Ah, I see John Mace already provided a link above.
Well, the difference is that you’d be acquiring citizenship in another country by living in Scotland, which isn’t the case for people living in France, the USA or Australia. Under current UK law, of course, acquiring another citizenship does not constitute a renunciation of British citizenship, but it’s easy to see why Parliament might construe secession differently.
Because Westminster might decide it. Your citizenship is a function of the law that determines citizenship. If Scotland separates, there will be a very strong sentiment in England that Scots not keep UK citizenship, and if that sentiment results in Westminster deciding to change the rules of citizenship, there it is. If Westminster decides otherwise, so be it. It’s up to them. ** I should point out that the “Yes” campaign says exactly the same thing.**
It would, frankly, be absolutely silly for a country to claim independence but demand its citizens remain full citizens of the country they just separated from. If Scotland wants to be independent, be independent. But that’s my opinion. What does matter is what Westminster decides to do.
Speaking as a citizen of a country with its own separation movement, I can assure you the mood of the remainder of the country will NOT be in favour of letting the separating population continue to enjoy the benefits of citizenship in the country they just rejected.
Scots with UK passports after Independence?
Well passports last 10 years now, so at the time of renewal, I guess they will have the opportunity to obtain a Scottish passport…should they think it worthwhile.
I guess Scots born in Scotland after independence will acquire Scottish citizenship and later be able to apply for a Scottish passport. There route to UK citizenship will be the same as for other countries unless there is some special provision.
I would guess the Scottish constitution, when it is agreed in 2016 might have something to say about citizenship.
However, this is another point of negotiation between the UK and an Independent Scotland.
The arrangements for a Free Travel Area might be open to question if Scotland remains outside the EU at Independence. There would have to be passport control and customs at the England/Scotland border. The same would be true if the UK decides to leave the EU and Scotland subsequently decides to join.
Scotland may wish to join the EEA, but there are drawbacks.
It would have to pay to access the internal market and comply with all EU legislation but would have not representation within it, no part of the decision making processes.
It would have no contribution to EU energy policy and given its primary asset is Oil, or Fisheries that is a major disadvantage.
Peering in from the outside, unable to take part in substantive debates about EU policy do not fit well with the picture painted of the expectations of an indepedent Scotland. For a period of time until Scotland accedes to the EU, it will be without the representation it had when within the UK.
I guess the big question is how long will Scotland remain outside the EU. The answer to that question depends on achieving a unanimous agreement of all 28 countries of the EU.
Scotland could be in an economic wilderness for years, which is indeed a scary problem for any nation.
Note the opening question is about if Scotland says Yes to independence, what happens next. Once the party is over. What are the practical matters to address?
Many of these matters have been glossed over by the Yes campaign assuming that every other country will be sympathetic to Scottish interests and will bend over backwards to help newly independent Scotland take its rightful place in the world.
The day after independence the Scots will have to contemplate the reality of what independence means, not the dream.
I thought it was relevant to a particular kind of view that implies there was some period in the history of a place during which everything was as it should be; everything before it doesn’t count, and every change after was wrong.
Not necessarily. There will be a choice over acceptance of citizenship, and anyway the UK is fine with all other dual nationalities including every colony that has been given independence.
Anyway it is illegal under several treaties to make someone stateless.
This just unionist scaremongering.
I was born British over six decades ago. Had I been born in Ireland of Irish blood for generations, I would still be British by right despite the acrimonious manner in which Ireland left the union (see Terry Wogan.)
Just unionist scaremongering.
See my note above. Scottish citizenship will be voluntary. It is counter treaty obligations to strip someone of citizenship.
Just unionist scaremongering.
How will they deal with me and my family, all English born but long time permanent resident in Scotland. Would they just strip Scottish born of UK nationality but leave us alone. And if they strip Scots in Scotland of UK nationality, how about Scots resident in the rUK, and those resident anywhere else in the world?
They will not remove British citizenship from anyone.
Just unionist scaremongering.
See my notes above. Removing citizenship depending on residence on independence is just too complex and impossible to implement.
Scottish citizenship cannot be foisted on people. They need to choose it. The current Scottish proposals are for citizenship to be voluntary and inclusive.
Realpolitik suggests that no Westminster Government is going to make people apply for a passport to visit their Scottish grandmother!
[QUOTE=filmstar-en;17697772
The arrangements for a Free Travel Area might be open to question if Scotland remains outside the EU at Independence. There would have to be passport control and customs at the England/Scotland border. The same would be true if the UK decides to leave the EU and Scotland subsequently decides to join.[/QUOTE]
Outside the EU, but with full EFTA rights allowing full access to the internal market like Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
Honestly can’t see Westminster making a fuss over passports and travel north & south of the Scottish border. A Dubliner can apply for a British passport, someone in Northern Ireland can have a Republic of Ireland passport. They don’t need a passport to travel between the international boundary, and if it wasn’t for aeroplane hijacking/ bombing/ smuggling you wouldn’t need identification to travel in-between England & Southern Ireland by plane & ferry.
If Westminster & Holyrood do go down this road it would be out of spite.
Cite for EFTA members paying for access to the internal market please.
Being outside the energy and fisheries policy would be a net gain for Scotland.
Having a minor minister and a dozen seats in the EU Parliament is neither here nor there. EFTA countries do fairly well under this arrangement.
And would be illegal and cutting off ones nose.
Can you see the House of Lords letting any government strip previous Brits of their citizens?
Just unionist scaremongering.
And will do very well as with every other country that has chosen independence. Why should Scotland be the only country to meet independence as a chaotic and dangerous process.
Just unionist scaremongering.
A Dubliner can apply but in many instances wouldn’t be eligible for a British passport.
If born before 1948 they would be.
In the very short term yes, but the longer term - 20, 50, 100 years - is another issue. How, for instance, will an independent Scotland defend itself against an aggressive England? No one is going to risk getting nuked - ‘If England is crazy enough to attack Scotland, they’re crazy enough to nuke us’. I hope that the rUK and iScotland will develop a relationship much like Canada and the US, but that will require goodwill on both sides.
The House of Lords would not necessarily have any say in the matter. Anyway, I thought the idea was that Scots became Scots, not remained British.
You’ve said this on a number of posts. IMHO it demonstrates a profound ignorance. The rUK will be a separate country and who qualifies for their citizenship will be up to them. iScotland will have no say in that or any other matter pertaining to the rUK.
It’s not, actually.
The House of Lords has, many times in the past, let the government strip British Citizens of their citizenship. So has the House of Commons. It has long been established as the norm when a UK possession achieves independence within the Commonwealth; the people concerned acquire citizenship of [Newly Independent Commonwealth Country] and lose the UK Citizenship that they had up to that point. So the UK’s Independence of Scotland Act (or whatever it might be called) could well say that on independence day all those resident in Scotland acquire Scottish citizenship in lieu of British citizenship. Or that they can retain British Citizenship, but only by opting not to take Scottish citizenship. Or something of the kind.
OK, granted that the independence of Scotland is a unique case; this would be part of the UK proper becoming independent, and for that they might decide to pursue a different path. The only precedent is the independence of the Irish Free State in 1922, but since that took place before the development of the notion of different citizenships for different Commonwealth countries it’s not really a relevant precedent. In 1922 the Canadians, the Australians, the New Zealanders etc were all British Subjects; when the IFS achieved dominion status there was no question that this involved loss of British Subject status. But in 2016, when Scotland becomes a Commonwealth realm, the existing practice would suggest would be that citizens of that realm would lose their British citizenship; the Australians, Indians, etc are neither British citizens nor British subjects. Yes, an exception might be made for the Scots but I don’t think it’s scaremongering to point out that it would be a departure from precedent, and it certainly can’t be assumed.
A person born in the Republic of Ireland before 1949 cannot get a passport as a British Citizen (unless, of course, they are eligible for British citizenship on some other basis); only for a British Subject passport which, frankly, is not a lot of use. A British Subject passport does not generally confer a right of abode in the UK.
As it happens, a person born in the Republic of Ireland will almost certainly be an Irish citizen and will have a right of abode in the UK, but it is their Irish citizenship, not their British Subject status, which gives them that right.
You don’t get something for nothing.