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?

To address your other points; the electorate for the referendum has been known about for quite some time now. If expat Scots want a say, they need to be on the Electoral Roll, in Scotland. If they choose to live elsewhere, sorry, but tough. There may still be time, I thought for a while you had to be on the Roll a year before the ref, but as I now understand it, the ER is updated monthly (to accommodate common sense) so an expat with a genuine interest need only establish a household here by, say, August next year, July might be better.

Oh, Caitlin, I was with you up until the last phrase... Did you not hear how WM stole €220-230 million from us via farming subsidy, just last week? Serious mistake, farmers are naturally more conservative, this is really pissing them off.

I was not suggesting that the whole of RUK should get the vote. I said Scots living in RUK and other places.

Sorry. I misunderstood you. I guess in that case the issue is how do you define a Scot, and would the non Scots living in Scotland be entitled to vote.

Perhaps they could appear on Mumsnet, not in the usual way which allows for five and a half questions that don't produce proper answers and don't allow for any follow-up, but which allow Mumsnetters to be provided with proper academic analysis and evidence and then to ask questions until they get the answers they need. That would be a bit of a challenge to organise. Is Mumsnet up to that?

Now THAT is a brilliant idea, and MNHQ would have the clout to organise.
This is where your analogy falls apart a bit, because in this case the Bastard is not autonomous. He is controlled by you (a bit) and by me (a bit). He is a democratically elected bastard. You don't need to LTB because in this case you can actually change him.

Wrong. It is more like the Bastard says' "yes dear" whenever you complain, but changes nothing. And he is financially and frequently emotionally abusive. We can't change him, we have too little real influence, he needs to change himself, but why would he, he knows he is onto a good thing taking our equal income and giving us back some pin money. Sometimes he gives us a wee bit of a control, he let's us sort out the weekly shop, but over the big things like finance we have no control.

LTB

annoyingly placemarking. In my defence - this is the best debate I've read on this referendum. And, I've read a few floating voter

"And then I also wonder what happens post-independence when it becomes apparent that what is good for the new political and financial classes in Edinburgh isn't what's good for the industrial cities or the former mining towns or the fishing towns or the islands or the other agricultural and rural areas.

How long before the people of Glasgow or Dundee start saying the same things about the Edinburgh parliament as the Yes voters currently say about Westminster?"

There's also an argument that London should become a kind if independent city state. The ten obviously becomes an size below which an independent nation becomes impractical, it would be daft to say that Ruchill should become independent as Glasgow does not work in its interests.

But the fact is Scotland is an individual country that is in a union with rUK. It is a country. It I'd already very a different from rUK in many things. In this case it is a sensible proposition.

I'll say it again. I'm not an expat. I am in the country my passport says I'm from. I did not move abroad

Scotland is a country, just not a sovereign state. You may be in the UK but you are not in Scotland.

The cracking on about Gaelic really annoys me.

I'm from the East of Scotland but now live in Glasgow (see:name!). We lived in the Outer Hebrides for 10 years, and believe me, though it's a minority in the uk, it's very much a majority language there. My dc were born there and though neither I (though not through lack of trying) or dh (whole other political issue as he's a from a Protestant background from Belfast) can speak Gaelic, our 3 dc are totally fluent in the language, putting them in a minority of truly bilingual children in the uk - and I'm not precious about Gaelic, but the overwhelming benefits (3rd language, music, mathematics) of bilingualism mean I'm delighted I live somewhere that allows this. My sil is a native welsh speaker and teacher, and sees the same benefits.

I'm voting yes and I know it's very much a vote from my heart. Dh has lived in Scotland longer than he lived in Northern Ireland but doesn't really know what to do - he was gutted not to be able to vote on the Good Friday Agreement in NI. I think he's brokered a deal that he'll vote how dd1 wants - she'll be a wee bit too young to vote.

I'm Scottish, not British. I've no idea what "British" is? I'll happily (out of respect for another) stand for "God Save The Queen" but I don't feel it's my anthem.

Maybe it's spending half my life being married to an NI Protestant who's family are unionists through and through while he'd vote for unification tomorrow. I just can't get behind the Union (also I'm fiercely republican, which might also affect my view). Britain is not my home, Scotland is.

I'm pretty sure the vote will end up "no" in 2014. But I can't be one of the ones who votes for it.

Humpday, I get your point, you're not an expat in the traditional, no longer living in the UK sense. But, from a Scottish referendum POV, you don't live in Scotland, so you don't have a vote in the referendum. You can change this by moving here, it's not a secret who has the right to vote in any given election.

I'll have a vote. I was only meant to be working in Belgium for 3 months, now extended to six. I still have a house in Sc that I pay CT for, and am on the electoral roll. I've just applied for a postal vote for other matters.

But in the long run, I'll vote with my feet.

SittingBull1

You make a good point that, most of southern Scotland was never Gaelic-speaking. IIRC though the Picts were further north. All my history books talk about the Welsh of Strathclyde, not the Picts.

The Anglian Kingdom of Northumbria was considered partitioned by 1066: the northern bit of it being much of southern Scotland. There is a reason why lowland Scots were known as "sassenachs", and it has to be said that throughout the history of Scotland they treated the Highlanders worse on the whole than the English treated the Scots.

artemisandaphrodite

Why can't England, Wales and Northern Ireland continue to be known as the United Kingdom?

The United Kingdom is not England + Scotland.

I really dislike the abusive marriage argument; it's far too emotive and quite frankly insulting to DV sufferers.

However. If you think Westminster is holding you up againt a wall now, why do you so casually dismiss the implications of a currency union? The ex-husband won't even have to lie to you after independence.

The Scottish choices re. currency post-independence:

The groat
The Euro-
The pound--but with no say whatever on economic policy.

The United Kingdom is not England + Scotland

I think the theory is that if one of the signatories leaves the treaty on unions then the treaty is broken for all?

*The Scottish choices re. currency post-independence:

The groat
The Euro-
The pound--but with no say whatever on economic policy*

Despite its name, the Bank of England is the UK central bank, and as such Scots have a percentage share in it. As an independent nation we would not be without influence in the central bank, as we are shareholders in it and would be party to negotiations to form a new sterling area. At the moment we only have the influence of George Osborne and Danny Alexander, even a minority say in the Bank of England is better than that. But more importantly we'd have full control over our own tax and spending.

Having your own currency is not the definitive mark of an independent nation. Quite a few independent nations manage quite happily with shared a central bank and a shared currency. Apart from the 17 countries in the Eurozone, there are six independent Caribbean states who share the East Caribbean dollar (EC$), which is currently pegged to the US dollar at the fixed rate of US$1 to EC$2.70. The British territories of Anguilla and Montserrat also use the East Caribbean dollar. All eight share a single central bank. In Africa, eight nations share the West African franc and a single central bank located in Senegal. Another six African nations share the Central African franc and a single central bank located in Cameroun. Four southern African nations, South Africa, Swaziland, Namibia and Lesotho, share the rand as common currency.

The key is sovereignty, not an independent currency or an independent central bank. The point is that all the independent nations who share currencies have the right to decide for themselves whether to continue with the shared currency or to leave it. They can remain with a shared central bank or they can set up their own if the shared bank no longer suits. They can make these decisions based upon their own economic and political needs.

Can't believe how much this has moved on since last night. Had thought I might only miss a few posts and could pick up where I left off! I don't want to answer things that have already been answered or discussed, but thanks Lessmissabs for stating your position as clearly as you have, I agree with itsallgoingtobefine's last post and Santana of course you should keep debating (have the Journey song in my head now... 'Don't stop! de-BA-ting!'). I actually think everything you've said is valid and as a set of reasons for voting no you are up there with the most plausible I've heard, but of course we fundamentally disagree on the crux of the matter... ;) Ta for the good wishes with teething, it's at the stage where I just want the damn things to appear!

And hooray weegiemum glad your DC are getting on grand with Gaelic, DH and DS are uncovering all kinds of great Gaelic nursery rhymes and songs at the moment... :)

Can we maybe see (rightly or wrongly) that there's a difference between pledges and guarantees - for both the union and Indy Scotland? Santana I really do get what you're saying, and your perspective is interesting to me because you clearly know your stuff but - and I'm not being sarky here, genuine question - how do you manage with say, general elections? When you know that people are telling you what you want to hear, that even the most oft-repeated promises will not hold? I don't believe there are any certainties in life, but one is that politicians lie. Politicians of all stripes.

In that case, you're left with what fundamentally you think you can do as a citizen. If that's maintain the status quo because you feel it is safer, more responsible etc then I can't berate you for that even if I don't believe the union provides that. But if that is vote for a chance of a clean slate where we can change things a bit more radically (I don't believe in the utopian independent Scotland, but then I don't believe in utopia!) I will always gravitate towards the latter. I don't believe that anything in history ever changed through people worrying about upheaval - emancipation, women's suffrage for example all eventually took radical thinking and action, not 'can you imagine the admin costs'. I'm not saying Scotland has suffered to this extent, at all, but I do think the Scottish people have been disenfranchised and I think nothing will ever improve if we don't do something. That means taking a bit of a leap and I do understand that not everyone will want to do this, even those just cautious by nature. Can't we set our own guarantees, hold our own people to account, make even our own mistakes?

Och I'm black affronted with how long that was. A simple point overworked, apologies!

Can I just say this is the best Mumsnet thread on Indy I think we have ever had.

It usually ends up with loads of offensive anti-Scottish remarks and just gets derailed.

I absolutely respect people's choice to vote No even if I don't understand the reasoning for it.

I am currently in a car which is driving over the Forth Road Bridge, the most recognised landmark of my beautiful country to the left.

I want a country I can be proud of and to me Independence is our only option.

Why can't England, Wales and Northern Ireland continue to be known as the United Kingdom?

Of course they can, and will be.

I agree fannyfifer. Delighted to be able to discuss it. Thanks to all.

They can remain with a shared central bank or they can set up their own if the shared bank no longer suits. They can make these decisions based upon their own economic and political needs.

That's fine. If Scotland leaves the UK, it can make the choice. But don't forget that the remaining UK also has the same choice. It doesn't have to allow Scotland to keep any influence in the UK or its currency if it's not in the UK's interest or desire.

You must accept that you can't pick and choose what benefits to keep if you decide to break away.

Sallyingforth, you're right but as Scotland is currently in the UK it has a share in what things like a shared bank. So both parties would have to come to an agreement on such matters that is fair for all. That's why a yes vote is a good start for a fair settlement, rather than an uneven distribution as some feel currently exists.

For example, we have the nuclear warheads. If we opt out of the political arrangement that is the UK, we don't just get to keep those (neither would many of us wish to). So, equally, the rest of the UK don't just keep things in which Scotland has had a share. I hate the marriage/divorce metaphor for this (and especially the abusive one for reasons santana mentioned) but it is helpful to think of it as a settlement where there are complex issues rather than just 'you leave therefore I get to keep everything'.

I for one hope an independent Scotland would be fairer for all in the UK and would promote greater relationships between the component countries.

I'm all for Scottish independence if that's what it is and it's a clean break, but i'm English ad living in England so I don't get a say in the matter.

I'd like a dual nationality so I can cherry pick the services each country has to offer please.