h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So far as I am aware, the UK is a member of the EU. If Scotland LEAVE the UK, logically, they are a new country and will have to apply for membership. That would give them the option of the Euro as a currency. I rather suspect that if Scottish voters thought that one through, for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, they would vote No.

It is an area where the Yes campaign have been ever so vague.

It seems to me that Yes / No is way too simple a question.

It ought to have been Yes (and this is what you are signing up for) / No (you pretty much know what you are getting ).

Too late now.

PP.

It would take at least four years for Scotland to gain EU membership and it is possible that Spain (which does not want the Basque region or Catalonia to suseed) would block Scottish membership to scare off basque and Catalan seperatists.

Meanwhile the Scottish economy would be run from a Westminister with a permanent Conservative majority-short of resurrecting Thatcher or forging a union with Greece they couldn't mess on their own doorsteps much more.

It does not help that 16 and 17 year olds are voting as they think Braveheart is a documentary and fiscal deficit is a band.

"The Republic of Ireland and the UK have freedom of movement without passport controls. Any suggestion of Scotland joining leaving that club is just anti-separatist noise."

Except Scotland could be out of the EU for a while and it would become an EU border

I think your being rather hard on 16 and 17 year olds

I would like to see Scotland set up its own currency after a yes vote, but such things take time and could not be done september 19th as some people seem to think it should during such a time as it takes to set up a new independent currency I dont see why they could not continue to use the pound/peg that new currency to the pound until such time as the fiscal differences between the two nations are such that such a thing is no longer feasible

whether Scotland is in or out of the Eu only time and independence will tell with different people saying different things it would be upto the EU and the people of the independent nation of scotland to figure things out but that cannot be done while they are still part of GB.

There aren't actually any "EU Borders" as such but there are immigration zones. The UK + Ireland Common Travel Area is one and the Schengen Area is another. Famously Jersey isn't a member of the EU but is part of the Common Travel Area. Scotland would almost certainly be part of the same system (for the same reasons Ireland is) even though it may struggle to get quick membership of the EU.

I think that giving 16 and 17 year olds a vote in the referendum was a smart move on the part of the nationalists. They are LIKELY to be more radical than older voters and therefore vote Yes.

'If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.' (Or however it is to be mis-quoted today)

PP.

When will the referendum results be known?

I agree that 16 and 17 year olds are underestimated. They are certainly better informed than I ever was at that age.

So, if I were a Scot and I lived, say, here in Germany, as many of my Scottish friends do, presumably I can't vote. Even as an outsider, I find that quite unfair.

no more unfair than those of us here paying shedload of tax and solidarity tax () and not being allowed to vote though.

My is that the Scottish people have to take their chance to break from the Union if they want it. I was irked at the beginning when devo max was not on the ballot but now I believe that a simple in/out question is the only way this could be settled properly.

I think that if they want to join the EU the EU heirarchy is flexible enough to make a special case out of this and allow them to join/remain as long as there is an agreement and timetable to adopt the Euro. That, I think will be the deal breaker as far as EU membership is concerned. The lack of discussion about the EU has been a mistake, IMO, because I can also see, down the line, that an independent Scotland may decide to hold a referendum on this issue. A pity they couldn't have added, to the Yes option, the choice of independence with or without EU membership.

I wonder what will happen to expat Scottish people working in the EU - since I'm also assuming that they will have to surrender their British passport - if Scotland isn't automatically granted membership. I'm also going to assume that they will be allowed to continue to live and work in the EU but that would seem more than a little unfair.

I also think that all talk from the Yes campaign about keeping sterling (haha - I'm assuming they will keep Stirling, swl, unless it becomes a walled British enclave à la West Berlin...) is a bit of a fudge around the Euro issue, sort of a "wait and see" but I also don't see a problem for the rUK if they do use the same currency. As before fiscal and monetary policy concerning the pound will be set by Westminster regardless of Scotland's needs and wishes (so, no change there, then). Don't Panama use the US$ in a similar way?

In my heart I hope that Scotland does vote for independence* and that it works out well for them (as long as there isn't a lot of nose-thumbing and "told you so"-ing). I have often wondered if the UK woudln't work better as a collection of federal states, pretty much like America and Germany, perhaps we will get the chance to see.

But, with the voting apparently so close, whatever happens nearly half the population aren't going to get their way. I hope whoever is in charge afterwards remembers that their responsibilty is to everyone in Scotland, not just those who voted for whatever happens. IYSWIM?

Plus: if the Yes vote doesn't get it, they can always force another referendum in 10 years or so

*and not just because I want Yorkshire to declare independence

Eh, various half responses to variousf half questions, as we've been having *quite* the debate up here for the last 2 years now*

The reason why we're not painted as feckless subsidy junkies by the No campaign is that we've paid more tax than we've spend for the last 30 or 35 years, if you include oil. Or rather, the 90% of the UK's oil which comes from Scottish waters. The figures have been checked forensically, and they check out.

The SNP think that we'll have a currency union because it's in England's interests to do so, as well as ours. Our economies are almost 100% in sync at the moment, as the governor of the BoE says. What he does say that's interesting is that Scotland has to cede sovereignty to be part of a currency union. The No campaign use this to ask what the point of a Yes vote is. From England's POV, would you be so pissed off with Scotland that you'd choose a massive recession just to put *us* in recession too? Probably not I'd imagine.

In terms of the EU, Salmond is assuming that the EU powers aren't about to expel a current member, which will have the largest oil reserves in the EU, the largest renewable energy resource, the EU's largest marine area, and would be in the top 10 wealthiest economies per capita. I can't say I fault his logic, either.

It's funny how, in a debate framed by the media, the 'democratic deficit' isn't given more weight. This refers to Scotland overwhelmingly rejecting the Conservatives for the last 30 years, but still getting Tory governments who have no mandate to rule us. I'd say one reason why the SNP formed the last 2 govts here are because we realised that Labour aren't centre-left any more either, and that's what wins up here.

So to my English buddies, the debate up here, in town hall meetings, on Facebook, in pubs and offices, has been about how we can make Scotland a better place to live, how to be more like Scandinavia, what we'd have been like with an oil fund like Norway's ($500bn and climbing). Lots of people think it's all pish and would say we can't, but that's the debate we've been having.

Now the likes of swl may be less than thrilled at the socialist Nirvana some of us can see (or would like to), but it's got a lot of people thinking about politics in a way that I've never seen before. It's been exhilarating, and I don't think anyone will be happy with the status quo in the long term.

My guess is a narrow No win, and a comfortable pro-independence vote within 15 years.









*and the volume and level of debate about this referendum highlights how far hootoo has fallen in the last ten years.

Scotland is not The Irish Republic there has been no referendum if the Scots want to be independent then they should have it, 100% with all the extra benefits and all the inevitable problems. Whilst the rest of the world watches with interest

eh?

If I wanted a Scandinavian solution, I wouldn't start from where Scotland is now. It's a "grass is greener" dream that fails to recognise the fundamental cultural differences.

Ireland was taken by war and settled by force, and policed by the British army during the recent troubles. We even created the religious division by sending Protestant settlers.

And yes we were fighting with Scotland for years to maintain the border they almost conqured England when Prince Charles marched south to claim the throne but turned back because of lack of unity.

The union was at Scotlands request as the country was in financial ruin. There is a big difference in the two cases.

Our Royal family is Scottish and German the English succession ended with Elizabeth I.

There are a lot of people who believe that the Scottish people have been more than a little mislead by excellent propaganda.

That's the difference

one historic debt does not prove a country would be unable to govern itself 300 years later it is unfair to expect a country to put up with successive governments that it did not elect enacting mandates which it wants no part of

I'm not suggesting that independence would change all that what I am hoping is that with full representation closer to home those making the decisions will be more accountable for them and their effect on the people

...that'll significantly destabilize NATO, Scotland is already an important contributor.

Besides the EU considerations, they'll want to join the UN, dues to pay.

Un membership can save them money on establishment of their own diplomatic and foreign services.

They'll need to organize their own military and pay its expenses, stipulated they have got adequate trained and experienced personnel and a measure of infrastructure in place.




Jacobite transportees among my antecedants notwithstanding, I personally consider the Jacobite cause unwise, excessively vainglorious and dangerously obsolescent politics even in its time, would not have supported it.

The Jacobite insurrection has been a dead letter issue in the USA since the Red Sticks insurrection in the prelude to the War of 1812 and the conclusion of the war of 1812 with the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars.




The youth vote does worry me.

A fact of human nature, the young do tend to be excessively romantic and insufficiently practical.




The oil issue notwithstanding I personally think Scottish independence will cost more than its worth, a penny wise, pound foolish proposition.

On the oil isdue itself, I'd want to see a detailed study on who''ll profit before the election.

"It's funny how, in a debate framed by the media, the 'democratic deficit' isn't given more weight. This refers to Scotland overwhelmingly rejecting the Conservatives for the last 30 years, but still getting Tory governments who have no mandate to rule us."

Wonder what that's like.

Yours, the smouldering ruins of Northern England.

As Darling pointed out, most Scots didn't vote for Salmond either.

<...that'll significantly destabilize NATO, Scotland is already an important contributor.>

Are they? I thought that the UK was?

PP.