SNP to break up Britian?

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

That wasn't in reference to the EU aspect; and if you had actually read anything I've typed I'm clearly of the opinion both Scotland and the rUK in that scenario would be members of the EU.

What was it in reference to? Your opinion but I would question Scotland going into the EU and the Euro? Do you think they would be able to dictate their keeping the pound. Will the 'Scottish' pound survive once removed from the remaining unions?

For myself I think Scotland should be given the vote, after the politicians have provided the relevant information. I personally doubt it would go through and believe the majority of the voters (those that bother to vote) would wish more power to current Scottish government without splitting from the union.

I think an independent Scotland would not find life that great. On a world stage they have little presence. Maybe a case of 'splendid isolationism'? In itself not necessarily a bad idea in our current climate.

 

[Biohazard]

What was it in reference to? Your opinion but I would question Scotland going into the EU and the Euro? Do you think they would be able to dictate their keeping the pound. Will the 'Scottish' pound survive once removed from the remaining unions?

Read the context?

The constitutional status quo of the UK and what would happen in the advent of one of the creators quiting. Although given the haphazard style of the UK constitution and the inherrent contradictions it already contains it could probably pass anything off as being proper..

For myself I think Scotland should be given the vote, after the politicians have provided the relevant information. I personally doubt it would go through and believe the majority of the voters (those that bother to vote) would wish more power to current Scottish government without splitting from the union.

Scotland will have its vote.

It will be close if it is a two way vote.

I think an independent Scotland would not find life that great. On a world stage they have little presence. Maybe a case of 'splendid isolationism'? In itself not necessarily a bad idea in our current climate.

It would be far more likely Scotland would have an increased presence on the world stage, and not be sidlined by Westminster in representation at the big tables around the world.

Our resouces wouldn't be used as disposible bargaining chips then.

I'm not convinced how political independence would lead to Scotland becoming completely isolated. It makes little sense.

 

[RDM]

The constitutional status quo of the UK and what would happen in the advent of one of the creators quiting. Although given the haphazard style of the UK constitution and the inherrent contradictions it already contains it could probably pass anything off as being proper..

Considering the Act of Union was 300 years ago it isn't really a surprise that things have moved on quite considerably. The United Kingdom didn't really exist until the 1800s despite being referenced prior to that. It isn't really what is "proper" but what is sensible considering our current status.

Scottish Independence will not be the breaking up of the United Kingdom but the succession of Scotland from the United Kingdom, nothing else really makes all that much sense from an international perspective.

 

[Biohazard]

Considering the Act of Union was 300 years ago it isn't really a surprise that things have moved on quite considerably. The United Kingdom didn't really exist until the 1800s despite being referenced prior to that. It isn't really what is "proper" but what is sensible considering our current status.

The United Kingdom started 300 years ago with the AoU. It will technically end with the dissolution of the AoU.

Scottish Independence will not be the breaking up of the United Kingdom but the succession of Scotland from the United Kingdom, nothing else really makes all that much sense from an international perspective.

rUK. Not United Kingdom, it wouldn't exist. Not unless England wants to write a new constitutional act that incorporates the remaining annexed states and style it as a United Kingdom there are some issues to be dealt with.

 

[Dolph]

do we need to remind you that Scotland doesn't get to dictate the rules to either the rUK or the rest of the world again...

 

[Biohazard]

do we need to remind you that Scotland doesn't get to dictate the rules to either the rUK or the rest of the world again...

Blah blah blah.

It's not dicating rules, but the effect of cancelling the contract.

What that contract created, would no longer exist. Because the paper and what has been built upon it has been shredded.

As I have admitted, rUK could pretend what ever the heck it likes... however it doesn't make it correct.

The UK under the AoU is a partnership of equals. If one side leaves, it is not appropriate for the other to call itself by the same title. I admit there is a stronger case for retention of similar for England in the advent of Scottish independent, only because if the shoe was on the other foot Scotland has no nearby remenants of Empire.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I wonder what Australia thinks about the costs of a forced change in flag it would incur should the nationalists win?

So many consequences for others...

 

[Dolph]

But you are still missing the key point. even if your position reflects the theory accurately, the reality can easily be very different. The EU, for example, can easily decide to treat the change as Scotland leaving the UK, and treat the two parties differently. there would be nothing scotland could do about it.

how other countries treat both Scotland and rUK following the end of the union is entirely up to them, not what a bit of paper Signed 300 years ago says.

 

[Biohazard]

I wonder what Australia thinks about the costs of a forced change in flag it would incur should the nationalists win?

So many consequences for others...

Ultimately it could be retained by agreement. It's only a patterned symbol at the end of the day.

But.... these are some of the unanswered implications at the moment.

 

[Biohazard]

But you are still missing the key point. even if your position reflects the theory accurately, the reality can easily be very different. The EU, for example, can easily decide to treat the change as Scotland leaving the UK, and treat the two parties differently. there would be nothing scotland could do about it.

You are attempting to conflate a debate about the internal dynamics of the UK constutition - a Unitary state borne from two equal partners - and some dribble about the EU interfering in our own self governance and self determination be it either partner of the Union - Scotland or England who wants to leave.

The EU argument has nothing to do with the Act of Union and the effect of it being undone on primarily Scotland and England.

how other countries treat both Scotland and rUK following the end of the union is entirely up to them, not what a bit of paper Signed 300 years ago says.

Absolutely, but I see no reason why any of us are going to be treated any different to anyone else broadly speaking.

If we are both inheriting debt and so on we both inherrit treaty obligations.

If a single partner leaves, the other cannot hide behind a defunct and now historical political union with an absent partner and say - "We've not changed a bit".

Of course that is completely untenable, both an independent Scotland and rUK are in the same boat.

 

[deko]

In about 2006/2007, before the financial meltdown, the 2 examples of independent small countries with strong economies etc which Salmond was giving out as examples were Ireland and Iceland. Funnily enough, he hasn't mentioned that in a few years.

Independence is a bad idea, in my experience the only people who are really fighting for it are the most bitter people I've ever met.

Oddly, my signature is quite relevant to this subject. I love that picture, I'm Scottish and British in equal measure and would never change that, no matter what a couple of fat idiot politicians end up deciding.

 

[Dolph]

You are attempting to conflate a debate about the internal dynamics of the UK constutition - a Unitary state borne from two equal partners - and some dribble about the EU interfering in our own self governance and self determination be it either partner of the Union - Scotland or England who wants to leave.

The EU argument has nothing to do with the Act of Union and the effect of it being undone on primarily Scotland and England.





Absolutely, but I see no reason why any of us are going to be treated any different to anyone else broadly speaking.

If we are both inheriting debt and so on we both inherrit treaty obligations.

If a single partner leaves, the other cannot hide behind a defunct and now historical political union with an absent partner and say - "We've not changed a bit".

Of course that is completely untenable, both an independent Scotland and rUK are in the same boat.

Untenable in your eyes maybe, in the eyes of others, probably not. for a start, if the impact is going to be as massive as you say, then the rest of the UK should either get a say, or get compensated by those who force the changes on them to cover all the costs.

Why do you think the rest of the world should treat Scotland and the rUK as equals when by pretty much every quantifiable metric, they are not?

 

[Biohazard]

Untenable in your eyes maybe, in the eyes of others, probably not. for a start, if the impact is going to be as massive as you say, then the rest of the UK should either get a say, or get compensated by those who force the changes on them to cover all the costs.

The rest of the UK, or essentially the other partner England, can achieve the same it just has not fostered it politically and has been opposed. They could hold their own referendum for their own nations, but their individual results or decisions cannot bind others in.

I do appreciate your concern of what you perceive to be an unbalanced impact on the rest of the UK, yet that is the risk when you enter a partnership. That one day it will end, irrespective of if you were equal in size as well as principle or not.

Why do you think the rest of the world should treat Scotland and the rUK as equals when by pretty much every quantifiable metric, they are not?

They are both sovereign peoples in equal measure. Any other difference in application or treatment by others would be discrimination of sorts.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Er not really.

Edinburgh is the back end administration side of finance. All the real action happens down in London.

The backend functions can happen anywhere, it just so happens they have conglomerated on Edinburgh.

Would be very easy to up sticks and move to another location should the barmy fat controller get his way.

Replying now may ultimately be a bit pointless but it's worth addressing anyway - perhaps it's mainly backend functions and perhaps it isn't and maybe the financial institutions could just "up sticks" as you put it but you should note that they haven't. That may be because there's a level of expertise available for the firms that wouldn't be as easy to replicate elsewhere - it's not impossible I'm sure but in terms of related and supporting industry there's a large amount there to benefit from. I'd also point out that your argument also works for London - there's little to say that it has to be the financial centre of Europe, one of the reasons that it is is simply history rather than anything that is unique to London which would make it impossible to relocate.

By equity assets I believe they are number 4. Other measurements they can be a lot lower, this is quite an interesting evaluation of financial centres globally

http://www.longfinance.net/Publications/GFCI 11.pdf

Thanks for the link, when I last looked they were a bit higher and I accept they've dipped but even as shown there and under most metrics Edinburgh is still a major financial centre which is what I really wanted to point out.

 

[RDM]

The United Kingdom started 300 years ago with the AoU. It will technically end with the dissolution of the AoU.

It didn't technically. The Kingdom of Great Britain was formed 300 years ago, the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland) was formed 200 years ago. What confuses issues is that the term United Kingdom does get used prior to 200 years ago.

Neither of which really matters anyway because we are 300 years later and the acts of union are effectively pointless. We are a very different nation with very different obligations and a very different governmental set up.

rUK. Not United Kingdom, it wouldn't exist. Not unless England wants to write a new constitutional act that incorporates the remaining annexed states and style it as a United Kingdom there are some issues to be dealt with.

I am sure a whole raft of documents will be written but I am not really sure how much of a say Scotland will have in what the rest of the UK does or what the various international bodies will do. From a purely practical point of view I would see the remainder of the UK continuing pretty much as it is in the UN, EU, IMF etc and Scotland, as a newly independent state, negotiating its status.

The precedent is already there in the UN (Russia continuing with the UNSC seat and veto after the breakup of the USSR) and the financials of the EU mean they certainly wouldn't want the risk of the rest of the UK having to reapply!

What the country ends up being called is neither here nor there to be honest. The 300 year old documents are pretty irrelevant in he end.

 

[RDM]

They are both sovereign peoples in equal measure. Any other difference in application or treatment by others would be discrimination of sorts.

Countries are treated differently all the time. Economic and military power have pretty much determined standing in the international community since time immemorial. Hoping for fairness in international politics is certainly an exercise in optimism over experience

 

[Castiel]

At the end of the day I suspect that the question will be academic. Does anyone in all honesty actually believe that Scotland will vote to leave the United Kingdom?

I don't.

 

[Biohazard]

It didn't technically. The Kingdom of Great Britain was formed 300 years ago, the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland) was formed 200 years ago. What confuses issues is that the term United Kingdom does get used prior to 200 years ago.

Neither of which really matters anyway because we are 300 years later and the acts of union are effectively pointless. We are a very different nation with very different obligations and a very different governmental set up.

That's namesake.

If the act of union is "pointless" what on earth are we discussing?

I am sure a whole raft of documents will be written but I am not really sure how much of a say Scotland will have in what the rest of the UK does or what the various international bodies will do.

I think this salient issue has been addressed already.

From a purely practical point of view I would see the remainder of the UK continuing pretty much as it is in the UN, EU, IMF etc and Scotland, as a newly independent state, negotiating its status.

Which you seem to have ignored. This has also been addressed. They are in the same boat.

The precedent is already there in the UN (Russia continuing with the UNSC seat and veto after the breakup of the USSR) and the financials of the EU mean they certainly wouldn't want the risk of the rest of the UK having to reapply!

Already discussed, not comparible.

What the country ends up being called is neither here nor there to be honest. The 300 year old documents are pretty irrelevant in he end.

I don't many people think it is irrelevent since it is the document that binds the UK together.

 

[Biohazard]

Countries are treated differently all the time. Economic and military power have pretty much determined standing in the international community since time immemorial. Hoping for fairness in international politics is certainly an exercise in optimism over experience

I must have missed the overt bullying of the smaller European, Nordic and Scandanavian nations.

 

[RDM]

That's namesake.

If the act of union is "pointless" what on earth are we discussing?

The modern country as opposed to the history behind that country coming in to being?

Which you seem to have ignored. This has also been addressed. They are in the same boat.

I would disagree, the remainder of the UK will be in a different position to Scotland if only because it is much more powerful economically. That gives it more "clout" for want of a better word.

Take the EU for example. If both nations would have to reapply for membership the remainder of the UK would be in a better position. Though it is incredibly unlikely that it would have to reapply anyway as there is a good chance we wouldn't bother and there goes a large chunk of the EU budget. The EU wouldn't want to risk that.

Already discussed, not comparible.

I would again disagree. Do you think the remainder of the UK would just give up its UNSC seat?

I don't many people think it is irrelevent since it is the document that binds the UK together.

No, 300 years of shared history and linked institutions are what bind us together, the documents are representative of what brought us together. The remainder of the UK will quite happily ignore them if it is in its benefit to do so.

I must have missed the overt bullying of the smaller European, Nordic and Scandanavian nations.

I must have missed where I said there had been overt bullying. But you would be hard pressed to say that the larger more powerful nations don't have more of a say in how the EU is run for example.