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?

The Labour Party at the minute is so far away from its roots it is unrecognisable.

I am from a traditional Labour area, mining etc but folk don't recognise the Labour Party at the moment.

Because Labour currently are a London led party, they are unable to put Scotland first.

If we get independence, then a Scottish Labour Party, depending on their manifesto may even get my vote.

AWimbaWay, I can see no reason why your dc couldn't have dual citizenship if they wish. My DB's dc are Aussie born, he's Scottish/British, his dw is German. The dc have triple-nationality, maybe they'd get to have quadruple post-yes? My point is that there's no advantage to be had from de-citizenshiping people, it would only serve to antagonise.

Can still call yourself British in an Indy Scotland. We would still be part of the British Isles.

Like the Scandinavian countries.

And you believe an independent Scotland would make Labour return to roots which are, let's face it, dead and gone? There aren't any mining communities left.

Why would a tram project, for example, run better in an independent Scotland rather than Scotland as part of the UK?

Have that damn song in my head now thanks to your username AWimbaWay

Thanks OldLady, I would like them to have dual nationality if it comes to it.

Thanks FannyFifer, (and sorry about irritating tune, although admittedly an evil part of me did chose my nn for that reason).

Traditional Labour areas where the vote is no longer guaranteed.

Been a few prominent Labour Party members saying they are voting Yes.

Those aren't answers to the questions I asked.

OK, Santana, you've obviously made up your mind, and I'll respect that. I hope we vote yes, I will (and, straw-poll, about 60% of my nearest and dearest will too, couple of "no's" from Dm and DMIL, rest undecided) and I hope that yes, an indy Scotland can run ourselves better than we've been run from Westminster in the past 30 years or so. What that looks like, no-one knows, and of course there will be powerplays and behind-closed-doors shenanigans.

But we don't know what a "no" vote will give us either, except more years of Tory austerity for which we, as a nation, did not vote.

Just because I've made up my mind doesn't mean I get to stop debating though.

I've said it a million times, but why someone wants to vote for something that they don't know what it will look like is simply beyond me!

I didn't realise I had to answer your questions.

I have no idea what way the Labour Party will go, hopefully away from the Tory party as there not much to separate them currently.

As for the trams, of course they will run better in an Independent Scotland.

Oh come on, fanny, you can do better than that!

Do expand on the trams. Do they respect arbitrary borders and a tartan passport?

Because with a No vote there are no guarantees either.

All the UKIP love down south not where I want to be heading.

A Parliament which puts Scotland first, yup sounds good to me.

Why would any country not want to be responsible for itself?

But a "no" vote guarantees nothing! No matter which way this vote goes, nothing is certain. There is no guarantee of DevoMax. Most Scots would have gone for that, but Westminster insisted on a straight yes/no vote, because otherwise we'd be having our cake and eating it too. There is no description of what DevoMax might be. It's not on any party manifesto. Was it discussed at the recent party conferences, what it might look like?

Voting no in the hope of DevoMax would be a serious error. Because it's not on offer.

I agree with Oldladyknowsnothing, I am voting Yes as I don't like the way the UK is being run or where it appears to be going. This is a chance for us to make something better. I just wish we had become independent in the 70s! We are an oil rich country which has generated billions and we don't have a lot to show for it as we have had to give the money to westminster for them to piss away.

Yes there are loads or risks and unknowns with a yes vote but the same applies with a no vote, we have lots of devolved powers which is great, but a huge risk as far as I can see is that our budget is set by westminster based on how much they spend on england, which if they privatise more services/make more cuts is a decreasing amount.

Because with a No vote there are no guarantees either. There are more guarantees with a no vote- currency, pensions, passports.

All the UKIP love down south I doubt we're going to see a UKIP party in power

A Parliament which puts Scotland first you've got one of those already

Why would any country not want to be responsible for itself?
a) because of the sheer costs of setting up on its own.
b) because of the uncertainty it brings
c) because that country gets a better deal as part of a larger whole than on its own, especially on the international front.

Currency- guaranteed

Depending on what you mean. No=continue to use pound Yes=continue to use pound (fully tradeable currency very one can use). Or if you mean value of currency, then not guaranteed in either case, subject to international money markets.

Passports- guaranteed
Depends if the UK leaves the EU surely? Plenty of people seem to want this and didn't the Tories promise an referendum?

An economy not based on one of the most volatile elements- guaranteed
Scotland had many other strings to its bow. Yes the oil will be a nice buffer, but when it runs out we have other things. RUK economy relies heavily on City of London banking type stuff - pretty volatile?

Influence in large international bodies- guaranteed

EU only if UK doesn't leave. Other bodies, Meh. Do we really want to belong to a club that requires nukes to join?

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

Scotland already has much of the admin in place, we do already do quite a lot on our own... International treaties are constantly renegotiated anyway, but this none I agree with. Splitting up will be a hugely complex and costly process, not as costly as remaining in the Union though. Short term pain for long term gain and all that...

And we already own just a shade under 10% of foreign embassies, I'm sure sharing arrangements could be made, with an appropriate financial contribution. It really doesn't have to be that hard...

No, not hard, but it would be foolish to suggest that it would be easy and that there would be no cost implications.

No=continue to use pound Yes=continue to use pound

Not so easy. The Bank of England and Westminster would set the terms of a currency union. This would include a money supply and interest rates. Doesn't sound like independence to me.

Passports- alright, it's a possibility. But the clout Britain pulls on the international scale is bigger than Scotland alone, so if Britain did leave the EU, it would be easier to get a better deal.

Yes the oil will be a nice buffer, but when it runs out we have other things
A nice buffer?! How would an independent Scottish economy work then?

Do we really want to belong to a club that requires nukes to join? Childish argument.

Splitting up will be a hugely complex and costly process- yes, and where is this money coming from? What services will lose out so our passports can be a different colour?

not as costly as remaining in the Union though- you can't state this.

Short term pain for long term gain and all that... so who will suffer? Our children and grandchildren?

Absolutely. But when you compare the costs of splitting to the costs of staying, it's a no-brainer. As said, short term pain for long term gain.

We also own just short of 10% of our military hardware, bases etc.

*state this for sure. Excuse bolding fails.

Off to bed now, not giving up!

when you compare the costs of splitting to the costs of staying, it's a no-brainer. As said, short term pain for long term gain.

What costs of staying?

How long is your short term? When is this gain going to start?