Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes

[RuamRudy]

Anti-English: Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English.

The granddaddy of Unionist myths. It's rather like claiming that the anti-racism movement is motived solely by hatred of white people, women only want equality because they hate men, or gay people only want to get married because they hate Catholics.

This debate is about government and whether Scotland's interests are served by a parliamentary union which denies Scotland basic democratic control of many aspects of the administration of our country. It's not about England and the English at all.

There are legitimate, and serious, questions of democratic representation in Scotland under the Union. Although this concept may be difficult for Daily Telegraph readers to grasp, the desire for Scottish self-determination is not about England and the English. Shocking but true. England is not the centre of the Scottish universe, that would be Scotland. Perhaps that's what they're really objecting to.

Reading through your bigoted rants on this thread, I think you've proved the truth.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

There are too many posts on this thread for me to go through, so I have no idea to which of wigontojapan's post you are referring. Maybe he is a bigot; maybe he is not but either way, your suggestion that his statement is false is wholly offensive to me and, I am sure, many other right thinking people.

So please, either provide clear evidence that Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English, or refrain from making cheap, shoddy and ultimately useless comments like the one above.

You are not prepared to read the thread, yet you able to decide that it's not driven by hatred.

Amazing.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

So you think that if I read through this thread, the scales will fall from my eyes and I will see that I have been mistaken all along; that my desire for Scottish independence is borne from a hatred of the English, a hatred that, until I read this thread and your illuminating comments, I was not even aware I possessed?

As far as I can see, the only bigot here is you.

OK, I think we can agree that you are to lazy to read through this thread, yet are still able to make an educated opinion. However I am still prepared to help you, all you have to do is look up my Post No's 450 and 518, the first relates to true events, while the second is a joke.

I might add that if you had read the whole of this thread, you would know that I am the biggest

Supporter of the "yes" campaign, as I know it's the only opportunity for the English to gain Independence.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The post I responded to made the assertion that those Scots who aspire for self determination do so as a result of a hatred for the English. You have reasserted that in your follow up posts.

I appreciate that there are extremists in the Yes camp who may hold those views, just like the are extremists in every walk of life. But to paint all those who seek independence to be driven by this hatred is insulting in the extreme.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Ah! So we seem to be getting somewhere. You will also note in post 518, that I used the term

SOME Scott's, with the word SOME enlarged as in this post.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Ok, so your post where you highlighted 'SOME' reflects your true position, and your later post, to which I responded, was actually a grossly ignorant piece of nonsense that incorrectly proposes that the drive for Scottish independence is unequivocally based upon hatred of the English? I am glad that we cleared that up.

[wigantojapan]

moving on unless someone wants to add some comments to previous posts they are welcome to do so,,unless you are a bigot of course who posts 2 sides of the story sometimes if not always

A to Z of Unionists Myths C NEW Case for independence: Supporters of independence need to argue their case and supply precise details of how independence benefits Scotland.

There's a scientific maxim, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It means that if you want prove something that runs entirely counter to common sense and the existing evidence, you need mountains of data and acres of detail. You must supply sufficent evidence in sufficient detail to remove any doubt, and to rule out all other explanations.

So for example if you wanted to prove that George Osborne was really an alien lizard from another planet, you'd have to come up with, at the very least, a video of him changing out of his human skin and gubbing down a guinea pig pasty whole. Mind you, many perfectly sane and reasonable people suspect Osborne is an alien lizard, so perhaps this is a bad example.

The anti-independence campaign would have us believe that Scottish independence is extraordinary, and a bit like claiming that aliens built the pyramids. In fact it's the other way about, it's the existence of the Union which is the extraordinary state of affairs. Normal countries govern themselves.

Proof is simple to find. Ask any Norwegian if they would prefer to send representatives to the Swedish parliament and be governed from Stockholm and you'll get a big fat nej. Ask anyone in Iceland if they would prefer to return to Danish rule, and they'll snort derisively. Portuguese people do not hanker for the restoration of Lisbon's brief union with Madrid.

Normal countries don't send all their tax revenues and income to a parliament in another country, and then get back the loose change that Westminster finds at the back of the sofa, which we're told is a subsidy. Normal countries, at least democracies, get the government that the majority voted for. Scotland gets the government our neighbours vote for, despite the fact we returned a single solitary Tory MP. Our governmental system is so warped that we have to take David Mundell seriously, even though he's a representative of a fringe party of a tiny minority. Taking David Mundell seriously is not normal in any universe.

Maintaining this extraordinary, indeed surreal, state of affairs ought to require an extraordinary standard of proof, yet the positive case for the Union is most notable for its absence. Demands from the anti-independence parties for detailed evidence of the advantages of independence are nothing more than a distraction tactic.

Independence supporters have produced acres of detailed evidence supporting Scottish independence from an economic, political, and cultural point of view. The pages of Newsnet, Bella Caledonia, and other online publications are full of thoughtful, reasonable and detailed articles supportive of independence, but little of it gets reported in the mainstream Scottish media. That doesn't mean there is no positive and detailed case for independence, it just means that the Union gives Scotland a one-sided media that doesn't want to tell the whole story. And that's yet another reason for independence.

Central bank: We can't really be independent without our own currency and a central bank.

The Scottish Government proposes that after independence, Scotland would continue to use the Bank of England as its central bank and would negotiate with the rump-UK to form a new sterling area. This would benefit both the rump-UK and Scotland as it would guarantee financial and economic stability for both parties.

Despite its name, the Bank of England is the UK central bank, and as such Scots have a percentage share in it. As an independent nation we would not be without influence in the central bank, as we are shareholders in it and would be party to negotiations to form a new sterling area. At the moment we only have the influence of George Osborne and Danny Alexander, even a minority say in the Bank of England is better than that. But more importantly we'd have full control over our own tax and spending.

Having your own currency is not the definitive mark of an independent nation. Quite a few independent nations manage quite happily with shared a central bank and a shared currency. Apart from the 17 countries in the Eurozone, there are six independent Caribbean states who share the East Caribbean dollar (EC$), which is currently pegged to the US dollar at the fixed rate of US$1 to EC$2.70. The British territories of Anguilla and Montserrat also use the East Caribbean dollar. All eight share a single central bank. In Africa, eight nations share the West African franc and a single central bank located in Senegal. Another six African nations share the Central African franc and a single central bank located in Cameroun. Four southern African nations, South Africa, Swaziland, Namibia and Lesotho, share the rand as common currency.

The key is sovereignty, not an independent currency or an independent central bank. The point is that all the independent nations who share currencies have the right to decide for themselves whether to continue with the shared currency or to leave it. They can remain with a shared central bank or they can set up their own if the shared bank no longer suits. They can make these decisions based upon their own economic and political needs. Scotland does not currently have any choice, we're stuck with Westminster's policies whatever our needs may be. With independence, we'd have the choice.


Continental shelf: If Westminster retains control of Shetland, Orkney and Rockall, Scotland will have no oil resources.

If Scotland becomes independent Westminster won't be able to hang on to Shetland, Orkney, Rockall or any other part of Scotland (see: Shetland and Orkney).

However, even under the hypothetical circumstance that this occurred, Westminster wouldn't be able to retain control of the oil fields anyway, so ya boo sux. These matters are regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. When another state possesses an island within the continental shelf of this state, special rules apply.

The continental shelf off the Atlantic coast is Scotland's to exploit and develop, even if Westminster clung on to Rockall like a plook on the face of an adolescent sociopath. According to the Law of the Sea: "rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf." Westminster could pauchle its way to keeping Rockall, but as far as oil and fishing exploitation rights are concerned, they'd be entitled to rockall.

Neither would Westminster gain much by holding onto Shetland and Orkney. When an island belonging to one state sits on the continental shelf of another state, the islands are treated as enclaves. This matter was discussed in detail in a legal paper published by the European Journal of International Law: Prospective Anglo-Scottish Maritime Boundary Revisited

Most of the rights to the continental shelf would remain Scottish, Map 2 on page 29 of the legal paper shows the most likely sea boundaries. Westminster would be entitled only to a small zone around the islands, and the waters between Orkney and Shetland. This area contains no oil fields. If Shetland and Orkney were to remain under Westminster's control, Shetland would no longer have an oil fund. The map is reproduced here, so you can do a reverse Jeremy Paxman and sneer derisively at Westminster's pretensions.

Westminster's Shetland threat is a bluff. Westminster knows it's a bluff. They just don't want us to know too.

[3NUMBAS]

you can compare samond with an escaped looney ,totally blind to the facts and thick sculled about the chaotic outcome .

ignores everything he is told from Westminster as scares tactics,

leading the jocks over the cliff

[wigantojapan]

you can compare samond with an escaped looney ,totally blind to the facts and thick sculled about the chaotic outcome .

ignores everything he is told from Westminster as scares tactics,

leading the jocks over the cliff

would you care to share what you feel salmond and 40% at the last poll of Scots are blind too?

What is the chaotic outcome?

And what is everything he is told from Westminister ,what are these scare tactics?

I look forward to hearing from you as do the people who are undecided as well as decided

[wigantojapan]

Credit rating: Scotland would lose the AAA credit rating it enjoys as part of the UK.

Cybernats: There's a concerted and organised campaign of vitriol and hatred from cybernats.

Darien: The Darien scheme bankrupted Scotland and we were saved by the Union.

These all came from the better together campaign...lets have a look at the counter argument

Credit rating: Scotland would lose the AAA credit rating it enjoys as part of the UK.

This scare story is based upon a single article in the Financial Times. It's all based on the unresearched opinion of a single guy in a trading room somewhere in the City of London, that noted hotbed of pro-Scottish independence sentiment. It was a guess, as was reported in the original report in the Financial Times. We could just as legitimately "guess" that Scotland would have a secure AAA rating but what's left of the UK would be downgraded to a ZZZ. Zzzz is the best response to these scare stories.

Credit ratings are based upon the market's assessment of whether creditors are likely to get their dosh back if they lend it to a government. There are many countries of Scotland's size which have a triple A credit rating, most of which are not blessed with Scotland's embarrassing abundance of natural resources, a healthy tourism industry, the whisky trade, an English speaking populace with easy access to European markets, and a budget surplus over the past five or six years - despite the financial crisis.

The recent news that the UK and the Bank of England have been put on a negative outlook by the credit ratings agency Moody's shows that the much prized AAA rating is by no means secure within the UK.

Independent Scotland could be AAA rated – Standard & Poors

In a massive blow to the credibility of the No Campaign’s scaremongering, the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s released a report yesterday, clearly stating that an independent Scotland would be an investment grade economy.

The report states emphatically that S&P would expect Scotland to ‘benefit from all the attributes of an investment-grade sovereign credit’ due to its ‘wealthy’ economy, and that it sees ‘no fundamental reason’ in terms of Scotland’s balance sheet why Scotland could not float its own currency (even though we do not intend to).

[wigantojapan]

Cybernats: There's a concerted and organised campaign of vitriol and hatred from cybernats

. here is no organised campaign from "cybernats". It's just that there are thousands of individuals who feel strongly enough about independence that they take it upon themselves to comment online, to share information on FaceBook and to Twitter their way to Scottish independence. We don't get paid, we're not party hacks, and no one is orchestrating us. We are a cloud of Scottish midgies, devouring Unionist arguments.

The anti-independence parties have to discredit these private individuals any way they can, because there is no similar mass outbreak of pro-Union sentiment. It gives the lie to their claim that most Scots resolutely oppose independence. If that were true, then where are all the Cyberunionists? The fact is that most Scots who claim to support the Union really don't feel that strongly about it, and that in turn means they're open to persuasion.

Instead the Unionists have to cherry pick the ravings of a tiny and extreme minority, the kind you find in any unorganised mass movement, and use them to attempt to discredit the vast majority who argue for independence with logic, facts, reason and wit. It's a Unionist distraction from the fact they have no arguments of their own.

Some people dislike the term cybernat, considering it a term of abuse. But let's adopt the Gaelic strategy with this word, let's take it from the Unionists and use it against them. The name Gael, from Gaelic Gàidheal, wasn't originally a Gaelic word. It comes from the Brittonic language of the Romano-Britons, who regarded themselves as civilised Romans with a taste for Italian stuff, like pizzas that aren't deep fried and wine that wasn't made in Buckfast Abbey. They looked down upon their Celtic cousins beyond the borders of the Empire, who scoffed at olive oil and thought low-fat milk was blasphemy. The Romano-Britons called their neighbours Goidel, a word meaning 'those of the forest' or 'wild'. And the Celts beyond the Empire went "Wild? Naw - livid. We'll show ye wild." And they did just that, they started to call themselves Gaels, ganged up with the Picts to end Roman rule in Wales, Cornwall and Northern England, and then founded the Kingdom of Scotland.

[transam]

you can compare samond with an escaped looney ,totally blind to the facts and thick sculled about the chaotic outcome .

ignores everything he is told from Westminster as scares tactics,

leading the jocks over the cliff

would you care to share what you feel salmond and 40% at the last poll of Scots are blind too?

What is the chaotic outcome?

And what is everything he is told from Westminister ,what are these scare tactics?

I look forward to hearing from you as do the people who are undecided as well as decided

Whenever the UK votes for a new Parliament, voters ALWAYS regret what they voted for after the honeymoon period............

Could be the same elsewhere too...........

[Scott]

Posts with messed up quotes have been deleted.

[StreetCowboy]

I feel sorry for anyone that cannot make a go of their country of nationality, but I don't see their inadequacy as a reason to destroy my country

[wilcopops]

Just leave it to the Tories......every time a Tory visits Scotland and tries to tell them what to do or what's gonna happen to them, the vote for independence gets a little stronger.

[nontabury]

Just leave it to the Tories......every time a Tory visits Scotland and tries to tell them what to do or what's gonna happen to them, the vote for independence gets a little stronger.

I read somewhere yesterday that Alex Salmonds is trying to encourage Labour supporters to vote YES, saying if they do then there will be a very good chance that there will then be a Labour government in Scotland, perhaps for a very long time, now Is't that something to look forward to.

Also yesterday I read that the Scottish organisation representing the the 2nd most important exporting Industry in Scotland, "Whiskey", have voiced their concern in the event of a yes vote,stating that it could result in immense damage to their industry.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[davehowden]

As an Englishman will I be able to go and live in Scotland when it is no longer under Westminster rule I wonder.

Edited April 13, 2014 by davehowden

[RuamRudy]

Just leave it to the Tories......every time a Tory visits Scotland and tries to tell them what to do or what's gonna happen to them, the vote for independence gets a little stronger.

I read somewhere yesterday that Alex Salmonds is trying to encourage Labour supporters to vote YES, saying if they do then there will be a very good chance that there will then be a Labour government in Scotland, perhaps for a very long time, now Is't that something to look forward to.

Also yesterday I read that the Scottish organisation representing the the 2nd most important exporting Industry in Scotland, "Whiskey", have voiced their concern in the event of a yes vote,stating that it could result in immense damage to their industry.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I am interested in the report you read about whiskey bosses being concerned. As you say, it is the second most important export from Scotland, so why would a Scottish government jeopardise it? I think the 'concern' over EU membership for an independent Scotland has been sufficiently proven to be a non-issue (of course, the EU intentions of our current and the next Westminster government are much less certain), so what is the basis of their worry?

[RuamRudy]

As an Englishman will I be able to go and live in Scotland when it is no longer under Westminster rule I wonder.

Of course - as a citizen of an EU country, you will have freedom of movement and abode anywhere within the EU. Not only that, you would be warmly welcome.

[nontabury]

Just leave it to the Tories......every time a Tory visits Scotland and tries to tell them what to do or what's gonna happen to them, the vote for independence gets a little stronger.

I read somewhere yesterday that Alex Salmonds is trying to encourage Labour supporters to vote YES, saying if they do then there will be a very good chance that there will then be a Labour government in Scotland, perhaps for a very long time, now Is't that something to look forward to.

Also yesterday I read that the Scottish organisation representing the the 2nd most important exporting Industry in Scotland, "Whiskey", have voiced their concern in the event of a yes vote,stating that it could result in immense damage to their industry.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I am interested in the report you read about whiskey bosses being concerned. As you say, it is the second most important export from Scotland, so why would a Scottish government jeopardise it? I think the 'concern' over EU membership for an independent Scotland has been sufficiently proven to be a non-issue (of course, the EU intentions of our current and the next Westminster government are much less certain), so what is the basis of their worry?

I read the article in yesterday's business section of the Bangkok post,regarding the Scottish whiskey industry, so if you can obtain a copy you should be able to read the full piece.

I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that Scotland's entry into the EU will be just a formality, well not according to the head Eurocrats in Brussels, not to mention a number of government, including that of Spain. Furthermore I just cannot get my head around to anyone, wanting to join the EU and of course the requirements that new members will Have to take on the EURO, at the expense of their own independent currency.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[wigantojapan]

D Union Myths exposed

Darien: The Darien scheme bankrupted Scotland and we were saved by the Union.

Scotland wasn't bankrupt in 1707. But even if it was, so what? Norway was a basket case in 1707, Finland was a poverty stricken remote forgotten corner of Sweden, and Switzerland was a collection of remote mountain valleys with an economy based on cheese and yodelling. The state of the Scottish economy over 300 years ago isn't relevant to our economic potential in the 21st century. Bringing up Darien just goes to show that the anti-independence argument is stuck in the 18th century.

Even if this Unionist claim were true, are we supposed to base our decision on the future of our country because of a good turn done to us over 300 years ago? We've repaid that debt many times over. But the truth is that Scotland was not bankrupt in 1707, we did not need England to bail us out. They didn't bail us out, Westminster just bribed some lords, the 'parcel o rogues' Burns wrote about.

Scotland in 1707 was doing quite well for itself. According to the historian Michael Lynch, the Scottish economy was growing at 2.5% annually - a rather more impressive figure than we've managed these past few years under Westminster. Scotland, like other countries in Western Europe at the time, was beginning to develop a middle class and an urban working class. The towns and burghs of Scotland were cash rich, and were beginning to agitate for greater political power. This went down as well with aristos of Scotland and England as a Craig Whyte and Neil Lennon karaoke double act would go down at Gers fans night out.

The Darien colony was largely bankrolled by Lowland lords. However the idea that Scotland might embark on some colonialist adventurism off its own bat was anathema to Westminster, which believed it had a monopoly on imperialist ambitions. England sided with Spain and blocked Scottish access to all English colonies, as a result the Darien scheme was doomed even before it even got started.

[wigantojapan]

Debt: Scotland would be unable to service the amount of debt it would be required to take on.

Scotland would inherit her share of the UK national debt. However if Scotland is expected to carry a share of the UK's liabilities, then she would also be due a share of the assets. Westminster can't have it both ways, they just want us to think they can.

Scotland owns 8.6% of all UK assets, other than fixed assets located within the territories of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That means that we own over 90% of the oil, because it's located in Scottish waters. We own 8.6% of all UK embassies, 8.6% of the Falkland Islands, 8.6% of the Bank of England (which despite its name is the UK's central bank) and 8.6% of the Royal Navy. We also own 8.6% of Jeremy Paxman, but we're likely to pass on that.

[wigantojapan]

Defence: Scotland would be defenceless without the UK armed forces and would lose thousands of defence jobs.If we were to believe the Westminster parties, after independence the Scottish defence capability would consist of a freefone number and a recorded message saying "We surrender" in six languages. We'd be defenceless against the Faroese hordes invading Muckle Flugga.

There's a chasm between an independent Scotland's approach to defence and Westminster's approach. It's a conceptual difference Westminster is unable to grasp, and it explains Michael Moore's recent plaintive whine that an independent Scotland would not be able to go off on its own bat and invade some Middle Eastern country, like that would be a bad thing. An independent Scotland only requires a defence capacity, Westminster requires an attack capacity.

Scotland's notional share of Westminster's Department of Offence spending amounts to around £3.5 billion annually. Less than £2 billion of that is actually spent in Scotland. Even if we were to maintain defence spending exactly as it is now, we'd still have an extra £1.5 billion to play with. The savings we'd make by no longer coughing up for Westminster's pretensions to Great Power status would alone pay for investment in Scottish jobs and industry which would more than compensate for any loss of defence sector jobs.

Jim Murphy claimed recently that the Clyde shipyards depend on the Royal Navy for orders, and after independence "thousands" of jobs would be lost. In fact the main defence employment casualty of independence is likely to be Jim Murphy. Jim's defence expertise extends to a faultless grasp of the fine military art of camouflage, he makes himself invisible whenever Labour get into a spot of bother in Scotland. According to an independent report by a professionally respected defence analyst, the defence jobs in the Clyde would continue to flourish after independence, and in fact could do rather better than they do just now.

[RuamRudy]

Just leave it to the Tories......every time a Tory visits Scotland and tries to tell them what to do or what's gonna happen to them, the vote for independence gets a little stronger.

I read somewhere yesterday that Alex Salmonds is trying to encourage Labour supporters to vote YES, saying if they do then there will be a very good chance that there will then be a Labour government in Scotland, perhaps for a very long time, now Is't that something to look forward to.

Also yesterday I read that the Scottish organisation representing the the 2nd most important exporting Industry in Scotland, "Whiskey", have voiced their concern in the event of a yes vote,stating that it could result in immense damage to their industry.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I am interested in the report you read about whiskey bosses being concerned. As you say, it is the second most important export from Scotland, so why would a Scottish government jeopardise it? I think the 'concern' over EU membership for an independent Scotland has been sufficiently proven to be a non-issue (of course, the EU intentions of our current and the next Westminster government are much less certain), so what is the basis of their worry?

I read the article in yesterday's business section of the Bangkok post,regarding the Scottish whiskey industry, so if you can obtain a copy you should be able to read the full piece.

I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that Scotland's entry into the EU will be just a formality, well not according to the head Eurocrats in Brussels, not to mention a number of government, including that of Spain. Furthermore I just cannot get my head around to anyone, wanting to join the EU and of course the requirements that new members will Have to take on the EURO, at the expense of their own independent currency.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The whole issue of EU membership has been debated ad nauseum by far wiser people than me and, despite all the positions laid bare, the Yes camp so that EU membership is a formality, and the No camp say it is a major obstacle. Therefore, I cannot add much to the debate, but I know who I trust, and with all matters political, trust is a huge factor.

However - with the Tories making anti-EU noises and UKIP apparently surging in popularity, who is to say that the UK will remain in the EU after the next election? Uncertainty abounds regardless of how you vote.

Fortunately I found the following quote from David Frost, the Scottish Whiskey Association's chief in a BBC report from Friday: "We're confident this industry is going to succeed whatever the situation after the 18th of September. So we are concerned about the conditions in which we would be operating. We see some risks. We want reassurances. But are we going to be successful? Yes, you bet."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-26974320

[wigantojapan]

I read the article in yesterday's business section of the Bangkok post,regarding the Scottish whiskey industry, so if you can obtain a copy you should be able to read the full piece.
I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that Scotland's entry into the EU will be just a formality, well not according to the head Eurocrats in Brussels, not to mention a number of government, including that of Spain. Furthermore I just cannot get my head around to anyone, wanting to join the EU and of course the requirements that new members will Have to take on the EURO, at the expense of their own independent currency.

whiskey

In that lies a part of the perception..........people cannot even start to get the basic of the Scottish culture far less anything else,,but still you can have you say but at least you are trying maybe to deep for some people,,,,

.EU membership: Scotland would be forced to reapply for EU membership.This all hinges on whether Scotland would be considered a successor state to the UK, or whether it would be considered an entirely new state. Would Germany, which imports much of its oil from Scotland, want to ensure Scotland remained a part of the EU? Or would Merkell and Sarkozy go along with Davie Cameron, who royally pisses them off and brings nothing to Europe except an Etonian sense of entitlement?

Let's assume that the EU decides to support Westminster in its epic sulk, and demands that Scotland reapply to join the EU but England-Wales-Northern Ireland remained a member. This would mean that Scotland is considered an entirely new state. In that circumstance, international law is very clear that Scotland would not be bound by any of the obligations of the UK. Amongst other things, that means that Scotland would not be required to take on a single penny of UK national debt. UK national debt is a UK obligation. The UK ruined the banks, so the UK can pay for it.

It's very much in Westminster's interests to ensure that Scotland is treated as a joint successor state and that Scotland remains a member of the EU, otherwise we get to walk off Scot-free and without any national debt at all. We could leave that mess to Westminster to sort out, and begin independent life as an energy rich debt-free nation. In that fortunate financial circumstance, surviving a couple of years as we apply for EU membership may well be worth it.

Another reason Westminster is blustering on this issue is that the UK was formed by the Union of Scotland and England in 1707. The state formed by that Union signed the EU membership treaties. When Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either. This is the opinion of a former Labour Lord Chancellor, who was asked about it by no less a person than Norman On Yer Bike Tebbit, no fan of Scottish self-determination. Tebbit quoted the unnamed Lord Chancellor as saying: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."

[wigantojapan]

The boss of drinks giant Diageo has said Scottish independence would make "no difference" to any decision on investing in the country.

wether you like Daigeo as a company or not and if they have made quality whiskies inferior in substance with their desire for brand recognition is a debate for another day but as quoted by the Diageo is investing £1bn in Scotch whisky production over the next five years

.When asked on Radio Four's Today programme whether Scottish independence, if it happened, would make a difference to the company's investment decisions, Mr Walsh responded: "No difference at all."

He said: "Scotch has been around for hundreds of years, it has seen all kinds of political changes. We'll weather anything.

so again another negative spin by the better together camp...and the more negative they become the more the yes vote makes inroads into the real debate and that is the issue.

What the no camp have failed and keep on failing to realize is that when you put the Scots into a corner they will attack with intelligence.

I really do start to believe it is all a smoke screen by the Tories in the no camp to want an independent Scotland for their own believes and needs and that is fine that is their choice or Darling and their camp are the modern day Dukes of Hamilton

[davehowden]

I read the article in yesterday's business section of the Bangkok post,regarding the Scottish whiskey industry, so if you can obtain a copy you should be able to read the full piece.

I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that Scotland's entry into the EU will be just a formality, well not according to the head Eurocrats in Brussels, not to mention a number of government, including that of Spain. Furthermore I just cannot get my head around to anyone, wanting to join the EU and of course the requirements that new members will Have to take on the EURO, at the expense of their own independent currency.

whiskey

In that lies a part of the perception..........people cannot even start to get the basic of the Scottish culture far less anything else,,but still you can have you say but at least you are trying maybe to deep for some people,,,,

.EU membership: Scotland would be forced to reapply for EU membership.This all hinges on whether Scotland would be considered a successor state to the UK, or whether it would be considered an entirely new state. Would Germany, which imports much of its oil from Scotland, want to ensure Scotland remained a part of the EU? Or would Merkell and Sarkozy go along with Davie Cameron, who royally pisses them off and brings nothing to Europe except an Etonian sense of entitlement?

Let's assume that the EU decides to support Westminster in its epic sulk, and demands that Scotland reapply to join the EU but England-Wales-Northern Ireland remained a member. This would mean that Scotland is considered an entirely new state. In that circumstance, international law is very clear that Scotland would not be bound by any of the obligations of the UK. Amongst other things, that means that Scotland would not be required to take on a single penny of UK national debt. UK national debt is a UK obligation. The UK ruined the banks, so the UK can pay for it.

It's very much in Westminster's interests to ensure that Scotland is treated as a joint successor state and that Scotland remains a member of the EU, otherwise we get to walk off Scot-free and without any national debt at all. We could leave that mess to Westminster to sort out, and begin independent life as an energy rich debt-free nation. In that fortunate financial circumstance, surviving a couple of years as we apply for EU membership may well be worth it.

Another reason Westminster is blustering on this issue is that the UK was formed by the Union of Scotland and England in 1707. The state formed by that Union signed the EU membership treaties. When Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either. This is the opinion of a former Labour Lord Chancellor, who was asked about it by no less a person than Norman On Yer Bike Tebbit, no fan of Scottish self-determination. Tebbit quoted the unnamed Lord Chancellor as saying: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."

Sounds good, so with a "yes" vote we are out of the EU, all for it!

[Basil B]

The boss of drinks giant Diageo has said Scottish independence would make "no difference" to any decision on investing in the country.

wether you like Daigeo as a company or not and if they have made quality whiskies inferior in substance with their desire for brand recognition is a debate for another day but as quoted by the Diageo is investing £1bn in Scotch whisky production over the next five years

.When asked on Radio Four's Today programme whether Scottish independence, if it happened, would make a difference to the company's investment decisions, Mr Walsh responded: "No difference at all."

He said: "Scotch has been around for hundreds of years, it has seen all kinds of political changes. We'll weather anything.

so again another negative spin by the better together camp...and the more negative they become the more the yes vote makes inroads into the real debate and that is the issue.

What the no camp have failed and keep on failing to realize is that when you put the Scots into a corner they will attack with intelligence.

I really do start to believe it is all a smoke screen by the Tories in the no camp to want an independent Scotland for their own believes and needs and that is fine that is their choice or Darling and their camp are the modern day Dukes of Hamilton

I can not see it making any difference to the whisky industry if Scotland is in or out of the Union or EU other than the tax level, but again it is highly unlikely to attract more tax than other spirits.

I see Alex was on his soap box again yesterday, accusing the NO campaign of negative politics, funny but I have never heard Alex say any actually intelligent, he now seems to think he has the support of the Labour voters in Scotland, it does not make sense as Scottish Labour gets most of its power by being part of the British Labour party and packing the Westminster parliament with elected Scottish Labour MP's, and if Scotland votes YES then the Scottish Labour will have to form its own party north of the border along with all other political parties.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Basil B

[3NUMBAS]

in answer to above ^

the UK gumment wont underwrite the New Scottish banks nor back a pound currency despite salmonds claim otherwise ,the man is as thick as a plank .

he simply waves away any of the fine details with a swish of his hand .

UK cant back FOREIGN banks ..

leading the jocks over the cliff

[Basil B]

Another aspect I bet Alex has not considered is Scotland's representation abroad, consular services, embassies, ambassadors, representation at the UN.

I hope Britain cancels all passports of Scots who were entitled to vote in the referendum if Scotland does go independent.

[RuamRudy]

Another aspect I bet Alex has not considered is Scotland's representation abroad, consular services, embassies, ambassadors, representation at the UN.

I hope Britain cancels all passports of Scots who were entitled to vote in the referendum if Scotland does go independent.

You bet how much? I will take your money off you.

Basil, why such animosity? Can you not accept that a sizeable proportion of Scots simply feel that they want to be independent from the UK? Don't take it personally; it is not a reflection on you. Why not be happy for them and the confidence they have in themselves?

[Basil B]

No animosity, simply, why should we be supporting free loaders who voted for independence but still want/need consular services when they are abroad.

All Alex thinks about is what Scotland will gain and not what Scotland will lose with independence.

Edit, in all fairness maybe should have written: All Alex talks about is what Scotland will gain and not what Scotland will lose with independence.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Basil B

[transam]

Another aspect I bet Alex has not considered is Scotland's representation abroad, consular services, embassies, ambassadors, representation at the UN.

I hope Britain cancels all passports of Scots who were entitled to vote in the referendum if Scotland does go independent.

You bet how much? I will take your money off you.

Basil, why such animosity? Can you not accept that a sizeable proportion of Scots simply feel that they want to be independent from the UK? Don't take it personally; it is not a reflection on you. Why not be happy for them and the confidence they have in themselves?

Does any mere mortal have any confidence in any government. ?

Most of us mortals know nothing about what is really happening behind political scenes. None of us. It all changes after the election. I have been around a while and have NEVER seen the promises delivered, from any political party/bloke..........

[RuamRudy]

Another aspect I bet Alex has not considered is Scotland's representation abroad, consular services, embassies, ambassadors, representation at the UN.

I hope Britain cancels all passports of Scots who were entitled to vote in the referendum if Scotland does go independent.

You bet how much? I will take your money off you.

Basil, why such animosity? Can you not accept that a sizeable proportion of Scots simply feel that they want to be independent from the UK? Don't take it personally; it is not a reflection on you. Why not be happy for them and the confidence they have in themselves?

Does any mere mortal have any confidence in any government. ?

Most of us mortals know nothing about what is really happening behind political scenes. None of us. It all changes after the election. I have been around a while and have NEVER seen the promises delivered, from any political party/bloke..........

Transam, I fully agree - but what is the alternative, that we give up on democracy?

[7by7]

Wigantojapan, as most of your latest posts obviously consist of cut and paste jobs, maybe you should familiarise yourself with Forum Rule 13 and at least post a link to your source.

I am shocked that someone who presents himself as a patriotic Scot spells whisky as whiskey!

Surely you must know that Scottish whisky doesn't have that 'e' in it!