Lord Baker, conservative and Gisela Stuart, labour both urging a grand coalition
Imagine how that will play in Scotland- two English parties cooperating to exclude almost all Scottish MPs.
Remember the law of unintended consequences.
Also,the BBC admits that there could be problems holding a debate without Cameron, unless they give him equal time elsewhere.
"And to complicate matters further the one-on-one contest would have to comply with the broadcasters’ own rules on fairness and balance - perhaps the basis of a challenge from Number 10. "
I just posted that link.
Imagine how a minority Scottish party attempting to control all of UK politics will play in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Remember the law of unintended consequences, and remember that any and all devolution and/or independence is in the gift of the UK Parliament
What, exactly, do you think Scotland could do if the UK basically says “we’ve had enough of your shit”?
Indeed, but it only has the potential to be an issue if enough numbers took advantage of it by moving to an EU country outside the (putatively former) UK. The same consideration already applies to those who retain British citizenship but normally live in a Commonwealth country, or those Americans chasing up details of their Irish ancestors to get hold of an EU country’s passport: no complaints from anywhere else in the EU so far, I think.
But I grant that it could well be a handle for complicating negotiations, if another member state wanted to do so in order to get concessions for itself on some other matter: another example of the SNP taking too much for granted on EU matters.
We’re also talking about the debates, but the Scottish Question is probably the biggest issue in play this election, along with how a stable coalition can be formed.
If there’s anything else you think is relevant, please bring it up. But it looks extremely clear that the SNP, and others reactions to them, are going to significantly shape the next Government.
And making assumptions about continuing citizenship. There’s at least a possibility that in a couple of years, British citizenship won’t count as EU citizenship if we do leave, and there’s no actual rule that someone who takes Scottish citizenship has to be allowed to retain British citizenship. Both of those are unlikely outcomes, but neither are unthinkable - despite what Pjen and the SNP claim.
The most obvious solution would be expedited EU membership for Scotland, but that could prove politically tricky on several levels. Not least the fact that Scotland will have no history of managing a currency, and the situation in Greece could make some countries wary of that, but more importantly the strong possibility that Spain will not accept a seceded country into the EU so as not to encourage its own secessionists.
Quite. The ghost of Ramsay Mac might still be invoked on the Labour side, and the Tories’ heads might explode if they were to have to be the junior partner.
The demand for a further referendum would become unstoppable. The Scottish people would vote for it. The Unionists would have broken the Union.
The majority of Scots want Home Rule, not independence- that is what the opinion polls show.
Unionists have the whip hand over whether Scotland ends up with Home Rule or Independence. The status quo is not an option.
Statesmen would be seeking a completely new constitutional settlement rather than retreating into an English bunker.
Spain has found little problem in the real world with Balkan states that seceded from Yugoslavia.
Scotland would have associate status with access to the single market at least, and its citizens would be European citizens for many years due to the basis of the Rottman ruling.
It is a amazing how flexible realpolitik is.
Yes, actually it is. That’s what you and the SNP need to understand. So is rolling back devolution.
They may not be sensible options, but they are entirely possible, entirely legal, and entirely dependant on the will of the UK Parliament.
Again I’ll ask, what could Scotland do if the UK ignores its “requests”?
My point is that Scots will have access to the EU as citizens even if their country is not formally an EU member country.
The first is an assumption, although a pretty good one - but it’s not certain.
The Rottman ruling has no bearing whatsoever on this issue, as you were so clearly shown in at least one other thread, with the assumption that people would be allowed to choose whether to stay British or become Scottish, but not both.
There is no law preventing people choosing to surrender their EU citizenship.
Again, this is unlikely to be an issue unless the Scots press it too hard, but like everything else it will be in the hands of the UK government, not any other.
There is a difference between exact legality and political reality.
Given that the Edinburgh agreement (an act of the Prime Minister acting for the Queen by using the royal prerogative by an order in Council) has agreed that the future of Scotland is a matter for the Scottish people, it would be difficult to oppose a future demand for a referendum without being seen as operating out with the protocol associated with the royal prerogative.
What could happen if Westminster stonewalled- anything from civil disobedience and peaceful insurrection, to Ireland 1917.
No sensible government would risk that.
The British will have access to the EU, the Scots will not. That’s the point you fail to grasp, for some reason.
It’s just another part of the Scottish “independence” nonsense - wanting all the benefits of being British without any of the responsibilities.
No shit. That’s why I’ve repeatedly said that they would not be sensible options.
Except that the Scottish people chose to remain in the Union, and the matter is settled. So any agitating for a further referendum on the part of the Scots is them ignoring the agreement, not the UK.
And the threat of terrorism appears, and the true colours are shown.
Scotland, unlike Ireland ever was, is a full and equal partner in the UK, and any use of force to leave would be utterly unacceptable. Just as your hero Lincoln thought.
You refuse to read the assumptions on which the Rottman ruling was based. As a point of law, EU citizenship was considered immutable once granted. The case failed because although he had been stripped of Austrian citizenship, he still retained his EU citizenship by virtue of his German nationality.
The other point that is being missed is the UK’s potential relationship with Europe after any possible secession. In order to access the single market, Europe would require agreement to all EU regulations including free movement. Switzerland and Norway have to allow EU citizens to work freely in their country and Swiss and Norwegian citizens have the right to live and work in Europe. The same will apply to whatever accommodation is reached for Ireland.
Similarly, residents of the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands are able to work in Europe as they are European citizens via their full British nationality, yet their islands are not part of the EU. The same applies to the Canary Islands which are outside the EU, but whose residents are EU citizens via their Spanish passports.
Note the flexibility which is part of the real world rather than the formality which you so often cling to.
I am talking likelihood rather than supporting it. If you has any experience of living in Scotland you might understand it. I did not appreciate the cultural separateness and displeasure of the Scots about their treatment by Westminster until I moved here.
It is simplistic to see Scots as divided purely into Unionists and Separatists. I know many people who are outwardly ‘British’, often ex-service and who support Britain on the surface, yet scratch the surface and they are resentful about the power of Westminster. These are some of the people who have moved en masse to become SNP voters.
If Westminster starts making efforts to isolate Scotland or to avoid further devolution, expect Scottish nationalism to flourish.
As I say, the future of the Union is entirely in Unionist hands, but only in a strange and negative manner. The more Unionist their statements and actions, the more it will encourage separation.
All current Scots are British and will remain so as with every other separation including Ireland.
Just think about it. Scotland secedes from the UK. The brothers of the McIntosh family have the following history:
Their father was born in Scotland, he married twice, once to a woman born in Scotland and once to a woman born in England.
Albert had a Scottish mother and was born in Scotland, in 2025 he is resident in Scotland
Richard had a Scottish mother and was born in Scotland, in 2025 he is resident in England
Joseph had a Scottish mother and was born in England, in 2025 he is resident in Scotland
Iain had a Scottish mother and was born in England, in 2025 he is resident in England.
Paul had an English mother and was born in England, in 2025 he is resident in England
Philip had an English mother and was born in England, in 2025 he is resident in Scotland
George had an English mother and was born in Scotland, in 2025 he is resident in England
Harry had an English mother and was born in Scotland, in 2025 he is resident in Scotland.
In 2020 Scotland seceded from the UK.
Which of them is eligible to enter Europe as a European and British citizen- they all have full British passports.
No. The Edinburgh agreement was about the last referendum, but it admitted that Independence is for the Scottish people alone to decide.
Losing an election or referendum does not close a question, just answer it for a time.
It was hoped that it would settle it for a generation. The current attitude of the Scottish people shown by direct questioning and their 2015 voting intentions militate against that argument.
The stronger the Unionist rhetoric and actions, the more nationalism will become the fixed centre of Scottish discourse.
It will take great statesmanship to maintain the Union. None is currently apparent.
If they choose to remain British citizens, all of them. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, I’m only talking about people who voluntarily give up their British citizenship. As no-one would be stripped of it, Rottman doesn’t apply - the EU can’t force people to remain EU citizens against their will.
However, if the parents take Scottish citizenship and give up British, any children born outside the UK after that point would not be British - which is my point. And both Britain and Scotland would be within their rights to say a person cannot hold both citizenships.
That’s extremely unlikely to happen, but there’s nothing that makes it impossible, if the relationship after independence deteriorates massively.