I'm not certain what you mean here, could you expand a little? All the violence/harassment/intimidation/etc. I've heard of has come from some of the supporters of independence. And I'm not aware of any planning problems.
Well I have to say I've read through overview pieces quickly (mostly just trying to catch up as I said)... But the gist I gathered was that some feel the Yes campaign had not really spelled out how some policies would be practical... Although I think some of that is hard to do with much certainty before you actually have
independence and see what interests or people actually stay or go. It's one thing to go on about it before a vote, and quite another to see what actually happens if you're independent.
While there are examples of violence from the other side (or perhaps both) on the Guardian around now, if not sooner. And there were some mentions of bullying or beatings in private comments about earlier times, though I'm not all too sure how widespread it was. My general sense was that things were pretty peaceful, but I'm not too versed in where to look for that sort of thing in the UK media (if it even gets reported well, I dunno).
Actually the statements on EU membership came from Jose Manuel Barroso, the head of the EU commission. His statements came in response to Mr Salmond's assertions that Scotland would automatically be an EU member, would retain the UK's opt out clauses and would retain British sterling as it's currency.
Fine... Since you put it that way: I can see that the EU would probably have its own procedures, so Salmond was probably too optimistic on some angles. Although there's also a fair bit of opposition saying things just 'couldn't' be done because of the size or newness of Scotland. And there I'm not sure it's all written out in someone else's rules. Or even that someone else's rules are really unbendable when in fact you would have a new country just beside England on the fringe of Europe. The rules might feel a bit silly in the actual situation, depending. Not getting specific I know, but the whole tone of argument there still vexes me a bit.
I also think you're misstating some of the Yes campaign arguments; they tended not to be "we'll take your jobs away" and more "there's a chance jobs will leave Scotland". Even in areas where the rUK could have directly taken jobs away I'm not exactly sure why that's unfair or unreasonable... to give a simple example if Scotland had become independant there's no reason for the rUK government to give Scottish shipyards preferential treatment when it came to orders compared to other countries let alone shipyards in the UK.
Well if so, then I'm mostly relating how commentaries I read felt about the tone of those arguments. But really in a situation like this, it can be quite hard to tell what the intended tone is. Seems to me it's also often very easy for people in privileged groups to consciously or unconsciously end up invoking a logic of "I don't have any agenda or preference that favors my own interests really, this is just the reality others have to live with." Isn't it? Probably it would take some poking around other things that some of the people making those arguments may have said or hinted at. Certainly some have felt that the intent was to pressure Scotland with unnecessary (or at least, slightly contemptuous even if realistic) warnings of economic collapse.
I don't know... Would it really be more efficient for England to build its ships elsewhere? Shrug. But this also
happens to often be the language of empire and big business: You should do what we want simply because we control the jobs. And some people may justly resent any hint of that tone of argument. Sometimes it's just preferable to come up with some other line of positive argument for staying... If one can.