Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[theblether]

@7x7.

There will be a period of negotiation between the Independence vote and the day of Independence. It's in the best interest of the EU to ensure that there is a smooth transition to EU statehood. The EU is founded upon democratic principles, and no one in their right mind is suggesting that Scotland will ultimately be blocked from membership. That would be anti-democratic.

As for some Scots not wanting to be part of the EU, surely that cannot be a shock to you. The political class are terrified of the idea of a referendum in the UK on this matter as they know defeat is likely.

The SNP has always said it's a broad church bound by one common goal, SNP members disagree among themselves on many issues, but agree that Independence is the best way forward for Scotland. I think that's called healthy politics.

[MAJIC]

There is no mechanism under the Law or by Treaty that forces us to relinquish our EU citizenship.

Are you saying that someone who has the nationality of just one EU country would not lose EU nationality if he lost that nationality? Otherwise, you seem to be relying on England and Scotland retaining a common nationality - which is what should happen if the Act(s) of Union were repealed!

Note that it wouldn't be the EU depriving Scots of EU nationality - it would be the UK government if it created a separate Scottish nationality when Scotland seceded, and then deprived most Scots of UK nationality.

It may also be construed that it would not be the UK Government that had deprived the Scottish of EU Nationality,but the act of a YES Vote in favour of becoming an Independant Country,the Scottish people had in fact deprived themselves of EU Membership? by withdrawing from a joint United Kingdom EU Membership!

Of which they may no longer be UK members.

[StreetCowboy]

@7x7.

There will be a period of negotiation between the Independence vote and the day of Independence. It's in the best interest of the EU to ensure that there is a smooth transition to EU statehood. The EU is founded upon democratic principles, and no one in their right mind is suggesting that Scotland will ultimately be blocked from membership. That would be anti-democratic.

...

Well, let's hope so. Presumably as the wealthiest part of the Kingdom, we'll shoulder most of the current EU funding burden carried by the United Kingdom, and the residual UK will become a net beneficiary of EU funds for once.

SC

[7by7]

Please be consistent.

Sometimes you say that an independent Scotland will automatically be an EU member and it cannot be otherwise, at othertimes you say that membership will have to be negotiated.

Which is it?

The answer is, of course, the latter.

I am not saying, and have never said, that an independent Scotland will be refused EU membership. What I have said, based upon the comments of the EU commission and now the EU presiodent, is that it will not be automatic and it will be on the EU's terms, not Scotland's.

[phuketjock]

Please be consistent.

Sometimes you say that an independent Scotland will automatically be an EU member and it cannot be otherwise, at othertimes you say that membership will have to be negotiated.

Which is it?

The answer is, of course, the latter.

I am not saying, and have never said, that an independent Scotland will be refused EU membership. What I have said, based upon the comments of the EU commission and now the EU presiodent, is that it will not be automatic and it will be on the EU's terms, not Scotland's.

To be accurate EU membership is irrelevant the thread is about independance for Scotland in 2014.

What happens after independance will very soon clear up many questions including that of EU membership

so it is a complete waste of time discussing it now!!!

Scotland will either be in the EU or it will not, I like theblether would be more than happy to be out but in is

also acceptable.

[theblether]

Please be consistent.

Sometimes you say that an independent Scotland will automatically be an EU member and it cannot be otherwise, at othertimes you say that membership will have to be negotiated.

Which is it?

The answer is, of course, the latter.

I am not saying, and have never said, that an independent Scotland will be refused EU membership. What I have said, based upon the comments of the EU commission and now the EU presiodent, is that it will not be automatic and it will be on the EU's terms, not Scotland's.

I think you'll find that your wrong 7x7, I have argued that there is no mechanism for EU citizens to be stripped of citizenship, and I have stated several times that there will be a period of negotiation between the referendum and the Independence vote. Scotland will have to sign all the Treaties as an Independent entity.

At the end of it Scotland will be an EU member state.

Now your trying to bring up the fact that some Scots don't want to be EU members. I don't think that's a subject we need to get in to. You know as well as I do that there is a lot of disagreement throughout the UK about EU membership.

Edited December 12, 2012 by theblether

[7by7]

I think you'll find that your wrong 7x7, I have argued that there is no mechanism for EU citizens to be stripped of citizenship

You are quite correct, there is no mechanism that I am aware of for EU citizens to be stripped of their EU citizenship.

Except, of course, if they are stripped of their citizenship of a member state for some reason, such as a naturalised British citizen losing their British citizenship on conviction of a terrorist crime.

But, as said, if Scotland voluntarily leaves the UK then it will also voluntarily leave the EU; the UK is the member state, not Scotland. Scotland is part of the EU because it is part of the UK; if Scotland is no longer part of the UK then it will also no longer be part of the EU and so the citizens of this new Scottish state will not be EU citizens.

Not because they have been stripped of their EU citizenship, but because they chose to give it up by leaving the member state concerned; the UK.

I cannot see why you and Salmond fail to grasp this simple point.

But maybe you, at least, now do?

Scotland will have to sign all the Treaties as an Independent entity.

And until those treaties are signed, an independent Scotland will not be a member of the EU and it's citizens will not be EU citizens.

At the end of it Scotland will be an EU member state.

But only on the EU's terms, which will, amongst others, almost certainly mean joining the Euro.

Now your trying to bring up the fact that some Scots don't want to be EU members

Only as a light hearted aside, as is obvious from my wording, I'd have thought.

Edited December 12, 2012 by 7by7

[theblether]

Sorry I'm not used to you being light hearted

[theblether]

Not because they have been stripped of their EU citizenship, but because they chose to give it up by leaving the member state concerned; the UK.

I cannot see why you and Salmond fail to grasp this simple point.

So that's the crux of your argument?

[Richard W]

Not because they have been stripped of their EU citizenship, but because they chose to give it up by leaving the member state concerned; the UK.

So that's the crux of your argument?

Certainly of mine. That's why I've stressed the difference between secession and repeal of the Act of Union - which raises the question of the consequence of the union of Great Britain with Ireland - there's still some of Ireland left in the United Kingdom. If England seceded instead, the boot would be on the other foot.

Now, if the Act of Union were repealed, would the default consequence be that all of the current UK would wind up outside the EEA?

[folium]

Couple of interesting pieces from the last couple of days, I do find the last two paragraphs from the Scotsman article illuminating:

http://www.scotsman....anted-1-2683351http://blogs.spectat...rock-of-europe/

"What really is the point of having independence if Scotland just ends up being like the rest of the UK? Already Salmond has conceded that Scotland will use the Pound, keep the Queen, join Nato and we’ll even still feel British. Salmond needs to find some differences, to make the rupture seem worthwhile. Making the NHS in Scotland different is one such way and spending taxpayers’ money on providing free instead of a Cancer Drugs Fund like the one in England helps achieve this.

The SNP may have no monopoly on wisdom, but neither does it have exclusive ownership of what’s in the best interests of Scotland or its people."

This whole current tiff about EU membership is really a distraction in many ways apart from underlining Salmond's tendency to engage mouth before brain and his level of apparent conceitedness.

The (rather unfunny) joke is that all this EU business might be moot if the UK leaves that Union in the next few years. This is now a prospect that cannot be discounted whether it happens by design or by default.

Couple of articles worth reading on this:

http://www.economist...uld-be-reckless

http://www.economist...an-making-break

Edited December 12, 2012 by folium
Formatting

[theblether]

Not because they have been stripped of their EU citizenship, but because they chose to give it up by leaving the member state concerned; the UK.

So that's the crux of your argument?

Certainly of mine. That's why I've stressed the difference between secession and repeal of the Act of Union - which raises the question of the consequence of the union of Great Britain with Ireland - there's still some of Ireland left in the United Kingdom. If England seceded instead, the boot would be on the other foot.

Now, if the Act of Union were repealed, would the default consequence be that all of the current UK would wind up outside the EEA?

Yes

[theblether]

@Folium.......the game at First Minister Questions is to trip up the FM. Sometimes it works, so what? It's just theatre.....anybody wanting a serious well constructed answer should give advance notice of their question.

I regret to say though that you are correct, I regret the fact that you have noticed that the EU question is just a distraction. The Scotsmen is correct, there will have to be a difference......you can expect those announcements starting in Spring 2014.

AS will roll out some proposals that will astound you.......wait until you see this political genius at work.

[folium]

@Folium

By your logic your complaining about an Irish tribe causing trouble in Ireland.........quite bizarre. To demonstrate how bizarre it is, and for the benefit of our non British colleagues, you just said.......

Scots (especially those of a different faith to the locals) in Ulster not so good

However you also stated that the Scots are Irish migrants. So these Irish migrants that returned to Ireland in 1690 are not locals? 1690?.......86 years before the US gained independence? 181 years before the foundation of the German state? 181 years before the foundation of the Italian state?

Can you see how ridiculous that contention is? You, the same guy that rattles on about the Scots being descended from the Irish? I think your going to have a little think about what you have written here, it really is patently ridiculous.

In fact, it would be better for the topic if you dropped the references to Northern Ireland, it's off topic.

ps. It's also patent nonsense to suggest that all Scots are descended from the Irish.

The position of Scots-Irish in N.Ireland is of interest, even if it highly unlikely that they will have any chance of a say come the 2014 referendum, as with the rest of the Scottish diaspora.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...reland-19710873

The simple point I was trying to make is that there has been a constant flow of people across the Irish Sea for millenia.

The eponymous Scotti settled SW Scotland but the term came to be used for all Gaelic speakers in Scotland.

The Plantations in Ulster in the 17th century was a deliberate attempt to introduce Presbyterian/Protestant settlers to undermine the Catholic majority. Most of these Scottish settlers came from the Lowlands and Borders (key non-Catholic areas of Scotland) and obviously had little to do with the earlier Scotti settlers.

Re the dates issue, I am sure that you are aware that 400 year old events in Ulster's history still resonate. The massacre of Scots-Irish settlers in 1641/42 is part of the Loyalist story, and the fact that this led directly to Cromwell's brutal campaign feeds into the Republican/Nationalist mythology. Check out the delights of East Tyrone for a classic case study of the impact of the Plantations and how they can be directly linked to the Troubles. PIRA strongholds, like Coalisland and Carrickmore, directly reflect the fact that the Catholics were evicted from the fertile central corridor to the more marginal areas along Lough Neagh and the foothills of the Sperrins.

This brief history lesson was in response to your post that the mess in Ulster was an English creation. My contention is that had Ulster been left majority Catholic there would not have been any reason for Craig, Carson, the original UVF, the Ulster Covenant etc leading to the1922 partition and ultimately to the Troubles, sadly continuing on, albeit in less impactful ways, today. It was intended to be somewhat tongue in proverbial, but does represent another classic example of the law of unintended consequences.

Edited December 12, 2012 by folium

[ScotsExpat]

1) Every MP and MSP has a duty to listen to and address the concerns of their constituents. Even if all they can then say is "Sorry, nothing I can do." By all accounts, Salmond has not done so on this issue; he has ignored the residents' complaints about their treatment.

2) The local planning authority rejected Trump's original planning application.

This rejection was overturned and planning permission granted by the Scottish government; leader and first minister, Alex Salmond.

Not quite " by all accounts " , but certainly by yours. Where is your source or in fact evidence that,

1/ That the local plannig rejected all Trumps planning applications?

2/ That Alex Salmond granted planning permission to anyone.

Not quite by all accounts?

OK, show us one which says Salmond even acknowledged his constituents concerns before the film was shown, let alone did anything about them.

Trump, I understand, put in quite a few applications at various times for various projects on the estate. If you want to find out which were accepted and which rejected by Aberdeenshire County Council then you can search their website.

But, at least one of those applications, the main one, was rejected by the council, and subsequently allowed by the Scottish Government.

Salmond may not have personally granted the permission, almost certainly didn't, but he is First Minister and so bears ultimate responsibility. Particularly as one hopes he was taking a close interest as the site is in his constituency!

7by7,

As an ex-resident of the area that you are discussing, I have to ask myself just how much you know about the area, about the residents of the area and about the complete story as a whole.

The vast majority of residents of the area welcome Trumps development..

You mention the SSSI. Do you happen to know exactly which part of the coastline is covered by the SSSI and exactly which part of the coastline is affected by Trumps development?

Unless you can call on something a bit more trustworthy than the press who, lets face it, would sensationalise anything to sell copy, can I politely ask you to cease disseminating and regurgitating the same sensationalised crap that passes for objective journalism in the UK....

[phuketjock]

1) Every MP and MSP has a duty to listen to and address the concerns of their constituents. Even if all they can then say is "Sorry, nothing I can do." By all accounts, Salmond has not done so on this issue; he has ignored the residents' complaints about their treatment.

2) The local planning authority rejected Trump's original planning application.

This rejection was overturned and planning permission granted by the Scottish government; leader and first minister, Alex Salmond.

Not quite " by all accounts " , but certainly by yours. Where is your source or in fact evidence that,

1/ That the local plannig rejected all Trumps planning applications?

2/ That Alex Salmond granted planning permission to anyone.

Not quite by all accounts?

OK, show us one which says Salmond even acknowledged his constituents concerns before the film was shown, let alone did anything about them.

Trump, I understand, put in quite a few applications at various times for various projects on the estate. If you want to find out which were accepted and which rejected by Aberdeenshire County Council then you can search their website.

But, at least one of those applications, the main one, was rejected by the council, and subsequently allowed by the Scottish Government.

Salmond may not have personally granted the permission, almost certainly didn't, but he is First Minister and so bears ultimate responsibility. Particularly as one hopes he was taking a close interest as the site is in his constituency!

7by7,

As an ex-resident of the area that you are discussing, I have to ask myself just how much you know about the area, about the residents of the area and about the complete story as a whole.

The vast majority of residents of the area welcome Trumps development..

You mention the SSSI. Do you happen to know exactly which part of the coastline is covered by the SSSI and exactly which part of the coastline is affected by Trumps development?

Unless you can call on something a bit more trustworthy than the press who, lets face it, would sensationalise anything to sell copy, can I politely ask you to cease disseminating and regurgitating the same sensationalised crap that passes for objective journalism in the UK....

Brilliant ScotsExpat brilliant

Did you get that 7by7

[andersonmatty]

ah weel its good to talk, the fact that the government is SNP, its only natural that they should ask the question, there are many small countries doing OK around the the world. And we get tried of being told we cannot support ourself s, as if we haven't contributed to the Economy As a Scot I disagree with Westminster trying still be an Empire. We are right/wrong a socialist country, and do not like being ruled by the Tories (eg Thatcher was the rise of the SNP). The North Sea Oil has been wasted by Westminster, I recall 3 wars. It should have been used like Norway for the future when it runs out.

matt

[ScotsExpat]

7by7,

As an ex-resident of the area that you are discussing, I have to ask myself just how much you know about the area, about the residents of the area and about the complete story as a whole.

The vast majority of residents of the area welcome Trumps development..

You mention the SSSI. Do you happen to know exactly which part of the coastline is covered by the SSSI and exactly which part of the coastline is affected by Trumps development?

Unless you can call on something a bit more trustworthy than the press who, lets face it, would sensationalise anything to sell copy, can I politely ask you to cease disseminating and regurgitating the same sensationalised crap that passes for objective journalism in the UK....

Brilliant ScotsExpat brilliant

Did you get that 7by7

Achhh,

I just get sick and tired of people trying to sound knowledgable about a subject when its patently obvious they have gained their 'knowledge' from the Internet...

The same people will probably now castigate me for being unable to provide them with some link to prove my point..

If they can advise me how I can provide a link to my own personal experience growing up in Aberdeenshire and with family still residing in the area, I will be very impressed.

Until then, I would respectfully refer back to my request in my previous post

[theblether]

7by7,

As an ex-resident of the area that you are discussing, I have to ask myself just how much you know about the area, about the residents of the area and about the complete story as a whole.

The vast majority of residents of the area welcome Trumps development..

You mention the SSSI. Do you happen to know exactly which part of the coastline is covered by the SSSI and exactly which part of the coastline is affected by Trumps development?

Unless you can call on something a bit more trustworthy than the press who, lets face it, would sensationalise anything to sell copy, can I politely ask you to cease disseminating and regurgitating the same sensationalised crap that passes for objective journalism in the UK....

Brilliant ScotsExpat brilliant

Did you get that 7by7

Achhh,

I just get sick and tired of people trying to sound knowledgable about a subject when its patently obvious they have gained their 'knowledge' from the Internet...

The same people will probably now castigate me for being unable to provide them with some link to prove my point..

If they can advise me how I can provide a link to my own personal experience growing up in Aberdeenshire and with family still residing in the area, I will be very impressed.

Until then, I would respectfully refer back to my request in my previous post

You're my new hero ScotsExpat

[theblether]

@Folium

By your logic your complaining about an Irish tribe causing trouble in Ireland.........quite bizarre. To demonstrate how bizarre it is, and for the benefit of our non British colleagues, you just said.......

Scots (especially those of a different faith to the locals) in Ulster not so good

However you also stated that the Scots are Irish migrants. So these Irish migrants that returned to Ireland in 1690 are not locals? 1690?.......86 years before the US gained independence? 181 years before the foundation of the German state? 181 years before the foundation of the Italian state?

Can you see how ridiculous that contention is? You, the same guy that rattles on about the Scots being descended from the Irish? I think your going to have a little think about what you have written here, it really is patently ridiculous.

In fact, it would be better for the topic if you dropped the references to Northern Ireland, it's off topic.

ps. It's also patent nonsense to suggest that all Scots are descended from the Irish.

The position of Scots-Irish in N.Ireland is of interest, even if it highly unlikely that they will have any chance of a say come the 2014 referendum, as with the rest of the Scottish diaspora.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...reland-19710873

The simple point I was trying to make is that there has been a constant flow of people across the Irish Sea for millenia.

The eponymous Scotti settled SW Scotland but the term came to be used for all Gaelic speakers in Scotland.

The Plantations in Ulster in the 17th century was a deliberate attempt to introduce Presbyterian/Protestant settlers to undermine the Catholic majority. Most of these Scottish settlers came from the Lowlands and Borders (key non-Catholic areas of Scotland) and obviously had little to do with the earlier Scotti settlers.

Re the dates issue, I am sure that you are aware that 400 year old events in Ulster's history still resonate. The massacre of Scots-Irish settlers in 1641/42 is part of the Loyalist story, and the fact that this led directly to Cromwell's brutal campaign feeds into the Republican/Nationalist mythology. Check out the delights of East Tyrone for a classic case study of the impact of the Plantations and how they can be directly linked to the Troubles. PIRA strongholds, like Coalisland and Carrickmore, directly reflect the fact that the Catholics were evicted from the fertile central corridor to the more marginal areas along Lough Neagh and the foothills of the Sperrins.

This brief history lesson was in response to your post that the mess in Ulster was an English creation. My contention is that had Ulster been left majority Catholic there would not have been any reason for Craig, Carson, the original UVF, the Ulster Covenant etc leading to the1922 partition and ultimately to the Troubles, sadly continuing on, albeit in less impactful ways, today. It was intended to be somewhat tongue in proverbial, but does represent another classic example of the law of unintended consequences.

May I point out that Cromwell was English? and it was England that annexed Ireland in the 15th Century?

[phuketjock]

@ScotsExpat

Just to let you know if you don't already folium is one of the posters you were alluding to,

he is commonly known on this thread as the " instant Googler ", and resident historian!!

Please Mod it's just a wee joke!!!!

Edited December 13, 2012 by phuketjock

[7by7]

7by7,

As an ex-resident of the area that you are discussing, I have to ask myself just how much you know about the area, about the residents of the area and about the complete story as a whole.

The vast majority of residents of the area welcome Trumps development..

You mention the SSSI. Do you happen to know exactly which part of the coastline is covered by the SSSI and exactly which part of the coastline is affected by Trumps development?

Unless you can call on something a bit more trustworthy than the press who, lets face it, would sensationalise anything to sell copy, can I politely ask you to cease disseminating and regurgitating the same sensationalised crap that passes for objective journalism in the UK....

Brilliant ScotsExpat brilliant

Did you get that 7by7

So, who do we believe?

An ex resident who carefully hasn't mentioned how long ago he left?

Or the people who have lived there for many years and still do, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Scottish Natural Heritage, RSPB Scotland etc.?

No brainer, really.

The SSSI was Foveran Links, a moving sand dome. A large part of it has been destroyed to make the back 9 of the golf course.

Yes, Trump's development was welcomed in some quarters, Aberdeen University even gave him an honoury degree for God's sake! But not by the people who have been directly affected, nor by Aberdeenshire council who rejected his plans, only to have the Scottish government overule them, nor by many conservation and environmental organisations, including the three listed above whose reports on the matter I have linked to.

Do you dismiss those reports as "sensationalised crap" ?

[7by7]

@ScotsExpat

Just to let you know if you don't already folium is one of the posters you were alluding to,

he is commonly known on this thread as the " instant Googler ", and resident historian!!

One has to wonder why, instead of dismissing all those who provide evidence to back up their assertions as "Instant Googlers" you don't post arguments and evidence to counter them.

Is it because you can't?

Posting silly smilies and insults instead of presenting proper arguments, with sources to back those arguments up, may work for playground know nothings; but aren't we all adults here?

More is required from you if you want to be taken seriously.

Edited December 13, 2012 by 7by7

[Scott]

Cut the personal remarks or suspensions will be given.

[phuketjock]

@ScotsExpat

Just to let you know if you don't already folium is one of the posters you were alluding to,

he is commonly known on this thread as the " instant Googler ", and resident historian!!

One has to wonder why, instead of dismissing all those who provide evidence to back up their assertions as "Instant Googlers" you don't post arguments and evidence to counter them.

Is it because you can't?

Posting silly smilies and insults instead of presenting proper arguments, with sources to back those arguments up, may work for playground know nothings; but aren't we all adults here?

More is required from you if you want to be taken seriously.

Yes Sir, I will immediately go to the back of the class and face the wall until

further notice

[phuketjock]

7by7,

As an ex-resident of the area that you are discussing, I have to ask myself just how much you know about the area, about the residents of the area and about the complete story as a whole.

The vast majority of residents of the area welcome Trumps development..

You mention the SSSI. Do you happen to know exactly which part of the coastline is covered by the SSSI and exactly which part of the coastline is affected by Trumps development?

Unless you can call on something a bit more trustworthy than the press who, lets face it, would sensationalise anything to sell copy, can I politely ask you to cease disseminating and regurgitating the same sensationalised crap that passes for objective journalism in the UK....

Brilliant ScotsExpat brilliant

Did you get that 7by7

So, who do we believe?

An ex resident who carefully hasn't mentioned how long ago he left?

Or the people who have lived there for many years and still do, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Scottish Natural Heritage, RSPB Scotland etc.?

No brainer, really.

The SSSI was Foveran Links, a moving sand dome. A large part of it has been destroyed to make the back 9 of the golf course.

Yes, Trump's development was welcomed in some quarters, Aberdeen University even gave him an honoury degree for God's sake! But not by the people who have been directly affected, nor by Aberdeenshire council who rejected his plans, only to have the Scottish government overule them, nor by many conservation and environmental organisations, including the three listed above whose reports on the matter I have linked to.

Do you dismiss those reports as "sensationalised crap" ?

Who do I believe, let me think, Someone who lived there and whose family still live there, or someone whose information is completely

garnered from internet searches???

No brainer really.

[MAJIC]

Please be consistent.

Sometimes you say that an independent Scotland will automatically be an EU member and it cannot be otherwise, at othertimes you say that membership will have to be negotiated.

Which is it?

The answer is, of course, the latter.

I am not saying, and have never said, that an independent Scotland will be refused EU membership. What I have said, based upon the comments of the EU commission and now the EU presiodent, is that it will not be automatic and it will be on the EU's terms, not Scotland's.

To be accurate EU membership is irrelevant the thread is about independance for Scotland in 2014.

What happens after independance will very soon clear up many questions including that of EU membership

so it is a complete waste of time discussing it now!!!

Scotland will either be in the EU or it will not, I like theblether would be more than happy to be out but in is

also acceptable.

On the contrary! the more questions that can be settled between now and the Referendum,the easier it will become for the Scottish people to make up their minds,instead of relying on Politicians Party lines.

[phuketjock]

More good news for a future independant Scotland. Is this a good argument for independance then??? what the post is

actually about!!!!!

Source:-

www.scotland.gov.uk/news

FM welcomes Scotrenewables investment

13/12/2012

First Minister Alex Salmond welcomed today at First Minister's Questions the announcement by Orkney-based Scotrenewables Tidal Power Limited that they have finalised details of a package of foreign investment worth £7.6 million.

The total investment package will fund the design, construction, installation and testing of the next generation commercial-scale Scotrenewables tidal turbine, known as the SR2000.

The private investment from overseas is in addition to a £1.24 million WATERS2 grant from the Scottish Government awarded in August this year. The public funding has helped leverage the investment from Norwegian shipping company Fred. Olsen, French oil and gas multinational Total and Swiss technology giant ABB Technology Ventures.

The arrival of the latest technology partner being announced today – ABB – complements the existing investment team and demonstrates the great confidence that leading global firms have in Scotland’s renewables industry.

First Minister Alex Salmond said:

"Scotland is blessed with some of the greatest offshore energy resources on the planet and Orkney is home to EMEC (European Marine Energy Centre), the world's leading centre for marine testing.

"Add this to our engineering and maritime expertise and our supportive investment environment and it is clear to see why Scotland's wave and tidal energy industry is leading the way in technology and innovation, delivering jobs and investment to communities across Scotland.

"Scotrenewables' announcement today of the details of their foreign investment package worth £7.6 million is terrific news and a huge vote of confidence in the Scottish offshore renewables industry. Together with the WATERS2 grant they were awarded by the Scottish Government this summer, it will allow them to finance the design, construction, installation and testing of their new-generation two-megawatt commercial-scale tidal turbine.

"This deal brings in a substantial amount of private funding from overseas - more than £6 in foreign investment for every £1 of public money. It is another example of how public money can be used to leverage private investment and help support industry to reach ever-more ambitious heights.

"I welcome this investment, which is further evidence of Scotland surging ahead in the green energy revolution."

WATERS is a collaborative venture between the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, with funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Scotrenewables was one of five marine energy developers to secure grant awards totalling £7.9 million in the WATERS 2 funding round, announced in August, to further develop testing of new wave and tidal prototypes in the seas around Scotland.

Images of Scotrenewables SR 250 (kW) tidal turbine prototype, pictured in Orkney in August this year, are available at the Scottish Government Flickr page.

[7by7]

Who do I believe, let me think, Someone who lived there and whose family still live there, or someone whose information is completely

garnered from internet searches???

No brainer really.

So you don't believe the people who actually live on the estate?

You don't believe the Scottish Wildlife Trust?

You don't believe Scottish Natural Heritage?

You don't believe RSPB Scotland?

But you do believe the spin of a proven liar; Alex Salmond?

Up to you.

[StreetCowboy]

Please be consistent.

Sometimes you say that an independent Scotland will automatically be an EU member and it cannot be otherwise, at othertimes you say that membership will have to be negotiated.

Which is it?

The answer is, of course, the latter.

I am not saying, and have never said, that an independent Scotland will be refused EU membership. What I have said, based upon the comments of the EU commission and now the EU presiodent, is that it will not be automatic and it will be on the EU's terms, not Scotland's.

To be accurate EU membership is irrelevant the thread is about independance for Scotland in 2014.

What happens after independance will very soon clear up many questions including that of EU membership

so it is a complete waste of time discussing it now!!!

Scotland will either be in the EU or it will not, I like theblether would be more than happy to be out but in is

also acceptable.

On the contrary! the more questions that can be settled between now and the Referendum,the easier it will become for the Scottish people to make up their minds,instead of relying on Politicians Party lines.

Don';t worry, it'll be fine; what could possibly go wrong? Regardless of EU membershp, at least we'll have Alex Salmond to help us chart our course. It's not as if we haven;t been independent before.

SC