Pjen, do you really not see the hypocrisy of arguing that international law and EU treaties mean that all the oil is yours and your British citizenship can’t be removed but then when EU rules on membership are brought up you insist everything will be settled by common sense and fairness?
Nope, you’re not going to get everything all your own way.
I have no doubt that in the result of a YES vote, Scotland will get full independence and after 10 or 20 years it will probably have been worth it.
In the meantime, there will a 5-10 year period of “difficult times”.
• You will not get to keep the UK pound, all major UK political parties agree on this.
• EU membership is not automatic, you will have to re-apply and go through a five year minimum application process.
• If you refuse to accept your portion of the UK debt, your membership to the EU will be blocked, likely there would be other international sanctions if this threat is carried out.
• If you massively cut defense spending as the SNP has claimed it wants to do, then NATO membership is unlikely to be accepted.
• You won’t get to pick and choose the UK military assets you want and get the rest as cash, that makes no sense, your 8.4 percent will be negotiated between both parties, you’ll end up with assets you don’t want and can then try to sell them on the open market (or back to the UK at bargain rates, as there is likely to be few takers).
• The SNP will find that the only way to deliver on its promises for health, education etc is to go into massive debt, which it will have to take on it its new unproven Scottish currency, at high interest rates.
• The majority of businesses that depend on UK/EU trade will relocate south to rUK during the 5-10 year period of uncertainty. Ironically this will provide a nice boom to Northern England.
When all that settles down, iScotland can probably be successful by offering massive corporate tax incentives like Eire does, once they eventually get EU membership and a currency sorted. Sometime around 2025 most likely.
The YES leaders are not so stupid to believe they are going to get everything their own way, but they know if they tell the truth about how hard the independence process is going to be in the short term, it will have no chance of success.
There’s obvious potential for trade-offs there, though.
EU membership is key. Yes, it has to be negotiated, but the “five-year minimum application process” is not a given. We are in a unique situation; Scotland is already in the EU, all the rules and policies are already in force, all the associated infrastructure is in place. What we are looking at here is making the status quo viable, even with an independent Scottish government. But of course the status quo is already viable; that’s why it’s the status quo. I would have thought that Scotland is well-positioned to get a much easier ride here than any candidate country which is currently outside the Union.
I accept that agreement on the allocation of the UK national debt is necessary in the context of admission to the EU, but that gives the Scots an incentive to reach early agreement on that issue, so as to get early confirmation of admission to the EU. Even if Scotland were not to be in the EU, I don’t see export-oriented business emigrating to rUK; it’s enough that Scotland would be in the EEA.
I note what you say about sterling, but the alternative to sterling is not a “new unproven Scottish currency”; it’s the euro. Which helps to solve the anticipated “high interest rates” problem.
As for defence, you mention that if Scotland limits its defence expenditure they may be denied admission to NATO. I don’t see that this need bother them, though; how will they suffer if not in NATO? And of course if their policy is to limit defence expenditure, then not getting top grade UK military assets may not bother them greatly either. They don’t need top grade UK military assets.
Do you really think that people would vote YES if they knew that being forced to change to the euro is the most realistic and likely consequence?
(Lets overlook the fact that the EU will have to break a whole bunch of rules and make a specific exemption to allow Scotland to do that without first having its own currency pegged to the euro for five years.)
Well, if they vote YES it will be in the knowledge that all major UK parties agree on not co-managing the pound with Scotland. And they can be taken to know, I think, that for a country that seeks early entry to the EU, adoption of the euro would be the obvious course.
We needn’t overlook it, so much as note that the rules concerned kind of presume that a country already has its own currency, and it will be appropriate to reconsider them when presented with a fact situation in which this is not the case.
There is actually a third option open to the Scots, apart from sterling or the euro; the Irish solution, or unilateral pegging. From 1928 until about 1978, Ireland had a currency (the “Irish pound”) which they unilaterally pegged to sterling at the rate of 1:1, by the simple expedient of always being willing to buy or sell unlimited quantities of the Irish currency at that rate. The result was the Ireland benefited from (or was saddled with, depending on your point of view) sterling interest rates, fiscal policy, etc, and sterling notes and coins circulated freely in Ireland.
This wouldn’t be an ideal solution for Scotland, but it’s a feasible one, if they really are wedded to the idea of continuing to use sterling. It might be problematic as regards their application for EU membership; the existing rules require new members to adopt the euro. While a case could be made for admitting Scotland on the basis of an explicit sharing of currency with rUK, it would be harder to get agreement on the basis of a Scottish currency unilaterally pegged to sterling.
But this just highlights the point that telling the Scots to establish their own currency and peg it to the euro, preparatory to ditching it and adopting the euro when they join the EU, is a complete non-starter. Realistically, the only reason the EU would say that to Scotland is if they had decided they didn’t want the Scots in the EU but were too polite to say so.
They do want the Scots in the EU, and taking existing rules and mechanically applying them to a situation that they were never intended to apply to is not the way they will seek to acheive that objective.
Ok fair enough, if the Scottish public doesn’t believe all the hype that the YES campaign is claiming, but would still vote YES anyway, knowing it will be a 5-10 year hard fought slog to independence, then I say good luck to them.
It is a fact that the oil question is determined by international Treaty. It is also a fact that no European country is free to remove citizenship from people for a variety of reasons.
These are different matters from things to be decided by discussion- Faslane, Currency, National Debt where both Scotland and rUK have room to manoeuvre.
We shall see what will happen in the negotiations, but the pressure from a YES vote will create a strong force to settle and settle quickly as the alternative is for matters to be settled in the international court in the Hague.
It is fascinating that these problems seem to be magnified here, yet are not discussed regularly by the Better Together campaign or any other politicians.
Th ekey points of currency, military and other matters will alos face the imperative that a rocky process would lead to a run on the pound and major instability for the whole UK. It will be avoided.
My best guess is that Salmond will give in on Faslane and allow a twenty years lease in return for a compromise on the use of the pound for that twenty years. That Scotland will accept basic military equipment it needs or a monetary amount to set up a Scottish Defence Force. That membership of the EU is of limited concern as we will either enter EFTA and hence the EEA or agree a deal with the EU like Switzerland.
As to future Scottish success, it may not (probably will not) be an SNP government in 2016 and we shall return to some form of coalition involving LibDem, Labour and or the SNP- I suspect a Grand Coalition for the first decade of Independence to ensure unity and concentrate minds.
Economically we do not know how well Scotland will fair, but we shall see.
What will not happen is open acrimony; that is not how politics really works between liberal Western Democracies.
You’re assuming, though, that what the YES campaigners offer is hype, but when NO campaigners say that there will be no co-management of sterling, that’s gospel and anyone who doesn’t accept it is a dreamer.
The truth is that what both the yes campaign and the no campaign offer are aspirations, and the principles which underly democracy require us to assume that msot of the voters appreciate what this means.
The major UK parties may not want to allow any co-management of sterling, but if there is a YES vote and the negotiations begin, they’ll have to ask themselves whether its realistic to expect the Scots to accept a share of the national debt denoinated in someone else’s currency. In other words, some of the things they want may be in tension with some of the other things they want.
Or there could be old-fashioned trade-offs between ostensibly unconnected matters. “You don’t want to let us co-manage sterling, and we don’t want, say, your naval bases on our territory. OK, let’s talk.”
I wouldn’t bet on it working. I started the campaign as a Devo-Max proponent looking to independence within the decade. As the campaign has continued and become so negative I have moved to a much more independence minded position (and so have over 15% of the electorate who have moved from NO to YES over the lasy few months.
At the beginning of the campaign the YES camp consisted of die hard SNP and a small group of nationalistic emotionalists. As the campaign has progressed what has happened is that the YES camp has coalesced around a vision of Scotland as a modern Democratic nation with a future of its own, now supported by voters of any hue. The SNP dominance and faux nationalism have subsided as we are experiencing the most strange feeling of the popular voice actually controlling the situation. The coverage in the media is blanket coverage and the main topic of discussion is what will happen next week. There has been a sea-change and there is a general feeling that 'now is the time. I did not expect this!
The Better Together campaign is probably responsible for this- there was so much doommongering that people started to ignore their key points and ask repeatedly- “If you say we are better together, why are we not better together now- what are the advantages of Union.” It is probably to late to start that now as feelings have changed and so has the country. This may be difficult to feel from outside Scotland, but there is a feeling of revolution in the air.
We shall see next Thursday. Whatever happens Scotland will never be the same again.
Can you not get it into your head that you are wrong and the cites (from many sources) are right. Norway approved the admission last month and was the last country to have to do so. At that point Croatia became a member of the EEA as listed in multiple sites that have been updated. Some sites have not been kept up to date and show Croatia as still waiting. All that remains to be agreed is some ancillary protocols outside the agreement itself. One of the cites actually has a picture of the three EFTA reps (Switzerland as usual representing Liechtenstein as usual in foreign affairs) and the Greek delegate from the EU and the signed treaties that confirm Croatias admission on the 1st of August to the EEA.
Actually no, Pjen, that’s not a fact. We’ve been through this already. If Scotland becomes independent, the UK is free, legally and politically, to withdraw British citizenship from people who have it by virtue of their connection with Scotland.
In the present context, though, the issue is something of a red herring. British citizenship is not something that has to be decided (or that will be decided) in any independence negotiations.
The Scottish government has already announced the outlines of a Scottish citizenship law - who will immediately have Scottish citizenship conferred upon them on independence, who will be eligible to apply, etc. In no case does entitlement to Scottish citizenship depend on already being a British citizen. In no case is anybody asked to renounce British citizenship in order to take up Scottish citizenship. The Scottish government is comfortable with Scottish citizens holding any other nationality or citizenship.
None of this is on the table for discussion in the independence negotiations. It has already been decided. Independent Scotland will not require, or seek, any other country’s approval of its citizenship law.
But this cuts both ways. Whether somebody else retains or loses British citizenship is no business of the Scottish government’s. That is entirely a matter for rUK to decide. The question of whether some new Scottish citizens will, or will not, lose British citizenship is a matter which will be decided unilaterally by rUK. It will not be a bargaining issue between Scotland and rUK.
If past precedent is followed, new Scottish citizens will lose British citizenship unless they have a sufficient patrial connection to rUK. But my guess is that past precedent will not be followed; it would annoy a lot of people, and achieve very little. But that is a purely domestic political consideration for the rUK government; there is no EU or international constraint on them, and Scotland will not be bargaining for one outcome or the other in independence negotiations.
You are ignoring the fact that as British citizens even after (and especially at independence) all those who get their citizenship from Scottish roots or affiliation are still EU citizens and will remain so even after Scotland is Independent.
The ECJ has found that European Citizens are entitled tonot be deprived of their EU citizenship. Therefore the rUK is not free to remove citizenship. Now of course if Scotland was in the EU, then that would be possible, but Scotland will probably spend five years or so as an associate before being admitted.
Can you provide a cite for loss of citizenship caused by actual independence rather than racist laws set up to stop people from the sub continent, Africa or the Caribbean generally being able to settle in the UK?
Patrials of the old dominions were all allowed to keep citizenship and pass it on one generation to their offspring.
I have a friend in the USA you has lived there since she was seven. Her father was a US serviceman. She is as American as they come, but is also a full British Citizen having been born in Liverpool. Her son, who has never even visited the UK, is in the process of registering as a British Citizen so that he can work in the EU. Surely they cannot deny such treatment to people born in Scotland when such tenuous links are allowed.
Regarding Citizenship it has just dawned on me that this too will be negotiated. There is every reason why a settlement along the lines of a/ old dominions and b/Ireland should be agreed where UK citizenship is agreed upon. The alternative could be that as Scotland will be outwith the EU from independence, UK citizens could be required to seek visas to live, work or visit Scotland. Of course that is not going to happen and the above compromise will be reached.
And I repeat, nothing like this has been said by any campaigner for either side and the British Government position paper says that this is not part of current government policy and is only a possibility for future unpredictable governments.
Talking of independence talks being done by walking on eggshells because of the danger of a run on the pound, the pound fell another 1% last night because of the uncertainty caused by the poll showing a majority for independence.
The Guardian suggest it could fall 10% with a vote for Independence. How much further would it fall if there was an acrimonious debate going on.
All that the ECJ has found is that citizens of the Union cannot be deprived of that status arbitrarily. It’s not difficult to argue that loss of Union citizenship is not “arbitrary” when it occurs in the context of a country leaving the Union.
Pjen, give it up, this thread is not just about citizenship. Your family seems likely to keep citizenship for two generations no matter what happens, some other Scots will most likely eventually lose the right to also have UK citizenship. If Scotland is (eventually) part of the EU then losing UK citizenship doesn’t matter to anyone.
No it has not.The full judgement makes it clear that EU citizenship may not be removed from an EU citizen without their consent unless they have acted improperly. Read the whole judgement and the legal argument behind it.
The form of the judgement is first of all defining how EU citizenship should be protected and then explaining why the false declaration by Rottmann made it acceptable that he should lose his citizenship. But the general principle was set that unless there is fault on the part of the citizen, their citizenship is intact and the member state cannot remove it.
No for the reasons stated above-removal of EU citizenship is against treaties signed by the UK which require it to follow the law as decided by the ECJ. The ECJ has made it clear that except in exceptional circumstances EU citizenship may not be removed by the removal of national citizenship.
