Scottish independence referendum thread

[johnneycool]

Why do ye think the SNP want the vote before the Brexit happens?

I'd say it's to see what sort of deal May can get on brexit and allow Scots to decide on independence/remain in the EU or remain part of the UK

[seafoid]

https://www.ft.com/content/b6560b3e-ce54-3d04-a7e7-70b61e06b587

                     Once upon a time, wise British small-c conservatives and small-u unionists knew better than to meddle with constitutional matters. Even though, from time to time, constitutional changes were necessary, they were not to be entered into lightly. You never knew what would happen next.The folly of David Cameron's un-conservative referendum on UK membership of the EU now has a fresh consequence: today, the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon said there should be a new independence referendum once the UK's terms of departure were obvious. The date for such a referendum will be between autumn 2018 and spring 2019. The union with Scotland is therefore at stake.

She has a point. There can be no serious argument that Brexit will not be a "significant and material" change in Scotland's position within the UK. If a hard Brexit is not such a change, it is difficult to think what would be. The wording matters, as the first minister's political party the SNP was elected as the largest party in the Scottish parliament with a manifesto that said there could be a further independence referendum in the event of a "significant and material" change.Ms Sturgeon says she is offering "clear and decisive" leadership. In the sense that she is showing a path to a new referendum, she is indeed doing so. But beyond the referendum, things are not clear. There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be able to join (or rejoin) the EU — or even the European Free Trade Association or the European Economic Area. There are reasons why member states such as Spain, with their own separatist movements, may not want to send any signal that separatism prospers.So, without a plan for what happens in the event of a yes vote, the first minister will join Mr Cameron in having sought a referendum without a clear path for what happens next in respect of relations with the EU — especially if Europe does not play along with what suits Scotland. The problems of a hard Brexit will be compounded if Scotland ends up outside both the EU and the UK. And that is a real possibility if there is no clear pathway to EU membership or a similar status.But Ms Sturgeon must be right to raise the independence issue and to do so at this stage. The UK is, explicitly, a union of kingdoms — and political unions can dissolve as well as be forged.

The history of Europe has seen many unions and federations come and go. Scotland kept its legal system after the union of 1707 (indeed Scots law has more in common with continental "civilian" legal systems than with English or Irish law). It also has long had its own established church and education system. Even before modern devolution it was a state in its own right. There is nothing inevitable about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland just as there was nothing inevitable about the "ever closer union" of EU member states.Just as wise conservatives knew not to meddle lightly in constitutional matters, wise unionists realised that the marriage of the nations comprising the UK needed constant care and attention. Stability of both the constitution and the union with Scotland (and Northern Ireland) should not be taken for granted. The constitutional and legal bonds that keep the UK together are not tied for all time.

The knots can be undone, or cut. Or the bonds can snap.The political merits of Brexit and of Scottish independence are one thing — but politics takes place within a framework provided by constitutional arrangements. Brexit started with what Mr Cameron must have thought was a clever wheeze to gain political advantage: the calling of a EU referendum that he assumed he would win easily. The clever wheeze is now shaking the pillars of the UK state.Leaving the EU is being used as the pretext for an immense power-grab by Whitehall by means of a Great Repeal Bill with wider governmental discretion. The House of Lords and the courts are dismissed as little more than enemies of the people. The referendum — and its attendant "mandate of the people" — continues to disrupt the checks and balances of what was once a parliamentary democracy.It would be ironic if the constitutional integrity of the UK was destroyed because of the successive actions of two big-c Conservative prime ministers. The full name of the Tory party is the Conservative and Unionist party: but Brexit means it is neither conservative nor unionist in any meaningful way.The current Conservative government is taking Brexit seriously — of that there can be no doubt. But it no longer seems to be taking either the constitution or the union seriously.

And once there is no one left to defend the constitution and the union, there can be no surprise if executive disregard for settled checks and balances, and shifts towards independence, follow. Nothing is left to stop them.There seems to be a looming choice for the UK government: is a hard Brexit more important than the union with Scotland? Once upon a time, wise conservatives and unionists would have known the answer. Now, those calling themselves Conservatives and Unionists do little more than shrug.

[north_antrim_hound]

https://www.ft.com/content/b6560b3e-ce54-3d04-a7e7-70b61e06b587

                     Once upon a time, wise British small-c conservatives and small-u unionists knew better than to meddle with constitutional matters. Even though, from time to time, constitutional changes were necessary, they were not to be entered into lightly. You never knew what would happen next.The folly of David Cameron's un-conservative referendum on UK membership of the EU now has a fresh consequence: today, the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon said there should be a new independence referendum once the UK's terms of departure were obvious. The date for such a referendum will be between autumn 2018 and spring 2019. The union with Scotland is therefore at stake.

She has a point. There can be no serious argument that Brexit will not be a "significant and material" change in Scotland's position within the UK. If a hard Brexit is not such a change, it is difficult to think what would be. The wording matters, as the first minister's political party the SNP was elected as the largest party in the Scottish parliament with a manifesto that said there could be a further independence referendum in the event of a "significant and material" change.Ms Sturgeon says she is offering "clear and decisive" leadership. In the sense that she is showing a path to a new referendum, she is indeed doing so. But beyond the referendum, things are not clear. There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be able to join (or rejoin) the EU — or even the European Free Trade Association or the European Economic Area. There are reasons why member states such as Spain, with their own separatist movements, may not want to send any signal that separatism prospers.So, without a plan for what happens in the event of a yes vote, the first minister will join Mr Cameron in having sought a referendum without a clear path for what happens next in respect of relations with the EU — especially if Europe does not play along with what suits Scotland. The problems of a hard Brexit will be compounded if Scotland ends up outside both the EU and the UK. And that is a real possibility if there is no clear pathway to EU membership or a similar status.But Ms Sturgeon must be right to raise the independence issue and to do so at this stage. The UK is, explicitly, a union of kingdoms — and political unions can dissolve as well as be forged.

The history of Europe has seen many unions and federations come and go. Scotland kept its legal system after the union of 1707 (indeed Scots law has more in common with continental "civilian" legal systems than with English or Irish law). It also has long had its own established church and education system. Even before modern devolution it was a state in its own right. There is nothing inevitable about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland just as there was nothing inevitable about the "ever closer union" of EU member states.Just as wise conservatives knew not to meddle lightly in constitutional matters, wise unionists realised that the marriage of the nations comprising the UK needed constant care and attention. Stability of both the constitution and the union with Scotland (and Northern Ireland) should not be taken for granted. The constitutional and legal bonds that keep the UK together are not tied for all time.

The knots can be undone, or cut. Or the bonds can snap.The political merits of Brexit and of Scottish independence are one thing — but politics takes place within a framework provided by constitutional arrangements. Brexit started with what Mr Cameron must have thought was a clever wheeze to gain political advantage: the calling of a EU referendum that he assumed he would win easily. The clever wheeze is now shaking the pillars of the UK state.Leaving the EU is being used as the pretext for an immense power-grab by Whitehall by means of a Great Repeal Bill with wider governmental discretion. The House of Lords and the courts are dismissed as little more than enemies of the people. The referendum — and its attendant "mandate of the people" — continues to disrupt the checks and balances of what was once a parliamentary democracy.It would be ironic if the constitutional integrity of the UK was destroyed because of the successive actions of two big-c Conservative prime ministers. The full name of the Tory party is the Conservative and Unionist party: but Brexit means it is neither conservative nor unionist in any meaningful way.The current Conservative government is taking Brexit seriously — of that there can be no doubt. But it no longer seems to be taking either the constitution or the union seriously.

And once there is no one left to defend the constitution and the union, there can be no surprise if executive disregard for settled checks and balances, and shifts towards independence, follow. Nothing is left to stop them.There seems to be a looming choice for the UK government: is a hard Brexit more important than the union with Scotland? Once upon a time, wise conservatives and unionists would have known the answer. Now, those calling themselves Conservatives and Unionists do little more than shrug.

Disagree with the part on the EU would be reluctant to exept Scotland if the referendum went to independence
Even if they didn't when you look at countries like Denmark who has an oil industry that is state owned and distributed for the good of its people instead of enhancing oil companies profits
Scotland is in a good place regardless
Why was Cameron and co up begging the Scottish electorate to stay in the U.K. When the opinion polls got hairy

[seafoid]

2014 is so long ago now

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/15/theresa-may-dragging-uk-under-scotland-must-cut-rope

[AhNowRef]

https://www.ft.com/content/b6560b3e-ce54-3d04-a7e7-70b61e06b587

                     Once upon a time, wise British small-c conservatives and small-u unionists knew better than to meddle with constitutional matters. Even though, from time to time, constitutional changes were necessary, they were not to be entered into lightly. You never knew what would happen next.The folly of David Cameron's un-conservative referendum on UK membership of the EU now has a fresh consequence: today, the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon said there should be a new independence referendum once the UK's terms of departure were obvious. The date for such a referendum will be between autumn 2018 and spring 2019. The union with Scotland is therefore at stake.

She has a point. There can be no serious argument that Brexit will not be a "significant and material" change in Scotland's position within the UK. If a hard Brexit is not such a change, it is difficult to think what would be. The wording matters, as the first minister's political party the SNP was elected as the largest party in the Scottish parliament with a manifesto that said there could be a further independence referendum in the event of a "significant and material" change.Ms Sturgeon says she is offering "clear and decisive" leadership. In the sense that she is showing a path to a new referendum, she is indeed doing so. But beyond the referendum, things are not clear. There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be able to join (or rejoin) the EU — or even the European Free Trade Association or the European Economic Area. There are reasons why member states such as Spain, with their own separatist movements, may not want to send any signal that separatism prospers.So, without a plan for what happens in the event of a yes vote, the first minister will join Mr Cameron in having sought a referendum without a clear path for what happens next in respect of relations with the EU — especially if Europe does not play along with what suits Scotland. The problems of a hard Brexit will be compounded if Scotland ends up outside both the EU and the UK. And that is a real possibility if there is no clear pathway to EU membership or a similar status.But Ms Sturgeon must be right to raise the independence issue and to do so at this stage. The UK is, explicitly, a union of kingdoms — and political unions can dissolve as well as be forged.

The history of Europe has seen many unions and federations come and go. Scotland kept its legal system after the union of 1707 (indeed Scots law has more in common with continental "civilian" legal systems than with English or Irish law). It also has long had its own established church and education system. Even before modern devolution it was a state in its own right. There is nothing inevitable about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland just as there was nothing inevitable about the "ever closer union" of EU member states.Just as wise conservatives knew not to meddle lightly in constitutional matters, wise unionists realised that the marriage of the nations comprising the UK needed constant care and attention. Stability of both the constitution and the union with Scotland (and Northern Ireland) should not be taken for granted. The constitutional and legal bonds that keep the UK together are not tied for all time.

The knots can be undone, or cut. Or the bonds can snap.The political merits of Brexit and of Scottish independence are one thing — but politics takes place within a framework provided by constitutional arrangements. Brexit started with what Mr Cameron must have thought was a clever wheeze to gain political advantage: the calling of a EU referendum that he assumed he would win easily. The clever wheeze is now shaking the pillars of the UK state.Leaving the EU is being used as the pretext for an immense power-grab by Whitehall by means of a Great Repeal Bill with wider governmental discretion. The House of Lords and the courts are dismissed as little more than enemies of the people. The referendum — and its attendant "mandate of the people" — continues to disrupt the checks and balances of what was once a parliamentary democracy.It would be ironic if the constitutional integrity of the UK was destroyed because of the successive actions of two big-c Conservative prime ministers. The full name of the Tory party is the Conservative and Unionist party: but Brexit means it is neither conservative nor unionist in any meaningful way.The current Conservative government is taking Brexit seriously — of that there can be no doubt. But it no longer seems to be taking either the constitution or the union seriously.

And once there is no one left to defend the constitution and the union, there can be no surprise if executive disregard for settled checks and balances, and shifts towards independence, follow. Nothing is left to stop them.There seems to be a looming choice for the UK government: is a hard Brexit more important than the union with Scotland? Once upon a time, wise conservatives and unionists would have known the answer. Now, those calling themselves Conservatives and Unionists do little more than shrug.

Disagree with the part on the EU would be reluctant to exept Scotland if the referendum went to independence
Even if they didn't when you look at countries like Denmark who has an oil industry that is state owned and distributed for the good of its people instead of enhancing oil companies profits
Scotland is in a good place regardless
Why was Cameron and co up begging the Scottish electorate to stay in the U.K. When the opinion polls got hairy

The Norwegian Oil fund is the best example of how to really benefit from your natural resources .. They actually make more now from the fund than they do from the oil revenue.... Its the largest investment fund in the world.

https://eiti.org/news/norway-revenue-from-oil-fund-now-exceeds-revenue-from-oil

Fantastic ..

[Main Street]

https://www.ft.com/content/b6560b3e-ce54-3d04-a7e7-70b61e06b587

                     There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be able to join (or rejoin) the EU — or even the European Free Trade Association or the European Economic Area. There are reasons why member states such as Spain, with their own separatist movements, may not want to send any signal that separatism prospers.So, without a plan for what happens in the event of a yes vote, the first minister will join Mr Cameron in having sought a referendum without a clear path for what happens next in respect of relations with the EU — especially if Europe does not play along with what suits Scotland. The problems of a hard Brexit will be compounded if Scotland ends up outside both the EU and the UK. And that is a real possibility if there is no clear pathway to EU membership or a similar status.But Ms Sturgeon must be right to raise the independence issue and to do so at this stage. The UK is, explicitly, a union of kingdoms — and political unions can dissolve as well as be forged.

]Disagree with the part on the EU would be reluctant to exept Scotland if the referendum went to independence

A piece of pish that's for sure, of course Scotland's a nation and not a region looking for autonomy.  And what's left of the UK would also have to abide by the referendum and recognise Scotland a (real) nation once again.

Scotland's Status as a Nation    By David Thomson
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/articles/nation_status.htm

[north_antrim_hound]

https://www.ft.com/content/b6560b3e-ce54-3d04-a7e7-70b61e06b587

                     Once upon a time, wise British small-c conservatives and small-u unionists knew better than to meddle with constitutional matters. Even though, from time to time, constitutional changes were necessary, they were not to be entered into lightly. You never knew what would happen next.The folly of David Cameron's un-conservative referendum on UK membership of the EU now has a fresh consequence: today, the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon said there should be a new independence referendum once the UK's terms of departure were obvious. The date for such a referendum will be between autumn 2018 and spring 2019. The union with Scotland is therefore at stake.

She has a point. There can be no serious argument that Brexit will not be a "significant and material" change in Scotland's position within the UK. If a hard Brexit is not such a change, it is difficult to think what would be. The wording matters, as the first minister's political party the SNP was elected as the largest party in the Scottish parliament with a manifesto that said there could be a further independence referendum in the event of a "significant and material" change.Ms Sturgeon says she is offering "clear and decisive" leadership. In the sense that she is showing a path to a new referendum, she is indeed doing so. But beyond the referendum, things are not clear. There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be able to join (or rejoin) the EU — or even the European Free Trade Association or the European Economic Area. There are reasons why member states such as Spain, with their own separatist movements, may not want to send any signal that separatism prospers.So, without a plan for what happens in the event of a yes vote, the first minister will join Mr Cameron in having sought a referendum without a clear path for what happens next in respect of relations with the EU — especially if Europe does not play along with what suits Scotland. The problems of a hard Brexit will be compounded if Scotland ends up outside both the EU and the UK. And that is a real possibility if there is no clear pathway to EU membership or a similar status.But Ms Sturgeon must be right to raise the independence issue and to do so at this stage. The UK is, explicitly, a union of kingdoms — and political unions can dissolve as well as be forged.

The history of Europe has seen many unions and federations come and go. Scotland kept its legal system after the union of 1707 (indeed Scots law has more in common with continental "civilian" legal systems than with English or Irish law). It also has long had its own established church and education system. Even before modern devolution it was a state in its own right. There is nothing inevitable about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland just as there was nothing inevitable about the "ever closer union" of EU member states.Just as wise conservatives knew not to meddle lightly in constitutional matters, wise unionists realised that the marriage of the nations comprising the UK needed constant care and attention. Stability of both the constitution and the union with Scotland (and Northern Ireland) should not be taken for granted. The constitutional and legal bonds that keep the UK together are not tied for all time.

The knots can be undone, or cut. Or the bonds can snap.The political merits of Brexit and of Scottish independence are one thing — but politics takes place within a framework provided by constitutional arrangements. Brexit started with what Mr Cameron must have thought was a clever wheeze to gain political advantage: the calling of a EU referendum that he assumed he would win easily. The clever wheeze is now shaking the pillars of the UK state.Leaving the EU is being used as the pretext for an immense power-grab by Whitehall by means of a Great Repeal Bill with wider governmental discretion. The House of Lords and the courts are dismissed as little more than enemies of the people. The referendum — and its attendant "mandate of the people" — continues to disrupt the checks and balances of what was once a parliamentary democracy.It would be ironic if the constitutional integrity of the UK was destroyed because of the successive actions of two big-c Conservative prime ministers. The full name of the Tory party is the Conservative and Unionist party: but Brexit means it is neither conservative nor unionist in any meaningful way.The current Conservative government is taking Brexit seriously — of that there can be no doubt. But it no longer seems to be taking either the constitution or the union seriously.

And once there is no one left to defend the constitution and the union, there can be no surprise if executive disregard for settled checks and balances, and shifts towards independence, follow. Nothing is left to stop them.There seems to be a looming choice for the UK government: is a hard Brexit more important than the union with Scotland? Once upon a time, wise conservatives and unionists would have known the answer. Now, those calling themselves Conservatives and Unionists do little more than shrug.

Disagree with the part on the EU would be reluctant to exept Scotland if the referendum went to independence
Even if they didn't when you look at countries like Denmark who has an oil industry that is state owned and distributed for the good of its people instead of enhancing oil companies profits
Scotland is in a good place regardless
Why was Cameron and co up begging the Scottish electorate to stay in the U.K. When the opinion polls got hairy

The Norwegian Oil fund is the best example of how to really benefit from your natural resources .. They actually make more now from the fund than they do from the oil revenue.... Its the largest investment fund in the world.

https://eiti.org/news/norway-revenue-from-oil-fund-now-exceeds-revenue-from-oil

Fantastic ..

That's the lines I was thinking
I remember when the republic sold of its rights for all the natural gas of the west coast to shell ( I think ) for a pittence of what it was worth thinking what a load of tossers
Some clowns in office north and south

[AhNowRef]

https://www.ft.com/content/b6560b3e-ce54-3d04-a7e7-70b61e06b587

                     Once upon a time, wise British small-c conservatives and small-u unionists knew better than to meddle with constitutional matters. Even though, from time to time, constitutional changes were necessary, they were not to be entered into lightly. You never knew what would happen next.The folly of David Cameron's un-conservative referendum on UK membership of the EU now has a fresh consequence: today, the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon said there should be a new independence referendum once the UK's terms of departure were obvious. The date for such a referendum will be between autumn 2018 and spring 2019. The union with Scotland is therefore at stake.

She has a point. There can be no serious argument that Brexit will not be a "significant and material" change in Scotland's position within the UK. If a hard Brexit is not such a change, it is difficult to think what would be. The wording matters, as the first minister's political party the SNP was elected as the largest party in the Scottish parliament with a manifesto that said there could be a further independence referendum in the event of a "significant and material" change.Ms Sturgeon says she is offering "clear and decisive" leadership. In the sense that she is showing a path to a new referendum, she is indeed doing so. But beyond the referendum, things are not clear. There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be able to join (or rejoin) the EU — or even the European Free Trade Association or the European Economic Area. There are reasons why member states such as Spain, with their own separatist movements, may not want to send any signal that separatism prospers.So, without a plan for what happens in the event of a yes vote, the first minister will join Mr Cameron in having sought a referendum without a clear path for what happens next in respect of relations with the EU — especially if Europe does not play along with what suits Scotland. The problems of a hard Brexit will be compounded if Scotland ends up outside both the EU and the UK. And that is a real possibility if there is no clear pathway to EU membership or a similar status.But Ms Sturgeon must be right to raise the independence issue and to do so at this stage. The UK is, explicitly, a union of kingdoms — and political unions can dissolve as well as be forged.

The history of Europe has seen many unions and federations come and go. Scotland kept its legal system after the union of 1707 (indeed Scots law has more in common with continental "civilian" legal systems than with English or Irish law). It also has long had its own established church and education system. Even before modern devolution it was a state in its own right. There is nothing inevitable about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland just as there was nothing inevitable about the "ever closer union" of EU member states.Just as wise conservatives knew not to meddle lightly in constitutional matters, wise unionists realised that the marriage of the nations comprising the UK needed constant care and attention. Stability of both the constitution and the union with Scotland (and Northern Ireland) should not be taken for granted. The constitutional and legal bonds that keep the UK together are not tied for all time.

The knots can be undone, or cut. Or the bonds can snap.The political merits of Brexit and of Scottish independence are one thing — but politics takes place within a framework provided by constitutional arrangements. Brexit started with what Mr Cameron must have thought was a clever wheeze to gain political advantage: the calling of a EU referendum that he assumed he would win easily. The clever wheeze is now shaking the pillars of the UK state.Leaving the EU is being used as the pretext for an immense power-grab by Whitehall by means of a Great Repeal Bill with wider governmental discretion. The House of Lords and the courts are dismissed as little more than enemies of the people. The referendum — and its attendant "mandate of the people" — continues to disrupt the checks and balances of what was once a parliamentary democracy.It would be ironic if the constitutional integrity of the UK was destroyed because of the successive actions of two big-c Conservative prime ministers. The full name of the Tory party is the Conservative and Unionist party: but Brexit means it is neither conservative nor unionist in any meaningful way.The current Conservative government is taking Brexit seriously — of that there can be no doubt. But it no longer seems to be taking either the constitution or the union seriously.

And once there is no one left to defend the constitution and the union, there can be no surprise if executive disregard for settled checks and balances, and shifts towards independence, follow. Nothing is left to stop them.There seems to be a looming choice for the UK government: is a hard Brexit more important than the union with Scotland? Once upon a time, wise conservatives and unionists would have known the answer. Now, those calling themselves Conservatives and Unionists do little more than shrug.

Disagree with the part on the EU would be reluctant to exept Scotland if the referendum went to independence
Even if they didn't when you look at countries like Denmark who has an oil industry that is state owned and distributed for the good of its people instead of enhancing oil companies profits
Scotland is in a good place regardless
Why was Cameron and co up begging the Scottish electorate to stay in the U.K. When the opinion polls got hairy

The Norwegian Oil fund is the best example of how to really benefit from your natural resources .. They actually make more now from the fund than they do from the oil revenue.... Its the largest investment fund in the world.

https://eiti.org/news/norway-revenue-from-oil-fund-now-exceeds-revenue-from-oil

Fantastic ..

That's the lines I was thinking
I remember when the republic sold of its rights for all the natural gas of the west coast to shell ( I think ) for a pittence of what it was worth thinking what a load of t**sers
Some clowns in office north and south

Yeah, real strategic thinkers  lol

[foxcommander]

https://www.ft.com/content/b6560b3e-ce54-3d04-a7e7-70b61e06b587

                     Once upon a time, wise British small-c conservatives and small-u unionists knew better than to meddle with constitutional matters. Even though, from time to time, constitutional changes were necessary, they were not to be entered into lightly. You never knew what would happen next.The folly of David Cameron's un-conservative referendum on UK membership of the EU now has a fresh consequence: today, the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon said there should be a new independence referendum once the UK's terms of departure were obvious. The date for such a referendum will be between autumn 2018 and spring 2019. The union with Scotland is therefore at stake.

She has a point. There can be no serious argument that Brexit will not be a "significant and material" change in Scotland's position within the UK. If a hard Brexit is not such a change, it is difficult to think what would be. The wording matters, as the first minister's political party the SNP was elected as the largest party in the Scottish parliament with a manifesto that said there could be a further independence referendum in the event of a "significant and material" change.Ms Sturgeon says she is offering "clear and decisive" leadership. In the sense that she is showing a path to a new referendum, she is indeed doing so. But beyond the referendum, things are not clear. There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be able to join (or rejoin) the EU — or even the European Free Trade Association or the European Economic Area. There are reasons why member states such as Spain, with their own separatist movements, may not want to send any signal that separatism prospers.So, without a plan for what happens in the event of a yes vote, the first minister will join Mr Cameron in having sought a referendum without a clear path for what happens next in respect of relations with the EU — especially if Europe does not play along with what suits Scotland. The problems of a hard Brexit will be compounded if Scotland ends up outside both the EU and the UK. And that is a real possibility if there is no clear pathway to EU membership or a similar status.But Ms Sturgeon must be right to raise the independence issue and to do so at this stage. The UK is, explicitly, a union of kingdoms — and political unions can dissolve as well as be forged.

The history of Europe has seen many unions and federations come and go. Scotland kept its legal system after the union of 1707 (indeed Scots law has more in common with continental "civilian" legal systems than with English or Irish law). It also has long had its own established church and education system. Even before modern devolution it was a state in its own right. There is nothing inevitable about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland just as there was nothing inevitable about the "ever closer union" of EU member states.Just as wise conservatives knew not to meddle lightly in constitutional matters, wise unionists realised that the marriage of the nations comprising the UK needed constant care and attention. Stability of both the constitution and the union with Scotland (and Northern Ireland) should not be taken for granted. The constitutional and legal bonds that keep the UK together are not tied for all time.

The knots can be undone, or cut. Or the bonds can snap.The political merits of Brexit and of Scottish independence are one thing — but politics takes place within a framework provided by constitutional arrangements. Brexit started with what Mr Cameron must have thought was a clever wheeze to gain political advantage: the calling of a EU referendum that he assumed he would win easily. The clever wheeze is now shaking the pillars of the UK state.Leaving the EU is being used as the pretext for an immense power-grab by Whitehall by means of a Great Repeal Bill with wider governmental discretion. The House of Lords and the courts are dismissed as little more than enemies of the people. The referendum — and its attendant "mandate of the people" — continues to disrupt the checks and balances of what was once a parliamentary democracy.It would be ironic if the constitutional integrity of the UK was destroyed because of the successive actions of two big-c Conservative prime ministers. The full name of the Tory party is the Conservative and Unionist party: but Brexit means it is neither conservative nor unionist in any meaningful way.The current Conservative government is taking Brexit seriously — of that there can be no doubt. But it no longer seems to be taking either the constitution or the union seriously.

And once there is no one left to defend the constitution and the union, there can be no surprise if executive disregard for settled checks and balances, and shifts towards independence, follow. Nothing is left to stop them.There seems to be a looming choice for the UK government: is a hard Brexit more important than the union with Scotland? Once upon a time, wise conservatives and unionists would have known the answer. Now, those calling themselves Conservatives and Unionists do little more than shrug.

Disagree with the part on the EU would be reluctant to exept Scotland if the referendum went to independence
Even if they didn't when you look at countries like Denmark who has an oil industry that is state owned and distributed for the good of its people instead of enhancing oil companies profits
Scotland is in a good place regardless
Why was Cameron and co up begging the Scottish electorate to stay in the U.K. When the opinion polls got hairy

The Norwegian Oil fund is the best example of how to really benefit from your natural resources .. They actually make more now from the fund than they do from the oil revenue.... Its the largest investment fund in the world.

https://eiti.org/news/norway-revenue-from-oil-fund-now-exceeds-revenue-from-oil

Fantastic ..

That's the lines I was thinking
I remember when the republic sold of its rights for all the natural gas of the west coast to shell ( I think ) for a pittence of what it was worth thinking what a load of t**sers
Some clowns in office north and south

Thank you Ray Burke. Instead we get austerity.

http://www.shelltosea.com/content/gas-oil-robbery

[AhNowRef]

more of the same .....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html

[Real Talk]

Who actually owns the North Sea ?

[AhNowRef]

Who actually owns the North Sea ?

Most of the area where the big UK bucks were being (and still are) made are in Scottish waters, though I do remember reading somewhere where Tony Blairs government had somewhat surreptitiously moved the English rights further North ... Would need to look that up though ..

[AhNowRef]

Who actually owns the North Sea ?

Most of the area where the big bucks were being (and still are) made are in Scottish waters, though I do remember reading somewhere where Tony Blairs government had somewhat surreptitiously moved the English rights further North ... Would need to look that up though ..

Yep, found it ....

http://www.oilofscotland.org/scotlands_stolen_sea.html

http://newsnet.scot/archive/former-ambassador-reveals-labour-role-in-annexation-of-scottish-waters/

[AhNowRef]

Yeiks .. this explains it very well ... Feckin hell 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbfldSrJ-0

[seafoid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RWsyN2jDPc