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?

That's all very well Old Lady, but the Parliament woefully under-represents a whole swathe of society - those of us who went to ordinary schools, worked hard, got into university, got good jobs, and didn't get there via the unions, political affiliation, our father's connections or whatever.

Where is the representation for us?

OldLady I think union experience is as useless as Old Etonian experience.

I think the prominent Labour MSPs sponsored by Unite were woeful in the recent Grangemouth drama. (I speak as a former Labour supporter.) Johann Lamont seemed to have no clue! YES to attacking zero-hours and dangerous working conditions but the wilful antagonism towards a company investing money which will support (still) well-paid jobs was scary.

lessmissabs Most likely to be a highly divisive democracy with low voter turnout and poor social mobility, but incredibly preachy about how lefty and better than other countries it is? (a bit like now really but more smug?)!

I've said elsewhere that I'd hope the almost-inevitable break up of the SNP's broad tent in the event of a yes vote would mean a wider parliamentary system with more parties, with more specific and concentrated agenda. I think this would encourage engagement but I'm not pretending to have all the answers on this, or paint a picture of something none of us can guarantee. I'm not sure I really take your points on 'educated, hard working' people though - I'd consider myself both and I enjoy living in Scotland, though I also enjoyed living in mainland Europe.

Lots of xposts, this thread takes an age to load on the iPad.

Santana, it's agreed under international convention that 90% of the north sea oil revenues will come to iScot, that honestly isn't up for argument, even leaders of the no campaign concede that we will have a perfectly viable economy. I'm sure some companies will leave, but the vast majority will hang around for a bit and checkout how it's going. And there will be new businesses willing to move in, and new start-ups; perhaps we can put some of our money towards supporting the small and medium businesses that actually contribute most to us.

I know that there are lots of varying stats flying about in support of the "subsidy junkie" myth, but we send more to WM than we get back. It's true we get more per head than other parts of the country, but we do raise it ourselves. I think it's something like £64bn over the last 30 years, but that number might be associated with something else, my brains a bit fried now...

And yes, the elected party will choose how to spend it, but at least it will be a party (or more likely, a coalition) we actually elected.

Wow, no that's not what I'm saying.
You understand what diversity means?
There are people from numerous backgrounds, jobs etc who are MSP's

Just because someone has no university or formal qualifications it does not make them thick, what a thing to say.

LessMiss, stand for parliament, then.

Teacake, couldn't agree more, whole thing was an abysmal shambles.

Forgetmenot, agree with you too.

Humpday, I agree with you too! Maybe I should leave the thread on that note...

(But I know I won't.)

Santana, it's agreed under international convention that 90% of the north sea oil revenues will come to iScot, that honestly isn't up for argument

Link?

There are three ways to draw a boundary line

1. treaty
2. special circumstance
3. equidistance

All the links I've seen highlight equidistance to give an approximate 90% figure, but the International Court of Justice has ruled that this is neither "a mandatory legal principle, or a method having some privileged status in relation to other methods."

here

FannyFifer Wow, no that's not what I'm saying.
You understand what diversity means?
There are people from numerous backgrounds, jobs etc who are MSP's

I take it you know what facetiousness means? Theres not a hell of a lot of people from the traditional professions in there, are there? Theres not a lot of small business owners. There is over-representation of people who have only ever "worked" in politics and never had a "proper job".

Just because someone has no university or formal qualifications it does not make them thick, what a thing to say

Its called free speech. Thick people do exist. And judging by the quality of debate in the Scottish parliament, being an MSP certainly does not exempt that criticism.

OldLady too busy having a career. And anyway I'm too sarcastic, I'd be banned or something. And I'm not good at crawling up people's backsides. I saw what sort of person that MSP I worked beside was, and its not something I aspire to. I dare say there are genuine people in there, but from a brief overview of the MSPs, the more qualified and ones with varied, valuable experience didn't seem to be the ones sitting on the more interesting committees or in the positions of power.

And while resurrecting old Scots phrases such as the Common Weal (or in the case of Alex Salmond, using lots of makey-up phrases from children's playgrounds sprinkled with the odd "bawbag"), I think we should not forget that the last parliament in an independent Scotland was commonly referred to as a parcel of rogues.

Some things never change.

Please could someone answer this query for me.The SNP seem to pushing the zero carbon/ wind farms on us but are happy to sell our oil to others to base our income on. I'm confused.

Santana, before I go looking for links, what kind of proof do you require? Will a newspaper article (Herald, Scotsman, Times, Guardian, Observer?) do? An item on Wings/BellaCaledonia/Newsnetscotland/BBC? It may be, as you say, there is no specific legislation, but everything I've read, from politicians, economists, lawyers etc is that 90% is ours, and only the most rabid ProjectFear punters have said anything different.

Theres not a hell of a lot of people from the traditional professions in there, are there? Theres not a lot of small business owners. There is over-representation of people who have only ever "worked" in politics and never had a "proper job

-15 year career in IT latterly as European Development Manager in Scottish Document Managament Software House

-1995 - 2000
Business Development Manager West Cars SAAB
2001 - 2005
Corporate Sales Manager Glenvarigill SEAT
2005 - 2007
Corporate Sales Manager Stirling AUDI

-senior media relations officer for the Church of Scotland. He regularly wrote Gaelic columns in various newspapers and was named Gaelic journalist of the year in 2006.

• left secondary education to work in the fishing industry. More than 25 years ago, he accepted the offer from a European seafood transport and logistics network (STEF) to open an office in Glasgow.

www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/177.aspx

None of these have gone straight into politics without having a job first.also one has BSc,one has phD , 2 unknown. Admittedly this is just the first 4, feel free to compile a list of them all :-)

From my brief look, lawyers (quite a few) Doctors, Engineers, people who have worked for housing associations, charity workers, oil workers, Bankers, economists, secretaries, people who have worked in the fishing industry, mechanic, director of trading standards, managers of a variety of companies & organisations, farmers, social workers, teachers.

Diverse, people who have been to Uni, those that have not.

Santana, before I go looking for links, what kind of proof do you require? Will a newspaper article (Herald, Scotsman, Times, Guardian, Observer?) do? An item on Wings/BellaCaledonia/Newsnetscotland/BBC? It may be, as you say, there is no specific legislation, but everything I've read, from politicians, economists, lawyers etc is that 90% is ours, and only the most rabid ProjectFear punters have said anything different.

I'd hardly call bellacaledonia proof, goodness me. Newspaper articles are slightly better, but not much. I want facts, and you/ Yes Campaign can't provide them. It's ridiculous- oil is so volatile that every single percentage counts.

The SNP seem to pushing the zero carbon/ wind farms on us but are happy to sell our oil to others to base our income on. I'm confused

The oil will run out, and global warming is a reality. Scotland is trying to be at the forefront of renewables as when the oil runs out we will need an alternative oil source.

If you mean the ethics of it, renewables isn't good enough yet to provide 100% of our power, so currently we need oil. Plus oil=money lots and lots of it. I don't think even the greens would leave the oil in the ground to save the planet!

www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-facts-about-scotlands-oil-and-independence/

Any use Santana ?

Nope. He says if Scotland were to become independent the "median line" principle would be the "obvious one" to use Not definite enough.

Scotland is trying to be at the forefront of renewables as when the oil runs out we will need an alternative oil source.

Scotland lags behind the leading renewables countries, and most of the R&D money comes from Westminster.

Kaumana, yes, that does look odd, and I agree it's an strange juxtaposition, borne out of necessity rather than ideology.

Practically, we have oil, it's valuable, we sell it. Eventually, it will run out, and we need to be prepared for that, so we invest money (oil-money, even) in sustainable energy generation. Windfarms are not perfect, they're not terribly efficient, but they'll get better (and perhaps less obtrusive) as technology improves. We're investing (oil money?) in wave power, which has incredible possibilities; current turbines can cause damage to marine life but I read just the other week of a marvellous new fabric which can sort-of float on the surface and produce electricity. (It was probably in New Scientist and may involve nanotechnology, at which point my brain freezes, so I can't explain more than that.) It's still at a very early stage, and may not work out, but it's an exciting possibility.

I have seen incredible changes in the last 50 years, and the speed of new discoveries seems to increase every year. Imagine what we might achieve in another 50 years? And if we use oil money to do it, it's worth the apparent hypocrisy.

I should add, the ICJ ruling I mentioned above means that there are no 'obvious' principles to use.

Itsallgoingtobefine (it really isn't, btw) You are obviously quite easily impressed. I read the personal interests of the first 12 or so, and about two were acceptable but the rest were not really on a par with what kind of jobs me and my friends do. (none of us are Eton-educated).

tbh I'm beginning to wonder whether membership of leading unions like Unite is the Scottish equivalent of the Eton mafia.

I'll say it again, as it obviously hasn't sunk in. There is over-representation of "career politicians" (and jobs for the boys types) and under-representation of those in the professions and who have set up and run SMEs.

Santana, before I go looking for links, what kind of proof do you require? Will a newspaper article (Herald, Scotsman, Times, Guardian, Observer?) do? An item on Wings/BellaCaledonia/Newsnetscotland/BBC

As a general point, if I may butt in, something which is authenticated and published by a decent publisher is of better value than something which is not. So websites I regard as of dubious merit. Journal articles, textbooks, law cases, and the like are better. Newspaper articles are ok when there is nothing better, for the previously mentioned reasons. Published academic studies showing figures and facts, particularly in an internationally comparative sense, are good too.

Blogs, random websites, self penned internet articles - please, no.

OK, at least that saves me searching for proof you won't accept anyway, Santana. But I don't understand your comment on the volatility of oil, so every % counts. It's at least the second time I've seen it on this thread, don't know if you said it last time, and it struck me as odd then.

There is over-representation of "career politicians" (and jobs for the boys types) and under-representation of those in the professions and who have set up and run SMEs

I thought you were defing career politicians as those that have never worked. Then first four I looked at have all had previous careers.

Can you explain to me why union members should not be MSPs. Also, as you have obviously done the research, how many of the MSPs had set up their own business, and how does this compare to the percentage of the population as a whole?

Santana any use? (Tries again)

Article15

Delimitation of the territorial sea between States

with opposite or adjacent coasts

Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.

www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

"Itsallgoingtobefine (it really isn't, btw) You are obviously quite easily impressed. I read the personal interests of the first 12 or so, and about two were acceptable but the rest were not really on a par with what kind of jobs me and my friends do. (none of us are Eton-educated)."

Maybe the jobs you and your friends do wouldn't be acceptable to others, who judges what is acceptable?

To be honest your comments are just odd.