CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
The leak today that the UK Government might contemplate effectively vetoing Independence after a (hypothetical) "Yes" vote if Scotland makes impossible demands in Independence negotiations --is playing right into the Yes Campaign's hands. So it's not all good news for the No Campaign.More bad news for the Yes campaign this morning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963
In regards to Europe, if negotiations after a (again hypothetical) "Yes" vote fail to agree on Scotland being allowed to stay within the EU (as it currently is, as part of the UK) --then the EU is still going to have to negotiate a planned exit for Scotland before the Independence date the following year. I honestly don't think this is as crucial an issue as the No Campaign is making out. Baring in mind the UK itself may vote (is it in 2015?) to exit the EU with Scotland independent or not. To me, this puts the whole "voting Yes is a vote for the unknown" (& permutations) argument down the pan. If voting "Yes" throws up so many unknowable's, why is the UK Government planning to do exactly that, by giving the UK a referendum on the UK leaving the EU? Again, a fundamentally flawed position.
You misunderstand the EU's stance & their problem with the UK's. The UK Government wants to continue to enforce (for some prisoners) the right to remove their democratic right to vote in perpetuum. The EU states that this is in breach of their human rights i.e. the right to appeal against this at some point. The UK's position is utterly illogical. Anyone who supports universal human rights would not be defending the UK's position.Personally I'm not a massive fan of the EU as it has way too much power and interferes with the British legal system on issues that have nothing to with it. In the last couple of years the EU has been trying to tell Westminster that prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections and that preventing them from voting is a breach of their human rights.
There are plenty of alternatives. The problem, here, is that the SNP simply haven't (for political reasons) chosen to discuss them publically. This doesn't mean you shouldn't open you eyes & ears to the alternatives.However, as much as I am sceptical about the EU I think it's an important organization to be part of for economic reasons. An independent Scotland would be a bit of a joke in my opinion and Scotland outside of the EU would be even more of a joke. This morning's news looks like it serves as another blow to the Yes campaign as the message was always that Scotland would automatically become a member of the EU when it becomes independent. There also appear to be no alternatives to the major assumptions on currency and EU membership so, overall, it's been a pretty bad week for the Yes campaign.
Nothing that is being proposed is illogical. I've made my own views on the currency issue clear. Nothing being suggested hasn't been done before &/or isn't in existence right now. You mention embassies; these are assets that the Scottish people own, in part. Why would there not be sensible negotiations over how present shared resources/assets should be managed?It pretty much seems like they are saying "We want to be free of UK ... except for the parts of being part of the UK that we like and/or would be a pain in the ass to implement on our own" ... everything from figuring out currency to setting up embassies and a million other details makes this seem like a poor idea from a logistical standpoint and they should not really count on England to help them out.
Scotland (the SNP are suggesting) merely wants more control of Scottish matters. Seems fairly reasonable to me. The present Devolution settlement can only deliver so much; or at least, again, this is what the SNP would have us believe. Independence, although truly a "leap into the unknown", is one of only a few options to rectify this undeniable reality (i.e. that we do not have control over everything we'd ideally like to have control over); Devolution "max" could be another, but isn't (for some reason) on the cards. I don't think there is anything illogical about this stance. You either want this, or you don't.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as sceptical of the merits of Independence as anyone else. But most of these arguments are illogical scaremongering.