You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
leaked...
[img] 
[/img]
That is genius, Mike- cheers!
oldbloke - MemberBack to EU membership then - looks like the Spanish won't let any of the ScotGovt proposed easy shortcuts happen.
Is it even his decision to make? Seems weird to talk about integration out of one side of your mouth while talking about making it harder to integrate out of the other. If the spirit of the age is integration, help Scotland integrate.
(though, obviously this is yet another occasion of Spain not threatening the veto, which definitely [i]is[/i] their decision to make)
Is it his decision to make?
yes in that it's Spain's decision to make as they have a veto along with all the other EU members. Scotland will get into the EU by agreeing to everything, adopting the euro and bringing a large cheque, that's always been my viewpoint
Is it even his decision to make? Seems weird to talk about integration out of one side of your mouth while talking about making it harder to integrate out of the other. If the spirit of the age is integration, help Scotland integrate.
Yup, we can file this under "meh" - he's saying that because hundreds of thousands of Catalonians are on the streets demanding a referendum on independence.
After the referendum, if there's a Yes result, then realpolitik will take over. For fishing reasons alone, Spain would be crazy to want Scotland out of the EU.
jambalaya - Memberyes in that it's Spain's decision to make as they have a veto along with all the other EU members.
Except he's not talking about the veto, is he? He's talking about EU policy in general- faster/bodged joining, bridging treaties, etc.
The veto [i]is[/i] Spain's decision, but he's not mentioned it. Draw your own conclusions .
Just looking ahead to the 'No' vote......I said it would all end in tears and by God, will it ever! All the No voters will be keeping their heads down, while the nationalist rant and rage against the foul tactics used by the Westminster B@stards! 😯
Maybe. There's a lot of cultural inertia there, from people who have only known the UK their whole lives. That might be behind the age split - the over-65 age group is the only group that's backing No.
Not by the results of that poll, which shows 55+ as against. And in a real slap in the face, it also shows the 16-24 voting against. Perhaps the decision to allow 16 year olds to vote will be the swing.
What's your source?
Spain don't have to threaten the veto, [u]yet[/u]
They can just make it nice and slow from the inside, making demands, slowing it down, expecting hoops to be jumped through, expecting a high price to be paid, before even getting to the point of exercising a veto.
What better message could they send to Catalonia than "Look how difficult it has been for Scotland to rejoin the EU after announcing independence, and what happened to their economy in the meantime"
ninfan - MemberWhat better message could they send to Catalonia than "Look how difficult it has been for Scotland to rejoin the EU after announcing independence, and what happened to their economy in the meantime"
Um, how about "Scotland wanted to join the EU but couldn't"- that's something they can threaten, right now. A lot better than "We made it hard for Scotland to join the EU, and as a result the economy of Spain suffered, we're Better Together!"
What @ninfan says exactly, Spain don't have to use the veto word yet, they can wait and see what happens and are probably aware there will be other negative voices so no need to put their head too far above the parapit just yet. I acknowledge he was talking about no fast track explicitly but it's all political speak pointing in a very specific direction, why say you'll veto now if the actual first vote on application is a year or more away. Just keep kicking the can down the road.
I imagine Spain will have one eye on Scottish tourists so no need to be too difficult right now but they have very consistently said it has to be a fresh new member application.
If it is a significant No it's going to point very strongly to Murdoch meddling with the polls his papers commissioned and published.
Northwind
You're stuck in this Salmond mindset of stomping around throwing around threats and ultimatums to look like the big man and intimidate everyone. The only people who do that are ones who are full of wind and piss, the ones with real power keep their hands close to their chest.
Spain can quite calmly assassinate Scotlands chances behind the scenes without making a fuss, and send a much stronger message to Catalonia in the process.
PS. we're back to that difficult question:
You might be right, they might not make it difficult!
But on the other hand, you might be wrong, in which case...whats plan B?
ninfan - MemberSpain can quite calmly assassinate Scotlands chances behind the scenes without making a fuss
Keeping an independent Scotland out of the EU, even temporarily, isn't a good result for Spain- they can't damage Scotland without damaging themselves. A Spanish PM going into an election having devastated the fishing industry is going to have a fun ride. Spain is one of the EU nations that has most to lose if Scotland has to go through a term of being outwith the EU. How many jobs, euros and votes is the impact on Catalan independence worth?
Meanwhile, Spain would be well served on several fronts by a No vote, and have the capacity to strongly influence that. A guarantee of a veto today would almost certainly keep Scotland in the UK.
It's not brain surgery- why choose the more damaging option with the worse outcome? I asked the same question the other day, I didn't see any answers...
I have no idea why you're trying to extract meaning from it.
I'm not!
It makes no difference who said it, it's true - think carefully. It was a throwaway comment that I didn't make, and that's fine. What I'm angry about is the way that bencooper twisted it to imply all sorts of negative things, as he has been doing for ages along with the rest of the Yes campaign. It's constant spin and propaganda, which is really ironic since that's one of the things people hate the establishment for...
Meanwhile, Spain would be well served on several fronts by a No vote, and have the capacity to strongly influence that. A guarantee of a veto today would almost certainly keep Scotland in the UK.
except you can't play your hand that early it leaves you stuck in a corner. Negotiations 101 there
What I'm angry about is the way that bencooper twisted it to imply all sorts of negative things, as he has been doing for ages along with the rest of the Yes campaign.
What did I twist? I just asked why should I care what she thinks. She may well be secretly in favour of independence for all we know, but I don't see why her opinion is relevant.
but I don't see why her opinion is relevant.
Head of state and major land owner in Scotland?
[b]Unelected[/b] Head of state and major land [s]owner[/s] grabber in Scotland?
FTFY
except you can't play your hand that early it leaves you stuck in a corner. Negotiations 101 there
This - see Salmond and the debt for an example.
As for Scotland blocking spanish fishing vessels, hah, more wind and pish! A new cod war? Last time we needed 37 Royal Navy ships and 7000 men 😆
Sry if this has been covered, but would yes mean Cameron's resignation? Be a vote of no confidence surely [can a vote of no-confidence come from your own back-benchers, or does it have to come from the opposition?]
aww does it upset you? Probably also an employer of quite a few people too.
A brief glance at the polls will tell you that a lot more people have shifted from No to Yes (or at least undecided at the moment) than the other way around.
Given the results of almost every poll, if an equal proportion of each side changed their minds what sort of shift would that result in?
Given the health of Scotland is so desperately linked to oil does anyone know where I can find the assumptions made re pricing and average cost of extraction?
but I don't see why her opinion is relevant.
Her opinion wasn't mentioned. You appeared to load your statement with anti royalist sentiment to discredit what seems at first reading to be a statement aligned with a No.
Buried in all that Cameron rhetoric was the bit about Embassies, I hadn't thought about that, so they'll have to establish Embassy's around the world or can they piggy back?
More jobs for the boys I guess and they'll presumably have to set up a civil service, that's going to cost some Tax *dollars/salmonds.
There's quite a lot to think about.
*what will they call their currency
here we go
Furious Scottish nationalists have accused Sky News reporter Kay Burley of calling a Yes campaigner a 'knob' live on air.A video of the alleged incident appears to show the anchor calling someone a knob, but it's unclear what side of the referendum debate the 'knob' was on, if indeed the person was a political campaigner at all.
[b]But that didn't stop nationalists immediately launching scathing abuse of Burley on social media, accusing her of being biased against camp 'Yes," and calling her "disgusting."[/b]
Seems fair, must be biased based on nothing at all
Buried in all that Cameron rhetoric was the bit about Embassies, I hadn't thought about that, so they'll have to establish Embassy's around the world or can they piggy back?
According to the SNP, they'll be entitled to a share of them
According to Prof Dunleavy (he of the '200 million setup cost' claim) the rUK will allow Scotland to share
According to Prof Tomkins, (the expert in international law called to give evidence by both Scottish and UK parliaments) the Vienna treaty applies and Scotland gets nothing (state property outside the UK remains with the UK as continuator state) (Vienna treaty bears out this interpretation)
what will they call their currency
Worthless
@Northwind, as I said you can join if you sign up for everything and follow the process. If during the process (outside the EU) Scotland tries to block fishing then the veto / stand off will come.
@Garry, no Cameron will not resign nor should he. I think many will ask why he allowed the referendum, a dissolution of the Union by a 50.1 to 49.9 vote ?
@rossatease, I mentioned that a few hundred pages back (easy to miss !) it is one example of the many where Scotland will have to replicate what the UK already has. Higher costs for both as Scotland replicates and UK has to pay for same facilities/organisations but from a lower tax base. Lose Lose.
@mikesmith, there where abusive hecklers on Newsnight a few nights ago, its not surprising some of the journalists have lost their temper. I posted up the blog quotes from ITN journalist the other day who said during this campaign he had experienced significant intimidation and mostly from the Yes side.
Mikewsmith; where did you get that declaration of indy? I looked on huff and couldnt find it.
There are 2 points in there, one is the level that people have sunk to, and the other is that the Yes campaign decided that it was obvious that they were against them. Unless the Yes lot know that they have all the knobs on their side of course then it's like that moment in the pub where you just admit to something and realise it's a really big mistake and wonder if anyone noticed.
Embassies are generally secure places from an intelligence/communications perspective, why would we let a foreign country inside our secure areas ?
Aside from the buildings there will be a long queue of Scot's civil servants and politicians who will want to be ambassador to New York, Brazil, Australia etc etc etc Much more exciting than being at home trying to deliver utopia and balance the books or be held accountable for all the wild promises.
duckman it was on their comedy site & twitter feed
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/17/scottish-declaration-of-independence_n_5834142.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
I think they are still busy summarising this thread too
@mikesmith, there where abusive hecklers on Newsnight a few nights ago, its not surprising some of the journalists have lost their temper. I posted up the blog quotes from ITN journalist the other day who said during this campaign he had experienced significant intimidation and mostly from the Yes side.
Whereas the Police Federation say that the campaigns on both sides have been overwhelmingly peaceful and civilised, and warn the press specifically about stirring up animosity.
So Ben are the journalists lying? Or are the police not seeing everything. Perhaps people are not reporting things to the police and hence they do not know about it.
So Ben are the journalists lying?
More like lazy journalism I'd have thought? All based on rumour.
What I'm angry about is the way that bencooper twisted it to imply all sorts of negative things, as he has been doing for ages along with the rest of the Yes campaign. It's constant spin and propaganda, which is really ironic since that's one of the things people hate the establishment for...
Wouldn't surprise me if BenCooper is a paid member of the SNP/Yes campaign, popped on this forum to drum up some support. Stranger things have happened I'm sure.
It galls me that the Yes campaign seem to be implying that you're a traitor or not a true Scot unless you vote Yes. Anyone who tells the truth like it is or disagrees with the SNP/Yes crowd immediately gets jumped on and accused of bullying, bias or oppression (as can be seen time and time again by the Yes campaigners on this forum).
Actually the 'True Scot' thing couldn't be further from the truth. The Scots I know well (okay, yes all two of them) are both voting No. They're about the most patriotic and proud Scots you could hope to meet, but they have their eyes and ears sufficiently open to realise that there are many more opportunities, and none of the risks for Scotland by remaining part of the Union (the best of both worlds). Both are proud to also be part of the UK, although they consider themselves Scots first and foremost. I'd argue that these two Scots care far more about the future of Scotland than those blindly following their Nationalistic and Tory/English bashing agenda's. Thankfully they are both happy to not cut their nose off, despite their face.
More like lazy journalism I'd have thought? All based on rumour.
So the bit where the Yes lot have claimed that Sky were calling a Yes campaigner a knob is well researched and checked is it? Or is it just that anyone who disagrees is wrong? If only the press would report what people wanted to hear
So Ben are the journalists lying?
Or perhaps spinning or not fully reporting the facts so readers jump to conclusions?
For example, it was reported that two people had been arrested outside a Yes concert. That's all that was reported, leaving the implication that it was Yes people who were arrested. Actually it was two thugs beating up a Yes supporter.
Or when a woman was kicked in the stomach after challenging what a speaker was saying in Argyle St, it was reported as a scuffle between the two sides.
Or when Jim Murphy is hit with an egg, it gets four days of rolling coverage. When a Yes shop is spraypainted with Swastikas, no media coverage.
Or when a SSP meeting in Drumchapel had to be called off a couple of days ago because a Unionist crowd had assembled and were threatening people, the police intervened but the media weren't interested.
There are, I think the phrase is "regrettable incidents", on both sides - but invariably the ones perpetrated by Yes supporters are given massive media coverage whereas the ones perpetrated by the No side are either minimally reported or not covered at all.
No, Ben is a long standing member of STW and a well respected bicycle builder (albeit it with a strange obsession with small wheel sizes) as a quick look at his posts would immediately show.Wouldn't surprise me if BenCooper is a paid member of the SNP/Yes campaign, popped on this forum to drum up some support. Stranger things have happened I'm sure.
Wouldn't surprise me if BenCooper is a paid member of the SNP/Yes campaign, popped on this forum to drum up some support. Stranger things have happened I'm sure.
I could get paid for this?!
The No side do pay people - £25 per day is the standard rate to go leafleting and door-knocking - but they've got lots of money to do that and no grass-roots support. The Yes side can't afford that, it's all done by volunteers.
albeit it with a strange obsession with small wheel sizes
I've moved on - in fact I should stop chatting and go build a 29+ wheel 😀
Or when a woman was kicked in the stomach after challenging what a speaker was saying in Argyle St, it was reported as a scuffle between the two sides.
Actually I believe what happened first was that she tried to grab a loudhailer off the no campaigner. So scuffle is fairly accurate.
Or perhaps spinning or not fully reporting the facts so readers jump to conclusions?
Oh teh ironing.
The Yes side can't afford that, it's all done by volunteers.
Ah the poor valiant Yes campaigners - who only have billionaire bigot Brian Souter to fund them. 🙄
You really will find any excuse to justify your 'Yes campaign good, No campaign evil' narrative won't you.
The No side do pay people - £25 per day is the standard rate to go leafleting and door-knocking - but they've got lots of money to do that and no grass-roots support. The Yes side can't afford that, it's all done by volunteers.
It's normal for those that want change to be more eager/ready & motivated to campaign for it.
What do you want - THIS
When do you want it - WE ALREADY HAVE IT!!
To say they have no grassroots support is a bit much as if the polls are to be believed they have the support of around 50% of the population of Scotland.
The No side do pay people - £25 per day is the standard rate to go leafleting and door-knocking - but they've got lots of money to do that and no grass-roots support. The Yes side can't afford that, it's all done by volunteers.
Pretty well documented that the Yes campaign is better funded ? Didn't the lottery winners give £5m ?
and warn the press specifically about stirring up animosity.
Kirsty Wark was sat interviewing her guests
Or when Jim Murphy is hit with an egg, it gets four days of rolling coverage. When a Yes shop is spraypainted with Swastikas, no media coverage.
Jim Murphy was attacked live on camera with the guy slapping an egg hard onto his back and then slinking off. That's always going to feature on TV
Pretty well documented that the Yes campaign is better funded ?
Nope, the No campaign raised £1m more, in fact they announced they had enough money and didn't want any more donations, I presume because they'd hit their spending limits:
@ben, welcome back we missed you
Missed you too 😀
Also looking forward to being able to go back to talking about something else...
BTW I've just been up in Scotland for a few days and while there's a lot more Yes banners around the place, from chatting to people and overhearing other conversations I think the Yes campaign has absolutely no chance. Not very scientific I know...
Murphy has claimed a million pounds in expenses since 2001/2. I would have boiled the egg before I slapped it "hard" onto his back.He is pretty unpopular and I always wondered if his 100 days tour was designed to noise up the yessers as much as possible.
What would be really nice is when Salmon man has his dream ripped away from him....all the journos disappear and never talk to him again! Now wouldn't THAT be lovely! (unlikely, but lovely)
Also looking forward to being able to go back to talking about something else...
Hear hear!
Murphy has claimed a million pounds in expenses since 2001/2. I would have boiled the egg before I slapped it "hard" onto his back.He is pretty unpopular and I always wondered if his 100 days tour was designed to noise up the yessers as much as possible.
I thought it was only the evil No campaign that was in favour of violence, bullying and intimidation. 😕
Whatever you think of Murphy, what you are advocating there is assault.
Also looking forward to being able to go back to talking about something else...
It's my nightmare that actually we will be talking about this for many years to come.
Yes vote we will have years to argue about how the split works, then years more on the consequences with As doing a "Robert Mugabe" and blaming everything that goes wrong on the English (or in Mugabe's case the whites)
No vote will have the SNP trying to get another referendum year in year out
[i]Also looking forward to being able to go back to talking about something else...[/i]
You won't though will you? You'll be muttering into your beer for years to come!
Whatever you think of Murphy, what you are advocating there is assault.
Aww you poor wee flower. I am sure you would be horrified that the assaults have been in the main on yes campaigners.Oh and read it again, my opinion is based on Murphy claiming £4000 a year for dining out,while people who voted for him use food banks,not because he is a public face of no.
So more than 12,000 posts will be in this thread before voting begins, hugely impressive amount of hot keyboards (and tablets, phones etc) 🙂
[i]hugely impressive amount of hot [s]keyboards[/s] air[/i]
FTFY
What you can't deny is that there are loads more Yes posters/stickers/badges etc. but which ever way you look at it the country is fairly evenly split. So how does that happen? Most No voters I have spoken to say it is because they perceive that they would be vulnerable to attack if they showed themselves to be No in public. That perception may be misguided but you have to admit that it is pretty widespread. Furthermore, the journos who have all shown up in Scotland in the last week or so seem to have felt the same thing. That atmosphere is coming from somewhere. You only need to look at the aggression shown in some of the posts on here to see what it can be like on the street.
jambalaya - Member@Northwind, as I said you can join if you sign up for everything and follow the process. If during the process (outside the EU) Scotland tries to block fishing then the veto / stand off will come.
Eh, Scotland's never implied it will as far as I know- sadly that boat's sailed (or rather been scrapped), the scottish fisheries were sold out long ago and the common fisheries policy is here to stay. There are some pro-independence people who hope for a change there but realistically, it's a condition of membership (most seem to be anti-eu too)
The irony is that the lost fishing rights are now a strong reason for some EU members (particularly Spain) to want us in seamlessly. Unintended consequences.
mikewsmith - Memberexcept you can't play your hand that early it leaves you stuck in a corner.
That particular hand had to be played by last week- they've chosen not to use it, to the great surprise of nobody.
Embassies are generally secure places from an intelligence/communications perspective, why would we let a foreign country inside our secure areas ?
This point plays to a concern I hadn't appreciated until recently. Most of the arguments for and against yes are largely neutral to my life in England. Whilst the loss of oil revenues wouldn't be ideal we aren't reliant upon them as an economy, and as long as Scotland truly separated (i.e. didn't keep attached to the teat of rUK government banking and economic guarantees as Salmond seems to think) then it seems obvious that the economic pain would be felt in Scotland.
However, on reflection the implications for the defence of the UK are immense and really do have a tangible impact on my security and that of everyone else in the UK.
Not only is Trident at risk (don't bother trying to argue that the deterrent doesn't exist, or that Scotland has not benefited from the umbrella when it suited) but we appear to be looking at thousands of miles of coastline and borders left open thanks to the insularity of the SNP. A tiny amount of troops and a couple of fast jets in iScotland in reality means that rUK will have to maintain a defensive force covering Scotland as well, i.e. more freeloading from Salmond. If we don't then we are open to increased risk.
I'm guessing some of you think this is a good thing, i.e. you want to see a diminished UK. Some might think this is a reasonable sacrifice because in reality who is going to attack Scotland to get at the UK. However, can anyone say what geopolitics will look like in 10 years time? I wouldn't have put money on the recent actions of Russia 2 years ago.
Any views on this? Should I be worried that iScotland opens up an undefended flank of my country which hasn't been invaded since 1066?
Actually the UK has been successfully invaded on a number of occasions since1066 .That is one of those myths we all like to believe.
Last sentence added to trigger some Colonel Blimp accusations. What about my overall question?
@Northwind - no you didn't say Scotland would block Spanish/EU fishing boats but its sort of implied from the statement that Spain would want Scotland in the EU in order to secure fishing, if the opposite is true you have to defend those waters.
@bainbrge, no we are not going to get invaded through Scotland but the border might not be as secure (eg terrorism or smuggling), depends on Scottish border control from outside the UK. The impact on UK defense wise is we are going to have to pay for the same sized military but with 10% less tax payers or we will have more defense cuts.
There is a concern to some degree, but I'd expect them to operate together for a lot of defence work, to the extent that I'd expect Scottish troops to go to war alongside rUK ones and elsewhere. Lets face it, it is mutual beneficial to work together. The only thing is an iScotland would now probably be under close watch from GCHQ, NSA etc.
It is one of the problems I have with the Yes vote who say they wouldn't have been dragged into illegal wars. iScottish troops would have certainly gone to Afghanistan and I'd say it's 50:50 whether they would have gone to Iraq in Gulf War 2.
I wouldn't have put money on the recent actions of Russia 2 years ago.
Really? Georgia?
You only need to look at the aggression shown in some of the posts on here to see what it can be like on the street.
STW is remarkably civilised on this - you should see what it's like over on Mumsnet 😀
Or if you want to see real aggression, have a look at the BritNatAbuseBot:
https://twitter.com/BritNatAbuseBot
jambalaya - MemberPretty well documented that the Yes campaign is better funded ?
[i]Very [/i]well reported. But not true- £1.8 million for Yes, £2.7 for No. I was surprised tbh, I'd bought the media coverage too. I had a righteous defence prepared and everything 😆
Yes. I agree that t is really surprising, take out the lottery winners and Brian Souter, Yes don't seem to have raised much cash at all. Genuinely quite strange.
Any views on this? Should I be worried that iScotland opens up an undefended flank of my country which hasn't been invaded since 1066?
Sorry if you had forgotten, but, the UK has had a long land border with a foreign power since 1922. The only incursion I can remember across it was done from North to South by a certain Ian Paisley and a couple of hundred of his cronies about 1979. They only marched up and down a bit and went home again.
Well all the SMPs are campaigning on tax payer salaries ? Given the SNP has a majority I think we can assume the tax payer is spending more on Yes than No ?
It is one of the problems I have with the Yes vote who say they wouldn't have been dragged into illegal wars. iScottish troops would have certainly gone to Afghanistan and I'd say it's 50:50 whether they would have gone to Iraq in Gulf War 2.
@dragon exactly, IMO any UK prime minister would have gone into Iraq (inc Brown etc). I also find the whole concept of legal vs illegal wars strange, IMO all war is illegal in some sense.
jambalaya - Member@Northwind - no you didn't say Scotland would block Spanish/EU fishing boats but its sort of implied from the statement that Spain would want Scotland in the EU in order to secure fishing,
Ah, maybe I wasn't clear, it's 2 different things. Scotland in the EU has really no hope of changing fisheries policy, lost battle and mostly accepted. So Spain knows that by keeping Scotland in the EU, they can keep that access.
But the cfp only applies to eu states, so it's a natural consequence that with Scotland outwith the eu, Spain loses the right they have to fish in our EEZ.
Just a nice wee microcosm of the whole process- lots of people stand to lose out if Scotland's transition isn't fast and clean. It's not part of the negotiations, but a possible outcome.
@WackoAK well excuse me Mr Kissinger for my lack of foresight! My point is that unexpected things happen and in my view it is unwise to intentionally weaken your defensive position for no good reason.
@Jambalaya and Dragon I would hope to agree that cooler heads would prevail, but why assume that Scotland would cooperate? Not many politicians in the yes camp are obviously open to foreign intervention. Additionally, from a fiscal perspective they can't support a military force equal to those currently stationed there.
You mention GCHQ etc. as well but would anti-terrorism efforts be as effective in an iScotland with separate institutions? Seems like the best solution would be to retain the current structures (intelligence/policing/military) as we have already(!).
@midlifecrashes that is food for thought. For some reason I feel like a sea barrier between mainland and Ireland mitigates against this risk though.
I'm starting to feel like I should be stockpiling baked beans now, thanks Alex Salmond!
Not only is Trident at risk (don't bother trying to argue that the deterrent doesn't exist, or that Scotland has not benefited from the umbrella when it suited)
I agree with this. Especially when you consider things like this:
I wouldn't have put money on the recent actions of Russia 2 years ago.
Who knows what the World is going to look like in 5 years nevermind 20.
I await the normal flaming from the unilateral disarmers and appeasers on here.
didn't think gordon had this in him:
I await the normal flaming from the unilateral disarmers and appeasers on here.
Yes you're right, appeasement is the cowards way out. Better to blow up the whole world and take us back to the stone age. At least we'll have our pride 🙄
What would happen if the Shetlands voted unanimously to stay as part of the UK in the event of a yes vote?
Silly Tom. Shetland is way too small to have any say in its own future.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9794268/SNP-warned-off-outrageous-Shetland-oil-grab.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9794268/SNP-warned-off-outrageous-Shetland-oil-grab.html[/url]
Scotland would have been somehow involved in Afghanistan because just look at the list of countries involved many with far less ties to the UK/USA than Scotland.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Operation_Enduring_Freedom ]Operation Enduring Freedom[/url]
GCHQ isn't there for terrorism that's spin to justify their budget, they are primarily there for military and political intel. So oddly an iScotland would become both an ally and a foe. Not hard imagine a situation where one GCHQ department is feeding iScotland info on threats and the other tapping the phone of the 1st Minister and his office.