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?

But do you understand that as things stand these things are shared, and so the economic policy, passports etc are not 'yours'

No forgetmenots, I don't understand that. I can of course understand that you'd want to walk away with as much as possible, that's only natural. But if you insist on a break, it must be a like a divorce with a clean break and share of assets. On MN of all places we know what divorce means - after the legal bit we each go our separate ways and we don't seek to control the other's future in any way. We don't interfere with the other's banking or travel arrangements any more - it's none of our business.

Countries do deals with each other all the time for mutual benefit - tax, trade, legal, military, scientific.

But it does seem a bit odd to decide to go it alone without any clear idea of what those deals might be.

I agree sallyingforth, that's exactly my point. At the moment these things are shared. Not belonging to either party. They would have to be distributed fairly or an arrangement come to that is pragmatic for all.

The way you've phrased it makes it sound like at the moment we have access to things that are wholly yours, that would be lost with independence. This is of course not the case, and I'm sure you don't mean it in that way.

merrymouse indeed. I believe both governments are pragmatists and a lot of the 'uncertainty' on both sides is playing politics.

The way you've phrased it makes it sound like at the moment we have access to things that are wholly yours, that would be lost with independence.

Not at all forgetmenots, I haven't said that and don't mean it.
Scotland and the rest of the UK are in a marriage, we share everything now and I very much hope that can be maintained. But if you want a divorce, we must decide on a once-for-all split and then go our separate ways.

Like any responsible independent adults or countries, after the clean break we will deal with each other as equals but without call upon the other unless it suits us both to agree it.

Certainly agree with your last paragraph there sallying, all for that and it cuts both ways! :)

Yes it cuts both ways.
We won't interfere with your economics, defence or foreign policy and you won't interfere with ours.
But I still hope that it won't happen - for your sake as well as ours.

forgetmenots and Sallying, you seem to be agreeing that you are actually saying the same thing after all.

I think that the marriage and divorce analogy works well up to a point and I often use it myself. However, there is no reason why the two separated states should act towards each other as if one has been unfaithful and the cause of great hurt. (Not all divorces are like that anyway.) They can, of course go their separate ways to an extent but neither can float off into the Atlantic and become physically attached to another country. In that respect we're stuck with each other. And whilst there might be no attempt by one to 'interfere' with the other's economics, defence and foreign policy, the truth is that (a) countries do that all the time and (b) what one does affects the other whether they want it to or not. It is inevitable that two countries so physically close, with such strong economic and cultural links and similar requirements in terms of economics, defence and foreign policy, would get together in various ways. The SNP just want to be able to say that the Scottish Govt chose to do this or that rather than apparently have it imposed on Scotland from Westminster. If the UK constitution was revised and reconstructed in a rational way we might end up with the same thing as independence followed by agreements to co-operate on all the things we will end up co-operating on. Unless Scotland is going to go for a meaningful arrangement with some Nordic states, I don't see how we will actually end up with a significantly different thing by going down the independence route than we would by obtaining radical reform of the UK constitution.

To me, the solution is actually a full review and re-design of the UK constitution so that England has devolution too, and the various forms of devolution are rationalised to eliminate the inconsistency that results in anomalies and misunderstandings. Interfering piecemeal with the workings of the unitary UK parliament in order to address issues like the West Lothian question is just making things worse.

Sittingbull that sounds more like devo-max. But it's not what the vote will be about, so despite all discussion/arguments here and elsewhere we will have to await the result of a flawed vote where no-one really understands exactly what they are voting for. :(

Sallying, to be clear, I have not said that I'm in favour of 'independence' for Scotland. (In my view Scotland is as independent as I am. I can leave my marriage any time I like, and I don't have to leave to prove it.)

Understood!

*To me, the solution is actually a full review and re-design of the UK constitution so that England has devolution too, and the various forms of devolution are rationalised to eliminate the inconsistency that results in anomalies and misunderstandings. Interfering piecemeal with the workings of the unitary UK parliament in order to address issues like the West Lothian question is just making things worse

I agree, I think the problem is that it is very unlikely the Westminster government would ever reform itself. Remember the vote on PR.

There is also the issue that most people in rUK approve of the UK government, they voted for them and as Daily Mail readers they approve of their policies. The problem is that Scotland is politically different, much more left leaning than rUK. This is why Scotland needs independence, because it wants and needs something different from rUK.

But the Westminster government definetly needs reform regardless of what Scotland votes. PR may not be perfect but it is better than first past the post. And things like pairing should be banned.

Totally agree with SittingBull's last paragraph. You know, I actually started out as veering towards a yes! I do think things could be better.

Anyway. Shall we all agree to reconvene next week with the White Paper?

The majority of the UK didn't vote for Cameron and Clegg together, that's the nature of the coalition. Besides, the north of England and Scotland do have very similar voting patterns. It's the very south that differs.

As Daily Mail readers they approve? That's a ridiculous statement.

The rest of the UK are Daily Mail readers? And I'm not sure im really buying that Scotland us so left wing either. Seems pretty much a standard middle class/working class mix. They just vote for different parties with the same policies.

I'm not buying the more moral, left wing argument either. in fact, I find trying to dupe people (badly) and suggesting all English are the same quite immoral, and verging on racism.

I say that as a Scot. I was really embarrassed to read that post, and hope non Scots dont assume we all think that way. (No doubt the poster in question will tell us we do).

I do agree that the UK constitution needs to be revised. Putting it in writing would be a start. So much of it rests on polite convention.

I dont think the Scottish Parliament is a good model. Its the only parliament in the developed world to lack a revisionary chamber, and uses a secretive committee system instead. They could have created anything, and came up with that?!

I am not saying that every individual in rUK supports the current government, but they are in power so obviously the majority do.

I am not saying that every individual in rUK reads/agrees with the DM but many, many people do - the same people that think the current WM government is either doing a great job, or not going far enough.

And yes, the Scots, as a whole are more left leaning, or at least the ones who vote are, Scots consistently vote for more left leaning parties than the ones that end up in power in WM.

There was an interesting article about the north of england and Scottish independence
www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-northern-england-links-eyed-1-3056478

Its in lots of other places too.

I don't think anyone would vote yes for that reason. As someone said (on this thread?) The SNP is a pretty politically disparate collection of individuals who are only united by a desire for independence. I think there would be a pretty good chance that the SNP would cease to exist in an independent scotland.

I think people vote yes so that they have the opportunity to have a meaningful vote, and yes, its quite possible that in an independent scotland we would, for eg, see a resurgence of the Tories. But at least they would have been voted for by a majority Scottish vote, not by the SE england.

Lessmiss, just an observation. I have been reading this thread with interest.
you seem to be terribly concerned what english people think of the scots! Why is that? Lots of english people, and not just the DM readers either think that scotland should strike out on its own, and many are simply indifferent to what scotland does.

The feel the same about wales and the welsh, - more so i would say. It has always been thus!
The anti independance stance, including your own seem almost a bit too desperate to keep the connection with england, but the english dont appear to feel the same about keeping the union with Scotland.

In fact many observers have said that if it was a Whole uk vote, the majority of voters would Choose to sever ties with scotland.
Personally, i think that's rather sad, but it does beg the question of why the antis Want a relationship that appears on many levels not to be reciprocated.

Thanks for your comment Whistleblower, but I think you've got me mixed up with someone else. I actually commented up a bit that I couldn't care less what some English shopkeeper in a small village voted for.

I am currently living and working outwith the UK, so perhaps you are mistaking my lack of parochialism for something else.

FWIW I actually dont care much for national identity; I think what people do and how they conduct themselves is far more important than which country they identify with.

Certainly agree with your last statement Lesmiss.

Sorry, have been busy today, but re EU membership if we say yes. The WM gvt can clear this matter up now; why won't they?

From Business for Scotland (so not very lefty)...

Undemocratic

For democracy to work properly, allvotesrequire the people to makeeducated and informed decisions. Even unionistmembersof the House of Lords have attacked the Scottish Secretary for refusing to ask the European Union’s governing body for advice on Scotland’s future if it becomes independent as the Westminster committees investigate the possible scenarios for Scotland following a Yes or No vote.

In fact, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committeeaccused Scottish Secretary Michael Moore of leaving Scotland with “a blind vote” and adopting a “puzzling”, “unsustainable” and “totally irresponsible” position. The problem for the Scottish Government is that only member-states such as the UK can expect a proper response from Brussels on subjects like the terms of an independent Scotland’s or the remaining UK’s (rUK’s) membership (the principle is not in any real question but the terms are up for negotiation during a set transition period in which Scotland will still be part of the Westminster system for circa 18 months). The European Commission has made it clear that whilst it is sympathetic to the need for discussions it can only act when approached by the UK Government.

Even arch unionist Lord Forsyth of Polltax (that might not be his real title) said“I find it a bit puzzling how you can reconcile saying ‘we’re not prepared to talk to the Commission as a Government to ask what the consequences would be’, with saying at the same time that we want to have ‘a fully informed debate’.

Sorry, don't know why that didn't format properly. Punctuation was right in the linked version.