The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / UK, Ireland  % width posts: 23

Polish Families Moving to Scotland or back to Poland


CraigF 1 | 2
12 Sep 2012 #1
Hello kind people,

I am currently doing some research for tv programme and i'm looking to speak to families who are getting ready to move to Scotland in the next few months from Poland.

In addition, I am also looking for families who have been living in Scotland and have now moved back to Poland.

If you fit the bill, or know people who do, please get in touch with me.

Thanks.
szkotja2007 27 | 1,499
12 Sep 2012 #2
Can you tell us more about it.

What do you hope to illustrate ?
Bieganski 17 | 901
12 Sep 2012 #3
I am currently doing some research for tv programme and i'm looking to speak to families who are getting ready to move to Scotland in the next few months from Poland.

Will you be telling the Poles moving to Scotland that they may actually be leaving the EU if they do?

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9303587/European-Commission-Separate-Scotland-forced-to-reapply-for-EU-membership.html

European Commission: Separate Scotland forced to reapply for EU membership

SNP ministers have been left reeling after European leaders gave their strongest indication yet a separate Scotland would be forced to reapply for membership of the EU.

This would mean a separate Scotland having to sign up to the euro and the Schengen Agreement, which permits free movement without passport checks, unless it can secure its own version of the UK's opt-outs.

hudsonhicks 21 | 346
12 Sep 2012 #4
The most optimistic Polls suggest only 30% of Scots want to be independent. I can' t see that changing too much in 2 years .

However if it did happen then the United Kingdom would cease to exist. 2 separate states would emerge England & Scotland..

So surely that would mean they are not in the EU..

So we can kick all the Poles out? and close the border?
delphiandomine 83 | 17,734
12 Sep 2012 #5
This would mean a separate Scotland having to sign up to the euro and the Schengen Agreement, which permits free movement without passport checks, unless it can secure its own version of the UK’s opt-outs.

Yet more rubbish from the Torygraph. Scotland would be obliged to adopt the Euro in the future - but as we've seen with Poland and the Czech Republic, the EU does nothing when member states do nothing about the convergence criteria. As for Schengen - again - who really believes that the EU wouldn't just negotiate an opt-out immediately rather than having all the hassle of making sure that Scotland complies with all the requirements of Schengen?

What's more likely to happen is that Scotland (in the event of a referendum win) would negotiate with the EU prior to the declaration of independence - with independence not being declared until some alternative provisons come into place. There's no way that the EU can afford to leave Scotland out in the cold - the oil, gas and hydroelectric energy sector, as well as the fish are far too important. Anyway, even if Scotland didn't become an EU member, it's likely that they would be accepted instantly as EFTA and EEA members - meaning no practical difference.

The most optimistic Polls suggest only 30% of Scots want to be independent. I can' t see that changing too much in 2 years .

Depends on the question asked. A straight out yes/no question - the margin will be much closer than that.

However if it did happen then the United Kingdom would cease to exist. 2 separate states would emerge England & Scotland..

Wrong. The United Kingdom would still exist, made up of the three constitutent nations. The only way that they would leave the EU would be if they all declared independence from the UK - which wouldn't happen. There's also a concept in international law called 'successor states' - which England would likely be, even in the event of independence being declared.

Incidentally, if England ceased to be an EU country, then all those expats on the Costas would be deported too.
Bieganski 17 | 901
12 Sep 2012 #6
So we can kick all the Poles out? and close the border?

Sure. That is of course if you want to keep Scotland a depopulated wilderness.

Otherwise you would have to convince (and that's unlikely) the millions of Scots living in England, Canada, America, Australia, Poland, etc., etc., etc. to return home so Scotland can be considered a country and not just a big wildlife preserve. Fish, fowl and fauna don't vote or pay taxes you know. So Scotland will need Poles and millions of more immigrants to make a declaration of independence worthwhile.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,734
12 Sep 2012 #7
You would have a point, except you're missing one important part - an independent Scotland would have 5.25 million citizens. That's more than 9 other EU countries.

Scotland may even become quite a desirable place for the English should they adopt a low corporate taxation policy similar to Ireland.

However, it's all moot - devo-Max will win.
Bieganski 17 | 901
13 Sep 2012 #8
You would have a point, except you're missing one important part - an independent Scotland would have 5.25 million citizens. That's more than 9 other EU countries.

You left for Poland under unexplained circumstances. I imagine millions more would leave too once Scotland goes through its own exit and the long process of having to start its own currency and sort out its economy in the world. As you should know all accession countries need to meet specified conditions. You can rely on Westminster cutting the umbilical cord and making a real move for independence extremely difficult and certainly to the disadvantage of Scotland.

Did you know that the Crown currently owns all mineral rights (which includes oil and gas) under British soil?

See for yourself: bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/planning/legislation/mineralOwnership.html

Ownership of oil and gas within the land area of Great Britain was vested in the Crown by the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 applied the provisions of the 1934 Act to the UKCS outside territorial waters.

I don't see Scotland becoming an independent petro-state without a serious fight for it; either in a court room or even by military force.

If any Poles want the prospects of a lower standard of living and uncertain future they could certainly go to Scotland. But they would do better going to some place comparable like Albania or Cyprus instead where at least the weather is much nicer.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,734
13 Sep 2012 #9
You left for Poland under unexplained circumstances.

Unexplained? That's a new one on me, particularly as I tell anyone that wants to know that I left because I was fed up of having to fly everywhere to visit anywhere interesting. Now I can jump in a car and go to Prague, or Vilnius, or Berlin, or Warsaw, or Vienna for the weekend. Nothing unexplained about it - just a desire to see more of the world.

I imagine millions more would leave too once Scotland goes through its own exit and the long process of having to start its own currency and sort out its economy in the world.

Why would they? Scotland wouldn't be a poor country, and with the resources available, wouldn't need to be poor as well. The whole emphasis on renewable energy suits Scotland perfectly - vast amounts of empty space in which to generate it, and the price can only increase as the EU carbon limits continue to bite. It's already well known that England pays handsomely to access Scottish hydroelectricity - and the capacity for it in Scotland is incredible.

Own currency? I think it's pretty obvious that Scotland would retain the Pound at par - it suited the Irish for over 50 years, and it wouldn't be difficult to peg the Scottish Pound to the Euro if needs be - again, many smaller EU countries did just that successfully for years and still do.

As you should know all accession countries need to meet specified conditions. You can rely on Westminster cutting the umbilical cord and making a real move for independence extremely difficult and certainly to the disadvantage of Scotland.

Not really, because Scotland would be a major trading partner from the get-go. Cameron has already made it clear that they won't stand in the way of Scottish independence should it be so decided, and England isn't known for playing petty diplomatic games at the European level. As for the specified conditions - Scotland already would meet the criteria because Scotland already applies EU law.

Did you know that the Crown currently owns all mineral rights (which includes oil and gas) under British soil?

What relevance does it have? The Crown would then become part of the Scottish Crown - and with it - mineral rights. But if you want to get technical - the Crown is more or less what is owned directly by the State. If the State splits (as has happened many times previously to the UK) - then the property splits too. It's really a non-issue - anyone with an understanding of the British constitution knows this. In fact, the Scottish Parliament was recently handed some rights relating to the Crown as part of the Scotland Act 2012.

I don't see Scotland becoming an independent petro-state without a serious fight for it; either in a court room or even by military force.

England has already made it clear that Scotland is free to pursue her own path. There has been absolutely no mention of mineral rights, simply because they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in terms of international law.

If any Poles want the prospects of a lower standard of living and uncertain future they could certainly go to Scotland.

Of course, it could go the other way, as an independent Scotland goes towards a Nordic model. All major parties in Scotland support Nordic-style social contracts, and it's pretty much certain that the country would go down that path.
hudsonhicks 21 | 346
13 Sep 2012 #10
Those Brits on the Spanish Costas were there before the EU freedom of moment shite.

Besides i suspect most of those people would instantly be eligible for retirement VISAS based on their income and net worth anyway.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,734
13 Sep 2012 #11
Those Brits on the Spanish Costas were there before the EU freedom of moment shite.

That's only because Franco needed them to legitimize his regime and bring in hard currency. Nowadays, it's different - and they would have 3 months to get out.

Besides i suspect most of those people would instantly be eligible for retirement VISAS based on their income and net worth anyway.

No such thing under EU law, Hudders. For such an expert on EU matters, you seem to be rather ignorant as to the processes.
hudsonhicks 21 | 346
13 Sep 2012 #12
Yes i'm not in possession of the full facts and laws but i can't see all those people being kicked out of their homes and forced back to teh UK.

It'd be much easier for us to kick out the Poles living 10 to a Pakistani renting out his council house in shitsvile
delphiandomine 83 | 17,734
13 Sep 2012 #13
Yes i'm not in possession of the full facts and laws but i can't see all those people being kicked out of their homes and forced back to teh UK.

I can. You haven't seen what Spain has done recently to pressure people into legalising their stay in Spain - including whopping fines being handed out to people who are driving around in their UK registered cars while living there.

It'd be much easier for us to kick out the Poles living 10 to a Pakistani renting out his council house in shitsvile

More personal knowledge about council houses, eh?
Bieganski 17 | 901
13 Sep 2012 #14
Unexplained? That's a new one on me, particularly as I tell anyone that wants to know that I left because I was fed up of having to fly everywhere to visit anywhere interesting. Now I can jump in a car and go to Prague, or Vilnius, or Berlin, or Warsaw, or Vienna for the weekend. Nothing unexplained about it - just a desire to see more of the world.

That sounds more like a cover story someone on the run would give.

Scotland will be poorer than it is now. England has been willing to pay Scotland to stay in the Union. Also, given the large number of Scots or those of Scottish descent who have and are MPs it comes as no surprise that England has been effectively been paying a ransom. The English support an independent Scotland too just to end the blackmail.

And as I already stated Scotland may think it is rich in resources but that doesn't mean it will have rights and access to them.

It's long been argued that the historically strong pound has been heaven for The City but hell for British business. Scotland will go through a very painful economic transition and it won't be short lived either. Westminster will have simply no reason to have any regard if Scotland's economy suffers in order to keep their own currency at par. Even if they continue to use the British pound they will still suffer especially in any remaining export and tourism sectors. Ireland as always been a country reliant on other nations for financial assistance. Even then it has always been a poorer region in Europe. They were very quick to switch to the euro though weren't then? And recent years has shown that far from being a "Celtic Tiger" their economy was in reality only a mangey cat.

Major trading partner with whom with a pegged currency and an economy in transition? Don't think every country will simply keep the current trading treaties going. It will be a golden opportunity for other countries to demand new treaties which are more in their own favor. And if the English didn't play games at the European level they would never have demanded and used their opt-out clause. The whole of the UK would be far more integrated already at every level and aspect of life. If you haven't noticed London doesn't genuflect to Brussels. London has diplomats there to protect its own interests from being taken over.

Furthermore, any place could read and apply EU law in their own country if they wanted to. Lots of nations copy laws from other countries and even get places like the EU and America to help them to do it. That doesn't make them eligible to be member states. Even the accession countries had to apply the laws to show they were capable of doing it long before they were allowed membership and for many it was done reluctantly because of other concerns such as lingering economic problems and fears of mass migration transfers.

What relevance does it have? The Crown would then become part of the Scottish Crown - and with it - mineral rights. But if you want to get technical - the Crown is more or less what is owned directly by the State. If the State splits (as has happened many times previously to the UK) - then the property splits too. It's really a non-issue - anyone with an understanding of the British constitution knows this. In fact, the Scottish Parliament was recently handed some rights relating to the Crown as part of the Scotland Act 2012.

You're assuming those agitating for independence would be satisfied with not being a republic. Unlikely. If Scotland splits the property may split but it would be foolish to assume it would be done evenly or amicably. You even had to admit that "the Scottish Parliament was recently handed some rights..." You can be certain it was nothing that England couldn't do without.

England has already made it clear that Scotland is free to pursue her own path. There has been absolutely no mention of mineral rights, simply because they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in terms of international law.

There was no mention of mineral rights because they don't want to have to start any negotiations over it. As far as international law goes no current ally of the UK is going to back the Balkanization of Britain. The EU knowns that if Scotland declares independence it will be an incentive for other regions such as Catalonia and Silesia to do the same. This is too costly not just financially but flies in the face of the notion of deeper EU integration with the existing member states.

Of course, it could go the other way, as an independent Scotland goes towards a Nordic model. All major parties in Scotland support Nordic-style social contracts, and it's pretty much certain that the country would go down that path.

The Nordic countries have had centuries to build up their wealth and establish trade and treaties in order to get where they are today. No one in Europe will want to see Scotland become a South Sudan or Somalia on their doorstep but they won't become another Norway or Sweden either. After many generations an independent Scotland will most likely be as relevant as Greenland or the Faroe Islands and at best be another Iceland.

As I already mentioned Poles will do better elsewhere.
Barney 14 | 1,469
13 Sep 2012 #15
You dont seem to like Scotland why would you want to stay in the same country as them?
delphiandomine 83 | 17,734
13 Sep 2012 #16
That sounds more like a cover story someone on the run would give.

I'm sorry it's not good enough for you. Perhaps you should try living in a relatively remote part of Europe for many years, you'll soon see why living in central Europe is an attraction.

Scotland will be poorer than it is now. England has been willing to pay Scotland to stay in the Union. Also, given the large number of Scots or those of Scottish descent who have and are MPs it comes as no surprise that England has been effectively been paying a ransom. The English support an independent Scotland too just to end the blackmail.

That's the same tired old excuse, but unfortunately, it's not true. Even just investing the tax revenues sensibly from oil/gas would make a hell of a difference to a small country like Scotland - let alone adopting a sensible strategy encompassing all sources of energy. England has wasted the revenues for 40 years - subsidizing Wales and Northern Ireland, for a start.

Why would Scotland go through a painful economic transition if a sensible strategy was adopted? The revenues are already there - the only real issue is that taxation would rise. But as Scots consistently vote for parties which embrace Nordic style social democracy, I'm not convinced that it's actually an issue. And why would Scotland suffer in tourism? It's already shown that people going to Scotland aren't really worried about money - it's not that sort of tourism. And with an independent Scotland, the country is free to embrace the Euro should it help matters.

As I say - if far poorer regions of Europe can survive as independent nations, I'm sure Scotland can do just fine. The country might be a bit better or a bit worse off, but it's a small price to pay for self determination.

And as I already stated Scotland may think it is rich in resources but that doesn't mean it will have rights and access to them.

That's a Torygraph view if there ever was one. England won't and cannot touch an independent Scotland's resources without causing a hell of a problem.

The few opt-outs that the UK has are pretty much irrelevant compared to what was handed over. And again - perhaps Scotland would prefer to be far more integrated than it already is? Scots don't have the same sense of Euroscepticism that the English do, for a start. I'm trying to think of where Scotland would be worse off - don't forget, a nation with considerable natural resources would punch well above its weight in an EU desperate to diversify its own energy supply. Perhaps membership of the EU as an independent state will also help with integration with EU functions - the UK is notoriously poor when it comes to EVS opportunities for instance, all because of English Euroscepticism.

Furthermore, any place could read and apply EU law in their own country if they wanted to.

Any place could, but they don't, usually because EU law is by nature designed to help integration and puts the needs of the bloc above individual member states. But if you're talking about accession states - Iceland is a great example. If they can solve the fisheries problem, negotiations will be remarkably simple, because they already implement much of EU law anyway. That's with them starting without full membership of all the institutions - unlike Scotland. There will of course be some technical stuff to implement, but it won't be difficult because everyone will already be familiar with the EU.

What has the form of the state (monarchy, republic, etc) got to do with anything? The Crown is just a legal fiction - if it became a republic, then the name could simply change. No big deal. As for the property - how could England retain anything that wasn't hers to keep? It would be completely and totally against international law to do so - and England isn't going to risk all sorts of trouble within the EU just for the sake of keeping stuff in Scotland. All these "what-if' scenarios are completely against international law, practice and crucially, the UK Government's stance.

As for Scotland being handed rights - that's within the current devolution arrangements. A vote for independence changes that - completely. There is nothing in Scotland that England can't do without, except perhaps the nuclear submarine base. History shows that in these cases, an agreement is normally made to rent the base - see also the Russian Black Sea Fleet, or the Treaty Ports in Ireland. No big deal, and a good source of revenue.

There was no mention of mineral rights because they don't want to have to start any negotiations over it. As far as international law goes no current ally of the UK is going to back the Balkanization of Britain. The EU knowns that if Scotland declares independence it will be an incentive for other regions such as Catalonia and Silesia to do the same. This is too costly not just financially but flies in the face of the notion of deeper EU integration with the existing member states.

Mineral rights won't be negotiated - it has been accepted that an independent Scotland has full right to her assets. If it was an issue, then it would have been mentioned already - but it hasn't been.

As for Scottish independence - there is the point that neither Catalonia nor Silesia have any real historical justification for independence, whereas Scotland would be merely breaking the Act of Union that created the UK to begin with. Don't forget that in Scottish constitutional theory, the current Scottish Parliament is a continuation of the previous one - not a new one. Spain could easily be reassured with some language from the EU that only regions with a historically independent State are entitled to independence, which would rule out Catalonia.

The Nordic countries have had centuries to build up their wealth and establish trade and treaties in order to get where they are today. No one in Europe will want to see Scotland become a South Sudan or Somalia on their doorstep but they won't become another Norway or Sweden either. After many generations an independent Scotland will most likely be as relevant as Greenland or the Faroe Islands and at best be another Iceland.

That's what all the English readers of the Telegraph seem to think. The evidence of the success of small countries such as Estonia suggest otherwise.

After many generations, Scotland is likely to be as relevant as Finland or Sweden. I'm happy with that - it's a successful country with a decent track record. In fact, it won't be after many generations - it will be within two. In fact, if you look at what the Scottish Parliament has done since 1999 - it's painfully obvious that Scotland and England are on separate paths anyway. This is why the Devo-Max option will win the day - people aren't convinced by full independence, but they want substantial autonomy in taxation and home affairs.

As for Poles? They'll go where the money is.
OP CraigF 1 | 2
13 Sep 2012 #17
Hello folks,

Thanks for all of your posts, to give a you some more information this is for a an eductional programme about Poland for school children.

We are trying to draw comparisons from life in Poland to classroom subjects for teachers in UK schools, so for example we may look at theme of Polish migration to / or from Scotland, however we will also be exploring other themes such as energy, language, history etc.

However at the moment we are looking for Polish families who are just about to move to Scotland or back to Poland, to understand this experience.
hudsonhicks 21 | 346
13 Sep 2012 #18
How very sad that mass immigration (Invasion) from opportunistic people coming here to seek employment and benefits much to the detriment of the British people is now considered the norm, and is accepted.

Why don't you do a documentary on the 370,000 foreign born people on Benefits?
cms 9 | 1,271
13 Sep 2012 #19
There's no way that the EU can afford to leave Scotland out in the cold - the oil, gas and hydroelectric energy sector, as well as the fish are far too important.

Dont forget the shipbuilding and the coal mines !
delphiandomine 83 | 17,734
13 Sep 2012 #20
An interesting question - would the mines still be open if Poland didn't dump cheap coal into the EEC at the time?
hudsonhicks 21 | 346
14 Sep 2012 #21
A single mother with a child in Scotland, 3 Year, 2 Months ago Karma: 0
Hi, I'm going to come to Glasgow with my 8 year old son. I have a question if a single mother is entitled to some benefits? if so how much time I get them? Where to look for best homes (such as looking for work - already she read on the forum here ;-)? the single mother is entitled to some social place to live? Please help!!

Original:

Witam, mam zamiar przyjechac do Glasgow z moim 8 letnim synkiem. Mam pytanie czy samotnej matce przysługuja jakies zasiłki? jesli tak to po jakim czasie je dostane? Gdzie szukac najlepiej mieszkania (jak szukać pracy - juz wyczytała tu na forum ;-)? czy samotnej matce przysługuje jakies socjalne lokum? Prosze pomóżcie!!!!

szkocja1.net/forum/praca/samotna-matka-z-dzieckiem-w-szkocji.html
RevokeNice 15 | 1,859
14 Sep 2012 #22
That's only because Franco needed them to legitimize his regime and bring in hard currency. Nowadays, it's different - and they would have 3 months to get out.

There are millions of illiterate third worlders in Spain. I dare say they would be on top of the chucking out list. Not pensioners full of coin.

You haven't seen what Spain has done recently to pressure people into legalising their stay in Spain - including whopping fines being handed out to people who are driving around in their UK registered cars while living there.

All EU member states are able to adapt such measures. Spain, with 25 per cent unemployment, should be chucking out anyone who is a non citizen and a net drain on the states.

Brits and Paddies wont be touched. The non whites and eastern europeans would, but.
hudsonhicks 21 | 346
14 Sep 2012 #23
RevokeNice did you read my last post?

That's really indicative of the true nature of Polski immigration. It's happening in the UK and Ireland.

Tip of Iceberg my friend.


Home / UK, Ireland / Polish Families Moving to Scotland or back to Poland
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.