Yes, things change, people change, hairstyles change. Interest rates fluctuate.
But when asked why you support independence, you say that you are actually supporting those people who want independence, and that this is called democracy. You could just as well say that there are people who support continued union, and that it is democracy for you to support them. It’s not really an answer.
You clearly think a world in which a majority of Scots want independence, and get it, would be better than a world in which they don’t. Why?
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pjen View Post
But think. Maybe 49% of the population voted to not secede and many of the secessionists are not Scottish by birth. What of them?
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 is a matter of opinion. In almost every function so far devolved the Scottish Government is producing better results than England. Our schools are well funded, not harried by OFSTED and teachers are universally respected. The NHS is not under top down reorganisation and very little business has gone to private providers. We can shop all day Sunday with no silly restrictions. The water industry ha not been privatised. There are free prescriptions and eye tests for all. NHS dental care is universally available. Libraries have not been closed down (in fact locally they have just purchased a second mobile library. Under 18s are enfranchised. Local authorities cannot become one party states because of PR. Schools are governed by parents not outside appointees. University education is without charge and there are no student loans. Personal care, residential or community, is free of charge. Our parliament is elected on a fair basis and every one has a vote that counts.
Should you? No. But that’s not the question that’s been being discussed up till now. But I’ll answer it despite your moved goalposts.
The rUK and Scotland could (not should) agree to new citizenship rules based solely on residence, so that anyone resident in Scotland on a particular date, or a permanent resident there (by whatever definition) automatically becomes a Scottish citizen on Independence Day.
Also, the UK could (not should) strip anyone of citizenship who would not be rendered stateless without breaching any treaties - although it would require a change of law to do so, that could be included in a Scottish Independence Act.
Passports are again a separate issue, and the UK could (not should, once again) strip anyone it chooses of a passport, regardless of citizenship status.
The straight answer to your new question is NO, in case it’s not clear.
You ignore Treaty obligations. If Scotland was not part of the EU as a newly independent country, the rUK would not be able to strip individuals of their European Citizenship by removing their British citizenship as this was agreed in an EU treaty and upheld by the European Court. The UK gave up its right to do this and made itself open to action in the European Court. It can only ignore this by reneging on the Treaty which would have major ramifications for rUK. Additionally any person or group so affected could sue through the European Court for reinstatement of their citizenship.
I was asked why I liked Scottish devolution and independence. Your view is immaterial.
Analysis shows that over the last thirty years, net flow of money between a putative Scottish economy and a putative rUK is slightly in favour of a net transfer of funds from Scotland to England. Don’t forget the oil and gas.
This may change in future but all economies change with time. Who knows with corporation tax cuts we could do very well in manufacturing. We would be in a position to provide the European market with cars and so less expensively than rUK.
There are occasions where countries have violated treaties and sought to alter their impact. Switzerland violated one with the EU by referendum just last year.
What part of “we can change our laws” don’t you understand? I’m not saying we should, but your continued claims that the UK can’t do things is ridiculous. Yes, the consequences would be severe (assuming we’re still in the EU, which is hardly certain), but that doesn’t mean we can’t do it.
Do you not understand the difference between should, could, and would?
At independence, the UK definitely should not strip anyone of citizenship, almost certainly would not, and definitely could.
The oil and gas belongs as much to England (and Wales, and Northern Ireland) as it does to Scotland, and frankly I’m sick of money-grabbing Scots claiming otherwise. If Scotland somehow does gain independence, I’d rather renegotiate the treaties and give the whole fucking lot to Norway than let you have it. Scotland has no more right to that oil or the revenue from it than any other part of the UK, and it’s pretty poor that we’ve allowed you so much more of the revenue from it, to be honest.
But I’m sure you’d be happy if that treaty was ignored…
The oil and gas belongs as much to England (and Wales, and Northern Ireland) as it does to Scotland, and frankly I’m sick of money-grabbing Scots claiming otherwise. If Scotland somehow does gain independence, I’d rather renegotiate the treaties and give the whole fucking lot to Norway than let you have it. Scotland has no more right to that oil or the revenue from it than any other part of the UK, and it’s pretty poor that we’ve allowed you so much more of the revenue from it, to be honest.
/QUOTE]
The oil and gas in Scotland’s continental shelf would belong to it alone on independence. All sides in the campaign agreed that ownership of the oil was not an issue save for a sliver of the North Sea.
Zola Budd was born in 1966, and therefore wasn’t born with British citizenship…she was a citizen of the Republic of South Africa. But, since her grandfather was born in Britain, she, with the help of the Daily Mail, applied for British citizenship, and it was granted. It’s a different sort of case.
And as for European Citizenship, European Citizenship is secondary to citizenship in an EU member country, and EU member countries can set their own policies on the granting and loss of citizenship. The Rottmann case, which you’ve cited before, is also a different sort of thing that the question of Scottish independence, since in the Rottmann case, Rottman would have been stateless. Individuals who would gain Scottish citizenship and thereby lose British citizenship if Scotland went independent wouldn’t. They’d still be citizens of a state, and it would be up to Scotland to join the EU or not, and up to the EU to accept them as a member or not.
You need to read the background analysis of the judges in the Rothman case where they indicated that inter alia no member state could act to deny European Citizenship to a person possessing it without showing cause such as criminality or other malfeasance.
No, frankly. There’s no such thing that’s binding on any party.
You realise that if the UK signed a treaty now with, to pick a country at random, Namibia, granting them exclusive rights to our oil, that would be binding on Scotland should it become independent, right? Mainly because no country would recognise as independent a putative nation that would renege on its international obligations, and the UK would not accept bilateral independence without such a condition being imposed.