SNP to break up Britian?

[ubersonic]

No, I just understand the constitutional legacy of the creation of the UK.

Legacy being the important word there, yes the UK may have started out as a union of Scotland and England (itself in a union with Wales at the time) but it has evolved and changed over time and today the UK consists of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Losing one of the four members of the UK (which only accounts for eight and a half percent of the population) will not kill off the UK, the only UK member that could kill of the UK via leaving is England because it is by far the most important member.

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.

The EU have already stated that the UK wouldn't have to reapply.

 

[Biohazard]

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

That "history" - that document - makes today's political reality?

If the AoU was not considered to still bind Scotland and England there would be no independence referendum to be had.

We may not have a neatly written constitution, but it is undoubtadly build upon the UoC and then ultimately the AoU.

Even in the recent debates Unionists like the Scottish Secretary of State has been making reference to the Act of Union in their arguments and points.

It is just as valid binding and "alive" as it was the day it was signed.

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.

"I have more money" doesn't equate to a different outcome in legal process or status unfortunately.

You can have all the clout in the world, I'm merely telling you the implications as I see it of the dissolution of the Acts of Union. We entered as equal sovereign states, we leave equal sovereign states.

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.

It is my opinion that both states would inherit treaty obligations. Nor is the time for the EU to be cutting its nose of to spite its face, and that includes both Scotland and England/rUK. They wouldn't want to because they couldn't, it's already a paralyzed mess.

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

What's it going to do if it gets told to **** off by the real big daddies in 10-50 years time?

There is no shame in being a small nation.

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.

Shared history and the structural status quo is not the binding factor in the sovereignty of the Scots and English in legallity, it is the Acts of Union. It has to be recinded or superceded, probably some effort at the former by new legislation in both houses.

It will target primarily and foremost the Act of Union 1707.

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.

As far as I see it, Germany runs the show.

I don't fear German aggression or interference, they're too busy stomping on their enemies of past.

 

[Biohazard]

Legacy being the important word there, yes the UK may have started out as a union of Scotland and England (itself in a union with Wales at the time) but it has evolved and changed over time and today the UK consists of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Losing one of the four members of the UK (which only accounts for eight and a half percent of the population) will not kill off the UK, the only UK member that could kill of the UK via leaving is England because it is by far the most important member.

Why is it the most important member out of interest?

Scotland is the second largest nation in the UK demographically, economically and geographically is a significant proportion of the British Isles and the removal of the partnership, by either side, is going to fundamentally change both without a doubt. I suspect revision, copying, redacting and a new constitution would be required in both respects, but in differing ways.

Call it the UK by all means, but it really isn't after Scotland goes. I think it could also lead to confusion in some ways. If it does happen and Scotland gains independence it looks like we would continue to share a monarch at the moment, so not all would be lost...

 

[Biohazard]

The EU have already stated that the UK wouldn't have to reapply.

The UK??

Next you'll be saying we still have Empire....

 

[[TW]Fox]

It still really bothers me how a few people could potentially change the entire face of the country we live in all by themselves

I understand why its the case, but it doesn't stop it bothering me. It's our country yet only 10% of its population get to choose whether they can change it for ever or not.

 

[Raumarik]

It still really bothers me how a few people could potentially change the entire face of the country we live in all by themselves

I understand why its the case, but it doesn't stop it bothering me. It's our country yet only 10% of its population get to chose whether they can change it for ever or not.

Actually it's probably far less than 10% Fox

 

[Biohazard]

It still really bothers me how a few people could potentially change the entire face of the country we live in all by themselves

I understand why its the case, but it doesn't stop it bothering me. It's our country yet only 10% of its population get to choose whether they can change it for ever or not.

A unitary state should be celebrated by yourself the most to be honest irrespective of the relative population size. You celebrate what those peoples achieved, however long ago and still disproportionately sized, yet with the reversal it is unacceptable? It isn't that far off double standards if you take it down to the actualities of what happened, and what would happen. As much as you've acknowledged you know why, I just feel I have to again press the reasons why.

Otherwise...

It's a basically shut up and sit down, and that is in no way legal moral or justifiable in this day and age. Even if you are looked upon in numbers, which is an odd preoccupation in all this I have to admit when looking at the right of self determination.

 

[Biohazard]

Actually it's probably far less than 10% Fox

I wouldn't call 8.4% far less. A little bit less perhaps.

 

[smelly_legend]

This may happen but the views with folk i know are split. For starters, personally, I don't want nukes in Scotland. For the other issues, I don't see how I can see what benefits we, as Scots, will have. After all, we are already a well developed nation and I have all the luxuries most other people in the UK have too. When I consider my future, however, I consider how much my savings (given the way the value of money changes) will be worth so I can take care of myself when I am old and not able to work any more (like any other Joe Bloggs I guess). Being born in London and being razed by my Scottish family, nationalism alone isn't really a factor for me.

As for Salmond, just another politician to me - a smooth talker.

 

[ThePirateHulk]

Vote Britain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-znkbMzi4A

 

[ThePirateHulk]

Having read most of the thread I am seeing a few things that I knew already

We need to see more data, stats, figures, finance whatever for each side of the argument. It will be interesting to see how it is predicted things would pan out, although I doubt they go exactly as planned

Also the counter argument seems to be we're better together, but there is little evidence, facts or figures coming out from that side of the argument to prove that either. It seems to be a "just beacuse we will be" kinda attitude, all this comes from the politicians too

This kinda makes me think that England in particular are more fearful of breaking up the union than Scotland are going it alone, is there more for them to lose?

Lots left to run but im on the fence for now, a lot of people want answers now which is too soon, its going to take time to bring the facts together

It would be an interesting time to live in should it go through, just to see how much it changes the UK and who/where end up better off

To be fair, most of the answers are out there with plenty of supporting evidence. You just won't hear it in the mainstream media as they have a vested interest in maintaining the union (in particular the BBC).

I suggest the following websites:

http://newsnetscotland.com
http://wingsland.podgamer.com
http://labourhame.com
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk

...just for starters.

The BBC political blog by Brian Taylor used to be a good source of informed debate (although headlined by some ridiculously skewed articles) until the BBC decided that us uppity jocks could not be trusted to discuss politics and closed down comments on all Scottish political and business blogs (just Scottish ones mind...no others were affected).

If you're waiting for any factual evidence to come via the the usual media outlets you'll still be waiting when hell freezes over.

 

[Biohazard]

Hey, not forgetting good old BBC Scotlandshire [said with an American twang]...

www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk



The fact many people retweeted some of the intial parody articles as genuine shows just how close to the bone, and bias, our state broadcaster has become.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

Ulster Scots (ie, those who are Irish but have Scottish ancestry) should have a vote on the future of Scottish Independence accorging to David Hume in a speech to the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland.

Hmm, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see which way this is going. Here's my message to Mr Hume, bugger off and stop trying to interfere. Panic stations for the Unioinists.

 

[kwerk]

London should allow Scotland to build a bunch of massive tax-free casinos and tax-free off licenses. Then they should DNA test every citizen of the UK and find everyone who is at least 1/16th Scottish. Then all the profits from the casinos would be distributed among everyone in the UK who is at least 1/16th Scottish, as long as they are willing to move back to Scotland.




Then they should nuke it.

 

[Biohazard]

London should allow Scotland to build a bunch of massive tax-free casinos and tax-free off licenses. Then they should DNA test every citizen of the UK and find everyone who is at least 1/16th Scottish. Then all the profits from the casinos would be distributed among everyone in the UK who is at least 1/16th Scottish, as long as they are willing to move back to Scotland.




Then they should nuke it.

Go away kwerk, or do something useful like play with the traffic or plan for the end of the world again.

 

[kwerk]

Watching these Spain and Greece riots (which are coming to the UK eventually IMO), I wonder if the latest independence referendum thing is actually a stealth austerity move by Cameron and he wants to nudge them in to full on independence. He's calling their bluff when the SNP only really wanted devolution.

 

[kwerk]

i actually think the new flag looks better, it looks cleaner.

 

[BF-Bert]

Watching these Spain and Greece riots (which are coming to the UK eventually IMO), I wonder if the latest independence referendum thing is actually a stealth austerity move by Cameron and he wants to nudge them in to full on independence. He's calling their bluff when the SNP only really wanted devolution.

Yes it probably is much in the same way Mitt Romneys wind down aeroplane windows is a way to tap into the huge stupid vote in America.

 

[ubersonic]

Why does Wales not have any representation in our national flag (Union Jack)?

I know this thread has been dormant for six months but I landed on it via Google so figured I may as well answer this question as it doesn't look like anybody else did.

*deep breath*

Wales is represented on the UK flag.

Basically in the 15th century a Welshman called Henry Tudor became king of England and set about uniting the two countries into one kingdom, he died but the work was completed by his son Henry VIII, as England had been using the St George cross for over a hundred years and Wales had never had a national flag (the banners of Llewellyn and Owain Glyndŵr don't count) he opted to stick with the SGC as the flag for England and Wales, then when England and Wales entered into a union with Scotland the first union flag was created by combining the flags of the two kingdoms, later when NI joined the UK their flag was added to the union flag.

Finally in the 1950's the issue of Wales/England sharing a flag interfering with welsh identity was addressed and in 1959 a new Welsh flag was adopted (the one we have today) which was previously used as the banner of Henry Tudor when he won the battle of Bosworth field and became king of England.

So there you have it, Wales is represented on the UK flag, just by the flag we used then not one we use today.

NB: Interesting fact, the crest of the Welsh national football team is based on the banner of Henry Tudor, but pre-dates its use as the national flag.

 

[doopydug]

Amazing, interesting fact - thanks Uber !