Scotland votes no to Independence

[NotATrainspott]

I think you'll find you have to apply for EEA membership, or is Scotland such a special case that it would, if the situation had arisen, be granted immediate membership ?

And how long would it take to grant EEA membership to a country that already implements all laws and requirements of the European Union? If there are no changes to the customs arrangements then no one gains or loses, so why would other countries want to cause problems? If they did, why don't they do that now, or whenever anything else is ever re-negotiated in Europe or the world?

In the world of ExRes it appears that a Yes vote would make Scotland an international pariah, unrecognised and unloved by every other country on this earth regardless of the economic, political and social consequences. This is despite being created peacefully using the rule of law and democracy and unquestionably being a modern, pluralistic society that has all the economic and infrastructural trappings of any other first-world state.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Irn-Bru is certainly available in small quantities some supermarkets here in Australia, usually in a small segment grouped with various other international drinks and snacks not available here in huge volumes rather than in the normal soft drink aisle alongside the ranges from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and their cheaper competitors.

Shall I be the first to notify our very good friend from the Southern Hemisphere that "Irn Bru is made in Scotland from girders" ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sad to see that the religious and political divide in Glasgow is still evident.

It must have confused a local reporter in West Yorkshire who was making references to "Scottish Saltaires"....hock:

 

[ExRes]

In the world of ExRes it appears that a Yes vote would make Scotland an international pariah, unrecognised and unloved by every other country on this earth regardless of the economic, political and social consequences. This is despite being created peacefully using the rule of law and democracy and unquestionably being a modern, pluralistic society that has all the economic and infrastructural trappings of any other first-world state.

Swallow a dictionary today, did you ?

I've said no such thing as well you know, maybe it's that I recognise that no country, Scotland or otherwise, just walks in through the door without a care in the world, something which the Yes campaign clearly failed to do

 

[NotATrainspott]

Swallow a dictionary today, did you ?

I've said no such thing as well you know, maybe it's that I recognise that no country, Scotland or otherwise, just walks in through the door without a care in the world, something which the Yes campaign clearly failed to do

Yet an independent Scotland would not just be 'walking in through the door', given that it would inherit the character of the former UK despite not being the successor state. In the same way, was it a massive problem when Canada gained its independence? By your definition, it 'walked in through the door' yet I hear of no disasters that ensued. These first-world former colonies inherited their international standing from their previous position as the same people and institutions were there the day before and the day after, with the change that Westminster was no longer able to legislate for them. Would the WTO have forced the newly independent Canada out in order to re-apply and re-enter?

 

[DownSouth]

Shall I be the first to notify our very good friend from the Southern Hemisphere that "Irn Bru is made in Scotland from girders" ...

Don't worry, I'm not brave/stupid enough to touch the stuff!

I did have a friend who suggested drinking a can of Irn-Bru as an appropriate challenge to do for some kind of charity, think along the lines of the Ice Bucket Challenge. I declined and signed on for a 152km cycling event instead, far safer even with the harsh Adelaide weather in January.

I'll stick with having a FUIC as my favoured method of telling Coca-Cola where to go.

[youtube]6Le-9Nf1WbU[/youtube]

 

[dcsprior]

I seem to remember that the question of the Scottish economy post independence was kept as low profile as possible during the campaign

Really? I seem to remember economic issues dominating campaigning and TV & press coverage.

I think you'll find you have to apply for EEA membership, or is Scotland such a special case that it would, if the situation had arisen, be granted immediate membership ?

Would [insert name of what the the UK minus Scotland would have been called] have been granted immediate membership?

 

[DownSouth]

Would [insert name of what the the UK minus Scotland would have been called] have been granted immediate membership?

No need, Scotland seceding would not cause any change to the international status of the UK apart from altering its borders and only one new state (Scotland) would have been created as a result. It would be the same as Sudan, which did not cease to exist or lose its status when South Sudan seceded a couple of years ago.

The UK's name would not change and neither would the national flag - that would only happen if/when the people/leaders (unsure of who, the UK having no Constitution to define such matters) of the UK made that decision on their own, without the Scottish getting a say in the matter.

Scotland seceding to become independent would be the kid leaving home, not the parents getting divorced. If any of the leaders in Scotland were/are thinking otherwise, they need an urgent referral to a substance abuse counsellor more than a referendum.

 

[ExRes]

Really? I seem to remember economic issues dominating campaigning and TV & press coverage.

Would [insert name of what the the UK minus Scotland would have been called] have been granted immediate membership?

Economic issues dominating campaigning ?, you'll be able to regale us with a list of the ways that an independent Scotland was going to survive economically in the real world then, other than oil and whiskey revenues of course, I do seem to remember shutting Faslane and introducing industry was going to be a masterstroke, what industry was, of course, a mystery and then there would've been the loss of MoD work from the Scottish shipbuilders to help things along

The UK without Scotland would not have been required to apply for membership to something it already belonged to, therefore your 'question' would not have been relevant
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yet an independent Scotland would not just be 'walking in through the door', given that it would inherit the character of the former UK despite not being the successor state. In the same way, was it a massive problem when Canada gained its independence? By your definition, it 'walked in through the door' yet I hear of no disasters that ensued. These first-world former colonies inherited their international standing from their previous position as the same people and institutions were there the day before and the day after, with the change that Westminster was no longer able to legislate for them. Would the WTO have forced the newly independent Canada out in order to re-apply and re-enter?

What does Canada have to do with Europe ?

 

[Emyr]

What does Canada have to do with Europe ?

The comparison is between Scotland leaving the UK, but remaining within Europe, and Canada leaving the British Empire, and remaining within the World Trade Organisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It must have confused a local reporter in West Yorkshire who was making references to "Scottish Saltaires"....hock:

Reporter is partially correct:

A Saltire is, in heraldic terms, a diagonal cross.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltire

Saltaire is a Victorian Model village in Bradford, and a World Heritage Site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltaire

 

[NotATrainspott]

The comparison is between Scotland leaving the UK, but remaining within Europe, and Canada leaving the British Empire, and remaining within the World Trade Organisation.

I'm aware that the WTO came well after Canada became functionally independent of the UK but had the WTO came into being beforehand, it would be ridiculous to argue that Canadian independence would damage its international trade relations and status.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would [insert name of what the the UK minus Scotland would have been called] have been granted immediate membership?

There are learned historical name uses, so for the land mass without Scotland, the name of Albion was used.

The land mass of Scotland was referred to in times historical as Alba

 

[AM9]

The UK's name would not change and neither would the national flag - that would only happen if/when the people/leaders (unsure of who, the UK having no Constitution to define such matters) of the UK made that decision on their own, without the Scottish getting a say in the matter.

We can keep the saltire anyway, the city of St Albans would allow its use to continue even if the cross was the wrong colour.

 

[dcsprior]

Economic issues dominating campaigning ?, you'll be able to regale us with a list of the ways that an independent Scotland was going to survive economically in the real world then, other than oil and whiskey revenues of course

I've not claimed any expertise in economic matters, only said that the economic challenges (and potential benefits) was talked about a lot by politicians and covered a lot in the media - I would say that over half of the words expended were on economic issues. That isn't to say that the coverage outwith Scotland reflected this.

Having said that, a quick Google finds the following figures courtesy of the BBC:

• UK GDP per person £20,873 + £1463 (oil/gas) = £22,336
• Scotland GDP per person: £20,571 + £5853 (oil/gas) =£26,424

So by these figures, Scotland would need oil/gas to contribute £1,765 (30% of what it does at present) to have the same total GDP as the UK as a whole does at present.

I've not been able to quickly find figures excluding other sectors, though I'm confident there's no whiskey made in Scotland

I do seem to remember shutting Faslane and introducing industry was going to be a masterstroke, what industry was, of course, a mystery and then there would've been the loss of MoD work from the Scottish shipbuilders to help things along

I've read that only a tiny proportion of the cost of buying and maintaining a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines goes on labour costs - so spending the same amount of money on anything else creates far more jobs.

The UK without Scotland would not have been required to apply for membership to something it already belonged to, therefore your 'question' would not have been relevant

Yet Scotland would be required to apply for membership to something it already belonged to?

Of course, it's all rather academic as a majority of Scots voted no

 

[ExRes]

I've not claimed any expertise in economic matters, only said that the economic challenges (and potential benefits) was talked about a lot by politicians and covered a lot in the media - I would say that over half of the words expended were on economic issues. That isn't to say that the coverage outwith Scotland reflected this.

Having said that, a quick Google finds the following figures courtesy of the BBC:

• UK GDP per person £20,873 + £1463 (oil/gas) = £22,336
• Scotland GDP per person: £20,571 + £5853 (oil/gas) =£26,424

So by these figures, Scotland would need oil/gas to contribute £1,765 (30% of what it does at present) to have the same total GDP as the UK as a whole does at present.

I've not been able to quickly find figures excluding other sectors, though I'm confident there's no whiskey made in Scotland



I've read that only a tiny proportion of the cost of buying and maintaining a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines goes on labour costs - so spending the same amount of money on anything else creates far more jobs.



Yet Scotland would be required to apply for membership to something it already belonged to?

Of course, it's all rather academic as a majority of Scots voted no

Do those figures take into account the massive drop in oil prices over the last 3 months ?, how would that decrease have been made up ?

I assume you've taken into account the loss of jobs at Faslane, the unemployment money then required and the disappearance of income to the whole area around Faslane

My apologies for my whiskey spelling error, I will write out whisky 1000 times, not on here though ........

ps Scotland would not have belonged to anything, the UK has membership and Scotland would have chosen not to be part of the UK if a Yes vote had been forthcoming

 

[ainsworth74]

I've read that only a tiny proportion of the cost of buying and maintaining a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines goes on labour costs - so spending the same amount of money on anything else creates far more jobs.

But Scotland doesn't spend approx £2bn on the nuclear deterrent the UK does. So it isn't like upon independence Scotland would be able to make a quick £2bn saving and switch it on to spending somewhere else...

Yet Scotland would be required to apply for membership to something it already belonged to?

The UK would be the continuing state and Scotland would be a new state. So the UK continues on with it's membership and Scotland would need to apply. Certainly I recall reading a number of people, including a high ranking EU commissioner, that made it very clear that Scotland would need to apply. It wouldn't already be a member.

 

[dcsprior]

Do those figures take into account the massive drop in oil prices over the last 3 months ?, how would that decrease have been made up ?

My point was that even if the contribution made by oil & gas decreased by 70%, it would still leave Scotland with as productive an economy as the UK had overall when these figures were produced.

ps Scotland would not have belonged to anything, the UK has membership and Scotland would have chosen not to be part of the UK if a Yes vote had been forthcoming

So we weren't talking about the separation of equal partners?

But Scotland doesn't spend approx £2bn on the nuclear deterrent the UK does. So it isn't like upon independence Scotland would be able to make a quick £2bn saving and switch it on to spending somewhere else...

Good Point

The UK would be the continuing state and Scotland would be a new state. So the UK continues on with it's membership and Scotland would need to apply. Certainly I recall reading a number of people, including a high ranking EU commissioner, that made it very clear that Scotland would need to apply. It wouldn't already be a member.

I also heard this said, mainly by Barroso - the Spanish EU President with half an eye on the potential impact of Catalonia. I don't remember this being the overwhelming opinion of those without something else at stake.

 

[DownSouth]

Yet Scotland would be required to apply for membership to something it already belonged to?

The most significant international body of which Scotland is currently a member is FIFA, which only counts as "significant" when compared to other sporting bodies, not in the bigger picture.

If a region chooses to secede from a sovereign state, they become independent and no longer have certain things which belonged to the state from which they seceded - including membership of international organisations.

It's the same as when I moved out of the family home, I didn't automatically get certain things (e.g. season tickets to the footy) from other third parties just because my parents had them.

 

[SWTCommuter]

Barroso - the Spanish EU President

Er, he is Portugese. He was Prime Minister of Portugal, not Spain, before becoming President of the EU Commission.

 

[DownSouth]

So we weren't talking about the separation of equal partners?

No! This is the kid slinging his hook and leaving his parents' house, not a married couple divorcing.

There are certain aspects in which Scotland and the UK would, at some point, have an equal status - but only if and when Scotland took the necessary steps to attain that status.

I also heard this said, mainly by Barroso - the Spanish EU President with half an eye on the potential impact of Catalonia. I don't remember this being the overwhelming opinion of those without something else at stake.

International law is very clear on this - a single region seceding does not affect the sovereignty of the nation from which it secedes, the UK would still be the UK and only Scotland would be a new state.

It can only be different if it is a mutually agreed process with full co-operation from both the successor countries*, but the splitting of Czechoslovakia very much remains the exception to the rule. It would go without saying that the UK government would not agree to such a process and would take certain steps to demonstrate their continued and unbroken sovereignty (e.g. not changing their name, national flag, national anthem etc) which would kill any attempt from the government of Scotland to pass off the potential independence of Scotland as anything other than a secession.

It's not just the EU President having vested interests. He may well have them, but he is also right.


* or if it turns into a messy breakup as with the USSR and Yugoslavia. But even then, Russia and Serbia remained as the sole successor state with all the others having to apply for new memberships of organisations such as the UN, WTO and so on.

 

[NotATrainspott]

No! This is the kid slinging his hook and leaving his parents' house, not a married couple divorcing.

There are certain aspects in which Scotland and the UK would, at some point, have an equal status - but only if and when Scotland took the necessary steps to attain that status.

International law is very clear on this - a single region seceding does not affect the sovereignty of the nation from which it secedes, the UK would still be the UK and only Scotland would be a new state.

It can only be different if it is a mutually agreed process with full co-operation from both the successor countries*, but the splitting of Czechoslovakia very much remains the exception to the rule. It would go without saying that the UK government would not agree to such a process and would take certain steps to demonstrate their continued and unbroken sovereignty (e.g. not changing their name, national flag, national anthem etc) which would kill any attempt from the government of Scotland to pass off the potential independence of Scotland as anything other than a secession.

It's not just the EU President having vested interests. He may well have them, but he is also right.


* or if it turns into a messy breakup as with the USSR and Yugoslavia. But even then, Russia and Serbia remained as the sole successor state with all the others having to apply for new memberships of organisations such as the UN, WTO and so on.

It is entirely correct to say that in the event of Scottish Independence, the remainder UK would be the successor state in the way that Russia was for the Soviet Union.

However, the point we make about the European Union is that it is not an abstract organisation that has little individual relevance to the people of Scotland rather than Scotland the sovereign state, such as the WTO. The European Union is something very, very much more complicated than that because of how it actually affects the individual rights of those who hold citizenship of its member states. Taking away EU membership from Scotland the sovereign state is one thing but removing EU rights from EU citizens, without it being made legally unequivocal that they were voting to do so, is not going to be easy. Various sources might have said things about Scotland and the EU but no judge would rule that by voting for independence, the people of the country had explicitly voted to leave the EU as well. For such a thing to be possible, the referendum question or official guidance would have had to be unequivocal about it - if the question had been 'Should Scotland be an independent country outside of the European Union' then that would have been more than enough, or even just the United Kingdom government saying explicitly on their page in the official Electoral Commission leaflet that a vote to leave the UK was a vote to leave the EU.

The problem I see with claims that Scotland (the people, land and economy, not the abstract legal notion of the state) would find it difficult to remain within the EU is that what happens then? What happens to those EU citizens exercising their Four Freedoms to locate themselves or their good, services or capital within Scotland? What happens to Scottish citizens exercising those rights in other EU member states? What happens to Scottish representation in the European Parliament? What happens to the legal system if an Act of Parliament does not explicitly remove the superiority of EU law? What happens to any Scottish appellants to the European Court of Justice? Fundamentally, what actually is the position of a sovereign state within the European Union?

What I feel is that a lot of people have paid too much attention to the personal musings of non-disinterested individuals within and primarily formerly within the European Union, rather than to points which can be backed up by lawyers and through a process of logic and reasoning. It is unquestionable that the EU has done things that it had not thought it would need to do before, such as the absorption of East Germany a mere year after Communism, and that it overtly has no problem with legal and successful separatist movements as evidenced by its engagement with the fully-recognised states of the former Yugoslavia. As has been made very clear recently, the Scottish precedent would be for an EU member state to agree to hold a referendum on a split and would not affect any unrecognised or unconstitutional means of doing so.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Looking at mainland Europe, would the split of Czechoslovakia on 1st January 1993 into the new state entities of the Czech Republic and of Slovakia be the last major country split, rather than one of a secondary secession that has surfaced in certain postings?

 

[ainsworth74]

The problem I see with claims that Scotland (the people, land and economy, not the abstract legal notion of the state) would find it difficult to remain within the EU is that what happens then? What happens to those EU citizens exercising their Four Freedoms to locate themselves or their good, services or capital within Scotland? What happens to Scottish citizens exercising those rights in other EU member states? What happens to Scottish representation in the European Parliament? What happens to the legal system if an Act of Parliament does not explicitly remove the superiority of EU law? What happens to any Scottish appellants to the European Court of Justice? Fundamentally, what actually is the position of a sovereign state within the European Union?

These are of course the questions that went unanswered! The Yes Campaign were absolutely convinced that they would easily get into the EU on the moment of actual independence. The Better Together campaign to took the opposite view. Neither side actually knew what was going to happen in terms of the EU!

I still think the whole thing was executed poorly. To my mind the referendum just gone should have been asking the Scottish public if they wanted the Scottish Government to negotiate the terms of going independent with the relevant bodies. So the settlement with the UK, terms of joining the EU and timescale and so on with all the other myriad organisations. There should have then been a second referendum a couple of years down the line with the question 'should Scotland, on the terms negotiated, be an independent country?'.

Doing it this way as a great leap into the unknown was always, in my mind, likely to lead to a 'No' vote simply as there were to many unknowns! Such as what happen to Scots in the EU and EU citizens in Scotland? The SNP and Yes Campaign may believe they had the answers but no one really knows (as this thread demonstrates) just as the Better Together campaign also believed they had the answers but no one really knows if they did either!

 

[NotATrainspott]

These are of course the questions that went unanswered! The Yes Campaign were absolutely convinced that they would easily get into the EU on the moment of actual independence. The Better Together campaign to took the opposite view. Neither side actually knew what was going to happen in terms of the EU!

I still think the whole thing was executed poorly. To my mind the referendum just gone should have been asking the Scottish public if they wanted the Scottish Government to negotiate the terms of going independent with the relevant bodies. So the settlement with the UK, terms of joining the EU and timescale and so on with all the other myriad organisations. There should have then been a second referendum a couple of years down the line with the question 'should Scotland, on the terms negotiated, be an independent country?'.

Doing it this way as a great leap into the unknown was always, in my mind, likely to lead to a 'No' vote simply as there were to many unknowns! Such as what happen to Scots in the EU and EU citizens in Scotland? The SNP and Yes Campaign may believe they had the answers but no one really knows (as this thread demonstrates) just as the Better Together campaign also believed they had the answers but no one really knows if they did either!

Those questions are the logical consequence only of the European Union refusing to allow an independent Scotland to be a member from day one, regardless of whether through a treaty negotiation or through Scotland being treated as a new member but able to negotiate its position from within the United Kingdom. These points make the case for uninterrupted membership of the EU after a Yes vote as the alternative is more difficult than simply allowing the country to stay. My point about logical arguments is that instead of just listening to Jose Manuel Barroso say 'it will be difficult', someone needs to demand that they explain precisely why it would be difficult, going through the various points, backing them up with evidence and so on. This is what civil servants are employed to do and this is what they would do in the event of a Yes vote.

The idea of having a two referendum system was a possibility but there would always be a risk that the negotiations would not be done in full faith on the part of the UK as they know they can kill it off if they go hard. For example, if we all voted to start negotiations, the UK could insist that it would actively put up border posts and veto EU membership and other nasty, horrible things with the intention of making people reject the outcome of the negotiations. After a Yes vote in a singular referendum, there is no way for the UK to stop it happening and thus they must ensure the least bad possible outcome for the two countries, which would not be border controls and EU membership vetos by any means.

 

[ainsworth74]

Those questions are the logical consequence only of the European Union refusing to allow an independent Scotland to be a member from day one, regardless of whether through a treaty negotiation or through Scotland being treated as a new member but able to negotiate its position from within the United Kingdom. These points make the case for uninterrupted membership of the EU after a Yes vote as the alternative is more difficult than simply allowing the country to stay. My point about logical arguments is that instead of just listening to Jose Manuel Barroso say 'it will be difficult', someone needs to demand that they explain precisely why it would be difficult, going through the various points, backing them up with evidence and so on. This is what civil servants are employed to do and this is what they would do in the event of a Yes vote.

But it's a hell of a risk to vote 'Yes' when so much is undecided. Also just because something is painful doesn't mean it won't happen exactly along the lines of the worst case. Equally it could happen in terms of the best case. But no one can know for sure which way it'll go or even if it'll end up being somewhere in the middle!

 

[NotATrainspott]

But it's a hell of a risk to vote 'Yes' when so much is undecided. Also just because something is painful doesn't mean it won't happen exactly along the lines of the worst case. Equally it could happen in terms of the best case. But no one can know for sure which way it'll go or even if it'll end up being somewhere in the middle!

The risk of an independent Scotland being ousted from the European Union is very low for the reasons that I put forward. At this point in time, there is more risk to Scotland's place in the EU from the promises of an in-out referendum for the whole UK on its membership than there would be in the case of a Yes vote. Please do remember that businesses were asked about this and they said that they were far more concerned about Brexit than they were about Scottish independence.

It seems to be a recurring tactic of No supporters that when they are confronted with reasoning about such 'undecided' things, they simply fall back to bleating out that it is just another risk that has to be contemplated. If the risk of something happening is that low, there is no reason to say that the fact that something is still unsettled is still a massive risk.

 

[ExRes]

The risk of an independent Scotland being ousted from the European Union is very low for the reasons that I put forward. At this point in time, there is more risk to Scotland's place in the EU from the promises of an in-out referendum for the whole UK on its membership than there would be in the case of a Yes vote. Please do remember that businesses were asked about this and they said that they were far more concerned about Brexit than they were about Scottish independence.

It seems to be a recurring tactic of No supporters that when they are confronted with reasoning about such 'undecided' things, they simply fall back to bleating out that it is just another risk that has to be contemplated. If the risk of something happening is that low, there is no reason to say that the fact that something is still unsettled is still a massive risk.

You seem very confident in your own opinion and are quick to tell No supporters and those who think Yes campaigners were and are overly confident, that they are just 'bleating', I personally have nothing whatsoever to bleat about, I simply believe that an independent Scotland would have failed financially and failed the Scottish people

In fact you have no reason at all to make that claim, you have nothing to base your many claims on other than the hope that, should a Yes vote have occurred, everyone would have welcomed an independent Scotland with open arms and admitted them to everything with immediate effect, while no country would have been less than 100% welcoming, a nice dream but totally unsubstantiated and impossible to prove

 

[NotATrainspott]

You seem very confident in your own opinion and are quick to tell No supporters and those who think Yes campaigners were and are overly confident, that they are just 'bleating', I personally have nothing whatsoever to bleat about, I simply believe that an independent Scotland would have failed financially and failed the Scottish people

In fact you have no reason at all to make that claim, you have nothing to base your many claims on other than the hope that, should a Yes vote have occurred, everyone would have welcomed an independent Scotland with open arms and admitted them to everything with immediate effect, while no country would have been less than 100% welcoming, a nice dream but totally unsubstantiated and impossible to prove

Can you point me to an example in history where a country that has become independent through legal means and is now recognised by the state from which it seceded has 'not been admitted to everything with immediate effect'? Scotland is not Kosovo. If you suggest Kosovo, you're clearly incapable of providing a real example because you know fine well that the situation there is not at all comparable. There may be a few days before countries join the United Nations or some other organisation that isn't relevant on a day-to-day basis but that is not the same as what people on the No side have been threatening - that an independent Scotland would be out of these organisations for months and years if not forever.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...almond-claims-referendum-boosted-economy.html

The First Minister declares another vote on breaking up Britain will be held amid claims he is struggling to face up to reality.

I reckon the Yes vote will walk the next referendum.

 

[ExRes]

Can you point me to an example in history where a country that has become independent through legal means and is now recognised by the state from which it seceded has 'not been admitted to everything with immediate effect'? Scotland is not Kosovo. If you suggest Kosovo, you're clearly incapable of providing a real example because you know fine well that the situation there is not at all comparable. There may be a few days before countries join the United Nations or some other organisation that isn't relevant on a day-to-day basis but that is not the same as what people on the No side have been threatening - that an independent Scotland would be out of these organisations for months and years if not forever.

How could I point you to an example, no constituent part of the UK has ever become independent and as I've never mentioned Kosovo your point is plainly pointless

 

[NotATrainspott]

How could I point you to an example, no constituent part of the UK has ever become independent and as I've never mentioned Kosovo your point is plainly pointless

My point is that you act as if extreme troubles of international engagement are a likely thing when there is a successful and legal secession. However, there have been plenty of countries (e.g. the Baltics from the Soviet Union) that have legally and peacefully seceded in the way that Scotland would and there have been no horror stories there. Therefore, the risk of those horror stories happening to an independent Scotland cannot be high, and thus it is ridiculous to claim that the fact we do not know for certain (when the UK Government is the only body that can actually get a definitive answer, but is the body most interested in a No vote which would be helped by said uncertainty) means we must treat it as something to be extremely afraid of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...almond-claims-referendum-boosted-economy.html



I reckon the Yes vote will walk the next referendum.

The only reason there would be another referendum would be if the Yes campaign believed they would walk it, because enough people would have been so repelled by the No campaign and their lack of sincerity and honesty about post-No scenarios. There will then be other swithering people who can then be persuaded to go to Yes because if the No side were so happy to lie about further devolution, the Vow etc, why wouldn't they also be happy to lie about every other thing that stops people voting Yes?