To think wealthy people will leave Scotland?

[Juniperberries25]

..if the YES side win a referendum? Surely a lot of successful businesses and people who are wealthy/ comfortable/ have paid into a pension will not want to risk all their assets becoming worthless? Or am I missing something? Higher taxes, unknown currency, economic uncertainty, hard border, national security concerns etc

It would cost BILLIONS to set up new Government bodies (eg DVLA, Passport office, MI5, MI6, Amy Navy, RAF to name a few) so surely taxes will be much, much higher than rest of the UK?

Just to clarify I am NOT a fan of Boris but surely he will be long gone by the time Scotland actually became independent after YES vote (probably at least 10 years, just look at the BREXIT timeline).

Please don't flame me, I am just wondering what people think as I genuinely don't get how the benefits outweigh the risks.

Sorry, Internet went wonky. It does that here in the scottish sticks (wink). SNP are getting us the keys to the house, then the people of Scotland can vote and decorate however we please. For the first time... Ever. Previously we don't vote tory, we get tory. We vote stay, we get leave. Do you see my point?

Winkywonky, London voted stay on Brexit and got leave (and I believe overall voted labour, got Tory), all the same when it comes to government, that’s the way our democracy works, specific geographic areas don’t throw their toys and leave the union because the overall result went the ‘wrong’ way, it would get ridiculous, for the reasons posted by OP for a start

@Selkiesarereal I posted on the thread quotes from various EU and ex-EU senior officials.
I also posted the source of 2-3 years to get into the EU and it does not come from the SNP but an expert.
The average length of time to join the EU is just under five years, but smaller countries have joined more quickly.
ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/how-new-member-states-join-the-eu-all-you-need-to-know/

@AchatAVendre where did you get the minimum of 8 years from?
Sweden 4 years,
Finland 2/3 years with negotiations beginning in Feb 1993
Croatia 11 years.

Of course, it depends on what you count as the start. I have counted when countries apply for membership. But some countries have their own referendums with citizens about whether to join the EU and many years of public debate before actually applying.

But the process can take 2-3 years or can take longer. Generally, the more unstable a country is, or the larger and more complex a country is, the longer it takes.

My experience4 too. Scottish identity is very embracing of diversity.

Are not the Trident subs partially owned by the Scots ? There is a price for collective defence, just ask the Ukrainians.

I personally as a Scot hope that we don't get independence, the last referendum was supposed to be a one off but typically the SNP cannot grasp that they didn't win!. Unfortunately if Boris stays in as PM I can see that we will end up independent due to the hate for him & his cronies. To the poster who said "they hate the English" really for the majority of Scots I would say that just isn't true and I live in an area of Scotland that has a lot of English that have settled here after being in the military.

Johnson gave the SNP the perfect excuse for a 2nd vote as they were lied too, i remember the promise that a NO vote meant staying IN the EU and thats the material change NS needs.

Of course he knew all this (and the issues with GFA and NI) but chose a route to power instead.

I hope they get a vote and vote to leave.

Given the insane anti-English prejudice already in Scotland, I am surprised any English still live there anyway. I assume those that remain will leave.

Evidence of this “insane anti-English prejudice” please.

And the OP’s question wasn’t whether any English people living here would leave, it was whether any wealthy people would leave. Or do you think anyone with money in Scotland must be English?

I would like to see the the anti English feeling too.

My OH is English and has been living in Scotland for decades- he has never experienced anti english prejudice.
He also supports SNP and will be voting to leave the UK.

@antelopevalley so you have confirmed that it is quotes/experts you are basing your assumption that we are getting back into the EU which as I said earlier it isn’t in writing so isn’t guaranteed.

Voters shouldn’t vote for independence on this ticket as we simply don’t know it will happen, it is exactly the same as those Brexiteers who voted based on assumptions they only knew what the actual terms were way after the vote took place and there were a lot of so called experts around spouting their advice at the time. Learn from this all we actually know with a vote for independence is simply that nothing else.

The fact that Scottish football and rugby fans will support any country in the world other than England in major competitions, from Tajikistan to Iran, suggests a teensy hint of anti -Englishism.

People aren't intrinsically "poorer", therefore happy to take up low-paid jobs which suit their station.
The huge gap between earnings is a very big part of the problem. Instead of this madness where the top few percent get hundreds of thousands of pounds a year for their job, and half the population live hand to mouth, using food banks, we should be paying people properly for a day's work.
Tie wages to each other in a 10:1 ratio.
Then everyone is able to contribute more to the economy because they can be part of society. I've struggled in the past, and for those years, stuck doing long hours in low-paid jobs I could only just manage rent and food (and not always food). During those years I never went even to the pub, let alone the theatre, didn't buy any new clothes, didn't go on holiday. It's a miserable time for someone on those wages AND they then aren't able to spend anything with anyone around them.

On Scotland, if they go independent, I hope they'll accept English immigrants because I'd rather be part of a forward-looking country with some hope. I'd have moved there already if it weren't for elderly relatives here.

winkywonky · Today 00:35
Sorry, Internet went wonky. It does that here in the scottish sticks (wink). SNP are getting us the keys to the house, then the people of Scotland can vote and decorate however we please. For the first time... Ever. Previously we don't vote tory, we get tory. We vote stay, we get leave. Do you see my point?

That’s it in a nutshell. There is an actual concept that you can want an independent Scotland but not be a fan or a member of the SNP.

Generally speaking, people fear change! We can look back at many lies spouted in previous referenda and elections but still vote the same way or believe the next set of lies because people fear change and take comfort in groupthink.

Many posts on here say, it just can’t be done. Imagine for a moment what sort of world we’d live in if we always believed the ‘it just can’t be done’. We’d still be living in caves in the hills, too scared to explore what’s on the other side of the hill where there may be a more pleasant existence. Some finally left those caves when they were about to be starved out of existence, saying eff you to the naysayers, I’ll take my chances rather than die here. I think Scotland is at that point.

Alba go bragh!

I am in favour of diversifying away from fossil fuels as a primary source energy generation, which is what we are doing.

Scotland produced enough power from renewables last year to meet around 96% of it's needs, so we are on the right track, but work needs to be done in terms of battery storage to make it possible for supply to meet demand consistently.

Interestingly, I read a white paper on battery tech around 2013 that set out the expected timelines for various renewable technologies to become commercially viable and they've been scarily accurate so far. Battery tech was predicted to have a breakthrough in relation to home storage around 2025 and were already seeing that coming through with things like Tesla's Power Wall and Genarc PWRcell.

There's also a lot of work being undertaken with relation to decarbonising heat with hydroge, which could help solve the heating issue if that becomes viable. SGN are about to begin a full scale trial of a hydrogen gas network made from 100% renewabes produced hydrogen in Scotland (called H100 if you care to look).

However, it's a transition not a switch over and will take time to get everything in place. We (as in humans not just Scotland) will probably never be able to fully stop using fossil fuels as oil and gas derived feedstock is a key part of hundreds, if not thousands, of intermediate and end-user goods. Hopefully carbon capture technology will also develop to the point that we can full scrub emissons from fossil fuel use, and again their is good work being undertaken with Direct Air Capture and Accelerated Weathering, but those are in their infancy so will likely take much longer to become commercially viable and not something we should be focusing on.

Oil & gas has never been the "main plank" for paying for independence. It's a lazy assumption people who don't want to look into it Scotland's natural and human assets make to convince themselves we're too stupid and poor to be a successful country on our own.

We're a small nation with a relative abundance of natural resources and world renowned industries. As I mentioned in a previous post we have 25% of all of Europe's offshore energy capacity, which is an unbelievably huge deal given the way the world is moving. Tidal power technology (breakthroughs expected around 2030 if memory serves) dropped off the Scottish coast could produce enough energy to make us Europe's Saudi Arabia (minus the human rights abuses hopefully) and Japan had just recently deployed a 100kW seabed turbine for trial, that if successful would be game changing. We also have a good reputation in tourism, food and drink, gaming (which is often and oddly overlooked seeing as the gaming industry is worth more than the film and music industries combined), renewables, electronics, textiles, and financial services (not the best but Edinburgh is ranked ahead of the likes of Madrid, Rome, Dublin, etc and only London is ahead of it in the UK). Put all that together and revenue from selling oil and gas would just be a welcome extra, but not fundamental to our success.

I'm always puzzled as to why people always use the oil question as a "gotcha" when it comes to Scottish independence, like do they not realise that there are countries out there who are successful who have very little, if any, oil and gas of their own i.e., Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, France, Japan, etc?

I'm Scottish, not wealthy and I'll be leaving Scotland if we get 'independence'. Load of bollocks. The SNP have run Scotland into the ground. I won't be sticking around to see them completely kill us. We've already voted on this. It's fucking boring living in this state of neverendum. The snp can't accept vote results.

We aren't, I posted a long comment explaining how that is impossible given the way the system is set up a number of pages ago (as well as detailing the injustices of that system i.e., England can make Scotland, Wales and N.I. pay towards their increased spending but not the other way around).

But facts aren't important here in case you weren't aware.

The idea that we get independence then vote for 'whoever we like' terrifies me. Who is this 'whoever we like'?

Could they possibly be the same as politicians the world over, who make promises to get elected, then feather their own nest?

Could they be the same people who oversee the same predictable administrative fiascos across the UK then blame external forces?

Could they be the people who 'consult' public opinion but tell them how to answer the questions?

I've seen no evidence, none whatsoever, that Scottish people are any more likely to produce healthy, open governance for all than any other population anywhere in the world.

Anyone selling this as a plus point should tell us now who they intend to vote for in an independent Scotland.

Whethet it's more likely to produce healthyz pen

You're terrified of the prospect of Scotland being able to elect

All of the countries you’ve listed use nuclear power as a big percentage of their electricity production. Ours are being decommissioned and there are no plans develop it further. The SNP is antinuclear.

Sorry hit post by mistake....attempt no.2

Whether it's more likely to produce healthy, open governance for all is a moot point. The selling point is that Scottish people would be electing a government based on the democratic will of the people in Scotland and only the people in Scotland. I'd also argue that the fact Scotland hasn't voted for a Tory government in decades and is tradionally more left leaning in it's population views would be evidence of a more open/equal government for all (but appreciate that's just my view)

What I do find odd is that you're terrified of the prospect of Scotland being able to elect a government of its own choosing but are not terrified that we currently get no say in who leads us and are (and always will be while in the union) at the mercy of our neighbours to the south.

I could never vote yes, because I could never vote SNP. They lied to us by saying this is a once in a generation vote, and if it's no again, they'll never give up. Their policies are failures and they blame covid/Westminster/Santa for everything. That won't change if we break away.

Sturgeon has a dream that independence will be her legacy, but watch her disappear when it's a disaster.

We do not have suitable leadership to make this happen successfully. SNP voters will vote SNP even if Boris suddenly switched sides and they appointed him their leader.

Jesus Christ, I'm beginning to loose the will to engage with people on this topic.

A huge post explaining the potential of renewables when it comes to future energy provision and security in Scotland and how that's the route we are pursuing and you ignore it all, instead focusing on a comment about successful countries without oil, to make an unrelated point about energy security.

For clarity

The countries I listed at the end of that post were examples of successful (relatively speaking) countries who do not have large oil and gas reserves (and in some instance such as Sweden, South Korea, ans Switzerland have none at all).

I was not commenting on their energy provisions, just the fact that they have managed to do OK without oil and gas reserves.

On the energy front I am well aware that other countries use other solutions to meet their power needs. Which is why I pointed out that Scotland is already close to meeting its energy demands with renewables (and once battery tech has advanced will do), that it has huge offshore potential to increase renewable capacity way over 100% of domestic needs and become a net-exporter of energy, and that it is exploring other alternatives such as green hydrogen to address the fact that 85+% of housing is gas heated.

There is literally no need for nuclear in Scotland, that ship sailed long ago when successive governments decided not to build new nuclear plants decades ago.

NO THEY DIDN'T!!!!!

The once in a generation vote thing is a myth! It comes from a written statement Alex Salmond made in the foreword of the independence white paper (something I very much doubt many no voters actually read).

Below is the actual statement.

"The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way.”

It's abundantly clear from the context of the statement and the publication it appears in that its intended purpose was to encourage the yes voting part of the electorate to participate in the vote.

It was not some sort of legally binding promise made in parliament to hold the referendum once and then lock it away again for 70 odd years!