Moving to Scotland to preserve freedom of movement rights

[ryuzaki]

I'm considering the SS route or maybe trying normal immigration if the rules become more favourable (extremely unlikely). Unfortunately I'm English so am considering moving to Scotland, which will stay in the EU.

What are the implications of doing this? At the moment a UK citizen can simply move to Scotland almost as simply as they can move anywhere in the UK, but post-Brexit it could be a foreign country. Presumably there will be some kind of transitional period and immigrants from England would not be required to go home, but how it would affect immigration rights is anyone's guess.

I suppose it depends what the rUK does. If we keep freedom of movement then Scotland would be an EEA country for the purposes of SS. If not... It's very unclear. But perhaps someone can speculate at least, as the decision needs to be made fairly quickly I think.

[Petaltop]

I'm considering the SS route or maybe trying normal immigration if the rules become more favourable (extremely unlikely). Unfortunately I'm English so am considering moving to Scotland, which will stay in the EU.

What are the implications of doing this? At the moment a UK citizen can simply move to Scotland almost as simply as they can move anywhere in the UK, but post-Brexit it could be a foreign country. Presumably there will be some kind of transitional period and immigrants from England would not be required to go home, but how it would affect immigration rights is anyone's guess.

I suppose it depends what the rUK does. If we keep freedom of movement then Scotland would be an EEA country for the purposes of SS. If not... It's very unclear. But perhaps someone can speculate at least, as the decision needs to be made fairly quickly I think.

You would have to wait until Scotland are allowed to join the EU, which would be in several years time. Scotland have a GDP that is worse than Greece and it's still rising and the EU have lost a net contributor in the UK leaving.

To ask to join the EU, they would have to leave the UK. Which means they would then have to borrow billions to plug the black hole in their finances, as England would no longer give them that money. It was 15 billion in March this year and is expected to keep rising. The EU would tell them the cuts and tax rises they expect them to make to bring down this deficit. Then the EU vote to see if they will take Scotlland and on what terms. The danger for Scotaland is that if any EU country uses their veto, then Scotland will be refused entry into the EU and will be on their own.

[noajthan]

Wonderful idea - perhaps there would be a fasttrack for those with Scottish ancestry too;
- but Scotland has not managed to float off over to mainland Europe yet.

[Richard W]

You would have to wait until Scotland are allowed to join the EU, which would be in several years time. Scotland have a GDP that is worse than Greece and it's still rising and the EU have lost a net contributor in the UK leaving.

It would be entirely consistent with the referendum results for the United Kingdom to grant independence to the kingdom of England. The immediate result of this grant would be that England (with Wales) would be outside the EU, while Scotland and Northern Ireland would remain in the EU, as the United Kingdom. (They might want to change the name again though, say to the United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern Ireland.)

[Obie]

Perhaps the United Kingdom of London, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

One has to bear in mind that London played no part in this mess, and therefore it must not suffer. It has a huge population, and has more voters that participated than Northern Ireland and Scotland combined.

[1kiril]

Scotland needs to be become independent first. Then join the EU. That's gonna take no less than a decade to achieve!!

[Casa]

Perhaps the United Kingdom of London, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

One has to bear in mind that London played no part in this mess, and therefore it must not suffer. It has a huge population, and has more voters that participated than Northern Ireland and Scotland combined.

Why not include the Kingdom of Brighton...they voted to remain ...oh and the Kingdom of Tunbridge Wells Taking us back to the time pre-King Alfred the Great. I'm taking all this with a pinch of salt.

[Richard W]

One has to bear in mind that London played no part in this mess,

I can think of a London commodity trader and a (former) mayor who both played quite a significant role. Also there's no tradition of London being an independent kingdom or the like, unless you go back to the time of the first (failed) British war of independence, under Boadicea, and you think of London and St Albans, which she destroyed, as being the core of the Roman colony. St Albans also voted to remain.

However, what would you do about the London overspill? Stevenage, for example, voted to leave.

[vinny]

Where is King Arthur when we need him?

[ouflak1]

If the UK negotiates a Denmark model, it may be possible for residents of Scotland to remain EU citizens. How that will work for non-Scottish residents, and Northern Irish, Welsh, and English residents/citizens is unknown. That may be something that Scotland itself negotiates while remaining members of the UK.

[secret.simon]

If the UK negotiates a Denmark model, it may be possible for residents of Scotland to remain EU citizens. How that will work for non-Scottish residents, and Northern Irish, Welsh, and English residents/citizens is unknown. That may be something that Scotland itself negotiates while remaining members of the UK.

I agree. The Denmark model seems to be the best option going forward. That will allow different parts of the current UK-in-EU to have different statuses.

So, for instance, Scotland, NI and Gibralter will remain in the EU as "The UK", while England and Wales could be treated as an OCT (Overseas country and territory) and only a subset of EU law can apply. Most likely the status would be the same as Channel Islands (freedom of goods, but not services or labour). Such a change would be agreed under Article 48 (normal treaty change) rather than under Article 50 as the UK won't be leaving the EU, just the definition of what constitutes the UK will change.

But, and herein lies the rub, it depends on whether the EU wants to play hardball. The EU may not want to make any concessions to the UK, to show the other countries that freedom of movement is non-negotiable. And that is ultimately decided by who is in charge of the negotiations, Juncker (who had complained that "Prime Ministers listen too much to voters" or national leaders in the European Council.

The downside of the situation is that if Denmark becomes a Europe-wide model, the map of the EU would resemble Swiss cheese, with swathes of regions/areas which do not have freedom of movement. But that can still happen even without the Denmark model by other countries seceding.

The EU seriously needs to reconsider the absolute nature of freedom of movement. That model is predicated on all of us being "citizens of the Union". But most people in the EU think as Brits, Scots, Irish, Catalan, Flemish and in regional identities, not as European citizens. I think the EU needs to come to terms with that and reformulate freedom of movement.

[njoy1987]

London will never be independent this makes me laugh when I hear it on the TV. Be practical and rational this simply won't happen

There won't be another refrendum.

Scotland will eventually join the EU but as part of the UK same could be true for NI

The above are my opinions and predictions only

[ryuzaki]

It sounds like the Scottish government is going to push to never leave the EU at all. Even if they technically have to leave and re-join, I think it is likely that they won't actually repeal all the laws that enact EU rules, including on freedom of movement. It would be a pointless waste of time, establishing an immigration system that will be abandoned a year or two later etc.