Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The English voice on Scottish independence must be heard
1 view
Skip to first unread message
RH
Oct 20, 2012, 4:21:51 PM10/20/12
to
The English voice on Scottish independence must be heard
Posted on October 20, 2012
Robert Henderson
The shrieking flaw in the proposed Scottish independence referendum
is the failure to establish the terms of Independence before the
referendum is held. This is vital because all parts of the UK are
potentially seriously affected, especially if Cameron is mad enough
to agree to an independent Scotland using the pound with the Bank of
England as lender of the last resort (http://
englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/an-independent-scotland-must-
not-be-allowed-to-have-the-pound-as-their-official-currency/).
The terms of independence should be negotiated between Westminster
and Holyrood and put to a referendum of all parts of the UK apart
from Scotland before the Scottish referendum is held. If it is
rejected the Scottish referendum should be delayed until further
negotiations on terms have been agreed and put to a further
referendum. If that fails, either because no such terms can be
agreed or because they are agreed and the second referendum rejects
them, the question of Scottish incidence should be shelved for ten
years to give time for reflection.
The Agreement between Cameron and Salmond
There is no provision in the agreement signed by Cameron and Salmond
for what happens if no terms for independence are agreed. (http://
www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence).
This has considerable consequences. On the face of things the
strength of the respective negotiating positions of Westminster and
Holyrood in the event of a Yes vote would depend on the size of the
majority for independence. While it is true that a large majority for
independence would add weight to Holyrood’s demands , any Yes vote,
however small the majority, will give Holyrood a strong negotiating
position because something has to be decided. That would put
Westminster in a very difficult situation because, even if they
wished to only agree to equitable terms such as Scotland not using the
Pound and taking on a share proportionate to their population of all
UK public debt, Westminster would be in a very difficult position
if Holyrood refused such terms. In such circumstances, the odds are
that a compromise which was favourable to Scotland and unfavourable to
the rest of the UK would be agreed simply to honour what was implicit
within the idea of a Scottish independence referendum, namely, that
the referendum would result in independence if the vote was Yes.
It is inconceivable that any Westminster Government could refuse to
come to an agreement on the terms of independence, because it would
produce a running political sore which would never be healed.
Holyrood could refuse to come to equitable terms because they would
know that even if Westminster delayed matters for a while by refusing
to agree terms, the odds would be strongly on them caving in sooner
or later. Not only that, if a Government is formed at Westminster in
2015 which does not include the Tories, the terms would almost
certainly be much more in favour than they would be if they were
agreed by the present coalition. There is also the possibility of the
next General Election happening before 2015 if the Coalition falls
apart.
Any agreement on terms would have to be agreed by both the
Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments. If so, it is unlikely that
Holyrood would refuse any terms laid before them by Salmond, although
they might insists on better terms . Westminster is another matter.
Either the Commons or Lords or both could refuse to pass the
legislation needed to give legal form to independence or the Bill
could be amended one way or another during its passage to make it
unacceptable to either Holyrood or the Westminster Government. There
are many MPs in the Commons who have good reasons for trying to stop
the Bill or of improving or worsening the conditions. There would be
a particular temptation for LibDem and Labour MPs sitting for Scottish
seats to jump from the UK political ship and support very favourable
terms for Scotland in the hope of making a political career in
Holyrood politics.
There is also the question of how English, Welsh and Northern Irish
would give their assent to any terms of independence which were
agreed. There has been no mention of a referendum on the terms in all
parts of the UK apart from Scotland. If the Tories and Labour were
behind the terms , there would be no meaningful way of voters to
express their agreement or disagreement at a General Election. The
odds are that the electorate would not be offered an opportunity to
say Yes or No to the terms.
There is also the position of the Scottish electorate to consider. As
they would be buying a pig-in-a-poke if they vote for independence,
there is a very strong case for saying that the Scottish electors
should have a vote of the terms before independence goes ahead.
The practical difficulties
Read more at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/the-english-voice-on-scottish-independence-must-be-heard/
Posted on October 20, 2012
Robert Henderson
The shrieking flaw in the proposed Scottish independence referendum
is the failure to establish the terms of Independence before the
referendum is held. This is vital because all parts of the UK are
potentially seriously affected, especially if Cameron is mad enough
to agree to an independent Scotland using the pound with the Bank of
England as lender of the last resort (http://
englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/an-independent-scotland-must-
not-be-allowed-to-have-the-pound-as-their-official-currency/).
The terms of independence should be negotiated between Westminster
and Holyrood and put to a referendum of all parts of the UK apart
from Scotland before the Scottish referendum is held. If it is
rejected the Scottish referendum should be delayed until further
negotiations on terms have been agreed and put to a further
referendum. If that fails, either because no such terms can be
agreed or because they are agreed and the second referendum rejects
them, the question of Scottish incidence should be shelved for ten
years to give time for reflection.
The Agreement between Cameron and Salmond
There is no provision in the agreement signed by Cameron and Salmond
for what happens if no terms for independence are agreed. (http://
www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence).
This has considerable consequences. On the face of things the
strength of the respective negotiating positions of Westminster and
Holyrood in the event of a Yes vote would depend on the size of the
majority for independence. While it is true that a large majority for
independence would add weight to Holyrood’s demands , any Yes vote,
however small the majority, will give Holyrood a strong negotiating
position because something has to be decided. That would put
Westminster in a very difficult situation because, even if they
wished to only agree to equitable terms such as Scotland not using the
Pound and taking on a share proportionate to their population of all
UK public debt, Westminster would be in a very difficult position
if Holyrood refused such terms. In such circumstances, the odds are
that a compromise which was favourable to Scotland and unfavourable to
the rest of the UK would be agreed simply to honour what was implicit
within the idea of a Scottish independence referendum, namely, that
the referendum would result in independence if the vote was Yes.
It is inconceivable that any Westminster Government could refuse to
come to an agreement on the terms of independence, because it would
produce a running political sore which would never be healed.
Holyrood could refuse to come to equitable terms because they would
know that even if Westminster delayed matters for a while by refusing
to agree terms, the odds would be strongly on them caving in sooner
or later. Not only that, if a Government is formed at Westminster in
2015 which does not include the Tories, the terms would almost
certainly be much more in favour than they would be if they were
agreed by the present coalition. There is also the possibility of the
next General Election happening before 2015 if the Coalition falls
apart.
Any agreement on terms would have to be agreed by both the
Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments. If so, it is unlikely that
Holyrood would refuse any terms laid before them by Salmond, although
they might insists on better terms . Westminster is another matter.
Either the Commons or Lords or both could refuse to pass the
legislation needed to give legal form to independence or the Bill
could be amended one way or another during its passage to make it
unacceptable to either Holyrood or the Westminster Government. There
are many MPs in the Commons who have good reasons for trying to stop
the Bill or of improving or worsening the conditions. There would be
a particular temptation for LibDem and Labour MPs sitting for Scottish
seats to jump from the UK political ship and support very favourable
terms for Scotland in the hope of making a political career in
Holyrood politics.
There is also the question of how English, Welsh and Northern Irish
would give their assent to any terms of independence which were
agreed. There has been no mention of a referendum on the terms in all
parts of the UK apart from Scotland. If the Tories and Labour were
behind the terms , there would be no meaningful way of voters to
express their agreement or disagreement at a General Election. The
odds are that the electorate would not be offered an opportunity to
say Yes or No to the terms.
There is also the position of the Scottish electorate to consider. As
they would be buying a pig-in-a-poke if they vote for independence,
there is a very strong case for saying that the Scottish electors
should have a vote of the terms before independence goes ahead.
The practical difficulties
Read more at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/the-english-voice-on-scottish-independence-must-be-heard/
Andy Wainwright
Oct 20, 2012, 6:23:11 PM10/20/12
to
Ok then.
Firstly, Scottish independence could only be workable as
"devolution-max" , as in reality is the ROI. ROI citizens have full
British citizen's rights and Brits have ROI citizenship as part of the
same deal. The Irish scrapped the monarchy, scrapped the pound, but in
real world terms are little different legally to the rest of the UK.
At the moment, you can actually bunk off Scottish university fees by
getting an ROI passport. You don't actually have to be Irish or even
live in Ireland to get one.
Scotland at presnt both has it's own government and yet has
representation at Westminster- is that fair either?
Secondly, Scotland is economically poorer than England. At the moment
Scotland is subsidised by the English. Presumingly Scotland remaining in
the EU, that redistribution would be handled from Brussels as opposed to
Westminster, but things wouldn't change that much in this respect.
The only real issue is that of the military. As an Englishman, I feel
that a military alliance with Scotland has some degree of strategic
importance. It would be possible to maintain this if we could
depoliticise the military, which would be a good thing in itself- the
only time Id like to see armed soldiers on the street would be if law
and order or infrastructure had broken down. I feel a military solely
fighting international crime, keeping peace and helping out in disaster
situations would not only be less controversial but considerably cheaper.
Firstly, Scottish independence could only be workable as
"devolution-max" , as in reality is the ROI. ROI citizens have full
British citizen's rights and Brits have ROI citizenship as part of the
same deal. The Irish scrapped the monarchy, scrapped the pound, but in
real world terms are little different legally to the rest of the UK.
At the moment, you can actually bunk off Scottish university fees by
getting an ROI passport. You don't actually have to be Irish or even
live in Ireland to get one.
Scotland at presnt both has it's own government and yet has
representation at Westminster- is that fair either?
Secondly, Scotland is economically poorer than England. At the moment
Scotland is subsidised by the English. Presumingly Scotland remaining in
the EU, that redistribution would be handled from Brussels as opposed to
Westminster, but things wouldn't change that much in this respect.
The only real issue is that of the military. As an Englishman, I feel
that a military alliance with Scotland has some degree of strategic
importance. It would be possible to maintain this if we could
depoliticise the military, which would be a good thing in itself- the
only time Id like to see armed soldiers on the street would be if law
and order or infrastructure had broken down. I feel a military solely
fighting international crime, keeping peace and helping out in disaster
situations would not only be less controversial but considerably cheaper.
Message has been deleted
Andy Wainwright
Oct 20, 2012, 7:38:44 PM10/20/12
to
On 21/10/2012 00:19, soupdragon wrote:
> Andy Wainwright <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
> news:k5v893$nuk$1...@dont-email.me:
> different. A bit like Scotland
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19600241
> so yes it is.
> contributes 9.6% of tax revenue and gets back 9.3%. That's a net subsidy
> According to military analysts, the costs will be ruinously expensive
> to the RumpUK. With the SNP having now dropped its opposition to NATO,
> all it has to do is take that extra step and offer RumpUK the existing
> storage at a small (or not so small) fee, given it an extra revenue
> stream.
>
Some good points.
I just feel it's a shame both Salmond and Cameron are being too
confrontational about this issue.
For me it's a case that the Scots should be able to have as much
independence as they want, as long as it's fair and beneficial to those
on both sides of the border.
Let both sides go their own way, but not put up any Anglo-Scottish red
tape which will hurt Brits both Scots, English and the rest.
Were I a Scot, providing the deal allowed for reciprocal citizenship and
open borders, and being on the same side should there be a war, I'd vote
yes.
> Andy Wainwright <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
> news:k5v893$nuk$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Ok then.
>>
>> Firstly, Scottish independence could only be workable as
>> "devolution-max" , as in reality is the ROI. ROI citizens have full
>> British citizen's rights and Brits have ROI citizenship as part of the
>> same deal. The Irish scrapped the monarchy, scrapped the pound, but in
>> real world terms are little different legally to the rest of the UK.
>
> ..apart from a different legal system, so that makes it.. err.. legally
>> Ok then.
>>
>> Firstly, Scottish independence could only be workable as
>> "devolution-max" , as in reality is the ROI. ROI citizens have full
>> British citizen's rights and Brits have ROI citizenship as part of the
>> same deal. The Irish scrapped the monarchy, scrapped the pound, but in
>> real world terms are little different legally to the rest of the UK.
>
> different. A bit like Scotland
>
>>
>> At the moment, you can actually bunk off Scottish university fees by
>> getting an ROI passport. You don't actually have to be Irish or even
>> live in Ireland to get one.
>
> Well, no you can't:-
>>
>> At the moment, you can actually bunk off Scottish university fees by
>> getting an ROI passport. You don't actually have to be Irish or even
>> live in Ireland to get one.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19600241
>
>> Scotland at presnt both has it's own government and yet has
>> representation at Westminster- is that fair either?
>
> Someone has to look after Scotland's interests for reserved issues,
>> Scotland at presnt both has it's own government and yet has
>> representation at Westminster- is that fair either?
>
> so yes it is.
>
>> Secondly, Scotland is economically poorer than England. At the moment
>> Scotland is subsidised by the English.
>
> Nope. According to GERS, the government's own figures, Scotland
>> Secondly, Scotland is economically poorer than England. At the moment
>> Scotland is subsidised by the English.
>
> contributes 9.6% of tax revenue and gets back 9.3%. That's a net subsidy
> to the rest of the UK.
>
>
>> The only real issue is that of the military.
>
> The only real issue is where RumpUK will park it's nuclear arsenal.
>
> According to military analysts, the costs will be ruinously expensive
> to the RumpUK. With the SNP having now dropped its opposition to NATO,
> all it has to do is take that extra step and offer RumpUK the existing
> storage at a small (or not so small) fee, given it an extra revenue
> stream.
>
Some good points.
I just feel it's a shame both Salmond and Cameron are being too
confrontational about this issue.
For me it's a case that the Scots should be able to have as much
independence as they want, as long as it's fair and beneficial to those
on both sides of the border.
Let both sides go their own way, but not put up any Anglo-Scottish red
tape which will hurt Brits both Scots, English and the rest.
Were I a Scot, providing the deal allowed for reciprocal citizenship and
open borders, and being on the same side should there be a war, I'd vote
yes.
Paul C
Oct 21, 2012, 3:38:08 AM10/21/12
to
On 20 Oct, 22:23, Andy Wainwright
Scotland is not subsidised by England.
Scotland contributes 9.6% of all UK taxes and gets back 9.3% of all UK
spending.
Kindly explain how Scotland is subsidised.LOL!!!
Another thick as mince English Daily Mail reader.
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Secondly, Scotland is economically poorer than England. At the moment
> Scotland is subsidised by the English.
Fool.
> Secondly, Scotland is economically poorer than England. At the moment
> Scotland is subsidised by the English.
Scotland is not subsidised by England.
Scotland contributes 9.6% of all UK taxes and gets back 9.3% of all UK
spending.
Kindly explain how Scotland is subsidised.LOL!!!
Another thick as mince English Daily Mail reader.
Message has been deleted
MCP
Oct 21, 2012, 7:36:12 AM10/21/12
to
future do you not understand,Rabbie?
What kind of double standards do you aspire to,given all the whining and
whinging on this newsgroup about the "west lothian question"
NEXT!!!
Mel Rowing
Oct 21, 2012, 9:47:20 AM10/21/12
to
On Oct 20, 11:23 pm, Andy Wainwright
British citizens enjoy Irish citizenship. Both do enjoy a common
travel area between the two countries which means that neither has to
show a passort to officials of the other. There is also a common right
of abode meaning that either can live in either country. However,
these freedoms have become less relevant within the context of common
EU membership where of course, all so call European citizens enjoy
similar rights in all EU countries.
> At the moment, you can actually bunk off Scottish university fees by
> getting an ROI passport. You don't actually have to be Irish or even
> live in Ireland to get one.
A UK citizen can only get an Irish passport by going through the
rigmorole of naturisation and vice versa.
> Scotland at present both has it's own government and yet has
at Westminser.
> The only real issue is that of the military. As an Englishman, I feel
> that a military alliance with Scotland has some degree of strategic
> importance. It would be possible to maintain this if we could
> depoliticise the military, which would be a good thing in itself- the
> only time Id like to see armed soldiers on the street would be if law
> and order or infrastructure had broken down. I feel a military solely
> fighting international crime, keeping peace and helping out in disaster
> situations would not only be less controversial but considerably cheaper.
Up until a few days or so ago the SNP policy on defence involved a
withdrawal from NATO and a non nuclear stance. Now this would appear
to have been changed some what. The non nuclear stance remains but
( by a slender majority) Scotland will now be a member of NATO.
We will set aside the notion that the blueprint for post independent
Scotland is to be drawn by the executive committee of the SNP. The 55%
of Scottish voters who did not vote SNP at the last election do not
apparently have a say in the matter. Scotland would appear to be well
on the way towards becoming a one party state.
Anyway, the question that seems to escape SNP notice is whether, given
this impediment, NATO would be prepared to accept a non nuclear
Scotland. You can demand this, plan that and insist upon something
else but NATO is a nuclear alliance. The founding principle is that
small countries and countries without nuclear weapons can huddle under
the nuclear umbrella of the larger members. However, they would be
required to allow vessels and aircraft bearing nuclear arms to freely
enter their waters and airspace. AFAIK there are no exceptions. You
don't get your nuclear protection for nothing.
I fail to see how an independent Scotland could deny the RN the use of
Faslane and Rosyth and the RAF the use of its airfields and radars and
be a member of NATO.
There is also the question of the £ sterling. The SNP (again speaking
for everybody) say that they will "adopt" it "at first" I wasn't
aware that it was about to be orphaned! There is no possibility
whatsoever that there will be a Scottish seat on the BoE monetary
committee and, more importantly the BoE will never become a lender of
last resort to Scottish banks. Neither will the UK government ever
underwrite Scottish Government loans. There is no reason why they
should!
I think what Wee Eck means is that the SNP (on behalf od Scotland)
will peg their currency to the £UK just as the Irish did with the
Pfund in the pre-Euro days. Thus Scotland would be forever subject to
British monetary decisions. Of course he could always "adopt" the Euro
but at the moment, that would make selling ice to Eskimos a pretty
straight forward proposition. However, besides that, he, as an
economist must be aware that the UK is always going to be Scotlands
biggest trading partner and that would be to saddle Scottish
businesses with exchange costs. The thousands of British tourists who
go to Scotland every year would have the trouble and expense of
messing about with Euros. Some might decide to go somewhere warmer,
drier and less infested with midges.
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Ok then.
>
> Firstly, Scottish independence could only be workable as
> "devolution-max" , as in reality is the ROI. ROI citizens have full
> British citizen's rights and Brits have ROI citizenship as part of the
> same deal. The Irish scrapped the monarchy, scrapped the pound, but in
> real world terms are little different legally to the rest of the UK.
Citzens of the ROI do not enjoy Briritish citizenship. Neither do
> Ok then.
>
> Firstly, Scottish independence could only be workable as
> "devolution-max" , as in reality is the ROI. ROI citizens have full
> British citizen's rights and Brits have ROI citizenship as part of the
> same deal. The Irish scrapped the monarchy, scrapped the pound, but in
> real world terms are little different legally to the rest of the UK.
British citizens enjoy Irish citizenship. Both do enjoy a common
travel area between the two countries which means that neither has to
show a passort to officials of the other. There is also a common right
of abode meaning that either can live in either country. However,
these freedoms have become less relevant within the context of common
EU membership where of course, all so call European citizens enjoy
similar rights in all EU countries.
> At the moment, you can actually bunk off Scottish university fees by
> getting an ROI passport. You don't actually have to be Irish or even
> live in Ireland to get one.
rigmorole of naturisation and vice versa.
> Scotland at present both has it's own government and yet has
> representation at Westminster- is that fair either?
If Scotland became independent then there would be no representation
at Westminser.
> The only real issue is that of the military. As an Englishman, I feel
> that a military alliance with Scotland has some degree of strategic
> importance. It would be possible to maintain this if we could
> depoliticise the military, which would be a good thing in itself- the
> only time Id like to see armed soldiers on the street would be if law
> and order or infrastructure had broken down. I feel a military solely
> fighting international crime, keeping peace and helping out in disaster
> situations would not only be less controversial but considerably cheaper.
withdrawal from NATO and a non nuclear stance. Now this would appear
to have been changed some what. The non nuclear stance remains but
( by a slender majority) Scotland will now be a member of NATO.
We will set aside the notion that the blueprint for post independent
Scotland is to be drawn by the executive committee of the SNP. The 55%
of Scottish voters who did not vote SNP at the last election do not
apparently have a say in the matter. Scotland would appear to be well
on the way towards becoming a one party state.
Anyway, the question that seems to escape SNP notice is whether, given
this impediment, NATO would be prepared to accept a non nuclear
Scotland. You can demand this, plan that and insist upon something
else but NATO is a nuclear alliance. The founding principle is that
small countries and countries without nuclear weapons can huddle under
the nuclear umbrella of the larger members. However, they would be
required to allow vessels and aircraft bearing nuclear arms to freely
enter their waters and airspace. AFAIK there are no exceptions. You
don't get your nuclear protection for nothing.
I fail to see how an independent Scotland could deny the RN the use of
Faslane and Rosyth and the RAF the use of its airfields and radars and
be a member of NATO.
There is also the question of the £ sterling. The SNP (again speaking
for everybody) say that they will "adopt" it "at first" I wasn't
aware that it was about to be orphaned! There is no possibility
whatsoever that there will be a Scottish seat on the BoE monetary
committee and, more importantly the BoE will never become a lender of
last resort to Scottish banks. Neither will the UK government ever
underwrite Scottish Government loans. There is no reason why they
should!
I think what Wee Eck means is that the SNP (on behalf od Scotland)
will peg their currency to the £UK just as the Irish did with the
Pfund in the pre-Euro days. Thus Scotland would be forever subject to
British monetary decisions. Of course he could always "adopt" the Euro
but at the moment, that would make selling ice to Eskimos a pretty
straight forward proposition. However, besides that, he, as an
economist must be aware that the UK is always going to be Scotlands
biggest trading partner and that would be to saddle Scottish
businesses with exchange costs. The thousands of British tourists who
go to Scotland every year would have the trouble and expense of
messing about with Euros. Some might decide to go somewhere warmer,
drier and less infested with midges.
jnugent
Oct 21, 2012, 2:05:27 PM10/21/12
to
On 21/10/2012 07:47, Mel Rowing wrote:
> Andy Wainwright <andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Firstly, Scottish independence could only be workable as
>> "devolution-max" , as in reality is the ROI. ROI citizens have full
>> British citizen's rights and Brits have ROI citizenship as part of the
>> same deal. The Irish scrapped the monarchy, scrapped the pound, but in
>> real world terms are little different legally to the rest of the UK.
>
> Citzens of the ROI do not enjoy Briritish citizenship. Neither do
> British citizens enjoy Irish citizenship. Both do enjoy a common
> travel area between the two countries which means that neither has to
> show a passort to officials of the other. There is also a common right
> of abode meaning that either can live in either country. However,
> these freedoms have become less relevant within the context of common
> EU membership where of course, all so call European citizens enjoy
> similar rights in all EU countries.
>
>> At the moment, you can actually bunk off Scottish university fees by
>> getting an ROI passport. You don't actually have to be Irish or even
>> live in Ireland to get one.
>
> A UK citizen can only get an Irish passport by going through the
> rigmorole of naturisation and vice versa.
Not necessarily. I could get an Irish passport without that rigmarole.
> Andy Wainwright <andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Firstly, Scottish independence could only be workable as
>> "devolution-max" , as in reality is the ROI. ROI citizens have full
>> British citizen's rights and Brits have ROI citizenship as part of the
>> same deal. The Irish scrapped the monarchy, scrapped the pound, but in
>> real world terms are little different legally to the rest of the UK.
>
> Citzens of the ROI do not enjoy Briritish citizenship. Neither do
> British citizens enjoy Irish citizenship. Both do enjoy a common
> travel area between the two countries which means that neither has to
> show a passort to officials of the other. There is also a common right
> of abode meaning that either can live in either country. However,
> these freedoms have become less relevant within the context of common
> EU membership where of course, all so call European citizens enjoy
> similar rights in all EU countries.
>
>> At the moment, you can actually bunk off Scottish university fees by
>> getting an ROI passport. You don't actually have to be Irish or even
>> live in Ireland to get one.
>
> A UK citizen can only get an Irish passport by going through the
> rigmorole of naturisation and vice versa.
Mel Rowing
Oct 21, 2012, 12:53:39 PM10/21/12
to
citizen. I counldn't!
0 new messages