SNP to break up Britian?

[aln]

Which seems fair enough until..



If thats the case why does the majority of the United Kingdom not get a say in the potential ceasation of its existence? Are you suggesting that the fate of my nationality - that as a resident of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - rests entirely with a fraction of its population in Scotland?

The costs that the rest of the Union would have to bear should the indepedance of Scotland mean the UK would 'cease to exist' are simply huge - everything from company names to website addresses would be affected.

That seems... unfair?

It seems more likely to me that the United Kingdom would continue to exist - but that Scotland wouldn't be a part of it (Which would be a shame).

Thats actually the entire point of the union, and legally I think Bio is spot on. However, pragmatically, I suspect that the rUK would maintain the status of the UK, whilst Scotland would possibly sneak in by the back door.

I _think_ Bio is arguing his point on the basis that if they bend the rules for the rUK, I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to do it with Scotland. We're not talking about some borderline country here, I'm fairly sure Scotland would be welcomed into the EU.

The one sticking point is the Euro, obviously, but if we're still talking about the potential collapose of the Euro in a couple of years time, I'd be suprised if it was a sticking point, and if we're not, then I personally wouldn't be particularly bothered if Scotland did inherit the Euro.

Either way, I have absolutely no doubt that Scotland can go it alone. The real question is if it'll be beneficial to do so. Honestly, I don't really think there is enough evidence to argue either opinion. Personally, I don't think we're being all we can be in the Union; the rest of the country plays second fiddle to London.

Its a gut feeling, but it has every bit of merit of either Dolphs or Bio's selection bias based evidence (no offense guys). Of course, the McCrone report is completely damning and probably helped with my own personal bias.

 

[Socrates470BC]

David Cameron would be very happy for Scotland to be an independant nation again.

It would mean that the Tories would be in government 100% of the time.

Not too sure that people in the North (of England) would be able to handle that for too long.

 

[Macro]

No I think the principle is fine broadly speaking, taxation is a good highlight to the inadequecy of representation of our young adults.

In Scotland you can marry at 16, making many life changing decisions including having children and earn a living under 18 and the ability to have a say politically is not that much of an increadible jump of liberty.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I was just intrigued by your linking it to taxation. If you take the contribution of taxation as a justification (generally quite rightly) for have the ability to vote the reasoning for extending the franchise to 16 seems quite a different debate.

 

[Pudney]

What makes you think that if the UK is broken up that the rest of the countries in the ex-uk will not have to re-apply for EU membership?

Erm, I think you misunderstand. If Scotland cedes then it doesn't mean the rest of the UK has to break up.

 

[Biohazard]

So why would it cease to exist? Scotland would leave the UK - the UK would surely continue without Scotland (and be worse for it, IMHO).

The UK is in part built upon Scotland. Just as it is England. Wales and NI are slightly different while still being incorporated as nations. They do not have the same relationship framework, the framework that established the UK.

It can continue all you like if you want it really, it's all subjective at the end of the day but the Act of Union and the political Union would be over. If we share a common monarch in that situation, the rUK could still call itself the UK if it wanted. It would relate to the monarchy as opposed to a prism of both aspects of the constitution.

If thats not the case then frankly the consequences of a breakup are far, far too great for only less than 10% of the residents of the UK to have any sort of say in!

Unfortunately when you enter a partnership of supposed equals you have to deal with the consequences yourself when that partner want out.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Either way, I have absolutely no doubt that Scotland can go it alone.

I'm still not really sure I see the point. All the arguments 'for' it seem to be mostly a matter of principle, nationalistic pride and history and not something that really makes any difference.

'Oh but they control us!!'

Frankly unless your name is Alex Salmond it's not as if you'll suddenly be in control of your own destiny come 2015...

 

[[TW]Fox]

Unfortunately when you enter a partnership of supposed equals you have to deal with the consequences yourself when that partner want out.

Nobody here entered into a partnership - everyone was born into an existing situation. There is nobody alive who was a part of entering into a patnership.

 

[Pudney]

The UK is in part built upon Scotland. Just as it is England. Wales and NI are slightly different while still being incorporated as nations. They do not have the same relationship framework, the framework that established the UK.

It can continue all you like if you want it really, it's all subjective at the end of the day but the Act of Union and the political Union would be over. If we share a common monarch in that situation, the rUK could still call itself the UK if it wanted. It would relate to the monarchy as opposed to a prism of both aspects of the constitution.

Didn't the acts of union create Great Britain not the United Kingdom. So logically wouldn't Great Britain cease to exist and the UK continue but without Scotland. (Edit: Probably as the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

Least that's how it would logically work in my head.

 

[Biohazard]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I was just intrigued by your linking it to taxation. If you take the contribution of taxation as a justification (generally quite rightly) for have the ability to vote the reasoning for extending the franchise to 16 seems quite a different debate.

It's probably one of the most direct for myself; yet this is what some of them have to say;

Why should there be votes at 16?

What do we want?

SYP believes it’s absolutely fundamental that all 16 and 17 years old should be allowed to vote in the referendum, followed by all other elections and referendums in Scotland.

Why SYP?

SYP works on the core principle that young people should be involved in making every decision that affects them and we work tirelessly to make sure the politicians listen to what young people have to say. One of the best way to do that is through the ballot box, but 16 and 17 year olds are denied the chance to play their full part as citizens by voting.

We’ve seen first hand from our 16 and 17 year old MSYPs that they’re ready to vote, desperate to vote, and totally qualified to vote!

What do young people think?

Most importantly, our campaigning for Votes at 16 is based on the views of young people. In our Youth Manifesto, Change the Picture, almost two thirds of young people backed the statement that:

“The minimum age for voting in all elections and referendums should be lowered to 16.”

This was from almost 43,000 responses from young people – the largest youth consultation of its type.

Why should young people get the vote at 16?

For SYP, it’s an issue of fairness and equality. Because young Scots can…
Sign up for the armed forces at 16, but can’t vote on who controls defence policy
Leave school and get a job at 16, but can’t vote on who controls education and employment issues
Can be taxed at 16, but can’t vote. No taxation without representation!
Get married at 16, but aren’t aren’t considered mature enough to vote
Can drive a car before they’re 18, but aren’t considered responsible enough to vote

Why now?

It should have happened before now, and at every election, but now is more important than ever. Because unlike elections, where you’re choosing a government for four or five years, this might be the only chance we ever see in our lifetimes to vote on whether Scotland remains part of the UK or becomes an independent country.

Who else can vote at 16?

16 year old…
Austrians
Brazilians
Ecuadorians
Estonians
Cubans
Nicaraguans

...have the basic right to vote. So do Germans, Swiss and the Philippines in local elections. You also can vote at 16 in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey – these are all British Crown Dependencies.

Who supports votes at 16?

As well as SYP, organisations like…
NUS Scotland

The Co-operative Group
Barnardo’s
Unison
The TUC

Most political parties also support it - it principle at least.

None have the conviction to act on it mind you.

 

[Biohazard]

Nobody here entered into a partnership - everyone was born into an existing situation. There is nobody alive who was a part of entering into a patnership.

That doesn't effect the legal and constitutional aspect of the Unitary State/Act of Union.

Otherwise the UK doesn't exist.

 

[Macro]

Erm, I think you misunderstand. If Scotland cedes then it doesn't mean the rest of the UK has to break up.

No, but to be fair to Bio (something I've not necessarily ever said before ) the remaining countries would no longer be "the united kingdom" necessarily as that entity signifies the Union of the Scottish and English crown (including Wales and Ireland of course as at the time they were subject to the English Crown) and the political apparatus that actually governs. Great Britain would also mean something different as that also includes Scotland.

So technically, the United Kingdom would no longer exist as the two kingdoms involved in the Union were no longer United. Perhaps an argument could be made for the UK to continue as a different entity as Lizzie II would still remain the Queen of both countries, perhaps in a style similar to the commonwealth. Having said that, "the commonwealth" already pretty much serves that function.

Perhaps the remaining portion would resort to pre Union naming although the last time I can think of England and Wales being unified with one name without Scotland would be the roman "Britannica", that would still exclude NI.

Perhaps a national competition to come up with a new name

 

[aln]

No I think the principle is fine broadly speaking, taxation is a good highlight to the inadequecy of representation of our young adults.

In Scotland you can marry at 16, making many life changing decisions including having children and earn a living under 18 and the ability to have a say politically is not that much of an increadible jump of liberty.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/04/02155040/2

Age laws are interesting enough, apparently.

 

[Pudney]

It's probably one of the most direct for myself; yet this is what some of them have to say;

Most political parties also support it - it principle at least.

None have the conviction to act on it mind you.

Cubans can vote at 16? Cubans can vote?

 

[VoG]

For entry into the EU, there's no precedent to what happens when a state that is currently a member splits in 2, so it could end up looking foolish and not a member at all...

There is kind of a precedent, the 1993 dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the 2 seperate entities of the Czech Republic & Slovakia has created a template if you will, we certainly wouldn't be treading completely uncharted territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia

 

[Kennysevenfold]

Alex salmond is a ******, UNITED WE STAND

 

[Biohazard]

No, but to be fair to Bio (something I've not necessarily ever said before ) the remaining countries would no longer be "the united kingdom" necessarily as that entity signifies the Union of the Scottish and English crown (including Wales and Ireland of course as at the time they were subject to the English Crown) and the political apparatus that actually governs. Great Britain would also mean something different as that also includes Scotland.

So technically, the United Kingdom would no longer exist as the two kingdoms involved in the Union were no longer United. Perhaps an argument could be made for the UK to continue as a different entity as Lizzie II would still remain the Queen of both countries, perhaps in a style similar to the commonwealth. Having said that, "the commonwealth" already pretty much serves that function.

Perhaps the remaining portion would resort to pre Union naming although the last time I can think of England and Wales being unified with one name without Scotland would be the roman "Britannica", that would still exclude NI.

Perhaps a national competition to come up with a new name

Something like that, yes. Although primarily on the political aspect to the AoU, which is where the term United Kingdom becomes a bit of a mysnomer and a pain.

 

[Macro]

Something like that, yes. [disclaimer, I skim read. This is not an approval ]

**Additional disclaimer**, it was from memory and almost certainly had historical, political, legal and other inaccuracies but it's in the right spirit

 

[Biohazard]

Alex salmond is a ******, UNITED WE STAND

Aye, at the arse end of Scottish Football.

 

[Pudney]

No, but to be fair to Bio (something I've not necessarily ever said before ) the remaining countries would no longer be "the united kingdom" necessarily as that entity signifies the Union of the Scottish and English crown (including Wales and Ireland of course as at the time they were subject to the English Crown) and the political apparatus that actually governs. Great Britain would also mean something different as that also includes Scotland.

Great Britain was the union of the English and Scottish crowns and the UK was the union of Great Britain with Ireland.

So I still stand by Great Britain dissolving and the union remaining between England and (now) Northern Ireland.

Put Wales in there as well after as it's a bit silly at the moment.

 

[MCMLX]

I am a Scot and am not in favour of Independence.As has been stated elsewhere,Salmond wants Scotland to join the EU as an independent nation but fails to mention that part of the criteria for membership is signing up to the Euro,and we all know how well that is doing.

Personally I think Devo Max is the way to go,it gives us the benefits of an independent nation,which we almost are anyway,whilst remaining part of the UK.