Fairdealfrank: The Spanish foreign minister has said that Spain would not veto Scottish membership of the EU because the referendum has been approved by the UK government. Catalonia is a different situation because the referendum is being carried out without the approval of the Spanish government and it is in breach of the Spanish constitution. No other EU country has suggested that it would veto Scottish membership. The scare stories to that effect lack any substance or credibility.
I'm not sure what the situations are in relation to Italy, France and Belgium but the key issue with Scotland is that the referendum is being held with the agreement of the UK government who have agreed to abide by the democratic outcome. Why would any EU country want to veto Scottish membership in such circumstances? To do so would be illogical and anti-democratic, vindictive and vexatious.
The EU scare stories have some theoretical validity on the basis that the EU has never encountered such a situation before but in reality they are are utter nonsense and they don't concern me (or most of the people in Scotland that I talk to) in the least. They certainly will have no effect whatsoever on the way I intend to vote.
I feel exactly the same way about the currency issue. Osborne, Balls and Alexander all prefixed their recent statements by saying that they would be "unable to recommend" a currency union. Recommend to who? The PM? Parliament? What seems clear from their carefully coordinated choice of words is that the ultimate decision is not theirs. They will make a recommendation, not the ultimate decision. The following Monday, Cameron said in an interview that the currency union was "under threat". He could have said "out of the question" or words to that effect but he didn't.
It seems clear to me and to most people who study the full statements that have been made on this subject, rather than just the soundbites issued for public consumption by the anti-independence media, that the currency decision will be a political one as well as a financial one and the careful choice of words by these four gives them the opportunity for a change of course at a later date.
Part of the problem with the currency issue is the way that the anti-independence mainstream media has reported it. They carefully edited out the bits that didn't suit their political agenda as they previously did with Mark Carney's speech. Carney said that a currency union could work and that the economies of Scotland and the rUK are reasonably well aligned and quite suited in many respects to a currency union. He said however that such a currency union would require some sovereignty to be ceded by each country. The anti-independence mainstream media did their usual selective editing to suit their own political agenda and the word "some" is nearly always omitted, thus giving the impression that there would be a complete surrender of all sovereignty by Scotland. The reality is that a degree of sovereignty would need to be ceded by Scotland and by rUK. Because Scotland's public finances would be more healthy than the rUK's there is a distinct possibility that the rUK would have more issues trying to meet the necessary fiscal criteria than an independent Scotland and this may end up being the reason why a currency union will be causing concern for the UK government. I don't doubt that a currency union has downsides for Scotland and the rUK but so do the other potential currency arrangements. Osborne hasn't spelled out the downsides for the rUK of there not being a currency union and I can assure you that they are potentially a lot more significant than just some transaction charges on currency exchanges. Alexander was asked to spell them out when he gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament's finance committee recently but he couldn't. He has promised to write to them. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.
In view of these circumstances the Scottish government are right to stick with Plan A for the time being because it was recommended by the Fiscal Commission as the best option for both countries and I think most people who understand such matters have more respect for the eminent economists that make up the Fiscal Commission than they do for the politically motivated positions articulated by Osborne, Balls and Alexander. It is quite clear to many of the electorate in Scotland that Osborne's position is undoubtedly a negotiating tactic and that he and/or the PM and/or the UK parliament may well change their minds in the fullness of time.
The disappointing aspect about the UK government's stance on the currency and various other issues is that they are asking for certainty from the Scottish Government but the only way to reach that certainty is for the two governments to engage in a sensible and mature dialogue. The UK government refuses to do this however because it serves their purpose better to try to create uncertainty to try to frighten people into voting no. This stance does a disservice to the democratic process but I can understand why they are doing it; if I had a hand as weak as theirs I might be tempted do the same. Nevertheless, something will ultimately be agreed on each of these issues and I won't be frightened into voting no by such tactics. Quite the opposite in fact. The more ridiculous the scare stories become and the more they repeat the old ones that have already been debunked the less I want to remain part of the union. Many more people in Scotland are taking the same view and support for a yes vote continues to rise.
The more that the UK Government and the Better Together campaign engage in these negative tactics, the more that the Scottish electorate reach the conclusion that the reason they are producing scare stories rather than engaging in a sensible and mature debate is because the sensible answers to most issues will be closer to those set out in the white paper than to the increasingly ridiculous scare stories.
The Scottish electorate have been waiting for a long time for the three main UK parties to provide a positive prospectus for Scotland remaining within the UK but nothing has been forthcoming. Support for a no vote has been steadily declining for months. Initially, people were moving to the don't know category but now there is significant movement towards independence. There is a complacency on the part of many politicians and the mainstream media who seem to believe that independence will be rejected. That's not the feeling that I get talking to people in Scotland and I think Better Together could be in for a nasty surprise come the referendum. Polling organisations in Scotland regularly underestimate support for independence and the SNP. The 2011 Holyrood elections were a classic example of this. The SNP were miles behind in the polls but went on to win an overall majority, despite a proportional representation system that was designed to try to ensure that no party, and especially not the SNP, could ever achieve an overall majority. I'm not sure whether their methodology is accidentally or deliberately flawed but, whatever the reason, they are not a good reflection of public opinion.
The most disturbing thing about the referendum campaign is that there is not a single mainstream media outlet in Scotland that is pro-independence. The UK mainstream media is almost entirely anti-independence too. It's a very dangerous thing for democracy when the entire mainstream media takes the some political stance on an issue. Normally such a situation would only occur in a country where the media is state controlled. For it to happen in a supposedly free democracy is somewhat unusual to put it mildly.