公海赌赌7108¡¸Ö÷Ò³¡¹¡¤»¶Ó­Äú

    1. Scottish independence and some truth about the "yes" campaign

      By Sean DeVries
      September 08, 2014
      The Union Jack and Scottish Saltire together
      The Union Jack and Scottish Saltire together -
      I met a Scottish girl during the summer and she was extremely embarrassed by the behavior of the outspoken "Yes" people, the ones she's described as vehemently anti-English. Then, the pollsters were pretty sure that Scotland would remain an integral part of the UK. Since then, the souverainistes, to use a Canadian word, seem to have taken a two point lead, according to YouGov.

      I just don't understand some of the complaints from the "Yes" campaign on Scottish independence. The most often I've read are about the negativity of what the "No" campaigners are talking about and all I can find are those dealing with the realities of legal treaties between London and Brussels and the 27 other members of the European Union.

      All one has to do is look to Twitter to see them foaming at the mouth about their hatred of England. It becomes even more obvious when they insist that as a new EU member and Eurozone country (both of which are completely delusional notions), they would be completely independent and prosperous. The "Yes" campaign seems to believe that stating any difficult-to-swallow facts is "negative"; let's see:
      • An independent Scotland will not be in a currency union with the rest of the UK
        • Another country, the UK in this case, should not be expected to underwrite the debts of foreign country via the Bank of England
        • If they used the ?with or without currency union, it would not mean independence
        • The "Panama" scenario, whereby Scotland would emulate Panama's usage of the US dollar, but Scotland the GBP, would completely crush any Scottish National Party (SNP) dreams of a socialist utopia. The country would not be able to print money in the way that independent countries with a central bank can
        • In any scenario, Scotland does not have enough foreign currency reserves in order to create their own currency
      • An independent Scotland would not be a member of the European Union
        • Which would actually mean true independence
        • The SNP insists that they would be able to secure membership from "within", despite legally binding treaties which state that if a region separates, its treaties would no longer apply
        • Spain has made its intention clear on using its veto powers to block the entry of Scotland, due to its own obvious internal problems. Belgium is another country which might veto. There are other countries in the EU which may also veto entry but have remained silent on the issue
      • Borders between the rest of the UK and Scotland
        • Again, laws and treaties require the United Kingdom to protect its external borders
        • Scotland would not be eligible for any of the currently existing opt-outs that were secured by the UK and the Republic of Ireland; It's been attempted by other, newer countries without success
        • Scotland, if it were to attempt membership of the EU or even the EEA, would require it to join Schengen. Schengen is a treaty which allows for free movement without border checks... further cementing the previous point
      • NATO membership
        • There are a ton of responsibilities with regards to NATO and I haven't read any of the treaties. It appears that many of the claims by Alex Salmond simply are not feasible
      • Scottish oil is finite
        • It's a big thing the SNP are counting on: being able to fund their grand socialist programmes with oil
        • Oil reserves are not very accurately calculated, as can be proven by the shortfalls over the past years
        • Oil price and revenue cannot be accurately measured by any means
      • The NHS will be privatized
        • A rumour which was created by anti-UKIP campaigners (without any merit)
        • Whether or not it's a rumour, the cost, quality and efficiency of healthcare in the UK is questionable


      None of the above can be considered negative campaigning, although as I avoid the BBC and television programming, I can't really comment on what certain members of the "No" campaign have been spouting. In any event, facts are facts.

      All of the real questions about what Scotland will be or shall become upon independence remain unanswered, ESPECIALLY the evasive answers having to do with the treaties and laws of the European Union.

      If the "Yes" camp were actually campaigning for true independence, as they would be outside of the EU, I would probably support them. Alas, their leaders are not. These delusions of some utopian world where Scotland were some fantasized version of Norway are preposterous and above all, dishonest.

      On a sad note and in defence of the "Yes" campaigners and their promises, the European Union has often bent and even broken many of its own rules in order to accommodate its own agenda and political objectives. Unfortunately for the "Yes" campaign, the European Commission, the European Council, the ECB and many other related taxpayer-funded bodies have never managed to break any of the treaties relating to SNP's claims in unison.


      ¹«º£¶Ä¶Ä7108