No different that stripping several million people of British citizenship, no?

The rest of the UK is not the part becoming independent, and is not the part that would have to renegotiate. I think the term is “continuing state”.

There seems to be bafflingly little certainty around this seeing as it’s possibly going to be the most important issue for a newly independent Scotland. A bit of googling found this, which is as clear as mud:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21601242

However, the EU president’s ‘hypothetical’ comments make it pretty clear that there would be no free ride. Scotland’s response is downright worrying – hoping for common sense to prevail!

Also, it’s not that unique a situation – take a look at the Basque country. I suspect that at least Spain would be pretty wary about Scottish independence and admission to the EU setting a precedent.

The whole “continuing state” thing is problematic – if Scotland is a new state not a continuing state, then we would inherit none of the national debt. New country, start from scratch. I can’t see that being popular. The only other possibility is both countries are continuing states, so on an equal footing regards the EU.

By unique, I mean it’s not happened before – it might set a precedent for Basque independence, but there’s no precedent for this, apart from maybe the separation of Czechoslovakia.

As a southern Englishman I’d be sad to see the union broken, but perhaps its just sentimentality. I totally accept the argument that many Scots feel that it’s not right that London governs their affairs. I reckon if I was Scottish I’d vote yes.

I think the future for the whole island could be defined by this vote, I hope that, whatever the result is, those on the losing side are able to accept and live with the decision.

Our two country’s past, present and future are woven together, I hope that isn’t overlooked by nationalist attitudes and policies from both sides of the border.

I don’t think the “continuing state” will be a problem in real life.

There’s lots of points that can be made, eg Scotland has always been treated as a separate entity, there has been a recognised border since before Union, it has always had a separate legal system amongst others.

It is quite conceivable that negotiations between Westminster and Scotland result in domestic affairs being separated with resources and debts being shared, whilst the EU itself still considers Scotland to be a new entity. I can’t see any logical reason why the treaty of separation between the rest of the UK and Scotland would have any mandatory impact on the EU’s decision regarding Scotland’s accession. I can see that it might have impact, but I think it’s highly unlikely that Scotland will be ‘just let in’ on the basis that it’s dealing with its share of the UK’s sovereign debt and assets.

Ultimately how assets and debts get shared is between Westminster and Holyrood, whereas entry into the EU is between Holyrood and Brussels. Two different issues, which might have some relation on each other, but I don’t think a certain outcome on one equates to a certain outcome on the other.

It’s an important question, yes, but just a distraction to the discussion at hand. One for its own thread, perhaps?

The position of the EU is that they will only give a definitive answer if asked to by the UK government
David Cameron has ruled this out. Why would he do that if he thought it would provide ammunition for the No campaign?

I didn’t know that, interesting… It is one of the elephants in the room isn’t it, lots of people have opinions, even official ones but it’s the sort of thing that you should be able to get a solid answer on.

Simple answer: if Greece, Ireland and Portugal can get in, then allowing Scotland in is a no-brainer.

No idea, but it’s not like he’s renowned for joined up thinking

Greece, Ireland and Portugal were already separate entities and members before the GFC. Scotland isn’t.

In contrast to others, if this is the one vote we get, I see a No as a no-brainer. That’s simply because there’s no detail to vote for.

Were this part 1 of 2 which started negotiations and then part 2 was a vote on a specific deal on debt, taxation, EU, Defence, etc then a yes to part 1 might make sense now.

But, given the low calibre of Scottish politicians there is no prospect of me giving them a mandate to negotiate my family’s future without a chance to approve the final deal. I fear the desire to gain independence would see unfavourable terms accepted just to get the result.

The Conservative Party merged with the Liberal Unionist party in 1912. At that time the “unionist” part was to do with the Irish question.

Nothing to do with nationality, all to do with residency. Anyone can vote if they’re registered to vote in Scotland.

Part 1 was the people of Scotland electing the SNP as the majority government. Part 2 happens on 18/09/2014. In the next 18 months the two sides of the campaign will hopefully provide all the details necessary to make an informed decision.

Bawbag:

Electing SNP was not Part 1. That was a national election, not a single issue vote.

Even it it were, part 2 does not happen 18/9/14. There cannot be the detail of a deal to vote on at that point. There isn’t time. If there were, I’d be delighted, but there won’t be. In my dealings with policitians, they couldn’t decide on the detail of their own headline policy within 18 months (it actually took 4 years), let alone conclude negotiations with multiple parties who are not so committed to the final goal.

oldbloke – I hear what you say about the “independence at all costs” folk but let’s say it’s a Yes/Yes, based on amongst other things a settlement with the EU. What happens if in, say, 10 years time a different Scottish Government is elected that decides to pull out of the EU – or there’s a re-negotiation of some other sort?