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.

And to get back to your claim of genius regarding the EU being full of unicameral parliaments. I did actually check with a friend who works for the Danish state. He confirms that Denmark is not considered unicameral because of Article 42 of the Danish Constitution allowing the minority veto by 1/3 of MPs to demand a referendum on bills enacted by the majority in the Folketinget: the public act as a secondary formally constituted check on the excesses of parliament.

I will stress the point that the only developed country which has a truly unicameral legislature is New Zealand, and that there are none which combine both a unicameral legislature and a lack of a formal modern constitution. The Scottish Government, by virtue of the devolution settlement, has unusually unfettered powers to pass legislation affecting people's everyday lives. Or to put it another way, a lot of those unwritten, traditional checks and balances that form part of the UK's unwritten and written constitution simply do not apply to much of what the Scottish Government can do, and nothing has been done to replace them. Much the same goes for Wales.

@AchatAVendre I honestly laughed at your two recent posts.
No pal has been roped in. Do you think there is a conspiracy if two people disagree with you?

It is standard for some legislation to be drawn up that is too vague and then clarified through court cases. It is not good, but there is lots of English legislation that has been very poorly drawn up and is clarified through case law. There has been much concern expressed about the current effectiveness of select committees in the UK government in scrutinising legislation and the lack of meaningful oversight by parliament. A really obvious example anyone can understand is the very badly drawn-up Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991. But there are lots of others. The Hunting Act, Childcare bill and many immigration laws.
Not good, but it did not stop the UK from being a member of the EU.

It is standard for some legislation to be drawn up that is too vague and then clarified through court cases.

What nonsense is this now? No, it is not.

That is why the Supreme Court overruled the two pieces of Scottish legislation I mentioned. You can easily read about it here, but read the case reports for greater detail: (I think you really would benefit from reading that greater detail). And no, I'm not going to give you the citation for it, and no, I'm not going to answer any more of your pointless questions free of charge.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58794698

Please no more torture from SNP supporters. It makes me want to stick pins in my eyes. I avoid them in real life because they are just so generally boring and irritating to be around. Its like what I imagine life must have been like in a Soviet collective, listening to forced lectures on how great Stalin/Lenin/the next Great Leader was. You are doing nothing to dissuade me! I really think the SNP to change their tactics because numbing people into using ear plugs isn't really the way forward!

I am not an SNP supporter.
But I understand case law and how legislation is made. And I also understand the reviews there have been into badly written legislation in the UK parliament, concerns about select committees and a lack of appropriate overview by parliament. I have also read reports and recommendations to improve legislation, which has largely not been enacted.

But well done for googling that BBC News story.

I don’t think the papers written by the SNP re independence need to be all that well written as a lot of independence supporters seem to think that things will be ok because ‘we have lots of natural resources and a excellent education system’ (SERIOUSLY??? The education here is DIRE. It has dropped off a cliff in the all set few years) and the border is all about getting to Asda. It’s not. It’s about borders being set up with your biggest trading partner, and all of the administration and costs associated with that. Talk to anyone who had been involved in cross border trade for the past 18 months and they’ll tell you it has been hell.

people are so woefully naïve.

In all fairness it's not always their fault entirely. They are usually optimists and are just hoping that the SNP lies will come true, and that the SNP have a bigger plan to work through. I mean obviously if it actually happens, they'll quickly realise that SNP have no clue what they are doing, but by then it's too late. Some are just stupid though and don't have a clue how any of this works in reality.

indeed. @AchatAVendre s idea that a devolved parliament somehow has “unfettered powers” is silliness of the highest order. Nor will any of this be a barrier to joining the EU.

btw @AchatAVendre - the constitution of Scotland will change on independence. The parliament will no longer be devolved. No one is suggesting a devolved Scotland as part of the Uk joins the EU. Hope that’s helpful.

Who are a “lot of independence supporters”? Are they real people? Or just imaginary to support your point of view? I don’t think the poster worrying about Asda was an independence supporter.

No one particularly wants borders nor will there necessarily be one on independence. However if Scotland join the EU (as is proposed and has broad support in Scotland) and England continues to resist being part of the EU single market, there will have to be a border at the Scotland/England border same as there will be in Calais. However over time, agreements and processes will be made to facilitate trade same as in other entry points to the EU. It will at least solve the NI issue as goods can flow freely over that crossing.

on the other hand if Scotland doesn’t join the EU or ruk decide to join the single market, there likely won’t be a border anyway.

The thing is, there are many variables with different parties involved and no one can tell you the future. So going on about how “independence supporters” have to assure you you can always cross the border to go to your favorite Asda isn’t really helpful. No one can assure you of that as no one can see the future.

Scotland is generally a wealthy country with an educated population and developed economy. All the hateful nonsense about how Scotlands education system is dire, is just that. Education is not perfect and can always be improved but in the scheme of things we do have an educated population and developed economy and every chance of being a successful independent country like many similar European countries.

Scotland does not perpetually need to be part of another country because we are too useless, stupid and feckless to manage without permanent subsidies. That’s just racist rubbish.

You don’t understand what you’re posting. The bills were overruled as being outside the competency of the Scottish parliament. That’s part of the devolution settlement that the Scottish parliament can only legislate in areas the the uk parliament says it can. Like most areas of law, it isn’t always clear what the boundaries are and that’s what courts are there for- to interpret the law. This is completely usual and makes no great point about how Scottish parliament/people/ the SNP are uniquely stupid, etc.

It is not exclusively the Scottish parliament that has its legislation struck out by courts as being out with its competency. This happens globally in many countries on a daily basis (eg in countries with entrenched written constitutions such as the USA). Indeed similar things used to happen to Westminster legislation that was incompatible with the EU treaties or regulations in areas where competency had been given to the EU.

I think if you have areas you genuinely want to discuss that’s helpful but nonsense insults about (bizarrely) the Soviet Union aren’t useful.

agai you don’t understand what you are posting. Every act of parliament is scrutinized and interpreted by courts. Academic lawyers debate and criticize legislation in every free country. It happens to every parliament.

what I mean when I say that no serious constitutional lawyers think that there is particularly an issue with the Scottish parliament or Scottish legislation is not that it is beyond criticism or debate. No parliament is - the Westminster parliament isn’t, nor any European Parliament.

you tried to claim that there was an issue with the Scottish parliament in particular with reference to it joining the EU. That it was somehow uniquely poor. Also that it’s power is “unfettered” when your rant above starts with a fairly obvious example of how the parliaments power is in fact severely fettered (to explain- it can only decide matters the Westminster parliament say it can, the Supreme Court can overrule laws made out with its control as in your example).

a lot of this is a technical discussion perhaps best left to people with some background in the area.

But to clarify, there is no reason you have given here that the Scottish parliament is not fit for purpose not that anything the Scottish parliament does at the moment will be a barrier to joining the EU in the event of independence (in any event the Scottish parliament will be abolished in its present form in independence anyway).

@Villagewaspbyke I agree that @AchatAVendre does not understand what they are posting. It is obviously a quick google and then authoritative sounding tone to pretend they do.
I am not a lawyer but I understand the role of case law and that the UK parliament has been criticised for years for passing legislation that is unclear without sufficient scrutiny from either select committees or parliament. There has been quite a lot in the news about this over the years.
But it is also not relevant to whether the UK is an EU member or not.

I didn’t say Scotland was too feckless to survive without subsidies - you did.

Scotland had got used to living off subsidies - £12bn a year Barnett formula. The mature thing would be for the SNP to address how this is to be replaced following independence but they are yet to do that, choosing instead to pretend that Scotland pays in more to the union than it get back. It’s not hard to work out why.

Is there anyone else watching all this 'you don't know what you're talking about' arguing and thinking quietly to themselves: 'Okay, go and be independent but don't come running back to us for help if it all goes pear-shaped' ?

Can I just remind everyone of the circumstances that saw the union between Scotland and England formalised in 1707. It didn't involve England conquering Scotland. There were no battles, no nasty sassenachs crossing the border to loot and plunder poor wee Scotland's precious resources. It was Scotland's bankruptcy following the Darien Scheme. Scotland looked to England for help. Here you go:

www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Act-of-Union/

its actually from my thesis, parts of which have been published multiple times albeit latterly in conjunction with a French university, but if you want to discuss case law then go ahead.

All this discrediting and insulting to make your points - is it really necessary? Can't you just debate on the merits instead of insulting people? I must have really hit the spot!

Villagewaspbyke agai you don’t understand what you are posting. Every act of parliament is scrutinized and interpreted by courts. Academic lawyers debate and criticize legislation in every free country. It happens to every parliament.

You don't understand the difference between statutory interpretation and legal certainty, the latter which is an essential part of the rule of law. Courts add flesh to the bones but they don't substitute meaning and intent where there is none. You are aware that the Supreme Court made a court ruling emphasising this point in relation to recent pieces of legislation passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament? Are you disagreeing with the Supreme Court now? Its very unusual for the Supreme Court to make such a ruling so you have to say that it is particularly bad in these two cases albeit it was combined by being ultra vires. If you actually read the ruling (since you're so fond of google I'll leave you to track it down yourself...).

Again, this sort of timewasting, derailing arguments, trying to discredit people, ignoring evidence, arguing to the nth degree when you're clearly wrong - its not exactly setting a great example of what an independent Scotland would be like, is it?

So in answer to the original OP question - yes of course wealth (and other people) would leave Scotland! The SNP might well welcome that though - they haven't exactly been voluble about job losses due to the demise of the oil industry have they?

@AchatAVendre Honestly you have a cheek after spending yesterday insulting and patronising me in nearly every comment you made.

The issue is your claim that this means that Scotland can not join the EU.

Interesting view, I've posted several times on this thread talking in detail about various things like the current fiscal set-up of the devolved government,how revenue is calculated now and how that would change post independece to the potential economic successes and issues an independent Scotland would face.

In 40 pages the some total of engagement and debate from unionists was from one poster who ignored the majority of a post about energy security to male an unrelated comment about nuclear power in other countries. Yet, we're the stupid ones.

The bottom line is the union is broken and needs changed. To me there's 3 options.

1. Independence for Scotland then the rest can do whatever the hell they want (most preferred for me).
2. England get a devolved parliament and the UK government is run for the benefit of ALL four home nations equally.
3. We hold do away with the concept of the four home nations and England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland either cease to exist completely with the UK being the only officially country.

Still looking forward to a civilised discussion on case law as you suggested rather than yet another barrage of insults and attempts at belittling...

I honestly don't hold you personally liable for potential difficulties that an potentially independent Scotland might have in joining the EU!

So in answer to the original OP question - yes of course wealth (and other people) would leave Scotland! The SNP might well welcome that though - they haven't exactly been voluble about job losses due to the demise of the oil industry have they?

The oil industry is in global decline, BP themselves are working to reduce oil and gas output by 40% and increase renewable capacity 2000% by 2030. Scotland is uniquely placed to capitalise on that move as it has 25% of all of Europe's offshore capacity off its coast and the SNP have been and are planning to capitalise on that. Maybe they didn't talk loudly enough about support for oil workers for you to hear but, they took action for three years the SNP ran the Transiton Training Fund specifically aimed at helping oil and gas workers retrain, this ended in 2019 when funding was funding was moved to the National Transition Training Fund (which is now open to all).

Maybe you are unaware of the thousands of skilled workers who ended up leaving Scotland in order to work for a living?

@AchatAVendre I posted lots of comments last night about case law.
What more did you want to know?
And how is it relevant to an independent Scotland?

@AchatAVendre Lots of skilled graduates left Scotland after Thatcher decimated various areas of Scotland economically. Some have been coming back.

I don't recall you mentioning any cases. But if you don't think its relevant to an independent Scotland, why do you want to discuss case law? I mean, the SNP in their question and answer thingey you mentioned claimed that the CJEU "supported" Scottish independence, so is that where you're coming from?

Is this a guessing game? OK, I'll join in! My guess is that you want to discuss Kamino and its relevance to Article 51 of the Charter in terms of the new Hate Crime bill? Or maybe Francien?

@AchatAVendre Yes I did post cases. You were too busy insulting me to read my comments, which is why I stopped posting more about case law.
It is irrelevant to Scottish independence. It is whataboutery.

The only real question about independence is what makes the most sense economically.