I have provided a citation for the Convention the UK has signed which stops it making people stateless.
You have provded no citations for your opinions.
This conversation is now over until you provide support for your opinions.
That is the aim in Ireland.
Such things are cumulative. Last time we moved the polls from 32% to 45% in two years. This campaign will last nearly that long at least and opinion is malleable.
Interesting analysis from the Telegraph
If Nicola Sturgeon gets her way, and Scotland holds a second referendum on independence before the UK leaves the EU, Theresa May will be forced to do the following.
On the one hand, she will have to warn voters that to walk out on a longstanding union with their country’s most important trading partners would be an act of economic self-harm. In fact, it would be a disaster. Anyone who tells them otherwise, the Prime Minister must argue, is not living in the real world.
On the other hand, she will simultaneously have to reassure voters that to walk out on a longstanding union with their country’s most important trading partners will not be an act of economic self-harm. In fact, it will be a success. Anyone who tells them otherwise, the Prime Minister must argue, is engaged in baseless scaremongering.
I am reminded of this quote from Good Omens:
[QUOTE=Terry Pratchett]
Even the pious Scots, locked throughout history in a long-drawn-out battle with their arch-enemies the Scots, managed a few burnings to while away the long winter evenings.
[/QUOTE]
Carry on.
A second referendum depends upon permission from Westminster, which has just been denied.
Hey hey hey, it’s flashback time. Good to see the old gang back together! Two more years of this to go, heh. Also, hiya Pjen, if you are still reading the boards. Hope you are well.
As pointed out above, no news outlet has said totally denied, merely delayed until after Brexit. May has said she will make a statement after receiving the request from Holyrood next week.
No it hasn’t. The Scottish parliament hasn’t even approved the request yet. Show your work, Quartz.
Since the Brexit vote, you can no longer rely upon people voting for their self interest any more. People are quite willing to self-harm in pursuit of fantasy.
Nope. The Scottish Parliament has not yet approved a request under Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 for an Order in Council that will allow for a variation that in turn will allow a referendum (that’s the legislative path that was followed last time)
Therefore, it cannot have been denied due to the fact it hasn’t happened yet. We’ll see what happens once the request is made.
Well, for what it’s worth, in the past when the UK granted independence to territories whose inhabitants were UK citizens the model was:
-
The inhabitants of the territory concerned, or those of them who were born there, were all granted citizenship of the newly-independent state. They didn’t have to apply for it. There was therefore no question of anybody becoming stateless.
-
They also lost UK citizenship, unless they could satisfy some criterion given them a closer link to the UK than simply having been borne in the newly independent territory when such birth automatically conferred UK citizenship.
-
Typically, for example, if you had a father or paternal grandfather born in the UK, you could retain UK citizenship. Or, if you yourself had settled in the UK for at least five years. That kind of thing. But if you didn’t meet such criteria, you lost UK citzenship and instead became a citizen of, e.g., Jamaica.
If this model (updated to remove sexist elements) was applied rigorously to Scotland, then UK citizens resident in Scotland on independence day would become Scots citizens, and could retain UK citizenship if they had a parent or grandparent born in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. (UK citizens born in Scotland but resident in rump UK on independence day would also retain UK citizenship, of course. Whether they would be conferred with, or could apply for, Scots citizenship would be a matter for Scotland, but I’m guessing “yes”.)
I doubt, in fact, that it would be applied quite so rigorously. In all likelihood, all UK citizens resident in Scotland on independence day will be granted Scots citizenship, without the need for application, and will also retain their UK citizenship. But their descendents born outside rump UK after independence would be subject to the same rules (as regards acquisition of UK citizenship) as any other descendent of a UK citizen born abroad.
if by “self-interest” you mean economic or financial self-interest, when it comes to things like national independence there’s nothing new about this. Germany and Italy didn’t unite in the nineteenth century, and Hungary didn’t seek autonomy from Austria, and Ireland didn’t leave the UK in the early twentieth century, primary because they thought this would make them richer. In each case no doubt they hoped it would, but this is ultimately about national autonomy and solidarity than it is about money.
Ireland!
The UK Government cannot ‘grant’ '‘Scottish Citizenship’. That is in the gift of the successor state. The Scottish Government has said that such citizenship would be ‘available’ to every person resident in Scotland on Independence and to every person born in Scotland or having a Scottish grandparent. Anyone not taking up such citizenship would not be a Scottish citizen. If a person with UK citizenship declined the Scottish offer, UK citizenship could not be removed as this would make them stateless and that is against the UN convention the UK is party to.
In reality the Irish model from 1948 is the only possible outcome.
The debate is set for two days next week. Theresa May has said she us inclined to object against any referendum before Brexit is negotiated.
Nicola Sturgeon has said that she expects the convention of the past referendum to be kept to with Holyrood decding the electorate, the date and the question in agreement with the Elecroral Commission.
Should Theresa May seek to act against the convention, it will just stoke the fires.
Where is** Pjen **now I wonder. 
Ireland isn’t a particularly helpful precedent here. In 1922 there was a uniform “British subject” status that covered the denizens of all British possessions, including the Dominions. Ireland - or, at least, the Free State - moved from being a part of the UK to being a Dominion, but that had no implications for the British Subject status of Irish people at that time. The only difference was that, instead of applying to the Foreign Office in London for a passport issued by the UK government identifying them as British subjects, Irish denizens thereafter applied to the Irish authorities who would issue them with a passport identifying them as a British subject (and as a Citizen of the Irish Free State).
The last time round, for indyref 1, the Scottish government published a draft constitution for an independent Scotland which provided citizenship for every British citizen who, on independence day, was habitually resident in Scotland, or had been born in Scotland. This was automatic; there was to be no necessity for the individual concerned to apply.
if they’re proposing something different this time, I haven’t seen that. Can you link to your source on this? It would surprise me if they were saying that Scottish citizenship will be “available” on different terms than were intended last time round.
Whether the UK government would withdraw British citizenship from some or all of the people becoming Scottish citizens under such a provision I rather doubt. But they did that in the past, with respect to similar provisions respecting colonies becoming independent, and they certainly wouldn’t violate the Convention Against Statelessness by doing so, since no-one upon whom Scottish Citizenship was conferred could be considered “stateless”.
I don’t think “the Irish model from 1948” worked as you think.
As already stated, in 1922 there was a single uniform status of “British Subject” which covered all the denizens of all British possessions, including the Dominions.
But in 1948 this ceased to be true. The single status was divided into distinct national citizenships - Canadian Citizens, Australian Citizens, New Zealand Citizens, etc. There was a single status to cover Citizens of the UK and its colonies (called, unsurprisingly, “Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies”). The umbrella term to cover all these various citizenships was “Commonwealth Citizen” or “British subject”.
It was known at the time that Ireland was going to leave the British Commonwealth, and when that happened Irish citizenship would no longer be a Commonwealth citizenship. Irish citizens would then cease to be Commonwealth citizens/British subjects. Section 2 of the British Nationality Act 1948 allowed Irish citizens who had been British subjects up to that point to apply to retain or recover that status, if they satisfied certain conditions - they had to have been in British government service, or hold a passport issued by the UK government or another Commonwealth government (which they would only have if they resided in the UK or another Commonwealth country), or they had to have associations by way of descent, residence or otherwise with the UK or another Commonwealth territory.
So, first, this wasn’t a universal right for all Irish citizens. In practice it covered many of those alive in 1948, but it wasn’t automatic or universal for them. (And of course it didn’t apply at all to anyone born after 1948.)
But, more to the point, it wasn’t a right to UK citizenship. It only conferred British subject status, which gave Irish citizens the same status within the UK as Canadian citizens, Australian citizens and other Commonwealth citizens, etc. Which, in 1948, was quite a useful status in the UK as regards rights of entry, rights of abode, etc. Nowadays, not so much.
So, if you’re taking the arrangements made for Ireland in 1948 as your model, they don’t give you that much. They’d have the result that, if Scotland didn’t join the Commonwealth, Scottish citizens with links to rump UK would be able to apply to get the same rights in rump UK as, say, Jamaican citizens or New Zealand citizens or other Commonwealth citizens. If Scotland did join the Commonwealth, then it wouldn’t seem to me that a 1948-style provision would have any effect at all, since Scottish citizens would already be regarded as Commonwealth citizens by virtue of Scotland’s membership of the Commonwealth.
A separate provision enacted in the UK the following year says, in effect, that the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country and that Irish citizens in the UK (whether or not British subjects, and whether born before or after 1948) are not regarded as foreigners or aliens. The UK could enact a similar provision with respect to an independent Scotland. That would be useful, but only internally within rump UK. It wouldn’t be at all the same thing as the grant of British citizenship; it wouldn’t carry any right to a passport, and outside the rump UK it would have no significance or effect.
Im not so sure that this is true with regards to Scottish independence. I said earlier though that after 2016 anything is possible. However, modern Scottish nationalism is a strange mixture of nationalism and social democracy. Without oil money the social democracy driver of Scottish nationalism is basically dead. I am quietly confident that Indyref2 will repeat the 2014 results but this time with a slightly higher No vote.
It seems strange that denial of citizenship was not used by Project Fear in 2014. They threatened everything else! There is no suggestion from competent sources that any petson or body has suggesyed that citizenship would be withdrawn after Independence- unless you can provide a cite.
There is also the problem that if such people were excluded, they would still have the right to claim Brrtish citizenship because of their parentage by other British citizens- any person no matter where they were born is eligible to become a British citizen with full residence rights just by parents. Very few Scots do not have parents who were not British citizens.
I am at this point bailing on this particular debate until a supportive cite is provided by someone. I have provided the reference to the UN Convention to which we are party that stops us creating stateless persons.