Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Even though the major partner in a currency union has said no?

It may have missed you by but an awful lot if business is starting the get worried bout this now.

Undecided as in 'unlikely to vote.'

You may feel that they're lying. I generally feel that when three political leaders, the head of the BoE and opinion polls showing no desire for it all indicate one outcome, a denial of the facts that is being displayed by yourself and the rest of the YeSNP campaign indicates just further wing it and hope for the best.

Sorry for poor phrasing of the question, but I'm about to start an essay on Scottish Independence and I'm having the "blank paper" problem. I'm writing the essay in terms of fiscal policy but I am not sure what my opinion is. So that's why I want to know, what do the general public (or at least a load of intellectual, opinionated students) think about this? Even if anybody doesn't have anything to offer for my essay - in terms of fiscal policy - it may be quite an interesting debate. So all opinions regardless of the relevency to my work would be interesting. Thankyou - (Nothing rude please, there's no need for it).

I'm struggling to comprehend what Alex Salmond expects they'll live on ... deep-fried mars bars and haggis?!

Midlander. You want to answer that one?

Oh, no need for that, it was quite rhetorical actually.

Nae ****e, Sherlock!

English people have a history of lying? Glad to see my concerns about Anglophobia in the Yes campaign were ill founded.

There is nothing wrong with wanting Plan A. But when you're being told in no uncertain terms that Plan A is not an option, you need a solid back up. Right now, the response of 'all 3 are bluffing' shows there isn't one.

Shocking midlander...shocking opening paragraph man you need to give yourself a shake. You can lie to yourself all you like but this referendum has nothing to do with nationality. Well...except better together seem to think it is...which if it was...independencence would be winning by a country mile. Which confirms it isn't!

There is a plan b, c , d, e and f...do a bit of reading for heavens sake...the options have been outlined by people with considerable expertise in the area. Plan A was outlined as the best option for all parties...which had to be choosen to keep in line with the edinburgh agreement.

People just don't believe the 3 main london parties when they say they wont have a currency union..it was recently riddiculed by a highly experienced researcher in bejiing.

Don't you think its another tactic by the self proclaimed project fear?

It doesn't matter...most scots do.

EDIT: for you midlander...incase you take another hissy fit, scots refers to people living in Scotland. New scots , scots who cares...

If everyone knows what the contingencies are then why can't the politicians involved go ahead and state them rather than hiding behind a smokescreen? What's so bloody complicated? And when have Better Together ever called themselves 'project fear'?

First of all, some of your comments make it sound like I blindly support SNP no matter that they do which is not the case so please stop.

Secondly, I am well aware that the rest of the UK are against a currency union and I personally don't think it is a good idea either. I think our own currency is what we need to be "independent" from the UK so I hope we don't have a currency union.

And I wasn't saying Westminster have said no to lots of things. What I was saying was that right now we shouldn't believe everything Westminster says because it is all about political tactics for support at the moment (on both sides)

Help me out here.

One of many things I find perplexing whenever I engage with anti-unionists is this. They often take issue with the fact that the majority of people in Scotland vote for left-wing parties, but end up with Conservatives in Westminster. When I then put it to them that Labour was in power since 1997 to 2010, they argue it was still not left-wing enough, one reason they argue is it had to appeal to the voters in south of England or something similar. Decent analysis.

Fine, although I find the splitting up of a 300 year old sovereign state just to have some more self autonomy the nuclear solution. I can see the frustration. Yet whenever I ask, so if you dislike the fact that 'Scotland votes left-wing' but ends up with Conservatives in UK politics. Why are you not equally opposed to this happening for EU politics? The response is usually ''it's Scotland's choice''. But that's frankly ignoring the crutch of their argument. The desire is to have self government that reflect the voting intention of Scotland. Which in the EU council, Council of Ministers and Parliament will often not be he case.

Now lets say Scotland does rejoin the EU and has to join the Schengen area, Eurozone and sign the fiscal compact treaty. Why would it be okay for Scotland to have its border, trade, commercial, agricultural, monetary and policy managed by Conservatives in Brussels?

Few times I get the response, that Scotland will be better represented. Yes Croatia or Ireland may have better representation than it would if it joined a larger state. But representation does not equal political power. The MEP's Scotland send to the EU parliament will not carry any sway over the 700 or so member Parliament, who will vote more or less alongside party political lines. It will be the big six (Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Poland) who will act as swing states in elections. The SNP or Labour Prime Minister for Scotland may sit at the table on the EU council. But again it will have the political clout of Croatia or Ireland.

There will come a time when the UK Conservatives rejoin the European Peoples Party (Conservatives). Which means there will come a day when the European People Party is the governing party in the Parliament, Commission and Council. The Commission, Parliament or Council President could be a UK Conservative. You'll have in effect UK Tories coming to Scotland instructing them to change their budget or law.

That's not independence, that's just devolution 'max' within a de facto federated system.

Plan A was outlined as the best option for all parties...which had to be choosen to keep in line with the edinburgh agreement.
.

We want a currency union No, I'm afraid that isn't available, as already said
We will use sterling outside a union That's fine, but that's as far as it goes
We won't take our share of the debt Then we will veto your entry into the EU
We want Trident out of Scotland Then pay the removal costs
You will buy naval ships in Scotland? No, we will buy British for ships

Help me out here..............

That's not independence, that's just devolution 'max' within a de facto federated system.

You iScots should understand before entering these negotiations that the British responses to various scenarios is likely to be:

We want a currency union No, I'm afraid that isn't available, as already said
We will use sterling outside a union That's fine, but that's as far as it goes
We won't take our share of the debt Then we will veto your entry into the EU
We want Trident out of Scotland Then pay the removal costs
You will buy naval ships in Scotland? No, we will buy British for ships

Right up there with...... 'It may have missed you by' & 'I hate to tell you'

Hard to take you seriously when you're declaring likely responses based on your own cynically patronising outlook.

The Trident argument is just plain wrong. Stationing your navy in someone's else's country without their agreement is incompatible with sovereignty (and the Russian Navy was in the Crimea pursuant to Treaty). Removing the boats themselves and the military paraphernalia would have to be, if requested, part of Scottish independence. That gives Scotland a negotiating position:-

We will keep Trident if you...

But this is the same situation for all member states of the EU is it not? Are you telling me you do not consider the UK an independent country?

And anyone who votes yes simply because they hate the tories is voting yes for the wrong reasons.