Is tripartisanship over the SNP's bid to retain the £ bullying?

[MrGongGong]

Don't forget the established church too MrGG

Gets my vote :-)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is that assuming that Scotland is allowed to join the EU ?

Ah, but again you imply the assumption that the rest of the UK would be allowed to remain in the UK if the union was split.

[MrGongGong]

Ah, but again you imply the assumption that the rest of the UK would be allowed to remain in the UK if the union was split.

I've not read anything to suggest that Scotland leaving the UK would mean that the rest of the UK (or what remains) would have to rejoin the EU.
If Scotland became a "new" country (nation or whatever) then it surely would have to apply to join like everyone else ?

It seems that people are being sold a bit of a dud as far as "independence" goes IMV

[teamsaint]

Don't forget the established church too MrGG

and Berwick Rangers.

[Serial_Apologist]

and Berwick Rangers.

You're taking the episcopal...

[P. G. Tipps]

I've not read anything to suggest that Scotland leaving the UK would mean that the rest of the UK (or what remains) would have to rejoin the EU.
If Scotland became a "new" country (nation or whatever) then it surely would have to apply to join like everyone else ?

What many don't seem to realise is that the rest of the UK would end up being a quite different country too! Also it would clearly end being the 'United' Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland as Great Britain would no longer exist so the name itself would be a nonsense.

In the event of a 'Yes' vote Scotland would not be a 'new' nation or country it would simply be reverting to its 'old' separate nation/country status. As its people and politicians are rather less Eurosceptic than their southern counterparts I suspect the Scots could well be offered associate membership before being granted full membership as a separate state once all the 'i's have been dotted and 't's crossed following formal negotiations.?

Of course, that's just a guess, and like everybody else here I really have absolutely no idea
what might happen!

[teamsaint]

You're taking the episcopal...

its a wee free country.

Well, probably isn't actually........

[aeolium]

I've not read anything to suggest that Scotland leaving the UK would mean that the rest of the UK (or what remains) would have to rejoin the EU.
If Scotland became a "new" country (nation or whatever) then it surely would have to apply to join like everyone else ?

It seems that people are being sold a bit of a dud as far as "independence" goes IMV

Although the reverse process, the unification of Germany - even though it involved the effective accession of what had been a separate nation, East Germany - did not require the new country to reapply to join the EU. Yet in terms of legal, societal and economic change that far exceeded in magnitude what is being contemplated by Scottish independence.

[MrGongGong]

I suspect the Scots could well be offered associate membership before being granted full membership as a separate state once all the 'i's have been dotted and 't's crossed following formal negotiations.?

Of course, that's just a guess, and like everybody else here I really have absolutely no idea
what might happen!

Along with the Catalans I guess ?

I think you are right that no-one really has any idea at all

[ahinton]

What many don't seem to realise is that the rest of the UK would end up being a quite different country too! Also it would clearly end being the 'United' Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland as Great Britain would no longer exist so the name itself would be a nonsense.

Not so; it would - or at least could - continue to exist as such until and unless Wales seceded as well, in which case your scenario would indeed be correct.

In the event of a 'Yes' vote Scotland would not be a 'new' nation or country it would simply be reverting to its 'old' separate nation/country status. As its people and politicians are rather less Eurosceptic than their southern counterparts I suspect the Scots could well be offered associate membership before being granted full membership as a separate state once all the 'i's have been dotted and 't's crossed following formal negotiations.?

Of course, that's just a guess, and like everybody else here I really have absolutely no idea
what might happen!

Yes, it is just a guess; do you even have any evidence to justify making it?(!)...

[Flosshilde]

What many don't seem to realise is that the rest of the UK would end up being a quite different country too! Also it would clearly end being the 'United' Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland as Great Britain would no longer exist so the name itself would be a nonsense.

If Scotland did leave it would surely still be the United Kingdom - of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[amateur51]

If Scotland did leave it would surely still be the United Kingdom - of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Seems entirely reasonable. Mr Salmond won't be happy.

[P. G. Tipps]

If Scotland did leave it would surely still be the United Kingdom - of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It's a moot point.

The Kingdom of Great Britain was the name for the Union of Crowns and Parliaments of England/Wales and Scotland. Ireland was added later with the 'United' tag and then replaced by N. Ireland.

Without Scotland Great Britain as a united island wouldn't exist, so the official title would no longer make sense.

I suppose one could possibly argue that if Scotland retained the monarchy the kingdoms would still be 'united' though divided politically ... a pretty weak argument for retaining the 'united' name for the remaining countries after such a basic split?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Not so; it would - or at least could - continue to exist as such until and unless Wales seceded as well, in which case your scenario would indeed be correct.

Before the Act of Union, there was no United Kingdom. There was never any unpressurised agreement between England and Wales. The latter was effectively taken over. Ditto Ireland.

Scotland joined willingly.

EDIT. I failed to read the previous post before writing this one.

[ahinton]

It's a moot point.

The Kingdom of Great Britain was the name for the Union of Crowns and Parliaments of England/Wales and Scotland. Ireland was added later with the 'United' tag and then replaced by N. Ireland.

Without Scotland Great Britain as a united island wouldn't exist, so the official title would no longer make sense.

I suppose one could possibly argue that if Scotland retained the monarchy the kingdoms would still be 'united' though divided politically ... a pretty weak argument for retaining the 'united' name for the remaining countries after such a basic split?

Whilst I don't agree with the basic principle of what you're saying here, I do accept that there can be little doubt that, should Scotland choose independence (such as it might be), the entire "British" phenomenon would thereby be weakened and undermined. The problem here, however, is not merely that, as I have suggested, Wales would also have to secede in order irrevocably to take "Britain" (as we currently understand and recognise it) to pieces but also that the very notion and meaning of Scottish "independence" is, as I and others here have already observed, open to question and challenge, given that there appear to remain fundamental uncertanties about the currency that it would adopt post-"independence", the queston of whether it would want, or be able, to retain the British monarchy, the issue of EU membership and how that might or might not work and plenty else besides.