One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.

[laukat]

Kni

 

I'm not sure I follow your line of debate

 

You've already stated that your desire is for an Independent Scotland outwith the EU and for it to have its own currency

 

If I've followed your analysis so far you believe that in the event of Scotland becoming Independent the following will happen

 

1. We won't be in the EU

2. We won't get a currency union and because we won't be in the EU the only option is a separate Scottish currency

 

For what its worth I don't agree with your analysis but I more interested in why if you are convinced of your own arguments you would vote in a way that would be against your desired outcome?

Edited August 9, 2014 by laukat

[Duck snort]

Don't believe everything that you read in the papers or on the internet. The story is based on an un-named "EU source" who must be a YES sympathiser. Admitting Scotland is not Juncker's decision to make. A Membership application has to be approved unanimously by the EU Council (i.e. all Member States) which has its own President, Herman Van Rumpuy. There is no provision for "special cases" in the Lisbon Treaty. Scotland would be treated like any other applicant and have to negotiate the terms of entry. Any Member State can veto Scotland's application in the EU Council. The Spanish to do not want to create a precedent for Catalonia. It appears that Juncker (or one of his officials) is trying to wind up Cameron, who opposed his appointment, with a load of nonsense.

 

I refer you again to the link I posted only earlier this afternoon (post 584) to the opinion of a man with 40 years experience at the EU which contradicts almost everything you state here. I'm sure you'll understand if I place more weight on his opinion.

[Norgethistle]

As i see it what has been "promised" on currency, EU, pensions isn't quite true, passports under the white paper leave me looking for a Norwegian one as I don't qualify for a Scottish and may struggle with a rUK, NHS is already devolved do the fear of privatisation is false, the budget doesn't add up, but forget all this as it'll all work out after independance

[Jaggernaut]

As i see it what has been "promised" on currency, EU, pensions isn't quite true, passports under the white paper leave me looking for a Norwegian one as I don't qualify for a Scottish and may struggle with a rUK, NHS is already devolved do the fear of privatisation is false, the budget doesn't add up, but forget all this as it'll all work out after independance

 

The only "promise" on currency is that an independent Scotland will use the pound. What has been "promised" about the EU? Scotland is already in the EU, and no mechanism exists for expelling a country. The basis of independent Scotland's EU membership will be negotiated (as will the currency issue with rUK). What's your problem regarding a passport? If you are Scottish and currently have a UK passport then you are eligible for a Scottish passport. Why would you struggle to get another UK passport if that's what you want?

 

Yes, the NHS is devolved, but it can only be protected to the extent that the Scottish Government can balance the books with the pocket money it receives from Westminster. I thought that everybody understood that the amount given back to us by Westminster was going to be slashed, to the point that privatisation will be inevitable. So why do you claim that the fear of privatisation is false?

Edited August 10, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[jaggybunnet]

The only "promise" on currency is that an independent Scotland will use the pound. What has been "promised" about the EU? Scotland is already in the EU, and no mechanism exists for expelling a country. The basis of independent Scotland's EU membership will be negotiated (as will the currency issue with rUK). What's your problem regarding a passport? If you are Scottish and currently have a UK passport then you are eligible for a Scottish passport. Why would you struggle to get another UK passport if that's what you want?

 

 

 

Jaggernaut, this has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

 

Just to be clear (again)NO ONE IS THROWING SCOTLAND OUT OF THE EU as by voting yes we would of our own volition be leaving it, none of the individual nations that make up the UK are in the EU as separate countries...only whilst part of the UK.

[laukat]

As i see it what has been "promised" on currency, EU, pensions isn't quite true, passports under the white paper leave me looking for a Norwegian one as I don't qualify for a Scottish and may struggle with a rUK, NHS is already devolved do the fear of privatisation is false, the budget doesn't add up, but forget all this as it'll all work out after independance

 

Norgethistle

 

I currently work in the NHS at a reasonably senior level. The paces of privatisation in England is truely worrying. Have a google for Staffordshire NHS and their current plans to privatise Cancer care. It started under labour and is getting ramped up the tories.

 

The impact to Scotland is on the budget. Every part that is privatised in England takes money out of the public spending pot. It then in turn has barnet consequentials so the ability of Scotland to continue current levels of spend is impacted.

 

If your argument is that Scotland can choose to divert Money from other areas and still maintain a completely public service then there are two problems. Firstly which part of the Scottish budget is being cut to compensate secondly and more worringly have a look at this http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/12/how-eu-making-nhs-privatisation-permanent

 

Once this arrangement is in place for England it then it is but a legal challenge away from becoming applicable in Scotland as you are on dodgy ground having a bidding process for just one part of an EU member state

[laukat]

Jaggybunnet

 

No one is voting to leave the EU (with the exception perhaps of Kni!) we are voting for an Independent Scotland. A scotland that has been part of the EU for 40 years, a Scotland where we hold European citizenship and have thousand of EU nationals living here. The only EU in/out vote currently planned is in 2017

 

Iceland choose to leave but had to resign its status and even that took a while before they came out.So the question remains if Scotland becomes Independent how are they expelled? Who comes and tells the EU citizens currently living in Scotland to get out? What mechanism exists to take away my EU citizenship?

[jaggybunnet]

You compare Highlands and Islands to Scotland. Highland and Island is a region of Scotland. So if your point is true then within the UK Scotland is not a nation but a region?

 

yes, as England N Ireland and wales are within the UK, as is Germany, UK and France in the EU, if that get people all hot and bothered then there is no hope

 

Don't have a problem if you see Scotland as a region. I however see Scotland as a nation and the vote on the 18th September is about the best future for Scotland. How can the best future be as a region of a region?

 

Personally I've never voted Labour but if Scotland as a Nation votes Labour and we get a Scottish Labour Government thats democracy in action.

 

going by that we never voted for the snp as they got less than a third of the electorate.

 

Are you suggesting that the SNP didn't get the largest share of the vote at the Scottish Parliamentary elections or that the way in which the Scottish parliamentary elections are held is undemocratic?

 

i am saying as they only got less than a third of the electorate they hardly speak or hold a mandate for Scotland do they, because if you saying they are then surely the same works for the Westminster vote in Scotland in Scotland

 

Reduced Military spending would only have have an effect if the full amount Scotland currently contributes to UK Defence spending was being spent in Scotland. As we currently spend less in Scotland than we contribute all we are in effect doing is saving the cash.

 

By employing people to provide childcare we take back in tax from their earnings and provide an opportunity for parents to rejoin the workforce. As I said it is almost self sustainable. If I remember correctly the year 1 start up costs are forecast to be approx £500m which is about half of the amount saving in defence spending. Due to the tax take in year 2 and every year thereafter it will start to pay for itself

 

that was sort of blown out the water as the costing assumed that pretty much all women would be employed and people wouldn't just use it as somewhere to dump off there kids and didn't take into account that the women who already worked wouldn't be putting anymore money in

 

We can agree to disagree on the costs and affordability but is the intention not admirable and is it not an example of a Scotland you would like to live in? A country that priorities children over military posturing? Where is the same ambition from the No campaign?

 

The intention is only admirable if it is in any way attainable which in my view it isn't with the information give so far.

 

of course not all of the spending will be on Scotland, places like Germany, Canada and Kenya have troops based then that must be paid for and what size of army do you see if there was independence.

 

I don't see an Independent Scotland having bases outwith Scotland as it will be a defence force with particapation in UN missions. Speaking as an ex-service man I've never got the line that says no-one wants to be in a Scottish Army as the opportunity to take part in action was limited. I always thought if I'm going to get paid the same for both jobs and one of them has less chance of me dying then why would I sign up the one that had more chance of death?

 

I am ex regular and now FTRs (Full Time reservist) and the majority of regular soldier i know and speak to don't want to be part of a army that never goes anywhere and don't deploy on ops. and as for more chance of death, you must remember being a young soldier where you never think it will happen to you, we will as a nation be involved in a conflict of some sort a quick flick through the papers or watching the news tells you that. we are slipping back into the dangerous ground we were in before the 1st and 2nd world wars where we were just not ready.

 

Regarding the £11 Billion poverty relief. Are you suggesting that Westminster gave us £11billion extra on top the normal block grant? Given we know we contribute more than we get back how are they able to give us anything more than our own cash back without increased borrowing which we in turn have to pay back?

 

em no we don't, we gave in £53.1 billion last year and spent £65.2 billion

 

So where in the UK is producing so much money that it could afford to hand us £12.1 billion? This place must earn a lot of extra cash as it must also of handed the same pro-rate share to Wales, Northern Ireland and England? So where in the UK is earning so much money that it had £120 Billion extra to throw about? The anwer is the extra cash is borrowing as the whole UK runs a deficit and as with all loans they need to be repaid and its the tax take thats pays the loan.

 

yes, that is my point, given that £8 BN yearly deficit are we going to find that money, with the issues such as higher interest rates due to currency problems and paying off Scotland part of that debt, add to that the fact that a third of the Scottish work force is public sector and swinny has said he will stop all the cuts and try to spend our way out of this whilst not raising taxes. ohh and the oil fund which means the deficit will be even larger as you cant spend it if it is tied to this which is noways problem.

 

Scotland's ability to join the EU is not really the question regarding green 'subsidies'. The question is what happens to the subsidies from the EU if the UK votes to leave?

 

no it is not in question that Scotland could rejoin but how long that took is an other matter unless Scotland wants to bend over and take what ever the eu want, as for the UK and the EU, that is a different referendum (unless you don't want them after this one) and we would leave at a time of our choosing and not as an after thought of this referendum.

 

This is the context to my question from an earlier post with Norgethistle

 

-Development of green energy, this is currently seriously subsidised by the EU, who pays whislt Scotland waits to get in, but again how green is the de-forrestation of 5 million trees in Scotland to put wind turbines up --- Don't fully agree that this is dependent on EU membership nor that Scotland would be outside for any period but if we accept your point then what happens when we vote no and the UK votes to leave the EU?

 

I believe my question still stands which in its fuller form is - If a reason for voting No is to retain EU membership how can this be guaranteed with an in/out referendum due in 2017?

 

We would decide when we leave there fore giving companies time to find other ways to fund them, scotland would not have that timeline as the snp want everything done on a much shorter time frame

 

 

As I've said before you can interrogate the ability of an Independent Scotland to make the plans happen however it difficult to criticize the ambition and so far impossible to show how any of this is possible in the UK?

 

For example I would appreciate your answer on how you think we will for example remove nuclear weapons by voting No? Which UK party do I vote for that will provide this?

 

i personally would like to be rid of it too but think we need it.

 

Be interested to know why you think the UK needs it?

 

Russia for a start, they worry me and never say never as WW1 was the war to end all wars and that didn't work out well, there will always be some power hungry person who wants to control people and people will follow them

 

As always I do appreciate the replies and if you have the time could you offer your view on how Scotland can prosper and implement the changes it wants by remaining in the UK? I think if we are going to discuss Scotland's future we need to see whats on offer from both sides

[jaggybunnet]

Jaggybunnet

 

No one is voting to leave the EU (with the exception perhaps of Kni!) we are voting for an Independent Scotland. A scotland that has been part of the EU for 40 years, a Scotland where we hold European citizenship and have thousand of EU nationals living here. The only EU in/out vote currently planned is in 2017

 

Iceland choose to leave but had to resign its status and even that took a while before they came out.So the question remains if Scotland becomes Independent how are they expelled? Who comes and tells the EU citizens currently living in Scotland to get out? What mechanism exists to take away my EU citizenship?

 

i believe i have explained it a simply as i could, if we are not in the uk then we are not in the eu unless we rejoin and that was accepted by the eu.

[kni]

Kni

 

I'm not sure I follow your line of debate

 

You've already stated that your desire is for an Independent Scotland outwith the EU and for it to have its own currency

 

If I've followed your analysis so far you believe that in the event of Scotland becoming Independent the following will happen

 

1. We won't be in the EU

2. We won't get a currency union and because we won't be in the EU the only option is a separate Scottish currency

 

For what its worth I don't agree with your analysis but I more interested in why if you are convinced of your own arguments you would vote in a way that would be against your desired outcome?

 

My fear is that the SNP has no plans for 1 an 2. If 1. happens, the SNP would apply for EU membership. A likely requirement for acceptance would be for Scotland to join the Euro Zone. I don't Salmond and Sturgeon to negotiate a good deal.

[jaggybunnet]

My fear is that the SNP has no plans for 1 an 2. If 1. happens, the SNP would apply for EU membership. A likely requirement for acceptance would be for Scotland to join the Euro Zone. I don't Salmond and Sturgeon to negotiate a good deal.

 

 

which they would

[kni]

I refer you again to the link I posted only earlier this afternoon (post 584) to the opinion of a man with 40 years experience at the EU which contradicts almost everything you state here. I'm sure you'll understand if I place more weight on his opinion.

 

The opinion of your so-called expert counts for nothing. Keating is just an academic with no power or say. I assume that he is a Yes supporter and/or SNP member.

 

Herman Van Rumpuy, President of the EU Council, has stated clearly that an independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership.

 

I'm sure that you will understand if I place more weight on the President of the organisation that actually takes the decisions on Membership and who knows EU law inside out.

 

You really are desperate to blatantly ignore and discount the opinion of Van Rumpuy, the most powerful man in the European Union's institutions.

Edited August 10, 2014 by kni

[kni]

which they would

 

How? They would be in a very weak negotiating position as they would be desperate to get back in the EU. The EU always dictates the terms of entry. The process can take as long as the EU likes. Remember that it only takes one country to veto an application. Even wee Malta could keep us out.

[Norgethistle]

Jaggybunnet

 

No one is voting to leave the EU (with the exception perhaps of Kni!) we are voting for an Independent Scotland. A scotland that has been part of the EU for 40 years, a Scotland where we hold European citizenship and have thousand of EU nationals living here. The only EU in/out vote currently planned is in 2017

 

Iceland choose to leave but had to resign its status and even that took a while before they came out.So the question remains if Scotland becomes Independent how are they expelled? Who comes and tells the EU citizens currently living in Scotland to get out? What mechanism exists to take away my EU citizenship?

 

Scotland, England, Wales & NI are not in the EU on their own, the UK is, none of these countries have a membership. If Scotland leaves the UK, then it does not have a EU membership, and will have to apply. If accepted due to Scotland political position it will not be given the veto's that the UK has negotiated, like zero VAT on various goods etc, Scotland will be in a very weak negotiating position with Brussels especially if it has no currency.

 

In addition we hold EU citizenship only via our UK passport, which we will be giving up in the event of a YES vote.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Norgethistle

[laukat]

Jaggybunnet

 

Took you answer from the last post rather than another copy which would start to fill a page on its own. If you think I've missed anything important feel free to add back in

 

i am saying as they only got less than a third of the electorate they hardly speak or hold a mandate for Scotland do they, because if you saying they are then surely the same works for the Westminster vote in Scotland in Scotland

 

At the last UK general election the Tory and Lib dems combined across the UK got 59% of the vote on a turnout of 65% which means across the UK (assuming my maths to be correct) that only 44% of the UK voted for these parties. Do they hold a mandate for the UK? Do they hold a mandate for Scotland when at the same election they only got 23% of the Scottish population voting for them combined?

 

yes, that is my point, given that £8 BN yearly deficit are we going to find that money, with the issues such as higher interest rates due to currency problems and paying off Scotland part of that debt, add to that the fact that a third of the Scottish work force is public sector and swinny has said he will stop all the cuts and try to spend our way out of this whilst not raising taxes. ohh and the oil fund which means the deficit will be even larger as you cant spend it if it is tied to this which is noways problem.

 

My question sill remains. Who in the rUK is giving is the money? If no-one is and I take it form your answer that you agree it is a loan that we pay back through Scottish taxes then we can move onto how Scotland would continue to do this post Independence. Where is this pulling and sharing of resources?

 

We would decide when we leave there fore giving companies time to find other ways to fund them, scotland would not have that timeline as the snp want everything done on a much shorter time frame

 

So if we are going to vote No surely it falls on those supporting No to say how these companies would find other ways to fund otherwise you have uncertainty and risk which the No campaign say cannot be?

 

Russia for a start, they worry me and never say never as WW1 was the war to end all wars and that didn't work out well, there will always be some power hungry person who wants to control people and people will follow them

 

If Russia decides to attack firing our nukes will be the equivalent of firing a peashooter at a tank and would also ensure that the UK would be wiped off the map as the Russians retaliate with their vast array of Nuclear weapons. The only thing stopping Russia is the fear of reprisals from the US. The US nuclear arsenal gives us M.A.D not our nukes.

 

I've never understood the theory that says we need them in case some power hungry madman has ideas of firing his own. On one hand that argument suggests the person is insane and will stop at nothing to gain power but on the other hand credits the person is rational enough to think I better not in case the UK fires back. The madman can't be mad and sane at the same time. Just my theory perhaps someone can sport something I can't

 

I do notice that you didn't answer the following question. Care to give it a go?

 

As always I do appreciate the replies and if you have the time could you offer your view on how Scotland can prosper and implement the changes it wants by remaining in the UK? I think if we are going to discuss Scotland's future we need to see whats on offer from both sides

[Jaggernaut]

Jaggernaut, this has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

 

Just to be clear (again)NO ONE IS THROWING SCOTLAND OUT OF THE EU as by voting yes we would of our own volition be leaving it, none of the individual nations that make up the UK are in the EU as separate countries...only whilst part of the UK.

 

Independent Scotland would be treated as a special case, according to the EU. They need access to Scottish seas for their fish.

[Jaggernaut]

Jaggernaut, this has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

 

Just to be clear (again)NO ONE IS THROWING SCOTLAND OUT OF THE EU as by voting yes we would of our own volition be leaving it, none of the individual nations that make up the UK are in the EU as separate countries...only whilst part of the UK.

 

Incidentally, the chances are that in the not too distant future whatever remains of the UK will vote to leave the EU. Are you worried by that?

[Norgethistle]

Independent Scotland would be treated as a special case, according to the EU. They need access to Scottish seas for their fish.

 

Thats right Salmond said he would blockade Scottish waters to prevent fleets gaining access to Norwegian waters, lets see how that goes down and when Norway switches the gas off as a pay back

[laukat]

My fear is that the SNP has no plans for 1 an 2. If 1. happens, the SNP would apply for EU membership. A likely requirement for acceptance would be for Scotland to join the Euro Zone. I don't Salmond and Sturgeon to negotiate a good deal.

 

Understand the point above but if your analysis is correct you get to where you want to be by voting Yes not by voting no.

 

All you have to do once you get there is convince the Scottish electorate that staying out of the EU is the place to be. That shouldn't be a problem if you believe being out the EU is a great place to be as the Scottish population on your analysis will have experienced it.

 

You will also have a chance to vote in the 2016 election for a party that has this stance. As in your analysis by 2016 we will be out and still a number of years form be back in

 

BTW - still don't agree with the analysis but more interested in why if you believe something and it delivers your goal you vote against it?

[jaggybunnet]

How? They would be in a very weak negotiating position as they would be desperate to get back in the EU. The EU always dictates the terms of entry. The process can take as long as the EU likes. Remember that it only takes one country to veto an application. Even wee Malta could keep us out.

 

i was agreeing with you that is would be them that would be doing all the negotiating with a team of hand picked (by them) people,

[kni]

Independent Scotland would be treated as a special case, according to the EU. They need access to Scottish seas for their fish.

 

But Herman Van Rumpuy, President of the EU Council which rules on membership, has said that an independent Scotland would not be a special case.

 

Jean-Claude Juncker is President of the European Commission which is just the bureaucracy and has no decision-making powers.

 

Van Rumpuy quoted in the Herald - "Mr van Rompuy said: "If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

 

"In other words, a new independent state 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 any more on its territory."

 

He said any European state could apply to join the EU "according to the known accession procedures" set out in Article 49."

 

Jaggernaut - what part of that do you not understand? Your pet academic can't tell Van Rumpuy to make Scotland a special case.

Edited August 10, 2014 by kni

[kni]

i was agreeing with you that is would be them that would be doing all the negotiating with a team of hand picked (by them) people,

 

Sorry that I misunderstood your point.

[laukat]

Scotland, England, Wales & NI are not in the EU on their own, the UK is, none of these countries have a membership. If Scotland leaves the UK, then it does not have a EU membership, and will have to apply. If accepted due to Scotland political position it will not be given the veto's that the UK has negotiated, like zero VAT on various goods etc, Scotland will be in a very weak negotiating position with Brussels especially if it has no currency.

 

In addition we hold EU citizenship only via our UK passport, which we will be giving up in the event of a YES vote.

 

Couple of points

 

You didn't really address the question of how it is taken away

 

Secondly regarding the point that wee have the EU citizenship under our UK passport. The part below is from this link http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/guides/266501-scotland-decides-citizenship-immigration-and-independence/

 

Will we need a new passport if there's a Yes vote?

In an independent Scotland all British citizens born or habitually resident in Scotland on day one of independence will have the right to acquire a Scottish passport, although, as in most countries, there will be no requirement to hold one.

Under the SNP's plans, adult passports would last for ten years and children's passports for five, as is the present situation in the UK. Passport costs will be "comparable" to the £72.50 (adult) and £46 (child) fees currently levied by Her Majesty's Passport Office.

Scottish passports will look similar to UK passports, but will be identified on the cover as Scottish. Valid UK passports will be recognised until their date of expiration.

 

The bit in red seems to contradict your statement that we will be giving up our UK passports in the event of Independence.UK passports are valid for 10 years. So if your point about or EU citizenship being under our UK passports is correct and I have one taken out on the 15th March 2016 I am an EU citizen until 2026 (assuming the UK votes to stay in)?

 

This then follows that everyone in Scotland could continue as a EU citizen for 10 years after Independence no matter what happens?

 

For what its worth I agree that we will have to negotiate the terms of its entry and we can discuss separately the possible outcomes of this but on the substantive point of will I be an EU citizen after Independence I think the above shows the case to be yes we will. As always I may have missed something so open to other opinions?

Edited August 10, 2014 by laukat

[Jaggernaut]

But Herman Van Rumpuy, President of the EU Council which rules on membership, has said that an independent Scotland would not be a special case.

 

Jean-Claude Juncker is President of the European Commission which is just the bureaucracy and has no decision-making powers.

 

Van Rumpuy quoted in the Herald - "Mr van Rompuy said: "If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

 

"In other words, a new independent state 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 any more on its territory."

 

He said any European state could apply to join the EU "according to the known accession procedures" set out in Article 49."

 

Jaggernaut - what part of that do you not understand? Your pet academic can't tell Van Rumpuy to make Scotland a special case.

 

Surprise, surprise, Van Rumpuy made his comment in Madrid, to the delight of the Spanish establishment worried about the Catalans. Here's an alternative view, from Graham Avery, the European Commission's honorary director general for the European Policy Centre:

 

In his policy paper, Mr Avery argues that the decision on Scotland's membership would be taken by "the EU's leaders in the European Council, and they will decide on the basis of practical and political considerations".

He wrote that politically it would be "difficult to see how the Union could reject five million Scots, who are already EU citizens" but noted that some EU states, including Spain, were concerned about any encouragement to their own internal regional independence movements.

But he added: "From a practical point of view, no member state has a material interest in Scotland remaining outside the EU, even for a short time.

"This would deprive the EU of the benefits of Scotland's membership (budgetary contribution, fisheries resources, etc).

"Scotland outside the EU, and not applying EU rules, would be a legal nightmare for EU member states, whose citizens and enterprises would lose their rights in Scotland.

"No member state, particularly not the rest of the UK, would have an interest in creating such an anomaly."

 

 

Edited to increase font size.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[jaggybunnet]

Jaggybunnet

 

Took you answer from the last post rather than another copy which would start to fill a page on its own. If you think I've missed anything important feel free to add back in

 

i am saying as they only got less than a third of the electorate they hardly speak or hold a mandate for Scotland do they, because if you saying they are then surely the same works for the Westminster vote in Scotland in Scotland

 

At the last UK general election the Tory and Lib dems combined across the UK got 59% of the vote on a turnout of 65% which means across the UK (assuming my maths to be correct) that only 44% of the UK voted for these parties. Do they hold a mandate for the UK? Do they hold a mandate for Scotland when at the same election they only got 23% of the Scottish population voting for them combined?

 

my point is if you are saying that then the same apply s to the snp in the Scottish election and i think it was actually 35.6 % of Scotland that voted for them.

 

 

 

yes, that is my point, given that £8 BN yearly deficit are we going to find that money, with the issues such as higher interest rates due to currency problems and paying off Scotland part of that debt, add to that the fact that a third of the Scottish work force is public sector and swinny has said he will stop all the cuts and try to spend our way out of this whilst not raising taxes. ohh and the oil fund which means the deficit will be even larger as you cant spend it if it is tied to this which is noways problem.

 

My question sill remains. Who in the rUK is giving is the money? If no-one is and I take it form your answer that you agree it is a loan that we pay back through Scottish taxes then we can move onto how Scotland would continue to do this post Independence. Where is this pulling and sharing of resources?

 

that why i said yes, i want to know how Scotland would deal with it as an independent nation as i said above.

 

We would decide when we leave there fore giving companies time to find other ways to fund them, scotland would not have that timeline as the snp want everything done on a much shorter time frame

 

So if we are going to vote No surely it falls on those supporting No to say how these companies would find other ways to fund otherwise you have uncertainty and risk which the No campaign say cannot be?

 

em no it is up to those that want independence to show now how they would cover those losses, your question as i said above is for another referendum

 

Russia for a start, they worry me and never say never as WW1 was the war to end all wars and that didn't work out well, there will always be some power hungry person who wants to control people and people will follow them

 

If Russia decides to attack firing our nukes will be the equivalent of firing a peashooter at a tank and would also ensure that the UK would be wiped off the map as the Russians retaliate with their vast array of Nuclear weapons. The only thing stopping Russia is the fear of reprisals from the US. The US nuclear arsenal gives us M.A.D not our nukes.

 

No, you answer seem to show you don't understand concept of Nuclear deterrent and the fact that putting them in different country's means they cant just take out USA and then take the rest on as they see fit.

 

I've never understood the theory that says we need them in case some power hungry madman has ideas of firing his own. On one hand that argument suggests the person is insane and will stop at nothing to gain power but on the other hand credits the person is rational enough to think I better not in case the UK fires back. The madman can't be mad and sane at the same time. Just my theory perhaps someone can sport something I can't

 

it worked with Stalin and his replacements

 

I do notice that you didn't answer the following question. Care to give it a go?

 

As always I do appreciate the replies and if you have the time could you offer your view on how Scotland can prosper and implement the changes it wants by remaining in the UK? I think if we are going to discuss Scotland's future we need to see whats on offer from both sides

 

i have on the whole have no issue on what we have at the moment and have made it clear in the past that i think the Scottish parliament is a waste of time effort and cash and to be honest hasn't done that much to improve Scotland, i certainly don't want it to have anymore powers as that scares the life out of me.