Created at the Paris Peace Conference, the Leagues Covenant was embedded in the text of the Versailles Treaty

at the
insistence of its great patron Woodrow Wilson. But when the U.S. Senate proposed reservations to the Covenant, to
protect U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action, the president rejected them all. The Senate then rejected the treaty, and
the United States never joined the League.

After an investigation and report, the League found Japan guilty of aggression. But its only two members with the power
to intervene, Britain and France, had no interest in confronting Japan over North China. Nor did the United States. So,
Tokyo was verbally thrashed. But, humiliated and enraged at the insult, the proud Japanese walked out of the League.

The League was finished. But in the final analysis, it was not the League that failed. It was the Allies that failed. Neither
Britain nor Francenor the United Stateswas willing to risk war for high principle, if validating that principle imperiled
vital interests.

None of the three had a vital interest in whether or not Japan (or Russia or China) controlled Manchuria. And if the United
States refused to join the League, how could nations object if Germany walked out?

As for Ethiopia, was upholding the principle of non-aggression in Africa worth a war that might drive Italy into the arms
of Nazi Germany? Indeed, the limited sanctions imposed on Italy helped to create the Rome-Berlin Pact of Steel, that first
Axis of Evil.

As for Hitlers military occupation of the Rhineland, this was a direct challenge to France. But if France, with its huge army,
would not act militarily in its own vital interests, why should anyone else?The lesson seemed clear then and does today.
Great nations will not allow the claims or commands of multinational institutions to take precedence over vital interests.
The crucial choiceof non-intervention, sanctions, or warwill ultimately be dictated by national interests alone.Mr.
Bush is doing the same thing, only he believes war is the right course. And whether the UN agrees or not is, in his word,
irrelevant.

Should the veto powers of the

permanent members of the UN
Security Council be abolished?

Geopolitics: Is the veto power unreflective of today's geopolitical realities?

[] []
[Edit] [Edit]
Yes No

Argument: The UN veto is anachronistic. The The UN SC veto is justifiably given to nuclear

world no longer needs the Security Council veto. powers The P-5 veto holding members of the UN

The P5 were given this privilege for two reasons SC are unique in that they are the only countries

that have no application in the post Cold War that have nuclear arsenals (not simply a small

world. Firstly, the Allied powers, with the addition stock nuclear weapons). They are the only
of China, tried to bind themselves to the UN countries with the power to initiate full-scale

Security Council, which was designed to prevent nuclear war. Therefore, it is important that that

events like World War II repeating themselves. they be able to end measures with their veto
 Secondly, the P5 held unrivaled strategic might power to ensure that measures are not realized

through their possession of nuclear weapon that could foment serious international tension and

technology or imminent nuclear capacity. possibly nuclear war.

However, to examine the status quo, the UN is no

longer in danger of collapse. Considering the P-5 veto encourages strongest states to work

state of international politics and the symbolic inside not outside the system If all states are

meaning of the UN, the P5 can no longer abandon given equal power in the UN SC, it is possible that

the UN or the cause of global peace simply the most powerful states in the international

because the veto power is taken away. system will simply not participate. This is not

within the interests of the international

The UN Security Council Veto is unreflective community, as the participation of the most

of geopolitical realities The global power powerful states is essential to achieving

balance has shifted dramatically since 1945, international objectives, particularly security

making the nations' participation in global objectives. Offering veto powers to the most

cooperation for security more crucial. Nuclear powerful states helps incentivizes the participation

proliferation has accelerated in the past decade, of these powerful states, and this ensures the

such that inter alia India, Pakistan, North Korea, longevity of the UN and its objectives.

Egypt, Iraq and Iran are developing inter-

continental ballistic capacity, which is incentive P-5 veto rewards the disproportionate

for the P5 and other nations to continue to contribution to global security The most

support the Security Council under any important function of the United Nations, as

circumstances. defined in the UN Charter, is the maintenance of

international security. But, different states make

The UN Security Council veto perpetuates very different contributions to international

differences and animosity A P-5 country security. Thus, it is appropriate to reward states

typically vetoes a resolution in the United Nations that make a greater contribution to this primary

because they or their allies have a strong national mission of the UN. The veto to the P-5 does this.

or cultural interest in doing so. These interests

often contrast sharply with the interests of other Abandoning UN SC veto to constrain the US

countries. And the veto, given the fact that it would be wrong Thomas Weiss. "The Illusion of

unilaterally stops things from happening, brings UN Security Council Reform". Washington

these contrasts to the surface in an often bitter, Quarterly 2003 - "If the Security Council is to

angering, and antagonizing way. It, therefore, enforce its collective decisions, U.S. participation

makes a direct connection between antagonism is, at present and for the foreseeable future, a sine

and the differences between countries. This is qua non. If its purpose is to prevent Washington

unhealthy in the international system. from doing what it has decided is vital to U.S.

interests, only a hopeless romantic would claim

UN veto perpetuates unfortunate this is feasible. Although perhaps understandable

geopolitical games The UN veto system was as a visceral reaction, the idea that the remaining
established, in part, to ensure that the United superpower will continue to participate politically

Nations fits within the broader geopolitical game or financiallyin an institution whose purpose has

and that it is tolerated within that game. It, become to limit its power has no precedent."
 therefore, perpetuates an unfortunate geopolitics

of self-interested states instead of assuming a

higher, fairer role of global governance with the

objective of securing common global interests.

Equality: Does the veto power violate democratic principles of equality?

[] []
[Edit] [Edit]
Yes No

The UN SC veto violates democratic principal The UN Charter does not offer sovereign

of sovereign equality It is no longer viable to equality The UN charter does not explicitly offer

argue that nations agreed to join the UN as an sovereign equality as a right in the international

unequal body. As a global constitution, the UN system. Rather, international security and equality

charter must uphold sovereign equality. And, yet, of security is the primary objective. UN SC veto
the UN SC veto power violates this principle. power is a means to maintaining the greatest level

of international security, and is thus consistent

The UN veto is not consistent with principles with the primary objectives of the UN charter.
of checks and balances

The UN veto fosters a system of checks and

balances

UN effectiveness: Does the veto decrease the effectiveness of the United

Nations?

[] []
[Edit] [Edit]
Yes No

Abolishing veto would enable more global P-5 veto ensures measures aren't passed

action in the UN If the veto was abolished, that UN can't fulfill If measures are passed in

more measures would make it through the the UN that even a single of the Great Powers

general assembly and security council that reflect objects to, the chances that the measure will be

the will of the general assembly. More would get implemented are very slim, as a Great Power is

done in the world, the UN would better fulfill its liable to take unilateral actions to block

mission, and it would subsequently achieve implementation. The UN will be powerless to carry

greater credibility in the international system, through its measure, and its credibility will be
furthering its ability to get things done. damaged. Therefore, the veto is something of a

safety valve that ensures that no measures are

Veto power undermines the moral stature of passed that will fail in the face of geopolitical
the UN Morality in the international system is realities.
defined in large part by equality. Because the UN

SC veto undermines the notion of soveregn The veto power has been wielded with

equality, it undermines the moral foundation and increasing success both during and since the

authority of the UN itself. This damages its Cold War. This makes it still necessary for
 credibility in the international system, and thus increased efficiency in the Security Council.
impairs its long-term functionality. Between 1945 and 1990, 240 vetoes were cast.

Yet between 1990 and 1999 the power was

Argument: UN veto causes perceptions of utilised on only 7 occasions, while more than 20
the UN as a tool of the West peacekeeping operations were mandated. This

figure exceeds the total number of operations

Security Council veto undermines UN's "soft
undertaken in the entirety of the preceding 45
power" legitimacy. The United Nations
years. Therefore, the veto, rather than bringing
exercises "soft power" better than "hard power".
the feared side effects of slowing up the Security
It gives legitimacy to the actions taken by states,
Council, has been used increasingly well. The
or it takes away from that legitimacy by passing
prodigious use of the veto during the Cold War
resolutions that, for example, condemn certain
period might have saved the world from the
actions. This is a highly important function in
realisation of nuclear war. Now, increasing nuclear
shaping the international system into a more
proliferation is a reason for maintaining the unity
desirable form. Yet, the veto undermines this
of the P5 by means of the veto. The current
function by enabling veto-holders to veto UN
rhetoric concerns rogue states gaining possession
resolution that seek to legitimize or de-legitimize
of nuclear weapons. These are states whose
actions taken in the international system.
potential deployment of arms is unpredictable and

with whom there is limited international dialogue.

If the P5 is split on a matter of international

security, any one or more of its members could

become equally rogue. Thus, the veto has been

effective in uniting the P5 powers in the face of

security issues.

Abuse: Is the veto power subject to individual interests?

[] []
[Edit] [Edit]
Yes No

Veto power is frequently hijacked by P-5 vetoes generally uphold international

national agendas In the rare recent security interests. The military might of each of

circumstances in which the veto power has been the P5 members individually, and within separate

utilised, it has been hijacked by ideological groups, notably the UK and US axis within NATO,

demands and petty national interests. China is such that the avoidance of disagreement is

prevented peacekeeping operations proceeding in crucial to international peace. The P5 may

Guatemala and Macedonia on account of the occasionally cast the veto for selfish reasons. Yet

engagement of those countries with Taiwan. The this cost is outweighed by the maintenance of
veto is no longer applied for the maintenance of unity that becomes ever more critical in the post
collective security. Cold War multipolar world.
 The United States unjustly protects Israel
with UN veto The United States has protected
Israel from international condemnation in the UN
SC dozens of times. The condemnation has
surrounding such things as Israel's alleged
oppression of Palestinians or abuses and
international law violations in its war against
Hezbollah in Lebanon. There are too many
instances in which Israeli abuses and violations of
international law were fairly clear. US defenses of
Israel in these instances, therefore, constitute a
abusive and unprincipled attempt to protect an
ally. This all exposes how the UN SC veto opens
the door to abuse.
The "hidden" threat of the UN veto is a
major concern The threat of the use of the veto
is as powerful in preventing resolutions being
passed as the actual veto itself. Veto-wielding
countries often notify promoters of a resolution
that they will veto it, subsequently causing those
promoters to back down and to never actually
bring legislation to the floor of the general
assembly.
"Uniting for Peace" Resolutions to bypass
UN vetoes are only symbolic The problem with
General Assembly "Uniting for Peace" resolutions
is that they don't circumvent the reality that the
security council is still responsible for the
implementation of measures. Therefore, if a
"Uniting for Peace" measure was designed to take
any action, it would almost certainly fail to be
implemented by the security council due to
blockage by the vetoing member.
UN veto is being abused to stymie country
admissions to UN Country admission into the
UN and into the Security Council is a sensitive
topic for some countries, and can often involve
deeply rooted prejudices. But, admission should
UN SC vetoes can be bypassed with "Uniting
for Peace" Resolution Brendan I. Koerner. "Can
You Bypass a U.N. Security Council Veto?".
Slate.com. March 12, 2003- "There's an esoteric
maneuver to get around a threatened veto:
invoking the obscure U.N. Resolution 377, also
known as the "Uniting for Peace" Resolution. In
early 1950, the United States pushed through the
resolution as a means of circumventing possible
Soviet vetoes. The measure states that, in the
event that the Security Council cannot maintain
international peace, a matter can be taken up by
the General Assembly. This procedure has been
used 10 times so far, most notably in 1956 to help
resolve the Suez Canal crisis. Britain and France,
which were occupying parts of the canal at the
time, vetoed Security Council resolutions calling
for their withdrawal. The United States called for
an emergency "Uniting for Peace" session of the
General Assembly, which passed a withdrawal
resolution. (A simple majority vote is required.)
Britain and France pulled out shortly after."
Therefore, it is not really necessary to abolish the
veto as sufficient means exist to get around it in
the exceptional instances in which the veto
contravenes international norms and consensus.
 not be held ransom to these prejudices in the
form of the vetoe.
Feasibility: Is it possible to abolish the veto power?
[]
[Edit]
Yes
Reforming the UN security council is
constitutionally feasible. As Richard Butler has
observed, a proper debate about the defects of
the veto might at the least yield a more
constructive interpretation of the nature of the
veto and its application. An informed public
awareness of the potential for the Security
Council to be bypassed or hijacked might lead to
pressure for exercise of the power in accordance
with the Charter aims. Notably, China was
persuaded or compelled not to cast the veto in
respect of the Council measures on Kosovo. This
reasonable approach prevailed in spite of vocal
Chinese opposition to the bombing campaign, and
the destruction of the Chinese embassy by NATO
forces.
UN veto harms US interests more than it
benefits them The United States more
frequently pushes the Security Council to take
action than not. And yet, the veto frequently
stands in the way of action being possible,
particularly in regard to the French, Chinese, and
Russian vetoes.
Disarmament: Does the veto power contribute to nuclear proliferation?
[]
[Edit]
Yes
The veto power operates to the detriment of
international arms control agreements. The
web of treaties that concern the non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are
[]
[Edit]
No
P-5 countries will not allow the abolition of
their UN SC vetoes The abolition of the power of
veto is highly unlikely. The P5 states will not
willingly cede their pre-eminent position in
international politics. Articles 108 and 109 of the
United Nations Charter grants the P5 veto over
amendments to the charter, requiring them to
approve stripping away their own veto powers.
Given the influence wielded by a veto-bearing
state, it is unlikely that any of the P5 would agree
to give up this privilege.
Abolition is not a solution Veto power propels
Powerful engines(P-5) in active world politics and
prevent collision between them. World community
get benefits from their social involvement. Dilution
of Veto power is good option. New permanent
member from developing country requires to
include in UN SC and Power of Veto need to
change. It can be like "In place of one two or more
members require to prevent the adoption of any
'substantive' draft Council resolution, regardless of
the level of international support for the draft".
[]
[Edit]
No
Non-proliferation failures shouldn't be
attributed to UN veto Non proliferation is a
highly sensitive and precarious issue, riven by
cross-currents of history and intelligence. The
 enforced directly or indirectly by the Security apparent failure to create an effective system for

Council. Where the treaty provisions do not arms limitation cannot be glibly attributed to the

identify the Council, the constant presence of the presence of a power of veto. It should be asked

leading nuclear powers in the form of the P5, and whether veto or no veto, what should constitute

the responsibility of the body for peace and the appropriate Security Council to a breach of a

security ensures that it is the de facto policeman non proliferation treaty? Under articles 41 and 42

of non-proliferation. The Council is crippled by of the Charter the Council could authorize

the veto from fulfilling perhaps its most vital economic sanctions or direct military intervention.

function. Two pertinent examples include the Would either overtly hostile approach encourage

continued assembly of a nuclear arsenal by North co-operation on the matter of disarmament?

Korea in violation of its obligations under the Non Diplomacy is often best conducted without the big

Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Chinese interests stick of the Security Council. The Pyongyang

precluded adequate enforcement action by the summit between Kim Il Sung and Jiang Zemin

Council. Iraq had breached every Council contributed to North Korean amendment of its NPT

measure pertaining to arms limitation to the breaches. Sympathy for Iraq is not limited to a

extent that the UN inspectorate was withdrawn reactionary Russia. A P5 member, France, and

from Baghdad. The absence of an effective Canada, amongst several non-permanent

response can be attributed to Russian support for members, have voiced dissent regarding the
Iraq. burden of Council authorised sanctions against

Iraq, and requested a lower standard of

compliance. It is thus scarcely remarkable that the

United States Non proliferation is precarious

because of the significant vested interests at

stake. These interests would not only persist in the

absence of a veto power, but more likely be

inflamed without this crucial safety valve for

power-politics.

[Alternatives: Are there no good alternatives to abolishing the veto?

[] []
[Edit] [Edit]
Yes No

Extending UN SC veto to more countries UN SC veto need not be abolished, but

would reduce UN effectiveness While one way extended to more countries. The veto simply

to "level the playing field" is to offer the veto to needs to be extended to more countries and in a

more countries that "deserve" it according to manner that is more reflective of the geopolitical

their geopolitical standing, the problem is that distribution of power today, as opposed to post-
this risks increasing the instances in which the WWII when the current veto-powers were

veto is used, and in which resolutions are blocked originally distributed.

by the national agendas of countries. It is better

 to "level the playing field", therefore, by moving
in the other direction by banning the veto.
Extension of UN SC veto power to other
countries will be resisted by current veto
holders. Current veto holders enjoy their
privileged position and are unlikely to go along
with the extension of this privilege to other
countries, as it dilutes their own veto power.
Expanding UN SC veto would increase
unilateral military actions With the likelihood
of more vetoes being leveled in the UN SC,
particularly in regard to the use of military force,
it is likely that more countries will take unilateral
military action in the face of a veto. This will
decrease the legitimacy of the United Nations
Security Council, decrease international legal
checks on military action, and shift the world
back into a more anarchic geopolitical maze.
Australia doesn't deserve a UN SC
veto Australia simply does not have the
geopolitical power to warrant this. Therefore, any
plan that would see an expansion of the UN SC
permanent membership and veto power to
Australia would be a step backwards not
forwards. Abolishing the veto is a better course of
action.
[International Support: Does the international community support
abolishing the veto?
[]
[Edit]
Yes
Vietnam supports banning UN security
council veto power
Vast majority of General Assembly wants to
end UN SC veto power
Germany should receive UN Security Council
veto power Germany is the strongest power in
Europe economically and in terms of its population
and territory. And, it is no longer necessary to
constrain it out of fears of a WWII relapse. If it
were offered veto powers, this would help alleviate
some of the geopolitical imbalances associated
with it today.
Voluntary limitations of UN SC veto to only
enforcement would not work
Abolishing UN SC veto won't solve broader
problems in UN SC
UN reform will not solve problem of states
acting in self interest The UN is generally an
ineffectual body in the sense that states are keen
on acting in their self-interest, whether or not the
Security Council gives any blessings or
condemnations. Therefore, the veto is somewhat
irrelevant to the actions that states will take.
The General Assembly should be able to
overrule a UN SC veto Instead of abolishing the
veto altogether, one solution would be to minimize
its power by offering the general assembly the
ability to overrule the veto through a
supermajority, 2/3 vote. This is the system set in
place in many countries, including the United
States, where the Senate is empowered to
overrule a presidential veto by 2/3 majority vote.
[]
[Edit]
No
P-5 countries will not allow the abolition of
their UN SC vetoes
Support for independence[edit]
Political parties[edit]
Scottish independence is supported most prominently by the Scottish National Party, but other parties also support
independence. Those who have had elected representatives in either the Scottish Parliament or local councils in recent
years are the Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity. At the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, 72
of the seats were won by pro-independence parties and candidates, over 55% of the total:[75] these consisted of 69
Scottish National Party members, the two Green members and Margo MacDonald, an independent MSP.[76][77] The Welsh
separatist party Plaid Cymru collaborates with the SNP in the House of Commons and is known to be sympathetic,
whereas Northern Ireland's two predominant nationalist parties Sinn Fin and the SDLP despite also supporting secession
from the UK were officially neutral during the 2014 referendum.
The independence movement consists of many factions with varying political views. The SNP wants Scotland to keep the
monarchy (see personal union) and become an independent Commonwealth realm, similar to Canada or Australia.
Otherssuch as the SSP and Solidaritywant Scotland to become an independent republic. The SSP has led republican
protests and authored the Declaration of Calton Hill, calling for an independent republic.[78]
Other organisations[edit]
The Independence Convention was set up in 2005, seeking "Firstly, to create a forum for those of all political persuasions
and none who support independence; and secondly, to be a national catalyst for Scottish
independence."[79][80] Independence First is a pro-referendum pressure group which has organised public demonstrations.
The Scottish Republican Socialist Movement is a Pan-Socialist independence movement that believes that Scotland should
be made an independent republic. This movement has a Firebrand socialist ethos, however is not affiliated with the SSP or
the Scottish Communist Party. It believes that a failure to become independent should lead to mass emigration elsewhere,
or as put as a slogan "Independence or Desertion".
Following the launch of Yes Scotland, other campaigns in support of independence were launched, including the National
Collective and Radical Independence Campaign. The former is an artist-driven movement which describes itself as "an
open and non-party political collaboration of talent focused on driving social and political change in Scotland through a
variety of the arts".[81] It is responsible for organising the mock referendum at University of Glasgow which was held in
February 2013.[82][83] The latter proclaims itself to be "fighting for an independent Scotland that is for the millions not the
millionaires" and was formed after the Radical Independence Conference 2012 in Glasgow, which was attended by at least
650 people and has been described as a "[bringing together of] the Scottish Greens, the Scottish Socialists, some of the
more militant trade unionists, nuclear-disarmament campaigners and anti-monarchist republicans".[84]
During the 2014 referendum campaign, independence attracted little support from newspapers. The Sunday Herald was
the only publication to endorse a Yes vote in the referendum.[85][86] The National, a daily newspaper supporting
independence, was launched in November 2014.[85]
Reasons[edit]
Reasons that have been cited in favour of independence include:

Democracy and national self-determination: Scotland's population will possess full decision-making power in regard
to the political affairs of its nation. First Minister Salmond stated in a May 2012 launch that "the people who live in
Scotland are best placed to make the decisions that affect Scotland."[87]
Nuclear disarmament: with control over defence and foreign policy, an independent Scotland could address the
removal of Trident nuclear weapons, an issue long-associated with the campaign for an independent Scotland, as
outlined in the House of Commons Defence Committee's white paper "The future of the UK's strategic nuclear
deterrent: the White Paper" of 2006-2007.[88][89] In a July 2013 Huffington Post UK article, the writer suggested that
the 25 billion spent on a "like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent" could instead be diverted to
education, healthcare and housing.[90] Additionally, the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament supports
independence on this basis.[91]
"It's Scotland's oil": since being used as a highly effective slogan by the SNP in the 1970s,[92] this phrase has
encapsulated the argument that only an independent Scotland be able to fully utilise and exploit the financial benefits
of its national resources, including North Sea oil and gas, for the benefit of the population.[93] According to the
Scottish Government, 64% of the EU's oil reserves exist in Scottish waters,[94] while the David Hume Institute stated:
"Scotland is sitting on oil and gas reserves worth up to 4 trillion".[95] Investment in and production from the North
Sea oilfields dropped sharply after Tory chancellor George Osborne imposed punitive taxes, undercutting the
projected revenue an independent Scotland could claim.[96]
Renewable energy: if independence is attained, supporters of the new political structure seek to fully harness
Scotland's natural renewable energy resources: 25 per cent of Europes wind energy potential; 25 per cent of
 Europes tidal energy potential; and 10 per cent of Europes wave energy potential.[97] Salmond claims that this could
lead to the "re-industrialisation" of Scotland.[98]
A "cultural reawakening": groups like National Collective, a "non-party movement for artists and creatives who
support Scottish independence", believe that the opportunities of independence, and the possibilities created, would
unleash a fresh wave of cultural ideas, expression and self-confidence in Scotland.[99][100]
"Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on" (a statement by Winnie Ewing, upon her victory for the SNP in the 1967
Hamilton by-election)[citation needed]: an independent Scotland would be a full and equal member of the United
Nations, NATO and the European Union and many other international organisations.[101] With an autonomous voice in
international politics, Scottish independence campaigners believe the nation's global influence would increase in
regard to the defence of its national interests and the promotion of its values. It has been claimed that the number of
MEPs elected by Scotland would also rise, from six to at least 12.[102] Furthermore, Scottish embassies would be
established globally to promote Scotland internationally, and to lobby other governments on the nation's behalf.[101]

Opposition to independence[edit]
Main article: Unionism in Scotland

Political parties[edit]
The Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats, who all have seats in the Scottish Parliament, oppose
Scottish independence. In 2012 they established the cross-party Better Together campaign. Other parties that oppose
Scottish independence include the UK Independence Party (UKIP),[103] the British National Party (BNP),[104] the National
Front (NF),[105] Britain First,[106] the Britannica Party,[107] the Scottish Unionist Party (SUP), the Respect Party[108] and Ulster
unionist parties.
Other organisations[edit]
Grass-roots campaigns such "Scotland in Union" emerged after the 2014 independence referendum and aim to encourage
tactical voting at the United Kingdom general election, 2015 and to publicise the benefits of being part of the United
Kingdom.[109][110][111] Unionist MPs were eventually returned in 3 of Scotland's 59 seats.[112]
The Orange Order, a Protestant brotherhood with thousands of members in Scotland, campaigned against Scottish
independence,[113] and formed a campaign group called British Together.[114] In September 2014, it held a march of at least
15,000 Orangemen, loyalist bands and supporters from Scotland and across the UK;[115][116] described as the biggest pro-
Union demonstration of the campaign.[117]
Many newspapers in Scotland also oppose independence. This includes Scottish-based newspapers The
Scotsman,[118] Scotland on Sunday,[119] The Herald,[120] the Sunday Post,[121] the Daily Record, the Sunday
Mail,[122] the Scottish Daily Mail,[123] The Scottish Daily Express,[124] The Scottish Sunday Express,[125] and Daily Star of
Scotland;[122] as well as UK-wide newspapers The Daily Telegraph,[126] Sunday Telegraph,[126] The Guardian,[127] The
Independent,[128] The Economist,[129] The Financial Times,[130] The Spectator,[131] and The Sunday Times.[132]
Reasons[edit]
See also: Scottish independence referendum, 2014 Issues

There are strong historical and contemporary ties between Scotland and the rest of the UK from
the Reformation and Union of Crowns, to Scottish involvement in the growth and development of the British Empire and
contribution of the Scottish Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. Contemporary popular culture is also shared,
primarily through the prevalence of the English language. Almost half of the Scottish population have relatives in
England.[133] At the time of the 2011 census, approximately 700,000 adults who were born in Scotland lived in the rest of
the UK, while about 470,000 adults who were born elsewhere in the UK had moved to live in Scotland.[134] There are also
significant economic links with the Scottish military-industrial complex[135] as well as close links within the financial
sector.[136]
Reasons cited in favour of maintaining the Union include:

Strong cultural, economic, and family links with the UK.

That Scotland is economically stronger as a part of the UK economy and better able to prosper in
a globalised economy with the international influence and perceived stability derived from being part of a larger
state.[137]
That Scotland's levels of public spending would be difficult to sustain after independence without raising taxes. For
example, David Maddox, writing for The Scotsman in 2008, pointed to a future decline in North Sea
oil revenue.[138] Some, such as Ruth Davidson of the Scottish Conservatives,[139] wish to reduce public spending and
 devolve more fiscal powers to the Scottish Parliament in order to address this issue within the broader framework of
the Union.[140][141][142]
That Scotland has more influence on international affairs and diplomacy, both politically and militarily, as part
of NATO, the G8 and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.[citation needed] Opponents of further integration
of the European Union claim that independence, within Europe but outside the EU three, would mean that Scotland
would be more marginalised because, as a relatively small independent country, Scotland would be unable to resist
the demands of larger member nations.[143]
Uncertainty that could be brought in the immediate aftermath of independence, particularly disagreement as to how
Scotland would be treated in relation to the European Union, and the unlikelihood of the UK accepting a currency
union with an independent Scotland.[144][145] The chairman of HSBC, Douglas Flint, warned in August 2014 of
uncertainty if there was an independent-Scottish currency, or if Scotland joined the Eurozone, which could result
in capital flight.[146]
That Outlying regions such as Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles will be disadvantaged or deserve a greater
share of oil revenue.[147][148][149][150][151][152]

Public opinion[edit]
Main articles: Opinion polling on Scottish independence; Opinion polling for the Scottish independence referendum, 2014;
and Proposed second Scottish independence referendum Opinion polling

Many opinion polls were conducted about Scottish independence before the 2014
referendum.[153][154][155][156][157][158][159] Professor John Curtice stated in January 2012 that polling had shown support for
independence at between 32% and 38% of the Scottish population.[160] This had fallen somewhat since the SNP were first
elected to become the Scottish Government in 2007.[160] The research also showed, however, that the proportion of the
population strongly opposed to independence had also declined.[160] Curtice stated in April 2014 that support for
independence had increased since December 2013, although there was disagreement between the polling companies as
to the true state of public opinion.[161] Polls in the run-up to the referendum vote showed a closing of the gap, with one
poll giving the Yes campaign a 5149 lead. In the referendum Scotland voted against independence by 55.3% to 44.7%,
with an overall turnout of 84.5%.[3][4]
Since the referendum, opinion polls have asked how people would vote in a hypothetical second referendum. These polls
have been carried out since six weeks after the referendum.[162] Twenty-five opinion polls were conducted in the year
after the referendum, with seventeen of them having "No" as the predominant answer, seven having "Yes", and one
having an equal proportion of respondents for each opinion.[163]

"Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that in any cases where the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity
amongst its five permanent members, fails to act as required to maintain international peace and security, the General
Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue any recommendations
in uniting for peace- all P5 fail

"the veto enables a powerful and authoritative minority to determine the fate of an indispensable and subjugated
majority" - this can apply to just one country

The Prospect of Scottish Secession from Britain

One of the major issues on the British political agenda while I have been in the UK this week giving talks
about Democracy and Political Ignorance is the prospect that Scotland might become an independent nation separate
from the United Kingdom. A referendum on independence is scheduled for September 2014. A recent poll shows the no
side with a substantial but not insurmountable 47-38 lead.
If Scotland does secede, in the short run Scots might suffer significant economic pain. Scotland is historically a net
recipient of funds from the UK government, though North Sea oil has arguably offset that in recent years. If oil revenue
falls (and possibly even if it doesnt), Scotland might have to either raise taxes or cut government spending significantly. In
addition, an independent Scotland might not be allowed to rejoin the European Union, if Spain decides to veto its
application in order to deter secession by Catalonia. Exclusion from the EU might subject the new nation to trade barriers
from some of its most important trading partners.
In the long run, however, an independent Scotland might actually improve its economic performance if the cutoff of
UK funds forces it to adopt more free market-oriented policies. This is what happened with Slovakia after the breakup of
the Czechoslovakia. Ironically, the Scottish government is seeking independence in part because they want to pursue
more left-wing economic policies than the present UK government does, which may not be possible, given the tighter
fiscal constraints an independent nation might face. Another potential irony is that Britains Conservative Party
historically among the strongest opponents of Scottish independence would benefit politically if independence actually
happened, because most of Scotlands seats in parliament are held by the rival Labor Party.
In my view, the main criterion for evaluating secession movements is whether the new government will be better than
its predecessor. Overall, its difficult to say whether Scottish secession is preferable to the status quo or not. Scotland is
not being oppressed by the UK in any particularly severe way, and both the UK and a putative Scottish government are
likely to be reasonably decent liberal democracies. Whether an independent Scotland proves to be better than the status
quo largely depends on what kinds of policies the new government adopts, especially in the long run. At this point, its
hard to make any firm predictions on that score, at least for me. Either way, Scotlands independence referendum will be
interesting to watch for students of federalism and secession.
UPDATE: In case it is isnt already clear, I should note that many of the points made in the this post are necessarily
tentative, in part because of the difficulty of making predictions about a fluid situation, and in part because I am not an
expert on Scotland and British politics. I welcome correction from those with greater expertise.

UPDATE #2: Political scientist Jason Sorens, an academic expert on secession movements, has an interesting post on
the Scottish referendum here, including some discussion of Scottish nationalists preference for more left-wing economic
policies.

Thursdays victory for Leave in the Brexit vote may do more than break up the European Union it may break up the
United Kingdom itself.
Less than two years after Scotland voted against seceding from the U.K., its officials said early Friday that their country
had been hoodwinked and may leave Britain in order to remain a part of the European Union.
Although the Leave forces won a 52 percent-to-48-percent victory across the whole United Kingdom, there was a much
healthier margin in the other direction in Scotland, with 62 percent voting to stay.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who also leads the Scottish National Party (SNP), said the vote here makes clear
that the people of Scotland see their future as part of the European Union.
Joanna Cherry, an SNP member of the U.K. Parliament, accused the rest of Britain of a bait-and-switch and said the
Scottish Parliament and her party now has a mandate to re-examine the secession question that had been put to rest in
2014.
During our independence referendum two years ago, we were repeatedly told that the only way to guarantee Scotlands
continued membership in the European Union was to vote to remain part of the United Kingdom, Ms. Cherry told CNN.
 These are the 10 main economic gains of independence.
1) Creating a better tax system for Scotland

An independent Scotland can improve the tax system for the benefit of citizens and business. Scotland currently only has control
over 7% of its taxation. Independence will ensure that Scotland has 100% control over raising its own taxes.

With this control Scotland will be able to reform the tax system so that it 1) simpler, 2) supports key growth sectors in Scotland
and 3) collects a fair amount of revenue to fund public services.

Overall, a more effective tax system will increase Scotlands prosperity and support stronger public services, as set out by the
Mirrlees Review.
2) Improving the relationship between employees and employers

Opportunities for participation in company structures can increase wealth and productivity

Improving labour relations in an independent Scotland can improve productivity and economic output.

Westminster currently makes decisions on workplace regulation and has persistently failed both employers and employees. An
independent Scotland can reform at work regulation to improve conditions.
A National Convention on Employment and Labour Relations will shape a new policy after independence and provide a needed
fresh start at forming mutual interests. The option of placing employee representative on boards can allow workers to contribute
effectively alongside management. This new structure can support a high-pay economy and improve efficiency.
3) Controlling immigration can boost the Scottish economy

An independent Scotland which controls immigration and attracts skilled workers can improve Scotlands fiscal position by over
65 billion. Immigration makes a substantial contribution to public finances. Scotland has suffered due to vast emigration over the
past century, with the population stagnating from the 50s to 90s.
There is greater support for immigration in Scotland than the rest of the UK. Scotlands economy benefits by 779 million
annually from international students coming to Scotland. Scotlands economy would benefit enormously from encouraging
immigration, especially from the rest of the UK and the Scottish diaspora who already have close links to Scotland.
4) A stronger industrial policy

An independent Scotland can develop new industries to provide skilled, high paid jobs.

By diversifying the manufacturing sector, investing more in apprenticeships and research, Scotland can build on its industrial base.
A Scottish Government will provide greater support to this process than Westminster.

Example of industrial development could include building icebreakers at Rosyth, developing the Clyde for renewables activities
similar to the activity at Belfast Docks, developing new offshore technologies in the oil sector for international export, and
specialising in Scotlands strengths of chemicals, computing and life sciences. One example of this approach was the
redevelopment of the Nigg yards by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Global Energy Group.
Only with full economic powers Scotland can develop an ambitious industrial policy. This will reverse decades of decline under
Westminster mismanagement. The result of this will be more long-term, skilled jobs. This will create much needed stability and
wealth for those currently seeking employment.

5) Increasing exports through trade and investment

With independence, Scotland will gain

the economic powers to promote Scotlands business globally.
This will provide greater opportunities to export Scotlands goods and services. A 50% increase in exports would create 100,000
new jobs and generate 5 billion extra for Scotlands economy.

A Yes vote means business will have the full support of a global trading and investment network. UK networks are failing to
promote Scotland in key export markets.

Greater economic control will also provide greater opportunities to support Scottish SMEs who want to enter export markets. An
independent Scotland will be focused on promoting the unique strengths of Scottish business in key sectors, which will expand
the capacity of Scotland Development International.
6) Investing the 3 billion independence dividend

An independent Scotland will save money that can be spent on building a better economy. Nuclear weapons, the House of
Commons and Londons civil service will no longer be funded with Scottish tax.

The total saving on nuclear weapons and defence will be 500 million in year 1. Scotland will save 60 million a year in paying
Westminsters expenses for the House of Commons and Lords. And the money Scotland currently pays for London civil servants
will provide more jobs and opportunities in Scotland. This will save money as building and property costs are higher in London.
Dan MacDonald valued this at 10s of millions of pounds a year.
Over a 5 year Parliament, independence would save Scotland at least 3 billion in Parliamentary and nuclear weapons costs alone
and that is just some of the savings that are easily identified.

7) Reducing inequality can boost economic output in Scotland

An independent Scotland which reduces inequality can boost demand to help businesses.
Westminster policy has made the UK one of the most unequal countries in the developed world and this harms business. Business
is successful when there is demand from consumers, which requires purchasing power. A society with low wages cannot provide
an optimal environment for business.

Tackling inequality requires economic opportunities, good jobs, a social security system that helps people to be economically
active and a fair taxation system. This is recognised in the Equality Statement which accompanies each government budget.
Countries with strong social records like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany also have successful business records with high
levels of wealth and productivity. The opportunity to implement appropriate policies for Scotland only comes with a Yes vote for
independence.

8) Investment in childcare to increase tax returns

An independent Scotland can invest in childcare to reduce barriers to the labour market and increases overall tax take. With
independent control over taxation and spending, Scotland will gain the fiscal flexibility to reform social services to benefit the
economy. A 6% rise in female labour market activity would boost tax revenue by 700 million. The expansion of childcare services
would also create 35,000 new jobs in the sector.
Professor Sir Donald MacKay, an economic expert and former Chairman of Scottish Enterprise, recently explained that this
expansion will benefit the economy and is only possible with the full powers of independence.
9) Gains from an independent social security system
Social security will be more affordable and in tune with Scotlands social interests with independence. Scotland currently spends
less on welfare than the UK (14.4% compared to 15.9% of GDP). However, money that is saved in Scotland returns to Westminster
rather than improving Scotlands financial position.
With independence, Scotland can enhance the welfare system to improve economic opportunities and protect the vulnerable.
This includes scrapping Westminsters bedroom tax and preventing future threats to the social care system. As these decisions
are currently taken at Westminster, only a vote for independence guarantees that Scotland can improves the system for the future.

10) Increasing productivity and innovation for Scottish business

Independence is an opportunity to improve Scotlands performance in key economic areas such as productivity and innovation. A
rise in productivity of just 1% would create 21,000 new jobs, raise economic output by over 2 billion and increase tax take by
700 million.

Productivity can be increased through development of a skills economy, capital and infrastructure investment, competition and
innovation. Closing Scotlands productivity gap with many other EU countries would bring significant benefits to Scotlands
economy.

In terms of innovation, Scotland already has world-leading strengths in research and development through its university system.
The economic powers of independence provide the control and choice to create policies to support innovation and create new
products, services and businesses at similar rates to other countries.
In an independent Scotland this can be achieved through loans, guarantees, competitive grants, innovation vouchers and tax
incentives. A global Scottish network will support universities via closer links with industry and business. An effective immigration
system will attract skilled researchers and students to help these institutions thrive.

Opp

1. It would mean nationalism the call to old loyalties deeper than any civic and cross-national identities would win. The Scots
nationalists are nothing like the proto-fascist groups at large in Europe: indeed, their party is social democratic, liberal in social
policy. But the demons unleashed will be stronger than their politics.
2. The countries of Europe have many secessionist movements. Spain has two, in Catalonia and in the Basque country. Belgium
is divided between the French Walloons and the Dutch-speaking Flemish. Italy has an old secessionist movement in German-
speaking Alto Adige and a new one in the north, claiming a territory called Padania. France has an occasionally violent
movement in the island of Corsica. Others will come along. All would be hugely encouraged by Scots independence. It would
consume Europe for decades.
3. The UK has been, in the past century, an imperial power, claiming ownership of large parts of the globe, fighting and
imprisoning those who sought liberation in Africa, India and elsewhere. U.S. President Barack Obamas grandfather, Hussein
Onyango Obama, was imprisoned and tortured by the British in Kenya because he was suspected, it seems wrongly, of being
a member of a militant pro-independence group, the Mau Mau.But in the latter part of the 20th century and in the 21 st, Britain
ceased to be part of the problem and strove to become part of the solution. The solution is to find a way to manage the world
out of confrontation and division into a common effort to attack its real problems ecological damage, poverty, drought,
Islamist and other terrorism. The loss of Scotland would diminish it, weaken its presence internationally, weaken what it does
and can do for global governance.
4. The UK is a major and founding member of NATO: its a nuclear power. Yet all of its submarine-based nuclear armament is
based in Scotland, at a base near Glasgow. Moving it as an independent, anti-nuclear Scottish government would demand
would take years and many billions of pounds to execute. And this at a time when NATO is seeking more commitment, more
defense spending from its members to counter the growing threat from Russia.
5. The United States, presently blamed by critics inside and out for being weak in the face of global challenges from Islamist
terror, from Russia, from China has under Obamas presidency sought to convince the Europeans that they must take
greater responsibility. Scots independence would be an example of a people taking less: it would present the malign example
of a region, by claiming independent status, ducking out of taking the hard choices in the world while seeking protection from
those still constrained to make them.
6. The UK has been a large part of the West that group of nations, which include Easterners like Japan, South Korea,
Australia and New Zealand and others that privilege democracy, a strong civil society and rule of law. For the UK to lose
Scotland would point up to a failure of democracy, at a time when the growth of China and the challenge of Russia is putting
its primacy in doubt.
7. With the discovery of major oil reserves off Scotland in the early 1970s, most of the UKs oil has come from the fields off the
Scots shore. There are still large reserves how large, is still being proven. Scotland would demand total control of these
reserves they would be mainly within its territorial waters. Its another malign example of a region rich in mineral reserves
severing links with the larger state of which it was part in order to enjoy the easy income. Its what the Oxford economist Paul
Collier called, in a recent talk, a dirty little resource grab one sure to be copied elsewhere.
8. Scotland has a large financial sector, even after the near-collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, still one of the worlds
banking giants. The turbulence and uncertainty which independence would cause would prompt several big banks and
financial institutions to relocate to England: and foreign-owned businesses would also take precautionary measures. It wouldnt
be disaster: but it would mean that the UK, presently growing more strongly than any other European state but still recovering
from recession, would be badly knocked back.
9. Modern terrorism has targeted the UK: its seen by radical Islam as both a threat to their plans to create a fundamentalist
Caliphate and to make of the Moslem populations round the world there are nearly 3m Moslems in the UK adherents to
their cause. As UK security chiefs have warned, an independent Scotland with new and small security services would be
hobbled in efforts to combat extremism and would be seen as a pressure point.
10. Finally, theres the more indefinable damage: to civility and to common culture. The nationalist campaign has raised tempers
on both sides of the divide within Scotland itself, and between Scotland and the rest of the UK, especially England.
Nationalists like to see England as still an imperial hangover, un-modernized, run by posh Conservatives for whom most
Scots didnt vote. Independence would make this still worse: many English say they want Scotland to go, because theyre tired
of their complaints. It would be a long time before that died down: and something precious, a recognition of difference within
unity, would have been lost.
This much is at stake. The world will not benefit, now or in the future, from an independent Scotland. But theres nothing it can
do about it, but wait to see what choice that nation makes.
So would it be better for the SNP if Scotland votes to stay and the UK opts for Brexit?

READ MORE

Camerons own MPs turn on him in penultimate PMQs before EU referendum

Possibly. Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader, has suggested that a second referendum would be held within two years of a

Brexit vote and that Scots would vote Yes to independence this time. Nicola Sturgeon, the current SNP leader and First Minister,

says there would be a real chance of a second independence referendum in these circumstances, but insists this is a scenario

I will be doing my best to ensure doesnt happen because she wants the UK to remain in the EU.

However, some Remain campaigners claim that Ms Sturgeon is playing a double game appearing to oppose Brexit while subtly

doing what she can to bring it about.

If the UK voted for Brexit, Ms Sturgeon would come under strong pressure from her own party to secure a second referendum.

But she wants one only when she is sure of winning: a second defeat would almost certainly kill the issue for a generation.0:00

David Cameron asked if he is 'finished as PM' after EU referendum

Would the UK Government give Scotland another independence referendum after a Brexit vote against its wishes?

Unlikely. The SNP might need to win a mandate at the 2020 general election or the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2021.

But public pressure in Scotland could build. The Green Party would back a second vote, giving the SNP a majority on the issue in

the Holyrood Parliament.

Is support for Scottish independence still on the rise?

No. Falling revenues after the oil price collapse have raised doubts about whether the Scottish economy could survive on its

own. Some observers think the SNP may have peaked. Although the party retained power at the Scottish Parliament elections in

May, it lost its overall majority. The Conservatives leapfrogged Labour into second place on a pro-union platform, amid signs

that some voters are tiring of the independence debate and want the SNP to get on with running the country.

According to the What Scotland Thinks website, the latest polls suggest that 41 per cent of Scots would support a breakaway

now, while 48 per cent would vote No (figures exclude dont-knows). After a Brexit vote, 44 per cent would back independence,

and 47 per cent would vote No.

21 maps and charts which will challenge perceptions of Europe

Is anyone saying that the UK could break up if Scotland is outvoted on the EU?

David Cameron has warned that leaving the EU could lead to the disintegration of the UK. In Tuesday nights Sky News debate,

he said he was worried about the prospect of a second referendum.

Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, said there would be a high probability that Scotland will hold another referendum

and leave the UK, and as a result the UK would be fractured. The House of Lords Select Constitution Committee has warned

that the referendum poses a risk to the union.

But Jim Sillars, a former SNP deputy leader, said many Scots would balk at an uncertain future if the rest of the UK left the EU. I

dont think it stands up to very serious analysis, he said. One scenario is an increasingly fractious Union, but one that does not

break apart.

Could there be a constitutional crisis after a Brexit vote?

READ MORE

Will house prices go down if Britain leaves the EU?

Possibly. The legislation governing the Scottish Parliament says it cannot pass laws incompatible with EU law. A clean break with

the EU would require these laws to be amended, which would normally require Holyroods consent. It might refuse. Imposing

change from Westminster could spark a crisis, some experts say.

Would an independent Scotland be allowed to join the EU?

There was confusion during the 2014 referendum over whether an independent Scotland could remain in the EU or would have

to apply for membership, how long that might take and what terms would apply. There are signs of enlargement fatigue in the

EU and five would-be members are already in the queue. In practice, Scotland might secure fast-track entry.

Nicola Sturgeon reacts after a positive result for her party at the Emirates Arena in Glasgow (EPA)

What problems might there be?

New EU states are supposed to sign up to joining the euro and independent Scotland could lose the UKs opt-out. The SNP wants

to keep the pound, but the UK Government ruled that out during the 2014 referendum. Trade between Scotland and the rest of

the UK would be covered by the deal struck between the EU and the UK. Scotland exports 48.5bn to England, Wales and

Northern Ireland, and only 11.6bn to other EU members. (Figures exclude oil and gas.)

How is the EU debate going in Scotland?

The SNP is running its own Remain campaign and not sharing platforms with the Conservatives. The SNP has accused both sides

of threats and fearmongering and called for more a positive In campaign. Labour and Liberal Democrat figures have accused

the SNP of undermining the pro-EU cause, warning that talk of a second referendum could encourage some Scots to vote for

Brexit
Scotland faces 143bn debt after independence
Yes vote in Sept 18 referendum would force Scotland to pursue tougher cuts than the Coalition's austerity plans, economic
experts warn

The pound dropped more than a per cent against the dollar on Monday Photo: Alamy

By Ben Riley-Smith, Scottish Political Reporter

5:58AM BST 09 Apr 2014

Comment
Scotland would be saddled with 143 billion of debt after independence and forced to make deeper spending cuts than seen
under the Coalition's austerity drive, academics have warned.
Extra North Sea oil revenues would only cover a third of that shortfall and leave Holyrood paying billions of pounds in "IOUs" to
Westminster for debt interest payments, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR).
The economists dismissed Alex Salmond's flagship policy of creating a national oil fund, saying it was "difficult to see" how it
could be created given "notoriously volatile" oil and gas revenues.
They also said that sharing the pound after independence would leave Scotland "hostage to fortune" and cause borrowing costs
to increase, potentially affecting savers through a spike in mortgage payments.
Critics said the report was a "severe blow" to the SNP's economic plans and added to the "almost daily" criticism of Mr
Salmond's White Paper."
The hardhitting report marks a comprehensive challenge to many of the First Minister's claims about the economic benefits of
voting Yes in the Sept 18 referendum.
It paints a picture of an independent Scotland with higher taxes and lower spending than that outlined by Westminster, while
being more exposed to oil price fluctuations and facing a significant debt burden.
NIESR experts predicted an independent Scotland would inherit debt of about 143 billion, leaving a debt to GDP ratio of about
86 per cent.
Without the resources to cover the obligation, an IOU would be created where the Scottish Government makes annual
payments to cover its share of debt. About 23 billion would be needed in the first year, plus money to cover the fiscal deficit,
according to the NIESR.
Oil and gas money between 2019 and 2041 would account for only about one third of Scotland's inherited share of UK public
debt, it said, noting that the rest of the UK's debt burden would also increase.
"We conclude that on the basis of any reasonable division of existing assets and liabilities, Scotland would begin its
independence with a substantial debt burden and less scope for risksharing," the report said.
"An independent Scotland is likely to require a more restrictive fiscal stance than proposed by the Coalition government for
many years," it continued, adding that cuts would need to be harsher than the austerity plan pursued by Westminster over the
past four years.
Academics also concluded that a formal monetary union "would not be in the interests of the UK or an independent Scotland",
adding: "Combining the initial conditions with using the currency of another country would make Scotland a hostage to fortune."
Iain Gray, a Scottish Labour MSP, said the report showed Scotland would face cuts to services, higher taxes and more expensive
mortgages after independence.
"This bleak prospectus heaps further evidence on that of other nonpolitical assessments by academic institutions and business
analysts all of whom reach similar conclusions," he said.
"The SNP's casual dismissal of almost daily demolition of their dishonest and discredited White Paper as scaremongering is just
becoming ridiculous."
Alex Johnstone, a Scottish Conservative MSP, said the report was a "severe blow" to the credibility of the SNP's plans. "It is no
wonder so many businesses and hardworking people are terrified at the consequences of independence when you read expert
reports such as these," he said.
A Scottish Government spokesman said the report showed the scale of debts and liabilities run up by UK governments over
recent decades.
"What this report fails to mention are the considerable difficulties the UK would have in meeting the same debt criteria that this
report sets for Scotland," the spokesman said. "Whichever way you look at the figures an independent Scotland would start life
with lower debt ratios than the rest of the UK."

But he told the Andrew Marr Show: "In case there is a new country, a new state, coming out of a current member state, it will

have to apply and... the application and the accession to the European Union will have to be approved by all the other member

states of the European Union." "We have seen Spain has been opposing even the recognition of Kosovo, for instance. So it is to

some extent a similar case because it's a new country and so I believe it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, a new

member state coming out of one of our countries getting the agreement of the others."

The UK as a whole has voted to leave the European Union. But Scotland voted in favour of the UK staying in by 62% to 38% -
with all 32 council areas backing Remain.

In response to the result, Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "Scotland has voted to stay in the EU and I intend to
discuss all options to do so."

She said that the option of a second referendum on Scotland's independence was "on the table" and "highly likely".

But how might an independent Scotland stay in the EU if the UK as a whole has chosen not to remain? Would Scotland have to
re-apply for EU membership?

Speaking to the BBC, former First Minister Alex Salmond said: "The logic would be that Scotland would have the option of
remaining within Europe while the rest of the UK left Europe, so there would be no logic in saying, 'Let Scotland go out and then
come back in again.'"

Even if a second referendum were to be held before the UK concluded its exit negotiations with the EU, and the Scottish people
were to vote in favour of independence, it isn't clear that Scotland could automatically remain. If part of an existing EU country
became independent and had to determine its membership of the EU as an independent state, this would be an unprecedented
situation.

The existing EU Treaties contain no clause that sets out what would happen if this were to be the case.
'No certainty'
In 2012, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee sought a clarification about how Scottish independence might affect its
EU membership from the then European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. In his response, Barroso wrote:

"Although there is no certainty, it appears an independent Scotland would not automatically become a member of the EU but
would instead have to re-apply and complete a process of accession... A new independent state would, by the fact of its
independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory."

Mr Barroso added that an independent Scotland would be able to apply to become a member and the application would be
treated in the usual way. This would mean that, if the other member countries accepted the application unanimously, an
agreement between Scotland and the EU would be negotiated, the EU Treaties adjusted and, finally, ratified by all member
states.
But during the Scottish referendum campaign in 2014, it was unclear whether the EU would permit an independent Scotland to
negotiate as a de facto EU member, which would place it on a fast track to accession, or whether the normal, and much
lengthier, accession process would be applied. This shorter process would require member states to agree to the EU Treaties
being amended to allow Scotland to join, via Article 48 of the Treaty on the European Union.

Steve Peers, professor of law at the University of Essex says: "It's now much more plausible that other member states would
agree to amend the Treaties to transfer the UK's membership of the UK to Scotland."

The longer process would require a formal application via Article 49, the usual process by which prospective members can apply
to join the EU.
During this time, there was also some discussion on whether the EU would make it difficult for Scotland to join the EU so as
to discourage independence movements in Spain and other countries from doing the same. However, the context for
Scotland's EU membership has become much more complex with the UK's decision to leave the EU.
Prof Peers also writes: "The political context of the issue would now be different: unlike in 2014, facilitating Scottish EU
membership would not be now seen as creating a kind of incentive for a member state to split up, given that the UK is leaving
the EU anyway."

Whatever route Scotland might take to rejoin the EU, the EU stipulates that all new members are expected to adopt the euro, if
they meet the necessary criteria. The same rules would apply to Scotland, unless it was able to negotiate a new opt-out.
Both Spain and Belgium would block an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union, a former president of
the EU's finance council has predicted.
Ruairi Quinn, an Irish politician, said the secessionist movements in both countries meant it was "highly probable" their
parliaments would vote against Scotland joining.
He also predicted that the country would have to adopt the euro as the price for gaining full EU membership after a Yes vote.
The warning followed claims by Ed Balls, Labour's shadow chancellor, that an independent Scotland would end up using the euro
because it is the "least bad" currency option.
Mr Balls, who alongside the chancellor and the chief secretary to the Treasury has ruled out sharing the pound with an
independent Scotland, made a similar prediction over the weekend.
"I fear that an independent Scotland would end up finding that joining the euro would be the least worst of all the bad options,"
he told the Observer.
"It's not what I would choose for Scotland. And I am not surprised at all that Alex Salmond doesn't want to admit it now, but
joining the euro would likely be his only realistic plan B."
In a separate development, a new poll found almost three quarters of Scots aged over 60 are concerned about how pensions
would be funded after independence.
The Survation survey of more than 1,000 voters found that 24 per cent most trusted Alistair Darling on pensions, while just 12
per cent most trusted Mr Salmond.
Mr Alexander, speaking for Better Together, called Mr Quinn a "highly respected figure in European politics" whose views
"cannot simply be ignored" by Nationalists.
"Mr Salmond cant hide any longer. He has one last chance to set the record straight in tonights TV debate. If he fails he will go
down as the man who tried to bluff Scotland but got found out," Mr Alexander said.
A spokesman for Yes Scotland said: Mr Quinn will be aware that one of the entry criteria is membership of the exchange rate
mechanism for two years which is itself voluntary so no country can be forced to join the euro against its will, as the example
of Sweden makes abundantly clear. An independent Scotland's currency will be the pound."
He added: "Scotland has been part of the EU for more than 40 years, and this is clearly in the interests of all member states.
Great focus is directed towards globalization, which involved the integration of financial markets and the increasing
dispersion of production capital. This results in an increased flow of goods, services and capital. This increases the
chances for a peaceful international environment, along with the benefits of specialization and promotes peaceful, co-
operative, international trade. Consequently, the use of military force, thus armed conflict is reduced significantly. All
the stakeholders involved in free trade benefit from this, undoubtedly. The win-win situation brings about harmony,
where the outcomes of relations are collaborative.

Conflict is senseless and accomplishes nothing but problems and revenge, which is one of the biggest hindrance to
peace