[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Wonder if they have anything to say about stripping 5 million people of their EU citizenship that you seem so confident they can do?

No one will be stripping 5 million people of their EU citizenship. If 5 million people decide they wish to leave an EU member state then it's them who are relinquishing their EU citizenship, even if it's unintentional.

Show me the treaties that say this?

Plus we can't just leave without negotiation. Says that in the treaties also.

ninfan - Member
"Our referendum is only to do with leaving the union of the united kingdom."
Which is part of the EU.

You leave us, you leave the EU

Thats how it works

do you get it yet?

You seem a man of conviction, so maybe you should put some money on that. Let us know what odds you are offered.

20 quid to yer favourite charity? Ye gemme?

Why don't you? - Paddypower are offering you 3/1

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/scottish-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1292126

They're not even offering bets against it 😆

I don't gamble. If anyone is willing to take the bet offered I'll honour that. 🙂

Article 50 1.Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. XX , X 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218

Or am I missing the treaty that allows a part of Europe to be kicked out following a consented referendum.

That would seem slightly at odds with the EUs democratic principles, no? I can quote those too if you like? 😆

Anyhow, I think I've presented enough ambiguity this evening without receiving any answers. night night.

You're not a member state!

Ffs do I need go a find treaties about the borders of the EU now? 😀

Just admit that its far from certain and legal battles will need to be fought if it doesn't go how we like it. Its far from the cut and dried we are told from the no campaign.

So why is an SNP politician requesting advise then - of what possible use is it to her ?

Do you think it has worked ?

Plus we can't just leave without negotiation. Says that in the treaties also.

The UK won't be leaving the EU. I don't understand why you can't get your head round that.

Besides, I don't know why you are getting so worked up about EU membership. I have no doubt at all that an independent Scotland would be offered EU membership, it might be fast tracked or it might not, that's the only real uncertainty imo.

And the terms will almost certainly be less favourable than the existing ones for the UK are. But I don't suppose that this matters too much as the entire argument for Scottish independence appears to be based on being "free" and living in a "democracy" and a load of other emotive misuse of words, and very little about being better off.

Ernie. Show me the treaty that states that rUK continues as the successor state please?

In lieu of that I'd suggest that there is legal battle number 1.

[quote=seosamh77 ]Ernie. Show me the treaty that states that rUK continues as the successor state please?
In lieu of that I'd suggest that there is legal battle number 1.

You reckon there's a realistic chance that the state who's residents haven't been given a vote on leaving anything will be considered to be the one which has chosen to become independent? Sometimes you really are living on cloud cuckoo land with your ideas - how about you go away and find anybody sensible who agrees with your suggestions before you ask us on here to refute them.

The bottom line is, this isn't a situation the EU rules cover adequately, and it'll be a point of [i]interesting discussion[/i]. But since we want to be in the EU, and the EU certainly wants us, it's kind of hard to imagine where the will to force us out will come from.

(the EU would certainly rather we don't leave the UK, of course, but that's another question entirely and one which colours matters now)

And for everyone pointing at articles and trying to work with the uncertainty therein- the articles aren't divine writ, if the EU wants us in (which by and large it will, I think we'll agree) then it is within their scope to create an article of secession or a treaty of accelerated entry to their satisfaction. Especially where the alternative would be to end up being forced in a direction nobody wants, by rules that were never meant to have that effect. That's the fun thing about being a lawmaking and rulemaking body.

Yes yes, Spain, but the obvious truth is that Scotland and Catalunya are not directly comparable, and the Spanish have taken (undemocratic and ethically dismal) steps to ensure that already, so they really gain very little in practical terms by seriously resisting Scotland's entry/retention in the EU.

Meanwhile, they would quite like to keep their fishing industry, which is largely dependent on the access to the north atlantic fisheries which they gain through our EU membership. It'd be a very brave Spanish politician who makes hundreds of thousands of people unemployed with a single vote.

The Spanish do have good reasons to not want us to be independent- as well as their own independence issues, they've benefited massively from the UK's willingness to barter away scottish fisheries. Oh hey, is this a good time to mention that Scotland weirdly has 87% of UK fisheries yet receives only 40% of the european fisheries funding? (distribution set by Westminster, dur)

So in short- we want in, the eu wants us in, and the eu makes the rules. And those who claim to oppose it have little reason to do so and great reason not to. So where really is the issue?

I've previously linked to EU articles that state that splitting from the UK would mean leaving the EU, if you don't believe me just check my posting history.
I don't have a major problem with Scotland becoming independent, I just don't think it's a good idea, for either country.

seosamh77 - Member

Ernie. Show me the treaty that states that rUK continues as the successor state please?

There is nothing to state.
We're a member now and if a small faction wants to do their own thing then it doesn't affect us, it affects you.

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » Ernie. Show me the treaty that states that rUK continues as the successor state please?
In lieu of that I'd suggest that there is legal battle number 1.
You reckon there's a realistic chance that the state who's residents haven't been given a vote on leaving anything will be considered to be the one which has chosen to become independent? Sometimes you really are living on cloud cuckoo land with your ideas - how about you go away and find anybody sensible who agrees with your suggestions before you ask us on here to refute them

Ernie asked why this is important. Its not particularly as an issue. But as a demonstration of utter bollocks from the no camp. Well, it works quite nicely as a microcosm.

when Germany was reunited it became a new state

The bottom line is, this isn't a situation the EU rules cover adequately, and it'll be a point of interesting discussion. But since we want to be in the EU, and the EU certainly wants us, it's kind of hard to imagine where the will to force us out will come from.

In any case, there will be sufficient time between any successful referendum and formal independence to negotiate seamless accession to the EU by iScotland, and there is sufficient political will to make it happen.

The suggestion that Scottish secession will mean the UK has to reapply for membership of the EU (or any other organisation) is complete nonsense.

In other news http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independence-snp-bullied-bosses-over-currency-1-3362675

They have a long history of bullying and suppressing dissenters. Nothing new there. It's why the word bully slips off their tongues so easily and a classic symptom of bullying itself ie, use the accusation to hide your own actions. School teachers will recognise that a mile off.

Given there is no issue with EU, it's puzzling why the Europeans keep making one of it rather than saying, "there is no issue, bienvenue nos amis ecossais." All very odd, they should listen to Alex. It's all very easy, trust him, it's in the BoD.

teamhurtmore - Member
They have a long history of bullying and suppressing dissenters. Nothing new there. It's why the word bully slips off their tongues so easily and a classic symptom of bullying itself ie, use the accusation to hide your own actions. School teachers will recognise that a mile off.

konabunny - Member

The suggestion that Scottish secession will mean the UK has to reapply for membership of the EU (or any other organisation) is complete nonsense.

Absolutely. It's no less ridiculous than a lot of the no campaign nonsense about eu membership but I think anyone that seriously gives it the time of day needs to take a look at themselves. Some folks just seem to use it as a "fighting stupidity with stupidity" argument but that's... well, stupid.

Course, it is easy to see that the UK's position in the EU would be changed, and not for the better- with David Cameron insisting he's going to renegotiate that anyway, that could lead to interesting places. But that's a whole different thing.

The suggestion that Scottish secession will mean the UK has to reapply for membership of the EU (or any other organisation) is complete nonsense.

I do agree, I only suggest that as counter to the nonsense that Scotland will end up out in the cold with a begging bowl.

Either scenario is fantasy.

In your opinion, has the no campaign been all sweetness and light?

A good question. An excellent place to start to answer is the written material that is supposed to help us make informed decisions. Allegedly, this is all negative stuff. Looking at the example I posted a couple of pages back, this doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, I struggled to find a anything other than positive comments. No one took the opportunity to disagree either, so I guess that's not a bad consensus, so far.

Anyway, I heard form a mate in Edinburgh that yS have a new trump card. Offers of free tickets on the Souter [s]Knightbuses[/s], sorry Nightbuses for all the yes voters. Not sure if it's true. Free buses tickets would hardly be good for the tram!

Scotland should become part of Ukraine. I hear they're looking for new territory and they're in pre-accession talks with the EU already.

Either scenario is fantasy.

The scenario that Scotland as a new independent state will have to apply to join the EU isn't fantasy. Nor is the claim that Scotland will almost certainly have less favourable entry conditions than those enjoyed at the present by the UK.

Ukraine is interesting isn't it? Look behind the scenes at what happens/has happened/will happen in Ukraine and the EUs willingness to open its arms and wallets. Then compare this with the lukewarm (at best) reactions to the idea of an iS. Not really cricket, that!!!!!

ernie_lynch - Member
The scenario that Scotland as a new independent state will have to apply to join the EU isn't fantasy. Nor is the claim that Scotland will almost certainly have less favourable entry conditions than those enjoyed at the present by the UK.

True Ernie, but you seem to be missing the point. Inconvenient facts must be suppressed in favour of thought-speak (assets!) and historical revisionism (RBS). It has been decreed.

The scenario that Scotland as a new independent state will have to apply to join the EU isn't fantasy.

True Ernie, but you seem to be missing the point. Inconvenient facts must be suppressed in favour of thought-speak

I agree seosamh, Ernie and I are both waiting for the facts to support independence too! Do you think that they might arrive before the actual vote?

THM nothing will ever arrive , on the yes side, that will satisfy your criteria except perhaps AS declaring he is a liar and he made it all up. Its as likely as you changing tact though

You reckon there's a realistic chance that the state who's residents haven't been given a vote on leaving anything will be considered to be the one which has chosen to become independent? Sometimes you really are living on cloud cuckoo land with your ideas - how about you go away and find anybody sensible who agrees with your suggestions before you ask us on here to refute them.

POSTED 8 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
Northwind - Member - Block User - Quote
The bottom line is, this isn't a situation the EU rules cover adequately, and it'll be a point of interesting discussion. But since we want to be in the EU, and the EU certainly wants us, it's kind of hard to imagine where the will to force us out will come from.

Nor is the claim that Scotland will almost certainly have less favourable entry conditions than those enjoyed at the present by the UK.

No one took the opportunity to disagree either, so I guess that's not a bad consensus, so far

Then compare this with the lukewarm (at best) reactions to the idea of an iS. Not really cricket, that!!!!!

In your opinion, has the no campaign been all sweetness and light?

A good question. An excellent place to start to answer is the written material that is supposed to help us make informed decisions. Allegedly, this is all negative stuff. Looking at the example I posted a couple of pages back, this doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, I struggled to find a anything other than positive comments.

So is the spearhead of the Unionist campaign, better together, author of many of these positive comments? Or is their campaign inconvenient for you to dwell on when painting the no campaign as positive? As for The UK examples that they put up,they are very positive, but don't stand up to any more scrutiny than your poster boy of the revolution.They claim that we are weathering the Global economic crisis are somewhat tempered by the fact that foodbank use has doubled in the whole of the UK. ,

The BT campaign seems pretty lacklustre to me. The UK government analysis however tends to stand up better to scrutiny. It was pretty positive too, wasn't it? I guess you also agree as you haven't falsified any of the specific points yet.

Compared to other countries, we have weathered the crisis relatively well although those oversized banks remain a problem. Just imagine.....oh no, that's not allowed in fantasy land.

It really depends on whether you compare us to Germany or Greece as to whether we have weathered it well. Mixed I would say.
We have been mid table a sort of Man u season and GO is probably as competent as Moyes and just as charismatic 😉

I think we can all agree that the facts or propaganda each side use [ depending on who you support]are positive to their position as no one is as daft/honest as say negative things about their own view in public life hence we get such polarised debates between the camps.

Its also probably fair to say the no campaign has been more negative - it would have been whatever they did as AS message is one of constant ambrosia after the vote so anything would appear negative compared to that. That said calling it project fear tells you whether they were doing a positive or a negative campaign

No document to prove iS will get worse conditions then but happy to keep claiming it ? An example of a positive message? and what would you say if AS did this?

The BT campaign seems pretty lacklustre to me. The UK government analysis however tends to stand up better to scrutiny. It was pretty positive too, wasn't it? I guess you also agree as you haven't falsified any of the specific points yet.

Nope,it was BS, like your attempts to claim that this

teamhurtmore - Member
Pretty typical budget with only one big surprise - the (positive IMO) pension changes. Great to see savers for once being recognised ditto Isas etc. Otherwise positive short term economic news offset by slightly negative longer term projections. Fiscally neutral - give with one hand, take any with the other. A bit of politics - obvious pander to the active "silver" vote and the welfare cap "trap" and finally the hidden skulduggery - "hiding away" interest payments to the BOE (tut, tut).
Otherwise deficit better but still poor and more austerity to come (at best half way through) whoever wins in 2015. Plus ca change

on GO on a completly different thread on the budget constituted

WNB, shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made of GOs policies. But if it helps to make a false point, feel free.

Re, Osbourne I will simply invite you to open a few relevant threads. The evidence is there. I hope you will take this invitation even if you have rejected the one to raise the game.

Seem to be a lot of people at it eh?

It's not just the formatting that is confused there Duckman.

Edit for edit: well at least the formatting is now improved.

(Given the the point you seem to be objecting to is where I suggested checking relevant threads (note the plural), it seems odd that you chose to ignore that especially when I also only chose the most recent and relevant one as an example. But I do accept that to have recognised this would have falsified your argument from the start, which is not ideal. So I see what you needed to do (misrepresent) and why.)

No document to prove iS will get worse conditions then but happy to keep claiming it ? ?

Junky, we can go all the way back to page 4 for that

With his written evidence here: - [u]please pay particular evidence to the video evidence about not being able to continue the existing opt outs[/u] - if you lose the existing opt-outs, then you're signing up to worse conditions, its that simple!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/643we13.htm

and the formal legal opinion given to government

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf

An example of a positive message? and what would you say if AS did this?

We've said it before - the UK government have (exceptionally) published formal independent legal opinions from academics and barristers that back them up, the SNP [b]continue[/b] to refuse to publish their own independent legal advice on the issue.

Why do you think that is?

Excellent THM,love what you did there,and for all to see.

In your opinion, has the no campaign been all sweetness and light?

Excellent THM,love what you did there,and for all to see.

So did I, quite restrained given the circumstances. And anyone CAN see your constant misquoting and misrepresentation. Seems like a pre-requisite for lots of yS arguments though TBF. You are in good company.

With his written evidence here: - please pay particular evidence to the video evidence about not being able to continue the existing opt outs - if you lose the existing opt-outs, then you're signing up to worse conditions, its that simple!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/643we13.htm

and the formal legal opinion given to government

GOV.UK "https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf"

An example of a positive message? and what would you say if AS did this?

A lot of "could"'s and "might" in the formal legal opinion there.

Losing the opt outs would be a different but it's not less democracy as someone was suggesting earlier. iScotland would also be able to properly negotiate for the things that impact it the most, such as fishing rights which the UK government has been inadequate.

A lot of "could"'s and "might" in the formal legal opinion there.

Makes you wonder why SNP are so reluctant to let us see see their own (alternative?) formal legal opinion, doesn't it?

Makes you wonder why SNP are so reluctant to let us see see their own (alternative?) formal legal opinion, doesn't it?

Not really, I think we all know why they won't release it. If, as I suspect, it says the same things as the above, I wouldn't release it either.

As the end of the day both documents say that Scotland would, if it wanted, become a member of the EU after a set of negotiations. It's also pointed out that there is no precedent, it's just (informed) opinion and that things can change. Which isn't really all that far from the SNP have been saying is it?

Pretty much but not quite WNB - Scotland will be offered access under the conditions that apply to all new members. There will be some negotiation on some details. This will take time - probably more that than SNP predict and more in line with the projections made by those more experienced in these areas - and will be under different conditions than those negotiated by the UK. The latter will still apply to rUK but not to a new state such as iS.

Cannot watch the video so cannot comment on it]
the first link says nothing about the issue and the second one is 50 + pages long

the second link has this

166.Assuming that Scotland would indeed have to accede to the EU as a new state, it would be a matter for the accession process whether it could do so on similar terms to the UK.
There is no rule that, for example, it would somehow automatically be entitled to the UK’s opt-outs from the euro or justice and home affairs. The terms of accession would have to be agreed with other Member States

Scottish independence would be an event without a clear precedent in EU law and is not clearly governed by any particular provisions of the EU treaties

the UK government have (exceptionally) published [b]formal independent legal opinions from academics and barristers that back them up[/b]

SNP continue to refuse to publish their own independent legal advice on the issue.

Scotland will be offered access under the conditions that apply to all new members.

That's not actually what the links say though is it. It's probably the most likely outcome but they do make reference to the fact this hasn't before and things may be fast tracked or concessions given etc. It's also stated that although the UK is likely to remain a member there may be pressure to have it's own terms renegotiated to reflect it's own reduced population and assets.

Scotland will be offered access under the conditions that apply to all new members....and will be under different conditions than those negotiated by the UK

The EU could literally do anything as it is politics and there is NO PRECEDENT for this scenario,no real rules and no ruling for them on what will or wont happen
You have no evidence to support that claim and you know it. Is this not what yo object to AS doing? well that and breathing.

Interesting stuff on how citizens are affected [ ninfan link]as the state may be a new member but the citizens are members...gives sufficient wiggle room for almost any scenario to be credible I would have thought but basically we do not know as they have remained neutral for the reasons stated above.

Which isn't really all that far from the SNP have been saying is it?

Well, to be fair you'd need to specify - the SNP have said a lot of things in the course of events, their position has gone from claiming that they would automatically inherit EU membership, to accepting that they would probably have to reapply, to claiming that iS and rUK would both have to reapply, to accepting that the rUK would continue with membership and iS would have to reapply but would be guaranteed entry, to claiming that Barosso was lying when he said that they would not be guaranteed entry, to then accepting that Barosso was technically telling the truth, but it was all a conspiracy by the rUK government and EU to undermine the Yes campaign

So, which version is it 'not far from'?

You may be right on the links WNB, I didn't open them. But if you are correct that a yes vote would alter the rUK's terms of membership, then perhaps the idea of "why do youse bother" can be out to bed once and for all.

We bother for very good reasons. It's our interests that are being negatively affected.

The European citizens' initiative allows one million EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU policies, by calling on the European Commission to make a legislative proposal.

http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/?lg=en

Are there a million STWers? 😆

But if you are correct that a yes vote would alter the rUK's terms of membership, then perhaps the idea of "why do youse bother" can be out to bed once and for all.

We bother for very good reasons. It's our interests that are being negatively affected.

I can't see it being a big problem, it's unlikely to change more than, say, the number of MEPs I'd of thought, but it's a possibility.

I can't see it being a big problem, it's unlikely to change more than, say, the number of MEPs I'd of thought, but it's a possibility.

I think Scotland would get 9, I think that's the minimum.

[quote=seosamh77 ]I do agree, I only suggest that as counter to the nonsense that Scotland will end up out in the cold with a begging bowl.

Ah, an Edinburgh defence variation. I think it might save time if we assumed you weren't actually serious about any of your suggestions. Oh here we go:

no I reckon there will be 2 successor states.

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

[quote=whatnobeer ]iScotland would also be able to properly negotiate for the things that impact it the most, such as fishing rights which the UK government has been inadequate.

It would be able to do that because it would be in such a strong position in negotiations to rejoin the EU?

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » I do agree, I only suggest that as counter to the nonsense that Scotland will end up out in the cold with a begging bowl.
Ah, an Edinburgh defence variation. I think it might save time if we assumed you weren't actually serious about any of your suggestions. Oh here we go:

no I reckon there will be 2 successor states.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.

[quote=seosamh77 ]laugh all ye want, notable that none of the above points I raised have been addressed.

Maybe you can let us know when you're being serious then. Also addressed by whom? I refer you to my earlier point:

[quote=aracer ]how about you go away and find anybody sensible who agrees with your suggestions before you ask us on here to refute them.

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » laugh all ye want, notable that none of the above points I raised have been addressed.
Maybe you can let us know when you're being serious then. Also addressed by whom? I refer you to my earlier point:

aracer » how about you go away and find anybody sensible who agrees with your suggestions before you ask us on here to refute them.

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

It was mentioned in at least one of the links to legal opinion and couldn't be totally ruled out iirc.

It would be able to do that because it would be in such a strong position in negotiations to rejoin the EU?

FFS, we're not back to seriously suggesting Scotland wouldn't be allowed back in?

Try reading what I wrote, wnb

Try reading what I wrote, wnb

I read it fine thanks.

You seemed to be saying that we won't able to negotiate on fishing rights at all because we'll have to give them all away to be allowed back in?

The negotiation works both ways, I can't see Scotland signing up to a deal that would compromise one of its biggest assets, especially when the Spanish in particular need access to Scottish waters.

[quote=whatnobeer ]You seemed to be saying that we won't able to negotiate on fishing rights at all because we'll have to give them all away to be allowed back in?

Hmm, let me check...

Nope, definitely didn't write that.

The negotiation works both ways, I can't see Scotland signing up to a deal that would compromise one of its biggest assets, especially when the Spanish in particular need access to Scottish waters.

You reckon they'll stay out of the EU over that?

What are you saying then? You said we'll be in a weak position to negotiate. I disagreed.

No I don't think they'll stay out over that, but it would be massive kick in the teeth if the said "oh fine, we'll bend over and continue to get ****ed on fishing rights". It's not going to happen.

[quote=whatnobeer ]What are you saying then? You said we'll be in a weak position to negotiate. I disagreed.

yS appears pretty committed to rejoining the EU - you reckon you'll be dictating your terms to the EU for giving them the benefit of your company?

No I don't think they'll stay out over that, but it would be massive kick in the teeth if the said "oh fine, we'll bend over and continue to get **** on fishing rights". It's not going to happen.

So which is it, something on which they'll agree to what they're told to do, or something they'll make a stand over? Or are you reckoning to get better terms of membership than the UK currently has?

You're just playing silly buggers aren't you.

They want to join the EU. I suspect, due to things like the fishing waters the EU would like Scotland to join as well. They'll negotiate. Neither side will bend over.

I think we'll get more MEP that we currently have will be better able to represent our interests. It's unlikely that we get the same opt outs the UK currently has, but you never know. IANAL.

What won't happen though is one side totally dictating conditions and the other simply agreeing. That's pretty ****ing obvious.

[quote=whatnobeer ]You're just playing silly buggers aren't you.

No - simply providing some realism to counteract your optimism that iS would be able to negotiate better terms than the UK currently has on the basis that's what the people of Scotland want. I'm not sure you quite understand how "negotiating" the terms on which new members join the EU actually works.

I think we'll get more MEP that we currently have will be better able to represent our interests.

Ah, but will you get the European government that [b]you[/b] voted for?

I think we can all agree no one gets the EU govt they voted for....does it even have a ruling party in the parliament?? However much minor changes there are to MEP numbers will make next to no difference but they will get an independent seat at the big table as council of ministers and also a commissioner [ well currently all states do] and be the presidency every 15 years or so!!!! You can make the case either way IMHO but little difference seems the fairest assessment or perhaps more influence but paying more if you insist they will get less favourable terms.

[quote=Junkyard ]I think we can all agree no one gets the EU govt they voted for

Indeed, but surely you didn't miss the implied comparison between the claim about having some influence in the EU and the complaint about having none in the UK?

Oh dear looks like politicians do lie.
[url= http://tinyurl.com/lnvddrs ]Cameron hints at a currency union[/url]

but surely you didn't miss the implied comparison between the claim about having some influence in the EU and the complaint about having none in the UK?

[quote=fasternotfatter ]Oh dear looks like politicians do lie.

!news

Cameron hints at a currency union

Is that in some other story which you didn't link to?

Yeah, am confused. Not the most nonsensical post in the thread by a long way mind!

I missed it too tbh

fasternotfatter's link is interesting, I was particularly interested in this comment :

It would take up to 15 years for a cut in corporation tax to pay for itself, given the impact of a drop in company tax revenues on public spending.

I think we can safely assume that "jam tomorrow" will be official Scottish government policy should Yes Scotland win the vote in September.

Hmmm Jam tomorrow doesnt sound too bad compared to David Camerons war cry "we're all in this together"

they must be gutted to leave the balanced books of UK behind eh

Remind me in the UK its still austerity and GO is still making the tough choices for our future prosperity or has he declared this to be the plan and the goal and everything is fine.
Its not exactly radically different from what we have now is it.

"Scotland's economy could succeed under independence, and it would be in [the rest of the] UK's interests to facilitate that as far as possible," it concluded.

To those who say that means I am doing Scotland down, my reply is simple: we need more facts and less emotion in this debate," he said.

Jam tomorrow doesnt sound too bad

I think it's a vote winner.

And I suspect Alex Salmond also does.

As does every other party unless you are aware of one that stands saying it will be worse under them.

I'm not sure any party is claiming that we will be reaping the rewards of their policies in 15 years time.

And I seem to remember that the Tories are telling us how great things are right now........falling unemployment, more jobs than in any time in British history, fastest growing economy in the western world, falling inflation, falling petrol prices, cheaper beer, lower tax on bingo, no VAT on pasties. Could things get any better ?

Ernie;that looks like you have just given a summary of the link THM posted as up as to why we are better together. Now if you give me scouts honour that is all true,I will write a letter of apology to that nice Mr Cameron and change my vote.. 😀