I only have a moment to write this post, but I really do have respond to Barroso’s comments about how an independent Scotland couldn’t join the EU and, perhaps more significantly, the utter nonsense that pro-union folk have been following on with.

A simple and significant point to remember is that no-one can be stripped of citizenship. Not even, at the moment at least, people who were naturalised as UK citizens but have subsequently been convicted of terrorist offences. People living at Scotland at a point of putative independence wouldn’t cease to be UK, and therefore EU, citizens unless they chose to give it up. That’s international law – it stops states getting rid of ‘difficult’ citizens.

Leaving the law aside, how in practical terms could the UK government force out citizens in Scotland? There are many folk working and living in Scotland who in no way regard themselves as Scottish (the referendum franchise is simply the local government one – who actually has an address there on the day?).  Would the UK strip the citizenship from thousands of ‘English’ folk on, say, a bank posting in Edinburgh, or working in oil in Aberdeen? Of course not – no more than they would or could to folk who happened to be living or working in France or the US. Moreover, the new Scottish government would be happy to let people retain UK citizenship and have Scottish citizenship if they wanted. If Scots living in England wanted both then it really wouldn’t be up to the residual UK government to decide – it’d be up to the new Scottish government. Unless the UK refused to allow joint UK/Scottish citizenship, I guess. By why would they refuse that when they accept it with every other nation state in the world?

So, Barroso’s basically saying that millions of EU citizens living in Scotland would somehow be stripped of their EU (and therefore human) rights and not allowed appeal? Or that they’d stay EU citizens – a nation full of EU citizens – but that would have no bearing on that nation’s application to the EU?

Manifest nonsense. I want Scotland to remain part of the UK, but not on the basis of an argument deploying blatant threats and lies. Surely to God.

 

8 Responses to Why ‘independent’ Scots would remain EU citizens
  1. a sensible comment from a no supporter. a rarity. the debate needs some balance. scots will listen to someone who punches tory mps lights out. lol btw eric, doesnt look look miliband (the new thatcher) is listening to scots labour mp’s anymore, had you the choice, would you follow this guy eric?

  2. […] recent comments of mine about how the UK government and European Union wouldn’t – because they couldn’t – […]

  3. There is a great deal of scaremongering coming out of Westminster, but the people of Scotland should remember that the Republic Of Ireland has got on quite well without being part of the Union. So too would Scotland.

  4. You might try some WIndies tax haven?
    I look for greater confidence in the British Constitution, would much prefer an elected President Cherie Blair to Charlie boy, and believe that judges will do anything for money, pomp and circumstance.
    Straw’s suggestion that the entire process might take ten year’ debate sounds about right. Cameron promoted his view that we need a Bill of Rights a few years back too. I note he ‘s backed off from the Recall Bill he was so keen on. Ukip may yet articulate disaffection with Westminster in a constructive way if the Plague on your houses tendency is not given positive direction.

    • I reckon if Scotland voted for independence the discussions would have to be done and dusted in a year. It’d be a contempt of the vote, otherwise – plus, Scotland would have to get on with a general election and the momentum would carry everything forward in short order.

  5. I understood we are subjects of HM Queen, not citizens. Without a Bill of Rights isn’t all the talk of citizenship of the UK or the EU nebulous? I favour a Bill of Rights per Jack Straw a few years back, leading to a codified written constitution, with any variations for Scots etc written in. I too favour a union, which should include the IoM, Channel Isles too.
    Barosso’s intervention obviously counterproductive and foolish. Unseasonable greetings to you Eric!

    • Thanks re: greetings! You too! We have full rights of citizenship – the subject thing doesn’t really have much legal meaning these days as I understand it. Tricky thing about a bill of rights, to my mind, is that we don’t elect our head of state and we’d have a written constitution where judges could over-rule parliament. Don’t think judges v keen either, tbh. Btw, if we included the channel isles in a proper union, I’d have to move my offshore squillions and that would be v inconvenient for me….


[top]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>