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

[Colognejag]

What people who swallow the "no bbc", "no currency union", "no pensions", "border guards", "no defence jobs" etc claptrap don't seem to realise is that britnats have no other option than to say these things. They have no other option than to say them, but they know that they are patently untrue. Of course an independent Scotland (and rUK) will most probably share the pound, of course Scottish pensions will be safe (probably safer than in rUK), of course there will be no border between Scotland and England, of course Scottish industry will include a defence sector. But by admitting that all of these are not just possible but almost certain, the britnats would be seen in public to acknowledge the fact that an independent Scotland will be a thriving and successful country that is no longer getting shafted by England for its own selfish purposes. And of course they've brainwashed many otherwise reasonable people into either believing (sad) or simply parroting (even sadder) the same claptrap.

 

Sounds like you are the one brainwashed here...

 

"of course, of course, of course..." There seems to be absolutely nothing that is a matter of course!!! At present, no-one knows what is going to happen. This is the real problem of the vote. We have no idea what we will be voting for or against...

 

I would much rather the negotiations started a long time ago so we actually knew what we would be voting for.

• Better together says no to pound, Salmond says yes to pound - ok that seems clear enough
  
• EU commissioner say EU will be difficult (not due to EU per se, but due to individual country's self interests), Salmond says EU no problem - ok that seems clear enough
  

The crux of the matter is that it is not up to an independent Scotland to decide upon these matters, whether we would like to or not. This is the price of becoming independent. A independent country has to accept the conditions of entry into new trade areas/institutuions.

 

I would much rather know definitievely the answers to these questions, otherwise it is a blind vote.

[Colognejag]

Then, presumably, the latest turn of events will be music to your ears. No pound and no EU - what's to stop you voting Yes now?

 

As much as I think Gideon is bluffing, there is some strand of logic to his stance. Barroso's stance, however, is completely nonsensical. The EU has just welcomed Bulgaria and Romania with open arms and we are expected to believe that Scotland, a country whose citizens have been part of the EU for forty years, will find it 'almost possible' to be admitted? These countries existed previously. An independent Scotland is a "new" country. Scotland would be voting out of a country which has been a member for 40 years.

 

Plus - and I have said this already on here - where would that leave the tens of thousands of EU citizens who currently reside in Scotland, not to mention the Spanish fishing trawlers sailing around Scotland? Are they going to be abandoned? No, they have their own EU passports. If Scotland wre not a member of the EU, the majoity would probably leave, I guess. The fact that a completely unprepared East Germany was absorbed into the EU without anyone batting an eyelid at the time has also been ignored as well. Technically speaking, the Federal Republic of Germany was a brand new state. Technically by whose account? The difference being East Germany was absorbed INTO an existing EU country. Scotland would be getting itself OUT of an existing EU country.

 

 

That Andrew Marr interview was appallingly, almost laughably biased. Barroso - a politician who has his own secessionist worries to contend with, in case we forget - was asked a clearly leading question by Marr, who then failed to ask him to expand on it.

 

You may be right about Baroso, but he sums up the problem. The EU as an organisation may very well not have a problem with Scotland joining, but it is not up to the EU . It is up to the individual EU member states to decide. As we know, there are many reasons why some EU individual states might not want Scotland to become independent out of self-interests... Scotland/the UK/the EU cannot control this...

[Jaggernaut]

Sounds like you are the one brainwashed here...

 

"of course, of course, of course..." There seems to be absolutely nothing that is a matter of course!!! At present, no-one knows what is going to happen. This is the real problem of the vote. We have no idea what we will be voting for or against...

 

I would much rather know definitievely the answers to these questions, otherwise it is a blind vote.

 

I honestly can't believe your first statement in bold. No idea?????

 

You'll never get definitive answers to what will happen in the future. Not from unionists about what will happen to Scotland in the event of a no vote, or even about what will happen to the UK in the future. When will the next financial crisis and soaring unemployment occur? When will Britain wage was against another muslim country? We don't know. Voting no is just as blind, except that you can be sure than nothing will get better for Scotland. A yes vote means that things might get better; they could not get worse.

[Norgethistle]

You seem to forget that I support real independence (from the EU too) and a new Scottish currency. That's not a dream, it's the real result of Scotland voting Yes in October so, in that case, why on earth would I vote No? However, Salmond and Sturgeon are refusing to accept, never mind plan for, that reality. They want Scotland to retain the Pound and stay in the EU.

 

If Scotland retains the Pound Sterling, the Bank of England will control the Scotland's economy via the SNP's desired fiscal treaty. Such a treaty would set out a full fiscal regime (tax and spending) that the Scottish Parliament and government will have to adhere to. If Scotland is in the EU, our laws and courts will be controlled by the Brussels bureaucrats and the MEPs of the other 26 countries. And the SNP calls that independence!

 

An independent Scotland, however, could join Norway, Switzerland and Iceland in EFTA rather than the EU. They are members of European Economic Area and have access to the Single Market. Switzerland also has an agreement for freedom of movement with the EU too. IIRC Norway does too. However, I would prefer simple free trade agreement with the EU so that Scotland can retain full national control of its borders and courts.

 

Btw, what's wrong with Switzerland? Have you been there or know the country? Residents enjoy beautiful scenery and a fantastic quality of life in addition to economic prosperity. The GDP Per Capita World Rankings are

 

Norway - 3rd by World Bank, 4th by IMF

Switzerland - 5th by World Bank, 7th by IMF

United Kingdom - 21st by World Bank and IMF

 

Switzerland also has very democratic system of national and local government, a total anathema to the unelected bureaucrats in the European Commission. Remember what happened when the Dutch, French and Irish voted to reject the original EU constitution? We got a the Lisbon Treaty, the constitution in another form. The Irish rejected that too but had to vote again.

 

I would be more inclined to vote YES for what you propose than the shambolic white paper of Salmond

 

Kni for 1st Minister

[Colognejag]

I honestly can't believe your first statement in bold. No idea?????

 

You'll never get definitive answers to what will happen in the future. Not from unionists about what will happen to Scotland in the event of a no vote, or even about what will happen to the UK in the future. When will the next financial crisis and soaring unemployment occur? When will Britain wage was against another muslim country? We don't know. Voting no is just as blind, except that you can be sure than nothing will get better for Scotland. A yes vote means that things might get better; they could not get worse. - now that is very much a matter of opinion!

 

Exactly - no idea. The consequences of not keeping the pound or being in the EU are huge. If we do not know the answer to these two fundemental questions then, no, we have absolutely no idea what sort of Scotland we are voting for or against... I am surprised you cannot see how this is exceptionally important to know before we vote on the matter.

[kni]

Sounds like you are the one brainwashed here...

 

"of course, of course, of course..." There seems to be absolutely nothing that is a matter of course!!! At present, no-one knows what is going to happen. This is the real problem of the vote. We have no idea what we will be voting for or against...

 

I would much rather the negotiations started a long time ago so we actually knew what we would be voting for.

• Better together says no to pound, Salmond says yes to pound - ok that seems clear enough
  
• EU commissioner say EU will be difficult (not due to EU per se, but due to individual country's self interests), Salmond says EU no problem - ok that seems clear enough
  

The crux of the matter is that it is not up to an independent Scotland to decide upon these matters, whether we would like to or not. This is the price of becoming independent. A independent country has to accept the conditions of entry into new trade areas/institutuions.

 

I would much rather know definitievely the answers to these questions, otherwise it is a blind vote.

 

For clarity, Barroso is the President of the European Commission, not a just an ordinary Commissioner. Our Commissioner isBaroness (Cathy) Ashton who is the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, the equivalent of our Foreign Secretary. Barroso will have sounded his fellow Commissioners, especially Ashton, before making his statement on Scotland's status as a potential applicant for Membership. The Commissioners, in turn, will have sought the views of their national governments.

 

Not a single Member State has supported Salmond's position on Scotland's future EU membership. His weakness will be exploited in negotiations for entry, e.g. Scotland's financial contributions to the EU to reflect its oil and gas revenues. The EU has had its beady eye on those revenues for many years which is why Norway has been clever to stay out even though its political classes want to join the gravy train.

Edited February 18, 2014 by kni

[Jaggernaut]

Exactly - no idea. The consequences of not keeping the pound or being in the EU are huge. If we do not know the answer to these two fundemental questions then, no, we have absolutely no idea what sort of Scotland we are voting for or against... I am surprised you cannot see how this is exceptionally important to know before we vote on the matter.

 

But how will we ever get to know, one way or the other? Will Cameron tell us precisely what our future will hold? Will Salmond? I think not, because they cannot know. The choice is down to whether, in the uncertain world ahead, we should have Westminster make all of our important decisions for us and accept the decreasing amount of pocket money they decide to give us so that they can keep most of it for their own projects, or else we take care of our own income and decisions and do what is best for us, not for Westminster.

[Norgethistle]

For clarity, Barroso is the President of the European Commission. He is not a just an ordinary Commissioner like our Baroness (Cathy) Ashton who is in charge of. She is the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, the equivalent of our Foreign Secretary. Barroso will have sounded his fellow Commissioners, especially Ashton, before making his statement on Scotland's status as a potential applicant for Membership. The Commissioners, in turn, will have sought the views of their national governments.

 

Not a single Member Statement has supported Salmond's position on Scotland's future EU membership. His weakness will be exploited in negotiations for entry, e.g. Scotland's financial contributions to the EU to reflect its oil and gas revenues. The EU has had its beady eye on those revenues for many years which is why Norway has been clever to stay out even though its political classes want to join the gravy train.

 

Whislt Norways policicians want to join the gravy train the Norwegian public is adamant it will stay completely independant from the EU, its own currency, taxes (Which still scare the hell out me) and laws.

 

This is what Scotland should be looking to do, IF it really wants independance, but this has a significant cost (Printing money, setting up a bank, zero credit rating so higher loan rates etc etc) to start up and would have several years of hardship before a sense of prosperity comes through.

 

The EU may offer Scotland membership but that will come at a price........... the oil or a big percentage of it

[Jaggernaut]

For clarity, Barroso is the President of the European Commission, not a just an ordinary Commissioner. Our Commissioner isBaroness (Cathy) Ashton who is the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, the equivalent of our Foreign Secretary. Barroso will have sounded his fellow Commissioners, especially Ashton, before making his statement on Scotland's status as a potential applicant for Membership. The Commissioners, in turn, will have sought the views of their national governments.

 

Not a single Member State has supported Salmond's position on Scotland's future EU membership. His weakness will be exploited in negotiations for entry, e.g. Scotland's financial contributions to the EU to reflect its oil and gas revenues. The EU has had its beady eye on those revenues for many years which is why Norway has been clever to stay out even though its political classes want to join the gravy train.

Barroso is a politician who is terrified of the consequences of Scotland gaining independence for what it means in his own neck of the woods. No more, no less. For him to say that it was almost "impossible" for Scotland to join the EU, without even mentioning negotiations, wiped out any credibility whatsoever in his statement. And you have no evidence that he "sounded out" anybody. Cameron, maybe.

[Jaggernaut]

Whislt Norways policicians want to join the gravy train the Norwegian public is adamant it will stay completely independant from the EU, its own currency, taxes (Which still scare the hell out me) and laws.

 

This is what Scotland should be looking to do, IF it really wants independance, but this has a significant cost (Printing money, setting up a bank, zero credit rating so higher loan rates etc etc) to start up and would have several years of hardship before a sense of prosperity comes through.

 

The EU may offer Scotland membership but that will come at a price........... the oil or a big percentage of it

 

I think that many Yes voters would accept that. It's not about what will happen in the next 2 or 5 or even 10 years. It's much more important than that.

[Colognejag]

But how will we ever get to know, one way or the other? Will Cameron tell us precisely what our future will hold? Will Salmond? I think not, because they cannot know. The choice is down to whether, in the uncertain world ahead, we should have Westminster make all of our important decisions for us and accept the decreasing amount of pocket money they decide to give us so that they can keep most of it for their own projects, or else we take care of our own income and decisions and do what is best for us, not for Westminster.

 

Which is why I called it a blind vote...

 

Well, my view is that if the world is that uncertain, it is best not to risk the unions that we are members of at present. Some decisions made within we will like, some we will not like.

 

In an increasingly global world, the more allies you have the better for you. Isolationism is certainly not the way ahead in my book.

 

I think it plain wrong for you to imply that we give Westminster all our gold and get peanuts in return. Decreasing pocket money? Do you honestly think that if we had been independent before the present global recession, we would not be making cutbacks ourselves? Fact would be that we would be as bad, if not worse, than Ireland, at the moment..! Hence the value of being in a Union, even though it may be unpleasant at times...

[Jaggernaut]

Which is why I called it a blind vote...

 

Well, my view is that if the world is that uncertain, it is best not to risk the unions that we are members of at present. Some decisions made within we will like, some we will not like.

 

In an increasingly global world, the more allies you have the better for you. Isolationism is certainly not the way ahead in my book.

 

I think it plain wrong for you to imply that we give Westminster all our gold and get peanuts in return. Decreasing pocket money? Do you honestly think that if we had been independent before the present global recession, we would not be making cutbacks ourselves? Fact would be that we would be as bad, if not worse, than Ireland, at the moment..! Hence the value of being in a Union, even though it may be unpleasant at times...

 

Wow, britnat specs alert! The UK is by far the most isolationist member of the EU, and will probably become even more isolated when the UKIP-inspired referendum leads to the rUK withdrawing entirely from it. But maybe you think that UK isolationism = good, but independent Scotland playing its own role on the world and European stages = bad.

 

Do you think that an independent Scotland would somehow be sitting all lonely in the world, with no friends or allies, all forlorn? Aw, the shame!

 

Why choose Ireland? Why not Luxembourg, or Switzerland, or Norway?

[Colognejag]

Wow, britnat specs alert! The UK is by far the most isolationist member of the EU, and will probably become even more isolated when the UKIP-inspired referendum leads to the rUK withdrawing entirely from it. But maybe you think that UK isolationism = good, but independent Scotland playing its own role on the world and European stages = bad.

 

Do you think that an independent Scotland would somehow be sitting all lonely in the world, with no friends or allies, all forlorn? Aw, the shame!

 

Why choose Ireland? Why not Luxembourg, or Switzerland, or Norway?

 

"Britnat"? - what are you 12 years old or something?

 

You assume much. I said I believe in unions. I believe in the EU (despite it's many failings). It is only the Conservative party that is propsoing a referendum, not the UK as a whole. For your information, it is not just people in the UK that are fed up of issues within the EU. Here in Germany, there are many who have had enough of social tourism. They want EU reform on this too.

 

I do think that an independent Scotland, ouside the EU, would be lonely in the world, with very few friends and allies. That's why so many countries are keen to be in unions/alliances. You look after your own. Stuff the rest.

 

I pick Ireland as an example, since we do not have the oil fund of Norway, the riches of Switzerland, or the banking and EU presence of Luxemburg. Nobody really knows how long our oil will last. It is fine saying we will be ok with the oil. What will we be like the day it is gone? When Ireland's money dried out it had to be bailed out by the EU. Who would bail us out?

[Norgethistle]

But how will we ever get to know, one way or the other? Will Cameron tell us precisely what our future will hold? Will Salmond? I think not, because they cannot know. The choice is down to whether, in the uncertain world ahead, we should have Westminster make all of our important decisions for us and accept the decreasing amount of pocket money they decide to give us so that they can keep most of it for their own projects, or else we take care of our own income and decisions and do what is best for us, not for Westminster.

 

The whole country is in recession, we have a massive black hole in the finance pot, spending has been cut everywhere in the country, folk down south are moaning that their services are cut, that waiting lists etc are rising. Look at the kick up over the flood defence spend. Look to places like inner city Liverpool or Manchester and see real poverty and decay, its not just Scotland, some parts of London are like 3rd world towns.

 

Folk maon about the coallition cutting spending but what else can you do when there is a defecit

[Norgethistle]

Wow, britnat specs alert! The UK is by far the most isolationist member of the EU, and will probably become even more isolated when the UKIP-inspired referendum leads to the rUK withdrawing entirely from it. But maybe you think that UK isolationism = good, but independent Scotland playing its own role on the world and European stages = bad. Do you think that an independent Scotland would somehow be sitting all lonely in the world, with no friends or allies, all forlorn? Aw, the shame! Why choose Ireland? Why not Luxembourg, or Switzerland, or Norway?

 

Well Norway & Switzerland are not in the EU for a start.

 

Pulling out of the EU would be the best thing the UK or an independant Scotland could do.

 

Now if Scotland were to go independant and austerities measures were to come in at some stage due to debt / recession etc who would you blame then? Edinburgh, Holyrood, or the legacy of the UK its still westminsters fault

[Jaggernaut]

"Britnat"? - what are you 12 years old or something?

 

You assume much. I said I believe in unions. I believe in the EU (despite it's many failings). It is only the Conservative party that is propsoing a referendum, not the UK as a whole. For your information, it is not just people in the UK that are fed up of issues within the EU. Here in Germany, there are many who have had enough of social tourism. They want EU reform on this too. --BUT IF THE UK VOTES THE WAY UKIP WANTS, THE UK WILL BE OUT OF EUROPE. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?

 

I do think that an independent Scotland, ouside the EU, would be lonely in the world, with very few friends and allies. That's why so many countries are keen to be in unions/alliances. You look after your own. Stuff the rest. AND PLEASE TELL ME WHY SCOTLAND WOULD BE LONELY? ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THEY WOULD BE SHUNNED FROM TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ALLIANCES? WOW, WHY ARE WE SO UNDESIRABLE?

 

I pick Ireland as an example, since we do not have the oil fund of Norway, the riches of Switzerland, or the banking and EU presence of Luxemburg. Nobody really knows how long our oil will last. It is fine saying we will be ok with the oil. What will we be like the day it is gone? When Ireland's money dried out it had to be bailed out by the EU. Who would bail us out? WE DON'T HAVE AN OIL FUND YET. AND ASK YOUSELF WHY. NOR DO WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGES THAT SWITZERLAND HAS, AND AGAIN ASK YOURSELF WHY. THERE IS PLENTY OF OIL LEFT TO GO WELL BEYOND OUR LIFETIMES. WHAT WILL THE UK ECONOMIC FUTURE BE WHEN THE OIL RUNS OUT? SOMEHOW OIL IS BAD FOR SCOTLAND, BUT GOOD FOR THE UK? WHO'S TO SAY THAT SCOTLAND WILL NEED BAILED OUT? THE IMF HAS COME TO BRITAIN'S HELP IN THE PAST. WE GOT OVER IT, JUST LIKE IRELAND AND ICELAND GOT OVER THEIR CRISES. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MODERN WORLD.

[kni]

Barroso is a politician who is terrified of the consequences of Scotland gaining independence for what it means in his own neck of the woods. No more, no less. For him to say that it was almost "impossible" for Scotland to join the EU, without even mentioning negotiations, wiped out any credibility whatsoever in his statement. And you have no evidence that he "sounded out" anybody. Cameron, maybe.

 

You are talking utter nonsense and clearly have no knowledge of European law. Barroso is merely applying the rules set out in the Lisbon Treaty. He was not ruling out Scotland joining the EU, just Scotland becoming a Member State immediately after becoming independent. For Scotland to be able to admitted without going through the normal application procedures would require a new Treaty. A new Treaty needs the support of all the Member States, including rUK to use the politicos' jargon. And I do know for a fact, through my extensive contacts in Brussels and Strasbourg, that Barroso has sounded out the Member States. It has been a major topic of discussion in the Commission for months.

Edited February 18, 2014 by kni

[kni]

"Britnat"? - what are you 12 years old or something?

 

You assume much. I said I believe in unions. I believe in the EU (despite it's many failings). It is only the Conservative party that is propsoing a referendum, not the UK as a whole. For your information, it is not just people in the UK that are fed up of issues within the EU. Here in Germany, there are many who have had enough of social tourism. They want EU reform on this too.

 

I do think that an independent Scotland, ouside the EU, would be lonely in the world, with very few friends and allies. That's why so many countries are keen to be in unions/alliances. You look after your own. Stuff the rest.

 

I pick Ireland as an example, since we do not have the oil fund of Norway, the riches of Switzerland, or the banking and EU presence of Luxemburg. Nobody really knows how long our oil will last. It is fine saying we will be ok with the oil. What will we be like the day it is gone? When Ireland's money dried out it had to be bailed out by the EU. Who would bail us out?

 

So you think that Australia, Canada, South Africa etc are isolated with very few friends and allies? There are alternative models to supra-nationalist states like the EU - EFTA, NATO, NAFTA, the Commonwealth, World Trade Organisation, IMF etc.

 

Only Europe has chosen the path of creating an undemocratic and unaccountable monster. The EU's founders, particularly Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, were afraid of a democratic Germany could elect another dictator and created the utopian European "Project" of political and economic union.

 

Iceland was not bailed out by the EU. It, as this Forbes article explains, let the banks fail and prosecuted those responsible. Ireland and Greece would have been better off following the Icelandic model. The EU chose the bailout model to gain more power. Its (in practice Germany's) installation of puppet regimes in Greece and Italy was an affront to national sovereignty and democracy.

 

ETA - if Scotland was not bound by EU's financial directives and regulations, it could have a more stable and secure banking sector by requiring its banks to have proper capital reserves. The country's credit rating would be much better and it would not need a bailout.

Edited February 18, 2014 by kni

[Jaggernaut]

You are talking utter nonsense and clearly have no knowledge of European law. Barroso is merely applying the rules set out in the Lisbon Treaty. He was not ruling out Scotland joining the EU, just Scotland becoming a Member State immediately after becoming independent. For Scotland to be able to admitted without going through the normal application procedures would require a new Treaty. A new Treaty needs the support of all the Member States, including rUK to use the politicos' jargon. And I do know for a fact, through my extensive contacts in Brussels and Strasbourg, that Barroso has sounded out the Member States. It has been a major topic of discussion in the Commission for months.

 

Ah, now you have "extensive contacts" in Brussels and Strasbourg. So what you say must be true. Only Barroso is correct, and it's coincidence that his comments (discredited by plenty of people) agree with your political stance. You should really let us all know beforehand about your "extensive contacts" before luring people into debate and then just producing those contacts when the going gets tough.

[kni]

Ah, now you have "extensive contacts" in Brussels and Strasbourg. So what you say must be true. Only Barroso is correct, and it's coincidence that his comments (discredited by plenty of people) agree with your political stance. You should really let us all know beforehand about your "extensive contacts" before luring people into debate and then just producing those contacts when the going gets tough.

 

Accusing me of lying is a ridiculous tactic to evade the key points on EU law. Do you really want me to post the relevant sections of the Lisbon Treaty?

 

I worked European politics, including Brussels, for several years. My contacts include around twenty MEPs in four different British parties. Three are very close friends whom I have known for over 20 years. Satisfied now?

Edited February 18, 2014 by kni

[Guy Incognito]

Based on their performances on tv, I would say that agents Marr and Neil are Scotland-haters. Not just anti-independence (that's up to them), but actual Scotland-haters, of the worst kind.

 

I can never work out if that is what they really think or if they are just toeing the party line, so to speak. Andrew Neil went up in my estimation when, in spite of his (previous?) Tory leanings, he apparently said this:

 

"Devolution, the Calman Commission, the Scotland Bill, the Edinburgh Agreement, all of this and more you have, is because Westminster parties are scared of the SNP. If you vote ‘No’ you massively change the balance of power and they will not only give you nothing, but will probably take powers away from the Scottish Parliament”.

 

What really disappoints me (and that is putting it mildly) is when people who are elected to represent the interests of people in Scotland start, instead, to do the exact opposite. People like Jim Hood, MP for Lanark and Hamilton East, who recently came out with this: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/lanark--hamilton-east-mp-3145300

 

Or people like David Martin, Catherine Stihler and Struan Stevenson: http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/o-homem-e-um-asno/

 

And not forgetting the heinous Ian Davidson: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/glasgow-mp-suggests-break-clause-in-warship-contract-141533n.22602982

[Guy Incognito]

 

 

Have you been reading newspapers, listining to the radio or watching tv for the last 10 days???

 

The UK government has stated there will be no currency union if Scotland leaves the UK, so no matter what Salmond wishes for he won't get it

The head of the EU has stated there will be no automatic entry for Scotland and the process could take years

 

If Scotland is not part of the UK and not part of Europe (EU) there is nothing to stop the rUK putting borders up, EU may insist on it to ensure non EU citizens (Scots) do not enter the eurozone unhindered, especially if the taxrate in one country is significantly different to the other (Like Sweden and Norway)

If Scotland is not part of the UK why would it get defence contracts for the rUK if the capacity and capability is down south?? The UK currently tries to keep as much of its defense contracts within the UK, that won't change as does Europe attampt to keep within the EU

The BBC is funded by the UK licence payer, how will that work if we are not part of the UK? we may get the same deal as I have here with BBC that it is a payed add on channel for BBC Europe

 

Also how is the passport situation going to work? If we don't have a fiscal union will we have passport union, this hasn't been addressed but needs to be.

 

The pensions how's that going to work? the pensions are paid from the UK pot, now if Scotland pulls out will they get their share especially as wee Nic has stated they will not honor Scotlands part of the debt?

 

Too many grey areas in the white paper and "Hope & See" for me to vote YES

 

With respect Norge, the answers to all the questions you put there can be found in the white paper. They may not be the answers you wish to see, but they are there.

[Guy Incognito]

These countries existed previously. An independent Scotland is a "new" country. Scotland would be voting out of a country which has been a member for 40 years.

 

No, they have their own EU passports. If Scotland wre not a member of the EU, the majoity would probably leave, I guess.

 

Technically by whose account? The difference being East Germany was absorbed INTO an existing EU country. Scotland would be getting itself OUT of an existing EU country.

 

And how would you 'unmake' someone an EU citizen? It has never happened before. The only vaguely similar situation is Germany. West Germany was the member state and when it and the bankrupt DDR reunified into the state we know today it took its place. It became its successor state.

 

Now, in the event of Scottish independence it tends to be automatically assumed that EWNI would be the natural successor state to the UK; but why? Like Scotland, it is a different entity from the UK. Scotland has as legitimate a claim to being an UK successor state as EWNI.

 

As for your other points, this is a segment from a post I made a few months ago:

 

If Scotland was to be refused admission to the EU then that could result in many thousands of EU citizens effectively becoming illegal aliens. Aye, the Scottish government could just issue them with visas, but the EU and its member states would have no guarantee of that. Thus, Poland, for instance, could be faced with an influx of tens of thousands of its own citizens. Or it could work the other way. There are thousands of Scots living and working in France and Spain, and close to a million doing likewise in England. They would then be subject to immigration control. Now, I suppose those governments could also issue those Scots with visas but the administration behind that would be time-consuming, costly and, ultimately, unnecessary.

 

http://www.wearethistle.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/8221-just-say-yes/page__view__findpost__p__146079

[Guy Incognito]

To quantify the above, I should point out that I am not an international lawyer (more's the pity, I bet they get paid a fortune) and the above are just my thoughts on the subject.

[Colognejag]

With respect Norge, the answers to all the questions you put there can be found in the white paper. They may not be the answers you wish to see, but they are there.

 

The white paper is only what the SNP would like to happen. It is not what would happen.

 

So many issues within it are not in the SNP's hands - currency, EU, citizenship and so on. Many others have to be negotiated first. There is a lot of presumption.

 

Who knows what government would be formed post-independence. Labour? SNP? A coalition? The white paper assumes it will be another majority SNP government.Who knows what policies any other governmant would want and negotiate with the rUK?

 

That is what worries me about this being a blind vote.

 

 

The SNP may cry foul play on key issues. Of course, Scotland should automatically become an EU member state. I actiually agree that it would be "an affront to demoncracy." However, we are talking about international politics. It is not always nice and cuddly, self-interest rules...

 

For some people, independence is the only thing that matters. I respect that. Others will not be moved from the status quo. Fair enough.

 

There have been many searching posts here recently. A lot of the content of which sums up the wider public - we still need more information to make a balanced, informed decision on this.