A nation rejoices.
But seeing as Scotland is going to be out of the E.U. either way it makes sense to tackle one thing at a time.
Allow the Brexit process to conclude then the Scottish voters will be able to make a clear choice between the benefits of being out of the E.U. in union with the UK or out on their own.
Let the festival of democracy recommence!
Look at the table I quoted. I bolded the word “automatically”. It is never followed by the word “considered”. “Yes, automatically a Scottish citizen” is not in any way an ambiguous form of words.
I’m not arguing they would be. I’m arguing against your assertion - quoted upthread - that nobody would automatically become a Scottish citizen. Clearly the vast majority of Scots would do so.
There are hints that Theresa May might be planning to push the refefendum back beyond the Scottish General Election in 2021.
She is going to outdo Thatcher in unpopularity north of the border!
There is talk on Nationalist Boards of using the Nuclear option- causing a new election to Holyrood on the matter of consent to an Independence referendum, especially if May makes a referendum dependent on a further election to gain consent, despite that being in the 2015 election manifesto.
They would be auromatically eligible for Scottish citizenship, but it would not be imposed. People would be free to decline it.
At the risk of furthering the debate, there was a paper from the University of Edinburgh on citizenship released before the 2014 referendum.
It contains a quote from the Home Secretary of the time, one Theresa May (whatever happened to her?):
The whole thing is at (PDF warning): http://www.citsee.ed.ac.uk/working_papers/files/CITSEE_WORKING_PAPER_2013-34.pdf
I am not denying the possibility of denying Scots British citizenship, merely pointing out how imposible it would be to implement in accord with international law and British law.
No, they would automatically **be **citizens. As has been said, the white paper that you yourself cited does not mention eligibility, or convey the idea that the citizens in question would in some sense have to “apply” for Scottish citizenship. They would automatically be considered citizens by the Scottish government.
Any sovereign government can consider whoever it likes to be its citizens. If the government of Djibouti decides that I am a citizen of its country, there’s nothing I can do to stop it (unless there are some measures in the Djibouti constitution for renunciation of citizenship; I haven’t checked lately.)
Therefore, the suggestion that the UK government would make the people in question “stateless” by revoking their UK citizenship is incorrect.
I’m not disagreeing. But the UK government is hardly likely to come out and say so before Scottish independence. I thought May’s quote, “affected by future Scottish Government policy decisions” was interesting.
That doesn’t sound right. If the Djibouti government randomly decides you’re a citizen, it’s then perfectly legal for the UK government to revoke your citizenship?
I am in the amusing position of posting here against anti-Independence myths whilst posting elsewhere on a board full of rabid Nationalists claiming their own myths.
Touché!
No, because the totally arbitrary decision of Djibouti would not be recognised if the matter came up in international law. But that doesn’t prevent Djibouti from considering you a citizen for their own domestic purposes.
It wouldn’t apply in the Scottish case, because the definition of citizenship likely to be used, as described in the white paper, is not arbitrary. Rather, there would be a meaningful connection between the person and Scotland, such as place of birth etc. So any claim of statelessness would not stand up.
He’s not saying it’s perfectly legal. He’s saying that if they did, you wouldn’t be stateless. You’d be Djiboutian.
In other words: The Scottish government will automatically recognise anyone habitually resident in Scotland on day one of independence as a Scottish citizen. Let’s say the rUK government does strip these people of their British citizenship. A court case is bought. If the lawyers argue that the rUK’s actions are illegal because they have left these habitual residents of Scotland stateless, the defense will be that they are not stateless, they are Scottish citizens. And when they call the Scottish government to the stand, the Scottish government will testify that these people are not stateless, they are citizens of Scotland and became so automatically at the moment of independence.
Whether there are other legal impediments to rUK stripping new-minted Scots of British citizenship is another question. But statelessness doesn’t apply.
[ETA: Yeah, what he said]
What you are mising is that Scottish citizenship would be equally available/imposed on
1/ People born in Scotland who moved to England years ago, some as babies. (Yvette Cooper)
2/ People who emigrated to other countries. (Billy Connolly)
3/ People long time but temporarily resident in Scotland. (Bankers and Managers employed by British companies transferred to Scotland, military personnel)
4/ People with a single Scottish grandparent.
As well as Scottish born residents of Scotland and other British citizens resident in Scotland.
How is the rUK government going to differentiate between all those different classes. Although my passport shows my place of birth, if I, say, travelled to Ireland by Ferry (no passport needed) and entered using my passport on a Dublin-Heathrow flight, how would the Border Force determine I was eligible or not for entry and residence?
We have read the White Paper, Lyonessite, but I can only think that . You, fairly obviously, have not. It includes a draft Constitution for Scotland which has this to say about citizenship:
"18 Scottish citizenship
(1) The following people automatically hold Scottish citizenship, namely—
(a) all those who, immediately before Independence Day, hold British citizenship and
either—
(i) are habitually resident in Scotland at that time, or
(ii) are not habitually resident in Scotland at that time but were born in
Scotland . . ."
It could not be plainer or clearer. There’s nothing in there about elgibility, or a need to apply, or anything of the kind. The classes of people identified automatically hold Scottish citizenship.
And, have to point out, this import of the first of the paragraphs above is confirmed in the Scotsman report that you yourself linked to, where it says:
“Those who will automatically be considered Scottish citizens are British citizens “habitually resident” in Scotland - including those who have a dual citizenship with another country.”
Again, nothing about eligibility; nothing about application.
As already pointed out, they were not stripped of full British citizenship **because the didn’t have full British citizenship[/p]. British citizenship didn’t exist until 1948, 26 years after the independence of the Irish Free State.
What the Irish had in 1948 was “British subject” status, the equivalent of Commonwealth citizen status. And, when Ireland left the Commonwealth, they were stripped of that status, but could apply to retain it if they could demonstrate some greater connection with the UK other than simply having been born in the territory that became the Irish Free State/Republic of Ireland.
All this has aleady been pointed out before (by me) with references to the relevant legislation.
No one would be forced to apply for a Scottish Passport. Accidental possession of eligibility would nit affect other nationalities.
Even if people were to be seen to have putative Scottish nationality, how would border control be effected- what criteria could be used for current British Passport holders? What about eligibility for British citizenship by parentage?