Because the British Government has not proposed it. They mention it as a possibility, but say it depends on future administrations should they take a different view. And because the UK is bound by various treaty obligations as explained at length above.
And because even Better Together have not used it to try to scare voters to vote NO!
Why so many people blinded to reality. In the real world things are done simply and practically. The major marker of Nationality is either a Passport or an Identity card. On independence everyone that has one will already have a Passport if they need it. These will expire after nought to ten years. When they expire it will be a simple matter to show that they lived in Scotland on the date of Independence or had a Scottish parent/grandparent and for all other information to be simply copied from the Passport Office in London. Reality might be that Scotland pays the Passport Office to carry out this function as the simplest method, maintaining only oversight!
They are probably not going to take away anyone’s passport. That doesn’t mean they can’t. Like everything else, though, it’s not automatic, and will have to be agreed.
Obviously this current administration isn’t going to do so, because Scotland can’t become independent in this administration. What’s more likely to happen, at some point in the fairly distant future, is that some people will have to choose which nationality they are, and be treated as foreigners in the other country. There is no chance that all citizens of an independent Scotland will automatically be British for all eternity.
And, as your own cites make clear, if you choose Scottish citizenship, the UK would no longer be obliged to keep you as a British citizen. Englishness has fuck all to do with it, there’s no such thing as an English citizen, and no proposal to create such a think.
And the opposite if they apply for a replacement UK passport, should we choose to go down that route. We could theoretically refuse a UK passport to anyone who holds, or is eligible to hold, a Scottish one, but I rather doubt that would happen…
But your insistence that nothing will change, except an extra layer of bureaucracy to allow people to be Scottish as well as British, is rather silly, and your claim that it will be cheaper and easier to do that is absurd.
All I have ever said is that current living British Citizens in Scotland (whether Scottish or English by nationality) will, except in extreme circumstances, keep their citizenship permanently if they wish to.
The expense would be in endless tribunals to prove that people could have their citizenship removed. It is not going to happen. It will be like any other transition with people retaining their citizenship but not necessarily passing it to their children.
I have no doubt that, as part of any independence agreement, any such cost would be borne by Scotland, so I have no great concern about that. Scotland should bear the cost of its choice, whatever that ends up being.
Ok then find me one other example in history of a country breaking away from another and every single person in the breakaway still having the right to citizenship of the original country?
Should be easy right?
I said the an independent Scotland would have a weak economy.
What credibility should anyone give to research commissioned by the Scottish Parliament? It is dominated by the SNP who only want to see conclusions that back up their argument. Any serious appraisal of Scotlands prospects has to come from the UK ministries that hold the information. Most of the cost estimates (for example, the relocation of defence facilities) has not been done yet and work won’t start until the vote is past. These are very significant costs that are as yet unknown.
Standards and Poor indeed! Hope that is not the standard of research by which Scotland would run its affairs.
As I am sure you know a lot of Scotland fortunes are based on Oil and estimates of the reserves and how much investment is required to exploit what remains. That is highly dependent on the price of Oil.
No amount of professors waving their degrees at each other are going to lend any credibility to an accurate prediction in that respect. It is highly volatile. So, indeed are the fortunes of the Oil companies that do the work. Today the news is BP faces yet more fines over the New Horizon disaster. It is as much to do with international politics as far as anything else and that is full of nasty surprises.
Scotland is a rich country! If its wealth were measured in the rherotric of its nationalist politicians, I am sure it would be the envy of the world.
The fact that the SNP insists on the protection of Bank of England as a central bank and insists it has ‘right’ to use sterling as its currency says it all.
It would find itself in serious trouble if it went alone: outside of the EU, subject to volatile oil prices and with a defence industry that will be shut down and moved to England. Who would lend it money? Rhetoric does not buy you credit on international credit markets and threats to not pay its share of the National Debt will be carefully noted by foreign investors.
The Nationalist bluster will be over in a couple of weeks and we will see whether the Scots have swallowed all this baloney.
Then maybe there can be a more serious engagement regarding devolution for Scotland. A gradual and deliberate process what has clearly been successful.
If there is a Yes vote, the first thing that will be looked at is the cost and who pays. The research on which that based will be impartial and not part of a voting campaign.
That’s actually easy, the Irish Free State. Between 1922 and 1949 everybody was still British (although technically subjects, not citizens). In 1949, that changed, and those who wished to remain British had to apply to do so - the thing that pjen claims is impossible and unprecedented.
I expect something similar to happen should Scotland gain independence, but there’s nothing to prevent citizenship being stripped immediately on someone gaining Scottish citizenship, or being extended indefinitely. Not permanently, though, that would always be the decision of the current Government, which can’t be bound by a prior one.
The more I read of all these reports and claims the more I am convinced that no-one knows the true figures. It all depends on what formula is used, how the figures are proportioned, and what expenses are taken into account.
My default position is this; that our finances will not drastically change after independence. We will either be marginally better off or marginally worse off. Oil money will keep the wolves from the door for twenty years. After the oil runs out we will imo see a real decline in our finances. The only way to prevent this decline is by taking tough economic decisions in the next two decades. However, I really cannot imagine a Scottish government of any political persuasion making those tough decisions until very, very late in the process.
The Irish free state, was a British dominion, which for many purposes was still under British sovereignty. Dominions don’t exist anymore and that’s not the status that Scotland will have after a yes vote.
As you point out, when Ireland became truly independent in 1949 you had to apply to remain British, and that is by far the most likely result of a yes vote for Scotland.
No. The cost would be borne by rUK as the Country attempting to remove citizenship from people. People would have access through both the European Court of Justice within the EU and the ECHR with the Council of Europe.
I am saying that the Scottish settlement will follow the Irish one. Current citizenships will continue if desired, passing it on to offspring will be limited.
Although one government cannot be bound by a subsequent one, the UK still has Treaty obligations which cannot easily be ignored. Some of these involve citizenship.
People have retained the right to remain British throughout their lives. Terry Wogan did it so that he could have more than an honorary knighthood.
I don’t think this is fair or true. When campaigning for a “no” vote, your points must necessarily contain negativity. You can say “x is a benefit of being in the UK” but that’s meaningless if there is not at least the implication that x will no-longer exist without the UK. How can you persuade people not to vote for independence without telling them it’s a bad idea? The “no” side is also unable to say a “no” vote will bring any improvements, because how could a vote for the status quo bring changes? It’s disingenuous to support a vote for change and then cry “negativity!” every time your opponents disagree. It doesn’t help that we all tend to view anything overtly pro-British with a large dose of suspicion, a problem that Scottish nationalism doesn’t really suffer from.
This is all compounded by the empty promises of the “yes” side, who insist Scotland will retain everything that’s good about the UK while gaining more on top. Considering that Salmond’s plans are obviously driven by a certain amount of baseless optimism, not pointing out the risks would be ridiculous. The other side to this is that the “yes” side must necessarily say what’s bad about the UK - and they do. That’s also negativity, but it’s necessary, otherwise they have no argument.
As for the “jilted teenager” comment, it only looks that way if you assume bad faith. It seems to me that there is an attitude among the “yes” campaign that Scotland can become independent and make all the unilateral decisions they find convenient, but the rUK will still owe them anything else they want. Oil in Scottish waters? Then it’s Scotland’s. The Bank of England in London? Well that’s everyone’s.
The point is that you can’t have it both ways. If Scotland is an independent country then the rUK has no more obligation to Scotland than it has to France, if it’s not in the interest of British citizens. The UK government can’t just throw resources away when it has an obligation to people in the UK. The “yes” side assumes everyone else will accommodate them (not just Westminster, but the EU) but the “no” side says that’s not necessarily the case. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Pjen, I admire your stamina. Do you ever sleep? 
The cost would be borne by whoever it is agreed will bear it in the independence negotiation - so, whoever the UK decides will pay. The treaties you’ve cited aren’t binding on the UK, and it’s entirely possible that neither the UK nor an independent Scotland will be EU members by that point - as I said earlier, the EU backing Scotland attempting to force the UK to bear the cost of independence would be a(nother) good reason to leave it.
Why are you so desperate for Scots to remain British after independence? It’s almost as if you recognise that Scottish citizenship would be useless…
Intermittently and in short bursts. I have a disorder that causes me sufficient pain to disturb regular sleep. I still get eight hours a day but it is usually between 12mn and four, nine and eleven and five to seven after I have taken my painkillers. Hence it looks like I am on line all day. I am also editing various web pages, writing technical material and (today) playing the new Sims 4. Multi tasking!
No again. The EU Treaty and the European Convention on Human Right are binding on the UK. The costs will arise because of doubts about the legality under those treaties of the act of stripping British Citizenship should it choose to do so; that does not involve the future state of independent Scotland so would be cost free for them
Of course, Scotland would be responsible for issuing its own passports and ID cards and would bear the cost of that, but would in return not be paying for the rUK Passport Office.