They lose British citizenship, and gain Scottish citizenship. It’s not complicated. Maybe you should actually consider them, instead of advocating so strongly for independence whilst ignoring the consequences.
It isn’t like the British Government hasn’t refactored Citizenship status in the past either. We’ve had more Nationality Acts than you can shake a stick at.
We went round and round on that issue in the pre-referendum thread. Pjen remained adamant that the UK was legally required to let Scots keep their UK citizenship or they would be breaking EU treaties by making the Scots “stateless”.
What is to be considered interesting is the very strange lens you see things through. The opinion stated others can disagree with, the evidences are here in this thread. but I think no one will argue that it is futile and a waste of time to present an argument to you that you do not already agree with.
This is not complicated and it is not something without a precedent. As in most of the cases in the modern history of national breakups the residents of the new territory are presented a choice, one of the citizenships or the other. This is not hard, and it is typical, for all the attempts you make to cast doubt and obscure so as to have the answer you seem to be emotionally attached.
It is not the case that the old state is required to allow them to keep the historical citizenship, this is an invention of yours.
It is clear there is no understanding of the subject, only ad hoc attempts to justify a desired result.
It is a strange and futile argument then if this was already done. I have only intervened as at some point it seemed so strangely fascinating to see such incoherence. I hope that this is not the typical analysis of the seperatist movement.
Pjen’s idea is like someone telling their partner, “honey, I Think we should breakup, but we should still share the house, I should remain on your insurance, but not you on mine, I will go out and date other people, but you cannot, and when I want we should still have sex, and keep sharing the car etc etc.” . You can suggest it all you want, but other party will likely tell you to fuck off.
In the same way, the Irish example is quite a bad one. When they left the UK and latter the commonwealth, the UK Parliament allowed the Irish to retain many of the benefits a that they would have had. But, this was done by the UK Parliament because it wished to do so…the Irish could not have legally or even politically demanded it.
Similarly when South Africa and Pakistan left the commonwealth, legislation was passed stating that despite that, their citizens would continue to be treated as if they were commonwealth citizens, (at the time, that had quite substantial benefits). Again, that was done by the UK itself, neither government could have compelled them to do so.
Now it’s true that the UK might be prepared to do something similar wrt to Scotland, but they will do it of their own accord, not because they have to. If the UK feels like it, they would be perfectly within their rights to demand passports and even visas,
That might actually be true - but that doesn’t mean that the law can’t be changed by the UK so we’re not bound by those treaties. If things got bad enough that the UK was considering unilaterally booting out Scotland, I doubt treaties would prevent it happening.
I really don’t think it is true anyway. Pjen’s “cite” was a case where an immigrant hadn’t foreclosed a criminal record and his new country wanted to strip him of their citizenship. Problem was he had already given up his old one. How someone could think that was somehow applicable to Scottish independence is beyond me.
But what is the difference between those with permanent residence in Scotland on independence day, and all other Brits who happen to be resident in other countries for the same reason. I was born British in England and no accident of residence when a country becomes independent would impact on my nationality. Think of all the people working in Scotland long term but who intend to return to E gland on retirement or job change.
It is just plain stupidity and pig- headedness to suggest that citizens could be stripped of nationality because of accident of residence on a particular date.
Teresa May would dearly love to strip certain terrorist suspects of their British Citizenship but has been advised that that would be impossible unless they have a confirmed other nationality at the same time as British nationality.
It is just not going to happen. There are over half a million English born people in Scotland currently. Most of them are unionists. Will they be stripped of their nationality?
OK a simple question. An English family are moved by their employer to work at a Scottish business. They have bought a house and their children born in England are educated locally. They are strongly unionist and have no more intention of becoming Scottish that they would wish to become American if their company had moved them to New York. Are you really telling me that they would be stripped of citizenship for merely being in the wrong country at the wrong time?
Now these are the examples of straw men.
Read the full judgement. You are only reading the specifics, not the European law on which the decision was based.
NO. A straw man is when you suggest your opponent has made a statement and then demolish that statement even though the opponent has not made that statement.
I am not suggesting that people have made statements they have not. They have said that Scottish residents could be denied citizenship.
I did at the time and remained unconvinced it was applicable to a national secession.
Let us try another thought experiment. Someone very like me has lived in Scotland for ten years. My pension (state and employment) is paid in England to my bank account there. I am present in Scotland on independence day. I do not take Scottish citizenship but keep my passport. Two years after independence I leave Scotland for a tour of the USA and Canada for a long summer, flying out of Glasgow and returning via Gatwick. At Gatwick I present my British passport. What does the Border Force do?
In the event that we’re still talking about the hypothetical that you’d been stripped of UK citizenship, they should seize the invalid passport, have you arrested, and question why the US and Canada allowed you in on an invalid passport.
In the far more likely scenario that independence was negotiated, not unilateral on either side, and that you remain a British citizen and the passport remains valid, they should let you through with a cheery wave.
Your pension has nothing to do with either scenario.
It has been pointed out to met that the best argument against the ridiculous idea that anyone in Scotland could be stripped of their British citizenship is that not even the firmest supporters of Better Together ever suggested this as a threat.
“Impossible”? No, merely against various laws, treaties and rules, and not worth the inevitable consequences that would come from doing it.
And no, it’s not going to happen. Not least because, despite your fervent fantasies in the other thread, Scotland is not going to attempt to become independent without a negotiated settlement with the UK that covers this and many other issues. And also because, despite the scaremongering/wishful thinking (delete as appropriate) in this thread, the UK isn’t going to kick Scotland out.
How would they know I was resident in Scotland or have decided that my passport was invalid. I bank in England and receive my pensions there. I own real property in England on which I pay Council tax.
All a bit confusing really.
So, if you want to maintain British citizenship (along with the pound, the UK’s military, the Uk’s oil, and so forth), in what sense would your ideal Scotland actually be independent?
It’s basically nothing more than “no Tories”, isn’t it?