That would not work because occasionally Unionists use substantive, foreseeable, and justified arguments. Occasionally.
No, it would be entirely feasible, as is shown by the fact that it has been done many times before.
I just don’t think that it will be done. Scotland will almost certainly be either an EU or an EEA member and, British Citizens or not, Scottish citizens will enjoy full rights to enter, reside in, work in, etc rUK. Given that, I don’t see that much would be achieved by withdrawing British citizenship, and obviously it would be controversial.
As to whether, hypothetically, it could be done “legally and fairly”, well it could obviously be done legally. British citizenship is a creature of statute. Parliament can legally do anything.
Would it be fair? Reasonable People might disagree about that, and I dare say reasonable people did disagree about whether previous withdrawals of citizenship were fair, but they happened anyway. So the fact that some might regard withdrawal of British citizenship as unfair is no reason to think that it couldn’t happen.
And, yes, I accept that Scotland is part of the UK, and that Scots and other British citizens have shared a common citizenship since 170&, and arguably since 1603. But Ireland was part of the UK, and had shared a common citizenship status with England since at least 1536; that didin’t stopped Irish and British Citizenship being completely disentangled.
It’s well established that when people who are British Citizens by virtue of connection with a particular territory aquire a new Commonwealth citizenship by virtue of their connection with that territory, they lose their British citizenship. As it happens, I think they’ll make an exception from that rule in the case of Scotland, but I could be wrong. Certainly the British government hasn’t announced or indicated any exception as yet, SFAIK. And I can’t take seriously the suggestion that this is unfeasible in practice; it’s perfectly feasible.
That was the boyfriend’s father’s case. And yeah, one of the things I noticed was the sex divide. We’ve come a ways.
ETA: Sheesh. Don’t know how my brain skipped over the part where this was already answered.
The Irish settlement essentially allowed any person to maintain their British citizenship if they wished to do that. There is no indication that the case will be different in Scotland’s case.
To repeat- for any person resident in Ireland, no-one had their British citizenship possessed in 1922 removed against their will. Prior to 1949 Irish British Subjects had an absolute right to retain the rights of voting, residence, work and full citizenship by simple declaration or registration. Many Anglo-Irish and Protestants did so. Even some nationalists and Catholics did for various reasons.
The Scottish settlement is likely to be even more generous.
This is so outlandish- even the Better Together campaign has not used this as one of their scare tactics.
To reinforce, full members effectively pay he same contribution via the way the European Budget is set between countries. This is to ensure that EEA countries do not get a free ride.
The net financial gain of being outside the EU would be higher than the financial contribution required of EEA members.
Somehow I think a Scotland sitting outside of the EU, paying EAA fees, but having no part in its decision making process is quite the vision being painted by the Scottish Nationalists.
So now participation in the EU is derided as a ‘handful of MEPs’ and hardly worth the bother?
The EU is a wonderful club for small countries, it gives them a voice and their leaders feel very important hob nobbing with larger economies.
Somehow I think there would a great wringing of hands in Nationalist circles if they are left out of this party.
For a Scotland standing proundly astride the world stage bending the ear of the movers and shakers, the EAA really doesn’t cut it. In any case, the likes of Norway and Switzerland are rich countries for whom EU ,membership is not essential. Scotland needs the EU and its prospects of joining as in an independent state are very problematic.
As a non-EU state, there would have to be a border between the UK and an independent Scotland to control tax and immigration. This will affect the current trade between the Scotland and England and influence investement decisions.
Who is going to invest in Scotland if it is stuck outside of the EU? An Indpendent Scotland will be effectively leaving the EU and all the other international treaty organisations that the UK subscribes to. The current EU infrastructure funds allotted to Scoland as part of the UK would presumably dry up.
As an indpendent country Scotland will have to make its own treaties. It cannot be independent if it lives of the rest of the UK.
You cannot have your cake and eat it.
These matters will become very real if Scotland votes Yes.
After having done some actual research I find that any unilateral move by rUK is likely to be seen by the EU as a breach of the rUK’s obligations under its membership of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU.
The European Convention on Nationality
18 The European Convention on nationality of 6 November 1997 was adopted under the aegis of the Council of Europe and entered into force on 1 March 2000. It has been applicable in Austria since that date and was ratified by the Federal Republic of Germany on 11 May 2005. Article 3 of that convention provides:
‘1. Each State shall determine under its own law who are its nationals.
-
This law shall be accepted by other States in so far as it is consistent with applicable international conventions, customary international law and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.’
19 In accordance with Article 4 of that convention:
‘The rules on nationality of each State Party shall be based on the following principles:
a. everyone has the right to a nationality
b. statelessness shall be avoided;
c. no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality;
…’.
20 Article 7 of that convention is worded as follows:
‘1. A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality ex lege or at the initiative of the State Party except in the following cases:
(a) voluntary acquisition of another nationality;
(b) acquisition of the nationality of the State Party by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant;
…
-
A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article if the person concerned would thereby become stateless, with the exception of the cases mentioned in paragraph 1, subparagraph b, of this article.’
21 Article 9 of the European Convention on nationality provides that each State Party is to facilitate, in the cases and conditions provided for by its internal law, the recovery of its nationality by former nationals who are lawfully and habitually resident in its territory.
This was the basis of the Rottman case
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0135&from=EN
Which found that European Citizenship could not be denied under that agreement and that European States were not free to disavow nationality previously legally enjoyed.
That should tie any contentious legislation up for some time!
UDS’ contention that rUK Parliament is sovereign seems to be incorrect- it is bound by treaty and abrogating its obligations would be extremely difficult.
It would seem that the rUK could force people who did not voluntarily assume Scottish Citizenship but this would be at the cost of being in default of its good standing with the EU. No member state has ever disregarded a finding by the ECJ.
We are very likely to face a transition period before full membership, but it is almost impossible to stop us taking our place after a little discussion.
Note that as above ALL Scots would remain European Union citizens after independence as any rUK decision to withdraw British citizenship would be contrary to the rUK’s treaty obligations. Would the EU countenance a state with five million current citizens being denied full membership of the Union.
The Scotland/rUK border is a Better Together scare story. There is no effective border with Ireland and EEA states have minimal borders with the EU and two EEA countries (Norway and Iceland) and Switzerland are even Schengen area countries.
I wonder what the EU would think about anything involving rUK trade with Scotland as an EEA country which the rUK would be obligated to maintain their access to ALL EU countries for free movement of goods and services.
Looking quite complicated really.
? You even colored the part that let’s rUK decide how it wants to handle things. 20 Article 7 1.(a). If newly independent Scotland offers citizenship and it’s accepted, then the rUK is well within their rights to remove them from rUK citizenship. They are not stateless at that point, they are Scots.
IANAL but I fail to see why a ruling on removing someone’s citizenship due to criminal matters remotely affects the matter of a nation voluntarily separating.
Try reading the ruling in context.
The rUK would be allowed to deny people full British citizenship only if they voluntarily took another nationality.
The current proposal from Scotland is that nationality will be given, but unless taken up, people will retain their British nationality.
You do understand the world ‘voluntary’?
I was just thinking that…
Try reading in context.
The first clause says:
20 Article 7 of that convention is worded as follows:
‘1. A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality ex lege or at the initiative of the State Party except in the following cases:
(a) voluntary acquisition of another nationality;
But it is SO the case. Rothman overturns everything UDS and others have said.
No matter, what has done the Better Together campaign the most harm is the relentless pessimism and assumption of worst case scenarios rather than stressing benefits of being Better Together- Maybe it should have been called Worse Apart.
So how does that help your argument? After a yes vote wouldn’t Scots be voluntarily acquiring another nationality?
How? By continuing to live in Scotland. The Scottish Government can create an entitlement to a Scottish citizenship, but would not have the power to force that on people.
That would mean for instance that a British citizen seconded to work in Scotland, or a student studying in Scotland, or living in Scotland to look after a relative or any other circumstance would lose their British citizenship by the mere happenstance of their residence on 16th May 2016!
Voluntary acceptance of citizenship cannot occur by the acts of others but only through the person’s own acts.
As a decade long inhabitant in Scotland and a five decade resident previously in England, would they consider my residence on a particular date as voluntary acquisition of citizenship. Rottman says no.
Voting for independence amply covers that.
Why do you wish to retain rUK nationality? Aren’t you voting to become Scottish?
I wouldn’t have thought so. There’s no way to know which way any given individual voted.
Who is eligible to vote? Would these people have voted in the referendum?