• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Scotland, Brexit & IndyRef2: Implications, considerations and similar (including impact on rail).

Status
Not open for further replies.

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
745
Are there any norms? The last country to vote to establish its independence was South Sudan which as I understand it has an extremely complex nationality arrangement. Before that Kosovo which isn’t recognised by half the countries in the world. Before that Montenegro which voted to dissolve its relationship with Serbia and you ended up with either Montenegrin(?) or Serbian citizenship depending on where you were resident.

However, I have no doubt that anyone who want to keep their British citizenship will be able to. The UK isn’t going to strip anything so this is a red herring. But it is why you need to know what you are voting for before you vote rather than the ridiculous assertion that you decide afterwards.
Yes, Ireland fought a war of independence against rest of UK that killed thousands and is the only member of the UK to leave. There is your norm, UK citizens resident in Ireland were not stripped of their citizenship and there is a Common Travel Area between UK and Ireland where people can travel and work freely in each others country
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
Yes, Ireland fought a war of independence against rest of UK that killed thousands and is the only member of the UK to leave. There is your norm, UK citizens resident in Ireland were not stripped of their citizenship and there is a Common Travel Area between UK and Ireland where people can travel and work freely in each others country

One event, over a century ago, is not a norm. Plus the context is completely different. Not only was there partition of the country, but Ireland remained a dominion of the British Empire and it was only through a series of gradual constitutional amendments that it achieved its complete independence. And being able to live and work freely in another country is not the same as citizenship.

However, as I say, citizenship is largely a red herring in all this.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
It seems I would become a Scottish citizen (as opposed to a UK citizen living in Scotland) whether I like it or not, although I would certainly opt for dual citizenship.
I don't believe you would have to 'opt' for dual citizenship. If you were normally resident in Scotland then you would automatically become a dual citizen - assuming that the r-UK government didn't decide to play funny and make people choose one or the other.
 

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
745
One event, over a century ago, is not a norm. Plus the context is completely different. Not only was there partition of the country, but Ireland remained a dominion of the British Empire and it was only through a series of gradual constitutional amendments that it achieved its complete independence. And being able to live and work freely in another country is not the same as citizenship.

However, as I say, citizenship is largely a red herring in all this.

The only event relating to independence from the UK. I never equated living in another country to citizenship, Falcon1200 seemed to believe that because he may live in an independent Scotland, his UK citizenship would be removed because of said independence
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
The only event relating to independence from the UK. I never equated living in another country to citizenship, Falcon1200 seemed to believe that because he may live in an independent Scotland, his UK citizenship would be removed because of said independence.

If Ireland is the norm why aren't we talking about Scotland becoming a Crown Dependency and the UK keeping areas that want to remain within the UK? Because in the modern world it’s not a relevant example of how a country becomes independent or the status of its citizens.
 

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
745
If Ireland is the norm why aren't we talking about Scotland becoming a Crown Dependency and the UK keeping areas that want to remain within the UK? Because in the modern world it’s not a relevant example of how a country becomes independent or the status of its citizens.
and what happened when Ireland became a republic?
 
Last edited:

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
and what happened from Ireland became a republic?

The provisions and laws agreed between the United Kingdom and the provisional government of the Irish Free State in 1921 (the Anglo-Irish treaty) continued, and have ever since. Irish people lost automatic right to British citizenship on the 1st January 1949. Two of my grandparents were born in the Irish Free State but were never British citizens despite living and working in Britain for most of their adult lives.
 
Last edited:

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
745
The provisions and laws agreed between the United Kingdom and the provisional government of the Irish Free State in 1921 (the Anglo-Irish treaty) continued, and have ever since. But that has little to do with citizenship-two of my grandparents were born in the Irish Free State but were never British citizens despite living and working in Britain for most of their adult lives.
Your two grandparents (if born in the Free State up to end of 1948) could become British citizens by right. What the UK govt did not do was strip citizenship of UK citizens upon Irish independence. Using this norm was in relation to Falcon1200 who strangely thought his UK citizenship would be revoked because he lived in an independent Scotland!
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,536
Location
Redcar
As I understand it, the old UK state pension was non-contributory and so like the Old Age Security payment, while the new state pension is contributory and so like the Canadian pension plan.
I feel like there might be some sort of confusion here. A contributory benefit, the most common being the State Pension but also a specific form of both Jobseekers Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance, is one which an individual is entitled to by virtue of either having paid or having been credited with paying National Insurance contributions. The old style State Pension (I believe termed basic State Pension in government parlance) was absolutely a contribution based benefit. In order to qualify for full basic State Pension you would have to have paid or have been credited with 30 years of National Insurance contributions. The value of those contributions is irrelevant the only thing that matters is that they were made. A full new State Pension requires 35 years of either paid or credited National Insurance contributions. Again the value is irrelevant simply that they were made is all that matters. The change between them was not some big change in how the State Pension is operated it was more tweaking around the edges and fiddling with the value of that pension (a full new State Pension is worth more than the full basic Sate Pension for instance).

But both were and are contributory. There is no pot of money that is being paid into for your State Pension in the future both new and basic are funded from current taxation.
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
Your two grandparents (if born in the Free State up to end of 1948) could become British citizens by right. What the UK govt did not do was strip citizenship of UK citizens upon Irish independence. Using this norm was in relation to Falcon1200 who strangely thought his UK citizenship would be revoked because he lived in an independent Scotland!

If you had not applied for British citizenship (or citizenship of another British empire/commonwealth territory) by 1949 (nine months after the Republic was founded) you were no longer a British citizen, unless you met another criteria or reapplied.

Edit

I didn’t have time to write this last night as I was off to bed. The British Nationality Act 1948, which used Irelands citizenship law to establish who was an Irish citizen, removed British citizenship from all Irish citizens (assuming they didn’t meet another criteria). This was a complete cockup as Irish law said all domiciled residents upon the establishment of the Irish Free State on the 6 December 1922 were automatically Irish citizens. Northern Ireland was part of the Irish Free State and only opted out a day later. So the UK managed to remove the British citizenship of everyone domiciled in Northern Ireland in December 1922 who didn’t meet another criteria. It was unintentional and fixed in the Ireland Act 1949 but it just shows how messy these things can be.

/Edit

Ireland is not a norm or precedent for Scotland, especially as ‘citizenship’ in the early 20th century was a completely different concept to what we understand in the early 21st century. But all this talk is completely irrelevant as I agree that it is extremely unlikely citizenship will be lost as we are not dissolving a country (unlike Serbia and Montenegro).


 
Last edited:

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,327
Location
Cricklewood
My speculation is that, if Scotland really becomes independent, it will rejoin the EU and adopt the Scandinavian model. And it's main trading partner will shift to the Scandinavia.

Remember that a significant part of Scotland is actually Nordic. And some social norms in Scotland in closer to Scandinavia rather than England, for example, in Scotland, we have a right to roam in general, but not in England and Wales.

I can foresee Scotland adopting the Euro, metricating its roads, increasing their taxes to Scandinavian levels, continuing their free universities. And depending on its integration with Norway, CTA break-up is possible when more people are taking ferries to Norway instead of going overland to England.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
3,576
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
And it's main trading partner will shift to the Scandinavia.

That viewpoint completely disregards the ties that bind the UK, such as a shared landmass, language, currency, and centuries of history. Not to mention innumerable family ties; Huge numbers of Scots have relations in England and vice versa. IMHO what you suggest is as likely as an independent Scotland changing to driving on the right !
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
My speculation is that, if Scotland really becomes independent, it will rejoin the EU and adopt the Scandinavian model. And it's main trading partner will shift to the Scandinavia.

Remember that a significant part of Scotland is actually Nordic. And some social norms in Scotland in closer to Scandinavia rather than England, for example, in Scotland, we have a right to roam in general, but not in England and Wales.

I can foresee Scotland adopting the Euro, metricating its roads, increasing their taxes to Scandinavian levels, continuing their free universities. And depending on its integration with Norway, CTA break-up is possible when more people are taking ferries to Norway instead of going overland to England.

Scotland simply doesn't have the economic output to match the Scandinavians.


And increasing taxes to Scandinavian levels won't work with the number of low paid and non-tax payers Scotland has. Sweden's tax model would see a huge hike in the tax most people pay, and almost certainly lead to emigration, particularly from the Central Belt and Borders to England.
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
North West
I think Scotland has fip-flopped on EU membership at least as much as England.

In the 1975 referendum Scotland had the only 2 areas on the mainland which voted no and their Yes/No percentage was 58/42 compared to 69/31 in England.

Scotland with the SNP in charge is just playing the grievance game - to an extent I'm happy to let them go - the impact on the rest of the UK would be far less harmful than it would to Scotland who wouldn't have a sovereign currency and would be hung out to dry by the international money markets. And the London government wouldn't have to consider Scotland in any policies regarding interest rates, tax or value of Sterling, but alot of people are ignoring that.

From a UK rail point of view - there could be huge cost savings - on the ECML 'express' services could be curtailed at Newcastle with a stopper to Berwick on Tweed. Services (and maintenance) of the ECML north of Berwick becomes the Scot Gov's problem. Ditto on the WCML - run to Carlisle on an hourly basis - leave the Scot Gov with the costs of maintaining the network north of Carlisle. Resources in terms of rolling stock and maintenance in the rest of the UK could be focused on the remaining network.

Scotland contributes less than 8% of the income tax revenues yet gets over 9% of the spending (source - Fullfact) - so from a fiscal perspective the rest of the UK would be better off without Scotland.
Except that, even if the rest of the UK would be better off by this measure, the loss of some trade with Scotland following independence would mean we are worse off rather than better off.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Except that, even if the rest of the UK would be better off by this measure, the loss of some trade with Scotland following independence would mean we are worse off rather than better off.

However almost 60% of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK.

The rest of the UK's trade with Scotland is nothing like that - Imports into Scotland from the rest of the UK are about £90bn.

To put that in context, the UK exports about £625bn.

Scotland wouldn't be able to easily replace many of its imports from the rest of the UK easily or economically as goods from other sources would have higher transport costs.
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
Perhaps someone could explain why the Irish nationalists believe that there should be one nation in the island of Ireland (presumably as its a single homologous land mass), but the Scots think that the single homologous island that comprises England, Scotland and Wales should somehow take the opposite view. Discuss!
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
North West
Perhaps someone could explain why the Irish nationalists believe that there should be one nation in the island of Ireland (presumably as its a single homologous land mass), but the Scots think that the single homologous island that comprises England, Scotland and Wales should somehow take the opposite view. Discuss!
I can think of 1 reason. Pro-Europeanism. A majority in both Northern Ireland and Scotland voted Remain. Ni could rejoin the EU by rejoining Ireland. Scotland could rejoin the EU by leaving Britain.

Scotland could even join a Greater Ireland rather than being fully independent.
 

Struner

Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
767
Location
Ommelanden, EU
Perhaps someone could explain why the Irish nationalists believe that there should be one nation in the island of Ireland (presumably as its a single homologous land mass), but the Scots think that the single homologous island that comprises England, Scotland and Wales should somehow take the opposite view. Discuss!
Perhaps a proper decent constitution would help?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I can think of 1 reason. Pro-Europeanism. A majority in both Northern Ireland and Scotland voted Remain. Ni could rejoin the EU by rejoining Ireland. Scotland could rejoin the EU by leaving Britain.

Scotland could even join a Greater Ireland rather than being fully independent.

A Celtic union would be the only even vaguely viable way for Wales to separate from England, too.
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
North West
A Celtic union would be the only even vaguely viable way for Wales to separate from England, too.
I agree that it would be the easiest way for Wales to gain independence from England. Mind you, as they voted Leave and even Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price admitted it would be some time before people there would agree to independence, it does look at best some way off yet.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I agree that it would be the easiest way for Wales to gain independence from England. Mind you, as they voted Leave and even Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price admitted it would be some time before people there would agree to independence, it does look at best some way off yet.

I think it would be the only way that didn't involve Wales having an economy similar to or weaker than that of Albania.
 

EastisECML

Member
Joined
26 Sep 2018
Messages
198
Was the Welsh leave vote influenced by people from England who have moved to Wales? Same question for Cornwall.
 

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
745
Perhaps someone could explain why the Irish nationalists believe that there should be one nation in the island of Ireland (presumably as its a single homologous land mass), but the Scots think that the single homologous island that comprises England, Scotland and Wales should somehow take the opposite view. Discuss!
Is that what you think? Eliminate Scotland, England and Wales to become Britain? The UK is not even an island
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Perhaps someone could explain why the Irish nationalists believe that there should be one nation in the island of Ireland (presumably as its a single homologous land mass), but the Scots think that the single homologous island that comprises England, Scotland and Wales should somehow take the opposite view. Discuss!
Simple. Ireland was a single country for longer than it's been partitioned. Great Britain was partitioned into separate nations for longer than it's been a homogenous united kingdom.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,034
Location
No longer here
Simple. Ireland was a single country for longer than it's been partitioned. Great Britain was partitioned into separate nations for longer than it's been a homogenous united kingdom.
Is the correct and sensible answer.

This thread has had some absolutely bonkers suppositions.
 

Wynd

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2020
Messages
741
Location
Aberdeenshire
Is the correct and sensible answer.

This thread has had some absolutely bonkers suppositions.

What is incorrect about this? Scotland existed as an independent nation for some 800 years and predates the creation of England.

Shared language, yes, but that is because Scotland's domestic languages were driven from existence through a range of measures. If you spend any time among locals here in the North East, you may find the local "language" closer to a Scandi one than English at times. See Kvinna = Quine as one example among many.

"shared XYZ statements = I dont support XYZ" arguments tend to ignore the rich cultural, political, economic diversity and appear to serve the ends of stifling debate on the subject at hand.

The bottom line here is that if the Whitehall/Westminster were working for the people of the UK at large, we wouldn't be seeing these topics, well, not as serious political events anyway.

Its not isolated to Scotland either.
 
Last edited:

JonasB

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2016
Messages
921
Location
Sweden
However almost 60% of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK.

The rest of the UK's trade with Scotland is nothing like that - Imports into Scotland from the rest of the UK are about £90bn.

To put that in context, the UK exports about £625bn.

Scotland wouldn't be able to easily replace many of its imports from the rest of the UK easily or economically as goods from other sources would have higher transport costs.
Recent events have shown that if needed, trade will find new routes.

 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Recent events have shown that if needed, trade will find new routes.


The second of those actually was, in some ways, a benefit to the UK, because previously HGVs were coming across from Ireland, driving across Wales and England and then onto France. Unless they were fuelling in the UK, then the only economic benefit of such traffic was a few quid on coffee and sandwiches at a couple of truck stops - nothing like enough to offset the wear and tear on UK roads. So in some ways direct sailing from Dublin is actually a benefit.
 

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
745
The second of those actually was, in some ways, a benefit to the UK, because previously HGVs were coming across from Ireland, driving across Wales and England and then onto France. Unless they were fuelling in the UK, then the only economic benefit of such traffic was a few quid on coffee and sandwiches at a couple of truck stops - nothing like enough to offset the wear and tear on UK roads. So in some ways direct sailing from Dublin is actually a benefit.
UK distributors benefit from that landbridge in the form of cabotage. The less traffic there is, the less benefit of cabotage
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top