To want to keep my UK passport if Scotland votes YES in the 2014 referendum?

[SittingBull1]

If the majority of people actually voting votes YES in the 2014 referendum, Scotland will leave the UK. As Scots living in Scotland, will my family and I lose our UK passports? Along with a very large number of NO voters, my family and I will want to retain our UK passports, and I'm sure that a huge percentage of the non-voters will also want to keep theirs. I think that the UK government should offer to allow Scots living in Scotland to retain their UK passports. Is that unreasonable?

Caitlin,

When I first saw my local train station name translated into Gaelic I thought that too. Then I wondered whether it was a literal translation from the English or actually resurrecting an old Gaelic name for the place. the latter seemed justifiable no matter how long ago the Gaelic name had fallen into disuse, and the former seemed unjustifiable. Then I realised that the whole point of the exercise is to normalise Gaelic, make it seem a normal thing and not something to be avoided, derided and objected to, so fair enough. Nice name, by the way. I considered it for my daughter.

On the 'West Lothian question' raised earlier (why can Scots MPs vote on English matters but English MPs can't vote on Scots matter) the obvious solution is to create/rsurrect an English parliament, i.e. your own form of devolution. The UK is a real hotchpotch due to the nature of the historical development but it is important that the UK parliament (or any parliament) acts as one and is not broken up into different sections for certain votes. The reason that Scots MPs can vote on all matters relating to England while English MPs can vote on only some matters relating to Scotland is that England doesn't have any form of devolution.

It's also not true that some of the matters affecting only England really do affect only England. Eg If you change funding rates for some things in England, the amount Scotland gets is amended accordingly.

sitting bull the ones on the East Coast are literal translations not resurrecting the old names. No one living in these towns was asked if they wanted it.

While I can see your point, Caitlin, the thing is that the "English" names for west-coast, Gaelic-speaking towns is pretty much a phonetic transcription, rather than a translation, so easy to put back. I haven't seen many of the station signs, but the few I have seen (and have managed to "sound out" in my head, as a non-speaker) look to me to be phonetic transcriptions from the "English" names to Gaelic. Find it hard to get worked up over it, tbh.

I hope so - although I was born and have lived most of my life in Scotland, I consider myself British and never tick the "Scottish" box when asked for my nationality.

Alex Salmond can stick his Yes vote up his arse as far as I'm concerned

That's why this is so emotive babymummy. I feel exactly the opposite way. Except I want nothing to do with Alex Salmond's arse

No one living in these towns was asked if they wanted it.

i suppose that's the thing about awareness-raising.

I don't suppose they asked the Gaels whether they wanted their language and culture to be obliterated before they started that process. It's not as if they're trying to do that to English culture and language, so I can't really see the objection. There used to be (probably still is) a thing called the Scottish cringe which meant that people didn't want to identify themselves with Scottish things because it wasn't the best way to be in order to get on in an English dominated culture. I suspect that there is a Gaelic cringe which in the past has led some Gaels to tell their children not to bother with Gaelic as it won't get them anywhere. That is a sad loss for Britain and the world. We are all the ancient Britons with maybe a bit of Viking or Anglo-Saxon thrown in for variety's sake but the Welsh, the Gaels, the Manx, the Irish, the Cornish are the ancient Britons in the purest form we have. Why on earth would we want to lose that culture, language, literature, way of thinking, song and so on? How many old, unused mansions could we preserve instead?

Not because of a misguided sense of patriotism or because they hate the English.

They will vote yes because they are on the verge of eviction due to the bedroom tax.

They will vote yes because they are scared of prescription charges and a two tier NHS.

They will vote yes so their dc can be educated to university level without bankrupting themselves.

They will vote yes to ensure bailiffs cant enter their homes.

They will vote yes to ensure we don't get metered water.

This is wrong and these people are being mis-sold. There will be a general election, as we are constantly told, and there will be different parties in power. An independent Scotland cannot guarantee that any of these things will not happen.

No they can't Santana.

Fauxhat rightly expressed why some are voting yes. Unlike
no voters we vote in the hope of change rather than guarantees. If you think the union brings you any more guarantees than an independent Scotland, fine - but you're asking to be deceived.

As mn is often used a source by various journalists perhaps we could all do a straw poll of friends and relatives and get their honest answer and see what the Scottish mn voters are leaning towards.
In my family, friends and work colleagues it seems to be 75% no, 15% yes.

I can't remember who referred to the colleges being starved of funds in order to maintain free university tuition for Tarquin.

Normally I'd guess that someone called Tarquin was a child of aristocratic parents or of a Possil park parent who just liked the name. However, in the post in question there seems to be an implication that students attending university are somehow over-privileged at the expense of the college student. They both get free tuition, so I'm a bit bemused by that. Is the suggestion that university students should borrow more money to pay for their education while college students get a better free education? Doesn't seem to make sense, so I'm still bemused.

Someone also posted that free university tuition is unsustainable. In principle, I don't know although (a) you decide on your priorities then pay for them and (b) clearly a reduction in the numbers of university places would reduce costs while still allowing the less wealthy to study there. Making all students take out bigger loans in order to get an education will only disadvantage children from poorer families. For me, and for the present government in Scotland free university education is worth paying for. The problem will arise if they get a YES vote in the 2014 referendum and Scotland becomes a member of the EU because that will mean that Scotland has to provide free university education to students from the rump of the UK.

What would the name of the rump be. Would it be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Norther Ireland? I think Northumbria should get a mention. Seriously, it bothers me the way they are reduced to calling themselves 'The North' these days. Is that in relation to London?

Northumbria is north from a London perspective. Now try looking from Wick?

If you think the union brings you any more guarantees than an independent Scotland, fine - but you're asking to be deceived.

Currency- guaranteed
Passports- guaranteed
An economy not based on one of the most volatile elements- guaranteed
Influence in large international bodies- guaranteed

Also guaranteed- avoiding the huge costs of negotiating international treaties, setting up the bureaucracy needed, etc.

Sitting bull The whole of Scotland was never Gaelic speaking. It annoys me that Gaelic is promoted as if it were.

I'd just like to thank all the participants in what can be a hot debate, for civilised discussion, even though this is in SIBU. Is this a first?

Argh, AIBU, of course. Pah.

Re straw polls, I know 2 people who are in favour. Professionally none.

Isn't that in Sutherland? Which is south of the Orkneys and Shetland, I suppose. (Don't know much about Geography.)

I agree, old lady. Its been very interesting

I find the push for Gaelic a bit ironic, because it entirely ignores the equally strong Scandinavian influence in most of the parts of Scotland Gaelic is pushed. Scandinavian may not be spoken but was via Norn in Shetland in living memory and is reflected in the genes and intonation of speech of much of the population as well as at least as many placenames. Any island ending in "ay", "ey" or "oy" is a Scandinvaian name, because that's the word for island in most Norse languages. e.g. Colonsay, Scalpay, Oronsay, Taransay, Scalpay, Raasay, and so on. And on Harris, it seems to me that a lot of the Gaelic names on roadsigns are simply translated phonetically from Norse, not Gaelic. e.g. Bearnaraigh (Berneray), Fionnsbagh (Finsbay), Pabay (Pabaigh), etc..

But Norse doesn't fit into the SNP, pro-independence culture and so is ignored, and Gaelic pushed in its place, which is almost approaching ethnic cleanings of part of Scotland's history.

However, that may change, as since Ireland' economic woes, Salmond is no longer telling Scots they must be like the Irish, but has now told them to be more like Norwegians. So perhaps we will see trilingual roadsigns?

In regards to a straw poll drawn from my friends / family/colleagues (in the NHS) I would gather it to be 80% in the favour of the NO vote.

On the whole it seems that the hard questions have not been answered which have swung the "Freedom!" voters to change their minds.

TBH can't see it happening .

I'd just like to thank all the participants in what can be a hot debate, for civilised discussion, even though this is in SIBU. Is this a first?

Agreed, and I think it might be!

I am seeing about 80 no/20 yes (got it right that time!) too.

Would be happy to see these aspects of placenames and language reflected, LessMiss - and any push for Gaelic (when did this happen? I missed it!) would include the measures taken by the lab/lib coalition.

Not sure I'm interested in passports, Santana - or international influence for that matter. On currency I am interested to see if it's covered in the white paper but I'm not against the euro. I'm definitely not interested in admin costs.

Actually we don't know really how devolution will operate in the event of a slim no vote. As is? Increased powers? Where are my guarantees?

Yy to civilised debate :)

Sittingbull, yes, that always amuses me. It's all about where the power lies, isn't it? Orkney and Shetland were very important on trading routes, when most trading was done via sea, and mainland Scotland was south.

That was prior to the UK, of course.

Personally it's 99.9% yes (only DSIL and I think she may go for it in the end). Professionally much fewer but not sure people like to admit it at work (different views expressed on Facebook for example). I'd say 50/50.