Again, a gift of the UK Parliament that can be rescinded at any time.
Not a passive “it was hoped”. Both sides agreed to be bound by a “no” vote for a generation. The lying SNP have broken that agreement.
No, it won’t. All it will take is no action whatsoever, it would require decisive action by the UK parliament to dissolve the Union.
Said parliament may allow a further referendum, and may respect the result, but is under no obligation to. Scotland has no more moral or legal right to decide it’s an independent nation than, say, Wiltshire. Both can gain independence in precisely two ways - the UK Government can make them so, or they can declare independence unilaterally and get enough other countries to recognise them. Simply throwing a tantrum and going “I want! I want!” as the SNP is currently doing should be ignored.
So you agree that any current British citizen on secession of Scotland would retain their full British Nationality and Passport, with the option of passing it on to their children (as was the case with Ireland) and consequently they would retain all the rights of British nationality.
Of course if rUK was stupid enough to withdraw from the EU in a way that denied free access to Europe for British citizens, then the basis of Rottman would come into operation, at least for Scots.
It has nothing to do with Parliament as such constitutional matters are Privy Council issues.
Wiltshire has been part of England for time immemorial.
Scotland was as separate a nation as France only three centuries ago. Wiltshire never had a parliament, Scotland did. Wiltshire never had a separate system of law, Scotland did, Wiltshire has no national regiments, Scotland does. There are many differences.
I agree that, at minimum, they would have the option of maintaining it, and would have to actively choose to lose it - but that, in theory at least, choosing Scottish citizenship could count as giving up British.
Not really, as by leaving the EU we’d no longer be bound by Rottman. If the EU chose to recognise British citizens (or a subset of them) as EU citizens, that would be their choice, and nothing to do with the UK.
The Privy Council is an advisory body, Parliament is supreme.
Not really, since recorded history goes back further than the existence of England. Anyway, we’re not talking about being a part of England, but a part of the UK. Which has existed in its current form since 1922.
None of which is relevant to the legal situation where Scotland is part of the UK. The separate legal system, the parliament, the regiments, and so forth are, once again, wholly in the gift of the UK government. Just as they would be to Wiltshire.
You really don’t seem to understand that Scotland’s status is not some inviolable right or law of nature, but the result of centuries of compromise and negotiation - two things that you and the SNP wish to throw away based solely on hollow nationalist rhetoric.
If Scotland insists on acting to the detriment of the Union as a whole, as you and the SNP want it to, then the Union basically has two choices. Let (or force) it to leave, or stop it acting in that way. The choice should be made solely on the grounds of what’s best for the Union as a whole. Something you, and the SNP, and a significant amount of Scots seem utterly unconcerned with. As shown by the refusal to vote Tory.
Interesting comparison, by the way, because at the time of the Act Of Union Anne claimed the throne of France, as well as those of England and Scotland. Officially, the King of England was also King of France from 1340 until the dissolution of the French Monarchy, although certain people actually resident in France disputed this.
RUK might not be bound by Rottman but current citizens would have the right if a foreign government was causing it. I am assuming that rUK leaving the EU would almost certainly mean Scottish secession.
Agreed and it supports the case that Scotland and England were even more separate than France and England because the French claim predates the union of crowns by several centuries!
Careful your cites do not militate against your argument.
I really don’t know how to deconstruct that bullshit.
I suggest you actually read the Act of Union which governs which powers were and were not transferred to Westminster. Criminal Law, the Presbyterian Church and Scottish militia were specifically excluded.
What you don’t get is that rigid Unionism coupled with wilful misunderstanding of Scottish Culture and Rights are the greatest threat to the Union.
It seems that in advocating for Federalism and Home Rule, I am being more Unionist than English nationalists who are more concerned about enforcing a rigid union against the smaller nations.
Do you mean if the UK as it is now leaves the EU it would cause Scottish secession? Because at that point Scotland would have no right to join the EU, and would be leaving the only Union it was part of. If the rUK chose to leave the EU after secession, it would be none of Scotland’s business, as it would be neither part of the UK nor the EU.
No, the biggest threat is the Scots who want to leave. Scotland doesn’t have any more rights than the rest of the UK, except in the gift of the Uk government. It’s you that continues to misunderstand the situation. Scotland has been part of the Union for 3 centuries, its culture is part of the culture of the UK, just as English and Welsh culture is. The relatively recent joining of NI makes that slightly different.
There are no English nationalists in this conversation. English nationalists would be welcoming Scottish secession, their aims are opposite to those of Unionists.
You are not more Unionist than those who wish to continue in the Union of equal nations that has worked well for centuries, you want to weaken the Union and force devolved government on the vast majority of the UK which doesn’t want it, and are willing to destroy the Union if you don’t get your way. You are fundamentally against the Union, based solely on irrational nationalism.
But please, explain how Scottish home rule would be better for the entire Union than the status quo, and why UK voters should support it. Don’t refer to imaginary Scottish “rights” that other regions don’t have, explain the tangible benefits to the whole country.
And no, it’ll stop the Scots having a tantrum isn’t a tangible benefit.
And a further Act can change that. No parliament is bound by a previous one, and all that.
You are the one who doesn’t understand the facts. If the Westminster government chooses to transfer those powers to itself, there is no power on heaven or earth that could stop them. The only option Scotland would have is to attempt to go it alone, and good luck getting international support for that.
Not that it will actually happen, because there’s no actual benefit to the UK in doing so, and plenty of reasons to keep it the way it is. But if your fantasies of regiments of Scottish “freedom fighters” demanding independence at gunpoint actually occurred, that would change rapidly. I just hope the rest of your adopted country has more sense than you.
The Crowns of England, Scotland and Ireland have been a single Regal union since 1603.
The Union of Scottish and English parliaments was 1707.
The Union of Irish and British Parliaments was 1800.
Again, let us stick to facts rather than factoids that you manufacture. The Six counties have been part of the Kingdom for over four centuries and part of a union of Parliaments for over two centuries.
It is always worth checking your understanding before posting.