The Red Baron Flies Again

foulkes_mcconnell_pyjamasBaron Foulkes of Cumnock is back on fine form tweeting today that: “John Major tells our Select Committee that it would take at least 10 years for a separate Scotland to get back into EU”.

We don’t normally report from the Twittersphere but George’s latest pearls of wisdom caught our eye.

Mr Foulkes admiration for the former Tory leader is touching but his comment does seem at odds with reality. With Ukraine knocking at an open door and Scottish Global Forum debunking the entire European catastrophe scenario we recommend he does some more research.

He could for example read Brandon Malone’s demolition of the rUK case here, where he raises a very different note, namely what would be the continuity status of the remainder?.

Malone writes:

Scotland is no rebel breakaway enclave. What is proposed is the democratic, negotiated dissolution of what is, in the grand sweep of history, a comparatively short-lived union. Is it at all credible for the Westminster government to say that, in the event of a Yes vote, rUK will inherit the UK’s treaty benefits, including in particular EU membership, and Scotland will not? Is there a difference in principle between the division of that asset, and other UK assets (and liabilities)? Should it be acceptable to anyone in Scotland, however they may intend to vote, that the UK government should hold such a view of Scotland’s position within the UK?

Back to bed George.

Comments (16)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Paul Cochrane says:

    Bbaron Von Richteffinwrong!

  2. Ken MacColl says:

    The Red Baron is clearly concerned about the future prospects for his peerage-the ultimate attainment of a
    redundant Scottish(sic) Socialist (mair sic) MP.

  3. sheila says:

    Quite. Surely with a dissolution of the UK partnership, both parties would be in the same position vis-a-vis membership of EU, NATO etc etc? Either both will be ‘cast into the wilderness’ or both will be welcomed through their transition (back) into the fold as easily as possible. The main difference being that the EU might prefer Scotland to the other British country even more dominated by the right wing and small-minded in England…

    1. Sheila,I concur with a well written comment.

  4. Foulkes to me is an irrelevant social climber who used the backs of the workers for him to enjoy the things he got into politics to change,I believe the proper word is HYPOCRITE and maybe that is being too generous on my part.The EU and Scotland is a very simple affair we are and will continue to be members of the EU after independence.The questions posed by those wordsmiths and master of confusion, who like to make out that they are somehow a cut above the rest of us,are all smokescreens for their fear.They fear losing the titles and the prestige that they don upon themselves,they cry democracy but we cant have democracy with titles and privilege while enduring a monarchy its a contradiction.Scotland is in two unions one the older of the two,is with England,Wales and Northern Ireland,the other is with the European Union,and there is no conflict except those imagined by the Westminster con-artists,to cause fear and confusion.The Union of the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,signed treaties on behalf of all parts of the union so that we all could join the larger union,which we have done.I do think that when we joined the larger union this new union would have superseded the old union and that we each should have taken our parliaments back at that point.Now we are “asking” for a peaceful and friendly “divorce” or separation,if preferred,to that old union,so that we may move forward to a more democratic way of government.I do find much of the “arguments” from the Westminster party for us to remain in a shared parliament more of “Just (an) Excuse(s)” for there are no reasons to remain within a union that slows up progress and holds back development,they have plenty of excuses but never a reason to stay with Westminster.

  5. sandy mathers says:

    You mean to say that the “Noble Lord” hasn’t blocked you on Twitter yet?

  6. I could say ‘what’s ten years anyway’ when we are talking about eternity. I could also say with the imminent exit of England from the EU under a Tory / UKip banner, Scotland along with Wales and Northern Ireland (assuming they want to tag along) will be the UK.

  7. JimW says:

    Can anyone tell me if it would be open to an individual to argue at the European Court of Human Rights that under the Act of Union their human rights were being abused if Scotland was not being considered as a joint successor state when it reclaimed its right to independence?

  8. Having just watched the lords session it seems to me that our parliamentarians are spending far too much time having tea and cakes with the neighbours whilst back home the house burns down.

  9. Exactly so. It is indeed a strategic error to cede this ground and to use the terminology (rUK) that bolsters the ridiculously convoluted legal theories and propagandized nomenclature of the anti-independence statists. In doing so we help make their case.


    Scotland and England can only become independent one of the other, by the dissolution of the internationally recognised bilateral Treaty of Union, and any subsequent intra-Union agreements and treaties contingent upon it.

    That necessarily involves the extinguishing of the legal and political entity borne of that agreement known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

    With that extinction the two original signatories, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England will reemerge AS SUCCESSOR STATES, each heir to the rights and obligations of any inter-state treaties and agreements entered into on their behalf by the former United Kingdom.

    If Scotland is not a member of the EU today, then neither is England. England and Scotland are not the USSR and the Baltic States. As a mater of international law Scotland and England become co-equal independent states upon the dissolution of their MUTUAL union. Scotland cannot “leave” the UK since the UK necessarily ceases to be when Scotland and England regain their independence.

  10. Abulhaq says:

    The Union treaty is at the heart of this. Westminster ignores it and the SNP seems embarrassed by it as its representatives fail to invoke it when international issues of this nature arise. Very strange indeed, for if the Scotto-English Union were legal in international law we might have expected to hear more of it. There is a view that the treaty has no standing in contemporary international law and may well have been illegal ab intitio anyway, having been procured through bribery, corruption and force majeure. We are already individual citizens of the EU to remove that status would require a singular initiative by the EU against Scottish citizens which would be controversial and very bad PR indeed. And were the English or rUK or whatever to vote to quit sometime in the future, utterly laughable. Btw baron who of what!

  11. “Back to bed George”

    Shurely shome mishtake

    Should it not be “Back to the bar, George?”

  12. willie says:

    The Auld Soak was most probably well fortified by fine liqor before giving forth to the bilge that he is famous for.

    They dont call it the House of Lards for nothing.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.