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

BoE was nationalised in 1948, and therefore belongs to the whole of the UK as it currently stands. Surely that makes it an "asset"? Same as various improvements to eg London sewerage system, Underground, HS2... are viewed as "national assets", so we have to pay about 10%, even though most of us won't use them, and certainly not on a regular basis, and in the case of HS2 it will actively damage our economy.

But, meh, willing to leave it for tonight. :)

Glad we've all kept this civilised.

I am in England. If I lived in Scotland, I would be worried about how an independent Scotland would manage economically. But I would also be worried that the Tories will punish Scotland if they vote no, by enacting harsher policies in Scotland than they currently have.
So I am not sure how I would vote if I lived in Scotland.

In terms of how assets are divided up, is there not any international law around this?

In terms of how assets are divided up, is there not any international law around this?

Alas, not really. Theres the Vienna conventions but no one is signed up for those. Starting point I think is that literally fixed assets belong to the country they are in. Moveable/international assets embassies etc are all up for negotiation, although a reasonable person would suggest that each country should broadly get a population share of the assets.

Though of course other things can come into play,maritime borders could be up for negotiation (oil), or date of removal of trident could be a bargaining chip.

The whole thing is horribly complicated.

One late night q from me; has anyone reading this thread as an "undecided" changed their minds to either yes or no, as a consequence of this thread, and any further reading they may have done via links? Or even changed from a deffo yes or no, to "undecided"?

It's quite clear that some of us are definite yes, others definite no, and neither will be persuaded to the other way, no matter how much we argue, or what "experts" we quote. So there's not much point in "no" voters attempting to change the minds of "yes" voters, and vice versa, but that's where the "undecided" become important.

Anyone?

I haven't watched this video, just read the blurb, but I think it shows people can be persuaded:

www.yesscotland.net/news/abertay-uni-debate-shows-momentum-yes

I've not watched the video but can I just say that the YES campaign have been very guilty thus far of claiming 'undecided' then 'being persuaded' to yes. There is even a member of BizforScot who was listed on their website whilst still claiming to be undecided. A friend attending the BizforScot event in Dundee also claimed to be undecided at the start of the meeting (although she is a a very strong yes) and claims it's all just 'part of playing the game'.

I'll dig up the poll, but basically undecideds are being converted into Yes and No in equal measure.

*I've not watched the video but can I just say that the YES campaign have been very guilty thus far of claiming 'undecided' then 'being persuaded' to yes. There is even a member of BizforScot who was listed on their website whilst still claiming to be undecided. A friend attending the BizforScot event in Dundee also claimed to be undecided at the start of the meeting (although she is a a very strong yes) and claims it's all just 'part of playing the game'.

I'll dig up the poll, but basically undecideds are being converted into Yes and No in equal measure*

I'd be really interested to see the evidence for those claims....

Surely as the poll trend lines show a gradual increase for yes and decrease for no there must be movement in the Yes direction?

I don't want to get waded into a million different topics up for debate, but I'm just going to post this one thing on currency as I've been reading about the act of Union in a legal book I got out of the library.

As far as I understood it previously, Scotland and England were joined together in the act of Union. This would mean, essentially, in simple terms, anything that belongs to Scotland belongs to England and vice versa (kind of like a marriage). In this case Scotland would have equal rights to the pound as it saw fit.

The case that Westminster are trying to argue, however, is that the act of Union assimilated Scotland into England, and Scotland no longer exists, basically has been legally overridden by an act of parliament. (Cameron kept alluding to this a couple of years ago in the debates about having a referendum and I did wonder at the time what it would refer to in the future) By this logic, the pound isn't ours, and neither is much else except anything we can convince Westminster to give us. It also means though, that we would not be liable to pay back any national debt.

The issue has been subject to a lot of constitutional debate, as far as I know there's no solid legal claim that Scotland no longer exists.

Given that Westminster wants Scotland's share of the debt, and also that it would be highly detrimental to the rest of the uk if the pound were suddenly to become unstable from Scotland withdrawing, it is highly unlikely a currency union would be refused.

Hope that might make things a bit clearer for people.

Link to articles about Ken Cairnduff who presented as 'undecided' on a BBC debate. Not sure how I evidence my friend although she was pretty blaise about it!

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-bbc-in-cahoots-with-snp-1-3116200
www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/bbc-under-fire-over-supporters-stance.22205086

Link to articles about Ken Cairnduff who presented as 'undecided' on a BBC debate

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure its evidence of a systemic infiltration of debates by Yes supporters posing as no/undecides though or of "the YES campaign have been very guilty thus far of claiming 'undecided' then 'being persuaded' to yes"

I'll dig up the poll, but basically undecideds are being converted into Yes and No in equal measure

I'd like to see this as all the analysis I have seen has suggested there is overall movement towards yes, but then I tend to frequent pro Indy sites so am happy to be educated...

BoE was nationalised in 1948, and therefore belongs to the whole of the UK as it currently stands. Surely that makes it an "asset"?

No. Look at the government papers, for example here. 'The Bank of England: The Bank’s powers are governed by a number of statutes including the Bank of England Acts passed in 1694, 1946 and 1998, the Banking Act 2009 and the Financial Services Act 2012 (from April 2013). As with the security and intelligence agencies, it would continue as before. Under its current constitutional arrangements, the Bank’s functions and objectives in relation to monetary policy and financial stability relate to the UK as a whole – including Scotland. Under independence, the Bank’s functions and objectives would relate to the continuing UK only. So the Bank would no longer have to consider, for example, the stability of the Scottish financial system – unless and until the Scottish financial position impacted on the continuing UK’s financial position, in which case it would be relevant in the same way as any other international trading partner.'

In terms of how assets are divided up, is there not any international law around this?

Yes, but there is this idea of a 'fair' share floating around which puzzles me. It's not very definable, and in negotiations Scotland would certainly not have the bargaining power of Westminster.

Remember the thread I set up with a mini-vote? There was a surprising lack of 'don't knows' (or at least admitting that they were unsure!) here. 138 MNers posted and only 4 were undecided. I don't know if its the MN demographics coming to fore.

I would have thought a 'fair share' would be proportionate to percentage population?

Pure speculation, mind. I am no authority on such things but that's the way the debt is allocated so that would seem fair.

I've been reading this and Q4138 says: Is there any legal basis—established international law, constitutional law, or any other law—on which all the assets and liabilities of the UK would be divided up, whether it is based on location, population share or whatever? Are there any criteria?

The answering professor says: My view, which would be part of any paper that I send you, is that what “equitable apportionment”, which is the phrase I have been using, would mean in practice is a matter determined principally by political negotiation, but a number of legal presumptions may apply. The nature of legal presumptions is that they may be rebutted, but they would perhaps be among the default positions from which the negotiators might start.

So negotiations would start at population share I think. Also, the White Paper constantly says things like 'assuming' a population share.

I wonder if also percentage of tax payers as population share might be brought up?

I don't understand the implication of your last comment there, Santana. Percentage tax payers being brought up to what end?

Sorry if I'm being slow, I just joined the conversation.

As said by other posters here, I think its terrible that Scottish people (i.e., my husband, his family and friends and others we know) who live in England for economic reasons (i.e. limited/no jobs) are give no vote on their own country.

Its a biased vote, as those who may believe in Scottish independence may not have left for other countries in the union for work, but those who do believe in the union and have left to live in England, Wales or NI cannot vote despite being still being Scottish. It smells to me of the SNP and others trying to assure a Yes vote by excluding Scots that live elsewhere in the union who may be likely to vote 'no' for many reasons.

It would be interesting if the money being spent could go on calculating the views of England, Wales and NI based Scots and seeing if the Yes party would win with these others being included.

Oh bore off, was re same rules in Devolution vote, SNP were not in charge then.

People who choose to live & make their life in Scotland get to vote, it's not just Scottish People that can vote. Exactly how it should be.

If "expat" Scots want a vote in the referendum, it's very easy to get one. Just move back.

Wouldn't you then have to take away a vote from non scots living in Scotland? Sounds pretty unreasonable. It should be for people who live here, regardless of nationality.

OldLady, you know fine well that there are people who cannot 'just move back' to Scotland if there are settled abroad.

I don't understand the implication of your last comment there, Santana. Percentage tax payers being brought up to what end?
No, it's not very clear, sorry I mean things like Scotland have so many more pensioners, less people on the higher rate of tax.

I do find it terrible that the expats can't vote, but would be considered citizens.

Ah I see. I don't know if that would really be considered. I'm just thinking that global indicators like GDP are calculated per capita, so assume that negotiations between countries would be as well. Who knows though, there's no real precedent.

If they're "settled abroad" why should they have a vote on what happens here? I know there are some elections where expat Brits have a vote for up to 15 years, and I think that's ridiculous too.

Though I'd make exceptions if they're still paying tax in the UK.

I do find it terrible that the expats can't vote, but would be considered citizens

I actually sort of agree with that, but I think there are a lot of issues with postal votes. I think there is always the issue of where to draw the line, and where the line has been drawn is clear, unambiguous and mostly fair.

Its also worth noticing that the referendum is different to all other previous votes in elections etc in that only Scots get to vote, and not the whole of the UK, I'm guessing that this has helped to inform the expat thing?

Tiny correction, ItsAll, it's not only Scots who have the vote.

It doesn’t matter where you were born but you do need to be living in Scotland now. You also need to be a British, Irish, other European Union or qualifying Commonwealth citizen. Qualifying Commonwealth citizens are those who have leave to enter or remain in the UK or do not require such leave.