FREEDOM!!!! [2]

Well the original plan years ago was to join the Euro- but when it collapsed they needed another fallback position.

If we create our own currency it would have no track record, so borrowing would come at higher rates, potentially mortgages ect would cost more, interest rates on peoples credit cards could be higher.
And from a political angle there was also the sense of reassuring folk the money in their pocket wouldnt become valueless overnight.

But its also beneficial to RUK if we keep it as Scotland's resources are a reasonable chunk of the UK Balance of Payments. And for so long as the assets were on the table to negotiate over, pound included, then Scotland was happy and willing to take its fair share of the UK national debt too. If we dont take it however RUK is left with less resources, losing North Sea Oil, whisky revenue and our marine exports and they get all the debt.

However there are plenty in the Nationalist camp dont want to keep the pound and if my facebook is any hint at peoples thoughts then even those who favour no think this move looks a pretty bad and dont actually believe if it came down to it they wouldnt negotiate the point. Bit it will be interesting to see how it goes form here- the No side seem to be hoping with the polls now so close this will create just enough uncertainty to prevent a YES-but if it fails, and there are still several months to go till the vote, they dont have any other big cards left to play, they have went all in on this.

Hmm, that makes sense. Why does Scotland's share of the national debt get left behind if they don't keep the pound, though? Sorry if this is a really basic question; I haven't been following this issue too closely but I do find it interesting.

Well the SNP position has always been that if the UK were to vote to split then negotiations would follow, those negotiations would be over what percentage of assets and what percentage of debts are Scotlands.

However a month ago the UK government decided it could not risk any speculation over who would owe the debts in the event of a YES vote, so to keep investors happy they said that even if Scotland votes YES all the debt would remain the RUK's. (Their fear was they would have to pay more interest rates on anything they borrow between now and the referendum)

So technically an independent Scotland would start debt free- but the SNP still said Scotland would honour its fair share of debt anyway- the main reason for doing so being that it reassures any would be lenders to a new Scotland that we pay our debts.

That negotiations would have to take place on a huge range of issues- from military to social issues is obvious. So for Westminster to say any negotiations over the currency is not even going to be on the table, when it seems to be in both countries best interests is a big gamble, and it means the SNP can point out the problems it will cause to England and can point out the things, like our share of the debt they too could take off the table. If we dont get any assets of the currency, why should we still take on its liabilities?

Interesting piece written by a civil servant-

"As a civil servant in London, and being part of the establishment, I always accepted the general view that an independent Scotland would not be able to survive on its own without financial help from the London Exchequer.
However, when in 1968 I was able to examine the so-called "books" for the first time, I was shocked to find that the position was exactly the opposite and that Scotland contributed much more to the UK economy than its other partners.  This was, of course, before the oil boom....

....the Treasury and the Establishment did an excellent job, aided and abetted by the media, to keep the myth about Scotland alive.
In fact it took another 30 years before the first chink in their armour started to appear.  This came unexpectedly on 13 January 1997 when, in reply to a series of questions put by SNP Leader in the Commons, Alex Salmond MP to the then Tory government, Treasury Minister William Waldegrave admitted that Scotland had paid a massive £27 billion more to the London Exchequer than it had received since the Tories came to power in 1979.  Statistically this works out at £5,400 for every Scot....

.....a year later with a Labour government now in power came a further bombshell.  Following further promptings by the SNP, on 21 August 1998, Mr Salmond received a letter from the House of Commons Library (ref. 98/8/56 EP/rjt) which gave a table showing that based on Scotland's GDP per capita, Scotland would occupy 7th place in the world's wealth league.  The UK was at 17th Place.....

.....Looking closely at the figures and taking the year 2006 as a benchmark, I found that Scotland had an annual relative surplus of £2,8 billion, which works out at £560 for every man, woman and child.  In contrast the UK had a deficit of £34.8 billion......

......Any lingering doubt that Scotland more than pays its way, or survives on subsidies, was dispelled by a report published on October 12, 2007.  The Daily Mail, which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a supporter of Scottish nationalism, devoted a whole page to the analysis of the report which was based on tax paid per capita as against spending; Northern Ireland received £4,212 more than it paid in tax, North East England £3,133, Wales £2,990, N.W. England £1732, South West England £978, West Midlands £931, East Midlands £185 and lastly Scotland £38.  Only the South East corner produced a small surplus due to tax paid on the high wages within the city of London at this time (pre-Credit Crunch)....

....It is no longer refuted that Scotland exports more per capita than the rest of the UK.  In 1968 when I first discovered that Scotland was in surplus in relation to the rest of the UK, its exports could be broken down into whisky, meat, timber, fish, and of course tourism which is a huge hidden income.  Those exports are supported by a population of only 5,000,000 as against 45,000,000 for the rest of the UK, quite a substantial advantage....

....On 29 May 2008, Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling admitted in a back-handed way, that Scotland's oil revenue had been underwriting the UK's failure to balance its books for decades.  There is still 30 years of oil supply left in the North Sea (some 150 million barrels) valued at 2008 prices at 1 trillion dollars.  This excludes the new fields being brought into production in deeper waters west of Shetland.
Meantime whisky exports, which I listed in 1968 as one of Scotland's top assets, have risen at a phenomenal rate.  For example, whisky exports to China amounted to £1 million in 2000/2001, by 2012 they had risen to £71.5 million and have continued to rise.
On the economies of Independence, Scotland has also 18 times its requirements in North Sea gas, which on current trading is more expensive than oil.  The country exports 24% of its surplus electricity south of the Border, with much of the back-up by Hydro Electric unused."- John Jappy, General Accounting Division at the Treasury (they basically help the Treasury prepare budgets)


Its easy to see why Westminster is so keen to hold on to us. Problem is they have been lying about Scotlands finances for so long that they now find they have two audiences- the English who they have taught to think of Scots as subsiding off them, and the Scots to whom they can no longer maintain this stance with any credibility.
Like all liars now its all coming out in the open they are tying themselves in knots trying to explain it and panicking.

Ok this is looking like a big crunch moment in the referendum.

On the No side we now have a united front with all three major UK parties and the civil service ruling out any chance of a sterling zone if Scotland votes Yes.
The official line is 'the only way to keep the pound is to keep the Union'- and if that sounds like a thinly veiled threat not to vote YES, it is because it is.

But is it one they would actually keep?

There are several questions raised here- firstly its technically in Breach of the Edinburgh Agreement which Cameron signed which agreed to 'negotiate in good faith' whatever proposition the Scottish people voted for in the referendum.
In short they could rule out sterling in the negotiations after the vote, but they cant rule out anything before it.
And indeed until this point the Cameron led government has used this as an excuse to not 'pre-negotiate' anything before the vote- so for example the question of entry to the EU remains because the only people who can get the EU to answer that question is the UK government, ad they won't ask under the guise that it is negotiating before the vote.
This joint statement flies in the face of that position.

So there is a double standard here.

Also as one of the BBC Scotland corespondents puts it -

"if there's a "Yes" vote, would Scottish Labour meekly accept the veto from a Labour Chancellor in 11 Downing Street...would Danny Alexander represent the interests of the rest of the UK from his office in the Treasury, or those of his Highland constituents?"

There is also the small matter that if there is no chance of a currency union but Scotland still votes YES then all the major parties when they stand in the General Election next year will be doing on a platform of increasing costs to businesses exporting to Scotland -60billion worth- by hundreds of thousands and to effectively increase debt by millions by blowing a whole in the Balance of Payments.
Its hard to see the three major parties promising to do that on the hustings!

The move has prompted former Scottish Labour First Minister, and No campaigner, Henry Mcleish to describe it as 'threatening' and to warn the Scottish people not to believe that what is said now will be the same as what is said in the event of a YES vote- and thats coming from the No camp in Scotland.

And so the gamble goes on- will Scots baulk at the loss of the pound so much that they will vote No out of fear? And will they force the SNP into announcing a Plan B for the currency that the NO camp hopes will seem less palatable to the people?
Or will Scots only become more determined to go it alone the more threatening the line out of Wesmintser becomes?

So far its too soon to say, but things have certainly heated up now as we approach crunch time.

Interesting also how foreign media is viewing this move- which by in large is to use the word 'threat'-

"London threatens Scotland with monetary split,"- Le MOnde

"Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine said the threats on the pound came from "English politicians". The t-word word was used by Spiegel too and German TV. Russian news wire Lenta was tougher still: Britain would "ban" Scotland from using the pound.
El Universal in Caracas, Venezuela, also said the UK was "threatening" Scotland."

Italian business daily Il Solo 24 Ore on Thursday ran a feature on Mr Cameron wrapping himself in red, white and blue with the headline: "Scotland, the secession that frightens London."

The Globe and Mail in Canada, which has been consistently highly partisan on Scottish matters, said: "Britain warns Scotland: Forget the pound if you walk away."

It described Mr Osborn's sterling gambit as "the most aggressive attempt yet to scuttle a nationalist bid to break the 307-year-old union with England".

It added: "In the latest salvo of a choreographed British campaign to keep Scotland in the UK, George Osborne sought to play on Scottish fears of losing the pound to argue that secession would cost Scots dearly and cast them into a tempest of volatility." The Washington Post also highlighted the different approaches made by Tory ministers. It said: "Osborne's remarks signal an intensification of the debate over independence and mark a contrast to the "love-bombing" approach of Prime Minister David Cameron."

So what would happen if Scotland kept the pound despite London's refusal?" asked France's La Tribune. "Edinburgh," it concluded, "could declare the British currency as the only legal tender in Scotland." And London, it added, could do nothing about it.- Herald

This made me smile-


Independent Scotland will not be allowed to use British oxygen


BRITISH oxygen molecules that drift into an independent Scotland must be sent back immediately, it has been claimed.
A deafening klaxon will sound very time some oxygen passes over Hadrian's wall.

The leaders of the three main political parties warned that an independent Scotland would have no automatic right to use Britain’s sovereign gases.

Prime minister, David Cameron, said: “If the Scottish Nationalists think there is going to be a free flow of gases back and forth across the border then it’s obvious they know very little about the nature of gas.

“Gases like to stay put. In much the same way as water.”

Nick Clegg, the self-styled ‘deputy prime minister’, said: “I would prefer to breathe Franco-German oxygen. I also think that Scottish people should breathe Franco-German oxygen, I just don’t think they should be allowed to breathe British oxygen if they’re not British anymore.

“So, anyway, that’s what I think.”

Meanwhile, Labour’s Ed Miliband warned: “We’ll know if you’ve breathed our oxygen because, when we get it back, it won’t be oxygen anymore. It’ll be carbon dioxide.

“I used to be the energy minister, so I’m basically a scientist.”

Bill McKay, from Edinburgh, said: “Oh well, that’s that. You can’t just ‘make’ oxygen. Or maybe you can."

I hope that was a satirical piece.   

I always said these megalomaniac politicians would tax the very air we breath if they could  

I hope that was a satirical piece. - Halfy

The closer it gets to the referendum date, the harder it gets to tell.

I always said these megalomaniac politicians would tax the very air we breath if they could- Azriel

The day is coming!   

They might, Azriel.   And then put the expense of the air they breath themselves on the taxpayer as expenses.

I wondered about that civil servant account on the last page, Petty. Do you know what media that was circulated in?

I find this division in the press reporting about the election quite interesting.

I will need to check my history see where that was from, I think it was off the blog of one of the reporters on the Herald (which has been a fairer source than most on Independence even though editorially its still Unionist)

Another couple of stories following the No Pound if you vote YES declaration by all three main parties that are not being widely reported when they should be -

The Herald is reporting that a senior source in the government has been briefing that if Scotland votes Yes and Alex Salmonds demands are too great Westminster will retain the status quo- in other words even if we do vote YES they wont give us independence following it if they dont get everything they want.

And the Scotsman had a story saying one of the three no to the pound voices, Scottish lib dem MP and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander has been backsliding on the no pound thing, hinting that they will negotiate all options if there is a YES.


Neither story is covered by the BBC- our supposedly impartial new station, in fact with no good news for the Union to give you have to go to the bottom of the page and the small print on the BBC Scotland site to find any report relating to the referendum at all.   

Interesting. It's strange that you almost have to go to the foreign media to get a fair and unbiased opinion isn't it.   As you showed above, I guess.

It's funny how from here, all I seem to read is Scottish ministers accusing everyone else of bullying. Maybe that is the way is being reported and Petty's conspiracy theories are true or maybe these ministers are just burying their heads in the sand.

Latest one is the EU membership thing. I do wonder how so many other people can be wrong and the nationalists always right. Sounds like my other half's 9 year old daughter.

Its hard not to be sceptical Lance when you learn things like the Westminster government using tax funded bodies which are supposed to promote devolved parliaments interests abroad, are instead being use to try to persuade other countries (like Spain) to speak out against Independence and then they reward them with business deals and a visit from Cameron.
Or when business leaders speak of government 'black arts' being applied on them to get them to come out against.
Or finding out that last time Scotland faced such a vote the UK government classified and hid papers that gave the true figures for Scotland's wealth and potential whilst publicly lying about those figures.

The EU latest smacks of pressure from Westminster, not only did he use language that was surprisingly similar to the rhetoric of the No campaign but he compared Scotland's application to Kosovo when they are nothing alike.
Kosovo is a new country that emerged out of war and has no previous with the EU.
Scotland is a politically and socially stable country which has 40 years of EU membership and all our legal and political systems are already integrated with the EU not to mention multiple long term joint schemes which are running between the two.
It was a very odd comparison to make.
And to date not one single EU country, Spain included, has said it would veto Scottish membership (incidentally the EU also has no mechanism for kicking out an existing member, and it has ever happened).

But if push came to shove we could survive outside of the EU as Norway, Sweden and some others do. What really matters is wresting back control of our political system and restoring some accountable democracy.

But I am waiting on todays big speech by Salmond to business leaders in Aberdeen, which according to the BBC news  will be a  'point by point deconstruction' of Osborne's position- which is a bit of a stretch of a position (and before he was a politician Salmond was a well respected economist).
Unless you honestly believe that if Scotland votes YES then next year all three main parties will stand in the general election on a platform of adding millions in transaction costs to thousands of English businesses and punching a hole in their Balance of Payments- I cant see them doing that myself. Not when a perfectly sensible alternative that will incur no costs to business either side of the border exists and will maintain the Balance of Payments.

You should look into both those facets of such a deal, as what is being proposed right now, no currency union, will incur high costs to your country for no good reason and will make the pound in your pocket worth less.

One also has to wonder why, if the Westminster line is true, and Scotland is subsidised by England and could never manage or be accepted by other countries, why they are going to such extreme lengths to make us vote NO- could it possibly be because those things are not true and England would lose a massive source of future revenue and somewhere to keep their nukes an they are panicking because the polls have been getting narrower and narrower?

Its also interesting that whilst all three main parties can come together to tell us they wont let us use the pound, they cant agree, and indeed talks have a fallen apart, on what extra powers the Scottish government will have devolved in the event of a No vote. All three have promised more but none of them will say what they might be. Right now if we vote No we dont know what it means or what it is a vote for. We only know what it is a vote against.
Odd they can agree on the stuff designed to scare us and cannot agree on any promises for the future.

And in all of this you have to remember the official name for the No campaign within Whitehall is 'Project Fear'- which kind of says everything you need to know about the No camps choice of tactics and quite possibly all you need to know about the announcements made in the last week.
The reason Salmond calls it bullying its because its seems just to be an implementation of the tactics outlined in Project Fear- they are trying to scare us into saying no. Playing up uncertainties and trying to put as many potential seeming obstacles in the way as possible.
I think Salmond is right on this, its a bluff, if we vote YES a currency union would be on the table, if its not RUK would be cutting off its own nose to spite its face as well as losing one of, if not the, main negotiating chip in the splitting of assets.



Doing the rounds on Facebook-



There a serious point to this, RUK cant actually prevent Scotland from continuing to use the pound. Our banks already print their own notes. And it is exactly what Ireland did for a couple of decades, they kept the pound without the currency union.

Just watched Salmond's speech- it was indeed a point by point break down of Osbournes position, citing source, figures and all you could want.

But the BBC news report on it contains none of the evidence- only two or three hand picked phrases which make him sound like he is just calling Westminster bullies.
Three-quarters of the report is given over to reiterating the Westminster position!

I am going to give the whole report below and and soon as its available on Youtube the speech itself, judge for yourself if what follows is a fair and balanced report of Salmonds speech (they also cut away from the speech and didnt cover the answer and question session that followed the speech, preferring to go back to the studio and have a pro-Unionist analysis the speech instead) -


"Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has said a UK government attack on the currency of an independent Scotland has "backfired".
The Scottish government wants to keep the pound as part of a currency union with the rest of the UK in the event of a referendum "Yes" vote.
Last week, Chancellor George Osborne said a vote for independence meant walking away from the pound.
The row came ahead of the September 18 independence referendum.
Mr Osborne's position that he could not support a currency union were backed by the other two main Westminster parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Speaking in Aberdeen, Mr Salmond said "attempts to dictate from on high" the terms of the debate was damaging the democratic process.
He said the "accumulated negativity" of the campaign to keep the Union, would "differ greatly from the reality of life" after the referendum.

The first minister said the Scottish government's fiscal commission concluded last year that sharing the pound in a sterling zone was the best option for Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Mr Salmond's speech also came after European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso cast doubt on Scotland's membership of the European Union in the event of a "Yes" vote.
Mr Barroso said it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join and that it would have to apply for membership and get the approval of all current member states.
But the first minister said the EU had admitted so many countries that a "pragmatic way" would be found in the case of Scotland.
Mr Salmond said no member state had suggested it would seek to block an independent Scotland from becoming an EU member.
Alistair Darling, leader of the pro-Union Better Together campaign and the UK's former chancellor, said the idea of a currency union did not "stack up" for Scotland or the rest of the UK.
Mr Darling added that the, "wheels are falling off the independence wagon".- BBC

Interesting comment from Alistair Darling, head of the No campaign in response to Salmond pointing out that a no shared currency policy would cost millions for business-

"Mr Darling says it is quite simple. "If you want to avoid the extra costs for businesses in Scotland and in the rest of the UK, do not vote for separation," he says." - BBC

So he has just admitted in a backhanded manner that Osbourne's proposals would indeed cost business on both sides of the border millions in extra costs!
Good luck selling that to English business!

Basically, if you vote for independence we will punish Scottish and English businesses... Yes, that is a rather absurd argument.

Yup- and do as we say or we will punish you- that doesnt sound like bullying at all!   

Analysis published by the Scottish government following Salmonds speech-

Scottish Government analysis illustrates that a separate Scottish currency has the potential to lead to transaction costs for rUK businesses of approximately £500m per year in

This cost would be incurred by industry and customers in rUK importing and exporting from an independent Scotland with an alternative currency.

This illustrative calculation uses estimates from research on the costs and benefits of European Monetary Union (EMU) to the value of trade between rUK and Scotland.

The research on the costs savings from joining the EMU1 is widely used in analysis of currency transaction costs, including the previous UK Government’s assessment of joining the Euro (‘5 tests’).2 It is based on relative savings from having no currency transactions costs in trade.
Methodology

The transaction costs as a proportion of UK trade with the European Union are applied to the value of rUK trade with Scotland.

Transaction costs savings to the (then) European Community as a whole from joining the single currency were estimated in the order of between 0.1% and 0.2% of national GDP. These costs were for a larger Member State, in contrast small open economies may gain around 1% of their GDP. As highlighted by the Governor of the Bank of England in his recent speech on currency unions, the total benefits from reduced transaction costs were estimated at almost 0.5% of European GDP every year.3

This note uses the lower end of such estimates – 0.1% - to illustrate the impact.

In 2012, the UK as a whole exported £150 billion worth of goods and services to the EU and imported £205 billion worth of goods and services from the EU.4

In 2012, experimental statistics show that that the UK is estimated to have exported £60 billion worth of goods and services to Scotland and imported £48 billion worth of goods and services from Scotland.5 While exact figures on exports from rUK to Scotland are not known it is reasonable to assume that they are within the £50bn to £60bn range. On this basis exports from rUK to Scotland were around 40% of the value of UK exports to the EU in 2012 and imports to rUK from Scotland were around 25% of UK imports from the EU in 2012.

In 2012 UK GDP was £1,565 billion in nominal terms.6 Potential transaction costs of around 0.1% of GDP with respect to the Euro Area would therefore amount to approximately £1.6 billion.

With exports from rUK to Scotland around 40% of UK-EU exports assuming similar savings in transaction costs, maintaining a sterling area would reduce transaction costs by around £630m.

Alternatively, as imports to rUK from Scotland were around 23% of UK imports from the EU, assuming similar savings in transaction costs, maintaining a sterling area would reduce costs of trade by around £370m compared to having separate currencies.

Of course, if transaction cost savings were larger – i.e. closer to 0.2% - then the savings from maintaining a currency union would be that much larger.

The range indicates a potential cost of approximately £500m from not having the same currency.

It should be noted that these calculations are for on-shore trade only. Experimental statistics estimate that the UK imported £13.6 billion of oil and gas from Scotland in 2012. This would also be subject to transaction costs.

Salmonds speech today-



And how the BBC initially reported it for a comparison-

"Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has said a UK government attack on the currency of an independent Scotland has "backfired".
The Scottish government wants to keep the pound as part of a currency union with the rest of the UK in the event of a referendum "Yes" vote.
Last week, Chancellor George Osborne said a vote for independence meant walking away from the pound.
The row came ahead of the September 18 independence referendum.
Mr Osborne's position that he could not support a currency union were backed by the other two main Westminster parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Speaking in Aberdeen, Mr Salmond said "attempts to dictate from on high" the terms of the debate was damaging the democratic process.
He said the "accumulated negativity" of the campaign to keep the Union, would "differ greatly from the reality of life" after the referendum.

The first minister said the Scottish government's fiscal commission concluded last year that sharing the pound in a sterling zone was the best option for Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Mr Salmond's speech also came after European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso cast doubt on Scotland's membership of the European Union in the event of a "Yes" vote.
Mr Barroso said it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join and that it would have to apply for membership and get the approval of all current member states.
But the first minister said the EU had admitted so many countries that a "pragmatic way" would be found in the case of Scotland.
Mr Salmond said no member state had suggested it would seek to block an independent Scotland from becoming an EU member.
Alistair Darling, leader of the pro-Union Better Together campaign and the UK's former chancellor, said the idea of a currency union did not "stack up" for Scotland or the rest of the UK.
Mr Darling added that the, "wheels are falling off the independence wagon".- BBC


Fair representation of his speech or not?
Or is it just me who sees shoddy biased reporting in this?

Politics Petty. Everyone pulls figures for this and that out of their arse to back the argument.  

Regardless of the figures... what if an independent Scotland,  using the same currency, completely fails economically? How will that work? Why should Westminster do anything to support through bank of England monetary policy when it has had no say in the way finances were handled by Scotland?

Re the EU... is Scotland recognised as the member state or is the UK? If the latter, then Scotland hasn't been a member for 40 years since it did not exist as a sovereign state of its own. It should have to apply like any other country. Whether that is quick or not is any body's guess but it shouldn't expect special treatment.

There is an EU clause for essentially 'quick tracking' membership under certain circumstances which various EU specialists have said Scotland qualifies under, meaning we would not be treated as a completely new member- plus as always, and probably in the end more importantly, there is a lot of EU money tied up in things they will be unwilling to lose, particularly emerging green energy.

As to economic hardship- there is no real reason why there should be- Scotland has had a balance surplus compared to RUK, it would take massive mismanagement of the budget to lead to meltdown- and the reason the SNP keep wining elections here is largely down to our Finance Minister John Swinney having managed to balance the books every single year the SNP have been in power, despite Westminster cutting the budget every year.

And England would have a say over Scottish monetary policy as we would have to agree on spending and borrowing limits with the Bank of England and they would continue to set interest rates. (And despite the name the bank was set up by a Scotsman and is independent of Westminster)

Regards England bailing out- that would be up to England- why did the UK treasury bail out the Irish banks in the last collapse? They are a separate country?

Answer- it was in the UK's interests to. Lots of people in the UK had finances tied up with them.
I dont see the English taking to the streets over those bail outs.

Same thing happened in europe where banks crossed borders of independent states, they jointly funded bail outs.

Had Scotland been independent when the crash happened Scotland and England would have joined together to bail out the banks- for the same reason we did the Irish- its in everyone's interest to do so.

As a small, western, liberal, small and rich country I would expect Scotland would be a perfect fit for the EU.

One must also contemplate that Scotland at the moment is part of the EU, although not as an independent nation. With a legal system that is already in standard with the EUs.

If a EU membership isn't on the cards right away Scotland will find ways of dealing with the Union through indpendent agrements, like Norway through the EEA ( though that is expensive) or Switzerland.

If anything with the EU vote in England coming up Scotland might end up in and England out.

Are they planning on holding any EU vote in case of independence, Petty?

Lancebloke wrote:Re the EU... is Scotland recognised as the member state or is the UK? If the latter, then Scotland hasn't been a member for 40 years since it did not exist as a sovereign state of its own. It should have to apply like any other country. Whether that is quick or not is any body's guess but it shouldn't expect special treatment.

As an outside observer, I'd say Scotland -- being EU territory since the Treaty of Maastricht, is pretty clearly not the same as, say, a Balkan state trying to join for the first time.  The fact that its already fairly integrated into the European economy (though not in the Eurozone) and operating in accordance with EU law are probably the biggest differences. I'm not sure why it would be in the EU's interest to treat Scotland (or Catalonia or Flanders) the same way as it treats external prospective members.