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?

Santanalopez I'm speechless.

Brings to mind saying 'you can't have the penny and the bun.'

So does all HR advice have to be delivered by lawyers? Wouldn't that mean that all HR managers should be qualified lawyers? Still

Yeah, it's pretty gobsmacking.

re University Fees

www.universities-scotland.ac.uk/uploads/briefings/Note%20for%20Universities%20Scotland%288025053_v4%29%20DOC%288033180_3%29.pdf

I think it says that Scotland may be able charge rUK residents uni fees, but they would have to charge the same fees to other EU citizens.

Though of course if rUK does leave the EU, then the fees thing is largely academic.

It's also academic when it assumes that Scotland would be in the EU by 2016.

It is but that is very likely. Theres a big chunk in Chap 6 of the White Paper (but it's pretty long to C&P)

The average waiting time to enter the EU is around 10 years- why will Scotland be different?

rUK leaving the EU is still too uncertain to base the paper on. The referendum would be 2017 if the bill passes before February (I think).

The average waiting time to enter the EU is around 10 years- why will Scotland be different

Because we are already in the EU, and because it would be advantageous for the EU to keep it that way.

Spain's none too happy. Unfortunately even if it would make logical sense for the EU to give us an express pass back in, its a political decision that requires political agreement. (as do a lot of the things the White Paper assets) I do hope the SG has been investing in diplomacy...

Scotland is not already in the EU, the UK is.

Why is it advantageous other than to save them work? Spain isn't too happy with Catalan independence and I believe Italy has quite a strong regional independence movement.

Another option which I am surprised has not been mentioned as either a temporary or a permanent solution is membership of EFTA (like Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland). But as a negative, it would confer all the regulatory constraints of the EU with no (direct) vote.

But there again, Scotland would get to keep its fish

asserts*

prettybird I'm quite surprised that the White Paper didn't outline fall back options for some of the important stuff, like EFTA as you've suggested for the EU, or just pegging a new currency 1:1 with the pound (either temporarily or more permanently) as a fallback solution to the currency. Obviously neither of these options is as good as the first choice, but I can't see what the White Paper would have lost by suggesting them apart from a bolshy we'll get everything we ask for attitude

Again, I'm already an EU citizen, I already use the pound etc, what worries me is what Scotland will lose in negotiations in order to keep what we already have. And that's just to stand still, that's not even getting into whether any of the benefits of 'being independent' are worth all the money and hassle to achieve when we could already achieve loads through the devolved parliament and with working with the rest of the UK at a national level.

This is a really serious decision about the future of Scotland. The SNP are treating it like a short term election, playing retail politics by waving free childcare in front of reluctant parents. We should be making this decision based on facts, even if those facts are of uncertainty. I understand that for some new countries the uncertainty is worth it, perhaps because they have a history of being colonised or annexed. I, personally, don't think its worth it for Scotland, I feel we are already part of a democratic country, my politics is rarely geographical after you get above local services, and I think there are benefits to sharing resources across the UK. But I think that if the people of Scotland are going to make this decision, is should be for the right reasons - we shouldn't be sleepwalked into something so important.

I don't think EFTA is glamorous enough tbh. It is strange no one has really discussed it as a potential option.

Speaking of options- is there a mention of a re-entry clause? I'm ploughing through (feel like I've got a uni seminar tomorrow morning ) but can't see it so far.

This is a really serious decision about the future of Scotland. The SNP are treating it like a short term election, playing retail politics by waving free childcare in front of reluctant parents

I agree and I disagree. The white paper has set out a really exciting future, one that may well be possible in an independent Scotland, but one I think we all agree would not be possible without independence.

But it is slightly worrying that there is no plan B on things like currency (although there is nothing to stop an independent Scotland using the pound outside of a currency union)

FWIW - I agree with the essence of what you're saying.

People need to vote either way based on longer term considerations and to have thought through the consequences.

It goes back to what my dad has been saying for some time: people shouldn't be voting on whether or not they think they'll be better off in the short term as this is a decision that will impact for generations to come. In Dad's case, that means he'll be voting Yes. It's arguable whether the key influencing factors in his decision (his belief in a non-privatised NHS and his perception of a different set of values in Scotland to those he sees emanating from Westminster) are short or long term ones.

Prettybird So does all HR advice have to be delivered by lawyers? Wouldn't that mean that all HR managers should be qualified lawyers? Still confused

The offence under the Solicitors (Sc) Act 1980 s.31 is where any person, (including a body corporate), who, not having the relevant qualification, wilfully and falsely pretends to be a solicitor...or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is duly qualified". Its also an offence under s.33 for an unqualified person to charge fees for acting as a solicitor.

"Acting as a solicitor" mainly includes appearing in court on behalf of clients for fees and preparing certain documents. Most HR functions therefore fall outwith this but there is a crossover with employment law. There have been a number of cases where the Law Society has cracked down on non-legally qualified persons who have tried to give employment law advice, as opposed to HR advice.

Its a very grey area, and I would personally like to see that website a lot clearer about what it is offering, as it could create an assumption that a lawyer is giving all the "UK law advice" to which it refers. I also cannot see what advice they are going to give (knowing how some of these HR advisory companies work) on complex areas of employment law, other than reading from a pre-prepared script, much as the CAB does for free (tbh most of which you could google yourself). Its not clear whether a solicitor will be proffered for the set fees mentioned at tribunal stage. I personally cannot see how at those levels of set fees, but if not, then they are very high for non-lawyers.

Its also an offence under s.26 for solicitors to act as agents for unqualified persons in court (employment tribunals are not courts, however decisions of employment tribunals may be appealed to courts).

The Legal Services (Sc) Act 2010 was a rather strange piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Government (colloquially known as "Tesco law") which amongst other things, permitted solicitors to enter into partnerships with non-solicitors. Some of it is quite good, such as allowing McKenzie Friends to make oral submissions and CABs to employ solicitors to give advice, but the thinking behind much of it is odd. Its as if it was set up to benefit "stakeholders" such as Mr Sutherland.

people shouldn't be voting on whether or not they think they'll be better off in the short term as this is a decision that will impact for generations to come

This^ x 100000000000

"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."

There seems to be a confusion here that free movement of people is the only aim of the EU and that if it is fulfilled, it excuses all other illegalities.

As far as I can make out, its a breach of EU competition law (known as antitrust law in the US). If universities come under bodies corporate, then this policy constitutes illegal state aid under Art 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Its also likely an anti-competitive practice under Art 101 of TFEU.

Its also wrong to question whether the European Court of Justice will support this position, because EU competition law is enforced by the European Commission, not the ECJ. ie the EC would fine a member state which got this wrong, rather than waiting on an individual citizen sueing the member state in their home country's courts and then eventually appealing to the ECJ at great expense, years later.

Its almost certainly indirect racial discrimination under the current Race Relations Act s 1(1)(b) and Equalities Acts. Because in an independent Scotland, "English" would be a protected race.

If several of us on here, including some No supporters, have spotted the error in points 237, 238 and 239, I am sure the writers of the White Paper must have been aware of it.

Therefore I think its more likely than not that it is a deliberate error.

Why?

Is it because they realise that an independent Scotland wouldn't be subject to EU rules until it was admitted as a member? I think it must be. Why else would they risk putting in such a glaring error?

My personal thoughts are that Scotland would have to apply for membership, and there is a long list of countries in that stage at present. Spain, Cyprus and Belgium are likely to object for fear it will encourage separatist movements in their own countries.

However, the SNP are keen to keep their lack of interest in this topic covered up, attempting to block a FOI request on whether or not they had obtained legal advice on the issue (they implied they had but hadn't):

www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/11/slippery_salmond_and_the_scottish_naughty_party/

people shouldn't be voting on whether or not they think they'll be better off in the short term as this is a decision that will impact for generations to come.

How do you define 'short term' and 'long term' though? Is it as simple as saying- my DD will be affected but my future grandchildren will be better off? Plus, we just don't know what problems/ challenges/ benefits future generations will have. There's no point looking too far ahead.

I would define it as not leaving future generations with the burden of having to grovel to the remaining UK for readmission, after years of an independent Scotland being run down, depopulated and bankrupted.

A worst case scenario of course. But surely all possible outcomes should be considered?

The child care proposal is not one that will benefit me now so it's not a "bribe" that is going to influence me

I will make my ultimate decision on more than just that!

lessmissabs did you see my link to the legal advice re fees above? It suggested that Scotland could charge rUK fees as long as they also charged the same fees to EU students.

How do you define 'short term' and 'long term' though
I think it is important to see the referendum not as an endpoint but as a start point. Once we have Independence the government will be entirely voted by Scots and will work in the best interest of Scots.

I think this thread has shown that it is not possible for there to be any future certainty in the event of a yes or no vote. All we can do is look at all of the available information supporting either argument and come to our own conclusions.

In the future would Scotland be better served by a Scottish government or a Westminster one. That is the only certainty. That is what it boils down to. Political preferences are almost irrelevant as any party could rule either the Westminster or an independent Scottish government.