# Whither Scotland? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261 "2014-09-02T16:28:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/301 "2014-09-07T05:00:54Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Our treaty obligations (if, indeed, we are bound by a treaty we’ve not signed due to EU membership, which is a dubious claim) mean we can’t leave anyone stateless or remove citizenship from them if they’ve not chosen to take up another citizenship. Neither of which apply if they choose Scottish citizenship. > > You’ve still not answered the question of why Scotland, or Scots, want both independence and to remain British, except as a transitional measure. Or even, really, what that would mean. We are bound by two treaties: 1/ The Convention on Human Rights 2/ The Treaty of Accession 1972 The first treaty requires a fair tribunal before removal of civil rights (for example right to retain one’s citizenship) and the second requires appropriate disputes to be referred to the European Courts of Justice which has ruled on the rights of member states to withdraw EU citizenship by acts regarding their own citizenship. To answer your last question, Scots are not all of one opinion. Many Scots (who will probably vote NO) consider themselves British to the core and are strong Unionists and would want to retain their British Passport. Even Scots who want to be independent might wish to retain dual nationality as a hedge on what might happen in the future. And then there are people like me who are British by irth in England but will happen to live in Scotland on Independence- why should my passport be removed because of where I happen to reside on a certain date. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/302 "2014-09-07T05:07:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Well, it has to eventually happen, else every Scot will also be British forever. It’s most likely to happen that the children of British/Scottish dual nationality citizens won’t be British, and possibly that, in a few decades, those who have neither resided in Britain nor obtained a passport will have to do either one or lose their citizenship. Certainly children born after Independence would only be British subjects with the right to return to rUK as in all other cases of the white commonwealth. Their children would then not be British as the first generation children do not pass their British subject status to the second generation. The whole point is moot anyway as effectively there is very close sharing of citizenship between Ireland and the UK, and slightly less close sharing of citizenship with the EU countries. Even if the rUK negotiates a way to associate status like Norway and Switzerland, there will still be free movement as Switzerland found recently when the ECJ insisted it could not put limits on EU citizens moving to work there. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/303 "2014-09-07T05:09:05Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > People ask for cites, yes. But the cites you’ve provided are so damn tangential to your argument. A country voting to secede is so unlike a criminal trying to escape justice by emigrating that it’s not worth arguing about. Oh yeah, i should read in context. Right back at you. Do you understand the law at all. The final ruling was on the specific case, but the full opinion set as a principle in European Law that EU citizenship could not be removed without due cause and just process. Please tell me that you have at least bothered to read the full opinion, and not just the final finding! ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/304 "2014-09-07T05:35:07Z")
Rottmann, not Rothwell- brain not yet engaged. I will make it easy for you: [http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/Rottmann\_Judgment.pdf](http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/Rottmann_Judgment.pdf) The relevant provisions of international law The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 14 Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948, provides that: ‘1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. [COLOR=“Red”]No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.’ The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 15 Article 7 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, done at New York on 30 August 1961, which entered into force on 13 December 1975, provides as follows: ‘1.(a) If the law of a Contracting State permits renunciation of nationality, such renunciation shall not result in loss of nationality unless the person concerned possesses or acquires another nationality; … 2. A national of a Contracting State who seeks naturalisation in a foreign country shall not lose his nationality unless he acquires or has been accorded assurance of acquiring the nationality of that foreign country. 3. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this article, a national of a Contracting State shall not lose his nationality, so as to become stateless, on the ground of departure, residence abroad, failure to register or on any similar ground. 4. A naturalised person may lose his nationality on account of residence abroad for a period, not less than seven consecutive years, specified by the law of the Contracting State concerned if he fails to declare to the appropriate authority his intention to retain his nationality. … 6. Except in the circumstances mentioned in this article, a person shall not lose the nationality of a Contracting State, if such loss would render him stateless, notwithstanding that such loss is not expressly prohibited by any other provision of this Convention.’ 16 Article 8 of that convention provides: ‘1. A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, a person may be deprived of the nationality of a Contracting State: (a) in the circumstances in which, under paragraphs 4 and 5 of article 7, it is permissible that a person should lose his nationality; (b) where the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. … 4. A Contracting State shall not exercise a power of deprivation permitted by paragraphs 2 or 3 of this article except in accordance with law, which shall provide for the person concerned the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body.’ 17 Article 9 of that convention provides that a Contracting State may not deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds. The European Convention on Nationality 18 The European Convention on nationality of 6 November 1997 was adopted under the aegis of the Council of Europe and entered into force on 1 March 2000. It has been applicable in Austria since that date and was ratified by the Federal Republic of Germany on 11 May 2005. Article 3 of that convention provides: ‘1. Each State shall determine under its own law who are its nationals. 2. This law shall be accepted by other States in so far as it is consistent with applicable international conventions, customary international law and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.’19 In accordance with Article 4 of that convention: ‘The rules on nationality of each State Party shall be based on the following principles: a. everyone has the right to a nationality b. statelessness shall be avoided; c. no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality; …’. 20 Article 7 of that convention is worded as follows: ‘1. A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality ex lege or at the initiative of the State Party except in the following cases: (a) voluntary acquisition of another nationality; (b) acquisition of the nationality of the State Party by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant; … 3. A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article if the person concerned would thereby become stateless, with the exception of the cases mentioned in paragraph 1, subparagraph b, of this article.’ 21 Article 9 of the European Convention on nationality provides that each State Party is to facilitate, in the cases and conditions provided for by its internal law, the recovery of its nationality by former nationals who are lawfully and habitually resident in its territory. Whether or not the UK has joined the convention on Nationality is neither here nor ethere. The UK has agreed to be bound by the ECJ and it is now a convention of European Law that nationality cannot be removed without due cause and due process. 41 Nevertheless, the fact that a matter falls within the competence of the Member States does not alter the fact that, in situations covered by European Union law, the national rules concerned must have due regard to the latter (see, to that effect, Case C‑274/96 Bickel and Franz [1998] ECR I‑7637, paragraph 17 (as regards national provisions in the sphere of criminal legislation and the rules of criminal procedure); Case C‑148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] ECR I‑11613, paragraph 25 (as regards national rules governing a person’s name); Case C‑403/03 Schempp [2005] ECR I‑6421, paragraph 19 (as regards national rules relating to direct taxation); Case C‑145/04 Spain v United Kingdom [2006] ECR I‑7917, paragraph 78 (as regards national rules determining the persons entitled to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament)). 42 It is clear that the situation of a citizen of the Union who, like the applicant in the main proceedings, is faced with a decision withdrawing his naturalisation, adopted by the authorities of one Member State, and placing him, after he has lost the nationality of another Member State that he originally possessed, in a position capable of causing him to lose the status conferred by Article 17 EC and the rights attaching thereto falls, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the ambit of European Union law. 43 As the Court has several times stated, citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (Case C‑184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I‑6193, paragraph 31; Case C‑413/99 Baumbast and R [2002] ECR I‑7091, paragraph 82). 44 Article 17(2) EC attaches to that status the rights and duties laid down by the Treaty, including the right to rely on Article 12 EC in all situations falling within the scope ratione materiae of Union law (see Case C‑85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I‑2691, paragraph 62, and Schempp, paragraph 17). 45 Thus, the Member States must, when exercising their powers in the sphere of nationality, have due regard to European Union law (Micheletti and Others, paragraph 10; Mesbah, paragraph 29; Case C‑192/99 Kaur [2001] ECR I‑1237, paragraph 19; and Zhu and Chen, paragraph 37). 46 In those circumstances, it is for the Court to rule on the questions referred by the national court which concern the conditions in which a citizen of the Union may, because he loses his nationality, lose his status of citizen of the Union and thereby be deprived of the rights attaching to that status. 47 In this regard, the national court essentially raises the question of the proviso formulated in the Court’s case-law cited in paragraph 45 above, to the effect that the Member States must, when exercising their powers in the sphere of nationality, have due regard to European Union law, and also the question of the consequences of that proviso in a situation such as that in the case in the main proceedings. 48 The proviso that due regard must be had to European Union law does not compromise the principle of international law previously recognised by the Court, and mentioned in paragraph 39 above, that the Member States have the power to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality, but rather enshrines the principle that, in respect of citizens of the Union, the exercise of that power, in so far as it affects the rights conferred and protected by the legal order of the Union, as is in particular the case of a decision withdrawing naturalisation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is amenable to judicial review carried out in the light of European Union law. 49 Unlike the applicant in the case giving rise to the judgment in Kaur who, not meeting the definition of a national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, could not be deprived of the rights deriving from the status of citizen of the Union, Dr Rottmann has unquestionably held Austrian and then German nationality and has, in consequence, enjoyed that status and the rights attaching thereto. 50 Nevertheless, as several of the governments having submitted observations to the Court have argued, if a decision withdrawing naturalisation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is based on the deception practised by the person concerned in connection with the procedure for acquisition of the nationality in question, such a decision could be compatible with European Union law. 51 A decision withdrawing naturalisation because of deception corresponds to a reason relating to the public interest. In this regard, it is legitimate for a Member State to wish to protect the special relationship of solidarity and good faith between it and its nationals and also the reciprocity of rights and duties, which form the bedrock of the bond of nationality. 52 That conclusion relating to the legitimacy, in principle, of a decision withdrawing naturalisation adopted in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings is borne out by the relevant provisions of the Convention on the reduction of statelessness. Article 8(2) thereof provides that a person may be deprived of the nationality of a Contracting State if he has acquired that nationality by means of misrepresentation or by any other act of fraud. Likewise, Article 7(1) and (3) of the European Convention on nationality does not prohibit a State Party from depriving a person of his nationality, even if he thus becomes stateless, when that nationality was acquired by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to that person. 53 That conclusion is, moreover, in keeping with the general principle of international law that no one is arbitrarily to be deprived of his nationality, that principle being reproduced in Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 4(c) of the European Convention on nationality. When a State deprives a person of his nationality because of his acts of deception, legally established, that deprivation cannot be considered to be an arbitrary act. 54 Those considerations on the legitimacy, in principle, of a decision withdrawing naturalisation on account of deception remain, in theory, valid when the consequence of that withdrawal is that the person in question loses, in addition to the nationality of the Member State of naturalisation, citizenship of the Union. 55 In such a case, it is, however, for the national court to ascertain whether the withdrawal decision at issue in the main proceedings observes the principle of proportionality so far as concerns the consequences it entails for the situation of the person concerned in the light of European Union law, in addition, where appropriate, to examination of the proportionality of the decision in the light of national law. 56 Having regard to the importance which primary law attaches to the status of citizen of the Union, when examining a decision withdrawing naturalisation it is necessary, therefore, to take into account the consequences that the decision entails for the person concerned and, if relevant, for the members of his family with regard to the loss of the rights enjoyed by every citizen of the Union. In this respect it is necessary to establish, in particular, whether that loss is justified in relation to the gravity of the offence committed by that person, to the lapse of time between the naturalisation decision and the withdrawal decision and to whether it is possible for that person to recover his original nationality. 57 With regard, in particular, to that last aspect, a Member State whose nationality has been acquired by deception cannot be considered bound, pursuant to Article 17 EC, to refrain from withdrawing naturalisation merely because the person concerned has not recovered the nationality of his Member State of origin. 58 It is, nevertheless, for the national court to determine whether, before such a decision withdrawing naturalisation takes effect, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, observance of the principle of proportionality requires the person concerned to be afforded a reasonable period of time in order to try to recover the nationality of his Member State of origin. 59 Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the first question and to the first part of the second question must be that it is not contrary to European Union law, in particular to Article 17 EC, for a Member State to withdraw from a citizen of the Union the nationality of that State acquired by naturalisation when that nationality has been obtained by deception, on condition that the decision to withdraw observes the principle of proportionality. The second part of the second question 60 By the second part of the second question the national court asks, in essence, whether, when a citizen of the Union in a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings is faced with a decision withdrawing naturalisation that threatens to lead to the loss of his status of citizen of the Union, European Union law, in particular Article 17 EC, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State whose nationality he originally possessed is obliged to interpret its domestic legislation in such a way as to avoid that loss by allowing him to recover that nationality. 61 In this instance, it is to be noted that the withdrawal of the naturalisation acquired by the applicant in Germany has not become definitive, and that no decision concerning his status has been taken by the Member State whose nationality he originally possessed, namely, the Republic of Austria. 62 It is to be borne in mind, in these proceedings for a preliminary ruling, that the principles stemming from this judgment with regard to the powers of the Member States in the sphere of nationality, and also their duty to exercise those powers having due regard to European Union law, apply both to the Member State of naturalisation and to the Member State of the original nationality. 63 The Court cannot, however, rule on the question whether a decision not yet adopted is contrary to European Union law. As the Austrian Government maintained at the hearing, the Austrian authorities will possibly have to adopt a decision on the question whether the applicant in the main proceedings is to recover his nationality of origin and when that decision has been adopted the Austrian courts will, if necessary, have to determine whether it is valid in the light of the principles referred to in this judgment. 64 Having regard to the foregoing there is no need in these proceedings to give a ruling on the second part of the second question. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/305 "2014-09-07T05:53:37Z")
And your learned opinion is that removing citizenship from a seceding territory would be “arbitrary”? I can tell you think you got lawyer talk all figured out, but I am less certain. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/306 "2014-09-07T06:04:20Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > And your learned opinion is that removing citizenship from a seceding territory would be “arbitrary”? I can tell you think you got lawyer talk all figured out, but I am less certain. Read the cites. Provide a cite of your own rather than just your amateur opinion. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/307 "2014-09-07T06:20:29Z")
I don’t need more than my amateur opinion to contest your overreaching amateur opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/308 "2014-09-07T06:28:24Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I don’t need more than my amateur opinion to contest your overreaching amateur opinion. Then address the cites rather than ignoring them. Very poor form in debate! ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/309 "2014-09-07T06:31:26Z")
This thread as been derailed by petty bickering over nationality. No one is going to be stripped of their nationality and that’s an end to it. As no cites have been provided, I am withdrawing from that debate as it is pointless debating cites against opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/310 "2014-09-07T06:35:27Z")
Back to the real debate. With the YES vote ahead in the polls, whither Scotland. The NO campaign is about to go into meltdown. According to the Guardian > **[Scottish referendum: Shock new poll says Scots set to vote for independence](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/06/scots-radical-new-deal-save-the-union)** > > 'No' campaign to offer radical deal as latest figures show 51-49% backing for end of the union the NO campaign is about to try to bribe YES voters with a promise of a Constitutional Convention on further large scale transfer of powers from Westminster to Scotland. Too little, too late? Still, it meets my pre-campaign desire for Devo-max! We live in interesting times. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/311 "2014-09-07T06:37:01Z")
Jesus christ. Your whole case, and copy paste, is about withdrawing naturalization of a single fleeing criminal from a country that doesn’t allow duel citizenship. Precisely nothing aligns with the case of Scotland separating from Britain. Just give it up already. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/312 "2014-09-07T08:36:50Z")
Osbourne has just confirmed that lib lab and con to put a joint package of what will be offered if Scotland agrees to vote NO. So in the last lap of the race the Better Together campaign are about to offer reasons for staying in the union; they are slow learners. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/313 "2014-09-07T08:55:16Z")
This reminds me of some divorce negotiations I have attended. One party is adamant about leaving, the other is desperate and is willing to do more or less anything to get the other to stay. But, once the issue becomes final, the “leaver” is quite shocked at how quickly the attitude changes from, “please stay” to “I am going to get everything I can out of this”. The UK government wants the Scots to stay and are willing to offer compromises far beyond what it would be otherwise. This has convinced many Scots that they will be cheery and reasonable come negotiation time, and that is how they can buy into Salmonds otherwise quite inane hopes of what he can get in independence negotiations. Once indépendance is voted for, the rUK is going to negotiate in the best interests of rUK. ANd they hold all the cards frankly, Moreover, please don’t overlook the “fuck em” factor, no rUK government is going to loose much politically by taking a hardline in the negotiations. Salmond can ask all he wants and they can say “no” and thats that. I don’t think that you will see troops sortied to the border on September 19th and Scots in England being given three weeks to clear out, but I do expect a very hard nosed negotiation. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/314 "2014-09-07T09:09:34Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > This reminds me of some divorce negotiations I have attended. One party is adamant about leaving, the other is desperate and is willing to do more or less anything to get the other to stay. But, once the issue becomes final, the “leaver” is quite shocked at how quickly the attitude changes from, “please stay” to “I am going to get everything I can out of this”. > > The UK government wants the Scots to stay and are willing to offer compromises far beyond what it would be otherwise. This has convinced many Scots that they will be cheery and reasonable come negotiation time, and that is how they can buy into Salmonds otherwise quite inane hopes of what he can get in independence negotiations. > > Once indépendance is voted for, the rUK is going to negotiate in the best interests of rUK. ANd they hold all the cards frankly, Moreover, please don’t overlook the “fuck em” factor, no rUK government is going to loose much politically by taking a hardline in the negotiations. Salmond can ask all he wants and they can say “no” and thats that. > > I don’t think that you will see troops sortied to the border on September 19th and Scots in England being given three weeks to clear out, but I do expect a very hard nosed negotiation. It will be hard nosed on both sides. Scotland has possible threats as does rUK. Additionally there will be external pressures to reduce uncertainty early as the pound will tumble while uncertainty exists (I have just bought $2000 before there is any further fall as we are going to Florida in the October break (one of the benefits of the Scottish Education system- two weeks of school holidays when prices are low and theme parks are empty.) Possible threats range from political to direct action. Faslane, national debt, civil disobedience, blockades etc. All will be settled in pragmatic and reasonable talks. All else is scare stories of the kind that have driven Scots into the YES camp. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/315 "2014-09-07T09:20:18Z")
But that starts another interesting question: what is there to be negotiated and what ma need to be litigated. Obviously currency issues, border issues, embassy and consular services, military assets (Scotland would be due 8% of all military assets as amortised), and so on. Oil fields are virtually decided under the Law of the Sea. And one more point- how will the Queen react to serious disagreement between the two parties- one could imagine Commonwealth assistance and intervention as referees. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/316 "2014-09-07T09:40:15Z")
What threats are they? Specifics please. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/317 "2014-09-07T09:52:50Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > What threats are they? Specifics please. Refusal to service National Debt. Faslane etch at first. Massive civil disobedience. UDI if rUK is unreasonable. Scotland would not need any permission to leave and could simply depart on notice under international law. Followed by: Requiring the UK to remove its weapons forthwith from Scottish territory Reneging on the International debt Refusal to land English oil and gas through Scottish ports Refusing OVERFLIGHT for British aircraft Denial of access to Scottish waters Withdrawal from supplying energy to the national grid. But it would never get to that. Neither side has the whip hand. If there are outstanding issues I can imagine them being settled by arbitration by the great and the good from previous old dominions under Commonwealth oversight. Assumption that only the rUK has effective bargaining points is neo-colonialist scare mongering. The rUK cannot play hardball easily as it would lead to a collapse of Sterling as markets hate instability. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/318 "2014-09-07T11:15:21Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Which is where I started. Mt original point here or on the other thread was that my sons were **born in England** at the turn of the century. Their children will be in their dotage as British citizens (if the desire it) in the early part of the twenty second century. (bolding mine) Do you not see the important part here? There’s no suggestion that English, Welsh, or Northern Irish people will no longer be British as long as those countries are part of the UK. But, we’re talking about Scottish people here, if Scotland secedes. And neither you nor anyone else have provided a cite that citizens of a country that secedes have an automatic right to retain their prior citizenship. Your English (at least partly) children have nothing to worry about. Also, bear in mind that no Government can be bound by the acts of a previous one. So, even if it were illegal at independence to remove someone’s citizenship, that could be changed by Parliament at any time. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/319 "2014-09-07T11:26:01Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Refusal to service National Debt. Faslane etch at first. > > Massive civil disobedience. > > UDI if rUK is unreasonable. Scotland would not need any permission to leave and could simply depart on notice under international law. > > Followed by: > > Requiring the UK to remove its weapons forthwith from Scottish territory > Reneging on the International debt > Refusal to land English oil and gas through Scottish ports > Refusing OVERFLIGHT for British aircraft > Denial of access to Scottish waters > Withdrawal from supplying energy to the national grid. > > But it would never get to that. Neither side has the whip hand. If there are outstanding issues I can imagine them being settled by arbitration by the great and the good from previous old dominions under Commonwealth oversight. > > Assumption that only the rUK has effective bargaining points is neo-colonialist scare mongering. > > The rUK cannot play hardball easily as it would lead to a collapse of Sterling as markets hate instability. Ha ha ha ha ha! Good luck attempting to join the EU, or any other international organisation, if you try that. You’re not Russia. If you start refusing to pay debts to other countries, you will be fucked, and for a long time. Even attempting any of those things in negotiation would destroy Scotland for the foreseeable future, at best landing you back the way you were before devolution, and at worst (i.e. if you attempt unilateral independence) leaving you with either a massively reduced population, a civil war, or both. I’m sure the blue face paint will suit you, though. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/320 "2014-09-07T11:27:50Z")
I.STM that all your killer ultimatums are pretty damaging to Scotland’s economy. Even before you count fiscal flight and rUK reprisals [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261.md?page=17)