Access Investments-European Union- ROMANIA

A FUNNY "NON-ISSUE" - Were Scotland to leave the Union, which seems very unlikely indeed, it would take many years, perhaps decades, fully to untie all the strings. And if a newly independent Scotland wished to be a member of the EU, they would presumably have to apply for membership in the normal way (cf Turkey etc). And if Scotland wished to adopt the Euro, they would not be able to do so until they are a fully paid up member of the EU, and until their economy satisfies the required criteria. This would also take many years, perhaps decades. Until then, they would have to keep the Pound Sterling. This would in turn mean that the Scottish economy would be dependent on that of what is still the UK. In other words, it's all very complicated, and would take a very long time to sort out - during which time the people of Scotland will decide that they were better off in the UK after all, will vote out the SNP, and ask to come back into the warm and dry again. By that logic, England too would neeed to apply to become an EU nation. After all, if France or any other EU country were to split in two, why would one half be automatically a member of the EU and the other not? Either they would oth qualify automatically or neither. Why the presumption that England is automatically a member and Scotland not?

The government's plans to reform welfare were badly hit on Wednesday when it suffered three defeats in the Lords on proposed benefits cuts. Peers rejected plans to means test employment and support allowance (ESA) payments for the disabled after only a year. The means test would have applied to cancer patients and stroke survivors, and was denounced by Lord Patel, a crossbencher and former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians as an immoral attack on the sick the vulnerable and the poor. "If we are going to rob the poor to pay the rich then we enter into a different form of morality," Patel said. The government was defeated by 224 to 186, even though Lord Freud, the welfare minister, claimed the cost of the amendment would be £1.6bn over five years. The other defeats were over plans to time-limit ESA for those undergoing cancer treatment; and to restrict access to ESA for young people with disabilities or illness. The defeats do not augur well for the government's chances on future votes in the Lords on the bill, which includes housing benefit caps. The bill is at report stage before returning to the Commons. Some peers warned the Lords they should not vote down the measure to restrict ESA payments to a year since the cost of doing so would be so high and MPs would be certain to reverse the result. Lord Patel, backed by the shadow welfare minister Lord McKenzie, proposed the government's plan to time limit contributory ESA to a year should be extended to two years. At that point, irrespective of much someone has paid into the system a means test set at an income of £16,000 would start to apply, leading to annual cuts in benefit of £94 a week.