I'm aware of that - but am not sure of the point you are trying to make. My question was what have the UK got to fall back on if that contingency planning by those banks actually comes to fruition. That would have no small effect on the UK's industry of choice - as would the eventual running out of natural resources have on Scotland's economy, as would the running out of diamonds have on Sth Africa's economy, as would the running out of coal/copper/gold/bauxite on Australia's economy, as would the running out of fish on Iceland's economy. Every country in the world faces the same possible problem, and that's no reason for just one of them to have to shrink back into a shell of dependency - the place that many think we are currently in....
....except the aircraft carriers that were given to Scotland to finish and closed shipbuilding in Portsmouth. I hope that decision is reversed if Scotland vote Yes. The people of Portsmouth are all hoping for that Yes vote
I didn't say that only a small minority want to be protected by NATO - those are your words. The small minority I alluded to were in favour of hosting nuclear weapons, a different issue. As far as I'm aware, NATO has 28 member states, only three of which are nuclear states. Has anyone asked the other 25 non-nuclear states why they wanted to join?
Anders Fogh Rasmussen from NATO has stated that an Independent Scotland would have to apply for membership in the same way that any other new nation would have to, and all the members would have to agree. José Manuel Barroso has stated that Scotland cannot piggy back into the EU via the UK membership. Alex Salmond has said that he thinks that Scotland can enter both without having to go through the normal channels. From here it seems that when asked to explain why he thinks that these organizations will treat Scotland differently to others countries he doesn't have an answer.
I have to answer this as you have decided to rubbish my points with your 'opinion'. If you look I have tried to back up my arguments with facts. I have answered those questions put to me and yet you still insist that I ignore or denigrate others that opose me. I can only tell you that I have tried to present facts in support of my position. The NO campaign have not. I have asked on many many occasions for NO supporters to give me a postitive case for staying with the union. I am still waiting. The truth would appear to be that they do not have a positive case only FEARS for what might be. I ask you Leonardo to back up your assertion that I ignore facts that don't suit me by producing evidence that that is the case. I am at present investigating the 'fact' that I and others assert that the UK is the 4th most unequal country in the OECD countries. This has been challenged by a NO supporter who unusually has backed his claim with figures. I am interested to see he is correct and I am wrong. I have so far discovered that his info comes from Credit Suisse in a lengthy document that I am looking through at this moment. If I find that he is right I will acknowledge it. We will see. Today we have broadcast by the BBC that a leading Oil Man says the Scottish government is wrong by 60% in its claims for Scotlands oil. What they don't report is a huge report from a Scottish university professor pulling together all known info on the oil in Scotland and reaching the conclusion that we are on the brink of a new oil boom. This has not been reported at all and it this kind of blatant supression and quite frankly lies from the MSM that you find so hard to accept. I have taken the trouble to inform myself properly on this subject and continue to try to cut through the propaganda in search of the truth. If you wish to put an alternative view that is fair enough but you will need to back up your opinions before they are taken seriously.
José Manuel Barroso has no say in the matter. What he intimated was at the promptings of David Cameron, whose support he was seeking in his bid to be elected as EC president. The man who beat him to that position, Jean-Claude Juncker - who Cameron vehemently opposed - tells a very different story. As does Graham Avery, hon director general of the EC.
The only person who appears to believe that Scotland would be able to renegotiate it's membership of the EU from within is Alex Salmand. Nearly all other sources closer to Brussels suggest otherwise. Not just Barruso but also Van Rompuy ,the head of the European Council, have indicated that Scotland would need to reapply from outside, like any other new state. Any veto from any country could stop this application going through - Spain, France, Belgium, Italy and Latvia all have separatist issues which could be aggravated by Scottish independence. Any enlargement of the EU ( and Scotland means one more nation) must be agreed to by all member states. Scottish voters must go into the referendum with the knowledge that a 'Yes' vote means simultaneously leaving the EU.
Just to add to that, it has been stated that no further expansion for the next five years will happen. The rapid growth needs time to settle down.
If Scotland wish to join the ESB so badly they can assume my lands application, then they will see rape of the nations resources. Their territorial water as now belongs to all of Europe, their oil belongs to all of Europe, and so on. The best situation would be to remain outside and keep control of these important things. At least the Scottish will have the choice of joining where England and the rest of the UK will never have a chance to choose, you left FrÃverslunarsamtök Evrópu (EFTA) to join a bigger trading group that has grown into something totally different.
I am neither a member of the Yes or No campaigns. I am simply stating the obvious from a European perspective. The United Kingdom joined the EU as the United Kingdom - the constituent parts of the UK are only in the EU for as long as they remain in the UK. I am sorry, but this is as clear as night and day. If a country like eg. Germany split up into 6 pieces would all 6 of them remain in the EU with voting rights as 'separate' nations ? My worry is that many Scottish voters do not realize this - or are rather being distracted from it by Salmonds propaganda on this issue.
We have little interest or information. I had to look hard for thes pages from mbl.is over some weeks. From today was http://www.mbl.is/frettir/erlent/2014/08/18/erfid_baratta_fyrir_sjalfstaedissinna/ Translated below http://www.mbl.is/frettir/erlent/2014/08/15/vill_skotland_afram_i_bretlandi/ ÃstralÃa prime mnister says Scotland better in UK. http://www.mbl.is/frettir/erlent/2014/08/09/skotar_haldi_sig_ekki_vid_pundid/ Ed Milliband says no to Scotland keeping the pound http://www.mbl.is/frettir/erlent/2014/08/05/tekist_a_um_sjalfstaedi_skota/ About a television debate this is the first link translated. Mánuður er þar til Skot­ar ganga til kosn­inga à þjóðar­at­kvæðagreiðslu um það hvort Skot­land eigi að vera áfram hluti af breska kon­ung­dæm­inu eða lýsa yfir sjálf­stæði en kosn­ing­in fer fram 18. sept­em­ber. Fram kem­ur à frétt AFP að á bratt­ann sé að sækja fyr­ir sjálf­stæðissinna ef marka megi niður­stöður skoðanakann­ana að und­an­förnu sem sýna meiri­hluta hlynnta áfram­hald­andi rÃkja­sam­bandi við Eng­land, Wales og Norður-Ãrland. Kann­an­ir sýni að á bil­inu 45-50% Skot­ar ætli að styðja áfram­hald­andi veru à breska kon­ung­dæm­inu en um 30% styðji sjálf­stæði. Aðrir hafi ekki gert upp hug sinn. For­sæt­is­ráðherra Skot­lands, Alex Salmond, hef­ur bar­ist fyr­ir þvà að Skot­ar samþykki að lýsa yfir sjálf­stæði en virðist ekki hafa náð að sann­færa meiri­hluta lands­manna sinna um rétt­mæti þess ef marka má kann­an­ir. One month until the Scots go for elections in a referendum on whether Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom or declare independence; elections will take place September 18. It is stated in the AFP news poll regarding self government recent results show a majority in favour of the continued relationship with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Surveys show that 45-50% of Scots believe the support continued British presence in the kingdom (I think this is continued Scottish presence in the United Kingdom),while 30% support for independence. Others have not made up their minds. Prime Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, has campaigned for Scotland to agree to declare independence but does not seem to have managed to convince the majority of the population carry the legitimacy of judging polls.
Spot on Cologne. There are no precedents for this whatsoever. I would be stunned if the application's not already being written... I would, however, strongly suspect that a deal will be done to enable Scotland to retain its status in some way even if its an iterim measure until everything's formalised. They're not going to kick a major North Sea state out of the fold. OFH rightly points out that the Commission has said there'll be no expansion for the next 5 years but I am certain i read somewhere that they said it wouldn't apply to Scotland as it's a special case. In terms of meting the criteria Scotland must more or less already be there so it isn't the same as someone like Albania applying.
That is the sensible position, they have no mechanism for expelling 5.5 million members of the EU with all the ramifications that would come with It is not likely that the EU would want to go down the road of expelling people. They will find away around it EVEN if as is likely that Scotland will have to re negotiate it's position.
There are several European countries with areas that would like independence. There is no way whatsoever that they will allow Scotland to leave the UK but still remain in the EU. It would cause chaos in Europe.
It's not a case of the EU expelling Scotland or it's citizens, the case is Scotland voluntarily withdrawing from EU membership by default if it leaves the constituted member (the UK).
This is the sort of misinformation you expect from the Yes campaign. They are choosing to leave the UK which is an EU member - and so will by default leave the EU - nobody is expelling them. What next - they will claim that a Yes result will mean the UK have expelled them from the UK Words like having cake and eating it spring to mind. Equally - if you get divorced you no longer have access to your partners finances yet Yes campaigners say they have an automatic right to continue to use Sterling. Well yes they do - and if Iceland wanted to they also could choose Sterling as their currency. What Yes campaigners cannot seem to understand though is that control of Sterling through money supply and interest rates resides with the Bank of ENGLAND - not the bank of the UK. Let us imagine Scotland gains independence and is immensely successful - their economy is booming and overheating and they need interest rates to go up to prevent huge jumps in inflation. At the same time imagine rUK is ticking along more slowly and is happy with interest rates as they are. Do the Yes campaigners even dream that the Bank of England will raise interest rates for them? Look at the Euro - Germany decides interest rates and money supply and economies not in synch with theirs just have to lump it - whatever the cost in human misery. Scotland can of course use Sterling - and it would work as long as their economy stays in step with rUK. So they will have to raise and lower taxes and spending to keep it that way. Yes - that is true independence - NOT. Another daft argument by the Yes campaign is that the No campaign are negative and do not put forward their proposals. Well how about this - the NO camapign happen to beleive the UK already exists so you can see exactly what the future course is - more of the UK. It is up to the people who want to change the status quo to tell us the outcome of their changes. the No campaign is not proposing to make changes - apart from a few things that the referendum has forced out of them. Full marks to the Yes campaign for having achieved that. If I were Cameron I would have said - just decide if you wish to stay or go - if you stay you know what life is like - but go if you hate it so much and want to risk believing Salmond's pie in the sky optimism.
If you are talking about the likes of Catalonia, you have sadly missed a very important distinction. Catalonia, it is true, would like to break away from Spain, where it is currently merely an 'area' as you say, and become a country in its own right. Scotland is already a country in its own right. Two very different scenarios... There's that somewhat odd word - precedent. It always puts me mind of Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22. If for something to happen there has to have been a case of it happening before, quite logically nothing could ever have happened. Or, to put it another way, there is a first time for everything. Even the BBC, as biased as it is, qualified that statement using these words: "New European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker was not referring to Scotland when he said there would be no new members of the EU in the next five years, BBC Scotland has learned."
So nobody knows the actual process. However Scotland is only a member of the EU as part of the UK. If it cedes from the UK then it has no membership status. The Yes campaign hopes that the EU will view an application to join favourably as it was previously "in" as part of a greater whole. Therefore it is uncertain when and on what terms Scotland could join. Uncertainty for an economy is ALWAYS bad. That is as good as it gets for the Yes campaigners - if they are lucky the EU will welcome them in with open arms quickly but Alex Salmond cannot promise that. All of that is surely "fact" The EU favours use of the Euro - is there any reason they might want to let Scotland join without committing to the Euro? I cannot think of one as they would make the UK join the Euro if they could. Before Spurf starts having a go - that is not campaign fear, it is not what I have seen from any NO campaign; it is logic and fact and sensible reasoning. If you disagree tell me where I have got it wrong.
