One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.

[Jaggernaut]

I have no claims or arguments. All I want is for Scotland to be recognised as a legitimate country in the world. I do not want to see it for evermore considered as nothing more than a region of greater England, because I do not identify with greater England's ambitions and priorities.

[kni]

I have no claims or arguments. All I want is for Scotland to be recognised as a legitimate country in the world. I do not want to see it for evermore considered as nothing more than a region of greater England, because I do not identify with greater England's ambitions and priorities.

 

We agree on that at least.

[Guy Incognito]

The white paper is only what the SNP would like to happen. It is not what would happen.

 

So many issues within it are not in the SNP's hands - currency, EU, citizenship and so on. Many others have to be negotiated first. There is a lot of presumption.

 

Who knows what government would be formed post-independence. Labour? SNP? A coalition? The white paper assumes it will be another majority SNP government.Who knows what policies any other governmant would want and negotiate with the rUK?

 

That is what worries me about this being a blind vote.

 

 

The SNP may cry foul play on key issues. Of course, Scotland should automatically become an EU member state. I actiually agree that it would be "an affront to demoncracy." However, we are talking about international politics. It is not always nice and cuddly, self-interest rules...

 

For some people, independence is the only thing that matters. I respect that. Others will not be moved from the status quo. Fair enough.

 

There have been many searching posts here recently. A lot of the content of which sums up the wider public - we still need more information to make a balanced, informed decision on this.

 

Yes, I understand that. Other pro-independence parties such as the Greens and the SSP have also produced white papers on inde. The SNP's white paper is simply an illustration of what things could be like. That is only to be expected since they are the incumbent government.

 

You are right, they might not form the first post-independence government. That is something that unionists often fail to realise (or pretend to fail to realise). However, if we vote for independence then the SNP will be the ones doing the initial negotiating, so their white paper is anything but insignificant.

 

To some extent it is a 'blind vote'. But is life not full of 'blind' choices? When you emigrated to Germany, was there not an element of uncertainty there? If everyone went through life only doing what we were certain of then no one would get out of bed in the morning!

 

Aye, more info would be useful, but there are limits on how much information it is possible to provide. It is impossible for either side to predict what the future might be like. I have heard the 'better the devil you know' argument and it too is a 'blind' one, because at the moment we don't know what is around the corner even if we stay put. We can hazard a guess at which way the wind is blowing though, and I for one want out.

 

Citizens of a Member State cease to be citizens of the EU if that Member State leaves the European Union. The mechanism for leaving is set out in detail in the Lisbon Treaty. Scotland, by leaving the United Kingdom, would cease to be in the EU because its citizens had voted to leave the Member State. The citizens of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would remain in the United Kingdom and bound by the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.

 

You claim that Scots who are living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are going to be made illegal aliens in the rUK. That is not true. They are citizens of the United Kingdom with EU passports and their country of birth is irrelevant. They are in the same position as those who were born in outside the UK but who now have UK citizenship. The same principle applies to Scots with British cItizenship who are living in other EU countries. The SNP have disenfranchised them from the referendum.

 

In practice, having left the EU, Scotland would need to create its own citizenship scheme and issue new Scottish passports. Citizens of other EU Member States who are resident in Scotland would simply have to apply for visas like any non-Scottish citizen, e.g. Americans, Canadians and Australians. EU citizens living in Scotland (even for a few months only), unlike Scots living in rUK and abroad, do have a vote in the referendum.

 

Scots who are living in other countries would have to apply for Scottish citizenship, possibly having dual nationality. I have friends who have dual nationality, i.e. Britain and another country, e.g. the US and Israel. It is a perfectly reasonable solution legally and practically.

 

On the issue of borders, an independent Scotland could enter into a separate agreements with the rUK and the EU. Norway and Switzerland, not in the EU, joined the Schengen Area and has no border controls. Scotland could join the Schengen Area too even though Britain is not currently a member.

 

Hope this is clear.

 

Scotland isn't voting on leave the EU though, it is voting on whether or not to leave the UK. I still hold an EU passport, how can that suddenly become null and void overnight (outwith expiry)?

 

Yes, there are all sorts of laws that Scotland could pass to mitigate the scenario you describe. But there is no guarantee that the government of the day would be minded to do so, not after having been spurned by the EU.

 

Also, you have neglected to mention the elephant in the room, namely the referendum on EU membership proposed by the Tories. Again, there are citizenship laws for Scots that could be passed by Westminster in the event of their voting to leave the EU (England loves the wee stream of educated and talented Scots that trickles southwards year after year, although it is often loathe to admit as much). But England increasingly looks like a country weary of immigration. So while slightly far fetched, that particular scenario isn't quite as cut and dried as you make out.

 

The whole thing can be as complicated or as straightforward as we want it to be, and we can bat possible scenarios back and forth from here until September 18th. The bit that really isn't clear to me, though, is why we would be turned away. Why on earth would the EU turn away a country that has, in effect, been a member for decades, especially one with Scotland's resources and one which other EU states have enjoyed the benefits of for so long?

 

To be honest, I am pretty easy-oasy about the EU; it has its pros and it has its cons and it maybe is a debate that is worth having. Bit most of all I just want Scotland, once again, to have it in its power to make its own decisions. I don't understand why some people find that concept so unpalatable.

[kni]

Scotland isn't voting on leave the EU though, it is voting on whether or not to leave the UK. I still hold an EU passport, how can that suddenly become null and void overnight (outwith expiry)?

 

Yes, there are all sorts of laws that Scotland could pass to mitigate the scenario you describe. But there is no guarantee that the government of the day would be minded to do so, not after having been spurned by the EU.

 

Also, you have neglected to mention the elephant in the room, namely the referendum on EU membership proposed by the Tories. Again, there are citizenship laws for Scots that could be passed by Westminster in the event of their voting to leave the EU (England loves the wee stream of educated and talented Scots that trickles southwards year after year, although it is often loathe to admit as much). But England increasingly looks like a country weary of immigration. So while slightly far fetched, that particular scenario isn't quite as cut and dried as you make out.

 

The whole thing can be as complicated or as straightforward as we want it to be, and we can bat possible scenarios back and forth from here until September 18th. The bit that really isn't clear to me, though, is why we would be turned away. Why on earth would the EU turn away a country that has, in effect, been a member for decades, especially one with Scotland's resources and one which other EU states have enjoyed the benefits of for so long?

 

To be honest, I am pretty easy-oasy about the EU; it has its pros and it has its cons and it maybe is a debate that is worth having. Bit most of all I just want Scotland, once again, to have it in its power to make its own decisions. I don't understand why some people find that concept so unpalatable.

 

If any Member States withdraws from the EU, its citizens are no citizens of the EU. Their EU passports would therefore null and void and they would be need to be issued with new passports. That would be the case if rUK withdraws from the EU after Cameron's proposed referendum.

 

It is possible that both an independent Scotland and rUK could be separate states outside the EU within 3 to 4 years. If so, Scots wishing to work and living in rUK would treated in the same way as citizens of other countries. Presumably, an independent Scotland would apply the same principles to citizens in rUK who wish to work and live in Scotland.

 

To answer the point in your last paragraph, the EU would appear to value Catalonia more highly than Scotland. Spain has made its position on Scottish independence very clear. If part of a Member State becomes independent it would be left out of the European Union, and it would be good for citizens (in the EU) and Scots to know that. EU entry would (then) need to be approved by all 28 member states.”

 

Of course, the importance of the growing Flemish independence parties should not be under-stated. The Flemish population (60%) generates about 70% of GDP and 80% of exports. Recent opinion polls indicate 43% of the Flemish population supports independence.

 

The President of the European Council (where the real power lies) is a former Belgian Prime Minister, Herman Van Rumpuy. Brussels is a mainly a French speaking city in Flanders. There is a crucial general election in Belgium this year as well as the European Parliamentary elections.

 

Do you honestly think that the EU, especially President Van Rumpuy, will allow Scotland set a precedent by seceding and remaining in the EU? It would enable for an independent Catalonia and an independent Flanders to secede and join the EU too. The economic and political consequences for Spain and Belgium (the Walloonian rump) would be disastrous.

 

There are huge amounts of political and economic capital at stake in this European poker game. Scotland is the poorest and weakest player with a rotten hand. Salmond has put all his chips in the pot at the wrong time.

Edited February 20, 2014 by kni

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

The campaigning from both sides is patronising forecasting of a style we have become dangerously accepting of from the objectionable parasitic professional polititians that worm their way to power and large salaries.

 

THIS IS NOT A GENERAL ELECTION. Do not get blinded by the worthless manifestos of these bums. Their policies count for less than they normally do on this SINGLE ISSUE REFERENDUM.

 

You have your whole lives' experience to decide whether or not you think it is better to stick or twist. Think long and seriously and make a personal choice. These celebrity peddlers of utopian rhetoric will be long gone, lying in lavish graves you paid for, by the time the real consequences of their desires materialize.

 

My vote will remain between me and the ballot box.

 

[kni]

My vote will remain between me and the ballot box.

 

 

^ Your vote should go in the ballot box.

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

^ Your vote should go in the ballot box.

 

Simply put, that's my point. Thanks.

[Guy Incognito]

If any Member States withdraws from the EU, its citizens are no citizens of the EU. Their EU passports would therefore null and void and they would be need to be issued with new passports. That would be the case if rUK withdraws from the EU after Cameron's proposed referendum.

 

It is possible that both an independent Scotland and rUK could be separate states outside the EU within 3 to 4 years. If so, Scots wishing to work and living in rUK would treated in the same way as citizens of other countries. Presumably, an independent Scotland would apply the same principles to citizens in rUK who wish to work and live in Scotland.

 

To answer the point in your last paragraph, the EU would appear to value Catalonia more highly than Scotland. Spain has made its position on Scottish independence very clear. If part of a Member State becomes independent it would be left out of the European Union, and it would be good for citizens (in the EU) and Scots to know that. EU entry would (then) need to be approved by all 28 member states.”

 

Of course, the importance of the growing Flemish independence parties should not be under-stated. The Flemish population (60%) generates about 70% of GDP and 80% of exports. Recent opinion polls indicate 43% of the Flemish population supports independence.

 

The President of the European Council (where the real power lies) is a former Belgian Prime Minister, Herman Van Rumpuy. Brussels is a mainly a French speaking city in Flanders. There is a crucial general election in Belgium this year as well as the European Parliamentary elections.

 

Do you honestly think that the EU, especially President Van Rumpuy, will allow Scotland set a precedent by seceding and remaining in the EU? It would enable for an independent Catalonia and an independent Flanders to secede and join the EU too. The economic and political consequences for Spain and Belgium (the Walloonian rump) would be disastrous.

 

There are huge amounts of political and economic capital at stake in this European poker game. Scotland is the poorest and weakest player with a rotten hand. Salmond has put all his chips in the pot at the wrong time.

 

I suppose it all depends on what matters more to them: a strong EU or keeping Belgium or Spain together. And Scotland has a lot to offer the EU, as it does other unions. Neither the EU nor the Belgian or Spanish governments have voiced official opinions on Scotland's position yet, which is interesting. Also, as far as I am aware neither Catalonia nor Flanders plan to hold independence referendums any time soon (okay, Catalonia is but I don't think it is an 'official' one).

 

I don't doubt that there is and will continue to be plenty of political machinations going on both in public and in private. But I am not going to let the threats of politicians, concealed or veiled, affect the way I choose to vote. Actually, that's not true. The threats of certain politicians have actually hardened my stance.

 

Like I said, I am quite easy-oasy about the EU thing. I like the concepts of trading easily with our near neighbours and of free movement between countries. On the other hand, if we weren't in the EU it would at least answer the 'question' of higher education tuition fees and hopefully see a cull of those f*cking awful tapas restaurants that seem to be springing up left right and centre.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Guy Incognito

[kni]

"I like the concepts of trading easily with our near neighbours and of free movement between countries."

 

Norway and Switzerland, as EFTA countries in the Single Market and Schengen signatories, have those benefits even though they are not members of the EU.

[Granville Island]

Given the intervention from little Gideon Osbourne has led to an increase in the Yes vote, I wonder what Project Fear has up its sleeves for us next. Will they stick with Capt Darling - the financial wizard who brought every family in Scotland the largest sovereign debt in Europe? - under the Union!! Will they dream up some other horror stories? - earthquakes, flooding etc etc

[jaggybunnet]

Given the intervention from little Gideon Osbourne has led to an increase in the Yes vote, I wonder what Project Fear has up its sleeves for us next. Will they stick with Capt Darling - the financial wizard who brought every family in Scotland the largest sovereign debt in Europe? - under the Union!! Will they dream up some other horror stories? - earthquakes, flooding etc etc

 

think it may have actually been the other way and confirmed that eck wont get everything he wants as the more sensible knew would happen. the yes have lost out on two very important factors with more to come no doubt.

[Guy Incognito]

"I like the concepts of trading easily with our near neighbours and of free movement between countries."

 

Norway and Switzerland, as EFTA countries in the Single Market and Schengen signatories, have those benefits even though they are not members of the EU.

 

And they are not bad countries to try and emulate. Seemingly EFTA is a lot more straightforward to join than the EU too.

[kni]

Given the intervention from little Gideon Osbourne has led to an increase in the Yes vote, I wonder what Project Fear has up its sleeves for us next. Will they stick with Capt Darling - the financial wizard who brought every family in Scotland the largest sovereign debt in Europe? - under the Union!! Will they dream up some other horror stories? - earthquakes, flooding etc etc

 

There is increase in any vote yet, just voting intentions and they can change very quickly. The real battle will take place in August and September, especially during the party conference season when the independence debate will dominate the headlines. Only then will both campaigns bring out the "heavy artillery" etc. It's likely that lots of "big name" celebrities will be used by both campaigns towards the end of the campaign. Voters are more interested in listening to them than politicians that, by the, they will fed up with. The European elections in June could become a pre-referendum referendum.

 

The Belgian general (federal) and regional elections are on 20th July. After the last general election, Belgium did not have a government for around 18 months. The Flemish nationalists are expected to make big gains. The Catalan independence referendum is planned for 9th November even though the Spanish government wants to stop it. It's hard to under-state the importance of the Scottish referendum. If Scotland secedes, other independence parties and movements could gain momentum. There will be more intervention from Brussels and other European politicians over the next few months. The campaign will get very rough as the stakes are very high.

[Guy Incognito]

Given the intervention from little Gideon Osbourne has led to an increase in the Yes vote, I wonder what Project Fear has up its sleeves for us next. Will they stick with Capt Darling - the financial wizard who brought every family in Scotland the largest sovereign debt in Europe? - under the Union!! Will they dream up some other horror stories? - earthquakes, flooding etc etc

 

The UK cabinet's wee sojourn to Aberdeen this coming week will be interesting. I am still trying to work out how they will play it. They have done scary not too long ago so maybe this time they will try detonating a wee lovebomb or two. Or they might even present us with a clear, positive vision of Scotland in the UK following a No vote. Nah, sorry, now I am being silly.

 

There was a poll carried out in the wake of Gideon's sermon on the pound the other week which yielded some interesting results.

 

[kni]

^ That chart basically says that Osborne's statement has had vitally no impact on overall voting intentions.

[Jaggernaut]

^ That chart basically says that Osborne's statement has had vitally no impact on overall voting intentions.

 

Maybe right. But I'd guess that Cameron's oil-related gaffs today will have had some impact.

[kni]

Maybe right. But I'd guess that Cameron's oil-related gaffs today will have had some impact.

 

Not maybe right, absolute fact. Firstly, there is nothing of any significance in that poll. Anyone with a basic grasp of statistics , polling or market research would know that.

 

Secondly, the source is ScotPulse launched by STV two years ago. It appears to be a self-selecting, not random, sample so the standard error could be higher than the usual 3%. Its website has no information on weighting methodology, the key factor in assessing the quality of its results.

 

Unfortunately, new pollsters have a habit of skewing results to suit their own agendas or those of their clients. I have had to rewrite pollsters' (the Big 6) questions to eliminate bias, such is the poor quality of their staff who often have no relevant professional qualifications or experience.

 

`Thirdly, I am no fan of David Cameron, to put it mildly, but it's too early to assess the impact of today's events. Your SNP loyalty is clearly affecting your perception of events. Btw, it's gaffes, not gaffs.

Edited February 24, 2014 by kni

[yoda-jag]

cameron battered by ponsonby on scotland tonight, annabel goldie trounced by fiona hislop (and the three quizmasters) on newsnight scotland.

 

not a good day for the bitter together project fearites

Edited February 25, 2014 by yoda-jag

[Jaggernaut]

Your SNP loyalty is clearly affecting your perception of events. Btw, it's gaffes, not gaffs.

 

No shit, Sherlock!

 

Cheers for the spelling correction; it's probably the first time I've ever tried to type the word!

 

ETA: I have never been nor will be an SNP member. I've voted for other parties in the past, and almost certainly will in the future, but the SNP gets my unreserved backing until we achieve independence once again.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[Guy Incognito]

^ That chart basically says that Osborne's statement has had vitally no impact on overall voting intentions.

 

That's what is interesting about it. Osborne's statement was supposed to have been a game-changer. However, if that chart is accurate, then it has, at best, had no effect on voting intentions. At worst, it has resulted in a slight shift towards Yes.

 

 

 

Not maybe right, absolute fact. Firstly, there is nothing of any significance in that poll. Anyone with a basic grasp of statistics , polling or market research would know that.

 

Secondly, the source is ScotPulse launched by STV two years ago. It appears to be a self-selecting, not random, sample so the standard error could be higher than the usual 3%. Its website has no information on weighting methodology, the key factor in assessing the quality of its results.

 

Unfortunately, new pollsters have a habit of skewing results to suit their own agendas or those of their clients. I have had to rewrite pollsters' (the Big 6) questions to eliminate bias, such is the poor quality of their staff who often have no relevant professional qualifications or experience.

 

`Thirdly, I am no fan of David Cameron, to put it mildly, but it's too early to assess the impact of today's events. Your SNP loyalty is clearly affecting your perception of events. Btw, it's gaffes, not gaffs.

 

I am slightly sceptical about just how 'random' these polls actually are. I personally have never been contacted by a polling company - about anything - and I don't think I know anyone who has.

 

[kni]

I am slightly sceptical about just how 'random' these polls actually are. I personally have never been contacted by a polling company - about anything - and I don't think I know anyone who has.

 

The online polling companies have large panels (many thousands) who get rewarded for their participation. The results in political polls are weighted to reflect past voting behaviour, likelihood to vote and other factors. The weighting can affect the published results significantly.

 

Most polling companies offer telephone and/or online polling. Online polling tends to dominate. If you are not registered, the the chances of you being contacted are very small. Telephone polling is more expensive but, in my experience, more accurate. The professionalism of the polling companies and their staff is a key factor too.

 

The "polls of polls"are a reasonable guide but they don't factor in changes of weighting methodology into their calculations. I have my own my own methods of calculation, using the firms' raws data, that are more accurate. They have been very profitable on the betting sites which are full of idiotic and clueless activists in political parties.

Edited February 28, 2014 by kni

[Norgethistle]

So we have Standard life talking about moving out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26364418

 

The Weir group to take stock and more importantly publish their views http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-business-giant-plans-report-1-3321780

 

I think the Weir idea is great and should show an un politically biased view based purely on a business point of view

[Jaggernaut]

So we have Standard life talking about moving out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26364418

 

The Weir group to take stock and more importantly publish their views http://www.scotsman....eport-1-3321780

 

I think the Weir idea is great and should show an un politically biased view based purely on a business point of view

 

Don't forget that there are businesses in Scotland that welcome independence; of course these don't get much coverage in the Westminster-dominated media:

 

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/our-goal/

[Norgethistle]

Don't forget that there are businesses in Scotland that welcome independence; of course these don't get much coverage in the Westminster-dominated media:

 

http://www.businessf...co.uk/our-goal/

 

Oh yes there is both sides, I think the Weir report will help all concerned

[kni]

So we have Standard life talking about moving out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26364418

 

The Weir group to take stock and more importantly publish their views http://www.scotsman....eport-1-3321780

 

I think the Weir idea is great and should show an un politically biased view based purely on a business point of view

 

But who is the independent economic consultancy that is working on the Weir report? How can we be sure that it will not be biased, i.e. reflect the political views of the consultants?

 

KPMG's report on the economic benefits of HS2 was a classic example of the "independent consultants" producing a report with the conclusion that the client wanted. It was torn to shreds by economists and industry experts. Even the BBC ridiculed it.

 

Do you honestly think that the Weir Group will publish a report that contradicts the views of the directors or its major shareholders?