Scottish Independence Referendum is agreed: vote in 2014

[Azog 150]

An interesting article on the significant minority of Scots who supported Thatcher:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...tes-referendum

Like so many of the black and white things still said about Thatcherism, it is a convenient myth. In fact, Scottish support was crucial to her coming to power. At the 1979 election, the Conservatives won over 31% of the Scottish vote, an increase of almost a third on the previous election – when they had been led by the much less carnivorous Edward Heath. In 1979, the Tories also won 22 Scottish seats; had these gone to other parties, Thatcher's 44-strong majority would have disappeared entirely.

Four years of abrasive Tory government followed: the decimation of manufacturing, the harsh dogma of monetarism, the beginning of modern British military adventuring with the Falklands war. Did Scots reject it all in disgust? Not exactly: Tory support in Scotland at the 1983 election dropped by just 3% (it fell in England too). At the 1987 election, the Scottish Tory vote slipped another 4%. But then, at the 1992 election – the Conservative victory that ensured many of the Thatcherite changes to Britain would not be reversed – Tartan Toryism revived again, increasing its vote share to 26%: still higher than Heath had managed in 1974.


In 1992, even after 13 years of Tory rule, after the early imposition of the poll tax on Scotland, and countless tin-eared Thatcher trips north of the border, a large minority of Scots approved of what the Tories had done to their country. In a close election, that approval was quietly pivotal for Thatcher's deceptively rightwing successor John Major.

The Tory vote in Scotland did not finally collapse until the 1997 election, when it fell by a third, never to recover. Why did this rejection of Thatcherism – if that's what it was, rather than enthusiasm for the Thatcher-revering Tony Blair – take so long to happen? Speaking to the Tory blogger Iain Dale in 2008 about his country's feelings towards the Thatcher government, SNP leader Alex Salmond said: "We didn't mind the economic side so much." He went on to add: "We didn't like the social [policy] side at all," and to furiously deny that he had given Thatcherism any kind of endorsement. But the first minister also gave an economic prescription for Scotland that might have come from an 80s Tory: "We need a competitive edge, a competitive advantage – get on with it, get things done, speed up decision making, reduce bureaucracy."

The SNP's Thatcherite side lives on in its promises to cut corporation tax and air passenger duty in order, it is claimed, to create a more dynamic country. And Thatcherism lives on in Scotland's economy and society.

Just to put to bed any claims that Thatcher was/is universally despised in Scotland and that Conservative governments are forced upon Scotland against Scotlands will, as if Scotland is some monolithic entity. Got to say I had never really questionned the claims of Scotland being near universally anti-Tory; clearly silly on my part.

So can we please stop this devisive nonsense? Big old England forcing Tory governments upon Conservative hating Scotland.

[Denny Crane!]

So Scotland wants to go independent but they want to keep the pound, the monarchy, close cultural ties and open borders with the UK and retain membership of the EU and a joint defence strategy.

So essentially they want Devo max in nature but independence in name only.

Browns proposal got me thinking this.

[Lazzeer]

So Scotland wants to go independent but they want to keep the pound, the monarchy, close cultural ties and open borders with the UK and retain membership of the EU and a joint defence strategy.

So essentially they want Devo max in nature but independence in name only.

Browns proposal got me thinking this.

Bscly. The SNP's vision of independence is essentially the UK but inside out. Of course it doesn't really make sense, and to be honest I'm not sure how much the SNP actually believe in it or whether they're just saying anything to try and get Scotland out the door. They were essentially screwed whatever way they played it tbh - Scots don't really want some kind of drastic independence or separation from the rest of the UK, so the plan is to minimize what independence means to make it more appetizing. Of course this essentially neuters the notion of independence, meaning that all an independent Scotland would stand to gain (as opposed to devo-max) is risk.

[Brim95]

I really don't see the point.

They are just going to cause a lot of problems simply because they would like to have their own country.
Being such a small country when independent, they are not going to have much influence in politics and such, they wont be as strong as they are currently with the rest of the UK, they will have a small army to defend all their land and interests around Scotland, and it isn't guaranteed that their economy will be 'stable' either.

[Gauloisier de la Gauloiserie]

Would you care to explain why that would be beneficial for:
1) Scotland
2) The EU
Considering the UK is the 2nd largest net contributor to the EU, both in absolute terms and per capita, I doubt such a large loss of income would be very beneficial to anyone in Europe. Considering these figures include the UK's rebate, I don't think you can claim anything except that the UK is a positive boon to the EU.

Contribution and UK in the same sentence, sounds like an awful oxymoron. A bit like driving car and accelerating and breaking at the same time.
Since when the UK wants to play for the EU instead of sabotaging it? Or is it just your own wishes? (note that I say that without being pro-European, just a standard guy from the Continent, spectator of UK's Euro-aversion since its founding)

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Contribution and UK in the same sentence, sounds like an awful oxymoron. A bit like driving car and accelerating and breaking at the same time.
Since when the UK wants to play for the EU instead of sabotaging it? Or is it just your own wishes? (note that I say that without being pro-European, just a standard guy from the Continent, spectator of UK's Euro-aversion since its founding)

If your talking about this from a political angle, i can see where your coming from, especially of late in terms of after the whole 'UKIP surge' the Tory party perhaps took a harsher rhetorical line to try and re-secure some of it's voters.

Yet when you get down to it, the UK political establishment and indeed the business sector are all very much pro-EU. It's why for instance you have Nick Clegg (part of the ruling coalition government- a Liberal) taking up the cause to get people to say 'Yes' to Europe in the coming referendum. And you also have growing vocal support among British business for EU membership

http://www.businesszone.co.uk/topic/...eu-grows/55895

The key here of course is that many do want to see the EU reformed in one direction or another. Britain's typical idea of the EU is that of a trading block. With agreements over defense, Research and social mobility. What's ironic of course is that the current version of the EU is actually a direct evolution from the way it was created...By Britain after a clash of ideologies over France (Who wished for rather more immediate and binding integration), Britain opposed this in favor of a loose trading block. And got it. Indeed Britain has actually always been very successful in Europe when it's actually chosen to actively participate in a meaningful manner:

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Winston Churchill called for the creation of a "United States of Europe" to bind France and Germany together. In doing so, he made clear that Britain would be a supportive but independent partner of any such entity. He famously said: 'We are with Europe but not of it."
In the end, Britain did join the European Economic Community but only in 1973, 15 years after the Treaty of Rome was signed. We joined the Social Chapter in 1997, eight years after it was adopted by other member states. And we never signed up to Economic and Monetary Union or the Schengen Agreement on common borders.In other words: Britain was always a bit late to the party. But once it found its way to Belgium, Britain had an uncanny knack of winning the big strategic battles. It is therefore a puzzle that the current British government has diverted its attention from winning the next round of key policy debates in Brussels and, instead, focused on a pointless exercise of seeking treaty change to repatriate powers. Britain should stop wasting its time with this futile endeavour and concentrate on aligning the EU's institutions with an agenda of growth and democracy.
While Britain's political leaders have been cautious and incremental in expanding the UK's involvement with Europe, they have been phenomenally successful in shaping its institutions to British strategic goals:
First, the UK succeeded in ensuring that "broadening" rather than "deepening" was the underlining objective of the EU over the last two decades. From 12 member states in 1973, the EU expanded to 15 in 1995, 25 in 2004 and has recently accepted its 28th member with the accession of Croatia. While Turkish membership may be a way off, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia are all candidate countries.
Second, the different voting systems used by the EU's institutions tend to favour British interests. For example, the single market, which most Britain's are united in supporting, and the regulations that help create and preserve it have been advanced using Qualified Majority Voting. Meanwhile, issues where Britain exerts more caution -- such as tax harmonisation, redistribution, and defence -- have to be agreed on the basis of unanimity. These were all "red lines" during the negotiations last decade on a new European constitution.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-956230.html

The issue now is, that as i've said while pandering to a minority of the populace (which happens to also have been formerly the Conservative parties core-voters) by uping the public Euro-skepticism, the Coalition have been squandering the UK's ability to act in Europe on Par with Germany and France. What's even more ironic is that realistically not even the conservative party want out of the EU!

We are committed to playing a leading role in the EU and protecting the UK's national interests, but the EU needs to reform to meet the challenges of competitiveness, a stable eurozone and greater democratic legitimacy.

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/...nd/Europe.aspx

As you can see, a far cry from the Tories screaming 'Out! Out!' As perhaps their more recent statements may arguably be construed as.

Instead like most of Britain's groups, what the UK is united about is greater reform in the EU. Mainly making it more democratic and open.

http://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/p...eu-membership/

So your quite right in that Britain has always typically followed it's own interests in the EU (much like Germany here and indeed France), it's more that like these two powers, Britain also is one of the big 3 economies, and so has a very large voice in EU affairs...and when this voice is turned towards electorate point scoring, it's very obvious to all. Especially on the world stage, where this de-constructive rhetoric and policies that are arguably of appeasement to the Right wing have led to such incidents as this:

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-...-eu-role-23794

On a substantive point, what does Ukraine want? In the most profound sense Ukraine wants Europe. As one citizen on theEuromaidan put it last week, “we do not want to go to Europe, we want Europe here”. Ukraine as a society does not “want” the UK, or France, or Germany individually. And of course these countries are seen to be part of Europe. But where should the action come from? It is absolutely clear that Ukraine is not strategically interested in any specifically UK action, unless it forms part of EU action. There is no sense in any distinctly UK bilateral policy of political significance there.
Curiously, while the top-level speeches and attitudes of the Conservative Party ministers of the Coalition government have been vacating the UK’s effective seat on the international stage, the competent staff work of the Foreign Office has been doing some excellent things, including in Ukraine. An example is a low-cost project to map out how an enhanced EU communications strategy in Ukraine could be designed. This has turned out to be an excellent piece of professionalism, in which the UK embassy in Kyiv has been doing an impeccable job of acting itself with and on behalf of the EU.

At the actual roots- the UK's civil service, the EU co-operation is used to maximum advantage, with the UK providing with the EU structure meaningful decisions, meanwhile the Conservative party squander this work on the public stage by reaping the stupidity of their actions with regard to the 'Minority of 1' approach. If instead of blocking, the UK once more goes for what should be it's logical and real goal of an equal say in Europe as Germany (which as i've said is more than possible) and from there reforms the EU in terms of making it more open and democratic (the only real two criticism that people in the UK have with the EU, and something i believe most of Europe would get behind!) the we'll see a UK with real meaning, not just in Europe, but worldwide too acting in concert through EU mechanisms.

Incidentally just to go full circle back to our comparatively (When looking at the wider picture of Europe and the worldstage, you do rather realize just how insular Salmond wishes Scotland to become, partly on purpose, but also partly by removing Scottish influence from the only actor who can represent our interests in a meaningful way and be listened to- The UK). insignificant referendum!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26455655

If Scotland were to vote for independence, both Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds may be forced to move their registered offices or legal homes to London under European Union law, I have learned.A senior banker has told me that his organisation is taking legal advice on the impact of the relevant directive, Council Directive 95/26/EC of 29 June 1995, because it has never been tested in the courts and there is no case law around it.
Regulators are also busy assessing its significance. Bankers and regulators both tell me it is likely to mean that RBS and Lloyds would be obliged to move their homes south of the border, if Scotland were to go it alone.
The directive says that banks must have their head offices "in the same member state as its registered office".
It also implies that those registered and head offices should be located where a group has the bulk of its activities - which, as you know, is England for Lloyds and RBS.
One relevant part of the directive says that a regulator should prohibit a bank from operating where the "geographical distribution of the activities actually carried on indicate clearly that a financial undertaking has opted for the legal system of one Member State for the purpose of evading the stricter standards in force in another Member State within whose territory it carries on or intends to carry on the greater part of its activities".
Now it is very unlikely that the Prudential Regulatory Authority and Financial Conduct Authority in London would accuse Lloyds and RBS of keeping their registered offices in Scotland to deliberately evade "stricter" oversight by them.
But that may not matter. Because, as I understand it, they think this directive broadly implies that a bank must have its legal home in the country where it carries out the bulk of its activities - which in this case (to state the obvious) is England (or rather the rest of the UK, excluding Scotland).

So it seems official that one way or another- through business or politics their be a business flight from an Independent Scotland, either due to economic sense or ironically EU legislation!

[Azog 150]

Edit: Looks like Dante beat me to it with a much fuller answer!

Contribution and UK in the same sentence, sounds like an awful oxymoron. A bit like driving car and accelerating and breaking at the same time.
Since when the UK wants to play for the EU instead of sabotaging it? Or is it just your own wishes? (note that I say that without being pro-European, just a standard guy from the Continent, spectator of UK's Euro-aversion since its founding)

When has the UK ever 'sabotaged' the EU? Dig under the superficial stuff, and the UK is one of Europe's largest financial contributors (for a long time it was paying more then the 'champion of the EU' France, even when 70% of the EU budget was going on the CAP which benefited Britain very little). What you are calling sabotage is simply Britain having a differing opinion over where the future lies for the EU. That is an important debate and someone needs to fight that corner, and whats more Britain isn't alone on many of these issues (where Britain should be criticised is in alienating many of its potential EU allies due to its superficial rhetoric that is used to appease Eurosceptics in domestic British politics). In fact, as we are now finding out with the Eurocrisis, Britain was perfectly right to oppose the rapid acceleration of EU integration.

When Britain has been asked to adopt EU legislation, it has done it fully, quickly and efficiently; much more so then many of the countries that pay the EU lip service but don't fully abide by EU legislation or are slow to enforce it (e.g. Italy is particularly notorious for this; as was France for a long time). Britain may be slow to commit to things; but when it does so, it does it fully.

Bare that in mind next time you accuse the UK of sabotaging the EU project.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Edit: Looks like Dante beat me to it with a much fuller answer!




When has the UK ever 'sabotaged' the EU? Dig under the superficial stuff, and the UK is one of Europe's largest financial contributors by quite some margin (more so even then the 'champion of the EU' France ever since the UK first joined the EEC). What you are calling sabotage is simply Britain having a differing opinion over where the future lies for the EU, and that is an important debate and someone needs to fight that corner, and whats more Britain isn't alone on many of these issues (where Britain should be criticised is in alienating many of its potential EU allies due to its superficial rhetoric that is used to appease Eurosceptics in domestic British politics)

When Britain has been asked to adopt EU legislation, it has done it fully, quickly and efficiently; much more so then many of the countries that pay the EU lip service but don't fully abide by EU legislation or are slow to enforce it (e.g. Italy is particularly notorious for this; as was France for a long time).

Bare that in mind next time you accuse the UK of sabotaging the EU project- you just have to dig beneath the surface.

Haha replace 'fuller' with you've managed to concisely say and get to the point of what i was trying to and your right

Indeed though, the UK when it comes to the EU has always been very much the law abiding one. Perhaps it's been too eager to adopt EU legislation as quickly as possible (as especially when compared to other EU states who are slower to adopt new resolutions) as this has rather led to a certain level of potential resentment that's called up among certain groups in the UK whenever they need to justify the bad points of the EU.

Azog also rightly points out that the UK has always had a different perspective on the EU than perhaps some of it's neighbors. I think of course we can all agree that bringing a greater level of democracy to the EU is something that many would support, and indeed is one of the UK's major quips with the EU (arguably) and one that the UK seeks to change. From a purely pragmatic point of view of course a democratic EU (in the fullest sense of the word) would be of great benefit to the UK as it would mean a greater degree of national sovereignty would be maintained in one form or another.

As i've said the UK's recent Euro-Skepticism coming unusually from the Government is actually more a product of internal domestic politics than our actual geo-political goals (which are very much pro-EU, as the EU is probably the biggest and currently most effective mechanism which the UK can use as a vehicle to once more have a serious worldwide reach and reputation), and indeed even here is really lip-service. Though alas it has affected the UK's response and reputation in Europe, and i believe needs to be changed fast (probably by the ousting of the Tories next election).

[Gauloisier de la Gauloiserie]

Bare that in mind next time you accuse the UK of sabotaging the EU project.

I accuse nothing, I reflect here only the more than common opinion about the UK when you speak about it inside the EU. Both of you bring economic arguments, fine, but when you build something it takes much more than the economic aspect, there's the political one, in which the role of the UK is if not poor, most of the time unconstructive, if not destructive.
Despite your arguments, I still think (and many others on the continent) that Britain isnt in the top 5 of EU-countries contributing politically to the EU cause. Financially most probably, politically, a big no.

Now if you personally wishes to see the UK in a more political and more "pro-EU" role, fine. As I said, I'm almost an EU-hater, though it sounds really odd. But for most politicians, since the founding (Shuman and Monnet said it sometimes quite clearly), the UK has been a breaking factor, who is interested by the EU only if it can profit from it politically and/or if it can dilute the power of France and Germany (ze ancestral enemies of ze continent).

Funnily enough, Britain is playing exactly the same cards than 200 years ago during the napoleonic period, flipping the side of the vest thrice per year. But even more funny is the relative risk of losing Scotland, which will weaken the UK like no tomorrow. Speeches of integrity and EU-love hide only the fear of seeing the UK disappear in peaces. In France, rarely you will see articles about the UK, as people usually dont really care (at least way less than UK's paper who like to spam something about/against France chronically), but concerning Scotland and Cameron's threats of leaving the EU, I've felt a certain mockery recently. Or was it a smile of joy?! Difficult to say. L'ironie de l'histoire

[Rootsie]

A No vote is effectively a vote of no confidence of your own country.

Rubbish. Scotland has flourished as part of the UK and I see no reason why that cannot continue. I've got every confidence in Scotand and in the UK.

A No vote says we accept we can not or should not be responsible for our own affairs.

A No vote is about degrees of responsibility. Scotland has huge control over it's own affairs, but is still part of the UK and able to benefit from UK-wide institutions. Similarly, the City of Glasgow has a significant budget and wide-ranging control over it's own affairs, but it is still subordinate to the Scottish Government.

Whether we vote Yes or No, these degrees of power will always exist.

A No vote is a vote for repeated Tory governments of which we never elected.

Clearly a Yes vote is for an inability to understand representative democracy.

A No vote is an acceptance of Project Fear.

How is that even an actual reason? You dislike the campaign for the Union, so we must leave the Union?

A No vote is an acceptance that, as the No campaign claim, we are not genetically programmed to make political decisions

You truely have an amazing ability to come up with total bull. Rather than posting a 10 second clip, why don't you post a link to the entire debate?

Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHyI1DhWTBM

If you watch the debate you can see that Johann Lamont was saying that when we are born, we are not genetically programmed to vote in a particular way.

Clumsily made, but a sensible enough point.

You're more concerned about an off-hand comment made during FMQs years ago that has been spun to death by Unionist media hacks than total mismanagement of Scotland's most precious resource for decades? Explains a lot.

An off-hand comment in FMQ? As per, you are talking rubbish.

Andrew Neil: "Have you sought advice from your own Scottish law officers on this matter?"
Alex Salmond: "We have, yes"

Rather than just posting a selective segment, I'll post the whole interview for you. You'll find the above quote at 10:40.

It turned out that no, Salmond had not sought legal advice on the matter. I don't call that an off-hand comment, I call that a lie.

Barroso, does not equal the EU. I'm sure you will be able to provide a mechanism for removing EU citizenship from Scots. Additionally, Spain has been very clear that it will not Veto Scottish entry to the EU and article 48 seems to support the idea that Scotland would continue to be EU territory even after a Yes vote.

It isn't so much the EU withdrawing, it is us voting to leave.

More obvious scaremongering, but they are free to do as they see fit, again I doubt they will follow through on this, why would they shoot themselves in the foot just to spite Scotland? Cutting off your nose to spite your face seems in my opinion to be key to a lot of arguments from the Unionist side, can someone please explain to me why England would do anything that is detrimental to both countries in the event of a Yes vote? Just to punish the Scots? I hardly think so.

Why is it obviously scaremongering? Even in a formal union, the financial sector gravitates towards the larger economy. We saw that in the Czech-Slovak Union and we see the same in the Eurozone. Why would a Sterlingzone be any different?

IFS report? Wasn't that based on current government spending? It appears to say Scotland would have to make spending cuts if Independent, tell me, does that mean that a No vote means no spending cuts? Pull the other one.

The point is that the White Paper says that Scotland can afford 'XYZ', the IFS report says that this is untrue.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I accuse nothing, I reflect here only the more than common opinion about the UK when you speak about it inside the EU. Both of you bring economic arguments, fine, but when you build something it takes much more than the economic aspect, there's the political one, in which the role of the UK is if not poor, most of the time unconstructive, if not destructive.
Despite your arguments, I still think (and many others on the continent) that Britain isnt in the top 5 of EU-countries contributing politically to the EU cause. Financially most probably, politically, a big no.

Now if you personally wishes to see the UK in a more political and more "pro-EU" role, fine. As I said, I'm almost an EU-hater, though it sounds really odd. But for most politicians, since the founding (Shuman and Monnet said it sometimes quite clearly), the UK has been a breaking factor, who is interested by the EU only if it can profit from it politically and/or if it can dilute the power of France and Germany (ze ancestral enemies of ze continent).

Funnily enough, Britain is playing exactly the same cards than 200 years ago during the napoleonic period, flipping the side of the vest thrice per year. But even more funny is the relative risk of losing Scotland, which will weaken the UK like no tomorrow. Speeches of integrity and EU-love hide only the fear of seeing the UK disappear in peaces. In France, rarely you will see articles about the UK, as people usually dont really care (at least way less than UK's paper who like to spam something about/against France chronically), but concerning Scotland and Cameron's threats of leaving the EU, I've felt a certain mockery recently. Or was it a smile of joy?! Difficult to say. L'ironie de l'histoire

Oh i'm not saying your accusing my friend. But i believe you may has misconstrued my argument (It was quite long). Indeed economically as you've said the UK contributes. But politically too the UK has historically been a major player in the EU as i've sourced, always managing to successfully negotiate legislation so that it benefits the UK too. The idea of a UK as a trading block in the first place was the UK's. As i've said France wanted a centralized Euro from the get go really.

The whole issue of the UK being 'unconstructive' here depends upon perspective. From the UK's perspective historically we've been very good at making the EU fit to British goals. Where the UK can truly be considered to be 'Unconstructive' is in prospectively very recent rhetoric, really only the Last 4 Years or so. And this as i've said is less to do with real British political designs, but more actually of an electorate based attempt to win back the right wing from the current ruling Conservative government, which is why actually British business and the political establishment are in favour of the EU and it's benefits, and indeed want to be an active part, as we have been in the past.

I think though the EU issue is a matter of perspective as to the UK's influence for good or ill. Countries always serve their own interests first, and i'd put forward the argument that France and Germany feel the UK is being deconstructive is because, France and Germany both wish for an EU that's built around themselves (quite rightly, that's how countries work)- So France get annoyed at the UK being 'Un-cooperative' because UK interests are not those of France. Why would the UK wish for a Franco-centred EU? Or a German-centred one? That's reformed and built around Germany or France?

Likewise France and Germany dislike the UK's approach to create an EU based around the British idea. What your mistaking here is that it's the EU vs UK, when actually it's more of a struggle between France, Germany and the UK over who will shape the future of the EU.

The EU is a potential tool, it's not in itself a real independent body. As i said, i'm sure you agree that France and Germany too have different ideas about how the EU should be run (Paris or Berlin ).

The threats of leaving the EU are just that, threats. Cameron needs to look good to his voting base, he also needs to look like a decisive leader (when actually he's not). Thus the easiest way to do this is to postulate without having actual action.

[Rootsie]

According to the news today, £1.25 Million of taxpayers money has been spent on the SNP's White Paper.

Just to reiterate, £1.25 Million of public money has been spent on nationalist propaganda, which has been roundly derided as fantasy economics and where even the statistics used to back up key policies are demonstrably made up.

Perhaps that is why the Yes Scotland campaign are able to afford such a big office and so much material, they are subsidised by the taxpayer. It is worth remembering that Yes Scotland are still refusing to release details of their finances, despite pledging transparency and saying that they would release details at the same time as Better Together (who released their information over two months ago).

[Cold_Mac]

Reading this thread is like gargling with acid.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

According to the news today, £1.25 Million of taxpayers money has been spent on the SNP's White Paper.

Just to reiterate, £1.25 Million of public money has been spent on nationalist propaganda, which has been roundly derided as fantasy economics and where even the statistics used to back up key policies are demonstrably made up.

Perhaps that is why the Yes Scotland campaign are able to afford such a big office and so much material, they are subsidised by the taxpayer. It is worth remembering that Yes Scotland are still refusing to release details of their finances, despite pledging transparency and saying that they would release details at the same time as Better Together (who released their information over two months ago).

I'm in shock over this, i wouldn't have expected such a generalistic and vague document to have cost us so much. It's why i sometimes look at the budgets of both campaigns and wonder if our money might have been spent in a far better way? Perhaps actually being spent on Scotland instead of a minority wish-list.

Reading this thread is like gargling with acid.

Beneficial in clearing out some of the preconceived bs that people have been swallowing from various official bodies?

[Bobz]

According to the news today, £1.25 Million of taxpayers money has been spent on the SNP's White Paper.

Just to reiterate, £1.25 Million of public money has been spent on nationalist propaganda, which has been roundly derided as fantasy economics and where even the statistics used to back up key policies are demonstrably made up.

Perhaps that is why the Yes Scotland campaign are able to afford such a big office and so much material, they are subsidised by the taxpayer. It is worth remembering that Yes Scotland are still refusing to release details of their finances, despite pledging transparency and saying that they would release details at the same time as Better Together (who released their information over two months ago).

For what is purely a political publication, shouldn't the cost of distributing the White Paper be met from Yes Scotland's coffers? Public money should be spent only on non-partisan costs relating to the referendum, not for a glorified leafleting campaign.

[Gaelstrix]

So Scotland wants to go independent but they want to keep the pound, the monarchy, close cultural ties and open borders with the UK and retain membership of the EU and a joint defence strategy.

1: We had pounds long before Union with England and helped build Sterling into what it is today, the Bank of England was formed around the time of Union, by both Scottish and English founders. Despite originally being for the Parliament of England it's been a UK nationalised institution for a long time. Why not use them at least for the short term, when Sterling is almost as much ours?

2: The monarchy is ours too, learn some basic national history.

3: Every EU country has open borders.

4: Don't know much about the defence strategy.

[Rootsie]

1: We had pounds long before Union with England and helped build Sterling into what it is today, the Bank of England was formed around the time of Union, by both Scottish and English founders. Despite originally being for the Parliament of England it's been a UK nationalised institution for a long time. Why not use them at least for the short term, when Sterling is almost as much ours?

Of course we could use Sterling, the point is that compared with the current situation - where Scotland uses Sterling as part of the single UK economy - neither a formal or informal currency union is a very good option. Furthermore, using Sterling as a temporary measure is a non-starter; temporary currency unions do no work.

3: Every EU country has open borders.

Open borders can be closed very easily, we saw that recently in Gibraltar.

4: Don't know much about the defence strategy.

It is pretty important, but so far neither the Yes Campaign or the SNP have been able to provide any realistic information on defence.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

EDIT: Beaten by Rootsie

1: We had pounds long before Union with England and helped build Sterling into what it is today, the Bank of England was formed around the time of Union, by both Scottish and English founders. Despite originally being for the Parliament of England it's been a UK nationalised institution for a long time. Why not use them at least for the short term, when Sterling is almost as much ours?

2: The monarchy is ours too, learn some basic national history.

3: Every EU country has open borders.

4: Don't know much about the defence strategy.

I won't dispute the history here my friend, your quite right. But the issue here is that in actual political and economic terms, Sterling IS the UK's currency. Now Scotland leaving the UK will not end the UK- It will continue to exist as a legal entity, all it's own treaties and EU place etc are all still there (As Scotland dosen't equal the UK anymore). What Scotland will be is a newly independent nation. successor nation, depending on who you listen to. Which means that Sterling if still recognized (rightfully) as the UK's currency. Thus the only way Scotland can use Sterling (now that the rUK has said their will be no currency union) is Salmonds plan B- Use it without a formal agreement, which in current terms means that economically we're in for a very unstable ride potentially (hence also businesses migrating South of the border) as Westminster then has control over inflation, mortgage rates etc It's a bad idea. Far better to have just created our own currency from scratch...or adopt the Euro!

The Monarchy issue. Indeed. A point here of course is... who's paying for them? If we retain them will we have to pay some of their upkeep too (As we do as part of the UK?) Or will the burden fall solely on the rUK?

Indeed every EU country does have open borders, but Scotland upon gaining it's Independence would not be a member of the EU (Numerous sources, even the EU itself has stated this), thus will have to reapply, and adopt any and all regulations the EU wish (We won't get the rUK's special opt out agreements).

In terms of Defense, the force unveiled by Salmond is an actual joke. Especially when he want's us to seek to join NATO, which consist of problems anyway due to our spat over trident with the rUK. The likelihood is we'll have to sort that out before the US and NATO even consider having us (As we'll be another military relying on theirs and the UK's assets for real protection and force projection).

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Pity Alex Salmond did not actually have a concrete plan for what happens if they win the vote.The uncertainty will turn off voters.
People who are afraid will stick with the UK for the cash and benefits. And the threat of no more buck fast and Iron Bru benefit vouchers

[Gaelstrix]

Now Scotland leaving the UK will not end the UK- It will continue to exist as a legal entity, all it's own treaties and EU place etc are all still there (As Scotland dosen't equal the UK anymore). What Scotland will be is a newly independent nation. successor nation, depending on who you listen to.

Sorry, I admit that I'm far less informed than some of you, but this is something I don't understand. By ending the treaty of Union 1707 with England to become two separate countries once again, why is it England (plus Wales and NI) keeps everything automatically, e.g. foreign embassies set up by the UK. I've heard lots of uninformed English people bemoaning Scotland retaining the NHS and BBC etc etc, which are British institutions, they are clearly shared.
This doesn't seem the case internationally.
I'll be more clear, why is it that international bodies like the EU don't treat this as an internal division... like cell fission. Why would as EU citizens now, would we be striped of such citizenship while England (plus Wales and NI) keep their's?
Is it like China and China... the PRC eventually got international recognition over the ROC because it's larger?

Especially when he want's us to seek to join NATO, which consist of problems anyway due to our spat over trident with the rUK. The likelihood is we'll have to sort that out before the US and NATO even consider having us (As we'll be another military relying on theirs and the UK's assets for real protection and force projection).

I'm of two minds about this, I think that money spent on "unjustified" "immoral" wars is a waste and we should progress as humanity bla bla, keep a small token garrison for the country with enough projection to defend our territory. Instead of NATO, developed nations should give more power to something an inclusive coalition like the UN to keep the peace rather than relying on single militarises like the United States. Wishful thinking.

Realistically having a small force like Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Ireland etc I don't really see a downside in, but trying to also join NATO and complaining about trident is just hypocritical.