to believe the remaining UK should not make special exceptions for Scottish economic refugees?

[longfingernails]

In the event of Scottish independence, the Scottish economy will be in the toilet. In this event, Britain should not be allowed to become a magnet for Scottish economic migrants.

I wouldn't blame Cameron if the Scots choose independence; the Tory party don't exactly have a strong foothold in those parts. However, I will certainly excoriate him if he gives an inch in any negotiations in the event of independence - especially if he allows large scale unskilled immigration from Scotland into Britain.

An independent Scotland would have almost zero negotiating power and Britain should exploit that to maximise our own advantage.

Bastards ..I bloody knew it

Well I want independence for Yorkshire!

If the Union is going to break up,now would be the time to go for it. A free state of Yorkshire would be a handy divide between Scotland and the rest of England!(yes I know there is Cumbria Northumberland inbetween - they could join us!!!!)

You don't believe a word I say, so I shall use your own words from the 'sponsored discussion' thread

Was that at me?

I was just pointing out that there is confusion/dissent about the mechanism of the split.

The Yes side seem to assume Scotland will be a continuing state.

Westminster seems to assume that Scotland will be a successor state, except that they seem to think that in that case Scotland would be liable for some UK debt, which they wouldn't be.

there is confusion/dissent about the mechanism of the split

Nope, not according to Mr S. It's all going to be just fine apparently - we've not to worry, and it's just bluster, bluff and bullying from Westminster.

Which infers that he doesn't think much of the intelligence levels of the average Scot, or that we actually might want our future leader to clarify these pesky points.

renewable energy (1/4 of Europe's wind and wave power)- heavily subsided by WM- where is the money coming from in iScotland?

Selling electricity to rUK. No trident? More efficient taxation/welfare?

electronics, creative industries, gaming, publishing, film and TV, medical research and technology, higher education- All dependent on investment, a lot of which comes from UK bodies

And people are still investing in Scotland despite the referendum uncertainty.

tourism (which will see an immediate boost post iScotland) I presume you are referring to the APD being scrapped, which again is a SNP policy. Furthermore, Scotland makes billions from APD, I wouldn't be so quick to turn it down in case of tourism.

Does APD not go to WM?

call centres (our accents are highly valued) grin our accents? You serious?
www.callcentrehelper.com/consumers-reject-regional-accents-7441.htm amongst many others...

Santana I hope you feel better soon

Thanks honey.

I've just searched yesscotland for 'successor state' and it brought up this. Their explanation for the viewpoint that the treaties should be shared is:

Moving on to the issues surrounding the international recognition of an independent Scotland, Dr Scheffer made clear that he believes Scotland would be a successor state of the Union along with the rest of the UK, suggesting that “the break-up should be viewed as two successor states of equal legitimacy – not size, wealth, or power, but legitimacy-and in that circumstance both successor states should lay equal claim to the continuation of treaty relations established in the past by the United Kingdom.”

Compare this to the Crawford & Boyle analysis. Their argument rests on three factors:
a) Specific precedent: The continuity of one state is the norm, in examples including the UK/Ireland (1922), British India (1947), Malaysia/Singapore (1965), Pakistan/ Bangladesh (1971–72), Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) (1990–91), Ethiopia/Eritrea (1993), Serbia/Montenegro (2006) and Sudan/South Sudan (2011).

b) Population and territory. In almost all the above cases, the continuator state was the unit retaining the majority of the predecessor state’s population and territory. This is true of the Dominion of India, Malaysia, Russia, Ethiopia, Serbia and Sudan.

c) Governmental institutions, again, in almost all examples, the continuator state retained substantially the same governmental institutions as the predecessor state.

The case for Scotland being a new state is that the rUK would retain about 92% of the UK’s population, more than two-thirds of its territory, and its principal governmental institutions, since the UK Parliament, the UK Supreme Court and its government departments are located in London. The precedent of the separation of most of Ireland also indicates that the UK would survive another, comparable loss of territory, regardless of whether it changed its name (or flag) to acknowledge the loss of Scotland.

There's no comparison between these two arguments.

Queen's English is the favourite accent...not much call for that in an independent Scotland, is there?

APD does go to WM but it wouldn't if Scotland was independent and APD was retained. It's estimated that £433 million per annum could be collected in Scotland from APD in 2016! (can't get the pdf to work or I'd link it).

Investments are still happening just now, but we are still part of the UK, despite the uncertainty. The currency will have a huge role to play in this.

I think what Dr Scheffer is wrong? I'm pretty sure the situation he is describing is actually rUK and iScotland both being continuing states (using UK gov definitions?)

I have no view on which outcome is more likely. It doesn't help that different folk use different definitions.

It is important to note that if scotland walks away with nothing, as a brand new country, it also would not be expected to take on UK debt.

Equally, iirc, Scotland would not own any UK assets. Whether or not it could evade its share of debt is debateable - but of course, Alex is refusing to give us a definitive answer.

No debt is NOT a good thing. Really, it isn't.

Even the CPPR report which was hugely publicised by the Yes campaign admitted that the borrowing rates would be 'punitive'. iScotland will have to borrow money and it can't afford to be punished when its set up costs are already high enough.

It is important to note that if scotland walks away with nothing, as a brand new country, it also would not be expected to take on UK debt.

Even South Sudan took on its share of the debt! The SNP are played a very dangerous game with this and they are misleading people who don't understand economics. This is not a good thing. It will not give Scotland the upper hand in negotiations.

My DH's company (multi-national) has plants in Scotland and England. They want to go "single site". They are currently minded to put everything in Scotland (the plant is closer to a port for exports). A Yes vote will reverse that. Why? Because they don't want 2 years of uncertainty about currency, EU membership etc.

And your dh's company is not alone grovel

I'm amazed that the SNP are not pushing for the answers to all of those questions now - given that an independent Scotland is going to be so much better I would fully expect them to already have the answers to enable us to move towards September secure in the knowledge that all of these uncertaintities have been addressed; instead, all we have is empty rhetoric and histrionics about Westminster bullying.

Unless of course, they do know what the answers to these questions are and just don't like them...

My DH is in the same position grovel.

The answers are quite clear to many questions SirChenjin, but point them out and you are a scaremonger! It's very frustrating.

Why do you automatically assume Scotland's economy would be in the toilet?

I love Scotland. I wish I was Scottish. Other than that I'll go with Jam Donut.

I'm under no illusions that there could well be be short term disadvantages/sacrifices, but IMO you have to look beyond that to have a chance to build a better society for our children.

It is not scaremongering to point out that the voters cannot possibly know for certain:

What the currency will be when Westminster is saying no to currency union
Whether EU membership is guaranteed when Barroso says it's not
What the oil/gas reserves really are when independent experts disagree so materially
What the reaction of multi-nationals will be

I wish Scotland well whatever the outcome of the referendum but I'd hate to be voting with these issues unresolved.

Excuse my failure to bold out the whole pasted text, but I can't work out how to do it without starring every single word.

Why would anyone want to leave a country with
-free personal care for 65+ (think 600pwk for years)
Personally I'm not convinced this is sustainable in the medium or long term.

-free university tuition (27,000 per child)
Again, I'm not convinced this is sustainable and I also think the expectation that even both Scotland and rUK stay in the EU it will be perfectly ok to charge rUK students and no other EU students.

-free prescriptions
Wales has this already. And if the Conservative party get any influence in the Scottish parliament (which they might once people are no longer voting for a Westminster government) they have said they may do away with them.

-a public NHS
rUK has a public NHS. There are challenging times ahead for expectations of the NHS in all regions of the UK, as the burdens increase. We have an ageing population, we have increased expectations of expensive treatment - at some point we need a national debate on what we expect and what we are prepared to pay for it, whether through increased taxation or by opting for a greater degree of private healthcare.

-guaranteed access to your local school
I assume you don't live in Edinburgh then, where successive councils (Labour, Liberal/SNP, Labour/SNP) have mismanaged the school estate shamefully, closing schools in areas where housing is going up, and then spending vast amounts of money putting prefabs in playgrounds. There are areas of the city where being in catchment is no guarantee at all.

-council tax freeze
I thought England and Wales had this as well? It just means money from central government to pay for services; it is still public money, paid for by personal and business taxation.

-toll free roads and bridges
I am aware of some tolls in England, I wasn't aware it was a particularly wide-spread issue, but I don't drive so will admit my relative ignorance here. Again, I assume you don't live in Edinburgh where we don't have tolls but we do have public money being p*ssed down the drain on a ridiculous tram line. And given the success of other major public-funded projects I'm not holding my breath on the new Forth crossing not having a major impact on the public purse.

-social housing being built
Well yes but not enough, and not enough services (schools etc) being built to support it. Is there no social housing being built in England and Wales?

-enough space for everyone
The UK as a whole has lots and lots of space. There are vast rural areas. However in all regions of the UK people appear to congregate where the major sources of employment are.

-good public services
Again, I assume you don't live in Edinburgh.

-reasonable house prices
Again, I assume you don't live in Edinburgh.

-public water supply
Yes, that is good. I wouldn't decide how to vote on that basis though.

And as for why anyone would want to leave the country - how about if your job moves down south? Or should we all stay and enjoy the fabulous benefits outlined above, without worrying too much about how it will all be paid for?

Should have said

-free university tuition (�27,000 per child)
Again, I'm not convinced this is sustainable and I also think the expectation that even both Scotland and rUK stay in the EU it will be perfectly ok to charge rUK students and no other EU students is unrealistic and quite possibly against EU law

Don't you think that in the event of a Yes vote, that negotiations will take place and be settled in a way which does not disadvantage either nation?

Scotland is a country with resources, a skilled and educated workforce, a well maintained infrastructure, and a government looking after its best interests.

Why on earth would it be 'punished' for leaving the union? Why would multinationals leave? Of course it will be allowed to join the EU - all these new Eastern European countries have been allowed to join ( apart from the ones with terrible human rights records)

And the shared currency - that turns out to be scaremongering, of course they will negotiate, the Bank of England has said as much.

Of course there are risks but from where alot of people are sitting the union is a risky business too.

How long is the short term though Toys? I think 18 months is optimistic for everything to be sorted. There are 14,000 treaties to be renegotiated, billions of pounds to be spent. Who is going to suffer in the meantime, if we face punitive borrowing costs etc?

Spain are vetoing Kossovo because it's a breakaway. They want no precedent set to encourage the Basques.

Cut and paste from the Guardian:

Alex Salmond's plans for an independent Scotland to smoothly join the European Union have been dealt a painful blow after the Scottish first minister's proposals were dismissed by Spain's prime minister.

Mariano Rajoy said his government believed an independent Scotland could only apply to join the EU from outside the organisation as a new state, as he warned against regions of Europe embarking on "solo adventures in an uncertain future".

His intervention confirms long-held suspicions that the Madrid government will resist the Scottish government's plans because of its rejection of Catalonian independence, which has seen large marches in Barcelona in favour of secession.