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

[kni]

With all due respect, you claim that you were a "YES" voter, but the tone of your posts, including referring to Alex Salmond as "the Great Dictator in Edinburgh" suggests to me that you were never a "YES" voter.

 

There is plenty of evidence on the earlier pages of this thread to demonstrate that I was a Yes supporter. I'm just have no time for Salmond whom I knew at university. He was very left-wing back then, unlike a lot of the top SNP politicians at the time. Scotland deserves better than a bullying clown like him as First Minister.

[kni]

We have no power over Interest rate control just now. Rates are set to suit the city of London.

 

Ireland suffered because its banks over comitted themselves and took too many risks. One of the benefits of sterlingisation is that it discourages this by having no lender of last resort.

 

Really interested to know how if your preference is an indpendent Scotand outside the EU how you expect to achieve this by voting no? Are you expecting another referendum any time soon?

 

RE: Osborne, I wish Isaac was the chancellor. An ex-jag would surely be an improvement and maybe the only way of providing a positive case for the union!

 

It was Gordon Brown who gave the Bank of England "independence" and control of interest rates. Prior to that, interest rates were set by the Treasury, i.e. the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was accountable to Parliament and the voters. I support Scotland having its own currency and central bank with interest rates set by the Finance Minister. However, Salmond (as I have pointed out repeatedly) will not offer that option.

 

Ireland entered the Euro at the wrong exchange rate. The result was an inflationary bubble, especially property prices which drove the Irish economy. It was the collapse of the bubble that caused the financial crisis. Ireland would have been better off keeping its own currency.

 

I remain undecided but regard Sterling-isation as a non-starter. With England across border (with its lender of last resort and depositor protection), a capital flight is very likely. Scottish businesses would re-register and bank in England - unless Salmond has plans to introduce exchange controls and regulations on who can conduct business in Scotland. They would be disastrous for the economy, tax revenues and jobs.

 

The fact is that we are not voting on true independence but a separation package that includes EU membership and Sterling-isation, neither of which are desirable or deliverable under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.

[Norgethistle]

Currency union without a political union will not work as the rUK and BoE will have to bail out Scotttish banks in worse case scenario but Scotland won't have to bail out rUK banks, so it's a non starter.

 

Sterlingisation won't work as no bank of last resort and Scottish banks and their share holders won't take that risk.

 

Euro won't happen for years and Scotland will need to sell its soul to get a quick entry.

 

The only option is it's own currency, this will cost. Interest rates will need to be higher to build a reserve and as a new currency with no track record it is likely to fluctuate massively in the 1st few years affecting trade, investment and cross border pensions paid in other currencies

[laukat]

Kni

 

I have no reason to doubt you are an undecided or a previous Yes. I take the view that if you a thistle fan then you must be trustrworthy.

 

I get that some people don't like Salmond but the man is late 50's he maybe has 10-15 years tops as a front line politician. If we're voting Yes its because we want a government elected in Scotland by Scotland with the powers that currently reside at Westminister and are wielded by a government Scotland didn't vote for

 

I don't get your assessment of risk though. You seem to say that the reason not to have sterlingisation is the impact on Scotlands economy is not clear yet you want Scotland out of the EU where at best the impact on Scotland's economy is an equivalent of not greater risk?

 

Maybe you you know something about the EU that I don't?

[laukat]

Norgethistle

 

I get that you think there are risks on the available currency options. To me independence and any political decision are are about the benefits being more than the risks.

 

I see plenty of tangible benefits in Independence (full democracy, removal of nuclear weapons, childcare plans, protection of the NHS, free education, development of green energy to name a few). Scotland if it becomes Independent will have a currency, we can debate which option is the best or worse and how that effects the ability to deliver the benefits but it is to me better to vote for something that aims for a better Scotland.

 

Conversely voting no in my opinion contains all the risks with no benefits. As I mentioned before I have still to see or hear a credible plan that addresses Scotland's economic future never mind offer us any possibility of making the progressive changes I have listed in the benefits of Independence. We would be at best voting No to keep the same issues and problems. In reality the problems would get worse as reduction in funding caused by the privatisation of the NHS in England reducing Scotlands block grant and UK politics go further to the right with the advent of UKIP

 

I can absolutely appreciate that others may not see the progressive changes that I have listed as benefits they agree with and that's why they get to the position of seeing more risk than benefit. Is this where you are coming from?

Edited August 9, 2014 by laukat

[Norgethistle]

Norgethistle

 

I get that you think there are risks on the available currency options. To me independence and any political decision are are about the benefits being more than the risks.

 

I see plenty of tangible benefits in Independence (full democracy, removal of nuclear weapons, childcare plans, protection of the NHS, free education, development of green energy to name a few). Scotland if it becomes Independent will have a currency, we can debate which option is the best or worse and how that effects the ability to deliver the benefits but it is to me better to vote for something that aims for a better Scotland.

 

Conversely voting no in my opinion contains all the risks with no benefits. As I mentioned before I have still to see or hear a credible plan that addresses Scotland's economic future never mind offer us any possibility of making the progressive changes I have listed in the benefits of Independence. We would be at best voting No to keep the same issues and problems. In reality the problems would get worse as reduction in funding caused by the privatisation of the NHS in England reducing Scotlands block grant and UK politics go further to the right with the advent of UKIP

 

I can absolutely appreciate that others may not see the progressive changes that I have listed as benefits they agree with and that's why they get to the position of seeing more risk than benefit. Is this where you are coming from?

 

What or who will pay for the benefits you mention,

-free child care, with less taxes (as per white paper) where does the money come from?

-protection of the NHS, again only if the money is in the pot to do so

-free education, again needs to be paid for, so how?

-Removal of nuclear weapons, can't argue with that

-Full democracy, we already have that we ave a vote with a greater % of seats than our population of the country

-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

 

Using the pound like a pananma dollar will seriously impact the ability to do that, the Euro will be years away, and a new currency will take years to stabilise

[laukat]

Norgethistle

 

My comments in bold beside your comments

 

What or who will pay for the benefits you mention,

-free child care, with less taxes (as per white paper) where does the money come from? ---- Reduced military budget will pay for this and the added benefit that once established it becomes almost self sustainable once fully established

-protection of the NHS, again only if the money is in the pot to do so --- We have and pay for this just now out of current taxes. As a net contributor to the UK coffers this is being paid for Scottish tax intake and not subsidised by rUK

-free education, again needs to be paid for, so how? --- We have and pay for this just now out of current taxes. As a net contributor to the UK coffers this is being paid for Scottish tax intake and not subsidised by rUK

-Removal of nuclear weapons, can't argue with that

-Full democracy, we already have that we ave a vote with a greater % of seats than our population of the country -- Having a % of seats doesn't provide democracy. The ability to elect, remove and hold the government to account does and Scotland has extremely limited effect on the UK government. Willing to accept your point if your view is that Scotland is a region of UK

-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?

 

Using the pound like a pananma dollar will seriously impact the ability to do that, the Euro will be years away, and a new currency will take years to stabilise

 

All of the items listed above are undeliverable in a UK context. Westminster still has delusions of grandeur of its roll in world affairs hence it continues to hold onto Nuclear Weapons and wish to retain a military capability to invade. This is before you get to the matters that the right wing nature of Westminster politics makes it idealogically oppposes to (free child care, publically funded NHS) or those that it may impact by its desire to leave the EU

 

As I mentioned before the potential benefits of Independence are open to assessment and I wouldn't deny that there are risks but I still can't see what benefits are being proposed form the voting no?

 

Appreciate you taking the time to reply and one of the nicest things about the Indepdence referundum has been conversations such as these. In my opinion political discussion and the feeling your view matters will be one of the biggest losses to Scotland in the event of a no vote

[Norgethistle]

Not one part of the UK can elect or remove a government but collectively it can, if Labour won the next Scottish parliament the Highlands and Islands could complain the same, they never elected them.

Holyrood already controls the NHS in Scotland so it's already protected by devolved power, any talk of a NO vote removing that is a smokescreen.

Reduced military spending will have a knock on effect to industry throughout Scotland, remember even including Trident the UK spends less on defense per head capita than Norway and many other countries.

Wind turbines are seriously rebated via grants from the EU, Scotland has been told on numerous occasions by several high level Eurocrats they will not merely walk in after independence, and remember any one of the current members can veto their acceptance, rUK and Spain would be top of that list.

I don't see how child care will pay for itself? Yes it will allow people to work, but it needs to be paid for, and cheaper taxes and more benefits don't add up.

The YES campaign are offering various carrots that are unsustainable in any business model, even the smokescreen of ending the bedroom tax in Scotland whilst diverting £11 billion poverty relief payment from Westminster to pay for it.

 

 

[Duck snort]

Scotland has been told on numerous occasions by several high level Eurocrats they will not merely walk in after independence, and remember any one of the current members can veto their acceptance, rUK and Spain would be top of that list.

 

Cameron has already said that if Scotland votes Yes he would support our application to the EU. Similarly Spain have said they wouldn't veto a Scottish application as the referendum is a democratically agreed process, unlike the one in Catalunya which has not been agreed by the Spanish government.

 

I don't believe for a second that Scotland will have an issue being accepted by the EU. You can go through all the legal arguments either way but ultimately the EU is a very pragmatic organisation and removing Scots who have been EU citizens for 40 years would cause all sorts of problems. The Scottish Govt has already said it wouldn't be looking to enter the EU to the detriment of any of the current members, so why would any object. It's worth reading the opinion of Graham Avery who was involved with the EU for many years and took part in previous enlargement negotiations. He has no side in the argument and knows what he's talking about.

 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Meeting%20Papers/Graham_Avery_Written_Evidence.pdf

[Guy Incognito]

It sounds hellish over there; you might want to consider getting out quick. I bet the Norwegian people wish they had stayed under Swedish domination. Is that also reported in the Norwegian papers? Are the Norwegian papers as unbiased and objective as the ones we have here?

 

Aye, Norway sounds like a terrible place to live.

 

 

Maybe Norgethistle has been there so long he has developed a Norwegian cringe.

[jaggybunnet]

Aye, Norway sounds like a terrible place to live.

 

 

Maybe Norgethistle has been there so long he has developed a Norwegian cringe.

think you will find that map is wrong

[Guy Incognito]

"Ireland suffered because its banks over committed themselves and took too many risks. One of the benefits of sterlingisation is that it discourages this by having no lender of last resort."

 

Having no lender of last resort would result in a big increase in interest rates. What would be the immediate impact on an independent Scotland's economy? The SNP have not addressed that key issue.

 

"Really interested to know how if your preference is an indpendent Scotand outside the EU how you expect to achieve this by voting no? Are you expecting another referendum any time soon?"

 

For me, the priority is for Scotland to leave the corrupt and undemocratic EU, even as part of the UK. Cameron, even though I dislike him intensely, is promising a referendum on EU membership.

 

Salmond (and his party) is committed to EU membership and is not offering an alternative. Ironically, the EU bureaucrats don't want an independent Scotland because it would encourage separatists in Spain and Belgium.

 

Really?

 

However, Scotland on Sunday has learned that the hierarchy in Brussels would be unlikely to exclude an independent Scotland from the EU as it is already signed-up to “core EU requirements” for candidate member states on gender equality and workers’ rights.

 

An independent Scotland’s potential membership would be treated as a “special and separate case” to nations wanting to join from regions such as the Balkans that have yet to satisfy all the rules, a senior EU source stated.

 

However, Scotland would be “exempt” from the process as it is already a signatory to core requirements for nation states in areas as such employment rights and equality legislation because of its 40-year membership of the EU as part of the UK. European Union chiefs are also thought to be angered by the prospect of the UK voting on an EU exit in the referendum planned by David Cameron and view Scotland’s desire to be a member favourably, an EU source confirmed.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independence-juncker-sympathetic-to-scots-eu-bid-1-3482266

[laukat]

Had to edit this as my ability to type and deal with the kids is not as good as it use to be!

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?

Edited August 9, 2014 by laukat

[Guy Incognito]

 

think you will find that map is wrong

 

Oh shit, you're right. It doesn't include the foodbank in Berwick-upon-Tweed.

 

Sorry about that.

[Guy Incognito]

Had to edit this as my ability to type and deal with the kids is not as good as it use to be!

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

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 think you have hit the nub of the unionist mentality here, laukat. The UK is their country and Scotland is but a region of that country; of equal worth as the West Midlands or East Anglia. Thus, it matters not a jot to them that Scotland consistently and overwhelmingly votes Labour yet only ever gets a Labour government if the rest of the UK concurs, because that is just one of those things you have to accept if you live in the same country, the same way your average Highland and Islander has to take it on the chin if us Southrons decide to vote a particular way (at the last count we voted more or less the same way, but no matter).

 

In that sense the unionist stance is completely logical. If, however, you regard Scotland as your country but plan to vote against its independence then you are basically forfeiting your nation's sovereignty to another, something most people throughout the world would regard as absurd.

[jaggybunnet]

Oh shit, you're right. It doesn't include the foodbank in Berwick-upon-Tweed.

 

Sorry about that.

 

sorry wrong way

 

http://anewlifeinnorway.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/the-poverty-house-in-oslo-fattighuset/

 

http://www.eurofoodbank.eu/portail/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=26&Itemid=45&lang=en

 

 

 

so even with all that cash...

[laukat]

Guy Incognito

 

I wouldn't want to suggest that Norgethistle or anyone else has a unionist mentality or seeks to do down Scotland. As I've said before on this forum he and Jaggybunnet clearly look into their politics and anyone who is a jags fan is ok by me no matter what side of the debate you are on and I hope they will show me the same courtesy.

 

My best friend is a Unionist and has been all of his life. He sees Scotland as a nation but part of a superstate that he is proud to be part of. However he accepts that Scotland has little influence in UK elections and does not return a government of its choosing but he is comfortable with this as he also a Tory so it delivers an outcome he likes.His position is consistent as he believe the needs of the UK out way the requirement for Scotland to have true democracy. I don't think that position is one that anyone calling themselves a true democrat would be comfortable with. He also sees no need to change Scotland as it he is doing perfectly ok then again he does also have wealthy parents

 

My questions to Norgethistle are not aimed to convert or denegrate anyone. I just think that if we are going to make a choice on the 18th September between two options then you have to ask questions of both and examine the logic of both. So far I've seen a lot of questions and answer on the future presented by the Yes campaign however despite lots of questions for the No campaign not only are there no answers but no one seems willing to even try to answer.

 

I'm guessing a bit and apologies if I have this wrong or have made a generalisation of anyone's opinions but I think Jaggybunnet may be close in thinking to my friend I mentioned above. However I think Norgethistle recognises the need to implement some of the changes put forward by Yes. He obviously doesn't agree that Independence will allow this to happen so I'm interested and open to hearing how this change is implemented within the UK. Its entirely possible that Norgethistle has seen a way forward that you and I haven't

[jaggybunnet]

Had to edit this as my ability to type and deal with the kids is not as good as it use to be!

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

[Willjag]

Not really been venturing in here, but whatever happened to the "One Word Posts" ???

[jaggybunnet]

Guy Incognito

 

I wouldn't want to suggest that Norgethistle or anyone else has a unionist mentality or seeks to do down Scotland. As I've said before on this forum he and Jaggybunnet clearly look into their politics and anyone who is a jags fan is ok by me no matter what side of the debate you are on and I hope they will show me the same courtesy.

 

My best friend is a Unionist and has been all of his life. He sees Scotland as a nation but part of a superstate that he is proud to be part of. However he accepts that Scotland has little influence in UK elections and does not return a government of its choosing but he is comfortable with this as he also a Tory so it delivers an outcome he likes.His position is consistent as he believe the needs of the UK out way the requirement for Scotland to have true democracy. I don't think that position is one that anyone calling themselves a true democrat would be comfortable with. He also sees no need to change Scotland as it he is doing perfectly ok then again he does also have wealthy parents

 

My questions to Norgethistle are not aimed to convert or denegrate anyone. I just think that if we are going to make a choice on the 18th September between two options then you have to ask questions of both and examine the logic of both. So far I've seen a lot of questions and answer on the future presented by the Yes campaign however despite lots of questions for the No campaign not only are there no answers but no one seems willing to even try to answer.

 

I'm guessing a bit and apologies if I have this wrong or have made a generalisation of anyone's opinions but I think Jaggybunnet may be close in thinking to my friend I mentioned above. However I think Norgethistle recognises the need to implement some of the changes put forward by Yes. He obviously doesn't agree that Independence will allow this to happen so I'm interested and open to hearing how this change is implemented within the UK. Its entirely possible that Norgethistle has seen a way forward that you and I haven't

 

i don't accept that Scotland doesn't have a voice, the fact that two of the last three PMs and Chancellors have been Scottish say otherwise and i defiantly don't have wealthy parents, i just don't believe that anything (apart from being worse off) will change, just because we are Scottish and making our own decisions doesn't mean we wont make a hash of it, the tram and the parly building show that and as i said above the fact that two of the last three PMs and Chancellors have been Scottish, we would turn into a mini me UK with people from the north complaining that all the money is spent on the central belt (it is already) and Glasgow didn't vote for the snp and Shetland wanting a referendum about Independence from Scotland.

[jaggybunnet]

Not really been venturing in here, but whatever happened to the "One Word Posts" ???

 

that went with grant post No 11

[Norgethistle]

 

 

Aye, Norway sounds like a terrible place to live.

 

 

Maybe Norgethistle has been there so long he has developed a Norwegian cringe.

 

If this is genuinely from the YES campaign then it's lies as we have 2 in Stavanger alone run by the Salvation Army

[laukat]

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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

[laukat]

Not really been venturing in here, but whatever happened to the "One Word Posts" ???

 

Ended

[kni]

Really?

 

However, Scotland on Sunday has learned that the hierarchy in Brussels would be unlikely to exclude an independent Scotland from the EU as it is already signed-up to “core EU requirements” for candidate member states on gender equality and workers’ rights.

 

An independent Scotland’s potential membership would be treated as a “special and separate case” to nations wanting to join from regions such as the Balkans that have yet to satisfy all the rules, a senior EU source stated.

 

However, Scotland would be “exempt” from the process as it is already a signatory to core requirements for nation states in areas as such employment rights and equality legislation because of its 40-year membership of the EU as part of the UK. European Union chiefs are also thought to be angered by the prospect of the UK voting on an EU exit in the referendum planned by David Cameron and view Scotland’s desire to be a member favourably, an EU source confirmed.

 

http://www.scotsman....u-bid-1-3482266

 

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.

Edited August 9, 2014 by kni