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.

For goodness sake, Scotland never votes Tory but we are consistently lumbered with the lying fuckwits. We did not vote to leave the EU, yet we're dragged into by England. I cannot wait for Scotland to be independent. We have lots of natural resources, a great education system, we will be fine.

I assumed the 'grouchy, mardy' reference meant it was directed at me as I used both those words.

An attack from more than one person trying to distract from the idiocy of the nat view

noone can answer what will happen with borders in a future hypothetical scenario as, apart from anything else, borders are not up to one nation. But there is no reason to suppose anyone wouldn’t be able to cross borders personally in the future. Same as in many European countries where crossing borders is a daily occurrence.

What wouldn’t crossing a border between two developed countries be straightforward? It usually is. The only issue I could see comes from the r uk post brexit stance rather than from Scotland. Given that there is currently a de facto border between NI and Scotland it’s only moving the border rather than creating one.

Where does the “pretend Scottish” thing come from then. Please explain.

Where is there in the borders that is two hours from a Scottish Asda? Away with you - not true.

@Villagewaspbyke I agree the legislative set-up of Scotland is not a barrier to joining the EU. But it is a legislative issue that is being looked at in Scotland.

Countries all over the world have borders that citizens regularly cross over. It is not unusual. Nobody can say what the details will be because they will be negotiated between Scotland and England. Scotland can not unilaterally declare what will happen. Even though the UK government try to unilaterally declare what will happen with Brexit.

What might make it difficult is FOM if in EU v Brexit

It is hard to know, but it is like Brexit in that respect a leap of faith and they’ll sort it later

I’d want more reassurances that it won’t be more hellish than Brexit has been

Brexit was not a leap of faith. The issues were clear and obvious.

It was for the people who voted for it and they won

so obviously they had faith it would be ok

and I really hope people ask for more concrete indications of what the reality will be before voting, but it looks like they’re not needed in many cases

So because some people did not understand the implications of Brexit, that can somehow be used as a comparator for Scotland?
It is an incredibly weak argument.

The posts saying it’ll work out, well vote yes them see what happens are what remind me of Brexit

A leap of faith - similar in feel

I’d want more realistic proposals before voting yes

If we’d had the same for Brexit maybe we wouldn’t be here

What do you want to know?

Scottish people do vote Tory - 23.5% in the regional vote at the last Scottish election.
Scottish people did vote for Brexit - 38% of the electorate voted to leave.

Dont underestimate what a hard border may actually be, a lot of people underestimated what this would mean at Brexit but suddenly there was a lot more paperwork involved for companies importing and exporting. Also have you ever traveled from Gibraltar to Spain, not quite a hop, skip and a jump over that border and whilst I haven’t kept abreast of the situation, did used to get closed every once in awhile when there was a political spat going on.

Oh and there are also some independence supporters who do not want to join the EU, which is not the shoe in that some posters like to say it is.

Not so much for me as I’m not voting but I would prefer there to be more robust mapping out of the border eventuality, trade and currency, well all the elements before people voted

Otherwuse it’s similar to Brexit as it’s we’ll work it out afterwards - it could be even more difficult than Brexit

Unfortunately re. The border you can't get a sensible answer from the Westminster side as they won't discuss how it would work for fear of giving it credence. The last Scottish referendum paper was streets ahead of the Brexit lies in terms of detail.

I'm English so won't be voting but I think Westminster is completely hypocritical about Brexit/independence.

Brexit issues were obvious beforehand, especially NI. There is not an international peace treaty between England and Scotland, so it is not anywhere near as complex.
Personally I do not care about currency emotionally, simply whatever makes most economic sense. But there is no yes or no vote currently.
The border details can not be mapped out as it is a negotiation between England and Scotland. Scotland can simply set out aspirations. We know what joining the EU or other trade alliances will mean.

Scotland can simply set out aspirations

Have they done this? What do they want

Re the border that is

Read the Scottish referendum paper.
Or even just the Q and A on SNP website if that is easier.

Shame with all the posts on this thread of could have been a good un

A very simple explanation.

ukandeu.ac.uk/scotland-independence-brexit-and-the-border/

Villagewaspbyke i am not aware of any serious constitution lawyers who think that there is an issue with Scottish legislation in particular (whether due to unicameral legislation or not).

Well...this is awkward.

Last year, two bills passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament were found to be ultra vires but the Supreme Court also criticised that such legislation would have required interpretation by the court to clarify what it actually meant/did (this means it doesn't meet the fundamental principles enshrined in the EU Treaties relating to legal certainty and the rule of law). These were the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Deputy First Minister John Swinney is on record for saying that this showed the limits of devolution. Personally, I think it shows the strength of having some limits on unfettered parliamentary power, but clearly thats not a big thing to the likes of Swinney.

You think that Professor Adam Tompkins is "not a serious constitutional lawyer"? Despite his being a former MSP and current professor of Constitutional law at Glasgow University. Try this:

"Committee Row Expert Seeks Apology From SNP" The Scotsman 13 June 2014 relating to a meeting of the Scottish Select Affairs Committee which was alleged to have curtailed evidence relating to the legalities of Scottish Independence from Professor Adam Tomkins, Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University." (best to google it).

notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/scotland-and-the-eu

Professor Alan Page at Dundee? www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4550/Alan-Page-Its-Not-Just-About-the-Scottish-Parliaments-Powers-.aspx

Paul Cairney at Stirling? Cairney, P (2013) How Can the Scottish Parliament Be Improved as a Legislature, Scottish Parliamentary Review, 1(1). dspace.stir.ac.uk/handle/1893/16408#.VWoy3JWJjIU

Paul Bossacoma, a Spanish Catalonian working in Scotland (do you permit him to have a view on this?) got into quite a spat with Stephen Tierney over these critical issues: www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4238/Pau-Bossacoma-Constitutionalism-and-Democracy-a-Reply-to-Stephen-Tierney.aspx

See also Stephen Tierney on Tierney, S, Constituting Scotland:
A Retreat from Politics? U.K. Const. L. Blog (8th April 2014) (available at www.ukconstitutionallaw.org/)

Professor David Edwards (in the Court of Justice of the EU) was heavily critical of the Scottish Government's minimum alcohol pricing legislation and EU law compatibility (lets just say Brexit was very convenient to the Scottish Government on that one - the correct answer in EU law is always greater taxation rather than legal coercion): Professor Sir David Edward, former British judge at the European Court of Justice from 1992-2004, has concluded in written legal advice to the group "Academics Together" that the policy "would be incompatible with EU law and could not survive challenge in the Court of Justice", available at www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/scottish-government-fees-stance-incompatible-with-eu-law/2015435.

Professor Onora O'Neill isn't Scottish - she is from Northern Ireland and an internationally renowned human rights expert, but she has expressed her concerns over human rights in Scotland in O'Neill, A, Human Rights and People and Society, in Law Making and the Scottish Parliament: The Early Years, Sutherland, E, Goodall, K, Little, G and Davidson, F (eds.), Edinburgh University Press, 2011, where she writes "It is a cause of some disappointment that Scotland's democratic legislature should be so passive on the issue of human rights protection in Scotland and on holding the Scottish Government to account on human rights grounds".

The only two I can think of who are not fairly critical of Scottish legislation are the two who spell their names in the Gaelicised manner. I wonder where their political compass lies? None of the others agree with them.

Bear in mind also that many Scottish universities now do something that is considered taboo in any other democracy and which is not prevented by law: they require academic writers to have their submissions for publication approved by their institutions before they send them off.

Theres also a big problem with several pieces of Scottish legislation that I haven't mentioned yet in EU terms - the principle of proportionality. Many Scottish pieces of legislation would fail simply because the penalties for transgression are simply too high and in many cases, higher than equivalent criminal penalties. Theres also often a bit of a problem in terms of Article 41 of the Charter.

There aren't that many constitutional writers who write about Scotland (its not an EU member state so why would there be), but I think thats a fairly good indication of what the prevalent thinking is. Deep, growing concern.

Oh, you just love mentioning all my favourites!

There are 14 references to "special", "specific" or "unique" "Scottish circumstances in the White Paper. Which of those "special circumstances" would you be referring to?

In "Scotland in the European Union, in Scotland's Agenda for EU Reform, "special Scottish circumstances" was used as a justification for a policy in favour of not extending Scottish legislation to embrace the proposed EU FOI improvements in the rights of citizens to access to public information.

I can see why you're confused. Scotland in the European Union, Section 1.3 had a fabulous claim that "There are no serious doubts that following independence Scotland will take its place as a full Member State within the EU". Section 1.6 " The second and more pragmatic point is simply that it would be against the self-interest of the EU collectively, and of the Member States individually, to seek to deprive Scotland of EU membership. Scotland's economy and society – its people, its economy, its natural resources" blah blah but no proper evidence to back up these claims. This is the publication that went on to claim that the ECJ would "support" Scottish independence, a bizarre thing for any court to do and something which left all of us wondering if the writer didn't know the difference between the Court, the Council and the Commission. Even better, the question and answer section went on to claim that there would be a "Scottish version of the ECHR". Why there needs to be a "Scottish version" when there is a perfectly good ECHR to sign up to is unexplained. Perhaps there is some official SNP fudge on this as well?

Whoever writes these documents really needs to do a bit better if there is a next time. You can actually tell when they had a summer experience student working for them because suddenly there will be a really well written bit that makes sense and takes into account EU treaty principles, but then it will revert back to meaningless filler. I think the Scottish Government in general has difficulties in recruiting because it doesn't pay well enough for these type of roles and its an awkward and not particularly attractive type of job.

I'd also love to hear from you and your pal who you've roped in to disparage a fellow Scot about these mysterious lobbying discussions within secret levels of the Scottish state regarding constitutional change, and why they are not being made public with those pesky voters. As this would be an open public debate in any other country. I honestly don't care all that much about Scottish independence either way - I'd simply move away because I wouldn't want to live in such a small country outwith the EU, but I do care about truth and politicians spinning lies to keep themselves in office.