And you are basing your opinion on - yes that's right - an unsubstantiated rant by an ex-member of the IRA.
He himself said previously he was happy to be interviewed by the police on this matter so to complain that that they then interviewed him is utter hypocrisy. I personally have no idea of his guilt or innocence in this matter but I am extremely angry to see elected politicians attempting to manipulate the rule of law in this way. If SF haven't really changed after all then let them come out and say so but this ambivalent attitude to law and order undermines democracy and indicates exactly the type of Ireland they want to create.

When people complained about the letter of "Amnesty" that saved Downey from prosecution they were told in no uncertain terms that there was no amnesty. And yet now Sinn Fein threaten to sink the entire peace process because the PSNI are still investigating one of the worst crimes of the conflict. Clearly Republicans seem to think there WAS a de facto amnesty as otherwise, having signed up to the rule of law, they should now be perfectly accepting of current events.

True, though if anything our rates track US rates more closely than they do the Eurozone's. When I say independence I don't mean isolationism, I mean that we trade in all markets but have the ability to tack quickly between storms. If we'd had the Eurozone's interest rates during the boom our personal debt bubble would have been even bigger. The benefit of us having stayed out cannot be overstated (in my view). We warned repeatedly that fiscal union without political union would end badly and it did. Nothing that has happened since has changed my view that those warnings were correct and that they apply equally to the pound as they do the Euro.

Devaluations should certainly never be Plan A and are futile if everyone tries them simultaneously which is what happened to an extent globally after the 2008 crash. However, when the UK left the ERM in 92, which was effectively a devaluation, we exited the early 90s recession faster than any other european country and entered a period of unparalleled growth as a result. It was our fiscal independence that delivered that then, and it was our fiscal independence that saved us this time around as well. So for me keeping the pound is not about jingoism but it is about keeping our hands untied and being able to react quickly to events. In contrast, the EU is a lumbering committee, slow to respond and hard to turn around. Completely agree about MPs salary, though ours look impoverished compared to the Italians!

The 2012 EU Fiscal Compact was agreed to limit fiscal variability between Eurozone members, which is another way of saying reduce their economic independence, specifically to shore up the stability of the zone. Now that seems a pretty good idea in purely economic terms so why is it different for the pound? If the Fiscal Compact is right in principle then presumably the pound would also be better in a political union than spread over 2 independent states with diverging fiscal policies. Yes or No? Personally I don't care who is on the banknotes, but I didn't enjoy seeing Eurozone states being taken over by EU technocrats and being forced into massive austerity during the sovereign debt crisis, whereas Britain largely bought its own debt for free (QE with the BoE returning the bond interest) while continuing to increase our annual expenditure albeit at a below inflation rate. Had we been in the Euro and been forced into Greek levels of austerity (which we would have due to our huge deficit) then we would have almost certainly experienced a proper double dip recession with mass unemployment - something we avoided by virtue of being independent.

Firstly, it's not me you have to convince - I have no say in the matter. The EU is a political union by treaty of sovereign states. Greenland isn't exactly a precedent in fairness as it was a territory of Denmark and was not asking to be recognised as an independent sovereign nation with a seat at the Council of Ministers. I completely agree about the citizenship issue - I'm unaware of even the worst scaremongers suggesting that an individual's current citizenship is in doubt, however the EU is not a sovereign state and its "citizens" are only rendered citizens by treaties between the sovereign states who grant such citizenships. Therefore for children born after independence, Scotland will need to be a full member of the EU for them to be EU citizens. Turkey wants to join, but Turks are not (yet) EU citizens. Your main point though is that Turkey and Scotland cannot be compared which again is probably true but still isn't a guarantee of instant accession. The key decisions in Europe are made by qualified majority voting by the EU Council (of Ministers) with each state getting a single vote. Many of the issues that affect the UK will affect both Scotland and the rUK similarly - so it could be argued that the new "GB bloc" would have, in effect, two votes. If this can happen automatically and without the consent of the other states then what is to stop Spain falling apart into, say, 5 regions with 5 votes? The idea that instant accession is "settled" may well turn out to be true but it as yet untested regardless of what a single legal opinion states. Small issues in Europe are dealt with by the courts, but the big ones are invariably political decisions taken by the Council. Would you agree?

Sorry I mistook you for someone more familiar with the issues. Over the years the % in favour of independence has bumped around the 30% mark, i.e. the proportion of Scots who want independence at all costs (i.e. regardless of the economic consequences) is 30% i.e. 20% short of a majority. In order to get to 50% the Yes campaign need to convince another fifth of voters that in fact independence will not threaten their fundamentals - such as keeping the pound and maintaining their EU membership with current UK opt-outs. This is the essential paradox of the referendum campaign - that Yes need to sell a conservative message "Don't worry, all the things you like will stay the same" whereas it is No who will have to come up with radical Devomax proposals over the summer to try and claw things back.

Let's see, "Infantile" - check, "petulant" - check, "immature" - check. Shame you can't just debate the issues.
You are quite right to say that I cannot know the outcome of any Sterling negotiations until they happen, but i do know the following - fiscal union without political union does not work. It nearly collapsed the Euro and is why the Eurozone are seeking to share a deeper political union to try and make the Euro work in the future. You simply cannot wish that away. The UK has been consistently determined not to join the Euro for that very reason so the idea that the rUK would negotiate a Sterling zone arrangement between 2 politically independent nation states defies logic, economics and history and has been specifically ruled out by all 3 major Westminster parties. Whether the Scots pay for their groceries with pounds or euros or groats is to completely miss the fundamental macroeconomic issues which is to determine who is the lender of last resort in Scotland and who is in ultimate charge of monetary policy. This is what will concern the Scottish financial sector and determine whether they stay in Edinburgh or move south. Like I said above i am conceding you are now increasingly likely to win, my point is simply that you need to make >50% of voters genuinely believe in independence at all costs rather than simply selling them the fiction that nothing will really change when it will. Associating these concerns with the idea of childishness may make for good rhetoric but does not neutralise their potential toxicity to a newly independent Scotland.

Re: the EU - that will be up to all the countries of the EU including those with separatist movements who may wish to make secession as difficult as possible as once the precedent has been created, Catalonia, Basque, Flanders, Bavaria, Northern Italy, Corsica etc etc can follow. Just to be clear, Scotland is not a signatory to the EU, the UK is. The rUK will be the successor state to the UK, not Scotland - just as Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union and not Ukraine. Scotland will not instantly become a member and in advance of any negotiations it simply cannot know what compromises would be required to be admitted.

As for NI's position after Scotland's departure, I agree in the short term the rUK would continue, but we would be more remote than ever and the very idea of a United Kingdom would be odd - it would be the UK of part of GB and part of Ireland. Scotland is a counter-weight to English dominance of the UK and without it Wales and NI would appear ever more as hangers on to England rather than as respected constituent parts of a credible and industrious Union. Thinking further ahead, a more unified EU but with increasingly disunited Nation States could fundamentally change the basis of the constitutional debate in NI.

Bit harsh on the Kosovans.

Sent from my iPhone