606v2 Rugby Fans Scottish Independence Thread

[George Carlin]

First topic message reminder :

 v
Let me start this off, then. I have printed and read all literature which either side has published on this debate over the past 2 years (including the main policy papers from the SNP and from Better Together/UK Treasury and the Wee Blue Book).
 
If I had the chance, I would think hard about it, but ultimately I think that I would vote 'no'.
 
It seems to me, with my pea brain, that:
 
1. As a professional economist, Alex Salmond has had his entire political and professional life to make a waterproof financial case for an independent Scotland. Provided that there isn't something I've missed, I cannot see that he has done so. How can we still be fishing for answers to very fundemental questions so close to the actual voting date? Surely if it was the case that Scotland had a solid long term financial future, there would be a far greater volume of published consensus? If the financial case for independence cannot be clearly and verifiably made (without optimistic financial projects which strain credulity), then this is where this debate begins and ends for me. What do we tell our kids otherwise?
 
2. I entirely understand and appreciate that stepping into the unknown cannot in itself be a reason to say 'no'. You cannot have opportunity without risk. However, is anyone else disappointed with the quality of verifiable information that has been made available to us throughout this entire debate? Whilst I don't expect all answers to all questions, surely it is better to err on the side of caution until such time as policy can be firmly established.
 
If this was a trial, the verdict would be 'not proven'.
 
What I don't believe is if Scotland votes no, the chance to do so again would be lost forever. I think that we may see another vote on this topic within a generation (20 years) if a 'no' vote does not have a clear majority amongst Scottish people. I would be happy with that.
 
Discuss. For the love of feck, please be nice.

[George Carlin]

One other thing that I don't understand is people thinking that there will be some kind of 'big bang' of things happening immediately after a 'yes' vote. Of course there effing won't. But that's not what people should be worrying about.

The commercial world moves slowly and there will inevitably be a period of consolidation after a 'yes' vote where businesses will assess their business case, tax position and balance sheet impact before deciding whether to move. Scotland shouldn't be scared of wild prognostications from business heads about withdrawing their offices and factories. Of course that won't happen. Nobody would ever say that for fear of political recriminations.

What is much more likely (especially if the currency issue is uncertain) is that (if they're planning to withdraw at all) businesses will withdraw slowly. Little by little there will be talk of 're-structurings' and 're-focussing' and 'downsizing' due to things like 'prevailing economic conditions'. THAT is what should be the focus here. Not in a years time, but in five.

It has already been said above. If Scotland has the euro, it will need to come up with a better business environment than Dublin currently offers. If Scotland somehow sticks with the pound, then they will need to match the Channel Islands for tax efficency. A race to the bottom in this respect cannot be regarded as 'scaremongering' - it is a simple fact that it might happen.

[George Carlin]

Like a moth to a flame, or an alcoholic to a bar, or an Edinburgh resident to a Leith hooker, I simply couldn't help myself coming back on this thread.  What caught my attention?  Well, none other than this from RDW:

An update on some of the worrying business related concerns I have been hearing about first hand over the last few weeks from friends and family.  I can't name companies for obvious reasons.

Work on a long term multi-million pound contract has been delayed until after the referendum, as it will no longer go ahead in a Yes vote.  As a large team has been mobilised to do this work, which was meant to have started, the company is losing out on a lot of money due to the delay.

A multi-million pound contract has recently been finalised and is waiting to start, but there is a clause in the contract that if there is a Yes vote it will be terminated.  This will seriously affect the company in question.

Agents for a commercial leasing company have shown interest in large commercial units in Scotland for their head offices.  However they have said that if there is a Yes vote they will choose the North of England instead, again losing the company millions in potential earnings.

No doubt this is all just scaremongering and it will all be fine in a Yes vote, but this feckin referendum is already damaging Scotland. Imagine what will happen if there is Yes vote. These are first hand accounts from people directly involved in businesses. This is the reality. Given these are just stories from my own friends and family, imagine the picture across the rest of the country.

The sad thing is they cannot speak out because A) they are being pressurised not to and B) they need to stay positive for their shareholders / public image.

I'm absolutely sick of it.

Ladies and gentlefolk, this is fear-mongering of the worst kind - perpetrated maliciously and passed on without further thought.  One industry aside (Defence, and even then I'm not sure that this will happen even for it), nothing much is going to change for businesses on 19th Sept in the event of a Yes vote.  Let's look at this logically - consider why a particular contract was awarded in the first place - there are a load of possible reasons:
(1) price
(2) skilled workforce
(3) language
(4) part of the EU
(5) favourable tax domicile
(6) safe legal jurisdiction
I'm sure that there are others, but these will suffice for now.

So what will have changed?  Well it's unlikely the price will have altered, and the skilled workforce (RDW aside) won't be packing its bags for Australia.  Oddly, Scots will still mostly speak English (or jibberish) as their first language, and Scotland will remain part of the EU (ignore Baroso's drivel warnings, there plenty of 'experts' that have discredited his biased view).  The white paper hints that Scotland will in time become an even more favourable tax domicile, and the legal code won't be changing.  Even with a clause that terminates a contract in the event of a Yes vote, what exactly will have changed to see it awarded elsewhere?  Nothing.

So why these dire warnings?  They are put about by No-voting business folks and are designed to scare their workforces into voting now - then to hide behind anonymity, them claim that they are being pressured not to public with these scuttlebut rumours.  Playing on ordinary folks fears like this is simply malicious, I can think of no more fitting word for it.  So when you hear this kind of stuff, pls think it through

Ah yes, the S word! The one word that has completely discredited the Yes campaign from the beginning, and alienated them from potential voters I think. If financial experts, heads of business and academics alike come out with something that the Yes campaign disagrees with they are scaremongering.  Never mind just saying "They are entitled to their opinion, but we disagree and here's why". I can live with that.  But scaremongering suggests lying, gross exaggeration or being deceitful.

That is massively disrespectful to the professionals who are coming out in public saying these things, putting their reputations on the line.

Now to to say that I am scaremongering is saying that I am lying.  Or the family and friends who I have been speaking to are lying.

That really is massively disrespectful and would have expected better of you ASBO.

I am not making these things up.  These things are happening. The people telling me things are the people directly involved in the contracts.  They are the people who have companies lined up to move into commercial properties but are waiting to see what the outcome of the vote is.  They are not large companies - and they are not in defence - but they are companies that employ people, and that are going to be directly affected by a Yes vote.

So you can call it scaremongering all you want but this is the truth, and the Yes camp can stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la la la not listening' to their hearts content but if a Yes vote does come and businesses pull out of Scotland, and other businesses struggle due to lost contracts, there's going to be a lot of angry people in the country.

Well, I work for a global defence company (no names, no pack drill). Plans are already being made to award contracts to UK based companies in the event of a yes vote. And asset stripping of existing establishments in Scotland would soon follow. Scaremongering my bum, Salmond is selling a dummy on independance. I would assume that in the event of a yes vote, he'll be slightly worried that his bluff paid off and he'll actually have to come up with a plan to run the country. I'm willing to bet he's half hoping it s abig 'NO' so that he can remain banging his drum for years to come. If he gets power, he wont last five minutes in his own pond, the sharks will be circling.

Scaremonger!!!!!!

Or perhaps I should say:

[RDW]

One other thing that I don't understand is people thinking that there will be some kind of 'big bang' of things happening immediately after a 'yes' vote. Of course there effing won't. But that's not what people should be worrying about.

The commercial world moves slowly and there will inevitably be a period of consolidation after a 'yes' vote where businesses will assess their business case, tax position and balance sheet impact before deciding whether to move. Scotland shouldn't be scared of wild prognostications from business heads about withdrawing their offices and factories. Of course that won't happen. Nobody would ever say that for fear of political recriminations.

What is much more likely (especially if the currency issue is uncertain) is that (if they're planning to withdraw at all) businesses will withdraw slowly. Little by little there will be talk of 're-structurings' and 're-focussing' and 'downsizing' due to things like 'prevailing economic conditions'. THAT is what should be the focus here. Not in a years time, but in five.

It has already been said above. If Scotland has the euro, it will need to come up with a better business environment than Dublin currently offers. If Scotland somehow sticks with the pound, then they will need to match the Channel Islands for tax efficency. A race to the bottom in this respect cannot be regarded as 'scaremongering' - it is a simple fact that it might happen.

You are correct but surely businesses - especially smaller ones - will be immediately affected by contacts being cancelled or people not taking up contracts, as I have described (and I'm not lying, honest).

[George Carlin]

One other thing that I don't understand is people thinking that there will be some kind of 'big bang' of things happening immediately after a 'yes' vote. Of course there effing won't. But that's not what people should be worrying about.

The commercial world moves slowly and there will inevitably be a period of consolidation after a 'yes' vote where businesses will assess their business case, tax position and balance sheet impact before deciding whether to move. Scotland shouldn't be scared of wild prognostications from business heads about withdrawing their offices and factories. Of course that won't happen. Nobody would ever say that for fear of political recriminations.

What is much more likely (especially if the currency issue is uncertain) is that (if they're planning to withdraw at all) businesses will withdraw slowly. Little by little there will be talk of 're-structurings' and 're-focussing' and 'downsizing' due to things like 'prevailing economic conditions'. THAT is what should be the focus here. Not in a years time, but in five.

It has already been said above. If Scotland has the euro, it will need to come up with a better business environment than Dublin currently offers. If Scotland somehow sticks with the pound, then they will need to match the Channel Islands for tax efficency. A race to the bottom in this respect cannot be regarded as 'scaremongering' - it is a simple fact that it might happen.

You are correct but surely businesses - especially smaller ones - will be immediately affected by contacts being cancelled or people not taking up contracts, as I have described (and I'm not lying, honest).

Oh, absolutely. I am not saying that there will be no short term impact. Clearly there will be.

I'm just saying that the stuff that will ultimately affect our economy as a whole is the death by thousand cuts which will follow in the years afterwards.

[Jimpy]

RBS said it will definitely move to London after independence, but admitted that must be really scary for Alex Salmond.

The Royal Bank of Scotland confirmed it will no longer be based in Scotland if Scotland becomes the sort of country that should really have a royal bank.

A spokesman said: “We’re 81% owned by the UK government so it’s not like we’re going to move to Hawaii.

“So, London it is. We are definitely going.”

But SNP leader Alex Salmond said: “No you’re not.”

The spokesman added: “Yes we are. We’ve just said so.”

Salmond insisted: “No, you’re not. You’re just trying to scare people.”

The spokesman said: “We’re not actually trying to scare people, we’re running a business. But if people are scared, it’s probably because it’s a bit scary.

“Because it’s true.”

Salmond then accused the spokesman of working for MI6 before producing an ‘incriminating dossier’ consisting of random cuttings from local newspapers.

The RBS spokesman said: “Is everything okay?”

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Like a moth to a flame, or an alcoholic to a bar, or an Edinburgh resident to a Leith hooker, I simply couldn't help myself coming back on this thread.  What caught my attention?  Well, none other than this from RDW:

An update on some of the worrying business related concerns I have been hearing about first hand over the last few weeks from friends and family.  I can't name companies for obvious reasons.

Work on a long term multi-million pound contract has been delayed until after the referendum, as it will no longer go ahead in a Yes vote.  As a large team has been mobilised to do this work, which was meant to have started, the company is losing out on a lot of money due to the delay.

A multi-million pound contract has recently been finalised and is waiting to start, but there is a clause in the contract that if there is a Yes vote it will be terminated.  This will seriously affect the company in question.

Agents for a commercial leasing company have shown interest in large commercial units in Scotland for their head offices.  However they have said that if there is a Yes vote they will choose the North of England instead, again losing the company millions in potential earnings.

No doubt this is all just scaremongering and it will all be fine in a Yes vote, but this feckin referendum is already damaging Scotland. Imagine what will happen if there is Yes vote. These are first hand accounts from people directly involved in businesses. This is the reality. Given these are just stories from my own friends and family, imagine the picture across the rest of the country.

The sad thing is they cannot speak out because A) they are being pressurised not to and B) they need to stay positive for their shareholders / public image.

I'm absolutely sick of it.

Ladies and gentlefolk, this is fear-mongering of the worst kind - perpetrated maliciously and passed on without further thought.  One industry aside (Defence, and even then I'm not sure that this will happen even for it), nothing much is going to change for businesses on 19th Sept in the event of a Yes vote.  Let's look at this logically - consider why a particular contract was awarded in the first place - there are a load of possible reasons:
(1) price
(2) skilled workforce
(3) language
(4) part of the EU
(5) favourable tax domicile
(6) safe legal jurisdiction
I'm sure that there are others, but these will suffice for now.

So what will have changed?  Well it's unlikely the price will have altered, and the skilled workforce (RDW aside) won't be packing its bags for Australia.  Oddly, Scots will still mostly speak English (or jibberish) as their first language, and Scotland will remain part of the EU (ignore Baroso's drivel warnings, there plenty of 'experts' that have discredited his biased view).  The white paper hints that Scotland will in time become an even more favourable tax domicile, and the legal code won't be changing.  Even with a clause that terminates a contract in the event of a Yes vote, what exactly will have changed to see it awarded elsewhere?  Nothing.

So why these dire warnings?  They are put about by No-voting business folks and are designed to scare their workforces into voting now - then to hide behind anonymity, them claim that they are being pressured not to public with these scuttlebut rumours.  Playing on ordinary folks fears like this is simply malicious, I can think of no more fitting word for it.  So when you hear this kind of stuff, pls think it through

Ah yes, the S word! The one word that has completely discredited the Yes campaign from the beginning, and alienated them from potential voters I think. If financial experts, heads of business and academics alike come out with something that the Yes campaign disagrees with they are scaremongering.  Never mind just saying "They are entitled to their opinion, but we disagree and here's why". I can live with that.  But scaremongering suggests lying, gross exaggeration or being deceitful.

That is massively disrespectful to the professionals who are coming out in public saying these things, putting their reputations on the line.

Now to to say that I am scaremongering is saying that I am lying.  Or the family and friends who I have been speaking to are lying.

That really is massively disrespectful and would have expected better of you ASBO.

I am not making these things up.  These things are happening. The people telling me things are the people directly involved in the contracts.  They are the people who have companies lined up to move into commercial properties but are waiting to see what the outcome of the vote is.  They are not large companies - and they are not in defence - but they are companies that employ people, and that are going to be directly affected by a Yes vote.

So you can call it scaremongering all you want but this is the truth, and the Yes camp can stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la la la not listening' to their hearts content but if a Yes vote does come and businesses pull out of Scotland, and other businesses struggle due to lost contracts, there's going to be a lot of angry people in the country.

Good stuff, RDW, you take all the umbrage that you like - good luck with being able to find where I said you were "lying". You are a willing audience for this kind of stuff and clearly more than willing to pass it on - QED. I note also that you're not able to refute any of the logic behind what I said - but I'm not surprised. You're right on one thing tho - there are "going to be a lot of angry people in the country" - hence my suggestion why we should think about passing this stuff on as tho it were gospel. Rock on

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

RBS said it will definitely move to London after independence, but admitted that must be really scary for Alex Salmond.

The Royal Bank of Scotland confirmed it will no longer be based in Scotland if Scotland becomes the sort of country that should really have a royal bank.

A spokesman said: “We’re 81% owned by the UK government so it’s not like we’re going to move to Hawaii.

“So, London it is. We are definitely going.”

But SNP leader Alex Salmond said: “No you’re not.”

The spokesman added: “Yes we are. We’ve just said so.”

Salmond insisted: “No, you’re not. You’re just trying to scare people.”

The spokesman said: “We’re not actually trying to scare people, we’re running a business. But if people are scared, it’s probably because it’s a bit scary.

“Because it’s true.”

Salmond then accused the spokesman of working for MI6 before producing an ‘incriminating dossier’ consisting of random cuttings from local newspapers.

The RBS spokesman said: “Is everything okay?”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29151798

So that's RBS declaring "no intention of moving operations or jobs" - nothing here to surprise then, the bank is owned by the UK taxpayer/WM government which is in England - therefore an HQ move seems sensible.

And there's the boss of Scotland's largest fund manager talking sense: "I think an independent Scotland would be a big success, but it is a secret ballot and I will abide by that. Most sensible people now accept that Scotland would be prosperous with either outcome in the current constitutional debate." - of course, he's not a match for your 'No' expert business leaders, so completely discount what he has to say, not worth the screen you're reading it on

[Jimpy]

Oh for goodness sake....

It was a little bit of fun, a parody if you will, of the economic debate.

You've become a paraody of Salmond.

Quite ironic really.

[George Carlin]

This is all getting a bit serious.

Let me add some constructive visual context to this debate:
  

A big fat toad                   Honourable MP for Banff & Buchan

[Jimpy]

This is all getting a bit serious.

Let me add some constructive visual context to this debate:
  

A big fat toad                   Honourable MP for Banff & Buchan

Ha! Have you got one of Jabba The Hut too?

[George Carlin]

This is all getting a bit serious.

Let me add some constructive visual context to this debate:
  

A big fat toad                   Honourable MP for Banff & Buchan

Ha! Have you got one of Jabba The Hut too?

Jaysus. It's even closer:

 

Fat                                 Feminist Issue

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Something interesting to watch: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/10/how-independence-can-unleash-scotlands-future-energy-industries/

[Jimpy]

This is all getting a bit serious.

Let me add some constructive visual context to this debate:
  

A big fat toad                   Honourable MP for Banff & Buchan

Ha! Have you got one of Jabba The Hut too?

Jaysus. It's even closer:

 

Fat                                 Feminist Issue

I can't be the only one thinking of 'Shallow Hal'...

[BigGee]

Very good article in the Guardian today pondering on quite how we got to this stage and suggesting a Yes result is the one that no-one really wants! http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/11/alex-salmond-scottish-independence-referendum-david-cameron

[BigGee]

Another one about the respective negotiating positions of the two sides in the case of a yes vote! http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/negotiations-after-a-scottish-referendum-yes-vote/

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Thanks, BigGee, will have a gander at those two in a bit - in the middle of building a go-kart for the village's annual soap box derby

[SecretFly]

Thanks, BigGee, will have a gander at those two in a bit - in the middle of building a go-kart for the village's annual soap box derby

Don't bring politics into a village derby! Have you no shame?

[madmaccas]

I follow most Scottish pro players and former international players on Twitter and, whilst most wisely stay away from voicing an opinion, a few have.

For Independence:

Rory Lamont


Against Independence:

Mike Blair

Fergus Scott

Ryan Grant

Chris Cusiter

Jim Thomson

Rory Lawson

Ruaridh Jackson

David Sole

Kenny Logan

Craig Chalmers

Gavin Hastings

Andy Nicol

[fa0019]

I follow most Scottish pro players and former international players on Twitter and, whilst most wisely stay away from voicing an opinion, a few have.

For Independence:

Rory Lamont


Against Independence:

Mike Blair

Fergus Scott

Ryan Grant

Chris Cusiter

Jim Thomson

Rory Lawson

Ruaridh Jackson  

David Sole

Kenny Logan

Craig Chalmers

Gavin Hastings

Andy Nicol

Interesting that Rory Lamont has come up for independence given he was schooled and honed his rugby skills in England. Not a slight, just that if someone had been brought up in Scotland and then educated and got his rugby start in England that you would have assumed he would be more prone to back the union.

[George Carlin]

I follow most Scottish pro players and former international players on Twitter and, whilst most wisely stay away from voicing an opinion, a few have.

For Independence:

Rory Lamont


Against Independence:

Mike Blair

Fergus Scott

Ryan Grant

Chris Cusiter

Jim Thomson

Rory Lawson

Ruaridh Jackson  

David Sole

Kenny Logan

Craig Chalmers

Gavin Hastings

Andy Nicol

[Captain_Sensible]

I've tried to stay away from this thread, as I feared the discussion would generate more heat than light, but I just wanted to provide some input on the EU issue.

As part of my job, I speak to senior EU officials week in, week out. Their take on this is absolutely unified – Scotland WOULD have to leave the EU and then re-enter, and that process could take as long as five years.

If Scotland votes Yes, two new countries (rUk and Scotland) are effectively created. However, under EU law, only Scotland is recognised as a new state. rUK is recognised as a continuation of the previous united state. New states are required to go through the new membership process, as there is no facility in EU law to immediately accept a state that has seceded from an existing EU member.

Scotland would already be in compliance with most EU legislation, so that aspect isn’t much of an issue. We would have to have our own central bank, however, which means a GBP currency union or the completely mental idea of sterlingisation would not allow us to be members. Also, for Scotland to join, every single EU member nation must agree. That’s 28 nations. If one dissents, it kills off the entire membership process. Now, Spain, for instance, may be reluctant to let Scotland in because of its own secessionist issues. At the very least it could drag its heels over our membership and prolong the process indefinitely. Throughout that time, Scottish businesses would suffer.

In my opinion, the case for indy hasn’t been made, and all this ‘Team Scotland’ nonsense is deeply offensive to proud Scots who are voting No.

[SecretFly]

Captain................ has the EU ever taken away EU citizenship from a distinct group of people?

We know they are adding new Nations bit by bit as they go along but actually taking citizenship rights away from citizens?  Has that happned before?  And where are the rights of those EU citizens under those circumstances?  Have they redress to courts on citizenship rights grounds?

You see - even to the EU officials - I think I'm right in saying this is all new territory.  It's not so clear in legal terms at all and certainly there is much scope for major court cases if problems arise with interpretations of EU law verses EU citizenship rights.

You can word it that Scotland becomes a new country and would therefore need to reapply for membership - but the truth is that you can also word it that Scottish people would have their already existing rights (free travel and work in EU territory) bluntly taken from them. That would be messy and whilst officials might quote law, individual member states might like to have a more detailed look at the issue - especially given that many Scots will already be spread through other existing EU countries already - working and living there freely, with long term careers.  Would they be deported?  Would they have their rights bluntly modified to have them termed economic migrants who would need to go look for visas in order to continue in their professions?

[Captain_Sensible]

Captain................ has the EU ever taken away EU citizenship from a distinct group of people?

We know they are adding new Nations bit by bit as they go along but actually taking citizenship rights away from citizens?  Has that happned before?  And where are the rights of those EU citizens under those circumstances?  Have they redress to courts on citizenship rights grounds?

You see - even to the EU officials - I think I'm right in saying this is all new territory.  It's not so clear in legal terms at all and certainly there is much scope for major court cases if problems arise with interpretations of EU law verses EU citizenship rights.

You can word it that Scotland becomes a new country and would therefore need to reapply for membership - but the truth is that you can also word it that Scottish people would have their already existing rights (free travel and work in EU territory) bluntly taken from them.  That would be messy and whilst officials might quote law, individual member states might like to have a more detailed look at the issue  - especially given that many Scots will already be spread through other existing EU countries already - working and living there freely, with long term careers.  Would they be deported?  Would they have their rights bluntly modified to have them termed economic migrants who would need to go look for visas in order to continue in their professions?

The EU wouldn't be taking rights away from the Scottish people. Under EU law, by seceding from a member state, Scotland abdicating those rights of its own volition. It would be leaving the EU. You're right that this is new territory, but the informed legal opinion is pretty consistent. By voting Yes, Scotland would be voting to leave the EU, at least on a temporary basis.

[fa0019]

Captain................ has the EU ever taken away EU citizenship from a distinct group of people?

We know they are adding new Nations bit by bit as they go along but actually taking citizenship rights away from citizens?  Has that happned before?  And where are the rights of those EU citizens under those circumstances?  Have they redress to courts on citizenship rights grounds?

You see - even to the EU officials - I think I'm right in saying this is all new territory.  It's not so clear in legal terms at all and certainly there is much scope for major court cases if problems arise with interpretations of EU law verses EU citizenship rights.

You can word it that Scotland becomes a new country and would therefore need to reapply for membership - but the truth is that you can also word it that Scottish people would have their already existing rights (free travel and work in EU territory) bluntly taken from them.  That would be messy and whilst officials might quote law, individual member states might like to have a more detailed look at the issue  - especially given that many Scots will already be spread through other existing EU countries already - working and living there freely, with long term careers.  Would they be deported?  Would they have their rights bluntly modified to have them termed economic migrants who would need to go look for visas in order to continue in their professions?

Isn't the law clearly set that if you break away from an EU country you are not automatically given EU membership of your original host.

Travel for persons or working abroad won't be an issue as Scots will still be entitled to UK citizenship (which would remain in EU). Why Irish people born before a certain date are also entitled to UK citizenship for example.

Its been well covered anyhow this topic. Salmond tried to argue it was not the case but he's the only one who has stated that. Everyone else has stated they will have to reapply as per the rules. Sounds quite clear cut to me.

[SecretFly]

Captain................ has the EU ever taken away EU citizenship from a distinct group of people?

We know they are adding new Nations bit by bit as they go along but actually taking citizenship rights away from citizens?  Has that happned before?  And where are the rights of those EU citizens under those circumstances?  Have they redress to courts on citizenship rights grounds?

You see - even to the EU officials - I think I'm right in saying this is all new territory.  It's not so clear in legal terms at all and certainly there is much scope for major court cases if problems arise with interpretations of EU law verses EU citizenship rights.

You can word it that Scotland becomes a new country and would therefore need to reapply for membership - but the truth is that you can also word it that Scottish people would have their already existing rights (free travel and work in EU territory) bluntly taken from them.  That would be messy and whilst officials might quote law, individual member states might like to have a more detailed look at the issue  - especially given that many Scots will already be spread through other existing EU countries already - working and living there freely, with long term careers.  Would they be deported?  Would they have their rights bluntly modified to have them termed economic migrants who would need to go look for visas in order to continue in their professions?

The EU wouldn't be taking rights away from the Scottish people. Under EU law, by seceding from a member state, Scotland abdicating those rights of its own volition. It would be leaving the EU. You're right that this is new territory, but the informed legal opinion is pretty consistent. By voting Yes, Scotland would be voting to leave the EU, at least on a temporary basis.

I'm saying that's how you perhaps and officals interpret the Law... I'm saying there is ultra scope for legal battles in Europe concerning EU citizens having EU citizenship taking off them...they will argue EU citizenship is not contrained by being English any more than it is contrained by being German or Northern Irish. It is a right given to citizens. When you say Scotland is no longer an EU member, the dismantling of that relationship is as complicated, fussy and legally dangerous as it would be to just say Scottish citizens remain EU citizens. EU rights can't simply dissolve on the night that Scotland would vote Yes to Independence.

[George Carlin]

We would also be behind Albania, Iceland, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey in the queue to join as all of those guys have already submitted a formal membership application. To make matters worse, it's not even guaranteed that we would beat any of these guys at football.

I think that everyone has ignored the most serious issue of the debate.
Will Scotland get a separate entry in the Eurovision Song Contest? Would we always give rUK 'nul points'? Tell me that, now.

[fa0019]

Fly

I don't think its a case of the EU membership being english in this case.

From what I gather... say Bavaria left Germany. It would be the same situation as we see now. Bavarians would need to reapply, Germany would keep EU membership as technically the rest of germany would still be germany.

[fa0019]

also how much does Scotland get from UK EU membership?

So they get part of the rebate which I'm sure wouldn't apply to them and then also the UK gets VAT exemptions on a number of goods which Scotland probably couldn't demand either.

[SecretFly]

Captain................ has the EU ever taken away EU citizenship from a distinct group of people?

We know they are adding new Nations bit by bit as they go along but actually taking citizenship rights away from citizens?  Has that happned before?  And where are the rights of those EU citizens under those circumstances?  Have they redress to courts on citizenship rights grounds?

You see - even to the EU officials - I think I'm right in saying this is all new territory.  It's not so clear in legal terms at all and certainly there is much scope for major court cases if problems arise with interpretations of EU law verses EU citizenship rights.

You can word it that Scotland becomes a new country and would therefore need to reapply for membership - but the truth is that you can also word it that Scottish people would have their already existing rights (free travel and work in EU territory) bluntly taken from them.  That would be messy and whilst officials might quote law, individual member states might like to have a more detailed look at the issue  - especially given that many Scots will already be spread through other existing EU countries already - working and living there freely, with long term careers.  Would they be deported?  Would they have their rights bluntly modified to have them termed economic migrants who would need to go look for visas in order to continue in their professions?

Isn't the law clearly set that if you break away from an EU country you are not automatically given EU membership of your original host.

Travel for persons or working abroad won't be an issue as Scots will still be entitled to UK citizenship (which would remain in EU). Why Irish people born before a certain date are also entitled to UK citizenship for example.

Its been well covered anyhow this topic. Salmond tried to argue it was not the case but he's the only one who has stated that. Everyone else has stated they will have to reapply as per the rules. Sounds quite clear cut to me.

Reapply in symbolic terms... I'd bet that a 'transition term' long enough to get to the readmittal stage would be set in process that would protect all Scottish EU connections up to the point of formal readmittance.  To fully cut the link to the EU would be simply bureacratic madness - but yes, the EU is mad enough to engage in such madness!

So even if the formal readmittance thing has to happen it will be curtain dressing - there will be no dramatic knife cut.

PLUS........the other EU member states (who are let's say more enthusiastic about the EU Union project than the English - HOW IRONIC AGAIN BTW) will be only too willing to admit a new member right on the UK's doorstep that has proven more ready to have a warm relationship with the dictators (I mean commissioners) in Europe.  They know the value of allies in the campaign for Empire Europe.

[SecretFly]

Fly

I don't think its a case of the EU membership being english in this case.

From what I gather... say Bavaria left Germany. It would be the same situation as we see now. Bavarians would need to reapply, Germany would keep EU membership as technically the rest of germany would still be germany.

Germany is even more complicated and less clean cut as it is a federation. Bavarians would send their highly paid EU lawyers to the Hague too...and it would take years and millions upon millions.

[fa0019]

Fly

I don't think its a case of the EU membership being english in this case.

From what I gather... say Bavaria left Germany. It would be the same situation as we see now. Bavarians would need to reapply, Germany would keep EU membership as technically the rest of germany would still be germany.

Germany is even more complicated and less clean cut as it is a federation.  Bavarians would send their highly paid EU lawyers to the Hague too...and it would take years and millions upon millions.

rUK would lose part of their share too, but also would have to contribute less to the EU as I'm sure its done on share of pop./GDP etc.

[Captain_Sensible]

Captain................ has the EU ever taken away EU citizenship from a distinct group of people?

We know they are adding new Nations bit by bit as they go along but actually taking citizenship rights away from citizens?  Has that happned before?  And where are the rights of those EU citizens under those circumstances?  Have they redress to courts on citizenship rights grounds?

You see - even to the EU officials - I think I'm right in saying this is all new territory.  It's not so clear in legal terms at all and certainly there is much scope for major court cases if problems arise with interpretations of EU law verses EU citizenship rights.

You can word it that Scotland becomes a new country and would therefore need to reapply for membership - but the truth is that you can also word it that Scottish people would have their already existing rights (free travel and work in EU territory) bluntly taken from them.  That would be messy and whilst officials might quote law, individual member states might like to have a more detailed look at the issue  - especially given that many Scots will already be spread through other existing EU countries already - working and living there freely, with long term careers.  Would they be deported?  Would they have their rights bluntly modified to have them termed economic migrants who would need to go look for visas in order to continue in their professions?

The EU wouldn't be taking rights away from the Scottish people. Under EU law, by seceding from a member state, Scotland abdicating those rights of its own volition. It would be leaving the EU. You're right that this is new territory, but the informed legal opinion is pretty consistent. By voting Yes, Scotland would be voting to leave the EU, at least on a temporary basis.

I'm saying that's how you perhaps and officals interpret the Law... I'm saying there is ultra scope for legal battles in Europe concerning EU citizens having EU citizenship taking off them...they will argue EU citizenship is not contrained by being English any more than it is contrained by being German or Northern Irish.  It is a right given to citizens.  When you say Scotland is no longer an EU member, the dismantling of that relationship is as complicated, fussy and legally dangerous as it would be to just say Scottish citizens remain EU citizens.  EU rights can't simply dissolve on the night that Scotland would vote Yes to Independence.

I'm not sure if I can make this any clearer, but yes they can*, because Scotland would be voting, in effect, to leave the EU.

*Actually, they'd dissolve later when Scotland actually goes independent.

[Captain_Sensible]

We would also be behind Albania, Iceland, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey in the queue to join as all of those guys have already submitted a formal membership application. To make matters worse, it's not even guaranteed that we would beat any of these guys at football.

I think that everyone has ignored the most serious issue of the debate.
Will Scotland get a separate entry in the Eurovision Song Contest Would we always give rUK 'nul points'? Tell me that, now.

I reckon we could take them all at rugby, though.

[madmaccas]

Whilst most countries and world leaders have come down in the side of a NO vote, a major country has today come out in support of YES. Our First Minister will be pleased.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/why-north-korea-would-back-indy-but-citizens-will-be-told-result-only-if-it.1410443356

[Notch]

Tony Blair enters the debate

https://twitter.com/sketch_a_etch/status/510084129938210816/photo/1

[Notch]

Whilst most countries and world leaders have come down in the side of a NO vote, a major country has today come out in support of YES. Our First Minister will be pleased.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/why-north-korea-would-back-indy-but-citizens-will-be-told-result-only-if-it.1410443356

Really? Thats where the media is now?

[SecretFly]

I'm not sure if I can make this any clearer, but yes they can*, because Scotland would be voting, in effect, to leave the EU.

*Actually, they'd dissolve later when Scotland actually goes independent.

I know the point you are trying to make but again, I'm saying that legally NO, Scottish people are not voting to leave the EU.  They are voting for Independence.  In as much as their EU rights didn't change when they got devolution (a legal change in governance within the UK setup) they could argue that neither does it change with them assuming full responsibility for self governance.  EU membership was a UK wide decision for all citizens -
In any case, even the remaining part of the UK would have complications with the EU in the aftermath of a Scottish yes vote; in that it may impact on their rights to their number of commissioners etc.  The remainder of the UK would have a markedly different relationship with the EU almost as much as Scotland given that the agricultural area would decrease, contributions to the EU budget would change etc, etc. The relationship would be bound to need revision.
But no, in no legal sense is Scotland voting to leave the EU or end EU citizenship for it's citizens.  The EU might interpret it so but, like I keep saying, legal eagles will be out in force - it won't be a battle won simply if the EU take it that far.  But first of course, the vote.

[Captain_Sensible]

I'm not sure if I can make this any clearer, but yes they can*, because Scotland would be voting, in effect, to leave the EU.

*Actually, they'd dissolve later when Scotland actually goes independent.

I know the point you are trying to make but again, I'm saying that legally NO, Scottish people are not voting to leave the EU.  They are voting for Independence.  In as much as their EU rights didn't change when they got devolution (a legal change in governance within the UK setup) they could argue that neither does it change with them assuming full responsibility for self governance.  EU membership was a UK wide decision for all citizens -
In any case, even the remaining part of the UK would have complications with the EU in the aftermath of a Scottish yes vote; in that it may impact on their rights to their number of commissioners etc.  The remainder of the UK would have a markedly different relationship with the EU almost as much as Scotland given that the agricultural area would decrease, contributions to the EU budget would change etc, etc.  The relationship would be bound to need revision.
But no, in no legal sense is Scotland voting to leave the EU or end EU citizenship for it's citizens.  The EU might interpret it so but, like I keep saying, legal eagles will be out in force - it won't be a battle won simply if the EU take it that far.  But first of course, the vote.

I get where you’re coming from, but the upshot of a Yes vote is that Scotland leaves the EU. rUk is the successor country, Scotland is the entirely new entity. It has chosen to leave an EU member, and as such, from an EU law point of view, it has chosen to leave the EU. The legal opinion on this is very clear, and very consistent. This is why voters have to think about ALL the consequences of a Yes vote, including the ‘unintended’ ones. They may not intend to leave the EU by casting a Yes vote, but that is the consequence of enough people do so. The SNP's lawyers can crow all they want, but they won't get very far.

And if you leave the EU, you don’t get to hang on to EU rights.

[Notch]

If I was in Scotland I'd be a lot happier about being temporarily out of the EU but renegotiating entrance- the only real barriers are other EU countries that are nervous about separatist movements- than I would be in a UK thats possibly going to be negotiating an exit from the EU on a permanent basis down the line. People have to think long-term as well as short-term when it comes to EU membership. I don't think there is that much prospect of Scotland becoming a pariah in Europe and not being able to enter the EU ever, the question is what barriers to entry are placed in front of them and how long it will take to surmount those barriers. It seems its going to about When not If. The future of rUK in the EU is very much about If.

On a lighter note, George, it seems very likely that Scotland will give the UK lot of points in Eurovision if you look at the example of Ireland and the UK- shared cultural heritage seems to count for more than a troubled past politically when it comes to the old EuroVision.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

I'm not sure if I can make this any clearer, but yes they can*, because Scotland would be voting, in effect, to leave the EU.

*Actually, they'd dissolve later when Scotland actually goes independent.

I know the point you are trying to make but again, I'm saying that legally NO, Scottish people are not voting to leave the EU.  They are voting for Independence.  In as much as their EU rights didn't change when they got devolution (a legal change in governance within the UK setup) they could argue that neither does it change with them assuming full responsibility for self governance.  EU membership was a UK wide decision for all citizens -
In any case, even the remaining part of the UK would have complications with the EU in the aftermath of a Scottish yes vote; in that it may impact on their rights to their number of commissioners etc.  The remainder of the UK would have a markedly different relationship with the EU almost as much as Scotland given that the agricultural area would decrease, contributions to the EU budget would change etc, etc.  The relationship would be bound to need revision.
But no, in no legal sense is Scotland voting to leave the EU or end EU citizenship for it's citizens.  The EU might interpret it so but, like I keep saying, legal eagles will be out in force - it won't be a battle won simply if the EU take it that far.  But first of course, the vote.

I get where you’re coming from, but the upshot of a Yes vote is that Scotland leaves the EU. rUk is the successor country, Scotland is the entirely new entity. It has chosen to leave an EU member, and as such, from an EU law point of view, it has chosen to leave the EU. The legal opinion on this is very clear, and very consistent. This is why voters have to think about ALL the consequences of a Yes vote, including the ‘unintended’ ones. They may not intend to leave the EU by casting a Yes vote, but that is the consequence of enough people do so. The SNP's lawyers can crow all they want, but they won't get very far.

And if you leave the EU, you don’t get to hang on to EU rights.

Great news, thanks for clarifying that, Sensible. If you are indeed right, then equally the 'new' iScotland cannot be saddled with any debt from the previous entity under international law - there's not even a 'moral obligation' to take a single penny of it! The successor country must legally keep the lot. Bliwdy marvellous

[Captain_Sensible]

I'm not sure if I can make this any clearer, but yes they can*, because Scotland would be voting, in effect, to leave the EU.

*Actually, they'd dissolve later when Scotland actually goes independent.

I know the point you are trying to make but again, I'm saying that legally NO, Scottish people are not voting to leave the EU.  They are voting for Independence.  In as much as their EU rights didn't change when they got devolution (a legal change in governance within the UK setup) they could argue that neither does it change with them assuming full responsibility for self governance.  EU membership was a UK wide decision for all citizens -
In any case, even the remaining part of the UK would have complications with the EU in the aftermath of a Scottish yes vote; in that it may impact on their rights to their number of commissioners etc.  The remainder of the UK would have a markedly different relationship with the EU almost as much as Scotland given that the agricultural area would decrease, contributions to the EU budget would change etc, etc.  The relationship would be bound to need revision.
But no, in no legal sense is Scotland voting to leave the EU or end EU citizenship for it's citizens.  The EU might interpret it so but, like I keep saying, legal eagles will be out in force - it won't be a battle won simply if the EU take it that far.  But first of course, the vote.

I get where you’re coming from, but the upshot of a Yes vote is that Scotland leaves the EU. rUk is the successor country, Scotland is the entirely new entity. It has chosen to leave an EU member, and as such, from an EU law point of view, it has chosen to leave the EU. The legal opinion on this is very clear, and very consistent. This is why voters have to think about ALL the consequences of a Yes vote, including the ‘unintended’ ones. They may not intend to leave the EU by casting a Yes vote, but that is the consequence of enough people do so. The SNP's lawyers can crow all they want, but they won't get very far.

And if you leave the EU, you don’t get to hang on to EU rights.

Great news, thanks for clarifying that, Sensible.  If you are indeed right, then equally the 'new' iScotland cannot be saddled with any debt from the previous entity under international law - there's not even a 'moral obligation' to take a single penny of it!  The successor country must legally keep the lot.  Bliwdy marvellous

Ok, if that's your opinion, fine. But we're actually talking about EU membership right now.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

I'm not sure if I can make this any clearer, but yes they can*, because Scotland would be voting, in effect, to leave the EU.

*Actually, they'd dissolve later when Scotland actually goes independent.

I know the point you are trying to make but again, I'm saying that legally NO, Scottish people are not voting to leave the EU.  They are voting for Independence.  In as much as their EU rights didn't change when they got devolution (a legal change in governance within the UK setup) they could argue that neither does it change with them assuming full responsibility for self governance.  EU membership was a UK wide decision for all citizens -
In any case, even the remaining part of the UK would have complications with the EU in the aftermath of a Scottish yes vote; in that it may impact on their rights to their number of commissioners etc.  The remainder of the UK would have a markedly different relationship with the EU almost as much as Scotland given that the agricultural area would decrease, contributions to the EU budget would change etc, etc.  The relationship would be bound to need revision.
But no, in no legal sense is Scotland voting to leave the EU or end EU citizenship for it's citizens.  The EU might interpret it so but, like I keep saying, legal eagles will be out in force - it won't be a battle won simply if the EU take it that far.  But first of course, the vote.

I get where you’re coming from, but the upshot of a Yes vote is that Scotland leaves the EU. rUk is the successor country, Scotland is the entirely new entity. It has chosen to leave an EU member, and as such, from an EU law point of view, it has chosen to leave the EU. The legal opinion on this is very clear, and very consistent. This is why voters have to think about ALL the consequences of a Yes vote, including the ‘unintended’ ones. They may not intend to leave the EU by casting a Yes vote, but that is the consequence of enough people do so. The SNP's lawyers can crow all they want, but they won't get very far.

And if you leave the EU, you don’t get to hang on to EU rights.

Great news, thanks for clarifying that, Sensible.  If you are indeed right, then equally the 'new' iScotland cannot be saddled with any debt from the previous entity under international law - there's not even a 'moral obligation' to take a single penny of it!  The successor country must legally keep the lot.  Bliwdy marvellous

Ok, if that's your opinion, fine. But we're actually talking about EU membership right now.

Indeed we are, and yes it is my take on things - the link is clear and obvious - Scotland is either a 'new' country or a 'continuing' country, it cannot be both simply depending on the situation, so that it gets the worst of all worlds - that is not a view that can be taken seriously. But to go back to EU membership if you wish, perhaps the case isn't quite so simple as your expert witnesses would have you believe. In fact, the following would all disagree with you: Graham Avery (Honorary Director-General of the European Commission), Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, (the former Deputy Secretary-General of the UN) and Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, (author of a book on EU constitutional law and professor of European law and human rights at Oxford University).

Graham Avery (Honorary Director-General of the European Commission): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm

Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, (the former Deputy Secretary-General of the UN): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21525120

Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, (author of a book on EU constitutional law and professor of European law and human rights at Oxford University): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28197298

Not to mention Pat Cox, former President of the European Parliament: http://www.scotsman.com/news/pat-cox-pragmatic-eu-will-make-room-for-scotland-1-3535507

I guess this is all going to be subject to negotiation - let's hope that sense prevails

[PenfroPete]

First of all, let me assert the firm belief that the only thing to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Your distress comes from no failure of substance. You are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which your forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, you have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at your doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because Westminster has failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence.

They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. They have fled from their high seats in the temple of civilization. You may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which you apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These days will be worth all if they teach that your true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to yourselves and to your fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honour, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Your Nation asks for action, and action now. You do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people have not failed. In their need they have registered that they want direct, vigorous action.

[fa0019]

If Scotland had no moral obligation to take part of the debt as some had said than how can it expect to take the assets too.

The roads, the military, the hospitals, schools are all currently owned by the UK. So if Scotland has no obligation to take the debt than they can hardly have a moral right to take any assets, whether they be in Scotland or not.

No moral obligation... Total jokes given the 2 banks which were bailed out in 2008 was rbs and hbos to over 50% of Scotland's annual gdp. If that ain't a moral obligation I don't know what is.

[Feckless Rogue]

Captain the EU may have rules, but no proper mechanism for these things. They didn't when Germany united for instance. They are pragmatists. When unique situations arise, the governments decide what to do (and uniting all European nations is their mission and purpose). They'll all talk of supporting a united UK up to and including the day of the referendum. If Scotland votes yes it will be out of the EU, then in the EU very quickly indeed. With open arms in fact. The application will go through while they're still part of the UK in an interim period. And there'll be lots of mumbo jumbo about this being a unique case and a once off to keep the Spanish happy. And you can quote me on that.

[Sin é]

Just listened to an Irish economist (David McWillaims) saying that Ireland should be very, very worried if Scotland opts for independence. He (jokingly) said that Scotland have Ireland's economic plan in their top drawer and all they have to do is follow it.

I'd love to know why England wants to hold onto Scotland if they are such an unviable economy?

[Sin é]

If Scotland had no moral obligation to take part of the debt as some had said than how can it expect to take the assets too.

The roads, the military, the hospitals, schools are all currently owned by the UK. So if Scotland has no obligation to take the debt than they can hardly have a moral right to take any assets, whether they be in Scotland or not.

No moral obligation... Total jokes given the 2 banks which were bailed out in 2008 was rbs and hbos to over 50% of Scotland's annual gdp. If that ain't a moral obligation I don't know what is.

Have Scottish people not being paying taxes and contributing to the building of these roads and facilities etc. I'd imagine a lot of Scotland's infrastructure would have had attracted a lot of EU grants as well as a lot of Scotland would be regarded as disadvantaged not to mention the EU grants for the protection of its magnificent countryside/environment.

[fa0019]

Not so sure FR

Every country in the EU has a right to veto a new member. Say Scotland tries to play hardball on debt with rUK, think rUK doesn't have the power to stop them joining the EU. Can you imagines salmond being a good old boy and saying yes dave, no dave, three bags full dave?

Then there is the euro, will they take it? The people certainly wouldn't want it and so much so I think salmons would be out the door before Scotland actually leaves... How much on brown becoming first PM of Scotland???Then there is all the benefits the uk has from the EU which Scotland will want but the EU won't want to give, the rebate, VAT, CAP allowances.. Salmons will almost certainly want the same perks the uk had proportionally... That just ain't going to happen and why I think negotiations would be long.

Tories will fight dirty and if they don't get exactly what they want say goodbye to the EU, NATO the lot? The uk may be always seen as an outsider in Europe but it ain't half powerful.

NATO issue is the craziest thing. We don't want nuclear weapons in our country... But we want the warm blanket of protection which NATO provides.... Through nuclear weapons. To all those anti nuclear weapons rainbow skied brothers Grimm delusional people out there.... When was the last weapon ever used and had they not be developed would we not have had subsequent wars post WWII? Of course we would have.

[fa0019]

If Scotland had no moral obligation to take part of the debt as some had said than how can it expect to take the assets too.

The roads, the military, the hospitals, schools are all currently owned by the UK. So if Scotland has no obligation to take the debt than they can hardly have a moral right to take any assets, whether they be in Scotland or not.

No moral obligation... Total jokes given the 2 banks which were bailed out in 2008 was rbs and hbos to over 50% of Scotland's annual gdp. If that ain't a moral obligation I don't know what is.

Have Scottish people not being paying taxes and contributing to the building of these roads and facilities etc. I'd imagine a lot of Scotland's infrastructure would have had attracted a lot of EU grants as well as a lot of Scotland would be regarded as disadvantaged not to mention the EU grants for the protection of its magnificent countryside/environment.

Sure but if you say the liabilities were created from the UK as a whole then surely that also applies for the assets too. If we have no moral obligation to the liabilities we have no moral standing to claim any assets either.

[Sin é]

What are the major assets and what are the major liabilities that you are talking about?

[Sponsored content]