Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing? Watch

Poll: Should Scotland be an independent country?
YES (299)
32.12%
NO (632)
67.88%
This discussion is closed.
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3261
Report 6 years ago
#3261
(Original post by Gordon1985)
Good question actually. If postponemnet was acceptable to the rest of the UK, it would probably be a decent idea. Persoanally, I'd have some kind of exceptional dispensation being made where current Scottish MPs stay in Westminster for the 1 year but only have powers to vote on matters which directly affect Scotland.
The problem there is that once the Scottish MPs leave then it might affect the majority of the ruling party. If there's a Coalition in place, then it could create further confusion along those lines.

The UK government has said nothing on the issue and I would suspect that to be because they don't want to publicly acknowledge the possibility of losing.
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3262
Report 6 years ago
#3262
(Original post by Midlander)
The problem there is that once the Scottish MPs leave then it might affect the majority of the ruling party. If there's a Coalition in place, then it could create further confusion along those lines.
But if the Scottish MPs sitting in parliament had drastically limited voting powers (it could even be stipulated that they cannot vote on anything which goes beyond the independence date, including who the PM is), then, for example, Labour having a majority for 1 year, based on their number of Scottish MPs would be practically impossible as well as just unimagible. The Scottish MPs wouldn't be able to help vote in Ed Milliband as PM or help them push through any policies. As far as forming a government goes, it wouldn't be difficult to keep Scottish MPs out of that decision (as they should be under the circumstances). They would effectively only be there so that democracy can be seen to be served and as a safeguard to any cliam that Westminster is undemocratically legislating in Scottish affairs in that interim period.

The UK government has said nothing on the issue and I would suspect that to be because they don't want to publicly acknowledge the possibility of losing.
Yes, that is part of it. The No campaign are obviously unwilling to make anything sound simple or easy should Scotland vote Yes. So suggesting solutions to these kinds of questions is something they simply won't do.
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3263
Report 6 years ago
#3263
(Original post by Foo.mp3)
IF the nationalists decide they will allow it

IF people want to go to the trouble/expense (it is often a very complex, protracted, and expensive process in many developed world countries including our own)

IF I qualify

WHEN the relevant (newly created) administrative bodies in Scotland get created and have dealt with teething difficulties and backlog of all such applications

..can you see what I'm getting at here? ****ing nightmare
Like a lot of these discussions, you're looking for a cast iron guarentee about something in the future and then moaning because you don't have it. Well nobody can guarentee anything in the future, unless they have a crystal ball or a time machine. You could equally say that the UK govt might ban dual nationality for it's citizens. It would be a ludicrous point to make but nobody can guarentee it wouldn't happen.

So we have to make assumptions based on what's reasonable, given the evidence.

1. "The Nationalists" are not guarenteed to be the first government of an independent Scotland and certainly won't form one in perpetuity (although it's likely they would form at least the bulk of the first one after a Yes vote).

2. There's no reason to imagine they (or any other Scottish govermnent) wouldn't allow it. Ireland allows it, the UK allows it. My Canadian ex-girlfriend held a UK passport because her dad had one.

3. True, it would be a hassle to have to do it if you really felt the need to. Can't get around that. Personally, I don't particulalry care about passports. In all but the most exceptional circumstances, they're just a piece of paper. Collecting passports based on heritage isn't something a particulalry get and having or not having one wouldn't make you any more or less Scottish anyway.

4. You would qualify under current UK or Irish rules - no reason to believe you wouldn't under possible future Scottish rules. No reason at all.

5. How quickly would you want one? How long would you think was reasonable to wait? And what difference would it make?

That's a relief if not totally reassuring
The government could put up a passport checkpoint and wall around your house tomorrow. Now fair enough, there's no reason to think they would, nobody in any position of authority has suggested it may be a possibility, nobody else's house has any similar kind of thing, and it's an insane proposition...but it could still happen right, we can't be reassured that it won't.

Yes, so long as both an independent Scotland was willing/able to join the E.U. (promptly) and the remainder of the UK remained within the EU and stuck to its free movement principal – let’s be honest there’s no guarantee of all of the above
Yep, true. But again, people have to thin about these things reasonably. Although we don't know, I would bet pretty heavily that Scotland would have some kind of 'transitional member status' and that full entry for the new independent state would be a formality - there's no good reason to think otherwise.

The Uk could then well leave the EU (freedom of movement isn't something you can pot out of as far as I'm aware).

An international border, and all the many non-physical barriers that come with it. Patently a great deal more obstructive than a mere fence!
What barrier exist between you and anybody in the Reublic of Ireland which wouldn't exist it was still part of the UK? An international border is an imaginary line on a map, I'm talking about any real barrier that you think might come with it.

Beyond possible physical barriers, increased complexity linked barriers relating to everything from currency and finance through to the law, health provision/insurance, through to citizenship etc. I’m sure there are a myriad of such potential complications but I haven’t the time to go through them I’m afraid
Why are currency, law, health, citizenship ect barriers between people? Besides half of them being devolved issues already, I'm not sure what kind of barrier they would actually be between people in any real circumstance.

They are not, officially, Scottish e.g. in terms of citizenship/right of abode
Nobody is "officially Scottish", the same way nobody is "offocially" English, Welsh or Northern Irish, in terms of citizenship.[/QUOTE]

Oh ok, so only people of a certain ethnicity are Scottish?

#TrueNationalistColours


You're either being incredibly stupid of incredibly disingenous. Can't decide which.

So how will they determine Scots from non-Scots then? "Ethnic" profiling? :laugh:
Probably the same way every country does these things (including the UK).
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3264
Report 6 years ago
#3264
(Original post by Psyk)
Isn't the Scottish government effectively an organ of the UK government though? At least until the actual date of independence if the referendum goes that way. Surely the UK government could nominate someone from the Scottish government to be part of those discussions.
In essence, possibly. But it would be the UK government that would finally be signing any agreement on the dotted line. I'd disagree with your characterisation of the Scottish government as an 'organ' of the UK government - it is for the UK government to ensure the Scottish government abides by international law for example, but it is constitutionally autonomous in most of its actions.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3265
Report 6 years ago
#3265
(Original post by Foo.mp3)
I'm not a Scottish resident but I have Scots ancestry and a Scottish surname, so what are these SNP fools saying?.. suddenly I'm no longer a Scot because some big fat, self important, dour faced Machiavellian ******* says so? Think not
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
First of all look back at the stupidity of your original comment.

Ethnically, a Scot is a Scot wherever in the world he/she lives and will continue to do so after Scotland's independence.
(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Oh ok, so only people of a certain ethnicity are Scottish?

#TrueNationalistColours

So how will they determine Scots from non-Scots then? "Ethnic" profiling? :laugh:
(Original post by Gordon1985)
You're either being incredibly stupid of incredibly disingenous. Can't decide which.


Do you understand the difference between 'ethnicity' and 'nationality'?

Having Scots ancestry, you are ethnically a Scot, wherever you live in the world. You are not German.

Now if you moved to Germany and took up German citizenship, you could call yourself both a Scot (ethnically) and a German (a German national or citizen). But you wouldn't be German ethnically.

Immigrants living in England and having UK nationality generally call themselves British but they don't call themselves English. Because they are British by nationality but not English by ethnicity.

Anyone who is currently a UK national and lives in Scotland would be entitled to take up Scottish nationality. That would include all ethnic groups not just those with Scots ancestry.

For those with Scots ancestry currently having UK nationality but living outwith Scotland, I believe they will be entitled to Scottish nationality if they wish to take it up.

I don't know about the status of UK nationals who are not ethnic Scots and who don't currently live in Scotland.

If you are a 10th generation American with "Scots ancestry and a Scottish surname", you can still call yourself a 'Scot' if you like. But you wouldn't be entitled to Scottish nationality.

However a 3rd generation Pakistani living in Scotland and having UK nationality might call himself 'Pakistani' rather than 'Scot'. But he would be entitled to Scottish nationality.

I wonder whether Anas Sarwar, Deputy Leader of Labour's Scottish sub-branch, calls himself a 'Pakistani' or a 'Scot' when he goes to Pakistan to visit his father, a former Westminster MP representing a Scottish constituency, who recently became a 'foreigner' (according to 'Better Together' terminology) by giving up UK nationality and taking up Pakistani nationality to become the governor of a province there.

Unless you use your brain to understand this, YOU are a fool. No one in the SNP would be foolish enough to suggest that you would not be a 'Scot' after independence.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3266
Report 6 years ago
#3266
You can call yourself whatever you identify with, but I think this idea of blood-and-soil ethnicity is frankly nonsense in the same category as racial theory.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3267
Report 6 years ago
#3267
(Original post by Midlander)
Miliband is called a socialist if he opposes things like the nuclear option and a sell out if he backs it.
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
How can a millionaire ever be a 'socialist'?

How can Johann Lamont, with a household income of £150,000 per year ever be a 'socialist'?
(Original post by Midlander)
I haven't called any of them socialists.

So let us get this clear. As a Labour party member,

Do YOU believe that Ed Milliband is a 'socialist'?

Do YOU believe that Johann Lamont is a 'socialist'?

Do YOU believe that Ed Milliband and / or Johann Lamont are 'sell outs'?

Do YOU believe that the Labour party is 'socialist'?

Do YOU believe that the SNP is 'socialist'?

Would YOU like one or more of the above to be 'socialist'?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3268
Report 6 years ago
#3268
(Original post by L i b)
You can call yourself whatever you identify with, but I think this idea of blood-and-soil ethnicity is frankly nonsense in the same category as racial theory.
What do you think of 'Better Together's Margaret Curran's claim that her son living in England will become a 'foreigner' if Scotland becomes independent?
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3269
Report 6 years ago
#3269
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
What do you think of 'Better Together's Margaret Curran's claim that her son living in England will become a 'foreigner' if Scotland becomes independent?
More or less a fact. There is a good chance we will no longer share the bonds of citizenship with people in the rest of our country if Scotland votes to break away. Even if by a legal quirk we all retain British citizenship, we are no longer part of the same civic project. That, to me, is a thoroughly backward move.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3270
Report 6 years ago
#3270
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
(First of all, we need to be clear that the EU DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL BASIS WHATSOEVER FOR EXPELLING SCOTLAND FROM THE EU between 19th September 2014 and the actual date of independence probably March 2016.

No nonsense about what Barroso or anyone else at the EU has said or any scaremongering by 'Better Together'.

And don't bring the Euro into this)
(Original post by L i b)
Scotland could not be expelled before whenever in 2016. It is part of a member-state and there is no provision in the treaties for expulsion of any member-state. However if Scotland became a separate state from the UK, it would not be a member. It wouldn't 'cease' to be a member, or be 'expelled' - it would never have been a member.

That is simple, straightforward international law. Anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is feeding you internet pseudolegal nonsense.
Could you specify which "straightforward international law" you are referring to?

Any actual examples?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3271
Report 6 years ago
#3271
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
What do you think of 'Better Together's Margaret Curran's claim that her son living in England will become a 'foreigner' if Scotland becomes independent?
Well he will be. Just like many of us who have friends and family living throughout the UK will be.

Or are you trying to portray the line that nothing will change?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3272
Report 6 years ago
#3272
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Could you specify which "straightforward international law" you are referring to?

Any actual examples?
You're right. The EU doesn't have any legal right to expel us from the EU, but as we won't be in the EU to begin with they won't need to expel us. Our problem would be getting into the EU.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3273
Report 6 years ago
#3273
(Original post by L i b)
More or less a fact. There is a good chance we will no longer share the bonds of citizenship with people in the rest of our country if Scotland votes to break away. Even if by a legal quirk we all retain British citizenship, we are no longer part of the same civic project. That, to me, is a thoroughly backward move.
Backward move? I'd say economically suicidal move.
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3274
Report 6 years ago
#3274
(Original post by L i b)
More or less a fact. There is a good chance we will no longer share the bonds of citizenship with people in the rest of our country if Scotland votes to break away. Even if by a legal quirk we all retain British citizenship, we are no longer part of the same civic project. That, to me, is a thoroughly backward move.
You know what they say, the bonds of citizenship are thicker than blood.

Of course 'blood and soil' ethnicity is a load of nonsense in a sense. Although clearly some people, like Foo, take it seriously enough and that's up to them. But it's equally disgraceful to suggest that somehow being citizens of or even just living in dfferent countries somehow diminishes relationships between people. How very internationalist of Margaret Curran.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3275
Report 6 years ago
#3275
(Original post by Gordon1985)
You know what they say, the bonds of citizenship are thicker than blood.

Of course 'blood and soil' ethnicity is a load of nonsense in a sense. Although clearly some people, like Foo, take it seriously enough and that's up to them. But it's equally disgraceful to suggest that somehow being citizens of or even just living in dfferent countries somehow diminishes relationships between people. How very internationalist of Margaret Curran.
Or Margaret Curran is living in the real world.

I hardly saw people running to the aid of Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Greece or Ireland when they hit serious economic problems. Assistance was given but at what price? Nationality is no different to business. Other nations are competitors. Sometimes in in your interest to help them out, most of the time it's a dog eats dog world where help and friendship comes at a price.
0
Kj91
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#3276
Report 6 years ago
#3276
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Backward move? I'd say economically suicidal move.
The exact same things were said with devolution in 1997. Devolution would be a disaster for Scotland.It was bad for business,break up of the UK etc. Unionists are now singing the same tune again with independence.

Barriers to trade are often raised as a reason to continue as we are. Business doesn’t like barriers, and for good reasons, they add time and cost to transactions and trade. But the reality of modern Europe is that there are effectively no trade barriers anymore anyway. Business is conducted in a fairly seamless fashion whether your customers or suppliers are in Berlin or Birmingham. The barriers that do exist: geography, language, currency, legal system, time zones and culture would be exactly the same whether Scotland was part of the UK or not. After independence Scotland would continue to enjoy close trading relationships with the rest of the UK, as well as with other countries in Europe.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...-for-scotland/
1
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3277
Report 6 years ago
#3277
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Or Margaret Curran is living in the real world.

I hardly saw people running to the aid of Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Greece or Ireland when they hit serious economic problems. Assistance was given but at what price? Nationality is no different to business. Other nations are competitors. Sometimes in in your interest to help them out, most of the time it's a dog eats dog world where help and friendship comes at a price.
Yeah, if her "foreign" son ever needed help, I'm sure she'd think to herself 'Wait, he lives in a different nation state to me, he can go **** himself'. That sounds like the kind of thing human being sdo in the real world.
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3278
Report 6 years ago
#3278
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Backward move? I'd say economically suicidal move.
Why?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3279
Report 6 years ago
#3279
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
What do you think of 'Better Together's Margaret Curran's claim that her son living in England will become a 'foreigner' if Scotland becomes independent?
(Original post by L i b)
More or less a fact. There is a good chance we will no longer share the bonds of citizenship with people in the rest of our country if Scotland votes to break away. Even if by a legal quirk we all retain British citizenship, we are no longer part of the same civic project. That, to me, is a thoroughly backward move.
WHAT UTTER NONSENSE!

Margaret Curran's son could take up Scottish 'citizenship' if he wanted to, or Margaret Curran could keep her UK 'citizenship'.

How could you then claim that they "no longer share the bonds of citizenship"?

In what way would they be 'foreigners' to each other then?


Family 'bonds' have absolutely nothing to do with 'citizenship' anyway.

Would a couple comprising a Norwegian and a Scot consider each other to be 'foreigners' because they didn't "share the bonds of citizenship"?

'Bonds'are about how close or apart people are, physically and / or mentally.

Margaret Curran could be worried about losing her job as a Westminster MP and having to return to 'poor' Scotland from 'rich' London. Her son might decide to stay in London.

In that sense the 'bond' might be loosened as they will be living further away. But then there are millions of UK citizens currently living outwith the UK but have parents or other close family living in the UK. But no one regards each other as 'foreigners'.

Irish people have close family in Ireland and in the UK. Do they regard each other as 'foreigners'?

In fact there is a specific law passed by the UK government after Irish independence that 'IRELAND SHALL NOT BE REGARDED AS A FOREIGN COUNTRY.'

If Margaret Curran thinks that her feelings towards her son will change if Scotland becomes independent, she needs mental help.

And so do anyone who agree with her.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3280
Report 6 years ago
#3280
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Or Margaret Curran is living in the real world.

I hardly saw people running to the aid of Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Greece or Ireland when they hit serious economic problems. Assistance was given but at what price? Nationality is no different to business. Other nations are competitors. Sometimes in in your interest to help them out, most of the time it's a dog eats dog world where help and friendship comes at a price.
Will you ever understand anything?

We are talking about Margaret Curran's feelings towards her son changing if Scotland becomes independent.

As a mother, Margaret Curran will start regarding her son as a 'foreigner'.

We are not discussing SCOTLAND v rUK

We are discussing Margaret Curran v Her son.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (116)
65.91%
No I haven't decided yet (36)
20.45%
Yes but I might change my mind (24)
13.64%

Watched Threads

View All