Will Scotland Leave the UK?

Salmond got in a tizz because he is under immense pressure and was bound to crack sooner or later. The fact is, the SNP's entire raison d'etre is independence, they have had forever to plan how they would do it, and yet when it came to it the plan was far too easily shredded by the opposition. You just can't build a credible plan built on assertions about the goodwill of people you routinely insult in public.

Yes, there are people who think that Scotland could negotiate its way into the EU prior to separation occurring, but - and Marr did not ignore this, he actually pointed it out to Salmond - none of them is either currently in office, or has ever been in an elected position.

In terms of weighing up contrary opinions Barrosso and Van Rumpuy quite simply trump the compliant 'experts' the SNP has chosen to build its case on.

[Mr Angry]

You cannot simply dismiss their opinions Chris. Everyone is entitled to one - whether "trumped" or not.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You cannot simply dismiss their opinions Chris. Everyone is entitled to one - whether "trumped" or not.

We're a long way past opinions, Mr A. This referendum debate is now about the cold, hard facts. Facts (and assertions) can be challenged, tested, found wanting and cast aside. That's what everyone who marks a X on their ballot paper will do in September.

They may cast the other side's views aside based on hard-headed analysis or on gut feeling, but cast it aside they will.

As for me, I've dismissed nothing - I believe the separatist case is lamentable. It is ill-prepared and the white paper doesn't even make the case for a lot of what the SNP has claimed to want for Scotland over many years. I believe their case doesn't stand up to scrutiny and I reject it on that basis. They can keep their opinions. Why shouldn't they - opinions are like anuses. Everyone has one.

[Mr Angry]

The whole thing is little more than a badly choreographed bun fight.

On that, we agree. And beneath it, the polls have not shifted significantly in either direction. Amongst those certain to vote, it's 2-1 in favour of the Union, same as it's always been.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

On that, we agree. And beneath it, the polls have not shifted significantly in either direction. Amongst those certain to vote, it's 2-1 in favour of the Union, same as it's always been.

I'm quite surprised - if not a little bemused - that there isn't more "noise" from this side of the pond about the whole affair.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The SNP are very unhappy with Andrew Marr daring to suggest on his programme there may be others with a different viewpoint to theirs.....

But the SNP had some cast iron legal guidance that an independent Scotland would continue as an EU member, they must have. I mean they wouldn't have ****ed away £20,000 of taxpayers money on legal challenges to show the guidance if it didn't exist would they?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...al-advice.html

[Pierre]

Thing is they can't and wont have it all ways.

Let's say that they would be allowed to join the EU, there's no way they be allowed to keep the pound.

He seems to forget that an agreement is usually reached by agreeing terms from both sides. Not just yours.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Let's say that they would be allowed to join the EU, there's no way they be allowed to keep the pound.

As with most things relating to this bunfight there are other takes on the pound issue.

Good article, with an excellent final paragraph.

Independence is about taking responsibility. Without fiscal, regulatory and institutional responsibility, an independent Scotland will not succeed, whatever its currency arrangements, and as ordinary Venezuelans, Nigerians and Russians can attest, even with all the oil and gas in the world.

That article appears to focus on showing how Scotland could. That, however, is not the issue. The issue is whether anyone likely to be sitting in No.11. Downing Street in the event of separation negotiations taking place, being of the view that Scotland should.

Every single one of the men who could theoretically be Chancellor after 2015 has stood up and said, repeatedly, "not on my watch".

So, it is not a case of what could be made to work. It is a case of what the politicians running the residual UK would be minded to agree to. And that aint much.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

That article appears to focus on showing how Scotland could. That, however, is not the issue. The issue is whether anyone likely to be sitting in No.11. Downing Street in the event of separation negotiations taking place, being of the view that Scotland should.

Every single one of the men who could theoretically be Chancellor after 2015 has stood up and said, repeatedly, "not on my watch".

So, it is not a case of what could be made to work. It is a case of what the politicians running the residual UK would be minded to agree to. And that aint much.

Yes, but let's not forget these are the same type of people who told us (again collectively) that they didn't talk to terrorists and now share devolved Government with them.

Politicians of whatever hue will, as always, play to the gallery until it comes down to the wire whereby they then re-evaluate their position in situations where things don't go "their way". Throughout history this has been the case. Voting on an independant Scotland won't, in my opinion, change their behaviours in that regard.

A healthy dose of skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing.

It would be interesting if the majority voted yes and called what may well be their bluff.

While all you say is true, I don't see a direct analogy.

The development of a peace process and devolved government took many years of subtle behind the scenes work. It didn't shift rapidly within the time scale we have for this referendum.

Also, Westminster politicians typically equivocate and use weasel words when they are put on the spot to make a commitment they know they may later have to renege on (unless you're an utter fool, c.f. Nick Clegg and tuition fees). The striking thing about the currency debate is the repeated, explicit language all three parties are using.

If there is any wriggle room in their statements on the refusal of a currency union, I have yet to find it.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yes, but let's not forget these are the same type of people who told us (again collectively) that they didn't talk to terrorists and now share devolved Government with them.

Politicians of whatever hue will, as always, play to the gallery until it comes down to the wire whereby they then re-evaluate their position in situations where things don't go "their way". Throughout history this has been the case. Voting on an independant Scotland won't, in my opinion, change their behaviours in that regard.

A healthy dose of skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing.

It would be interesting if the majority voted yes and called what may well be their bluff.

Considering an impending a election in September I don't think any politician would dare go back on the Currency Union promise lest they be punished by the voters in May.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

If there is any wriggle room in their statements on the refusal of a currency union, I have yet to find it.

Nor will you unless it's a yes vote or it ever becomes patently obvious that the yes vote might win.

That's the beauty of being a lying, conniving, duplicitous sack of s**t MP.