Scottish independence

Before the 2014 referendum, the Scottish government published a detailed white paper, setting out their policy for an independent Scotland and how they proposed it would be implemented, plus a draft interim constitution for Scotland. They couldn't obviously, guarantee that they would deliver every detail of that programme, since in the event of a successful referendum the terms of independence would have to be negotiated with Westminster, but at least there was a clear programme that they would pursue, and people voted with that knowledge. And, had the referendum passed, they could justifiably have claimed a mandate for the independence programme that they had put before the people.

The contrast with the Brexit referendum two years later is striking. There was no programme, no plan, just an all-things-to-all-men, all-the-benefits-with-none-of-the-costs, all-options-on-the-table, we-hold-all-the-cards Brexit offered to the people. The result was that people voting to leave were voting against EU membership, but they weren't voting for anything in particular. I don't need to remind everybody of the shitshow that ensued, and is still ensuing.

The irony is that the UK made such a massive hames of the Brexit referendum so shortly after the Scots had shown them how a referendum could and should be done. If there is another Indyref, there is zero chance that the Scots will repeat the errors of the Brexit referendum. They knew how to conduct a referendum in 2014, and the Awful Example of 2016 will just reinforce the wisdom of what they already knew.

The 2014 white paper was aspirational in the sense that the entire independence project is, necessarily, aspirational. But it offered meaningful answers to a lot of questions that arise in connection with the independence project. (Will independent Scotland be a monarchy? What currency will it use? What will its defence policy be? What kind of armed forces will it maintain? Will it join NATO? Will it host nuclear weapons? What are the tax implication of independence? How will the tax system change? How will the social security implications of independence be addressed? Etc, etc.)

These are all aspirational questions in the sense that Scotland currently lacks the legal powers to address any of them. Some of them are also aspirational in the sense that the answers would not be in the exclusive control even of an independent Scottish government. (E.g. "will Scotland join NATO?" depends in part on the views of the existing NATO members.) Nevertheless they are real and meaningful question that not only can but would have to be addressed in the context of Scottish independence. You might like the answers posed in the White Paper or you might not, but you can't say that the questions were ignored or were waved off with Brexiter-type delusions.

As for support for Scottish independence "still stuck in the mid-50s", there have been a grand total of two opinion polls published since the Supreme Court judgment, by different polling companies. Your rush to judgment on such scanty evidence (and to a judgment which, by an astonishing coincidence, confirms the view you have always advocated) is very telling but, in truth, it tells more about you than about support for independence. Observers less hasty to reassure themselves that they are right might reckon that the effects of the Supreme Court ruling might take a little longer to play out. The ruling itself is not a tremendous surprise; what matters now is how the Scottish government, and the independence movement more generally, respond to it and how they employ it in their campaign. I don't think we're going to know the answers to those questions until well into next year, and the effect on public opinion until after that.

If you insist on using the two recent polls to discern a trend, well, each of the polling companies concerned shows increased support for independence relative to the last poll it conducted before the Supreme Court ruling (IPSOS/MORI 7% margin in favour of independence in last poll rises to 11%; Redfield & Wilton 3% margin against independence in last poll turns into 4% margin in favour) so maybe things are not quite so much "as you were" as you have convinced yourself.

Me, I'll wait for more and better data.

Rishi Sunak has indicated today the British government might block Scotland's new gender recognition bill. If the UK took such a step, that could prove a significant moment in the independence campaign.

I mean, blocking it would take more parliamentary time. Not sure of the benefit of England showing Scotland it only pretends to give it autonomy. I could see the exact nature of the bill becoming irrelevant if Westminster go down that route.

What federal elections are you talking about ?

Do you mean referendums ?

A Westminster federal election, - I think I was clear enough. British citizens are entitled to vote for a duration of 15 years living outside of the UK.

I have never heard of the Westminster election being described as a federal election, have you ever voted in one?

I often see Irish independence as a blueprint or a partial blueprint to Scottish independence. One major difference would have been that the EU didn't exist at that time, nor was mainland Europe the main trading partner? Thus the motivations for independence were different also the "behaviour" or lack of it, of the English in Ireland.

I also find it interesting that from 1921 all the way to 1948 people born in the Republic of Ireland would have had the right to a British passport. The possible reason for this, was that British citizenship law was different, it was British subject law? If it was back then possible for British citizens to vote as an absentee, this would have applied as well to holders of British passports in the Republic of Ireland, wouldn't it?

Today Irish citizens are entitled to vote in UK elections only, once they live in the UK and are on the electoral register. However Irish citizens residing in the Republic of Ireland are clearly not entitled to vote in UK elections.

OK, citizenship.

First, it’s wrong of tinytobe to say that “the SNP would insist that in an independent Scotland, it's people would still be British citizens”. The SNP says no such thing. On the contrary, the 2014 white paper explicitly envisaged the creation of a separate Scottish citizenship. Whether people who received Scottish citizenship would lose their UK citizenship would be a matter for the UK and the SNP’s whole schtick is that that what the UK would do about that would be a matter for the UK.

Precedent: What happened when the Irish Free State broke away from the UK? It was a simpler time; there was a single status “British subject” which was conferred on everyone within the King’s dominions; the Irish Free State remained part of the King’s dominions (like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) so denizens of the Irish Free State remained British subjects (like Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders) etc. There was, at that time, no separate Australian, Canadian, etc citizenship.

There was, though, a citizenship of the Irish Free State - Irish law provided for this. But the UK authorities took the view that this was of relevance only within the Irish Free State. Someone from the IFS was a British subject and would be treated by the UK authorities like any other British subject. They might also be a citizen of the IFS, but this was of no relevance to the UK authorities.

But things are different today. The overarching concept of “British subject” no longer exists. Each of the countries of the Commonwealth has its own separate citizenship - citizens of the UK are “British citizens”. The term “Commonwealth citizen” exists to refer to someone who has the citizenship of any Commonwealth country, but it’s not a hugely significant status within the UK, and it has no significance at all outside the UK, even in other Commonwealth countries.

What about British colonies (or “British Overseas Territories”, as they are now called)? Not being sovereign states, they don’t have their own citizenship. Denizens of these territories have some class of British citizenship. When a colony becomes independent, a new citizenship is created, and the independence legislation will provide for who gets the new citizenship and who gets to keep British citizenship. This happened a lot between the 1960s and the 1980s, and the practice was usually something like this; taking the independence of Jamaica as an example, if you were a British citizen because of your connection with Jamaica, then on independence (1) you became a citizen of Jamaica and (2) you lost your British citizenship unless your father or your paternal grandfather was born in the UK, in which case you [were probably white and] could retain your British citizenship (as well as being a Citizen of Jamaica).

Scotland leaving the UK is not quite the same as a colony becoming independent, but if the UK decides to apply the same thinking then Scots citizens will able to retain British Citizenship if they have a connection with rump-UK - e.g. born there, resident there at the date of Scottish independence, parent or grandparent born there. 

In addition, the UK might very well grant Scots Citizens the same status in the UK as Irish citizens have - i.e. not foreigners, right of residence, right to vote, etc. The SNP has made it clear they would seek this, and would reciprocate, just as Ireland does. And they would seek to have Scotland participate in the UK-IRL Common Travel Area. Those both look like realistic and sensible proposals to me, and I would be surprised if the UK demurred.

Well it is an attack on Scottish sovereignty, plain and simple, because social policy is, for the most part, a Scottish parliament competency.

What the Sunak Government have done is to nix a Bill that they seem to feel will adversely affect UK common law, which says a lot

At the same time, the Sturgeon administration is no doubt looking to put a few of these Trojan Horses up to London to fight independence by proxy.

Should be a nice full blown Constitutional crisis by mid-year.