In reply to Lord of Starkness:
> I'm no history expert, but one of the Yes campaign's approaches that strikes a chord with the Scottish elecorate is the perception that since the end of WW2 in most general elections no matter how the Scots vote they have little influence on the outcome at Westminster.
Which makes their strident claims (denied persistently, but with varying degrees of emphasis by EUcrats), Scotland will automatically be an EU member and will NOT have to use the Euro odder.
While the UK as going through mass soul-searching and prepared to make very substantial concessions to the Scots, the EU will be utterly indifferent, contemptuous and probably hostile toward a new, disruptive, tiny and largely powerless province, not least because several EU members have secession issues and do not want to encourage their own minorities/regions.
They will go from one union where they have been highly regarded and highly influential, to another (if they are accepted), where they will be viewed, if at all, as a tiny, trivial, impudent annoyance. In general I don't have strong feelings about Scottish independence (I would rather they stay, but feel that they have to want to do so), but have wee Eck and his frantic cohorts never heard the phrase "out of the frying pan into the fire"?
Independence makes some sort of sense, if that is what the Scots want. "Independence" while retaining (as they hope), the pound, the queen and EU membership just seems perverse. The worst of all worlds.
Post edited at 15:29