由於蘇格蘭國民黨嘅歷史性勝利，2014至2015年應該會有蘇獨公投，然後2016年獨立。咁唔少人會問，BN(O)對英籍平權有無影響。
小弟或者咁講，蘇格蘭獨立將會令BN(O)平權出現曙光。
SNP同保守黨喺移民問題上，係南轅北轍嘅主張，正當英格蘭各黨要限制移民果陣，蘇格蘭就話你有蘇格蘭住過或打算住蘇格蘭就同你加分。因為蘇格蘭根本唔夠人口，對蘇格蘭嚟講，如果要獨立，就唔可以好多服務同人才依賴英格蘭班友，自給自足係必須充實人口。
而香港同蘇格蘭嘅淵源，包括經濟、文化、社會政策等等嘅淵源，有可能談判蘇格蘭獨立時，會一併讓BN(O)作出選擇，至少現居蘇格蘭嘅BN(O)可能會就地獲得新國家公民權。而唔喺蘇格蘭嘅，亦可能會容許作出登記。因為有歐洲幫手吸收部分BN(O)，加上唔少bN(O)有加籍或者澳籍後，有關人士及子弟可能唔係真係咁大數目。而蘇格蘭作為一個獨立國家嘅胃口，同作為聯合王國一部分嘅胃口，係唔同嘅考慮。而蘇格蘭人口老化，香港年青BN(O)相對有吸引力，而且又講到英文。
但對英格蘭嚟講，亦可能會提供平權選擇，因為英格蘭無咗蘇格蘭後，無咗蘇格蘭天然資源提供的經濟動力，無咗蘇格蘭咁大批可以抽稅嘅人口同埋資源唔係講笑。當然提供平權機會無蘇格蘭咁大，但如果要求海外BN(O)交稅，咁可以又作別論。但蘇格蘭本身提供bN(O)登記入籍誘因唔細，特別咁樣會令蘇格蘭有一個海外據點。
所以我話我心中嘅平權時間表喺幾時發生，有兩個時間點，一係蘇格蘭公投前後，一係中國爆大鑊，計時炸彈條款有可能啟動。但蘇格蘭公投後新國家前途問題，相信好快會進入討論。
MO's notebook 3 to 4 
蘇格蘭獨立成功 機會率 大不大?????????
The worst worry is that they coinsider BNO the English’s problem…
Nathan,
I don’t really think English is a problem as BN(O) holders can register as BC after staying in the UK with proper visa(s) for 5 years. No test needs to be done.
As far as i understand the SNP are socialists rather than racists. They accepti independence within the EU.., and they accept preserving the monarchy (in the form of personal union). Even if it’s an England’s problem in their eyes, it would still be England’s problem since many Scottish citizens will end up in London or other metropolises.
@ Felix
the English as in the English people…
@S,
From my experience with Scottish people nowadays, frankly I am not very optimistic about the “independence = good for BNO" proposition. They are already not easily be convinced that non-whites can be “British", let alone Scottish. They are very proud of their heritage. If you have no Viking/ Celtic ancestry, it’s hard to find a Scot see you as a Scot. The English people on the other hand are more “easy-going" in your face at least. I think it will be difficult to convince the “Scottish Republic" to-be to admit BNO-ers based on “Common history". As for Britain, I am even more worried. There are a few possibilities with an imminent scottish independence:
1) British Nationalism will be on the rise. They will put even more emphasis on their so-called “Anglo-Saxon" heritage to try to hold the country together. This may actually lead to anti-immigration sentiment. Sorry but I need to point out, to laypeople in the UK, BNO-ers are immigrants. Sadly, they don’t even consider those Caribbean Overseas British who are eligible to BC passport British.
2) Now that the Conservatives don’t need to worry about Scottish independence, because it’s a done-deal, they will proceed to become even more “conservative" — another bad news for BNO-ers, etc
I think Martin’s suggestion of marketing BNO-ers as productive labor force is the most viable proposition. In fact, I think Scotland is like a few times bigger than Hong Kong but with only a portion of Hong Kong’s population. They do need more high-skilled migrants. It’s especially true when English people don’t generally like working in Scotland because 1) they don’t understand the Scottish accent 2) Horrible weather. Whether they can fill up the high-skilled pooled by EU migrants really depends but my conjecture is that most EU migrants, especially the most abled, want to end up in London.
Therefore, we have to convince them that we are winning to come to Scotland to contribute to the Economy by providing the most needed skills. (Too lazy to keep on writing… will add more if there is demand)
Q&A: Scottish independence referendumBy Andrew Black
Political reporter, BBC Scotland
The Scottish National Party is to be returned to government in Scotland, after winning an outright majority in the Holyrood election.
That means the SNP will hold a referendum on independence within the next few years – but what are the main issues and obstacles facing the party?
Where are the origins of the independence movement in Scotland?
The campaign for Scottish home rule began in earnest almost as soon as the unification with England took place, in 1707.
At the time, the view was that Scotland was in desperate need of financial support, but opponents of the move were outraged by claims that the Scots who put their names to the Act of Union were bribed.
The best known critic at the time was Scotland’s Bard, Robert Burns, who was spurred to write: “We are bought and sold for English gold. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation."
Fast forward many years to 1934, and the establishment of the Scottish National Party, created through the amalgamation of the Scottish Party and the National Party of Scotland.
After decades of ups-and downs, the party won its first election in 2007 and, again, in 2011.
How has the independence debate moved on in recent years?
Scottish devolution in 1999 presented a significant opportunity for the SNP, which, despite having a few MPs, was struggling to make the case for independence at Westminster.
The prime minister of the day, Tony Blair – who wrote the book on incumbency – was all too aware of this, and the Scottish Parliament’s part first-past-the-post, part PR voting system was intended to prevent any one party gaining an overall majority.
This was the case initially – up until the 2011 election there had been two terms of a Labour/Lib Dem coalition and one of an SNP minority government.
The 2011 result has blown out of the water the claim once made by Labour veteran Lord Robertson that devolution would “kill nationalism stone dead" – ironically, Labour, the party which set up devolution – has never managed to gain the overall majority achieved by the SNP.
That result means the independence debate is now more relevant than it has ever been – a referendum will be held.
Does Scotland want independence?
Hard to say at the moment – while it’s probably true to say support has grown, given the election result, a vote for the SNP does not necessarily mean a vote for independence.
One of the reasons voters turned so decisively to the SNP and its positive campaigning style was because they wanted an alternative to Labour and to punish the Liberal Democrats at the polls.
There are those who do not support independence, but recognised Alex Salmond was the best candidate for first minister – knowing they have the safety-cushion of voting “No" in the referendum.
In terms of political backing at Holyrood, the SNP supports independence, as do the Greens and independent MSP Margo MacDonald, a former nationalist politician.
Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are opposed.
When will the referendum be held?
At the moment, SNP leader Alex Salmond is only prepared to say the referendum would be held at some point in the second half of the new parliament’s five-year term.
He says the most pressing issue is gaining more significant powers for the Scottish Parliament – especially financial powers – because that debate is currently going on at Westminster.
Opponents say that is an excuse for the SNP wanting to dictate the conditions for a “Yes" vote, while claiming the party played down the issue during the election campaign.
They want the referendum to be held now.
The SNP now has a majority – why does it not simply declare independence?
Even though the party won an overall majority, it takes the view that, on an issue of such significance, it would first need the backing of the Scottish people in a referendum.
It also needs this mandate to negotiate an independence settlement with the UK government.
How would a referendum work?
Firstly, MSPs would pass a Referendum Bill in the Scottish Parliament.
There would then be a for-and-against campaign, like the one we saw for the AV referendum, before Scots voters went to the polls.
Would voters simply be asked whether they want independence?
It’s nowhere near as simple as that.
Because the Scottish Parliament does, in itself, not have the authority to declare Scotland an independent country, a “Yes" vote in the referendum would mark the start of talks with the UK government.
Of course, if the Scottish people speak up for independence, it makes it all but impossible for Westminster ministers to say: “No, you can’t have it."
The SNP has previously indicated the question on the ballot paper would go something like: “The Scottish Parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government, based on the proposals set out in the white paper, so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state."
The responses would be “Yes I agree" or “No I disagree".
In the last parliament, the SNP minority government tried to get enough support for a referendum with Lib Dem votes, offering the olive branch of a second question on the ballot paper on increased powers for the Scottish Parliament.
Ultimately, they didn’t go for it. The SNP doesn’t have to barter for votes any more, but Alex Salmond doesn’t rule out a second question this time round, saying his party has no “monopoly on wisdom".
What happens in the event of a ‘Yes’ Vote?
Talks would begin with the UK government on a constitutional settlement, based on the SNP’s declaration of a popular mandate from the Scottish people.
It’s hard to say exactly how things would happen, given this would be new territory, but it’s likely the timescale from a “Yes" vote to full independence would be lengthy, given the huge number of issues which would need resolved, including areas like defence.
What happens if there is a ‘No’ Vote? Would there be another referendum?
Alex Salmond has described the independence referendum as a once-in-a-generation event.
All the parties – unionist and pro-independence – are keen to avoid the situation which has unfolded in the Canadian province of Quebec, where debate over multiple independence referenda over the years has been dubbed the “neverendum".
At worst, a “No" result in the referendum could spell the end for the SNP as a mainstream political force.
It’s also likely focus would shift back to the debate over more powers for Holyrood – with full fiscal autonomy, as opposed to relying on the Treasury block grant, probably becoming a more serious option.
What are the key obstacles to a referendum and independence?
As far as the referendum is concerned, none.
The SNP now has the votes at Holyrood to stage it, unlike in the last parliament when the SNP minority government was out-numbered by the votes of the pro-union parties, namely Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems.
The UK government says it won’t stand in the way of an independence referendum.
That’s all very well, but the bottom line is this is happening – whether the coalition likes it or not.
In terms of independence, the UK government would essentially have to agree to it, but in the event of a “Yes" vote it would be almost unthinkable for Westminster to block it.
What about the alternative debate on more powers for the Scottish Parliament, short of independence?
Westminster is currently considering the Scotland Bill, which will deliver new financial powers worth £12bn, allowing Scotland to control a third of its budget under a new Scottish-set income tax and borrowing regime.
It came about as a result of the Calman Commission to review devolution 10 years on, backed by a vote of the pro-union parties at Holyrood.
The SNP was not keen to engage with the Scotland Bill debate, saying a “pocket money parliament" under Westminster control was not the way forward.
But the new SNP majority government is now concentrating on strengthening what is a live bill, before turning to the referendum, under a new piece of legislation.
Yes that’s very true. But if the citizenship law of Scotland isn’t going to be put forward to referendum, the position of the Scottish Parliament, i.e. that of the SNP, shall be the most influential. From a practical point of view many people with Scottish citizenship could have ended up in London or other major cities as EU citizens, and would therefore not be a problem of Scotland.
Furthermore, it would be possible that even if independence is not achieved, power will be devolved more progressively to the Scottish Parliament by the Tory government in Westminster, in exchange for a de facto English parliament within the existing Westminster parliament (e.g., barring Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) MPs from voting on purely English matters).
With wider power a near-independent Scotland can possibly legislate on issues such as right of abode, right to employment, etc., or even access to a new category of Scottish citizenship, for other categories of British nationals. The SNP, as I’ve mentioned earlier on, isn’t a racist or right-wing party, and would probably taking a rather liberal position towards the rights of non-British citizen British nationals.
我都係馬奇維利果套講法，就係BNO平權會喺蘇格蘭同北愛先發生，最後英格蘭再同你分餅仔。
我對蘇格蘭樂觀嘅原因，因為東歐嚟果班EU人，佢地有得揀都揀倫敦，唔會係蘇格蘭，但香港人會有人揀蘇格蘭，你睇BHK總部本身都喺蘇格蘭，唔喺倫敦。但香港殖民地歷史慣咗同蘇格蘭人打交道，唔介意去蘇格蘭。所以，蘇格蘭要給予BNO持有人簡易的登記入籍途徑我係樂觀，依家喺蘇格蘭果批，特別有份參與蘇獨公投果批，更可能係獨立果陣就可以入籍。
蘇獨另一個結果係北愛問題，北愛Republican呢幾年越嚟越強勢，呢個同蘇格蘭血統班友開始轉陣營有關。倫敦想保護班Unionist嘅話，最有效方法係放香港人作為buffer，今年北愛選舉，南貝爾法斯特Alliance Party嘅Anna Lo得到全市最高票，我諗反映到呢個方向嘅可行性。喺英國政治嚟講，英格蘭嘅主要少數族裔係印巴裔，所以出現巴基斯坦裔嘅保守黨主席，喺北愛政治嚟講，可能最終出現香港人入House of Commons係北愛，唔係倫敦，特別保守黨旁支UUP己經無晒政治能量果陣，倫敦唔會想新芬黨繼續坐大。
跟住倫敦要考慮問題係遠東嘅戰略需要，當蘇格蘭分咗唔少餅仔，不少BNO過世，或者因居歐而入籍當地國家果陣，咁佢地會平權，但目的係維持英格蘭喺遠東戰略影響力，亦即BNO原有發明嘅目的。
Furthermore it isn’t a must for Scotland to achieve full independence in one go. The process that Canada, NZ and Australia had gone through was very gradual. The Statute of Westminister 1931 was the watershed for old dominions to achieve independence.., yet Canada wasn’t fully sovereign until 1982, and Australia and NZ in 1986 and 87. Scotland can get further devolution from Westminster, while nominally remaining part of the UK for some time.
HK have several former governors from Scotland… and the HSBC, the Charter Bank, the Jardine’s Group, etc., were all founded by Scotsmen. HK has in fact strong historical and cultural ties with Scotland. Ideologically the SNP would more likely to follow the Portuguese and French experience to grant citizenship to people from territories that did not choose to leave by way of war or referendum. (That’s the reason why inhabitants of Goa still have access to Portuguese citizenship, and referendums were held before France relinquished its Indian territories to the Republic of India in the 1960s.)
樓上話BNO住5年就有得轉BC邊度有寫?
我係Border Agency睇哂都唔見有
多謝martin 你既解釋!
睇嚟BN(O) 平權仲有一段路要走