And my subsequent post about eligibility for Brtish citizenship byarentage
That gives the game away. Scotland becoming independent is notScotland ‘being granted independence’. It is a separation of two nominally equal kingdoms. Scotland was never an English colony in the way that Dominions and colonies, and even Wales and Ireland were.
The Great Britain as a unitary sovereign state was created out of two previous sovereign states, Emgland and Scotland.
No wonder you are making so many mistakes!
I don’t see why this is relevant. In British constitutional theory Scottish independence will be the creation of the Westminster Parliament, just as e.g. Jamaican independence was.
There’ll be an Act of Parliament of the UK providing that the UK Parliament can no longer legislate for Scotland and making all the associated consequential provisions, including changes to British citizenship law. And there’ll be legislation of the Scottish Parliament asserting its unrestricted right to legislation for Scotland, adopting a (probably provisional) Scottish constitution, and making the appropriate consequential changes to Scots law, including law dealing with Scots citizenship.
Sure, Scotland isn’t a colony but, then, neither was Ireland. You keep banging on about this as though it was some great insight that nobody before you has ever had, but you fail to join the dots and say why it has the implications for British citizenship law that you seem to think it does.
If Irish people weren’t entitled to British citizenship despite being born in Ireland when it was an integral part of the United Kingdom - and, despite your assertion, they never were - I can’t see why you imagine Scottish people would be.
Thetesa May is now briefing that she will not countenance a further referendum until Nicola Sturgeon has ‘proved’ her mandate for a referendum , despite it being in the 2015 election manifesto:
“We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”
May believes that is not enough!
However, there is a cunning plan:
1/ Sturgeon steps down as First Minister.
2/ In agreement with the Greens, no First Minister is elected in her place.
3/ The Scotland Act requires that in such a case a general election to Holyrood is necessary and happens automatically.
4/ Greens and SNP campaign on the single issue of ‘who should decide the future of Scotland, Westminster or Holyrood?’
5/ New government has required mandate.
Thus forcing Westminster’s hand.
No decision will be taken until we see the results of the Local elections in May where the SNP is predicted to rout Labour from its remaining councils.
Ireland was most certainly a colony as was Wales. Scotland entered a union outlined in the joint legislation of two Parliaments. Your Imperial attotude is showing.
Irish people born before 1948 are automatically eligible for full British citizenship if they reside in the UK for a year or accept a job under the Crown- military or otherwise
Well, for that matter the Scottish king was a vassal of the English king at some time before Scotland entered the Union in 1707. So what? The Kingdom (not colony) of Ireland entered the Union in 1801, much as the Kingdom of Scotland had done in 1707. And Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom when the Free State achieved independence, much as Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom now.
You haven’t persuaded me that the constitutional status of Ireland before 1922 was sufficiently different from the constitutional status of Scotland today to require a different approach to citizenship matters in the event of Scottish independence.
Is this a tacit way of admitting that your earlier claim . . .
. . . was false?
And, at the risk of repeating myself, your current claim is still false. Irish citizens born before 1948 who have been in crown service or who have lived in the UK for a year are eligible for British subject status. (British Nationality Act 1981 s.31, if you want the cite.) This is not the same thing as “full British citizenship”; it’s a much less useful status altogether, not least because it doesn’t carry a right of abode in the UK. British citizens themselves do not, except very exceptionally, have British subject status. It’s basically a residual status for people who have a certain connection with Britain but are not citizens of any Commonwealth country (including the UK).
Scotland was never a vassal state in the centieies before union. Possobly for a short perid in the early medieval era.
My claim on jus solis is identical- such people have a right to British CITIZENSHIP by having minimal contact with the UK.
I quote from the Nationality Act 1948
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.
NOW ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOVE.
Unanswered questions:
Please explain how people will be sorted into British citizens and not British citizens despite there being no difference in their passports.
How would border control interpret passports to differentiate between Brits and Cots?
The super paradox that explodes the naysayers case is this:
Assume that Westminster intends to deny British citizenship to people eligible 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!!!
You do realise that the British Nationality Act 1948 was repealed more than 35 years ago, don’t you?
When it was enacted, back in 1948, it put Irish citizens on the same footing, as regards becoming British citizens, as citizens of “the countries mentioned in s.1(3)”. And, if you look at s.1(3), you’ll find that it’s a list of all the independent members of the Commonwealth in 1948.
So, your belief that the 1948 Act gave Irish citizens a status derived from the fact that Ireland was formerly a part of the UK is mistaken. The status it gave them was the same status given to citizens of India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia, Australia, Ceylon, Newfoundland and other territories which have never been part of the UK. Basically, it gave Irish citizens the right to become British citizens on the same terms and conditions as citizens of other Commonwealth countries, even though Ireland was leaving the Commonwealth.
You can see how that would play out if applied to an indpendent Scotland. It would put a Scot in the same position as regards acquiring British citizenship as, say, a Malaysian or a Barbadian.
I don’t think they’ll be using this as a model, somehow.
There’s a fundamental misconception here. Your citizenship isn’t determined by what passport you hold. Rather, what passport you’re entitled to is determined by what citizenship you hold.
So, post-independence people would be sorted into British citizens and not British citizens on the same basis as they are today. Are they entitled to British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended? If so, they’re British citizens (and they can apply for and get a British passport). If not, not. Simples.
I realise there’s a practical transitional issue. What if someobody presents at the border with a British passport issued, say, 2 years before independence, and still apparently current? Such a person could now be a Scottish citizen rather than a British citizen. This isn’t a problem if, in fact, Scottish citizens were to have a right of entry into the UK, which I strongly suspect would be the case. Even if, long-term, the plan was for Scottish citizens not to have such a right, they could be given it for a transitional period, long enough that all British existing passports would have expired by the end of it.
Well, as pointed out, if Scots are given a right of entry into the UK (and vice versa) you don’t need to differentiate between them at the border.
I must say you have a very primitive notion of what amounts to a “super paradox”, Lyonessite.
The rules about British citizenship have changed before, many times, so these are not novel problems. When you apply to obtain or renew a British passport, you fill out a form of depressing length, from the answers to which the passport officials can work out whether you are a British Citizen (or a British Overseas Territories Citizen, or a British Overseas Citizen, or a British Protected Person, or a British Subject - UK nationality law is very nuanced). If the rules have changed since you were last issued with a passport, there’s no assumption that the status you held then is the status you hold now; the question is examined afresh. You’re then issued with a passport (or refused any kind of passport) according to the current state of UK nationality law.
This approach obviously has the consequence that, during a transitional period, someone might have a passport which looks valid, but which they couldn’t get if they applied for it today. This isn’t necessarily a problem at the border, if the passport they could get would allow them to enter the UK in any case, which is often the situation. Indeed, the problem is sometimes dealt with by given the people concerned a transitional right to enter the UK.
This approach is helped by the fact that nationality law and migration law have always been separate things in the UK. There are classes of British national who have no right to enter the UK, and there are other classes who have a right of entry, but no right of abode. Such is the legacy of empire. I think the Scots case would actually be a relativel simple one, since it would be perfectly politically acceptable (and I think politically desirable) to give Scots citizens a right of entry to the UK regardless of whether they also held British citizenship. Which would mean that, at the border, the question of whether they held (a) British citizenship only, (b) Scots citizenship only or (c) both would be of no importance.
So, super paradox resolved, then.
At least have the good grace to admit you were wrong. The 1948 act gave BRITISH CITIZENSHIP, (not British Subject status as you claimed) to the Irish.
Not resolved at all.
UDS. Your style corrupts rational argument. I do not intend to continue this conversation with you.
No. It didn’t give the Irish British citizenship. It gave them the same status, as regards becoming British citizens, as citizens of India, Ceylon, Newfoundland and other Commonwealth countries. In effect, it gave the Irish Commonwealth citizen status (for this purpose).
If you maintain that the 1948 Act give the Irish British citizenship, then you must also believe that it gave the Ceylonese, the Pakistanis, the Newfoundlanders, etc British citizenship. And I think this would come as a great surprise to everyone concerned, since the whole point of the 1948 Act was to divide what had, up to that point, been a uniform undifferentiated status into separate, distinct national citizenships.
You’ve said that before, but you keep posting.
But the truth is that you’ve never really participated in this conversation with me. You’ve ignored the cites I’ve offered, you’ve failed to engage with objections to your own position, you have repeated claims that have already been debunked with addressing the debunk. None of your initial claims have stood up to analysis, but you haven’t acknowledged this at any point. It’s apparently only other people who are expected “to have the good grace to admit” when they are wrong.
I don’t think it’s me that’s corrupting rational argument, Lyonessite.
You not having deja vu yet UDS?
Oh, yes, muchly. In fact I was having deja vu on page 1, and now I’m having deja vu of my deja vu.
I guess that’s one thing we’ll never know, Robin.
Not to change the subject*, but what are people’s impressions of the refrendum two-step Sturgeon and May are engaged in?
My initial take above was that refusing the referendum at Westminster was a bad idea (even if just on the timing) because it plays into the fundamental narrative of the independence. Then I started to wonder if maybe Sturgeon had over played her hand. For two reasons:
-
The idea that a referendum in autumn 2018 will give enough time for Scotland to avoid the consequences of Brexit is plainly nonsense as things stand - May will submit notification in the next two weeks, meaning the 2 year deadline will expire in March 2019. There’s no way Scotland won’t be part of the UK at that point - or for the next year afterwards.
-
The majority of Scots don’t want a referendum now.
However, on 2) I read a very insightful blogby Professor John Curtice pointing out that a fairly big chunk of this “no referendum now” majority is Yes voters who only want to wait because they don’t think they’ll win now. They’re not philosophically opposed to IndyRef2, they just want to wait till the odds are on their side.
So any gamble that more Scots will be annoyed with Sturgeon for calling hte referendum than with May for delaying it is a pretty precarious one.
On 1), however incoherent the idea that Scotland has an opportunity to duck out of Brexit in the next couple of years, that still pales into insignificance against the symbolism of May being perceived as telling the Scots to shut up.
Stephen Bush of the New Statesman is typically astute here:
*lol jk absolutely to change the subject. Thank me later.
Agree generally. This was a case of Brer Rabbit- whatever you do,lease don’t throw me in the briar patch.
Nicola has got exactly what she wanted!
May has taken a sucker punch.
Today May is shouting her Anglocentric view of Britain in Cardiff, the wicked witch who said no, and what is Nicola doing? Being the sweet voice of reason, offering conciliatory talks to May.
Nicola has played a blinder. May walked into an elephant trap.
The issue is that I think Sturgeon and the Press is mistaking policy for tactics. Put simply considering what a major shit show Brexit has turned out to be, I would guess that May and the Whitehall establishment are loath to ever again agree to a referendum on major constitutional change with a simple Yes/No vote, and a simple majority threshold for passage.
The thought goes this way; Referenda are basically the electorate venting; unless its passed by 70-80% of the voters. Arguement that you will push people to being anti EU or anti Union if you deny a vote fail to see that if you allow a vote, you permit the “Yes” or “Leave” groups a lot of oxygen and allow them to hammer on one or two issue which resonate.
There is no downside for May to deny a vote at this point and many to allowing one. It depends on how Ruth Davidson goes, if she pushes for it, May might agree.