Scottish Affairs Committee questions

Interesting article in the 'Courier' about the questions asked by the Scottish Affairs Committee. That's the same committee which was boycotted by the SNP MP Eilidh Whiteford after abusive remarks by the committee chairman Labour MP Ian Davidson towards her. Anyway, back to the questions they ask:

1.  What is Scotland's share of the national debt?


What is rUK's share of the national debt?


2. How would North Sea oil revenues be defined and distributed?

Mind your own business that's up to us.

3. Would Scotland retain the use of sterling? If so, would it be fiscally independent?

Already answered, so why ask stupid questions? We will use the pound until it suits us otherwise.

4. What would be Scotland's credit rating?

It's going to be far better than yours come independence.

5. What is the potential impact of consitutional uncertainty on inward investment into the UK as a whole, and Scotland specifically, in the period before a referendum?

Same as before so why try to make a mountain out of a molehill? Oh, I forgot; you're Unionists and it's your job to put down Scotland as much as possible. Talk about leading questions!!!!

6. Would Scotland have a separate armed forces, and if so how would they be constituted, configured, funded and equipped?

We've already paid for that so, when independence happens, we will take back what is ours. Simples.

7. Would Scottish citizens continue to serve in English, Welsh and Northern Irish regiments and vice versa?

Why not? If they want to do that then that is up to them. We will not be a Stalinist state demanding that our citizens only fight for our country. Scotland has had a long history of its men fighting for other countries.

8. Will a passport be required to travel?

Sure, if you travel outside the EU. The best thing about independence is that we get our own passport.

9. Will Scottish citizens have free access to NHS services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and vice versa?

Why not? As long as they are not pretending to be resident in Scotland to get a better NHS than the English have.

10. Would Scotland automatically become a member of the EU?

Would England?

11. Would adopting the euro be a condition of entry?

Would it for the English?

Thanks to Melanie McKellar for bringing it to my attention over at 'Aye4Scotland' on Facebook.

Scottish academia versus UK Law Lords

Interesting piece in the Herald today. Thanks for the link Alasdair MacKenzie.
What we have, in essence, is the academia of Scotland firing a shot over the bow of the Law Lords of the UK and telling them to mind their own business. The interventions of the UK government, under David Cameron, in saying that the referendum, which is a consultative referendum and not legally binding, according to the UK government, and should have no authority to legality under the terms and conditions laid out at the formation of the Scottish parliament. The legal problem that the UK has is that there is now the reconvened Scottish parliament but no reconvened English parliament. Therefore, when the treaty was signed at the Union of the Parliaments only one of the original national signatories is now present; Scotland. It is, therefore within the right of the Scottish Parliament to decide whether they should dissolve the treaty of the Union of the Parliaments. England can't do that because they don't have a parliament; there is no English parliament. So, leaving aside all the legal talk about whether the referendum will be legal or not under UK law, Scotland is now in a situation where we can ignore the wants of the UK parliament as it has no legal authority to interfere in the legal workings of the Scottish parliament.
The 'squaring up' of Scottish academia to the UK Law Lords is just the opening shot in this particular political sideshow. The trouble with bringing Law Lords into the the political arena is they have a tendency to review how the law should be interpreted. Sometimes it's better to let the old sleeping dogs lie. The above opening shot over the UK's bows should be taken that the Scottish Law big wigs will not take London's interference in Scottish legal affairs lying down. It will be interesting to hear what the senior Judges in Scotland think

The Unionists argument against Scottish independence

They haven't got one.
I have asked several Unionists why we should stay in the UK and not one has ever come up with a good reason why we should stay. They usually come up with reasons that have nothing positive to say about retaining the Union.
Scotland can't afford it: Yet we have been in surplus for years according to UK government figures and if you check out the debt the UK has it is far worse than Greece.
We wouldn't have a seat in the UN: Neither would England as the seat is currently occupied by the UK.
We couldn't afford to bail out the Scottish banks: What Scottish banks? The Bank of Scotland was taken over by the Halifax and is now called HBOS and RBS hasn't been a 'Scottish' bank for decades. The banks owners are the shareholders and not the country. It is like saying that if the company ScottishPower Ltd [HQ in Glasgow, listed on the London stock exchange and owned by Iberdrola] went bust then the Scottish taxpayer should bail it out. No, we shouldn't as it is owned by a Spanish company; so why should we bail it out? Just because a company has the name 'Scottish' in it doesn't mean that it is Scottish.

Anyway, you see the point. The Unionists cannot put forward one positive reason why we should stay in the Union.