The Scottish Government

80. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

An Independent Scotland would have the Scots themselves deciding and negociating with the EU.

What is the difference between Britain and Scotland?

Why can an Independent Scotland not secure opt outs in areas?

Every EU country has their own interests to protect and alot do have opt outs in areas different to Britain.

But give me one good reason why Scotland can not secure opt outs in areas we are concerned with?

79. Thomas Porter
Even without independence, as I understand it Scottish Ministers - of the Scottish Parliament (previously Executive) - have considerable powers to vary or exempt parts of European Directives. Formerly under Labour this was irrelevant, as Scottish Labour were / and still are a separate party from the national (Westminster) Labour party in name alone. I'll be interested to see if SNP governement ministers start to use their powers to affect EU "law" as applied to Scotland, in British laws that can be substantially different in the parts that relate to Scotland from those that relate to the rest of the UK (or Northern Ireland).

Interestingly the EU itself wonders why more use is not made by member states to promote its own different circumstances by using their powers of variation and exemption to protect their special interests.

If in an independent Scotland we decide to stay in the EU, then it can not be done half-heartedly, as is done presently in Britain. We must be all in - or all out!

78. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

I am against the European Union aswell.

But we know that Westminister shall never change their pace.

Under an Independent State I hope to have at least Leaders that look out for Scotland and Scotland alone.

You spoke of The EU harming Industries.

In Scotland this has occured to a greater extent then other parts of the Union.

But Scottish MP's continue to vote in the Laws/Rules that allow our Industries to suffer.

77. Thomas Porter
About the EU, presently I am anti-EU. Not on the principles or intentions or ideals, but very strongly on implementation.

Britian in the EU has been a disaster for many, particularly small business, but also the individual - and the consumer who has had buying choices drastically cut by poor legislation.

Britain - like many member states - has ignored Directives, burying their heads in the clouds, presumably hoping they'd go away, but at the very last minute implemented them into national law without consideration for its own industries' and people's special interests, and often in complete disregard of advice and consultation from e.g. the DTI. Much like the EU itself. Britain has also used negotiation for what it regards as its own interests - usually in my opinion, those of an imperialist nature: "Britain is still a major force in the World".

And yet even when Directives have been implemented they can be changed through discussion and consultancy, and this has not been embraced by Britain.

If an independent Scotland embraced the EU, but fought its corner savagely and earnestly from the earliest moment, then perhaps the EU could work strongly for Scotland. I remain sceptical, to my mind the EU needs drastic change, particularly in the absence of its democratics and accountability, its extreme discrimination against small business and disregard of individuality and personal freedom and human rights.

72. Into the fire without an extinguisher? - Fife

73. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

About the Euro. Alex Salmond said that we would stick with Stirling for a while and then decide if we are better to into or stay out of the Euro.

Now joining the EU well that would happen to take advantage of the benifits. Independence though will mean we can argue for Scotlands rights and not opt out for four different nations under the UK

75. jack
I agree that it would be a terrible thing if the poor become poorer, and the rich become richer.

However, this is already happening at an accelerating rate in Britain, with no regard from Westminster for those not able to afford to escape to another country, or take control of their own lives.

I see no reason why Scotland being independent should be any worse, in fact I would say that smaller and closer is way better - Westminster is an awfy long way to march with pitchforks and unaffordable energy, water and food bills. Holyrood is just a donder away.

No, your big business pals would be better off in an independent Scotland. The poor, the vulnerable and the working man or woman on the street would not. If the Tartan Tories in the SNP have their way, Scotland would become independent, public sector jobs would go faster than ever before and income tax would go up while corporation tax comes down.

Mike Russell personifies the Tartan Tory. He favours a Flat Tax, which his leader thinks is "relatively harmless".

The resources, the institutions and the co-operation between the different parts of the union have given us a welfare state. Russell's political objective is to tear that state in half. You're living on another planet, Mr Russell and as you well know you're politics do not chime with the spirit of Scottish social democracy which the SNP are endangering.

Thatcher thought unemployment was a suitable price to pay for lower inflation and now Russell believes that inequality is a suitable price to pay for independence.

You will be exposed!

i watched the debate on the eco friendly scotland in hollyrood fair enjoyed it.i also noted that the majority in the e.u. in the climate debate voted for makeing solar. wind. all kinds of eco friendly stuff cheap and available so that more people would go for it.everybody except the u.k voted for it . it figures. gordon brown signed up to the laeken agreement but refused to impliment it saying we had world beating pension schemes then raped them and ruined them.leaveing our uk pensioners the lowest paid in europe.and with the choice heat or eat.i think his policy is starve the poor if theyve not got food to cook they wont use energy.its better for the envoirnment to have the old ones confined to a chair in one room in a blanket with one bar of a fire burning than wandering about warm.maybe it might be better for the old folks to go out and commit crimes and be sent too castle huntly.three meals a day central heating you dont have to pay for sky t.v. no licsence to pay come and go as you please all the drugs cocaine cannabis ectasy if thats your ilk that you can get down your neck.we should throw out all the crimminals and just invite the super rich like donald trump to come stay in scotland and tax them 50% 0:)))

72 - fifey
The SNP's current policy is indeed to keep us / take us into Europe, and into the Euro. That may change, as party policies do change.

However, there is no reason the future government of an independent Scotland would be the SNP, indeed, even the SNP itself may have to change its name to something more meaningful then along the lines of socialist, conservative, liberal, traditionalist, anti-nuclear, green, environmentally economic or whatever to denote its leanings - nationalist will make no sense in an independent Scotland!

I would hope that when we achieve independence the SNP will have the integrity to call an election on its policies for an independent Scotland, or at least several referendums on such issues as:
1) Europe and the Euro
2) Faslane etc
3) No nuclear.
4) whatever
and in fact I expect they would legally be forecd to call a new election.

To have got independence so prominently on the agenda, and to then get independence, the SNP will have enjoyed support from many disparate political or non-political viewpoints; to proceed with strictly party policies without any further ratification of detailed policies outwith the remit of the present devolved parliament would be dishonest and dishonourable.

#71 Dave Eastabrook

Unfortunately you only get a referendum on the Independence question, the POLICY is to join Europe and adopt the Euro, so a vote for independence is a vote for this policy. It’s called political license