to wonder how Scotland's decision will affect england?

[LEMmingaround]

Just that really? If they do go their ownway how will it affect england?

Also will it open a can of worms with wales and northern Ireland?

If assets and liabilities are to be split fairly, cUK will be entitled to 92% of the oil. You can't pick and choose which assets to leave out of the equation.

Although maybe the fact that rUKs elected representatives set up the Edinburgh agreement gives them some sort of mandate. And of course the Act of Union was a joining of two sovereign nations, not one being absorbed into the other. I wonder if it would have to be dissolved the same way?

There will always have to be some shuffling. And it is normal that in a successor state situation the successor state still gets a share of the assets or you'd have situations where all of the infrastructure in one country was owned by it's former partner.

I'm not picking and choosing. My understanding was that if Scotland became new country it would keep "immoveable assets" so things like buildings/oil/roads. Moveable assets armies/weapons etc would go. iScotland would have no claim to a %age of UK assets as a whole, and no responsibility for UK liabilities as a whole.

Sallyingforth, as above I don't think the actual oil is included as a UK asset - I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

The rUK didn't have any choice whatsoever in terms of a vote for the Edinburgh agreement - Scotland did, by electing an SNP government who had made it a manifesto pledge.

And it is normal that in a successor state situation the successor state still gets a share of the assets or you'd have situations where all of the infrastructure in one country was owned by it's former partner

Yes it gets the immobile assets within its borders.

But DC signed the Edinburgh agreement on behalf of the UK...

But, Itsallgoingtobefine, that IS picking and choosing. Salmond has based the value for the assets to be divided on the total assets in the whole of government accounts. You can't decide that you'll keep the ones that are here but not take any of the liabilities which are, by their very nature, not attached to ground. I think you've also said previously that we'd be entitled to a share of the currency reserves. You can't have one without the other, and trying to create a new Scotland whilst ignoring our share of debt would be really negatively viewed in the international markets

Not taking our share of the UK debt wouldn't in the grand scheme of things be that big a deal for rUK. They'd only be getting rid of somewhere around 8% of the debt and they've already guaranteed it anyway.

Yes,and the Edinburgh agreement gave the people of Scotland the right to vote for independence. It didn't give them the right to dissolve the country everyone else lives in, dissolve all of their international treaties etc etc. I'm pretty sure international law agrees with that one. The UK govt has published the legal advice they got on the successor state issue in full.

Interesting article here and the comments are even more interesting. This did make me fear for Scotland post 18 September if segments of the population are that divided.

[http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/08/14/if-the-case-for-independence-is-so-strong-why-isnt-yes-winning/?fid=15821&isc=1&did=bookmark.a6b97b3f926df84ca3969a3a3e9c5b6f039b3c9a&ctp=article]

bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/08/14/if-the-case-for-independence-is-so-strong-why-isnt-yes-winning/?fid=15821&isc=1&did=bookmark.a6b97b3f926df84ca3969a3a3e9c5b6f039b3c9a&ctp=article

we'd be entitled to a share of the currency reserves.

Insofar as all Scottish Bank notes are backed up by reserves held at BoE.

Some of those comments are terrifying...just sheer irrationality and a huge dose of "the big boy is picking on meeeeeee"

I notice loads saying that the polls are all lies. All of them. Lies. The government has commissioned them to say that the YES campaign is losing.

Why? Why would they do that? One of the biggest dangers to the NO campaign, IME, is that people think "ach, it'll never happen, NO have been in the lead forever" and don't vote. Given this, why would the UK government commission biased polls to show they were in the lead? Surely it would be more valuable to them in terms of getting people to vote no to show a very close vote or a marginal yes majority?

There are some very deluded conspiracy theorists out there - sometimes I think I have a accidentally clicked through to the David Icke forums although DC is a lizard

Well, I've read plenty that say not only the polls are lieing, but the BBC, ITV, all mainstream media, and that its all part of a government plot to prevent independence. The logical assumption would be that people are getting their excuses in in advance to save face, the rather less pleasant explanation is that there is a lot of illogical paranoia around.

Mainstream media is biased towards the No campaign.

The polls are not "lying" , but the accompanying methodology does have to be carefully read. Many of the polls are a self selecting group, and they all have weighting applied one way or another. Though of course the fact the general trend is towards Yes is a good thing

Mainstream media is biased towards the No campaign.

Whats your evidence for that?

www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report

Plus if you are a consumer of mainstream media it is pretty obvious! How often do you see a story supportive of Yes vs a story supportive of No? How's often do you see a completely incorrect No supporting story splashed across the press, never been to be retracted? How often do you see coverage of "grassroots" No groups as compared to Yes?

Itsallgoingtobefine

Your link is to "Dr John Robertson from University of West Scotland has just published research on bias and fairness in news reporting on the issue of the Scottish referendum, covering both ITV (STV) and BBC. Here's what he found"

An example of the findings is: "The simple numerical preponderance of anti-independence statements over pro-independence statements by a ratio of c3:2 on Reporting Scotland and on STV, is also clear. One obvious explanation lies in the editorial decision to allow all three anti-independence parties to respond to each SNP statement creating an unavoidable predominance of statements from the former even when these were kept short. Anti-independence statements were heavily concentrated on economic affairs such as alleged increased unemployment or closures after independence, such as:

• On 20/5/13 in STV at 6, the presenter announced ‘Scots’ savers and financial institutions might be at risk if country votes for independence"

etc..

Do you have any proper evidence?

I'm sorry, can you be more specific about a) what is wrong with the link supplied and b) what you consider evidence?

I'm on phone so haven't read full report but, to be, simply reporting more negative statements isn't in itself an indication of bias. It could easily be that more newsworthy evidence has emerged /more statements been made etc.

I also don't believe the statement quoted above is biased. It's factual

You need to try and have a look at the table at least :-)

Another example: do you remember when the "grassroots" No Borders was launched. It was covered, at length, on every BbC news type program. How often have you seen similar Yes groups covered, even when they do something remarkable.

And of course, if all the factual statements they make are pro union, and they make no proIndy points that in itself is a bias.

I did say I was on my phone so I was responding to the poster above. I haven't, personally, seen huge evidence of bias. And I don't actually agree with some of the examples i.e. there are examples where somebody has made a statement, so they've reported on the statement as fact i.e. "XYZ could happen according to a report by so and so", then allowed the other side to reply. I don't think that is biased - I think it's reporting what happened.

In terms of the table, yeah its not great. But I believe the job of the news is to report what is happening - not to challenge every single thing. Frankly, I think the YES campaign have made a lot more statements which are unquantified or worthy of challenge overall. Salmond kind of leaves himself open to these things in the way he produces info - the "we'll be in the EU, fact, I have legal advice" debacle for example.

But the problem is they don't report what is happening. They report what is happening when it is a good thing for the No campaign. Flick back through the week in your head - remember any positive Indy stories as opposed to negative ones? What are the numbers of each?

On a positive note - polling cards through :-)