Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes

[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.

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

You do realise that Scotland has returned hardly a single Tory MP for decades?

Edited April 14, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

whether or not your think Scotland will prosper if it gains independence, is surely irrelevant? If the people of Scotland vote for independence then they should have it.......for better or for worse. f you are not Scottish it really isn't any of your business. I think the real opposition comes from English who are worried that it may negatively impact themselves......McSom nam na.....as we say north of the border.

[wilcopops]

Let's put it a different way - the loss of Scotland would be the biggest blow to ENGLAND since the loss of th American colonies, so of course the English are worried.

Back in the 18th C they could look around for somewhere else to colonise, but that's not an option now.

Edited April 14, 2014 by wilcopops

[transam]

Let's put it a different way - the loss of Scotland would be the biggest blow to ENGLAND since the loss of th American colonies, so of course the English are worried.

Back in the 18th C they could look around for somewhere else to colonise, but that's not an option now.

...................You seem to forget that the "UK" as a whole did stuff. If Scotland wants to renounce everything AND state they had NOTHING to do with the past, you are having a laugh......... .........Nooooooooooooooo we Scots NEVER had slaves, we are whiter than white...............

[phuketjock]

I find it very interesting to note that although invited on several occasions to

have a public debate with Salmond on independence for Scotland Cameron

has ignored that request.

It is also notable that the NO campaigners on and off this thread have studiously

managed to avoid any discussion on this subject, I wonder why???

Any answers Laddies and Lassies of the NO campaigners???

What is Cameron afraid of???

The truth I suspect.

Edited April 14, 2014 by phuketjock

[7by7]

• "There are 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK today. That’s 27 per cent of children, or more than one in four."

Where did they get there figures from?

If you are going to cut and past please provide a link to the full page.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/This is the real Britain,,one that does not get enough media exposure far less government intervention,or spending.......Shocking and this is a main issue Scotland will tackle if they do get inderpendence

That link doesn't work for me.

But as I have said previously, the Scottish Parliament already has the power to tackle this and many similar issues.

After 6 years in power, the SNP hasn't done a thing.

Why?

According to Nicola Sturgeon, it's because they don't want Scottish people getting into work and then paying tax to Westminster!

The SNP care more about spiting Westminster than they do about Scottish mothers and children.

As with this issue; all the points in your numerous recent cut and paste jobs have been raised and debunked earlier in this topic.

[RuamRudy]

After 6 years in power, the SNP hasn't done a thing.

Why?

According to Nicola Sturgeon, it's because they don't want Scottish people getting into work and then paying tax to Westminster!

I would love to see a link to her saying this. Can you please supply?

[7by7]

After 6 years in power, the SNP hasn't done a thing.

Why?

According to Nicola Sturgeon, it's because they don't want Scottish people getting into work and then paying tax to Westminster!

I would love to see a link to her saying this. Can you please supply?

I must admit that I can't find the original BBC news item from which I took her remarks. However, I have found many commentaries on them. Some examples:-

Strange silence on childcare plans

Nicola Sturgeon initially had a different explanation of the need to wait until after independence. She said the Scottish Government couldn’t spend such a large amount on childcare services only to see economic benefit (tax contributions from working mothers) flow to the London Treasury. But the same argument could be used to counter any Scottish investment in better social care – free personal care for example allows 50-something daughters to remain in work paying taxes instead of leaving work to care for their mums and dads. That means devolved expenditure on free personal care could also be seen as a “leakage” from its limited coffers by the Scottish Government – it isn’t.

SNP unable to put a cost on overdue childcare pledge

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was challenged in Holyrood today following her pledge that all children from one-year-old until school age would be entitled to 1,140 hours of free childcare.

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson challenged her on how this would be paid for and why the policy has not already been introduced, given the Scottish Parliament already has control over childcare.

At the paper’s launch this morning, the Deputy First Minister suggested the reason it had not been implemented before now was because the extra tax generated from getting more women into work would go to the Treasury in London.

Is that it?

And as for the SNP’s big pledge on childcare, it might come as a surprise to them that they already have the powers to increase childcare now. Nicola Sturgeon admitted as muc, but disgracefully said that the SNP would take no action now because any increased revenues would flow to the Treasury.

It is now clear. The SNP are promising increased childcare, not to change a woman’s life but win a woman’s vote....

Although in a debate with Shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret Curran, Sturgeon did change her wording somewhat.

"Nicola Sturgeon spoke today about extending childcare, but if she was serious she would do it now. said Curran.

"And when the best reason she can give for not doing it now is that some of the benefits might go to the UK, I think that is wrong.

"They are putting their ambition for independence ahead of our fight for more childcare......"

From Sturgeon's response;

"Let me be crystal clear why independence is required to deliver this transformation for Scotland's children, women and families, and our economy.

"At the moment Scotland receives a fixed budget from Westminster. We would not receive the increased tax revenues from more women in the workforce unless Westminster decides we should."

So, as I said, the SNP would rather spite Westminster than help Scottish mothers.

[RuamRudy]

After 6 years in power, the SNP hasn't done a thing.

Why?

According to Nicola Sturgeon, it's because they don't want Scottish people getting into work and then paying tax to Westminster!

I would love to see a link to her saying this. Can you please supply?

I must admit that I can't find the original BBC news item from which I took her remarks. However, I have found many commentaries on them. Some examples:-

Strange silence on childcare plans

SNP unable to put a cost on overdue childcare pledge

Is that it?

debate with Shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret Curran,

I am not sure that the tories or labour count as impartial, and the Lesley Riddoch and Sunday Post links are hardly damning in the way that your editorialised comments suggest.

[7by7]

Impartial sources or not; she said it and it was widely reported at the time.

What explanation do you have for the SNP not implementing this policy during the 6+ years they have been in power in Scotland and so able to do so?

[7by7]

I find it very interesting to note that although invited on several occasions to

have a public debate with Salmond on independence for Scotland Cameron

has ignored that request.

It is also notable that the NO campaigners on and off this thread have studiously

managed to avoid any discussion on this subject, I wonder why???

Any answers Laddies and Lassies of the NO campaigners???

What is Cameron afraid of???

The truth I suspect.

He hasn't ignored the request; he's responded and said no.

Scottish independence: David Cameron will not have TV debate with Alex Salmond

In his letter to the first minister, David Cameron agreed there should be television debates ahead of the referendum.

He said Mr Darling, the former Chancellor, had been asked by all of the pro-UK parties in Scotland to lead the campaign, and that while it was entirely right for Mr Salmond to place himself at the head of the Yes campaign in favour of independence, he should not decide who should lead the No campaign too.

The prime minister said: "It is a well understood and reasonable principle that you get to pick your own team's captain, but not your opponent's as well."

.........

In an interview with BBC Scotland, ahead of the Conservative conference which begins in Manchester on Sunday, Mr Cameron dismissed the suggestion that he was "scared" to face Mr Salmond in a debate.

He said: "I used to debate with him when he was in the House of commons, but as I say it is not a debate between the leader of the Conservative party and the leader of the SNP. It is not a debate between the prime minister of the UK and the first minister of Scotland.

"It is a debate between different people in Scotland about whether to stay or separate and that's where you have to hold the debate."

So, answer me this; why doesn't Salmond want a televised debate with Darling?

What's Salmond afraid of?

Darling attacks Salmond over refusal to debate on live TV

The Labour MP said Mr Salmond wanted to face Mr Cameron in order to turn the independence debate into "him [Mr Salmond] against the Tories".

But he added: "He is the leader of their campaign, I'm the leader of ours. What's he got to be afraid of?"

[RuamRudy]

Impartial sources or not; she said it and it was widely reported at the time.

What explanation do you have for the SNP not implementing this policy during the 6+ years they have been in power in Scotland and so able to do so?

That, I am afraid, I cannot tell you. I would assume that limited budgets and competing requirements meant that difficult decisions had to be made for what would surely be a vote winning measure had it been implemented.

[7by7]

Then why didn't Sturgeon say that?

Far better politically than what she did say.

Still, one has to congratulate her for not lying about it.

Edited April 14, 2014 by 7by7

[wilcopops]

Let's put it a different way - the loss of Scotland would be the biggest blow to ENGLAND since the loss of th American colonies, so of course the English are worried.

Back in the 18th C they could look around for somewhere else to colonise, but that's not an option now.

...................You seem to forget that the "UK" as a whole did stuff. If Scotland wants to renounce everything AND state they had NOTHING to do with the past, you are having a laugh......... .........Nooooooooooooooo we Scots NEVER had slaves, we are whiter than white...............

What you say is very interesting and also very much up for debate.

Why do you think that Scotland (or at least some Scots) wants independence? - Irt is because one of the main concerns they have is that the ENGLISH have run the country from London for too long - so your assumption that "they did stuff together" is not actually a sound one - the argument being that Scotland was ruled by an English majority.

Even the Union at the beginning of the 18th century was largely to the advantage of the English - the removal of a possible military threat and the Scottish acquiescence has been linked with bribery and corruption and of course the dire economic situation in Scotland which England took great advantage of, virtually blackmailing Scotland into a political union.

It remains to be seen if Scotland would return to the pre 1700 situation where 2 nations shared one monarch - not unlike Canada or Australia - one cannot deny that the Union has had colonialist master and servant over and undertones since its inception.

Edited April 14, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

PS - I think you might check out the history of slavery in Uk - in particular Scotland before you pass judgement.

[transam]

PS - I think you might check out the history of slavery in Uk - in particular Scotland before you pass judgement.

You were there..? Or are you going to quote books some bloke wrote a zillion years ago, like some religions do................

[7by7]

PS - I think you might check out the history of slavery in Uk - in particular Scotland before you pass judgement.

Maybe you should read Missing faces

As the United Kingdom marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade tomorrow, Jackie Kay challenges fellow Scots to acknowledge their forebears' part in this shameful history and reflects on the ordeal suffered by her ancestors

Or Scotland and Black Slavery to 1833

Historians have tended to focus on the role of abolitionists and their activities, but given the importance of the slave trade and slavery to Scotland’s economy it is important to realise that Scotland also produced many men who defended the slave trade and slavery in this period. For example, the Glasgow West India Association in the early nineteenth century was a lobbying group that tried to convince people of the economic and social benefits of slavery, not only for Scottish people but for the West Indian slaves themselves. Some of this can be seen in the anonymous novel, Marly; or a Planter’s Life in Jamaica (Glasgow/London, 1828), which was written from the perspective of a young Scottish planter in Jamaica and attempted to make excuses for slavery. Thankfully such efforts to persuade people in Britain of the good of slavery were unsuccessful.

[wilcopops]

PS - I think you might check out the history of slavery in Uk - in particular Scotland before you pass judgement.

Maybe you should read Missing faces

As the United Kingdom marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade tomorrow, Jackie Kay challenges fellow Scots to acknowledge their forebears' part in this shameful history and reflects on the ordeal suffered by her ancestors

Or Scotland and Black Slavery to 1833

Historians have tended to focus on the role of abolitionists and their activities, but given the importance of the slave trade and slavery to Scotland’s economy it is important to realise that Scotland also produced many men who defended the slave trade and slavery in this period. For example, the Glasgow West India Association in the early nineteenth century was a lobbying group that tried to convince people of the economic and social benefits of slavery, not only for Scottish people but for the West Indian slaves themselves. Some of this can be seen in the anonymous novel, Marly; or a Planter’s Life in Jamaica (Glasgow/London, 1828), which was written from the perspective of a young Scottish planter in Jamaica and attempted to make excuses for slavery. Thankfully such efforts to persuade people in Britain of the good of slavery were unsuccessful.

I think you might actually READ those books and you'll realise that the issue of slavery is not relevant to the scots right to self-determination but is part of the economic domination of Scotland for 300 years by the English.

slavery was used - and defended all over the world (even George Washinton, himself a Brit by origins), largely in a form developed by the English to support the triangular trade system across the Atlantic.

or are you referring to the 100.000 or so Scots who were sold into slavery?

there is a fallacious argument that occurs often in these sort of discussions that brings in an irrelevant ro inaccurate factor in the hope that it justifies one side of the argument.

The most common form in modern context is the cry"Black people are racist too"

What escapes these proponents is that their argument is completely spurious as is in this case,the Scottish involvement with slavery.

Edited April 14, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

PS - I think you might check out the history of slavery in Uk - in particular Scotland before you pass judgement.

You were there..? Or are you going to quote books some bloke wrote a zillion years ago, like some religions do................

That has to be your lamest argument today!

[7by7]

Politically however, Westminster would be obliged by the results of a referendum on Scottish independence, and that's the point. If Scotland votes in favour of independence in a ballot conducted according to internationally established norms, Westminster would be bound by it. That's why they're desperate to wrest control of the referendum from the Scottish Parliament, because they want to give us another of the referendums they've given us in the past, like the 1979 referendum where the votes of the dead counted as a no. The reason they're complaining so loudly that Holyrood would rig the referendum is because that's precisely what they'd do themselves. It's called psychological projection.

The conduct of the referendum, the actual question being asked and who is eligible to vote were all decided by the Scottish parliament.

So how is Westminster wresting control of the referendum?

[I Like Thai]

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."

If any attempt were made to block Scottish membership to the EU, a referendum would be demanded in Ireland with a likelihood that Ireland would leave the EU. Whether Scotland wishes to remain in the Union or not is up to them, we wish them all the best whichever way they go. But we would not be on the wrong side of Scotland in their efforts. The EU will not risk having two of their most Westerly countries going outside of the EU.

[wilcopops]

"Historians have tended to focus on the role of abolitionists and their activities, but given the importance of the slave trade and slavery to Scotland’s economy it is important to realise that Scotland also produced many men who defended the slave trade and slavery in this period" - this is rubbish - Scottish schools teach history - Unlike many English schools) and the slavery issue is well covered. If you have any doubt just look at the architecture and street names in places like Glasgow.

Edited April 14, 2014 by wilcopops

[7by7]

I think you (7by7) might actually READ those books and you'll realise that the issue of slavery is not relevant to the scots right to self-determination........What escapes these proponents is that their argument is completely spurious as is in this case,the Scottish involvement with slavery.

I'm not saying that the slave trade has got anything to do with the Scottish right to self determination; it was you who raised it!

So, why did you raise the issue of slavery?

Because you wanted to use it as a stick with which to beat the English? Well, if so; you failed.

are you (7by7) referring to the 100.000 or so Scots who were sold into slavery?

Are you referring to the 100,000 children taken from their families by Scottish 'social' workers and sent to Canada and Australia or used as slaves by Scottish farmers?

The secret slaves of Scotland: How children were ripped from their families, taken hundreds of miles from home and kept in chains and forced to work in fields

Or maybe the Scottish tenants forcibly removed from their farms by Scottish 19th century landowners and forcibly moved to Canada?

"]Historians have tended to focus on the role of abolitionists and their activities, but given the importance of the slave trade and slavery to Scotland’s economy it is important to realise that Scotland also produced many men who defended the slave trade and slavery in this period" - this is rubbish - Scottish schools teach history - Unlike many English schools) and the slavery issue is well covered.

Take it up with the Scottish History Society, from whom I quoted!

Or the Daily Record

But there is no doubt the profits slaves helped to create kick-started the industrial revolution in Scotland and brought it's merchants and traders great wealth.

There were familiar names such as Scot Lyle of Tate and Lyle fame whose fortune was built on slavery. Ewing from Glasgow was the richest sugar producer in Jamaica.

The stunning Inveresk Lodge in Edinburgh, now open to the public, was bought by James Wedderburn with money earned from 27 years in Jamaica as a notorious slaver.

The Wee Free Church was founded using profits and donations from the slave trade. Even our schools have a dark history. Bathgate Academy was built from money willed by John Newland, a renowned slave master and Dollar Academy has a similar foundation.

For many years, the goods and profits from West Indian slavery were unloaded at Kingston docks in Glasgow.

Leith in Edinburgh and Glasgow were popular ports from which ambitious Scottish men sailed to make their fortunes as slave masters.

Scotland gained as much from and participated as much in the evils of the triangular slave trade as England did.

[7by7]

If any attempt were made to block Scottish membership to the EU, a referendum would be demanded in Ireland with a likelihood that Ireland would leave the EU. Whether Scotland wishes to remain in the Union or not is up to them, we wish them all the best whichever way they go. But we would not be on the wrong side of Scotland in their efforts. The EU will not risk having two of their most Westerly countries going outside of the EU.

I can't see any reason why the UK would desire to block an independent Scotland's membership of the EU.

But, despite what Salmond says, that membership would not be automatic; this has been stressed many times by EU leaders.

An Independent Scotland would need to apply for membership and abide by the conditions of membership; one of which has been for all new members since 2006 adoption of the Euro.

[nontabury]

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."

If any attempt were made to block Scottish membership to the EU, a referendum would be demanded in Ireland with a likelihood that Ireland would leave the EU. Whether Scotland wishes to remain in the Union or not is up to them, we wish them all the best whichever way they go. But we would not be on the wrong side of Scotland in their efforts. The EU will not risk having two of their most Westerly countries going outside of the EU.

Who says so, can you please provide us with a link.

I think you will find the demands of Spain and Italy amongst others will carry far more weight that Ireland, who lets be right about it, are in financial hock to the EU.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[wilcopops]

Sadly you aren't a very good historian. or perhaps more importably, historiographer; when a controversial subject like this comes up, i can almost hear other members scrabbling for their Google. you should derive your arguments from sources not indiscriminately choose sources to support a stance you have already taken. It will only come back at you. This is the problem with Google, it is very difficult to discriminate between well thought out sources and a bunch of amateurs or those with a over zealous, pre-defined agenda.

You really aren't making any logical conclusions from what little you've read and even lass understood.

firstly how does this affect the Scottish right to self-determination

and secondly to say "Scotland gained as much from and participated as much in the evils of the triangular slave trade as England did." is just unsupportable by the evidence you have ineptly quoted. (see my argument above).

​It really is a waste of time to discuss this with some posters as they don't seem to be able to connect the dots and make a rational argument....but after 20 minutes Googling what does one expect?

Edited April 14, 2014 by wilcopops

[I Like Thai]

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."

If any attempt were made to block Scottish membership to the EU, a referendum would be demanded in Ireland with a likelihood that Ireland would leave the EU. Whether Scotland wishes to remain in the Union or not is up to them, we wish them all the best whichever way they go. But we would not be on the wrong side of Scotland in their efforts. The EU will not risk having two of their most Westerly countries going outside of the EU.

Who says so, can you please provide us with a link.

I think you will find the demands of Spain and Italy amongst others will carry far more weight that Ireland, who lets be right about it, are in financial hock to the EU.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Do you need a link to everything ? Are you capable of forming your own opinion on things ?

[nontabury]

"Historians have tended to focus on the role of abolitionists and their activities, but given the importance of the slave trade and slavery to Scotland’s economy it is important to realise that Scotland also produced many men who defended the slave trade and slavery in this period" - this is rubbish - Scottish schools teach history - Unlike many English schools) and the slavery issue is well covered. If you have any doubt just look at the architecture and street names in places like Glasgow.

The leader of the anti- slavery movement was a certain William Wilberforce along with another Englishman called Thomas Clarkson. My School because of a connection with W.W taught us in history a great deal about all aspects of the slave trade, and one thing is for certain, no parts of the "then" GB, and I include Ireland, can be proud of its part in this inhuman trade, and that certainly includes Scotland.

I remember, on I think BBC question time approximately 15yrs ago, when a chap by the name of Alex Salmonds tried to suggest that the Scots were innocent victims of English colonial rule. Unfortunately one of the other panelist was a member of the House of Lords, who was in fact Indian born and raised, she strongly informed an embarrast Salmonds that she remembered the Scottish members of the colonialist administration in India to be the most arrogant and disliked by the Indian people. But I am sure their will be attempts to re write history.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Scott]

A stroll down the lane of history is interesting, but I think much of this is off-topic, in particular the discussion of slavery.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.