Will everyone become a citizen?

VLK · Will everyone become a citizen?

That thread on Global politics "Russia is the most fascist country in Europe" has several interesting points on citizenship, whether it should be automatic for people who are born in a country or if there should be some sort of citizenship-test.

Can`t help comparing the situation to Scotland. Let`s imagine that there was a referendum on Scottish independence and the yes-votes would win 51%-49% and Scotland would declare itself independent. Who would be the citizens of Scotland? Everyone resident in Scotland at the time of independence or should people have to prove their Scottishness?

If you are Scottish would you be forced to have a Scottish citizenship even if you didn`t want it`? If the referendum was very close and there are many people who wish to remain as British citizens but also want to continue to live in Scotland because Scotland is their home, would that be allowed? I mean, if for example 20% of the population would not be citizens because they don`t want it, that would be insustainable.

What about all ex-pat Scots? If Scotland becomes independent then Scots living in England are also ex-pat Scots. Would they become citizens of Scotland even though many of them have not lived in Scotland for years?

Aventinian · Re: Will everyone become a citizen?

Holebender

The SNP's position, for what it's worth, is that all persons legally resident in Scotland plus all persons born in Scotland who are alive when Scotland becomes independent will be automatically entitled to become citizens, if they choose to. Personally I'd extend that to anyone with at least a grandparent born in Scotland plus any legal UK citizen. (After all, all UK citizens currently have the right to live and vote in Scotland so that right should be available when Scotland becomes independent.)

In any case, becoming a citizen will be voluntary.

Jimbo · Re: Will everyone become a citizen?

[quote="Aventinian"]

Aventinian · Re: Will everyone become a citizen?

Economist

If a majority of people in Scotland voted for independence, it rather undermines the idea of Westminster "granting" Scotland independence. Independence would be granted, by those who voted for it, which, realistically, Westminster wouldn't be able to gainsay or ignore, and the mere act of ending the United Kingdom through the legislative channels of the British Parliament would be a largely administrative, rather than symbolic act. The symbolic act of independence would be seen to be the vote by those Scots who voted for independence.

Dave Coull

VLK asked "Who would be the citizens of Scotland?"

Holebender says

"The SNP's position, for what it's worth, is that all persons legally resident in Scotland"

(That would include my wife and my step-daughter, both of whom are citizens of the USA but permanent residents of Scotland. My stepson, born in England, and currently a lecturer in economics at an English university, plans to move to Scotland in time to establish his "residency" before independence. )

"plus all persons born in Scotland who are alive when Scotland becomes independent will be automatically entitled to become citizens, if they choose to. Personally I'd extend that to anyone with at least a grandparent born in Scotland"

(So, by Holebender's criteria, my wife would qualify even if she wasn't a permanent resident, on account of her granny emigrating from Scotland to the USA)

Aventinian wrote

"If I did have Scottish citizenship given to me, I'd also expect to be given citizenship of the remaining UK or England too."

The precedent is what happened with Ireland. Anyone who was born in Ireland when it was part of the UK was automatically considered to still be entitled to a British passport (if they wanted it ! ) after the establishment of the Irish Republic. On the other hand, everybody born in Northern Ireland was automatically entitled to an Irish passport if they wanted one. I don't recall Dr Paisley ever applying for his Irish passport, but he could have if he'd wanted to. So far as voting rights are concerned, I can remember, in the days before the "Celtic Tiger" phenomenon, for twelve years I worked on building sites in London, and on some sites a majority of my fellow workers were Irish. But like hundreds of thousands of their Irish-fellow-citizens, they were entitled to vote in UK general elections.

Babygael

To the initial Question......NO!

Ave babes find another area tae abide in! Wink

LAz

I wouldn't give citizenship to foreigners... like ones from other european countries, the middle east, asia, etc...

As for the british there... yeah, I'd give 'em citizenship, if they are not recent migrants to the country.

But in reality, most places just give citizenship if you were born there, something with which I disagree with.

Dave Coull

LAz wrote "I wouldn't give citizenship to foreigners..."

So far as I am aware, throughout human history, every country
on Earth has had some sort of provision for doing just exactly that.
Even Nazi Germany extended citizenship to three million ethnic
Germans born in Russia and eastern Europe. Even Inquisition Spain
conferred citizenship on the Genoan Christopher Columbus. LAz,
your views are more extreme than the Nazis or the Inquisition.

LAz

Dave Coull

LAz wrote "Those Germans that Germany took in were once in what was Germany... so they are not foreign".

RUBBISH ! You just don't know what you are talking about. Some of them were people speaking Germanic languages more different from actual German than Dutch is, and more different from actual German than Yiddish is. The Volga Germans, for instance, had settled in Russia at the invitation of Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, and they migrated there from _other_ eastern lands outside of Germany itself. The language they spoke was so russified as to be un-intelligible to someone from Germany.

In any case, Nazi Germany also gave citizenship to William Joyce, known as "Lord Haw Haw", who, although born in Ireland, spoke with an upper class English accent, which he used to considerable effect in propoganda broadcasts on behalf of his adopted country. That is just one of dozens of examples which could be given of Nazi Germany extending citizenship to "foreigners".

So far as I am aware, throughout human history, states of all types have had at least some sort of provision for extending citizenship to at least _some_ "foreigners".

> I am just afraid of mixing people, as I think it would result in problems.

Attempts at apartheid always lead to greater problems sooner or later.

Fortunately, neither the SNP nor any other party which is likely to form a government of Scotland takes the same view as you.

Babygael

the peeps are allready mixed laz , some 300 years past! Shocked

Jimbo

Fidget

I wouldn't give citizenship to all and sundry on the basis that they happen to be legally registered in Scotland at the time of indpendence. I would reserve citizenship to those with birthright. The rest can have residency except in mitigating circumstances.

Countries seem to be losing their identities the world over and it should be important that Scotland guards its identity. Surely, side from wanting to fully take charge of it's own affairs and future, it's also about having a recognised identity? It should think carefully before giving it out willy nilly.

In the event that it goes down the willy nilly route. I think it also ought be very careful how it manages that. For those who do not qualify for citizenship by birthright, I think they ought to have been registered in Scotland for maybe 5 years or more prior to the day that a 'yes' vote carries. Because if it's a simple case of just being legally registered, surely this is going to attract people as soon as it's announced that there's to be a referendum, purely so that they can get citizenship in the event of a yes vote?

I think who gets to vote in a referendum ought to be restricted as well. It's not some run of the mill election - it's a decision on whether Scotland remains part of the UK or geos it alone. It's a big thing and I'm not sure I like the idea of it being open to people who've just moved in.

Dave Coull

Fidget wrote "I wouldn't give citizenship to all and sundry on the basis that they happen to be legally registered in Scotland at the time of indpendence" - so, you disagree with the policies on citizenship of the SNP, the Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, and Solidarity ?
Perhaps the citizenship policies of the BNP are more to your liking ?

> I think who gets to vote in a referendum ought to be restricted as well.
> It's not some run of the mill election - it's a decision on whether Scotland
> remains part of the UK or goes it alone. It's a big thing and I'm not sure
> I like the idea of it being open to people who've just moved in.

When I lived in London I tried to hire a television from a rental company. They asked me "do you vote?" - well the answer to that was NO, I never voted once in the twelve years that I lived in London. But it turned out that what they really meant was, are you on the electoral register. Which I was. So I was able to hire a TV. Companies figure that if you are on the electoral register, then you have not "just moved in", because it takes time to get on the register. The only sensible basis for running a referendum is that everyone who is on the electoral register in Scotland can vote. Anything other than that would itself be a constitutional change, and there would have to be a referendum on _that_ , conducted under the existing system that everybody who is on the electoral register can vote. You may not like this, Fidget, but it is the only way to do things.

Fidget

really by 'just moved in' I meant only been there for a year or so, which means they would be on the register if they put their names on it. It would be nearly impossible to identify those people anyway since people who've been there for years or even born there but not currently on the electorate would probably start to register to have a say in it. The amt of 'newbies' might well be negligible anyway, it's jsut the idea of it that doesn't sit well with me.

Holebender

So who has this birthright then? Let's hear you spell it out.

My Dad has lived in Scotland longer than I have but he was born in England and I was born in Scotland. I have Scottish ancestors but my Dad doesn't. Who has the right?

Corby Boy

I like to think that being born and bred in England of a native born Scottish father and mother born in England but also of Scottish descent further back in time, would qualify me for Scottish citizenship (I personally wouldn't want dual citizenship).

As after all, I consider myself more Scottish than English and I would rather a Scots passport. My sons may be a different case, they may want an English one, but they too should have the choice of a Scottish one through my dad, if they so wanted. I would say it should stop though at grandparents.

As a point of interest the Irish (RoI) football team have always applied this rule.

Fidget

Holebender

Right, so my Dad has no right to citizenship in your eyes, even though he has lived in Scotland for 51 years now.

On the other hand, some of my wife's sisters who were born in Scotland but emigrated to Canada in the late 1950s have an automatic right to citizenship.

Do you see how warped that is?

Maol.Chaluim

LAz

Holebender

LAz, you don't half spout some sh!te. You're a racist ignorant bigot.

LAz

Holebender

You are a racist because you want to keep everyone in separate ethnic groups at all times and for all time. You want to keep the foreigners out.

It's funny that you spend so much time on this forum and seem to support Scottish independence but you'd keep yourself out of Scotland if you had your own way. You'd be the foreigner and you'd be undesirable by your own standards.

Getting back to the citizenship question... does it make more sense to offer citizenship to residents who are actively contributing to Scotland's economy or to people who just happened to have had a parent born in Scotland but who have homes, jobs, families in an entirely different part of the world?

Dave Coull

Balkan Investigative Reporting Network
Laz Massacre Still Haunts Montenegro http://www.birn.eu.com/en/86/10/3192/

LAz wrote

"the German brutality in World War II requires payback. The horrors that they did in the East outweigh those that were done in the West by far. It was terrorizing and destroying populations, as well as military combat"

Although the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews is the biggest and most famous example of "destroying populations" during the Second World War, it wasn't the only one. In Bosnia, for instance, the Serbs went from being the majority population to a minority. The Serbs were, for the most part, hostile towards the Germans. But many Croats were enthusiastic Nazi supporters. They did indeed do their best to seek to destroy Serbian populations in areas of mixed settlement. Some Muslims in both Bosnia and Kosovo also collaborated enthusiastically with the Nazis.

Note that LAz is hostile towards Muslims, and also that he says the brutality of the Second World War in the East requires payback.

LAz wrote "a region in my country, the region being Kosovo, got and still is tormented by foreigners. They are doing their best to eliminate the culture of those who were once the dominant ones. And it will happen elsewhere too. Mixing different cultures = BAD."

Therefore, LAz is Serbian. In the case of Kosovo, it wasn't just the Second World War that turned the Serbs into a minority, that process had been going on for a lot longer. LAz sees the majority Muslim population in Kosovo as foreigners, because there was a time, many centuries ago, when there were no Muslims in Kosovo. But the Balkans were ruled as part of the Ottoman Empire for many centuries. It wasn't just a case of "foreigners" moving in, more a case of some of the native population converting to the religion of the rulers. This meant you were less likely to be discriminated against, made it easier to get jobs, etc etc. The reality is that "ethnically" that part of the Balkans is very mixed. In Bosnia, for instance, which was ruled as part of the (Catholic) Austrian Empire for a time, what is the difference between a Serb and a Croat? Answer, the Croat is Catholic, while the Serb is Orthodox. Similarly, what is the difference between either of them and a Bosnian Muslim? Answer, they are either Catholic or Orthodox Christians, while the Muslim is, of course, Muslim. What you have is not so much "natives" and "foreigners", but differences of RELIGION.

Here in Scotland, while you can still find old hostilities between protestant and catholic, these have faded a lot. Here in Scotland, the Muslim community is becoming more integrated into Scottish life, and the Scottish Parliament has its first Muslim MSP, a member of the Scottish National Party. It is ironic that LAz should say mixing different cultures is bad when what he himself brings to Scotland is some of the worst aspects of the Balkans.

Holebender

He's not even in Scotland, Dave. He posts from his homeland.

LAz · Laz Massacre Still Haunts Montenegro http://www.birn.eu.com/en/86/10/3192/

Will everyone become a citizen?

Re: Will everyone become a citizen?

Re: Will everyone become a citizen?

Re: Will everyone become a citizen?