Scotland post-Brexit - what happens next?

[RT4038]

No change to free movement between England and Ireland despite Irish independence and Brexit. Scotland is even less likely than Ireland to lose free movement with England given the even closer ties.

Irish independence was a different time and place (nearly 100 years ago). Scottish independence may set hares running that have been assumed dormant.......

 

[317 forever]

I think the British government's total and abject mishandling of the pandemic will also have contributed to pro-independence sentiment in Scotland. They've seen how badly England has messed up.

Plus, I think the loss of certain Holyrood powers through Brexit will give Scots significant pause.

Independence is only a matter of time.

I'm not sure Scotland is losing powers due to Brexit. Scotland is merely not gaining powers that are outside the original sphere of Reserved UK powers.

If Scotland becomes an EU member, there would have to be a hard border with customs controls in place between Scotland and England, and all trade would be subject to our new treaty with the EU. The only way this has been avoided between NI and RoI is by placing the barrier in the Irish Sea, so travel between RoI and NI isn't affected. Both NI and RoI are in the customs union and single market. That option isn't available to an independent Scotland, and solving the problem would be far more difficult, no matter what nonsense the SNP spout about it.

An independent Scotland may quickly join the Single Market and Customs Union, thus becoming on a similar footing to Northern Ireland.

 

[XAM2175]

British citizenship will eventually be replaced once Britain as a state no longer exists. Countries have their own Citizenship and I don't know why Scots think they would be an exception to this with their whole population 5.5 million people permanently having citizenship of the neighbouring state while also having their own. If Scotland leaving causes further break up then without doubt British Citizenship will disappear entirely. Russian citizenship and Soviet Citizenship is a good example. England and Wales would want their own Citizenship and the best Irish Unionists would get is a British National Overseas (Hong Konger) style travel document issued by England.

This is extraordinarily far-fetched. Scotland seceding would leave the United Kingdom with a technically-inaccurate name, but not wipe it out completely.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about British citizens in Scotland retaining this status alongside a new Scottish citizenship. Why should there be? It makes a mockery of the concept of close relations and shared history and so on if Westminster's reaction to independence is to unilaterally strip millions of people of their citizenship as what, a punitive measure? What then of all the British citizens who've emigrated to the likes of Australia and Canada and New Zealand and the US and been naturalised in those countries? Should they be deprived of their British citizenship because they don't need it anymore?

Your example of the dissolution of the Soviet Union isn't fully comparable because it happened has a result of a trilateral declaration by the three primary republics (the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian SSR, and the Byelorussian SSR) that the union had ceased to exist. This did entail the end of Soviet citizenship, but since all Soviet citizens formally also held the nationality of their constituent Soviet republic all that was lost was the top layer, similar to how citizens of the EU are formally citizens of their member state.

The CTA is passportless travel as well as immigration. I would expect the former to disappear in time but for the latter to stay. England will want the benefits of some passport checks where customs checks are taking place and a United Ireland and Scotland will both eventually join Schengen. I very much doubt the FOM between all parts of Britain and Ireland would end but its possible.

The assertion that "the CTA is passportless" is, strictly speaking, incorrect. The current provisions for freedom of movement within the CTA technically only apply to British and Irish citizens, so a person crossing an intra-CTA border is liable to being asked to prove their identity and nationality. For example, Ireland has applied these checks to all passengers arriving by sea or air from other CTA territories since 1997.

The majority desire expressed by the Scottish independence movement has to the best of my understanding always been for the most open border possible between the UK and Scotland, at least as far as the movement of people is concerned.

I'm not sure Scotland is losing powers due to Brexit. Scotland is merely not gaining powers that are outside the original sphere of Reserved UK powers.

Both are true - there are powers previously exercised by the EU that fall within the competencies of the devolved governments but that are currently being held by the UK government, and there are also powers that have always been within the competencies of the devolved governments but that can now be undermined or overridden by new Westminster legislation like the EU (Withdrawal) Act and the Internal Market Bill.

 

[Journeyman]

The majority desire expressed by the Scottish independence movement has to the best of my understanding always been for the most open border possible between the UK and Scotland, at least as far as the movement of people is concerned.

Yes, but the most open border possible in future is less open than what may have been possible when it was a border between 2 EU member states.

 

[Chester1]

This is extraordinarily far-fetched. Scotland seceding would leave the United Kingdom with a technically-inaccurate name, but not wipe it out completely.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about British citizens in Scotland retaining this status alongside a new Scottish citizenship. Why should there be? It makes a mockery of the concept of close relations and shared history and so on if Westminster's reaction to independence is to unilaterally strip millions of people of their citizenship as what, a punitive measure? What then of all the British citizens who've emigrated to the likes of Australia and Canada and New Zealand and the US and been naturalised in those countries? Should they be deprived of their British citizenship because they don't need it anymore?

Your example of the dissolution of the Soviet Union isn't fully comparable because it happened has a result of a trilateral declaration by the three primary republics (the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian SSR, and the Byelorussian SSR) that the union had ceased to exist. This did entail the end of Soviet citizenship, but since all Soviet citizens formally also held the nationality of their constituent Soviet republic all that was lost was the top layer, similar to how citizens of the EU are formally citizens of their member state.

Its really not far fetched. "RUK" would be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think Northern Ireland would leave almost immediately, Wales may or may not stick with England. That is more or less the Soviet Union break up situation. Even if Northern Ireland and Wales stick with England the primary UK successor state will start to redefine itself and that will eventually include Citizenship. Stripping Citizenship from millions of people is exactly what happened when colonies went independent, including Hong Kong in 1997. Its the absolute norm for states to only have citizens born or naturalised within their boundaries or children (some times grandchildren) of them. In the long term the best Scots without a link to other parts of the former UK would get, would be a BNO (Hong Konger) style travel document issued by the English (or Anglo-Welsh) Government. Irish independence was a century ago, it became a dominion first and the UK stayed mostly the same, it lost part of one of its 4 members. Thats different to all of its second largest member leaving. If England ends up on its own it will certainly create English Citizenship and limit that to people born in England, naturalised as a Brit while living in England or people with English parents. Why would England (or England and Wales) on its own have Citizenship determined fundementally differently to Scottish Citizenship? Especially if that overwhelmingly favours non residents of England (or England and Wales)?

In answer to your question about British emigrants, yes if they or their parents were not born in whatever was left of the UK (probably just England). A Scot who has already emigrated to Australia would be a Scottish Citizen (by birth right) and (probably) an Australian Citizen by naturalisation. Why would they be English, Welsh, Anglo-Welsh) or Northern Irish? Britiain and British will only be little more than geographical and cultural concepts if Scotland becomes independent. That is not necessarily a bad thing but it will quickly become the reality.

Irish unity is different to Scottish independence because Britain would more or less continue as is, and arrangements for a few hundred thousand unionists in NI can be made. If Scotland goes it effectively creates two different countries (if not quickly three + a united Ireland).

I do think its overwhelmingly likely that FOM across the four nations would survive the break up of the UK but on the basis of reciprocal agreements for each others Citizens. Of course many residents of Scotland were born in England, Wales or Northern Ireland (or one of their parents were) and vice versa so there would be many dual citizens with different combinations. Scots can't break away and expect the three other parts of the UK not to move on too!

@Journeyman for instance would have English Citizenship by birth, Scottish by long term residency in Scotland at independence and Irish Citizenship through a grandparent. There wouldn't be a Britain to be a Citizen of!

As an Englishman a major plus side of the breakup of the UK would be the oppertuntity to redefine ourselves a step removed from the legacy of the UK and its former empire. Being a Citizen of a mid sized global state (England) would suit me fine...

 

[LocoCycle]

As an Englishman a major plus side of the breakup of the UK would be the oppertuntity to redefine ourselves a step removed from the legacy of the UK and its former empire. Being a Citizen of a mid sized global state (England) would suit me fine...

What is the word "global" doing in this sentence? In what way would an independent England be more global than, say Italy or Germany, if not in reference to the former British Empire?

 

[Starmill]

What is the word "global" doing in this sentence? In what way would an independent England be more global than, say Italy or Germany, if not in reference to the former British Empire?

Indeed. The global powers are already, and will increasingly be subject to the hegemony of, the United States, China and the European Union. The latter two are expanding their influence significantly. In what way is just England relevant to this future?

 

[Chester1]

What is the word "global" doing in this sentence? In what way would an independent England be more global than, say Italy or Germany, if not in reference to the former British Empire?

I meant mid sized country relatative to countries worldwide (it would have 8th largest economy but a small population). England would be by far the largest UK successor state and one of the largest in Europe. So not mid sized in those contexts.

I don't think many Scots seem to get that independence would trigger the break up of the UK. The assumption that they would remain citizens of a shrunken UK in the long term, assumes a) the rest of the UK would stay together long term and b) its population would be happy sharing its Citizenship with people who weren't born in their country, don't have a parent from there and have never lived there. Scots with links to the other home nations would qualify for other citizenships as individuals.

 

[XAM2175]

"RUK" would be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think Northern Ireland would leave almost immediately, Wales may or may not stick with England.

I note, lest there be any misunderstanding, that the re-unification of Ireland must be approved by referendum in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. There is no accepted course to Northern Ireland "leaving" by other means or in order to achieve a different outcome.

Stripping Citizenship from millions of people is exactly what happened when colonies went independent, including Hong Kong in 1997. Its the absolute norm for states to only have citizens born or naturalised within their boundaries or children (some times grandchildren) of them. In the long term the best Scots without a link to other parts of the former UK would get, would be a BNO (Hong Konger) style travel document issued by the English (or Anglo-Welsh) Government.

There is a major difference here in that residents of Hong Kong never held and were never entitled to full British citizenship. They were British subjects, who along with all the other citizens of the Commonwealth countries were progressively distanced from the rights and privileges of full British citizenship - but even so, British subjects and Commonwealth citizens who had strong ties to the UK through the likes of residence and/or ancestry were permitted to keep their entitlements through the various tightenings of UK immigration and nationality law that have occurred from the 1960s onwards. This is even the case today - the Home Office guidance for immigration and nationality matters states that a person born in Ireland before 31 March 1922 is considered to have been born in the UK.

Thus even if the concept of British citizenship is dramatically changed by Scottish independence I see very little grounds for concern about people losing their ability to visit, live, and/or work in England, Wales, or NI (and indeed Ireland as a whole).

In answer to your question about British emigrants, yes if they or their parents were not born in whatever was left of the UK (probably just England). A Scot who has already emigrated to Australia would be a Scottish Citizen (by birth right) and (probably) an Australian Citizen by naturalisation. Why would they be English, Welsh, Anglo-Welsh) or Northern Irish?

Are you saying that you believe that Scottish citizenship would immediately and automatically be granted to everybody eligible to it, regardless of where they are in the world and whether or not they wish to accept it?

The assumption that they would remain citizens of a shrunken UK in the long term, assumes ... its population would be happy sharing its Citizenship with people who weren't born in their country, don't have a parent from there and have never lived there.

I suggest that this is not as big a problem as you make it out to be, especially as it involves asserting that the majority of the English public would immediately consider Scotland to be wholly foreign, and to have always been so.

I don't think many Scots seem to get that independence would trigger the break up of the UK.

Or possibly many Scots aren't as concerned about that as you are?

 

[Scotrail12]

With regards to the discussion on independence, do we think it will be a choice between a UK or Scottish passport? I'd happily take both but if it was a choice, I would go for the UK one for sure. Only problem is that I was born and raised in Glasgow and it's where I'm living for the foreseeable future so I'm not sure how that would work.

 

[Chester1]

Or possibly many Scots aren't as concerned about that as you are?

No I am not bothered by the break up of the UK. I am simply stating that in the event of its break up Citizenship of England will within a few years be created to replace British Citizenship. It would be limited to English people, people with a connection with England through residency or birth and British Citizens who would otherwise be rendered stateless. I don't think a majority of the English residents would be view Scots as foreign but that politics would demand that English and Scottish Citizenships were done on a similar basis and with a reciprocal agreement to allow FOM. I think this would be a good outcome for both countries. I certainly wouldn't accept 5.5 million Scots having English Citizenship and the right of abode in England with a reciprocal agreement to allow English citizens to live in Scotland being entirely reliant on Scotland agreeing to it despite almost all of its Citizens having dual citizenship!

With regards to the discussion on independence, do we think it will be a choice between a UK or Scottish passport? I'd happily take both but if it was a choice, I would go for the UK one for sure. Only problem is that I was born and raised in Glasgow and it's where I'm living for the foreseeable future so I'm not sure how that would work.

I don't think there will be a UK to have a passport of. I think there will be Irish unity quickly (the Republic is sufficiently nationalist leaning to back it at any cost) and Wales would split from England within a generation. Apparently all Scots would be citizens of England and be able to have their cake and eat it... Scexit!

 

[eoff]

With regards to the discussion on independence, do we think it will be a choice between a UK or Scottish passport? I'd happily take both but if it was a choice, I would go for the UK one for sure. Only problem is that I was born and raised in Glasgow and it's where I'm living for the foreseeable future so I'm not sure how that would work.

I'm pretty sure that this was raised on one of the Question Time programmes many years ago. The answer was to the effect "Why are you asking silly questions".

 

[Journeyman]

I'm pretty sure that this was raised on one of the Question Time programmes many years ago. The answer was to the effect "Why are you asking silly questions".

The SNP completely fail to deal with stuff like this. It's fine if you live and work on one side of the border and rarely cross it, but if like me you have English roots and English business connections, it's a very, very big deal.

 

[Chester1]

I'm pretty sure that this was raised on one of the Question Time programmes many years ago. The answer was to the effect "Why are you asking silly questions".

That is because the continuation of the UK was taken for granted. Northern Irish unity looks more likely than in 2014 and Welsh independence is now vaugely plausible (although I think not likely for a generation). If there is an independent Scotland, independent Wales and a United Ireland the remainder won't be the UK or Britain! It will be England! At some point England would create its own its Citizenship along the same lines as the other three nations.

Until the late 1940s UK had defacto shared Citizenship with Australia, Canada and New Zealand called "British subject". When four seperate Citizenships were created they kept the nominal title of British "subject" (until the 1980s). A Scot with no links to England would have the same rights to English Citizenship as an Aussie with no links to Britain had to British Citizenship in the late 1940s - none. Thats not to say they were foreign, just not citizens either.

Scottish independence stands up on the basis of identity and self determination. It shouldn't try to pretend that the rest of the UK won't break up, shrink or significantly change its identity after losing its second largest member.

 

[takno]

The SNP completely fail to deal with stuff like this. It's fine if you live and work on one side of the border and rarely cross it, but if like me you have English roots and English business connections, it's a very, very big deal.

If you have English roots then there's really absolutely no basis for you not to get an English passport. Even under the least cooperative divide, people born or with family in England who live in Scotland, or vice versa, would be eligible for both passports.

 

[Chester1]

If you have English roots then there's really absolutely no basis for you not to get an English passport. Even under the least cooperative divide, people born or with family in England who live in Scotland, or vice versa, would be eligible for both passports.

Exactly. Journeyman also has Irish Citizenship. I am arguing that Scots with no links to England would not be English Citizens if the UK breaks up entirely. England will want its own identity and Citizenship. Its not going to let 10 million people from neighbouring countries be English because they used to be British Citizens! They would need a link to England by birth or long term residency. I don't think in practical terms it will make a difference because FOM would be agreed between the four nations but saying Scots would keep British Citizenship after the break up of Britain is no more than a comfort blanket for unionists. Probably for a very short space of time they would but then all the successor states would introduce their own Citizenships.

 

[Journeyman]

If you have English roots then there's really absolutely no basis for you not to get an English passport. Even under the least cooperative divide, people born or with family in England who live in Scotland, or vice versa, would be eligible for both passports.

I'm more concerned about the amount of hassle there might be in crossing the border, the effects of having a different currency, and regulatory divergence. These are very serious problems.

 

[eoff]

I'm more concerned about the amount of hassle there might be in crossing the border, the effects of having a different currency, and regulatory divergence. These are very serious problems.

Exactly, what would happen to savings, pensions, salary.

 

[Journeyman]

Exactly, what would happen to savings, pensions, salary.

Yeah. At my particular stage of life, these are not things I fancy taking long-term risks with.

 

[Chester1]

Exactly, what would happen to savings, pensions, salary.

State pension probably would be paid for NI contributions made pre break up by the government of which ever successor state you live in and by the relevant Government for NI contributions made after break up. Technically state pensions are a benefit. Strictly speaking we are not entitled to them so would be a matter for negoiation. Person pensions (both private and public sector) are a different matter but liability would depend on which scheme they are part of.

 

[eoff]

State pension probably would be paid for NI contributions made pre break up by the government of which ever successor state you live in and by the relevant Government for NI contributions made after break up. Technically state pensions are a benefit. Strictly speaking we are not entitled to them so would be a matter for negoiation. Person pensions (both private and public sector) are a different matter but liability would depend on which scheme they are part of.

Interesting points but I was really thinking of any new currency implications.

 

[berneyarms]

I think there will be Irish unity quickly (the Republic is sufficiently nationalist leaning to back it at any cost)

I think that you’re being very presumptive there. I don’t see it happening that quickly at all. I certainly see a border poll happening within the next 10 years, but remember it is the NI Secretary of the day whose call it is to hold such a poll.

It would be exceptionally complicated, and ultimately you would need a substantial majority in favour (not 52/48 like Brexit) to pull society with the idea.

As an Irish taxpayer I can assure you that “any cost” is not an option. I shudder to think about how the financial and day to day practicalities of such a move would actually work (we don’t have the NHS for example). Ireland does not have a bottomless pit of money to throw at NI.

Apart from the usual rhetoric from Sinn Féin, there has been no debate among Irish society as to this would even begin to work.

 

[Journeyman]

I think that you’re being very presumptive there. I don’t see it happening that quickly at all. I certainly see a border poll happening within the next 10 years, but remember it is the NI Secretary of the day whose call it is to hold such a poll.

It would be exceptionally complicated, and ultimately you would need a substantial majority in favour (not 52/48 like Brexit) to pull society with the idea.

As an Irish taxpayer I can assure you that “any cost” is not an option. I shudder to think about how the financial and day to day practicalities of such a move would actually work (we don’t have the NHS for example). Ireland does not have a bottomless pit of money to throw at NI.

Apart from the usual rhetoric from Sinn Féin, there has been no debate among Irish society as to this would even begin to work.

I think some of these issues are very significant in terms of Scottish independence as well. I know support for independence has got as high as 58% recently, but in reality, if there was an indyref tomorrow, you'd be looking at a result around 53/47 in all likelihood, and it could go either way. The result would be half the country extremely unhappy whatever the result is. Not a good way to achieve a decent civic society at all.

 

[Chester1]

Interesting points but I was really thinking of any new currency implications.

Payments made based on contributions before the break up of the UK would be made in the currency of the country you are resident. If you moved from Scotland to England/Wales/Ireland after that and stayed long enough to be entitled to their state pension they would either send the money to you directly in their currency or have a reciprocal agreement with the Scottish government so they take on the currency fluctuation risk instead of you.

I think that you’re being very presumptive there. I don’t see it happening that quickly at all. I certainly see a border poll happening within the next 10 years, but remember it is the NI Secretary of the day whose call it is to hold such a poll.

It would be exceptionally complicated, and ultimately you would need a substantial majority in favour (not 52/48 like Brexit) to pull society with the idea.

As an Irish taxpayer I can assure you that “any cost” is not an option. I shudder to think about how the financial and day to day practicalities of such a move would actually work (we don’t have the NHS for example). Ireland does not have a bottomless pit of money to throw at NI.

Apart from the usual rhetoric from Sinn Féin, there has been no debate among Irish society as to this would even begin to work.

The nationalists in NI would demand an immediate referendum. Unionists are more culturally linked to Scotland than England or Wales so I can't see how the Secretary of State could justify saying no, or frankly why he or she would want to. Scotland leaving is the break up of Britain and London won't want to keep hold of NI at that point. Scotland is not a disposable appendage. The 26 counties and every former colony were disposal and frankly NI is too. England, Scotland and Wales are integral parts of Britain, which wouldn't exist as a state without one of them.

Honestly considering the state of British unionism, Ireland needs to start thinking about what it will do with Northern Ireland once the UK no longer exists.

 

[berneyarms]

I think some of these issues are very significant in terms of Scottish independence as well. I know support for independence has got as high as 58% recently, but in reality, if there was an indyref tomorrow, you'd be looking at a result around 53/47 in all likelihood, and it could go either way. The result would be half the country extremely unhappy whatever the result is. Not a good way to achieve a decent civic society at all.

It’s massively complicated in NI, given the history of civil unrest and violence on both sides of the community unfortunately.

I do think some people are massively over-simplifying the issues there.

 

[Chester1]

It’s massively complicated in NI, given the history of civil unrest and violence on both sides of the community unfortunately.

I do think some people are massively over-simplifying the issues there.

Its wishful thinking that England would keep Northern Ireland willingly. It could be bounced into keeping the UKs international obligations but make clear to Northern Irish unionists that the other three parts of the UK had moved on and they needed to as well (and that the subsidy would end).

 

[berneyarms]

Payments made based on contributions before the break up of the UK would be made in the currency of the country you are resident. If you moved from Scotland to England/Wales/Ireland after that and stayed long enough to be entitled to their state pension they would either send the money to you directly in their currency or have a reciprocal agreement with the Scottish government so they take on the currency fluctuation risk instead of you.



The nationalists in NI would demand an immediate referendum. Unionists are more culturally linked to Scotland than England or Wales so I can't see how the Secretary of State could justify saying no, or frankly why he or she would want to. Scotland leaving is the break up of Britain and London won't want to keep hold of NI at that point. Scotland is not a disposable appendage. The 26 counties and every former colony were disposal and frankly NI is too. England, Scotland and Wales are integral parts of Britain, which wouldn't exist as a state without one of them.

Honestly considering the state of British unionism, Ireland needs to start thinking about what it will do with Northern Ireland once the UK no longer exists.

Well maybe you should get in touch with Micheál Martin and tell him that, because again I am telling you that it is not on the Irish political radar right now. There is a far greater number of domestic issues that would take precedence, particularly the economy and housing, even allowing for Covid. It didn’t register as an issue in the 2020 General Election here at all.

Go back to what I wrote. I said a border poll will probably happen within 10 years, but I firmly believe that it will not happen anything like as quickly as you seem to think.

The Irish economy could not afford it, and nor would you get a big enough majority for it in NI. The latter point is vital given the issues that have raged for the last 100 years of NI’s existence.

There will have to be a LOT of groundwork done before a border poll takes place, irrespective of what Sinn Féin might say.

Its wishful thinking that England would keep Northern Ireland willingly. It could be bounced into keeping the UKs international obligations but make clear to Northern Irish unionists that the other three parts of the UK had moved on and they needed to as well (and that the subsidy would end).

That really doesn’t come across as that you have a good understanding of NI politics, if I’m honest.

A recent BBC NI documentary estimated that up to 12,500 people were still members of loyalist paramilitary groups.

They are not going to vanish overnight and accept Irish independence as a fait accompli.

 

[GusB]

That is because the continuation of the UK was taken for granted. Northern Irish unity looks more likely than in 2014 and Welsh independence is now vaugely plausible (although I think not likely for a generation). If there is an independent Scotland, independent Wales and a United Ireland the remainder won't be the UK or Britain! It will be England! At some point England would create its own its Citizenship along the same lines as the other three nations.

Until the late 1940s UK had defacto shared Citizenship with Australia, Canada and New Zealand called "British subject". When four seperate Citizenships were created they kept the nominal title of British "subject" (until the 1980s). A Scot with no links to England would have the same rights to English Citizenship as an Aussie with no links to Britain had to British Citizenship in the late 1940s - none. Thats not to say they were foreign, just not citizens either.

Scottish independence stands up on the basis of identity and self determination. It shouldn't try to pretend that the rest of the UK won't break up, shrink or significantly change its identity after losing its second largest member.

Wasn't it already pointed out upthread that anyone born in Ireland before it became independent was entitled to claim British citizenship because until then Ireland was a part of the UK? There's no reason why a similar thing cannot happen after a united Ireland or an independent Scotland. Those who were born in the UK, whichever part, were born "British" and would therefore be entitled to citizenship of any other remaining part of the former UK. There would have to be negotiations as to what people born after that date are entitled to, but negotiation is the key word here. You seem to think that it would all be Scots and Irish seeking English citizenship when it could equally work the other way.

I'm certainly not pretending that the rest of the UK won't break up as a result, and while I do identify as being Scottish rather than British, if I were to apply for a passport tomorrow it would have the word "British" in the nationality section. If I (somewhat miraculously) were to have any offspring after Scotland became independent then that clearly wouldn't be the case. There would be negotiations between former components of the UK as to who was entitled to what, but it's not entirely unsurmountable.

Exactly, what would happen to savings, pensions, salary.

State pension probably would be paid for NI contributions made pre break up by the government of which ever successor state you live in and by the relevant Government for NI contributions made after break up. Technically state pensions are a benefit. Strictly speaking we are not entitled to them so would be a matter for negoiation. Person pensions (both private and public sector) are a different matter but liability would depend on which scheme they are part of.

Oh for goodness sake, not this one again. Pensions would be paid in exactly the same way as they would be to any other British citizen who chooses to retire abroad. It doesn't matter if it's the Costa del Sol or the Coast o' Sutherland. This is pure scaremongering and one of the factors that drove many older people to vote "no" the last time around.

 

[takno]

I'm more concerned about the amount of hassle there might be in crossing the border, the effects of having a different currency, and regulatory divergence. These are very serious problems.

The border crossing at its worst possible isn't going to be any worse than, say, the border to France. Even if the CTA wasn't agreed the mostly likely actual model would be like the Gibraltar border until last week - thousands of people passing through every day, spending five seconds using the gates, or more often just vaguely waving their passport at the bored-looking guy in the booth.

As far as currency and regulatory divergence goes, that doesn't *have* to to be a massive issue at all, unless the rUK government chooses to. In all probability if there was divergence it would be rUK choosing to diverge from EU standards which Scotland was sticking with. That would ultimately be disastrous for the rUK, and Scotland would stand to benefit from being nothing to do with the whole shambles.

 

[Chester1]

Wasn't it already pointed out upthread that anyone born in Ireland before it became independent was entitled to claim British citizenship because until then Ireland was a part of the UK? There's no reason why a similar thing cannot happen after a united Ireland or an independent Scotland. Those who were born in the UK, whichever part, were born "British" and would therefore be entitled to citizenship of any other remaining part of the former UK. There would have to be negotiations as to what people born after that date are entitled to, but negotiation is the key word here. You seem to think that it would all be Scots and Irish seeking English citizenship when it could equally work the other way.

I'm certainly not pretending that the rest of the UK won't break up as a result, and while I do identify as being Scottish rather than British, if I were to apply for a passport tomorrow it would have the word "British" in the nationality section. If I (somewhat miraculously) were to have any offspring after Scotland became independent then that clearly wouldn't be the case. There would be negotiations between former components of the UK as to who was entitled to what, but it's not entirely unsurmountable.

The Irish example has been pointed out but 26 out of 32 counties of one member leaving a century ago is not the same as Scotland leaving in the 21st century, likely causing the rest of the UK to unravel. Fundamentally the UK survived the creation of the Irish Free State mostly intact. It was also a dominion until 1948.

There is no chance that an independent Scotland would allow English or Welsh people to take up Scottish Citizenship on the basis we are all currently British. They would need a link by birth or residency to Scotland. Its a heck of a gamble that England would (now on its own) choose to maintain British Citizenship and Citizenship law as they currently are, in perpetuity! Especially when it it would disadvantage an English Government trying to negotiate FOM for English citizens to an independent Scotland. If England maintained British Citizenship then the Scottish government would have no need to allow FOM to Scotland for a generation.