Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To want to keep my UK passport if Scotland votes YES in the 2014 referendum?

967 replies

SittingBull1 · 16/11/2013 19:50

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?

OP posts:
SantanaLopez · 22/11/2013 14:34

There are just as many uncertainties either way. We did this about ten pages back, there are naturally more uncertainties when the status quo is broken, as it would be in the case of a yes vote.

Of course negotiations wouldn't start until after a yes vote, but the Yes campaign could be doing a lot more. Of course we can see what the White Paper is like, but the current premise of the campaign is ridiculous.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/11/2013 14:46

there are naturally more uncertainties when the status quo is broken, as it would be in the case of a yes vote

Not really. In the event of a no Vote, in 2025

  • will scotland still have an NHS?
  • will Scotland have more devolution or less?
  • will the UK be in the EU
  • will the UK have the pound or the Euro
  • what will immigration policy be?
  • how much oil will be left?
  • will people still have state pensions?
  • will poverty in the UK be more or less?
  • how many armed forces will the uk have?
  • will there be any shipbuilding in the UK...

I could go on....

So tell me, please, what are the certainties in the event of a No vote?

prettybird · 22/11/2013 15:05

The NHS one in particular worries me. The creeping privatisation of the English NHS has a (negative) effect on the Barnet formula that many people don't realise Sad.

Dh is doing some business with the various NHSs of England, Scotland and Wales - and all the "English" professionals (both clinical and managerial) he is dealing with are jealous of the NHS we still have in Scotland and bemoan how it is being diluted and fragmented in England.

That ties in with my Dad's comments: he says he has had to stop reading certain articles in the BMJ for the sake of his blood pressure, reminding himself that it is different in Scotland.

LessMissAbs · 22/11/2013 17:55

Itsallgoing Which is exactly what you/the No Campaign are doing. I post something, in your opinion it is wrong. Where is the evidence that is wrong.?

Its not wrong, its just badly put together nonsense. tbh you should be embarrassed, as should anyone who is presenting a serious campaign, to present people with such poor propaganda. I can only assume you think everyone else is stupid. Which considering the level of information provided by you, is remarkably insulting indeed.

Or do you think the levels of poverty are acceptable?

I don't think an independent Scotland will address poverty successfully. There are too many people who make money out of it, and in eradicating poverty, would do themselves and many others out of a job.

I also don't understand why Scotland is so oppressed and has so much poverty, in a country with such generous state benefits, free education until age 16 (and often beyond) and good health provision. Its actually quite an achievement. The Netherlands doesn't have much poverty, neither does Belgium. Why Scotland? Maybe its more a mindset?

I am perfectly happy for you to refute my arguments by linking to biased Better Together sources, that would be useful for me/other readers if this thread.

I have nothing to do with any campaign and would never link to propaganda of any kind. There are plenty of verifiable sources out there - I have tried to describe this to you before but I'm not sure it sunk in.

All you are doing though is trying to shut down the debate by saying that I am stupid. That is not engaging with the argument, or making any useful comment

Not at all. Thats like me saying you are sniping with pointless petty arguments and rehashing the same stuff because you think who talks the longest wins, not matter what you might say. I think you are making a great mess of talking up the "Yes" campaign, and by not agreeing with you, you are perpetuating that. I suspect the sort of person who will not vote yes is the sort of person who will not tend to take part in online debates. As for me, I was educated in the Netherlands and due perhaps to the nationality of one of my parents, have a cultural tendency to say exactly what I think. Attempts to shut me up have no effect whatsoever.

It would be great if this debate could have two sides. Positive cases put forward by both the yes and the No camps, as well as a constructive discussion of each sides arguments and their merits

I think there are far more than two sides to this.

I'm really shocked that anyone could present such information as The Short Video, the Common Weal and the Jimmy Reid Foundation as arguments for any cause. Their quality is so bad and they are such biased propaganda that I would expect any reasonable person to notice that. ie I would expect anyone who could read and write and who had been educated to at least age 16 to be able to produce better quality and to be embarrassed and ashamed to present it as serious argument. The fact you didn't even notice this means that in my eyes, most of what you say has no credence, because you constantly misunderstand things that a better educated person or at least a person with more varied experience, would be expected to understand as of standard.

Caitlin17 · 22/11/2013 18:15

Re being " fair" there's "fair" and "it's nae fair"

I have never inherited wealth and will not inherit anything. I grew up on a small owner occupier farm which now belongs to my brother, having inherited it from our grandfather. Not poor but far from wealthy. The land is too small in today's terms to be economically viable as a farm and is used for grazing and my brother's horses. My brother works in the construction industry.

I've worked all my life and until the last few months as an employee so no scope for creative tax planning re my income. I'm now technically self employed but in a sector which has no scope for being creative over income tax. My point being I have paid all tax I've ever been due.

Out of earned taxed income I've bought 2 flats I rent out. These are part of my pension planning or possibly one of them will be a home for my son.

These flats meet all standards set by Scottish Government and I comply fully with obligations on me as a landlord.

I've been accused of "landlordism" and been told "it's nae fair" I own these flats.

My brother has been told it's "nae fair" he owns land. I'd be willing to bet the people who said this will be voting yes.

FannyFifer · 22/11/2013 20:27

I'm sure plenty Yes voting people own land & property so don't get your point on that one.

janetbb · 22/11/2013 22:16

Westminster is itching to punish the people of Scotland for having the temerity to vote in a SNP government at Holyrood. Should Scotland vote No in 2014 the people of Scotland can expect petulant repercussions from British nationalists at Westminster.

HumpdayPlus · 22/11/2013 22:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Caitlin17 · 22/11/2013 22:37

Fanny my point is that a lot of the propaganda is that it's not ok to own land. I've seen references to ,"second houses".I've seen references to "landlordism", whatever that might mean. I've seen references to "non productive use of land," which would catch my brother using his land for his horses. Basically I've seen suggestions that owning other than the house you live in is incompatible with the sort of Scotland the yes vote wants.

Was in the pub tonight with a couple of the junior staff. Talked about this. They are petrified at the idea of independence.

Caitlin17 · 22/11/2013 22:42

Janetbb sorry what planet are you on? Westminster doesn't want independence but the idea they are punishing Scotland for voting for they SNP is nonsense.

Caitlin17 · 22/11/2013 22:43

Janetbb sorry what planet are you on? Westminster doesn't want independence but the idea they are punishing Scotland for voting for they SNP is nonsense.

prettybird · 22/11/2013 22:47

There's a lot that Westminster could do. Change or even remove the Barnet formula. Reduce Scotland's block grant. Take away some of Scotland's currently devolved powers Hmm

But I would hope that a Westminster government wouldn't be so vindictive just because there was a No vote.

But it is possible Sad

janetbb · 22/11/2013 23:01

They will act according to today's Torygraph editorial:

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10465267/Scotland-should-not-be-bribed-to-stay-in-the-UK.html

janetbb · 22/11/2013 23:03

And the former Tory Scottish Secretary would beg to differ with your vast intellect, Caitlin:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10424621/Tory-MPs-secretly-want-Scotland-independence-for-Westminster-majority-claims-Lord-Forsyth.html

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/11/2013 23:04

janetbb yup, the final sentence of that editorial says it all

for the Scottish people are entitled to know that even if they vote to stay in the UK, the current method of financing public spending should not be allowed to continue

janetbb · 22/11/2013 23:06

Either Barnett gets scrapped or Scotland gains its independence.

Remember, there is more support for Scottish independence among the English that the Scots:

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/10/scotland-independence-english_n_3898845.html

HumpdayPlus · 22/11/2013 23:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

janetbb · 22/11/2013 23:15

Unpalatable truths. That's why I've stuck to bare, sourced facts:

  1. Tory intention to revise Barnett.
  2. More support for Scottish independence among English than Scots.
  3. Conservatives incentivised to hope for independence.

With which do you disgree?

Your judicious use of 'knobber' suggests a threatened intellect. I love it!

Caitlin17 · 22/11/2013 23:16

Actually Janet ,I agree. I'm sure if the vote was extended to the whole of the UK the majority in England would be happy to be rid of whinging Scots.

Fortunately , Cameron feels differently.

Caitlin17 · 22/11/2013 23:18

Oh and Janet the Barnett formula does for no justifiable reason disproportionately benefit Scotland.

janetbb · 22/11/2013 23:20

Yes, I agree.

I think Cameron is genuinely dedicated to the Union. But I understand others in his party see a permanently blue England.

No more need for Coalition.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 22/11/2013 23:22

Good, unbiased, article about the Barnett Formula

fullfact.org/factchecks/Simon_Heffer_Daily_Telegraph_Barnett_formula_Scottish_spending_settlement-2693

janetbb · 22/11/2013 23:26

Yes, I don't think debating the rights and wrongs of the Barnett formula will be resolved here.

Merely confining my observations to the intent to reduce this come what may, post-'No vote'.

HumpdayPlus · 22/11/2013 23:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LessMissAbs · 23/11/2013 00:17

The Forum of Small Business has found out that in a survey reported yesterday, 73% of its members who are business owners wanted to remain in the UK, 15% wanted independence and 4% backed delayed separation.

The main points of concern were that 73% were worried about the lack of clear information on the impact of regulation and taxation and 70% were concerned about transport and national resources. 49% saw independence as a threat to future economic growth and 17% as an opportunity.

From what I've read though, independence supporters are only interested in big businesses creating well paid jobs, and the public sector, so won't care.