The Wee Blue Book

[Norgethistle]

^ Also if it is a "nasty" negotiation after a YES vote, then the UK may have a mandate from its electorate to veto a iScotland application, it only takes 1 veto to deny entry

[The Jukebox Rebel]

^ What’s with all this fear? Pull yourself together men!

 

It might be argued that Scotland only has a deficit at all due to having been burdened by the UK debt. Without UK policies to burden us we could be one of the few countries running a book surplus.

 

The pro-Union economist Professor Brian Ashcroft (husband of former Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander) calculated in July 2013 that had Scotland been independent since 1981, it would by now have an accumulated basic budget surplus of at least £68 billion. The real figure, including interest and other benefits, would likely be an “oil fund” of well over £100 billion.

 

There’s hardly a lender in the world who wouldn’t want some of our action. Aside perhaps from those run close to home by spiteful Tories. No doubt you have countless examples of these from some press report led by an Eton-educated editor who, no doubt, went to school with David.

 

We’re a very rich nation. If only our current partnership weren’t so costly.

[jaggybunnet]

^ Also if it is a "nasty" negotiation after a YES vote, then the UK may have a mandate from its electorate to veto a iScotland application, it only takes 1 veto to deny entry

 

but that wont happen in yes land as everyone will do as Scotland says....surely

[kni]

No doubt you have countless examples of these from some press report led by an Eton-educated editor who, no doubt, went to school with David. We’re a very rich nation. If only our current partnership weren’t so costly.

 

Which Eton-educated editor are you referring to? I can't think of one. Charles Moore was replaced at the Daily Telegraph several years ago.

Edited September 10, 2014 by kni

[Norgethistle]

^ What’s with all this fear? Pull yourself together men!

 

It might be argued that Scotland only has a deficit at all due to having been burdened by the UK debt. Without UK policies to burden us we could be one of the few countries running a book surplus.

 

The pro-Union economist Professor Brian Ashcroft (husband of former Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander) calculated in July 2013 that had Scotland been independent since 1981, it would by now have an accumulated basic budget surplus of at least £68 billion. The real figure, including interest and other benefits, would likely be an “oil fund” of well over £100 billion.

 

There’s hardly a lender in the world who wouldn’t want some of our action. Aside perhaps from those run close to home by spiteful Tories. No doubt you have countless examples of these from some press report led by an Eton-educated editor who, no doubt, went to school with David.

 

We’re a very rich nation. If only our current partnership weren’t so costly.

 

Scotland was part of the UK, that dent that Scotland got burdened with helped to bail out Scotlands banks, pay for Scotlands hospitals, pay for Scotlands day to day running.

 

I struggle to see how a Scotland would have accumulated £100 billion pounds (1/5th of Norway's wealth) when a few fundamental issues are different

1. Norway owns the oil from the field to the pump, they get the profit & the tax, the UK only gets the Tax as it leases the fields,
   
2. Norways been contributing to the oilf fund since way before 81
   
3. Norway's tax level on average is twice what the UK's is, has a lower level of unemployment so more people paying tax (At a higher rate) and less claiming benefits, that allows the oil fund to grow.
   
4. Norway has extracted more oil & gas than the whole of the UK in the last 30 years roughly 10% per year more
   

Edited September 11, 2014 by Norgethistle

[kni]

^ Also if it is a "nasty" negotiation after a YES vote, then the UK may have a mandate from its electorate to veto a iScotland application, it only takes 1 veto to deny entry

 

The veto is likely to be Spanish or Belgian anyway. They don't want anything that will encourage Catalonian or Flemmish independence.

 

The Jukebox Rebel has yet to comment the EU's requirement for new Member States to adopt the Euro as a condition of entry. He can't blame Cameron, or even Old Etonians, for that inconvenient truth.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

^ Ach, who knows Norge. He's a unionist though. Not in our camp. Other experts have estimates which concur. Where do you stand with the great Westmister cover up? Doesn't it bother you that you support a deceitful institution?

 

^^ kni, it's a generalism for Team Britain Media Inc. Right, question for you. You seem very concerned with Scotlands EEC position and there's no doubt the entry route cannot yet be clarified with any degree of certainty. Do you think that David Cameron should have asked the EEC what its position would be in the event of Scotland's independence?

[kni]

Do you think that David Cameron should have asked the EEC what its position would be in the event of Scotland's independence?

 

Why do Yes campaigners keep on repeating that nonsense? David Cameron did not need to ask. Van Rompuy, Barroso and now Juncker have stated on several occasions that Scotland would have to apply under Article 49.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the EU Commission's Vice President, Viviane Reding, has made its position very clear. Below is the text of the Vice-President's letter of 14th March 2014 to Christina McKelvie, Convener of the European and External Relations Committee in the Scottish Parliament.

 

Dear Ms McKelvie

 

Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2014.

 

The European Union has been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The Commission, as the guardian of those treaties, is responsible for overseeing their implementation, including the implementation of provisions related to the accession of any European State to the Union. [/size]

 

The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.

 

Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the EU. If the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, an agreement is then negotiated between the applicant state and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the applicant state.

 

 

Which part of that don't you and the Yes campaigners understand? It confirms my earlier post that Scotland is currently regarded by the EU as a region of the UK, not a nation.

 

The UK's Membership is not transferrable to an independent Scotland under Article 48 as the Yes campaign claims. Euro Membership is a condition of admission under the Treaties and non-negotiable. That means any currency union would need to be broken to enable an independent Scotland to join the EU.

Edited September 10, 2014 by kni

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Yes yes, we've been all over that. The above is an "auto response" message. You also described Graham Avery's alternative article as "tosh".

 

The point is that Scotlands position is unprecedented and that humans will sit down, let's call it an EGM, discuss the unique circumstances, and decide what's the most appropriate route.

 

Heid yins at the EEC have stated that would comment on Scotlands unique position were they formally asked to do so by an existing EU member state. David Cameron refused to do this.

 

I'll ask again...

 

Do you think that David Cameron should have asked the EEC what its position would be in the event of Scotland's independence?

[kni]

Yes yes, we've been all over that. The above is an "auto response" message. You also described Graham Avery's alternative article as "tosh".

 

The point is that Scotlands position is unprecedented and that humans will sit down, let's call it an EGM, discuss the unique circumstances, and decide what's the most appropriate route.

 

Heid yins at the EEC have stated that would comment on Scotlands unique position were they formally asked to do so by an existing EU member state. David Cameron refused to do this.

 

I'll ask again...

 

Do you think that David Cameron should have asked the EEC what its position would be in the event of Scotland's independence?

 

Sorry to nitpick again, but the EEC does not exist. It was replaced by the European Union under the Treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.

 

The letter is not an auto response message. It is an official statement from the Commission Vice President to the Convener of the European and External Affairs Committee in the Scottish Parliament. Reding is the Heid Yin with responsibility for enlargement.

 

There is no need for Cameron to write any letter as the Treaties and Presidential statements (as well as the above letter) are very clear. Juncker confirmed the EU's position only yesterday. Surely, Salmond, as the First Minister of a potential applicant has written to the Commission and asked it to clarify its position.

 

It is not a matter of just sitting down and deciding on the appropriate route. The Treaties that govern Membership and applications cannot be torn up. They would have be amended with the unanimous approval of the EU Council and, if necessary, referenda held in the Member States which are constitutionally required to hold them, e.g. Ireland.

 

And for the record, Avery's alternative is not legal under the EU's Treaties. It's Article 49, not 48, that applies to enlargement. There is no legal opinion available to support his bizarre argument.

[kni]

^ kni, it's a generalism for Team Britain Media Inc.

 

So you can't name any Old Etonian editors. Presumably, you are just using the description to smear the media commentators that you disagree with as elitists. That's a very disingenuous debating tactic. So much for reasoned argument backed up with clear or hard facts!

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Kni, you speak as if you’re the world’s leading authority on Scotland’s entry into the EU, whilst the views of academics, professors and even senior EU figures are contemptuously dismissed by your arrogant wave away. Pat Cox, former president of the EU, speaks sensibly on the subject. You really should listen to him and keep your mind open on the matter.

 

[kni]

^ I just take the views of the current Presidents of the European Council and Commission more seriously than Avery.

 

Sorry to nitpick again but Pat Cox was President of the European Parliament, not the EU, 10 years ago. His then party, the Progressive Democrats who were economic Thatcherites, no longer exists.

 

Cox is a hypocrite to argue that the EU respects and promotes democracy. The EU did not respect Ireland's no votes on the Nice and Lisbon Treaties. Cox was the EU Parliament's President when his country voted No to Nice in 2002. It's a pity that he did not stand up for Irish democracy then.

 

Cox also made no reference to the Lisbon Treaty in that interview but would not have dismissed it so lightly in office. He also dismissed the opinions of Barroso who was President of the Commission when he was President of the Parliament. His mind is anything but open.

 

Btw, Cox is a committed arch-federalist as a member of the Spinelli Group. It's highly unlikely that he would support Scotland keeping the Pound as a new Member State. Pick your allies more carefully!

Edited September 10, 2014 by kni

[Guy Incognito]

Yes yes, we've been all over that. The above is an "auto response" message. You also described Graham Avery's alternative article as "tosh". The point is that Scotlands position is unprecedented and that humans will sit down, let's call it an EGM, discuss the unique circumstances, and decide what's the most appropriate route. Heid yins at the EEC have stated that would comment on Scotlands unique position were they formally asked to do so by an existing EU member state. David Cameron refused to do this. I'll ask again... Do you think that David Cameron should have asked the EEC what its position would be in the event of Scotland's independence?

 

If Cameron was sure that the answer from the EU was likely to be negative then you can bet your boots that he would have asked by now. He didn't have to ask but what better way to put Salmond's gas at a peep?

 

The fact is, at this point no one - not even the all-knowing kni - knows for certain what Scotland's position in the EU will be. Like you say, it is entirely unprecedented. But Scotland is completely integrated within the EU. Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens live here (if we count people from rUK) and hundreds of thousands of Scots live elsewhere in the EU. The EU is a major trading partner with Scotland and vice versa. Scotland has a lot to offer the EU - our oil, our gas, our financial services capacity, our renewable energy potential - and Scots have been EU citizens for decades. To just blindly treat us like a completely new aspirant country makes no sense on either a practical or a moral level.

 

The white paper makes mention of an 18 month negotiation period following next week's vote. This includes negotiating the terms of Scotland's EU membership. Theoretically, that means that any loose ends could be tied up before the date of independence. And if the terms are unreasonable then there's noting to stop us saying 'stuff you' to the EU and joining EFTA instead, because that is what independence is about - Scotland making its own decisions.

[Guy Incognito]

I am voting no and because of this the guy who wrote this sent me a message on twitter that wasn't very nice, I am not going into it any further as this is not the place

 

Going by his online persona the guy who put the WBB is a bit of a prat (he's an Aberdeen fan; it goes with the territory).

 

However - and I will admit bias here - he is a good journalist, and having skimmed through a copy of the WBB the other day I have to say it is a more than decent pocket guide to the debate.

 

And unlike certain other publications it doesn't hide behind a pretence of impariality!

[kni]

If Cameron was sure that the answer from the EU was likely to be negative then you can bet your boots that he would have asked by now. He didn't have to ask but what better way to put Salmond's gas at a peep?

 

The fact is, at this point no one - not even the all-knowing kni - knows for certain what Scotland's position in the EU will be. Like you say, it is entirely unprecedented. But Scotland is completely integrated within the EU. Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens live here (if we count people from rUK) and hundreds of thousands of Scots live elsewhere in the EU. The EU is a major trading partner with Scotland and vice versa. Scotland has a lot to offer the EU - our oil, our gas, our financial services capacity, our renewable energy potential - and Scots have been EU citizens for decades. To just blindly treat us like a completely new aspirant country makes no sense on either a practical or a moral level.

 

The white paper makes mention of an 18 month negotiation period following next week's vote. This includes negotiating the terms of Scotland's EU membership. Theoretically, that means that any loose ends could be tied up before the date of independence. And if the terms are unreasonable then there's noting to stop us saying 'stuff you' to the EU and joining EFTA instead, because that is what independence is about - Scotland making its own decisions.

 

The EU has made it perfectly clear on several occasions and in writing to the Scottish Parliament. Scotland, on leaving the UK, would cease to be part of the EU and have to apply for Membership under Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union which deals with enlargement. Cameron did not have to ask because the EU Presidents made statements that have been cleared by their legal team. The Spanish position is very clear and it would challenge in the European Courts any attempt to allow Scotland without it going through the Treaties application and accession procedures.

 

Joining EFTA, staying out of the EU and having a Scottish currency has always been my preferred choice. As I pointed out on the other thread, the Norwegians and Swiss enjoy access to the Single Market and have freedom of movement with the EU and its Member States. They have the added benefit of having their own freely floating national currencies.

 

If Scotland, as an EFTA member, then applied to join the EU, it would be obliged to join the Eurozone eventually when it had met the convergence criteria. Scotland would be forced to abandon the Pound even it persuaded rUK to have a currency union. I also believe that it would also have join the Schengen area which the UK was allowed to opt out of.

 

It is not matter of Scotland of being treated like an aspirant country, it would have to apply for Membership under the terms of the EU Treaties. The negotiation of the accession Treaty would take more than 18 months as there would lots of regulatory compliance and financial issues to be resolved, particularly the terms of separation from rUK. As a small nation, an independent Scotland would have very little clout in the EU Council of Ministers or European Parliament, about the same as Latvia or Estonia. It would better and cheaper to stay out and remain in EFTA.

[Jaggernaut]

The EU has made it perfectly clear on several occasions and in writing to the Scottish Parliament. Scotland, on leaving the UK, would cease to be part of the EU and have to apply for Membership under Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union which deals with enlargement. Cameron did not have to ask because the EU Presidents made statements that have been cleared by their legal team. The Spanish position is very clear and it would challenge in the European Courts any attempt to allow Scotland without it going through the Treaties application and accession procedures.

 

Joining EFTA, staying out of the EU and having a Scottish currency has always been my preferred choice. As I pointed out on the other thread, the Norwegians and Swiss enjoy access to the Single Market and have freedom of movement with the EU and its Member States. They have the added benefit of having their own freely floating national currencies.

 

If Scotland, as an EFTA member, then applied to join the EU, it would be obliged to join the Eurozone eventually when it had met the convergence criteria. Scotland would be forced to abandon the Pound even it persuaded rUK to have a currency union. I also believe that it would also have join the Schengen area which the UK was allowed to opt out of.

 

It is not matter of Scotland of being treated like an aspirant country, it would have to apply for Membership under the terms of the EU Treaties. The negotiation of the accession Treaty would take more than 18 months as there would lots of regulatory compliance and financial issues to be resolved, particularly the terms of separation from rUK. As a small nation, an independent Scotland would have very little clout in the EU Council of Ministers or European Parliament, about the same as Latvia or Estonia. It would better and cheaper to stay out and remain in EFTA.

 

I'll repeat again, KNI: you seem to be absolutely certain of every point you make to the point of totally disregarding, whereas many much more knowledgeable people than you, including lawyers, EU politicians, and academics, would dispute just about everything you claim to be facts.

 

Anyway, you've long claimed to be "undecided." Would you care to share with us your final decision, or will you keep it "a secret?"

[jaggybunnet]

I'll repeat again, KNI: you seem to be absolutely certain of every point you make to the point of totally disregarding, whereas many much more knowledgeable people than you, including lawyers, EU politicians, and academics, would dispute just about everything you claim to be facts.

 

Anyway, you've long claimed to be "undecided." Would you care to share with us your final decision, or will you keep it "a secret?"

 

are you saying that it needs to be made clearer ref entry into the EU?

[kni]

I'll repeat again, KNI: you seem to be absolutely certain of every point you make to the point of totally disregarding, whereas many much more knowledgeable people than you, including lawyers, EU politicians, and academics, would dispute just about everything you claim to be facts.

 

Anyway, you've long claimed to be "undecided." Would you care to share with us your final decision, or will you keep it "a secret?"

 

All the points that I have made are backed up by statements Commission officials, civil servants, senior politicians in the European Parliament and Member States who have both the necessary power and knowledge on these issues.

 

I have quoted the key legislation and statements to support those arguments. All you do is ignore that evidence and repeat Salmond's dishonest nonsense that everything is negotiable. Scotland will play a high price if it believes him. You or Jukebox Rebel (another of your accounts?) have not addressed them. All you do is try to smear me because I debunked the nonsense of Avery and exposed the hypocrisy of Pat Cox.

 

Through my work, I have a detailed knowledge of EU and how it works. It was the experience of dealing with the Commission and Parliament that led to believe that Britain, and therefore Scotland, would be better off out that failed Leviathan.

 

I cannot support Salmond's Sterling-isation plan, i.e. economic catastrophe, or Sillars' Plan B of Euro entry. If Salmond was to offer EFTA, rather than EU, membership and a free floating Scottish currency, I would be in the Yes camp. He has a week left to change his mind and convince me that he is offering real independence not just separation.

Edited September 12, 2014 by kni

[Meister Jag]

I cannot support Salmond's Sterling-isation plan, i.e. economic catastrophe, or Sillars' Plan B of Euro entry. If Salmond was to offer EFTA, rather than EU, membership and a free floating Scottish currency, I would be in the Yes camp. He has a week left to change his mind and convince me that he is offering real independence not just separation.

 

Agree fully with the above but still have to ask: what's in this for the average guy in the street? I know there are promises of no more food banks, safeguarding the NHS in Scotland (but isn't that being done already?) and inward investment to create new jobs etc. But what jobs, paying what kind of wages and where are the promises to look at the minimum wage / modern apprentice rates (£2.65 per hour!) etc. Or is the expectation that all of this will be taken care of as consequence of independence? If so, how and when? (Or do I hear the cry of 'it will take time, we're sorting out the mess of successive governments...'.)

 

It seems to me that low taxation won't provide the necessary revenue to keep the economy going and the corporation tax plans simply confirm this point (3% as opposed to the current UK 20 / 21% with firms not paying until in profit between, I think, £300k - £1.5m; so if you get a good accountant you need never pay tax again!). With this in mind, how will we be able to continue to pay our welfare bill and maintain or increase public services? So do the services lost as a result of austerity measures stay that way? And with a low wage economy, do we top up by means of tax credits; if so, how will this be funded with reduced tax revenue?

 

I would honestly love to believe in what's being offered by the yes campaign, but can't see the figures to back up the promises. That said, the optimism of the yes campaign astounds me and wouldn't it be nice to be rid of Westminster; so therein lies the conundrum for people like me. But surely not independence at any price, and certainly without fully understanding the facts.

 

Mention has also made of the Norwegian Oil Fund and shouldn't we have similar; but then you get to hear that the oil fund is no more than a mathematical artifice i.e. how much is it actually worth when offset against national debt? When similar questions are asked of Scotland, where do we actually stand; indeed is an oil fund a possibility and will all this money actually come our way?

 

From stuff from the yes campaign that came through my door, the Norwegian fund appears to provide plenty for a country that has around 5 million people; thus the obvious and easy comparison to Scotland. So far so good and yes, seems like a great idea... But dig a little bit and you find that the fund is worth $740m (this will no doubt fluctuate according to markets but let's us these figures from Jan 2014). However, the country has accumulated a foreign debt that, at $657 billion. Quite a sum IMO. So simply subtracting the debt from the fund’s $740 billion leaves a balance of only $83 billion. In other words, there is a fund but it is emptying. So is the leftover amount enough for future generations and is there a comparison that can be made with Scotland? (As we don't have a fund, I suspect not. Plus how quickly could we amass funds?)

 

Also, it's noticeable that Norwegian oil investments are mainly in the unstable economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China; so returns are not guaranteed. Will there be a safe market for a Scottish Oil Fund to be invested; or will we just give it to the Co-op Bank? When playing with the future prosperity of a country politicians are playing for high stakes. In Scotland, as far as I can see, there is no mention of this level of forward planning from the yes campaign.

 

But in fairness, when you look at who is behind the no campaign - the same lot who have zealously given us the 'there is no other way and we must cut, cut and cut deeper Austerity cuts', you start to wonder if anyone is giving you a straight answer. Thus my basic question: what is guaranteed for the man in the street?

Edited September 14, 2014 by Meister Jag

[Norgethistle]

 

 

Agree fully with the above but still have to ask: what's in this for the average guy in the street? I know there are promises of no more food banks, safeguarding the NHS in Scotland (but isn't that being done already?) and inward investment to create new jobs etc. But what jobs, paying what kind of wages and where are the promises to look at the minimum wage / modern apprentice rates (£2.65 per hour!) etc. Or is the expectation that all of this will be taken care of as consequence of independence? If so, how and when? (Or do I hear the cry of 'it will take time, we're sorting out the mess of successive governments...'.)

 

It seems to me that low taxation won't provide the necessary revenue to keep the economy going and the corporation tax plans simply confirm this point (3% as opposed to the current UK 20 / 21% with firms not paying until in profit between, I think, £300k - £1.5m; so if you get a good accountant you need never pay tax again!). With this in mind, how will we be able to continue to pay our welfare bill and maintain or increase public services? So do the services lost as a result of austerity measures stay that way? And with a low wage economy, do we top up by means of tax credits; if so, how will this be funded with reduced tax revenue?

 

I would honestly love to believe in what's being offered by the yes campaign, but can't see the figures to back up the promises. That said, the optimism of the yes campaign astounds me and wouldn't it be nice to be rid of Westminster; so therein lies the conundrum for people like me. But surely not independence at any price, and certainly without fully understanding the facts.

 

Mention has also made of the Norwegian Oil Fund and shouldn't we have similar; but then you get to hear that the oil fund is no more than a mathematical artifice i.e. how much is it actually worth when offset against national debt? When similar questions are asked of Scotland, where do we actually stand; indeed is an oil fund a possibility and will all this money actually come our way?

 

From stuff from the yes campaign that came through my door, the Norwegian fund appears to provide plenty for a country that has around 5 million people; thus the obvious and easy comparison to Scotland. So far so good and yes, seems like a great idea... But dig a little bit and you find that the fund is worth $740m (this will no doubt fluctuate according to markets but let's us these figures from Jan 2014). However, the country has accumulated a foreign debt that, at $657 billion. Quite a sum IMO. So simply subtracting the debt from the fund’s $740 billion leaves a balance of only $83 billion. In other words, there is a fund but it is emptying. So is the leftover amount enough for future generations and is there a comparison that can be made with Scotland? (As we don't have a fund, I suspect not. Plus how quickly could we amass funds?)

 

Also, it's noticeable that Norwegian oil investments are mainly in the unstable economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China; so returns are not guaranteed. Will there be a safe market for a Scottish Oil Fund to be invested; or will we just give it to the Co-op Bank? When playing with the future prosperity of a country politicians are playing for high stakes. In Scotland, as far as I can see, there is no mention of this level of forward planning from the yes campaign.

 

But in fairness, when you look at who is behind the no campaign - the same lot who have zealously given us the 'there is no other way and we must cut, cut and cut deeper Austerity cuts', you start to wonder if anyone is giving you a straight answer. Thus my basic question: what is guaranteed for the man in the street?

 

Let's also remember Norway gets the profit AND tax from the oil, an Independant Scotland would only get the tax (at a lower rate than Norways)

The oil fund only exists due to high taxes covering the rest (41% income tax, 20% VAT on food, 30% VAT on others, and 250 nok just to see a doctor)

 

There is a worry here over the actual money in the bank, the reliance on oil which is costing more and more to extract

[kni]

^ Meister Jag make several interesting points. The minimum wage is a matter for future Governments. There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would raise the minimum wage. Like it or not, Scotland will have to compete effectively in global markets to attract inward investment. If the minimum wage and corporation taxes are too high, companies will invest elsewhere.

 

Norway is in EFTA and has its own currency and has control over its own interest rates. Having your own currency allows the markets to price in any weaknesses into the exchange rate. As Salmond has pledged a Sterling-isation, Scotland's interest rates will be higher than rUK's as the it will not have the benefit of rUK's reserves, its financial clout in the markets or the Bank of England as lender of last resort.

 

If an independent Scotland joined the EU, it would have to adopt the Euro with the European Central Bank setting interest rates and Euroloand's economic performance determining the exchange rate. If food banks are to be a means of comparison, Ireland and the Baltic nations are better examples to look at. Remember that Scotland may have to take a proportion of the UK's £7 billion bailout loan to Ireland. That's around £700 million to be found for a start.

 

To build up its financial reserves, an independent Scotland will have to earmark a large proportion of its tax revenues for that purpose. That's in addition to the revenue that will have to be allocated to cover the additional expenditure that will result from the ending of rUK's "Barnett" contribution. Another additional cost would be Scotland's EU contribution which would reflect its oil revenues. RUK alone would benefit from the "Thatcher" rebate. It's unlikely that there will not be much, if any, left over to establish an oil fund.

 

Britain's "austerity cuts" have been nothing like those in other EU countries, especially in the southern states. Several countries experienced large falls in GDP, e.g. IIRC around 20 to 30% in the Baltics. Countries with their own currencies can benefit from devaluation but that is not possible in Euroland. It would not be possible in a British currency union or under Sterling-isation either. The countries which suffered least, and recovered quickly, from the financial crisis were those with their own currencies.

[jaggymct]

I personally find the wee blue book or anything written or put forward by Rev Stuart Campbell extremely unpalatable not because I disagree with his political views but because of his views on the Hillsborough Disaster and who is to blame for the death of the 96 supporters who perished.

 

http://ahdinnaeken.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/wings-over-scotland-hate-preaching-bigot-or-ahem-professional-journalist-you-decide/

 

Read the article above and you decide if he is worthy of the publicity he is being given.

[kni]

Spain agrees that the Wee Blue Book is full of nonsense.

 

 

An independent Scotland would be forced to wait at least five years to join the EU then sign up to the euro, the Spanish government has warned in a major intervention 48 hours before the referendum that directly contradicts Alex Salmond’s claims.

 

Inigo Mendez de Vigo, the Spanish European Affairs Minister, rejected the First Minister’s claims Scotland could negotiate membership “from within” the EU, saying it would have to apply from scratch and follow the usual accession process.

 

He told BBC’s Newsnight programme Jean-Claude Juncker, the new European Commission president, has hinted this would take five years and no new member state would be given an opt-out from the single currency.

 

The intervention is significant as all 28 existing member states, including Spain, would have to reach unanimous agreement on the process a separate Scotland would have to follow and the terms on which it would join.

 

Mr Salmond used an interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show at the weekend to repeat his claim that a separate Scotland would start life in the EU by negotiating entry between a Yes vote on Thursday and actual separation in March 2016.

 

He claims this fast-track process would be achieved by tweaking the EU treaties to include Scotland as a member but José Manuel Barroso, the former commission president, has warned it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for a separate Scotland to join the EU.

 

Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, which consists of all the member states’ leaders, said he agreed with Mr Barroso.

 

The Spanish Prime Minister has also said Scotland would start life outside the EU, while Mr Juncker has said voters’ decision would be respected but it could not become a member merely by sending a letter.

 

Mr Mendez de Vigo said: “It is crystal clear that any partner member-state that leaves the member state is out of the European Union. If they want to apply again, they would have to follow the procedure of article 49 of the treaties.”

 

He said there were “more ifs than a poem by Kipling” about whether and on what terms Scotland would gain entry, emphasising this must be unanimously agreed by the member states and “it is a process that takes more or less five years”.

 

Mr Salmond has said Scotland would not be forced to use the euro as it would not meet the economic conditions but Mr Mendez de Vigo made clear it would be expected to sign up to it in principle and work towards its adoption.

 

“The euro is not just another policy of the union, there is an aim of all member states to share a common currency. We are now 19 member states that share the common currency with an exception, the United Kingdom has an opt-out granted back in 1995 to go out of the euro,” he said.

 

“But I don't see in the future for any member-state to be granted that possibility, if any member-state if any candidate puts that on the table, I can tell you that all member states will look at it very carefully.”

Edited September 16, 2014 by kni

[ScottyDFA]