A seperate post for a separate issue.
Having not been resident in Scotland for some time, I have tried to limit my posts to matters where I have a a decently-informed opinion to express. One of these things is EU membership, and the position iScotland would have been in.
I am a practising lawyer and I know a bit about constitutional law, international law and the like. So when the pro-independence campaign alleged that either Scotland would never leave the EU, or that Scotland would as a matter of certainty be able to obtain re-entry simultaneously with independence on the same terms as the UK currently holds, I felt that they were taking a completely untenable position on a major, major issue. Some of the arguments going round made me wince. Examples of these were: it was impossible to strip Scots of EU citizenship, Scotland was already a member (yes Nicola Sturgeon, I'm looking at you) and Spanish reservations should be discounted because they were biased. There was also the matter of the Scottish Goverment's legal advice that didn't exist. By contrast, the UK Gvt's legal advice (which was published on the Internet) confirmed what was pretty much obviously the case: that iScotland would have to reapply, unless every member state was prepared to agree to amend the treaties on which the EU is based. This in turn had ramifications in terms of what currency iScotland would have to adopt. When the position of the likes of Reding and Barruso became known, the response was similar. But all they were doing also was stating the obvious.
The honest pro-independence position would have been "if we wish to be part of the EU, iScotland may seek entry on terms that the EU is prepared to offer" and "this may result in adopting the Euro". But instead, the Yes campaign insisted the EU membership and continued use of the pound was an absolute given, and anyone who said otherwise was lying.
The Yes Campaign, and Salmond and Sturgeon in particular deserve real criticism for this. It was extremely irresponsible. The debate on this point as extremely uninformed, and they were responsible for that. They should have known better. At best, they were being extremely naïve. It could have resulted in an extremely bad outcome.