First topic message reminder :

Can I invite the members of the forum to have a debate and post their views on the Scottish Independence issues

There are many topic's involved in a debate of this nature
Example's, Would Scotland have to join the EU if they went Independent
Which currency would they use
Would there be a border between the two countries
Would passport have to be shown when entering or leaving the country
Does it mean that there's no longer a British passport, in my case would it be English and in my wife's case be Scottish
What would happen to the people who live and work near to where the border might be
An English and Scottish married couple have children, which nationality would the children have

On a personal note, my wife is a Scottish lassie, if Scotland get's Independence does that mean that I am married to a foreigner

There are a few to go on with
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... s-16779891 Could this be another storm in a "
Tea"
Cup

willowsend wrote:

Can I invite the members of the forum to have a debate and post their views on the Scottish Independence issues

There are many topic's involved in a debate of this nature
Example's, Would Scotland have to join the EU if they went Independent
Which currency would they use
Would there be a border between the two countries
Would passport have to be shown when entering or leaving the country
Does it mean that there's no longer a British passport, in my case would it be English and in my wife's case be Scottish
What would happen to the people who live and work near to where the border might be
An English and Scottish married couple have children, which nationality would the children have

On a personal note, my wife is a Scottish lassie, if Scotland get's Independence does that mean that I am married to a foreigner

There are a few to go on with
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... s-16779891 Could this be another storm in a "
Tea"
Cup

Getting back to OPs suggested examples:

To keep borders "
open"
existing EU/UK agreements would have to be agreed with the EU.

I believe that the current Scottish Finance Minister wants to keep using the pound and join the Euro when the conditions are favourable. (this is pretty much the same answer that the UK has. Scotland prints its own paper currency at present but it is not generally accepted except by banks in the UK. If there is a new Scottish Government they may look for joint acceptance of currency.

There is already a border although a couple of farmers might argue over a couple of hedges.

As in Ireland, it is unlikely that you would be asked for a passport as it possible to go from one country to the other without actually knowing.

Again Ireland has gone through this process. It is not a complicated issue as you might expect. There are British Passports, there are Irish Passports and there are British Passports where the holder is classed as British/Irish, (I believe if born in N.I.) A solution would be British or Scottish or British/Scottish.

As in any country, you are either in one country or the other.

I would imagine that like the Passport situation, that would depent on where is the permanent residence and where is the place of birth.

If your married to a Scottish lassie and you are living in Scotland then she can have a Scottish Passport or keep her British one. You being English would maintain your own Passport. You could of course "
dump"
her on the basis that you didn't know you were marrying a foreigner and find yourself a newer younger model South of the border. I would not recommend this action if your current model has access to sharp objects or firearms.

All the above are based on my own experience and common sense. With regard to the latter and the fact that politicians and civil servants are involved it is likely that none of the above will apply and there will have to be numerous Jollys, (sorry Intergovernmental meetings) to decide the finer details. I believe that EasyJet have been awarded the contract to shuttle to various Government Ministers and their mistresses to and from the meetings in the Maldives. Meetings in London or Edinburgh would have looked like favouritism to that country.

Borders and trade would continue as they are, as Scotland would remain in the EU. Scotland would have to pay it's way in defence if part of NATO and an agreement would have to be reached with regards Defence. Oil and gas fields would be divided by whatever coastal international standard or agreement is applicable. (Maybe the English will bomb Aberdeen given BP's interests!) If Scotland adopted the Euro it wouldn't be a biggie (try paying using a Scottish £10 note south of Carlisle!) and already have RBS/Clydesdale although there would need to be a bit of a fudge on the RBS issue. Infact keeping the pound sterling would seem a rational transitional if not long term measure. There would be a bit of a messy disentanglement (if that isn't an oxymoron) with regards to the State/Union/civil servants/structure/infrastructure, etc, but that's been done before in other less friendly break ups , but there isn't any reason why bi-lateral agreements couldn't be amicable on things such as defence etc - the US and Canada manage it. Not sure about electrical power, but Europe already has a distribution network whereby countries trade power so no problem there.
I think there would be more pressing implications north of the border. New political parties would have to be formed. Would the SNP actually continue in it's current form? Would there be an independent, completely Scottish Labour party? Would there be a party wanting reunification? Would there be significant sectarian strife? (I doubt that last one?) I'm trying to disregard the issue of North Sea oil/gas because it always clouds any debate.

Once independence is granted from the people, in what direction do they want to go?

For example would Scotland want it's own fishing rights or would it be bound by existing treaties?

Whichever way the ballot goes one side will be disappointed but we need the country to continue functioning whatever status we all have, so it's important to plan ahead so everyone can stick together whatever happens.

Pro independence people know what it means to be in the union and they welcome independence, but pro union folk need to be reassured that, even as their worst case scenario, independence will be manageable for them.

We mustn't end up with some people feeling alienated on day 1 after the referendum.

Blink wrote:

Whichever way the ballot goes one side will be disappointed but we need the country to continue functioning whatever status we all have, so it's important to plan ahead so everyone can stick together whatever happens.

Pro independence people know what it means to be in the union and they welcome independence, but pro union folk need to be reassured that, even as their worst case scenario, independence will be manageable for them.

We mustn't end up with some people feeling alienated on day 1 after the referendum.

I can't understand why anyone would be disappointed if the Scots people have a vote to be independant or, in other words, have the right to determine their own future. As an Englishman through and through, despite having Emmets, Fifes and others in my ancestry, I wouldn't like to think I was governed by an entity that was not interested in my welfare. Then again, I'd be less than happy to have someone trying to lead me based on a ticket that essentially says the English don't like us.
It's all well and good quoting history and who did what/when regarding the monarchy in Britain, but if we're quoting history, we should include such things as Marston Moor, The Battle of Preston, etc.. Let's not be selective.

Scotland has been in the union for 300 years. What I see now in Alex Salmond is a man who just wants everything is own way without stopping to consider the other partners in this union. How can it be right that he will only do 'what is right for Scotland' without considering the rest of us? I don't know who the oil belongs to, or what part it actually plays in overall finances, but what I do know, is that to just turn round and say its ours, so there, without considering the effects on your partntrs of 300 years would be disgraceful behaviour. And what is it that this man wants anyway? I thought he wanted independence, but he seems to watering that down with new statements almost every day. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it!

Noddy wrote:

Scotland has been in the union for 300 years. What I see now in Alex Salmond is a man who just wants everything is own way without stopping to consider the other partners in this union. How can it be right that he will only do 'what is right for Scotland' without considering the rest of us? I don't know who the oil belongs to, or what part it actually plays in overall finances, but what I do know, is that to just turn round and say its ours, so there, without considering the effects on your partntrs of 300 years would be disgraceful behaviour. And what is it that this man wants anyway? I thought he wanted independence, but he seems to watering that down with new statements almost every day. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it!

Good post, very well said Noddy
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it

The bottom line is that people don't have to swallow the bilge that politicians, the media or even comedians spout. But I fear that for many people, democracy begins and ends at the ballot box, and in the intervening 4-5 years it's a question of just letting the elected get on with it regardless.

willowsend wrote:

Noddy wrote:

Scotland has been in the union for 300 years. What I see now in Alex Salmond is a man who just wants everything is own way without stopping to consider the other partners in this union. How can it be right that he will only do 'what is right for Scotland' without considering the rest of us? I don't know who the oil belongs to, or what part it actually plays in overall finances, but what I do know, is that to just turn round and say its ours, so there, without considering the effects on your partntrs of 300 years would be disgraceful behaviour. And what is it that this man wants anyway? I thought he wanted independence, but he seems to watering that down with new statements almost every day. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it!

Good post, very well said Noddy
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it

Good Post Noddy, but if you look at it from somebody from the other camp by just replacing a name and country, you get:

England has been in the union for 300 years. What I see now in David Cameron is a man who just wants everything his own way without stopping to consider the other partners in this union. How can it be right that he will only do ' what is right for England' without considering the rest us? I don't know who the oil belongs to, or what part it actually plays in overall finances, but what I do know, is that to just turn and say its ours,so there, without considering the effects of your partners of 300 years would be disgraceful behaviour.

There are 2 sides to every story if people are willing to listen.

It is a difficult issue that most likely can and will, only be resolved by a Referendum. Personnal attacks on Alex Salmond gain nothing. He did not put the SNP in power in Scotland, the Scottish people did. The only reason there is going to be a referendum is because it was in the manifesto of the SNP, who the Scottish people put in power. The SNP have always said that the oil belongs to Scotland, yes that party again, that the Scottish people put in power.

Criticism should therefore be more accurately aimed at the Scottish people rather than Alex Salmond himself. But to do that would alienate the English even more and make a Yes Vote a certainty.

The finer points of who gets what and who pays for what after a Yes Vote will no doubt have been on the panic agenda of civil servants at the Scottish Office since the SNP took power and those points will no doubt be published well in advance of any Vote. Two years of official open discussions are now taking place with those that both Governments feel need a voice.

Lets just hope at the end of the day, that the people and not the politicians have the last word.

You are completely right Villy I did this to show that there is 2 side to this debate or 2 sides to a coin.

Anyone who is pro independent isn't looking at the bigger picture. In the world we live in today we need to look at ways of becoming more united not separated. From the Scottish point of view you have to consider this question.

Would Scotland be what it is today if it wasn't for the United Kingdom? Would you have the living standards, healthcare or education?

No, they wouldnt. That isnt intended to take anything away from the Scottish people, that's just how it is. We have developed together, learned together and most importantly of all shed blood together. Now they could moan that they were forced into it, that the English are oppressors and crusaders who invaded your blessed Scotland and they want it back but that was centuries ago and nobody cares anymore. They are not going to find a future from their past.

From the English point of view, we need them just as much as they need us and that counts for Wales as well. If the world wars taught us anything it is united we conquer, divided we fall.

Independence would have a detrimental effect on every country in the Kingdom in every sector especially economics.

Coo blimely, I've certainly started a debate with some substance here, there's plenty of meat on this bone, keep it coming folks
Regarding who rules who and whether the Scot's want to be part of the Union or not. Can I point out that the previous Labour Parliament elected by the Union for seats in the House had a fair number of Scottish representatives including (Gordon Brown) and a Scottish educated Prime Minister ::

Dobrich wrote:

Anyone who is pro independent isn't looking at the bigger picture. In the world we live in today we need to look at ways of becoming more united not separated. From the Scottish point of view you have to consider this question.

Would Scotland be what it is today if it wasn't for the United Kingdom? Would you have the living standards, healthcare or education?

No, they wouldnt. That isnt intended to take anything away from the Scottish people, that's just how it is. We have developed together, learned together and most importantly of all shed blood together. Now they could moan that they were forced into it, that the English are oppressors and crusaders who invaded your blessed Scotland and they want it back but that was centuries ago and nobody cares anymore. They are not going to find a future from their past.

From the English point of view, we need them just as much as they need us and that counts for Wales as well. If the world wars taught us anything it is united we conquer, divided we fall.

Independence would have a detrimental effect on every country in the Kingdom in every sector especially economics.

I only read the first sentence and it knew it was going to be another case of "
you dont know what your doing"
"
you would be nothing without us"
.
How do you know., would Scotland be what it is today if it wasn't for the United Kingdom? I don't know and neither do you, so why make the point. It also takes something from the Scottish people because that is only how you see it. How would Scotland do in the future with Independence, I don't know and neither do you but shouldn't the UK as the World Flagbearer of democracy give them the opportunity.

with regard to uniting together, they tried that in Europe 10 years ago and its now falling apart. Is it not the Union Prime Minister that recently Veto'd another EU unity vote because it was not in the UKs interest. So much for unity. I wonder if he even had the decency to phone the 1st Minister in Scotland before that Veto to get his view.

And as for shedding blood together, as I have previously posted, under UK law you can die for your country at 17 but you can't vote for the Government that sent you to war. Now that is true democracy.

I think Dobrich is only writing his opinion here not facts? but his statement at the end is more important I would have thought?

Quote :

From the English point of view, we need them just as much as they need us and that counts for Wales as well. If the world wars taught us anything it is united we conquer, divided we fall.

Independence would have a detrimental effect on every country in the Kingdom in every sector especially economics.

The way I see it, England should have the right to have their own say about matters involving Scotland and Wales, should they have the right to block independance.....No!.

But then again, if England had a referendum tomorrow and the majority asked for Scotland and Wales to be cut loose, then the sitting government should respect their wishes, but lets face it, that will never happen.

Labour don't want Scottish Independence, any Independence for Scotland would kill any chance of Labour getting back into power in London. The Tories don't want it because it would cause too many headaches for them to deal with especially when it comes to business's that operates north and south of the border, not to mention the fact that they would lose much needed revenue from the North Sea Oil fields.

The BNP would probably favour it until they saw an army of immigrants marching to the English border, then even they would be scurrying around like headless chickens.

Only my opinion here by the way.