No government could possibly take any other position on this to the one which the UK government are currently taking.
==

however you dress it up...

they have taken this position...

Now you may think that is NOT in the best interests of the rest of the UK ..and I might even agree...

But those in charge have stated what will happen and they can dress it up as they wish...

Selling Scotland sterling could be a good wee earner for the Bank of England

Meanwhile it might be 7 quid a pint and 4 quid for a loaf.
Kind of like Norway

The general reply to the tough questions is to dismiss difficult points as scaremongering/posturing


I dint buy it

No government could justify imposing a tax on one part of the country and not on the rest....but they did!

Governments do whatever the hell they like, they get a mandate and go for it, 1 million people publicly declared "not in my name" and were roundly ignored.

Saying that a government cant do this or can't do that is bollox, they do what they want and if the rest of the UK want to punish Scotlands desertion, they will.

we will have food banks on every corner

Vote Yes for poverty.

comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 4 seconds ago
No government could justify imposing a tax on one part of the country and not on the rest....but they did!

Governments do whatever the hell they like, they get a mandate and go for it, 1 million people publicly declared "not in my name" and were roundly ignored.

Saying that a government cant do this or can't do that is bollox, they do what they want and if the rest of the UK want to punish Scotlands desertion, they will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus selling us sterling will make them money while keeping us out of NATO and the EU.

"Selling Scotland sterling could be a good wee earner for the Bank of England

Meanwhile it might be 7 quid a pint and 4 quid for a loaf.
Kind of like Norway "



Mind they used to hold up Ireland as a shining example if what independence could achieve

comment by Mick Dee -Stop talking politics and eat yer cereal. (U14135)
posted 44 seconds ago
Politicians have one mandate above all:

"Do what is best for the country"

At the moment the best thing for rUK is to keep Scotland and all the benefits they bring. One way to help achieve that goal is to deny Scotland a currency union.

If the UK government took any other stance then there would be a deriliction of duty.

However, once a yes vote is successful, the rUK government will still have the same mandate to do what's best for the country, and as denying a currency union at that point would be useless then the best thing for their constituents would be to agree to a currency union and split the debt.

No government could possibly take any other position on this to the one which the UK government are currently taking.

And post-independence no UK government could possibly justify not joining a currency union with their biggest trade partner, especially if it gets rid of a large portion of their debt.

Don't fall for the posturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually it would be in best interests of the UK not to agree to a CU with Scotland.

It would mean that the UK would have to bail out the banks of a foreign power with, let's be realistic, very little help coming from the Scottish side. It would be totally one sided in favour of Scotland. I don't think the UK gov will concede sovereignty for almost no gain at all.

We would be the poor man's Eire.

The rich mans Eire.

Many more natural resources available in Scotland than Ireland.

comment by The Mighty Quinn (U4099)
posted 25 seconds ago
We would be the poor man's Eire.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 quid a Guinness
Now that would break your heart Im sure

KP, cheers for the vote of confidence

I think it's generally accepted that EU membership will happen. Even the man at the top of the EU is "sympathetic" to our case for joining:

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

I think one of the key things within that is that although it will happen, they are uneasy with the timetable set. The application process would start immediately after a Yes vote. However, the timetable set makes it challenging. It could well be that we aren't in place by Spring 2016 which is the date set for full independence (I'm actually starting to come to the conclusion that we probably should have given ourselves an extra 6 months minimum for negotiations).

As for joining the Euro, the simple answer is that we don't actually qualify to join anyway. You need to be a member of ERM II for 2 years.

It might well be that we are pressed to join, but we could simply follow the lead of Sweden who deliberately fail one of the tests to qualify for use of the Euro as they simply don't want to use it.

I said this in the morning to Curly on a related subject and I think it's worth repeating - there are social and political reasons for admittance into the EU for Scotland.

Looking beyond that, there are obviously huge implications of Scotland being refused admittance to the EU which will have a socio-political impact across Europe. Keep in mind that the EU is a primarily political beast and the politics of entry are likely to be more important than any other points:

Here's what I wrote:


Certainly I have seen before (and I can't find it again sadly) that once an individual has EU membership there are only certain circumstances that this membership can be revoked. They are clearly laid out in law. The breaking up of a country is not one of those clearly outlined circumstances. I appreciate this is not a hugely powerful argument.

What is a powerful argument is the financial implications of non-EU membership of Scotland. As part of the UK, Scots are free to travel and work anywhere in the EU. If that is revoked, we will find ourselves with hundreds of thousands of Scots across Europe who will no longer have a right to be there. The countries across Europe will then be forced to identify and either remove these people or process a huge volume of visa applications in a short time. This will have significant implications for numerous countries, not least England which has the highest population of Scots within its borders. The cost implications across Europe will be huge.

There will also be the issue of non-Scots within Scotland. These people from across Europe, including English people, will no longer be entitled to stay within Scotland and would have to qualify for a Visa to live within our borders. It could lead to hundreds of thousands of people being deported.

A refusal to grant EU membership to Scotland could ultimately lead to the greatest population movement and the most displaced people in Europe since the 1950s.

With this recent oil find they will be begging us to keep the pound.

A refusal to grant EU membership to Scotland could ultimately lead to the greatest population movement and the most displaced people in Europe since the 1950s.

==

Is this a quote or simply your opinion?

Sounds like what Farage said.......

Sums it up.

'It's generally accepted .....'

Vague.

Hopeful.

Uncertain.

NO THANKS.

Out of curiosity. If an independent Scotland changes nothing, we dont end up better or worse, would you still vote for it?

Scotland getting independence and automatic entry into the various big boys clubs would have a knock on effect for Catalonia, Euskadi, the Walloons, the Istrian Italians in Croatia, the Sami, the Bretons, Silesians etc etc etc...

It's a flood gate national governments won't want to open.

On the Oli Rehn comments about needing a central bank, I wrote this morning:

The articles we need to look at are articles 130 and 131 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. This relates to what happens to central banks when members of the EU. We also want to look at The Statute of the ESCB and the ECB which is annexed to the treaties, and notably Article 14.3.

We then need to look at Article 48.3 which looks at new member states.

Throughout all these Articles it states what will happen to central banks upon membership. The last Article mentioned does state that central banks are "an integral part of the ESCB and shall act in accordance with guidelines" etc.

However, at no point does it say anywhere in the statutes that a new member (or indeed an existing member) MUST have a central bank.

Graham Blythe, Head of Office of the European Commission in Scotland, has said that the issue of whether a new member state must have a central bank "has never been tested".

As I'm sure you know, there is nothing legal people like better than having legislation tested so I'd imagine that there would be encouragement for Scotland to test that position of the chap in the article.

If it's Yes we are fvked.

Thank God it will be No.

comment by Mick Dee -Stop talking politics and eat yer cereal. (U14135)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 9 seconds ago
Out of curiosity. If an independent Scotland changes nothing, we dont end up better or worse, would you still vote for it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes

If we were guaranteed that being in a union would not benefit us in any way, who wouldn't vote to have their own government?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Depends if you feel British or Scottish. I am proud of history Great Britain has, and it means we will be better in the Olympics as well