Do you think Brussels would exert more power on an independent Scotland than it currently does on the UK as a whole?

davieee

I would like one of the SNP supporters to unravel the hypocrisy of how you can take control away from one legislative body and give it to another legislative body based even further away, with less structural and cultural links to Scotland, and still call this "Independence".

Not the case at all.  At the moment, Scotland is subject to control from Edinburgh, from London AND from Brussels.  After independence, Scotland would be subject to control from Edinburgh and from Brussels. 

We wouldn't be "more" controlled by Brussels than we are at the moment, and we wouldnlt be taking powers off of London and giving them to Brussles - we'd be takeing them back for ourselves.

 "There is no doubt it would......" and your evidence for this is based on what?

Are you comparing a post independent Scotland to Greece?. 

The Scottish  economy is much stronger and broader than that of Greece. Funny how those unionists opposed to independence for Scotland only ever link it to a country whose problems are largely due to rampant corruption and tax evasion.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that Brussels would exert more power over an independent Scotland, which would of course be one of the richest in the EU.  Do you honestly think that governments of  Germany and France would accept interference with their own internal budgets? 

Our Unionists have fallen stranegly silent on the economy and Greece is an obvious scare. While I agree there would be nothing worse than exists at present in the EU, I would suggest that if we understand the EU, it becomes obvious that everyone will be better off. It's not even a zero-sum game, independence is win-win.

As things stand, Westminster has chosen an Englishwoman as “our” Commissioner, an Englishman as “our” Permanent Representative, an Englishman as “our” man at the Kaiserstraße, and yet another Englishman to sit at the Court.  Westminster has located both “our” EU agencies in England. No Scot sits at Europe’s top table today. Come independence, four will. England loses nothing that it does not already have.

Forget that journalistic Skintland slip, look at Westminster’s actual style. A head of state visited the UK  recently. The Vatican’s protocol was impeccable, the cultural briefing papers superb. A man in his eighties made the effort to travel the country and speak a difficult foreign language. Westminster repays the compliment and sends a mission. There is a UK cardinal available (two actually). The FCO is paid to get protocol right and the Vatican is a sovereign state, fully entitled to the normal courtesies. But “our” Foreign Secretary and “our” Permanent Under-Secretary are English. An “Archbishop of Westminster” sounds as though he is self-evidently the UK’s senior man, and he happens to have gone to a public school. The Westminster mind-set never imagines  St Paddy’s High is any place to produce leaders. It’s somewhere near Glassgone.

Come freedom’s happy dawn, we nominate our commissioner, representative, governor and judge. We get our “turn” of the jobs, our quota of translators. We get to send our people to the dark centres of foreign power in Brussels, Luxemburg, Strasburg and Frankfurt-am-M.  The EU will send in the usual “national” offices and will give us a “turn” of any new agency location (unless the English are made to surrender one first). The “alien” EU system spreads form Dublin to Vilnius to Budapest to Lisbon, independence just means Edinburgh (or Glasgow if we want) gets equality with London. The very top EU jobs are “open” but, then you have to make the cut for that and all the present “UK” players are actually English.

Westminster’s Old Boys have a better grip than you think, even in this day and age. It not just that Scots are systematically excluded, of the six officers mentioned, only one is a woman and only two are non-Oxbridge types (Manchester and London). So before we get some witless yap about “grievance politics”, there is one. Quite a big one. Scares about the economy and the evil EU and the vices of the Greeks tell you a lot about the people who think that way and nothing about what is best for Scotland.  The real pity of it is that England would be better off as well. These sorry islands of ours get to have three votes instead of two, three jobs not two. It’s not even a  zero-sum game, it’s win-win.

There somebody I need to ask first but I just know what she is going to say: you would have more than welcome to him but why, for pity's sake, did you not speak up before it was too late?

No, Bernard, this member of Scotland's Fifth Column has not fallen silent. It's the weekend. There are things to be done, Unionist evil plotted etc. Please stop the goading and the pretentions of intellectual and moral superiority - it's a sad characteristic of many nationalists. And for people who take such pleasure in mocking the grammar of others, remember that there is a spellchecker for all those typos.

Your model of North and South Colorando (sic) ignores the fact that they would still be constituent parts of the USA, use the dollar, have zero barriers to trade, no customs restrictions, a common immigration, defence, foreign and economic policy etc. The effect of a split would be fairly minor. The situation would be more analogous to the current devolution setup in the UK. However, even a Scotland within the EU, which might not be guaranteed, would have placed political, economic and social barriers between it and its largest trading partner on this small island - barriers of varying heights depending on which wing of the SNP one listens to. Of course the effect of this will be unknown. My point is that in this uncertain global economy, why take this risk? Globally, the trend is towards greater integration at international level via the EU, NAFTA, AU, various agreements between the Nordic countries etc. Those states which are splitting are mainly doing so as a result of ethnic strife - e.g. Kosovo, South Sudan  - which Scotland is , blessedly so, largely free from.

Regarding our voice in Europe, many of our representatives may be English, but they are also British, as are we. The English constitute over 80% of the UK population. You may also find similar levels of underrepresentation of people from the North East, or Essex or Birmingham. Should they have independence? Where is the line drawn? Will the Orkneys, with their Viking roots and cultural inheritance, go their own way in a post independence Scotland?

There are political, cultural and social reasons as well as economic reasons behind the desire to preserve the UK. There are plenty of people who didn't go to Oxbridge who feel that they have a stake in the country of their birth and would like to see it preserved. I respect your opinions even if I don't agree with them, but tolerance is a two way street. 

txtmsgspk

However, even a Scotland within the EU, which might not be guaranteed, would have placed political, economic and social barriers between it and its largest trading partner on this small island - barriers of varying heights depending on which wing of the SNP one listens to. Of course the effect of this will be unknown. My point is that in this uncertain global economy, why take this risk?

If people in Scotland vote for it that's fine, but I find it regrettable that the issue is drawing so much political focus at the moment. I'd prefer to see that focus on improving the economy and people's quality of life.

txtmsgspk

You may also find similar levels of underrepresentation of people from the North East, or Essex or Birmingham. Should they have independence? Where is the line drawn? Will the Orkneys, with their Viking roots and cultural inheritance, go their own way in a post independence Scotland?

This is just nonsense and you know it.   The UK was formed by a Treaty of Union between two sovereign countries.

txtmsgspk

There are political, cultural and social reasons as well as economic reasons behind the desire to preserve the UK.

And there are political, cultural, social and economic reasons for not wanting to preserve the union.

Stooshie, England simply has a larger population and there is therefore more likely to be more people MPs, EU commissioners, civil servants etc who hail from an English background - all of whom, incidently, are employed to further the goals of the whole UK and serve the needs of all people in the UK. I'm sure you would agree that we don't need quotas or rotation of prime political positions by sect, a la Lebanon, the Balkans, etc? We have had two Scottish Prime Ministers in the last decade!

And of course there are arguments behind not wanting to preserve the union. I just don't buy them.

txtmsgspk

And of course there are arguments behind not wanting to preserve the union. I just don't buy them.

And nor do a majority of Scots at the moment, although that may change.

What will not change anybody's mind though, are the Joan-McAlpine-type jibes directed at those opposed to separation.

socrates82

txtmsgspk

And of course there are arguments behind not wanting to preserve the union. I just don't buy them.

And nor do a majority of Scots at the moment, although that may change.

What will not change anybody's mind though, are the Joan-McAlpine-type jibes directed at those opposed to separation.

Indeed. The cybernats may dominate the online forums, but the majority of Scots, maybe even a majority of SNP voters, are not convinced of the case for independence.

BernardKilwinning

There somebody I need to ask first but I just know what she is going to say: you would have more than welcome to him but why, for pity's sake, did you not speak up before it was too late?

txtmsgspk

And of course there are arguments behind not wanting to preserve the union. I just don't buy them.

Of course, like everyone else in a democracy you are entitled to your opinions. But lets try to stick to facts or opinions which can be supported instead of all this unionist nonsense that keeps getting trotted out.

txtmsgspk

Stooshie, England simply has a larger population and there is therefore more likely to be more people MPs, EU commissioners, civil servants etc who hail from an English background - all of whom, incidently, are employed to further the goals of the whole UK and serve the needs of all people in the UK. I'm sure you would agree that we don't need quotas or rotation of prime political positions by sect, a la Lebanon, the Balkans, etc? We have had two Scottish Prime Ministers in the last decade!

What's your point in relation to what I have asked or said?

Cthulthu

BernardKilwinning

There somebody I need to ask first but I just know what she is going to say: you would have more than welcome to him but why, for pity's sake, did you not speak up before it was too late?

Because I'm a man!

Call that an excuse? She is perfectly indifferent as to the gender of any party who could have spoken up and saved her. Dorothy. Friend of Dorothy. No matter. And you never know what modern medical science might have achieved: a facetious little beggar.

Still with that horrible thought, another lunch-break misspent, the castigation of Unionist error will have to wait.