Scottish Independence

[CropleyWasGod]

No doubt, it absolutely won't. I expect that, by the referendum date, we'll have been promised all sort of bribes and fantasy policies without hearing a word about how they will be funded or, alternatively, what will be cut to fund them.

In which case, you can blame the No campaign for not challenging them.

[Beefster]

In which case, you can blame the No campaign for not challenging them.

I'm sure they will but that won't stop us being promised them.

[Jack]

Why should that stop Salmond?

Don't know what King Alex I has said recently but Princess Nikki has been very specific in saying that promises of future policies cannot be made by anyone, "and you won't draw me into saying something" at this time.

Following the vote and should it be a yes, there will be an election a few months later for the first elected parliament of Scotland.

At the time of that election there will be no reason for the SNP to exist.

[Braids Hibby]

With this current government wtf do we have to lose.

[Just Alf]

Don't know what King Alex I has said recently but Princess Nikki has been very specific in saying that promises of future policies cannot be made by anyone, "and you won't draw me into saying something" at this time.

Following the vote and should it be a yes, there will be an election a few months later for the first elected parliament of Scotland.

At the time of that election there will be no reason for the SNP to exist.

My folks have voted SNP for years, they're keen to see an independent Scotland. Both have said in a Scottish election post independence they'd vote something else, one is Tory and other wont say (prob labour) ..... The set up of a new Scottish parliment might end up being a bit more different than expected!

[marinello59]

My folks have voted SNP for years, they're keen to see an independent Scotland. Both have said in a Scottish election post independence they'd vote something else, one is Tory and other wont say (prob labour) ..... The set up of a new Scottish parliment might end up being a bit more different than expected!

True. Centre right policies are much more popular in Scotland than the party that promotes them. It is not inconceivable that a rebranded wholly Scottish Conservative Party could see it's fortunes improve considerably.

[lord bunberry]

My folks have voted SNP for years, they're keen to see an independent Scotland. Both have said in a Scottish election post independence they'd vote something else, one is Tory and other wont say (prob labour) ..... The set up of a new Scottish parliment might end up being a bit more different than expected!

There's lots of conflicting views held together by a common goal within the snp. It really wouldn't surprise me if the snp split post independence

[Hibernia Na Eir]

Cameron's "call of duty" from Faslane yesterday onboard a Nuke Sub all but made up my mind on how I'll be voting next year.

[Jack]

Cameron's "call of duty" from Faslane yesterday onboard a Nuke Sub all but made up my mind on how I'll be voting next year.

I know where you might be able to pick up an ex Russian sub on the cheap if you want one to have your photy taken ;-)

[Lucius Apuleius]

Today being the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Arbroath, I am feeling very Nationalistic :greengrin Death to the engerlish pig-dogs!

[allmodcons]

No doubt, it absolutely won't. I expect that, by the referendum date, we'll have been promised all sort of bribes and fantasy policies without hearing a word about how they will be funded or, alternatively, what will be cut to fund them.

I can see why you posted this on 1st April.

If it's fantasy politics you want, Cameron's 'nuclear threat' on the UK from North Korea is a good starting point. Almost as good as Blair with his WMD in 45 minutes.

[Nuitdelune]

Nothing to do with the actual debate but I wondered, seeing folks about age 12 with pictures of the Queen on their Rangers profile page on Twitter, if you are Rangers supporter--do you have to vote no to Independence

[yeezus.]

Nothing to do with the actual debate but I wondered, seeing folks about age 12 with pictures of the Queen on their Rangers profile page on Twitter, if you are Rangers supporter--do you have to vote no to Independence

Apparently the "Union bears" have made some merchandise with a union jack with the words "save the union" or something.

It's easy to see Celtic fans as Nationalist/Republican and Rangers fans Unionist/Loyalist but I would argue that this applies to the north of Ireland definition.

I happen to know a Rangers fan who is an SSP supporter. Apparently he is the only non-Celtic fan in the party!

[clerriehibs]

Nothing to do with the actual debate but I wondered, seeing folks about age 12 with pictures of the Queen on their Rangers profile page on Twitter, if you are Rangers supporter--do you have to vote no to Independence


Who's the Australian monarch?

[pacorosssco]

Who's the Australian monarch?

Priscilla Queen of the Desert

[pacorosssco]

Priscilla Queen of the Desert

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhJBohyFnCsPNMlzkI***84OrXkhLNm hHyZ7IG6c-RJAD2BX_9qw

[Sylar]

This isn't a thread I've frequented much but the issue of Independence has certainly come into my personal sights in recent weeks.

I've grown up in Scotland and benefited from a good education, access to free healthcare (and latterly, free prescriptions), safe space to play as a child and access to a myriad of social and cultural benefits. I've been fortunate under the SNP to receive a completely free further education (due to no tuition fees and the abolishing of the Graduate Endowment under their stewardship) and I'm quite rare in the sense that I've absolutely no debts from University and have benefited from scholarships which funded both my Masters and PhD research.

My wife is Scottish and we'd both love to settle in Scotland and raise a family, close to our own respective families. However, I find myself in a position right now where I'm ready to move down to Guildford to start a 3 year Research Fellowship at the University of Surrey. I have little choice as what I do, I cannot do in Scotland - there are only a few departments which offer my specialty and postdoctoral funding in Scotland is hugely competitive between disciplines (mostly being awarded to biochemistry or biomedical science) and hard to get a hold of. So for the next 3 years, I will be based in the South of England and as a result of this, despite having lived here for the past 27 years and very much intending to spend my future back up here, I'm not eligible for a say in the Independence referendum. Again, I have absolutely NO OPTION but to move away unless I was willing to abandon a career in research and simply take up a "job". I didn't go through all of this to "settle".

Furthermore, I mentioned at the start of this soapbox rant that I had been fortunate to have received scholarship funding for both my Masters and PhD. This funding was provided by the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) both of which are state funded UK research councils. If we become independent, Scottish Universities no longer have access to these research council funding sources and the SNP have yet to state how they intend to plug this potential £3 billion gap. This won't be a consideration for the misty-eyed idealist 16 and 17 year olds who get the opportunity to vote mind you (another bug-bear of mine as very few people at this age properly understand the political and economic pros and cons of the Union and will vote with a "patriotic" or xenophobic notion rather than a balanced consideration). So in addition to my grievance of not being allowed to vote, a "Yes" vote has the potential to see me never able to return to Scotland unless I drop the research career and once again "settle".

I'm grateful to the many benefits the SNP have provided me in recent years but latterly I find myself turning against their policies and notions.

[J-C]

This isn't a thread I've frequented much but the issue of Independence has certainly come into my personal sights in recent weeks.

I've grown up in Scotland and benefited from a good education, access to free healthcare (and latterly, free prescriptions), safe space to play as a child and access to a myriad of social and cultural benefits. I've been fortunate under the SNP to receive a completely free further education (due to no tuition fees and the abolishing of the Graduate Endowment under their stewardship) and I'm quite rare in the sense that I've absolutely no debts from University and have benefited from scholarships which funded both my Masters and PhD research.

My wife is Scottish and we'd both love to settle in Scotland and raise a family, close to our own respective families. However, I find myself in a position right now where I'm ready to move down to Guildford to start a 3 year Research Fellowship at the University of Surrey. I have little choice as what I do, I cannot do in Scotland - there are only a few departments which offer my specialty and postdoctoral funding in Scotland is hugely competitive between disciplines (mostly being awarded to biochemistry or biomedical science) and hard to get a hold of. So for the next 3 years, I will be based in the South of England and as a result of this, despite having lived here for the past 27 years and very much intending to spend my future back up here, I'm not eligible for a say in the Independence referendum. Again, I have absolutely NO OPTION but to move away unless I was willing to abandon a career in research and simply take up a "job". I didn't go through all of this to "settle".

Furthermore, I mentioned at the start of this soapbox rant that I had been fortunate to have received scholarship funding for both my Masters and PhD. This funding was provided by the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) both of which are state funded UK research councils. If we become independent, Scottish Universities no longer have access to these research council funding sources and the SNP have yet to state how they intend to plug this potential £3 billion gap. This won't be a consideration for the misty-eyed idealist 16 and 17 year olds who get the opportunity to vote mind you (another bug-bear of mine as very few people at this age properly understand the political and economic pros and cons of the Union and will vote with a "patriotic" or xenophobic notion rather than a balanced consideration). So in addition to my grievance of not being allowed to vote, a "Yes" vote has the potential to see me never able to return to Scotland unless I drop the research career and once again "settle".

I'm grateful to the many benefits the SNP have provided me in recent years but latterly I find myself turning against their policies and notions.

Simple thing to do is stay registered in Scotland until the referendum, use you parents address and pop up when it takes place, then you can have your say. :greengrin

[allmodcons]

This isn't a thread I've frequented much but the issue of Independence has certainly come into my personal sights in recent weeks.

I've grown up in Scotland and benefited from a good education, access to free healthcare (and latterly, free prescriptions), safe space to play as a child and access to a myriad of social and cultural benefits. I've been fortunate under the SNP to receive a completely free further education (due to no tuition fees and the abolishing of the Graduate Endowment under their stewardship) and I'm quite rare in the sense that I've absolutely no debts from University and have benefited from scholarships which funded both my Masters and PhD research.

My wife is Scottish and we'd both love to settle in Scotland and raise a family, close to our own respective families. However, I find myself in a position right now where I'm ready to move down to Guildford to start a 3 year Research Fellowship at the University of Surrey. I have little choice as what I do, I cannot do in Scotland - there are only a few departments which offer my specialty and postdoctoral funding in Scotland is hugely competitive between disciplines (mostly being awarded to biochemistry or biomedical science) and hard to get a hold of. So for the next 3 years, I will be based in the South of England and as a result of this, despite having lived here for the past 27 years and very much intending to spend my future back up here, I'm not eligible for a say in the Independence referendum. Again, I have absolutely NO OPTION but to move away unless I was willing to abandon a career in research and simply take up a "job". I didn't go through all of this to "settle".

Furthermore, I mentioned at the start of this soapbox rant that I had been fortunate to have received scholarship funding for both my Masters and PhD. This funding was provided by the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) both of which are state funded UK research councils. If we become independent, Scottish Universities no longer have access to these research council funding sources and the SNP have yet to state how they intend to plug this potential £3 billion gap. This won't be a consideration for the misty-eyed idealist 16 and 17 year olds who get the opportunity to vote mind you (another bug-bear of mine as very few people at this age properly understand the political and economic pros and cons of the Union and will vote with a "patriotic" or xenophobic notion rather than a balanced consideration). So in addition to my grievance of not being allowed to vote, a "Yes" vote has the potential to see me never able to return to Scotland unless I drop the research career and once again "settle".

I'm grateful to the many benefits the SNP have provided me in recent years but latterly I find myself turning against their policies and notions.

This was a fairly balanced post until you decided to make a sweeping generalisation about 16 and 17 year olds. Where's your evidence for this? From what I've seen the term 'patriot' is being widely used by Scots opposed to Independence, not those who support it and the assumption that 16 and 17 year olds are somehow driven towards voting 'Yes' by xenophobia is just pure nonsense.

[clerriehibs]

You're not that grateful to Scotland, then ... Your language is all about what you can't get out of Scotland, rather than what you can give back, after an obviously productive time of it thus far.

[marinello59]

You're not that grateful to Scotland, then ... Your language is all about what you can't get out of Scotland, rather than what you can give back, after an obviously productive time of it thus far.

He makes some good points about the funding of Further Education in Scotland and it is something that an Independent Scotland will have to make tough and no doubt unpopular decisions about. The current free but everybody pays really system can't be sustained in the long term.

[Sylar]

This was a fairly balanced post until you decided to make a sweeping generalisation about 16 and 17 year olds. Where's your evidence for this? From what I've seen the term 'patriot' is being widely used by Scots opposed to Independence, not those who support it and the assumption that 16 and 17 year olds are somehow driven towards voting 'Yes' by xenophobia is just pure nonsense.

I have no "evidence" for it, it's a political opinion and one I'm not alone in holding. I also didn't level it ALL 16 and 17 year old's either if you'd care to re-read it - I said that very few have the capacity to have accurately weighed up all aspects of what independence means and my post particularly targeted those who haven't/are unlikely to do research (hence "idealists"). I know a few people in that age bracket who absolutely break the mould and are acutely aware of the issues and debates surrounding independence but having been that age not so long ago, idealism and patriotism (which I don't view as a bad thing necessarily but it's a flimsy support for a comprehensive shift in political rule) are certainly rife until you grow up a bit, learn and develop your thoughts, arguments and experiences.

Your school education doesn't provide you with enough grasp of how national economy, education, defense, healthcare (to name the key ones for now) integrate and how they effect your day to day life (I'm aware there have been discussions about holding lessons on such matters in the run up to the referendum but has this actually happened).

Knowledge of this HAS to be at the heart of any decision to support a shift in the political alignment of the UK and for the most part, that knowledge will be absent from many people in this position. The inclusion of "xenophobia" was a little flippant in all honesty but there will be a portion of young voters out there who have been convinced by their ignominious elders that "the bloody English" are to blame for all of our ills.



You're not that grateful to Scotland, then ... Your language is all about what you can't get out of Scotland, rather than what you can give back, after an obviously productive time of it thus far.

Pray tell what that absolute drivel is based on?

I've already stated I'd love to return to Scotland and settle (thus conducting research and teaching a new generation of Scottish University students) but if I want to pursue my chosen career, presently (as the opportunities in my discipline only really emerge at more senior positions), it's not something I can do here. There's not bitterness in that statement, it's merely realism and I'm justifiably miffed that it prevents me from having a say in a potentially huge decision facing the country. What exactly would you suggest I "give back" which I've acquired unfairly?

Furthermore, the identification of research funding gaps also doesn't support your lack of gratitude claim - it's another major hole in the SNP's manifesto which they simply will not answer and will drive an entire generation of young Scottish academics out of the country if left unaddressed.

[Jack]

This isn't a thread I've frequented much but the issue of Independence has certainly come into my personal sights in recent weeks.

I've grown up in Scotland and benefited from a good education, access to free healthcare (and latterly, free prescriptions), safe space to play as a child and access to a myriad of social and cultural benefits. I've been fortunate under the SNP to receive a completely free further education (due to no tuition fees and the abolishing of the Graduate Endowment under their stewardship) and I'm quite rare in the sense that I've absolutely no debts from University and have benefited from scholarships which funded both my Masters and PhD research.

My wife is Scottish and we'd both love to settle in Scotland and raise a family, close to our own respective families. However, I find myself in a position right now where I'm ready to move down to Guildford to start a 3 year Research Fellowship at the University of Surrey. I have little choice as what I do, I cannot do in Scotland - there are only a few departments which offer my specialty and postdoctoral funding in Scotland is hugely competitive between disciplines (mostly being awarded to biochemistry or biomedical science) and hard to get a hold of. So for the next 3 years, I will be based in the South of England and as a result of this, despite having lived here for the past 27 years and very much intending to spend my future back up here, I'm not eligible for a say in the Independence referendum. Again, I have absolutely NO OPTION but to move away unless I was willing to abandon a career in research and simply take up a "job". I didn't go through all of this to "settle".

Furthermore, I mentioned at the start of this soapbox rant that I had been fortunate to have received scholarship funding for both my Masters and PhD. This funding was provided by the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) both of which are state funded UK research councils. If we become independent, Scottish Universities no longer have access to these research council funding sources and the SNP have yet to state how they intend to plug this potential £3 billion gap. This won't be a consideration for the misty-eyed idealist 16 and 17 year olds who get the opportunity to vote mind you (another bug-bear of mine as very few people at this age properly understand the political and economic pros and cons of the Union and will vote with a "patriotic" or xenophobic notion rather than a balanced consideration). So in addition to my grievance of not being allowed to vote, a "Yes" vote has the potential to see me never able to return to Scotland unless I drop the research career and once again "settle".

I'm grateful to the many benefits the SNP have provided me in recent years but latterly I find myself turning against their policies and notions.

I’ve followed your posts for some time and raised a glass to your successes. :aok:

Two things I would say.

1. No one can say now what would happen in an independent Scotland. The parties can only say what they would do now given the current circumstances. Who’s to say that even the political parties will be as they are now?

Scotland has a proud tradition as far as education, particularly further education, is concernedc - you have benefited from Scotland going the extra mile. I couldn’t really see anyone wanting to muck up a system that works. There's no reason for example that the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) couldn’t be jointly funded.

2. The 16 and 17 year olds I suspect are having a much more informed debate about independence than the rest of us, whose debates are largely informed by a media that even without bias is cringe worthy in its inability to do much more than cut and paste press releases.

Just my thoughts and good luck.

[clerriehibs]

He makes some good points about the funding of Further Education in Scotland and it is something that an Independent Scotland will have to make tough and no doubt unpopular decisions about. The current free but everybody pays really system can't be sustained in the long term.

I agree it's not sustainable as it is; there's too much education available for no obvious benefit. But well targetted and demonstrably productive education should be free - because wr all benefit from a well educated society.

Probably more attention needs to be paid to vocational training funding, to ensure our young are set to work.

Our employers must be a part of that too; Companies like a well respected 8-) company in edinburgh may feel good about trumpeting teenage work opportunities numbering in the low teens, but when they're keeping quiet about offshoring c.1000 jobs, then obviously our youth are missing out.

[marinello59]

I agree it's not sustainable as it is; there's too much education available for no obvious benefit. But well targetted and demonstrably productive education should be free - because wr all benefit from a well educated society.

Probably more attention needs to be paid to vocational training funding, to ensure our young are set to work.
Our employers must be a part of that too; Companies like a well respected life assurance company in edinburgh may feel good about trumpeting teenage work opportunities numbering in the low teens, but when they're keeping quiet about offshoring c.1000 jobs, then obviously our youth are missing out.

I couldn't agree more. On the job training coupled with day/block release college courses are often of much more value than gaining a degree for the sake of it. It's been seen as a second class option for a couple of decades now and it shouldn't be.

[Sylar]

I’ve followed your posts for some time and raised a glass to your successes. :aok:

Two things I would say.

1. No one can say now what would happen in an independent Scotland. The parties can only say what they would do now given the current circumstances. Who’s to say that even the political parties will be as they are now?

Scotland has a proud tradition as far as education, particularly further education, is concernedc - you have benefited from Scotland going the extra mile. I couldn’t really see anyone wanting to muck up a system that works. There's no reason for example that the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) couldn’t be jointly funded.

2. The 16 and 17 year olds I suspect are having a much more informed debate about independence than the rest of us, whose debates are largely informed by a media that even without bias is cringe worthy in its inability to do much more than cut and paste press releases.

Just my thoughts and good luck.

Cheers J.

I'm aware there's a vast array of uncertainty and the SNP cannot have all of the answers here and now but there are so many major questions, they need to start addressing some of them quickly!

I have benefited from having my education here and I've said on many an occasion how great it's been to get the opportunity and freedom to develop into a researcher without being saddled with the debts equivalent people will have from other countries. We receive disproportionately high levels of funding from NERC, MRC, BBSRC, EPSRC etc compared to other areas of the UK. I agree these could be jointly funded but that would still restrict the degree to which can be allocated as there's no way we could raise enough funds to supplement research funding at the same level as other areas of the UK (basic population geography and tax income tells us that).

I do sincerely hope that schools across Scotland are forcing their children to do work and make sure they're aware of the discussions and potential pros and cons of independence. I'll concede my post was perhaps a little unfair but there are undoubtedly a large number of people within this age bracket (particularly who drop out of school at the first opportunity) who will be voting without sufficient education or access to the hard facts and figures (which is difficult enough when the SNP are reluctant to discuss numbers).


I agree it's not sustainable as it is; there's too much education available for no obvious benefit. But well targetted and demonstrably productive education should be free - because wr all benefit from a well educated society.

Probably more attention needs to be paid to vocational training funding, to ensure our young are set to work.

Our employers must be a part of that too; Companies like a well respected life assurance company in edinburgh may feel good about trumpeting teenage work opportunities numbering in the low teens, but when they're keeping quiet about offshoring c.1000 jobs, then obviously our youth are missing out.

Here, we don't disagree. FAR too many people are going to University and getting degrees and it must cost the Scottish government a pretty penny to sustain this. The value of a basic degree has become pretty worthless in this day and age as a substantial amount of young people have them. However, it would be discriminatory to start funding only vocational style degrees (i.e., medicine, law, biomedical science, physiotheraphy, radiography, forensic science etc) as nearly all other degrees have some use or applied functionality.

Additional funding from major financial firms to support business and economic degrees is a good idea actually, as are contributions from chemist and pharmaceutical firms to medicine and biomedical research and teaching.

Removing free funding for other EU students would be a start.

[allmodcons]

I have no "evidence" for it, it's a political opinion and one I'm not alone in holding. I also didn't level it ALL 16 and 17 year old's either if you'd care to re-read it - I said that very few have the capacity to have accurately weighed up all aspects of what independence means and my post particularly targeted those who haven't/are unlikely to do research (hence "idealists"). I know a few people in that age bracket who absolutely break the mould and are acutely aware of the issues and debates surrounding independence but having been that age not so long ago, idealism and patriotism (which I don't view as a bad thing necessarily but it's a flimsy support for a comprehensive shift in political rule) are certainly rife until you grow up a bit, learn and develop your thoughts, arguments and experiences.

Your school education doesn't provide you with enough grasp of how national economy, education, defense, healthcare (to name the key ones for now) integrate and how they effect your day to day life (I'm aware there have been discussions about holding lessons on such matters in the run up to the referendum but has this actually happened).

Knowledge of this HAS to be at the heart of any decision to support a shift in the political alignment of the UK and for the most part, that knowledge will be absent from many people in this position. The inclusion of "xenophobia" was a little flippant in all honesty but there will be a portion of young voters out there who have been convinced by their ignominious elders that "the bloody English" are to blame for all of our ills.




Pray tell what that absolute drivel is based on?

I've already stated I'd love to return to Scotland and settle (thus conducting research and teaching a new generation of Scottish University students) but if I want to pursue my chosen career, presently (as the opportunities in my discipline only really emerge at more senior positions), it's not something I can do here. There's not bitterness in that statement, it's merely realism and I'm justifiably miffed that it prevents me from having a say in a potentially huge decision facing the country. What exactly would you suggest I "give back" which I've acquired unfairly?

Furthermore, the identification of research funding gaps also doesn't support your lack of gratitude claim - it's another major hole in the SNP's manifesto which they simply will not answer and will drive an entire generation of young Scottish academics out of the country if left unaddressed.


Your comment with regard to 16 - 17 years old was without doubt a generalisation, you even used the term 'very few' in your reply to my post.

Worst still you then attempt to (in part) justify your comments around xenophobia by stating that some youngsters will have been convinced by their 'ignominious elders' (all of whom I presume you are OK with having a vote on our future).

[Sylar]

Your comment with regard to 16 - 17 years old was without doubt a generalisation, you even used the term 'very few' in your reply to my post.

In the sense that I don't have numbers, sure, I guess it is a generalisation. It has to be, as I doubt anyone has conducted a test or survey to see what knowledge that age bracket have of the forthcoming responsibility which awaits them (happy to be corrected?).

You're lambasting me for my generalisation whilst not providing anything to refute me other than an opinion in the opposite direction.


Worst still you then attempt to (in part) justify your comments around xenophobia by stating that some youngsters will have been convinced by their 'ignominious elders' (all of whom I presume you are OK with having a vote on our future).

You have a strange definition of "justification" sir. I acknowledged I was being flippant with it but pointed out that there will be some (how big the proportion is, is another question) who will vote with some notion of prejudice. Much in the same way that many of the younger Old Firm fans inherit their parental prejudice of the other side and their religious stigma, some young people will inherit their parental prejudice of the English.

[clerriehibs]

I do sincerely hope that schools across Scotland are forcing their children to do work and make sure they're aware of the discussions and potential pros and cons of independence. I'll concede my post was perhaps a little unfair but there are undoubtedly a large number of people within this age bracket (particularly who drop out of school at the first opportunity) who will be voting without sufficient education or access to the hard facts and figures (which is difficult enough when the SNP are reluctant to discuss numbers).


The above effectively applies to the majority of voters. They're not interested in doing any research to help them come to a balanced view.

Youngsters just out of school have probably just come from a more politically insightful place than in any place of work they ever end up in, or indeed the dole queue which so many of them are getting tossed upon. Their votes may well be better used than any of us older people use ours.

Furthermore, anyone leaving school at the first opportunity is unlikely to have gone through any more education to reach "sufficiency", so there's already a huge number of voters out there who don't reach that criteria of yours.

And taxation without representation ... it's not on.




Here, we don't disagree. FAR too many people are going to University and getting degrees and it must cost the Scottish government a pretty penny to sustain this. The value of a basic degree has become pretty worthless in this day and age as a substantial amount of young people have them. However, it would be discriminatory to start funding only vocational style degrees (i.e., medicine, law, biomedical science, physiotheraphy, radiography, forensic science etc) as nearly all other degrees have some use or applied functionality.

Additional funding from major financial firms to support business and economic degrees is a good idea actually, as are contributions from chemist and pharmaceutical firms to medicine and biomedical research and teaching.

Removing free funding for other EU students would be a start.

I'd never propose vocational-only degree education, but there will be a myriad of stats which will show which courses actively result in employment (and no doubt a whole load of stats supporting the opposite view).

But all our youngsters don't necessarily need a run-of-the-mill or obscure degree if vocational training is provided.

Funding (or not) for EU (but not UK) students in Scotland is not a Scottish Government's choice, but I believe that the status quo is a positive. Having a proportion of our further educated population who have had all or part of an education abroad can only be a good thing for our country. The status quo means that education abroad remains broadly affordable for our young people.

[Scouse Hibee]

How many English folk live in Scotland?
How many will vote?
How will they vote?

[RecobasUncle]

The UK is a hangover from the British Empires fear of Spanish imperialism and the Scottish financial failure prior to the Act of Union. This is hardly a legitimate excuse for the unions' continued existence at this point.

If the vote on independence results in a no vote and I somehow convince myself to stay in the UK a republic would be an important compromise. Constitutional or not a monarchy in 2013 is a total joke, how can anyone happily accept being subordinate to someone who thinks they were 'appointed by god' is beyond me.

[marinello59]

The UK is a hangover from the British Empires fear of Spanish imperialism and the Scottish financial failure prior to the Act of Union. This is hardly a legitimate excuse for the unions' continued existence at this point.

If the vote on independence results in a no vote and I somehow convince myself to stay in the UK a republic would be an important compromise. Constitutional or not a monarchy in 2013 is a total joke, how can anyone happily accept being subordinate to someone who thinks they were 'appointed by god' is beyond me.

Ask Salmond. He is keeping the monarchy.

[Beefster]

The UK is a hangover from the British Empires fear of Spanish imperialism and the Scottish financial failure prior to the Act of Union. This is hardly a legitimate excuse for the unions' continued existence at this point.

If the vote on independence results in a no vote and I somehow convince myself to stay in the UK a republic would be an important compromise. Constitutional or not a monarchy in 2013 is a total joke, how can anyone happily accept being subordinate to someone who thinks they were 'appointed by god' is beyond me.

Is anyone using that as an excuse for continuing the Union?

Good to know that you'll stay if we vote no but agree to compromise for you though.

[allmodcons]

In the sense that I don't have numbers, sure, I guess it is a generalisation. It has to be, as I doubt anyone has conducted a test or survey to see what knowledge that age bracket have of the forthcoming responsibility which awaits them (happy to be corrected?).

You're lambasting me for my generalisation whilst not providing anything to refute me other than an opinion in the opposite direction.



You have a strange definition of "justification" sir. I acknowledged I was being flippant with it but pointed out that there will be some (how big the proportion is, is another question) who will vote with some notion of prejudice. Much in the same way that many of the younger Old Firm fans inherit their parental prejudice of the other side and their religious stigma, some young people will inherit their parental prejudice of the English.

You were the one making the generalisation, I'm just simply asking you to substantiate your comments.

With regard to parental prejudice, you only talk about this in the context of anti English sentiment. Why is this? Are we to assume that those parents in the 'No' camp don't hold any political prejudices ? Your posts also infer that a majority of 16 and 17 year olds will vote 'Yes' because of a lack of knowledge/life experience or as you put it - 'a patriotic or xenophobic notion rather than a balanced consideration'.

Surprisingly any poll (see below) that's been conducted amongst this age group has shown a clear majority as pro the Union. Mmaybe you're right when you state - 'another bug-bear of mine is very few people at this age properly understand the political and economic pros and cons of the Union'.


An interesting poll on the potential voting intentions of 16 and 17 year olds was published over the weekend (22/23rd September).
Asked the Scottish Government’s proposed question, the headline figures are as follows;
Yes to independence – 26%
No to independence – 59%
Why is this interesting? The SNP want to allow 16 and 17 year old to vote in the independence referendum as it is generally thought that the young are more welcoming to the idea.
The survey asked around 2,500 school children from both state and private schools from across Scotland.
On an aside, 66% of those surveyed said that the voting age should be reduced.

[Sylar]

The above effectively applies to the majority of voters. They're not interested in doing any research to help them come to a balanced view.

Youngsters just out of school have probably just come from a more politically insightful place than in any place of work they ever end up in, or indeed the dole queue which so many of them are getting tossed upon. Their votes may well be better used than any of us older people use ours.

Furthermore, anyone leaving school at the first opportunity is unlikely to have gone through any more education to reach "sufficiency", so there's already a huge number of voters out there who don't reach that criteria of yours.

That's a fair point actually CH. There are a substantial number of voters who are within the normal voting range for elections who struggle to tie their laces on a daily basis and probably will vote without one ounce of consideration. As an eternal optimist, I'm hopeful that considering the magnitude of the referendum, people who wouldn't ordinarily take an interest would actually engage their brains and do some research - particularly as these same people are going to be impacted in all aspects of their lives. However, doing any research is incredibly difficult until the SNP become more transparent and start to present us with the hard facts and figures to support their campaign.

I don't know how things have changed or how it varies from institution to institution but my political education was self-formed and developed further at University as there was no major focus on politics, legislation and economics in my high school. If it is the case that schools are starting to address the issues of how politics integrate with daily life and is being taught widely in schools in anticipation of such a major referendum, I'm happy to be wrong :agree:


I'd never propose vocational-only degree education, but there will be a myriad of stats which will show which courses actively result in employment (and no doubt a whole load of stats supporting the opposite view).

But all our youngsters don't necessarily need a run-of-the-mill or obscure degree if vocational training is provided.

Funding (or not) for EU (but not UK) students in Scotland is not a Scottish Government's choice, but I believe that the status quo is a positive. Having a proportion of our further educated population who have had all or part of an education abroad can only be a good thing for our country. The status quo means that education abroad remains broadly affordable for our young people.

It's dangerous but there are a large number of people in research councils, higher education institutions and beyond who would indeed advocate abolishing some of the less "applied" subjects. In terms of employment rates though, it's not the more practical subjects which have the highest degree of graduate employment. Indeed, subjects like Geography, Sociology, History etc aren't going to vastly improve ways of life but teach a diverse array of skills and satisfy many employer requirements. I've never been a fan of the funding setup but this is going off on a bit of a tangent now - the fact that someone from England, Wales or NI have to pay fees but someone from Spain, France etc coming to Scotland wouldn't has always seemed a bit ridiculous to me. I'm aware it's not a Scottish government policy though, hence why I realise this is diversifying into a different discussion.


You were the one making the generalisation, I'm just simply asking you to substantiate your comments.

With regard to parental prejudice, you only talk about this in the context of anti English sentiment. Why is this? Are we to assume that those parents in the 'No' camp don't hold any political prejudices ? Your posts also infer that a majority of 16 and 17 year olds will vote 'Yes' because of a lack of knowledge/life experience or as you put it - 'a patriotic or xenophobic notion rather than a balanced consideration'.

Surprisingly any poll (see below) that's been conducted amongst this age group has shown a clear majority as pro the Union. Mmaybe you're right when you state - 'another bug-bear of mine is very few people at this age properly understand the political and economic pros and cons of the Union'.


An interesting poll on the potential voting intentions of 16 and 17 year olds was published over the weekend (22/23rd September).
Asked the Scottish Government’s proposed question, the headline figures are as follows;
Yes to independence – 26%
No to independence – 59%
Why is this interesting? The SNP want to allow 16 and 17 year old to vote in the independence referendum as it is generally thought that the young are more welcoming to the idea.
The survey asked around 2,500 school children from both state and private schools from across Scotland.
On an aside, 66% of those surveyed said that the voting age should be reduced.

Can I presume you're pro-Independence AMC? As I alluded to in my first rant, I've not read the whole thread so it's hard to have a baseline...

Of course political prejudice will influence as well as any notions of bigotry (or perceived bigotry). The anti-Tory sentiment engulfing the UK as a whole in rebellion to Cameron and his cabinet will no doubt fuel people's desire to escape.

The opinion polls (thanks by the way - as I said, I've not followed the debate in huge swathes of detail owing to other commitments so hadn't seen anything like this yet) on how specific age groups might vote (2500 is still a small portion of this age group in Scotland by the way) still doesn't give any insight into their knowledge of what Independence means and what factors influence their ultimate decision. Though I dare say at this point, pinning down the reasons for a "yes" or "no" vote is hard because the SNP are about as transparent as a wall of lead on many major aspects of their campaign.

[clerriehibs]

I don't know how things have changed or how it varies from institution to institution but my political education was self-formed and developed further at University as there was no major focus on politics, legislation and economics in my high school. If it is the case that schools are starting to address the issues of how politics integrate with daily life and is being taught widely in schools in anticipation of such a major referendum, I'm happy to be wrong :agree:


Can I presume you're pro-Independence AMC? As I alluded to in my first rant, I've not read the whole thread so it's hard to have a baseline...

Of course political prejudice will influence as well as any notions of bigotry (or perceived bigotry). The anti-Tory sentiment engulfing the UK as a whole in rebellion to Cameron and his cabinet will no doubt fuel people's desire to escape.

The opinion polls (thanks by the way - as I said, I've not followed the debate in huge swathes of detail owing to other commitments so hadn't seen anything like this yet) on how specific age groups might vote (2500 is still a small portion of this age group in Scotland by the way) still doesn't give any insight into their knowledge of what Independence means and what factors influence their ultimate decision. Though I dare say at this point, pinning down the reasons for a "yes" or "no" vote is hard because the SNP are about as transparent as a wall of lead on many major aspects of their campaign.

It doesn't matter whether schools are more or less informative than they were in your time; I don't think you can deny that they are, and have been for a long time, a better source for attendees than your most workplaces provide ... and, crucially, more neutral than most workplaces. Hence, it's more likely that the young will have a better informed, and more balanced viewpoint, than your average dogmatic older voter.

I think you're seriously stretching a point re "anti-Tory sentiment engulfing the UK" ... they're doing not too badly, for a mid-term government. The losers in the coalition relationship are the LibDems ... which can only be described as "hell mend them". Luckily, and ironically, for Cameron, thatcher dying allows him to rally the troops in a "you're with us or against us" fashion, in much the same way she used the Falklands.

AMC's stance is irrelevant, really, in that context; he was offering bare facts.

Ultimately, we can all cry into our porridge about how well- or un-informed our compatriots are willing to be, or how badly the spins from the Yes and No camps are claimed to be. It will be about gut feeling for those who can be bothered to vote. All the facts and figures that various newspaper leaders, commentators, and forum posters, are pushing are pretty much all the same thing; an attempt to convert the undecided to their cause, their gut feeling.

Like it or not, we are a separate nation, if not state. We do have a different national mind-set, and it's left of where the UK as a whole is and is headed. Those who vote No will either be quite happy with that political state, or comfort themselves that they will be able to live with the potential for their own political emasculation; those who vote Yes will be drawing a line in the sand and saying no more, I'm brave enough to go for the break and ride the rollercoaster.

[NOLA]

How many English folk live in Scotland?
How many will vote?
How will they vote?
are they allowed to vote? :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Interesting piece in the FT regarding an upturn in North Sea production:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/be4f240a-a2bf-11e2-bd45-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QcviGXD1

[JeMeSouviens]

The UK is a hangover from the British Empires fear of Spanish imperialism and the Scottish financial failure prior to the Act of Union. This is hardly a legitimate excuse for the unions' continued existence at this point.

If the vote on independence results in a no vote and I somehow convince myself to stay in the UK a republic would be an important compromise. Constitutional or not a monarchy in 2013 is a total joke, how can anyone happily accept being subordinate to someone who thinks they were 'appointed by god' is beyond me.

There is a reasonable chance of an independent Scotland becoming a republic should we vote yes. There is absolutely no chance in the remotely foreseeable future of the UK becoming a republic regardless of the outcome of the independence referendum.

[JeMeSouviens]

This isn't a thread I've frequented much but the issue of Independence has certainly come into my personal sights in recent weeks.

I've grown up in Scotland and benefited from a good education, access to free healthcare (and latterly, free prescriptions), safe space to play as a child and access to a myriad of social and cultural benefits. I've been fortunate under the SNP to receive a completely free further education (due to no tuition fees and the abolishing of the Graduate Endowment under their stewardship) and I'm quite rare in the sense that I've absolutely no debts from University and have benefited from scholarships which funded both my Masters and PhD research.

My wife is Scottish and we'd both love to settle in Scotland and raise a family, close to our own respective families. However, I find myself in a position right now where I'm ready to move down to Guildford to start a 3 year Research Fellowship at the University of Surrey. I have little choice as what I do, I cannot do in Scotland - there are only a few departments which offer my specialty and postdoctoral funding in Scotland is hugely competitive between disciplines (mostly being awarded to biochemistry or biomedical science) and hard to get a hold of. So for the next 3 years, I will be based in the South of England and as a result of this, despite having lived here for the past 27 years and very much intending to spend my future back up here, I'm not eligible for a say in the Independence referendum. Again, I have absolutely NO OPTION but to move away unless I was willing to abandon a career in research and simply take up a "job". I didn't go through all of this to "settle".

Furthermore, I mentioned at the start of this soapbox rant that I had been fortunate to have received scholarship funding for both my Masters and PhD. This funding was provided by the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) both of which are state funded UK research councils. If we become independent, Scottish Universities no longer have access to these research council funding sources and the SNP have yet to state how they intend to plug this potential £3 billion gap. This won't be a consideration for the misty-eyed idealist 16 and 17 year olds who get the opportunity to vote mind you (another bug-bear of mine as very few people at this age properly understand the political and economic pros and cons of the Union and will vote with a "patriotic" or xenophobic notion rather than a balanced consideration). So in addition to my grievance of not being allowed to vote, a "Yes" vote has the potential to see me never able to return to Scotland unless I drop the research career and once again "settle".

I'm grateful to the many benefits the SNP have provided me in recent years but latterly I find myself turning against their policies and notions.


Given that "state funded" research councils will currently be contributed to by all UK tax payers and that Scotland currently contributes proportionally more to UK tax revenue than the UK average, do you have any evidence to suggest that Scotland would not be in a position to fund this "gap" should we decide to do so?

[steakbake]

How many English folk live in Scotland?
How many will vote?
How will they vote?

On the back of a fag packet and very approximately:

1. Census - 408,000 people living in Scotland state their origin as English.

2. Office for National Statistics info from 2011 says there are 3,941,000 voters in Scotland out of a population of 5,222,000. 100% electoral turnout would be roughly 75% of total population. Take 75% of the English people living in Scotland would give us around 306,000 eligible voters - about 7% of the electorate. If the turnout is around 60% as it was in the referendum in 1997, then that would give us around 183,600 "English" voters in the referendum. Roughly 3,000 people per percent (so turnout of 61% would be 186k, 62% would be 189k etc...)

3. Don't know. Maybe more No than Yes at a guess, but I wouldn't think it would be entirely 100% No or 100% yes.

[clerriehibs]

Given that "state funded" research councils will currently be contributed to by all UK tax payers and that Scotland currently contributes proportionally more to UK tax revenue than the UK average, do you have any evidence to suggest that Scotland would not be in a position to fund this "gap" should we decide to do so?

He:s left the country ... so his opinion is worth as much as sean connery's now ... zip.

[southfieldhibby]

Good day to bury bad news...unemployment figures for the UK up 0.1% conversely in Scotland, they're down 0.1%

bettertogether ma hoop

[yeezus.]

Good day to bury bad news...unemployment figures for the UK up 0.1% conversely in Scotland, they're down 0.1%

bettertogether ma hoop

I see unemployment is up again in the north of Ireland. I wonder if Gerry Adams got a chance to point this out at Sinn Fein's Ard Fheis. Bring on Irish unification!

[southfieldhibby]

I see unemployment is up again in the north of Ireland. I wonder if Gerry Adams got a chance to point this out at Sinn Fein's Ard Fheis. Bring on Irish unification!



Do you mean Northern Ireland or the north of The Republic of Ireland?

Are you comparing Adams to Salmond?

[yeezus.]

Do you mean Northern Ireland or the north of The Republic of Ireland?

Are you comparing Adams to Salmond?

I don't differentiate between the two "official" terms. You will never hear an Irish Republican sympathizer use the British term that I have highlighted in your post :wink:

Salmond will never be Gerry Adams.

[southfieldhibby]

I don't differentiate between the two "official" terms. You will never hear an Irish Republican sympathizer use the British term that I have highlighted in your post :wink:

Salmond will never be Gerry Adams.

FML.

You are precisely what is wrong with the union, with the west of scotland and with the peace process.Reply as you see fit, your going on ignore.

[southfieldhibby]

any unionist (except the rocket from Stranraer) fancy explaining this? Arkan/SH/bettertogether not the best of bed fellows,eh?

http://nationalcollective.com/2013/04/18/we-will-not-be-bullied/

[yeezus.]

FML.

You are precisely what is wrong with the union, with the west of scotland and with the peace process.Reply as you see fit, your going on ignore.

I support the peace process 100%. I support Irish unification and condemn the RIRA, CIRA and any other dissident "republicans" in 2013. If you want to debate it bring it on.

[yeezus.]

any unionist (except the rocket from Stranraer) fancy explaining this? Arkan/SH/bettertogether not the best of bed fellows,eh?

http://nationalcollective.com/2013/04/18/we-will-not-be-bullied/

*I'm not a unionist. Republican.

[allmodcons]

I support the peace process 100%. I support Irish unification and condemn the RIRA, CIRA and any other dissident "republicans" in 2013. If you want to debate it bring it on.

In your words SH - 'why (would NI) break off from the 6th biggest economy in the world?

[allmodcons]

*I'm not a unionist. Republican.

You may not be a Monarchist but you have been arguing the Unionist case throughout this thread.

[Hibrandenburg]

In your words SH - 'why (would NI) break off from the 6th biggest economy in the world?

"Check"

[ancienthibby]

I don't differentiate between the two "official" terms. You will never hear an Irish Republican sympathizer use the British term that I have highlighted in your post :wink:

Salmond will never be Gerry Adams.

Care to enlighten us on your thinking??

[yeezus.]

You may not be a Monarchist but you have been arguing the Unionist case throughout this thread.

I argued and still argue against Scottish independence.

Ireland is very different to Scotland.

[yeezus.]

[/B]Care to enlighten us on your thinking??

Alex Salmond was never raised in a plastic state that did now want him; he didn't suffer the religious discrimination that Catholics in the north of Ireland did during the 60's - 90's.

[WindyMiller]

I couldn't agree more. On the job training coupled with day/block release college courses are often of much more value than gaining a degree for the sake of it. It's been seen as a second class option for a couple of decades now and it shouldn't be.


:agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

I argued and still argue against Scottish independence.

Ireland is very different to Scotland.

I'd be interested to hear why you think the Irish North would be better off leaving the UK and where that differs from the position of Scotland in the UK.

[Pete]

In your words SH - 'why (would NI) break off from the 6th biggest economy in the world?

I think it would be foolish for anyone to break away from security and travel the path of uncertainty in these times.

I'll argue until the cows come home about how the catholic community were wronged and will explain why the IRA and PIRA had the right to exist.

However, these days are over and as far as I'm concerned flags go out the window. Sensible, realistic economic policies that are fair are the things I am interested in, regardless of the party involved.

I'm surprised there hasn't been an increase in my way of thinking. If anything, it seems that there is apathy on one side and extreme nationalism on the other.

...or maybe that's just the blowhards!

All most people care about is how much there mortgage, gas bill and council tax will be and how they can buy stuff for their family after all the crap is paid for. Once I'm old enough to stop worrying about stuff like that I'll be too old to care about what flag is flying over my head.

[yeezus.]

I'd be interested to hear why you think the Irish North would be better off leaving the UK and where that differs from the position of Scotland in the UK.

Because all people of the north of Ireland would have a greater say in their own affairs in an Irish parliament - Unionists would make up around 20% of the Irish population as opposed to the 2% they currently do of the UK.

Scotland was heavily involved in the troubles in Ireland and was never suppressed like Ireland was. I think Irish unification is right and just on historical grounds.

[Mon Dieu4]

Because all people of the north of Ireland would have a greater say in their own affairs in an Irish parliament - Unionists would make up around 20% of the Irish population as opposed to the 2% they currently do of the UK.

Scotland was heavily involved in the troubles in Ireland and was never suppressed like Ireland was. I think Irish unification is right and just on historical grounds.

so you are talking historical grounds and Scotland has never been suppressed as much as Ireland?

Does your history only go back 100 or so years or does being shafted by the English on and off for a millennia not count?

[yeezus.]

so you are talking historical grounds and Scotland has never been suppressed as much as Ireland?

Does your history only go back 100 or so years or does being shafted by the English on and off for a millennia not count?

Shafted?

[Hibrandenburg]

Because all people of the north of Ireland would have a greater say in their own affairs in an Irish parliament - Unionists would make up around 20% of the Irish population as opposed to the 2% they currently do of the UK.

Scotland was heavily involved in the troubles in Ireland and was never suppressed like Ireland was. I think Irish unification is right and just on historical grounds.

Sorry but that doesn't wash. Reads like double standards to me. All your previous argumentation regarding why Scotland should stay in the Union applies to NI too, probably even more so.

[Beefster]

Sorry but that doesn't wash. Reads like double standards to me. All your previous argumentation regarding why Scotland should stay in the Union applies to NI too, probably even more so.

I don't want to get into an Ireland debate (primarily because I have no opinion on it) but debating the merits of Scotland leaving the Union isn't remotely similar to debating the merits of Norther Ireland leaving the Union and reuniting with the Republic of Ireland.

[allmodcons]

so you are talking historical grounds and Scotland has never been suppressed as much as Ireland?

Does your history only go back 100 or so years or does being shafted by the English on and off for a millennia not count?


Shafted?


I think you could (fairly) level that criticism at the English in the context of the Darien Scheme which, ultimately, crippled the Scottish economy to such an extent that it triggered the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and led to the Act of Union in 1707.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't want to get into an Ireland debate (primarily because I have no opinion on it) but debating the merits of Scotland leaving the Union isn't remotely similar to debating the merits of Norther Ireland leaving the Union and reuniting with the Republic of Ireland.

There are many parallels however regarding the financial consequences. All the argumentation regarding leaving the larger UK economy to go it on our own would be even more valid for NI as they'd be entering an economy that's already in a dire condition. It just seems paradoxical that SH considers it ok for Irish nationalists to crave independence and to hell with financial security but not for Scots.

[allmodcons]

There are many parallels however regarding the financial consequences. All the argumentation regarding leaving the larger UK economy to go it on our own would be even more valid for NI as they'd be entering an economy that's already in a dire condition. It just seems paradoxical that SH considers it ok for Irish nationalists to crave independence and to hell with financial security but not for Scots.

:agree:

[yeezus.]

There are many parallels however regarding the financial consequences. All the argumentation regarding leaving the larger UK economy to go it on our own would be even more valid for NI as they'd be entering an economy that's already in a dire condition. It just seems paradoxical that SH considers it ok for Irish nationalists to crave independence and to hell with financial security but not for Scots.

I think you'll find I said I support Irish unification on a historical basis because it is what we owe the Irish for the decades of tyranny.

[Just Alf]

This has got interesting!

A question though.

Why is it good for a business in the north of Ireland to leave the 6th biggest economy across the globe but not for a similar business in Scotland?

Strip out all the historical stuff etc, that's all I'm the past ( :D ) ......, as a business consultant I'm interested in the nitty gritty

[yeezus.]

This has got interesting!

A question though.

Why is it good for a business in the north of Ireland to leave the 6th biggest economy across the globe but not for a similar business in Scotland?

Strip out all the historical stuff etc, that's all I'm the past ( :D ) ......, as a business consultant I'm interested in the nitty gritty

The 6 counties make no economic gain out of being part of the UK. However, leaving historical considerations aside on this issue is very difficult.

[allmodcons]

In your words SH - 'why (would NI) break off from the 6th biggest economy in the world?



This has got interesting!

A question though.

Why is it good for a business in the north of Ireland to leave the 6th biggest economy across the globe but not for a similar business in Scotland?

Strip out all the historical stuff etc, that's all I'm the past ( :D ) ......, as a business consultant I'm interested in the nitty gritty


Have already asked this of SH. It would appear that economics don't matter when we're discussing NI leaving the UK. The '6th biggest economy in the world' isn't important to a 'No' supporter in the context of NI.

[CropleyWasGod]

The 6 counties make no economic gain out of being part of the UK. However, leaving historical considerations aside on this issue is very difficult.

You sure?

As far as I am aware, there are 3 regions which make a net contribution to the UK economy. Scotland, arguably is one. The other two, I think, are the City of London and the South East of England.

That means that NI takes out more than it puts in to the UK.

I might be wrong, so I'd welcome your thoughts.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think you'll find I said I support Irish unification on a historical basis because it is what we owe the Irish for the decades of tyranny.

What exactly do I owe the Irish people apart from the name of my football team :confused:

[J-C]

I think you'll find I said I support Irish unification on a historical basis because it is what we owe the Irish for the decades of tyranny.


I think you'll find we as a people owe Ireland nothing, think your getting the we as British confused with them as English owe the Irish, as it was England's tyranny. :confused:

[yeezus.]

I think you'll find we as a people owe Ireland nothing, think your getting the we as British confused with them as English owe the Irish, as it was England's tyranny. :confused:

It wasn't England's tyranny. Many Scottish regiments carried out war crimes in the north part of Ireland and it was Scottish protestant settlers who colonised the north.

:wink:

[marinello59]

It wasn't England's tyranny. Many Scottish regiments carried out war crimes in the north part of Ireland and it was Scottish protestant settlers who colonised the north.

:wink:
Care to list the war crimes and specific Scottish Regiments involved?

[yeezus.]

Care to list the war crimes and specific Scottish Regiments involved?

Brian Stewart, a 13 year old boy killed by a plastic bullet. King's own Scottish borders.

Daniel Hegarty, a 15 year old boy shot dead. British Army Royal Scots regiment.

Michael Neill, 16 year old shot dead in 1977. British Army's Argyle and southern Highlanders regiment.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Brian Stewart, a 13 year old boy killed by a plastic bullet. King's own Scottish borders.

Daniel Hegarty, a 15 year old boy shot dead. British Army Royal Scots regiment.

Michael Neill, 16 year old shot dead in 1977. British Army's Argyle and southern Highlanders regiment.

How can you qualify this as war crimes ?

[Hibrandenburg]

Brian Stewart, a 13 year old boy killed by a plastic bullet. King's own Scottish borders.

Daniel Hegarty, a 15 year old boy shot dead. British Army Royal Scots regiment.

Michael Neill, 16 year old shot dead in 1977. British Army's Argyle and southern Highlanders regiment.

Kids getting caught in cross fire is probably the most heinous thing I can think of that happens in conflict but I think you're pushing the boat out a bit by calling them war crimes.

[yeezus.]

Kids getting caught in cross fire is probably the most heinous thing I can think of that happens in conflict but I think you're pushing the boat out a bit by calling them war crimes.

The point I am trying to make is that "England" is commonly blamed for the Irish conflict but in fact Scotland played a role as well.

Edit: Many of the people killed in Ireland weren't caught in a crossfire at all. Aidan McAnespie for example.

[CropleyWasGod]

The point I am trying to make is that "England" is commonly blamed for the Irish conflict but in fact Scotland played a role as well.

Edit: Many of the people killed in Ireland weren't caught in a crossfire at all. Aidan McAnespie for example.

So, given that you think Northern Ireland should be "free" from the UK because of the "oppression" of the UK, surely you would agree that Scotland should be "free" of England because of "oppression" like, say, the Highland Clearances.

[stoneyburn hibs]

The point I am trying to make is that "England" is commonly blamed for the Irish conflict but in fact Scotland played a role as well.

Edit: Many of the people killed in Ireland weren't caught in a crossfire at all. Aidan McAnespie for example.

So your making your point by saying Scottish soldiers serving in NI are murderers ?, those soldiers were only doing their job, in bloody hard circumstances, your post on this is bang out of order.

[Just Alf]

So your making your point by saying Scottish soldiers serving in NI are murderers ?, those soldiers were only doing their job, in bloody hard circumstances, your post on this is bang out of order.

And as there were not just Scots in the regiments you could argue it was a bit of a sweeping statement.

[Hibrandenburg]

The point I am trying to make is that "England" is commonly blamed for the Irish conflict but in fact Scotland played a role as well.

Edit: Many of the people killed in Ireland weren't caught in a crossfire at all. Aidan McAnespie for example.

Historically Scotland and Scottish settlers played a huge part on the troubles in Northern Ireland, many of the crofters forced to leave their lands were resettled there. These Scots evolved from being oppressed to becoming the oppressors. The act of Union in its infancy had terrible consequences for large swathes of the population on both sides of the Irish Sea. To say that one or the other is more deserving of independence because of what happened to them historically is complete tripe.

I think you may have been listening to too many "Rebel" songs.

[yeezus.]

So your making your point by saying Scottish soldiers serving in NI are murderers ?, those soldiers were only doing their job, in bloody hard circumstances, your post on this is bang out of order.

You idiot. I never said that. I said Scottish hands weren't clean in Ireland. I'll reverse it for you - Are you saying it was their job to murder those three children?

Pathetic question.

[yeezus.]

So, given that you think Northern Ireland should be "free" from the UK because of the "oppression" of the UK, surely you would agree that Scotland should be "free" of England because of "oppression" like, say, the Highland Clearances.

The Highland clearances weren't going on until 1994. English troops don't remain stationed in Scotland. Irish Catholics were denied the most basic of human rights by the British in Ireland.

[yeezus.]

Historically Scotland and Scottish settlers played a huge part on the troubles in Northern Ireland, many of the crofters forced to leave their lands were resettled there. These Scots evolved from being oppressed to becoming the oppressors. The act of Union in its infancy had terrible consequences for large swathes of the population on both sides of the Irish Sea. To say that one or the other is more deserving of independence because of what happened to them historically is complete tripe.

I think you may have been listening to too many "Rebel" songs.

That is a possibility.

[lord bunberry]

You idiot. I never said that. I said Scottish hands weren't clean in Ireland. I'll reverse it for you - Are you saying it was their job to murder those three children?

Pathetic question.

What you said was that Scottish regiments were guilty of war crimes

[steakbake]

The point I am trying to make is that "England" is commonly blamed for the Irish conflict but in fact Scotland played a role as well.

Edit: Many of the people killed in Ireland weren't caught in a crossfire at all. Aidan McAnespie for example.

We (Scotland) wouldn't have been in the position to play any role had we not been "better together" in a union.

I don't really understand the perspective of being supportive of Irish republicanism yet supporting the continuation of the very state which was their opposition protagonist in the troubles. It seems contradictory.

I'd imagine if you tried to explain that position to characters like Adams and McGuinness, they might be a bit confused.

For what it is worth to me, the status of Ireland is of no real concern to me. I think the political settlement in the north will change with demographics but it seems irrelevant to the current debate in Scotland except by those who hold marginal views or people who are intentionally and wrongly drawing parallels between the two to support their own entrenched views.

[stoneyburn hibs]

You idiot. I never said that. I said Scottish hands weren't clean in Ireland. I'll reverse it for you - Are you saying it was their job to murder those three children?

Pathetic question.

You said that many Scottish regiments committed war crimes, I replied, if that makes me an idiot then fair enough.

Please don't send me anymore abusive private messages

[CropleyWasGod]

The Highland clearances weren't going on until 1994. English troops don't remain stationed in Scotland. Irish Catholics were denied the most basic of human rights by the British in Ireland.

So at what point in history would you draw the line?


And.... you missed my economic question.

[yeezus.]

You said that many Scottish regiments committed war crimes, I replied, if that makes me an idiot then fair enough.

Please don't send me anymore abusive private messages

Looks like I can't give the appropriate reply.

How about you reply about the three dead children in Ireland?

Sorry if that's too personal.

P.S. I fully expect an apology for your previous post. Not once did I suggest Scottish soldiers in the north of Ireland were all murderers. How about an infraction for that!?

[J-C]

It wasn't England's tyranny. Many Scottish regiments carried out war crimes in the north part of Ireland and it was Scottish protestant settlers who colonised the north.

:wink:


But that is all post break up of Ireland, we're talking about pre break up when the English invaded Ireland

From 1536, Henry VIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England) decided to conquer Ireland and bring it under crown control. The Fitzgerald dynasty of Kildare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Kildare), who had become the effective rulers of Ireland in the 15th century, had become unreliable allies of the Tudor monarchs. They had invited Burgundian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundians) troops into Dublin to crown the Yorkist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkist) pretender, Lambert Simnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_Simnel) as King of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_England) in 1487. Again in 1536, Silken Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silken_Thomas) Fitzgerald went into open rebellion against the crown. Having put down this rebellion, Henry resolved to bring Ireland under English government control so the island would not become a base for future rebellions or foreign invasions of England. In 1541 he upgraded Ireland from a lordship to a full Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ireland). Henry was proclaimed King of Ireland at a meeting of the Irish Parliament that year. This was the first meeting of the Irish Parliament to be attended by the Gaelic Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_Ireland) chieftains as well as the Hiberno-Norman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Norman) aristocracy. With the institutions of government in place, the next step was to extend the control of the English Kingdom of Ireland over all of its claimed territory. This took nearly a century, with various English administrations either negotiating or fighting with the independent Irish and Old English lords. The Spanish Armada in Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada_in_Ireland) suffered heavy losses during an extraordinary season of storms in the autumn of 1588. Among the survivors was Captain Francisco de Cuellar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Cuellar), who gave a remarkable account of his experiences on the run in Ireland.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland#cite_note-18)
The re-conquest was completed during the reigns of Elizabeth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England) and James I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England), after several brutal conflicts. (See the Desmond Rebellions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Rebellions) (1569-73 and 1579-83 and the Nine Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years_War_(Ireland)) 1594-1603, for details).After this point, the English authorities in Dublin established real control over Ireland for the first time, bringing a centralised government to the entire island, and successfully disarmed the native lordships. However, the English were not successful in converting the Catholic Irish to the Protestant religion and the brutal methods used by crown authority (including resorting to martial law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law)) to bring the country under English control heightened resentment of English rule.
From the mid-16th to the early 17th century, crown governments carried out a policy of land confiscation and colonisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonisation) known as Plantations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland). Scottish and English Protestant colonists were sent to the provinces of Munster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munster), Ulster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster) and the counties of Laois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laois) and Offaly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offaly). These Protestant settlers replaced the Irish Catholic landowners who were removed from their lands. These settlers formed the ruling class of future British appointed administrations in Ireland. Several Penal Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws), aimed at Catholics, Baptists and Presbyterians, were introduced to encourage conversion to the established (Anglican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican)) Church of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Ireland).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Ireland&action=edit&section=10)]Wars and penal laws

[J-C]

It wasn't England's tyranny. Many Scottish regiments carried out war crimes in the north part of Ireland and it was Scottish protestant settlers who colonised the north.

:wink:
The 17th century was perhaps the bloodiest in Ireland's history. Two periods of war (1641–53 and 1689–91) caused huge loss of life. The ultimate dispossession of most of the Irish Catholic landowning class was engineered, and recusants were subordinated under the Penal Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland)).
During the 17th century Ireland was convulsed by eleven years of warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Confederate_Wars), beginning with the Rebellion of 1641 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1641), when Irish Catholics rebelled against the domination of English and Protestant settlers. The Catholic gentry briefly ruled the country as Confederate Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Ireland) (1642–1649) against the background of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms) until Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell) reconquered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland) Ireland in 1649–1653 on behalf of the English Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Commonwealth). Cromwell's conquest was the most brutal phase of the war. By its close, up to a third of Ireland's pre-war population was dead or in exile. As retribution for the rebellion of 1641, the better-quality remaining lands owned by Irish Catholics were confiscated and given to British settlers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_Plantation) commenced. Several hundred remaining native landowners were transplanted to Connacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connacht).

SlaveryIreland became the main battleground after the Glorious Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution) of 1688, when the Catholic James II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_II_of_England) left London and theEnglish Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Parliament_(1689)) replaced him with William of Orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England). The wealthier Irish Catholics backed James to try to reverse thePenal Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland)) and land confiscations, whereas Protestants supported William and Mary in this 'Glorious Revolution' to preserve their property in the country. James and William fought for the Kingdom of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ireland) in the Williamite War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_war_in_Ireland), most famously at theBattle of the Boyne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Boyne) in 1690, where James' outnumbered forces were defeated.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Ireland&action=edit&section=11)]

From the 15th to the 18th century, Irish prisoners were sold as slaves. For centuries, the Irish were dehumanised by the English, described as savages, so making their murder and displacement appear all the more justified.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland#cite_note-JordanWalsh2011-19) In 1654 the British parliament gave Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell) a free hand to banish Irish "undesirables". Cromwell rounded up Catholics throughout the Irish countryside and placed them on ships bound for the Caribbean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean), mainly Barbados (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados). The authorities in the West Indies, fearing the Irish would resist servitude, treated the prisoners harshly. Records suggest that priests may have been routinely tortured and executed. By 1655, 12,000 political prisoners had been forcibly shipped to Barbados.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland#cite_note-Ph.D.1997-20)

[Beefster]

http://forum-img.pinside.com/pinball/forum/?bb_attachments=289344&bbat=31687&inline&fullsize

[southfieldhibby]

You said that many Scottish regiments committed war crimes, I replied, if that makes me an idiot then fair enough.

Please don't send me anymore abusive private messages

There are many posts on here from stranraerhibby hidden on my timeline as he's on ignore, he also sent me a pm, which I've not read so can't vouch for the content.

I can only imagine where his mind was wandered given some of the replies about Scottish regiments and war crimes.I hope that in an independent Scotland, he seeks employment in England.

[allmodcons]

http://forum-img.pinside.com/pinball/forum/?bb_attachments=289344&bbat=31687&inline&fullsize


Not often this happens, but I'm in complete agreement with you here B.
Hijacked by a Unionist supporter who also happens to support the unification of Ireland.

[Just Alf]

There are many posts on here from stranraerhibby hidden on my timeline as he's on ignore, he also sent me a pm, which I've not read so can't vouch for the content.

I can only imagine where his mind was wandered given some of the replies about Scottish regiments and war crimes.I hope that in an independent Scotland, he seeks employment in England.

hmm... good point.... never felt the need as peeps always have the right to speak up.

Then again, sometimes, if someone is so far gone that their posts are contradictory and a waste of time reading I've now decided to actually ignore someone :-(

how's it done????


Edit.... don't worry, just found it :-)

[steakbake]

hmm... good point.... never felt the need as peeps always have the right to speak up.

Then again, sometimes, if someone is so far gone that their posts are contradictory and a waste of time reading I've now decided to actually ignore someone :-(

how's it done????


Edit.... don't worry, just found it :-)

Who said that?

[Just Alf]

Who said that?

not naming names :-)

but someone is arguing for "better together" on one hand and "better separate" on the other for different parts of the (current) UK.

and the arguments for one don't apply to the other for no discernible reason..... or at least none have been put forward.

not a problem for me any more tho :wink:

and

PS: I've replied to you so it ain't you!!! :greengrin

[southfieldhibby]

hmm... good point.... never felt the need as peeps always have the right to speak up.

Then again, sometimes, if someone is so far gone that their posts are contradictory and a waste of time reading I've now decided to actually ignore someone :-(

how's it done????


Edit.... don't worry, just found it :-)

First time I've used the function here, it's a shame but constant stupidity combined with contrary opinions merit extreme action.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Well that is my mind made up for sure. maybe the Starnraer boy might reconsider now:wink:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/orange-order-in-no-vote-campaign.20885828

[marinello59]

Well that is my mind made up for sure. maybe the Starnraer boy might reconsider now:wink:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/orange-order-in-no-vote-campaign.20885828

Can you imagine the faces on the Better Together organisers when they heard about the willingness of the Orange Order to get involved. The phrase, ''Aw for ***** sake'' springs to mind. :greengrin

[NOLA]

If scotland were to win the independence vote (which it won't) what currency would be in use here? No longer a part of the union, we would have to join the euro no?

[Beefster]

Swinney's just said on Five Live that, if an independent Scotland isn't allowed into a currency union with the UK, Scotland just won't accept any of the UK debt upon independence.

Words fail me.

[J-C]

If scotland were to win the independence vote (which it won't) what currency would be in use here? No longer a part of the union, we would have to join the euro no?


My god man look into our history, we've had a Scottish pound for longer than the Union of 1707

[Beefster]

My god man look into our history, we've had a Scottish pound for longer than the Union of 1707

It was a completely differently thing before 1707. I'm sure post-independence, if we're not admitted to a currency union with the UK, we'll still call our currency 'pound'. It won't be the same thing that we currently use though.

[allmodcons]

If scotland were to win the independence vote (which it won't) what currency would be in use here? No longer a part of the union, we would have to join the euro no?



It was a completely differently thing before 1707. I'm sure post-independence, if we're not admitted to a currency union with the UK, we'll still call our currency 'pound'. It won't be the same thing that we currently use though.

This is reasoned response from Alex Salmond. I know a few on here don't like Salmond, but he is 100% correct here. What we have is a Tory Chancellor sabre rattling and scaremongering. If Scotland votes 'Yes' Osbourne's tone WILL change. Really pisses me off why these so called educated Tories keep making the assumption (wrongly) that the Bank of England is an English institution and the money it prints is English money. The BoE is a UK instititution which is already part owned by us Scots. No doubt there will be some serious negotiations post Independence but surely nobody (even staunch Unionists) is believing of, or fooled by, this nonsense from Osbourne.




Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond accused the Chancellor of "political sabre-rattling". He told BBC News 24: "This is a Tory Chancellor trying to scare people in Scotland, trying to stop them voting for independence.
"But the day after a resounding Yes vote in the referendum, when people sit down and start to negotiate in the best interest of the people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, he will sing an entirely different tune."
Mr Salmond argued: "It's in everyone's interests to have a currency area after independence - it's in the interests of Scotland, it's also overwhelmingly in the interest of the rest of the United Kingdom."
He said that was for the "very simple reason that huge Scottish resources such as oil and gas would continue to protect the sterling balance of payments".
The SNP leader claimed that if a sterling zone was not created and Scotland used another currency, "the balance of payments deficit in the rest of the UK would double overnight".
Mr Salmond added: "I don't really think anybody in England, Wales or Northern Ireland wants that to happen, apart from perhaps George Osborne."
The First Minister said Mr Osborne was a "Chancellor who has already been downgraded twice" after two credit agencies downgraded the UK's AAA status, and branded him "reckless and irresponsible".
Mr Salmond added: "I think when serious economic interest takes over, as opposed to the political sabre-rattling we saw today, we will sit down and do what is in the best interests of the people of Scotland, and of course the people of the rest of the United Kingdom.
"That is what I'm doing; I think George Osborne should grow up and do the same."
The First Minister said the Bank of England would continue to run monetary policy under the sterling zone the Scottish Government proposes, but he added: "Scotland would have control over taxation, which we don't have at the present moment, and we would have control of all of our spending, which we also don't at the present moment.
"So, we would be fiscally independent within that currency area - a very sensible thing to do."

[marinello59]

This is reasoned response from Alex Salmond. I know a few on here don't like Salmond, but he is 100% correct here. What we have is a Tory Chancellor sabre rattling and scaremongering. If Scotland votes 'Yes' Osbourne's tone WILL change. Really pisses me off why these so called educated Tories keep making the assumption (wrongly) that the Bank of England is an English institution and the money it prints is English money. The BoE is a UK instititution which is already part owned by us Scots. No doubt there will be some serious negotiations post Independence but surely nobody (even staunch Unionists) is believing of, or fooled by, this nonsense from Osbourne.




Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond accused the Chancellor of "political sabre-rattling". He told BBC News 24: "This is a Tory Chancellor trying to scare people in Scotland, trying to stop them voting for independence.
"But the day after a resounding Yes vote in the referendum, when people sit down and start to negotiate in the best interest of the people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, he will sing an entirely different tune."
Mr Salmond argued: "It's in everyone's interests to have a currency area after independence - it's in the interests of Scotland, it's also overwhelmingly in the interest of the rest of the United Kingdom."
He said that was for the "very simple reason that huge Scottish resources such as oil and gas would continue to protect the sterling balance of payments".
The SNP leader claimed that if a sterling zone was not created and Scotland used another currency, "the balance of payments deficit in the rest of the UK would double overnight".
Mr Salmond added: "I don't really think anybody in England, Wales or Northern Ireland wants that to happen, apart from perhaps George Osborne."
The First Minister said Mr Osborne was a "Chancellor who has already been downgraded twice" after two credit agencies downgraded the UK's AAA status, and branded him "reckless and irresponsible".
Mr Salmond added: "I think when serious economic interest takes over, as opposed to the political sabre-rattling we saw today, we will sit down and do what is in the best interests of the people of Scotland, and of course the people of the rest of the United Kingdom.
"That is what I'm doing; I think George Osborne should grow up and do the same."
The First Minister said the Bank of England would continue to run monetary policy under the sterling zone the Scottish Government proposes, but he added: "Scotland would have control over taxation, which we don't have at the present moment, and we would have control of all of our spending, which we also don't at the present moment.
"So, we would be fiscally independent within that currency area - a very sensible thing to do."

So Salmond is arguing that as far as currency goes we are better together? :greengrin

[allmodcons]

So Salmond is arguing that as far as currency goes we are better together? :greengrin

He is, 100%. You might not agree with SNP policy on Monetary Union, but that is where they are at.

[hibs0666]

Swinney's just said on Five Live that, if an independent Scotland isn't allowed into a currency union with the UK, Scotland just won't accept any of the UK debt upon independence.

Words fail me.

Why does Swinney want to tie his fiscal policy to an economy that he argues is a failure? It's just incoherent, illogical pish.

We already know that Scottish politicians ain't exactly the brightest. However, the SNP has been planning for this referendum for decades now, and we have a right to expect well thought-out policy post independence instead of this nonsense.

[allmodcons]

Why does Swinney want to tie his fiscal policy to an economy that he argues is a failure? It's just incoherent, illogical pish.

We already know that Scottish politicians ain't exactly the brightest. However, the SNP has been planning for this referendum for decades now, and we have a right to expect well thought-out policy post independence instead of this nonsense.


What a ridiculous generalisation. Can I assume from this comment that English, Welsh and Irish Politicians are somehow brighter than Scottish?

Any self respecting Scot should be embarrassed by that statement.


Tell me this. In the event of a 'Yes' vote how do you propose we deal with Monetary Policy? The SNP have been planning for this for decades, but times and circumstances change. Only a few years ago Labour was arguing we should join the Euro. Funny how it's OK for other parties to change their policies as circumstances change but somehow it's wrong for the SNP.

[Beefster]

Tell me this. In the event of a 'Yes' vote how do you propose we deal with Monetary Policy? The SNP have been planning for this for decades, but times and circumstances change. Only a few years ago Labour was arguing we should join the Euro. Funny how it's OK for other parties to change their policies as circumstances change but somehow it's wrong for the SNP.

Seeing as we seem to be finding out more that won't actually change (e.g. we'll still have monetary policy directed by the Bank of England in London, we'll still be directed by the EU in Brussels/Strasbourg, we'll still be protected with nuclear weapons by NATO), can you tell me what we'll be getting from independence that can't be dealt with by further devolution?

[marinello59]

What a ridiculous generalisation. Can I assume from this comment that English, Welsh and Irish Politicians are somehow brighter than Scottish?

Any self respecting Scot should be embarrassed by that statement.


Tell me this. In the event of a 'Yes' vote how do you propose we deal with Monetary Policy? The SNP have been planning for this for decades, but times and circumstances change. Only a few years ago Labour was arguing we should join the Euro. Funny how it's OK for other parties to change their policies as circumstances change but somehow it's wrong for the SNP.

You wouldn't think it. We still don't really have anything like a full picture of what the SNP's vision of Independence is.
As for SNP monetary policy they have decided that the Union we wish to leave will just have to go along with what we want. As will Europe if they try and insist we join the Euro in order to retain membership. It's depressing really.

[Beefster]

You wouldn't think it. We still don't really have anything like a full picture of what the SNP's vision of Independence is.
As for SNP monetary policy they have decided that the Union we wish to leave will just have to go along with what we want. As will Europe if they try and insist we join the Euro in order to retain membership. It's depressing really.

It's ridiculous. I used to be a member of the SNP in the early/mid 90's (before the branch imploded in a cloud of pettiness) and, despite my instinct being against independence nowadays, was ready to be convinced by the 'Yes' campaign. It's been amateurish though and all the guff about the EU, currency, NATO etc gives the impression that they're making it up as they go along. Rather than convince me, they've probably made me more certain of my view.

[allmodcons]

Seeing as we seem to be finding out more that won't actually change (e.g. we'll still have monetary policy directed by the Bank of England in London, we'll still be directed by the EU in Brussels/Strasbourg, we'll still be protected with nuclear weapons by NATO), can you tell me what we'll be getting from independence that can't be dealt with by further devolution?


With regard to your first point, you are indeed correct but, of course, fail to accept that Scotland as an Independent country would have direct representation. As I've said countless times before the current BoE is a UK asset, part of which belongs to Scotland.

As to your second point this has been SNP Policy for as long as I can remember (i.e. - being a member of the EU). Are you suggesting we should leave the EU, if so, then you along with UKIP are entitled to hold that view. IMO this would not good for the Scottish Economy (as it is now) or as an Independent state.

Your final point takes no account of fact that the SNP do not want Trident on Scottish soil and are not in anyway committed to spending obscene amounts of money on 'weapons of mass destruction'. How is the same as the staus quo?

To answer your question in full Scotland would have control over taxation and spending and perhaps, more importantly, the people of Scotland will be able to take decisions in Scotland for Scotland and not be Governed by what is best for the economy of the SE of England.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It's ridiculous. I used to be a member of the SNP in the early/mid 90's (before the branch imploded in a cloud of pettiness) and, despite my instinct being against independence nowadays, was ready to be convinced by the 'Yes' campaign. It's been amateurish though and all the guff about the EU, currency, NATO etc gives the impression that they're making it up as they go along. Rather than convince me, they've probably made me more certain of my view.

Aye course you where

What a pile of guff:rolleyes:

[NOLA]

My god man look into our history, we've had a Scottish pound for longer than the Union of 1707

Interesting, doesn't really answer the question though does it.

[Beefster]

Aye course you where

What a pile of guff:rolleyes:

Which part do you think I'm lying about?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Which part do you think I'm lying about?

That you where ready to be convinced

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk 2

[Beefster]

That you where ready to be convinced

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk 2

You know best.

[allmodcons]

That you where ready to be convinced

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk 2


You know best.

I have to agree with BHFL. None of your posts on this thread would suggest you were/are ready to be convinced.

[marinello59]

I have to agree with BHFL. None of your posts on this thread would suggest you were/are ready to be convinced.

Hopefully the Yes campaign takes every single voter who says they are willing to be won over at face value and continue to try and win them over. If not it is going to be a resounding No.

[allmodcons]

Hopefully the Yes campaign takes every single voter who says they are willing to be won over at face value and continue to try and win them over. If not it is going to be a resounding No.

If the Yes campaign can convince Beefster as to the merits of Independence it will be a resounding Yes vote.

[J-C]

Interesting, doesn't really answer the question though does it.


Well it does, it was introduced by David 1 in the 12th century on the model of the English and French currency, by the time of James iii, the Scots pound was debased, so 1 English pound was = 4 Scottish pounds. In 1707 the Scottish pound was replaced by the English pound.

So basically we had the pound for centuries prior to the 1707 act of Parliament, we'll just go back to having the Scottish pound, our banks still produce their own notes anyway.

[allmodcons]

If scotland were to win the independence vote (which it won't) what currency would be in use here? No longer a part of the union, we would have to join the euro no?

Does this help?

James Scott, formerly Executive Director of Scottish Financial Enterprise, was scathing in his response to the Chancellor's claim that an independent Scotland in currency union with the remainder of the UK would be unable to continue to issue its own banknotes.
Mr Scott, who is also Chief Executive of the Scottish Development Agency and Deputy Secretary in the Scottish Office said:
"This bogus assertion by the Treasury should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
"No one seriously believes that while we have had our own Scottish banknotes for so many years under the current Westminster arrangements, we would not be able to continue to do so as an independent country. Even the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are not in the United Kingdom but have a currency union with it, issue their own sterling banknotes.
"The fact is that the pound is every bit as much Scotland’s currency as it is England, Wales and Northern Ireland's. The Chancellor should know better than to peddle such silly scare stories."

Mr Scott’s comments follow similar scathing criticism of Mr Osborne by David Blanchflower who is Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College and former external member of the Monetary Policy Committee, who said:
"Should the people of Scotland choose independence in next year’s referendum it would make sense for Scotland to enter a formal monetary union with the rest of the UK with the Bank of England operating as central bank for the common monetary area.
"Independence within a currency union would represent a substantial increase in the economic responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. A currency union would provide the full flexibility to vary tax and spending decisions to target key opportunities and challenges in Scotland – powers that are currently unavailable to the Scottish Parliament.
"George Osborne would be better off revisiting his misguided and failing policies for growth rather than scaremongering to the people of Scotland.”

[NOLA]

Does this help?

James Scott, formerly Executive Director of Scottish Financial Enterprise, was scathing in his response to the Chancellor's claim that an independent Scotland in currency union with the remainder of the UK would be unable to continue to issue its own banknotes.
Mr Scott, who is also Chief Executive of the Scottish Development Agency and Deputy Secretary in the Scottish Office said:
"This bogus assertion by the Treasury should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
"No one seriously believes that while we have had our own Scottish banknotes for so many years under the current Westminster arrangements, we would not be able to continue to do so as an independent country. Even the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are not in the United Kingdom but have a currency union with it, issue their own sterling banknotes.
"The fact is that the pound is every bit as much Scotland’s currency as it is England, Wales and Northern Ireland's. The Chancellor should know better than to peddle such silly scare stories."

Mr Scott’s comments follow similar scathing criticism of Mr Osborne by David Blanchflower who is Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College and former external member of the Monetary Policy Committee, who said:
"Should the people of Scotland choose independence in next year’s referendum it would make sense for Scotland to enter a formal monetary union with the rest of the UK with the Bank of England operating as central bank for the common monetary area.
"Independence within a currency union would represent a substantial increase in the economic responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. A currency union would provide the full flexibility to vary tax and spending decisions to target key opportunities and challenges in Scotland – powers that are currently unavailable to the Scottish Parliament.
"George Osborne would be better off revisiting his misguided and failing policies for growth rather than scaremongering to the people of Scotland.”



Yes, thanks, looks to me as if whichever side can win the media war will prevail, too many people (myself included) just aren't in touch with all the pros/cons of independence, nobody I know would vote yes should the vote happen next week for instance, plenty time though for the yes camp to press on and inform the nation.

[J-C]

I think the biggest fear for most people is they actually think SNP will be in total charge if the vote goes to a yes. This is complete and utter nonsense, I am an SNP voter but concede that if we get independence, there will probably be a coalition parliament as that is what should happen under the voting system we have. The SNP were amazed that they managed to get a full majority last elections, that shouldn't really happen and I assume a large protest vote was the case. You'll find a different political landscape after a yes vote, with all parties having a larger say in the future of Scotland.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think the biggest fear for most people is they actually think SNP will be in total charge if the vote goes to a yes. This is complete and utter nonsense, I am an SNP voter but concede that if we get independence, there will probably be a coalition parliament as that is what should happen under the voting system we have. The SNP were amazed that they managed to get a full majority last elections, that shouldn't really happen and I assume a large protest vote was the case. You'll find a different political landscape after a yes vote, with all parties having a larger say in the future of Scotland.

Will any of the other parties stand in an independant scotland?

How could we believe they can do a job when they didnt believe an independant scotland could work. The better together campaign needs to be careful it is not too negative about scotland as we tend not to forget such things.

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk 2

[marinello59]

Will any of the other parties stand in an independant scotland?

How could we believe they can do a job when they didnt believe an independant scotland could work. The better together campaign needs to be careful it is not too negative about scotland as we tend not to forget such things.

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk 2

Nobody is saying that an Independent Scotland won't work. Even David Cameron says Scotland could go it alone. The question for many isn't could we go it alone but should we. A difference far too many in the Yes camp are failing to address.

[Beefster]

I have to agree with BHFL. None of your posts on this thread would suggest you were/are ready to be convinced.

It's irrelevant to our debate but I was pretty consistent in saying on here for a few years that I was ready to be convinced of the case for independence, although, as I said earlier, my instinct was against it. I was pretty convinced by the time I started this thread so I wouldn't be too surprised that my posts on this thread don't back that up.

To be honest, neither side of the campaign has done much to convince anyone and the quality of the debate from the folk paid to stimulate it has been woeful IMHO.

[marinello59]

It's irrelevant to our debate but I was pretty consistent in saying on here for a few years that I was ready to be convinced of the case for independence, although, as I said earlier, my instinct was against it. I was pretty convinced by the time I started this thread so I wouldn't be too surprised that my posts on this thread don't back that up.

To be honest, neither side of the campaign has done much to convince anyone and the quality of the debate from the folk paid to stimulate it has been woeful IMHO.

:agree: They would be as well holding the referendum tomorrow.

[JeMeSouviens]

Seeing as we seem to be finding out more that won't actually change (e.g. we'll still have monetary policy directed by the Bank of England in London, we'll still be directed by the EU in Brussels/Strasbourg, we'll still be protected with nuclear weapons by NATO), can you tell me what we'll be getting from independence that can't be dealt with by further devolution?

I personally would be just as happy with Devo Max. However, it's not on offer.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's irrelevant to our debate but I was pretty consistent in saying on here for a few years that I was ready to be convinced of the case for independence, although, as I said earlier, my instinct was against it. I was pretty convinced by the time I started this thread so I wouldn't be too surprised that my posts on this thread don't back that up.

To be honest, neither side of the campaign has done much to convince anyone and the quality of the debate from the folk paid to stimulate it has been woeful IMHO.

The Unionist camp has been pretty clever (aided by a compliant Scottish media which is either rabidly pro-Union like The Scotsman or theoretically neutral but "knows where's its bread's buttered" like the BBC) by tying up the debate with irrelevant straw men thus stopping them having to debate any of the actual issues at all.

No serious commentator thinks there is even the remotest possibility that the EU would deny Scotland membership and frankly they'd have to be absolutely barking to even consider it, but a significant body of public opinion in Scotland now believes this could happen. The SNP's only way to end this strand of "debate" would be to get a cast iron guarantee from the EU which of course, they can't.

There is no way for the EU to compel a new member state to join the Euro (despite the theoretical treaty obligation). Sweden has been in this position since 1995. Have you ever heard that mentioned in the "debate"?

[allmodcons]

At last, a decent piece of journalism amongst all the pish that has been said and written by MSM in the last couple of days.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/osbornes-threat-shows-independence-is-viable.20893521

[RyeSloan]

At last, a decent piece of journalism amongst all the pish that has been said and written by MSM in the last couple of days.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/osbornes-threat-shows-independence-is-viable.20893521


This piece only serves to show the confusion the proposed monetary union has created.

This is a union that has not even had it's most basic terms agreed and therefore provides the option for anyone to take an extreme view on what it means.

To me though Osbourne is correct in one thing, for a monetary union to suceed each member must have strict budgetary conditions applied to them. That doesn't sound like independence to me. And while I have seen the balance of payments comment a few times it's also fair to say that Scotland will be very much a junior member of that union, why then would England not be the dominant and dictating force in such an agreement?

The simple (if brave) answer is for Scotland to have it's own currency...then the Norway comparison may well be more relevant. Even more so if it was being proposed that we enter into trade agreements with the main trading blocks of the world on our own accord. Yup both of these are easier said than done and the intervening period may well be difficult but at least then we would have a true independent nation...not one hobbled by membership of the EU, with the queen of England as our head of state and being a significantly junior member of a currency zone.

I'm not yet convinced as to what Devo Max would not bring compared to this watered down version of independence that is being proposed...in fact the more I look at it the less I see any distinction between the two.

[marinello59]

At last, a decent piece of journalism amongst all the pish that has been said and written by MSM in the last couple of days.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/osbornes-threat-shows-independence-is-viable.20893521

Yet another article proving that the Better Together campaign is wrong and an Independent Scotland would be viable. Which is great but all the major players already agree that Scotland could stand alone. Why on earth are the Yes campaign not moving the argument past the point of it being viable and making the case for it being desirable. It's no good telling everybody who is already going to vote for independence what they want to hear again and again and again. The don't knows have to be won over.


I'm not yet convinced as to what Devo Max would not bring compared to this watered down version of independence that is being proposed...in fact the more I look at it the less I see any distinction between the two.

I am struggling to see the difference as well. I can't be the only one who wants Independence but can't see just why keeping monetary Union with the rest of the UK truly gives us that. If the levers of monetary policy are going to remain down South then I would prefer to have a democratic say in who is operating them.

[J-C]

Yet another article proving that the Better Together campaign is wrong and an Independent Scotland would be viable. Which is great but all the major players already agree that Scotland could stand alone. Why on earth are the Yes campaign not moving the argument past the point of it being viable and making the case for it being desirable. It's no good telling everybody who is already going to vote for independence what they want to hear again and again and again. The don't knows have to be won over.



I am struggling to see the difference as well. I can't be the only one who wants Independence but can't see just why keeping monetary Union with the rest of the UK truly gives us that. If the levers of monetary policy are going to remain down South then I would prefer to have a democratic say in who is operating them.


They obviously want to keep a Scottish Pound fairly strong by linking it with the English one, a separate Scottish pound will more than likely be devalued.

[marinello59]

They obviously want to keep a Scottish Pound fairly strong by linking it with the English one, a separate Scottish pound will more than likely be devalued.

Are you arguing for or against independence here?:greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

They obviously want to keep a Scottish Pound fairly strong by linking it with the English one, a separate Scottish pound will more than likely be devalued.

It's actually quite likely to be the other way round. With a separate Scottish pound backed by a large oil reserve, the challenge might be keeping it at a low enough value not to hurt the country's exports.

[J-C]

Are you arguing for or against independence here?:greengrin

I'm for but remember wee Eck is a very clever ex banker, he'll want the Scottish pound to be as strong as possible, remember we have hundreds of companies all linked up with English and indeed world wide industries.

[J-C]

It's actually quite likely to be the other way round. With a separate Scottish pound backed by a large oil reserve, the challenge might be keeping it at a low enough value not to hurt the country's exports.

You may be right, I'm no ecconomist obviously. :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not yet convinced as to what Devo Max would not bring compared to this watered down version of independence that is being proposed...in fact the more I look at it the less I see any distinction between the two.

Not on offer, nor likely to be ... and you can bet your bottom (petro)dollar that any proposal that emerges for Devo plus will stop well short of oil and gas revenue.

[JeMeSouviens]

I am struggling to see the difference as well. I can't be the only one who wants Independence but can't see just why keeping monetary Union with the rest of the UK truly gives us that. If the levers of monetary policy are going to remain down South then I would prefer to have a democratic say in who is operating them.

You're quite likely to be the only one that "wants independence" but spends as much time arguing against it. :wink:

I think it's quite likely that whatever Osborne says now, the remaining UK would be open to negotiation on the subject of a monetary union. Although Scotland is relatively small, we'd be a significant trading partner, with our exports of oil&gas and whisky we'd be very helpful to the sterling zone's balance of payments and as has been pointed out, there is actually nothing they can do to stop Scotland using sterling. While it's true that denying us a say would leave us with no control of monetary policy, it's in their interest for us to agree fiscal policy at least within certain parameters. If you assume a sterling zone is mutually beneficial, then it's reasonable to suggest that such a negotiation would see Scotland given input, ie. you'd get your democratic say. You'd also have a democratic say in whether this currency position was maintained in future, or Scotland had its own currency or we joined the Euro. That's the beauty of independence, we get to decide things! Marvellous. :greengrin

So, it's the usual problem with the "debate". The SNP has a thoughtful, reasoned policy. You might not agree with it, but it seems to me to be reasonably pragmatic. However, can they guarantee on their own that it could be implemented? No, they can't. Is the Unionist side willing to engage seriously, work out what the best scenario for both countries following a Yes vote is and give the voters the most honest assessment of how that would work and the differences to present conditions so they can make as well informed a decision as possible? No ****** chance. :rolleyes:

[hibs0666]

You're quite likely to be the only one that "wants independence" but spends as much time arguing against it. :wink:

I think it's quite likely that whatever Osborne says now, the remaining UK would be open to negotiation on the subject of a monetary union. Although Scotland is relatively small, we'd be a significant trading partner, with our exports of oil&gas and whisky we'd be very helpful to the sterling zone's balance of payments and as has been pointed out, there is actually nothing they can do to stop Scotland using sterling. While it's true that denying us a say would leave us with no control of monetary policy, it's in their interest for us to agree fiscal policy at least within certain parameters. If you assume a sterling zone is mutually beneficial, then it's reasonable to suggest that such a negotiation would see Scotland given input, ie. you'd get your democratic say. You'd also have a democratic say in whether this currency position was maintained in future, or Scotland had its own currency or we joined the Euro. That's the beauty of independence, we get to decide things! Marvellous. :greengrin

So, it's the usual problem with the "debate". The SNP has a thoughtful, reasoned policy. You might not agree with it, but it seems to me to be reasonably pragmatic. However, can they guarantee on their own that it could be implemented? No, they can't. Is the Unionist side willing to engage seriously, work out what the best scenario for both countries following a Yes vote is and give the voters the most honest assessment of how that would work and the differences to present conditions so they can make as well informed a decision as possible? No ****** chance. :rolleyes:

I can't see why you would argue the SNP monetarey policy is thoughtful and reasoned. After all it wasn't so long ago that the SNP advocated the Euro as it's currency of choice, but that went a bit Pete Tong. You have to wonder under what conditions SNP monetary policy will again change.

I still do not understand why a party of independence wishes to remain so tightly integrated with the UK. The answer is probably dead simple - the current situation isn't actually all that bad.

[Beefster]

So, it's the usual problem with the "debate". The SNP has a thoughtful, reasoned policy. You might not agree with it, but it seems to me to be reasonably pragmatic. However, can they guarantee on their own that it could be implemented? No, they can't. Is the Unionist side willing to engage seriously, work out what the best scenario for both countries following a Yes vote is and give the voters the most honest assessment of how that would work and the differences to present conditions so they can make as well informed a decision as possible? No ****** chance. :rolleyes:

Just stating your 'ideal scenario' and refusing to discuss alternatives isn't particularly thoughtful or reasoned IMHO. It's what my five year old does.

[marinello59]

You're quite likely to be the only one that "wants independence" but spends as much time arguing against it. :wink:

I think it's quite likely that whatever Osborne says now, the remaining UK would be open to negotiation on the subject of a monetary union. Although Scotland is relatively small, we'd be a significant trading partner, with our exports of oil&gas and whisky we'd be very helpful to the sterling zone's balance of payments and as has been pointed out, there is actually nothing they can do to stop Scotland using sterling. While it's true that denying us a say would leave us with no control of monetary policy, it's in their interest for us to agree fiscal policy at least within certain parameters. If you assume a sterling zone is mutually beneficial, then it's reasonable to suggest that such a negotiation would see Scotland given input, ie. you'd get your democratic say. You'd also have a democratic say in whether this currency position was maintained in future, or Scotland had its own currency or we joined the Euro. That's the beauty of independence, we get to decide things! Marvellous. :greengrin

So, it's the usual problem with the "debate". The SNP has a thoughtful, reasoned policy. You might not agree with it, but it seems to me to be reasonably pragmatic. However, can they guarantee on their own that it could be implemented? No, they can't. Is the Unionist side willing to engage seriously, work out what the best scenario for both countries following a Yes vote is and give the voters the most honest assessment of how that would work and the differences to present conditions so they can make as well informed a decision as possible? No ****** chance. :rolleyes:


I think your last comment applies to politicians on both sides of the argument doesn't it? Neither side is covering itself in glory.

[JeMeSouviens]

I can't see why you would argue the SNP monetarey policy is thoughtful and reasoned. After all it wasn't so long ago that the SNP advocated the Euro as it's currency of choice, but that went a bit Pete Tong. You have to wonder under what conditions SNP monetary policy will again change.


As did the Blairite half of the Labour party, the Lib Dems and a smattering of pro-European Tories (an endangered species now). Things change.

These guys:

Crawford Beveridge, Professor Andrew Hughes-Hallett, Professor Frances Ruane, Professor Sir James Mirrlees and Professor Joseph Stiglitz (the last 2 are Nobel prize winning economists, btw).

Have produced a report: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/02/3017/0

but if you think they're all thickies ...



I still do not understand why a party of independence wishes to remain so tightly integrated with the UK. The answer is probably dead simple - the current situation isn't actually all that bad.

There is a world of difference between a sovereign government entering into mutually beneficial arrangements with its neighbours and the current very heavily centralised UK.

I think you're right that the current situation isn't bad enough to overcome the better-the-devil-you-know factor.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think your last comment applies to politicians on both sides of the argument doesn't it? Neither side is covering itself in glory.

To some extent, yes. However, we all know what the framework of the UK looks like, therefore if you want to know how things would work after a No vote, you just need to look around. It seems to me that what people want to know is how things would work after a Yes vote. The SNP is putting forward a number of propositions: membership of the EU and NATO, a sterling zone with the remainder UK, etc. We cannot have a reasonable debate about the merits of any of these things if the Unionist side won't even concede that the most basic of them are not a problem.

I caught a small burst of House of Commons question time today where an English backbencher asked a Scottish Office minister (Mundell) whether his constituents should be concerned about trade barriers and freedom of movement following a Yes vote. The honest answer would clearly be, "no, don't be so ****** ridiculous, have you crossed a European border in the last 10 years?" The answer given was some mealy mouthed pish about why that might be the case and they should encourage any family they might have in Scotland to vote No.

[Just Alf]

Enjoying this thread :-)

On the European issue
I met a cousin at Christmas who works in the European Parliment ( just a clerk or something nowt interesting) but he's adamant that Scotland would be seen favourably in any discussions re entry into the union... If needed, .... there's a school of thought that as we are already members as one of the "kingdoms" of the UK then we'd remain members post independence.
Key though is that we are seen as net contributors to the UK as a whole (we give approx 2-3% more than we get back over a basket of economic measures apparently) and it makes sense from a European perspective to have as many countries that are not net "takers" in the common market as possible. On his speciality, fishing, he thinks it would be unthinkable if the French and Spanish fishing fleets were suddenly denied access to their, currently, main fishing grounds if no agreements were in place between an independent Scotland and the common market.

On phone so getting tired typing!

But

On the common Sterling argument, currently Scotland has no way to put any pressure on our Central bank, post independence we will own 9-10% of the Bank of England and any national reserves (and if the UK gov agrees to that we'll also pick up the equivalent amount of debt). I know 10% isn't great but it's still more than just now?

[Just Alf]

Just to be clear, cousin's views are what the "proles" think will happen in Strasbourg, of course the politico's might have different ideas and, for example, be willing to have a confrontation with the French and Spanish fishermen over it.

[hibs0666]

The Unionist camp has been pretty clever (aided by a compliant Scottish media which is either rabidly pro-Union like The Scotsman or theoretically neutral but "knows where's its bread's buttered" like the BBC) by tying up the debate with irrelevant straw men thus stopping them having to debate any of the actual issues at all.

No serious commentator thinks there is even the remotest possibility that the EU would deny Scotland membership and frankly they'd have to be absolutely barking to even consider it, but a significant body of public opinion in Scotland now believes this could happen. The SNP's only way to end this strand of "debate" would be to get a cast iron guarantee from the EU which of course, they can't.

There is no way for the EU to compel a new member state to join the Euro (despite the theoretical treaty obligation). Sweden has been in this position since 1995. Have you ever heard that mentioned in the "debate"?

I don't believe it is a question of whether or not Scotland would become an EU member, the more relevant question IMHO is when. As poer normal the SNP paints the rosy picture in that EU membership would be automatic. Clearly, no agreement is in place and therefore such statements are arrant nonsense.

What then could the real outcome be? If we look at the list of candidate countries then we see that:


Croatia: applied for EU membership in 2003 and was in negotiations from 2005 until 2011
Iceland: accession negotiations underway since July 2010
Montenegro: applied for membership in 2008 with negotiations starting in 2012
Montenegro: applied for membership in 2009
Macedonia: applied for membership in 2004 with an agreement in 2009 that accession negotiations could start
Turkey: has been in negotiation since 2005
Albania: granted EU candidate status in 2012.


Why on earth would we want to get caught up in all that bureaucratic nonsense when we already benefit from full EU membership?

Also, I think it's important that we anchor the debate with some basic facts about the Scottish economy. From the 2012 GERS report:

In 2011-12, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £46.3 billion, (8.2% of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £47.2 billion (8.2% of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £56.9 billion (9.9% of UK total public sector revenue).

In 2011-12, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other parts of the public sector, plus a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £64.5 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.

In 2011-12, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.0 billion (11.2% of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £13.0 billion (10.2% of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £3.4 billion (2.3% of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.

In 2011-12, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, of £92.3 billion (6.0% of GDP).

In 2011-12, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £18.2 billion (14.6% of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £17.2 billion (13.5% of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £7.6 billion (5.0% of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

In 2011-12, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £121.0 billion (or 7.9% of GDP).

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't believe it is a question of whether or not Scotland would become an EU member, the more relevant question IMHO is when. As poer normal the SNP paints the rosy picture in that EU membership would be automatic. Clearly, no agreement is in place and therefore such statements are arrant nonsense.

What then could the real outcome be? If we look at the list of candidate countries then we see that:


Croatia: applied for EU membership in 2003 and was in negotiations from 2005 until 2011
Iceland: accession negotiations underway since July 2010
Montenegro: applied for membership in 2008 with negotiations starting in 2012
Montenegro: applied for membership in 2009
Macedonia: applied for membership in 2004 with an agreement in 2009 that accession negotiations could start
Turkey: has been in negotiation since 2005
Albania: granted EU candidate status in 2012.


Why on earth would we want to get caught up in all that bureaucratic nonsense when we already benefit from full EU membership?


This is exactly the sort of scaremongering drivel I was referring to above. Scotland is, via the UK, already a member, therefore by definition we meet all the membership requirements including the difficult ones like incorporating EU law into our domestic law. There is nothing substantive blocking our way. Comparing us to Turkey is just ****** stupid.

You think the EU wants to risk putting North sea energy outside its border, or telling the French and Spanish fishing fleets they'll have to go somewhere else?

Even if (and it's far from a given) we are required to apply as a new country, the negotiation would be unprecedentedly short. The remainder UK will also have to renegotiate its number of MEPs, representation on the EU commission etc.

As to why we would want to, isn't it obvious? To have our own voice at the top table. I'd rather have a small voice than no voice.



Also, I think it's important that we anchor the debate with some basic facts about the Scottish economy. From the 2012 GERS report:


I agree, so let's pull out the bottom line (the one including a geographical share of N Sea Oil unless you think decades of precedent in international law is suddenly about to be overturned at David Cameron's behest. :wink:




total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £56.9 billion (9.9% of UK total public sector revenue).

total public sector expenditure was £64.5 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.

the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £3.4 billion (2.3% of GDP)

the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit of £92.3 billion (6.0% of GDP).


Scotland's current budget deficit, proportionally less than half of the UK as a whole.




Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £7.6 billion (5.0% of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

the equivalent UK position was a deficit of £121.0 billion (or 7.9% of GDP)

Scotland's net fiscal balance, proportionally less than 2/3 of the UK as a whole.


So we would be in a significantly better financial position than the UK as a whole. However, we would be wise to acknowledge that this happy position is largely thanks to our good fortune in natural resources so we'd better get our act together in the next few decades.

Or ... we could continue as a stagnating part of a decaying power who's government is overwhelmingly concentrated and focused on a city 400 miles away. The geopolitical Bobby Williamson option. :rolleyes:

[hibs0666]

This is exactly the sort of scaremongering drivel I was referring to above. Scotland is, via the UK, already a member, therefore by definition we meet all the membership requirements including the difficult ones like incorporating EU law into our domestic law. There is nothing substantive blocking our way. Comparing us to Turkey is just ****** stupid.

Can you point me to the EU document that accepts that Scotland, as an independent nation, meets all the various requirements of EU membership? Can you point me to the EU document that says that an independent Scottish country will automatically assume EU membership?

These are simple enough questions, but the answers I believe are far more difficult as I believe that such documents do not exist. If I am right then surely you must accept that it is arrant nonsense to be able to claim an optimistic, very smooth, path to EU membership?

I'll put it another way. If Scotland votes for independence in 2014, when do you believe that Scotland would become an EU member? Do you also believe that membership will be achieved without adopting the Euro?

[JeMeSouviens]

Can you point me to the EU document that accepts that Scotland, as an independent nation, meets all the various requirements of EU membership? Can you point me to the EU document that says that an independent Scottish country will automatically assume EU membership?


No, in exactly the same way as you can't point me to any documentation that says we wouldn't. Surely it's arrant nonsense to claim that the EU would adopt a position contrary to its own best interest?



These are simple enough questions, but the answers I believe are far more difficult as I believe that such documents do not exist. If I am right then surely you must accept that it is arrant nonsense to be able to claim an optimistic, very smooth, path to EU membership?

I'll put it another way. If Scotland votes for independence in 2014, when do you believe that Scotland would become an EU member? Do you also believe that membership will be achieved without adopting the Euro?

I very firmly believe Scotland would be an EU member on the same day independence took effect with no gap. I also believe that, worst case, Scotland can choose to stay outside the Eurozone (while theoretically being committed to join at an unspecfied future date) in exactly the same was as Sweden has done since 1995. Best case we are allowed to inherit the UK's opt out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/20/scotlands-eu-bombshell-bunkum-barroso

This bit of that article is key:



The commission, I was told, "will only be able to express its opinion on the legal consequences under EU law of a specific situation upon request from a member state detailing a precise scenario".


In other words, the UK government (ie. the NO campaign) could request clarification from the EU commission and clear the issue up, thus allowing the Scottish electorate the clearest picture of the facts.

Why haven't they sought this clarification?

Why do they (you) prefer to create a picture of uncertainty and doubt?

[hibs0666]

No, in exactly the same way as you can't point me to any documentation that says we wouldn't. Surely it's arrant nonsense to claim that the EU would adopt a position contrary to its own best interest?

I very firmly believe Scotland would be an EU member on the same day independence took effect with no gap. I also believe that, worst case, Scotland can choose to stay outside the Eurozone (while theoretically being committed to join at an unspecfied future date) in exactly the same was as Sweden has done since 1995. Best case we are allowed to inherit the UK's opt out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/20/scotlands-eu-bombshell-bunkum-barroso

This bit of that article is key:



In other words, the UK government (ie. the NO campaign) could request clarification from the EU commission and clear the issue up, thus allowing the Scottish electorate the clearest picture of the facts.

Why haven't they sought this clarification?

Why do they (you) prefer to create a picture of uncertainty and doubt?

Every country that has an interest in joining the EU has to go through some sort of process to get there - it doesn't happen by magic. Yet, somehow or other, Scotland will avoid any membership queue, avoid any pesky checks or due diligence, all existing agreements will simply be nodded through and Scotland will miraculously become an EU member in its own right the moment that independence is announced. The Scottish parliament might not even have to vote on it! Scotland won't even need to worry itself over the single currency! And this will all be sorted out before the country even exists as an independent state! Brilliant!

I might buy your argument if there was some sort of precedence that had been set - can you point to any such evidence? Have the Basques or Catalans been given any assurances should they leave Spain? How's about the Wallons should they decide to go their own way?

But I think I already know the answer. An independent Scottish situation will see the EU entering uncharted waters and a whole rake of international lawyers are going to make a fortune. Your rosy, optimistic view may come to pass. The yams could go on to win the Champions League too. :wink:

The bit I like best though is that we are going go to open ourselves up to this upheaval, not to get to some European nirvana, but to get to exactly the same situation as we have today. Utterly laughable.

[JeMeSouviens]

Every country that has an interest in joining the EU has to go through some sort of process to get there - it doesn't happen by magic. Yet, somehow or other, Scotland will avoid any membership queue, avoid any pesky checks or due diligence, all existing agreements will simply be nodded through and Scotland will miraculously become an EU member in its own right the moment that independence is announced. The Scottish parliament might not even have to vote on it! Scotland won't even need to worry itself over the single currency! And this will all be sorted out before the country even exists as an independent state! Brilliant!

I might buy your argument if there was some sort of precedence that had been set - can you point to any such evidence? Have the Basques or Catalans been given any assurances should they leave Spain? How's about the Wallons should they decide to go their own way?

But I think I already know the answer. An independent Scottish situation will see the EU entering uncharted waters and a whole rake of international lawyers are going to make a fortune. Your rosy, optimistic view may come to pass. The yams could go on to win the Champions League too. :wink:

The bit I like best though is that we are going go to open ourselves up to this upheaval, not to get to some European nirvana, but to get to exactly the same situation as we have today. Utterly laughable.


I know you're not stupid, so must assume the above is for propaganda purposes. An independent Scotland would want to join the EU, the EU would want an independent Scotland to join (even the most rabid pro-Union propagandists concede that). We already meet all the membership criteria. What exactly are this mythical rake of international lawyers going to do?

The rosy optimistic view is that 2 bodies that want the same thing will not invent some spurious reasons to stand in the way of it happening. Why do you think otherwise?

Instead of attempting to make a meal out of a straightforward matter of process, why don't you present some arguments about why Scotland is better off being represented by the UK rather than directly? Or do you think Scotland isn't better off but should stick with the rest of the UK out of loyalty?

Given a conflict of interest between what's best for Scotland and what's best for the rest of the UK, why wouldn't you want the Scottish position to be presented? Is it just a price worth paying because you believe Westminster government is inherently more competent?

I struggle to see the downside to having direct representation at the EU level?

[hibs0666]

I know you're not stupid, so must assume the above is for propaganda purposes. An independent Scotland would want to join the EU, the EU would want an independent Scotland to join (even the most rabid pro-Union propagandists concede that). We already meet all the membership criteria. What exactly are this mythical rake of international lawyers going to do?

Course I'm stupid - biggest word I know is margarine. :wink:

Of course an independent Scotland will want to join the EU. That's great cos we've already got that tick in the box as part of the union. Europe may or may not give a damn about Scotland in the same way as it may or may not give a damn about Norway. Let's be absolutely clear on how big a deal Scotland is to Europe. EU GDP is somewhere around £10,500 billion give or take a few hundred billion. Of that total Scotland accounts for around 1.5% so let's not get over-excited about our importance to the European project.


The rosy optimistic view is that 2 bodies that want the same thing will not invent some spurious reasons to stand in the way of it happening. Why do you think otherwise?

The EU seems to be pretty content with the status quo arrangement as far as I can see.


Instead of attempting to make a meal out of a straightforward matter of process, why don't you present some arguments about why Scotland is better off being represented by the UK rather than directly? Or do you think Scotland isn't better off but should stick with the rest of the UK out of loyalty?

We are represented at the European table together with 55-odd million inhabitants of this island that are culturally and emotionally extremely close to ourselves. Would I rather be in that position than one in which I am a single voice seeking to make new strategic alliances on important issues that arise? You bet I do.


Given a conflict of interest between what's best for Scotland and what's best for the rest of the UK, why wouldn't you want the Scottish position to be presented? Is it just a price worth paying because you believe Westminster government is inherently more competent?

I struggle to see the downside to having direct representation at the EU level?

Scotland's position on any such conflict of interest is represented through our own parliament and through our representations at the UK and European parliaments. If I want more powers then there are perfectly acceptable mechanisms within the UK to allow that to happen (e.g. a Devo Max-type arrangement).

As a member of the UK we gain privileged access to the world's largest markets (e.g. the Group of Five nations). Why on on earth would I want to give stuff like that away?

[JeMeSouviens]

Course I'm stupid - biggest word I know is margarine. :wink:

Of course an independent Scotland will want to join the EU. That's great cos we've already got that tick in the box as part of the union. Europe may or may not give a damn about Scotland in the same way as it may or may not give a damn about Norway. Let's be absolutely clear on how big a deal Scotland is to Europe. EU GDP is somewhere around £10,500 billion give or take a few hundred billion. Of that total Scotland accounts for around 1.5% so let's not get over-excited about our importance to the European project.


Oil, gas, fish, renewable energy. All worth keeping.



The EU seems to be pretty content with the status quo arrangement as far as I can see.


I'm sure they are but we're talking post a yes vote. They would far rather keep us than cast us out.

Here's an interesting interview with a former UK minister:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21525120


On the issue of an independent Scotland's place in Europe, Mr Malloch-Brown said: "My own guess is that, whatever the legal formalities in terms of the political will, if Scotland were to vote for independence, I think Europe would try to smooth its way into taking its place as a European member."
(my emphasis)



We are represented at the European table together with 55-odd million inhabitants of this island that are culturally and emotionally extremely close to ourselves. Would I rather be in that position than one in which I am a single voice seeking to make new strategic alliances on important issues that arise? You bet I do.


Well, if the 55 million are that close to us, surely we can start an alliance with them, maybe 2 voices would carry more weight? Are they any closer to us culturally or emotionally (I'm welling up here :wink:) than the Irish?



Scotland's position on any such conflict of interest is represented through our own parliament and through our representations at the UK and European parliaments. If I want more powers then there are perfectly acceptable mechanisms within the UK to allow that to happen (e.g. a Devo Max-type arrangement).


Really? How do you propose to deliver a Devo Max arrangement? It's not in anybody's manifesto. It's not even been proposed by any significant Unionist figure. Nearest you'll get is the heavily diluted Devo plus of some Lib Dems, and that's just an airy fairy think tank proposal. There are no further devolution proposals from any UK party, only non-specific rhetoric a la 1979.



As a member of the UK we gain privileged access to the world's largest markets (e.g. the Group of Five nations). Why on on earth would I want to give stuff like that away?

You want to stay in the UK because of rugby! :confused: I take it all back, you are stupid. :wink:

btw, we have no privileged access to any non-EU markets in the G8 (assuming you were 3 short), the trade position would be unchanged.

[heretoday]

We'd better join the EU in case they have to bail us out in a few years time.

[Beefster]

We'd better join the EU in case they have to bail us out in a few years time.

I'd imagine that we'd have to be in the Euro for that to happen.

[heretoday]

I'd imagine that we'd have to be in the Euro for that to happen.

Yeah well obviously. But there's no guarantee we'll be allowed into the EU to begin with, is there?

[Hibrandenburg]

Yeah well obviously. But there's no guarantee we'll be allowed into the EU to begin with, is there?

No, but there's no guarantee that the UK will be in Europe either.
In addition I can't see why an independent Scotland should be thrown out of Europe in the first place, we're already members.

[heretoday]

No, but there's no guarantee that the UK will be in Europe either.
In addition I can't see why an independent Scotland should be thrown out of Europe in the first place, we're already members.

But as a newly constituted nation, wouldn't we have to apply freshly to join?

I'm sure this has been well argued before. My memory fails me.

[Hibrandenburg]

Think if the EU can admit the former East Germany in a blink of the eye after reunification then there's no reason why they should throw out a member state after separation. Just because a country has a change of government is no reason to toss them out, it happens in most member states every 4-5 years.

[clerriehibs]

But as a newly constituted nation, wouldn't we have to apply freshly to join?

I'm sure this has been well argued before. My memory fails me.

We're not newly constituted ... we've been kicking around for quite a few centuries, now.

As there'd be no "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" ... wouldn't England etc be in exactly the same position as Scotland with regard to the EU?

[heretoday]

Think if the EU can admit the former East Germany in a blink of the eye after reunification then there's no reason why they should throw out a member state after separation. Just because a country has a change of government is no reason to toss them out, it happens in most member states every 4-5 years.

The point is that Scotland would be a completely new state. Completely new.

[lord bunberry]

The point is that Scotland would be a completely new state. Completely new.

We may be a completely new state but we are already eu citizens so the question is does the eu have the right to take that away from us. As part of the uk we have been contributing to the eu financially since it's inception. As far as I'm aware no country has ever had eu citizenship taken away.
The rhing that annoys me about this whole eu debate is it's something that should have been clarified years ago

[Hibrandenburg]

The point is that Scotland would be a completely new state. Completely new.

As was Germany!

[PeeJay]

We may be a completely new state but we are already eu citizens so the question is does the eu have the right to take that away from us. As part of the uk we have been contributing to the eu financially since it's inception. As far as I'm aware no country has ever had eu citizenship taken away.
The rhing that annoys me about this whole eu debate is it's something that should have been clarified years ago

Some interesting points raised about a future independent Scotland role in the EU - if as some say Scotland should remain a member, as it already is - which signed contractual agreements/treaties would be the reference points upon which future or continuing membership would/should be based? Scotland joined as a member of the UK - the wording referred to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland. Obviously Scotland is included, but if we leave that UK? How does that treaty still apply to us? How could Scotland argue its case regarding its own terms of membership of the EU if it cannot actually find any evidence of such membership having been granted to specifically to Scotland? What would such negotiations then be based on? Should it not be the case that Scotland will have to have its own independent membership of the EU negotiated and then recorded in a separate written document for Scotland? http://www.eurotreaties.com/eurotexts.html#ukaccession

[lord bunberry]

Some interesting points raised about a future independent Scotland role in the EU - if as some say Scotland should remain a member, as it already is - which signed contractual agreements/treaties would be the reference points upon which future or continuing membership would/should be based? Scotland joined as a member of the UK - the wording referred to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland. Obviously Scotland is included, but if we leave that UK? How does that treaty still apply to us? How could Scotland argue its case regarding its own terms of membership of the EU if it cannot actually find any evidence of such membership having been granted to specifically to Scotland? What would such negotiations then be based on? Should it not be the case that Scotland will have to have its own independent membership of the EU negotiated and then recorded in a separate written document for Scotland? http://www.eurotreaties.com/eurotexts.html#ukaccession

If Scotland does gain independence then there would need to be negotiations with the the eu for the rest of the UK as obviously the terms of the UK membership would have to change.
I just can't see what the eu would have to gain by denying an independent scotland entry, things like oil and fishing would mean they would be under pressure from the likes of france spain and portugal to bring any negotiations to a swift conclusion.
As for existing european treatys we would be comitted to everything that the uk is already committed to.
All of this is of course conjecture on my part and that's part of the problem, the eu obviously doesn't want to say anything that might influence the result, which leaves us all guessing

[RyeSloan]

Which Mr Bunberry is the point! Neither the Yes or No camps can say with certainty what would happen.

[Just Alf]

Assuming the European Community decides not to shoot itself in the foot by throwing out a chunk of it's citizens for exercising democratic choice (one of the key elements in the Copenhagen treaty that is a prerequisite for membership in the 1st place!)

And are happy to loose access to the Scottish element of the "net adds" the UK brought into the EEC for the common agricultural policy, remember we as the UK, were vetoed by France the 1st time around (too close ties to the US) and it was this element that got us over the line at the 2nd attempt.

And on top of that the sudden unpicking of trade agreements... As UK is a main Customer of Scottish goods and services, the reverse is also true.

Then there is going to be a push to have an independent Scotland as part of the EU to maintain the status quo.

The shortest entry timescales to date belong to Finland who took a little under 3 years from a standing start, as Scotland already meets all the Copenhagen treaty criteria I'd be stunned if we had to go through the full process that it would take as long as that!

[JeMeSouviens]

Which Mr Bunberry is the point! Neither the Yes or No camps can say with certainty what would happen.

The No camp could. The UK government can seek clarification from the EU Commission. For tactical reasons, they prefer confusion and doubt.

[marinello59]

The No camp could. The UK government can seek clarification from the EU Commission. For tactical reasons, they prefer confusion and doubt.

The Scottish Government could seek clarification as well. Didn't they do this already?

There is no doubt at all that an Independent Scotland will be admitted to the EU. As Nicola Sturgeon says it will involve negotiation and we can't expect it to be 100% on our terms. Membership of the Euro will no doubt be pressed for heavily by the existing members.
Spain and others may well make things difficult initially as they will not want to give their own regions pushing for Independence the message that its simply a case of signing up the next day.

[Just Alf]

The Scottish Government could seek clarification as well. Didn't they do this already?



The Scottish government did, the EU declined to answer, the feed back was that the question could only be answered if the question came from an official source in the UK Government. To date they have not asked.

[marinello59]

The Scottish government did, the EU declined to answer, the feed back was that the question could only be answered if the question came from an official source in the UK Government. To date they have not asked.

Sorry I misunderstood. The EU did not say they would give a definitive answer, what they said was they would offer an opinion. The legal experts seem to be split on just what would happen so no doubt any opinion they offered would reflect that.
It will come down to negotiations but they can only be commenced after we have voted. I would assume that behind the scenes plans are already in place for them if Scotland votes Yes. Or they should be.

[Mibbes Aye]

It seems there is consensus that an independent Scotland would join the EU, regardless of posters' party affiliations. The only differences relate to how easy that process would be.

Personally, I think an independent Scotland should be in the EU, as do the vast majority on here by the sounds of it.

Interestingly however, the polling doesn't reflect that nationally, with the proportion who would wish an independent Scotland to remain in the EU not much higher than the proportion who would wish the UK to remain in. While there is a majority in favour it doesn't look exactly rock-solid and it's easy to imagine it diminishing in response to a more insular attitude as the economic troubles in the Eurozone don't improve.

Most interestingly, far more non-Scots living in Scotland would want to be part of the EU than Scots-born would.

[JeMeSouviens]

Sorry I misunderstood. The EU did not say they would give a definitive answer, what they said was they would offer an opinion. The legal experts seem to be split on just what would happen so no doubt any opinion they offered would reflect that.
It will come down to negotiations but they can only be commenced after we have voted. I would assume that behind the scenes plans are already in place for them if Scotland votes Yes. Or they should be.

The EU said they could only give a definitive answer to a question set out in precise terms by an existing member state. So it would have to come from London.

[marinello59]

The EU said they could only give a definitive answer to a question set out in precise terms by an existing member state. So it would have to come from London.

Did they actually offer to give a definitive answer? My understanding was that they would offer an opinion on the legal ins and outs if asked. With the experts apparently at loggerheads over whether or not EU membership will be automatic I wonder if they could give a definitive answer at this stage.
And does it really matter? Whatever happens we will have some hard bargaining ahead of us and concessions will have to be made. To pretend otherwise would be foolish.
Of course we have to vote Yes first. :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Did they actually offer to give a definitive answer? My understanding was that they would offer an opinion on the legal ins and outs if asked. With the experts apparently at loggerheads over whether or not EU membership will be automatic I wonder if they could give a definitive answer at this stage.
And does it really matter? Whatever happens we will have some hard bargaining ahead of us and concessions will have to be made. To pretend otherwise would be foolish.
Of course we have to vote Yes first. :greengrin

Ok, definitive might be overstating it.

I agree on your other points. However, the No side have managed to create the impression that EU membership would be unlikely or we might just scrape in if we're lucky. The No campaign is playing the role of an estimating plumber, sucking the air through their teeth. To be fair, that's probably an excellent political tactic if you want a badly informed public to vote the way you want.

btw, I'm not for a minute suggesting the SNP isn't chock full of exactly the same type of political operators who would use similar tactics if it suited them, but it's tremendously frustrating that we're having such a non-debate "debate".

[marinello59]

Ok, definitive might be overstating it.

I agree on your other points. However, the No side have managed to create the impression that EU membership would be unlikely or we might just scrape in if we're lucky. The No campaign is playing the role of an estimating plumber, sucking the air through their teeth. To be fair, that's probably an excellent political tactic if you want a badly informed public to vote the way you want.

btw, I'm not for a minute suggesting the SNP isn't chock full of exactly the same type of political operators who would use similar tactics if it suited them, but it's tremendously frustrating that we're having such a non-debate "debate".

I agree with virtually all of that apart from the part in bold. The No side have tried to create the impression that EU membership will be unlikely. I don't think they are fooling many with that. Both sides seem to be underestimating the ability of the Scottish electorate to see through all the bull.

[JeMeSouviens]

I agree with virtually all of that apart from the part in bold. The No side have tried to create the impression that EU membership will be unlikely. I don't think they are fooling many with that. Both sides seem to be underestimating the ability of the Scottish electorate to see through all the bull.

I hope you're right. Not so sure given the last couple of pages of this thread.

[Just Alf]

Some interesting points.... And your both right in a way, from my perspective at least :-)

Interestingly my cuz says that "on the ground" ..... i.e. the workers in the EU parliament, not the politicians, see it going a bit like

. Scotland goes independent
. By default of being a new entity, we drop out of the Eurozone
. The EU will, amongst all this happening, request the new Scottish gov to apply for membership
. Scotland already meets all key criteria, and the population are all ex EU citizens so the application will be fast tracked
. In the meantime Scotland will have a dispensation to act/deal with the rest of the union as if we were already members.

There was some discussion that the rest of the UK would fall out as well due to the fact that the original entry was the original UK as a whole, Stewart said most think that unlikely but there's still rumblings.

His view is the only block would come from a political perspective..... Spain has been mentioned but so much pressure would be applied on them that this is unlikely, as he keeps saying, the number one condition in being a member of the EU is to fully support (and champion) democracy.

Interesting times

[Hibrandenburg]

I hope you're right. Not so sure given the last couple of pages of this thread.

Wow, that makes you sound like a real condescending Tory.

[JeMeSouviens]

Wow, that makes you sound like a real condescending Tory.

Ouch. I get the condescending bit* but Tory :eek: , that's ****** well out of order. :bitchy:

(* It's not true, btw, I've had conversations with people a lot less stupid than me who think Scotland's EU membership is in serious doubt given a Yes vote. They're just not interested enough to not take the spin at face value.)

[Hibrandenburg]

UKIP's success widening the political gulf between Scotland and England? Further proof that both nations are incompatible politically.

[Beefster]

Another poor poll for the 'Yes' campaign. If things don't get closer, the 'No' campaign might struggle to get voters out come the referendum.

http://news.stv.tv/politics/224612-ipsos-mori-poll-shows-support-for-the-union-highest-in-two-years/