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?

Thanks forgetmenots. I agree with you entirely that am equitable split of resources would be necessary. After all there is the huge national debt that has to be shared.
I hope that if the break happens Scotland and the UK can remain on the best of terms. But I do think it unreasonable that if Scotland as a foreign country chooses to use the UK currency it should have any ongoing influence on UK monetary policy.

I think I'll vote for independence. I am english living in Scotland. I can't see Scottish Labour offering anything TBH. The Labour Party appear to be hell bent on moving to the centre-right judging by the benefits culture rhetoric they are coming out with. I just don't see the Scottish Labour Party or Westminster coming up with any credible alternative that will help my family. I couldn't bear another term under the tories watching the SE get richer while the north gets poorer. What is this fantastic thing Westminster has to offer the people of Scotland?

I don't see the independence movement as misty tartan and shortbread Braveheart posturing. I don't think it is anti-english. I think modern Scotland is undergoing many changes, it is ever more multicultural,many the people voting in the referendum do not have any emotional tie to Scottish cultural identity, they are people from elsewhere who now live and work in Scotland and they want some self determination.

sallyingforth I'd see it more as continues to use its own currency* and therefore think we should have as much say as countries in the euro zone for example but as I said up thread I'm not against us ditching the pound in theory. I hope the white paper does look at this. And I'd expect nothing more than a fair share of the national debt.

caruthers - nice Scottish name :)
I don't think there would be any cherry picking going on, unless people consider certain things (like the monarchy, which I can use as an unemotive example as a republican) as the property of the rest of the UK. I think we would like to run our own affairs and be a good neighbour, but maybe that's just my take.

Ubik I agree with you entirely.

Sorry if this appears twice - it hadn't finished processing after ten minutes, so I've deleted the original and am re-posting.

Toad, I didn't make the 'good point' that most of southern Scotland was never Gaelic speaking. I made the point that it was, albeit the area in the south east occupied by Inglis speakers If you have a look at the Wikipedia articles on Gaelic you'll be able to see the maps and stats for a few periods.

On what RoUK would be after separation, it should not continue to be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern ireland because Scotland is part of Great Britain (i.e. La Grande Bretagne as distinct from Bretagne, which was also inhabited by the Celts).RoUK would have to be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It'sAllGoing, I don't care much whether immigrants can vote in the referendum or not. I don't see that issue as tied to the matter of not allowing votes by Scots who had to go to London to get a job, or who work in Brussels, or are in the army but permanently based somewhere in deepest Englandshire.

The idea suggested by someone else that people can afford just to set up house here so they can vote is nonsense from the point of view of most people.

I'm glad you liked the idea and I'd like to pursue it. How would we go about bringing that to the attention of HQ?

On the economic considerations, the IFS has just published a paper which says that the Scottish economy currently contributes more to the UK than it takes out but that the situation will change as oil decreases and the age demographics get worse. (Hence, I suppose, the Scottish government's keenness to encourage immigration in opposition to the UK government's position.)

John Swinney on Radio 4 now.

forgetmenots

Upthread there were suggestions of dual nationality which would imply an amount of entitled cherry picking.

What you suggest is of course completely understandable and acceptable

If you don't live in Scotland why should you be able to vote? I don't expect to vote for the London mayor even though I lived there for 20 years.

There will be many recent immigrants who live in Scotland now and therefore have more legitimacy in voting than someone born in Scotland who left the country to work in London.

Followed by Alistair, darling.

While accepting that rUK is the current designation, I can't help feeling that the "United Kingdom" is/was England and Scotland. Wales is a principality and NI a province. We're not looking at republicanism in the referendum, and QEII of England will remain QE of Scots, so the UK will persist. GB won't.

Ubik1,

You could live in London for twenty years then go home, wherever that is, and not care too much about whether London hives itself off from the rest of the country, but while you live in London for twenty years you might care deeply about what happens to your country. You don't give up your nationality when you go somewhere else to work, you don't cease to be a Scot, and it is difficult to see why you should not have a say in a major change to your country.

Moreover, by living somewhere else for twenty years you acquire experience of another culture, which is extremely valuable. I can't emphasise enough how valuable experience of how others do it and see it and think about it is. Just as a company should not be run entirely by sales people, or entirely by accountants, or whatever, these major decisions should not be made only by people who have no real experience of other countries. In a business, it would be called 'groupthink' and efforts would be made to avoid it because it is known to result in bad decisions.

So I think Scots living outside Scotland have a right to be consulted and we are very silly not to want the benefit of their experience.

SittingBull - good points (I lived abroad for a few years an I agree with your point on fresh perspective).

The reason why I think immigrants living in Scotland should get the vote and those Scots living outside shouldn't is straightforward - we have to draw a line somewhere and whilst Scots living abroad or in rUK may care very much, on that day it doesn't appear that they are the people paying taxes in Scotland, raising children there, using services. The Scots may return of course and others may leave but we have to do it based on a moment in time. I'd have been gutted to miss out too but I totally understand why the decision has come this way.

I'm from London. I cannot go home, I can no longer afford to live there. The are I grew up in has changed beyond recognition, it is home to wealthy settlers now. But that's life.

I can't emphasise enough how valuable experience of how others do it and see it and think about it is

I know quite a few Scots who were born in Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Pakistan, Spain, England, Slovakia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia. They bring a good deal of expertise and experience to Scotland. They work and pay tax in this country. So do I. I would resent someone who is living and working elsewhere having a say in how my country is run, even if they do have some sentimental associations.

But how do you define a Scot?

Should Sean Connery have a vote? He left Scotland donkeys ago for warmer climes.

Should I be allowed to vote? English parents, born in England, lived in Scotland since 8.

How about someone who's parents are Scottish? Grandparents? Great grandparents?

The issue is where do you draw the line?

I think the current way is fairest, after all it is the people actually living in Scotland who will be most directly affected.

Agree again ubik and itsallgoingtobefine.

ubik my friend from Durham who has lived and worked in Scotland for a decade now wants to set up a pro-independence group for English residents in Scotland, she is very much of your opinion!

I also find it fascinating how people who self identify as Scots seem to honestly believe scottish people are incapable or unworthy of running their country, that things will descend into 'Groupthink' ??? Utterly bizarre.

*On what RoUK would be after separation, it should not continue to be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern ireland because..."

Now this I DO have to disagree with. When/if Scotland decides to leave the United Kingdom, it will call itself whatever it likes. If the remaining parts of the UK wanted to tell Scotland to change its name it would soon, rightly, be told to mind its own f'ing business.

The same goes for us. We'll call ourselves what our own elected government chooses, and it's nothing to do with any foreign country.

My husband is a Scot living in England. Of course he is paying taxes for Scotland, as he does for Wales and Northern Ireland.

But the point is he doesn't live in Scotland. He doesn't use NHS Scotland, the education system, the legal system. Why on earth should he have a stake in independence if he doesn't live there? It's like me stating I want to vote for London mayor because about five generations of my family lived in Camberwell.

On the original topic, OP, YADNBU. I also want to retain my British passport in the event of a 'Yes' vote. I was born in Scotland, I live here and am married to someone born in England. Our child was born in Scotland but could easily have been born in England (we've lived in both areas). I'm not huge on nationalism of any flag TBH, but culturally I feel connected to Britain not just Scotland, I feel like I am part of the same country/nation as relatives and friends in various parts of the UK.

This discussion has been largely civil, good work MNetters :)

I will be voting 'No' in the referendum. I already live in an independant country. Whilst I'm not always a fan of who wins a general election, I accept that's how democracy works and that this happens to large numbers of people, no matter the geographical size of the area being elected. Unfortunately the party I support isn't popular enough locally at a council or scottish parliament level to be elected for my consituency either.

The previous Prime Minister was representing a Scottish consituency, and prior to that he had a rather long stint as chancellor. I think Scots and their interests are just as successfully represented within the UK as much as any other part of it.

I have serious concerns about what Alex Salmond and cronies may be willing to negotiate away in order to get what we already have. We are being asked to vote for independence based on their wishlist but it is unlikely to match what they actually get agreed. What happens then?

I also have serious concerns about the ability to hold the Scottish parliament to account. The committee system was designed with the idea that it could challenge the executive of the day, but with a majority government this doesn't work. Perfectly good non-political amendments to legislation to make them more robust, to avoid unintended consequences etc, are rejected just because the SNP can. Its not good democracy, no checks and balances. I think an independant scotland would need a second chamber with a more long term view (personally I'd favour elected rather than House of Lords style).

I'm also saddened that the SNP have trivialised the parliament and ignored its power to actually DO stuff, by holding long, self congratualtory 'debates' about Scotland holding the Ryder cup in a year, whilst saying there isn't parliamentary time to do something about human trafficking because "It isn't a priority" for Scotland/the Scottish People.

They aren't interested in localism (which seems to be the only legitimate argument for independence in my view) - they are busy stripping powers away from LAs and local organisations and pulling it up to Holyrood. They are nation building, regardless of the fact that to rural communities in the north it doesn't make a great deal of difference whether power is at Westminster or Holyrood if their local councils are cut to smithereens. The scottish government didn't just pass on the coalition's cuts to LAs, it increased it!

Anyway, I know independence isn't just about the SNP but I also don't buy the idea that an independent scotland would be more socialist than the current scottish parliament, we already know what that looks like, they'd just be making decisions about the things currently reserved to Westminster as well. The SNP have been clear that their priority would be lowering corporation tax, hardly left wing, is it?

I don't see the need for independence personally, the risks are greater than the rewards in my view. But I can accept that my fellow countrywomen and men might disagree. I just wish that if we are going to walk that hard road that we do so with our eyes open, and are not tricked into sleepwalking down it by false assurances and a wishlist.

Politically, I feel more connected to people with similar values where ever they live in the UK than just those closest to me geographically. This might be because I live in a SNP/Conservative marginal constituency - so its always been clear to me that Scotland isn't a Tory-free zone, even if such a thing were desireable.

I don't understand when people go on about Scottish Labour not being really Scottish, like it has some hidden English agenda . Its just people in Scotland who believe in the values of the Labour party. (Which achieved a lot for ordinary people, despite its mistakes in government). All political parties are not the same - just look at what the coalition have done! And Labour have said they wouldn't have created the bedroom tax and that they will repeal it.

I am rather amused by Alex Salmond and Nigel Farage using the same arguments about soverignty regarding Scotland and the UK or the UK and Europe but utterly refusing to see each other's POV on the other matter.

As someone comfortable with having all three levels of parliament it would be hilarious if it wasn't also so alarming.

My Dsis is currently working in London, but it may be temporary. I've lived in Devon for a couple of years. The population is so fluid across the border for work/education/family/etc that it just seems daft to divide things into US and them. We already have control of local issues through devolution, there can always be a discussion around which powers should be devolved (new ones have been agreed recently anyway) but I don't see why we shouldn't have the UK level too. Its handy for bigger stuff to avoid duplication.

Its all so entwined, its not as simple as saying, oh well as we have a claim on the resources of the British Armed Forces (our ~10%) we will keep all the bases that are in Scotland. They currently contain non-Scots who are based there either long term or short term who might not appreciate being told that they are now members of a new Scottish Armed Forces, when they signed up for the BAF.

Good post spirited wolf, and welcome :)

Few things, from a friendly yes voter:

• some prominent Scottish Labour MPs - including the one who represents my area - as you will know abstained from the bedroom tax debate. I'm not an SNP member but I thought this was a disgrace and smacked of doublespeak, I don't trust Labour to repeal the bedroom tax if they won't even rally and vote against it. I was genuinely disappointed in my MP and will be writing to tell him so.
• I don't understand why more Labour voters and members are not pro-independence, other than the argument about feeling connected by ideology rather than geography. (My DM and DF are card carrying Labour folk, voting yes). The venom directed at the SNP has been really off putting when they've done a decent job thus far (IMHO), although the cybernats are beginning to be every bit as bad. I would feel deeply for English socialism if we went independent, but again I think those ideological connections would not be lost between neighbouring countries. Why would creating an independent Scotland prevent international socialism flourishing as a political idea for Scots, I suppose is my question?
• Very interesting idea about a second chamber and you could well be right on that, would have to be democratically elected but could give rise to smaller parties. I also agree about an increased need for localism, in such a diverse country (geographically, population distribution and as we've seen on this thread, even linguistically) we do need to have things that are shared, respected and tolerated by the whole, but this can't work across the board. Would love to see perhaps the 2nd chamber address some of this - all hypothetical but fascinating!
• I agree with what you're saying about Holyrood system but bear in mind it was set up really without a majority parliament being anticipated - the SNP's landslide was an achievement for them but it has 'upset' the system - in general I think it is far fairer than WM.

I'm chuffed to bits this thread has stayed civil. Makes me genuinely optimistic for Scottish politics whatever the result next sept.

Sorry for the huge posts. Its a habit of mine, and as I was jumping into the conversation, I had lots of thoughts about stuff I'd read pages and pages ago.

I am rather amused by Alex Salmond and Nigel Farage using the same arguments about soverignty regarding Scotland and the UK or the UK and Europe but utterly refusing to see each other's POV on the other matter.

I actually agree on this, too - although at times it's David Cameron, not even Farage - but I think it is also funny that many people in the UK want a referendum from WM on whether of not to leave the EU, but wouldn't expect the French or Germans to have a say. The same people then expect rUK to have a say in the Scottish referendum. :)

Ubik,

I don't think that Scots are incapable or unworthy of running their own country. I think they are as capable of running Scotland as they are of running the UK or, formerly, the British empire, both of which they have done to some extent. Ability is not the issue.

Nor did I suggest that Scottish politics would descend into groupthink (although that is largely what we are seeing in UK politics at the moment as far as I can see). I was using the analogy of running a company and taking steps to avoid groupthink (which excludes the views of people with different experience) because it results in poor decision-making. Next year, the people of Scotland will be asked to make the biggest decision affecting the country in 300 years. I would like to take steps to include the perspective of Scots with wider experience than most of us who have never lived elsewhere in order to improve the process of making that decision.

Sallying, I'm not a foreign country, just one person. But I am pointing out that Great Britain is the British mainland and the various islands surrounding it, excluding Ireland, and presumably excluding the Isle of Man and the Channel islands. If Scotland votes YES then what remains will not be Great Britain + NI but a bit of Great Britain + NI. RoUK could call itself The Dark Side of the Moon if it really wanted to. I merely point out that to retain the current name would be inaccurate since the Kingdom of Great Britain would no longer be united, one of the two constituent kingdoms having gone; and nor would it contain Great Britain, a large part of which had also gone.

On the union with Ireland in 1801, the name was changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. When Ireland left in 1922 they changed the name (c 1927) to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to reflect (somewhat inaccurately) the fact that only the north eastern bit of ireland remained in the UK. Removing the 'Great Britain' and naming the remaining constituent countries would reflect the fact that only two countries and one bit of Ireland remained. It would also clear up for people the distinction between Britain and England, which English nationalist people might like and most Scots probably would too; presumably the Welsh would also like people to understand the distinction between England and Britain, and Wales could get a specific mention at last.

Think of Borneo, which is an island rather than a political entity. part of it is in Malaya and part of it is in Indonesia; there might be a third state, but none of them is called Borneo. At one stage (prior to union with ireland) Great Britain was a political entity; at the moment it is part of a political entity. Someone above said that if Scotland leaves the UK, Great Britain will no longer exist. That is not true: it will go back to being just an archipelago and not a political entity or part of one.

It'sAllGoing, re defining who is a Scot and should get the vote, don't British people living abroad have a vote in UK elections at the moment?

In terms of socialism, you are right that we support socialism in other countries already. But we currently have redistribution across the whole of the UK (though not as much as I'd like ;) ). Becoming indy is basically saying that we don't want the tax reciepts of the wealthy bits of the South East and London anymore, isn't it?

Its hard for Labour people, because in general, they got into politics to fight the left/right battle to make things fairer for ordinary people, rather than the rich few. They often don't really put a lot of emphasis on geography at all. In an ind Scotland, they'd continue to argue for that within Scotland. At the moment though, lots labour folk from Glasgow are used to working with collegues in Liverpool, Doncaster, Exeter, Cardiff and London etc to achieve Laboury things throughout the UK, not just in Scotland. They just aren't used to that dividing line. Well, obviously those that work in the Scottish Parliament are, but those who work in Westminster aren't any less Scottish, they are just concentrating on what can be done at WM.

I think that sometimes, because the SNP only has a handful of MPs at WM they think of themselves as the Scottish contingient and feel out numbered, but there are loads of Scottish MPs (usually Labour) actually doing stuff and being involved in WM.

I get blooming annoyed when I write to my MP asking him to stand up the coalition government, only for him to write back moaning that he could do something if scotland was independent. He could also do something by working with his English and Welsh collegues but he chooses not to. :(

As for Labour MPs not voting, I believe this is usually paired. So if an MP cannot make the vote, someone who can who would have voted the opposite way does not. It is a bit that it seems to happen so much, but it doesn't affect the majority.