To think Alex Salmond is in his own private dream world?

[SpineInABap]

Ok so Alex Salmond wants an independent Scotland, and sets out his ideas.

Then all three Westminster parties tell him - "no you can't share the pound and be independent as well, it would be too unstable. Did you see what happened in Europe when they tried to share a currency between different countries with different economic policies? And those countries were trying to become more united, and in this case the two countries would be trying to split apart!"

Then a guy from the European Union remarks that it won't be plain sailing for an Independent Scotland to join the EU, as all the other members will have to agree - and many won't as they don't want to encourage their own splinter states to start asking for independence as well.

So two fairly serious problems. And what is Alex Salmon's reaction? Basically to go "Ner ner ner, you're all being mean and nasty and you don't really mean it. I think that if we all vote yes for an independent Scotland, then you will change your mind and let us share the pound, and let us join the EU. You're bluffing, and so I'm not coming up with a plan for what would happen if Scotland voted yes and we realised that, oops no...you weren't bluffing".

How can anyone think this man does not sound a bit bonkers? I'm English, but if I was Scottish I would be very worried about voting for someone who thinks nothing of destabilising a whole economy just to make a Political point.

In a broadcast interview Professor Crawford said that rejoining the EU would not “necessarily going to be difficult” as he indicated that Scotland’s admittance to the United Nations in the wake of independence would be “straightforward”.

Speaking during media interviews, Prof Crawford also said the renegotiation of international treaties was “not going to be a major issue” as he accepted that the EU negotiations would take place from within the European Union."

This week has not made this seem so likely.

There's one way to solve the EU membership question though.

Westminster need to ask EU officially.
They won't, despite the Scottish Government asking numerous times to be part of delegation or whatever to get the correct info.

They won't do it, as they won't pre negotiate, even though they have said no currency union so contradicting themselves.

Why won't they ask?

Why won't they ask

Indeed. What could the WM government possibly gain from prolonging this uncertainty?

Personally, if WM were to officially ask the EU about an iScotlands place in the EU and the EU officially responded with no way would iScotland be in, then I would reconsider my vote.

Until WM asks, there will be equal amounts if experts saying one thing or the other, which is not particularly fair on the Scots as it just adds one more gamble they have to make.

This is quite an interesting rumour following Barrosos mad comments.
newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8770-rumours-of-cameron-backing-for-barroso-nato-bid-sweeps-brussels

Barroso is a particularly self-serving wanky duplicitous bastard, accordingly to someone I know who has dealt with him.

Barroso is a particularly self-serving wanky duplicitous bastard, accordingly to someone I know who has dealt with him

Surely that description could be applied to all politicians

Why the hell should they ask? They don't want Scotland to go. They're not going to help Scotland on their way. I'd say the uncertainty is very important, because it's what any Yes voter is basing their vote on in SO many different areas.

Well yes, the point was that even by that low standard he was an arse!

So that people can vote based on the correct information.

What Westminster signed up to in the Edinburgh agreement is not really being kept to.

Why the hell should they ask? They don't want Scotland to go. They're not going to help Scotland on their way. I'd say the uncertainty is very important, because it's what any Yes voter is basing their vote on in SO many different areas

Because:
30. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding 4 between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.
www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence

I have Danish and German relatives who have queried why we think that Scotland couldn't (or is it shouldn't?) be an independent country. The Danish ones in particular almost take it as an insult the implication that Scotland is "too small" and there couldn't be enough quality people within the country to be a success. They are genuinely confused.

They have also pointed out that it took 18 months for the citizens of Greenland to leave the EU after having a referendum where they said they wanted to (they were only able to have that referendum after they were given Home Rule) for the very reasons that have been mentioned on here: to avoid issues with visas and to ensure that people weren't left stateless. Ironically enough, there is now a groundswell (don't think it is a majority though) of interest in rejoining the EU.

Question to Freddie : why would Scotland have a lesser goodwill than the ex USSR states like Latvia and Lithuania which "smoothed their path into the EU"?

Sweden took less than 2 years to join the EU - probably because it already complied with most of the regulations as it was a member of EFTA. What would cause the delay for Scotland, as it already fulfills the regulations as a constituent part of the UK?

...should clarify: the reason they take it as insult is that there are a lot of similarities between Scotland and Denmark in terms of size only Scotland has oil!

They won't do it, as they won't pre negotiate, even though they have said no currency union so contradicting themselves.

Which brings us full circle. The no campaign haven't put 'no currency union' on the table officially. They're just saying they will. Until they put their money where their mouths are (if you excuse the pun), on currency and other important issues then how can we take anything they say seriously. Rather typically they'd rather fear-monger and muddy the waters, than stick to the facts and let people make their own minds up. It's quite insulting really.

Can't believe someone up thread is quoting Eric Joyce to support their arguments!
That would be the drunk brawling Eric Joyce who has disgraced himself and his party more times than most people can remember!

When he is sober he occasionally makes sense.

His opinion piece is as valid as anyone else's really, just someone's opinion, not gospel.

Can't believe someone up thread is quoting Eric Joyce to support their arguments!
That would be the drunk brawling Eric Joyce who has disgraced himself and his party more times than most people can remember!

Just because he's a dick, doesn't mean he is wrong...

prettybird because the political and economic climate has changed so much over the interim.

Unlike the former Soviet countries, Scotland would not be released from the clutches of an evil totalitarian state (). We're not about to man the barricades and have a revolution, so independence would be a slow, negotiated process.

So I'm assuming (and anyone is welcome to correct me) that those negotiations between rUK and iScotland would have to be complete so that oil revenue and the rest of the tax base, plus currency, was clear and stable before EU negotiations could begin.

On top of this, after the lax accounting that allowed Greece to become a member, then the economic meltdown, I think we would have to tick every box and cross every 't', as it were, to fulfil the membership criteria.

So, it's all going to take time, which equals uncertainty and instability, which businesses and many people are not going to like one bit.

So, it's all going to take time, which equals uncertainty and instability, which businesses and many people are not going to like one bit

Some businesses

www.businessforscotland.co.uk/member-profiles/

There are a lot of big companies opposed - rumour on the ground is that standard life will make a cautionary statement this week

The Yes campaign are asking the Scottish people to sign up to a principle and simply to trust that the actual implementation of that theoretical principle will be to our benefit and to ignore the fact that they are almost entirely unable to clarify, back up or evidence any of their assertions in any meaningful way.

It's a bit like your employer asking you to transfer to another post but being unable to tell you what your actual terms and conditions would be and asking you just to trust them when they tell you that you'll be better off.

It's a complete pig in a poke.

The No campaign are asking the Scottish people to sign up to a principle and simply to trust that the actual implementation of that theoretical principle will be to our benefit and to ignore the fact that they are almost entirely unable to clarify, back up or evidence any of their assertions in any meaningful way.

It's a bit like your employer asking you to transfer to another post but being unable to tell you what your actual terms and conditions would be and asking you just to trust them when they tell you that you'll be better off.

It's a complete pig in a poke.

See that's a typical Nat reaction. Instead of trying to back up their assertions (because they can't) they simply try to ignore the point.

The Yes campaign are the ones asking us to change - if you're doing that then the ball's in your court to explain why we should.

Your post also contained no facts or evidence, just your own opinion.

The Yes campaign has put forward very plausible reasons for independence, backedf up by evidence. The No campaign has come up with no positive reasons to remain in the union, only scaremongering about all the bad things that might happen in the event of independence.

But what you call 'scaremongering', many others might call 'sensible due diligence' or considering different scenarios.

The fact is, no one knows what will happen, we can only surmise what could happen, so as other's have said, if the Yes campaign want to change the status quo, it's their job to give bloody good answers to all the possibilities.

But what you call 'scaremongering', many others might call 'sensible due diligence' or considering different scenarios

The vast majority have been shown to be inaccurate at best.

if the Yes campaign want to change the status quo, it's their job to give bloody good answers to all the possibilities

Which, generally speaking,they do.

It is also worth pointing out that "status quo" is not correct. In the event of a No vote things will unarguably change, many would feel in a negative way.