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

Don't think so. It's often people who have nothing to lose that fight for change.

I do remember the '79 referendum, though I was marginally too young to vote. It was 52/48 yes, and I recall my sense of utter outrage that, because the votes of the dead counted as no, we didn't get it. And other 20 years to devolution.

That was to OldLady.

1979 was Thatcher, wasn't it, ItsAll? That might be why.

Re post referendum, yes, a 'meh' reaction is possible. What do you think would be the Scots' reaction to that?

Yes those were the bad old days. But now is now and both parties are now confident enough to have a reasoned debate.

Re post referendum, yes, a 'meh' reaction is possible. What do you think would be the Scots' reaction to that?

Well duh...

The '79 referendum was 1 March, Maggie's election victory was in the May, 7th, I think.

If WM are confident enough to have a reasoned debate, why aren't we having one now? Why won't BT turn up when invited? Why do they attempt to have Yes campaigners removed from public places, on the grounds of "balance", because they don't have campaigners on the ground? Why the scare stories, why Robertson's comical bluster?

Noooo, not bloody Braveheart!!!

I'd love to see the evidence supporting this wonderful devomax we're so sure to get. I don't think there will be any pressure felt by WM to give us more power.

In any case, what does it matter what powers we're given to shut us up when we're still at the mercy of a government which has delivered bedroom tax and privatised everything it lays its grubby mitts on?.What use is being allowed to choose the colour of the loo paper in Holyrood?

We need a yes vote. Don't try to tell me that if northern England had the option they wouldn't want it too.

ItsAll - really? That's why they will want to keep us sweet then. (We/You won, iirc).

OldLady, we are having a reasoned debate. At the moment, I think the SNP are sounding good and the BT campaign isn't. But this is about much more than a campaign. It's not an election, it's a referendum.

I expect the BTs would prefer not to follow the SNP agenda. Or maybe they're complacent. Or incompetent. Whatever. As someone posted upstream, this is too important to believe any campaigner, for or against. We need to inform ourselves by reading and discussing, not by listening to lies and guesses and letting ourselves be manipulated by people with political agendas.

Sorry solo but I'm going to have to make a patronising correction

At the moment, I think the SNP are sounding good and the BT campaign isn't.

Its not the SNP. It's the Yes campaign. Of which SNP is a small part. The Yes campaign is so much more than just the SNP unlike Better Together which is just lib/lab/tories

We're having a reasoned debate here, but I'm not seeing much in MSM, or even in other public spaces. A school debate (most of which seem to have been comprehensively won by yes so far) had to be cancelled the other week because BT dropped out at the last minute. Yes "hustings" type meetings (eg Tommy Sheridan's Kilmarnock speech) are recorded and put on youtube within hours, or days, but I'm not aware of anything similar by BT. One debate (between Tommy and the local Labour MP, Brian Donohoe) was all set to be livestreamed/recorded, with the agreement of the organisers, but Mr Donohoe refused. (Fair enough, he was asked rather belatedly, but it was a public meeting fgs, what was he worried about?)

And why won't Cameron debate Salmond?

Aargh, Kirkcaldy, not Kilmarnock!

OldLady - disappointing, but there's plenty of time yet.

'And why won't Cameron debate Salmond?' Oo-er, what a horrible thought. Would anyone watch it?? It's not as if you would learn anything new (or even true) from either of them.

Feel free to correct my errors, ItsAll, real and imaginary. If you're lucky, I might even slip some in 'on purpose' for you to spot.

Oh, yes, there's plenty of time yet. I'd watch Cameron/Salmond, though I was bitterly disappointed by Sturgeon and the astonished Lamont. I enjoyed Sillars and Galloway, but what i'd really love to see is Galloway/Sheridan. (George blocked me on Twitter for saying that. :( I used to be quite a fan.)

And what about the yes campaigner who couldn't make a Glasgow Uni debate, leaving a student campaigner to lead the yes side.....?

Cameron quite rightly won't debate Salmond because Cameron is not entitled to a vote in this election.

Re immigration- iScotland would have to choose. It can't be in the Common Travel Area and have a different policy to rUK and Ireland. I'd also think that the EU would have something to say about Scotland opening the gates to a flood of immigration.

So the Glasgow Uni debate wasn't cancelled then?

Cameron's not entitled to a vote, neither is George Galloway. He still made a passionate case for his pov (though too much reliance on "nonsense on stilt" argument.) Cameron said something along the lines of how he'd fight tooth and nail for the Union, but he won't even have a nice chat over a ?

Of course we could have a different immigration policy; immigrants would only be permitted on working visas, valid only in Scotland. Not much point leaving a vibrant new country only to become impoverished elsewhere. Glad to see you agree we'd still be in the EU, though.

George Galloway dressed up in a catsuit and did various horrors on Celebrity Big Brother, you'll forgive me if I don't hold him up as a shining example...

The UK, the Republic of Ireland, the States of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man all collaborate on border policies and practices as part of the CTA. So Scotland could have a separate immigration policy, but only if it doesn't want to be part of the CTA. Which means border controls.

The CTA and Schengen are also two different beasts, you can't be a member of both. Scotland would have to negotiate an opt out from Schengen when it applied to the EU.

Not quite sure what the catdressing has to do with the indyref, but there you go. Not quite sure why opting out of Schengen would be a problem either, and can't see why remaining in the CTA would require border controls. If our immigration policy is that newcomers require a working visa which only allows working in Scotland, there will hardly be a flood of people desperate to head south, where they won't be allowed to work/claim benefits. Why jack in a good job in Scotland to live illegally and impoverished south of the border? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Not quite sure why opting out of Schengen would be a problem either
All newcomers to the EU since 1999 have had to sign up to Schengen at the same time. Only UK and Ireland have an opt out. The other 28 member states would have to agree to the opt-out. Many of them have their own independence problems .

If our immigration policy is that newcomers require a working visa which only allows working in Scotland, there will hardly be a flood of people desperate to head south, where they won't be allowed to work/claim benefits.

Is Scotland in or out of Schengen in this scenario? Actually it doesn't matter, because:

In Schengen, the EU has competence for border and visa policies in Schengen, so Scotland wouldn't be free to set the terms of their own immigration policy.

Out of Schengen, Scotland still wouldn't be free to set their own policies (see above point about CTA).

It's not just about legal migration, but also illegal migration and even smuggling across the border.

right back atcha.

Because the point of Schengen is to reduce borders across the EU, and if iScotland had to join, that would mean we would need border controls with rUK, making a nonsense (perhaps even on stilts) of the whole thing.

So, not in Shengen, but in CTA. Don't quite see why we couldn't have our own visa policies (obv for non-EU countries) while within CTA? As I said, they would be working visas, and available only if you already had a job (I'm not au fait with immigration policies elsewhere, but think Australia and America [used to be ruled from WM] do much the same?). So why would an immigrant, with a job (probably well-paid) and a home in iScotland want to head south, where they would have no job, no home, no right to work or claim benefits? Doesn't make any sort of sense to me.

Because the point of Schengen is to reduce borders across the EU, and if iScotland had to join, that would mean we would need border controls with rUK, making a nonsense (perhaps even on stilts) of the whole thing.

A nonsense of what?

So, not in Shengen, but in CTA. Don't quite see why we couldn't have our own visa policies (obv for non-EU countries) while within CTA?

Assuming 28 member countries have said okay to this... The CTA sets a common policy. If Scotland wants to grow its population by attracting immigrants, this would be contrary to the rUK and Ireland's current policies.

So why would an immigrant, with a job (probably well-paid) and a home in iScotland want to head south, where they would have no job, no home, no right to work or claim benefits? Doesn't make any sort of sense to me.

Where are all these well paying jobs and houses coming from?!

Forcing iScotland into Schengen would create a border (between us and rUK) which does not currently exist. The point of Schengen is to reduce borders, not create them, so forcing us to create a new border would make a nonsense of Schengen. Yes, there are 28 countries who would have to agree, but who would benefit from being arsey about this?

The CTA sets a common policy, yes. A common travel policy, no borders, no need for passports etc. I really don't see how our immigration policies would affect our travel arrangements? Immigrants to iScotland could still travel to rUK, to visit friends and family, or to holiday, but if they couldn't work there why would they give up a job and home in iScotland to attempt to live there, without visas or the right to work/claim benefits?

As for new jobs and homes, if we don't have to pay £50 mil pa to send MPs to WM, or contribute towards the £100billion to renew WMD, or pay 10% of HS2 (which would take billions out of our economy if we say no) and 10% of the much-needed renewal of the London sewerage system, or any of the rest of that "national asset" bollox, that's a lot of cash to build new, affordable homes (creating jobs for builders), help with new business startups, help SME expand... The possibilities are endless.

Yes, there are 28 countries who would have to agree, but who would benefit from being arsey about this?

Those 28 countries with independence problems of their own, who don't want to encourage them and who don't give a shit if there's a border at Gretna. As for 'creating' instead of 'removing', I think the correct response back to that is 'well why did you vote to become independent and set up your own border then?!'

The CTA sets a common policy, yes. A common travel policy, no borders, no need for passports etc. I really don't see how our immigration policies would affect our travel arrangements?

Because with no borders and no need for passports, there is also no way of monitoring the flow of people (legally and illegally) and goods (legally and illegally). If Scotland has fabulous immigration policies and is in the CTA, all of these people can then enter Ireland or rUK without being stopped and checked. And I don't think either of them will be convinced by 'Scotland is so fabulous none of the migrants will want to go to your countries'.

As for new jobs and homes, if we don't have to pay £50 mil pa to send MPs to WM, or contribute towards the £100billion to renew WMD, or pay 10% of HS2 (which would take billions out of our economy if we say no) and 10% of the much-needed renewal of the London sewerage system, or any of the rest of that "national asset" bollox, that's a lot of cash to build new, affordable homes (creating jobs for builders), help with new business startups, help SME expand... The possibilities are endless.

We're still going to have to pay taxes in iScotland, and the White Paper suggests that they will go up, not down, with all the promises it makes. You forgot how much this referendum is costing, and how much it's going to cost to set up duplicate bodies for everything we've already got. Where is all this money coming from?

All 28 countries have indy probs of their own? Gosh, maybe Lord Robertson was right, the Forces of Darkness are about to unleash demons upon the land!

Yes, legit immigrants to iScotland could travel to rUK and Ireland. But they would have no right to work there, while they would have jobs in Scotland. What's the fear; that being totally impoverished, illegal immigrants in rUk and Ireland is somehow better than being employed in Scotland?

Of course we pay taxes in Scotland, we pay more to WM than we get back. There's no need to set up "duplicate bodies" because we already have HMRC offices, H&S executives and so on, a full civil service of trained and experienced staff, whose employment would simply change from WM to Scottish gvt. Yes, it'll cost a bit, and take some negotiations, but there's nothing insurmountable.

Totally agree with you Old Lady. The whole BT argument is based on telling us how it won't be easy. As if we're schoolchildren.

Nobody is saying it'll be easy, it's going to be a minefield. But i don't think the fact that we will need our own civil service (the infrastructure and staffing of which is already present) is a compelling reason to vote no. Just more of the same BT negativity - the whole thing is reminiscent of The Croods