that is down to your personal politics, I don't want to have idiots like Brown and Darling anywhere near my country, but I don't have that choice.

Personally, I think they all need binning, not one of them is honest, personal agendas outweigh the good of the people.

Brown obviosly wasn't Prime Ministerial material but intellectually he's from a different stratosphere than Biil & Ben currently residing at No's 10 and 11.

And why, out of interest, are you so favourable in protecting the union when those north of the border are so, politically at least, disenfranchised from what you believe in?

because the Union works, the noisy minority in Scotland are in favour of independence, what about those that live in Shetland and would rather join Scandinavia?

All of them crap for either or both countries.

A currency union between Scotland and rUK would be like a euro zone comprising solely of Germany and Greece. Try selling that to the Germans

If Scotland pegs it's currency to the pound without a formal currency union it wouldn't be able to run a budget deficit of more than a couple of groats

A sterling currency union will not happen, the pound would collapse at the mention of the idea. Scotland's best option would be to join the euro, IF that could be achieved

Held og lykke.

I just can't see how it could work if a yes vote won. How many Scots would lose their jobs in the rest of the uk as they are not from an EU member country? Sharing a currency? Go it alone or don't bother, you can't pick and choose what bits you like. Saying that, if I was a scot and given this once in a lifetime opportunity to go it alone, I'd probably vote Yes

They will bank on the rest of the UK being soft (which is what will happen)on them.

None. They were born in the UK and have UK passports. They currently reside in the UK so they'll surely be allowed to stay as UK citizens.

But no doubt some English politicians will be running with this as a scare technique as well.

Does independence mean independence or not? If they want to be independent of the UK, they should be, not some convenient halfway house.

since when was "UK" a nationality?

I don't think you're following this. The UK is England, NI, Wales and currently Scotland. The whole point of the Yes vote would be to LEAVE the UK and become an independent country. Thus the UK would be reduced to England, NI and Wales. It is not "scaremongering" but simple and basic fact that if Scotland leaves the UK then its citizens will no longer be UK citizens.

It would be up to the residual UK (assuming that title is kept) or whatever we call the remainder, to decide whether to accept dual citizenship for all Scots who want it, and that has not yet been decided.

Maybe they should ask the Queen, who will still be Queen north of the border even of an independent Scotland.

The vote, which Cameron agreed to allow place, was only given to the current residents of Scotland.

So English people resident in Scotland are allowed to vote on independence, but Scottish people living in England won't be.

The "cut off your nose to spite your face" decision would be to say that Scots born English residents are no longer UK residents or EU members so they're not allowed to live or work in the UK (or EU).

But that decision will be sheer lunacy from Cameron seeing as the Scottish born residents of England were given absolutely no say in the vote.

Asking the Queen. So now you're a royalist? One of the earliest decisions an independent Scotland should make is becoming a republic and rejecting the BS of having a royal family.

They'll keep the queen, but become a republic when it's Charlie's turn.

If he hadn't turned back at Derby, then caught a boat over the sea to Skye, things could have been oh so different.

They'll keep the Queen until she asks them for money.

I wonder if they could actually turn a profit on her and her Scottish estates, would be an interesting proposition when the Scottish Parliament take over the likes of Balmoral (how many properties does she "own" oop north ?), they could lease it to her for a peppercorn rent on a timeshare basis for, say, six weeks a year and then rent it out as a holiday home via a Scottish holiday web site like Unique Cottages, have a look, I can just see Balmoral in their, "Sleeps 200, not close to pub or supermarket though, lovely views"

Prince Charles got involved with the purchase and renovation and marketing at Dumfries House and while the recession almost caused him to declare bankruptcy due to his personal guarantees I believe that its operating as a commercial venture now ... [urlhttp://www.architecturaldigest.com/decor/2012-02/prince-charles-dumfries-house-scotland-article[/url

So it was the euro that made economies crash? Or perhaps like those who have the $ & £ is was policies & not currency itself.

You are comparing England to Germany? The Scots could run a budget deficit at least as high as whatever their proportion of the national debt currently is, formal union or not.

As long as they can finance it, they can run a budget deficit as large as they like.

And their credit history is what exactly?

Or do they expect ther BoE to stand guarantor?

Salmond has already stated that unless they can keep the £ Scotland will simply walk away from its share of the national debt. That's a great way to start out, defaulting on a debt of £Bns

I doubt even Northern Rock would be willing to lend to them.

It's not Scotland's debt, it's the UKs debt.

Salmond's saying that if the UK allows Scotland to use the pound then it will acknowledge their share of the UK debt and pledge to repay it. If England takes its bat and ball home because it's butthurt then he'll just say the UK can keep its own debts.

If the UK is going to start defaulting on its debts just because little Scotland's left it then no wonder the Scots want out.

It IS Scotlands debt.

Have you ever had a partner, did you buy a house together, did you walk away because it suited you, did the bank just say "oh, never mind, it was a couples debt and you're not a couple anymore"

Social Joint tenants are responsible for their debts, even if they split, I can't see why countries should be any different.

But while Scotland was a partner in running up the debt, they were also a partner in the pound. England wants to keep the pound all to itself, but it wants Scotland to cover their part of the debt.

because it is the ENGLISH POUND

you really are obtuse at times.

It was both. Because countries with the $ and £ didn't crash anywhere near as badly as some of those with the Euro. Because the US and UK can control their own monetary policy to suit their own needs.
Greece/Spain etc couldn't do that. Because the Euro monetary policy is one that has to encompass the entire Eurozone and suit Germany & France as well as Greece.
Some Euro nations suffered significantly from not being able to control their currency.
Whilst Britain, despite illogical fiscal policy, benefitted from interest rates and QE.

That the Welsh and Northern Irish use as well.

Would you agree that the Bank of England and sterling are an asset? They clearly are. Now, as part of the United Kingdom didn't Scotland contribute to them while part of the union? You seem to be saying an absolute no, that if they are leaving the union then they leave them behind. Scotland are saying that if that's the case and their contribution to sterling is worthless well they'll let the UK cover all the debts too.

You want to keep the asset and share the debt. Scotland are merely saying that if England keeps all the asset they keep all the debts too.