu Demokratikoa sustatu zuen Josep Maria Vila d'Abadalek (Bartzelona, 1954). Independentziaren Aldeko Udalerrien Elkarteko presidentea da Viceko alkatea: Lleidako eta Gironako diputazioak, 28 eskualde kontseilu eta 670 bat udalerri biltzen ditu elkarteak.

Politikoki, Katalunia non dago gaur egun?

Kataluniak independentismoaren aldeko pauso argi bat eman du. 130 urtean, katalanismoak hainbat garai izan ditu, eta orain, argiki, independentismoaren aldeko joera hartu du. Une honen handitasuna hori da. Alderdiek mantsoago erreakzionatzen dute, eta tradizioaren pisu hori gainean daramate, alderdi katalanista gehienei ez zaie-eta hain gaizki joan oraingo estatusarekin.

Argia da Iniciativaren kasua: PSUCetik dator, ezbairik gabe independentista zen alderdi batetik; frankismoko heroiak izan ziren, zapalduenak, eta orain anbiguotasun horretan dabiltza, beste estatu eredu bat justuagoa balitz... Baina ez da horretarako garaia. Independentzia bai edo ez tokatzen da orain. Gero lortuko dugu estatu demokratiko eta justuago bat.

Gizarteak bultzatu du independentismoaren aldeko mugimendua; erakundeei bidea erakutsi die.

Bai, gizartetik bertatik atera da Espainiako Gobernuaren mespretxuei erantzuteko mugimendu hori. Ez da espainiarren aurkako ezer, Espainiako herritarren ordezkariek katalanei izan dieten ezinikusiari emandako erantzuna ezpada, estatuak ez duelako onartzen eskubideen jabe den nazio katalan bat badela. Herria nekatu egin da, eta gero eta soldadu gehiago daude proiektu independentistaren alde.

Lehendik ere oinarri horiek egon dira, baina iaz lehertu zen gizartearen oldarra.

Kataluniako Estatutuak jasotako ukazioarekin azkartu zen prozesu hori, baina aurrez Pasqual Maragallek, ausardiaz, Espainiarekin bestelako harreman bat ezarri behar zela aldarrikatu zuen. Gero etorri ziren estatutuaren kontrako ebazpena, 2010eko uztailaren 10eko manifestazioak, Omnium Culturalen ekitaldiak, ANC Biltzar Nazional Katalanaren sorrera, independentziaren aldeko udalak... Baina guztia hiruko gobernuak irabazi zuen egunean hasi zen, «orain estatutu berri bat dagokigu» esan zutenean. Jordi Pujolek beti gerorako uzten zuen.

Irailaren 11ko manifestazioa, iaz, prozesuaren gailurra izan zen, atzera bueltarik gabeko une bat ezarri zuen. Eta jendeak «independentzia» katalanez eta espainolez oihukatu zuen, hori da alde handietako bat. Bestea, prozesua ez dutela alderdiek gidatu, baizik eta gizarteak. Jendeak agindu die politikariei estatu berri bat eraikitzeko. Horrek ematen dio sendotasuna prozesuari.

Vic izan zen lurralde katalan subirano bilakatzen lehen hiria. Independentziaren aldeko prozesu hori nola bizi izan duzue udal agintariek?

Gu ere gizarte olatuaren ondorio gara. Herritarrek, hurbileko gaituztelako, udaletako hautetsi eta alderdiei eskakizun argi bat egin ziguten burujabetzaren aldeko urratsak egiteko. Herritarren presio horregatik transformazio bat gertatu zen, udalerri gehienak independentista bilakatu ziren, eta une batez mugimendu horren buruan ere jarri ginen, artean irailaren 11ko manifestazioa ez zelako egin eta parlamentuak eta Generalitateak oraindik urrundik begiratzen zutelako. Udalerriak beti egin izan dutena ari dira egiten Katalunian: herri nahiaren eta erakundeen arteko transmisio uhalak dira.

Olatu independentistak nola harrapatu zuen Artur Mas? Irailaren 11tik mugimenduaren buruan jarri da Generalitateko presidentea.

Artur Mas Convergenciako alderik independentistenean egon da, mugimendu hori ez zaio arrotza. Berak herriari entzun egin zion. Harritu egin zen, guztiak bezala, deialdi hark izan zuen erantzunarekin: milioi bat eta erdi lagun baino gehiagoko manifestazio bat Bartzelonan, Kataluniaren independentziaren alde. Eta bera olatura igo zen, burua hartzeko.

Ausardiaz, Madrilera joan eta «estatu bat behar dugu» esan zuen, lehen aldiz: «Zuenak ez digu balio katalan izateko». Hor sortu zen haustura Espainiarekin.

Horren ondoren hauteskundeak aurreratu zituen Masek, baina CiUk hamabi eserleku galdu zituen...

Federazio barruan indar askok ez zioten jarraitu Masi, eta mezua malgutu egin behar izan zuen, noraino iritsi nahi zuen. Horregatik, herritar askok botoa ERCri eman zioten. CiUk behera egin zuen, baina independentismoaren aldekoak inoiz baino gehiago ziren.

Gaur egun, hauteskunde inkestek ERCri ematen diote garaipena.

Hor dago gizonaren handitasuna. Proiektuaren eta herriaren alde ari da lanean, CiUk hauteskundeak galtzeko arriskuaren gainetik. Eta CiU desagertzen bada, desager dadila, bidean independentzia lortzen badugu. Katalunia Europan estatu independente bihurtzen bada, mereziko du.

Independentziaren auziak CiU apurtzeko arriskuari, beraz, ez diozu garrantzi handirik ematen...

Ez dauka inolako garrantzirik CiU apurtzeak. Ez da arazo bat, eta beharrezkoa ere izango litzateke CiU barruan proiektu independentistaren alde daudenak eta ez daudenak bereiztea. Duran ez da independentista, eta Mas bai. Eta jokoan guztia dagoenez, komeni da argitzea zein dagoen erabat alde eta zein ez horren alde. Nire nahia ez da CiU apurtzea, baina prozesuak argitasun hori eskatzen du. PSC barruan ere antzera ari da gertatzen. Katalanistak badoaz, PSOEkoak bakarrik ari dira geratzen, eta hortik mugimendu independentista bat sortuko da.

Espainian egokitu edo independentziarantz jo eztabaida sortu denean, Duran i Lleidak eta PSCko agintariek hirugarren bidea aldarrikatu dute. Ibilbiderik badu aukera horrek?

Grazia egiten dit horrek. Hirugarren bidea beti bide berri bat da. Munduan, Tony Blair datorkit gogora. Proiektu berri bat egin zuen Ingalaterrarako eta Europarako, eta, ondo atera ez arren, apustu berri bat zen. Duran, PSC eta Iniciativaren hirugarren bidea, lehengo bera da, Espainia barruan kokapen bat bilatzea. Proiektua absurdoa da, alferrikakoa eta ezinezkoa. Espainian inoiz ez da egon proiektu federalista bat. Ez PP, ez PSOE, ez dira inoiz federalistak izan. Katalanismoak 130 urtean ez du lortu Espainiako Estatuan bere lekua izatea, nazio bat garela ez digute aitortu, eta hirugarren bideak proposatzen duena atzera bueltatzea da.

Kataluniak bere bidea egiten badu alde bakarrez, zer erantzun espero duzu Espainiako Gobernutik?

Ezezko argi bat baino ez. Egunero ari dira erakusten Katalunia ez dutela nazio gisa onartzen, Espainiaren proiektuaren jabegotzat daukate. Nik espero dudan bakarra da Katalunian ausardiaz jokatzea: independente garela aldarrikatu ondoren, geure estatua eraikitzen hastea. Eta Europak orduan proiektu katalana Europako proiektutzat hartzea.

Nik espero dut «bagoaz» esango dugula. Eta une hori gogorra izango da, Espainiak ez duelako ulertuko, ez baitu onartzen herri gisa Kataluniak bere ahotsa izatea. Demokrazia falta da, trantsizioa oraindik arrastaka daramate. Jende batek ez du ulertzen Espainiaren batasuna bortxaz ezarritakoa dela, ez dela borondatezkoa. Horrek aldatu egin behar du, eta Europa osatu zuten nazioetara itzuliko gara. Absolutismotik sortutako estatu guztiek iraungitze eguna daukate.

Europako Batasunak onartuko al du Katalunia independente bat?

Orain arte norbanakoen adierazpenak egon dira, alde batera nahiz bestera. Baina Europak ezin du bere zati bat baztertu. Gu jada europarrak gara, eta Europako herritar gisa ditugun eskubideak ezin dizkigute kendu estatu bat garela esaten dugulako. Europako Batasunak dagokionean erantzungo du, baina ni konbentzituta nago ezin dutela baztertu, katalanismoa europazalea delako erabat, eta asko daukagulako proiektu horri emateko. Argi daukat, halaber, Europak Katalunia aske bati bizkarra emango balio horrek ez lukeela proiektu independentista geldiaraziko.

Zure ustez, nahitaez, herri galdeketa egingo da 2014an?

Ez, ez, ez da egingo. Ez digute utziko, eta plebiszitu gisako hauteskundeak egin beharko ditugu. Espainiak galdeketa bat baimentzeko bideak baditu, baina ez du egingo. Katalunian ere aurki onartuko du parlamentuak galdeketen legea; baina epaileek, politika egiten ari baitira, bide hori ere moztu egingo dute.

Hauteskunde plebiszitarioak ere baliogabetu eta Generalitatea deuseztatzen badute, orduan ondorioak ezin aurreikusizkoak dira.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

financial TIMES: When Britain leaves Europe, Scotland will leave Britain

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8eff7a1e-3bf4-11e3-9851-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2ifzJvx5D
Scots who support the union will have second thoughts if England heads for the door
Ingram Pinn illustration©Ingram Pinn
The other day Alex Salmond set out his stall for an independent Scotland. It was a bravura performance. Had the Scottish people been asked straight afterwards they would surely have voted to break with the UK. Europe teems with politicians hiding from the storms. Scotland’s first minister is that rare thing – a leader intent on changing the political weather.
Britain’s Conservative-led coalition government is in trouble. Popular anger with ever-rising household energy prices has marked a shift in the political mood. Capitalism survived the great crash of 2008, but years of falling living standards have left voters attuned to the flaws of liberal economics. They have spotted that, as in banking so in energy, the market can be rigged to favour the few. They have noticed that senior executives have been unscathed by austerity. They are fed up with politicians who wring their hands. Scotland has long stood to the left of England. Mr Salmond hopes to catch a rising social democratic tide.


More

On this story

On this topic

Philip Stephens

Scotland will vote on independence in September next year. If David Cameron’s Conservatives win the UK-wide election in 2015, Britons will then be offered a referendum on whether to stay in the EU. The polls would be separated by time, but the two sets of relationships are intimately connected. Were Britain to fall out of Europe – and it might – Scotland sooner or later would wave goodbye to Britain.
Received wisdom has it that Mr Salmond’s Scottish National party will fail in its first bid for separation. A pro-union alliance of Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has notched up successes in challenging the SNP’s prospectus. Alistair Darling, the former chancellor leading the unionist side, has proved a formidable interrogator of the nationalists’ claims.
Mr Salmond has been put on the defensive about how an independent Scotland would manage the economy. He wants to keep sterling, but is embarrassed by the implication that interest rates would continue to be set by the Bank of England in London. The SNP case that control of North Sea oil and gas would more than compensate for the loss of hefty tax transfers from Westminster is less than watertight. The SNP is hazy about how it would run foreign and defence policy.
The calculation in the unionist camp is that such arguments will carry the day. When the moment arrives, the canny Scots will vote with their pocketbooks. Sticking with the union is safe. Better to press for a new transfer of power from Westminster to the Holyrood parliament. Devolution has already given Scotland a fair measure of control over its own affairs.
Mr Salmond might argue that this week’s threat of closure by Ineos of its large petrochemical plant at Grangemouth underscores why Scotland must take control of its destiny. Opponents could counter that the union with England provides a cushion against inevitable economic setbacks.
The arithmetic is on the side of the unionists. Opinion polls show that a substantial majority of Scots are unconvinced of the case to scrap the 300-year old Act of Union with England. They suggest barely a third of Scots favour full independence, while about twice that number would favour more devolution. Yet to think the battle is won is to make two grave mistakes.
The first underestimates the force of Mr Salmond’s personality. When the Scottish parliament was set up in 1999, its electoral system was designed to remove all possibility of an outright SNP victory. Mr Salmond smashed the system in 2011 when he swept back to power with an overall majority. Weeks before polling day, unionists had judged such a victory impossible.
There is no mystery to the SNP’s success. Mr Salmond has discarded a separatism once rooted in grievance against the English for a nationalism that promises cordial relations with the rest of the UK. Queen Elizabeth can keep her palace at Balmoral and remain titular head of state. Citizens of an independent Scotland would be at once Scottish and British.
Reassurance is twinned with confidence. In Mr Salmond’s words, independence would be “an act of national self-confidence and national self-belief”. The argument is thus framed as one between hope and despair – between those who are optimistic about Scotland’s future and the pessimists who think it must forever be shackled to England.
The second mistake is to assume that a No to independence in the 2014 referendum would be the last word. It would be followed by an argument about the transfer of more powers and then, possibly, by a plebiscite on the EU. Assuming the SNP had won a decent share of the vote, eventual independence would remain an option.
This is where Britain’s relationship with Europe is critical. A referendum that took the UK out of the EU would transform the argument in Scotland. Pro-union Scots would think again were England to detach itself from its own continent.
The case for Scotland staying in the UK is much the same as that for Britain remaining in the EU. Globalisation has eroded the capacity of nations to exercise sovereignty. Sharing sovereignty is a way to reclaim power. Nationalism is escapism that ends in a cul-de-sac.
Were England to cut itself off from its own continent the intelligent response of Scots would be to swap union with a diminished England for independent membership of the EU. There lies an irony. Eurosceptics say they are marching in defence of a sovereign UK. Nothing could be more calculated to shatter the union of England with Scotland than Britain’s withdrawal from Europe.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Post your own comment
To comment, you must sign in or register
Subscribe to comments
Comments
Sorted by newest first | Sort by oldest first
  1. Report paultbgannon | October 24 9:56pm | Permalink
    To pursue the line of thought, if Britain leaves the EU & Scotland then leaves the UK, might opinion in Wales also follow the Scottish lead? Then, how long would England & Northern Ireland remain united?
  2. Report marmora | October 24 9:49pm | Permalink
    Nice final paragraph: vote to leave the EU and a sovereign UK and Scotland will secede.

    Preying on people's fears and trying to kill two birds with one stone is unworthy. Besides which it would be interesting to know what moral or political justification the author might find for it, other than the fact that it is the general line coming out of Fleet Street.

    A pity since up to the last paragraph, one might have thought one was being to a fairly impartial and rational critique.

    Scotland is a better run country than England. In almost all areas it scores higher. It is also more socially cohesive. By contrast England is a mess as demonstrated by any number of examples of maladministration.The irresponsible press, the unresolved House of Lords, the poor provision of affordable justice, the BSkyB bid, Plebgate, the voluntary regulation of the Press, the woeful condition of the education and exam system, the botched NHS computer ( £10bn loss ), the botched ID card ( loss £100 ), the disgusting abuse of the tax system by multi-national companies and household names, the underfunding of HMRC and inability to recruit and prosecute tax evasion, the disastrous loss of control of national borders, and abuses of immigration and social benefits. The list goes on and on.

    When the Scots look south of the border, they have reason to wish to have greater control over their own country. However, perhaps the greatest loss England has suffered apart from the gross mismanagement listed above, is that England has destroyed in all significant quarters the social democratic model which used to unify ordinary people in their Britishness and sense of practical fairness. Scotland still has this and Alex Salmond knows this very well. The two countries are no qualitatively and philosophically different.

    For a more apt exposition this article fills in the details at the webpage referred to below.

    http://www.theguar...rendum-snp-economy

    One suspects also that if there were a no vote in the slated 2017 referendum, then perhaps some of the egregiously un-British modes of government, then perhaps with time control could taken back of proper law-making and consultation. It might then mean that Scotland might happily choose to remain in an independent United Kingdom.
  3. Report Burtonshaw | October 24 9:45pm | Permalink
    Looking at the UK from a considerable distance, I must say that the idea of Scottish independence has a number of mystifying aspects. Just two for now::

    It is very hard with a straight face to describe Scots as a separate nationality - it was once upon a time (when nationality often did not matter), but these days? No separate language, no separate religion, no separate ethnicity, no very separate location (such as e.g. Iceland), a strong common set of experiences with other parts of the UK (various revolutions, empire, litterature etc) - so what is left apart from a unique affectation for grievances - which certainly Salmond's party is peddling strongly?

    And how can Salmond be so popular with his own crowd - from a distance he seems to be about the oiliest politician around - and the various contradictions presented by PS underpin such an impression.

    Finally, I wonder to what extent this article by PS is really about Scotland, and to what extent it is yet another article peddling the eu to the English?
  4. Report Brit in Biarritz | October 24 9:23pm | Permalink
    He is quite the best 'old hack'. Sure, disagree with his arguments, but in a reasoned way, but don't go for the man.
  5. Report Do What You Wanna Do | October 24 9:19pm | Permalink
    So many ifs...

    Time for Lionel to clear out some of his old hacks and get in some fresh blood.
  6. Report jay but | October 24 9:16pm | Permalink
    Mixed terminology in the headlines here. England &Wales plus Scotland is Britain. Britain plus the northern counties of Ireland is the United Kingdom. Britain is the bigger island to the east, Ireland the smaller island to the west. How then can Scotland leave Britain? And If Scotland chooses separation before 2015, then any referendum in the UK of E, W and NI would not involve voters in Scotland.

FINANCIAL TIMES: When Britain leaves Europe, Scotland will leave Britain

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8eff7a1e-3bf4-11e3-9851-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2ifzJvx5D
Scots who support the union will have second thoughts if England heads for the door
Ingram Pinn illustration©Ingram Pinn
The other day Alex Salmond set out his stall for an independent Scotland. It was a bravura performance. Had the Scottish people been asked straight afterwards they would surely have voted to break with the UK. Europe teems with politicians hiding from the storms. Scotland’s first minister is that rare thing – a leader intent on changing the political weather.
Britain’s Conservative-led coalition government is in trouble. Popular anger with ever-rising household energy prices has marked a shift in the political mood. Capitalism survived the great crash of 2008, but years of falling living standards have left voters attuned to the flaws of liberal economics. They have spotted that, as in banking so in energy, the market can be rigged to favour the few. They have noticed that senior executives have been unscathed by austerity. They are fed up with politicians who wring their hands. Scotland has long stood to the left of England. Mr Salmond hopes to catch a rising social democratic tide.


More

On this story

On this topic

Philip Stephens

Scotland will vote on independence in September next year. If David Cameron’s Conservatives win the UK-wide election in 2015, Britons will then be offered a referendum on whether to stay in the EU. The polls would be separated by time, but the two sets of relationships are intimately connected. Were Britain to fall out of Europe – and it might – Scotland sooner or later would wave goodbye to Britain.
Received wisdom has it that Mr Salmond’s Scottish National party will fail in its first bid for separation. A pro-union alliance of Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has notched up successes in challenging the SNP’s prospectus. Alistair Darling, the former chancellor leading the unionist side, has proved a formidable interrogator of the nationalists’ claims.
Mr Salmond has been put on the defensive about how an independent Scotland would manage the economy. He wants to keep sterling, but is embarrassed by the implication that interest rates would continue to be set by the Bank of England in London. The SNP case that control of North Sea oil and gas would more than compensate for the loss of hefty tax transfers from Westminster is less than watertight. The SNP is hazy about how it would run foreign and defence policy.
The calculation in the unionist camp is that such arguments will carry the day. When the moment arrives, the canny Scots will vote with their pocketbooks. Sticking with the union is safe. Better to press for a new transfer of power from Westminster to the Holyrood parliament. Devolution has already given Scotland a fair measure of control over its own affairs.
Mr Salmond might argue that this week’s threat of closure by Ineos of its large petrochemical plant at Grangemouth underscores why Scotland must take control of its destiny. Opponents could counter that the union with England provides a cushion against inevitable economic setbacks.
The arithmetic is on the side of the unionists. Opinion polls show that a substantial majority of Scots are unconvinced of the case to scrap the 300-year old Act of Union with England. They suggest barely a third of Scots favour full independence, while about twice that number would favour more devolution. Yet to think the battle is won is to make two grave mistakes.
The first underestimates the force of Mr Salmond’s personality. When the Scottish parliament was set up in 1999, its electoral system was designed to remove all possibility of an outright SNP victory. Mr Salmond smashed the system in 2011 when he swept back to power with an overall majority. Weeks before polling day, unionists had judged such a victory impossible.
There is no mystery to the SNP’s success. Mr Salmond has discarded a separatism once rooted in grievance against the English for a nationalism that promises cordial relations with the rest of the UK. Queen Elizabeth can keep her palace at Balmoral and remain titular head of state. Citizens of an independent Scotland would be at once Scottish and British.
Reassurance is twinned with confidence. In Mr Salmond’s words, independence would be “an act of national self-confidence and national self-belief”. The argument is thus framed as one between hope and despair – between those who are optimistic about Scotland’s future and the pessimists who think it must forever be shackled to England.
The second mistake is to assume that a No to independence in the 2014 referendum would be the last word. It would be followed by an argument about the transfer of more powers and then, possibly, by a plebiscite on the EU. Assuming the SNP had won a decent share of the vote, eventual independence would remain an option.
This is where Britain’s relationship with Europe is critical. A referendum that took the UK out of the EU would transform the argument in Scotland. Pro-union Scots would think again were England to detach itself from its own continent.
The case for Scotland staying in the UK is much the same as that for Britain remaining in the EU. Globalisation has eroded the capacity of nations to exercise sovereignty. Sharing sovereignty is a way to reclaim power. Nationalism is escapism that ends in a cul-de-sac.
Were England to cut itself off from its own continent the intelligent response of Scots would be to swap union with a diminished England for independent membership of the EU. There lies an irony. Eurosceptics say they are marching in defence of a sovereign UK. Nothing could be more calculated to shatter the union of England with Scotland than Britain’s withdrawal from Europe.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Post your own comment
To comment, you must sign in or register
Subscribe to comments
Comments
Sorted by newest first | Sort by oldest first
  1. Report paultbgannon | October 24 9:56pm | Permalink
    To pursue the line of thought, if Britain leaves the EU & Scotland then leaves the UK, might opinion in Wales also follow the Scottish lead? Then, how long would England & Northern Ireland remain united?
  2. Report marmora | October 24 9:49pm | Permalink
    Nice final paragraph: vote to leave the EU and a sovereign UK and Scotland will secede.

    Preying on people's fears and trying to kill two birds with one stone is unworthy. Besides which it would be interesting to know what moral or political justification the author might find for it, other than the fact that it is the general line coming out of Fleet Street.

    A pity since up to the last paragraph, one might have thought one was being to a fairly impartial and rational critique.

    Scotland is a better run country than England. In almost all areas it scores higher. It is also more socially cohesive. By contrast England is a mess as demonstrated by any number of examples of maladministration.The irresponsible press, the unresolved House of Lords, the poor provision of affordable justice, the BSkyB bid, Plebgate, the voluntary regulation of the Press, the woeful condition of the education and exam system, the botched NHS computer ( £10bn loss ), the botched ID card ( loss £100 ), the disgusting abuse of the tax system by multi-national companies and household names, the underfunding of HMRC and inability to recruit and prosecute tax evasion, the disastrous loss of control of national borders, and abuses of immigration and social benefits. The list goes on and on.

    When the Scots look south of the border, they have reason to wish to have greater control over their own country. However, perhaps the greatest loss England has suffered apart from the gross mismanagement listed above, is that England has destroyed in all significant quarters the social democratic model which used to unify ordinary people in their Britishness and sense of practical fairness. Scotland still has this and Alex Salmond knows this very well. The two countries are no qualitatively and philosophically different.

    For a more apt exposition this article fills in the details at the webpage referred to below.

    http://www.theguar...rendum-snp-economy

    One suspects also that if there were a no vote in the slated 2017 referendum, then perhaps some of the egregiously un-British modes of government, then perhaps with time control could taken back of proper law-making and consultation. It might then mean that Scotland might happily choose to remain in an independent United Kingdom.
  3. Report Burtonshaw | October 24 9:45pm | Permalink
    Looking at the UK from a considerable distance, I must say that the idea of Scottish independence has a number of mystifying aspects. Just two for now::

    It is very hard with a straight face to describe Scots as a separate nationality - it was once upon a time (when nationality often did not matter), but these days? No separate language, no separate religion, no separate ethnicity, no very separate location (such as e.g. Iceland), a strong common set of experiences with other parts of the UK (various revolutions, empire, litterature etc) - so what is left apart from a unique affectation for grievances - which certainly Salmond's party is peddling strongly?

    And how can Salmond be so popular with his own crowd - from a distance he seems to be about the oiliest politician around - and the various contradictions presented by PS underpin such an impression.

    Finally, I wonder to what extent this article by PS is really about Scotland, and to what extent it is yet another article peddling the eu to the English?
  4. Report Brit in Biarritz | October 24 9:23pm | Permalink
    He is quite the best 'old hack'. Sure, disagree with his arguments, but in a reasoned way, but don't go for the man.
  5. Report Do What You Wanna Do | October 24 9:19pm | Permalink
    So many ifs...

    Time for Lionel to clear out some of his old hacks and get in some fresh blood.
  6. Report jay but | October 24 9:16pm | Permalink
    Mixed terminology in the headlines here. England &Wales plus Scotland is Britain. Britain plus the northern counties of Ireland is the United Kingdom. Britain is the bigger island to the east, Ireland the smaller island to the west. How then can Scotland leave Britain? And If Scotland chooses separation before 2015, then any referendum in the UK of E, W and NI would not involve voters in Scotland.

Sunday, October 06, 2013

El Rey español reaccionó violentamente

El Rey ha ‘conminado’ a empresarios y editores de prensa catalanes para que se movilicen contra el independentismo
Al conde de Godó, propietario de 'La Vanguardia', diario que en los últimos años ha girado hacia 'la sombra' de CiU, aparentemente por razones económicas, le tuvo que recordar que era 'Grande de España'
0
*         1 voto
En las últimas semanas el rey ha incrementado sus llamadas a personajes importantes de la vida social catalana para pedirles que se impliquen en evitar el proceso independentista. Conversaciones que, según han dicho a ELPLURAL.COM, se han desarrollado en un tono ‘de exigencia’ por parte del monarca, que habría pedido a sus interlocutores que actuaran pronto y de manera contundente. En algún caso, incluso, manifestando reproches a sus interlocutores.
Crítica a que un Grande de España permita que se use su periódico por los independentistas
Entre los personajes con los que habría hablado el rey, importantes hombres de la banca, empresarios y algún editor, dado el apoyo muy mayoritario, casi unánime, que los medios de comunicación catalanes han dado al impulso indepentista. Entre ellos incluso algunos medios, como El Periódico o, especialmente, La Vanguardia, que hasta hace poco se manifestaban muy claramente en otro sentido.
De hecho, según ha sabido ELPLURAL.COM, una de estas conversaciones fue entre Juan Carlos y el editor de La Vanguadia, Javier Godó, conde y Grande de España desde 2008, título que le concedió el propio monarca, y que al parecer se convirtió en uno de los argumentos de la conversación. Juan Carlos le habría recriminado que un hombre con el mayor título nobiliario que puede concedérsele permitiera que desde su diario se hiciera campaña proindependentista.
La Vanguardia, históricamente portavoz de la burguesía conservadora tradicional catalana, en los últimos años ha girado su posición ideológica, incrementando de manera creciente sus relaciones con Convergencia. Un giro en el que seguramente tiene que ver el hecho de que la empresa del Conde de Godó ha percibido numerosas ayudas económicas, que algunos cifran en varios millones de euros anuales, desde que Mas está al frente del Govern catalán.
“Yo estaba acojonado”
La implicación del rey en el pulso independentista catalán era una comidilla en medios políticos y periodistas, pero ha sido este jueves cuando ha empezado a ‘trascender’. Quien ha dado el disparo de salida ha sido Salvador Esteve, el presidente de la Diputación de Barcelona. En un programa de radio local, La Xarxa, el político de CiU desveló una conversación muy tensa que mantuvo con Juan Carlos en los días siguientes a la Diada de 2012.
“Yo estaba acollonat”, ha confesado que se sintió el presidente de la Diputación ante el enfado creciente que iba mostrando el rey por la manifestación que se había producido dos días antes. “Tú, vaya la que habéis organizado en Cataluña sacando a la gente a la calle con engaños, con la ayuda de TV3, el Avui y La Vanguardia”, le dijo al parecer Juan Carlos en un acto en Zarzuela con 21 alcaldes.
Un comentario que, según Esteve, significó el inicio de “una experiencia muy desagradable” a partir de que él le replicó: “Me pareció que no debía callarme y le dije, con todos los respetos, que esto no era ninguna manipulación, sino una corriente muy profunda y que haría bien en escucharla e instar al diálogo”. Siempre según el presidente de la Diputación barcelonesa, el rey entonces tuvo una reacción “mucho más fuerte, porque no debe estar acostumbrado a que le repliquen, y la cosa se fue calentando”. Esteve dijo entonces que “hubo un momento que pensaba que me cogía por las solapas… Fue muy violento, estaba acojonado”.

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

UN experts urge Spain to do more to ensure justice for relatives of disappeared persons

UN experts urge Spain to do more to ensure justice for relatives of disappeared persons

30 September 2013 – The Spanish Government must accelerate its response to thousands of cases of enforced disappearances committed during its civil war and dictatorship years ago, a group of United Nations experts said today, stressing these crimes should not go unpunished.
“The State must assume a leadership role and engage more actively to respond to the demands of thousands of families searching for the fate or whereabouts of their loved ones who disappeared during the civil war and the dictatorship,” said the members of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, at the end of their visit to the country.
Jasminka Dzumhur and Ariel Dulitzky, two of the five members of the Group, visited Madrid, Catalonia, the Basque country and Andalusia, where they met with several authorities, relatives of the victims, and different civil society actors.
“In all places visited during this week, the Working Group has met with hundreds of relatives. Virtually everybody has expressed deep frustration towards the administrative obstacles and difficulties they face in accessing the information needed to clarify the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones,” the experts said.
“Given the passing of time and the old age of many of the witnesses and relatives, it is urgent that the State respond to their claims as an immediate priority.”
The experts noted that since Spain’s return to democracy, the Government has taken limited steps to ensure truth, justice and reparation for the cases of enforced disappearances, and added that progress so far has been achieved mainly through initiatives that have been led or carried out mainly by relatives of the victims or civil society organizations.
“There is no ongoing effective criminal investigation nor any person convicted,” the experts said. “The State should assume its responsibility to ensure that these initiatives are part of a comprehensive, consistent and permanent State policy.”
Procedural rights to an investigation, to truth and to justice are central to victims’ perceptions of reparation, they said.
Some of the challenges in the country include the fact that the Amnesty Law remains in force, the lack of a law on access to information, the difficulties in accessing archives, and the lack of a national plan for searching for disappeared persons, among others, they added.
The Working Group was established in 1980 to assist families in determining the fate and whereabouts of disappeared relatives. It aims to establish a channel of communication between the families and the Governments concerned, to ensure that individual cases are investigated. The Group will present a report on its visit to the Geneva-based Human Rights Council in 2014.


Blog Archive