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?

Greece is obviously the very worst case! The euro doesn't seem in very good shape to me.

An independent Scotland staying with the pound surely would really have its arse kicked by Westminster.

I didn't need both my surely and really, oh dear!

Caitlin what sector do you work in?
The businesses I work with are very jumpy about the whole thing. The lack of answers to the key questions is not helping to reassure them.

Caitlin17 have you had a look at Business for Scotland? For a non-BBC view of the referendum, newsnetscotland is always interesting.

Itsallgoingtobefine The big picture is overwhelmingly positive with Independence

If independence means having to be patronised by none too bright MSPs who talk like they've come out of communist-placatory-nonsensespeakschool, will anti-nausea pills be handed out on the Scottish NHS?

Catilin17 I'm just waiting for Alec to announce we've cured the common cold in Scotland

Don't you realise that in an independent Scotland, no-one would have colds?!

Itsallgoingtobefine you are aware the biggest disater in UK banking was a Scottish bank?
The worst that can happen? The next time we're bailed out it's basically The Bank of England calling the shots

Scottish GDP in 2008 was an estimated £145 billion. The cost to the UK of the RBS / HBOS bail out in 2008 was £88 billion. However the actual Scottish share on a per capita basis was £8.8 billion, and on the debt accrued by the Scottish registered banks which would have been an independent Scotland's liability is estimated at £2.4 billion.

As Andrew Hughes Hallett. Professor of Economics at St Andrew’s University, put it, speaking on Radio Scotland.

"The real point here, and this is the real point, is by international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country get into these sorts of conditions, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks, and therefore it’s shared between several countries. In the case of the RBS, I’m not sure of the exact numbers, but roughly speaking 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotland, the result being, by that convention, therefore, that the rest of the UK would have to carry 90% of the liabilities of the RBS and Scotland 10%. And the precedent for this, if you want to go into the details, are the Fortis Bank and the Dexia Bank, which are two banks which were shared between France, Belgium and the Netherlands, at the same time were bailed out in proportion by France, Belgium and the Netherlands."

I really can't see a yes vote. I don't expect they've even thought about all this. I read that 300 or was it 600 treaties would have to be renegotiated. And Scotland wouldn't even automatically be a member of the EU.

Legal, rural sector, farming.
You know how it's bad form to talk about politics with business contacts? Not with this, openly talked about and every conversation predicated one will be agin (.good Scots word there)

Itsallgoingtobefine there is no precedent for any of that tosh whatsoever in international law, EU or domestic law, where extra territorial jurisdiction operates on the universal general principle of domicile of Head Office and of holding companies.

You simply cannot second guess what countries would be willing to pick up the tab on the basis of randomly plucked examples which suit the point you are making.

(and why on earth wouldn't a professor of economics go into an interview not being sure of the exact numbers concerning RBS...)?

I'm sure its at least 600 - it will be a massively complex operation.

There seems to be no clear cut answer on the EU issue. However common sense would suggest that if we wanted we would be in:

It would be extremely problematic to revoke EU citizenship from c.6million individuals

The EU would lose its access to our massive resources

It also brings up the issue of successor state vs new state.

If Scotland is new state then no automatic EU membership, but we would not take on any of the UK national debt either which is a pretty good trade off.

If Scotland/rUK were joint successor states then both would remain in the EU, but both would need to renegotiate terms.

there is no precedent for any of that tosh whatsoever in international law, EU or domestic law, where extra territorial jurisdiction operates on the universal general principle of domicile of Head Office and of holding companies

Show me.

randomly plucked examples which suit the point you are making

Can you point me towards an example where this did not happen?

and why on earth wouldn't a professor of economics go into an interview not being sure of the exact numbers concerning RBS...)?

This was not the subject of the interview specifically.

My faith in Alec Salmond and the Scottish Nationalist Party was incurably dented when they started hassling for 16 and 17 year olds to get a vote for the referendum as a one - off. If young people of that age are old enough to decide something as fundamental as their national status, they're old enough to make decisions on everything else too. So to bring this small army of young idealistic voters in for this single occasion stinks.

Yep. A load of young teens voting for "freedom" on the anniversary of Bannockburn
Wee Eck disnae miss a trick!

Itsallgoingtobefine you are making it up as you go along. Which is usually what pro-independence campaigners do. There is no legal basis for any of what you say - no-one knows what will happen regarding these extremely important issues. There is no precedent or convention which can or must apply. The reality is complete uncertainty, and I would respect pro-independence campaigners more if they admitted to that.

btw all issues concerning jurisdiction and governed by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1968, which is entirely in accordance with EU treaty principles on jurisdiction.

There is absolutely no such thing as "EU citizenship" - Member States are members of the EU, not individuals.

No-one knows whether Scotland would automatically succeed to the EU, not even top advocates and QCs - I highly doubt that someone on mumsnet who is evidently not legally qualified has solved the issue!

Except I thought the youngest voters were coming back with the strongest no vote in the polls? (Disclaimer - no evidence. Just thought that's what I heard on Radio 4.)

My faith in Alec Salmond and the Scottish Nationalist Party was incurably dented when they started hassling for 16 and 17 year olds to get a vote for the referendum as a one - off. If young people of that age are old enough to decide something as fundamental as their national status, they're old enough to make decisions on everything else too

I completely agree. Unfortunately Westminster is not willing to allow that age to vote. It is my understanding that in an independent Scotland the voting age would be 16.

Also remember that in Scotland at 16 you can marry without parental permission. Unfortunately for Salmond polls show that this age group is against independence.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22745855

I would prefer if the facts and questions regarding this issue were presented in a more neutral way - I am perfectly capable of being able to make up my own mind, and resent being told what to think.

A lot of the independence debate puts me in mind of what is described as the psychological condition of "groupthink", which was a series of behaviours identified by Irving Janis:-

"Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences."

The way the SNP presents itself is a classical manifestation of groupthink.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

There is absolutely no such thing as "EU citizenship" - Member States are members of the EU, not individuals.

"Any person who holds the nationality of an EU country is automatically also an EU citizen. EU citizenship is additional to and does not replace national citizenship."

ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/

No-one knows whether Scotland would automatically succeed to the EU, not even top advocates and QCs - I highly doubt that someone on mumsnet who is evidently not legally qualified has solved the issue!

I have never said that they would. I said that given the many benefit to the EU it is unlikely that they would refuse entry. And that if we were treated as a completely new state then no national debt :) I completely agree that, re EU membership, this is currently a pretty unique situation, and that no one can say for certain. A situation that would be further complicated if the UK were to leave the EU before the referendum...

It is my understanding that in an independent Scotland the voting age would be 16.

Link? Where on earth are you getting that from?

I don't mean to be rude Itsallgoingtobefine, but you need to go away and study a substantive subject, because you don't really understand the complexities of the topics you are trying to bamboozle people into believing your version of.

LessMis:

Some useful sources for you

www.yesscotland.net
www.bettertogether.net
newsnetscotland.com

Obviously not neutral, but useful for finding relevant references so you can check veracity of assertions.

www.theguardian.com/politics/series/reality-check-scottish-independence
www.bbc.co.uk/news/16630456

There's also some good stuff on fullfact.org but their search is currently down.

But most importantly just read. Read with a critical eye as to the motives of the person writing. Even the most rabid propaganda from either side can contain useful nuggets. There are also lots of good blogs out there with people far more eloquent and knowledgeable than me.

DameDeep and Dementedma,

That's what I thought at first, but I now think that Mr Salmond has made a mistake there. In my experience most youngsters are more unionist than their parents or grandparents. They speak less Scots and more standard English; like Scots abroad, they are citizens of a wider world even if they haven't left the country. They don't care that Elizabeth II has the wrong number in her title or even that that the UK news is actually the English news with the vague caveat that it's different in Scotland. They find narrow nationalism as difficult to understand as ancient religious bigotries, and that's a good thing. I hope they will go out and vote.

It's unlikely they'd refuse entry but the details of entry would likely be the most important part.

It's also not so much as 'citizenship' (arguably a false construct since we don't pay taxes to the EU etc) being taken away as being given up, since the referendum is a democratic expression of will etc.

PMSL at useful source: yesscotland.net.

Itsallgoingtobefine why are you telling me to read propaganda? Is this what they would do in an independent Scotland? "Advise" people to read nationalistic propaganda? Is that really the best you can do? Are you off your head?

You don't even understand basic concepts, such as sovereignty, statehood, international law fundamentals, EU treaty succession, which if you did, and could be bothered to find out, might inform you a little better.

You really need to stop trying to tell people who are better educated than you what to think. It doesn't work.