Owlbread, I meant day-to-day fields of politics - social issues, the Euro/EU membership, position on military interventions, health care policies, stance on drug legislation, etc. Just stuff, you know?
Well, I tend to find it easier to give points if you give specific questions but if you want my views in a personal capacity I can tell you that:
I am pro-EU membership, though I think we should debate it first and discuss the matter, referring to various think tanks/councils with advisors from Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland and Switzerland. After a period of discussion/consultation we should then have a referendum.
My position on military interventions is that Scotland should never intervene in any war without a UN mandate, even then we should operate on a similar basis to Japan when they intervened in Iraq.
Regarding health care I support the retention and expansion of the NHS in Scotland with a variety of future goals for governments to aim for, including the extension of the NHS to some areas of dental care that are currently privatised e.g. reconstruction surgery. I think there should also be greater state protection in the care home system, if not extension of the NHS to that too.
I would support the adoption of drug laws in Scotland along Portuguese lines (i.e. an administrative issue, not a criminal one), although I believe the state should supply heroin addicts with heroin via the NHS. Drugs should be reclassified across the board; cannabis and other drugs in its class should be legal for purchase without fine, though there would be strict regulations and the industry would be taxed heavily. I do toy with the idea of ignoring the Portuguese system and removing any legal restrictions whatsoever (i.e. heroin and cocaine would be legal to possess) besides the regulations needed to control the quality of the drugs and who they were being sold to.
If there is a particular social issue you have in mind I may be able to answer that point a bit better.
I read a while ago that Scotland wouldn't be able to avoid taking the Euro if they joined the EU. I haven't heard anything to the contrary since either.
FAKEDIT:
Found an article about it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10418890/Independent-Scotland-would-have-to-accept-the-EU-template.html
Here is a response from November 2011 regarding this particular story:
The debate about whether an independent Scotland which joined or remained in the EU would be forced to adopt the Euro – and therefore be liable for a multi-billion-pound contribution to the eurozone bailout fund, the subject of much Unionist scaremongering in recent days – would appear to have reached a definitive end. A letter in today's Scotsman from Drew Scott, Professor of European Union Studies at the University of Edinburgh, backs up a blog on Thursday from SNP activist and EU law graduate Stephen Noon by noting that regardless of current rules which say new members must join the currency, the EU also stipulates that no member can do so without first being a member of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years.
ERM participation, however, is not compulsory for new members. And therefore any country joining the EU – whether as a successor state or from scratch – which doesn't want to join the Euro can simply elect to remain outwith the ERM, and therefore put off joining the Euro indefinitely. Noon points to the specific chapter and verse in EU regulations, and Professor Scott backs his conclusion. Scotland CAN join the EU but stay out of the Euro. The argument would seem to be over.
I hope this answers your question.
I don't think you can land anything bigger then a fighter jet on British Carriers. Plus you'd need to have a naval squadron to protect it plus numerous naval bases all across Africa along with another naval fleet delivering supplies to them.
I am sure we can work that out if we discuss the matter with local governments. We'd be providing humanitarian aid, after all. I doubt there would be any reason to attack us in any case.
Though the real question is how you get the British to give up a ship or even a soldier. I doubt they'd let you take them as the individual soldiers signed up to fight in the British army. So you're likely going to be stuck with no equipment or troops and very little military knowledge of how to train them.
Yes, this question is often raised but it is easily answered. Scotland and England formed the UK in 1707 with the Act of Union. Without Scotland, there is an argument that the UK would actually cease to exist and a new state (with the same name) would need to be formed. Successor states then come into play, meaning that Scotland would be a successor state to the UK and would be entitled to a share of the assets. That share would include the two Scottish regiments in existence and also our share of the ships, along with embassies and all sorts. Our share would be worth many, many billions.
The issue with that is that there have been several acts of Union since then resulting in the current makeup of the UK including Northern Ireland and so on. It is a very grey area indeed. The UK's lawyers are arguing (without much attention from the Unionist press, you'll soon see why) that Scotland would not become a successor state because, rather than forming a voluntary Union with England, we actually agreed to have ourselves be annexed by England. In their own words, Scotland was "extinguished" as an entity. England then renamed itself Great Britain. Now, in my opinion, that is exactly what happened but it's all very debatable.
If this is indeed the case Scotland is a bit shafted, isn't it? We need to reapply for everything, we're out in the cold, the UK is all fine and dandy etc. That isn't how it works though. The UK, at the same time as arguing that we would be entitled to
nothing post-independence, is saying that we need to take on "our share" of the British debt. They can't have it both ways. We have no legal obligation to take on any of the debt if we are a brand new state, only (some would argue) a moral one. The SNP suggest that we take on our share of the debt in exchange for "our share" of the British assets, including the regiments and the ships and so on.
That, good sir, should answer your question but if it does not please ask further and I will seek answers.
Also the Scottish economy will be quite small. You don't have the population to compete in GDP per country
In Scotland we talk about the three great Unionist arguments - "too wee, too poor, too stupid". You've already used the too stupid bit when you talked about us not knowing how to train our soldiers, but you've managed to use both too wee and too poor at the same time.
The SNP state the following:
An independent Scotland would be one of the top ten richest countries in the OECD - ranking eighth amonst the 34 member countries in terms of GDP per person, compared to the UK which would rank 17th.
Poll
Author
Topic: Sheb's European Megathread: Remove Feta! (Read 1783600 times)