One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.

[Colognejag]

I didn't call you or your family britnats, but I have no qualms about using the word to describe those whose position is one of "Rule Britannia" at all costs, to prevent Scotland's independence. You find the term "deeply offensive?" So what? I find blind loyalty to Westminster domination over Scotland, and the decades of lying and the plundering of Scotland's resources for the benefit of the Westminster ruling classes to be deeply offensive, to an entire nation.

 

I have no idea about the SNP's plans for a Scottish passport design. Why bring the SNP here? My position on passports has nothing to do with the SNP.

 

And don't forget, the referendum isn't about the SNP.

 

The White Paper clearly is all about the SNP.

 

You called me britnat some time ago on here. Given the mostly interesting and reflective posts on here from the vast majority of people on both sides of the debate, the content and tone of your posts suggests that quite clearly, you are the one brainwashed and with blind loyalty...

[Mr Scruff]

To me, it sounds like you are saying you don't feel it is worth the bother. I actually understand that, although I disagree. Anything worth doing takes time. For instance, a republican Scotland isn't on offer - at the moment - but that doesn't mean that will remain the case for ever. The currency union, if we take the unionist parties at their word, is currently dead in the water. By extension so is the Euro, given that a requirement to join is that a country must have had its own floated currency for a certain period (two years, I think). A federal UK could work and I could be persuaded to give that a shot, but that is most definitely not on anyone's agenda at present.

 

My vision of an inde Scotland is a bit to the left of most people's, and certainly the SNP, but that is a debate to have - and one I would relish having - post-independence. I have now reached the point where I feel independence is a necessity if we truly want Scotland to improve. Unfortunately, the debate keeps getting bogged down with issues connected with things like currency. Now, that isn't insignificant, far from it, but it isn't the be all and end all.

I'd maybe characterise it as not worth the risk, rather than bother.

 

I wonder if the SNP had actually been more radical in their approach, whether that wouldn't have been more convincing to more people.

 

Encouragingly, though, it has got my two older teenage sons (neither of whom will be eligble to vote in elections yet, but will be voting in this in September) interested in an actual issue and that's a great thing. And there's still a bit of me that might tick the yes box in the polling both just to have that scary thought of change for change's sake on 19th September....

[Jaggernaut]

The White Paper clearly is all about the SNP.

 

You called me britnat some time ago on here. Given the mostly interesting and reflective posts on here from the vast majority of people on both sides of the debate, the content and tone of your posts suggests that quite clearly, you are the one brainwashed and with blind loyalty...

If you like.

[Norgethistle]

So what's wrong with that? It's widely accepted that Norway generally has a great standard of living. Scare stories about the level of income tax, the cost of beer etc. don't wash because the salaries permit those levels and costs.

 

Yes, I'm for real. Your support of Scotland's continued dependence on Westminster is also for real, it's clear.

 

It took Norway decades to get there, if you had read my post it stated it would take Scotland longer, even with Norwegian level income tax and VAT (lets not mention alcohol as my duty free stock is diminishing) due to higher national debt and greater level of unemployment.

 

If you speak to anyone who was working in Stavanger or Bergen in late 70's or early 80's (A decade after full production started and the Norsk coffers started to fill) there was nothing here, people were still skint as the wages hadn't yet came up to account for the high level of taxes, the mid 90's things really turned around here with the wages reflecting the tax. I have several older friends here who can hark back to pre-oil (50's early 60's) and 70% unemployment in Stavanger, schools open 2 days a week, and proper poverty.

 

It took Norway decades to get what it has now, and paying 36% on a wage in early 70's was far better than getting nothing in the mid 60's when there was no jobs.

 

For an independent Scotland to be successful it needs to be prudent for the first 10 -20 years, tax needs to go up, spending needs to be curtailed (Especially MP's or MSP's wages and expenses), benefits needs to be looked at and reviewed so the people that need it get it, but the folk who merely want it get caught out.

We may need to look to raise the retirement age, wind back the free uni places, free OAP bus passes, free nursery places etc till the country is in a healthy state, if not it will fail without having its (Evil as some will say) big brother the UK to spread the debt with.

 

The monetary union for sterling stops us setting the Tax and lending rates, as does the EU, if we truelly go it alone and seriously tighten the belt it will work, if we partly go independent or don't cut back it will fail and quickly

[Jaggernaut]

It took Norway decades to get there, if you had read my post it stated it would take Scotland longer, even with Norwegian level income tax and VAT (lets not mention alcohol as my duty free stock is diminishing) due to higher national debt and greater level of unemployment.

 

If you speak to anyone who was working in Stavanger or Bergen in late 70's or early 80's (A decade after full production started and the Norsk coffers started to fill) there was nothing here, people were still skint as the wages hadn't yet came up to account for the high level of taxes, the mid 90's things really turned around here with the wages reflecting the tax. I have several older friends here who can hark back to pre-oil (50's early 60's) and 70% unemployment in Stavanger, schools open 2 days a week, and proper poverty.

 

It took Norway decades to get what it has now, and paying 36% on a wage in early 70's was far better than getting nothing in the mid 60's when there was no jobs.

 

For an independent Scotland to be successful it needs to be prudent for the first 10 -20 years, tax needs to go up, spending needs to be curtailed (Especially MP's or MSP's wages and expenses), benefits needs to be looked at and reviewed so the people that need it get it, but the folk who merely want it get caught out.

We may need to look to raise the retirement age, wind back the free uni places, free OAP bus passes, free nursery places etc till the country is in a healthy state, if not it will fail without having its (Evil as some will say) big brother the UK to spread the debt with.

 

The monetary union for sterling stops us setting the Tax and lending rates, as does the EU, if we truelly go it alone and seriously tighten the belt it will work, if we partly go independent or don't cut back it will fail and quickly

 

I wouldn't criticise any of that. And at the same time (and maybe you don't want this): I would say that it's a positive endorsement of independence from Westminster and and end to permanent dependence on Westminster handouts. The referendum isn't about you, or even me (and in fact I won't be living in Scotland after the referendum); it's about Scotland's future generations. And that's why I will vote YES.

[Norgethistle]

I wouldn't criticise any of that. And at the same time (and maybe you don't want this): I would say that it's a positive endorsement of independence from Westminster and and end to permanent dependence on Westminster handouts. The referendum isn't about you, or even me (and in fact I won't be living in Scotland after the referendum); it's about Scotland's future generations. And that's why I will vote YES.

 

But that isn't whats being offered, thats why i'm currently voting NO

[Jaggernaut]

But that isn't whats being offered, thats why i'm currently voting NO

By voting NO are you in fact simply voting for the status quo, under which nothing like what you might hope for will ever be offered. At least with independence Scotland could start to move towards the kind of model you'd like. Westminster will never allow that; they never have done, and they won't change.

[Guy Incognito]

I'd maybe characterise it as not worth the risk, rather than bother.

 

I wonder if the SNP had actually been more radical in their approach, whether that wouldn't have been more convincing to more people.

 

Encouragingly, though, it has got my two older teenage sons (neither of whom will be eligble to vote in elections yet, but will be voting in this in September) interested in an actual issue and that's a great thing. And there's still a bit of me that might tick the yes box in the polling both just to have that scary thought of change for change's sake on 19th September....

 

If they had been more radical then it might have made it harder for the unionists to pick holes in their plans, which would have been a good thing in my view. It is hard to pick holes in something you don't understand. I think they decided to play it safe because a lot of people still quite like the royal family and the BBC (although f*ck knows why).

 

Like with your sons, it is good that it has got people talking though. Whatever the result it will hopefully keep people's eyes open to things.

 

It took Norway decades to get there, if you had read my post it stated it would take Scotland longer, even with Norwegian level income tax and VAT (lets not mention alcohol as my duty free stock is diminishing) due to higher national debt and greater level of unemployment.

 

If you speak to anyone who was working in Stavanger or Bergen in late 70's or early 80's (A decade after full production started and the Norsk coffers started to fill) there was nothing here, people were still skint as the wages hadn't yet came up to account for the high level of taxes, the mid 90's things really turned around here with the wages reflecting the tax. I have several older friends here who can hark back to pre-oil (50's early 60's) and 70% unemployment in Stavanger, schools open 2 days a week, and proper poverty.

 

It took Norway decades to get what it has now, and paying 36% on a wage in early 70's was far better than getting nothing in the mid 60's when there was no jobs.

 

For an independent Scotland to be successful it needs to be prudent for the first 10 -20 years, tax needs to go up, spending needs to be curtailed (Especially MP's or MSP's wages and expenses), benefits needs to be looked at and reviewed so the people that need it get it, but the folk who merely want it get caught out.

We may need to look to raise the retirement age, wind back the free uni places, free OAP bus passes, free nursery places etc till the country is in a healthy state, if not it will fail without having its (Evil as some will say) big brother the UK to spread the debt with.

 

The monetary union for sterling stops us setting the Tax and lending rates, as does the EU, if we truelly go it alone and seriously tighten the belt it will work, if we partly go independent or don't cut back it will fail and quickly

 

Independence is for life, not just for a few years.

 

Incidentally, the retirement age is set to be raised to 68 in the UK - in spite of the, admittedly tragic, fact that people in Scotland die earlier than elsewhere in the UK, on average. At least with independence we could tailor this to suit our own demographics; and if life expectancy increases then that will be fantastic. To counter this, we could also tailor our immigration policy to suit and look at stimulating the birth rate by making things more 'family friendly'.

 

By voting NO are you in fact simply voting for the status quo, under which nothing like what you might hope for will ever be offered. At least with independence Scotland could start to move towards the kind of model you'd like. Westminster will never allow that; they never have done, and they won't change.

 

I have to disagree with the highlighted part of your first sentence, Jaggernaut. The truth is, we don't know what the status quo will look like if we vote No. It is, though, looking increasingly likely, if not inevitable, that Barnett will be scrapped, meaning that regardless of how much money is generated in Scotland we will only get back what Westminster grants us on a per capita basis.

[Jaggernaut]

 

 

I have to disagree with the highlighted part of your first sentence, Jaggernaut. The truth is, we don't know what the status quo will look like if we vote No. It is, though, looking increasingly likely, if not inevitable, that Barnett will be scrapped, meaning that regardless of how much money is generated in Scotland we will only get back what Westminster grants us on a per capita basis.

 

Yes, you are correct.

[Mr Scruff]

Resurrecting an old thread...

 

We're 104 days to go and despite the polls still showing (as far as I can see) a reasonable lead for 'no', anecdotally I'm sensing a bit of a move towards the 'yes' camp. There are those who are dyed-in-the-wool yes/ no supporters for whom nothing will change their minds, but I've spoken to several people over the last few days who have been against independence, but who now seem to be moving towards a yes vote.

 

I must admit to moving that way myself despite the flaws in the proposals. Part of it is pragmatism in that we're bound to get backed into a corner irrespective of the result, and may as well bite the bullet and get through the pain of the next generation making this work now. Part of it is also taking part in an election the outcome of which will make a real difference (good or bad), and that's a scary and exciting thought. On balance, still no, but wavering heavily.

 

Maybe the SNP were right about the convergence in the polls as we get closer. However, in 30 years of voting, I've never cast my ballot for anyone who's actually been elected, or a decision in a referendum that's gone the way of my vote. Always on the losing side. So maybe voting 'yes' is the way to go...

[alx]

Steady troops, remember > horse and cart. We have to win this thing or we get nothing. I'm tempted to use an 'emoticon' but I'm not starting now after all these years. Independence first, details later!

 

PS - by details, I'm mean controversial stuff like the monarchy and social justice living wage etc.

Edited June 7, 2014 by alx

[Norgethistle]

Steady troops, remember > horse and cart. We have to win this thing or we get nothing. I'm tempted to use an 'emoticon' but I'm not starting now after all these years. Independence first, details later!

 

PS - by details, I'm mean controversial stuff like the monarchy and social justice living wage etc.

 

Thats like me offering you a new job, but not telling you the hours,pay, position and conditions till after you have quit your old one and started with this new fantastic one I've offered you

[Blackpool Jags]

As somebody marginally and reluctantly in the 'NO' camp, I would've liked to think that if I'd been a few percentage points the other way, one of the main things on offer from the 'YES' camp would be a full blown decree absolute from Windsor / Hanoverian rule; why would we want to keep them, even on a notional, symbolic basis?

 

It's a bit like divorcing your wife but keeping regular contact with her and moving in with the in-laws. Is the retention of the Head Of State a sop towards certain sections of the voting public, or a genuine belief that it 'makes sense' of some sort? Got to be honest, I'm baffled as to why we'd want anything to do with that shower, especially as 'independence' would be a gold-plated opportunity to bin them.

[Granville Island]

Thats like me offering you a new job, but not telling you the hours,pay, position and conditions till after you have quit your old one and started with this new fantastic one I've offered you

 

Which of course is in sheer contrast to the clarity offered on our future by the NO camp - the Tory offer of new powers (that kills off the Barnett Formula - which corrects some of the discrepancy that has seen us as net contributors to the UK treasury in every financial year since 1978 - and will lead to an NHS in Scotland funded on the same basis as the rUK), the Lib Dem version (unlikely to go anywhere as they are finished) or Johan's version that enhances powers over the issuing of dog licences? or will it be like 1979 when, in spite of the fact that we voted for devolution, we didn't get it and the enhanced version on offer from the Tories never came to pass? both the new job offered AND the existing one involve risk. For me it comes down to the type of society that we want to live in - hopefully one where I don't have to listen a monarch talk about equality in her speech to parliament!!

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Re: the Queen

 

For the Yes campaign, it’s a tough enough battle against Fleet Street and the BBC as it is, without alienating several per cent worth of devoted royalists.

 

I would surmise that the matter is of so little relevance to the economic well being of Scotland that it has been decided that it’s best left out of the debate at this crucial moment in time.

 

Post-independence, if the Scottish people then decide they wish they to ditch the House of Hannover once and for all, then I would think you’d see an Australian-style referendum on the subject. There’s nothing surer.

 

The big thing is that only a truly independent Scotland will have the ability to make these future decisions.

 

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity here. For the love of Scotland, let’s take it.

[Mr Scruff]

As somebody marginally and reluctantly in the 'NO' camp, I would've liked to think that if I'd been a few percentage points the other way, one of the main things on offer from the 'YES' camp would be a full blown decree absolute from Windsor / Hanoverian rule; why would we want to keep them, even on a notional, symbolic basis?

 

It's a bit like divorcing your wife but keeping regular contact with her and moving in with the in-laws. Is the retention of the Head Of State a sop towards certain sections of the voting public, or a genuine belief that it 'makes sense' of some sort? Got to be honest, I'm baffled as to why we'd want anything to do with that shower, especially as 'independence' would be a gold-plated opportunity to bin them.

Exactly. Independence would have to mewn something, and nailing the colours to the republican democratic mast would have really helped sway me...

[Blackpool Jags]

My own thinking, MS, and yet a very good and pragmatic response from TJR, in my opinion. On reflection, it would seem daft to alienate a few Govan-centric Hannoverians PRE-referendum when the outcome may well be marginal either way.

[Norgethistle]

If it's independance then go Independant

 

No currency union

No selling out to the EU

No borrowing someone else's monarch

 

None of these are being offered

 

A currency union will see the bank of England setting an Independant Scotland's interest rate (good luck with that)

The EU will dictate more than Westminster and will take the kings share as a way of letting Scotlabd in

And to use the monarchy we will probably have to contribute towards Lizzies upkeep

 

That's not independance

[Jaggernaut]

If it's independance then go Independant

 

No currency union

No selling out to the EU

No borrowing someone else's monarch

 

None of these are being offered

 

A currency union will see the bank of England setting an Independant Scotland's interest rate (good luck with that)

The EU will dictate more than Westminster and will take the kings share as a way of letting Scotlabd in

And to use the monarchy we will probably have to contribute towards Lizzies upkeep

 

That's not independance

 

Under Westminster control Scotland's interest rate is already set by the Bank of England. That's OK for you?

 

Under Westminster control Scotland is dictated to by Westminster and by the EU. That's OK for you?

 

Under Westminster control Scotland already contributes to Lizzie's upkeep. That's OK for you?

 

What should be understood is that an independent Scotland at least can negotiate on all of these things. Under Westminster control Scotland is entirely powerless. But maybe that's OK for you too?

[Norgethistle]

Under Westminster control Scotland's interest rate is already set by the Bank of England. That's OK for you?

 

Under Westminster control Scotland is dictated to by Westminster and by the EU. That's OK for you?

 

Under Westminster control Scotland already contributes to Lizzie's upkeep. That's OK for you?

 

What should be understood is that an independent Scotland at least can negotiate on all of these things. Under Westminster control Scotland is entirely powerless. But maybe that's OK for you too?

 

Scotland is not Powerless under Westminster control, in fact Scotland has more powers than the rest of the UK, but the SNP still haven't used them, ask why?? So they can blame Westminster for all the problems.

 

If we go for a currency union we will have our interest and borrowing rate set by a different countries bank, that we have zero say in, no longer having 11% of the vote.

If we go in the EU we will not have the veto's that the UK has negotiated, we will be refused these as part getting in, Scotland currently has 72 MP's out of 650 in Parliament, it will around 10 have out of 751 in the EU....... that's significantly less power down from 11% to 1.3%

 

Just look to what Brussels have done to Greece with the banking crisis and compare that to Iceland that wasn't in the EU, Iceland Jailed those responsible and tried to save the investors, Greece were forced to hand the keys over to the ECB and the public lost the money whilst Brussels stand to make a fortune over the long run.

 

Less than 100 days to go and still so many grey area's

• If no currency union what will Scotland use
  
• Defense how will that work (Very important as the amount of jobs affected)
  
• Passports (For us Ex Pats this is worrying especially with folk living abroad with 3 years or left on their passports, we may not be able to apply to the UK, and how do we prove we are eligible for a Scottish passport, if you have ever tried to apply for a 1st passport for a country you don't live in you'll know the issue)
  
• EU, as much as I am totally against us being in it, what will we give up to Brussels to have a "Fast track" entry
  
• The deficit that an Independent Scotland will inherit, how will that be paid especially as the white paper highlights tax cuts and increased welfare benefits, the share of the deficit is Scotland's part of the divorce
  

 

So many questions so little in terms of real answers

[Mr Scruff]

Under Westminster control Scotland's interest rate is already set by the Bank of England. That's OK for you?

 

Scotland is part of 'Westminster'.

 

Under Westminster control Scotland is dictated to by Westminster and by the EU. That's OK for you?

 

Scotland is part of 'Westminster'. Scotland is part of the EU.

 

Under Westminster control Scotland already contributes to Lizzie's upkeep. That's OK for you?

 

Scotland is part of 'Westminster'.

 

What should be understood is that an independent Scotland at least can negotiate on all of these things. Under Westminster control Scotland is entirely powerless. But maybe that's OK for you too?

 

Scotland is part of 'Westminster'.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Scotland is part of the EU.

 

At least until the English people (i.e. almost 90% of the UK) have decided to say Yes or No in their European referendum. We will be bound by their will should we choose to stay in the UK.

[Mr Scruff]

At least until the English people (i.e. almost 90% of the UK) have decided to say Yes or No in their European referendum. We will be bound by their will should we choose to stay in the UK.

Agreed. In fact the possibility of that referendum is one of the reasons I'm distinctly swaying in my 'no' vote, albeit I'm not convinced by the SNP's certainties.

 

As part of 'Westminster', though, Scotland can influence the outcome of the next parliament and therefore the likelihood of such a referendum taking place. Also the idea of our voice being 'swamped' democratically as part of a union larger than Scotland suggests that EU membership would be worse in any case, either as part of the UK or as an independent country. This is not a view to which I subscribe, but I do understand it.

[Jaggernaut]

Scotland is not Powerless under Westminster control, in fact Scotland has more powers than the rest of the UK, but the SNP still haven't used them, ask why?? So they can blame Westminster for all the problems.

 

-- What real "powers?". Broadcasting? Foreign policy? Raising all taxes. It wasn't for nothing that Bliar referred to Holyrood as a "parish council". Actually I think that sneering remark immediately caused an increased desire for independence in many people.

 

If we go for a currency union we will have our interest and borrowing rate set by a different countries bank, that we have zero say in, no longer having 11% of the vote.

 

-- 11% of the vote gets us what, at present?

 

If we go in the EU we will not have the veto's that the UK has negotiated, we will be refused these as part getting in, Scotland currently has 72 MP's out of 650 in Parliament, it will around 10 have out of 751 in the EU....... that's significantly less power down from 11% to 1.3%

 

-- What is this power trip? How do countries like Denmark and Holland survive in such a hostile environment?

 

Just look to what Brussels have done to Greece with the banking crisis and compare that to Iceland that wasn't in the EU, Iceland Jailed those responsible and tried to save the investors, Greece were forced to hand the keys over to the ECB and the public lost the money whilst Brussels stand to make a fortune over the long run.

 

-- What's the relevance of that?

 

Less than 100 days to go and still so many grey area's

• If no currency union what will Scotland use
  

There are several options

• Defense how will that work (Very important as the amount of jobs affected)
  

An independent Scotland will have the defence that it needs. The UK has slashed defence-related jobs over the years. And it will probably continue to do so.

• Passports (For us Ex Pats this is worrying especially with folk living abroad with 3 years or left on their passports, we may not be able to apply to the UK, and how do we prove we are eligible for a Scottish passport, if you have ever tried to apply for a 1st passport for a country you don't live in you'll know the issue)
  

Who has told you that you will not be eligible for a Scottish passport?

• EU, as much as I am totally against us being in it, what will we give up to Brussels to have a "Fast track" entry
  

There's no evidence that we will have to give up anything that other countries haven't agreed to give up.

• The deficit that an Independent Scotland will inherit, how will that be paid especially as the white paper highlights tax cuts and increased welfare benefits, the share of the deficit is Scotland's part of the divorce
  

The UK is 1.3 or is it 1.6 billion or trillion pounds in deficit. How will that be paid? We are all going to suffer for it for ever, because of Westminster's misgovernment over decades. Best to get rid of them and deal with our own finances.

 

So many questions so little in terms of real answers

 

-- You don't actually want the answers. The UK has no real answer to it's terrible state, other than to continue to increase the gap between the rich and the poor.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[Norgethistle]

 

Scotland is not Powerless under Westminster control, in fact Scotland has more powers than the rest of the UK, but the SNP still haven't used them, ask why?? So they can blame Westminster for all the problems.

 

-- What real "powers?". Broadcasting? Foreign policy? Raising all taxes. It wasn't for nothing that Bliar referred to Holyrood as a "parish council". Actually I think that sneering remark immediately caused an increased desire for independence in many people.

 

More than the north east or Wales or Northern Ireland have

 

If we go for a currency union we will have our interest and borrowing rate set by a different countries bank, that we have zero say in, no longer having 11% of the vote.

 

-- 11% of the vote gets us what, at present?

 

more than 1% in the EU, allows us to spend £3 million on Gaelic rail-signs for central Scotland , more say than Tyne & Wear, with a higher amount of MP's per head Capita than them, or greater Manchester with 27 MPs and roughly 3 million population, compared to our 72 MP's for 5.5 million..... 1 for every 76000 compared to Greater Manchester 1 MP for every 111000....... but Scotland s not fairly represented

 

 

If we go in the EU we will not have the veto's that the UK has negotiated, we will be refused these as part getting in, Scotland currently has 72 MP's out of 650 in Parliament, it will around 10 have out of 751 in the EU....... that's significantly less power down from 11% to 1.3%

 

-- What is this power trip? How do countries like Denmark and Holland survive in such a hostile environment?

 

Just look to what Brussels have done to Greece with the banking crisis and compare that to Iceland that wasn't in the EU, Iceland Jailed those responsible and tried to save the investors, Greece were forced to hand the keys over to the ECB and the public lost the money whilst Brussels stand to make a fortune over the long run.

 

-- What's the relevance of that?

 

Less than 100 days to go and still so many grey area's

• If no currency union what will Scotland use
  

There are several options

Such as?? Apart from Sterling nothing else has been mentioned

• Defense how will that work (Very important as the amount of jobs affected)
  

An independent Scotland will have the defence that it needs. The UK has slashed defence-related jobs over the years. And it will probably continue to do so.

​Scottish firms provide defense jobs for the whole of the UK, including a lot for Trident, how many for BAE, Rolls-Royce etc will be safeguarded down south as the Uk does what it has always done...... build within its own country

• Passports (For us Ex Pats this is worrying especially with folk living abroad with 3 years or left on their passports, we may not be able to apply to the UK, and how do we prove we are eligible for a Scottish passport, if you have ever tried to apply for a 1st passport for a country you don't live in you'll know the issue)
  

Who has told you that you will not be eligible for a Scottish passport? Never mentioned not being eligible, I was talking about the hastle of proving you are entitled to a Scottish passport whilst living abroad, trying to get my daughter a UK passport just now is enough hastle and I currently (and plan to keep if allowed) hold a UK passport

• EU, as much as I am totally against us being in it, what will we give up to Brussels to have a "Fast track" entry
  

There's no evidence that we will have to give up anything that other countries haven't agreed to give up.

• The deficit that an Independent Scotland will inherit, how will that be paid especially as the white paper highlights tax cuts and increased welfare benefits, the share of the deficit is Scotland's part of the divorce
  

The UK is 1.3 or is it 1.6 billion or trillion pounds in deficit. How will that be paid? We are all going to suffer for it for ever, because of Westminster's misgovernment over decades. Best to get rid of them and deal with our own finances.

 

The UK is bringing in spending cuts, tax rises completely the opposite of the white paper, but the debt the UK has is spread over greater capital, plus as an established country it has proven credit history so a cheaper payback terms than a country with none

 

So many questions so little in terms of real answers

 

-- You don't actually want the answers. The UK has no real answer to it's terrible state, other than to continue to increase the gap between the rich and the poor.

 

​The gap is in every country of the world, so by increasing welfare and dropping taxes is going to sort this??? or the plan to re-nationalize the oil and other sectors the way forward