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?

Its yet another unauthenticated, unproven wishlist "Itsallgoing*, but
picked out very quickly from a 30s random browse:

"12 points on commercial property"

1. Property certainty

Commercial property, as an asset class, cannot be physically moved"

No way? I wonder how long it took to come up with this scintillating news! At any rate, property certainty is one thing that is a real worry with independence, due to the Scottish State's record on fiddling and controlling property. Commercial property is doing well, possibly only because its so far been completely ignored by the State and they haven't yet thought about targeting it.

"11. Two established legal frameworks

Scotland already has an established and independent legal framework international investors have confidence in. Occupiers and their businesses will have access to the EU’s Single Market and can continue to develop at home, within the EU and beyond. Risk at the macro-economic level is unlikely to be seen as adversely changed; if anything the opposite is true."

Well, apart from the usual implicit EU assumption, it would be nice to know which two "legal frameworks" they mean. Would that be Scots law and EU law?

"12. Yield pricing is stable

From all of the above, yield pricing – the ability to develop pricing strategies on commercial property – is secure. (And is a lengthy paper all of its own.)"

Actually, no, its not. Commercial property yields have taken a significant dip in Scotland as in the rest of Europe, during the recession years. www.ryden.co.uk/65thScottishPropertyReview.pdf

This is something like something written by a schoolchild on the back of a cigarette packet.

prettybird lessmissabs : you specifically mentioned "political party neutral" in your post, with the inference that Business for Scotland wasn't. Hence why I clarified the point

I did not specifically mention it. I specifically quoted it, from the website and business group I was critiquing.

Itsallgoingtobefine That is not relevant

Yes, its highly relevant. If that the sort of business that's going to be encouraged in an independent Scotland, I want no part of it.

Scots law has for a long time been a highly treasured constituent part of maintaining a distinct Scottish identity; the fact that this bypasses independence supporters yet again makes me think they simply make up a lot of "information" on the hoof, without doing any proper research.

I disagree that taking into account the opinion of a 13 year old (why did you feel the need to age him up?) is 'informed'. But that's just an aside.

So where does Business for Scotland say that it is "referendum" neutral? In fact on the contrary, it specifically says that it is "a co-operatively owned business network for business people and professionals who believe that Scotland will prosper as an independent country". Why shouldn't it say it is politically neutral?

Looking at the list of members, I suspect that that they are not all necessarily SNP voters. There is only one of the members that I "know" (dh used to work with one of them in the past) and I have no idea what his politics are.

I do wish people would stop conflating the referendum vote with a vote for the SNP. The Greens are also in favour of voting Yes. There is a "Labour for Independence" group. I know Tory friends of my dad voted SNP last time for the first time ever and some may go on to vote Yes at the referendum.

I do wish people would stop conflating the referendum vote with a vote for the SNP.

The SNP seem to have done that themselves with the White Paper.

It was pointed out very early in this thread by someone else (and I really agree with them) that it is hard to separate the two, because Alec Salmond & co will be the ones waving Saltires in front of Edinburgh castle if there is a yes vote. It's their flagship policy- in many ways it is a vote for them.

I am not "aging him up" He is 13 now - he will be 14 just before the referendum. The referendum is a topic we will be discussing regularly in the house (as we do all politics - we like debating) over the next 10 months. He reads the newspapers and watches the news. He discusses with us about things like "presumed liability" for accidents involving cars and cyclists (in fact, he and I are on different "sides" on that one)

As dh says, the result of the vote will have a far more long lasting impact on him than on us. We're in our 50s - he has his whole working life ahead of him. So yes, he is "informed" - and as I said earlier, certainly far more so than some of the eejits on the Radio 2 facebook page who do get a vote (and some eejits who fortunately don't).

You did age him up. You said he was 13, then I challenged you and you made him nearly 14.

Defensive much?

Well if Alex Salmond gets his way Scots will get all the benefits of being independent, plus all the benefits of not being, and the rest of the UK will just have to stick it. He can dream on ....

(BTW - at the moment ds is saying if he had a vote he would vote No)

I never said he was "nearly 14" - I said by the time the referendum comes round, he will be 14. It's 10 months away - people have birthdays. And I am proud of the fact that dh values his opinion enough to discuss it with him. I am proud of the fact that he has learnt to articulate arguments. Not all of that is down to us, his parents - his school has also been encouraging them to argue cases (recent English homework was on making the case for and against something and he chose the proposed changes to presumed liability).

its yet another unauthenticated, unproven wishlist "Itsallgoing, but
picked out very quickly from a 30s random browse*

The points you list are not in the article that was linked to:
www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independence-will-generate-a-109000000000-asset-windfall-for-scotland/

Have you got a link for the article you are quoting?

pfb?

Yes, its highly relevant. If that the sort of business that's going to be encouraged in an independent Scotland, I want no part of it

1. That is one business, out of the hundreds affiliated to "Business for Scotland" . I am fairly sure that both the No and Yes camps have a similar proportion of dubious people.

1. You are making assumptions from a very limited set of data and trying to present them as some sort of fact or to suggest that the individual is somehow dodgy.

Whilst his own business blurb ignores the distinction between Scots and English law

Perhaps his company is available to advise on both Scots and English law?

and doesn't promise to provide Scots lawyers to its Scottish clients, whats more worrying is that it doesn't actually mention providing a qualified lawyer at all

Neither does it say that they don't. Their site has very little concrete information, and that is a massive assumption to make based on the fact they don't specifically say that.

And its a limited company, which means if it makes a mess of things and goes bust, it can simply close with limited liability to its creditors

Seriously? Are you trying to imply that all limited companies are somehow dodgy?

A POB (Precious Only Born) not through choice

Not at all. However legal services in Scotland are provided by solicitors with professional indemnity insurance for good reason. Solicitors are not permitted to set up as limited companies. He will have to run that company very carefully to avoid transgressing the Solicitors(Sc) Acts. I personally find that business website rather misleading.

Its on the bloody same website fir the sane group! If I can find it, why can't you? Its the group FannyFifer linked to, not me. Are you now suggesting we are only allowed to read specific pages on websites? Its on one of the tabs at the top!

Did I dream it or did the White Paper say that free education would continue for all home and EU students apart from the rUK?

I am confused. Does all HR advice have to be delivered by lawyers?

On MN people are often advised to contact ACAS when they have employment issues - I didn't think all their advisers were lawyers.

Its on the bloody same website fir the sane group! If I can find it, why can't you? Its the group FannyFifer linked to, not me. Are you now suggesting we are only allowed to read specific pages on websites? Its on one of the tabs at the top

I fail to understand you apparent anger. There was a brief discussion about the assets of the UK. FannyFifer linked to a particular article about the way assets would be divided between Scotland and rUK.

You then commented:

Yet more propaganda. This is becoming very tedious. How stupid do you think people are?

On further questioning you added:

"Its yet another unauthenticated, unproven wishlist "Itsallgoing*, but
picked out very quickly from a 30s random browse:

"12 points on commercial property"..."

It then transpired that you were for some reason commenting on a completely different article. No wonder I was confused when I had asked you to address points in a particular article that you had commented on as "propaganda", and you chose to comment on a different article

Did I dream it or did the White Paper say that free education would continue for all home and EU students apart from the rUK

Nope. It's in there, the SNP believe that Scotlands special and unique circumstances would allow the EU to change the rules for Scotland. I have to say, I'm not entirely convinced.

pretty.

Did I dream it or did the White Paper say that free education would continue for all home and EU students apart from the rUK?

Yes.

237. Would Scotland still charge students from the rest of the UK tuition fees?
     Yes. The divergence in funding policy between Scotland and England and the resulting disparity in the cost of a university education creates a huge financial incentive for students from England to study in Scotland. In that context, and to ensure Scottish students remain able to study at Scottish Higher Education Institutions, we propose maintaining the status quo by continuing our policy of allowing Scottish Higher Education Institutions to set their own annual tuition fees for students from the rest of the UK at a rate no higher than the maximum annual tuition fee rate chargeable to such students by universities in the rest of the UK.

238. Would charging students from the rest of the UK tuition fees in an independent Scotland be compatible with EU law?
     We believe that the unique and unprecedented position of a post-independent Scotland will enable us to continue our current policy in a way which is consistent with the principles of free movement across the EU as a whole and which is compatible with EU requirements.

239. Are you confident that the Court of Justice of the EU will support this position?
     Each member state is free to adopt its own domestic policies, consistent with the objectives of the EU. We believe that our fees policies contribute to student mobility across the wider EU, while addressing the consequences of the unique situation of Scottish independence. In these circumstances we believe that it will be possible to deliver our policy in a way which is compatible with EU requirements.

I thoroughly disagree with points 238 and 239.

*I am confused. Does all HR advice have to be delivered by lawyers? confused

On MN people are often advised to contact ACAS when they have employment issues - I didn't think all their advisers were lawyers*

Well yes. Don't let that get in the way of a good rant though

It does mirry - which I think is wrong and probably illegal under EU Law - although it tries to justifies it in the narrative

I thoroughly disagree with points 238 and 239

Me too.