[_9MOTHER9HORSE]

No. Scotland had an independence referendum two years ago, and one of he factors in that vote was the prospect of Britain opting to leave the EU.

Scotland voted decisively to remain in the UK, and to go the way of the UK on EU membership.

This is notwithstanding the fact Scotland is financially dependent on the rest of the UK, and would not survive on its own, let alone meet the criteria for joining the EU on its own.

[ZeroGravitas]

It's not true to claim that the EU referendum was a salient fact when Scotland voted No to independence. In fact the opposite is true, with people campaigning for Scotland to stay in the UK being very vocal about how Independence would lead to leaving the EU.

People have been trying to rewrite this bit of history, but even Cameron himself didn't expect to have to follow through on his EU referendum commitment, either losing the election totally or relying on the Lib-dems to veto it in coalition.

This however seems to be a non-sequitor, from the original point, about being a member of the EU being non- or less independent than being part of the UK. So not sure what your opening "No" refers to, or why you're re-capping your anti-independence talking points.

[smcl]

This happens a lot - Scotland gets painted as a financial ruin, too poor to join the EU. With oil prices low and a deficit it's not exactly Norway - but suggesting it's too poor to join the EU is farcical. I live in Czech Republic and it's a FAR worse off place than Scotland, yet it's one of the more prosperous of the newer EU countries. Comparing Scotland to Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Croatia (all beautiful places, no disrespect) the gap is even wider.

More likely is that Spain would make things difficult - but you didn't say this