Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Biohazard, Sep 23, 2013.
Oh dear, that really doesn't strike much confidence in the rest of your politicians then.
Why so rude?
I believe that you want people to take you seriously, posting wall after wall of text is not going to help that.
Well the brief snippets I've read seem to come across as he's already well and truly made his mind up and has basically come here to shout down anyone who disagrees but then I guess this is the internet!
You really are clutching at straws here mate I don’t know whether its a last word type thing or what ever but you really are stretching out-with your comfort zone. The paper says nothing of the sort.
What it does says though is, and this is in every day parlance not legaleses like the document... say an Englishman, arbitrary could be Welsh or NI (default British) now living in Scotland upon independence will be treated as Scottish by the Scottish government and awarded Scottish citizenship if he decides that this is what he wants. It also makes clear that if he decides that he is British then the UK recognises this too. The Scottish Gov are extremely unlikely given what they have said to demand that he takes Scottish citizenship ONLY unlike what Ms May was implying nothing needs to be negotiated. If he's British and wishes to remain so what is there to be negotiated? The UK also recognises that his children are also British however his children’s children are not. This is exactly the way it is at the moment for British citizens living anywhere else on the globe that is not Britain. Nothing has changed here and is unlikely to change. Unless you are claiming that what is written is saying something else entirely which would make Scotland a unique special case. It doesn’t say anything like what you are alluding to. It is very specific that British is British, Scottish is Scottish and British & Scottish is a possible option though it does recognises from a UK position that the UK cant guarantee this as it would be up to Scottish law which is separate from English/UK law. At that point we need to turn to what the SG has said it would do. We know from the WP and from this HO paper the Scottish position is open and they would allow dual citizenship. These are very real guarantees there are no uncertainties in this publication mate especially if you consider what the Scottish position is.
So the law is pretty clear on this both UK and EU. You cant just strip a person of their citizenship end of story, no argument, no debate. Its not me saying this its the law!As article 15 quite clearly states Everyone is entitled to a nationality as you rightly point out you cant just leave a person stateless this is why the scenarios are included in the home office paper. Removal of citizenship cant be achieved through implicit measures either, although you seem to be advocating that angle but again the paper makes no comment on this either. Another posit is that citizenship changing cant come from the state either. It has to be expressly stated by the person giving up their citizenship in favour of another if that is what they chose to do these are the implications mentioned. In this particular case unless the law is changed, and I don’t see that happening this side of the millennia as there would need to be a massive sea change in opinion across all of the EU countries to do that, then a person cant be forced to give up citizenship if they chose not to. That’s the main reason why this is included, that if the second country allows it then a person can have dual citizenship.
if unpopular things were continuously getting pushed through I could understand a yes vote. which scot wants someone in Westminster telling you what to do after all! but with all the devolvement etc it seems it doesn't quite work like that these days.
it sometimes seems to just come down to an old dislike of each other which is a pity.
I'm not sure it even comes down to that - most of the dislike is one way, as far as I can tell. The English don't hate the Scottish. But it does appear that some among the Scottish don't want to have anything to do with the English...
I wouldn't mind a legitimate push for independence, but nationalism is not only an awful thing in itself, but it's an awful reason to set about doing anything... yet both within this thread and in the arguments of the SNP we see nothing but absurd nationalism displayed in such ways as 'You're a big bunch of bullies!"... the typical obsessions with victimhood to rile the masses.
Hmm, I get it though.. a brief flick through our history and you'll see England hasn't exactly covered itself in glory here, although I guess another question is how on earth did such a small island end up being 3 countries!
Either way, that was all a long time ago now!
Unfortunately that isn't all that the document states, as I pointed out in the earlier post (while I also point out accepting much of what you say is in the Paper, just not the conclusions you draw from it).
There are some rather large caveats, one of which is, and I quote,
Furthermore, as I illustrated in that earlier post, dual nationality is not a guarantee of EU Citizenship...I gave the nationality laws of Spain as an example...also the Law is simply not as clear on this as you are trying to portray, as each State can (and does) set its own National Laws regarding Citizenship (even down to the definitions of Nationality and Citizenship), EU Citizenship is not a right in and of itself..it requires and is subject to each Members Nationality Laws. Another example of this is The Channel Islanders, who are British Citizens, but not EU Citizens (unless they permanently reside within the UK proper). There are ample examples to show that not all British Citizens/Nationals are also EU Citizens and as the very Paper you used states very clearly,
As far as the issue of Article 15 of the UDHR is concerned, the loss of UK citizenship would have to mean that the individual would subsequently be Stateless as a result. This would mean that Scotland would also not recognise their Status as Scottish Citizens, something that you say would not happen. You seem to be forgetting that the Article, while protecting a persons right to not be denied a Nationality, it also protects a person right to change their Nationality...there is no requirement for a Nation to convey dual nationality, in fact many EU Countries do not recognise such, Germany for example...If a German Citizen voluntarily acquires citizenship of another country they automatically lose their German Citizenship. (there are exceptions when the other country is a current EU member or another agreed treaty is in place).
So even if we accept that the UK will allow Dual Nationality of Scottish and British Citizenship (and I see no reason why not) there is no guarantee that that will convey EU Citizenship upon Scottish Citizens by default...it also doesn't guarantee that all Scottish Citizens would be British Citizens after Independence either..despite your optimistic view of what the Paper implies, the Paper does show that there are many uncertainties and certainly not the definitive position you are trying to convince everyone of.
I wonder if Mr Salmond really has thought this through and I can't help but wonder if a name for himself is his goal rather than the best interests of Scotland ?
It looks like Castiel is having a good time debating with articles, so I'm not sure who you are referring to by talking collectively. Those articles covered two large themes to the debate in the last week or so, and they are relatively complex issues which requires some enlightenment in here given the repeated assertions that there is a) no contrary argument(especially by anyone other than myself) and b) that these arguments are somehow the preserve of myself or nationalists as espoused by Dolph etc.
Anything else is personal preference, and in a thread with countless posts linkns and articles now nearing 2000 contributions over nearly 20 pages that a collection of relevant articles is just that, and at least there can be no excusing ignorance there of.
And speaking of which, I'm not sure about the free-trade issue that you mention, I'll have a look or perhaps you can re-link. I'm not here to answer each and every individual post.
You'll tend to find Yes voters more likely to advertise it than Better Together.
If not, Better Together are either more shy in their outlook or aren't there in the same numbers.
I saw a young lad walking down the street with a BT badge the other day, and given the size of it, no wonder.
I've seen one BT car sticker in three years.
I think this all comes down to grass roots, and also lack of them.
If you read the whole sentence, Mark, it's quite obvious what I'm saying.
What's the easiest, most likely and best option by far? Independence, which is what most Scots seek if you take the logical conclusion of 'all decisions'
These things have basis in fact by way of the Scottish Attitudes Survey the most recent of which was released just days ago, and links to which have been posted innumerable times.
Like where mark? I can quote several unfounded attacks on myself as an individual, but that's not what you and others would like to portray.
There are issues in this debate like most other, here and elsewhere, but to pretend that it is the preserve of one side doesn't seem to make any sense or have the desired impressionable impact. You only need to read some of the statements and opinions in here to clearly observe otherwise.
Away from here it's a pointless sideshow that seems to be the obsession of a couple of tabloids and George Faulkes largely because it's a sphere they have no control over, and are typically on the backfoot without any help.
Which found that, primarily:
And yet we can't have an decent debate about the economy because Yes refuse to accept that there is any level of risk or uncertainty.
Where as even swaying voters here, and commentators across the field in Scotland LET ALONE several prominent Unionists are loudly warning about the negativity from No.
And if it's just a fairy tail, lots of people seem to be joining it. Over 60 academics this week, and more trade union branches clearly joining Yes. I think somebody is trying to take a complete snapshot of the voiced support between yes and no just now and it's looking substantial.
The polls clearly have rattled BT, storming out of interviews and barely concealing their fury, the threats continue unabated and they clearly cannot see the error in their tact.
More fool them and those who misrepresent the situation to their own detriment.
Positive arguments for the union are required, and predictions or guarantees of doom are sadly not fitting.
- The Scottish Parliament should make all the decisions for Scotland – 31%
- The UK government should make decisions about defence and foreign affairs; the Scottish Parliament should decide everything else – 32%
- The UK government should make decisions about taxes, benefits and defence and foreign affairs; the Scottish Parliament should decide the rest - 25%
- The UK government should make all decisions for Scotland – 8%
- (Don’t know) – 3%
The £500 question is not a strong suit for No at present, as I've shown there is significant opinion and evidence that Scotland will be wealthier with independence.
The Treasury itself puts the 'cost of independence' as a £1.
Nobody sensible in the debate in Scotland seriously suggests we would be poorer, that is tacit confirmation of the 'subsidy junky' myth that has partly driven us to these events today.
The same is said also in comparison to UK leaders.
So, as I said, it's slightly misjudged to try and stick it to Salmond. It might bring some comfort for those who do it or their own core support audience, but if anything it's more than likely going to backfire by adding to the unnecessary negativity.
I find repeated lecturing on my posting style in my own thread to be tiresome and nothing more than a distraction technique by opposition who will use any excuse to divert from the subject onto me.
No I'm quite happy for my opinion to stand on what I write, not what I quote other people writing.
I'd be having to do an awful lot of shouting down in here then, don't you think?
Disagreements of points of view however strong are not shouting people down unless you don't have answers back yourself perhaps?
Separate names with a comma.