Scotland votes no to Independence

[reb0118]

........no constituent part of the UK has ever become independent.........

The Irish Free State in 1922.

 

[St Rollox]

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



I reckon the Yes vote will walk the next referendum.

Considering the unionist parties are split and might well collapse next May that might not as far fetched as it seems.
Scottish politics seems pretty interesting at the moment.

 

[AM9]

Considering the unionist parties are split and might well collapse next May that might not as far fetched as it seems.
Scottish politics seems pretty interesting at the moment.

They probably won't be like that when the next referendum is permitted.

 

[Greenback]

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!

I agree. Anyone who didn't have strong feelings either way was more likely to vote to retain the status quo rather than risk taking a leap into the dark.

If the question had been more like the one that you suggested, there would have been more chance of them voting for negotiations.

Nonetheless, I still think Scotland has won a victory, as they couldn't really lose whatever the result on the day, thanks to the panic of the No campaigners and their offering of all sorts of incentives to stay in the Union.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Considering the unionist parties are split and might well collapse next May that might not as far fetched as it seems.
Scottish politics seems pretty interesting at the moment.

According to the Scottish subsample of the latest YouGov GE poll:

Labour: 19%
Conservative: 20%
Lib Dem: 9%
UKIP: 6%
Greens: 5%
SNP: 41%

With figures like that, the SNP and Labour would trade places, with Labour MPs contingent solely upon their supporters choosing not to split the left-wing vote and possibly allowing the Tories to win a few more seats.

Oh, and those figures say that Labour is less popular than the Tories in Scotland.

 

[yorksrob]

One of the consequences of the no vote is that independence can still be portrayed as being all things to all people in terms of the political nitty-gritty, and so can attract everyone from socialists to free marketeers. The Unionist parties need to stop pontificating and crack on with establishing a long term settlement for Scotland, and quickly. England has muddled through for plenty of time and can afford to take longer to work out its own settlement - infact I would rather we did take our time to get it right as this is relatively new ground for us.

 

[danielnez1]

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.

However we have never had a situation where a region has chosen to seceded from a EU member state. As I have said before, I have no doubt that Scotland would eventually be admitted as a new member, depending on how successful the negations would be However the notion that everything would be "business as usual" is absolutely absurd. The very fact that the Yes side said they would need to negotiate is an acknowledgement that a seamless transition would not be guaranteed. Likewise their "we'll tell you what’s good for you" tone wouldn’t win many friends.

As I have said before, you would need to be realistic about and independent Scotland's prospects, and engage in some critical thinking thinking instead of assuming everything would go your way in every negotiation. Burying your head in the sand won't cut it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

However we have never had a situation where a region has chosen to seceded from a EU member state. As I have said before, I have no doubt that Scotland would eventually be admitted as a new member, depending on how successful the negations would be However the notion that everything would be "business as usual" is absolutely absurd. The very fact that the Yes side said they would need to negotiate is an acknowledgement that a seamless transition would not be guaranteed. Likewise their "we'll tell you what’s good for you" tone wouldn’t win many friends.

As I have said before, you would need to be realistic about and independent Scotland's prospects, and engage in some critical thinking thinking instead of assuming everything would go your way in every negotiation. Burying your head in the sand won't cut it.

And what you need to explain is the exact sticking points where there would be problems with Scotland's re-entry to the European Union. The one that everyone and their auntie likes to bring up is this idea that Spain would veto our continued presence in order to stop Catalonia getting too many ideas. However, given that Catalan independence would require the approval of Spain's constitutional court, which does not need to take into account what happens in Scotland whatsoever, the amount of difference it would make would be negligible. Catalonia is even more integrated within the EU than we are, so the act of vetoing us wouldn't make people think that Catalan EU membership would be vetoed given that its continued membership of the Eurozone and Schengen would be a given.

There is no logical reason for the EU to mandate that Scotland would be in Schengen because Scotland does not have a land border with the rest of Schengen but would have a border with a permanent opt-out. The EU treaties that mandate the eventual joining of Schengen (Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia have not yet joined) did not ever expect the prospect of Scottish or Welsh independence - if you had told them to include a clause for that scenario they would have laughed in your face. The UK's opt-out on Schengen hinges on the fact that it is easier for them to run a limited number of border control posts at ports, Eurostar terminals and airports and assume that all people within are legal than the Schengen system of no border controls but internal identity checking for use of public services (ID cards, basically). If Scotland were forced to join, it would ruin the rUK's opt-out but would have no positive effect for anyone else. The only way of getting from Scotland to Schengen is either via the rUK, thus requiring two border crossings, or via plane where verified ID is still needed for counter-terrorism purposes. If, for example, there were an post-Yugoslav common border area, when a member of that group joins the EU and Schengen they will lose a bit because of the need to erect a border with the rest of that ex-Yugoslav area but they would then gain because they would then have an open border with the rest of Schengen.

There's nothing in the EU treaties that demands that countries have a central bank and their own currency when joining. Montenegro uses the Euro in the same way that Scotland could unilaterally use the Pound, yet no one would argue that Montenegro could not join on that basis. If a currency union were refused there is no reason why an independent Scotland could use the pound unilaterally or create its own Pound Scots to be pegged 1:1 with the pound. Given that we export quite a lot, and the rUK imports quite a lot, it would not be impossible for us to keep that peg. In the event of independence there are resources that unquestionably can and would be shared even without sharing the institution of the Bank of England. For every percentage of debt we take on, we have rights to take on the same percentage of the UK's total foreign currency reserves and other balance-sheet-assets like gold. Without the banks, which will move their brass plates down to rUK regardless of what outcome there would be from negotiations, the Scottish economy's assets and liabilities are not any more disproportionate than they are for the rUK as a whole today. Since new EU members are not obliged to join the Euro until some unspecified point in the future, at which point the country must fulfil all the convergence criteria that Scotland is decades away from doing so, there is therefore no reason why our continued presence within the EU could be rejected on the basis of having our own pegged currency. Most successful small countries peg their currencies against a large trading partners' - before the Euro, the Deutsche Mark was the currency of choice for pegging purposes in Europe.

 

[danielnez1]

And what you need to explain is the exact sticking points where there would be problems with Scotland's re-entry to the European Union.

That's easy: the rebate and opt-outs. I'm sure the rUK would like to keep 100% of the rebate and the opt-outs as we would be the continuing state. I feel Scotland would need to negotiate their own terms with the EU without the expectation they will be given the same terms.

The one that everyone and their auntie likes to bring up is this idea that Spain would veto our continued presence in order to stop Catalonia getting too many ideas. However, given that Catalan independence would require the approval of Spain's constitutional court, which does not need to take into account what happens in Scotland whatsoever, the amount of difference it would make would be negligible. Catalonia is even more integrated within the EU than we are, so the act of vetoing us wouldn't make people think that Catalan EU membership would be vetoed given that its continued membership of the Eurozone and Schengen would be a given.

It is Spain's prerogative to veto whatever they like, and vice versa for other member states. However, regardless of their motive for vetoing something or not, it does seem to fly in the face of reasoning that a region who votes for independence can expect to automatically gain EU membership, especially when that membership applies to the sovereign state, not a region.

There is no logical reason for the EU to mandate that Scotland would be in Schengen because Scotland does not have a land border with the rest of Schengen but would have a border with a permanent opt-out. The EU treaties that mandate the eventual joining of Schengen (Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia have not yet joined) did not ever expect the prospect of Scottish or Welsh independence - if you had told them to include a clause for that scenario they would have laughed in your face. The UK's opt-out on Schengen hinges on the fact that it is easier for them to run a limited number of border control posts at ports, Eurostar terminals and airports and assume that all people within are legal than the Schengen system of no border controls but internal identity checking for use of public services (ID cards, basically). If Scotland were forced to join, it would ruin the rUK's opt-out but would have no positive effect for anyone else. The only way of getting from Scotland to Schengen is either via the rUK, thus requiring two border crossings, or via plane where verified ID is still needed for counter-terrorism purposes. If, for example, there were an post-Yugoslav common border area, when a member of that group joins the EU and Schengen they will lose a bit because of the need to erect a border with the rest of that ex-Yugoslav area but they would then gain because they would then have an open border with the rest of Schengen.

I'm not interested if it’s perceived as logical or not, it would still be something that an independent Scotland would have to negotiate over. The UK may have a opt-out hover that is something an independent Scotland wouldn’t necessary get.

There's nothing in the EU treaties that demands that countries have a central bank and their own currency when joining. Montenegro uses the Euro in the same way that Scotland could unilaterally use the Pound, yet no one would argue that Montenegro could not join on that basis. If a currency union were refused there is no reason why an independent Scotland could use the pound unilaterally or create its own Pound Scots to be pegged 1:1 with the pound. Given that we export quite a lot, and the rUK imports quite a lot, it would not be impossible for us to keep that peg. In the event of independence there are resources that unquestionably can and would be shared even without sharing the institution of the Bank of England. For every percentage of debt we take on, we have rights to take on the same percentage of the UK's total foreign currency reserves and other balance-sheet-assets like gold. Without the banks, which will move their brass plates down to rUK regardless of what outcome there would be from negotiations, the Scottish economy's assets and liabilities are not any more disproportionate than they are for the rUK as a whole today. Since new EU members are not obliged to join the Euro until some unspecified point in the future, at which point the country must fulfil all the convergence criteria that Scotland is decades away from doing so, there is therefore no reason why our continued presence within the EU could be rejected on the basis of having our own pegged currency. Most successful small countries peg their currencies against a large trading partners' - before the Euro, the Deutsche Mark was the currency of choice for pegging purposes in Europe.

It would be perfectly reasonable for Scotland to get a share of the assets the Bank of England have i.e. reserves, indeed that could be used as a seed for Scotland's own central bank if you wished. Scotland would be free to choose whatever currency arrangements they liked. However what the SNP wanted was perpetual access to the Bank of England as a LOLR through a currency union which would be unacceptable.

 

[St Rollox]

According to the Scottish subsample of the latest YouGov GE poll:

Labour: 19%
Conservative: 20%
Lib Dem: 9%
UKIP: 6%
Greens: 5%
SNP: 41%

Oh, and those figures say that Labour is less popular than the Tories in Scotland.

I doubt the LibDems are as high as 9%.

 

[NotATrainspott]

That's easy: the rebate and opt-outs. I'm sure the rUK would like to keep 100% of the rebate and the opt-outs as we would be the continuing state. I feel Scotland would need to negotiate their own terms with the EU without the expectation they will be given the same terms.

But the rUK's continued membership would still have to change. At the very least, the UK would lose the six MEPs that represent the Scotland region. The level of payments, rebates and so on is based upon the circumstances of that country and as it would be ridiculous to argue that the rUK would have to pay the EU as much money per year, despite the population dropping by a tenth overnight, it would be ridiculous to say that it would get the same amount of money back. The rUK's terms of membership would have to change, and the most sensible way of doing this would be for the UK's status to be split across iScotland and the rUK such that it would have no net effect on the EU or other members.

It is Spain's prerogative to veto whatever they like, and vice versa for other member states. However, regardless of their motive for vetoing something or not, it does seem to fly in the face of reasoning that a region who votes for independence can expect to automatically gain EU membership, especially when that membership applies to the sovereign state, not a region.

And it is any country's prerogative to do anything it likes, but that does not mean it would do it. Spain vetoing Scotland would have serious consequences for its fishing fleets and help to precipitate further crises in Europe. Scotland remaining in the EU exemplifies the 'ever-closer' union as it means the EU is not an arbitrary international organisation like the WTO but something special whereby the idea of being European is superior to the idea of being of a specific nationality within it.

I cannot see why it 'flies in the face of reasoning' when the vote was not on whether we should stay in the European Union or not. If the United Kingdom had believed that Scotland would not be able to remain in the EU, it would have made that very clear in its official statement in the Electoral Commission leaflet that every household received.

I'm not interested if it’s perceived as logical or not, it would still be something that an independent Scotland would have to negotiate over. The UK may have a opt-out hover that is something an independent Scotland wouldn’t necessary get.

Whether you might like it or not, logic has a place in politics and international relations. These are cold, hard facts, and if someone wants to ignore them to make a ridiculous point then they're clearly not capable of governing a country.

It would be perfectly reasonable for Scotland to get a share of the assets the Bank of England have i.e. reserves, indeed that could be used as a seed for Scotland's own central bank if you wished. Scotland would be free to choose whatever currency arrangements they liked. However what the SNP wanted was perpetual access to the Bank of England as a LOLR through a currency union which would be unacceptable.

And the Green Party wanted a free-floating Pound Scots. Better Together seemed to think a currency union was a good idea too. They've never answered what they think the currency of an independent Scotland should be. When Better Together don't tell you something, that's because they know that the truth is something that hurts their campaign. As I said, for each of the Yes side's positions there were impartial academics who supported them.

 

[Oswyntail]

... Better Together seemed to think a currency union was a good idea too

. I think they thought a United Kingdom was the preferred option.

They've never answered what they think the currency of an independent Scotland should be.

Well, er, why should they? See my comment above.

When Better Together don't tell you something, that's because they know that the truth is something that hurts their campaign.

Isn't that generally the case? However, as the Yes campaign steadfastly refused to answer any questions about what they would do if their first plan was thwarted, perhaps they realised teh truth would hurt them.

As I said, for each of the Yes side's positions there were impartial academics who supported them.

Now just read that. Now read it again. Have you yet realised how daft that sentence is?
What does really anger me is that this is still being discussed (not only here). If the Yes campaign had won, they would have crowed "done deal" and the UK Government would have accepted the verdict. (Oh come on, that thought that went through your head should be kept in panto). Why do the Yes campaign - the ones that lost - not accept the "voice of the Scottish people"? Perhaps because, at heart, they despise democracy?

 

[Butts]

According to the Scottish subsample of the latest YouGov GE poll:

Labour: 19%
Conservative: 20%
Lib Dem: 9%
UKIP: 6%
Greens: 5%
SNP: 41%

With figures like that, the SNP and Labour would trade places, with Labour MPs contingent solely upon their supporters choosing not to split the left-wing vote and possibly allowing the Tories to win a few more seats.

Oh, and those figures say that Labour is less popular than the Tories in Scotland.

Oh if only your last sentence were true

I'd take those figures with a pinch of salt !!!

 

[St Rollox]

There's been a general trend in the polls for a while now of an increase in SNP support.
If anything the referendum has got the independence monkey off their backs.
If more power for the Edinburgh parliament is your political fancy then voting SNP sound a better idea than voting unionist.
I don't think anything can help the LibDems.
The Tories will be happy with any rise in their vote.
Be interesting how Ukip would effect them in Scotland.
Looks like the same voter base.
That leaves Labour, the fact that some of their safest scottish seats voted YES on a high turnout never seen before is a strange one.
Labour might well be the biggest losers.
The Tories taking Jim Murphy's seat, now that would be funny.

 

[ExRes]

The Irish Free State in 1922.

And what happened in 1922 is, naturally, entirely relevant to 2014

 

[reb0118]

how could i point you to an example, no constituent part of the uk has ever become independent............

My emphasis.

The Irish Free State in 1922.

Ireland was a constituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland. You asked for an example and I gave you one. Relevancy was not mentioned.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Oh if only your last sentence were true

I'd take those figures with a pinch of salt !!!

So what would you argue then? Is the Labour party doing well in Scotland now? That their level of support has dropped to within the margin of error of the Tories is nothing but spectacular. Every single poll is saying that the SNP are coming out ahead in Scotland for the General Election and for the 2016 election for Holyrood. For a party to retain or gain votes while being in government is something very special in this country; they managed it in 2011 and they're on track to manage it again in 2015 and 2016.

 

[St Rollox]

The fact Scottish/British Labour have losing votes for years.
The days of the old class/trade union loyalties are gone now forever.
Would be interesting to see a poll of voting intentions of say present day Scottish Railway workers compared to 50 years ago.
The biggest blunder they have made this century was to join/front/promote the Better Together campaign.
Okay the Labour leadership thought independence was a bad idea.
But why oh why link up with LibDems and the one MP Scottish Tories.
Why use the last few foot soldiers you have to promote a Tory/unionist campaign.
And at the end of the day the one place the YES vote broke through was your own heartlands.
No wonder the leader of the Scottish Labour had to leave a STUC event against Westminster cuts yesterday in Glasgow.
She was being booed and hissed by her own people.
Sadly Labour are starting to look an empty husk not unlike those empty gap sites you see around the Glasgow area.
You know there used to be a factory there but what it made you can't remember.
And the final straw must this month's Scottish Labour Gala dinner at the Central Hotel.
A fancy knees up while there's a silent protest outside with a foodbank collection.

 

[Oswyntail]

....
But why oh why link up with LibDems and the one MP Scottish Tories.....

Perhaps because they believed the campaign to keep the UK was the only sensible one for the population of Scotland? Or must everything be determined by the narrow interests of the party hacks deep in their headquarters, calculating how things would play in Dull?

 

[St Rollox]

Perhaps because they believed the campaign to keep the UK was the only sensible one for the population of Scotland? Or must everything be determined by the narrow interests of the party hacks deep in their headquarters, calculating how things would play in Dull?

They could have run the own separate campaign.
Instead they chose to run with some seriously dodgy characters in Better Together and that's outwith the Tories/LibDems.
Then there was the unofficial pro British campaign.
Getting photographed from Aberdeen to Glasgow with assorted nutters like the NF/BNP/BF/SDL etc looks like political suicide.
Maybe the far right-wingers can deliver Scottish Labour leaflets in May.

Seems like a long way from Cable St.

 

[danielnez1]

But the rUK's continued membership would still have to change. At the very least, the UK would lose the six MEPs that represent the Scotland region. The level of payments, rebates and so on is based upon the circumstances of that country and as it would be ridiculous to argue that the rUK would have to pay the EU as much money per year, despite the population dropping by a tenth overnight, it would be ridiculous to say that it would get the same amount of money back. The rUK's terms of membership would have to change, and the most sensible way of doing this would be for the UK's status to be split across iScotland and the rUK such that it would have no net effect on the EU or other members.

Aside from a readjustment of payments based on population size etc. I don't see how our terms would need to change, we would be the continuing state remember.

And it is any country's prerogative to do anything it likes, but that does not mean it would do it. Spain vetoing Scotland would have serious consequences for its fishing fleets and help to precipitate further crises in Europe. Scotland remaining in the EU exemplifies the 'ever-closer' union as it means the EU is not an arbitrary international organisation like the WTO but something special whereby the idea of being European is superior to the idea of being of a specific nationality within it.

I fail to see how Spain vetoing an independent Scotland's EU membership would somehow trigger a larger crisis. However you have fallen into the trap of dressing up your own opinion as facts.

I cannot see why it 'flies in the face of reasoning' when the vote was not on whether we should stay in the European Union or not. If the United Kingdom had believed that Scotland would not be able to remain in the EU, it would have made that very clear in its official statement in the Electoral Commission leaflet that every household received.

It may have not been on the ballot paper, but it is pretty obvious that if you vote for independence that you are laving an EU member state, and again given that the SNP said they would need to negotiate with the EU does suggest that a seamless transition to membership as a state was not guaranteed.

Whether you might like it or not, logic has a place in politics and international relations. These are cold, hard facts, and if someone wants to ignore them to make a ridiculous point then they're clearly not capable of governing a country.

With that argument you could also argue that Salmond and co are not fit to govern Scotland, given their comments regarding the debt. Likewise I'm sure any motive for Spain, an possibly France and Belgium’s potential motives for vetoing automatic membership is logical from their perspectives, in order to keep their countries together.

And the Green Party wanted a free-floating Pound Scots. Better Together seemed to think a currency union was a good idea too. They've never answered what they think the currency of an independent Scotland should be. When Better Together don't tell you something, that's because they know that the truth is something that hurts their campaign. As I said, for each of the Yes side's positions there were impartial academics who supported them.

Of course Better Together would think a currency union is a good idea, because they would argue it is along with the political union. In fact, given the amount of things the SNP wanted to keep, you could argue they are implicitly in favour of the union too.

I'm sure a Currency Union would have been the best option, as it would let Scotland to retain some of the benefits of being in the Union, however it was and still is utterly unacceptable for the rest of us.

Also, to be fair it wasn’t up to Better Together to spell out their preferred currency options. The SNP should have been much clearer on what their plan B was and the fact they weren't is frankly disgraceful. But please, don't stop sipping the kool-aid.

 

[Butts]

So what would you argue then? Is the Labour party doing well in Scotland now? That their level of support has dropped to within the margin of error of the Tories is nothing but spectacular. Every single poll is saying that the SNP are coming out ahead in Scotland for the General Election and for the 2016 election for Holyrood. For a party to retain or gain votes while being in government is something very special in this country; they managed it in 2011 and they're on track to manage it again in 2015 and 2016.

It largely depends on how the votes are spread out.

The more astute amongst you will have noticed the % of votes cast for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats at the last General Election in Scotland.

The Conservatives ended up with one seat and the Liberal Democrats in double figures.

Quite ironic how the main proponents of PR end up with more seats thanks to first past the post

Labour currently have 41 seats in Scotland, if they sustain losses amounting to more than half a dozen I will be surprised.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Aside from a readjustment of payments based on population size etc. I don't see how our terms would need to change, we would be the continuing state remember.

It isn't just population size. It's the number of square kilometres of arable land and the square kilometres of fishing grounds and lots of other physical measures that wouldn't change post-independence. The UK's rebate is based upon its individual circumstances and post-Yes, those circumstances would have changed quite considerably. For one, it would be cheaper per capita for the rUK to continue on as a state because it would lose only a tenth of its population but a third of its land mass. EU subsidies and rebates based upon population density and distribution therefore have to change as well.

I fail to see how Spain vetoing an independent Scotland's EU membership would somehow trigger a larger crisis. However you have fallen into the trap of dressing up your own opinion as facts.

As the vote for independence was not a vote for the people of Scotland to leave the European Union. If the SNP campaign had been based upon an exit from both the UK and EU that would be fine.

It may have not been on the ballot paper, but it is pretty obvious that if you vote for independence that you are laving an EU member state, and again given that the SNP said they would need to negotiate with the EU does suggest that a seamless transition to membership as a state was not guaranteed.

You may be leaving an EU member state but you are not stripping yourselves of the rights of EU membership. The EU affords special rights directly to individuals and businesses within itself that are inalienable, other than by that population officially declaring that it would give up those rights.

With that argument you could also argue that Salmond and co are not fit to govern Scotland, given their comments regarding the debt. Likewise I'm sure any motive for Spain, an possibly France and Belgium’s potential motives for vetoing automatic membership is logical from their perspectives, in order to keep their countries together.

The UK breaking up would have no effect upon any other country in the EU because the Scottish precedent would be for a legitimate and recognised referendum. Other EU countries' constitutions can say that it is not possible to allow that without the support of the entire country, and that would not be challenged by a Scottish Yes vote. The Spanish government said that they would respect the outcome of the vote because the UK's constitution allows for it to happen, and other countries' constitutional matters are not your concern. The Catalonian parties couldn't ever be able to go to the Spanish constitutional court and argue that because the UK allowed Scotland to leave, the same right must be given to them.

Also, I hate to break it to you but none of the Baltic states accepted responsibility for any of the former USSR's state debt, and none of them were cast as international pariahs in the way you claim an independent Scotland would be. Russia agreed to take on all former USSR debt obligations, just as the UK government said that in any eventuality, it would stand behind all debt it had issued.

Of course Better Together would think a currency union is a good idea, because they would argue it is along with the political union. In fact, given the amount of things the SNP wanted to keep, you could argue they are implicitly in favour of the union too.

I'm sure a Currency Union would have been the best option, as it would let Scotland to retain some of the benefits of being in the Union, however it was and still is utterly unacceptable for the rest of us.

Also, to be fair it wasn’t up to Better Together to spell out their preferred currency options. The SNP should have been much clearer on what their plan B was and the fact they weren't is frankly disgraceful. But please, don't stop sipping the kool-aid.

Yes, and if the people of Scotland exercised their right to end that political union, what is their plan B? The SNP were in favour of ending the political union between the two countries but keeping the social and economic unions. That is not totally unreasonable and it appears that Australia and New Zealand get on just fine with quite a similar situation, and have indeed been moving towards a greater level of economic co-operation while remaining individual sovereign states.

The argument about currency boils down to the question of whether it is in the best interests of the rUK to agree to such a union. ]If Scotland creates its own free-floating currency, it would remove all North Sea oil revenues and other Scottish export worth from the Pound Sterling's balance of trade. If there is one thing that Scotland currently does it is to produce things for export, and the only things we've got left to export are things that aren't going to move away to other countries where it is cheaper. A ship can be built anywhere in the world, wherever is cheapest, but the whisky export market is never going to suffer because the Chinese can produce it cheaper because people want our whisky, and as it is a luxury product it is not as sensitive to exchange rate fluctuations. In comparison, the rest of the UK has not got a great deal left to export other than financial services based in the City. When these services inevitably fail, the UK as a whole can know it will not lose Scottish export values, which are enough to halve the UK's trade deficit from 8% to 4% of GDP. The rUK's economy is now a one-trick pony based upon banking and everyone selling their home to the person to their left and without Scotland, the next recession you will face will not be fun.

After a Yes vote, goes without saying that the main banks' holding groups would move their brass plates down to London. In that case, the rUK taxpayer would then be wholly liable for bailing them out, according to the logic they have put forward where the Scottish taxpayer would have been fully responsible for bailing them out back in 2008. As the majority of the bad assets, deals etc are based in London, it would therefore mean that the per-capita liabilities of the banks would increase and thus make future bailouts less affordable. At the same time, if the Scottish operations were not at all responsible for such a bailout, there would be no need for the Scottish taxpayer to bail them out whatsoever. In the real world however, the amount of money that a government pays towards a bailout is dependent upon their ability to pay. If RBS, HBOS et al had been located in an independent Scotland, the rUK taxpayer would have had no choice but to bail them out as they did as the alternative would be for the entire rUK economy to collapse as well. Gordon Brown made a very big thing about saving the whole world's financial system - would that whole world extend to an independent Scotland when the banks are so closely tied with the rUK?

A fundamental point which the No side did not seem keen to recognise is that post-independence, the two countries would not develop a 38th parallel-level of non-interdependence. A recession in the rUK would have an effect upon an independent Scotland and vice-versa. If the actions of the rUK government precipitated economic turmoil in Scotland, that turmoil would have real effects south of the border. Acting in the self-interest of the rUK is therefore not at all incompatible with the necessity of acting in the interests of an independent Scotland as well.

Also, the single and unequivocally best card up the sleeve of any post-Yes negotiating team for Scotland is that we are under no obligation to allow continued access to or use of Faslane and Coulport. It is a given that continued access would become part of any final settlement but if the rUK goes hardball, we can unilaterally force their complete nuclear disarmament. Even better, in the precedent of the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine received almost a third of the entire nuclear arsenal of the former USSR. These assets had been located in the country and despite Russia being the successor state in international circles, the final rights over these weapons remained with Ukraine. If Scotland votes Yes, there is no way for the rUK to stop independence happening without causing even greater political and economic strife, regardless of the outcome of negotiations. An independent Scotland would have no need nor desire to own such weapons, but the fact that we could argue rights for their possession (given that they are effectively a permanent asset in Scotland as is the Forth Bridge). To make the problem of losing control over these nukes even worse, the UK's warheads are not equipped with permissive action link devices, which are fitted to all US warheads and are designed to prevent any detonations without the approval of the Executive Office. Any warheads left in Scotland that would become property of the independent Scotland would therefore not be inert in the way that breakaway US states would find any warheads located within them would be.

 

[ainsworth74]

Also, the single and unequivocally best card up the sleeve of any post-Yes negotiating team for Scotland is that we are under no obligation to allow continued access to or use of Faslane and Coulport. It is a given that continued access would become part of any final settlement but if the rUK goes hardball, we can unilaterally force their complete nuclear disarmament. Even better, in the precedent of the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine received almost a third of the entire nuclear arsenal of the former USSR. These assets had been located in the country and despite Russia being the successor state in international circles, the final rights over these weapons remained with Ukraine. If Scotland votes Yes, there is no way for the rUK to stop independence happening without causing even greater political and economic strife, regardless of the outcome of negotiations. An independent Scotland would have no need nor desire to own such weapons, but the fact that we could argue rights for their possession (given that they are effectively a permanent asset in Scotland as is the Forth Bridge). To make the problem of losing control over these nukes even worse, the UK's warheads are not equipped with permissive action link devices, which are fitted to all US warheads and are designed to prevent any detonations without the approval of the Executive Office. Any warheads left in Scotland that would become property of the independent Scotland would therefore not be inert in the way that breakaway US states would find any warheads located within them would be.

Because that would really enamour an Independent Scotland with the UN Security Council and NATO both organisations that an Independent Scotland was, apparently, wishing to join.

And whilst it seems highly unlikely in the extreme it would get this bad don't forget where the vast majority of the conventional assets of the UKs armed forces remain. If the UK really wanted to keep it's nuclear weapons there is very little Scotland could do about it until the UK handed over what ever proportion of the UKs armed forces it was going to get. Unless you think Independent Scotland would glass a English city or two?

Let's try and be a bit less silly shall we? Independent Scotland was never going to make off with the nuclear weapons no matter how bad negotiations got it would have poisoned relations with the UK, with the UK's allies and with a number of organisations Independent Scotland would seek membership of.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Because that would really enamour an Independent Scotland with the UN Security Council and NATO both organisations that an Independent Scotland was, apparently, wishing to join.

And whilst it seems highly unlikely in the extreme it would get this bad don't forget where the vast majority of the conventional assets of the UKs armed forces remain. If the UK really wanted to keep it's nuclear weapons there is very little Scotland could do about it until the UK handed over what ever proportion of the UKs armed forces it was going to get. Unless you think Independent Scotland would glass a English city or two?

Let's try and be a bit less silly shall we? Independent Scotland was never going to make off with the nuclear weapons no matter how bad negotiations got it would have poisoned relations with the UK, with the UK's allies and with a number of organisations Independent Scotland would seek membership of.

I don't think that an independent Scotland would do that either. However, the point remains that the independent Scotland would be the final arbiter of what happens at Faslane and Coulport, and thus the entire UK nuclear deterrent in the short-medium term. If the UK Government decided to be unjustifiably harsh in negotiations - e.g. forcing Scotland to take the debt but not assets like the worth of embassies or gold/foreign currency reserves, then the nuclear option remains. Because both sides will be aware of this, neither side will be unreasonable in their demands. If everything stays reasonable, there's no problem. If the rUK voted in a rabid Tory-UKIP coalition on a promise to cause Scotland as much pain and suffering as is physically possible in negotiations, then the nuclear option can be used. If Scotland did become the owner of any nuclear weapons, and the rUK were unable to take them on instead, the only remaining options are to sell them or hand them over to the United States for decommissioning or deactivated long-term storage.

 

[danielnez1]

You may be leaving an EU member state but you are not stripping yourselves of the rights of EU membership. The EU affords special rights directly to individuals and businesses within itself that are inalienable, other than by that population officially declaring that it would give up those rights.

Again, the very fact that the SNP said they would need to negotiate EU membership undermines your argument, and will do every time. If automatic membership was assured, then there would be no need for any negotiation.

Also, I hate to break it to you but none of the Baltic states accepted responsibility for any of the former USSR's state debt, and none of them were cast as international pariahs in the way you claim an independent Scotland would be. Russia agreed to take on all former USSR debt obligations, just as the UK government said that in any eventuality, it would stand behind all debt it had issued.

In contrast to the Baltic states back in 1991, Scotland has a long established capitalist economy and if independence happened, I have no doubt the government would be keen to re-assure the financial markets that iScotland is still a reputable place to do business. Refusing to take on a share of the debt would shatter that image.

The argument about currency boils down to the question of whether it is in the best interests of the rUK to agree to such a union. ]If Scotland creates its own free-floating currency, it would remove all North Sea oil revenues and other Scottish export worth from the Pound Sterling's balance of trade. If there is one thing that Scotland currently does it is to produce things for export, and the only things we've got left to export are things that aren't going to move away to other countries where it is cheaper. A ship can be built anywhere in the world, wherever is cheapest, but the whisky export market is never going to suffer because the Chinese can produce it cheaper because people want our whisky, and as it is a luxury product it is not as sensitive to exchange rate fluctuations. In comparison, the rest of the UK has not got a great deal left to export other than financial services based in the City. When these services inevitably fail, the UK as a whole can know it will not lose Scottish export values, which are enough to halve the UK's trade deficit from 8% to 4% of GDP. The rUK's economy is now a one-trick pony based upon banking and everyone selling their home to the person to their left and without Scotland, the next recession you will face will not be fun.

In the event of Scottish independence, it will have an immediate negative impact on both of our economies regardless of what arrangements are in place. Therefore I feel it would be better to simply cut our losses. As we can see with the Eurozone, a currency union requires a political union to work properly, something that Scotland would have voted against. If our economy would be a one trick pony, why would you want to have anything to do with it? Like any nationalist, I don't think you would want a CU for altruistic purposes.

A fundamental point which the No side did not seem keen to recognise is that post-independence, the two countries would not develop a 38th parallel-level of non-interdependence. A recession in the rUK would have an effect upon an independent Scotland and vice-versa. If the actions of the rUK government precipitated economic turmoil in Scotland, that turmoil would have real effects south of the border. Acting in the self-interest of the rUK is therefore not at all incompatible with the necessity of acting in the interests of an independent Scotland as well.

As the saying goes, when America sneezes the world catches a cold. Your point simply highlights another negative aspect of Scottish independence, that a iScotland would be vulnerable to any economic issues in the rUK. Granted a blip in the iScottish economy would effect us, but not as much as a blip in our economy would effect iScotland. Likewise, bending over backwards to cater for the needs of another country is pretty unrealistic.

Also, the single and unequivocally best card up the sleeve of any post-Yes negotiating team for Scotland is that we are under no obligation to allow continued access to or use of Faslane and Coulport. It is a given that continued access would become part of any final settlement but if the rUK goes hardball, we can unilaterally force their complete nuclear disarmament. Even better, in the precedent of the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine received almost a third of the entire nuclear arsenal of the former USSR. These assets had been located in the country and despite Russia being the successor state in international circles, the final rights over these weapons remained with Ukraine. If Scotland votes Yes, there is no way for the rUK to stop independence happening without causing even greater political and economic strife, regardless of the outcome of negotiations. An independent Scotland would have no need nor desire to own such weapons, but the fact that we could argue rights for their possession (given that they are effectively a permanent asset in Scotland as is the Forth Bridge). To make the problem of losing control over these nukes even worse, the UK's warheads are not equipped with permissive action link devices, which are fitted to all US warheads and are designed to prevent any detonations without the approval of the Executive Office. Any warheads left in Scotland that would become property of the independent Scotland would therefore not be inert in the way that breakaway US states would find any warheads located within them would be.

Funnily enough, the only talk of hardball seems to be emanating from the nats. As ainsworth74 pointed out, it wouldn’t look good to other parties.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Again, the very fact that the SNP said they would need to negotiate EU membership undermines your argument, and will do every time. If automatic membership was assured, then there would be no need for any negotiation.

And that negotiation would be on the exact terms of the Scottish membership, rather than on the fundamental basis of whether Scotland should be in the EU or not. The starting position for those negotiations is the status quo.

In contrast to the Baltic states back in 1991, Scotland has a long established capitalist economy and if independence happened, I have no doubt the government would be keen to re-assure the financial markets that iScotland is still a reputable place to do business. Refusing to take on a share of the debt would shatter that image.

The same international precedent that says that a new state is not responsible for the debts of the state it seceded from says that non-permanent or foreign assets don't have to be shared either. If we get none of those assets, or their monetary value, there is no reason for us to accept the debt as well as that would enrichen the rUK and impoverish us, when the alternative is to ensure that both have as equal a balance as possible. I don't believe that the institution of the Bank of England is an asset in perpetuity, but what would be a very reasonable asset for both of us would be for the skills and assets of the BofE to be split. That means things like foreign currency reserves and assistance of their economists in setting up the new Scottish central bank/currency board/whatever. No one has an interest in the new independent Scotland not being able to adequately manage its finances. Also, my point about Faslane and Coulport comes back here because we are under no obligation to continue hosting your nuclear deterrent. If you are offering us the sum total of nothing, or forcing us to take the debt but give us no assets, then we are under no obligation to allow you to continue using the bases. This extends beyond what the SNP had planned, whereby the rUK would be able to use them for several years as it transitioned to an alternative deterrent system or none at all. We would be perfectly at rights to effectively extinguish the UK's nuclear deterrent forever by closing the bases and decommissioning the nukes - as with Ukraine, the non-successor state in which they are based has rights to them and at minimum we have around 10% of them. Unless we get the Green party in charge of Westminster, I can't see the prospect of such a thing being that enticing. Threatening to veto membership of the EU or UN isn't enough to stop us using the nuclear option since it is so wonderfully powerful. Remember that unnamed cabinet member who told the Guardian that 'of course there would be a currency union?' That's because they know the nuclear option is so powerful, and later in the article it was indeed said that 'they want a currency union, we want to keep Trident'. No satisfactory currency arrangement? No nuclear deterrent. Simples.

In the event of Scottish independence, it will have an immediate negative impact on both of our economies regardless of what arrangements are in place. Therefore I feel it would be better to simply cut our losses. As we can see with the Eurozone, a currency union requires a political union to work properly, something that Scotland would have voted against. If our economy would be a one trick pony, why would you want to have anything to do with it? Like any nationalist, I don't think you would want a CU for altruistic purposes.

'Cut our losses' meaning an active desire to not minimise damage to the economy as much as possible? That would be an entertaining thing for a government to advocate - "sorry newly-unemployed people, we wanted to tell those nasty Scots a lesson so we let both our economies go down the pan when we could have managed it just fine if hadn't we been so spectacularly inept". I would point out again that there have been and are plenty countries that peg their currency against that of a larger trading partner, including Denmark. I have no problem with a 1:1 peg between a Pound Scots and the Pound Sterling.

As the saying goes, when America sneezes the world catches a cold. Your point simply highlights another negative aspect of Scottish independence, that a iScotland would be vulnerable to any economic issues in the rUK. Granted a blip in the iScottish economy would effect us, but not as much as a blip in our economy would effect iScotland. Likewise, bending over backwards to cater for the needs of another country is pretty unrealistic.

Given that the current government is ecstatic when there are decimal point increases in economic growth I can't see them being particularly keen on allowing the economy to be any worse than it absolutely has to be.

Funnily enough, the only talk of hardball seems to be emanating from the nats. As ainsworth74 pointed out, it wouldn’t look good to other parties.

'Only seems to be emanating from the nats'? What about the threats from space? Or the immediate imposition of border controls? Or the threats of complete international exclusion? Or the threats that your entire economy is going to fail - we heard that back in 1997 and we've never been better.

 

[danielnez1]

And that negotiation would be on the exact terms of the Scottish membership, rather than on the fundamental basis of whether Scotland should be in the EU or not. The starting position for those negotiations is the status quo.

How do you know the starting position would be the status quo? You are making the mistake of dressing your own opinions as facts again.

The same international precedent that says that a new state is not responsible for the debts of the state it seceded from says that non-permanent or foreign assets don't have to be shared either. If we get none of those assets, or their monetary value, there is no reason for us to accept the debt as well as that would enrichen the rUK and impoverish us, when the alternative is to ensure that both have as equal a balance as possible. I don't believe that the institution of the Bank of England is an asset in perpetuity, but what would be a very reasonable asset for both of us would be for the skills and assets of the BofE to be split. That means things like foreign currency reserves and assistance of their economists in setting up the new Scottish central bank/currency board/whatever. No one has an interest in the new independent Scotland not being able to adequately manage its finances. Also, my point about Faslane and Coulport comes back here because we are under no obligation to continue hosting your nuclear deterrent. If you are offering us the sum total of nothing, or forcing us to take the debt but give us no assets, then we are under no obligation to allow you to continue using the bases. This extends beyond what the SNP had planned, whereby the rUK would be able to use them for several years as it transitioned to an alternative deterrent system or none at all. We would be perfectly at rights to effectively extinguish the UK's nuclear deterrent forever by closing the bases and decommissioning the nukes - as with Ukraine, the non-successor state in which they are based has rights to them and at minimum we have around 10% of them. Unless we get the Green party in charge of Westminster, I can't see the prospect of such a thing being that enticing. Threatening to veto membership of the EU or UN isn't enough to stop us using the nuclear option since it is so wonderfully powerful. Remember that unnamed cabinet member who told the Guardian that 'of course there would be a currency union?' That's because they know the nuclear option is so powerful, and later in the article it was indeed said that 'they want a currency union, we want to keep Trident'. No satisfactory currency arrangement? No nuclear deterrent. Simples.

At no point have I, nor would anyone with a rational view point want to deprive a iScotland of any assets, however the petulant attitude of the SNP and their followers does not strike me as acting in good faith, and unless their tone changed I don't see how they could be in a strong negotiating position. You may have a "nuclear option" however we could bite back far harder - hypothetically of course. What's good to give is good to take.

'Cut our losses' meaning an active desire to not minimise damage to the economy as much as possible? That would be an entertaining thing for a government to advocate - "sorry newly-unemployed people, we wanted to tell those nasty Scots a lesson so we let both our economies go down the pan when we could have managed it just fine if hadn't we been so spectacularly inept". I would point out again that there have been and are plenty countries that peg their currency against that of a larger trading partner, including Denmark. I have no problem with a 1:1 peg between a Pound Scots and the Pound Sterling.

Given that the current government is ecstatic when there are decimal point increases in economic growth I can't see them being particularly keen on allowing the economy to be any worse than it absolutely has to be.

My point is that in the event of Scottish independence, it would cause massive economic turmoil for both of us. Look at how the value of the pound slumped when one of the polls showed a yes lead. Since a period of financial ciaos would probably be inevitable, it would be an opportunity to "bite the bullet" and cut those economic ties, which is a pretty big point of being independent from us.

'Only seems to be emanating from the nats'? What about the threats from space? Or the immediate imposition of border controls? Or the threats of complete international exclusion? Or the threats that your entire economy is going to fail - we heard that back in 1997 and we've never been better.

Well what about the "dark star" jibes, discrimination against rUK students etc.? If we are such a morally, politically corrupt economic basket case, why on earth would the SNP want to keep so much of the Union? If we were that bad, then I'd sure you would rejoice if a border went up. Likewise you can't have your cake and eat it, independence should mean independence, warts and all. Until you face up to that, and be honest about what what consequences could be, you are simply acting delusional at best, and grossly dishonest at worst.

 

[muz379]

As I said, for each of the Yes side's positions there were impartial academics who supported them.

Was Sir David Edwards being impartial when he suggested the plan to carry on charging UK students would be illegal . Or was he speaking out of turn because he had not been invited to by Salmond on that occasion .

Using the "I have loads of academics that will support my position" argument is a bit of a lazy argument because there would have been lots of academics on both sides . Arguably though none of them impartial . There would have also been some truly impartial academics and journalists who pointed out the snares in both sides .

You may be leaving an EU member state but you are not stripping yourselves of the rights of EU membership. The EU affords special rights directly to individuals and businesses within itself that are inalienable, other than by that population officially declaring that it would give up those rights.

This is why I personally think A long time would have had to pass between the yes vote in the referendum and Scotland actually being independent . Because of all of the negotiations that where going to have to take place,particularly within the EU . I reckon it would have been years after a yes vote before Scotland actually became independent . But then I know you are not silly enough to think Scotland would have woken up the day after polling and declared independence . That process just like the process of further devolution for Scotland would have had years in it .

I like you dont believe that the inalienable rights of these EU citizens would have allowed to have been disposed off quite so easily , although the legal situation is unclear and so we could also be wrong on this .

Interestingly the provision for voluntary withdrawal from the EU is actually relatively new Prior to the Lisbon treaty there was no provision for a state to voluntarily withdraw from the EU ,under the Vienna convention the only way member states could have left was through a voluntary agreement between all members states or if the nature of the beast had changed drastically .

This shows how new the right of citizens to relinquish their rights gained through EU citizenship is , and I have no doubt that the situation had Scotland voted independent would have set entirely new precedent

Given how intertwined the rights of EU citizens are with the domestic law of the whole of the UK . And given that the UK government is currently the body responsible for ensuring that the rights of all UK citizens gained under the EU are respected I dont think that the Uk government would have constitutionally been able to allow Scotland to declare independence until a settlement had been reached and any EU treaty amendments been agreed and made to allow for the new Scottish citizens to have seamless transfer from UK gov to new Scots gov of their EU rights .


Given how long ratifying treaty amendments can take in some member states , not to mention the proposition that some member states may have vetoed on the principle that they do not want to encourage similar independence agendas in their own countries this is where I believe the timing snag would have come about in the process of actually legislating for independence .

 

[NotATrainspott]

How do you know the starting position would be the status quo? You are making the mistake of dressing your own opinions as facts again.

I would not say these are as much 'opinions' as 'assertions', and those assertions are not simply plucked out of midair but come as the result of a series of deductions based upon unequivocal facts. If you want to challenge this assertion, you have to challenge the logic that goes behind it, and the facts that back this up.

My argument for the base case being that the base case for Scotland would be to retain its European Union membership comes from the following:

• There has never been a direct precedent, and thus we must infer what would happen based upon other precedents. As there is no precedent, there is also no precedent to say that it would not be allowed, and what is not forbidden tends to be allowed by default.
• The European Union overtly does not have a problem with legal and recognised separatist movements. It has accepted the Baltic countries in 2004, only twelve or so years after becoming independent from the Soviet Union without its initial co-operation. It has allowed Slovenia and Croatia, both members of the former Yugoslavia, to join as well, and it is engaged in negotiations with Montenegro, the latest fully-recognised independent state in Europe, for its eventual accession.
• The basis of the European Union is that Europe would be a place of peace and democracy. Scottish independence would fulfil both of these perfectly - the most peaceful separatist movement in history achieved through pure democracy.
• The European Union affords special rights to the citizens of its member states that makes it not just an international organisation but a pseudo-sovereign supranational state, with its own judiciary, foreign representation, currency (in some countries, but the organisation does account in Euros) and direct elections for its own Parliament. As citizens of the European Union, you have a level of rights in other member states that makes you a quasi-citizen of them by default. These rights have never been removed from the citizens of any state in the current form of the EU as that supranational quasi-state - Algeria and Greenland left well before the EU developed to the state in which it is at the moment.
• On the day of independence, the same people, businesses and institutions will exist in Europe as the day before, with the only real difference being that the Scottish Parliament will be fully sovereign and able to change any law it has the support of its people to do so. Until such time as it changes a law, the laws of the UK will still apply. In the Republic of Ireland, UK law is still applied where it has not been amended, repealed or replaced by the Oireachtas.
• The situation has never arisen that a state has been ejected from the EU without its consent, and the only situation in which that is currently legal would be for that country to abandon the various declarations of human rights. Scotland becoming an independent country would unequivocally not cause any problems for human rights, thus there is no justification for it, its institutions, people and economy, being expelled from the European Union.
• The EU is based upon the idea that the whole of Europe should be united together to advance common interests and goals, regardless of the individual state borders. Had Scotland never joined England in the Act of Union, or it had gained independence before 1973, it would have been more than welcome to join the EU as well.
• From a pure logistical perspective, uninterrupted EU membership requires no difficulty on the part of any individual person or business that uses their EU rights. Not allowing continued membership would cause unnecessary headaches for hundreds of thousands of people and for billions of pounds worth of economic activity, and in the current economic climate neither of these would be a good idea. If Scotland were always to be allowed in the EU anyway, it is nonsensical to force it to leave for a few years before re-entering for this reason. The only alternative would be for Scotland to be an EU member in all but name, beyond the status of Norway or other EEA members, which then raises the question of why you don't just make it even simpler for the whole Union and just let them in anyway.

If you want to challenge individual points like these then that's fine but simply criticising me for putting forward a position, because all opinions must be irrelevant, is not particularly ideal.

At no point have I, nor would anyone with a rational view point want to deprive a iScotland of any assets, however the petulant attitude of the SNP and their followers does not strike me as acting in good faith, and unless their tone changed I don't see how they could be in a strong negotiating position. You may have a "nuclear option" however we could bite back far harder - hypothetically of course. What's good to give is good to take.

I cannot see how itis petulant to say that we could do such things when the No side clearly did not seem interested in good faith when saying they would put up border controls for no appreciable reason other than to cause fear.

How are you going to bite back harder? The harder you bite, the more likely we are to castrate you by dismantling your nukes. If you want everything to go down the pan, and for mutual assured destruction (of the figurative kind) to happen, then by all means continue but you wouldn't be winning. The least bad option is to look at things properly and engage in negotiations in full faith as well, with both parties ignoring the precise nature of what they said in the campaigns to ensure the best possible outcome for both parties. Anything less would cause us both damage, and that is not good for either of us.

My point is that in the event of Scottish independence, it would cause massive economic turmoil for both of us. Look at how the value of the pound slumped when one of the polls showed a yes lead. Since a period of financial ciaos would probably be inevitable, it would be an opportunity to "bite the bullet" and cut those economic ties, which is a pretty big point of being independent from us.

Your position seems to be that countries cannot be independent when strong economic links exist between the two of them. You are correct that no country, other than North and South Korea, can be truly independent of one another when they trade but your point could be extended to mean that Canada is not truly independent of the United States. Unlike the Commonwealth, where we left New Zealand et al to find their own trading partners, Scotland and the rUK could not diverge so much because their geographic closeness and similarity of markets means there will always be an enormous amount of trade between them.

Well what about the "dark star" jibes, discrimination against rUK students etc.? If we are such a morally, politically corrupt economic basket case, why on earth would the SNP want to keep so much of the Union? If we were that bad, then I'd sure you would rejoice if a border went up. Likewise you can't have your cake and eat it, independence should mean independence, warts and all. Until you face up to that, and be honest about what what consequences could be, you are simply acting delusional at best, and grossly dishonest at worst.

One of the things that would be most interesting after a Yes vote would be to see whether the rUK political establishment would be able to survive. Given that they had just lost the only battle that the entire establishment had fought together, I cannot see any voter trusting them any longer - especially if they then had to admit that a lot of what they said in the campaign was complete rubbish. Many Yes voters, myself included, hoped that a Yes outcome would trigger a political earthquake large enough to destroy the current establishment and from the ruins, the rUK would be able to adopt the sort of less bad establishment that made people confident to vote Yes in Scotland. That would mean electoral and House of Lords reform, of the sort never seen before in this country. In that case, the rUK would not be the 'cesspool' it is at the moment, and thus there is no problem in dealing with it. Even if it did not change significantly, the only thing that really causes problems is that political part and from a social, economic and geographic perspective it would be inevitable that we would have to share much of the existing Union. For example, Scottish car buyers would still buy UK-model cars with RHD and miles/hour on the speedometer.

Was Sir David Edwards being impartial when he suggested the plan to carry on charging UK students would be illegal . Or was he speaking out of turn because he had not been invited to by Salmond on that occasion .

Using the "I have loads of academics that will support my position" argument is a bit of a lazy argument because there would have been lots of academics on both sides . Arguably though none of them impartial . There would have also been some truly impartial academics and journalists who pointed out the snares in both sides .

My point was not that the presence of 'independent academics' on the Yes or No side made their points more valid. Instead, it is when there is an absence of them that is notable, and where that was most obvious was on the future constitutional settlement part after a No vote. No academic would stand up and say that they believed the UK political establishment would fulfil all its promises and work together to form the best possible outcome even if it caused them electoral pain because a moderately-educated layman could look at the current situation and say that the parties were going to bungle the whole thing. The only people who said they believed that they would be able to fulfil these promises were the people making these promises.

This is why I personally think A long time would have had to pass between the yes vote in the referendum and Scotland actually being independent . Because of all of the negotiations that where going to have to take place,particularly within the EU . I reckon it would have been years after a yes vote before Scotland actually became independent . But then I know you are not silly enough to think Scotland would have woken up the day after polling and declared independence . That process just like the process of further devolution for Scotland would have had years in it .

On one hand, as soon as there is a Yes vote there is a crisis of legitimacy for the UK government to continue legislating for Scotland. In the event of that vote, I would imagine they would seek legislative consent motions from Holyrood on any important matters during the negotiation period in order to put these decisions' legitimacy beyond doubt. On the other hand, there is that need for the negotiations not to be be rushed, but it would be possible to deliver sovereignty before dealing with all issues. Dealing with all issues would take decades, as you would have to work out such minutae as whether Scotland or the rUK owns a specific painting in the National Collection. That sort of thing can be dealt with later, once it is either crucial or there is nothing else to do.

The Scottish Government believed that independence would take around 18 months to deliver. Some people did speculate that a very rough-and-ready solution could be done before the 2015 general election, in order to avoid the West-Lothian-Question-On-Steroids. Given that I argue things like EU membership would not be as difficult to agree as other people claim, I believe the 18 months is not implausible but obviously it would still leave some minor issues left unsettled until later.

I like you dont believe that the inalienable rights of these EU citizens would have allowed to have been disposed off quite so easily , although the legal situation is unclear and so we could also be wrong on this .

Precisely. People like to say things about it being difficult for Scotland to be a member but they then do not compare this to the difficulty of Scotland not being a member. If letting Scotland remain a member is less awkward for the whole EU, that option will be taken. One of the major criticisms of the media during this campaign was their unwillingness to actually probe and argue about what people like Jose Manuel Barroso have said. Instead, their idea of balance and fairness is just to report the event and quote from both campaigns on that event, without actually considering the factual or logical content of anything that just happened.

Interestingly the provision for voluntary withdrawal from the EU is actually relatively new Prior to the Lisbon treaty there was no provision for a state to voluntarily withdraw from the EU ,under the Vienna convention the only way member states could have left was through a voluntary agreement between all members states or if the nature of the beast had changed drastically .

This shows how new the right of citizens to relinquish their rights gained through EU citizenship is , and I have no doubt that the situation had Scotland voted independent would have set entirely new precedent

The interesting problem here is that Scotland wants to have EU membership and people are saying that membership would be denied. If Scottish law said that it was a member of the EU, despite the EU not seeing Scotland as a member, what exactly happens? Such a thing has never happened before.

Given how intertwined the rights of EU citizens are with the domestic law of the whole of the UK . And given that the UK government is currently the body responsible for ensuring that the rights of all UK citizens gained under the EU are respected I dont think that the Uk government would have constitutionally been able to allow Scotland to declare independence until a settlement had been reached and any EU treaty amendments been agreed and made to allow for the new Scottish citizens to have seamless transfer from UK gov to new Scots gov of their EU rights .

Precisely. Scotland would not become independent until it was ready.

Given how long ratifying treaty amendments can take in some member states , not to mention the proposition that some member states may have vetoed on the principle that they do not want to encourage similar independence agendas in their own countries this is where I believe the timing snag would have come about in the process of actually legislating for independence .

However, the point I have been making (ad nauseum) is that the act of Scotland becoming an independent country within the EU does nothing for the other countries, other than setting a precedent for the situation after a legal referendum. If those countries' constitutions prohibit such a referendum, that precedent would never be able to be followed unless their constitution was amended to allow it. The Spanish constitutional court is not going to allow the Catalan referendum because Scotland voted Yes. Indeed, if any court were going to take notice this would already have happened given that the UK agreed to allow a referendum that would have resulted in Scotland legally becoming independent.