I believe it is now a requirement of EU membership to adopt the euro within a certain timeframe. Of course there are probably ways around it.

Does this mean they will be throwing the UK, Sweden and Denmark out of the EU?

Of course not

No, of course they won't, but new applicants have to accept the Euro and also be part of the Schengen area which is why there would have to be border controls if Scotland joined the EU.

Everything is open for negotiation. This is scaremongering

Tell that to Cameron - I am sure he will be really pleased to hear that.

not necessarily:

The fear is that those people trying to enter the UK at present from either the Middle East or Africa could enter England via Scotland, a much more porous border.
Scotland would have to apply to join the EU provided it met the right conditions
If Scotland wished to join NATO, it'd need to commit 2% spending on defence.
If Scotland wished to retain the £, then the Treasury in London would assume control, something Alec Salmond surely doesn't wish.

Strange how a Scot living say in Spain, or England cannot vote in the referendum, yet a Polish plumber in Glasgow can.
Now that is scary.

True, but the problem is how do you define a Scot?

The only well documented way would be by being born in Scotland or having parents who were born there, but that would rule out many people who have lived there for years but weren't born there.

Whichever way you do it, it disenfranchises many people who feel they should have a vote.

Not sure how to define a Scot, but I remember reading somewhere that "a gentleman is someone who knows how to play the bagpipes……….but doesn't".

Those countries were already members of the EU before the requirement for new members to adopt the euro was introduced. So UK and Denmark were able to achieve an opt out. Sweden has an obligation to adopt the euro but no real timetable AFAIK. The point is that any country applying for EU membership now has to sign up to joining the euro. I'm not sure what happens if new EU members don't meet the convergence requirements (Lithuania might not) but given nobody seems to be sticking to anything right now, it wouldn't surprise me if they bent the rules.

Scaremongering and lies:
1.It is farcical to suggest the EU would not welcome what would be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe.
2.AFIK only UK and USA exceed the 2.0% spending on defence, recently approved as a requirement by NATO. Cameron has already stated he will reduce UK spending to less than 2.0%. The average spending by all NATO member countries is 1.75%. This is the figure the YES campaign has proposed for an independent Scotland.
3.The £ is and would continue to be controlled by the bank of England not the treasury. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using it as do many other independent countries.
4.Irrespective of their nationality, anyone who is registered on the voters role in Scotland can vote. Those Scots who choose to live elsewhere have no right to vote.

Ignoring the likelihood that Spain would oppose Scottish membership, the point being made is that there is a requirement that new members of the EU commit to adopting the euro. If you think there is something wrong with this, or that this is scaremongering, then blame the EU, not the messenger. They make the rules, not me.

Not quite sure what NATO has got to do with anything.

Of course Scotland can adopt the pound as its legal tender, but it won't be able to raise debt so easily, it won't have a lender of last resort, and it won't be in charge of interest rates. Sound familiar?

After next week the Scots who choose to live elsewhere might no longer be Scots.

To suggest that a Scot who lives outwith the nation may not be considered a Scot following a Yes vote is somewhat lacking in logic. Are all those English who live outwith England not, then, considered English?

re. Catalan independence - Have just read the following comment in a newspaper article about Scotland and Catalunia: The Catalan nationalist drive received a blow earlier this year when the father of the movement, Jordi Pujol, confessed to more than 30 years of tax fraud.

Anyway good luck to the Jocks, whichever way they vote.

Accession states have to join ERM2 for 2 years before they can join the Euro - presumably to demonstrate their financial probity. Sweden has used a gotcha by committing to join the Euro which is compulsory now, but not joining ERM which is not compulsory.

So IF Scotland has to re-apply to join the EU (which requires a unanimous vote by all Member States) then it will have to sign up to ERM for 2 years - which means that it will require a bridging currency of some sort.
Also, what happens if rUK does vote to leave the EU and Scotland wants to remain? Would they have to re-apply in those circumstances? If they justify continuation in the EU because of being part of the Union which is currently in the EU, then what if the Union is no longer in the EU? Can Salmond have it both ways?

Salmond's position is that - which is supported by some legal opinion - is that Scotland will remain in the EU. Barossa's (president of the EC) view - which is also supported by some legal opinion and a lot of political opinion - is that Scotland cannot assume it will automatically be allowed to be in the EU. Much as I don't want to see the breakup of the UK I'm almost tempted to argue for a YES vote just to see the almighty mess that will result.

It seems to me that if there were a YES then it will take a lot longer than March 2016 to untangle all the ties.