True or False #Indyref2?

How politically and economically informed are ordinary Scots?
I have been an ardent supporter of Scotland remaining as the United Kingdom for as long as I can remember. I used to watch the young Alex Salmond run rings round the opposition at the time and marked him out as bright and persuasive, on top of his subject, I admired him to some extent, certainly his cunning.
Since 2012 my opinion of him, his party and the information they provide us with, has taken a significant turn for the worse. I’m not sure whether he was always a charlatan, building up a solid reputation to allow him to lie and spin when the time was right, or, if his cause and anti UK hatred have damaged his mental faculties.
That’s as may be, I can no longer abide the man and his version of politics and persuasion. The publication of the White Paper, 690 pages of puerile propaganda, stunned me with its effrontery. That he and the SNP thought it would pass muster with intelligent voters seemed incredulous. Time and experience has robbed me of what, in retrospect, was naïveté.
I have, until recently, been extremely active on “Scottish” twitter with @SteveSayers1 (suspended now) mainly involved in opposing the first Scottish referendum, the SNP generally and some policies specifically, trying to educate an uninformed cohort of died in the wool nationalists.
At times I despaired at the lack of comprehension and the constant stream of “new” accounts demonstrating the same (apparent) lack of knowledge. I spent hours trying to reason and explain what to me were simple matters, only to be met with ridicule, abuse and outright disbelief that 2+2=4.
The main issues then were oil, economics, currency, EU, NATO, UN and capital flight.

Developments since we voted No? Total collapse of UK oil revenues, two years of massive current and forecasted deficits, currency options ridiculed, a Tory government and Brexit, seems a lot. In my view everything that has changed further mitigates against Scotland contemplating major constitutional change or independence.
But that’s logical thought, it doesn’t allow for the sheer “Indy at any cost” emotions perpetrated and cultivated by the SNP and die hard separatists. So it looks today like we have to endure the whole sorry divisive process once again, oh joy.
But it won’t be exactly the same, this time we start from a 60/40 No, rather than 72/28 last time, not that I give any credence to the opinion this will make it easier for separatists. The Union vote is now solid and entrenched, plus, Brexit has not moved it, also, about 30% of SNP voters voted leave, that’s a problem for Yes, these guys don’t want to be part of any union. I believe they will abstain or go with the devil they know rather than a jump in the dark to a new, less preferential, EU membership via an article 49 application. No UK opt outs and the Euro lie in that direction.
I’m hoping (but I won’t hold my breath) that if there is a second referendum the new reality of a Scotland outside the UK, while the UK is no longer in the EU, gives voters real pause for thought. That the economic reality of two years of crippling deficit (with more to come), the revised (still low) cost of setup (£10b) and understanding that we would inherit debt of approximately £150b will sink in, that GERS is a Scottish Government produced and approved assessment of our starting position of Indy, along with weakening EU, will resonate.
What is likely to happen is that there will an even more divisive campaign with lies and a real lack of quality information. The SNP have tried to remove the oil and currency out of the field and Europe too, although they have failed spectacularly on that, the EU today, for the third or fourth time, confirming it’s an Article 49 new application process.
What is certain is that there will be another combative “war” of information, I hope that the separatists case is as poor as last time, but the real issue is will people pay attention to it? Or, like last time, will real referenced data and information be ignored, misconstrued and ridiculed out of bigotry?
If we have another referendum I intend to oppose the separatists just as strongly as I did last time, and pushing real information will be the key. I think it will be down to individual parties small groups and individuals, I wasn’t a fan of the BT campaign last time, too timid, the Yes faithful took every opportunity to make it a Tory campaign operated by Scottish labour, leading to separatists employing their favourite tactic, playing the man not the ball.
All the above text is background, musings to set the scene for the real issue. How informed will the ordinary voter be? How informed are they now?
I followed with interest a small twitter poll True or False? passed to me by @AgentP22 (cheers) that asked simple questions about what people really knew about important content in the white paper. This content has been the subject of countless debates and fractious arguments with Yes voters. I had plenty of them, often being called a liar and resulting in personal attacks as the information was just (despite its reality and truth) not acceptable to Yes voters. The refutation was pathological at times, you could almost feel the hate generated by the cognitive dissonance the information caused.
The question was this;
“ScotGov’s 2013 “White Paper” stated Scotland was in deficit and iScot would inherit a £100B share of UK debt”
The poll then asked;

True, False, Don’t know, Didn’t read it.
Bear in mind this was “The Plan”, the basis of how an Indy Scotland would make its way in the world. The result, over 600 people voted, was very interesting.
True 42% False 32% Don’t know 8% Didn’t read it 18%

I find this stunning. I can accept the don’t knows, they may have skimmed it and really can’t recall. I can accept the didn’t read it’s, although I find 18% high, it’s likely they had a pre informed opinion, were not interested in the information available, their vote would not have changed regardless.
It’s the false at 32% that I find incredulous. These people are lying, lying about the content or lying about having read it.
There is a very large contingent of nationalist tweeters, bloggers and FaceBook posters who constantly insist Scotland has no debt, that the debt has been generated by and belongs to the UK. The deficit highlighted by GERS also belongs to the UK, has nothing to do with Scotland and is a UK conspiracy to defraud Scotland of its rightful independence.
You might think that these “deniers” are just small time crackpots, but no, some of them are classed by themselves and their followers as bigwigs and leading lights in the Indy camp, the likes of Malky, Wings, Berthan Pete etc.
It is these people and their acolytes who voted false in the poll, denying reality out of pure adherence to the cult mantra of Indy at any cost.
The answer to the question of how informed is the ordinary voter? Many are very badly informed or themselves guilty of disseminating false information “false news” if you will.
My job (and yours if you see reality) in Indyref2 (if it happens) is to ensure these information charlatans are totally exposed. It’s up to us as the likes of Salmond and Sturgeon are hell bent on destroying the UK to secure their place in history. They encourage these purveyors of false information by saying nothing.
I can’t wait for White Paper two.

Steve.

13th March 2017 0

DIVORCING THE EQUAL PARTNER? (With a nod to Margaret).

DIVORCING THE EQUAL PARTNER? (With a nod to Margaret).

If at times the UK seems excessively “English” to some Scots, it’s simply due to England’s greater population. From time to time some Scots (being from an historic nation with a proud past), will inevitably resent some expressions of this immutable fact. Is it equitable that 8.3% of the UK’s population (Scotland) has any stronger voice than any other 8.3% of the UK’s population? Of course not, the Scots voice is heard, more loudly than say a Cumbrian or Northumbrian voice, neither of whom have the twin representation of Westminster and a devolved parliament.

PARTNERS

UK citizens (from all corners of the UK) are “Equal” partners, not by way of an unequal “25% share” of political power dictated by “constituent countries”, but by the very heartbeat of our democracy blessed with free speech, one person, one vote. Political parties wax and wane and come and go over time, with governments renewing every five years. It is only 23 years since Scotland returned more Tory MP’s the SNP ones, that trend could reverse in the be real 23 years. Our UK is an historic representative democracy, the mother of all parliaments. It is through this amazing partnership of citizens and constituent countries that people in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (and some significant parts of northern England), benefit from extensive pooling and sharing of resources, enabling the nationwide provision of essential and modern welfare and services from Land’s end to John O’Groat’s, ensuring those in remote and rural areas can enjoy the benefits of an advanced society.

There are nationalist tendencies and separatist movements in all constituent countries, we should be forever mindful that these people are naturally blind to the greater good and the notion of shared citizenship. Not all Scots are nationalists, not all English people espouse nationalism and are grudging of UK wide support – we need to ensure nationalists notion of “independence” does not harm that greater good facilitated by the UK.

As a nation (though not a state), Scotland has an undoubted right to national self-determination. So far, it has exercised that right twice. Firstly joining and remaining in the Union for over 300 years, then secondly In 2014., under a democratic one person one vote (massive turnout) referendum, Scotland chose to stay as the UK.

Should Scots in future (as a properly mandated majority) determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much the rest of the UK might be saddened by and regret their departure.

What the Scots cannot do however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of others. Nor could they alone determine the inevitably debilitating terms of a future divorce or avoid any share of national responsibility.

BREXIT

The advent of Brexit has focused the UK once again on constitutional matters, with some Scots erroneously classing the voting pattern in Scotland as a Scottish vote. It wasn’t, it was a UK wide vote, as democratic, as important and as binding as the Scottish independence referendum. It is worth remembering that the Remain vote in Scotland had a low comparative turnout to the rest of the UK, over one million Scots voted leave and turnout was well down on the rest of the UK.

No matter your personal views on Brexit, it is clear that it will happen, and with that clarity, it is highly likely Scotland separated from a non EU UK, would face an even tougher (and unnecessary) future outside.

It is clear Scotland would have to apply to join the EU under current accession rules, The Acquis, adopt the “Stability & Growth Pact”, the “Excessive Deficit Procedure” plus move, at some stage, towards the Euro. It will also need to abide by the “Schengen Agreement” while leaving its largest market (UK) using the Brexit outcome trade resolution, without the benefit of current UK EU opt outs.

Considering Scottish deficits of recent years (9% of GDP) and the failure of oil prices to get anywhere near the unrealistic SNP forecasted $113, would iScot expect to pay in or take support (Barnett style) from the EU? At what level? If it expects to pay in or be neutral, how? What significant tax & spend choices would it make to balance the books. Note accession criteria required deficit levels at 3% of GDP and Borrowing (debt) at less than 60% GDP – current Scottish levels are 9% and 100% respectively.
Contemplate the reductions in spending and increases in taxation to close those considerable gaps.

The EU situation is of course, without considering the considerable post separation issues of set up costs (£10 Billion conservatively), debt share (Yes, we would be responsible for 8.3% of UK debt) future debt interest charges, possible UK capital flight plus any UK trade reductions due to Brexit outcomes with the EU.

To consider leaving the UK when it has yet to resolve it’s Brexit negotiations seems folly, incredibly risky with totally uncertain outcomes, will the EU member states vote unanimously to admit Scotland? There is no safety net and no turning back if we separate.

VAT

Are we ready for significant changes to a myriad of small but important aspects of daily life by choosing (if they want us) the EU over the UK? Take VAT, the list below is our current zero rated items under UK EU special conditions;

Social housing; printed books (excluding e-books); journals and other printed materials; renovations to private housing; collections of domestic refuse; household water supplies; basic foodstuffs (excluding highly processed or pre-cooked food); some take away food; cut flowers and plants for food production; prescribed pharmaceutical products; certain medical supplies; domestic passenger transport; children’s clothing and footwear; live animals destined for human consumption; seed supplies; construction of residential buildings; some supplies for the construction of new buildings; sewerage services; motor cycle and bicycle helmets; intra-community and international passenger transport; some gold ingots, bars and coins.

Here is what a new EU entrant gets;

Intra-community and international transport (excluding road transport). In other words, nothing escapes VAT and only two “items” can be between 5% & 15%, which is the minimum.

“Zero rate derogation
Some goods and services are “zero-rated”. The zero rate is treated like a positive rate of tax calculated at 0%. Supplies subject to the zero rate are still “taxable supplies”, that is, they count as having VAT charged on them. In the UK, examples include most food, books, medications, and certain kinds of transport. The zero rate is not featured in the EU Sixth Directive as it was intended that the minimum VAT rate throughout Europe would be 5%. However, zero-rating remains in some member states, most notably the UK and Ireland, as a legacy of pre-EU legislation. These member states have been granted a derogation to continue existing zero-rating but cannot add new goods or services. An EU Member State may uplift their domestic zero rate to a higher rate, for example to 5% or 20%, however, EU VAT rules do not allow a reversal back to the Zero rate once it has been given up. Interestingly, Member States may institute a reduced rate on a previously zero rated item even where EU law does not provide for a reduced rate, however if a Member State makes an increase from a zero rate to the prevalent standard rate, they may not then decrease down to a reduced rate unless specifically provided for in EU VAT Law (Annexe III of EU Dir 2006/112 list sets out where a reduced rate is permissible).”

INDYREFX? NO THANKSX

There is no doubt Scotland could “go it alone”, survive, with or without the UK or the EU. Given decades it might even prosper – but at what intervening cost and misery, with what certainty other than hope? The real question is why should it? Because we voted differently to our fellow citizens? Don’t family members vote differently from time to time? How would it manage and develop in the next 40 years, grow its economy and protect its people given its current setup and western macro economics? – the cost in human terms would be substantial, our youth’s opportunities curtailed and their futures cast into doubt. I worry that many nationalists are in love with the idea of false freedom, a false dream that blinds them to the magnitude of problems and complexities that separation would incur.

Some Scots opine about the perceived democratic deficit, their point is confusing, obtuse even, not only did we elect 59 MP’s to Westminster but we have our own devolved parliament with it’s enhanced powers and MSP’s. Some Scots say Scotland’s voice is not heard, they are incorrect, they need to ensure that what they say is relevant for the UK, not just a small section of it. Giving up the UK family and swapping 59 MP’s in the UK for just 6 MEP’s in the EU seems a very retrograde step, inflicting the worst possible democratic defect on ourselves.

Polling since the Scottish independence referendum has seen no significant uplift in sentiment for separation, the SNP, who insisted the independence referendum was a one off opportunity, have indicated a required level of 60% support in the polls for a twelve month period. This hasn’t happened, seems highly unlikely to happen – especially considering the SNP lost its majority in HR16.

Long may the successful partnership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland prosper.

Ps. This post was inspired by this quotation;

Thatcher on Scottish independence.

“If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.”

1st March 2017 7

Why Scotland Can’t Afford The EU

From Mike Denham at the Adam Smith Institute AdamSmith.Org

Mike’s Article Reprinted below;

In the immediate aftermath of the EU Referendum the SNP reopened the issue of Scottish independence, arguing that since Scotland voted to remain, it should become independent and continue its membership of the EU. It’s since become clear that automatic continuation would not be permitted, so Scotland would have to apply from scratch. However, any application would expose a fundamental problem – that its economy and public finances are in no fit state to join.

All new applicant countries must accept the 35 chapters of the EU acquis, including a commitment to join the Euro at some point, and adherence to the Growth and Stability Pact. That imposes two fiscal rules – that government deficits are kept below three percent of GDP, and government debt below 60 percent. Scotland fails both tests. Its deficit last year was 9.4 percent of GDP, over three times the limit, and substantially higher than any existing EU member including Greece. Its debt was around 90 percent, less excessive but still be way too high.

True, other countries have been admitted to EU membership and the Euro despite being in breach of the Pact. Cyprus and Malta were in breach of both rules when they joined, and before that Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece all joined the Euro while in breach. However, subsequent events have highlighted the risk of such concessions, both to the applicant country and to existing members. On top of that, Scotland’s fiscal record since devolution has been abysmal, with deficits every single year – even when the oil price was at record highs.

The reality is that Scotland is living well beyond its means and its finances have only been propped up by its continuing subsidy under the Barnett Formula. To have any chance of EU membership an independent Scotland would first need to balance the books. And whereas a rebound in oil prices might once have helped, the North Sea is now heavily depleted with production down by two-thirds since its peak. Onshore tax increases are a possibility, but the required scale would be deeply damaging to the economy (eg a doubling in VAT or the standard rate of income tax). More realistically, Scotland could and should cut its high level of public spending, which continues to run 20 percent above English levels.

Of course, the situation would be transformed if Scotland’s economy could be strengthened, and the SNP have appointed a Growth Commission to come up with proposals. It should start by recognising that the burden of public spending needs to be reduced, and that needs to happen whether or not Scotland seeks independence and EU membership.
For more detail see Scotland’s Overspending Problem, TaxPayers Alliance, October 2016

15th February 2017 1

Indyref2 and the EU?

Since the SNP lost its majority in Scotland (still the largest party of course) on the back of a manifesto without a clear mandate for “Indyref2,” the ongoing tedious drip drip drip of a threat of it has continued unabated.

The primary excuse for this threat is that Scotland is being “dragged out of the UK against it’s will”, and that (Brexit) is the material change of circumstance “suggested” in the manifesto.

Scotland did not have a separate Brexit vote, Scots voted as part of the UK. If the SNP were so wedded to EU membership, then perhaps the manifesto commitment to seeking a second Indyref should have been specifically stated as such. Perhaps they thought a fudge was best (internal research will have shown them a significant proportion of their support was in fact anti EU).

There was no UK promise to Scotland that if it voted No it would remain in the EU. The promise was actually that if we had voted Yes we would definitely have been out of the EU, on the day we became a separate state our EU membership would cease to exist. Scotlands “membership” of the EU stems from the UK’s membership. The UK would have continued the membership until it chose otherwise.

Events have now overtaken us. We voted No, the UK, all of us, voted to leave the EU. Ignoring the fact there was no clear mandate, no SNP conference commitment and the SNP strategy (widely publicised never officially denied) of waiting to see a clear and sustained poll advantage in favour of separation (60% for 12 months over a number of polls) has been abandoned (if it has), the SNP are ramping up the Indyref2 rhetoric.

There is strong evidence that Brexit has caused consternation in the Yes camp. Leave aside the almost impossible difficulties of acquiring new EU membership (every other member state must say yes), the real issue is do the hardcore independence campaigners want to swap one union for another? If allowed entry (in a “few” years time), Scotland would not benefit from any of the current UK opt outs, would have to join the Euro on succession and commit to the free movement of people.

The SNP have their “National Survey” to consult and shortly we will see the results of the public consultation on the proposed Referendum Bill, the former may give them false hope, the later should be a different kettle of fish. Whatever the analysis of these two pieces of research (the SNP wont share the survey) it is evident from the polls that the appetite both for a second referendum and indy itself are waning, all trends point to a weakening of desire.

Perhaps this background of unsettled activists, the Brexit vote (polls showed an increase in the immediate aftermath – now below the referendum levels) and the realisation the likelihood of a new vote and success is declining, accounts for the sour faces and constant demands for Scotland’s voice to be heard.

Scotland will exit the EU as part of the UK, there is no way it can get any “special treatment” haranguing the UK for this is pathetic, its a UK Brexit as confirmed by the EU. Scotland has no voice other than as part of the UK. The publishing of a Scottish Brexit Paper and trips to consult with Brussels and EU leaders is a complete waste of time and money, the issue is a reserved one, while the SNP pursue this silliness its comparable to Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

We are being listened to, we are being consulted and the United Kingdom Supreme Court has confirmed that the devolved administrations cannot stop Brexit.

So what next? In recent days Sturgeon has ramped up the rhetoric, complaining we are not being listened to and we are not “equal partners” and that Scotland demands and must have “special treatment” and access to this that and the other. All of this while Scottish finances show we benefit to the access to our largest market and the benefits of pooling and sharing to the tune of £15 Billion per year currently. GERS RESOURCE

Lets just presume she keeps on pushing, how does indyref2 get up and running?

The UK would have to officially recognise there is a case for Indyref2, they would then have to produce another section 30 bill, via legislation, transferring the power to Scotland to hold a constitutional referendum. A further binding agreement (Edinburgh Agreement 2) on the terms, date and wording (subject to the electoral commission), would also be required. It is unlikely that those terms, conditions and questions would be as per Indyref1.

There may well be a higher hurdle rate, say a 10% winning margin, a minimum turnout of 75% of the electorate, EU citizens excluded from the vote and the question stated as Remain or Leave ( this would almost definitely be the wording, as per Brexit).

The next issue is timing. Probably not before 2021. There is no likelihood, even if the UK agree another Scottish manifesto mandate and vote is not required, that a second referendum will be countenanced prior to Brexit negotiations being concluded, so in light of all the bluff and bluster, what are the SNP up to?

2021 because of the time it will take to resolve Brexit, agree there is a satisfactory mandate, produce legislation, settle any legal issues, produce and pass a bill and get mutual agreement on an Edinburgh Agreement 2, all in the knowledge that the SNP completely broke their word on Indyref1 and their promise to respect the will of the Scottish people.

Once again they are riding the situation to gain advantage, to secure more powers, they are well aware redistribution of powers back to the UK from the EU will create an opportunity to grab more for “Scotland”. What this really means is – as per Indyref1 – pressure the UK to keep devolving and transferring powers, because increasing that sense of separation is key to driving ultimate total separation.

I think May is wise to this, and I’m appreciative of her handling of Sturgeon to date. The next few months will be interesting.

Steve Sayers 1/Feb/17

1st February 2017 2

Scotland & The Seperatists (Likely) Cleft Stick.

Since the Scottish referendum on the 18/September/14 there has been a number of voting opportunities and an evident change in political mood.

The UK general election in May 2015 and the subsequent Scottish Parliament elections in May 2016, followed by the EU referendum in June, has shone the light on SNP & Yes motivation as never before.

After coming to the bitter realisation that seperation (on the back of the lies and paper thin assertions in the shameful White Paper) had not ignited Scots in universal hatred towards Westminster (it’s only a building) and the 307 year old highly successful Union, Nicola (as it she who sets strategy and has total control over SNP manifesto) reluctantly decided to qualify the conditions for a second Scottish referendum. This despite promises that indyref was a “one off” “once in a generation” and ” once in a lifetime” opportunity.

Simply put (and never refuted by a senior SNP politician) the criteria is that polls should show a definitive lead for a sustained period of time. This by many insiders,observers and political commentators meant that lead needed to show support for separation at 60% for 12 months.

This may have been thought achievable in May 2015 but more likely it was setting a realistic bar above which success was a genuine possibility, a realistic target, below that level a second defeat would be more than “likely.” “Likely” is an oft used word recently.

With increased support shown in the GE no doubt the SNP thought polling, encouraged by the constant stream of politicised whinging against the UK, would start to show evidence of increasing support. Nothing of the sort happened until the EU referendum.
Polls remained stubbornly at indyref levels, with the public at large somewhat disinterested. Those of us active on social media continued, of course, to engage in herculean battles (well a flurry of tweets etc.) of the pros and cons of independence/separation. The main arguments unchanged from pre indyref other than to watch the predicted collapse in oil and the increasing Scottish deficit. All a bit Groundhog Day.

During this post referendum aftermath the main aspects of resistance to the monotonous call for separation remained the economy and the deficit, the powers of the devolved administration and currency, the EU bumbling along the bottom somewhere.

Things started to change when the EU referendum was confirmed after the shock Tory GE victory. The SNP, with its destruction of labour in Scotland and the voter fear of a UK Labour and SNP coalition, had rallied the Tory vote out and handed them astoundingly a working majority. The subsequent election of Corbyn then sent shivers down the spines of the SNP as they looked at the horrifying prospect of the Tories in long term power.

Prior to the EU referendum there was a little matter of the Scottish Parliament election in May 2016. Upset! The SNP lost their majority and also slipped below 50% of the vote (combined list and constituency). Turnout was up, but the main beneficiaries were the Tories, doubling their votes to 1 million and becoming the main Holyrood SNP opposition. This is still painful for the SNP to accept, the mantra of Tory Scum, kick the Tories out of Scotland and (the effective) Red Tory Scum label had resulted in a Tory revival, with many Scots voting Tory for their first time. This had an impact, and strong hints that a second referendum was on the table strengthened.

When the UK voted to leave the EU the reaction was swift, Scotland would not be “dragged out” of the EU and if it was, then it would leave the UK to remain with the EU (more on this later). What was conveniently ignored is the EU referendum vote was known about pre indyref, it was a UK vote, not a Scottish one – and there was never a promise that a No vote would result in Scotland permanently retaining a EU membership. EU membership belongs to the UK. Scotland’s “place” in the EU is totally dependant on the UK’s membership.

The reality was a No vote was the only vote to “guarantee” the possibility of retaining membership. A Yes vote would have meant Scotland definitely resiling its EU “place” and having, post separation, to apply for re-entry. An extremely difficult prospect as the EU application process would take many years, have to be unanimously approved by the 28 member states.

This would also have meant a loss of all UK special considerations and adoption of the Euro (that “failure of a currency” according to the SNP’s tame economist Stiglitz).

So just prior to the Brexit vote nothing much had changed, lots of chunter from the separatists, but no significant change in polling or general sentiment regarding another bite at the indy ref cherry.

Post brexit polls showed a marked jump in Yes voting intentions, putting them at 4 week slight rise in support for separation, in the lead, and mock anger at being “dragged” out of a “union” (slightly out of touch with true Scots independence activists and 30% of SNP/Yes voter). Nicola promptly dumps the 60% 12 month criteria for, well, some sort of muddle, and the statement that Indyref2 is now “Likely.” Cue weeks of the UK not listening to Scotlands’s voice and the threat of another vote becoming ever more likely.

Without doubt, under the SNP’s watch, every transfer of power to Holyrood is milked for every opportunity to sew division and advance the cause of separation. When the UKSC had to rule on Article 50, the SNP argued Scotland should have a Brexit veto, thankfully it unanimously rejected that claim. In the meantime it also produced a Brexit Plan, an utter waste of time and money as the devolved Scottish Government is not in a negotiating position and has zero authority or responsibility on reserved matters.

Recently Nicola suggested if we remained part of the EU common market, the SNP wouldn’t pursue separation, if you listened carefully you could hear the sound of back peddling as the statement was made.

The separatists have a problem now, after the shock of Brexit the polls returned to the downward trend in support for separation. Subsequent events such as UKSC verdict, Trumps election and the Article 50 bill have boxed them in. There is no real desire for independence any more. Brexit shot that fox. The last two years of GERS figures and the realisation that a Scotland outside the UK & the EU would really struggle economically for generations.

The case for a new currency is laudable but the practicalities costs and risks are immense. The deficit is massive and would be of Greek dimensions, way above the UK’s. The stupid claim that Scotland does not have a deficit is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, even Nicola and the SNP accept we have one (publicly stated on a number of occasions). What is not discussed is what we would do as an independent state to handle the deficit, inherited UK debt (yes we would inherit debt), set up costs and isolation from major markets.

The only realistic attempts to answer these questions has come from the Common Weal Common Weal Scottish White Paper for which I give them real credit, its a start and a real blueprint for open discussion. It knocks the abysmal White Paper and Wings Black & Blue books into a cocked hat showing them up for the dross they were.

Its still the economy folks. Given the numbers discussed re deficit, debt, startup costs for mechanisms of state (central bank) etc. there are still no answers to the basic questions to the practical realities (not disputed by any intelligent Yes supporter) we would face;

FACT – Scots are significantly more expensive to service £per head in terms of social and infrastructure costs.

FACT – There are less Scots in private sector employment compared to the UK as a whole.

FACT – Our population is more aged than the rUK.

FACT – If we left the UK we would not get EU membership within 5 years (prove otherwise).

Im not going to insert figures into this blog post, there are good posts re the actual financial numbers in here Reference Blogs and in the contributors own blogs, a good look at ScotGov’s own website GERS Site would also be beneficial.

Given these realities, if we did vote to separate, I’ve yet to see any indication of what taxes we would increase, what reductions in government spending we would make. There has to be a plan to balance the books from day 1, we can’t rely on faith, its just not grown up.

The cleft stick is that the desire for separation is more than counterbalanced by an economic reality that is making Indyref2 increasingly “UNlikely”

@SteveSayers1 28/Jan/17

28th January 2017 0

Getting Dragged out of the EU? (Who is “dragging”who)?

Since the quite weak inclusion of a reference to Indyref2, in the SNP manifesto from the 2016 HR Elections, and stated as “we should have the right…..” it is interesting to look at the two versions of that manifesto served up to the public.

Here in its entirety is the “Easy Read” version that many people will have read for brevity:- SNP 2016 Holyrood Manifesto note there is no mention of anything other than there being clarity that more than half of us wanted separation.

You might recall this was to be ascertained by securing polling above a certain level over a lengthy time period. Perceived wisdom at the time was the level should be 60% and that the “polls” should demonstrate that level for a 12 month period. This hurdle was never printed yet never denied by the SNP when pressed (by me among others).

Here is the full version that requires, certainly in my case, a Google Account to access:- SNP Manifesto 2016

Note the differences and note the ‘should’ word.To me that’s very woolly, won’t be to the die hard nats, but its wooly enough to confuse the less than well politically versed and those who believed the PR spin that the 2016 election was not about independence.

Note also that they want the right even if there is no clear majority. Doublespeak.

Following the shock Brexit result the clarion call for Indyref2 has been shrill and incessant, “Scotland voted remain” “we are being dragged out of the EU against our will.”

The reality is that the SNP and their desire for separation clouded Scotlands “participation” in the UK Brexit referendum, be in no doubt that it was a UK vote and that the SNP carried out a woeful remain campaign that saw the Scotland turnout to be substantially less than the rUK. The UK and all its constituent parts voted to leave, “Scotland”did not have a separate vote and the question on the ballot paper was unequivocal, should the UK leave or remain.

Lets turn the clock back to 18/9/14 when with a vote of 55/45 we voted to remain as the UK. lets postulate what would have happened if No had lost with the vote being Brexit like at 52/48 leave, would Scotland have then been about to drag The Orkney Islands and the Borders regions (all massively No) out of the UK?

As per usual with the SNP its that damned clause 2A of their constitution, the one that is in reality their primary clause 1, that dictates what they say how they twist and how they act, it is indy at any cost. Even with the latest GERS they can admit the financial impact separation would have.

I’m delighted to see that today Indyref2 has been ruled out for 2017. In reality it would have been impossible anyway. There is no clear mandate as explained above, the UK could not cope with another one until it has cleared its decks of Brexit (say March 2019 on the upside) and even then, there needs to be a new section 30 agreement to give the Scottish Parliament the legal right to hold indyref2, which would also be subject to another Edinburgh Agreement.

Its worth pointing out that all of this takes time and has to go through all three institutional houses to get approval, time, a lot of it. In the meantime we have Brexit to deal with, the reality of GERS and the financial position of Scotland along with the snp limping along in now its ninth year of power, twelve by 2019 which is when I think the first chance of an unlikely indyref2 would be.

Judging by their performance to date and the intended use of new powers via the Scotland act 2016 I think they may well have lost the shine for many Indy supporters.Add to this the totally different dynamic the Brexit has added, with a third of SNP support apparently having voted leave, and we can see turmoil for the SNP ahead.

In closing its also worth exposing another SNP slight of hand.During the Indyref campaign there was NEVER any guarantee that a No vote would mean that Scotland remained in the EU. The proposed Brexit referendum was explicit and what was even more explicit (see my Europe blog Europe 3 ) was that if we had voted Yes we would definitely have removed ourselves from the EU, the amount of Yes SNP doublespeak is astonishing.

Lets see what happens in the May 2017 Council Elections.

9th January 2017 1

Only Angels have Wings? – Seperatist Spin Splattered (25 elements and counting) Created December 2016 Updated 4 March 2017

A COLLECTION OF INFORMED OPINION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

The links will take you to blog posts which are informed opinion, facts, data & common sense – these well researched and evidenced blogs explode the pantheon of separatist myths.

Please leave a comment on one of my posts if you have suggestions for additional blog posts for this collection. Please not my Twitter is currently suspended (troll activity).

NICOLA FREE THE GROWTY COMMISSION Twitter @RogerLWhite

IN DEFENCE OF THE UNION Twitter @EffieDeans

DIVORCING THE EQUAL PARTNER? (With a nod to Margaret). By me. (With a little help).

NOTHING TO SEE HERE 🙄 Twitter @BlairMcdougall

SAYING NO TO MRS. ANGRY Twitter @EffieDeans

INDYREFf2? By me.

BOX OF DELIGHTS The Baby Box Banter @Graeme_from_IT

THE GERS MYTH A post with data & information links

THE VOW – Scotland Act 2016 @GOVUK

WHISKY EXPORT TAX Twitter @FraserWhyte81

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT LINK

screenshot-2017-01-12-11-56-58 — Extract from an email to Neil

BIZ FOR SCOTLAND 2 Twitter @NeilEdwardLovat

BIZ FOR SCOTLAND 1 Twitter @Kevverage

POLICE VAT Twitter @FraserWhyte81

SCOTTISH EXPORT SPIN Twitter @FraserWhyte81

SCOTS PENSIONS POST INDY Twitter @NeilEdwardLovat

THE GREAT SCOTTISH PENSIONS SWINDLE Twitter @NeilEdwardLovat

SCOTLAND & EUROPE Twitter @stevesayers1

SCOTLAND CAN’T AFFORD THE EU Web AdamSmith.Org

THE PRICE OF INDEPENDENCE Twitter @Kevverage

HOW AUSTERITY HURTS SCOTLAND Twitter @Kevverage

WINGS WEE BLUE BOOK Misinformation? Twitter @Kevverage

GERS EXPLAINED (ScotGov & the SNP accept GERS as correct to date. Continuous improvements are applied retrospectively) Twitter @strath_fai

WINGSOVERSCOTLAND PROPRIETOR REVIWED Twitter @ergasiophobe

TONY BLAIR STOLE SCOTLANDS SEA Twitter @NeilEdwardLovat

MILKING THE MINIONS? Twitter @rogerlwhite

NO2NP – CRITIQUE OF THE UNLAWFUL NAMED PERSON SCHEME Twitter @no2npcampaign

7th December 2016 0

Tony Rush July 2014

“WHAT’S DONE IS DONE”

A YES decision on the 18 September 2014 will be a “capital” decision – it will be irreversible. It should only be taken if it passes the test of being beyond reasonable doubt.

Because I will be in Norway at the time of the next meeting, I recently attended what will be my last CBI Scotland Council Meeting. So I now feel I can speak with less restriction about the SNP Government and their misguided referendum. I will still be in the UK to vote NO on 18 September. My opposition is not just that I see no good reason to break up a union which has served the Scottish people well over 300 years, it is founded on my experience of meeting and dealing with the SNP and their administration.

In the run-up to the 2007 Holyrood elections, as representatives of CBI, colleagues and I met Alex Salmond to hear his “pitch”. His assertions about the Norwegian economy and welfare system were, and still are, unrealistic in comparison to what I am familiar with through family, friends and business over nearly 50 years. I formed the opinion that Mr. Salmond wasn’t someone I could trust or put my faith in. My first impressions have been vindicated particularly by his utterings on EU membership, a currency union, NATO/Trident, research funding, the way he has represented oil and gas revenues and his protestations that the rest of the UK wouldn’t be a foreign country. If I had any reason to doubt my judgement, they would be removed by his prevarication over start-up costs when he claims to know when and what the outcome of negotiations will be.

Confidentiality restricts me on what I can say about subsequent meetings with SNP ministers and senior civil servants. But, what I will say is that I am forcibly struck by civil servants being in fear of SNP ministers. This unhealthy relationship appears to me to be transmitted right through the wider public sector and the third sector. I also believe that it influences the Scottish media, academia and professional services.

My opinion is not just founded on indirect observation or what may be dismissed as a few meetings. It is influenced by my dealings with Renfrewshire Council when it was under SNP control. At that time I represented objectors to the Council’s plans to build houses on designated “open space”. I was also a member of a Local Area Committee and sat on a Community Planning Committee. Over 3 years I had first-hand experience of the SNP’s modus operandi.

From personal and anecdotal evidence I learnt that SNP leading lights have a habit of warning-off opponents in a threatening manner. I was led to believe that they prevent local media voicing criticism of their actions by threatening removal of access and advertising. Local people complained that SNP councillors refused to discuss the contentious issues and to have verbally abused the leaders of the campaign which triumphed over the Council. Despite the planning case being weak it was fiercely recommended by the officers.

In my experience Council Officers took an inflexible approach to FoI requests and complaints. Papers for meetings were issued “last minute”. Meetings I attended were ineffectual and repetitious, seen to be providing benefit only to those parts of the community which had SNP majority representation. Minutes gave limited reports on what was discussed. There was little done to regenerate what are some of the poorest areas of Scotland. In fact the Council objected to GARL despite Glasgow Airport being situated within Renfrewshire. But despite a strong leaning towards the third sector and only perfunctory regard for business the SNP was thrown out in the 2011 elections. Ironically the Leader was elected to Holyrood and he is now Minister for Local Authorities and Planning as well as SNP Chairman.

It is hard to say what influence he has on the direction the SNP Government is taking. However, the SNP’s governance of Renfrewshire Council resonates with what I have experienced as a veteran CBI Council Member. Individual executives who speak out against independence report “warnings” coming from the First Minister’s Office to their employer. Academics confirm that “funding” is used as a prod to get university councils into line. There is a strong feeling that the Scottish media is being gagged. Moreover, I have found the consultation process and Parliamentary Committees a sham.

If hard evidence is needed it has been difficult to come by. But when CBI let down its membership by blundering into registering with the Electoral Commission, the reaction should remove all doubts. In my opinion, the rapid response from universities, media and the faux business bodies could only have been created by a well oiled campaigning machine which can apply pressure to those bodies. I can say that none of the bodies who are claiming it have voiced “impartiality” in my presence, and I have missed few Council meetings. Moreover, some who were reported to have spoken against how the CBI Scotland decision was taken weren’t at the meeting in question – I was. I am puzzled at the timing and why the Electoral Commission even thought of asking CBI to register as a NO campaign. Even more so I am puzzled as to why the Scottish media hasn’t investigated it more deeply.

I can also say that the idea that now seems to be doing the rounds that CBI members are not against independence they merely want answers to a multitude of questions is totally disingenuous. Any experienced executive knows full well that the SNP cannot answer the vast majority of the questions posed by CBI and those that they can give would be contrary to their cause. Executives would be failing in their fiduciary duty to their shareholders if they supported independence. The contradictory line from Stagecoach and its Chairman, Brian Souter, is a good example. What an executive may think personally they have to set aside in the interests of shareholders and employees. But in my experience I can comfortably count supporters of independence amongst executives on one-hand.

What is debatable is to what extent executives and companies have a duty to advise others on how to vote on 18 September. For the majority they should be able to rely on a clear message from CBI and other business organisations. In the absence of which they have a duty to inform their employees what they consider the effects of independence will be, and where jobs are at risk to clearly say so. What they cannot do is to make voting one way or another a condition of employment. After that it is up to the individual to decide how the business case weighs in the balance along with and against other factors.

The YES and NO campaigning bodies come up short in informing the voters. YES campaigning bodies – appear to me to all intents and purposes to be SNP stooges – fail by condemning warnings of risks as being negative and seeing nothing as being positive about staying in the Union. They also demonise the Westminster Government along with having a much skewed view of Scotland’s historical context in relation to the English and the benefits of Empire.
The SNP and some of their supporters claim that Scotland is a nation similar to Norway. This is an exaggeration and false. However proud Scots may be of their heritage Scotland, by official definitions, is not a nation state. Moreover, the people of today’s Scotland are of the same mixed ethnicity as the rest of the UK. Anglo-Saxon blood will be found in the DNA of a very large proportion of those who can vote on 18 September. It is still relatively uncommon to meet indigenous Norwegians who are not just of Norwegian blood. For example my Norwegian wife can trace her ancestry back to the 13th century and I am the first foreign entry – but not the last. Like Norway, the UK is a recognisable, cohesive, understandable, highly respected and influential nation without clear dividing lines between its indigenous peoples. Whilst I applaud those who are proud to be Scottish and think of Scotland as a nation it is very far from being a reason to break up the UK.
The UK provides solidarity to all of its people, enhanced by its historical importance in developing global culture, trade and politics. All of what has been done by UK Governments has not been without reason to criticise and some actions have been downright wrong. But the UK, with Scotland’s involvement and to Scotland’s benefit, has done much good. Destroying the solidarity which has made the UK respected would undoubtedly put the respect the UK has at risk and the instigators would be seen as blameworthy if the UK’s contribution to solving the many problems the World suffers is diminished – hence the reason why World leaders are expressing angst at the idea of Scotland being independent.

It is not only one of the leading global economies it is also one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, with large lesser populated areas situated in its northern land mass. Geological and geographical features have helped form distinct bands of agricultural, industrial and commercial regional economies. In global terms we have small river systems which have perforce caused major cities to be located close to the coast where navigation was much easier, or where water was needed to power the industrial revolution. As one of, if not the leading country during the industrial revolution and in early 20th century technology our infrastructure suffers from early obsolescence and our urban development is now not totally suited to the 21st century. All these features located our capital city in the South-East, the nearest point to the continent, and have caused its development, like other capitals, to be more rapid than satellite regions. Our shared economy helps solve some of the inequalities our idiosyncratic structure causes.

Not only do we share common and deeply integrated ethnicity in the UK, we share a universal culture and a common love of our different regional cultures. Although maybe of diminishing importance, we have the same Sovereign and respect the same core religious creeds. Our men and women have fought together on both the fields of conflict and of sport. Our infrastructure and energy resources are integrated – oil, natural gas and electricity share common grids. Although devolved the NHS we all cherish still shares a common ethos and fundamentally provides a relatively equal service. If not all, the majority support universality of public services and the provision of welfare for the less well off.

The vote in September isn’t just a vote for or against independence, it is first and foremost a vote of confidence in the SNP – a self proclaimed nationalist party. I am not convinced that the SNP is a truly nationalist party or that they are committed to what they claim as being the intention of creating a wealthier, healthier, fairer society. But what they promise may entice some voters to think it is worth giving them a chance. However, unlike for the voters in Renfrewshire who threw them out after one term, there would be no turning back. A vote of confidence for the SNP in September is an irrevocable vote for independence and whatever that may mean.

The Better Together campaign has proven to be misnamed and is attempting to rebrand itself in voters’ eyes as “No Thanks”. They have fallen into the trap set by the SNP’s tactic of publishing extensive and repetitive documents by attempting to answer them by even more of the same. When what is wanted is a clear statement as to why it is better to keep the UK together as well as voting NO in the referendum. The recent Scotland Office publication circulated to all homes does address this though.

The alternative which faces the voters is to reject the SNP in this ballot and to put the three opposing parties on their metal to deliver improved government within the UK. Whilst the Better Together parties may have differences just now as to the type and scale of increased powers for Holyrood they would have to settle those differences relatively quickly because the YES campaigners are not going to go away unless the vote against them is overwhelming. After 307 years of successful union there is no sense in destroying it if the opportunity is there to improve it and retain the good parts.

We only have the SNP’s word that the things we share and have in common could be improved upon by Scotland being independent. If the intention is that only those who live in Scotland benefit how would that run with those who live in the rest of the UK – many who would be connected by family, employment, sport, friendship, trade etc? Surely even if we became better off apart it would only be relatively marginal for some and maybe some would be worse off. We are clearly better improving what we have together rather than destroying our common bonds in the hope that politicians in Holyrood would be so much better than those in Westminster that they would deliver a more sustainable equal society.

The SNP denigrate one of our proudest achievements – having a constitutional system on which constitutions and parliamentary systems around the World are based. The SNP say that a lack of a written constitution is a drawback when it comes to poverty and equality, whereas the truth is that it is our constitutional arrangement which has helped other nations emerge and flourish. But, it has to be said, despite having written constitutions none have eliminated poverty and inequality. In any case it is misleading to suggest that our constitution is somehow an insubstantial arrangement which has no written basis. It has developed from Magna Carta in the early 13th century by a long litany of documented Royal and Parliamentary Proclamations and Acts which have been interpreted in written judgements handed down by our Courts. All support and enhance our basic rights of freedom and support the premise that no person is above God and the Law.

There are those who seek to assure us through social media that the SNP would be voted out of government in an independent Scotland. Whilst I believe that they may well be plants to assuage the negativity SNP leaders have caused, I do agree with them. I suspect that the SNP would last no more than two terms – but at what cost? Not only would we have suffered irreversible destruction of the benefits I refer to above but we may well be imprisoned within a federalist EU lacking in any means to defend our sovereignty. Moreover, ironically, we may have a Tory government both in Edinburgh and Westminster, utterly defeating one of the “benefits” the SNP seek to create by demonising Westminster.

In this centenary of the start of the Great War we ask ourselves what drove the millions to fight and die for our united nation? In my opinion our somewhat idiosyncratic constitution and the things we share together were seen as worth fighting for. We also celebrate the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. A fundamental difference is for the Great War we stand in awe of the men who flocked willingly to the colours, whereas 600 years earlier they had no choice, they were fighting because they lived in a feudal society. Let’s be clear there is a lesson for us to be learnt from Bannockburn, it was driven by despots who used and sacrificed their countrymen for their own selfish aims.

On 18 September the voters who currently live in Scotland have to ask themselves, “what will Independence achieve and would it be worth fighting for?” Nothing less than that standard warrants a YES vote. Advocating secession would in times past have been seen as an act of treachery and treason. Our more tolerant attitude to free speech and rights of the people has changed that. But maybe we should reflect on what Shakespeare had to say – he died about the time of the Union of the Crowns. In Macbeth he observed “It is safer to be that which we destroy, than by its destruction live in doubtful joy. Things without remedy will be without regard. What’s done is done”.

Anthony Rush – July 2014

8th July 2014 0

iScotland, EU & the cUK

UPDATED DECEMBER 2016

Since writing this blog the UK voted to leave the EU. Nothing has really changed other than tone and spin.

The blog below explains how, if we had voted Yes that we would have automatically removed ourselves from the EU on the date of independence. The SNP knew this while asking for a Yes vote. Voting No was the ONLY way, as at 18/9/14, for Scotland to remain in the UK. This was a factor in some decision making but post poll analysis shows it wasn’t significant.

The SNP post Brexit vote erroneously claim Scotland voted to remain in the EU at the expense of the UK, that Scots prefer the EU, patent nonsense when 33% of SNP voters voted leave. Their efforts at campaigning to remain were very poor and the whole gambit by them is to use Brexit as a lever to further separation with the UK.

There will be no Indyref2 before Brexit proper. If we subsequently voted to leave the UK, everything below remains true.

This is my third Europe focused blog post, the EU continues to generate huge interest generally and sheer horror and panic from separatists. (I doubt this will be the last EU post before the vote).

Link to post 1 https://stevensayers.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/can-scotland-become-a-member-of-the-eu-post-a-yes-vote/

Link to post 2 https://stevensayers.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/iscotland-onward-into-europe-19914/

The UK position is that after Scotland leaves the UK will still be the continuator state (cUK). This position has been determined after published and unpublished advice. Most independent commentators support this view. From everything I have researched and read I am convinced this will be the case. Research links are included below.

There is a belief that Scotland leaving will dissolve the UK, that will not happen unless the UK agrees to it, it won’t happen because it would compromise every international institutional arrangement the UK currently has, unthinkable and with consequences for the remaining elements of the UK.

What has not been said, and let’s be very frank about this, the cUK will have significant international clout, in the EU UN NATO G5 G8/7 G20, who seriously thinks iScotland can stand against that level of influence? With a potential EU “out” referendum in the cUK after the next GE, do you honestly think the EU will go against the UK? Wind them up to support a new fledgling state? Insist that the UK is dissolved? No. therefore the cUK will be the continuator state as the Scottish government has tacitly agreed.

The upshot is iScot will need to “reapply” for EU membership (via Articles 48 or 49) and require probable transitional status (whatever that means), everything subject to a unanimous Yes vote by the 28 member states.

New entrants (49) must adopt the Euro, allowing a new state to opt out would create EU legislators huge future problems by setting precedent, so if Scotland joins via 49 it gets the Euro. See YouTube link below for clarity on 48/49. See Pierre Schmitt link later re why it will have to be membership via 49.

48 is iScots preferred entry route, which means handing over negotiation of treaty amendment to the hated “Tory” government! This at the same time the cUK is resolving any EU downside aspects Scotland’s independence might cause it? I think that is somewhat paradoxical and problematic.

The cUK may well “kindly” intervene on Scotland’s behalf during either route of negotiation leading up to independence, pushing for Scotland to remain in some sort of quasi membership until a full application is processed, but that will still be down to the politics and unanimity of the 28 member states. The timescales will very likely extend well beyond the stated indy date, meaning gap arrangements or postponing the date with cUK agreement.

Not surprisingly the separatists vehemently disagree with much of the above, In particular having to use Article 49, saying millions of EU citizens
can’t be “expelled”. “We are european citizens, have been for 40 years”.

Trouble is we are NOT being expelled, we are making an informed choice, leave the UK state (which is the EU member) and we leave the EU. This is the same type of logical disconnect that separatists have with the difference between having and using the £, but that’s a previous post.

With regard to iScotland leaving the UK and due to that self exile also leaving the EU, I don’t understand what they don’t understand about such a simple concept. They say “it just can’t be right”, they are Incredulous, “we took advice”, well, not enough and from a Scottish expert. I’m not knocking Prof Avery’s credentials, just his not entirely convincing arguments, latched onto because it’s what the separatists wanted to hear. The faith they have that independence will solve all the problems and that iScotland can sort everything out is coloured by the biggest set of rose tinted spectacles in existence.

They refuse to hear it because it is one if the key arguments against entering a currency union cited by Macpherson. It means trade barriers or new treaties to prevent them, it means no representation in the EU for a number of years if ever.

Scottish lawyers can’t agree and indeed a specific conference on the subject is under way with Carmichael and Sturgeon as opposing opinion speakers, the fact this is happening at all shows the massive doubts surrounding the issue. Update post April event. Seems Scottish Lawyers resolved nothing, self interest the issue of the day? Judge for yourself

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1013894.aspx#

nothing new on EU here!

The whole matter is entirely unprecedented, previous secessions such as Greenland and Algeria are completely different and since the Lisbon treaty a member state can leave by negotiation OR unilaterally, meaning the EU are careful about treading on continuator states rights. iScot is not a state, is not a member, it would only become a state on the day of independence, some time after a Yes vote.

The EU commission will be very interested onlookers. They are likely to want to start negotiations in parallel if approached, but at their timescale not the Scottish Governments. We will be doing this while negotiating long and hard with the cUK over conditions for separation. Anything that harms cUK EU relationships, representation, rebate or conditions will be defended to the hilt.

The latest letter from the EU in June is quite clear

Click to access 2014_06_04_Viiviane_Redding_to_Convener.pdf

Seems pretty clear cut.

Will iScotland be a member of the EU on 26/3/16? Definitely not. Perhaps in 3,5 or 7 years? Probably, but it will likely have to Join the Euro.

See a July 14 independent none UK report by Pierre Schmitt

Click to access wp143-schmitt.pdf

and written evidence to ScotGov by Piris

Click to access Jean-Claude_Piris_written_evidence.pdf

Looks like it’s Article 49 new state accession process.

This extremely serious doubt, which is self evident, is in itself a good enough reason to vote No.

Our own Scottish fishermen also have some doubts and unanswered questions;

http://goo.gl/bMRMJC

Of course all of the above is for clarification only, because Scotland is too established, too well resourced and too intelligent to vote for separation.

Below are a number of links to the issue from many sources and both governments, you need to read them all to get the obvious conclusion, UK will be continuator state, iScotland will have to negotiate and it will be political not legal, have fun…

7/7/14 new pro Article 48 report backing Avery view, writer a edinburgh born and bred, EU law expert and barrister, read it carefully.

Click to access e3c82843-2a9f-41af-a4e3-de3eeec55737.pdf

See what Juncker has to say courtesy of David Coburn Scottish UKIP MEP