It is the disinterested opinion of an observer who does not care about the independence or not. I see no point in the ‘cites and examples’ from what I have seen already as it would be a sterile and a useless effort. It is enough for the disinterested observer to read this thread.
Yes it is an imaginary fantasy international law that is drawn on, not practical real international law as observed from the precedents and the application in actual fact.
So you feel free to cast aspersions but when challenged to support those allegations with facts, you refuse.
There are words for people who make such unfounded allegations knowing them to be unsupported.
The Iraq allegations were broad brush and victor’s history.
The UK is a signatory to a treaty that forbids withdrawing citizenship from its citizens if they have no other citizenship and hence would be made stateless. This is currently shopping Teresa May from withdrawing British Citizenship from ‘terrorist suspects’ if they would be made stateless. Real law, real world.
But in the real world the UK could pass legislation to establish a Scottishs state with Scottish citizenship, assign that citizenship to its own citizens resident in or connected with Scotland, and withdraw British citizenship from them. We know they can do this in the real world because, in the real world, they have done it many times. No breach of any international treaty there.
They won’t do it because a majority in Scotland has just voted not to seek independence from the UK, and the UK has no inclination to force it on them unilaterally. But, legally, they could, without any breach of international law.
They could do that with the assent of the successor government and with individual assent from the person concerned but not if there was no successor state or the individual refused citizenship of the successor state.
It is also part of EU regulations that citizenship may not be removed without cause. We discussed this at length before the referendum when unionists were suggesting that people living in an independent Scotland could be denied rUK citizenship because they were living in Scotland at the time of independence.
That would probably be “cause”, wouldn’t it? If the citizen in question acquires some new citizenship (because I think the people who suggested it were saying that, should Scotland become independent those people living in Scotland and becoming Scottish citizens would lose their British citizenship).
No. Even if over 50% of the people who voted for independence, is that just cause to forcibly remove the nationality from people who were born British. And then there are people like me and my family, all English for many generations who happens to live in Scotland- would we lose our British citizenship because of where we were living on independence. Don’t be silly.
There would be no way that Scotland would be able to force people to take out Scottish citizenship by mere residence or birth. It could be offered, but not enforced.
Both the UN and EU restrictions do not apply to such a situation.
Yes, you would. Why the hell should we English living in England want 5 million people sharing our passport residing in a now foreign country to the North of us? Hopefully Parliament would strip all those residing in Scotland of their British citizenship on the day of independence, should that ever come about, unless they make a conscious effort to retain it.
Once more, Pjen wants all the benefits of the Union without any of those pesky drawbacks, like you know, sharing oil revenues. Sorry, not going to happen. You want independence then you’ll be given it, and that includes establishing a new currency and a new passport.
As I have said, that would be illegal. Do remember that even the Irish from the south have almost all rights of British citizenship including residence, voting, access to all social welfare benefits, NHS care and so on if they move to theUK.
Were I to be like many peel of English birth resident in Scotland, I would find your suggestion that I could lose my citizenship on the whim of a government because I happened to reside in Scotland on the date of independence rather than any other country where I would not then be made un-British.
Don’t be silly!
Try a thought experiment. RUK enforces independence in August. Resident on Scotland at that time are most of the Royal Family, several prominent businessmen with Scottish homes, several MPs for English constituencies, many English bankers working for financial services in Edinburgh and many English oil rig workers in the oil fields in Scottish waters.
All now Scottish citizens and stripped of their British nationality?
The evidence does not support that claim.
Every time you’ve used the word “colonial”. :rolleyes:
I feel free to state an observation based on this very thread and also my conclusion that it would be a futile waste of time try to change your mind with any kind of evidence, so it is not worth it at all, the effort.
There is no thing arbitrary about in the case of a secession to require those siding with the secession to choose that nationality and lose the original state nationality. Your arguments are painfully ad hoc.
So you are willing to make allegations but unwilling to support those allegations. Interesting.
But think. Maybe 49% of the population voted to not secede and many of the secessionists are not Scottish by birth. What of them?
Why would I try such a stupid thought experiment? Those who will be stripped of their nationality are those with permanent residence in Scotland. We know we can identify who these people are because they are the same people who voted in the referendum.
Are you actually thinking I’m talking about stripping holiday makers, MPs and the Royal Family of their citizenship because they just happen to be in Scotland at the time? Good God.
It would not exactly be difficult for the UK, if Parliament had a majority to enforce Scottish independence, to change any law preventing stripping Scots or Scottish residents of UK citizenship.
Your constant appeals to international “law” are irrelevant, what matters is UK law and whatever treaties it chooses to respect.
Again, a question that you’ve been repeatedly dodging. Why the hell do you want Scotland to be “independent”, if you also want to retain UK currency, citizenship, and so forth? That’s not independence, that’s almost complete dependence.