Lets defer to the written evidence:

In the event of independence, Scotland would be a new state, and the rest of the
United Kingdom (“rUK”) would be the continuator state. I understand that Scottish
Ministers sometimes seek to resist this, but they have yet to put forward any
convincing legal argument to challenge it. As the continuator state, the public
institutions of the UK would, as a matter of law, automatically become the
institutions of the rUK: thus the UK Parliament would become the Parliament of
the rUK and the UK Supreme Court would become the Supreme Court of the
rUK. In contrast, the assets and liabilities of the UK would fall to be apportioned
equitably between an independent Scotland and the rUK. Again, this is a matter
of law. What “equitably” means depends on the nature of the asset.

Fixed assets belonging to the UK and located in Scotland would become the
property of the new Scottish state (this includes Government buildings in
Scotland and, of course, the Scottish Parliament). No compensation would be
due to the rUK or to rUK taxpayers. (Likewise, fixed assets in the rest of the UK
would become the property of the rUK.) Moveable assets and liabilities would be
apportioned most likely on the basis of share of population but possibly in some
instances on the basis of share of GDP. The precise apportionment of such
assets and liabilities would be a matter of negotiation.

Overseas assets, including the UK’s Embassies etc, would become the property
of the continuator state: the rUK. As the UK Government correctly explained in its
Scotland Analysis paper on EU and International Issues (January 2014), “an
independent Scottish state would not be entitled by right to any UK diplomatic
premises, equipment or staff”. This is because bodies that support the UK now
would continue to operate on behalf of the rUK in the event of Scottish
independence. Again, I stress that this is a matter of law. The relevant legal
position was fully and authoritatively set out in an opinion co-authored by
Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle, which was published in its entirety
by the UK Government in its first Scotland Analysis paper in February 2013.
Thus the statement quoted above from p.211 of the White Paper is legally
inaccurate.

Seems pretty clear that the ‘Scotlands future’ white paper is just plain wrong!

You mean they did a politically motivated piece.Amazingn politicians doing politically motivated “facts”. I am stunned. I wonder if i can find anything from the UK doing the same
What do you think?

FWIW I would imagine, on that point, what they [ iS /scottish white paper] say is incorrect

Then again they probably hope, like rUK does over debt, that they can negotiate where the law is clear 😉

Even the BOD doesn’t come out with such BS – the technical default is obvious hence the BOD is completely clear – “On Independence, Scotland will accept a fair share of existing UK debt.”

So time to wrap up the crap. Scotland cannot under any circumstances walk away. Of course the freedom of speech allows those who want to continue to show their own ignorance to carry on…….for he rest, move on to real issues and facts.

Seems pretty clear that the ‘Scotlands future’ white paper is just plain wrong!

Pretty obvious even on the day of publication that it was simple wrong or deliberately misleading in many areas including the most substantial. But even the BoD doesn’t get the debt issue wrong!

Have we covered iScotland keeping the national lottery? Salmond seems to think that they will. Is there anything that iScotland won’t be keeping apart from nuclear weapons and a share of the national debt. In iScotland the oil will never run out and based on what I have heard from the yes campaign it would seem that they are never going to run out of blind optimism either.

Bloody hell, we might lose the national lottery.

Well, that’s a game changer.

Keep the lottery what a ridiculous. idea.! I mean that would require charging the. same price wherever a ticket is sold, à network of lottery machines and a fair method of sharing lottery funding. That’s just impossible.

It would also mean smaller prizes and less lottery funding for charities, the arts etc.It is almost as ridiculous as expecting the UK to act as a lender of last resort to iScotland.

That doesn’t necessarily equate to less money spent in Scotland. As it would be a pot for Scotland and not the UK.

Of all the reasons that should enter the decision making process of a yes or no vote. The lottery really should be utterly irrelevant.

I’ve no doubt politicians will be total pricks and use it for cheap points scoring on both sides though.

I agree with piemonster the lottery is irrelevant.

Well there’s gratitude for you – your whole campaign is being financed from a lottery win.

I think it is a Euro lottery win ernie.

So, Ruth Davidson is in favour of a currency union then…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27840189
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/jun/ruth-davidson-backs-currency-union
This one? Will have a listen later.

It really doesn’t matter how many Scottish politicians/businessmen/AN Other favours currency union, its essentially down to the UK electorate and their politicians post Scots Independence. The UK holds all the cards on this particular issue & no party will be going into a general election saying to the electorate “vote for us and we’ll use your money to bail out the Scots if they drop a clanger”.

I think it is a Euro lottery win ernie.

Oh was it – the UK national lottery not good enough for them ?

Presumably an independent Scotland will be deemed to have left the EuroMillions Zone and will have to apply for membership ? I hope they’re sent to the back of the queue . Not that I do the lottery, which is clearly a mug’s game.

Spitting the dummy ernie 🙄

What, are you denying that an independent Scotland will have to apply to be included into EuroMillions Zone ?

I expect that you probably also think that an independent Scotland will automatically qualify for the Eurovision Song Contest don’t you ? I suspect that Scotland won’t even be allowed to televise the Eurovision Song Contest until all the formalities have been completely. Not that I reckon you stand any chance of winning it anyway. It’s been 45 years since Lulu won it.

What is the “euromillions zone”? As far as I know the euromillions is a commercial enterprise run by a number of lottery companys.

What is the “euromillions zone”?

This is the Euromillions Zone :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroMillions#mediaviewer/File:Euromillions_map.svg

The blue countries are the original members and the red ones are the ones which joined later.

I can see that this is another consequence of voting Yes that you haven’t thought about. Sterling, NATO, the EU, the BBC, Euromillions Zone, Eurovision, it’s all starting to stack up.

I read the wiki article and saw the map of participating countries. There is no mention of membership requirements that I can see.

They won’t be keeping governments formed by parties they didn’t vote for, sitting in a parliament 100s of miles away.

(this doesn’t apply to Shetland, obviously)

There is no mention of membership requirements that I can see.

All new participating countries must meet the Euromillions Convergence Criteria (ECC). According to the Euromillions President it would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible” for an independent Scotland to join the Euromillions Zone. You haven’t even established your own currency and Westminster says it won’t permit Scotland to use the pound, so how would prizes be paid ?

But ernie, what about all those Scottish people who are currently Euromillions members – surely Euromillions can’t just kick them out?

Ok I fell for that one 😳

Have we covered iScotland keeping the national lottery? Salmond seems to think that they will.

It would be better to walk away from the lottery entirely.

The Scotsman Trolls Bencooper

(Faslane content)

And the Heralds take on it.

The Lottery has been a huge success. It would make sense for Scotland to continue with euro-millions. I don’t think with a 5m population a Scottish National Lottery makes sense though, so either Scotland negotiates an ability to buy UK tickets (currently illegal as they can only be sold in the UK so if Scotland leaves the rules/law will need to be changed). The Wier’s lottery win has provided virtually all SNP’s funding for their yes campaign.

Trident. I know there are those here that wish the weapons be removed from Scotland but I cannot help but think that the SNPs position is more political than conscientious, Trident is very British and the SNP think there is political and negotiating capital in the topic (ie those nasty English put their dangerous weapons in our country). The base is somewhat symbolic as the submarines and their weapons are generally at sea

I don’t know if anyone noticed that the Scottish Government outlined their draft interim constitution yesterday? Its a pearler:

24. Incorporation of European law:

(1) Directly effective EU law forms part of Scots law.

(2) Scots law is of no effect so far as it is inconsistent with EU law.

(3) In this section—
(a) “EU law” means—
(i) all those rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to
time created or arising by or under the EU Treaties, and
(ii) all those remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or
under those Treaties,
(b) EU law is directly effective if, in accordance with the EU Treaties, it is to be
given legal effect or used in Scotland without further enactment.

How’s about that for independence? 😆

what a bunch of F’ing mugs!

piemonster – Member

The Scotsman Trolls Bencooper

(Faslane content)

That’s a brilliant bit of Scotsman writing. “40% of Scots want to keep Trident” becomes “Scots keener than English to keep Trident”.

Thought you’d like it

Edited following the edit

I thought this thread had died a happy death 😉

All that story shows is that the lie that thousands of jobs depend on Trident has some people worried. People don’t want Trident because they like nukes, they want it because they’ve been told (wrongly) that tens of thousands of jobs depend on it.

How’s about that for independence?

How’s that much different from what the UK is currently signed up to with the EU?

It’s independence because, in the future, Scotland could decide to change it’s constitution and leave the EU if it wanted. Independence is being free to do what you want, even if what you want is to agree to be part of a larger union.

And of course this is only a first draft of the constitution.

“40% of Scots want to keep Trident” becomes “Scots keener than English to keep Trident”.

Since it goes on to say that only 37% want rid, doesn’t that actually become “Scots keener to keep Trident than get rid of it”

How’s that much different from what the UK is currently signed up to with the EU?

Parliament remains supreme and is free to derogate from EU law provided it makes its intention sufficiently clear. eg. prisoner voting. The recent HS2 judgement confirmed that EU law is also subservient to UK constitutional and common law

The Scottish constitution would make all Scottish law subservient to EU law

But we’d still be able to alter the constitution later and change that if we wanted. So the Scottish parliament would still remain supreme.

The Scottish constitution would make all Scottish law subservient to EU law

Already is.

In fact it’d be better. at the moment EU law is developed in consultation with member states, and Scotland doesn’t have a say apart from as a part of the UK. After independence we’d have our own voice in the development of EU law.

The UK is actually in a better position vs EU law than will iS be as iS will not have all the opt outs. Fundamentally though EU law overrules UK law too, that’s UKIPs point.

How about the published policy that an iS will keep the Queen as head of state – thoughts gentlemen ?

It’s independence because, in the future, Scotland could decide to change it’s constitution and leave the EU if it wanted

You’d have to join the EU first, to be able to leave it.
What was the latest, official line on the subject?

The UK is actually in a better position vs EU law than will iS be as iS will not have all the opt outs.

The UK might be, Scotland at the moment is not as our needs are overruled by the rest of the UK.

How about the published policy that an iS will keep the Queen as head of state – thoughts gentlemen ?

Meh, not fussed. It’s the union of parliaments that we want to dissolve, not the union of the crowns.