SNP claims over EU membership not so clear

[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...s.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 it

That's 'independence' ain't it?!

[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?

[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?

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!!!