Discuss your views of the Scottish Referendum with the UK government NOW CLOSED

[MichelleMumsnet]

With fewer than 200 days to go until the Scottish referendum, UK Government has produced the latest edition, in a series of information packs, focussing on money and the economy in the context of the independence debate.

Read more: Scottish independence referendum: Money and the economy.

UK Government wants to find out what Mumsnetters' views are of the Scottish referendum coming up in September. When it comes to the prospect of Scotland going it alone and possible impacts on the economy, like changes in currency and taxes, what are your views? Whether you're Scottish or not we'd love to hear your thoughts.

Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury says, "As part of the UK the Scottish economy is growing, inflation is down and more people are in work. By remaining part of the UK, Scottish industry and jobs will be protected by the generous freeze on duties on spirits and the £3bn tax break for oil and gas industries we announced at the Budget, as well as the big cuts in income tax helping 2 million Scottish workers.

This new pack sets out some key facts people in Scotland need to know before the referendum in September. I urge everyone to read up on the facts and understand the true benefits being part of the United Kingdom brings to Scotland."

Mumsnet will be hosting various content and activity in the run up to the referendum from all sides of the debate, so do keep a look out for these in the coming months.

Thanks,

MNHQ

It won't only be the SNP doing the negotiating with WM, it'll be a cross-party (and no party) panel of folk who know what they're talking about, and understand all the ramifications. And I would hope that all people involved will be looking to get the best deal for everyone.

This doesn't have to be a dog-eat-dog and de'il tak the hinmost scenario.

I found this article interesting as to the timings of all of these negotiations (and the more recent article by this author too) ukconstitutionallaw.org/2014/01/14/nick-barber-after-the-vote/ It's really not clear at this stage whether it will be 'continuation' or as seamless as possible 'withdrawal and re-admittance'.

I also meant to direct the EU question at nataliamac - I wasn't sure which comments were meant to be inaccurate or ill-informed.

I should say that I totally get that some voters are very clear on their understanding of what the SNP are proposing and it is what they will vote for on principle. To them, all of these issues are 'white noise' and they accept that there will be negatives but for them, this is the 'win'.

The problem is for the voters who haven't been informed just how diluted or undermined their understanding of 'independence' is likely to be all things considered.

I think that leaves voters lacking the necessary information and understanding to weigh up the prospective gains with the prospective costs.

Interesting article, though the currency union/taking share of UK debt thing is already clear, as is the Trident issue; he views these as the two most powerful negotiating tools for the Scottish gvt but they're already settled. (UK Treasury has already accepted that without CU we have no responsibility for UK debt, and the removal of Trident is non-negotiable, though the timescale might be.)

The most frustrating thing about the EU in/out thing is that WM could solve the problem tomorrow, just by asking the question. The very fact that they won't suggests to me that our continued membership will be pretty straightforward, but if we actually knew that for certain WM couldn't use it as a scare tactic any more.

I don't think WM can solve the problem tomorrow by asking the question. The in/out will rely on the amendment of an EU treaty. I don't think that you can ask for a legal ruling on a hypothetical situation. But, even if you can and did, the same process to amend the EU treaties would apply (assuming this was the route to continuation) - it would have to go to EU Council, agree to consider, be considered, make recommendations as to the amendments and seek ratification from all member states.

This is based on the SNP's preferred approach (amendment to Article 48) not any 'scare-mongering' from UKGov. If there were a more straightforward, faster approach I am sure the SNP would have stated it as their preference.

On the EU question, one of the things I don't understand is that when Greenland voted to leave the EU, it took them 18 months to do so after the vote, while they sorted out practicalities like visas etc.

If Scotland does vote for independence, it would seem illogical to spend 18 months sorting out the leaving practicalities while simultaneously working on the practicalities of joining

I would also argue that the currency union is far from clear. Not, perhaps, the issue of whether £ used or not, but all of the conditions which may be placed on that (and which I believe will make it far from in Scotland's interests).

Trident is a tricky one - they have absolutely ruled it out as a bargaining tool but, and it's a big but, although it is a huge issue in terms of public opinion, it does not carry a great election cost to them - there is no party waiting in the wings to follow through with removal (and therefore steal votes) should they be required to re-think that position/adopt a much greater timescale.

I guess that - if they pursue the preferred option which more resembles 'continuation' - that it is just really negotiating the terms of continuing membership, but no-one really knows .

I'm sure the terms of this membership would also be dependent on the negotiations with rUK so there may be some complicated, simultaneous, potentially contradictory negotiations going on within a very, very tight timescale.

Ok, maybe the EU question couldn't be answered "tomorrow", but that's not really a very good reason for WM refusing to even ask it, especially as various EU leaders have indicated they'd be happy to answer it, and say "No problem". Negotiations don't have to be all that complex, how long did it take for the former East Germany to join as full members when the Wall came down?

As for Trident, would it be in the best interests of rUK to have their WMD housed in a foreign country for years on end?

It just seems as though WM have their heads up their arses in the sand, and fingers in their ears, going "la la la, it'll be a no vote", and I honestly believe we'll say yes.

The US keep nuclear weapons in a number of foreign countries, so I'm not sure that's an issue.

As for Scottish Secretary not asking the question of EU - I agree and I would really like to track down exactly what was said and what reasons were given. On the surface, it seems like politicking along the same lines of why, say, SNP haven't introduced some of the white paper proposals already (which are well within their existing powers).

I think East Germany joined Republic of Germany and so became part of that nation (and citizens became EU members), but don't quote me on that!

Argh I've missed this entire thread! Off to catch up!

On the 'just ask'- a lawyer posted this on the last thread:

The EU and its courts, the ECJ and EC1stI, are not set up to answer random questions from constituent parts of member states.

The ECJ doesn't operate a system of judicial precedent, so even if there were any relevant previous decisions exactly in point (there aren't), it would still come down to a matter of applying Treaty principles and Van Gend en Loos, which is now so eminent it appears to have direct effect.

However what Alex Salmond should have taken advice on was getting the terminology in the White Paper correct (it uses ECJ where it should refer to the EC Commission and refers to the ECJ "supporting" Scottish independence, which is entirely inappropriate).

Westminster can't ask- there is no one to ask, and if there was, it goes against their principles as the government of the UK.

This is an extremely interesting letter, from

The most important part is: The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 20041. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.

Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the EU. If the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, an agreement is then negotiated between the applicant state and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the applicant state.

Soooo... RUK/WM will stab iScotland in the back over EU negotiations, and that's a reason to stay with the traitorous bastards?

OldLady that is really ridiculous. What loyalty should RUK have to iScotland when iScotland has chosen to leave?

RUK has to act for the benefit of its own citizens, not anyone else's.

I would have been nice if they released a paper on the other side of the sorry and asked our opinions on that too.

For me it's really simple. Scotland should be able to have a government that they have elected, so that the decisions made and laws passed will directly benefit the people of Scotland. Secondly, Scotland should be able to control it's own money, so that money made in Scotland stays in Scotland to better the country still.

'Should Scotland be an Independent country?'

YES!

Because in the period between us voting yes, and actually becoming indy, the gvt of the rUk would be our gvt too. Still living off our taxes, but not representing us? Willing to negotiate against us? As they are willing to brief against us now, globally?

And that's an argument for us to stay in the UK, because we're "better together"?

Sorry, not convinced.

(I do understand they'd be in a difficult, and delicate position. Which is why the Edinburgh Agreement was that we'd all behave like decent human beings, seeking the best resolution for all... Shame that doesn't seem likely to happen.)

X post, agree with ToonLass.

As a Scot, I just cannot engage with the 'them and us' mentality of many on this thread. 'They' are treacherous; 'they' will do this to us. You are talking about your fellow countrymen! Have none of you ever left Scotland? Do you have no relatives elsewhere in the UK? I feel British and very much part of the larger collective.

I guess I just don't have what it takes for nationalism & xenophobia. I can have views about a government, without think 'they' are all out to get us. The Tories didn't even get a majority, so most of 'them' don't vote Tory. Let's work together, not divide on the basis of arbitrary man made borders.

But those of us supportive of nationalism are not doing it just because we want the line on the map to be a slightly thicker line.

I agree there are shared values and a shared heritage. There are also some huge differences. Scotland has its own education system and its own legal system. We are more socialist. We have our own history. Some of the things that happened to England in the past didn't happen to Scotland. Up here there's very little dislike for France, for example, while that seems widespread in England - Scotland and France don't have the divisive history that England and France share.

The union is still working for England. It no longer works for Scotland. We feel ignored and hard done by. And that's why we want out.

I'm also not sure why I am meant to feel more empathy & common cause with someone in the outer hebrides, for example, than someone in a market town in, say, Cheshire.

I live near a town and have a lot of relatives around Cheshire. I am sure my priorities from a government will have more in common with them than the needs of someone in a croft in Lewis. Yet somehow I am randomly meant to have common cause with the crofters & my fellow countrymen in the north of England have become 'them'. I don't like nationalism, it doesn't make sense to me & I just cannot relate to it.

I certainly haven't bought my children up to think of Scotland as a different country & separate from the rest of the UK who are all 'them' and out to fleece us. I don't want to have to start.

But it is not just about a simple question is it? It is about the solution we are being presented with and whether you believe that will be the very best way to achieve the things that are important to you.

I don't believe that the 'independence' on offer will be any better practically than what we have now.

Also, with any 'union', there is a trade-off. Just look at Norway who are (interestingly) not members of the EU but pays handsomely (both financially and democratically) to be part of the EEA - and yet this is the country to which we aspire? We will pay, in terms of finances and in terms of democracy, to be part of the EU and NATO and in return receive the benefits of being part of these communities. Maybe you don't agree with these either, but to take your argument to the full extent you should also be arguing to leave EU and NATO (for starters) yet very, very few people are (well, apart from Nigel Farage ).

SNP only want to take us out of 1 of the various unions we are in - decisions will still be taken about Scotland in lots of places that are not Scotland!

We will pay, in terms of finances and in terms of democracy, to be part of the EU and NATO and in return receive the benefits of being part of these communities...decisions will still be taken about Scotland in lots of places that are not Scotland!

The problem is at the moment;

We don't get much benefit from being part of the UK

At the moment our only voice in the EU is as (a small) part of the UK.

I'm also not sure why I am meant to feel more empathy & common cause with someone in the outer hebrides, for example, than someone in a market town in, say, Cheshire.

It's not about that. Of course large swathes of rUK are also being screwed over by the WM gov. That is unfortunate, but there is not a lot we can do about it. Scotland is in the fortunate position of being an country in its own right that can realistically leave the Union.

As a Scot, I just cannot engage with the 'them and us' mentality of many on this thread. 'They' are treacherous; 'they' will do this to us. You are talking about your fellow countrymen! Have none of you ever left Scotland? Do you have no relatives elsewhere in the UK? I feel British and very much part of the larger collective

I guess I just don't have what it takes for nationalism & xenophobia. I can have views about a government, without think 'they' are all out to get us. The Tories didn't even get a majority, so most of 'them' don't vote Tory. Let's work together, not divide on the basis of arbitrary man made borders

I think you've misunderstood. The vast majority of Yes supporters do not have an issue with the English/Welsh/NI. I'm not sure if you are trying to be insulting but of course Yes supporters have left Scotland, of course they have relatives in rUK. This is not about xenophobia, and trying to paint Yes supporters as parochial bigots is not a sensible tactic.

They "they" we have a problem with is the WM gov who over many years (so not just the Tories) has systematically ignored the needs of the UK outside of the SE. A government which Scots do not have the power to vote out.

" SNP only want to take us out of 1 of the various unions we are in - decisions will still be taken about Scotland in lots of places that are not Scotland! "

47% of Scotland want to take us out of the union, including a number of political parties, not just the SNP.It's important be accurate.

And re decisions made about Scotland, right now we gain lots from EU membership. Many people here feel we do not gain anything from being governed by Westminster, we are not living in a true democracy, and Westminster does not represent the political desire of the Scottish population. The EU is about trade. Westminster is about keeping a very select section of the electorate happy and stuff the rest of us.

I also don't appreciate the use of the word xenophobia in the context above. It is inflammatory and inaccurate. I'm not angry with the English. I am angry with the system which gives me no voice over how I am governed. Returning to party politics briefly, there are a number of very respected English SNP local councillors in my area, and amongst the Yes campaign team are English, Italian, Polish and other nationalities. They see that it's not about hating the English but about wanting to live in a fair country where the vote you make will count for something.

In the interests of accuracy - I was referring to the white paper, in which SNP propose that Scotland will continue to be members of EU, NATO. I'm sorry if that was confusing.

I do find it interesting thought that Norway has continued to vote against full membership of EU, despite the fact this leaves them with an actual democratic deficit I don't know much about it and maybe it means very little but considering the 'democratic deficit' is the big issue in this referendum it is interesting at least (shrugs)

We will be asked a question which we can answer Yes or No to.

If you genuinely feel that Scotland is better off as part of the UK then your answer will be No.

If you feel that Scotland should be given the opportunity to become a country in its own right and be self sufficient, then your answer will be Yes.

I will be a Yes voter. At first I was on the fence but the more I read about the debate, and the way the better together campaign are handling it, the more I am becoming a passionate Yes voter.

I have no problem with people voting No when they have made up their own mind by reading both sides of the debate and reaching their conclusion.

Unfortunately that is rarely the case (in my experience), and when asked why they are voting No I can never get a legitimate answer.

In fact, one person said they were worried that they would have to re sit their drivers test?! And another told me that they were not voting for independence because Salmond and Sturgeon were like Tweedledee and Tweedledum! It's this attitude and narrow mindlessness that really frustrates me. Both sides have spent months putting their points across but a lot of people seem to disregard the available information and go by what they read in the Sun or the Record.

I don't mean to say that all No voters are misinformed and ignorant. Those who can hold a debate on independence, like those commenting on this thread, do not for into the category I have just spoken about.

I am also aware that there are also some Yes voters whose reasons are simple that they watched Braveheart once and want FREEEDOM!! Which, IMO, is just as bad.

For me it's really simple. Scotland should be able to have a government that they have elected, so that the decisions made and laws passed will directly benefit the people of Scotland. Secondly, Scotland should be able to control it's own money, so that money made in Scotland stays in Scotland to better the country still.

We have 2 governments which we have elected- one in Holyrood and one in Westminster. I understand people's point that we didn't vote for the Tories (although, of course- we currently have a coalition which no one had the option to vote for!) but we have 5 million people against 63 million. Of course there were always be people who vote for a government and don't get their choice. I did not vote for the SNP, as you might be surprised to know nor did I vote for the Tories. But I had a vote, as did every individual.

How will Scotland control its own money in an iScotland? You want a currency union. But even in a currency union, you are signing up to a fiscal contract, and the iScottish government wouldn't be able to tax and spend without the BoE's say so. With regards to policies, the same problem- 5 million versus 63- applies that we have with the current voting system. An iScotland would have a different economy and its government has to be able to control that economy, especially if it is based on the volatile oil market! Every single option involves Scotland ceding economic control to another body. It is a strange version of independence!

Because in the period between us voting yes, and actually becoming indy, the gvt of the rUk would be our gvt too. Still living off our taxes, but not representing us? Willing to negotiate against us? As they are willing to brief against us now, globally?

They would represent us in day to day matters, but in the context of iScotland's application to the EU, they would not represent us. That is a simple result of voting to leave the UK.

(I do understand they'd be in a difficult, and delicate position. Which is why the Edinburgh Agreement was that we'd all behave like decent human beings, seeking the best resolution for all... Shame that doesn't seem likely to happen.)

The Edinburgh Agreement said that the result of the referendum would be 'decisive and respected'. It also said 'The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.' It does not say that 'we will give the people of Scotland everything that they want!'

The UK is only bound to negotiate for its own people. Not Scotland's. If, for example, Scotland doesn't take a share of its debt, then they do have the right to veto EU entrance.