In discussion elsewhere it has been pointed out that the rUK cannot remove citizenship from anyone under provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The same Article that requires that prisoners cannot be stripped of their vote without due process, citizenship is protected unless removed by due process in a fair tribunal. It cannot happen by administrative fiat.
ARTICLE 6
1.In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Possession of citizenship is undoubtedly a civil right. It can only be removed by a fair tribunal with legal representation without being outside our treaty commitments. Of course, Scotland as a member of the Council of Europe would have an intense interest in bullying over citizens and residents.
I suspect that disenfranchising or stripping of citizenship of five million peel would attract more support than prisoners’ rights.
People may formally embrace Scottish citizenship and thus move outside Rottman. But those who do not overtly and voluntarily seek Scottish citizenship and remain in Scotland remain protected.
And then there is Article Six above that would stop mass withdrawal of citizenship- every case would need to have access to a fair tribunal with representation and an appeals procedure.
Let’s face it, the system cannot even manage our current backlog of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.
No government is going to add a potential five million to that queue.
Between the vote and the end of negotiations to determine the necessary framework for independence and eventual independence, Scottish MPs could not legally or morally be stopped from sitting in the Commons (not mention what happens to the upper house.)
AND
After independence stripping people of their nationality by administrative fiat would be contrary to various treaty obligations.
I am saying the removal of 59 Scots MPs in the middle of a 5 year term for a UK parliament would mean that the number of seats each party holds will change substantially. Normally the number of seats that change hands during he life of a parliament is no more than a handful as a result of by elelections when an MP dies in office or resigns for one reason or another.
Such a large number could force the elected UK government from a majority into a minority and then there would have to be a general election if it becomes clear it cannot pass laws. It become vulnerable to motions of no-confidence being raised if the opposition has more seats.
Why should Scots MPs be voting on UK matters when they will have no intrest in them at independence? Perhaps they could be restricted to voting only on matters the pertain the Scotland? In any case there will be negotiations between the UK and Scotland any votes required will put Scots MPs in a clear conflict of interest.
The West Lothian question becomes very significant.
Scottish independence cannot be allowed to compromise the running of the UK parliament.
Better to move Scottish Independence to co-incide with the end of the 5 year term of the UK parlement and both countries can have their elections at the same time without affecting each ofher.
I would guess they could do with the extra time in any case. Rushing Scottish independence just because it co-incides with the anniversary of the 1603 union of crowns is just sentimentality.
Another good reason for us to leave the EU then. If Scotland chooses to no longer be British, they should no longer be British. No having your cake and eating it. Personally, I hope Scotland votes no as separation would harm both countries, but the idea of an “independent” Scotland continuing to use British currency and institutions is ridiculous.
As you have already been told, the referendum covers that. It is a full plebiscite. On independence day all residents of Scotland as of 18th Sep 2014 will assume Scottish citizenship. After that, the rUK can strip them of their rUK citizenships. The Scottish people have, through their elected representatives, agreed to the referendum, and must abide by its results and accept, for better or for worse, all the consequences of the referendum. The rUK has the right to choose who are its citizens and if we in Scotland decide to become an independent country, then we will have no say in the rUK.
I should note that in an independent Scotland, we will still be subjects of the Monarch as the Union of Crowns will still be in place.
Unless David Cameron advises the Queen to renounce the Scottish crown for herself and her heirs, as I think he ought to (esp. if Salmond follows through on the threat to force the British military to give up bases in Scotland). If the Scots want to be independent, let them be independent. As Steophan said, no having your cake and eating it, too.
Nope. But they didn’t vote to form their own countries against the expressed wish of Her Majesty’s Government of the day, and declare their intention to force the British military to give up its bases in their territory, either.
And the Prime Minister and Cabinet have been quite clear that they oppose independence. They are the Government of the day.
It’s not spite, it’s making clear that Scottish independence is not all wine and roses. There are consequences, some inevitable and some optional, which many Scots may not like.
It is a touch anti-democratic and colonialist to believe that such disenfranchisement is moral, let alone legal and possible. Any such attempt to remove representation would almost certainly be rejected by the Lords, and open to appeal within British and European courts.
Canadians certainly should not be British citizens. I’m not a British citizen and don’t deserve to be.
As to the monarchy, to be honest, no, I don’t think Canada does have a right to the monarchy. If Westminster and Her Majesty told us to go to hell, frankly, that’s their business. Canada has no intrinsic or moral right to force the UK to provide us with a head of state. As an independent country we should be able to (and of course, actually could, quite easily) dredge up one of our own.
Read Rothman and the European Convention. Unless voluntarily and individually renounced, citizenship can only be removed by a fair tribunal with representation.
I note you offer no cites for your individual opinion.
This is to misread the British Constitution. The UK only advises the Queen on UK matters. As she is also monarch of Scotland by right, she will, on inept dance, only accept advice on Scotland from the First Minister of Scotland. The UK Parliament and government have no right to advise the Queen on internal matters of her other kingdoms.
There are also consequences for rUK. Refusal access to overflight and Scottish waters. Blockade Faslane. And then there is the question of access to Scottish water as global warming continues.
Luckily the separation process will be amicable, legal, moral and fair, unlike some of the suggestions here.