And you can obviously not read comprehensively and with comprehension. You need to read the reasoning behind the decision laid out later in the document I quoted rather than just the decision itself. The judgement is quite clear that EU citizenship cannot be removed without cause, but in the Rottman case there was found to be a just cause. Had he not lied about his criminal status, he could not have been denied German citizenship stripping him of his EU citizenship.
You’re working under the assumption that it’s impossible to feel Scottish AND British. IME, people who have such assumptions are divided into those who walk around ignoring the existence of a world Out There (the typical “has no interest in being without spitting distance of Home” people) and those who will have no problem being, say, Scottish and European but claim “that is completely different!”
Scotland can have minimal influence on the EU regarding pooled interests, yet still retain its sovereignty, like every other small nation. Whether as a full member or as an EEA associate does not matter a great deal- there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
It is gratifying to see so much concern from outsiders about Scotland’s future, but I suspect it is more to do with neo-colonialism, envy and sour grapes rather than any concern for Scotland.
Oh no. I feel British, English and increasingly Scottish. What happened in Australia was a concurrent rise in Australian patriotism and a decline in identification with the mother country. I suspect the same will happen here in the next decade, especially if there is any attempt to pervert the plans for increased devolution should independence not be achieved.
Take a seat for safety. I agree with you totally- pragmatism and real politik- the same attitude that will settle the citizenship problem.
Again and emphatically: you are not remotely qualified to make this legal connection. I am sure you believe that if i only “read with comprehension” I’d fall all over myself to agree with you but i assure you that you’re deluded.
That’s the uk/scotland political position. Got any cite that it’s shared by the rest of the eu? Is it shared Unanimously?
Here’s a legal opinion
You can’t just hand wave it away and assume everything is going to go the way the yes campaign wants. The reality is that in the event of a yes vote, it’s going to take 18 months of back room negotiation to work out if Scotland can maintain its eu membership or not and no one knows the answer to what the outcome will be.
Any one country can block that process if they want to badly enough, wishful thinking isn’t going to to change that.
But it doesnt’ follow that there can be no other “just cause”, and the court says nothing about that. Involuntary change of citizenship as a consequence of state secession is a very well-established phenomenon; there isn’t a whisper in Rottman that suggests it would be contrary to EU law.
It’s a circular argument to say that the UK can’t deprive scots of uk citizenship because that’s a violation of EU law. Reason being, voting to leave the UK is voting to leave the EU, so EU law no longer applies to the iScotlands citizens, until it applies and is re admitted to the EU as a new state.
Again see legal opinion here:
Also, it has been argued that depriving Scots of EU citizenship would be a breach of the citizenship provisions of the Treaties, since they would lose that status without their consent. But this begs the question: for the reasons I set out here, a vote for an independent Scotland would be a vote to leave the EU. By the same token, the foundation of the EU on the principles of democracy (Article 2 TEU) is not as such relevant, since the second sentence of Article 2 states that these principles are common to the Member States. The same goes for the principle of sincere cooperation set out in Article 4(3) TEU. This argument essentially boils down to: an independent Scotland would remain a Member State, because it is a Member State. It’s entirely circular.
From the same link I posted above.
Neo-colonialism? Really? There’s no possibility of someone sincerely and legitimately thinking Scotland going independent is a mistake?
I have no idea. It’s my political analysis. Others may or may not share it.
I don’t want to hand-wave it away. I agree with it. As a matter of EU law, an indepdendent Scotland’s participation in the EU has to be negotiated and agreed by the existing member states.
My point is that the political considerations suggest that it will be negotiated and agreed.
Yes. Realistically, though, no-one knows the precise terms on which Scotland will be able to take its place as a member, but that it cannot take its place at all is an outcome at the far end of very unlikely. The EU in general wants European countries to join; promoting an ever-closer union is its whole raison d’etre. And Scotland is already in; in light of that it’s hard to argue that there are any fundamental obstacles that would preclude an independent Scotland from participating. The biggest obstacle that anyone has pointed to so far is the embarrassment it woudl cause the Spanish government in relation to what is a purely domestic Spanish issueand, in the long run, that’s not the kind of thing that will be allowed to block the maintenance of the integrity of the Union. That’s my reading, anyway.
Yes, they can. The question is, are the Spanish really prepared to pay the political and diplomatic price that they would have to pay if they deployed a veto on this? And would doing so really make any decisive long-term difference to the Catalonia question, such as would make it worth their while to pay that price? They could, after all, easily compromise on some less absolute principle, such as that a state created by secession from a member state won’t be admitted as member in its own right without the assent or support of the state from which it seceded. That would give them control over putative Catalonian membership without standing in the way of the Scots to whose membership they have no intrinsic objection. It would be very hard for Spain not to accede to that position.
I wonder if the 28 countries of the EU realise they have but a short time to debate and agree and ratify a change to the treaty to take account of the eventuality that an existing member state decides to secede. If they miss the date of Scottish independence, they may be missing out on the contribution of a valuable new member.
Spain and Belgium are not the only examples of seperatist movements in Europe and if a precedent it set with Scotland and a mechaism is put in place to allow this to happen it could open the floodgates to a proliferation of regions wishing to become independent states which could turn the EU into a Tower of Babel. These are very real concerns.
Are they going to change the rules anytime soon?
If Scotland becomes a new, independent country, it will have to negotiate its own treaties with other governments around the world. These things do not happen overnight.
It is quite ironic that an Independent Scotland could leave the rest of the UK with an increased Eurosceptic tendency which may vote to leave the EU. It is a strange sort of Scottish Nationlism the wants to tie Scotlands financial future to what happens in UK politics. It would have greater influence if it remained within the UK.
Scotland should have its own currency, and its own central bank from the start and the negotiate membership of the EU and all the other treaty organisations it thinks appropriate.
I would be interested to know how strongly that view is held in Nationalist circles.
Clearly the SNP policy of tying an independent Scotland to sterling is a tacit recognition of the big elephant sitting in the room: an independent Scotland would be economically very weak.
March 17th 2016, Scotland leaves the union. All five million of is have British nationality and hence EU nationality on that date. Quite simple.
I will still have a British Passport stating clearly that I am an EU citizen. So will anyone else with a passport.
Not difficult to understand.
It’s fairly common and is the view of the Green party, but it was not the recommendation of the Fiscal Commission Working Group (FCWG). Their recommendations read:
The FCWG First Report is available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/02/3017/5
Well, not according to anyone who’s studied it, including the FCWG and the Standard & Poor’s report. Do you have a deeper understanding of the Scottish component to the UK economy, or are you just seeing elephants everywhere? 
None of that is necessarily true, and will be subject to negotiation. Can you explain to me how it benefits the UK to have 5 million citizens outside its borders, and why it should allow that? If not, don’t assume it will happen.
I understand it fine. I still don’t get why you assume it must happen.
A negotiation where Yes Scotland think it’s for the best, Better Together think it’s for the best, and the Westminster parliament think it’s for the best. Frankly, I can’t think of a single other issue that is more agreed on than this.
It’s far less painful than the alternative. It would be political suicide for any party to attempt to strip British citizenship from some of their keenest supporters. Why do you think none of them are even suggesting it? Why do you think Theresa May’s report gives the recommendations it does? You surely don’t think she’s secretly an SNP supporter! 
Standards and Poor, I seem to recollect they were rather deeply involved in assessing all those packages of sub prime mortgages as A+. It comes as no surprise that they are also prepared to do the same for the Scottish economy.
Renting professors to lend credibilty to highly optimistic claims that flatter the Scottish electorate into thinking Scotlands prospects are rather greater than they actually are is pure politicking intended to deliver a Yes vote.
The best interests of the UK is matter for the UK electorate and its politicians to decide. While it is very nice to hear that the Nationalists up in Scotland also have think success for them is success for the UK and the rest of the world…they really could not give a stuff about what happens south of the border.
I think everyone takes such remarks with a large pinch of salt.
The rest of the UK the most other countries have not even begun to look at the implications of Scottish independence. Why go to the expense, it probably will not happen. Work will only begin once the result is clear. Otherwise it could be waste of time and money.
You made the claim that the Scottish economy was weak. Do you actually have anything to back that up?
The members of the group are: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/02/3017/2
Why don’t you tell us all which of them is a “rented professor”? If you’re insinuating that they lied in their report, then stop being so cowardly and have the balls to say so directly.
Actually, it’s worse than I noted, because the Scottish government is going to have to review and act upon the individual applications for every inhabitant of Scotland, not just Scots overseas. And I fail to see how it’s easier for Scotland to review five million passport applications than for the rUK to review five million passports. Note too that “confirmation” has no meaning under your view of the situation – there’s nothing to confirm. If the inhabitants of Scotland would be stateless without their British passports, then what they would be seeking from the Scottish government is naturalization.
Well it is. I am English for ten to twenty generations, born and lived in England, moved to Scotland ten years ago and may return to live in my home country some time in the future. Are they really going to take away my passport for living in Scotland, rather than for living in France! Don’t be silly.
You haven’t really read this thread, have you?