SNP claims over EU membership not so clear

[RagnarRocks]

It appears the SNPs claims about easy entry to the EU may not be so clear,here's a piece from the independent.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-alex-salmond-hid-legal-reality-of-an-independent-scotlands-eu-status-9026325.html

[orkneycadian]

If we were not going to be in the EU post independence, then the Yes vote would look a little more attractive.

[Mrs Bradey]

If we were not going to be in the EU post independence, then the Yes vote would look a little more attractive. I agree. why would a country, upon gaining independence from a union immediately join another? it appears the fishy friends are too frightened the walk the shady path alone and still need big sister to hold their hands!! why would anyone be surprised that they, again, misrepresent the truth!!

[Oddquine]

If we were not going to be in the EU post independence, then the Yes vote would look a little more attractive.

I'm not going to disagree with that opinion, you all know my view of the EU......however...at what stage are the Unionists going to accept that the reason we don't know what the EU situation is likely to be is because Westminster won't ask....and they are the only Government who can presently. Both sides can produce, as they have done, innumerable talking heads giving different scenarios......but they are all best guesstimates, depending on whether the spec frames are saltire or union jack coloured.

I, personally, would be more inclined to believe the opinions of those with no axe to grind......so I tend to discount those "experts" from UK Universities, and the likes of Spanish ministers and those from other countries with Independence movements. Seems to me, given that the exact same treaties, rules and regulations can be interpreted by both sides to suit their own agendas...then the only definitive ruling is the one from the EU.......and the only thing stopping that definite ruling is the refusal by the Westminster Government to ask for it! [evil]

Is it only me who thinks they won't ask because they think/know they won't like the answer? It seems to me, if Westminster knew their experts were correct.....they'd have been asking the EU for clarification of an Independent Scotland's position a long time ago...and the fact that they have not yet shot Salmond's claims down in flames with the definitive facts only they can find out.......is because they are feart to ask the EU what the facts actually are.(or have asked and aren't telling, because the reply doesn't fit their agenda!) :roll:

[wavy davy]

Is it only me who thinks they won't ask because they think/know they won't like the answer? It seems to me, if Westminster knew their experts were correct.....they'd have been asking the EU for clarification of an Independent Scotland's position a long time ago...and the fact that they have not yet shot Salmond's claims down in flames with the definitive facts only they can find out.......is because they are feart to ask the EU what the facts actually are.(or have asked and aren't telling, because the reply doesn't fit their agenda!) :roll:

Why would the Westminster Government clarify an independent Scotland's position - that's a matter of negotiation that only Wee Eck can do.

[RagnarRocks]

Why would the Westminster Government clarify an independent Scotland's position - that's a matter of negotiation that only Wee Eck can do.I thought Mr Van Rumpoy made it quite clear the other week when he said any new country that comes from an existing country has to re submit but maybe clear English isn't good enough.

[Mrs Bradey]

I'm not going to disagree with that opinion, you all know my view of the EU......however...at what stage are the Unionists going to accept that the reason we don't know what the EU situation is likely to be is because Westminster won't ask....and they are the only Government who can presently. Both sides can produce, as they have done, innumerable talking heads giving different scenarios......but they are all best guesstimates, depending on whether the spec frames are saltire or union : I'm sure that the present Scottish government could ask the question if they really wanted I think it is they that won't like the answer! why would Westminster care what the answer is as in their mind there will be NO independence. its all a waste of time. but is fun to debate, I think.

[orkneycadian]

Why would the Westminster Government clarify an independent Scotland's position - that's a matter of negotiation that only Wee Eck can do.

Exactly what I was thinking when reading Oddquines post before I got to this one. If Scotland want to go it alone, its going to have to get used to doing things itself. Not expecting someone else to do it for them. This process is already costing Westminster vast amounts of time and money, on a matter that they have had foisted upon them. Its not clear who is paying for all of this (I suspect its us taxpayers, and its not coming out of SNP party coffers) and how much time that should be getting spent on governing is being diverted onto the independence debate.

In my view, there should be a series of referenda.

The first one should have been to gauge public opinion on independence. Just a simple - "Do you think we should spend some time and money investigating what would be involved in becoming independent?" If the majortiy of the population agrred to that, then the next step would be find out all the pro's and con's and present them to the public in an unbiased manner - Not just painting a picture that there will be nothing but advantages. Even the most naive can see that in anything like this there will be good and bad.

The second referendum cuold be a "progress report" when all the easy information had been provided, but the nitty gritty of things like EU membership were unclear. It might even ask "If we did become independent, should we apply for membership to the EU?"

The third referendum could be the decider, by which time all the information was on the table, and the voters knew what they were voting for. By that stage, with 2 Yes results for the earlier referenda, we would know that the majority of the population were supportive of the time and money being spent on trying to get the information. If at stage 1, the majority voted No, then it would be a lot faster and cheaper way to come to a decision.

Some may say that in electing an SNP government, the electorate have already indicated their preference towards independence. I would dispute that, as voting in an MP is a lot more about what he or she will do for you over their term of election, rather than what their parties banner says.

[Alrock]

....as voting in an MP is a lot more about what he or she will do for you over their term of election, rather than what their parties banner says.

If only that were true, most MP's are either too scared to go against party lines or just don't care, as long as they get their pay & expenses that will do them.

[Oddquine]

I'm sure that the present Scottish government could ask the question if they really wanted I think it is they that won't like the answer! why would Westminster care what the answer is as in their mind there will be NO independence. its all a waste of time. but is fun to debate, I think.

But that's the problem...they can't..only the member country can.....the UK. To receive formal legal advice from Brussels individual Member States must apply to the EU Commission. Scotland cannot ask as it is not an individual member state.

I have to say I agree with your remark that the Westminster Government is not even considering there could be a YES vote...which, imo is a shade shortsighted. I'd be prepared to bet they haven't even thought about much more than what they are going to manage to take away from Scotland in the event of a NO vote.

You'd have thought they'd at least want to know the position in which the rUK would find itself if there was a Yes vote, considering that the terms of the UK accession in the 1970s would have changed with the loss of Scottish fishing waters at least, wouldn't you?

[ducati]

But that's the problem...they can't..only the member country can.....the UK. To receive formal legal advice from Brussels individual Member States must apply to the EU Commission. Scotland cannot ask as it is not an individual member state.

I have to say I agree with your remark that the Westminster Government is not even considering there could be a YES vote...which, imo is a shade shortsighted. I'd be prepared to bet they haven't even thought about much more than what they are going to manage to take away from Scotland in the event of a NO vote.

You'd have thought they'd at least want to know the position in which the rUK would find itself if there was a Yes vote, considering that the terms of the UK accession in the 1970s would have changed with the loss of Scottish fishing waters at least, wouldn't you?

I think the UK Gov have looked at the polls and decided they have better things to spend their time on. You know, stealing baby milk and such like.

[amm26]

An independent Scotland would almost certainly be accepted with open arms into the EU, however, this would be as a new member state. In order for them to become a continuing EU state would require the approval of all current member states, just one veto and it can't happen.Spain have already said no, as the want to clip the wings of the catalonians and Croatia have said no, as they went through years of negotiations only to be shafted by the EU and told this is our terms, accept it, so why would they allow the rules to change for someone else?The evidence is clear, that's why the UK gov aren't wasting their time or money on gathering information on the subject and unlike the SNP, they aren't just making up evidence and using taxpayers money to hide it!

[orkneycadian]

But that's the problem...they can't..only the member country can.....

So how do all the other new member states get in? Surely they must have stood up on their own 2 feet and said "Please mister, can we join your club?" or did they also have a bigger, nearby country as their mentor?

[RagnarRocks]

orkneycadian the EU is now the do as you're told club and you can join but don't worry if the worst should happen I'm sure they'll look favourably on the isles being independent :0))

[Oddquine]

So how do all the other new member states get in? Surely they must have stood up on their own 2 feet and said "Please mister, can we join your club?" or did they also have a bigger, nearby country as their mentor?

The new member states were not already in the EU...which Scotland is, as a country in the UK......so the new ones got their independence then joined. The situation re Scotland is uncharted waters for the EU. There is no precedent for the breakup of any existing EU member state and the continued membership of all or some of the new individual states....which would include the rUK......and which is why I thought that Westminster might have wanted to clarify its own position...but seemingly not if it would also clarify the position of Scotland.

[orkneycadian]

Ah, so if we vote for independence, we'll be the guinea pigs then.

[golach]

and which is why I thought that Westminster might have wanted to clarify its own position...but seemingly not if it would also clarify the position of Scotland. Why should Westminster do the work for you seperatists, you tell us, but our First Haggis cannot or will not.

[almo]

Why should Westminster do the work for you seperatists, you tell us, but our First Haggis cannot or will not.
As they are the representatives of Scotland in the EU they should raise the question! They should be acting in a neutral manner and not setting hurdles!

[RagnarRocks]

No ones making hurdles for Scotland's joining the EU should it become independent. As it currently stands the United Kingdom is a member of the EU ,should Scotland vote for independence it then becomes a new independent country no longer governed by rUK's parliament and is then in a position to join or leave any organisations it wishes,so long as it meets the requirements of membership this would include joining the EU as a new member state.
Its really quite simple no one is making life difficult for Scotland simply stating the realities of being an independent country.
It is not the job of the United Kingdoms current parliament to negotiate for a potentially new country.
Mr Barosso and Mr Van Rumpoy have both stated the position of the EU with regard to new countries that they have to meet the criteria set out for membership including using the Euro as its currency, and be accepted by the other members. This isn't just an issue that may affect Scotland but Catalonia if it goes independent as well.
NATO on the other hand is slightly different as the SNP claims to be strictly anti nuclear and NATO has a first strike mandate, as The SNP is anti nuclear and unlikely to condone a first strike stance its membership to NATO is very unlikely.

[almo]

The hurdle I refer to is the question on Scotland's situation can only be addressed official if the question is put by a current member state, until then all opinions are nothing more than individual's opinion. That's where the UK government should have acted to get that reply, so a fact could be put to the Electorate. It is not a simple case of a New application we all know how that works but is an new situation where an existing member splits into more than one country.
Not just Scotland is recognised as there are EU directives aimed at regions in Scotland as elsewhere. If England was looking to do the same thing you can bet your last Euro that David and Nick would have the question raised!
I know those against Independence are saying Scotland will be excluded from everything but why? It's just over the top with no foundation.
NATO may be an issue but Scotland does still have a central Geographic position so it's not all clear cut. If we are giving up nukes why not go the whole hog and become a Neutral country?
And before we go further I will be voting NO.

[RagnarRocks]

Its more a point of if a country cedes from the member state that in this case would be RUK the question has been asked and Holyrood has been given a fairly comphrensive answer. The question that should be asked is why is Mr Salmomd not being more forthright about the issue and telling the electorate what he has been told.

[Mrs Bradey]

Its more a point of if a country cedes from the member state that in this case would be RUK the question has been asked and Holyrood has been given a fairly comphrensive answer. The question that should be asked is why is Mr Salmomd not being more forthright about the issue and telling the electorate what he has been told.oooh oooh me me pick me pick me, I know this one................... is it because if the electorate were told, none would vote YES ? .......................Q. how much would it cost Scotland to join the eu ? and honestly what benefit would there be for Scotland in either joining the eu or gaining independence given the cost?

[tonkatojo]

oooh oooh me me pick me pick me, I know this one................... is it because if the electorate were told, none would vote YES ? .......................Q. how much would it cost Scotland to join the eu ? and honestly what benefit would there be for Scotland in either joining the eu or gaining independence given the cost?

The benefit would be as Ireland and a few more have had if things go wrong, other than that nowt just givme givme givme from Brussels.

[Big Gaz]

Have a look at this link on Latvia joining the Euro zone. A small independent country with a population of just 2mil and NO oil, whisky, tourism or tartan troosers, seem to be prosperous

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/latvia-caps-years-austerity-euro-zone-membership-003647361--business.html#fWX60wH

[Oddquine]

Its more a point of if a country cedes from the member state that in this case would be RUK the question has been asked and Holyrood has been given a fairly comphrensive answer. The question that should be asked is why is Mr Salmomd not being more forthright about the issue and telling the electorate what he has been told.

But will the rUK be the "continuing" member state, when that state is not the same as the one which joined....and is without a few of the benefits, like the Scottish Fishing Waters, which were offered to the EU on a silver salver as a sweetener to get acceptance after the veto in the 1960's? At the very least, the rUK will also have to negotiate their own position in the light of their reduction in available resources...they can't expect the same level of rebates, for example!

Which part of "the only entity which can get a definitive answer is Westminster" are you failing to grasp? And equally, why do you have difficulty accepting that everything we have heard on the situation from both sides to date, are the opinions of individuals, however highly placed in the EU hierarchy they are, or "committees" or "think tanks" or "academics"..and in every case, they are only as definitive as their interpretation of the EU directives etc (and their (political) bias) allow them to be. Mr Salmond is being as forthright as he can be given his advisers etc can only interpret the EU rules.....but Westminster doesn't have to rely on interpretation, as they are doing in order to up the fear factor.....because they, if they cared to, are able to ask the EU direct and oblige them to come up with certainty.....for both Scotland and rUK.

Now maybe I am more logical than most....or perhaps just more cynical....but if the question has been asked and answered....then it doesn't appear to suit either the rUK or Scotland...does it? Seems to me that if the response favoured the Westminster interpretation....it would be the headlines in the media for weeks and then mentioned daily somewhere until September 2014, rubbishing definitively the pro-Independence view (much as the fear factor interpretations are still being repeated almost daily any time independence is mentioned) and the fact that it isn't being proves definitively (IMO) that the question hasn't been asked. Does anyone really believe that if Westminster knew that Salmond was wrong..it wouldn't be being broadcast ad nauseam with much gloating?

[Mrs Bradey]

I think I pointed out sometime ago that the opinions expressed were just the personal views of individuals , at that time in favour of independence! maybe the gloating is being saved for greater effect! after all the key to comedy and politics is timing !!

[orkneycadian]

But will the rUK be the "continuing" member state, when that state is not the same as the one which joined....and is without a few of the benefits, like the Scottish Fishing Waters, which were offered to the EU on a silver salver as a sweetener to get acceptance after the veto in the 1960's? At the very least, the rUK will also have to negotiate their own position in the light of their reduction in available resources...they can't expect the same level of rebates, for example!

Which part of "the only entity which can get a definitive answer is Westminster" are you failing to grasp? And equally, why do you have difficulty accepting that everything we have heard on the situation from both sides to date, are the opinions of individuals, however highly placed in the EU hierarchy they are, or "committees" or "think tanks" or "academics"..and in every case, they are only as definitive as their interpretation of the EU directives etc (and their (political) bias) allow them to be. Mr Salmond is being as forthright as he can be given his advisers etc can only interpret the EU rules.....but Westminster doesn't have to rely on interpretation, as they are doing in order to up the fear factor.....because they, if they cared to, are able to ask the EU direct and oblige them to come up with certainty.....for both Scotland and rUK.

Now maybe I am more logical than most....or perhaps just more cynical....but if the question has been asked and answered....then it doesn't appear to suit either the rUK or Scotland...does it? Seems to me that if the response favoured the Westminster interpretation....it would be the headlines in the media for weeks and then mentioned daily somewhere until September 2014, rubbishing definitively the pro-Independence view (much as the fear factor interpretations are still being repeated almost daily any time independence is mentioned) and the fact that it isn't being proves definitively (IMO) that the question hasn't been asked. Does anyone really believe that if Westminster knew that Salmond was wrong..it wouldn't be being broadcast ad nauseam with much gloating?

Not a lot of reason to believe that the rUK will be treated as a separate country. It will have lost less than 10% of its population and some of its land mass. Many of the "benefits" we (as the north of the UK) had to offer in joining are long gone - The easily recoverable oil - All but gone. Populous fishing grounds - Empty according to Brussels. Meanwhile, our land mass, if farmed, costs Brussels more, as many agricultural areas are classified as Less Favoured Areas and have their own subsidy scheme (LFASS)

Politically, to the rUK its a minor variation, and I am pretty sure Brussels would see it as that to. Many EU countries have undergone far more significant political change than would the rUK if Scotland left. None of the present EU member states are exactly as they were when they joined, in some form or another.

rUK could always cite "It wasn't our idea or doing - We opposed it" and that, to me, would sound a fairly good reason to stay in the EU.

[RagnarRocks]

I tend to agree it would be Scotland leaving the United Kingdom to become its own lord and master the rest of the United Kingdom remains unchanged and all the treaties are with the United Kingdom so its not a new country nothing changes except maybe dropping the parts which referred directly to Scotland. On the other hand Scotland would be a newly independent country with many uncertainties about its future unresolved.

[Phill]

Those following the EU debate through the Lords see how the EU works yet?

[RagnarRocks]

Yes they don't want you to have a vote on it

[Phill]

Yes they don't want you to have a vote on itThat's 'independence' ain't it?! :confused

[RagnarRocks]

Not sure independence would make any difference as the SNP seem to want a green card straight into EU without any referendum.

[Oddquine]

Not sure independence would make any difference as the SNP seem to want a green card straight into EU without any referendum.

That'll be because most current Scottish political parties don't have a problem with Europe. I'm not bothered whether we do or don't, tbh.......though I'd prefer not!
It's something to be worrying about after 2016 and the first election, anyway.....once we get the UK house tidied up first. Still think rUK will also have to renegotiate...why would the EU pass up the God-given chance to get rid of the hated UK rebate?

As an aside.....how come Cameron won't debate Salmond because "the referendum is for Scotland to decide"...yet we are getting bussed in celebrities from over the Border.....who can't vote.....and he has invited Putin and Rajoy, who can't vote either, to stick their oars/boots in?

[RagnarRocks]

I do see Cameron's point a.he is the prime minister of the Uk. B he is a conservative not much liked north of the border. C it is a debate for people who live in Scotland so maybe he is trying not to bias the debate. As for the celebrities I don't take much notice of them tbh

[Oddquine]

I do see Cameron's point a.he is the prime minister of the Uk. B he is a conservative not much liked north of the border. C it is a debate for people who live in Scotland so maybe he is trying not to bias the debate. As for the celebrities I don't take much notice of them tbh

And as prime minister of the UK, didn't he say that he would fight for the Union with every fibre of my being? Not much fibre in his being then!

To be fair...he couldn't do a worse job than Carmichael..his 20 reasons for staying the Union were not overly persuasive. And Project Fear has done its job if it scares the Referendum Don't Knows as it has scared the foreign investors....the UK has had to guarantee that if we get Independence, they'll ensure the whole UK Debt is paid. Wonder if we can pay them back on the never-never? [lol]

[wavy davy]

And Project Fear has done its job if it scares the Referendum Don't Knows as it has scared the foreign investors....the UK has had to guarantee that if we get Independence, they'll ensure the whole UK Debt is paid. Wonder if we can pay them back on the never-never? [lol]

I think that guarantee was given after our First Minister's puerile threat that an independent Scotland would not assume its part of the national debt if currency union was not forthcoming. It was done to reassure investors on both sides of the border. Eck's tactics don't do Scotland any favours IMHO.

[Oddquine]

I think that guarantee was given after our First Minister's puerile threat that an independent Scotland would not assume its part of the national debt if currency union was not forthcoming. It was done to reassure investors on both sides of the border. Eck's tactics don't do Scotland any favours IMHO.

Firstly it wasn't Salmond who said it..and secondly, that isn't what was said! You really shouldn't read the UK newspapers for unbiased reporting.

It was Nicola Sturgeon..and she just told the truth.......no share in the UK assets,which includes sterling and the Bank of England, to which we have contributed over 300+ years......no share in the Debt that the Westminster Government has built up over that time. The only ones who think that is a threat are those who think that the UK will keep everything and negotiate nothing.

I am much more inclined to think that the panic by foreign investors was brought about because the Westminster Government has shouted loud, long and interminably that Scotland will not be allowed to use sterling.....no way.....no how....and what the foreign investors were worried about was a chunk of debt owed to them being repaid by a ten minute old country with a brand new currency and no credit record.

Why do you think Scotland wanted to use sterling at least in the short/medium term if it wasn't to build up a credit record in case we had to move on from that? Seems to me eminently sensible, tbh.

[RagnarRocks]

Yes Nicola Sturgeons is really clever how to terrify international investors. If we don't get what we want we will default on our debt that'll really do Scotland wonders . Why on earth do separatists continue this rubbish about wanting independence but still wanting to use sterling its odd how they it so badly but aren't prepared to swallow the big pills that come with it. The debt run up is for the whole of the UK and that includes Scotland to say you want to be independent but don't want to pay out historic part of the debt is madness. Using sterling and negotiation for other aspects are not the same as paying for the things you've already had.

[Big Gaz]

enlighten me as to how much and as to how Scotland actually got to be owing that part of the historic national debt? Way i see it, Westminster grab everything from Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland and throw a few scraps back whilst sending the money on running Government, supporting the military in stupid wars the yanks haul us into, giving benefits to immigrants, sending aid to foreign countries and paying interest on loans they took out to finance all of this, which hasn't really benefited Scotland at all (other than the defence part). Nobody can tell me that up here gets the same treatment as down south when it comes to things such as infrastructure support, business opportunities, manufacturing and industry incentives etc, etc. I dare say that every penny that is given to Scotland and the other 2 countries fully goes on running those countries yet now Westminster claim a chunk of the debt that they themselves run up by borrowing, is due by Scotland if they leave the UK. Did Scotland have any say in how much money Westminster borrowed or were Salmond and co. aware that this would be the case if we did get independence and have already budgeted for it?
I'm just intrigued as to where all this cash is going to come from to pay back England if we do get independence?
Also as we all know England are printing money left, right and centre on this quantitative easing crap but i really don't see Scotland, Wales or N.I. benefiting from it nor are they allowed to print any cash themselves to ease their problems that Westminster won't help with. Is that a future plan that fat Eck may have up his sleeve?? If Scotland made their own currency, couldn't fat Eck nip roon the stampies and just say, "o.k. lads, here's the paper and ink, print me 10 trillion groats and we'll all be rich!"..."oh and while you are at it, print me a few more heehaw bawbees on a promissary note and i'll post it to that moron in Downing street!

[Mrs Bradey]

enlighten me as to how much and as to how Scotland actually got to be owing that part of the historic national debt? Way i see it, Westminster grab everything from Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland and throw a few scraps back whilst sending the money on running Government, supporting the military in stupid wars the yanks haul us into, giving benefits to immigrants, sending aid to foreign countries and paying interest on loans they took out to finance all of this, which hasn't really benefited Scotland at all (other than the defence part). Nobody can tell me that up here gets the same treatment as down south when it comes to things such as infrastructure support, business opportunities, manufacturing and industry incentives etc, etc. I dare say that every penny that is given to Scotland and the other 2 countries fully goes on running those countries yet now Westminster claim a chunk of the debt that they themselves run up by borrowing, is due by Scotland if they leave the UK. Did Scotland have any say in how much money Westminster borrowed or were Salmond and co. aware that this would be the case if we did get independence and have already budgeted for it? I'm just intrigued as to where all this cash is going to come from to pay back England if we do get independence?Also as we all know IEngland are printing money left, right and centre on this quantitative easing crap but i really don't see Scotland, Wales or N.I. benefiting from it nor are they allowed to print any cash themselves to ease their problems that Westminster won't help with. Is that a future plan that fat Eck may have up his sleeve?? If Scotland made their own currency, couldn't fat Eck nip roon the stampies and just say, "o.k. lads, here's the paper and ink, print me 10 trillion groats and we'll all be rich!"..."oh and while you are at it, print me a few more heehaw bawbees on a promissary note and i'll post it to that moron in Downing street!not sure how Scotland could claim not to be responsible for part of the national debt, since has been part of the United Kingdom since 17hundred and whatknot! as it stands (according to BBC news) the national debt is now 1.4trillion quid !!!! if we say there are 70million people in the UK that's £20,000 per person, if we then say there are 5million in Scotland then that would make Scotlands share of the £1.400,000,000,000,000.00 would be a cool £100,000,000,000,000.00 that's 100 billion quid in pounds sterling thankyou very much, do call again sir!!!

[Oddquine]

not sure how Scotland could claim not to be responsible for part of the national debt, since has been part of the United Kingdom since 17hundred and whatknot! as it stands (according to BBC news) the national debt is now 1.4trillion quid !!!! if we say there are 70million people in the UK that's £20,000 per person, if we then say there are 5million in Scotland then that would make Scotlands share of the £1.400,000,000,000.00 would be a cool £100,000,000,000,000.00 that's 100 billion quid in pounds sterling thankyou very much, do call again sir!!!

That would be because it was the UK which borrowed it, on behalf of the UK...and the UK which spent it to suit itself. So simples that even a meerkat could understand it! Scotland in the Union can't borrow......fact. It couldn't before devolution and it can't since devolution!

If, as they continually claim, the rUK will be the successor state to the UK in every arena in world politics, and Scotland, by leaving the Union, will become a brand new state without the input of the previous 300 years....then even if it was not the case that the UK, under law, owns the debt because the UK contracted for it...the successor state claim would ensure the rUK gets it all anyway! :roll:

Scotland would, if required to do so under International Law, be due to shoulder £130 billion of the UK debt...but it is not required to do so under International Law....any more than Ms Scotland would be obliged, if Ms Scotland was Mr England's bidie-in or wife, (even if she was paying into the joint finances) to pay off all, or any part of, a large personal loan taken out by Mr England, signed for only by Mr England and spent by Mr England.

However, their relationship has run its course, and they intend to split up. Ms Scotland is going to be living next door to Mr England, and because Ms Scotland would prefer an amicable rather than a rancorous neighbour..and because, over the time of their relationship, there had been joint purchases made, some of which she would like to take with her, she offered to pay part of his loan provided they could come to some mutually acceptable agreement as to the amount she would pay and which joint purchases she would acquire in return.

And that is pretty much the state of play re the current situation.

Even Westminster says In the event of a Yes (vote), there would have to be bilateral negotiations involving the UK Government and the Scottish Government." Scotland will pay its fairly negotiated share of UK debt, as the Scottish Government has always said would happen.....and Scotland will get its fairly negotiated share of UK assets, as the Scottish Government has also always said would happen.....but the one is dependent on the other! We can't expect assets without accepting a share of debt..and we can't be expected to take any debt without a share of assets.

If you were Ms Scotland, would you pay off a chunk of the personal loan Mr England used to buy himself a flash car just out of the goodness of your heart?

[Kenn]

Grief, what were you on when you posted that?
The more I read and hear about The Independence Referendum, the more I am convinced that what I thought was a sensible, well educated populace have either been reading too many novels or have thrown common sense out of the window and that applies to both sides of the argument.

[Oddquine]

Grief, what were you on when you posted that?
The more I read and hear about The Independence Referendum, the more I am convinced that what I thought was a sensible, well educated populace have either been reading too many novels or have thrown common sense out of the window and that applies to both sides of the argument.

Nothing! Why would you think I was on anything?

OK, so I had just read that Cameron via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been instructing the diplomats, whose salaries we help to pay, sitting in the Foreign Embassies we help to fund, to lobby host Governments against Scottish Independence. And that is what Westminster considers a UNION!!! And I was hacked off about it!

That's the same David Cameron who says the referendum has nothing to do with anyone but the Scots..........the same David Cameron who said in 2007 The wrong response, often reflected in the rhetoric of Gordon Brown, is to try to cow or bully Scotland into remaining part of the UK through fear of the economic consequences of going it alone.

This will not work. First, supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.

Second, this aggressive, negative tactic is one reason why people north of the border feel so disaffected with British politics. Instead, we need to continue to make the positive case for a united Britain by ensuring that the Union remains relevant to all English and Scottish people....and the same David Cameron who is encouraging and funding exactly the same kind of rhetoric he was so scathing about then.

Nobody minds too much losing a fair fight.....but this is not one....and into the bargain, we are paying from our taxes for Westminster to rubbish us all over the world. Partners in a Union? Like hell we are.......Scotland is England's last remaining totally controlled colony!!

[Kenn]

Get a grip will you.
I moved here from over the border and you can take it from me that with a population in excess of 50 million, the English are just as fed up with politicians and that ilk,but in much bigger numbers.
Stop blaming Westminster for all your ills and take a look at the record of this country, it leaves much to be desired as I have frequently pointed out, especially with regard to matters fiscal, where there seems to be the attitude that if we don't keep records, then we can't be challenged and we'll dream up any others.
Any one with even a basic grounding in economics should be able to see the holes in the arguments.

[squidge]

What particular holes Lizz?

[Oddquine]

Get a grip will you.
I moved here from over the border and you can take it from me that with a population in excess of 50 million, the English are just as fed up with politicians and that ilk,but in much bigger numbers.
Stop blaming Westminster for all your ills and take a look at the record of this country, it leaves much to be desired as I have frequently pointed out, especially with regard to matters fiscal, where there seems to be the attitude that if we don't keep records, then we can't be challenged and we'll dream up any others.
Any one with even a basic grounding in economics should be able to see the holes in the arguments.

What were you on when you posted that? I said nothing about the economics of either the UK or Scotland. I did mention the fact that Scotland is legally not responsible for any of the debt accrued by Westminster and is not obliged to pay any of it. There is a case, which has been acknowledged by the Scottish Government for a moral obligation. Maybe you didn't like the way I put it..but I thought I'd explained it very simply.

Do you think it is fair that the Westminster Government should try to undermine Scotland’s international position ahead of them having one?

[RagnarRocks]

Its quite ok oddquine if Scotland does by some odd chance go independent and decide not to share the debt it would soon find out how the money markets treat countries that default on debt. You'd have no currency as ruk wouldn't allow you to use sterling,absolutely no assets as ruk wouldn't allow you any of those either and have to borrow money from whoever would be mad enough to lend you money at the interest rates that would make your pips squeak. EU membership would be out of the question and you'd soon find out how close to North Korea your living standards would become. Bravado is one thing stupidity quite another it seems the latter is getting a firm grip in your world

[Kenn]

Borrow, debt, spend,loan.
Just a few of the economic terms you used oddquine.

[Oddquine]

Borrow, debt, spend,loan.
Just a few of the economic terms you used oddquine.

So if you think that those words indicate economic arguments.......how's about you prove to me that my economic arguments in response to Mrs Bradey were wrong....and why you think that?

[Oddquine]

Its quite ok oddquine if Scotland does by some odd chance go independent and decide not to share the debt it would soon find out how the money markets treat countries that default on debt. You'd have no currency as ruk wouldn't allow you to use sterling,absolutely no assets as ruk wouldn't allow you any of those either and have to borrow money from whoever would be mad enough to lend you money at the interest rates that would make your pips squeak. EU membership would be out of the question and you'd soon find out how close to North Korea your living standards would become. Bravado is one thing stupidity quite another it seems the latter is getting a firm grip in your world

Which part of "the UK can't stop us using sterling" have you still not got your head around? Being independent and using sterling informally without an agreement and no input into macro-economic policies in the UK, but with control of the tools of fiscal policy would put us in a better position than we are today.......because today, we have an agreement, but no input into UK macro-economic policies and no control over the tools of fiscal policy.

Which part of "we can't default on debt we did not contract" are you having difficulty understanding?

Which part of "we have a moral obligation to negotiate an appropriate level of input to the UK contracted debt.of course we do....but equally Westminster has a moral obligation to return to Scotland some part of the assets our taxes have helped fund" are you finding difficult to grasp? Perhaps you believe that at the end of a long marriage one of the partners has to pay a chunk of the debt and the other partner walks away with the house, furniture, car and all the other chattels purchased with joint income over the years? Really?

I do hope, if we do vote for Independence, that the rUK Government is less willfully obdurate than you are.

[Kenn]

I would really like to be able to prove that they are wrong but as I mentioned both here and on a previous thread, I have been unable to get accurate figures and costings even under The FIA.
I do however have a grounding in economics, mathematics and common sense and a keen sense of smell which means I can smell a rat from a fair distance.

[RagnarRocks]

Which part of "the UK can't stop us using sterling" have you still not got your head around? Being independent and using sterling informally without an agreement and no input into macro-economic policies in the UK, but with control of the tools of fiscal policy would put us in a better position than we are today.......because today, we have an agreement, but no input into UK macro-economic policies and no control over the tools of fiscal policy.Which part of "we can't default on debt we did not contract" are you having difficulty understanding? Which part of "we have a moral obligation to negotiate an appropriate level of input to the UK contracted debt.of course we do....but equally Westminster has a moral obligation to return to Scotland some part of the assets our taxes have helped fund" are you finding difficult to grasp? Perhaps you believe that at the end of a long marriage one of the partners has to pay a chunk of the debt and the other partner walks away with the house, furniture, car and all the other chattels purchased with joint income over the years? Really?I do hope, if we do vote for Independence, that the rUK Government is less willfully obdurate than you are.Moral obligation is worthless under international law.And you seem to suggest that Scotland has not benefitted one jot from all the money that been spent which is pitiful ignorance of how the whole of the uk works.You can use sterling but you wouldn't be able to tax as you please and spend as you please which defeats the whole concept of being independent.

[weezer 316]

Lololol! Oddaquine you really are comedy on this. Anyway, here is the answer, at least as far as we have one. Anyone can ask the question, its just can it be answered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21601242

For the record, Ireland, Czech republic and Slovakia's foriegn minsters said we would have to apply again. The rest refuse to comment or await official EU guidance.

Most tellingly, the EU commision says we need to re-apply. That, my dear, is as close to a slam dunk as you are gonna get on the issue so can you gracefully admit it looks like you (and your hero Salmond) were wrong, with the fat one looking like he deliberately mislead you.

How stupid of me actually.......no danger reality getting in the way of your delusions!

[Oddquine]

Moral obligation is worthless under international law.And you seem to suggest that Scotland has not benefitted one jot from all the money that been spent which is pitiful ignorance of how the whole of the uk works.You can use sterling but you wouldn't be able to tax as you please and spend as you please which defeats the whole concept of being independent.

Moral obligation is worthless under international law.......is that the best response you can come up with? Moral obligation, however is worth £130 billion to rUK (that's a wee bit more than the coalition is adding to the debt every year, btw......pretty much the cost of our current input to defence and debt interest payments more, actually!)! :roll:

Tell you what.......you give me a list of what has benefited Scotland in the Union (stuff they could never have accomplished for themselves without the Union)...and I'll give you a list of what the Union has cost Scotland........and then we can see which list is more in keeping with the aims and aspirations of Scots and which is all about the aims and aspirations of London and the Westminster politicians.

Bargain?

[squidge]

Seems like even Better Together's new adviser thinks an Independent Scotland will join the EU

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/pro-union-campaign-officials-eu-blog-creates-confusion.23170949

"It's possible to make an educated guess about how things might turn out... For example, it seems pretty likely that Scotland would be an EU member state, probably after an accelerated set of accession negotiations. Precisely what the conditions of membership would be is not quite so clear, though immediate requirements to join the Euro or Schengen agreement can surely be avoided."

[Oddquine]

Seems like even Better Together's new adviser thinks an Independent Scotland will join the EU

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/pro-union-campaign-officials-eu-blog-creates-confusion.23170949

"It's possible to make an educated guess about how things might turn out... For example, it seems pretty likely that Scotland would be an EU member state, probably after an accelerated set of accession negotiations. Precisely what the conditions of membership would be is not quite so clear, though immediate requirements to join the Euro or Schengen agreement can surely be avoided."

To be fair, squidge.......he wrote that when he was an unbiased academic.......I believe he is backtracking now he is an official Better Together adviser. ;)

[squidge]

To be fair, squidge.......he wrote that when he was an unbiased academic.......I believe he is backtracking now he is an official Better Together adviser. ;)

What???? REALLY?????

[RagnarRocks]

You seem to miss the point its not what Scotland could of,should of, or may have done as part of the United Kingdom for the last 300 yrs its the fact it has been part of the United Kingdom and has benefitted just as much as any other part of the country or are you suggesting the entire infrastructure of Scotland along with the National Health service the benefits system etc etc etc has been all gratis and free of charge because Scotland deserves to have everything free unecumbered just because somewhere in your delusional philosophy its cost Scotland so much being part and its benefitted not one bit.

The reality is your assertions are pie in the sky woolly headed socialism based on zero fact as there are no facts to proven as to what Scotland could of achieved as it has been a part of the United Kingdom for 300 yrs.
Its like all the assumptions proposed about what Scotland may be if it becomes independent until it happens they are just assumptions, as yet unproven.
As for moral obligation the government has sent a clear signal out that if Scotland does become independent and refuses to pay its share of the money spent for and on behalf of the whole United Kingdom it will pay the bill, but god help and independent Scotland if it does takes that particular route.
You may hate international finance but unfortunately the world relies on it and a newly independent Scotland would require financing from somewhere. How much do you think a free health service all the pensions etc etc is going to cost.
The promises of Mr Salmond are very cheap the realities of paying for it all a harsh reality. You tell me where all the money's going to come from ? Expensive oil and gas rapidly diminishing ? Whiskey ? Tartan ? Beef and Lamb ? I guess youre just so wrapped up in some jingoistic nationalist socialist 60s mindset you miss the realities of the world

[squidge]

Didn't someone mention International Law?

Under International Law there are two options when a country becomes independent I think under the vienna convention.

1. They get a fair share of the assets and they take a fair share of the debt

2. They get NO assets and take NO debts.

The Scottish Government has stated clearly and unambiguously that the first option is the one that they want to pursue but that the second option is one which is available to them should the negotiations fail. Interestingly despite assertions to the contrary Alex Salmond has made no "threats". Also the financial and economic experts seem to be almost unanimous in saying the declaration by the government that they will guarantee the debts in the event of a YES vote is a clear indication that a currency union is likely. Of course politicians like Lord Fall on Newsnight Scotland the other night are doing their best to say the opposite but that doesnt seem to be supported by the experts.

Mores the pity - I rather think.

[Oddquine]

You seem to miss the point its not what Scotland could of,should of, or may have done as part of the United Kingdom for the last 300 yrs its the fact it has been part of the United Kingdom and has benefitted just as much as any other part of the country or are you suggesting the entire infrastructure of Scotland along with the National Health service the benefits system etc etc etc has been all gratis and free of charge because Scotland deserves to have everything free unecumbered just because somewhere in your delusional philosophy its cost Scotland so much being part and its benefitted not one bit.

The reality is your assertions are pie in the sky woolly headed socialism based on zero fact as there are no facts to proven as to what Scotland could of achieved as it has been a part of the United Kingdom for 300 yrs.
Its like all the assumptions proposed about what Scotland may be if it becomes independent until it happens they are just assumptions, as yet unproven.
As for moral obligation the government has sent a clear signal out that if Scotland does become independent and refuses to pay its share of the money spent for and on behalf of the whole United Kingdom it will pay the bill, but god help and independent Scotland if it does takes that particular route.
You may hate international finance but unfortunately the world relies on it and a newly independent Scotland would require financing from somewhere. How much do you think a free health service all the pensions etc etc is going to cost.
The promises of Mr Salmond are very cheap the realities of paying for it all a harsh reality. You tell me where all the money's going to come from ? Expensive oil and gas rapidly diminishing ? Whiskey ? Tartan ? Beef and Lamb ? I guess youre just so wrapped up in some jingoistic nationalist socialist 60s mindset you miss the realities of the world

I await with interest your list of benefits Scotland has received from the Union. I have never denied that the Union, forced as it was, aided Scotland at a time when England was restricting their ability to trade.

However, we are 300+ years past those times....and while times have changed, the attitude of the Westminster Government has not. There has been an ever-present wish among Scots, from the date of the Union, to regain their independence, as they had failed to secure the federal system they would have preferred. 306 years on, despite many efforts, we have still been unable to remove ourselves from colony status in the UK, which is what an incorporating Union is, and extremely limited devolution just doesn't cut it.

We are where we are because of the attitude of Westminster. If they had wanted to keep the Union together, it would have been so simple....a Federal System encompassing all four countries........but unfortunately, England (as in majority English controlled Westminster) is still living off past glories when most of the known world was coloured pink, and have not yet accepted that the UK is a pygmy in the world, only able to stride the world stage on the stilts provided by Trident.

If they could accept that even now......it wouldn't need the trashing of the poor, the sick and the unemployed to reduce the burgeoning National Debt.....it would just take stopping invading other countries and paying for their nuclear penis extension.

[RagnarRocks]

Ok first benefit of the union saving Scotland from its own mistake the Darien Scheme or should we just brush over that little money pit that broke the back of Scotland in the first place or do you still think Scotland is so wonderful with its finances .

[squidge]

Lol Ragnar ....are you staying Scotland is rubbish with money because of something that happened 300 years ago???

i disagree with oddquine... Scotland HAS benefitted from the union but this is the 21st century and it no longer offers the best option for Scotland. If Scotland has distinct priorities in the way of immigration, poverty,business growth, demographics and therefore it is right that Scotland should look to secure the power to meet these needs through independence whicheill give us the opportunity to take the steps which will address the priorities we have because the union is no longer enabling us to do that. It is preventing us from doing that.

300 years ago it was the best thing, it has served us well but it is no longer doing so and we MUST look forward and try to do whats best for Scotland's future.

[RagnarRocks]

No squidge I'm just pointing out quite how delusional he is. I also disagree with you on the point of what's best for the future considering the whole of the UK is less than the size of some American states why you think an Island needs more and more bureaucracy is beyond me there will always be parts of the country better off than others but soon enough the vote will be cast then we will have to listen to all the nationalist chundering on about how it was fixed rigged etc etc life is full of malcontents who perceive they should have something because they are specially deserving.

[RagnarRocks]

Oh and it still seems that Scotland won't get a special pass straight into the EU because its specially deserving of one,because of course its Scotland land of the errr specially deserving !

[ducati]

Thats a bit unfair. Oddbloke hates all to do with the UK so very little point in debating with her. Squidge thinks the world aught to be fair (so do I) and thinks if we put ourselves in the hands of the same politicians that made it unfair, but under a different unbrella, it will be fair. But she doesn't know how and who will pay for it.

Personally, I think it (independence) will hobble the capacity for the people who will pay for it, to earn the money to pay for it.

[RagnarRocks]

[QUOTE=squidge;1064747]Lol Ragnar ....are you staying Scotland is rubbish with money because of something that happened 300 years ago???
Well Squidge I wouldn't dream of using a 300 yr old example if it didn't appear things haven't changed that much so answer me this simple question
A social heating scheme in Wick recently did what.

A. Made millions in profit because it was run profitably
B. broke even and proved itself a success
C. Lost millions because it wasn't managed properly.

[squidge]

Thats a bit unfair. Oddbloke hates all to do with the UK so very little point in debating with her. Squidge thinks the world aught to be fair (so do I) and thinks if we put ourselves in the hands of the same politicians that made it unfair, but under a different unbrella, it will be fair. But she doesn't know how and who will pay for it.

Personally, I think it (independence) will hobble the capacity for the people who will pay for it, to earn the money to pay for it.

No Ducati - You are wrong I KNOW how we will pay for it. I have said as much on here many many times. Nor do I think Independence is leaving ourselves in the hands of politicians - I believe it gives us the chance to take power into our own hands - the hands of the Scottish Electorate - and that it will increase accountability and influence. As for fairness, I beleive that Independence will give us an opportunity to pursue policies in a way we cannot do now that will reduce poverty and improve opportunity and equality.

Ragnar - I dont get how you think that Scotland's independence will give us more bureaucracy when it will end the role of Westminster MPs and the House of Lords? That will remove two whole levels of extra bureaucracy and save a shed load of money. The EU issue will have to be decided for Scotland specifically purely because Scotland's independence is a new and distinct event - different from what has gone before not because Scotland is somehow specially deserving.

[RagnarRocks]

I always thought that Scotland had MPs in Westminster and the House of Lords is a sensible check and balance for a democratic country. I'm not sure why you feel that Holyrood is such good value for money all that expense we managed well enough without it for the best part of 300 yrs now its having massively expensive referendums which no doubt in due course will prove to be a waste of money all I see is an extra level of bureaucracy burdening more expense on tax payers. You keep using the term fair but that term is different to every person my idea of fair is totally different to yours. You mention poverty but real poverty doesn't exist in this country as it does elsewhere, and using the term third world is really disingenuous as its one world its just a comfortable term used to alienate other countries who have real issues against the so called issues here.
As for the EU 3 countries have stated already its a new application it only requires one to say no to Scotland and its back to the drawing board, pie in the sky idealism doesn't make it so.

[squidge]

Aye ragnar - we shall see - interesting times :)

[weezer 316]

Squidge,

Does the fact he lied over EU legal advice and their position on membership is contradicted by 3 EU foreign minister and the EU commission not trouble you? Seriously, alarm bells should be ringing. This is a huge, defining issue for the independence vote. Almost in as big a mess as the currency union.

[squidge]

I dont really care about Alex Salmond. I put about as much store by what Alex Salmond says as I do the Catalonian minister, the Irish minister and the other ministers. I have looked at this issue a whole lot and read BOTH sides and viewpoints. I am satisfied that there is no precedent for kicking european citizens out of Europe. I am satisfied that an Independent Scotland meets all the criteria for joining the EU. I am satisfied that an Independent Scotland will be a country which the EU will WANT to have as a member for many reasons and the evidence and information I have read and researched leads me to believe that Scotland will be part of the EU.

Thats not because "AlexSalmond says so" and your suggestion that is, seems a bit rich when you seem to be saying is "because these other politicians say so". I am happy with my research and I am relaxed about the issue. I think there is evidence on both sides and you pays your money and takes your choice.

[weezer 316]

You dodged the question. Scotland would join the EU clearly eventually, but under what condtions? Have to take the euro or else? We dont know. The SNP assert one thing rather than say here is what will happen, we dont know the conditions of the EU entry, but thats the reality. That in turn affects the currency union with the UK too. They have done the exact opposite and simply asserted and independence supporters simply refuse to criticise it.

Your point on European citizens is moot. Belarussians are European citizens too. We are talking about the EU.

DO you accept Scotland, on current evidence, would have to re-apply and we dont know what that means or under what conditions? You can swat the Salmond point of view aside all you want, that is what we are asked to vote on regardless of your assertion otherwise.

[squidge]

See it strikes me that not much of this is about what is "right" and What is "wrong". It is about what is important to each of us - our own priorities and how we think the country can best achieve these priorities. If we think that we can best achieve what we want for the future within the union then we will be voting "NO" to independence. If we think that Independence actually offers us the best way of achieving what we consider are our priorities then we will vote "YES." There isnt really a right or a wrong. There are some issues which people are Wrong about - for example - the thread last year which said that forces personnel were being denied a vote was just simply wrong -in that it was incorrect and untrue. The evidence was there and the information accessible to show that. But people's opinions on the EU, the economy, the currency union, the welfare system, and on and on and on.

There are some facts about independence but mostly there are opinions and suggestions.

[weezer 316]

You have avoided he question again. Here it is:

DO you accept Scotland, on current evidence, would have to re-apply and we dont know what that means or under what conditions? You can swat the Salmond point of view aside all you want, that is what we are asked to vote on regardless of your assertion otherwise.

[squidge]

Actually i replied before I read your last post so lets answer your question.


You have avoided he question again. Here it is:
DO you accept Scotland, on current evidence, would have to re-apply and we dont know what that means or under what conditions? You can swat the Salmond point of view aside all you want, that is what we are asked to vote on regardless of your assertion otherwise.

No I dont accept that - I believe that Scotland will be able to negotiate membership from within the EU. I have seen evidence that supports that view and I think it is unlikely that the EU will force a situation where Scotland will be outwith the EU because I see Scotland as a vibrant and growing healthy and wealthy country which already is committed to European law and precedents. Jim Gallacher previously asserted that was probable. Sir David Edward asserted that this was probable too. There is no legal route for people who are existing EU citizens to have that removed. These things tell me that it is likely to be sorted out before Scotland becomes independent.

[ducati]

No Ducati - You are wrong I KNOW how we will pay for it.

You may think you do. Ultimately if you need more welfare you have to pay higher taxes. Problem Scotland has is the low proportion of high tax payers.

For example: I understand that one third of all Scottish households are in receipt of housing benefit. Now I don't really understand how it works but I imagine that these households won't be making a net contribution. If they aren't then the pool of contributors would be very low indeed. Add to this, we don't have the mega earners that the rest of the UK has, in cities like Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham etc. I still fail to see how the welfare megastate you envisage can be supported.

[Oddquine]

Lol Ragnar ....are you staying Scotland is rubbish with money because of something that happened 300 years ago???

i disagree with oddquine... Scotland HAS benefitted from the union but this is the 21st century and it no longer offers the best option for Scotland. If Scotland has distinct priorities in the way of immigration, poverty,business growth, demographics and therefore it is right that Scotland should look to secure the power to meet these needs through independence whicheill give us the opportunity to take the steps which will address the priorities we have because the union is no longer enabling us to do that. It is preventing us from doing that.

300 years ago it was the best thing, it has served us well but it is no longer doing so and we MUST look forward and try to do whats best for Scotland's future.

If I haven't said it on here in any thread, I have certainly said it in other forums that I'm not denying the Union was formed to benefit some, squidge, particularly the English religion, colonial trade, the back pockets of the nobility involved, on both sides of the border, and the succession. And over the earlier piece it was eventually of benefit to a large proportion of Scots for a time....heck, one of my 4 x great grandfathers got employment as a direct result of the Union ideas and influence. He moved up from Dumfriesshire to Caithness via Sutherland to look after the sheep which replaced people on many estates in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands and Islands........and if he hadn't, I'd not be here posting this. :Razz But that was then and this is now.

[Oddquine]

Ok first benefit of the union saving Scotland from its own mistake the Darien Scheme or should we just brush over that little money pit that broke the back of Scotland in the first place or do you still think Scotland is so wonderful with its finances .

Referring to a later post of yours..you obviously don't come from the East Coast.....or you'd know my nick doesn't indicate a "he".

I could go into the post Union of the Crowns English laws and actions which helped impoverish Scotland and prompted Darien...but I'll spare you the history lesson. I'll make do with quotes from http://www.electricscotland.com/history/england/commercial12.htm (any bolding is mine)

"English opposition and parliamentary investigation converted the company from a possible success into a probable failure".

Wherever possible, English opposition thwarted the company. Considering the attitude of England towards Scottish trade since 1660, it was to be expected that a potential rival to the great English companies, with Scottish authority, and with its headquarters in Scotland, would not be allowed to be financed with English capital. Interference abroad, however, was unwarrantable, and deprived Scotland of the last hopes of making the project a success. In the later conduct of the company's affairs, England could not interfere, until the settlement was made which endangered her foreign relations. Then William's alarm was justifiable, but not so the measures which were taken against the company and its colony. Although ruin was then inevitable, the conduct of the colonial authorities, acting upon instructions from England, did something to increase the horrors of the desertion of Darien, and much to influence public opinion in Scotland against England, her government, and her people.

[weezer 316]

Actually i replied before I read your last post so lets answer your question.



No I dont accept that - I believe that Scotland will be able to negotiate membership from within the EU. I have seen evidence that supports that view and I think it is unlikely that the EU will force a situation where Scotland will be outwith the EU because I see Scotland as a vibrant and growing healthy and wealthy country which already is committed to European law and precedents. Jim Gallacher previously asserted that was probable. Sir David Edward asserted that this was probable too. There is no legal route for people who are existing EU citizens to have that removed. These things tell me that it is likely to be sorted out before Scotland becomes independent.

So the EU commision, and at least 3 foreign govts (who actually decide) are wrong in your book. Good. can you supply evidence of similar weight and calibre, because if you cant your failing to reason honestly.

[RagnarRocks]

Well I read a " Possible success " so its success was by no means guaranteed and " probable failure " again not a guaranteed failure. Like most business if you go against the big boys sometimes you win sometimes you lose in this case it was a definitive loss. Why would England at the time allow Scotland to make a success of something that was a rival sounds to me you can't accept commercial realities. Sounds to me very much like you can't accept the cutthroat world that lay outside these isles another reason you've not considered fully independence and its consequences

[squidge]

So the EU commision, and at least 3 foreign govts (who actually decide) are wrong in your book. Good. can you supply evidence of similar weight and calibre, because if you cant your failing to reason honestly.

No I am not saying they are wrong - did I say that? Did I say I was right? I said - in my opinion, based on what I have read over the last couple of years, Scotland is likely to be able to negotiate membership of the EU from within and is not likely to be "kicked out of the EU" and therefore I do not accept that Scotland will have to reapply. You have chosen to form an opinion that is different and your opinion is based on what you think is likely. You have given more weight to articles quoting politicians who have their own agenda, and have in some of the cases retracted what they said or complained they were mis-quoted than I did. .....and you know what Weezer...... thats ok :)

[Oddquine]

Well I read a " Possible success " so its success was by no means guaranteed and " probable failure " again not a guaranteed failure. Like most business if you go against the big boys sometimes you win sometimes you lose in this case it was a definitive loss. Why would England at the time allow Scotland to make a success of something that was a rival sounds to me you can't accept commercial realities. Sounds to me very much like you can't accept the cutthroat world that lay outside these isles another reason you've not considered fully independence and its consequences

Nothing in life is guaranteed.....but death. You can however influence outcomes re timing of that death by adjusting your way of living and avoiding dangerous situations, occupations hobbies, etc. But whatever you do to prolong your life, it is still possible that you will be walking along the street minding your own business and be attacked and killed by a nutter with a gun. The English Parliament was Darien's equivalent of a nutter with a gun.

Given taxes were being levied on Scotland to help fund England's wars, just because they were theoretically joined together by the monarchy, it seems a shade shortsighted to not assume that a taxed success would have been a good way to cut the English National Debt. But that would have made economic sense......and Westminster had no more economic sense then than it does now. But then Westminster worked then as it does now......they were lobbied by pressure groups for businesses/companies.and did what they were told. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[squidge]

You may think you do. Ultimately if you need more welfare you have to pay higher taxes. Problem Scotland has is the low proportion of high tax payers.

For example: I understand that one third of all Scottish households are in receipt of housing benefit. Now I don't really understand how it works but I imagine that these households won't be making a net contribution. If they aren't then the pool of contributors would be very low indeed. Add to this, we don't have the mega earners that the rest of the UK has, in cities like Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham etc. I still fail to see how the welfare megastate you envisage can be supported.

Jeez Ducati - HAve you been taking lessons from the producers of Benefit Street?

I have never advocated a welfare megastate and I recall responding to you directly saying that I do not advocate an increase in benefits.

Are you the Daily Mail's North Britain correspondent?;)

[RagnarRocks]

The daily mail is the most widely read newspaper in the whole of the uk so basically squidge you're insulting working/middle class aspirations well done. And you still haven't answered my earlier question regard finance. Out of a country of 65 million people do you honestly think 5 million can produce enough finance to fund free health,care free prescriptions and all the other niceties that independence proponents aspire to if the whole of the uk combined is struggling with the bill how do you propose a significantly smaller population with higher unemployment, more alcoholics and drug users, more obesity and poorer health including all the pension provisions is going to get paid for. Put down the one thing the SNP have failed to do hard facts and figures not idealism

[Kenn]

What worries me is that if any one really believes that which ever way the vote goes, the electorate will define a future Scotland, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The electorate were totally undecided at the last general election which resulted in a coalition government at Westminster since when there have been constant gripes about the matter with mutterings "That's not what I voted for."
Because of the lack of decision and the bad turn out at the polls that is precisely what they did vote for and can blame no one but themselves.
I digress, this thread was about The EU and Scotland's membership, no doubt an independent Scotland would be welcome after having gone through the necessary application, financial probes etcetera but none of us has any idea how long that would take and where The EU will be headed over the next few years.

[ducati]

Jeez Ducati - HAve you been taking lessons from the producers of Benefit Street?

I have never advocated a welfare megastate and I recall responding to you directly saying that I do not advocate an increase in benefits.

Are you the Daily Mail's North Britain correspondent?;)

You don't need to be insulting. You will see from my post on that thread that I agree with you. Just let us know where the money is coming from. Or do you think a new indy Scottish government can do more with less?

As to the mega state, yes, that is what you are advocating and yes I am a conservative and believe the less government, the better.

[squidge]

You are insulted???

Gosh ...are people touchy in Januaryar! Dear me! Im not sorry. I think the daily mail is a rag of the worst order and that it publishes stories and pictures which are shameless in their manipulation. You maybe werent as subtle as the mail but Welfare megastate and the suggestion that I want more welfare when in fact I want LESS welfare.

And Yes the Scottish government can do more with less. Jeepers NODDY could do a better job than the current government are doing.

[RagnarRocks]

So your suggesting that by voting labour the smash the economy party with balls and Milliband life would of been better. Each time labour has been in power they trash the economy, the conservatives repair it then everyone doesn't like them because they are the nasty ones . God help us if the SNP had hold of,the purse strings oh boy no boom and bust just bust and more bust

[squidge]

So your suggesting that by voting labour the smash the economy party with balls and Milliband life would of been better. Each time labour has been in power they trash the economy, the conservatives repair it then everyone doesn't like them because they are the nasty ones . God help us if the SNP had hold of,the purse strings oh boy no boom and bust just bust and more bust

ME?

Im suggesting nothing of the sort.... I have said before but I will say it again - that there is NO opportunity for change within the current system in Westminster because you cant put a pin between them. THATS one of the reasons for voting YES in the referendum.

(she sighs heavily)

We have the opportunity to deveop a society which takes a different route and offers alternatives to the three shades of blue which dominates Westminster. There is NO opportunity to do that within the UK. Its not simply about them being "nasty" although if the cap fits.......... If you look at Welfare there is a massive amount of money being wasted because the programmes being delivered by the current government and started by the last government are FAILING. People are not finding work, in fact I know that civil servants have been told they HAVE to prioritise finding work for people on the Jobs programme because the jobs programme is not getting enough results. Those people finding work go down as a result for the programme when they arent responisble for the result.That is extra cost over and above the amount these companies are being paid to deliver erm ... nothing.

The amount of money being spent on Appeals is absolutely disgusting. Half of the decisions made on fitness for work after ATOS assessments are being overturned - that costs an astronomical amount of money. But yeah the Scottish government are just so much worse than that despite the SNP led administrations balancing the budget. And even Scottish Labour lived within their means although why on earth they couldnt find something to spend the1.5bn they returned to the treasury over their two administations despite the fact that £1.5bn would have been enough in 2006 to build the Glasgow and Edinburgh Airport Rail Links and upgrade the entire A9 to dual-carriageway spreading the benefits around the country and with £190m still left over.

A further bit of research on this subject suggests that the Scottish Labour led administration not only failed to spend the money they could have spent on projects to benefit scotland but A Labour council, (N.Lanarkshire) operating under a Labour Scottish Executive and a Labour government at Westminster, needed to spend £150m on its schools, but rather than use a small fraction of the effectively free money that was sitting around unspent in the Executive’s coffers, signed off on a PFI contract that would cost Scottish taxpayers £729m to do the exact same job. Now ducati is all for smaller governments but what were the Labour party thinking - they are led by their masters at Westminster that has been absolutely clear for years. Take swipes at the SNP all you like but at the very least they do not kowtow to ridiculous Westminster directives.


I also disagree with you on the point of what's best for the future considering the whole of the UK is less than the size of some American states

Just to pick up on this point I recently read that according to the European Commission it’s small countries who are the most wealth producing with the UK trailing behind the likes of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and even Ireland. All those small countries are also rated by the UN as happier societies than the UK and they all have less poverty than the UK.

[piratelassie]

Is'nt it obvious that after independence the so called questions about NATO, the EU and currancy will of course be settled, and the odds of a favourable outcome are very good because fo our resorces and geographical position etc. All we need is confidence in ourselves.

[golach]

All we need is confidence in ourselves.

And just how much is this "confidence" going to cost?

[Mrs Bradey]

You are insulted???Gosh ...are people touchy in Januaryar! Dear me! Im not sorry. I think the daily mail is a rag of the worst order and that it publishes stories and pictures which are shameless in their manipulation. You maybe werent as subtle as the mail but Welfare megastate and the suggestion that I want more welfare when in fact I want LESS welfare. And Yes the Scottish government can do more with less. Jeepers NODDY could do a better job than the current government are doing. .....Really....

[ducati]

I'd be interested if anyone knows just how many tax payers there are in Scotland?

[orkneycadian]

Have you folkies over there had a copy of "Yes!", the 12 page Yes campaign "Newspaper" shoved through your letterboxes yet? The one that has the huge headline suggesting we will all get a £600 bonus if we vote Yes? But only dedicates 3 column inches to the EU question, without actually answering it, instead posing the reciprocal question of;

"Does anyone really think the EU wouldn't welcome Scotland as a member?"

Well, the EU boffins themselves have not been exactly suggestive of an instant admission....

[piratelassie]

How much will lack of confidence cost.



And just how much is this "confidence" going to cost?

[piratelassie]

At present Scotland enjoys devolved perks from Wesrminster. If we don't have the courage and foresight to vote Yes in September we should do the honourable thing and surrender our free prescriptions, university tuition fees etc. and be equal with the rest of the UK.

[golach]

At present Scotland enjoys devolved perks from Wesrminster. If we don't have the courage and foresight to vote Yes in September we should do the honourable thing and surrender our free prescriptions, university tuition fees etc. and be equal with the rest of the UK. You forgot the free bus passes that the Labour government got us

[Mrs Bradey]

No I am not saying they are wrong - did I say that? Did I say I was right? I said - in my opinion, based on what I have read over the last couple of years, Scotland is likely to be able to negotiate membership of the EU from within and is not likely to be "kicked out of the EU" and therefore I do not accept that Scotland will have to reapply. You have chosen to form an opinion that is different and your opinion is based on what you think is likely. You have given more weight to articles quoting politicians who have their own agenda, and have in some of the cases retracted what they said or complained they were mis-quoted than I did. .....and you know what Weezer...... thats ok :) what's with reapply ? I didn't think rScotland existed, let alone previously a member of the eu..... ?