Bullshit. Every Irish citizen born before 1948 is still eligible for full Brotish nationality. Jus solis.
It would be perfectly legal, provided the UK government secured the passage of the necessary legislation.
It wouldn’t be very likely, though.
But, as already pointed out, in less improbable circumstances the UK government has done precisely this. When UK sovereign territory ceases to be UK sovereign territory - and you’ll appreciate that this has happened a lot over the past 70 years or so - people who have UK citizenship by virtue of their connection with that territory have routinely been stripped of their UK citizenship and conferred with a different citizenship instead. The UK legislation which provides for the independence of the territory concerned deals with this as a consequential matter. Typically it provides for affected citizens to apply to retain UK citizenship (along with their new citizenship, not instead of it) if they have a sufficient connection with the UK, independent of their connection with this particular territory.
Lyonessite swings between denying that this has happened or can happen, becuase it would be illegal and/or a breach of the Convention against Statelessness, and saying that, well, in any event, it wouldn’t happen in Scotland. On the latter point, as a matter of political judgment, he might be right, but we can’t be sure, since the UK goverment hasn’t said what it would propose in this circumstance. But as to whether it can lawfully be done, whether it’s forbidden by the Convention against Statelessness, there’s absolutely no debate to be had; it can be done, and it has long been the standard way of doing thing in the UK.
British Nationalty Act 1948
Citizenship by registration
6Registration of citizens of countries mentioned in s. 1 (3) or of Eire and wives of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies
(1)Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, a citizen of any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act or a citizen of Eire, being a person of full age and capacity, shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he satisfies the Secretary of State either—
(a)that he is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and has been so resident throughout the period of twelve months, or such shorter period as the Secretary of State may in the special circumstances of any particular case accept, immediately preceding his application ; or
(b)that he is in Crown service under His Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom.
So any Irish person born before 1948 has to merely live in the UK for twelve months to acquire full British citizenship.
Please explain how people will be sorted into British citizens and not British citizens despite there being no difference in their passports.
The super paradox that explodes the naysayers case is this:
Assume that Westminster intends to deny British citizenship to people eligoble for Scottish citizenship. All persons with British Passports would have to fill in a form to confirm they were not Scottish citizens.
Unfortunately mant people born in Scotland are essentially English- Iain Duncan Smith, Yvette Cooper. What is to be done with them? Many others live abroad and have British nationality- are they to be stripped of their passports? Other eople are accidntally resident in Scotland though not born there. Are theu to lose their assports?
Having sorted all of that out and divided people into full British and Scottish- MOST OF THEM WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRITISH CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE OF THEIR PARENTS’ PLACE OF BIRTH!!!
Analagous questions have arisen in all the many previous cases where people have lost British nationality when the territory they are connected with became independent, so we know these problems are not insoluble.
On the specific question that you ask, the UK government doesn’t need to differentiate between all those different classes. As far as the UK governement is concerned, there are only three groups.
-
British citizens who acquire Scottish citizenship on independence day and who, under the UK’s legislation dealing with independence lose British citizens (assuming, of course, that the UK legislation does provide for this).
-
British citizens who are naturalised in Scotland at some point after independence day. (This includes those who apply for Scottish citizenship on the basis of, e.g., a Scottish-born parent.)
-
Non-British citizens who acquire Scottish citizenship (by birth, descent or naturalisation) after independence day.
Group 3 isn’t a problem because, of course, they’re not British citizens. Group 2 isn’t a problem, because they are British citizens.
Group 1 requires the UK government to be able to identify British citizens who have been “deregistered”. They’ll consist of two groups:
-
Those born in Scotland. Easily identified, because their UK passports will state their place of birth. If they present at a port of entry with such a passport they’ll be advised that it’s invalid, but admitted as Scots citizens and advised to apply to the Scottish authorities for a new passport.
-
Those habitually resident in Scotland on independence day. Less easily identified in the short term, since there’ll be no evidence in the passport to show that its invalid (though, in facdt, it would be). In practice they would likely be weeded out when they apply for the renewal of their passports, by the addition of appropriate questions to the passport renewal form. (That, for the record, is how they weeded out applications from habitual residents of the IFS for issue/renewal of British subject passports from the UK government in the 1920s. Depending on their answer to the residence questions, they were directed to apply to the Irish Free State authorities instead.)
I think the question is a bit academic, since my expectation would be that the newly-minted Scots citizens wouldn’t lose British citizenship. But if they did, there are models avialable from the many previous occasions on which this has happened in the past to show how it would be handled administratively.
So Billy Connolly and Alex Ferguson would be refused reentry to the UK And Iain Duncan Smith and Yvette Cooper? And Michael Gove and Tony Blair and Liam Fox?
Or indeed, any Irish citizen born before 1948 can come over and take the Queen’s Shilling.
Now you’re just teasing us.
And then there are the near 500,000 English born Scottish residents. Are they to be stripped of their citizenship. This includes service personnel, civil servants, bankers, as well as many NHS doctors, nurses and ther allied professions.
No. UDS is saying that people with Scottish citizenship would lose theor Britisj passports. Anyone born in Scotland will have Scottish Nationality.
Not to mention amyone wth a single Scottish grandparent.
No. Past precedent suggests that people who have settled in territory which remains British sovereign territory retain their British citizenship.
Whatever about the British being less prone to removing people’s British nationality than they were in the past, nobody has suggested that they will be more prone to doing so.
So English born Scots would retain their passports.
Now about So Billy Connolly, Alex Ferguson, Iain Duncan Smith, Yvette Cooper, Michael Gove, Tony Blair and Liam Fox? All Scottsh born and so Scottish citzens…
Are you suggesting that Scotland “remains British sovereign territory”?
No, they aren’t. I have already referred you to the legislation which covers this.
Don’t bother repeating this claim without a link to a provision of UK legislation conferring British citizenship on people born before 1948 in the territory of the Republic of Ireland.
No, I’m not. I’m saying that, if past precedents are followed, people born in Scotland who, at Scottish independence, are settled in rump UK - like Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove and Tony Blair and Liam Fox - will be able to retain British citizenship by virtue of their connection with rump UK.
On the basis of the draft legislation published by the Scottish government in connection with indyref #2, they would automatically be Scottish citizens. On the basis of the past precedents, they could opt to retain their British citizenship and, if they did so, they would be dual citizens.
On the basis of the past precedents, the new citizenship would be automatic, but retention of the old is something the would have to affirmatively opt or apply for.
UDS, did you not have this exact same discussion last time, almost verbatim?
With a “different” poster?
Here for instance.
OK. Billy Connollly and Sean Connery- neither have lived in the UK for decades,what is your excuse for them?
And then again, how long ago would people born in Scotland, resident in Scotland at indendence, but long tome resident in England, have to have lived in England for to be able to retain their British connection? And how much time would they have to have resided again in Scotland for them to lose it?
Please itemise your criteria.
And how about people born in Scotland, long time resident in England, later moving outwith the UK, lose their British connection?
Ditto!
And how about the general right for ANY petson with a British parent at the time of birth to claim British citizenship?
There is no coherent way to divide sheep from goats!
Suppose I born in Scotland, living in Corby for thirty years after the Scottish steel industry collapsed, moved back to Scotland to retire. Would I then lose my Brotish citizenship despite spending half my life in England?
If I did lose my citizenship, surely I would be eligible for Britisj citizenship by two routes as I have Irish nationality through my mother and my father was British at the time of my birth. So I would be eligible twice to claim British citizenship.
Complicated isn’t it?
Fortunately, it is not for me to excuse either of them. They can excuse themselves.
Whether they could retain British citizenship would depend on their personal circumstances (and, of course, on the precise terms of the legislation that Westminster would pass). Connery served in the Royal Navy, though I don’t know for how long. If long enough, this would have qualified him under the terms of independence legislation previously enacted by Westminster. In the 1950s I think he lived in London but, again, I don’t know for how long.
(Connery is a long-standing member of the Scottish National Party, and quite possibly wouldn’t seek British Citizenship.)
Billy Connolly is married to Pamela Stephenson who, I think, is a British Citizen (by naturalisation); that would get him in. He lived in England in the 1980s - in Windsor, no less - and, again, if he lived there for long enough, that would qualify him.
I don’t have to “itemise my criteria”; the criteria will be as itemised by Westminster in the legislation they will pass to provide for Scottish independence.
Can they itemise specific, workable criteria? For determining who will lose British Citizenship and who will not? Yes, they can; the have done so many times in the past.
They’re obviously not bound to follow precedents, and I’ve already said I don’t think they would, but precedents are relevant to prove that the exercise is at least possible and practicable.
Take, for example, the Jamaica Independence Act 1962. You can guess from the title what the main purpose of this Act was. It dealt with citizenship as follows.
- The general rule: a British citizen would cease to be such if:
(a) by Jamaican law he became a Jamaican citizen on independence day (and, to save a quibble, Jamaican law conferred citizenship automatically, not only on those who sought it); and
(b) he was born in Jamaica, or his father was, or his paternal grandfather was.
- A person caught by that rule would nevertheless not lose British citizenship if:
(a) he was born in British territory other than Jamaica; or
(b) he held his UK citizenship by naturalisation or registration (rather than by virtue of birth in Jamaica, or by having a father born in Jamaica); or
(c) in th case of a woman, if she was married to a British Citizen who is not himself affected by rule no. 1.
Obviously, if that were to be taken as the model for the Scottish legislation, the first thing you’d do is remove the gendered elements.
You’d also have to consider whether to create a further exception to cover people living in the UK. Back in '62, Jamaican citizenship (as a Commonwealth citizenship) gave you a right of abode in the UK, and when that automatic right was later withdrawn there was a grandfathering provision to cover Jamaicans already settled in the UK. In the present context Westminster would have to consider whether to “save” the British citizenship of Scots citizens resident in rump UK or to confer a right of abode on all Scots citizens (or both).
Of course, Westminster could equally decide to preserve the British citizenship of all newly-minted Scots citizens, but their descendants born after independence would be subject to the usual rules about acquiring citizenship by descent. This, I suspect, is what they would do.
But it’s not what they must do. Your claims that removing British nationality would contravene the Convention against Statelessness are baseless, and your suggestion that its impractical or impossible is refuted by the fact that it has been done many times before. In fact, the novelty would be for the UK to grant independence to a territory while preserving the British citizenship of all its denizens. In a century of granting independnece to a variety of colonies, protectorates and chunks of the UK itself, they’ve never done that before.