And the same would stop it happening if Scotland became independent and some crazy government wanted to strip people" of their citizenship. In your words
Impossible"? No, merely against various laws, treaties and rules, and not worth the inevitable consequences that would come from doing it.
Oh, you’re asking what the authorities should do if they don’t notice that you’re illegally using an invalid passport, which assumes that they haven’t found a way to flag them up in the two years since independence… Obviously, if they don’t realise, they should let you through.
Doesn’t make it any more valid, or your actions any less illegal.
Depends on the nature of the unilaterally independent Scotland and/or rUK, and the consequences of allowing people to keep citizenship. I mean, we’re well within the realms of fantasy just by considering unilateral independence from either side, for that to happen enough would have to change so that there’s no reason to assume that both governments will be respecting laws, treaties and rules. In fact, I can only see it happening if at least one side isn’t.
And even in the event that a country decides to violently secede (hello Ireland), in practice, we’d still respect their citizens. BUT, that’s a choice, not a necessity.
Straw men again. I do not want to keep the pound, I do not want to keep the UK military.
Stop making it up.
Even if Scotland was in possession of the oil and gas on its continental shelf, and received the portion of the UK military paid for by Scottish taxes, and agreed some financial pact with London, we would still be considerably more free than under present proposals- control of all VAT and other tax rates including Corporation Tax, freedom from nuclear weapons and nuclear power, freedom from our military fucking up the Islamic world, and everything else that comes from statehood.
The original argument was not predicated on UDI, merely on agreed independence- people asserted that in that case, British citizenship could be stripped from people resident in Scotland.
I think that you will find that we live by the rule of law and that citizenship could only be removed if it could be shown that certain acceptable criteria had been met. Mere residence in Scotland (rather than any other country) on a certain date would not be a valid reason.
There’s going to be a shitload of laws changed in any case of independence, whether negotiated or unilateral. There’s no reason that this one couldn’t be changed. With a reasonable notice period for people who want to stay British to leave Scotland, it wouldn’t even be objectionable.
Not that I think it would happen, but like all your claims of things that are “impossible”, it isn’t. It’s probably harmful to both sides - but then, Scottish independence under any predictable circumstances would be harmful to both sides, so there can be no assumption that mutual harm would prevent things happening.
Oh, I missed this. Yes, in that case it could easily happen, if the agreement involved automatically giving everyone citizenship of either Scotland or the rUK. There wouldn’t even be any issues of leaving people stateless.
Still don’t think it would happen, but if both governments wanted it to happen, there’d be no problem.
For legality, the only criterion would be that those losing British citizenship were all gaining citizenship of another sovereign - namely, Scotland.
It might - or might not - be politically unthinkable for the UK government to deprive Scots people of British citizenship in a context in which they were acquiring Scots citizenship. But it certainly wouldn’t be illegal. Nor would it be novel.
When Malta became independent in 1964, it granted citizenship to everyone born in Malta with a Maltese born parent. All those people, except those who were born in the UK or another colony, or had a father or grandfather born in the UK or another colony, lost their British nationality.
In fact, as this document on citizenship in the UK points out:
Papua New Guinea got independence from Australia in 1975. But as this website from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade points out:
My point being, it’s not without precedence for a citizen of a newly independent state to forfeit citizenship in the mother state.
Isn’t that standard? Americans lost their British citizenship with the Treaty of Paris and didn’t residents of Hong Kong lose their UK citizenship too?
But Scotland’s special, and none of the negatives about a small country becoming independent apply to it because THE VOW!!! TORIES!!! OIL!!!
I am afraid that you do not understand the term, although we can not be surprised at this
You are in fact distorting the propositions and the arguments made on the issue of citizenship by making exaggerated and changed propositions around them, as make statements which cut off the principal parts of the others arguments and thus distort. This is in fact the straw man.
not that everyone is not noticing this.
Yes it is standard which is making the whole argument more and more bizarre and in a way it is amusing… the statements about the international law and the UE law become more and more a fantasy, but it is hard to understand the reason. It was in reading this that made me comment… I do not care about the indepedence of Scotland but the arguments made here are simply all fantasies that have no coherence.
Nitpick: Hong Kong residents, as such, didn’t have UK citizenship. In 1981 the status of “Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies”, which people connected with Hong Kong had enjoyed up to that point, was subdivided into the separate statuses of “British Citizen” for people connected with the UK and “British Dependent Territories Citizen” for people connected with a British colony, including Hong Kong. So what Hong Kongers lost in 1997 was British Dependent Territories Citizenship.
They were permitted, if they wished, to register as British Nationals (Overseas), a singularly useless status which does not grant a right of abode in the UK or in Hong Kong (or, for that matter, anywhere else in the world), and does not give its holders the status of EU citizen. It does, however, grant them a maroon passport, and access to British consular services in any country apart from China, Hong Kong, Macau or the UK.
Practically it is impossible. Parliament may be supreme but that has not enabled it to act with impunity over the Human Rights Treaty and others we signed. Teresa May could strip British citizen ‘terrorist suspects’ with only British Nationality of their status but does not do this because of the treaty commitment. Similar provisos apply to European Court and European Court of Human Rights decisions- parliament could override them but would have to bear the consequences.
The consequences of randomly stripping your citizens of their rights because of their mere residence on a certain date.
I do not disagree that Parliament is sovereign, but that it would be impossible in the real world for parliament to strip its citizens of their citizenship without unacceptable repercussions.
And then there are the practicalities- there would have to be a process by each individual would have their case heard by something like the immigration appeals set up. Under the ECHR rights can only be removed from people by sue process. We know how difficult it is to eject someone who has good representation because the rules are so complex. Similarly with putative citizenship courts, they would be open to extremely lengthy arguments that would make the situation untenable.
It is no good just pointing out that parliament is sovereign. There are limits legal and practical. Your extreme position ignores judicial and political reality. Under your belief system Parliament could abolish the monarchy, extend elections to twenty year terms, elect a dictator, renege on Human Rights Treaties, Withdraw from the EU and declare a tyranny. That is certainly technically possible but would come with massive economic and political coats. The same applies to removing extant citizenship - the cost would be too high.
Can you quote where people who already had been granted residence to stay in the UK as British citizens with full rights later bad that right removed? In the case of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, people with right to entry ( British born or initially having a British grandparent gave a right to residence. This has gradually diminished as fewer and fear such people had a British grandparent.
I have a friend who has one British parent but other was Australian born. She received a Full British Passport with full rights because her birth was registered with the High Commission. She married a Scot later and her children were born in England. The children have British and Australian passports and their children will have rights to live in both Australia and the UK.
Exactly my point. Those born in previous UK and probably their children also would have the right to live and work in either jurisdiction. If the grandchildren were not born in one of the countries they would not have British citizenship.
Agreed. Nowhere have I said it is technically impossible. What I am saying is that it is politically impossible to defend or maintain without abrogating several treaties and being in conflict with the European Community laws and ECHR, and open to long appeals throng both bodies.
You do not understand the concept of Straw Man even after quoting it.