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

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

Italy has recently arrested 25 people over the Venice online referendum. We all know about Spain. There's also Cyprus and Belgium. As for the forces of darkness, I believe it was you who claimed that rUK would face- what was your phrasing again? Oh yes, an economic armageddon!

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?

You cannot guarantee that all immigrants would have jobs in Scotland. That's impossible.

Of course we pay taxes in Scotland, we pay more to WM than we get back.

in 2011-12

8.4% of the UK population
8.3% of the UK's total output
8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues
9.2% of total UK public spending

here

Of course, this is a BBC article so you'll accuse me of being biased.

Here's this years GERS figures.

Taking a per capita view of North Sea Oil, Scotland had 8.2% of revenue.
Geographically, this rises to 9.0%.
However, Scotland also accounted for 9.3% of total UK public spending in 2012-13.

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.

These bodies are UK institutions and thus belong to the rUK. They wouldn't simply change over, they would all have to be negotiated over.

I am personally fed up of the SNP telling us how easy things will be, making wild claims and then shouting 'scaremongering' and 'bully' at anyone daring to contradict them.

Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Belgium; I make that four, not 28. And all are open to negotiations, the Spanish head bummer has already said he'll be happy to say yes if rUK are. And rUK have already said they'll go by the Edinburgh Agreement...

If immigrants arrive on working visas that require they already have a job, as other countries do, then yes, that guarantee can be achieved. Of course we couldn't stop those who come on holiday visas and overstay, but neither can any other country, including rUK and Ireland, so I don't see that as an issue that would require the rebuilding of Hadrian's Wall (a bit further north) with armed SAS teams patrolling it.

The numbers we can argue about till the cows come home; we pay taxes, everyone, including all of the no lot, agree we are at the very least self-sustaining and viable as an independent entity.

The offices, equipment and staff of the Scottish civil service are located in Scotland, so even accepting that we own nothing outside of Scotland for which we have paid our share over 300 years (and I don't), we do own that much. Or is rUK going to annex East Kilbride, as they threatened to annex Faslane?

Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Belgium; I make that four, not 28.

So you can count! Well done! You can google the rest of the separatist movements if you like, these are the ones I know most about. It's still four countries whose interests are not to encourage separatism. My own opinion is that Scotland would be accepted into the EU, but wouldn't get the Schengen or Euro opt outs.

And all are open to negotiations, the Spanish head bummer has already said he'll be happy to say yes if rUK are. And rUK have already said they'll go by the Edinburgh Agreement…

Firstly, they are open to negotiating entry into the EU. This doesn't mean that iScotland turns up and says 'we want X and Y' and they say 'si!' and sign off. Negotiations may not go the way iScotland wants, for example, they may not get an opt-out from the Schengen zone.

Secondly, The Edinburgh Agreement also does not say that rUK will give Scotland everything they want. Here's paragraph 30.

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.

If rUK believe that Scotland is asking for something not in the interests of the rUK, they will veto it. Pursuing an independent immigration policy is incompatible with being a member of both the CTA and Schengen. So we could be in the CTA, but we'd kowtow to CTA policy.

??If immigrants arrive on working visas that require they already have a job, as other countries do, then yes, that guarantee can be achieved. Of course we couldn't stop those who come on holiday visas and overstay, but neither can any other country, including rUK and Ireland, so I don't see that as an issue that would require the rebuilding of Hadrian's Wall (a bit further north) with armed SAS teams patrolling it.

Of course you can’t stop them, but you can and should put measures in place to try and reduce the numbers. I think you are being really naive to be honest.

?Who said anything about the SAS?! Being in Schengen requires a border with the rUK. No ifs, no buts.

?The offices, equipment and staff of the Scottish civil service are located in Scotland, so even accepting that we own nothing outside of Scotland for which we have paid our share over 300 years (and I don't), we do own that much. Or is rUK going to annex East Kilbride, as they threatened to annex Faslane?

Thankfully, they’ll ask international lawyers about that and not you. Movable property and other assets in Scotland that are specifically for local use would become the property of the new Scottish state.

The really complicated bit comes with the software that all these civil servants use. It’s intellectual property, so it should be divided, but in practice this is going to be really, really difficult, especially if Scotland wants to pursue its own policies which that software is not set up to cater for.

Remember that this all has to take place in 18 months.

Rallying cry: Salmond inspires troops at last SNP conference before referendum

ALEX Salmond yesterday promoted two more women to his Cabinet in a clear attempt to win over female voters in the referendum as he set out a vision of a fairer and more noble Scotland under independence.

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/rallying-cry-salmond-inspires-troops-at-last-snp-conference-before-referend.23945463

Shall we just agree to disagree, Santana? It was noted upthread that we're just going round in circles now, and it's becoming wearisome.

If you'd like.

can't think of any decent answers?

It would appear real life got in the way of my responses

The point I was trying to make upthread about the voting in my constituency is that the 'border' between England and Scotland is completely arbitrary, based on ancestral actions and absolutely nothing to do with how 'different' those people are depending which side of that border you fall. I would argue that the people in my constituency are more different from Scottish Central Belt than people in, say, Newcastle or Manchester are from Scottish Central Belt.

Actually, this blog says it all better than me!

But Osborne et al will know what happens if there's a yes vote. We'll carry on with the current constitutional and parliamentary arrangements. Whereas there is much more by way of uncertainty if the 'yes' campaign wins - so much is clear.

Also; do you see a contradiction between believing it's a good idea to share a currency and desiring independence? Never mind the limits this entails for fiscal policy; how then will an independent Scotland affect monetary policy - and how will the process for this be made clear and legitimate?

If it's a good idea to share a currency, you can see that people might conclude it's a good idea to share other governance structures.

Best thing the scots and english can do is meet up at Hadrians and rebuild the bloody wall and then we will see what happens.

You do know Hadrians wall isn't actually at the border.

The best thing to do is realise we're not very different, and work together to improve the country. It seems to be the case more and more that the Yessers blame "Westminster" or "London". The UK is a democracy. We can replace politicians if we don't like them. Furthermore, only a small minority of those politicians are elected by Londoners.

But no, it's easier to blame a thinly-disguised English scapegoat.

I read a great comment the other day about how people confuse the depth of the Yes support with the breadth of the No support. I think that's true from what I have seen/heard.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and comments. This thread has now closed. UK Government would also like to say,
"Thank you for all your comments, some really interesting points made which we will take on board. This is an important debate about our shared future and it’s crucial to present all the facts and hear everyone’s views.
Clearly there is a lot of strong opinion on the referendum, UK Government strongly believes we have a great future together - A United Kingdom with a united future.
More discussion on the Scottish Referendum will follow on Mumsnet in the coming months.
In the meantime find out more about the Scottish Referendum at www.gov.uk/scottishreferendum on Twitter @youdecide2014 and on Facebook."