Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

planteria

black_taxi wrote: »

but wouldn't England,Wales,n Ireland be a diff country if Scotland said yes,so they would have to reapply to EU.

no. Scotland would leave the UK and EU. the UK would remain within the EU. unfortunately.

planteria

Buzby wrote: »

It may be, but for many being 'emotional' is worth the new dawn it will bring. After all, how worse could it get? As foreign tourists flock in, many see it as a separate country anyway - only those from down South will see it as one of the colonies....

:laugh: this is great..

planteria

lvader wrote: »

How do you think the rest of Europe will feel if the UK votes to leave the EU?

they would be very disappointed as they want our continued stream of money to continue streaming their way. but they will be pleased to then be able to crack on towards fiscal and political union without the UK fly in their soup.

planteria

sniffles wrote: »

All the points of view are worthless. The SILENT majority of Scots will get rid of the fat dictator.
The UK is too small to dissect, and we all love our country, Great Britain.. I think that is what my Dad fought for.
Vote No.

i agree, the "No"s will have it. but i hope very much that they vote "Yes".

TCA

TCA wrote: »

What is good is that the independence debate is forcing the unionists to look at ways to improve existing devolution. So there may be the odd good thing resulting from a No vote. At least I'd hope they'd be offering something more than the status quo come September.

And right on cue: "Scottish government to receive powers to issue finance bonds"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26245684

planteria wrote: »

but by persisting with a plan that clearly can't work he makes a fool of himself. whether he makes some people in Scotland think that George Osborne is "unreasonable" in the process, well.. does it matter, to anyone?

Yes it does. Salmond is being seen in Scotland to go for the pound, which is the most popular option favoured by the Scottish electorate. It might not even be the SNP's favoured option but if they can be seen going for it, only to be slapped down by Westminster, then they have but tried to obtain the will of the Scottish people. Whether people in rUK, like yourself, think Salmond is making a fool himself for pursuing the impossible, matters not. I would doubt he'd keep flogging the dead horse for the duration.

jamesd wrote: »

Or maybe as a political gambit to let their opponent dig a hole. Or maybe things just take time and they were doing other things. Apparently Scottish voters like the Pound and it was seen as desirable to promise that the Pound would be kept, as a way of increasing the chance of a yes vote.

I tend to think the Westminster parties played their political gambit last week and hadn't thought it through before or they'd have ruled out the currency union earlier. It's still probably a good move because it means the SNP will need to offer a plan B, but as said before, the manner in which Osborne and co acted wasn't appreciated and it does appear tactical when for months they used language like "unlikely" or "improbable", then suddenly it's ruled out completely.

innovate

planteria wrote: »

they would be very disappointed as they want our continued stream of money to continue streaming their way. but they will be pleased to then be able to crack on towards fiscal and political union without the UK fly in their soup.

That's a very one-sided and shortsighted view. Britain's net contribution to the EU by GNI is less than Britain's overseas aid budget by GNI, and there are many compelling advantages of EU membership (e.g. free trade, free movement).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/mar/20/uk-aid-spend-important-works

Many EU countries would be as happy to say good riddance to the UK as you would be with Scotland leaving the UK. They wouldn't lose much sleep over the missing UK contribution since they would just take the hit once and move on, probably making more from trading with the UK than the UK contributions would be.

Anyway, this is a debate for another day, and another thread.

dunstonh

planteria wrote: »

but by persisting with a plan that clearly can't work he makes a fool of himself. whether he makes some people in Scotland think that George Osborne is "unreasonable" in the process, well.. does it matter, to anyone? AS is trying to argue a point about which there is no argument. he's wrong, and it's obvious to anyone with the ability and willingness to understand.

It does seem that the Nats, in particular Nicola Sturgeon, answer to every issue is to revert to playground behaviour and slag off the person rather than actually answer the issue.

George Osborne, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Jos! Manuel Barroso have all raised possible blockers/issues and rather than answer those issues, they have been attacked personally. That is no way to run a country.

TCA

dunstonh wrote: »

George Osborne, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Jos! Manuel Barroso have all raised possible blockers/issues and rather than answer those issues, they have been attacked personally.

Everyone is entitled to voice their opinions and that's all they are on certain topics, especially the EU. The problem is independence (if voted through) will be subject to lengthy negotiations with both the UK government and the EU, so they are many imponderables that cannot be answered by anybody and that's a difficulty for the SNP to deal with. Although the UK government could seek official guidance from the EU on Scotland's potential membership but chooses not to. Instead it just raises all these blockers that you mention.

Personal attacks are obviously not necessary but on the subject of pensions, the SNP White Paper is very clear, that's why interventions by the likes of Gordon Brown are not appreciated. Given his control of public finances, I think the SNP are quite entitled to point out that advice coming from him is pretty rich. He had his chance.

Marazan

dunstonh wrote: »

George Osborne, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Jos! Manuel Barroso have all raised possible blockers/issues and rather than answer those issues, they have been attacked personally. That is no way to run a country.

Almost every single issue to do with Scottish membership of the EU would be cleared up if the British government was to write to the European Commission to ask for a formal opinion on the matter.

The SNP cannot ask, only the UK Government. It's almost as if the UK government has a deliberate policy of keeping the situation unclear.

http://www.scotreferendum.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CAB08_0122142752_001.pdf

CLAPTON

Marazan wrote: »

Almost every single issue to do with Scottish membership of the EU would be cleared up if the British government was to write to the European Commission to ask for a formal opinion on the matter.

The SNP cannot ask, only the UK Government. It's almost as if the UK government has a deliberate policy of keeping the situation unclear.

http://www.scotreferendum.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CAB08_0122142752_001.pdf

another fantasy as to why every problem is some-one else's fault.

the formal view of the EU is as unlikely to clear up the issues as asking Alex or Nicola a question

it would probably comprise what we know: that Scotland would have to apply and meet the know conditions and then the member states would have to agree etc etc.

how would that move you forward?