Forum menu
It won't work out that way - there will be an intergovernmental agreement that shifts liability onto the Scottish state
The Scottish government has already committed to take responsibility for pensions, From Scotlands Future;
“for those people living in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for the payment of that pension will transfer to the Scottish Government”
I like the section on energy policy in the Herald report. Basically Scotland is reliant on the UK to keep energy bills down. Surely another advantage of union If we keep touting wind as Scotlands energy production we surely have to pay the cost.
The close cooperation that nats keep talking about is called being in the UK.
[quote=bencooper ]There's an interesting discussion over on The Website Which Must Not Be Named, around the subject of pensions. It goes like this:
So basically they're all talking bollocks on that website then
[quote=irelanst ]The Scottish government has already committed to take responsibility for pensions, From Scotlands Future;
“for those people living in Scotland in receipt of the UK State Pension at the time of independence, the responsibility for the payment of that pension will transfer to the Scottish Government”
First Minister Alex Salmond dismissed [s]the new estimates[/s] anything which doesn't agree with his dream, no matter how well researched as "stuff and nonsense".
Welcoming the report, Yes Scotland chief executive Blair Jenkins said: "[s]Where we can sensibly and practically retain mutually beneficial arrangements, such as maintaining single markets in electricity and gas, of course, this is the best be the way to proceed.[/s] We don't want to be independent"
The average yes vote since May is 35%. The average no vote is 46%. An ipsos mori STV poll last week put the no vote at 54%. There has not been a poll this year that has the yes vote in the lead. It would appear that the separatists still have a lot of work to do.
They have always been behind but it is pretty close and hinges on the undecided / turn out.
First Minister Alex Salmond dismissed [s]the new estimates[/s] anything which doesn't agree with his dream, no matter how well researched as "stuff and nonsense"
Is this better or worse than the UK using figures even the source said had been abused to the point is misrepresentation?
Politicians lying over figures SHOCKA
Is this better or worse than the UK using figures even the source said had been abused to the point is misrepresentation?
Misrepresentation by the SNP perhaps? Here’s what the UK government actually said (my bold)
“Professor Robert Young has examined the potential costs of independence in modern industrial states. Whilst recognising that the costs of transition can be exaggerated or downplayed in the course of political debate, his independent analysis in relation to Quebec, shows that the costs of institutional restructuring in the event of independence could range from 0.4 per cent to 1 per cent of the new country’s GDP. 1 per cent of Scottish GDP in 2012-13 is equivalent to £1.5 billion or around £300 for every person in Scotland.”
“The Institute for Government (IfG) and the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) estimate the average cost for a new policy department or a mid-sized merger to be approximately £15 million. In Scotland’s Future,3 the Scottish Government estimate that 300 institutions currently serve Scotland, of which 180 would need to be recreated or have powers transferred to a Scottish institution following independence. [b]If[/b] this cost were incurred for all 180 organisations, the total cost would be £2.7 billion. [b]Given these estimates, £1.5 billion is likely to be a favourable estimate of the total costs of setting up new institutions.[/b]”
So, they didn’t claim the setup costs would be 2.7billion, which is what Dunleavy was running to the press complaining about; perhaps he had a reason to get his name in the papers, maybe a book release to publicise?
Then, following a ‘briefing’ at Bute house with Salmond and Sturgeon he comes up with his own “guesstimate” of costs;
“Based on detailed work on the costs of Whitehall reorganizations, and our analysis of major tasks set out above, we have estimated the set-up costs for Scottish government as being in the range from £150 million to £200 million.”
So the Yessers jump up and down with glee – 2.7billion, bluff and bluster, it will only cost 200million. But hold on what’s this in the following section of his report;
“the Scottish government would need to pay £400 million to create new IT systems and processes to handle all welfare benefits itself – which is targeted to happen by 2018 (see timetable above); and
- they would need to pay £500 million to create IT systems capable of handling all their tax administration – the main bulk of which is due to happen by 2020.
These estimates are not based on any careful analysis, but given prevailing IT and change costs they do not seem implausible.”
So that’s 200m+400m+500m=1.1billion after being briefed on what to say by the SNP – not so far away from the Westminster estimate, so who misrepresented what?
the Scottish government would need to pay £400 million to create new IT systems and processes to handle all welfare benefits itself – which is targeted to happen by 2018 (see timetable above); and
- they would need to pay £500 million to create IT systems capable of handling all their tax administration – the main bulk of which is due to happen by 2020.
So how are they going to collect tax and handle benefits between 2020 and 2018. Are they expecting the UK to do it for them? I wonder how much we can charge them for this? It also does away with the bluff, bullying and bluster from Salmond regarding not paying a share of UK debt if he doesn't get a currency union. No debt means no tax or welfare systems.
"So how are they going to collect tax and handle benefits between 2020 and 2018. "
Probably the same way England intends to disburse development aid, administer benefits, loan money to students etd during the same period. Some people are forgetting that UK government facilities and employees located in Scotland provide services to the whole UK. It's not all one way traffic and the UK can't just "cut Scotland off" without cutting itself off from certain services.
In other words, in the event of independence both countries are going to have to act like grown ups to get what they want done.
Out of adversity.....? In addition to sorting out the above canny Scottish entrepreneurs could have lots of new opportunities. A new sweaty NS&I for example providing domestic premium bonds...
(In the meantime, adds NS&I to the list)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/725a5f86-085a-11e4-9afc-00144feab7de.html#axzz37EZ1obco
Interesting article on the SNP and it's well-oiled machine. One thing that AS "does" do well.
Some people are forgetting that UK government facilities and employees located in Scotland provide services to the whole UK. It's not all one way traffic and the UK can't just "cut Scotland off" without cutting itself off from certain services.
Are there any UK government departments with their offices and facilities located solely in Scotland?
I mean if we were talking abut Wales, then you could see a problem, with pretty much the entire UK DVLA infrastructure being in Swansea, it would create a huge problem - however if we were talking mainly satellite offices and call centres, then the main bulk of facilities still in the UK could gear up their existing operations to absorb the workload, its hardly like having to create an entirely new infrastructure from the ground up, like Scotland would have to.
In other words, in the event of independence both countries are going to have to act like grown ups to get what they want done.
STW not invited to the this debate then 😉
THM NS & I are not saying a single thing about the vote or independence whay ar eyou suggesting they are siding with you or deserve to be on "the list"?
A spokesman said: “In the event of Scottish independence current rules would prevent anyone with only a Scottish bank account from buying NS&I products.”
That is what they have actually said. As currently banks are corss border and the USB said than none of the Scottish banks will stay in Scotland [ I assume you still want to cite them ] then no one will be affected by this.
Utter non story and utterly not saying anything about an independence vote.
Please dont insult me just counter this with some actual quotes that shows or supports your claim that they are "on the list" or retract [ yes like that bit will happen]
Awaits personal insults for pointing out a factual inaccuracy/misleading comment
🙄
Probably the same way England intends to disburse development aid, administer benefits, loan money to students etd during the same period.
The student loans company is 85% owned by the UK government with offices also in England and Wales. So no problems for us there then.
You won't be able to collect your own tax. Your wallet is in our pocket and if you don't play ball in negotiations then we won't let you have any pocket money. More seriously the UK has a much stronger hand in negotiations as a result of this.
Article in the i newspaper yesterday about the Edinburgh Fringe.
Apparently - & according to "several Scottish comedians who declined to give their names" the subject of The Vote is verboten in comedic circles because of the over the top reaction and threats of violence they fear they would face from yS supporters should they make their thoughts known, pointing to the hysterical reaction to JK Rowling's donation to the No campaign and the Glaswegian comic Susan Calman.
No experience of this of course, just an article in the paper.
[quote=piemonster > http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-independence-new-poll-shows-3841641
br />
Interesting. So at the previous poll yS needed to convince 65% of the undecideds (11/17), now they need to convince 69% (9/13). The bust up figures are also quite illuminating - as Prof Curtice (an academic based in Scotland, clearly not to be trusted) says "they (yes voters) are more likely to find that their friends disagree with them."
As far as voting intentions goes, plus ca change.
If that polling is indicating anything, it's an approaching worst case scenario of a narrow(ish) No vote.
I personally can live with either a yes or no vote (preferably yes admittedly), but I'd rather it was a convincing result either way. No matter what happens, there doesn't seem like the losing side will be happy with the result.
A replay of the Norwegian independence referendum it won't be.
over the top reaction and threats of violence they fear they would face from yS supporters should they make their thoughts known
Whereas the No supporters are always calm, reasonable and well-mannered?
https://twitter.com/BritNatAbuseBot
Anyway, have we done Question Time yet?
That's right Ben that cyberno gang are a menace to the intelligent debate that cybernats are trying to have 😉 Well done for pointing out one example that is obviously representative of the scots that will vote no. As for the twitter account if only all of those people saying Scotland should leave the union were Scottish then you might stand a chance of actually getting enough votes for independence. But then all yes supporters only ever really wanted was devo-max. Salmond wants to share practically every UK institution because it makes sense for both sides. Most Scots interpret this as we are better together.
....and they are correct.
[quote=fasternotfatter ]Salmond wants to share practically every UK institution because it makes sense for both sides. Most Scots interpret this as we are better together.
It really is quite funny in a way - I thought you were exaggerating when you first argued that line, but it does seem the case that actually they'd like to be independent whilst still being reliant upon rUK 🙄
That's the elephant in the room aracer. No one is arguing for independence not even yS. The CUnion is the most extreme example of this but is not the only one. Better together is what all sides are arguing.
Beyond that, it has become little more than a vanity project.
Indeed it is an interesting point that the more you scrutinise what he argues for it is clear he is not arguing for complete independence. IMHO it is devo max [ at best]
Article in the i newspaper yesterday about the Edinburgh Fringe.
Apparently - & according to "several Scottish comedians who declined to give their names" the subject of The Vote is verboten in comedic circles because of the over the top reaction and threats of violence they fear they would face from yS supporters should they make their thoughts known, pointing to the hysterical reaction to JK Rowling's donation to the No campaign and the Glaswegian comic Susan Calman
One sided view there.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/lottery-winners-call-for-end-to-independence-smear-1-3402533
Lottery winners realising a statement about the abuse [ from the no obviously] they got for their donation for example
Surveys show that the % who have been abused/argued /fallen out are roughly equivalent from both sides so polemic point at best.
FWIW its always easy to attribute quotes and information to "well know people who wont give their names"...bit like the mail claimed a Close family member told them about clooney
In general i ignore stuff in papers where they say things like that as it is generally made up.
You won't be able to collect your own tax. Your wallet is in our pocket
I think you've made a mistake about who I represent and where I do it from.
The whole abuse and death threats thing seems ridiculous to me - from both sides. Its this deep ill feeling that is being generated that worries me and why i want it done and dusted. As its going we will end up with a narrow No vote and the ensuing bitter fallout will poison Scottish/UK relations for yrs to come. Worst of all possible outcomes.
Agreed - despite hoping for a no vote, I almost think a narrow yes vote might be better than a narrow no vote.
JY. It does sound like devo max is what Salmond. Is it actually devo max though to hand over so much control to a parliament that Scotland will have no representation at what so ever? (Awaits somebody with usual line on no representation now).
It is a fact devo max within UK is what most Scots want, and UK parties have put down proposals, all being bombed by the SNP. To say proposals will not be honoured is only opinion.
My opinion unlike those that think the UK only exists to bleed Scotland dry, is that reform will happen otherwise Scotland will be lost to the union in 10-20 years. That is why those that vote yes will not and should not be ignored. I fell though that this sentiment is not generally reciprocated. I agree though with the sentiments expressed in the Weir's statement.
I can't think of any benefits for the rUK from devo-max? It is not on the referendum paper anyway, if Scots want change they should go for independence it is the only guaranteed change.
Whereas the No supporters are always calm, reasonable and well-mannered?
#whataboutery
I can't think of any benefits for the rUK from devo-max?
Union survives and the country stays, more or less, the same
AS has to shut the **** up
This thread never needs to be done ever again
You get to continuing steal the oil 😉
[quote=Junkyard ]AS has to shut the **** up
JY wins the thread
The beauty of education is when resistant pupils finally stop messing around and admit that they "get it". At that point, the time and effort finally seems worthwhile! In the old days, they were rewarded with the "progress prize".
AS could always drift off into the political graveyard that is the EU parliament. The irony would be perfect.
You get to continuing steal the oil
But we already get to steal the oil. If Scots want more devolution then there should be something in it for the rUK. Devo-max is moving away from a union of countries towards a small country just outsourcing or sharing various governmental departments from a larger country. If Scotland wants devo-max then they should have to give an increased amount to remain part of the union. An increased percentage of GDP should cover the bill. I see independence as Scotland looking to do what is best for Scotland. After a potential no vote then I think the rUK should do what is best for the rUK and offer devo-max up to Scotland but at a price.
fasternotfatter - Or tie devo max in with electoral seat reform, eg. solve the west lothian question by excluding Scottish MP's from non-Scotland votes
66 days to go and the bullshit stops.
Tomorrow's FT - velvet divorce? Pull the other one.
"If Mr Salmond really believes his own rhetoric, he is deluded. A split between Scotland and the rest of the UK would not be a velvet divorce. It would almost certainly be a no-holds-barred affair." (Quote boxes have disappeared)
Quite.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea520ece-02c1-11e4-a68d-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz37EZ1obco
Adds Anthony King to the list.
Epic, it will get a lot worse yet. 66 days, polls static. Mr BS to pull out all the stops now.....
[url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28276525 ]http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28276525[/url]
I like this one, particularly the paragraph stating from the Scottish Government that only independence would allow Scotland to develop it's space industry.
Tell that to the people using food banks.
Surely even HS2 would be a better use of funds?
The voters say no
Such a shame they're not going to be able to vote for real 😉
The BBC is trying its hardest, though - they're currently blurring out the Yes flags in coverage from T In The Park...
Who is this prat 'Anthony King' THM ?
If the Scottish people freely choose to separate from the rest of the UK then why on earth would both sides not want to facilitate the process to bring about a speedy and amicable conclusion ?
Threats of non-cooperation are incredibly childish and serve no useful purpose.
From athgray's link :
[i]Scotland has a proud association with space exploration. We celebrated Neil Armstrong's Scottish ancestry when he became the first man on the Moon [/i]
So the 1969 moon landing was a great achievement for Scotland ?
How desperate are the nats or do they really believe this bollocks ?
King offers no opinion on the vote one way or the other he merely says the separation and independence wont go smoothly if they do vote for independence because rUK would not play nicely. Given AS claims that rUK bullies Scotland one could equally claim it supports his view of the UK.
IMHO both claims would be tenuous and one would need one to be wandering around the internet looking fo r articles that support ones view.
for exampe
if there is to be an amicable settlement after a Yes vote, the Scottish government will be looking for a significant amount of goodwill from Westminster. But that goodwill is unlikely to be forthcoming, especially if the UK government elected in May 2015 is Conservative
Bit better than the last one you quoted but still not quite what you claim.
ernie that quote is risible but it is Danny Alexander and not a nationalist
[quote=Junkyard ]one to be wandering around the internet looking fo r articles that support ones view.
Nobody on here would do that would they?
If i was to answer would it be ?
1. A troll
2. A straw man
😉
From athgray's link :Scotland has a proud association with space exploration. We celebrated Neil Armstrong's Scottish ancestry when he became the first man on the Moon
So the 1969 moon landing was a great achievement for Scotland ?
How desperate are the nats or do they really believe this bollocks ?
If you read the article it was Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander who made those remarks. Last time I checked he was not a nat.
Edited :
I read the article but obviously failed to read it diligently enough. I am not however in the least bit surprised that something as moronic as that comment came the lips of Danny Alexander.
I also failed to read Junkyards post diligently enough.
As the poster above explained the space quote you used is from danny alexander who is the treasury secretary and very much not a nationalist and will be voting no.
I was not replying to your quote re King
Sorry for the lack of clarity as it is not clear.
I do agree that threats to not co-operate, which ever way the vote goes, and whichever side does it, are childish and unhelpful.
Sorry for the lack of clarity as it is not clear.
No it was me.
ernie_lynch - Member
Who is this prat 'Anthony King' THM ?
Don't know if he is a prat or not Ernie. I do know that he is a prof at one of the UK's leading Unis though. But hey, standards must be slipping there and at the FT?!? 😉 He will be on Newsnight next!
Still valid points in many respects. We have already seen in January what happens in financial markets when AS spouts his BS. At the very least a yes vote will lead to significant uncertainty especially since one side is so clearly ill-prepared on most issues. Beyond that AS pretends that while he will negotiate hard in Scotland's interests, the rUK will roll over like a pup. That is a crock. Not only will rUK negotiate hard and in its own interests but it also holds the aces and the trumps. The result will be a mess that is unlikely to serve anyone's interests well. Then again that is often the case with vanity projects.
Why do so many people on the No side think independence is just Alex Salmond's vanity project? Because they can't think outside the standard party political system? Because they think it helps their cause to play the man?
[img] 
[/img]
I'm happy with which side I'm on.
Are so there's more than one narrow minded bigoted xenophobe in Scotland, here was me thinking it was just AS.
Now here in Yorkshire we pride ourselves, nay celebrate our bigotry. our xenophobes are beacons of true Yorkshire men (no women obviously). Once we have our independence or devo-max (which ever's cheapest), I can see a true Scotland Yorkshire alliance being built. Jointly we could celebrate moaning an ow little we spent.
The first summit meeting between Alex Salmond and Geoffery Boycott should go very well.
MT - Pah, you can't expect a mere elected politician to share equal footing on the same stage as Royalty!
[quote=bencooper ]Because they think it helps their cause to play the man?
I'm happy with which side I'm on.
Oh the ironing. I'd almost wonder if it was deliberate, but suspect Ben had his blinkers on and didn't spot it.
Are so there's more than one narrow minded bigoted xenophobe in Scotland, here was me thinking it was just AS.
Given the rest of your post is clearly in jest, I'll assume that this was to and give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not really a prize bellend.
Not only will rUK negotiate hard and in its own interests
Are you claiming rUK wont adhere to the Edinburgh agreement whilst blaming AS for this?
It seems odd to have a pop at AS when the article is all about rUK ignoring the Edinburgh agreement and not playing fairly in the event of a yes vote. How is this his fault? As ernie notes that would just not be cricket. IMHO it makes more sense to claim that this is evidence that supports his view tbh but it is still weak. to claim that the rUK ignoring their own signed pledge is evidence against AS is to put ones politics before the facts.
As for calling scottish independence a vanity project that is disrespectful tabloid trash talk not worthy of response beyond 🙄
Ben same to you with your football team tbh
there are fine people/organisations on both sides and nobbers on both sides.
It is easy to cherry pick a team either way to highlight your point.
IMHO more nutters are pro union [ in general - orange order, UKIP , EDL types] but that is still aweak point to make.
Because they think it helps their cause to play the man?
Of course it does in the same it serves AS to play CMD as a Etonian bully or No to say it is just a vote for AS or his vanity programme. Please remember to only criticise the other side for doing this though , whilst then doing it yourself,that is the critical point in all this.
Love the picture Ben. SNP hiding away at left back and many of the NO A team rested including the foreign players! Are they on their way back from Brazil still?
[quote=Junkyard ]
Not only will rUK negotiate hard and in its own interests
Are you claiming rUK wont adhere to the Edinburgh agreement whilst blaming AS for this?
No - he's pointing out that rUK [b]will[/b] adhere to the Edinburgh Agreement!
Co-operation
30. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed,
through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others,4
to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Not convinced tbh but happy to hear your explanation
ninfan,
thought that as a mere mortal AS would appreciate the company of His Godship Boycott.
whatnoshandy,
if i'd wanted to be insulting I'd have mentioned that the other common traits Scotlandistas and plain Yorkshire folk have is a sense of humour and the ability not to take things to seriously. I'd have been lying mind.
Now back to the point of this thread, Free Yorkshire!
edit. Just noticed. If there's money with the award for "prize bellend" I'll accept with honour, if not then keep it were it belongs. 🙂
I'm happy with which side I'm on.
How strange, there doesn't appear to be anywhere on either team for "average member of the Scottish electorate"
It's a question posed to the electorate about a binary decision. Your comment makes no sense,
This may or may not have some impact if the trend continues.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/14/ukip-guardian-icm-poll-tories-labour-nigel-farage
Try to imagine Ed Milliband as Prime Minister.
Exactly.
Hard to imagine any of them as PM.
Even Dave.
Surprised we haven't done the SNP trying to threaten the EU:
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has warned that keeping an independent Scotland out of the EU could mean people from other European nations living in Scotland could “lose the right to stay here”.Ms Sturgeon suggested that the 160,000 non-British citizens from other EU members states now resident in Scottish cities and towns could be stripped of their residency rights if Scotland was “outside Europe”.
[quote=piemonster ]Hard to imagine any of them as PM.
I tried to imagine all of them lined up to see which of them I preferred. Dave, Ed, Nick, Nigel, Alex.
Then I found myself imagining a brick wall, blindfolds and a load of blokes with rifles.
[quote=ninfan ]Surprised we haven't done the SNP trying to threaten the EU:
Interesting argument, with 3 possible solutions I can see:
1) EU give in to the blustering and let Scotland back in on what ever terms they want
2) iS pragmatically allows all EU nationals currently resident to stay in order not to piss off the organisation they want to join
...and here's the really radical one
3) Scotland doesn't leave the EU in the first place.
Presumably Ms Sturgeon hasn't worked out that being independent would allow them to do what they want with their borders - not that surprising I suppose given they seem to reject most of the other aspects of independence.
Has anybody checked for a smoking gun and holes in her feet recently?
There are many glaring ommissions from the No side on that team sheet, probably as their are few if any banner waving campaign groups to shout their cause. What about No voting women? What about No voting mums? What about No voting 16-17 year olds? What about No voting socialists? What about No voting NHS workers? Were none of them not worthy of inclusion?
The worst error of all though, is not showing UKIP and SNP on the same team.
It would have been no less useless to show a point if the No side was filled with notable serial killers.
Ben was having some fun. Cut him some slack, it was funny.
There are many glaring ommissions from the No side on that team sheet, probably as their are few if any banner waving campaign groups to shout their cause. What about No voting women? What about No voting mums? What about No voting 16-17 year olds? What about No voting socialists? What about No voting NHS workers? Were none of them not worthy of inclusion?
No, because none of them are official groups registered with the Electoral Commission. UKIP aren't registered either, but they want to abolish the Scottish parliament so I think we can safely assume they're on the no side.
Surprised we haven't done the SNP trying to threaten the EU:
How is stating the law a threat?
IF the EU said if scotland was not in the EU scottish nationals could not work there are they threatening them or just stating the rules?
The groups I describe can't possibly exist because they are not registered with the Electoral Commission?
Remember "Yes Scotland can steal the Saltire but they but they will never have sole ownership of the Che Guevara T-shirt."
😀 😀
How is stating the law a threat?
What part of EU or Scottish law says that EU citizens are not allowed to live in Scotland if Scotland leaves?
As Aracer points out - being independent would allow them to do what they want with their own borders, if Scotland decided to enact a law that withdrew residency rights from EU citizens because they were not allowed membership themselves, then that would be their own choice, nothing to do with EU law.
JY it is an implied threat towards EU nationals. What with UKIP and every other party trying to out do UKIP on EU-phobia it just makes the UK look even more inhospitable to other Europeans.
Talking of the Law, time to add the Law Society of Scotland to the list
Lawyers have demanded that Alex Salmond address a string of vital questions about an independent Scotland’s currency, tax system and EU membership that it says remain outstanding just two months before the referendum.
The Law Society of Scotland has accused the SNP government of failing to provide enough information about some of the most fundamental issues concerning the country’s future.
The Times.
Perhaps dear Nicola was just trying to answer some of the questions (misguidedly of course). Bless her wee tartan socks.
“The process of actually separating Scotland from the UK [b]will not be quick or smooth. [/b]The UK has many joint institutions that have been built up over the past 300 years. "It would take more than 18 months to negotiate with the rest of the UK on the terms of independence and longer still to pass the necessary legislation. We could not sensibly approach the EU until after we had done all that.”
Have the lawyers failed to read the agreement too? 😉
Perhaps Them could tell us what the Law Society of Scotland had to say about the no campaign proposals for further devolution.