[Closed] Scottish Independence - should the English have a say?

Alex was going to get Scotland rich by copying places like Ireland, Iceland, etc. what's his plan B?

and can you explain why when the UK no longer exists that England and Wales would remain members and Scotland would not?

There was a UK before Scotland was in it, wasn't there? However before the UK there was just England of which Wales was a part, I believe.

kerplunk - if Scotland is independent the UK no longer exists in the same form, so if Scotland would have to renegotiate terms with the EU so would the rump UK.

Can you really imagine that the EU would not want Scotland? with most of the EUs oil, much of its potential renewables, much of its fishing grounds?

A lot of that is supposition.

The EU is going to be far more dependent on gas/oil piped from Russia and via Turkey (assuming it eventually joins which is an inevitability in the long term). Do you honestly think that Germany and France are going 'negotiate' and give preferential treatment to a small country in a union that already features 27 members. Ireland is constantly held up as an example of a model that works but (a) Ireland joined almost 40 years ago in 1973 and at that time was the poorest member of the EEC (as was then) (b) the EEC consisted of just 9 members and (c) The Cold War still influenced military and economic activity. As a result of those factors (and others) Ireland received substantial investment and underwent a period of significant economic development and change. Contrast that with now (a) Scotland would be one of the smallest but certainly not the poorest member of the EU (b) the EU now contains 27 members and (c) the Cold War is finished but the EU's focus is relentlessly eastwards.

Fishing and maritime waters are essentially an irrelevance. How would Scotland police and defend them if it did not want other members of the EU fishing there? Oil is more relevant and it is very doubtful that the [English] Treasury would be prepared to walk away given the investment in oil fields funded in the main by English taxpayers. You could end up with an arrangement where Scotland gets to 'own' the fields but they are leased to the English in perpetuity for effectively a peppercorn rent.

molgrips - Member
There was a UK before Scotland was in it, wasn't there?

Scotland and England (incorporating Wales) signed a treaty of union. That became Great Britain. When Ireland came along, it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

So - if the treaty was dissolved, there would be no GB and hence no UK of GB&NI

So, same bloody thing Onion try to look clever said nothing after all. 😐

Can you really imagine that the EU would not want Scotland? with most of the EUs oil

Hmm, you appear to be suggesting that the oil belongs to Scotland, rather than the UK as a whole.

What if oil were taken completely out of the equation?

Would you still want independence?

(Notice how they're conveniently ignoring this rather difficult question, cos far from it being about 'culture and identity', it's about MONEY)

That's the truth, Ruth. It's always about money.

Greenland became an EU member as part of Denmark but then broke from them but remained an EU member

When Ireland came along

Was Ireland not conquered by Edward I in 12 something?

What if oil were taken completely out of the equation?

Would you still want independence?

and the scottish government has different advice

How do you know that TJ? or are you guessing?

apparently it's [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8753776/SNP-urged-to-publish-secret-legal-advice-on-separate-Scotland-EU-membership.html ]contrary to the public interest[/url] to tell you what their advice was

yip.

How would you survive economically?

Formal union with Ireland came in 1800

Formal union with Ireland came in 1800

surely the only valid Union dates from 1925 as it'll of superseded anything previously?

Oh wait that was Scotland that Edward I conquered as well as Wales.. which is where Mel Gibson comes in. I remember now.

The Falklands were mentioned before as a joke but actually the whole reason that the UK wants to keep them so much is that they may hold the access to the potentially huge untapped oil reserves.
With those reserves who needs Scottish reserves?
Although having said that does the Falklands belong to England or the UK? If it's the UK does Wales, Scotland and NI all get a share if we break up?

How would you survive economically?

No idea.

You've not thought this independence thing through really, have you? 😆

surely the only valid Union dates from 1925 as it'll of superseded anything previously?

No it didn't. The Irish Civil War did that following partition. The last vestiges of partition were repealed only relatively recently in the south in 2007 and in the North in 1998.

 

(Notice how they're conveniently ignoring this rather difficult question, cos far from it being about 'culture and identity', it's about MONEY)

I think you're confusing the arguments here Elf.

I talked about Scottish national pride, unique culture etc - but just as a commentary, not as a [i]reason[/i] for independence. As I said, I'm currently against full independence as are most Scots.

No it didn't.

I was taking it from [url= http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/926/Independence%3A_the_legal_questions.html ]this[/url]

[i][b] Scots often note the Union of the Crowns in 1707 as the date Scotland’s independent status ended. But that is not the union that currently exists. The Treaty of Union was amended to absorb all Ireland, by the Act of Union in 1800. This new UK was amended again in 1925 when Ireland was partitioned in 1925. The potential complications of this new, post-1707 UK in relation to Scottish secession are unknown.[/i][/b]

Elfinsafety - Member
No idea.
You've not thought this independence thing through really, have you?

Although having said that does the [s]Falklands[/s] Las Malvinas belong to England or the UK?

Argentina. 8)

How would you survive economically?

in a DeLorean?

[i][b]2006-08-11
SNP Leader Alex Salmond has today called for Scotland to join northern Europe's arc of prosperity, with Ireland to the west, Iceland to the north and Norway to the east all small independent countries in the top six richest nations in the world. In comparison, the UK is 14th and devolved Scotland 18th ­ with similar, oil rich Norway over £12,000 per person better off.

Speaking in Edinburgh today Mr Salmond committed an SNP government to deliver a range of pro-enterprise policies designed to support Scotland's wealth creators and bring greater prosperity across the nation. Mr Salmond said that with an SNP government elected in May next year and a vote for independence within the first term of that government, Scotland would be on track to raise wealth per head by £4000 a year within 10 years, compared to continuing in the UK.[/i][/b]

Would you still want independence?

(Notice how they're conveniently ignoring this rather difficult question, cos far from it being about 'culture and identity', it's about MONEY)

Tandemjeremy
In the end its a philosophical point - do you want self determination as a nation or do you want to remain a junior part of a union. To those wedded tot eh idea of independence the economic arguement is irrelevant. Would you stay in a joyless marriage because you enjoyed the lifestyle?

Not that I have ever actually said what my preference is 🙂

Scots often note the Union of the Crowns in 1707 as the date Scotland’s independent status ended. But that is not the union that currently exists. The Treaty of Union was amended to absorb all Ireland, by the Act of Union in 1800. This new UK was amended again in 1925 when Ireland was partitioned in 1925. The potential complications of this new, post-1707 UK in relation to Scottish secession are unknown.

Not sure I follow. The OP asked when Ireland came along and unite with England, Wales and Scotland and the relevant date for that is 1800 (act of Union). You are referring to the boundary commission and partition following the Civil War. That does not answer when the countries were joined (unless you're referring to the technical fact that NI opted out of the free state?)

Although having said that does the Falklands belong to England or the UK? If it's the UK does Wales, Scotland and NI all get a share if we break up?

Ohhh - thats an interesting one

TJ - you didn't mention how you knew [i]the scottish government has different advice[/i] from earlier

How would Scotland have coped with the financial crisis?

I thought there had been a press release - I pretty sure have seen an authoritative opinion that is different from the one prepared by and for Westminster.

Its also true that both the parts of the UK following independence would be in the same position - so if Scotland has to rejoin England would - and there is the precedent of Greenland as well

I thought there had been a press release - I pretty sure have seen an authoritative opinion

no - you've been told, it's not in your interest to know

CaptJon - Member

How would Scotland have coped with the financial crisis?

It would have been a very different situation. The two nominally Scottish banks would have been different entities after independence - would their exposure have been the same? Moot point anyway. Unlikely would have had the stupid and counterproductive "austerity" cuts so would probably have been better off 🙂

molgrips - Member
Oh wait that was Scotland that Edward I conquered as well as Wales...

It's only a conquest if you get to keep it. Edward I was the greatest of the English kings and he couldn't do the job. Maybe he should have read his Roman history.

Scotland is the Afghanistan of Europe if you look at what happened to the various attempts (unsuccessful) to subdue it before the union of the crowns.

cheers_drive - Member
...does the Falklands belong to England or the UK?

It should belong to the people of the Falklands. They would be competent to decide where they allied themselves (or not).

Interesting spin Jota
did you know that the Westminster government has also refused to release its legal advice on the same subject?

But a spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said the position is "crystal clear".

The spokesman added: "Scotland is already an integral part of the EU - and as an independent state will be in exactly the same position as the rest of the UK as a successor state.

"Legal, constitutional and European experts have all confirmed that an independent Scotland would continue in EU membership.

Interesting spin Jota
did you know that the Westminster government has also refused to release its legal advice on the same subject?

I've absolutely no doubt

just wondered how you knew that the Scottish government had had legal advice to the affect that if Scotland had to reapply [as it were] so would the remainder of the UK

As I suspected, you didn't you only thought you did
bit like a Rumsfeld "know"

However the SNP have said what the legal opinion was which is what I had read and quote some of above. I didn't say that (both sucessor parts would have to reapply) was a part of it - its just obvious - If Scotland is a successor state and has to rejoin then so would England / Wales / Northern Ireland rump as both entities would be equivalent surely?

I doubt Scotland is voting for independence when devolution max is going to be on the ticket too. Tax raising powers and everything decided in Scotland bar foreign and defence policy. I'd vote for that.......be tough for Labour to form a government in Westminster after that but that's a different thread.

Devo Max will never work and Alex Salmond knows this. He has successfully manoeuvred the Labour party into supporting something that gives him 80% of what he wants, rather than supporting the status quo. Quite apart from Trident, a Federal UK would have been the first casualty of the Iraq war.

I think a lot of Scots would welcome full independence so we can decide our own defence policy.

The money saved by not killing people in remote parts of the world will pay for a lot of infrastructure.