UKC

Any one else voted yet? Postal obviously. Ok, I lied on the title, I haven't actually inked the box yet but my pen is hovering.

Despite my past ribbing of the yes voters I had to think long and hard about where I place my X. The result won't really affect me. I work abroad so spend very little time at home but still have a base in Scotland so have a vote. I will probably leave Scotland in 3-4 years time but my vote is important to the future of the country.

So tonight I will cast my vote and I have a couple of questions which maybe someone can answer.

1) How will a yes vote affect my mortgage? Can I still have a mortgage with a foreign bank and more importantly what will happen to the rates?

2) My nephew is hoping to join the marines next year. Will it still be possible for a Scot to join a remaining UK army/navy/air force under a yes vote? Or will we have our own marines? If so will we be spending the same proportional amount on defense?

That's it. 2 issues that concern me. Answers on a postcard please.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

1) Nobody knows.

2) Nobody knows.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Lose approximations will suffice.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

1. Try Santander, HSBC et al
2. Who knows, and I don't see it as a vote clincher.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Shows what a country the UK has become when the two most important factors are the value of personal investments and the opportunities for military recruitment. What happened to quality of life, national economic prosperity, human/employment rights, etc.?

In reply to yer maw:

2) Maybe not for you but it is one for me.
1) Good point.

In reply to john arran:

No you don't understand. It is what is important to me not the UK. Your other points don't affect me and I think I made this clear in my first post.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Again I say it shows what society has become, when a voter is uncaring as to what becomes of an entire region/country as long as individual and family interests are thought to be beneficial.

In reply to john arran:

Of course individual and family interests are foremost. Are you human or a computer generated reply?

In reply to john arran:

Scotland is not a region.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

1, Yes you can and it will make no difference to the rate.

2, Yes he can but he will be working for the UK forces not Scotland. The same as Irish people can join the British Forces.

In reply to estivoautumnal:


There's a school of thought that maintains that it's more important - and ultimately beneficial - to be part of a thriving society than to be personally relatively prosperous in a failing one. Doing better than all your neighbours sounds great but if your neighbours are all going down the pan it might not mean a whole lot.

In reply to estivoautumnal:


I could have sworn I said "region/country".

In reply to OwenM:

Thank you. Refreshing to get a reply to my question rather than a pedantic rant.

In reply to john arran:

You did, it's still not a region. Strathclyde is a region, Scotland is a country.

In reply to john arran:


This is the nub of my dilemma. You probably don't understand.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I understand completely. To many Scottish people and some others Scotland is a country. To most others it's a constituent part of the UK. I'm not personally concerned either way but I believe you'll find most international authorities regard it as being part of a country called UK and I find the refusal to accept this a little puzzling, especially as I quite deliberately offered the opportunity for whichever interpretation you preferred by saying region/country.

In reply to john arran:


+1

In reply to estivoautumnal:

1) If by foreign you mean non-UK and if by still you mean you have a mortgage already, my guess would be that you can and the rates will be dependent on the foreign country(so who knows). Probably largely due to you not mentioning it and them not being bothered to check. Not sure what will happen if it comes to remortgaging or if you were buying.

2) From what you say it sounds like he would have joined prior to any actual independence anyway. Don't really know what future consequences would be though.

So there's my guesses

Good luck with your vote, the overall consequences and stakes are huge.

In reply to estivoautumnal:


Heh! I do.

It maybe shouldn't matter, but, still, it does.

Anyhoo,

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/how-to-join/apply/royal-marines-officer...

As suggested above, it'd be odd if there were ways for Irish and Commonwealth citizens to join but not for Scots. Especially as it sounds like Scotland would still be part of the UK at the time of joining.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I wasn't pedantic or ranting? But at least you have the answer to your questions. I didn't know the Irish could join either, though I'm sure Scotland will have marines of some sort but their goal will be to kill a pint and a pie......

In reply to john arran:


Yup, it's part of a 'kingdom' and to call it a separate country is highly misleading. Just as Wales isn't a separate country.

In reply to off-duty:




Thank you.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Total bollox. How many countries make up the UK? Not how many regions.

In reply to estivoautumnal:


Most authorities, such as the UN, would say one.

In reply to john arran:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain contains 3 countries, not regions.

You really are convincing me to vote yes.

In reply to estivoautumnal:
I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all except that by most commonly accepted standards of terminology The UK comprises regions rather than countries, which is usually reserved for describing independent nation states. If you want to think of Scotland as a country already then I'm not trying to stop you or even to suggest that you're wrong - merely that your use of the word is out of kilter with its usual definition.

Sounds to me like your voting preference may have been decided some time ago.

Actually I'm not sure a Yes vote would be such a bad thing as long as Scotland would be able to gain EU membership, in which case it wouldn't risk the suicide of isolationism that would face the UK if ever it was able to contrive to leave the EU and pretend that it would be better off on its own.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

My £800,000 is getting a bit twitchy!!!

In reply to estivoautumnal:


Certainly not what I was taught at school, in the gentler, wiser times of the 1960s. Ever since then, yes, there as been an urge for division. But, as John Arran says, traditionally (for c. two centuries) 'country' was a loose shorthand for nation state.

Another thing. Who ever would have guessed in the 1960s that their maps of Europe, including GB, were all wrong, and that within a couple of decades we would be told that Europe started the other side of the English Channel?

In reply to john arran:

Technically you are both right Scotland is recognised as a country already but the UK as a whole is also a country and a sovereign state. Confusingly according to wikipedia England is considered both a country and administrative region (Scotlands not on that list). Northern Ireland is regarded a province although its only a part of the province of Ulster.

In reply to gearoidmurphy:

I've come to think it was nations forming the country of the United Kingdom. BTW my family cannot understand the UK as it stands...it took me a while to get it. For highly centralised countries like France, it is really hard to understand. I wonder what people form federate countries like Germany/ Switzerland make of it?

In reply to estivoautumnal:

1) My guess is that if you are on a fixed rate deal the contract will stand.
However when you come to re-mortgage, or come to the end of any deal you are on, you will have to move to a product that is only offered to Scottish investors. Banks will effectively have to break up, as under EU law (there's an assumption) you have to offer country specific products. the rates offered will be partially dependent on Scotland's borrowing rates. If Scotland starts out by refusing to take on its share of historic debt, the market will see this as a default and Scotland's rates would be astronomical.
In the meantime, you will have a GBP£ mortgage. But your income will be in whatever Scotland's currency is, which could be SCO£. Which would mean your mortgage will cost you a different amount each month.

2) Who knows? The Ghurkas get to serve in the British army, but I'm not sure why. My hunch is yes, he could, but it may be harder to get in ( as they may limit the number of foreign nationals who could serve)

In reply to john arran:


So you wouldn't consider England to be a country? Interesting notion.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Oh come on. I think we can at least go that far.

In reply to estivoautumnal:


By the standards you are applying here, it would be two countries, one principality and one province.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

As well as mortgage rates, the referendum outcome will influence the value of the property you own in Scotland. In my opinion, independence will result in Scottish property values decreasing.

In reply to estivoautumnal:



Nobody knows exactly what will happen to the rates, either in rUK or Scotland.

Technically speaking it's perfectly possible to have a mortgage in a foreign bank even though most likely if your bank has branches in Scotland then they'll have a Scottish subsidiary.


Most definitely he will be able to join either rUK forces or Scottish forces. This is because he will still hold British citizenship.

In reply to EddInaBox:


The word 'principality' is never used these days, not even by the UK government. Quite frankly, it is a term which belongs to the middle ages.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

The fact that the yes campaign have completely failed to figure out so many important details (health, social welfare, currency, pensions, economy) is the reason the whole vote is pointless. A yes vote is a bit of a laugh and all but when push comes to shove the no's will have it by a landslide.

All in all a massive waste of money.

In reply to oliverk:


Which could be viewed as a good thing by making more property more affordable, with less requirement for large mortgages.

In reply to RomTheBear:



That's true in the UK because of our regulatory system. In a small country like Scotland, it's unlikely that every bank will form a local division. So you may end up with a mortgage with a foreign (UK) bank, subject to foreign (UK) rules. Luckily those rules are quite good and as you won't have a currency of financial policy of your own it'll probably be the only thing still working fine.

Scottish independence is a bit like a teenager going away to university. They get a bit more money to spend, they get to do some things their own way, but they have they got there with the help of their parents and they're still underpining their financial situation.

Given their is nothing unique about Scotland compared with the UK as a whole - certainly not in the way the US, Russia, China as massive countries have significant regional difference - if Alex Salmond had a credible plan to improve the country it would apply to the UK as a whole. It doesn't, it relies on avoiding debt, cherry picking services, and hoping that the current upturn will carry him through the first few years until it becomes someone else's problem.

And I write that a Brit who loves visiting Scotland, has friends and customers working there, and some vague relatives.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Brilliant.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think you're making that up. The whole point is that he is no longer holding the citizenship of the country of the armed forces he wishes to join.

I do think that, on past precedent, he is likely to be allowed to join the rUK military forces- in a similar way to 'Commonwealth soldiers' or soldiers from Eire.

However, that's not a certainty and is down to the discretion of the rUK.

I suppose he could also decide to 'leave' Scotland and take rUKish nationality.

In reply to Philip:



Or a wife sick of her husbands shit.

In reply to tony:

A good point well made, however would be problematic for some people- esp people who end up with negative equity.

In reply to estivoautumnal:
He could end up fighting Scottish forces as a member of the UK army! (Scotland may try to annex Berwick upon Tweed, which just misses out on being in Scotland but has changed hands over the years)

In reply to French Erick:

French Erick- just think about 'France' in the middle ages- it was a whole load of 'countries' bound together through personal loyalty to the "King of France", which had more or less relevance depending on how powerful you were compared to the King- think of the Burgundians or Brittany in particular during the 1420's.

Countries are, after all, just a made up thing.

In reply to Flinticus:

Flinticus- think of who it was that actually did the clearing of the Highlands- you don't think those were predomoniantly English soldiers do you?

In reply to Ander:

I think (didn't do this in school as I was educated in Ireland) that they were probably from the southern / central clans? Long rivalries with the Highland clans?

In reply to wynaptomos:

Except when referring to Monaco, of course.

In reply to estivoautumnal:
To return to the OP:

1) Most banks are 'foreign' anyway. My hunch is that the issue is contractual, where most exisiting UK mortgages usually link mortgage rates with LIBOR. The link between LIBOR and what's going on in the Scottish economy will only be indirectly linked. Though I suppose that's what the Scottish Nationalists are arguing anyway.

2) If Scotland spend the same proportion on defence, then the Scottish marines will be the place to be- the pay will have to be huge to compensate for the things it won't spend on (eg Trident). However, the Scottish Marines would likely be rather insignificant- I think it would be fair to say there wouldn't really be much call for Naval Infantry in the Scottish Navy. My best guess on this would be to think of the Republic of Irelands military forces.

The other thing to note is that the rUK forces would likely change to- ie it would also be nudged towards being more like the Republic of Irelands armed forces.

The only real alternative to this would be how it integrated in a wider Nato/EU army. The Germans and Dutch have gone down this line recently, and the guess would have that we're going to have more of that (ie the recent British and EU proposals on integrated forces following developments in the Ukraine). I'd hazard a guess that integrated European forces will be good for individual careers- ie less parochial, more oppotunity for travel, promotion, flexibility on trade, etc.

In reply to Flinticus:

Aaaah- if you're educated in Ireland you'll probaly have a good grasp that historically speaking 'national' armies comprised of people from their own nation are a bit of an anomaly then. All those Irish regiments across Europe and North America. Fighting each other, and very possibly other Irish people.

In reply to Flinticus:

The Highland Clearances were predominantly economic in nature - forced and often brutal mass evictions, usually carried out by hired hands. Military involvement, as I understand it, usually involved breaking up protests, and stepping in (to assist the landowners). Not sure, but I think it was Highland regiments who did that. What it has to do with the original question is beyond me.

In reply to estivoautumnal:


This is very pointless argument as country and region are just words with no clear cut meaning. For most international organisations, the country is (currently) the UK. The UN does not recognise a country called "England" or "Scotland". The same with French govt. or Bolivian govt. they have ambassadors to the UK. I guess the Olympic Committee sees the country as the UK, while FIFA and the MCC see the countries as Scot, Wales, Eng.

Within the EU there is a specific meaning to the term region connected to the Committee of the Regions, an attempt at moving democratic control downwards. In that structure Scotland is a region http://cor.europa.eu/en/regions/pages/Region.aspx?Country=United%20Kingdom&... in the same way that "Yorkshire and the Humber" is a region. Scotland will have its regional representation in Brussels and would cooperate with other regions of Europe. In fact I was reading a proposal for research coop. like that recently where Scotland was going to cooperate with the regions of Flanders and Skåne.

Wikipedia actually has a rather nicely written paragraph on how the UK govt. uses the term country internally - hence Scotland and Wales are countries not regions to the govt. but of course to the EU, OSCE, OECD etc etc Scotland is (at least for the time being) a region of the country - the UK.
"The term 'region' as used here includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which are non-sovereign countries,referred to as separate countries, even though collectively they form the country known as the United Kingdom they are recognised as countries by the UK Government and are not referred to as regions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Region_%28Europe%29

In reply to Ander:

The white paper plans a large reduction in military spending, excluding trident. The Army will have 3,500 regular personnel (p240). By comparison the Uk Army has 95,800 regular soldiers (per Wikipedia, best I could find).

In reply to Ander:

Well, I used to fight with my brother when growing up!

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I'm no expert but I am sure the position on mortgages won't change in any material way and I think the UK forces are pretty agnostic on country of origin for recruits all other things allowing. So go for it and enjoy exercising your choice. I am excited already about voting in a couple of weeks. It feels like a real privilege to be able to have a say on how our country is governed and where it is governed from. I find it disappointing but probably symptomatic of the way the union is failing that some of the comments question the fact that Scotland has always been a dintinctive nation/country with our own history, culture, laws and education system. Even if for three hundred years we entered a union with near neighbours. And now I hope......... we have our own future.

In reply to mav:


So massive job losses..

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Your nephew had better apply to join the Marines prior to separation. There is no definate plan given by the yes capaign about organisation or even exactly what military capabilities Scotland will have post independance... They say it will be up to the government in power at that time. Presumably the main thrust of scotlands defence will be Alex Salmond shouting.

In reply to Philip:

I would say that is it actually pretty much certain. There is no way local branches could operate properly without a legal entity in Scotland.

In reply to jepotherepo:

I do wonder if you have understood what this vote is about.

It's "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"

It's not "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country and here are the exact details of every single thing?"

We don't know what the military capabilities will be in the UK for many things!

In reply to Flinticus:


LOL!
Hope you're mates again now

In reply to mav:


Interesting. I wonder how that will pan out post-independence- no plan lasting longer than than contact with the enemy and all that.

Re: the OP Marines are technically part of the UK Royal Navy. I don't imagine the white paper mentions whether he manpower of the Scottish Navy will be divided, or whether they intend to have marines incorporated in that.

In reply to Saor Alba:





Prior to the white paper, questions about what iScotland would look like were dismissed with "it'll all be in the white paper". Post the white paper it's " that's not what the question is about". Hmmm.

In reply to Ander:
I'd surprised if Scotland has an armed force of more than 10,000 frontline bods, with another 15,000 in support.

All the toys will go apart from Helos, light vehicles & some fisheries protection type vessels.

In the short term I suspect there will be a considerable backlash in the UK armed forces against Scots, and employing any news Scots; I'd advise your nephew to think again

In reply to john arran:


Too true. And it maybe unique to my experience at work and online, but the specifically cited reasons for voting no have almost all involved this kind of insular inward looking egocentric rationale, especially amongst doctors. Not one person has cited wantint to vote no to protect aspects of social democracy, specifically or generally, and I must have had a few hundred separate debates by now! Then again, while in all other aspects these folk are intelligent rational people, some of these doctors are people who vote UKIP to keep an SNP candidate out during the European election in St Andrews.

I don't know whether my personal pocket might be affected, I expect it may well, and I'd vote for a higher income tax band for people on my wage ~>£36k anyway, but I do think a social democracy is more reachable via independence, and that is the reason why I want to vote yes.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Quite clearly the future cannot be exactly predicted. The SNP can express intentions, but cannot guarantee their future election, dependent as it is on the people to elect them. Neither can they guarantee the promises of other parties who may or may not be elected. What is guaranteed is a more proportion democratic process, with greater representation in Govt of the choices of people, and a parliament that has a track record of functioning well by consensus during a minority administration. Also unlikely not to come to fruition in the event of a Yes is the formation of a new constitution actively involving the people. For me, these things are extremely valuable.

In reply to Saor Alba:

You think that the question being asked is just the words that will be on the ballot paper?

Thats potenially a rather niave stance.

In reply to jepotherepo:

Indeed, and one that Salmond was keen to contradict in the second debate, where he repeatedly said that a yes vote was a mandate to implement the white paper.

In reply to blurty:


Not sure why you'd think that, but who knows?


Actually, I'm going to edit this, having thought about it. My experience is that the army don't give a flying fck where you're from. If you're in then you're pretty much judged on your merits.

In reply to contrariousjim:

>

That's interesting, the debates I've had with people within the criminal justice system have by and large had the opposite dynamic, and I thought, to quote a medic, who was a bit upset with me, that we were 'the bloodsucking parasites'!

In reply to contrariousjim:

Do the Scots really think they can protect Social Democracy by 'going it alone'. That isn't the experience of any small countries- or for that matter any large countries. It's been rolled back practically everywhere (and that includes Scandoland) since both the major international instiutions have been 'pro-liberalisation' as well as the major trading blocs including, very pertiniently, the EU which has persued 'liberalisation' policies for a long time now, as well disastrous austerity programmes.

Why would an independent Scotland be able to withstand these pressures better (I'm not saying the UK withstands them well, should anyone harp on)?

In reply to Ander:


No, it's pretty clear that people who are currently British citizens will stay British citizens in case of independence. They'll gain another citizenship though.



As I said it's not the same situation because he will stay British.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

What a weird thread.

Of course people vote for what's best for them. This is human nature. Always has been. It's the reason why "We'll raise taxes 20% and give the difference to the out-of-work" has never been a pre-election votewinner.

"Vote yes to get a social democracy"? Huh? I thought it was about whether Scotland should be an independent country. If it were to become independent, anything could subsequently happen.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So everybody living in Scotland who is at present British will remain British if Scotland becomes independent?

This sounds odd, did it happen when Ireland became independent?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


It must be in the white paper.

In reply to wynaptomos:



Err, none at all....apart from Monaco and Lichtenstein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein

In reply to RomTheBear:

Are you saying that Citizens of Scotland will be automatically be granted dual citizenship?
If so, as an Englishman, I'd like some say in that!

ps (I think you're wrong in that assertion, and the onus is on you to prove otherwise)

In reply to Fraser:




The words "UK" and "government" may have given you a clue that I may have been talking in terms of the UK

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I'm mostly English, and bit Scottish and Irish, for what it's worth, and I'd call Scotland a country.

It's a country within the United Kingdom.

Differences of opinion happily tolerated. ()

In reply to Ander:



It's very easy to prove: The UK allows dual citizenship, it would be illegal to remove British citizenship under the British nationality act. Removal of citizenship can be done only on a case by case basis by the home secretary, if the individual is deemed a threat to the country, and there is a right of appeal in front of the courts.

The only case where it could happen is if the UK decided to not allow dual citizenship anymore. I doubt this would happen given how much it would destroy our relations with the rest of the world.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

My own view on your original questions:
1. this is a big issue, and I can't see any way that until Scotland joins the EU and the Euro - realistically 5 years after independence - mortgage rates will be anything other than a higher cost that for the UK as a whole (greater systemic risk on any of the currency proposals). Once in the EU and the Euro mortgage costs should be in line with other small Eurozone countries.
2. proposals seem to be for slimmed down defence, without the ability to protect interests in rather far-flung places. Presumably there will be a bit of a dis-economy of scale if we stick to a professional (ie full-time) military force. Some small countries deal with this issue via national service (Norway, Israel). In the long term quite a lot will be outside Scotland's control - ie, threat assessment relates to the threats, rather than just Scotland's desires. Am not an expert on defence costs so take this with a pinch of salt.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I have lived in Scotland for eleven years, I like it here, but I am still English. If Scotland becomes an independent country I will overnight become a foreigner in my own home? I think I will. I would not want to become a Scottish citizen but as an Englishman would I still be able to vote or will I have been disfranchised? Just one of the many points that seem to have been glossed over.

In reply to RomTheBear:




I don't think that is proof. That's your reading of how current legislation would affect people in an unprecedented situation that wasn't envisaged when the rules were written. As everybody in Yes is so fond of repeating, everything will be up for negotiation (hence no authoritative answers on defence, currency etc etc). If a state does something as radical as dismembering itself, you think it can't change rules on citizenship?There are no guarantees.

In reply to OwenM:


It's all been glossed, I can't believe that in a few days people are going to vote on such a major issue with so much up in the air... mind boggling.

In reply to OwenM:


As I said its quasi impossible it would be the case. Your British citizenship cannot be removed. Not only it would be impossible under national law but it would also be impossible under EU law.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Laws can be changed (obviously, given the context).

In reply to RomTheBear:


Nobody would be removing UK citizenship, iScotland would have voted to secede from the uk, so iScotland citizens would no longer be UK citizens. If I choose to live in the US I would no longer be a UK citizen, nobody would be removing my citizenship.

In reply to RomTheBear:


But Scotland would no longer be apart of Great Britain only England, Wales and Northern Ireland would. Therefore an Englishman living in Scotland would become a foreigner. i.e. a citizen of a different country.

The Scots would have given up their British citizenship and taken up Scottish citizenship, that's what the vote is all about.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Love it that you start by saying that your vote is important to the future of the country and then your concern is whether you'll spend a few more quid every year (as a result if the rates changing) and whether your nephew will be able to join the marines of another country

Even if you look at it in the most selfish way possible (most of us do anyway) I don't see why you are concerned with what will happen to the rate and you are not more concerned about what will happen to the economy, the currency and the property market - as a homeowner they are much more likely to affect you financially than a change in the interest rate.

Also to your second question, I am sure the bank that has lent you the money to buy the house will still want it back

In reply to OwenM:



You saved me the effort of typing it

Rom worries me sometimes, it's so obvious and yet....

In reply to estivoautumnal:

1) No idea

2) As an ex soldier I served with British Army personel who were born in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Jamaica or a nearby country (I can't remember exactly which country), Fiji, Congo (again, not 100% on this but he was from a central African country) and Napal. I'd be amazed if the British Army stopped recruiting from Scotland.

In reply to OwenM:


Indeed, unless he was a living in Scotland at the time of independence and then he would be granted Scottish citizenship, at least it's the plan. I guess that if the UK government started to try to remove British citizenship of Scots then a Scottish government would probably reconsider giving Scottish citizenship to the English living in Scotland, but I don't think this would happen for lots of legal and practical reasons.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Why is it obvious ? It's clearly not, for a start there isn't even a legal basis for removing British citizenship in this situation.
Anyway it doesn't matter a great deal. As an Englishman living in France you probably realised that.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Apart from the unique situation of Scottish people deciding they want to be independent from and quitting the UK, of course! If they do this wee event couldn't have any effect at all on citizenship, could it?

When a part of a country decides to break away it's not exactly without consequence you know - it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too! A bit like Salmond and the pound, or the keeping the monarchy. But never mind, if you can't see it with a bit of luck a majority of Scots can.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Of course it will have an effect on citizenship of the future born. But removing existing citizenship is an entirely different proposition.



I think it's a fair deal to keep the pound and keep repaying our share of debt. If that's not possible I don't have a problem with an independent currency and leave the debt to rUK.
Regarding the monarchy I wouldn't mind getting rid of it, but so far in case you haven't noted the queen is head of state of many other countries so it doesn't seem to be a problem.

Regarding citizenship it think it makes total sense to hive Scottish citizenship to English people living in Scotland, and for the Scots who are British to keep their British citizenship. Not only it's probably the only option without transforming citizenship laws in the UK, but it's the most practical. I don't really see what a Scottish government and a British government would have to gain at removing citizenship, people would still have the same rights under the EU anyway, it would just mean a legal nightmare for no reasons.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Let's examine that 'fair deal' with a little thought experiment: let's say each nation and region of the UK breaks away, one by one, each abandoning the pound and its debts. In the end, the bank of england is left alone, with a trillion pounds of UK debt and no taxpayers to ever pay it off. It's madness. Now let's experiment with the other SNP solution: each nation and region breaks away, taking its fair share of debt but retaining a currency union. We end up with a 'poundzone' of sovereign states with one interest rate, diverging economies, a tangle of unenforcible fiscal pacts and no lender of last resort. The obvious solution to this mess would be - hang on - closer political union...

In reply to RomTheBear:


Nonsense. They would be two different countries so either country would be totally within their rights to insist that people only hold citizenship on the basis of existing (or new) regulations eg.birth, residency,heredity. On this basis Scots could be designated no longer British (and visa versa) unless they meet these regulations.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I disagree I think there would be many legal hurdles to remove existing citizenship entirely. It's currently not possible, Brits who take on another nationality can keep their British passport as long as the second country allows dual nationality. UK government would have to come back on this policy if they wanted to strip the Scots of their British citizenship, which would mean that all the Brits holding dual citizenship would be asked to choose as well, not only the Scots.

Even if they managed to find a legal way to do that, I am not sure what would be the point exactly.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Sheesh. You're looking at it back to front. The Scots would not be "British people taking a second nationality". They would be "Scottish people applying to be British".
Most Scots are presumably British on the basis that they were born or have been resident in the UK (the Scottish part of it) for the required period.. If Scotland is no longer part of the Uk so that justification no longer holds true anymore than it does fro a Frenchman born and resident in France.
So to hold a British passport they could be required to justify it on other grounds e.g.hereditary, by marriage etc. They could then have dual citizenship just as other British citizens can (if the Scots allow it).

Quite probably both countries would reach a short or long term agreement which enabled Scots to maintain their British citizenship and RoUK Brits to take Scottish citizenship and have dual citizenship (which is what Slovakia did) but there is no obligation for this to happen

In reply to Postmanpat: "Sheesh. You're looking at it back to front. The Scots would not be "British people taking a second nationality". They would be "Scottish people applying to be British"."

It's not long until the 18th, I suppose there's still time for people for Rom to understand that iScotland and rUK would be foreign countries.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think it has been said that anyone who wished to retain rUK citizenship could.

Of course there are countries that prohibit dual nationality - Germany is one such country I believe. No reason why Scotland couldn't do that if it wished, or indeed rUK.

Neil

In reply to Postmanpat:

Why ? For them to be "Scottish people applying to be British" you would have to remove their British citizenship in the first place. How do you suggest doing that ?


I don/t understands your reasoning, why does that justification no longer holds ? Being born in the UK they hold British citizenship, in order to remove it UK government has to forbid dual citizenship.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Indeed, the only way the UK could forbid Scottish people to retain their British citizenship would be for the rUK or Scotland to pass a law to forbid dual citizenship. I doubt this would be a realistic option given the number of people holding dual citizenship already in the UK.

In reply to RomTheBear:


By voting for independence the Scots will have effectively done that because, as I've already explained, they will no longer have been born or been resident for a sufficient period in the UK.
It is entirely up to the RUK whether they make special dispensation to allow the Scots to have special rights to British citizenship.


They weren't born in the UK. They were born in Scotland.

The Home Secretary has made it perfectly clear that it will be within the new UK's rights to cancel the right of Scots to hold a UK passport.

In reply to Postmanpat:

" Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self harm"..... George Monbiot in The Guardian today.

In reply to Postmanpat:


?????? I am not talking about new born in a iScotland, I am talking about current British citizens living in Scotland, who, obviously satisfy the criteria for citizenship, since they hold it.



As far as I know if Scotland becomes independent in 2016, it would still have been part of the UK in 2014, or are you saying that independence would retroactively cancel the act of union, effectively saying that the act of Union was illegal in the first place and Scotland was actually always independent ? That would be the oddest thing.


It is, but she would have to do it for all the other foreigners, not only Scots.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Are you sure that's how it works? Or does that maybe mean forcing people to choose which of their two nationalities to keep, rather than cancelling them all based on place of birth?

For example, had she still been alive, would Princess Margaret ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margaret,_Countess_of_Snowdon ) be at risk of losing her UK passport?

(Just interested - it'd certainly have been quite funny!)

In reply to RomTheBear:
It will all be down to the treaty negotiations which occur after a Yes vote. There is little precedent (Czech/Slovakia perhaps?) - any conditions could be negotiated provided both countries agree, and there will have to be give or take on both sides to lead to a final negotiated solution.

There is also the option of Scotland, rUK or both refusing to negotiate and thus Scotland declaring unilateral independence. In that case I would expect rUK to say "well, sod off then" (as cancelling the result would seem to go against the will of the Scots and so cause all sorts of issues) and unilaterally impose a less friendly solution. So I don't think that is likely.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia#Legal_aspects

Neil

In reply to skog:


It could be. It's up to the Government. But if a person of Scots birth lives in RUK there would be no issue. It is people of Scots birth resident in Scotland who could be asked to give up their UK citizenship, most likely when their current passports expire.


No, because she lived in the RUK.

In reply to alastairmac:
By Monbiot's argument, England is such a disgustingly awful country (i.e. there are tories in it) that every fragment of the UK should seize any chance to leave it and govern itself, rather than try to make UK better. That policy of tribal separatism, rather than a democracy among differing views, would lead to a darker future.

In reply to Neil Williams:

And to go back to OwenM original point that triggered the citizenship debate.
As an Englishman in Scotland, post independence, yes it is likely he would be disenfranchised from English/rUK politics. I don't think it is instant, but i believe those living in foreign countries (which Scotland would be) do lose their right to vote.
Bruce will probably know.

In reply to RomTheBear:


They do now but won't after 2016.


No, I'm just saying that for the purposes of citizenship being born or resident in a place no longer part of the UK means they no longer have an automatic right to a UK passport.


Foreigners where? I'm not suggesting Scots resident in the the RUK will have their UK citizenship rescinded.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Citizenship doesn't stop when your passport expires. There would have to be some kind of a legal mechanism to strip Scots of their British citizenship. Maybe there is a way to do it I haven't thought of apart from forbidding dual citizenship in rUK, I am just curious to hear what it would be.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Still seems a bit unlikely, though, doesn't it? Unless things get a bit spiteful, anyway.

I mean, my daughters have both UK and Swedish passports, but have never lived in Sweden - my wife's Swedish nationality guarantees theirs.

In reply to Postmanpat:


will all British passports need to be reissued anyway to take out reference to Great Britain, and then referred to as joint England, Wales, and Northern Ireland passports ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

?? Why ? Are you saying that people living abroad who already hold British citizenship do not satisfy British citizenship criteria ?

To access citizenship in the UK certain conditions have to be met, but once you have British citizenship there is no continuous re-assessment of your citizenship, you just hold British citizenship until you die, unless you have a dual nationality and decide to give it up.

Having been naturalised myself as a British citizen I can tell you for sure that, under current legislation, if I decided to live in another country it wouldn't affect my citizenship.

Of course if the Uk decided to forbid dual citizenship that would be a very different situation, that would be the nuclear option.


It's not that they have an automatic right, it is just that they hold British citizenship. Of course new borns would not have automatic right to British citizenship.


If the UK forbids dual citizenship then it means those who live in the UK and have a dual citizenship would have to give up one of them, and Brits living abroad under another citizenship would have to give up their UK citizenship or come back home and give up their other citizenship.

In reply to off-duty:




The plan from the Scottish government is that Scottish citizenship would be offered to British citizens living in Scotland.
So they would have the right to vote in Scottish elections.

Under current law Scots retaining their British citizenship would still be allowed to vote in UK elections for 15 years, but obviously it would be ridiculous and I expect the Uk government to change the law on this, which interestingly, will have a knock on effect for Brits living abroad.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It depends what gave them the right to British citizenship


But if the criteria on which you gained that citizenship no longer hold true then it can be rescinded.




FFS, as I have said, they are not forbidding dual citizenship (although they could i they so wished).
They are saying that Sots have to meet the same criteria of British or dual citizenship as anybody else, and being born in and habitually residing in what will be a foreign country doesn't give them that right.

Do you think Pakistanis could all maintain Indian citizenship after 1948? Look at the Czechs and Slovaks. People could keep both for a time but eventually were made to choose.

In reply to RomTheBear:
I think it's really amusing that you think you can have your cake and eat it.

I think that people living in Scotland in 2016 will become Scottish, and hold Scottish passports.

Similarly those living in the UK will have United Kingdom Passports.

Existing dual nationality arrangements need not be affected, Scottish Independence will be a special case.

Those born in the UK (or having other qualifying criteria) but living elsewhere - say Scotland - might apply for UK citizenship, Ditto for Scottish citizenship.

It really cracks me up that you think Scots would want to/ would be allowed to retain UK citizenship (& apologies if I have misunderstood you)

In reply to thomm:


I always find it interesting to replace Scotland with UK and UK with EU whenever comments like this come up. The level of (unintentional, I'm sure) hypocrisy is often staggering. This may or may not apply to you as I have no idea of your thoughts on EU integration but most certainly applies to a great many others.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Look at the Czechs and Slovaks. People could keep both for a time but eventually were made to choose.

My vague understanding was that neither govt is intending to enforce a no-UK passports for Scots' rule on day 1, but that when existing passports expire, you would have to choose, UK or Scots. The caveat would be if you have a claim to dual citizenship, in which case you could probably hold both simultaneously. eg my mother in English, so I could hold both, my wife's family are all Scots born, so she couldn't. In practice, your passport only makes a difference in travelling to certain countries (your holiday visa or ESTA to the US costs a UK passport holder less than a Polish passport holder). Currently the UK passport is pretty much a gold standard in this respect, incurring minimum fees and maximum benefits in most countries. Time would tell if the Scots passport was seen in a different light.

The other aspect of citizenship is 'right to work'. If it was yes, and there was any change over EU membership, then who knows what happens.

In reply to john arran:


Are you seriously suggesting that a country that has shared the same crown for 400 years, has been a single kingdom for 300 years and has shared its cultures and largely its language and history for all that period should be regarded the same as an artificial undemocratic entity invented 60 years ago and of which we have been part for 40 years?

Anyway, the current position is to try and reform it (the EU)from inside.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I am not sure why you are so fixated on the current laws since there will need to be some new ones passed if Scotland goes independent.
If you take the closest comparison, Ireland, you will note that having UK citizenship wasnt an automatic affair.

In reply to Postmanpat:
People forget that the main aim in the minds of the founders of the EEC was to avoid another war between France & Germany (along with providing a European power block counter-balance to Russia, as a second aim)

For me those remain valid aims, and makes the EU worth supporting

In reply to Postmanpat:

I didn't suggest anything - just pointed out an interesting comparison. However, it is true that the various countries of Europe have shared rather a lot at various timers over recent centuries - including monarchs - so maybe the comparison isn't quite as ridiculous as you seem to presume. Anyway, the point I was responding to was one about the benefits of unity between disparate regions for a common advantage, and not about maintaining historical boundaries.

In reply to john arran:

It's a shame no one on the Yes side appears to be taking that approach when talking about currency. If the Eurozone crises aren't a warning about independent countries trying to use the same currency then I don't know what is.

In reply to dissonance:



It was, before the Irish free state they had a status of British subject and that was left unaffected, at least from the point of view of the British, as the Irish free state didn't fully recognise this status.

Its only later on that British citizenship was actually completely redefined.

In a nutshell it's quite difficult to compare because British citizenship at the time of the Irish Free state didn't really exist in the way it does now.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Hummm, nope, it doesn't depend on that, as far as I am aware of, once you have British citizenship it cant be removed wherever you live. I wouldn't have bothered paying £2000 to become British if it was the case !


How is it no longer true ? You come back to the point I was making, this argument would hold only if Scotland is made independent retroactively.



Not, they are not born in a foreign country, they are born in what was the UK, and also already hold British citizenship, which can't be removed like that.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Its hard to know but my best understanding yould be
1a)short term (if not of fixed rate) yes, predictions say in the case of a yes vote sterling will devalue 5% overnight. their is uncertainty and in the short term this will probably result in higher interest.
1b) long term; probably not but its almost impossible to know, it depends on the politics Scotland adopts post independence and the ....divorce settlement.
2) Probably as others have said Scotland would almost certainly be able to as a commonwealth state.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It is the closest comparison we have though. So rather than rambling on about how we dont have a law for a situation which doesnt exist yet its probably best to look at those comparisons isnt it?

Although I dont know why I am bothering since you appear to be one of those who really doesnt get the concept of independence and seem to think of it as being a la carte menu where the Scots will be able to pick and choose what they want to keep from the union.

In reply to dissonance:
One thing we can be certain of is that that will not be the case. The choice will be between a negotiated departure with concessions on both sides, or a unilateral declaration of independence. If it comes to the latter (I suspect it won't, but there seem to be some Scots who are with unreasonable demands heading that way), England is likely to give a resounding "sod off".

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


The UK is likely to give a resounding "sod off".
There, fixed.

In reply to dissonance:



It's not "pick and choose" I am simply pointing out that if you want to strip Scots of their British citizenship there has to be some kind of mechanism for that. The only one I can see would be for rUk to forbid dual citizenship. If you can think of other ways I am happy to hear them.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Presumably it could, if it wished, forbid only dual rUK and Scottish citizenship.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


That would be completely discriminatory though, I can see that being easily challenged in EU and/or international courts.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yep. Pass legislation saying "People who were born in Scotland are not considered to have British citizenship, unless they have obtained it via means detailed in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 47, 52 (etc.)".

Job done. Doesn't affect dual citizenship, other countries, the EU, or polar bears.

In reply to climbwhenready:



How do you suppose this be would legal to discriminate between nationalities in the EU ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Oh dear. Did you know we already don't grant citizenship to Germans, French, Dutch... actually the list is quite large. Any country not in the UK.

In reply to climbwhenready:


Yes, but I don't think you understand. It would be illegal to say that a French like me who is also British, would be allowed to keep dual citizenship, but a Scot wouldn't be able to.

In reply to climbwhenready:

Exactly. rUK can define who gets citizenship on what basis - the EU doesn't tend to regulate that sort of thing. Citizenship doesn't have anything to do with freedom of movement as such.

FWIW, rUK could leave the EU, at which point it can do what it likes.

Neil

In reply to RomTheBear:

Under which law?

I bet there are countries which object to dual citizenship with specific other countries.

Neil

In reply to RomTheBear:


That would be completely discriminatory though, I can see that being easily challenged in EU and/or international courts.


You mean like charging English/ Welsh/ & NI students tuition fees, and not the rest of the EU??

Face it Rom, Scotland is not going to be able to pick and choose. Are you only just beginning to consider the potential downsides of independence?

It's piss poor that these sorts of problems haven't been properly debated already. I'm amazed Better Together haven't raised it.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I've heard that dual Israeli nationality is frowned on for Saudi citizens.

In reply to Neil Williams:


The UK decides who gets citizenship on what basis but as far as I am aware of the rules would have to be the same for all other EU citizens.


Indeed the UK could use the nuclear option and completely isolate itself. In that case I would have no doubt whatsoever about voting yes.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No-one's saying that. The situation will be that being born in Scotland won't qualify you for UK citizenship, just like any other country. Of course a Scot could get dual nationality under the many mechanisms that allow that - as you are French and British, it sounds like you are aware of them. So probably winding people up on purpose

In reply to blurty:



That wouldn't be possible in an independent Scotland. I know Salmond says it is but it's clearly not.


I am not suggesting it would be able to pick and choose, simply making a point about dual citizenship.


Well the problem is that UK government refused to pre-negotiate any of these things. It's quite understandable they woudln't do that though.

In reply to climbwhenready:

OK for new borns in an iScotland, but I am talking about the Scots who already have British Citizenship, you would have to remove their British citizenship first.

It could be that the UK works out some kind of mechanism to remove British citizenship of the Brits in Scotland. I am just wondering what it would be.

In reply to RomTheBear:


So why are you proposing special rules for Scots?

In reply to estivoautumnal:

r.e. Nationality/citizenship I think you should be able to have whatever one you want, or maybe even dual. I'll pick whatever one is the least disliked globally, which probably means scottish, like that means anything...

In reply to dissonance:

Which special rule ? How is it a special rule for Scots to say that if you hold British citizenship you can't lose it overnight ? Anybody who holds British citizenship can expect to keep it, not only in the EU, but everywhere.

In reply to RomTheBear:

It would be called 'the white paper' on Scottish independence.

In reply to Ander:


The white paper specifically states that a Scottish state would allow dual citizenship so I am not sure what's your point.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well anyone with dual citizenship can have their British citizenship revoked. In the Scottish case it would be that the basis for granting it no longer exists. They could extend it to revoke it for anyone who gained British citizenship based on being in Scotland for the 5 years.
It certainly isnt something which you can merrily declare as impossible simply because there is no law yet.
It depends on what the UK considers to be its best interests.

In reply to RomTheBear:
It'd be enough to say that all rUK citizenship ceases for those living in Scotland not born of English/Welsh/NI parents, wouldn't it? Then they would have to reapply on the same basis as other EU citizens. Most wouldn't bother.

The point is that a way can be found. And if Scotland plays the "I want" card, rUK will play cards like that and the split will be on bad terms. If both countries want it on good terms, they must negotiate, and part of negotiation is concession - on both sides.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:



It's still discriminatory though, it would mean that Scots not born of English/Welsh/NI parents will loose citizenship, but it wouldn't be the case for other nationalities ?

In reply to dissonance:

This would be a possibility, saying that British citizenship no longer exists and define a new rUK citizenship. A bit like it happened with the first British nationality Act which redefined completely British citizenship. And then everybody would have to have their citizenship re-assessed. But I am wondering how that would work for Brits living in other countries, surely they would lose their UK citizenship as well.


I am not saying it's impossible, I am just wondering how it would possible. So far I am not saying many clear answers. Maybe because there isn't any yet.


Another question is why the rUK would want to do that, as it would achieve absolutely nothing, assuming both countries are part of the EU.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I agree on that, I think there will be concessions on both sides, it seems reasonable to me that if Scotland chooses to allow dual citizenship and give Scottish citizenship to English born living in Scotland, then it would expect the UK to allow dual citizenship in return as well.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Yo

Yours is a curious situation. If you got uk citizenship by virtue of living in Scotland then logically they can treat you as scots and not british but you may slip under the wire.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Its good to see you have changed your position from earlier in the thread where you were declaring it was clear that Scots would be entitled to keep British citizenship.


Because it would remove various obligations from the state. For example consular support amongst other things.
To flip it on its head, it would appear you have become a British citizen? Why bother it is does nothing?

In reply to dissonance:


I have been saying that the only way I can think of it could happen is if dual citizenship becomes illegal in the UK. It's the only option I can think of where it clearly applicable. But I agree there may be more complicated viable options but so far I have not seen them.


Every EU citizen can get consular assistance and protection from any embassies/consulate of any other EU country, so assuming both countries stay in the EU they wouldn't lose that anyway.


Mostly because I feel British/Scottish as well as French, and I wanted to secure staying in the UK in case it would ever leave the EU or renegotiate freedom of movement. But that's a whole different matter.

In reply to off-duty:




No I was asking as a British citizen (not a Scottish citizen) living in Scotland would I be disenfranchised from voting in Scotland?

In reply to OwenM:

Under EU law you would be able to vote on local election only. iScotland could allow foreigners resident in iScotland to vote in national election if it wanted to. I hope it would do so but I don't think there is any guarantee.

I would support it very much myself, people like Bruce for example who have been living in France for many years are not allowed to vote in the country they live in. Shameful.

In reply to OwenM:


Good question. Don't know the answer.
British, commonwealth and Irish citizens can vote in UK general elections.
That's extended to EU citizens in local elections.
(In the current UK system).

In reply to RomTheBear:



So the local elections electorate will be partially dependent on whether Scotland is in the EU.

In reply to off-duty:


Yes, it would be. It already is. In fact EU citizens in Scotland can already vote even for the Scottish parliament because it is considered a local election. If Scotland becomes independent, they would lose this right, unless the Scottish parliament decides to allow vote for foreigners.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Which law, exactly?

In reply to RomTheBear:

It's hard to imagine an independent country whose entire population are citizens of a foreign country.

In reply to nw:
Article 20.2b of the EU Treaty:

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia:
(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;
(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;

, and also in article 40 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

"Every citizen of the Union has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he or she resides under the same conditions as nationals of that State."


The way it was implemented in the UK meant that elections to the scottish parliament are consider as municipal elections, and therefore EU citizens resident in Scotland can vote for it and even be candidate.
One of the MSP in Holyrood, Christian Allard, is French, for example.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Why ?

In reply to estivoautumnal:



Apologies for that comment. The yes bit. Too much wine.

So X marked in the box, letter sealed and posted.

Thanks to all who provided useful info. It did influence my decision.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Indeed. Pig in a poke. We're being asked to decide the fate of the country on what some people THINK or HOPE might happen. The White Paper is worthless as it is just a wish list - from one section I quote:

The Scottish Government expects that...

We believe that Scotland's natural position is...

We believe that an independent government...

The Scottish Government expects that other parties...

The Scottish Government... ...believes that membership of the EU is...

This is expected to be below Scotland's...

The Scottish Government believes that ensuring...

The Scottish Government has proposed... ...which we believe is realistic...

The Scottish Government believes that these key roles...

However the current Scottish Government believes that....

The Scottish Government believes that is the...

In reply to RomTheBear:


That's not so, my friend is German she doesn't have a vote in the Scottish parliamentary elections but she does in the referendum.

In reply to OwenM:

My wife is Swedish. She can (and does) vote in the council elections, the Scottish parliamentary elections, the EU elections and the referendum. She can't vote on Westminster elections.

I think you, or your German friend, has misunderstood something.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-can-r...

In reply to Cobbler:


We're deciding the future of the country all the time - frequently by opting to do nothing to change things. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not.


At the moment, you're right, millions of people are trying to change things based on what they think or hope might happen.

Apathy and disinterest has fallen to a remarkably low level. There are positive discussions going on all over the country, hopes being expressed, ideas being exchanged and developed.


I think it's brilliant, and whilst I'd like a Yes vote and all the opportunities for change it can bring, it's my hope that some positive change can come of this even in the event of a No.


Either way, we aren't going to get everything we hope for - but if we don't try to imagine a better future, and to make it happen, it won't!

In reply to RomTheBear:

To whom would their loyalties lie? What constitutes a country or a nation, the land or the people? could you have a country with no citizens? (which must be in the possible choice range if everyone is entitled to dual citizenship then everyone is entitled to reject one of those citizenships) How functional would a country be if the majority of its inhabitants are citizens of a foreign country?

Choices will have to be made or imposed.

In reply to OwenM:


Well tell her she is mistaken, she does have a right to vote in the Scottish parliament.
She can even run as a candidate if she wants.

Here it is from the website of the electoral commission :

"Citizens of EU countries other than the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta cannot vote in UK Parliamentary general elections, but can vote at local government elections, Scottish Parliamentary elections if they are registered in Scotland, National Assembly for Wales elections if they are registered in Wales and Greater London Authority elections if they are registered in London. "

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-can-r...


I know for a fact it works having voted in the Scottish parliamentary election before I became British. (I am also French).

In reply to rogerwebb:


Ok you are asking some more philosophical questions, but practically, why would it cause a problem ?
The major problem I see arising is that rUK would have U.K. change electoral law as currently you can vote in UK election as long you are a uk citizen living abroad, for up to 15years until you last had an address in the UK.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think any government requires a majority of those it governs to acknowledge its authority and be solely subject to its authority and/or power, otherwise it might have difficulty governing.

In reply to rogerwebb:


I am not sure how citizenship affects that. Anybody living in the UK is subject to UK authority and law, regardless of citizenship.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I can see why you're worried if you paid £2000 to become British I can't see why though as in the EU you don't really need to, except for voting. In reply to Offduty, before you could remain enrolled and vote in Britain, now you lose this right after 15 years.

Are you aiming at becoming tri-national - British, Scottish and French? Seems a bit greedy.. if you want to keep your expensively bought British nationality then you had better do an about turn smartish and campaign for a No vote. That's your safest bet!

As I said above it does seem amazing that such matters are not clear - you people are really allowing yourself to be conned, voting yes or no without even knowing what this implies... amazing, Britain is going mad.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Like the situation for university fees, all members of the EU can go for free in Scotland except the English... that's discriminatory but the EU accepts it.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Is that Scottish UK law or English UK law?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Indeed I don't really need it now, but it's an insurance policy in case Britain leaves the EU or renegotiated freedom of movement. it's critical for my business that I am able to stay in the UK.


Personally I don't care too much losing British citizenship as I would automatically get Scottish citizenship.


Indeed, it's not clear but then it's fairly normal, the UK government would never prenegotiate anything. Which is politically understandable.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Applying UK law might be more problematic if the majority of the inhabitants were, for want of argument, French and the French government objected to say the economic plight of some of its citizens because of UK government policies.

Its the acknowledging its sole authority is the issue. We have a reasoned debate here because we all in the end acknowledge the authority of our government, largely because it recognises a democratic mandate and in turn is confident that we will acknowledge the democratic result. Meanwhile in Ukraine, where a sizeable minority resent the loss of their former citizenship, these conditions don't exist.

If we had a situation where the majority or a sizeable minority of inhabitants acknowledged the authority of a foreign government would that lead to stability?

I'm hoping it wouldn't be an issue but when you see how quickly some countries unravel it might be better that the situation doesn't arise.

In reply to off-duty:

In reply to off-duty:


It's about the same in every country in the world, you have to obey the laws of the country you are in regardless of your citizenship.

In reply to rogerwebb:


I don't really see what you mean. Do you have a practical example ?
Are you saying that if for example a lots of Scots in Scotland had retained their British citizenship, then the UK government would seek to object to policies of the Scottish Government ? That seems a bit far fetched.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes because discrimination within country is allowed bit not between member states. It's a bit odd I admit.
If Scotland becomes independent there is no doubt English students would be able to access free tuition in Scotland. (Whatever Salmond says, he is clearly wrong on that).

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

But that's because it's an internal matter. If Scotland secedes, this will no longer be the case and thus there may well be a flood of English students to Scottish universities, closely followed by fees in Scotland I'd imagine.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:



Currently about 420 million EU citizens can go to Scottish universities for free. So far it worked well, the contribution of EU students to the local economy is sizeable and helps offset the costs. I doubt that adding 60m to that would make a major difference.

In reply to RomTheBear:

It might when you realise it is more attractive to English students because of its proximity and language than other European countries.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


If English students want to come and spend their money in Scotland, I am sure they'll be welcomed, as we welcomed lots of other international students.
And if they stay after their studies even better, we need lots of young people.

To be honest I think the current situation in which English students in Scotland have to pay is outrageous.
In a perfect world tuition fees should be free in England as well, their current loan system doesn't even work, about 60% are written off.. I hope they'll do that someday...

In reply to RomTheBear:


Ukraine, although in that case it seems ethnicity/identity is the issue rather than citizenship but they are intertwined.


If they retained their Uk citizenship and did not accept Scottish citizenship they would not be Scots but citizens of a foreign country. If that is a small proportion of the population, no problem, if its a large proportion it could be an unwanted problem for both jurisdictions, if the rUK government felt its citizens were being unreasonably treated. Its not a situation that seems likely but I suspect the negotiating teams on both sides won't want the possibility to exist, hence there may not be as much choice in citizenship as we might think.

This is entirely speculative, late in the evening and is more a point to ponder rather than of any relevance to voting intention.

In reply to RomTheBear:


They're not welcomed now, though, are they?


I think it's a bit silly, but it's down to different priorities in tax spending.


I think it's more likely the University system in England will be fully privatised on the American model, with £9K tuition fees seeming good value. More's the pity, and don't let's forget it was a Labour Government that started the rot.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:





I don't think you understand Neil. The left leaning Scots have only ever supported the "good" bits of the Labour govt. None of the "bad" bits will be allowed into an independent country.
After all it's not like it was a Labour government that went to war in Iraq...

In reply to off-duty:
I suppose the SNP is that party? I find myself feeling that if such a party existed in England (but without the independence stuff) I might well consider voting for them. They seem generally to take a fairly pragmatic left-of-centre line, perhaps a bit like the Lib Dems might have been if they actually got elected into Government on their own.

I'm less of a fan of some of the more nanny-state elements like alcohol regulation, but on balance their policies seem quite sane, and they do seem to do what they say they will, a rare quality in politics.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

I'm not sure my sarcasm comes across properly in some of my posts.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I agree, it is very frustrating that there isn't a pragmatic centre party in the UK able to get a majority.

This all down to the fact that we have proportional representation in Scotland, this really changes everything.

In part it's why I am starting to consider voting yes, I don't want to stay stuck in this two party system that goes nowhere, labour and the Tories are designing policies to preserve their electorate, and nothing else, I find this very destructive and divisive.

In reply to off-duty:

Lol

In reply to Neil Williams:


Yes, they are.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Do you not think that centre party was New Labour and they got associated with Blair so pulled left?

I still think that's the future but the tory's seem too scared of their hard right and losing too much ground to the UKIP's and Labour seem to fear upsetting their hard left...

In reply to Neil Williams:





It was a necessity.. its why the lib dems didn't walk away as they also knew their was no choice this far in to University cuts. There was very little option from here apart from fees.

Either cut student numbers or bring in fees.. Scotland has suffered from this in terms of Uni funding, cuts in funding and cuts in student numbers.

We are actually fairly comparable to the cheaper US levels now, its not too different to if you went to your home state Uni really.

I just married into $250,000 worth of debt.. and that's cheap for the 2 degrees she's done/doing..

But tbf why should society pay for her degrees? I'm fine with it tbh.. we'll struggle for a few years but once past her residency we should be OK..

I've heard that the Student Loan Scheme only just 'Breaks even' at the moment.

Interestingly, the scheme is administered from Scotland at the moment. Given the hassle and cost of relocating it all to the rUK, I'm hoping the scheme would get scrapped!

In reply to Sir Chasm:



On the other hand if the OP votes No he increases the chances of the status quo

In reply to Neil Williams:




They have a strong record of centralisation, consulting then ignoring, and enacting quite authoritarian policies.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Interesting, maybe from England the grass is always greener? I suppose that's quite old-Labour but without the unions.

Neil

In reply to aln:

Only if they pay. And wasn't it said at the time that having to pay was to avoid a flood of English students to Scottish universities? Though that said, that may be untrue - it may simply be the funding structure, as your home LEA funds your fees (I remember having to apply to them each year when I was at university in 1997-2001), so if your home LEA is in England they won't.

Neil

In reply to IainRUK:


Personally I would go for cutting student numbers but with a heavy emphasis on providing training opportunities for everyone, specifically a large increase in apprenticeships. I think a lot of money was wasted on people going to university for just the life experience, which could also have been obtained by moving away from home to work. Only some people, and some careers, suit a university education.

Though if we won't have the guts to do that (Germany's economy seems to do very well out of it, and I think we are more similar to them than we like to think sometimes) I think the current "pay afterwards" scheme is probably fairest, or even a full-blown graduate tax. If you have to pay in advance, poorer people will be put off, and that's no good IMO.


Because we consider as a whole that education[1] is a benefit to society? You could say that for anything provided by the state, really. Clearly with some things there are wider reasons (e.g. if private bin collections were required, some wouldn't bother and so there would be rubbish piling up), but not always.

[1] Provided people go to university for the education, which many don't these days.

Neil

In reply to IainRUK:


Because education is very important for social mobility ? I think free education is extremely important, it ensures that not only those who have rich parents can access knowledge and good jobs.

Personally I am prepared to whatever taxes are needed to keep that model in Scotland.

I don't think it's unachievable, lots of country have free uni tuition in Europe.

In reply to blurty:



and this hassle and cost for one "service" will be replicated on a massive scale

In reply to aln:

Not in my experience. I'd be interested to know how many students from English schools were accepted in the Scottish vet schools this year,for instance.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I'm not sure that Scottish vet schools are a decent representation of Scottish universities - they're very hard to get into for anyone, there are only 2 vet schools in Scotland, and they represent a tiny proportion of the total number of students in Scotland.

In reply to RomTheBear:



I think many of us are, but independence is not necessary to achieve the aim. The Scotland Act 2012 provides the necessary tax raising powers.

I did see some research that surprised me (in a newspaper I forget which so caveats apply) that stated that proportionately more children fro poor backgrounds in England were going to university now than in Scotland. To me that does not seem logical but that doesn't mean its not true.
Does anyone have further information on that?

In reply to rogerwebb:

Could that be cultural rather than financial?

Neil

In reply to rogerwebb:


I'm assuming, at the moment, tax rates in Scotland are pretty similar to the rest of the UK.
Is it possible that they haven't increased Scottish tax rates because it would scupper a Yes vote, but come independence, they'll go through the roof to help pay for the promised Utopia!

In reply to Lusk:


Tax rates are identical. The new Scottish government in 1997 was given the power to vary income tax by 3p above or below the rest of the UK, but the power was never used and I think the technical arrangements to make it possible were allowed to lapse.


No, a Yes vote will be accompanied by a host of angels bearing great gifts including free everything. At least I think that's the plan.

In reply to tony:


I agree with all that, but it wasn't what I asked. In principle they are british universities and have no policy of discriminating against English students. It's just that it seems, from what is necessarily an unrepresentative sample, jolly difficult for English students to get in. I'm sure some proper statistics would put me right.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


They're jolly difficult for anyone to get into - they have among the highest entry qualifications of any courses. Trying a make a general case about Scottish universities by using 2 vet schools as your exemplars would seem a particularly stupid thing to do.


Across the whole of Edinburgh University, there are about twice as many Scottish students as there are English students.

In reply to RomTheBear:




But that doesn't happen.. Governments don't prioritise education.. The US has the best universities in the world because they have money in their education system, whereas Scotland's are on the fall in world rankings..

There is societal good in a degree like medicine but that's why the remuneration is so good.. Money is finite, I think money should go into their failing school system over higher eduction.. I've actually know issue with fees as long as the aid is there to make it manageable. It makes people think about what they want to do and of they really want to attend.

In reply to rogerwebb:

I agree, there could be other ways than independence. I think the fear about using the tax raising power without independence is that chances are that Westminster would want to offset to new money raised on the Barnett formula, (which is currently the Tory and Labour plan if there is a no vote). That would mean ending up with higher taxes in Scotland and still have the same overall budget.



Yes, it was true for a while, the top Scottish universities are recruiting less students from poorer backgrounds.
The problem is that they simply don't manage to recruit them, despite being entirely free and offering grants.
We have lots of kids coming from families in long-term poverty, who have a lack of educational and social support from a very early age. Unfortunately theses kids don't even apply to universities.

So no tuition fees is of course very important to widen access, but it's only one part of a wider picture, we always have been struggling in Scotland with families in long term poverty.

That's why I think we should have control of the welfare system in Scotland, we just have different needs. But well, this is another topic altogether.

In reply to IainRUK:


A bit less so in the UK where the NHS is the most likely employer. But I see your point. However, I don't agree that it should be something the parents have to plan for, as the child loses out if the parents don't plan properly. So if we are to have fees I prefer a structure where they are paid back afterwards with a safety net, as the UK ones are, not fees you have to save for or take highly costly commercial loans for.


I don't personally believe money is the main reason the school system is failing in places. It's largely the very poor attitude society in the UK has towards working hard in education - and that's precisely why developing countries (with far less investment in education) will kick us into the proverbial cocked hat.

Neil

In reply to IainRUK:


They may have the best education system, because they have the top universities in the world, but in Harvard and MIT for example, the average income of student parent's is the average income of the top 2% of Americans.

So yes, they have the best education system, but only a very select few from privileged backgrounds can realistically access it.


Are you sure the money is so good ? I don't know how much a nurse or a paramedic makes but I am pretty sure that I make more money working in IT.

In reply to RomTheBear:


>
>

I think that that is an SNP scare story

In reply to tony:

Well, we could choose any course but this happens to be one where I have some recent experience. It's also true though that the school I'm thinking of seems to have (how shall I put this?) a surprising and disproportionate failure to get students into Scottish universities. This is becoming self-fulfilling, of course, since they are starting to advise that choosing Glasgow or Edinburgh is a wasted choice, even (or is that especially?) for the most able students.


OK, at least that's some sort of statistic in an area where there's a lot of rumour and anecdote.

To be clear, if Scottish universities want to discriminate in favour of local candidates I could understand that. It's just that they say they don't and as part of the UK I'm not sure how it could be justified.

What they do following a Yes vote is another matter of course.

In reply to rogerwebb:

No, it's not, actually the SNP hasn't talked about it much. It is set out in the official Labour and Tory plans in case of a no vote, they both say that they would preserve the Barnett formula but will seek to offset increased tax revenues against the block grant.
It is not clear by how much though.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yeah, it is. This was about medical degrees, not nurses or paramedics.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


But any statistics would be distorted by the risk of Scottish Students having to pay fees at the English Schools - Even if a Scottish Student was offered a place at Brizzle, they might take a lower quality education at the Dick or GUVS to save some pennies - which would be fair enough.

I really hate the fees disparity as it's likely the Scots I met at University would not have come to Bristol under the current system. Their loss educationally, and mine personally.