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?

Of course rUK will argue special circumstance /historical reasons,but that is the convention.

Probably was me! As I'm sure you know, the price of oil goes up and down, and it can fluctuate wildly year to year. 2008-9 (possibly 9-10, will double check tomorrow for you) there was an 8% fall, which translates into a huge amount in money. Since oil will be so important to an iScotland (sponsored by Apple?! ) it needs to have as much of at is possible, to cover the inevitable bad years.

Really must go to bed now! Goonight all.

The common weal, hmm. Sorry that web site was even less convincing than the video.

There seems to be a divergence of opinion here on the tax issue between Itsallgoingtobefine and Theoldlady.

Santana this is also relevant

Article 38

1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

1. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.

www.icj-cij.org/documents/?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0#CHAPTER_II

There seems to be a divergence of opinion here on the tax issue between Itsallgoingtobefine and Theoldlady

Yes supporters are all united by a desire for independence. Beyond that you may find us very different. In the first general election after a yes vote, I will vote for an MP/party that best represents my interests, and theoldslady will vote for who represents hers. The important thing is that our votes will count, and the country will grow the way the majority of Scots want it to grow, not the way WM wants it to grow.

Must go to bed too! But thanks all, this has been the most worthwhile independence thread so far, and is really making me think :-)

I remain thoroughly unconvinced
I'm none the wiser what this fairer and equal society is going to look like.

The Jimmy Reid website is essentially communist. I can understand the thinking that simply hoiking up taxes will make everything better ( especially as most of those proposing it will assume it's going to be applied only to those who are already on the 40 or 50% rate who of course deserve to have to pay more) whilst I don't agree with it

Seriously, do you really all wake up every morning feeling oppressed?

FannyFifer To be honest your comments are just odd

You may find a bit of self reflection leads you somewhere more interesting...

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

This again reminds me of Father Ted, and the episode explaining to Dougal the concepts of big and far away...

Caitlin Seriously, do you really all wake up every morning feeling oppressed?

I do think that they do, or at least they rather grandly assume that they are being magnificent in feeling oppressed on behalf of others.

Oppression at least seems to be diverse - the "oppressed workers" at Grangemouth, that their union was so concerned about being exploited by rich business, earned an average of 55k pa.

There is always someone more oppressed than you, and equally someone more blameworthy than yourself - so the problem is never solved, and the need for more teeth gnashing about it never stops. It gives them a purpose.

The 10 Facts and Short Video were terribly biased - they really are very off-putting to anyone who is not an evangelical "yes" supporter, and its probably not a good idea to push them so much, as I can imagine they must put a lot of people off.

Can we assume for now that we're all educated, hard-working people here - even if I'm unemployed?

LessMissAbs, I am on the opposite side of the debate from ItsAllGoing, but I too detect a degree of vitriol in some of your responses that is difficult to understand.

You seem to be suggesting the following improvements:

1. A minimum educational qualification.

I would suggest that the minimum is an O Grade/Standard Grade/National in logic. Does the UK parliament have an educational requirement for MPs? Seriously, though, you'd have to have a bit more variety: school doesn't suit everyone and many people don't active much in the way of qualifications until the are working and study a subject relevant to what they are doing. (As an example, I think Richard Branson left school with a couple of O Levels. Einstein didn't set the world of school on fire and I can assure you that my husband is an intelligent man who runs an electronics lab although he left school with one O Grade.)

1. A second chamber.

Again, a good idea and one that is pretty standard in our type of democracy. So why doesn't the Scottish Parliament have a second chamber? I don't know. Perhaps it was to keep the costs down? Perhaps the white paper will introduce one? The problem with a second chamber is who should be in it. If it's elected like the first chamber then who's in charge? We don't really want an American budget fiasco.

1. No secret committees.

Are you suggesting that cabinet meetings should be open to the press and public? Or do you just mean committees that are reviewing bills as they go through parliament? On the other hand you rightly complain about the quality of the debate in public. If you allow the public into the committees all you'll get is more of the drivel they speak at the public and the press. I'm convinced that they do much better things behind the scenes. It seems obvious to me, because in committee they are no longer playing to the gallery but actually doing what they went into politics to do, and my one observation of a committee in practice seems to support that, although it is obviously just one instance.

1. Secondary legislation

Hasn't Westminster being doing that for a very long time too. They pass a bill which says that all these details will be published as Regulations in a Statutory Instrument. It's presumably to get the main bill passed and spend more time on the details of the other bits. I take the point that it might not be scrutinised by parliament as a whole in that case, but presumably he people who are most interested in the details get on the committees and it is the focus of their work, whilst the average MP or MSP simply doesn't have time to review the details of all the legislation. The volume of legislation is part of the problem. They should have a moratorium on legislation and slowly review, cull and consolidate what they've already got. It is impossible to keep up with. Anyway, i don't think the secondary legislation issue is unique to Holyrood. Obviously I don't know whether there are any specific controlling items of legislation the you object to. I would probably object to them too. The UK government has just agreed to a relaxation of its rule in England that doctors appointments must be for ten minutes. Why on earth is the uK government getting involved in telling doctors how long their appointments with their patients should be - it's nonsense. And why do they keep fostering about with the educational system in England, even more so than here and that's bad enough? No wonder teachers leave and become politicians.

1. Second class travel?

I'm not clear whether you are suggesting that MPs who have to travel the length of the country between their constituencies and their work should not be able to sit in a quiet fist class carriage in order to get on with their work while travelling for five hours there and five hours back, more if they live north of Glasgow?

Most of them would be second rate at any career and so many didn't actually have one, but started off as political aids, trades unionists and local councillors, with the odd journalist and failed teacher.

Where do you get the raw data for a conclusion like that? Why do you think that political aides, trades unionists, local councillors and "failed" teachers are second rate and that their careers are not careers? Do you mean that they are not in business and for some reason just don't count? Does the same apply to nurses and doctors, police and fire services, civil servants, local government administrators and academics? Why are teachers who have gone into politics 'failed' teachers?I've heard this slur on the MSPs before, but I've never seen anyone back it up.

I understand the concern that many of our politicians go straight from the university debating chamber to a political researcher post then onto the candidate list without experiencing much of the world of work outwith politics. But that's what people do when they know in which direction their career lies. In order to get other experience into parliament (Holyrood or Westminster) people with experience have to stand for parliament and leave their careers, sometimes travel long distances and be away from family a lot for not much more money, or sometimes less depending on the nature of what they do, and be subject to press intrusion and public criticism which is sometimes not justified but makes a good story. You could stand for election. Why not do it yourself and see what you can get done?

And to be clear what I meant by divergence on tax is one of you thinks this paradise is going to be paid for by higher taxes, the other thinks Scotland will be rich enough without that. So which is it?

Sorry, previous post referred to 50% it's of course 45%

A lot of this is classical groupthink, and I think its not working with me because I'm terribly averse to it. I'm also outwith Scotland and not sitting in front of a tv for hours on end taking in media broadcasts about the case for independence, and I have a tendency to play Devil's Advocate.

"Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making."

"Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

1.Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2.Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3.Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4.Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5.Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6.Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7.Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8.Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions."

www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm

Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, Irving L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Second Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

"When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes."

Caitlin,

I felt quite oppressed until I got to the bit in the book where Edward 1 of England died at Burgh-under-Sands, because he was on his way north to dish some serious additional oppression. But that was 700 years ago (I was about nine at the time) and I'm over it now.

LessMiss,

Reminds me of 'We're on the march with Ally's army'.

*SittingBull Thanks for your response. I'm going to try and be brief!

1. A minimum educational qualification.

I'm not suggesting that, but bearing in mind judges require a law degree, diploma, training and 8 years in practice as a minimum qualification, imagine if Scotland led the way by requiring MSPs to have either (i) a degree or (ii) a minimum of at least 8 years work experience outwith politics?

1. A second chamber.

Theres not really any good reason for not having one. Its never really been explained, which also isn't satisfactory. It is a valid, and important criticism of the Scottish parliamentary system.

1. No secret committees.

The main problem is poor debating of legislation, and shunting it off as a side issue, so politicians can use parliamentary time for their personal squabbles, ego boosting and pet interests. Debates about football matches might be nice, but are not appropriate at parliamentary level.

1. Secondary legislation

Here we agree. Some secondary legislation coming out of Holyrood is of dubious value and IMHO contravenes the ICHR (eg HMO Regulations where the local authority forces landlords to adopt their contracts) and EU competition law (same example), compulsory land purchase - the problem is the expense and time it takes to appeal to the ICJ.

1. Second class travel?/politicians:

Basically, I want to look up to people in parliament who are cleverer and more experienced than me and my contemparies, who have achievements and past records that I can admire and have confidence in. I don't think that is an unreasonable requirement of your elected representatives. Politicians of the calibre of David Steele, Menzies Campbell, Malcolm Rifkind, Michael Forsyth.

I'm also very disenfranchised by all the communist manifesto oppression talk and lack of tolerance for other people's really very standard views. It really is utter nonsense to be talking like that in a wealthy first world country like Scotland.

You could stand for election. Why not do it yourself and see what you can get done?

I'm not enough of a crawler/don't want to get involved with a parcel of rogues/have too good a career. I think I can see the way its going - the best talent seems to get wasted and bogged down in petty personal attacks.

I don't think local authorities force anyone to use their contracts. There is a certain amount of information which has to be in any lease. Many of the Councils provide preferred styles( as much to help out the door it yourself brigade as anything)

It will be a requirement of an HMO licence that the landlord uses a style which covers what it's meant to but I don't think they actually say you can only use our preferred style ( actually I'm sure they don't as I've seen leases from different letting agents and they are not identical)

On point 1, after looking through a lot of the MSP's personal statements the percentage that already meets that criteria is pretty high.

I don't think on one hand you can say yes voters are all part of groupthink and then get annoyed when we don't all sin from the same hymn sheet!

I'm waiting for the white paper as this is all speculation, and everyone will have their own view on how it should work. As I say though, those looking for guarantees will not find them until both governments negotiate, which the UK government refuses to do before a Yes vote.

Caitlin, I certainly don't wake up every morning feeling oppressed but I do think living in a country that runs its own affairs is intrinsically fairer, even if I may not like the decisions that country may make. I think it gives all of us (including the no voters) a chance to actually put some of these consitutional, economic and social ideas we've discussed into practice, something that as essentially a minority stakeholder in the union we would be unlikely to get the opportunity to do.

One of the ideas I've enjoyed on this thread from both sides has been the possible need for a second chamber in the Scottish Parliament whether we are independent or not. I feel that under independence we would be able to shape this far more to the needs of those living in Scotland, rather than worrying about its place in the UK constitution.

sinning from the same hymn sheet sounds fun, but I did mean singing... :)

I'm not enough of a crawler/don't want to get involved with a parcel of rogues/have too good a career. I think I can see the way its going - the best talent seems to get wasted and bogged down in petty personal attacks.

I too am not much of a joiner of parties. I would disagree with too many things and have to resign. And clearly it is more difficult for an independent to get elected. The 'parcel of rogues' thing is just a line from a song. Having known people who have gone into politics (and watched the West Wing) I firmly believe that the vast majority of them intend to do their best in the public service but politics requires compromise and, these days, the media requires soundbites rather than depth of analysis and rhetoric.

I think that it is also very important to bear in mind that the people you mentioned were Westminster MPs and all the heavy weights went to Westminster. That is bound to happen unless and until Scotland governs itself, at which point the heavyweights will sit at Holyrood. It will take a generation.

Re having too good a career, that will be the same for your friends. But perhaps you need to complain to them about your under-representation?

I would be excellent at it, but I'm too shy.

Forgetmenots,

Both are good.

Santana, yes, that's what I thought, but you're mixing up two different matters. Yes, the price of oil fluctuates, and will rise as reserves reduce. But that doesn't alter the % due to us, whether that's 90% or 10%.

I like the idea of being sponsored by Apple though.

Sent from my iPad.

No, fluctuations don't alter the % of seabed, but they mean that every square mile is vitally important and the ICJ legislation means that every square mile can be contested, potentially for years.

Ah, ok. :)

Anyone watch the equal Marriage debate tonight?
Some excellent speeches by numerous MSP's, did us proud.
First stage passed also.