I have already pointed out that loss of British citizenship is not connected to loss of the right to settle in the UK. In the 1940s and 1950s, those who lost British citizenship (or CUKC status, as it then was) did not thereby lose the right to settle in the UK. They retained it. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s those who lost CUKC status die not thereby lose the right to settle in the UK because (for the most part) they didn’t have it; they had lost it some time previously under the Immigration legislation.
Secondly, are you suggesting that EU law permits the revocation of Union citizenship where this is racially motivated? Because you seem to be coming perilously close to that. This busines of revoking CUKC/British citizenship status isn’t something that was invented suddenly when India and Pakistan acquired independence; it’s something they have done consistently since CUKC status was created in 1948; as territories become independent they acquire their own citizenship and people connected with that territory acquire that citizenship in lieu of their former CUKC/British citizen status. The UK has continued to implement this policy to this day, and while it has sometimes been controversial nobody has ever challenged it in the ECJ.
No. They were allowed to retain British subject status, which applied to the whole Commonwealth, which of course they weren’t leaving. British citizenship wasn’t created until 1948, and nobody ever got it by virtue of having been born in the dominions.
They won’t. If someone is born in Scotland to a parent who was born in rUK, they will likely be eligible for British citizenship on the same basis as your friend’s son.
Currency, EU membership and other issues are much more relevant to “whither scotland” than whether all Scots get to keep UK citizenship or not. Why don’t you start another thread on “will scots also be UK citizens” and leave this one to discuss the other issues?
You’re not thinking straight, Pjen. If there is a question mark over somebody’s right to settle in Scotland, it’s not removed by giving that someone British citizenship; it;s removed by giving that person Scottish citizenship.
The issue here is whether new Scottish citizens might be deprived of their British citizenship. It makes no sense to argue that they need to keep British citizenship in order to have the right to live, work, etc in Scotland. As Scottish citizens, they will have that right.
There could be a question over whether, if they are outside the EU, they have the right to settle in rUK. But that doesn’[t require an agreement with Scotland that they all have British citizenship; just an agreement on a Common Travel Area.
You are wrong to suggest that in the Irish case there was an agreement for continued UK citizenship. There was no UK citizenship; just British subject status (of which the modern equivalent is commonwealth citizenship). And, while the British government continued to accord British subject status to people born in Ireland until it finally left the Cmmonwealth, that wasn’t by agreement; it was a unilateral act on the part of the British government.
Rottman doesnt’ say what you say it says. It says that citizenship is a matter for national law, that decisions under national law are amenable to review by the ECJ for constency with EU law, and that revocation of naturalisation in Rottman’s case is permissible. It absolutely does not say that it is only permissible where the individual is at fault; you are making that up, and you should ask yourself why you find it necessary to make stuff up in suppor of your arguments.
The economy is a perennial big issue. CEPR issued an interesting report today. In 2012/13 Scotland had 9.6% of total UK public spending, but only 8% of the economy. That implies that they will start off with a deficit of at least 6.4%, prior to any tax increases or budget cuts that they impose. And of course a roaring economy, if it materializes would change the picture, as would an unforeseen collapse.
Oil won’t help too much: [INDENT]UK oil revenues fell from £12.42 billion in 2008 to £4.7 billion in 2013. They should rise slightly over the coming years to £6.4 billion in 2016/17 but are unlikely to rise dramatically unless the sterling price of oil jumps sharply. So the oil revenues in the future will do rather less to close the gap than has occurred previously.[/INDENT]
As the campaign has gone on, finance has become less important than a feeling of the desire for independence. In the early days of the campaign people were excessively worried about their financial position, but as people have warmed to the idea of independence for its own sake, financial considerations have become secondary. There is an increasing feeling that it is better to be somewhat poorer and Free rather than still encumbered by Union and somewhat richer.
I am not saying that it is less important, but that people now see it as less imprtant.
Pjen, you seem to be missing the point of this thread. Read the OP, its not meant to be a forum for evangelizing one side or the other or predicting who will win.
It’s meant to be for discussing the practical consequences of a YES vote.
from the OP:
If the Scotland decides on independence, the vote Yes. What happens next and what will be the effect? There has been very little discussion of the practical consequences. Unpicking 300 years of constitution based around integration with the United Kingdom is not going to be easy. What will be the biggest and most pressing issues if they vote Yes for independence?
I am a jacobite, and not a Scots jacobite, although I have ancestry from each part of Great Britain ( we jacobites don’t really care for UK, the alias since around 1800 ), and although I visited Scotland every year until a few years ago — if the Scots go, and then choose my King, I’d move there in a shot if I could: but that will never happen; Scotland will sooner rather than later devolve into a republic; with exactly the same ruling class of professional clone politicians every modern state endures.
I have been struck that on all issues, for what one asserts, the other just says the opposite, economy, oil future, defence etc. etc., with absolutely no definite answer available. The EU — which the SNP opposed until recently, just as they change all positions according to present advantage — has not issued any definitions that might clarify the way forward, whilst the Scottish financial institutions quietly prepare to scuttle south and no-one has any idea whether Scotland will use sterling, the euro or maybe even a Scottish merk.
But as for the title of this thread, I can only say that the bloody wars between Scotland and England — sometimes one was in the wrong, sometimes the other have been absent since 1603 ( The Wars of the Three Kingdoms was scarcely nationalistically based, nor were the subsequent wars to oppress jacobites ) — and may not be in future, vide the recent popular Balkan Wars; and that Scotland was the poorest country in Europe before 1603, and if they vote Yes, may be once more.
No, it doesn’t. Whether they have a deficit depends not on the gap between public spending and the economy, but on the gap between public spending and revenue.
You are assuming, I think, that if Scotland represents 8% of the UK’s economy, it must generate 8% of the UK’s tax revenue. But there is no reason why this should be so.
The other thing you need to look at - I haven’t read the CEPR report - is how the percentage of public expenditure attributed to Scotland is allocated. How are they treating expenditure outside the UK? How are the treating the running costs of central government departments? As expenditure allocated across the entirety of the UK, on the grounds that they serve the whole country, or as expenditure in the places where the departments are located, and pay rents, wages, etc?
They can see them as that, but it doesn’t mean they are that. You do understand the difference, right?
Using a ridiculous over-the-top example, just so you’ll understand. In the days of the slave trade, many whites saw Africans as sub-human scum that could be treated as cattle. By your argument, that would mean that they were sub-human scum that could be treated as cattle. Which is obviously ridiculous and I am pretty sure isn’t your actual opinion.
Colonialism in the context of the relationship between the nations of the UK is absurd hyperbole that does nothing to advance the debate.
Scots are everywhere in UK politics and manage many of the biggest organisations and enterprises that power the economy. Scots ran much of the British colonial empire when it existed. They are hardly in a position to regard themselves as victims of it.
It does make me wonder about the course of the conversation at the grass roots in Scotland but I find it very doubtful it could be so ill-informed.
Or maybe such reports are simply a ridiculous exaggeration for the purposes of political point scoring hereabouts.
That attitude is imaginary. If I’m being honest, a lot of the comments explaining how us colonialists only increase the “yes” vote by saying x or y just make those voters who react in such a way sound childish. Voting for independence because of imagined disrespect, or because of the current government or because David Bowie said you should vote “no” is just silly. I don’t buy the guilt trip arguments that imply democracy is so sacred that no outsiders get the right to comment or criticize, that all votes are equally valid and good decisions. Everyone has a right to a vote, but it doesn’t mean voting a certain way, or for certain reasons, isn’t stupid. References to “natives” are just an attempt to silence unwelcome opinions.
To address your implication that Scots do know what they’re voting for, that’s clearly not true in a lot of cases, including currency. There is no real plan from the “yes” side except to transform Scotland into a utopia. Of course, it’s hard to come up with concrete plans at the moment, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a leap of faith to vote “yes”. No one knows what Scotland will use for a currency, we just know what Alex Salmond hopes for. Maybe he’ll get it, but it would be absurd to claim there is any certainty, and it’s absurd to complain when people point that out. Such complaints give the impression that the speaker is only interested in debate and democracy when it favours their own position. Inconvenient truths are for meanies.
It is typical for people outside Scotland to take your attitude. In Scotland there is some distrust of Salmond, but the idea and campaign have gone beyond such pettiness. There is a gathering feeling that even if we are poorer or higher taxed, independence is worth it for its own sake. This is persistently amplified by people suggesting that Scots are not able to decide their own destiny in a way that they wish.
They have cancelled the One Show here for the next two weeks and replaced it with an extended news. The eight o clock programme is Mibbes Aye, Mibbes Naw, another documentary on the campaign. People are watching these and talking about them. The public is engaged and moving towards independence.
The Scottish news on BBC tonight finished with the political correspondent saying that new polls to be published tomorrow give increasing hope to the YES campaign.
It obviously varies from person to person, but I see ideas like independence for its own sake as more petty than consideration for currency. There is no natural difference between the Scots and the English that makes government and legislation from Edinburgh better for Scots than that from London. Of course, I understand the feeling, but it’s just so arbitrary, if you live in the Highlands, for example, to consider Edinburgh a legitimate seat of government, but not London.
I’ve yet to hear anyone “suggesting that Scots are not able to decide their own destiny in a way that they wish.”
There was an op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday (by a former prime minister) opposing Scottish independence. He suggested that U.K. members have relatively unique bonds compared to other nations (which self-identify through presumably inconsequential stuff like ethnic identity and shared ideals) - instead, U.K.ers share commonality of welfare state* benefits, which is what should be important.
In that case Germans should be particularly united as their welfare state pre-dated ours. There is too much emphasis placed on the welfare state and the UK- other countries in Europe have done as well and better over the last century with such interventions.
The main differences between Scotland an England are
1/ Politics and Attitudes- Scotland is considerably less conservative (and particularly less neo-conservative) than England.
2/ Population- England is overpopulated and overdeveloped; Scotland is underpopulated and underdeveloped.
Imagine a unitary State with reduced area Texas as its south and Oregon as its north!
And after Yes, Mibbes the Shetland, Orkney and Western Islanders will decide their own destiny in the way they wish.
Reunited with Norway, they could instantly accede to that coveted EFTA status. Just junking Scotland.