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?

www.fpb.org/newsarchive

Caitlin17 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

I've got that impression at times too. There is an awful lot of strong, excessive, oppressive (in the true sense) old fashioned communism being given an airing in Scotland. Perhaps a small country like Scotland is seen as a winnable target by such types.

In a previous job in Scottish local government, I've been adviser to a steering group dealing with LA enforced property standards, and the comments of two of the west coast council's representatives was along the lines that individual landlords shouldn't own property to rent out as it was "exploitation". Incidentally, the advice given (which was ignored) was that specific interpretations of the Civic Government (Sc) Act 1982 so as to permit deduction from rent for perceived failure to meet the repairing standard were illegal under Scots law because it introduced a third party into the contract and that it was a potential breach of Human rights law because (a) it gave a decision without a right to a court or tribunal hearing for both sides and without evidence and (b) it deprived the owner of property of one of the "fruits" of that property, long enshrined since the Institutional Writers in the 14th Century and later as part of Scots law.

Personally, I wouldn't buy property to rent out in Scotland as an investment because the market is too uncertain - its already the most overregulated private rental market in Scotland (while the public and commercial rental markets remain remarkably uncontrolled) and the future is too uncertain - I could quite easily imagine a rule being introduced which sets rents, for example.

LessMisabbs, the Scottish Government has set standards for the private rented housing sector which are far higher than the public sector has to meet

I'm expected as a landlord to control my tenants' behaviour. I can be fined and prohibited from renting out property if I fail to do so.

A local authority has no corresponding obligation to deal with anti social behaviour of its tenants.

Janetb

You haven't thought this one through. If Westminster wanted Scotland to leave the union, it would have "punished'" Scotland already. As most MPs don't want Scotland to leave, "punishment" hardly makes sense.

Your comments are self-contradictory and nonsensical.

Anyway, removal of the Barnett Formula would hardly be punishment. I do not know whether Scotland has been a net contributor to the UK economy since the formula was introduced, but even if it has been, no other net contributing region of the UK gets the same favoured treatment.

Toad. Insults don't win arguments. They just display your aetiolated intellect.

As noted above, no Tory MP would demonstrate a desire to break up the Union, but nonetheless senior Tories are on record as asserting that trend.

Trying to stick to facts, rather than your 4am mind-drift, with which of my hypotheses do you disagree ('nonsense')? In what way are the three statements 'contradictory'?

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

no other net contributing region of the UK gets the same favoured treatment

NI gets the same %age over the UK average (21%). London gets even more, at 28% over the UK average.

If the Barnett formula is going to be revised, why isn't there the same pressure on the Better Together campaign to outline how it will be changed?

On what basis will the block grant be allocated? Population? Net contribution? Need?

Surely we need to know that before making a decision as to which way to vote?

Because it certainly sounds like whichever way the Scots vote, there will be changes.

Janetb

The statements I find contradictory are your original statements, not the substantial revision you've just posted and which I see no need to address. For everyone but you, those statements were 1. Westminster (or the Tories - you don't distinguish between the two) want to "punish" Scotland and 2. Tories want Scotland to leave the Union.

The obvious problem with this argument is that it would suit the Tories' entirely to do all manner of things that Scotland might find unacceptable and thus cause a Yes vote. You haven't provide any evidence of this apart from some talk that the Barnett formula might be revised: only someone pretty jaundiced would regard that as punishment, given that there is no good reason why Scotland should have it.

Frankly, I doubt that any Tory, given the DNA of that party, would want to go down in history as responsible for breaking up the Union. That said, it makes perfect sense for Tories to want to use devo-max to sideline Labour's strong support in Scotland (assuming, that is, it remains strong). However, that shouldn't alarm you at all - devo max assuring that the hands of English Tories (and Scottish ones like Gove) keep their hands off Scotland.

By the way, thank you for the good advice. I suggest you follow it.

My view is that the fairest thing is for the Barnett formula to be completely abolished. It was only a political bribe in the first place. Simply put, no other region in the UK gets a special hand out just because.

It's only possible defence is that over the period it has been in place, Scotland has been a net contributor to the UK economy. It is obvious there are all sorts of problems with this. If Scotland were to become a net recipient, should the formula stop? Should other net contributing regions get it too? Should Orkney and Shetland get a special extra sub because they're especially rich?

It was basically a political bribe to take the sting out the "it's Scotland's oil" argument. But that in itself is a nonsense. It's not Scotland's oil, any more than high-end manufacturing, science and research belong to the South East. If a region is part of a state, it contributes to the state as a whole. If Scotland wants to take its ball home, it can do so in 2014.

I agree with Danny Alexander. Scotland shouldn't be bribed to stay in the Union. Barnett should be scrapped forthwith. If the people of Scotland don't like that, they know what to do.

Itsallgoingtobefine

There are various reasons why NI and London get over the average. That is for particular reasons, some good, some bad, but all objective. By contrast Scotland, under the Barnett formula, gets extra money just because it is Scotland.

Even Scottish nationalists have said it is unfair.

My understanding is that Barnett's is allocated at least partially by need. And Scotland has some of the most deprived areas in the UK.

Looks like it's going. Which will be interesting, given point 2. I have tried to c'n'p to no avail, sorry, but it's not much scrolling and you don't have to read anything else if you don't want to; essentially, if it looks like Barnett is going in 2015, the "yes" vote could rise to 56%.

I saw this, and for some reason immediately thought of you LessMissAbs I am really looking forward to your comments on this

Looking forward to Tuesday when we will really have something to get our teeth into...

Scottish Actor and campaigner David Hayman received a standing ovation at the Radical Independence Conference 2013 when he read out the Declaration of Radical Independence. Here’s the text in full. The video of David’s speech will be available soon.

A community, a society and a nation. An economy, an environment and a home.

These are not objects that exist because they are measured and weighed and counted.
They are not commodities, they are not someone’s gift.
They are the footprints each of us leave. They are the sum total of our actions and of our will.
Scotland wills itself to be a better nation, one we rebuild with our own hands. Who then will tell us our will is not big enough? Who then will tell us our hands are not strong enough?
Must the hope of the Scots for a better Scotland be the hope of the beaten for a less painful defeat? Must the will of the Scots once again come second to greed and privilege?
This despair has a name. It’s name is NO.
It is a despair that believes poverty inevitable and the decline of public service necessary. It is the cry of people who believe that wealth should belong to whomever has the sharpest claws.
Our poverty, our decline, their wealth, their NO.
For 30 years we have waited for Britain’s rulers to live up to our hopes. They either didn’t notice or didn’t care.
But now they notice. Now they see the chance for working men and working women to take back a nation. Now they tremble at the thought that we might really do it.
Because what drives NO forward is the fear of those who stand to lose their privilege. They fear their kingdom of greed faces its demise. They fear real democracy. They fear that in a land beyond Westminster we will rediscover hope.
That hope has a name. It’s name is YES.
It is a hope fashioned from knowledge. We know a better economy is possible because we have seen it in other nations. We know greater equality among citizens is possible because we have seen that in other nations. We know that ending poverty, reviving democracy and respecting our environment are possible because we have seen these things too.
And we know how to bring these things to Scotland. We must abandon 30 years of the politics of exploitation, the damning, corrosive exploitation that makes a few rich from what the many lose. We must replace it with the politics of sharing, where we all gain from the riches of our land and the fruits of our labour.
It is a fine Scottish tradition; to find what works, to find out how it works and to make it work better. For centuries Scotland’s ingenuity has been a gift to the world. Now let it be a gift also to ourselves.
Let us gift ourselves an economy where we make and create. Let our creativity make working people prosperous. Let prosperous people sustain a great welfare state. Let that state end the fear that comes with insecurity. Let us gift ourselves that Scotland.
Look at the forces that stand behind NO. Look at the forces that stand behind YES. Choose your side.
Together we can raise up our heads and work for a Scotland yet to come but visible already. A Scotland of the Common Weal, of shared wealth and shared wellbeing.
Our Scotland. All of us first.

• See more at: nationalcollective.com/2013/11/24/declaration-of-radical-independence-full-text/#sthash.1nLvIaUV.J9pLmbmN.dpuf

What I want to know is why the heck can't the English, Welsh and Northern Irish people also vote on whether they want Scotland to be joined to them?? Makes perfect sense to me.

The Welsh and the Irish can't, because they are not parties to the Acts and Treaties of Union. The English could have done, but the Scots asked first.

Its because if for eg rUK voted predominantly "yes" and Scots voted predominantly "no" then weight of numbers would mean the result would be "yes".

The same problem Scots have in the Westminster elections.

OldLadyKnowsNothing

No - the parties to the 1707 Union (the kingdoms of England and Scotland) no longer exist. The reason why only people resident in Scotland get to vote is because they live in the area that would secede. Just the same as if Leicestershire wanted independence. I expect if the English wanted independence, there would be a UK-wide vote, simply because there really would be no UK left in any meaningful sense if England left.

That said, I reckon an independent Scotland ought to take Northern Ireland with it.

ItsAllGoingtobeFine

That (David Hayman speech) really is a piece of self-entitled drivel. It nearly as ironic as Salmond quoting Nehru boak

OldLadyKnowsNothing

My view is that if the people of Scotland collectively think they are entitled to extra public spending by virtue of being a comparatively rich region of the UK, they can jolly well piss off. It would certainly give the lie to the high-minded talk about equality, sharing and so on - not that I ever believed it anyway.

Anyway, that survey means little. Removing Barnett, which I think is only fair, would probably take place within a discussion of a fairer replacement, something which that survey doesn't take into account. By "fair", I mean the allocation of public money to where it is most needed.

I'm missing something: what did Salmond quote from Nehru and why is it [boak] that he did so?

Nice article in the Guardian today.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/25/vote-scotland-grab-chance-secession?CMP=twt_gu

Like the Nehru quote myself.
"A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance"

You know, if I thought an independent Scotland was going to be a great place to live, which offered me a high quality of living, I would stay there. I really would. Its not that I have any ethical objection to an independent Scotland, its that I think it would be a rather unpleasant place to be.

Please don't try to patronise me on this - it won't work. There are many countries in the world, and being part of the EU, it is relatively easy for people to have a choice of where to live. DH is keen to move to Holland or Belgium permanently too.

But obviously, if Scotland offered a quality of life there comparable to what I have here (in Belgium) or was likely to in the near future, then theres no way we would be planning to move away.

I find it so sad. I don't find the idea of an independent Scotland sad. I find the idea of a pseudo-socialist dominated little enclave which is driving away its own people, particularly the ones it needs to stay and start up businesses which will make it a strong, albeit very small, country. I find it sad that there are so many people in it who are so intolerant to alternative mainstream political views. I find it sad that the older Scottish traditions, such as hard work, morality, personal responsibility, ties to the land, etc are overlooked in this rush towards an urban Central belt victim mentality of "everyones the same" mediocrity, where the best points anyone can come up for independence is that it will "cure" "oppression" and "inequality".

DH works in engineering for a small company which has never made a profit. It is shored up by investors from the south east of England, like many similar companies in the supposed electronics and biochemistry "hub" in the Lothians. Recently an Eastern European employee left to work in Midlands because they were so worried about independence, and felt so uncomfortable with the independence debate and the way the country is being run.

Engineering is in a dire state in Scotland. Outside the oil belt of Aberdeen (an industry which it is so easy to make profit in while the times are good in that even the very stupid manage it), there is very little in the way of small-medium sized enterprises that a country needs to sustain employment of engineers with valuable skills. DH would be paid 20% more if he relocated to another Northern European country - salaries are simply higher there (and there aren't so many overpaid workers with no qualifications doing very little who take the salaries away from those who are good).

Incidentally, his employers had to employ an Eastern European, because none of the Scottish engineering graduates that have stayed in this country were able to pass the simple test of maths and constructing a basic algorithim that were set for them in the interview.

Most "Yes" supporters are ignorant of basic issues such as this, because none of them work in the private sector, and they generally have "soft" skills, which are rooted in the service or public sectors.

That Guardian article, FannyFifer (who doesn't permit reading of the Telegraph or the Daily Mail, thus dismissing a large swathe of successful Scots who do in fact read those newspapers):

"The best highlighting of this was recently put on the Open Democracy website by Robin McAlpine, a yes campaigner, and the director of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, an organisation now focused on nudging Scottish politics towards the idea of the Common Weal (or, as its blurb puts it, "mutuality and equity rather than conflict and inequality"). On the subject of independence, he addressed his English readers thus: "The big irony ... is that you think this is something to do with identity. But Scotland crossed that bridge ages ago ... We're talking about raising tax and nationalising energy generation. If you fall into the trap of writing us off as ethnicity-based gripers, you will not only miss the best political debate Britain has had in decades, you will play a part in quashing it. Come up, offer your expertise, help us build. If we succeed, finally you'll have the proof that Thatcher wasn't right with that 'there is no alternative' stuff." The Reid Foundation calls what Scotland must escape the "London orthodoxy approach""

"As one Scottish friend of mine put it: "It's easy to scare people who are already afraid."

So, summing up - an independent Scotland for me and DH would mean less money for us to live on (as we would have to pay more tax, although we already pay a lot of tax). To achieve something, which in the words of its architects, might not "succeed".

If we are naturally wary of a proposed change in nationality and having our lives disrupted by a bunch of Communist leaning control freaks, we are patronised and told we are "afraid". By reference to a random, unnamed "Scottish friend" no less. So no longer are we viewed as talented professionals who pay a large majority of those taxes, but as misguided and our views and concerns dismissed. Great.

Alternatively, we could move to a stable European country without having to have this sort of tosh inflicted upon us.

Several of my friends Husbands are engineers working in a variety of sectors in Scotland. Oil industry, Biomass, Distillers.
These industries are in Fife, all recently expanded & have increased their workforces.
There has been Scottish Government investment in all these industries.