It’s been done, as has been pointed out repeatedly, many times in recent history. Your problem seems to be that it will inconvenience Scots to lose their British citizenship, and that the rules must be set in such a way as to prevent that inconvenience. There would be no such obligation on the UK.
As with everything, this will be part of the negotiations after any vote for independence. The UK will do what is best for its citizens, and exactly what that is will depend on what the details of Scottish citizenship is.
Oh, and I imagine that, as independence is Scotland’s choice, you’d be paying for it, not the rUK, so money won’t be an issue.
My point is that times have changed. The UK has EU obligations and there have been developments in international law protecting citizenship. The Government is not proposing it and knows that it would open Pandora’s Box if it attempted it. Not even the zealots of the Better Together campaign have threatened it. No-one else is talking about it. It is not on the agenda. It is not going to happen.
It is just colonialist and unionist shroud waving, and only happening here!
They aren’t saying it because it basically goes without saying. If you vote to separate, you don’t remain a citizen of the country you just voted to separate from. Quite bizarre your handle on reality.
That’s a quote from an answer to a Parliamentary Question given on 23 June 2014 on behalf of the Home Secretary.
I have bolded the bit which indicates that withdrawing British citizenship from Scottish citizens who do not have residential or patrial affinity with rump UK is very much a live issue. It’s something the UK government will take a position on if and when it has to. That seems to undermine your claim that the British government would not or could not do this. Their stated position is, in fact, that they may very well do this. And, we have already noted in this thread, they have a long-established pattern of doing this.
What is the “yes” campaigns response to the likelihood that both Spain and Belgium would veto Scotland’s entry to the EU?
It seems a pretty vital issue , Scotland stuck outside the EU would be an economic disaster. Spain and Belgium do have such a veto power and they have good reason to use it.
No. The UK Government position paper I quoted specifically does not say this. It does say it could happen under a subsequent government which implies it will not happen under this one.
There’s to be a UK general election in 2015 (barring, as noted above, a change in law in the meantime) so, if this issue becomes a live one, it will be for a government enjoying the confidence of the parliament elected in 2015 to address.
The convention in these circumstances is always to speak of “a future government”, to avoid the impression that the current government is trying to bind its successors. But following this convention, and saying that “a future government” might to such-and-such does not mean that, if the future government is composed of the same party or the same ministers as the current one, it won’t do that. It just means that the issue will be decided by the government that has to decide it; it doesn’t imply any commitment as to how we would decide it if we were that government.
It is actually sourced from the Position paper on Independence which is where I copied it from. Note that it separates out the current position from what MAY happen in future. It is not a stated intention to withdraw citizenship, just a warning about the possibility.
As I have pointed out, it would have to be done within European and International Law and would be unbelievably complex and expensive to enforce for little gain. It is not going to happen.
Actually membership of the EEA looks quite good from a Scottish point of view- we would not have to share the Scottish waters for fisheries, but would have access to the Single Market, access to working and living in the EC but no representation and no need to share VAT revenues.
It is quite clear that you may not render someone stateless, nor force a nationality on someone. That is clear international law and is even stopping Teresa May from stripping Citizenship from terrorists.
Under EU Treaties, no country may act to cause someone to be not a European citizen without due process and good cause.
Seems quite water tight to me for many if not most cases.
There is no statement anywhere of a Government intention to strip Scots of British Citizenship. If they do, they will need to comply with various laws.
Did some digging on the issue and it seems the yes campaigns opinion is that they automatically continue as an EU member, but there’s a lot of wishful thinking and hand waving in that …
See:
One major issue. iScotland cannot be an EU member and continue to use the British pound as their currency. EU members must have control of their own currency and their own central bank as membership requirements.
That leaves three options:
iScotland has to create their own new currency with all the problems that involves
they have to adopt the euro ( but possibly they first have to have their own currency in order to meet the requirements to do that)
No. You’re hilariously ridiculous. You really think a ruling on a fraudster jumping countries is a slam dunk obvious parallel to a nation separating from another. So damn silly.
Hang on a minute. First, this is a very different position than the official yes campaign which is claiming that full eu membership will be the result of a yes vote and that’s the aim.
Second, you want to vote for in independence from the UK, because you don’t have enough representation but you’d accept an outcome where you end up with zero representation in the eu ? That’s an improvement for Scotland?
Edit: regarding “flexibility and pragmatism” that’s just pure hand waving assuming that all the other eu nations will be as nice to Scotland as possible. Why should they break the rules for Scotland? What’s in it for them, especially the eu nations with their own breakaway movements that they want to discourage?
I think you’re missing the politics of the situation. Given the existing positions of both the UK and Scottish governments on independence, if there is a “yes” vote there’s a huge political imperative to proceed to independence; it will happen. And, if there’s going to be an independent Scotland that wants to remain in the EU, the EU does want it in. They do not want to see a place that wants to stay in the EU being forced to leave.
Given that, an awful lot of existing rules can be waived or excepted on the (entirely legitimate) basis that they were not drawn up with secession from a member state in mind. Where a territory already in the EU is acquiring independence, a lot can be to make it possible for it to remain within the EU, and there’ll be a lot of political will to do it.
Yes, the Spaniards will have concerns, and will kick up, but few other member states will be sympathetic to the point where they see Scotland leave the EU because Spain is getting in a tizz about Catalonia. Ultimately the Spaniards and the Catalonians have to sort out their issues and they may go down the Scottish route or they may not, but there won’t be much tolerance for the notion that a completely different country has to leave the EU because Catalonia. The Spanish concerns will only carry so much traction.
Currency-wise, I see two realistic options for Scotland; sterling or the euro. I suspect the EU could and would live with either. There is no way they are going to make Scotland establish an independent currency just so they can ditch it again to join the euro.