You seem to have omitted my last question.
All persons born in Ireland orior to 1948 are STILL eligible for full British Citizenship. Why would Scotland be treated dufferently from Ireland?
Because the Uk does not want to encourage parts of it to leave, and the situation is a bit different, maybe?
I don’t think Ireland is a legal precedent. Automatically assuming that its going to be exactly like it was when Ireland left is probably not wise.
How about thse born in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland who are residemt in Scotland?
What would Westminster do to stop people setting up temporary residence in England before the date of Independence.
The suggestion that any full British Nationality would be withdrawn is laughable, as people would still be eligible to reapply on jus parentis grounds as well as being able to claim jus solis.
Always thought there was something fishy about those two.
But there are international Treaties on Nationality that stop states withdrawing nationality from people and leaving them stateless. As Scottish nationality will not be automatic but will have to be applied for, rUK could not legally withdraw millions of citizenshops making people stateless.
One could not say that the UK was happy about any Irish separation at any time until recently.
It would seem odd that a seventy year old who was born in Cork and never keft there could have a British Passport, but a UK national resident in Kirkaldy on independence day could not!
But it’s the obvious practical political precedent. It simply wasn’t sensible in 1922 to tell people who’d lived in mainland Great Britain (or indeed in Northern Ireland) for ages, or who identified with the Union but lived in the new Free State, that they were no longer British because they originally came from what was now the Free State. The same consideration would inevitably apply in relation to Scotland - it would certainly be unthinkable to leave Scots with a worse deal than people in the Republic (you can see how that would go down among Northern Irish unionists).
The missing factor not being mentioned here is Commonwealth membership, incidentally. The most controversial part of the 1922 Treaty was that the Free State remained part of the Commonwealth and nominally still with George V as head of state. That was a bitter pill for purist Sinn Feiners to accept, but it entitled the Free State’s citizens and residents to move freely to the UK and while there to have the same rights and status (including the vote) as anyone else, which sidestepped any problems over the status of Irish people in the UK and former Unionists in the Free State. Ireland’s final withdrawal from the Commonwealth and formal declaration of a republic in 1948 produced that cut-off date for getting British citizenship for those who would otherwise be Irish citizens, but the common travel area and right to vote in the UK if resident there remained and still do. Commonwealth country citizens resident in the UK still have the right to vote here, which would inevitably apply to citizens of a Scotland independent within the Commonwealth.
Regardless of the legalities of citizenship, there is something deeply unattractive about a vision of independence that envisages a steady flow of Scots south to freeload on rUK’s benefits and health services.
“Enough of this servile second-class existence under the Westminster jackboot! They say we’re too wee, too stupid, too poor to run our own affairs. I say Scotland can stand on its own two feet. I say we can run our own affairs without interference. Are we not a wealthy country? Are we not a strong country? Do we not deserve freedom? Also, if the going gets tough you can always wheel granny down to Carlisle for a new hip, and sign on when you’re down there too. Technically, they can’t stop us.”
As a vision of an independent nation, it’s hardly inspiring.
Excellent. A reasonable assessment. When it comes to internecine politics there is no limit to the irrational and lunatic arguments put forward by people who want to punish the seceding country.
I did not say that it would happen or would be planned. I did say that any separation agreement would need to leave Scotland with sufficient assets to survive as an Independent nation because rUK could not countenance an impoverished failed state to its north.
Such a settlement would involve a fair allocation of armed forces, state property and so on, and probably access to the shared currency. Not to mention a special subvention while Faslane is relocated.
Because they wouldn’t then be eligible to vote in Scotland for their precious independence ?
And it would be mighty demented for loony Scots patriots to rat across the border in order to retain the citizenship of the hated oppressor.
Who’s to say they would still be in the Commonwealth ? Which is well past it’s sell-by date anyway.
[QUOTE=PatrickLondon]
But it’s the obvious practical political precedent. It simply wasn’t sensible in 1922 to tell people who’d lived in mainland Great Britain (or indeed in Northern Ireland) for ages, or who identified with the Union but lived in the new Free State, that they were no longer British because they originally came from what was now the Free State. The same consideration would inevitably apply in relation to Scotland - it would certainly be unthinkable to leave Scots with a worse deal than people in the Republic (you can see how that would go down among Northern Irish unionists).
The missing factor not being mentioned here is Commonwealth membership, incidentally. The most controversial part of the 1922 Treaty was that the Free State remained part of the Commonwealth and nominally still with George V as head of state. That was a bitter pill for purist Sinn Feiners to accept, but it entitled the Free State’s citizens and residents to move freely to the UK and while there to have the same rights and status (including the vote) as anyone else, which sidestepped any problems over the status of Irish people in the UK and former Unionists in the Free State. Ireland’s final withdrawal from the Commonwealth and formal declaration of a republic in 1948 produced that cut-off date for getting British citizenship for those who would otherwise be Irish citizens, but the common travel area and right to vote in the UK if resident there remained and still do. Commonwealth country citizens resident in the UK still have the right to vote here, which would inevitably apply to citizens of a Scotland independent within the Commonwealth.
[/QUOTE]
But Commonwealth citizens do not have a general right to move to the UK or indeed visit unless they get a [del]Visa[/del] entry clearance.
If Scotland becomes independent, then the rUK basically has to in essence accept Scottish entry policy as being applicable for it, unless they establish checks at the border. If Scotland returns to the EU than the rUK once again has no control over its borders if it extends the Common Travel Area to an independent Scotland unless border checks are setup. Moreover, you cannot compare this with Ireland, that is a physically separate Island of Ireland and controls are reletively easy to setup, not the case here.
That’s basically Ireland post 1922 in a nutshell. It seemed that half of the IRA retired to Swindon.
If there’s any plausibly foreseeable division of assets that would raise a realistic prospect of Scotland becoming an impoverished state and Scots fleeing south, I put it to you that independence is not that great an idea.
The SNP’s big problem last time round was that their White Paper was based on making the most optimistic assumptions. “If everything goes our way this will be fine” isn’t a plan. (cf Brexit.) Show me a White Paper that says “Even if we get less than half of what we want this is still a viable enterprise” and I’m a lot closer to getting on board.
The referendum would be over.
Nearly half a million “Scots” are English born!
Scotland would automatically be in the Commonwealth as one of the Queen’s Realms. The UK does not control the Commonwealth and would have no say about Scotland’s continuing membership.
There is a growing feeling here that it is much more than economics. Cameron was skilled in not pushing buttons, May is stamping on the buttons with her kitten heels. I expect a lurch in the polls if she continues her current insults and intransigence.
What does rUK stand for?
But people with current right to live in the UK have the right go move there. It cannot be easily removed.
We are going to have a porous border with Ireland, so a second one at Gretna/Berwick is little problem. Note that any person gerting across the border to Northern Ireland can continue on without a Passport to the UK.
rumpUK
Once Act of Parliament can do that.
Not without abrogating treaties. May tried it with terrorists and found that we were bound by treaty.
http://www.unhcr.org/uk/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html