Why are some people enjoying the possible break up of the UK?

Great Debates
481

Well, no, but you were, like you said, born in England, which, even should Scotland gain independence be part of whatever state is left (“Rump UK”, “Triple Monarchy of England, Wales and Northern Ireland”, “Not so Great Britain”, whatever).

But take somebody who was born in Glasgow to parents who were born in Glasgow, whose parents were born in Glasgow back to when there first was a Glasgow. If Scotland gains independence, why should he or she have British citizenship. He certainly should now, because Glasgow is part of Britain, and he’s got equal claim to Britishness as somebody born in Bristol.

But come independence, this changes. The British citizen from Bristol who’s living in Paris or New York, or Beijing, can always go back home to Bristol, and live under British law and the British crown. The Glaswegian can’t. His home is now under another flag, another jurisdiction. He can’t go home again, or, if he does, at least, his status changes. He’s now a citizen of Free and Independent Scotland. What claim does Britain have on him now? What allegiance does he owe to her? He forswore his allegiance when Scotland got independence. His loyalty now lies with another. That’s what happened with the Commonwealth. Canadians aren’t British citizens, Kenyans aren’t, Indians aren’t. Even the Irish aren’t since 1949. And why should they be? They decided they didn’t want to be part of the UK; that they wanted to be free and independence.

You’ve been arguing in this thread for Scottish independence, but really, what you’ve been describing isn’t really independence. You want a Scotland that still uses the British pound, is still ruled by the British Queen, and is still comprised of British citizens. It seems like what you really want isn’t independence, but just an end to Tory rule.

482

That’s what I get the impression that Salmond is promising, that “everything will change but nothing will change. You’ll still have your familiar pound and the Queen and driving on the left. But Thatcherland won’t be able to get at you.”

483

I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that the SNP is proposing that Scots should be rUK citizens in perpetuity. The idea is that people who were born prior to independence would be rUK citizens. Obviously whether that happens or not is a matter for Westminster.

484

Well, as I say, they have done this many times when granting independence to colonies. And they did it on a large scale in 1981 (well after they had acceded to the ECHR) when they abolished the status of “Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” and replaced it with three new citizenships, only one of which was British Citizenship. They did somethign similar in 1971 when, without abolishind the status of CUKC, they deprived large numbers of CUKCs of the right of entry into the UK. Since right of entry is normally considered a fundamental incident of citizenship this meant that the CUKCs concerned had been deprived in substance, if not in terminology, of the previous citizenship status.

But no way would they do anything like this to the Scots. The Scots are much too white for that to be acceptable.

485

The question remains though as to why the Scots would want it. Having just freed themselves from the burdens of Britishness; having just taken control of their own destiny once again, as it was when Robert the Bruce and William Wallace freed Scotland from the reign of Edward I, as it was when David II cast out Edward III and his puppet Baliol, etc., why then take citizenship in a country they’ve just gained independence from? It’s a strange thing, to declare your independence from a place and at the same time, pledge your allegiance to it.

And, if it does happen, with the reciprocal happen? Will the English and Welsh and Northern Irish get automatic Scottish citizenship? After all, they were born before the independence England, Wales, and Northern Ireland from Scotland.

486

Yes, they’re separate institutions, but there’s a bit more to be said than that.

All the EU member states are, as a matter of fact, members of the Council of Europe and parties to the ECHR. Admission criteria for new members require them to put inplace structures and institutions to protect human rights, and in practice this means (among other things) that states desiring admission to the Union need to join the Council of Europe and accede to the ECHR. So even though it’s not a formal legal necessity, politically participation the Council of Europe and accession to the ECHR has become a sine qua non of EU membership. I’m not saying the UK couldn’t derogate from the ECHR, but I think they’d burn an enormous amount of political/diplomatic capital in doing so. Probably, more than any UK government would think worthwhile.

Furthermore, the EU itself has to respect human rights in its own actions, as do member states when fulfilling their EU obligations, and the EU treaties explicitly recognise the ECHR as setting out standards which must be respected. The result is that even if the UK were to derogate from the ECHR, the EU would require it to respect the ECHR in relation to any matter within the competence of the EU. And disputes about whether a particular matter was or was not within the scope of that requirement could certainly have implications for the UK’s relationship with the EU.

487

Well, it wouldn’t be a Scottish decision. If and when Scotland becomes independent, it will be a matter for the UK government to decide whether UK citizens who acquire Scottish citizenship should lose their UK citizenship.

And realistically, the UK will decide that no, they will not. For a number of reasons:

Precedent: When the Irish Free State left the UK in 1922 and British subjects ordinarly resident in the IFS acquired the status of citizens of the Irish Free State, they did not lose their British subject status.

In more recent decades, suggestions at various times that Gibraltarians or Falkland Islanders should lose their British Citizen status have not been popular in the UK, and have not been followed through.

There are, of course, counter-examples; e.g. people who acquired citizenship of India in 1947. But, to be crude about it, the UK has never deprived a largely white community of UK citizenship in the context of the granting of independence. To be less crude about it, the UK has never, in the context of independence, taken British citizenship from people who were borne in what was, at the time, the UK.

Politics. Lots of people who will be granted Scottish citizenship have close friends and family elsewhere in the UK. Even if the new Scottish citizens lose their citizenship and so their votes, their friends and families will not.

Pragmatism: There’s little point in depriving them of UK citizenship; as EU/EEA nationals they’ll have many of the rights of UK citizens anyway. So a government depriving them of UK citizenship would pay a heavy political price, and acheive very little.

The awkward way you have to phrase the question shows you the answer. England, Wales and Northern Ireland are not governed by Scotland. They are governed by the UK. A sovereign Scotland will be a new creation, as will Scottish citizenship. People of Scots birth or descent living outside Scotland might have a claim to Scottish citizenship (and might be granted it) but there is no case for saying that people who are in no sense Scottish, who do not live in Scotland and who have never had Scottish citizenship should be granted it.

488

membership of the European Union REQUIRES adherence to the ECHR by signing the Treaty.

It was made clear to Russia that if it did not sign the treaty it would loose access to European markets. The treaty requires the abolition of the death penalty and consequently Russia has withdrawn that sanction.

If the UK became non-compliant with the Treaty, it would no longer be eligible for EU membership.

489

The Glaswegian currently holds a British Passport which would be unaffected by any decision made on Scottish Independence.

Unless the UK decided to remove citizenship from all Scottish born people (whete resident in Scotland, rump UK or elsewhere) current Scots will continue to have all the rights of British citizenship, as well their children whether born in rump UK or abroad.

These are the problems of splitting a United Kingdom rather than colonisation.

Canadians retained their rights to enter Britain as British Subjects right up to the time that dark skinned people from the nonwhite Empire tried the same trick. At that time the Government started limiting British citizenship on the basis of birth.

Even Now people who hold a British passport living in any other country still pass on their nationality to their children. I have a friend in California who was born in Liverpool, but moved to the US when she was two. I have advised her to apply for a British passport for her son so that he has free access to Europe when he is an adult; she had no idea that this was possible.

The people of Scotland on independence will be a mixed bunch. Most will be Scots born with current British Passports and the right to hand this status to their children (as they would in, say California!). It will be impossible to do anything other than allow the system to continue, else it would mean that business travellers would end up with non-British kids!

490

See my note on the next generation. Under current rules if my 12 and 11 year old children stay in Scotland, their children will also be British (they were born in England!) I expect my grandchildren (who I am unlikely to meet as I am in my sixties) will still have British nationality when they are pensioners in 2100!

491

I suspect that Scotland would follow Ireland with its grandparent law- Scots born in Scotland but removed abroad would be eligible for citizenship. On independence I would expect to be eligible for both a Scottish and British Passport and would probably take both. Many Irish people on both sides of the border hold two passports.

492

Scottish people who retain their British citizenship after the independence of Scotland won’t necessarily be able to pass that on to their children born after independence. Irish citizens who have British status by virtue of birth in Ireland before 1949 do not pass it on to their children, and a similar position may be taken with respect to the Scots.

In short, I expect you and your chidren to retain your British citizenship. But if your grandchildren are born in Scotland post-independence, they will not necessarily be British citizens. That’s something that remains to be decided (by the UK government).

Under a strict application under the current rules, your grandchildren would be citizens. That’s because they will have a parent who will be a British citizen by virtue of birth in the UK. However the current rules don’t address the scenario in which a parent has British citizenship by virtue of birth in a place which was in the UK at the time of the parent’s birth, but no longer is at the time of the child’s birth. (The law doesn’t address this ecause there is explicit provision in relation to people born in Ireland, and there are no other places that used to be in the UK but no longer are.) That’s something they may well decide to revisit in the context of Scottish independence. If they want the treatment of independent Scotland to be consistent with the treatment of independent Ireland they will revisit it.

493

You misinterpret the law.

There would be no way that British citizenship could be removed from Scottish Scots without also removing it from cots resident in the USA or Scotland. Residence cannot be a bar to children getting British Citizenship. Any Irish person born before 1948 has the right to full British citizenship and to pass that right to their children. And 1948 was nearly five decades after partition!

There is no way they could penalise Scots living in Scotland with British passpoert versus Scots living in California with British passports- and the rules on child eligibility are universal, not dependent on residence.

So British citizenship for people resident in Scotland currently would be automatic, as would the heritance of it by their children

This will not be a problem until our children’s children generation.

494

You misunderstand me. I agree, residence has nothing to do with this. And I’m not suggesting that British citizenship will be withdrawn from anyone who currently has it.

Let me clear up a couple of things:

I’m not suggesting that British citizenship would be withdrawn from anyone who currently has it. It could be, and it has been in the past, many times, but in this instance I am confident that it wouldn’t be.

1948 was 28 years after partition, but let that pass. It’s not the case that anyone born in the Republic before 1948 has the right to full British citizenship; they have the right to British Subject status, which is a considerably lesser status and is not heritable. The right arises because Ireland was, until 1949, in the Commonwealth, and anyone born in any Commonwealth country up to that time was considered to be a British subject. (By a curious irony, British Subject status has been progressively dismantled. People lose British subject status if they acquire the citizenship of any Commonwealth country, including British Citizenship. The rump of British Subjects now remaining are nearly all people born in Ireland before 1949.)

British citizens living in Scotland at independence - which is most of the population of Scotland - would continue to be British citizens, I agree. Deprivation of citizenship is legally feasible, but politically unthinkable.

But their children, born outside the UK after independence? That’s not so clear.

The question is this: If, after independence, a joint Scottish/British citizen has a child, and that child is born outside of rump-UK, will the child be a British citizen?

I suggest, first, the fact that the parent has Scottish as well as British citizenship will be irrelevant. Nobody who would otherwise be entitled to British citizenship by virtue of birth to a British parent is going to be deprived of it because they are entitled to Scottish citizenship. All that is relevant is the British citizen status of the parent. So, is a child born outside the UK to a British citizen parent a British citizen?

The present law is that, if you’re born outside the UK to a parent who is a British citizen, whether you acquire citizenship by descent depends on the nature of your parent’s connection with the UK. If your parent was born in the UK, then you are a British citizen. But if your parent themselves acquired British citizenship by descent from your British citizen grandparent, then you’re not. In other words, the outcome will depend on the place where your British citizen parent was born.

Current law just looks at the place where your parent was born and asks “is it in the UK?” This is effectively the same as the questions “was it in the UK at the time of your parent’s birth?” or “was it in the UK at the time of your birth?” because, apart from what is now the Republic of Ireland, the answer will always be the same. (And current law deals explicitly with the position of people born in Ireland.)

But that won’t be true after Scottish independence. There’ll be a whole bunch of Scottish citizens, born in Scotland at a time when it was in the UK. And if their children born in independent Scotland (or in a third country) apply for British citizenship, the outcome will depend on whether the “place of parent’s birth” test is applied (a) as at the date of the parent’s birth or (b) as at the date of the child’s birth (or (c) as at the date the child applies for British citizenship, but for simplicity let’s ignore that possibility).

If nothing else, the current law is going to have to be amended to make it clear whether the test looks to the state of affairs as at the date of the child’s birth or the date of the parent’s birth.

What position will the UK take? Well, there’s a precedent. This question already arises with respect to Ireland and there is an answer that applies to Ireland. Somebody born in (say) 1950 in the Republic of Ireland to parents who were born before 1922 in (what is now) the Republic Ireland is neither a British subject nor a British citizen, even though their parents are British Citizens by birth, by virtue of being born in (what was then) the United Kingdom. Like any Irish citizen, such a person is not an alien in the UK, and has a right of entry and indeed a right to vote and to be elected to Parliament (which other EU nationals do not have), but they are not a British Citizen, and they cannot get a British passport. (If born after 1949, they are not even a British Subject.) Whereas if that person had one parent born in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, they would be a British Citizen.

In short, the established precedent is that, when territory has been ceded from the UK, the fact that a person has a parent who is a British citizen by virtue of birth in that territory before it was ceded from the UK does not qualify that person for British citizenship by descent. You are only a British Citizen if the territory in question was still in the UK at the time of your own birth.

If they treat independent Scotland as they have treated independent Ireland, people born in Scotland and resident in Scotland at independence will continue to be British citizens, but their children, born after independence in Scotland or in a third country, will not be British citizens.

Of course, they need not follow the Irish precedent when it comes to Scotland; perhaps they won’t. But they are at the very least going to have to think about it, and adopt a definite position one way or the other. And I don’t think you can dismiss the possibility that they might follow the Irish precedent. What reason would they have for treating Scotland differently?

495

You are in error. Anyone holding full British citizenship is eligible to hand that citizenship to their child, wherever in the world that child is born.

What you are suggesting is that someone born in Scotland living in California would not be affected by the decision of part of the country purely dependent on the whims of the people left in Scotland, but someone born in Scotland living in Scotland would not.

That would be tantamount to deciding citizenship by the accident of residence of a parent! What if such a Scot left Scotland and moved to California- would the child then be a British citizen?

No right to citizenship will be decided by that method.

496

Well, yes, clearly. But it seems such a monstrous unfairness, though. Because it seems to me that there’s as much of a case for saying that people who are in no sense English, who don’t live in England, and who have never had English citizenship shouldn’t be granted it as there is the other way around.

Lets face it, for all that the country will still call itself the United Kingdom, for all that it’ll continue in law and in treaty, if Scotland leaves, it in reality won’t be. It’ll be something new. There’s no Great Britain without Scotland. The country was birthed with the Act of Union.

497

I just cannot see the logic behind any suggestion that possession of Scottish Nationality or Having scottish Residence would be treated any differently from having or not having Scottish Nationality and livin in California. It would be a very specific and strange law that allowed a diffewrence depending on choice of current residence, and made that more difficult for Scotland than for California- it is the Billy Connolly Sean Connery question- would they be entitled to pass their British nationality onto their children Whereas Gordon Brown and Neil Oliver would not, merely because the latter live in Scotland and the former in California.

498

I’d say that, if independence comes, neither Gordon Brown, Neil Oliver, Billy Connolly, or Sean Connery would be entitled to pass their British nationality onto their children.

499

And your reasoning is…?

500

Because thats what happened with Ireland. Thats what happened with all the other places that used to be part of the UK but now aren’t.