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

There's no need to be offensive when I have been nothing but polite.

I accept we have differing opinions, i don't agree with your point of view but I don't think there's "something wrong with you" for thinking that way.

No need for insults.

Fanny's right in that we're just going round in circles. You, Santana, seem to think that if we vote yes, the rUK gvt - which will still be our gvt at that time - will get nasty, veto our re-entry of the EU, and deny us our own currency. The assets we've already paid our share for over the last 300 years (foreign embassies, military hardware, the London sewerage and Underground systems etc) will no longer have anything to do with us, and we'll still get saddled with billions of £ of debt.

If that's truly the case, it simply strengthens my decision to vote yes. Who'd want to be ruled by people willing to treat us like that?

But I don't think your case is right. I think there will be CU, and our "re-entry" into the EU will be straightforward. I think we can negotiate like grown-ups over the rest of the assets, and come to reasonable solutions.

Unless Lord Robertson is part of the negotiating team, of course.

How many times?!!! Scotland has no right to a currency union. It has the right to use the pound. These are different things and the difference is absolutely crucial.

The pound is Scotland’s currency now precisely because Scotland is part of the UK now. If Scots vote to leave the UK they will be voting to leave the UK’s institutions, including the pound. As we all know, Scotland could then seek to negotiate its way back into these institutions but the rUK would agree to this only if it was persuaded that it was in the national interest of the rUK do to so.

I am not making this up. There is no legal precedent for anything you're saying. It doesn't matter what you think- you are just simply wrong. I'm sorry, but you are!

You are the one with an obsession that Westminster is out to get Scotland!

If you vote to leave Westminster, guess what, they take their own interests into account. Not Scotland's. Stay with them and they represent you.

"Scotland could then seek to negotiate its way back into these institutions but the rUK would agree to this only if it was persuaded that it was in the national interest of the rUK do to so."

I think the crux of this is that it will fairly obviously be in the national interest of the rUK to do so.

Thanks Santana but the elements you quoted all focused on systems costs, IT costs and in the case of the green tax items, short term costs. There's nothing about people costs. The public sector is already a huge proportion of employment in Scotland and setting up a new regulatory structure and then staffing it is just going to exacerbate that all in the name of keeping current private sector enterprise going, without any actual growth in the private sector. There are vast areas of cost that don't seem to be addressed at all and it's making the Yes campaign sound like wishful thinking to me.

The impact on public sector is a real issue for me. We know that there will need to be cuts to public spending (we just don't know how much compared to what is already in the pipeline from WM, but it will not be less) and we also know that we need to duplicate establish around 200 organisations, apart from those which we will pay to carry on doing what they do. All of this boils down to less money for existing public services and a horrendous knock-on effect for third sector organisations which rely on statutory funding (local or central govt).

It's all very well with the 'voting for my children' but the charity I work for is a lifeline for children and young people right now. At the moment we are approx 60% govt funding and 35% trusts/foundations: 90% of that trusts money comes from england-based trusts.

There must be people who - although they have a YES vote in their heart - look at the bare facts of what SNP are proposing and wonder, even privately, whether they are really, really convinced.

I don't think anyone expects this stuff to happen overnight. Scotland's priorities are different, taxation will be different, and there's the potential for nationalisation and streamlining. Once organisations are truly nationalised and the need for profit is taken out of the equation then these costs be recouped.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who think no based solely on the fact that they fear change. When we're currently ruled by a government which tolerates fraud, I think people will start to feel that the devil they know isn't better at all.

Nationalisation??

I don't think anyone expects this stuff to happen overnight.

But the problem is that we would go independent very very quickly and we cannot afford to lose an entire generation to the whims of hope and potential.

There must be people who - although they have a YES vote in their heart - look at the bare facts of what SNP are proposing and wonder, even privately, whether they are really, really convinced.

I don't think you can look at the hard facts and not reconsider.

I would love to vote yes, and I started off wanting to vote yes. But I look at the proposals and they make no sense at all.

Overnight is right - the planned tax changes (whatever they may be, anyone?!) are likely to take anything up to 10 years to put in place.

My husband is a strong yes (he, literally, has SNP 'blue blood' ) but even he is frustrated with what's on the table so far. He comforts himself with the fact that the devolution arrangements due to kick-in after the referendum are much closer to what the likes of Sir Neil MacCormick actually envisaged.

Charitable funding is another legitimate concern Youcantteuchthis - a cardiologist we know is anticipating that his job will have to move south of the border in the event of a yes vote because he has had signals from charities that fund a huge proportion of the equipment and research progress in the field that it will be withdrawn in Scotland to reflect the proportion of donations and fundraising sources and where they are national charities with a single structure. Setting up a duplicate third sector is not going to happen overnight either. With a family etc he wasn't keen to uproot them all but is fairly sure that it's going to be necessary.

the planned tax changes (whatever they may be, anyone?!)
The SNP want to reduce corporation tax to 3% below the UK rate, increase personal allowances and tax credits, cut Air Passenger Duty by 50% and end the married couples' tax allowance.

They also want to streamline the rest of the tax system (another unknown amount of years, money and time to come up with that one!).

Is your DH voting no then YouCan'tTeuchThis? (great name, btw)

There's a section on charities in the White Paper too, but it's well, more of the usual.

What devolution arrangements are due to kick in if we vote no? The three main WM parties have no agreement, and Labour's policies re income tax are completely incomprehensible, even to Labour party members/parliamentary representatives. The Tories are yet to declare their suggestions, and we can forget the LibDems. There is aboslutely no guarantee whatsoever that voting no will give us more powers/control.

The only way to have control over these things, is to vote yes. And a lovely article in the Guardian says most overseas observers agree we're likely to do so.

I was referring to the Scotland Act 2012 which devolved further tax powers. I accept that they don't go as far as they could but I do think that they establish a good basis for further devolution plus I think there will be far greater pressure on all parties to deliver really string manifestos ahead of UK & Scottish elections.

Genuine question: if you live in a constituency (in Scotland) which has historically and consistently voted LibDem/Cons then would you still consider your constituency to be 'wrongly' governed by a government you didn't vote for in WM?

There is aboslutely no guarantee whatsoever that voting no will give us more powers/control.

Neither does the yes vote! - your currency union wants to cede economic control to the BoE and will require agreement on monetary policy with Westminster's government, your insistence on membership of the Common Travel Area will also require a common immigration policy.

Neither does the yes vote! - your currency union wants to cede economic control to the BoE and will require agreement on monetary policy with Westminster's government, your insistence on membership of the Common Travel Area will also require a common immigration policy

Assuming what you say is correct, a Yes vote would give Scots control over everything else, which is a lot more than they have at the moment.

a Yes vote would give Scots control over everything else

There's fifteen reserved powers (defence, foreign policy, social security, financial and economic matters, employment, constitutional matters, immigration & nationality, monetary system, common markets, some transport, data protection, energy, gambling, medical ethics, equal opportunities).

These are all important and there would be some gains for iScotland (defence, constitutional matters, transport, arguably data protection), but the most important ones- social security, financial and economic markets, immigration and nationality, monetary system and the common markets, maybe even some areas of defence, would still be largely controlled by Westminster in the SNP's current plan, because they would be the dominant partner in the currency union.

For welfare, look here (which is a SNP document!). p69. In adopting this approach, the Scottish Government would need to ensure that any early priorities for change could be accommodated by the UK Government. A downside of continuing to share services might be that an independent Scottish Government finds itself unable to implement some of its early priorities for change to the benefit system (though as we note in Chapter 5, Northern Ireland has secured additional flexibilities within the current system). However, as a way of ensuring that benefit claimants who currently receive services from the UK nations continue to receive those services in the event of Scottish independence (irrespective of where they live), we concluded that this was the preferable and most pragmatic option

The White Paper claims that 'independence will allow Scotland to develop its own immigration policies' (Q241). But this cannot co-exist with their plan to be in the CTA, because the UK and Ireland share an immigration policy.

Hasn't the UK government already "ceded" some sovereignty to the Bank of England, when they made it solely responsible for setting interest rates? I thought that that was one of the things that Gordon Brown did way back when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer - making the Bank of England committee that agrees the base rate of interest independent?

I think sovereignty is the wrong word in that case, prettybird- 'Sovereignty is the quality of having an independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory'.

Parliament is sovereign in Britain anyway, as Carney pointed out here: the Bank of England, which is a financial technocratic institution, would implement whatever monetary arrangements were decided to the best of our ability. We would also, as appropriate, provide technical advice and context to those making those decisions. But once decisions are made, we implement this; we're not the ones who are elected to make decisions, very clearly.

There's fifteen reserved powers (defence, foreign policy, social security, financial and economic matters, employment, constitutional matters, immigration & nationality, monetary system, common markets, some transport, data protection, energy, gambling, medical ethics, equal opportunities).

These are all important and there would be some gains for iScotland (defence, constitutional matters, transport, arguably data protection), but the most important ones- social security, financial and economic markets, immigration and nationality, monetary system and the common markets, maybe even some areas of defence, would still be largely controlled by Westminster in the SNP's current plan, because they would be the dominant partner in the currency union

Again, assuming everything you say is correct then Scotland would have complete freedom of choice, within parameters negotiated with other nations. This is still more freedom than we have at the moment.

And of course, a Yes vote does not equal the SNP running the country. Different parties would have the freedom to make different decisions, cooperate more with other nations and enter into more shared agreements, or conversely disengage from other agreements.

A currency union is the SNPs preferred system on independence day, and it makes a lot of sense. However, 5/10 years down the line when things are more settled an Independent scotland could easily choose to leave the currency union.

A Yes vote indisputably (I know you will though ) gives Scots more choices for ever. A no vote ties Scots into choices being made for them by another country for a very long time, if not ever.

A no vote ties Scots into choices being made for them by another country for a very long time, if not ever.

We are British, choices are made for us by our country.

Can no-one answer my question about constituency voting? I'm genuinely baffled!

Don't you know that no good Scotsman or woman would ever vote for the big nasty Tories?

We are British, choices are made for us by our country

And that takes us back to one of the big fundamental questions - are you Scottish or British?

Can no-one answer my question about constituency voting? I'm genuinely baffled

I guess no one on this thread has ever lived in such a constituency :-)

With the caveat that I live in a labour stronghold, my view is that if you vote Tory you should not complain, if you vote libdem you should never ever vote for them again as they have shown themselves as totally spineless and given up all of their principles for a taste of power. So to answer the question, I would imagine a Tory voter/constituency would not feel wrongly governed by WM, this is just a guess though...