Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:04:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 18:17, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:


Such as ...... ?

According to the No campaign :-
-Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching
Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders").

Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this?

Ruth Davidson :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650

She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get
the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts.

"However, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she believed
independence would lead to the loss of popular TV programmes or result
in households paying more for big sporting events and "our favourite
dramas".
Her tabloid allies might have changed that to more specific wording
but I don't think she was referring to The Sky at Night.

Or her opponents could have set up a straw man. Especially given it was
Hyslop who brought up the subject of Eastenders. And neither side
mentioned satellite.

It's a bit hard for it not to be implicit in current television
broadcasting arrangements.


I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is
Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see
any resemblance to reality.

Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is?


-It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British
NHS).

Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again.

The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems,
each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS"
(Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to
appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are
great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned
to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency
treatment has ceased.

-It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU
clampdown started).

You are conflating two separate issues.

Tell the "No" campaign.

Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making?


-The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether
Scotland stays in the UK or not)

But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims..

Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's
version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of
stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly
a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years
ago :-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Shetland is part of Scotland.

Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the
inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland.

Just like Yorkshire v. England then ?

Yorkshire thinks it is England, the rest is just incidental.

Has the Shetland Islands electorate (or even any of the Yorkshire
electorates) made a competent expression to support you ?


It became part of the UK as part of
Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the
1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ?

This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond.

He isn't trying to split up Scotland unlike anyone who tries to remove
any of the islands.


-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)
etc. etc.


It can't be chucked out because it is not in.

The people are already in as you will find with passports marked
"European Union" and which use our own language.

Who's language?

Nobody is language.

So the language of who exactly then?

Scotland. Other languages are also recognised in Scotland.


And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be
Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily
be EU.

You presume incorrectly.

That Salmond won't get his way? Glad to see you are coming round.

No. There have been no plans announced to remove the right to a ROTUK
passport from anyone in Scotland who qualifies for one under current
arrangements.

So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots
could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes,
vote, etc?

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:54:54 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots
could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes,
vote, etc?

Depends where they are "habitually resident" in the same way that
existing dual citizens do.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:02:26 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:54:54 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots
could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes,
vote, etc?

Depends where they are "habitually resident" in the same way that
existing dual citizens do.

Passports deal with nationality relative to other countries rather
than residence, current right of abode in the UK is only available to
"British citizens" as explained in Note 2 of a UK passport; you can
still be a British citizen despite not having lived in the UK and
holding another countries passport if you have suitable multiple
nationality rights (two parents of different nationalities having a
child born in a third country can complicate matters somewhat). Unless
the rules change then it would be much the same as applies to anyone
alive at the time that the relevant versions of Ireland left the
UK/Commonwealth; passports would be available from either or both
countries but, while in one of those countries, the other country
cannot usually be relied upon to give any support if/when the holder
gets into trouble or tries to get out of any obligations such as e.g.
national service.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:54:08 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:02:26 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:54:54 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots
could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes,
vote, etc?

Depends where they are "habitually resident" in the same way that
existing dual citizens do.

Passports deal with nationality relative to other countries rather
than residence, current right of abode in the UK is only available to
"British citizens" as explained in Note 2 of a UK passport; you can
still be a British citizen despite not having lived in the UK and
holding another countries passport if you have suitable multiple
nationality rights (two parents of different nationalities having a
child born in a third country can complicate matters somewhat). Unless
the rules change then it would be much the same as applies to anyone
alive at the time that the relevant versions of Ireland left the
UK/Commonwealth; passports would be available from either or both
countries but, while in one of those countries, the other country
cannot usually be relied upon to give any support if/when the holder
gets into trouble or tries to get out of any obligations such as e.g.
national service.

Err.. yes. I should have specified I was talking about the tax
question.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:45:01 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:54:08 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:02:26 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:54:54 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots
could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes,
vote, etc?

Depends where they are "habitually resident" in the same way that
existing dual citizens do.

Passports deal with nationality relative to other countries rather
than residence, current right of abode in the UK is only available to
"British citizens" as explained in Note 2 of a UK passport; you can
still be a British citizen despite not having lived in the UK and
holding another countries passport if you have suitable multiple
nationality rights (two parents of different nationalities having a
child born in a third country can complicate matters somewhat). Unless
the rules change then it would be much the same as applies to anyone
alive at the time that the relevant versions of Ireland left the
UK/Commonwealth; passports would be available from either or both
countries but, while in one of those countries, the other country
cannot usually be relied upon to give any support if/when the holder
gets into trouble or tries to get out of any obligations such as e.g.
national service.

Err.. yes. I should have specified I was talking about the tax
question.

Ooops, missed that ! Bearing in mind the bother with (alleged)
non-doms, the rules could have changed by then anyway but even now
there must be quite a few people who quite innocently have doubtful
"habitual residence" if they move around Europe with their work
although ISTR home ownership and having less-mobile wife and kids can
sometimes decide the question. "Habitual residence" and similar seems
to have no rigid definition for most general purposes (divorce being
at least one exception but even that seems to have "get-out" or "not
us, mate" clauses) although these seem to feature WRT the EU/Council
of Europe :-

"the place where the person had established, on a fixed basis, his
permanent or habitual centre of interests, with all the relevant facts
being taken into account for the purpose of determining such
residence" [English Law conclusion]
"the place where the party involved has fixed, with the wish to vest
it with a stable character, the permanent or habitual centre of his or
her interests." [EU reference used]
[http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1176]