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?

Scotland being run down, depopulated and bankrupted

The a Westminster government is certainly doing a great job of this at the moment...

I love your post on this Itsall, I'm still a don't know but you're very persuasive.

Eck is banging on about childcare. That is just a blatant bribe as women have been considerably less interested in independence than men.

*posts

No but if you look in the longer term Scotland has very few younger people compared to older. We need more immigration.

I think the point is that the population of Scotland has been growing at something like a 1/6th of the rate that England has been. That's why there have been comments about Scotland's aging population (either a good or a bad thing depending on who is talking) and why there are differing views on immigration policy.

Oh well, according to this Telegraph piece the Spanish PM says an independant Scotland would be out of the EU and would not be allowed to rejoin - and he should know as it needs Spain to vote on Scotland's possible re-entry.

The Spanish don't want to encourage breakaway states as they have their own problems with the movement for Catalonian independence.

What I find so depressing about this 'debate' is how really important consistutional matters are reduced to whether the Scots will get free childcare. Why are the 'big issues being ignored?

Of course, Scotland leaving the EU as a result of indpenedence does provide a possible solution for another of the big political divides, as all those in rUk who want to leave the EU would just have to move to Scotland. UKIP is then redundant - sorted!

What I find so depressing about this 'debate' is how really important consistutional matters are reduced to whether the Scots will get free childcare. Why are the 'big issues being ignored

They're not! You need to read the white paper as well as the newspaper headlines. The childcare thing is just a tiny part and just an election pledge that seems to have caught everyone's eye. There is awful lot more in the white paper.

Yes, there is a lot more in the White Paper, but it's the childcare thing that people have talked about on here and it's the childcare thing that has made the national TV and radio news. The childcare thing is absolutely irrelevant and journos should know better than to focus on it.

Nobody is telling me what it means for rUK. Do we have to leave the EU because we would become a different legal entity to that which we were when we joined the EU.

Would we have to give up our seat on the UN Security Council or re-negoiate our NATO membership as we are no longer 'old UK'?

What are the contractual implications, especially for contracts that were made in Scotland on behalf of the 'former UK' central Govt.

What do we (rUK) intend to do about the withdrawl of nuclear facilities (and heavy ship lift) at Rosyth?

It's not kust lack of information about how Scotland would function as a separate entuty but also what the impact would be on the rUK.

I feel that the Govt is so certain the vore will fail that it hasn't really thought about it in any detail. That's dangerous as politics can change very quickly and votes don't always go the way you expect.

The Spanish don't want to encourage breakaway states

I'm sure they don't want to lose their fishing rights either ;) The legal situation regarding the EU is a nightmare as it is a unique situation, and there's no real "law" about it.

CONCEPTUALISING THE BREAK-UP

( www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/64306.htm )

11. There are three ways that the constitutional and consensual break-up of the UK could be regarded internationally.

Continuation and secession

The existing state (UK) would break into separate entities - "Scotland" and "the RUK". The larger, more populous entity (RUK) would become the 'continuing' state. The smaller entity (Scotland) that wished to leave would secede and become a new state and would (somewhat confusingly) be known as a 'successor' state. The continuing state (the RUK) would inherit the vast majority of the rights and obligations of the UK whereas the successor state (Scotland) would essentially start anew internationally.

(Ie Scotland would walk away with pretty much nothing, including no share of the national debt)

Separation

The existing entity (the UK) would break into two states (the RUK and Scotland) and each would resume their pre-1707 Union status. This would involve a 'disaggregation' or 'splitting' of pooled sovereignty so that Scotland and RUK would each maintain all existing legal relationships as far as was possible given the changed situation.[7] This is sometimes also referred as 'the co-equal states' scenario.

(Assets split/liabilities split)

Dissolution

The existing entity (the UK) would dissolve and become extinct. Two new states would come into being (the RUK and Scotland) but neither new state would lay claim to the legal personality of the UK which would have ceased to exist. It would essentially amount to a clean international slate for both states.

(Both rUK and Scotland have to reapply to everything)

It's not really a starting point though. It's more of a mid-way turn. Scotland will still have all the problems that existed before. I assume you saw that ridiculous wingsoverscotland post which used the existence of a food bank in Glasgow as a microcosm for the entire yes campaign? You've also got to look outwards. Of the people, for the people, by the people is all very well, but there's a global context to this. Will Scotland have more of an impact asnd get a better deal as part of a hugely influential body or as a new, untested, small nation tagging onto Sterling's coattails?

So then a solution would be to count the population growth as that of the UK as a whole, and stop counting it differently for different bits of the UK, no

No. Different bits of the UK are different and need to be treated differently. This is where Westminster (inherently) fails. Scotland is different to England is different to Wales, so it is not possible for Westminster to persue policies that are effective to all. Devolution has been great, but we could do a hell of a lot more/better with full control.

Why on earth would Spain lose their fishing rights?

So Salmond is opting for separation? But he's likely to be faced with C&S?

Scotland will still have all the problems that existed before

I agree. It would be naive in the extreme to think that come independence day everything will suddenly become perfect. There is an awful lot wrong with Scotland which will take generations to fix. But is A Scottish government better placed to fix things, or Westminster?

I assume you saw that ridiculous wingsoverscotland post which used the existence of a food bank in Glasgow as a microcosm for the entire yes campaign

Link? I dont tend to read their stuff, it usually contains a grain of truth, but is hard to find amongst the ridiculously biased rambling.

Of the people, for the people, by the people is all very well, but there's a global context to this. Will Scotland have more of an impact asnd get a better deal as part of a hugely influential body or as a new, untested, small nation tagging onto Sterling's coattails

I would say it would have more impact. Anything where it is currently represented by the UK rather than itself is a no-brainer. The UK has to negotiate the best for the UK as a whole, Scotland would only have to worry about its own interests.

Why on earth would Spain lose their fishing rights

EU common fishing policy. If not in EU Scotland would have no reason to allow other countries to fish its waters.

Why on earth would Spain lose their fishing rights?

I presume they would lose those fishing rights in Scottish territorial warers as that country would no longer be an EU member and therefore not bound by the Common Fisheries Policy.

It would be very interesting to see how being outside the EU would benefit the country or not. If it prospered, it could provide the catalyst for an rUK departure.

So Salmond is opting for separation? But he's likely to be faced with C&S

I think so. But not having to take on any of the debt might make up for a harder time getting into EU?

It would be very interesting to see how being outside the EU would benefit the country or not

Especially as there is a sizeable contingent of Yes supporters who are against the EU. It would be kind of ironic if after all this arguing and agonising Scots decided, in the elections, that they didn't really fancy the EU after all