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

[ahinton]

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. :whistle:

And you might care to read the one that I just posted after yours! The question of when and how "Britain" might or might not untimately dissolve in terms of any kind of continued meaningful relationship with its member/ex-member constituents remains open (and, after all, we don't even know yet if Scotland will actually opt for suchever "independence" as might be on offer, for what that may or may not be worth); all that seems obvious is that everything about the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" as it is currently constituted is arguably up for grabs...

[Serial_Apologist]

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.

Such considerations would have been waived in the case of an ex-Communist state, I would guess.

[P. G. Tipps]

#225

It is not a matter of our opinions on the merits or demerits of Scottish Independence but a question of whether the notion of Great Britain and/or the UK would actually exist after such a split. As EA says Scotland joined with England voluntarily (economic realities at the time notwithstanding) and, like England, was politically and monarchically independent for centuries beforehand.

Of course the geographical main island of Great Britain would still exist but it could hardly be continued to be used in the title of a new smaller state after a separation of the two main components. Flosshilde is on much safer ground when he suggests that the new title could read the United Kingdom of England, Wales & N. Ireland but with the departure of Scotland it is difficult to comprehend exactly what kingdoms had been 'united' in such a scenario. Certainly Great Britain itself would have to be dropped from the title ... maybe it could be replaced with South Britain? ... after all North British was a term officialdom loved to pin on all things Scottish post-Union until the blessed arrival of Sir Walter Scott!!

Btw, on the issue of the currency, the central bank status of the Bank of England has always been a misnomer since the Act of Union and in fact was founded by a Scot. I've never heard Alex Salmond tease the likes of Cameron and Osborne about this which has surprised me somewhat ... teasing his Westminster counterparts over political ironies is the very thing at which he excels.

[ahinton]

#225

It is not a matter of our opinions on the merits or demerits of Scottish Independence but a question of whether the notion of Great Britain and/or the UK would actually exist after such a split. As EA says Scotland joined with England voluntarily (economic realities at the time notwithstanding) and, like England, was politically and monarchically independent for centuries beforehand.

OK, but an awful lot of water's flowed under the bridge since then and it does not follow in today's terms that, just because one of the four members of the UK leaves it, the UK as such would necessarily collapse and/or be no more; for example, the notion that UK would be a part of an organisation such as EU would have been unthinkable at the time of the Act of Union, but that was then whereas this is now.

Of course the geographical main island of Great Britain would still exist but it could hardly be continued to be used in the title of a new smaller state after a separation of the two main components.

The "Great" in "Great Britain" has long - if not always - been as much of an absurdity as it is an anachronism; in terms of square kilometres, it's a relatively tiny country and there are several in Europe that are consideably larger. That said, what do you mean by "the two main components"?

Flosshilde is on much safer ground when he suggests that the new title could read the United Kingdom of England, Wales & N. Ireland but with the departure of Scotland it is difficult to comprehend exactly what kingdoms had been 'united' in such a scenario.

Why? There would have been four and now there are the three that Flosshilde has identified. Simples. They might not remain united, though and, should Wales secede, one question that would find itself under the spotlight is that of the possibility of a united Ireland.

Certainly Great Britain itself would have to be dropped from the title ... maybe it could be replaced with South Britain? ... after all North British was a term officialdom loved to pin on all things Scottish post-Union until the blessed arrival of Sir Walter Scott!!

I don't really see the point of the term "Britain" even now (other than as some kind of convenient historical artefact), let alone after Scotland's depart therefrom should that occur; "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is surely as clumsy an epithet as could be. It seems to me that it would be better dropped altogether, as indeed it would have to be if ever Wales departs the UK whereafter there would be "Scotland", "Wales", "England" and "Ulster" (or something) unless it reunited with the rest of Ireland following its isolation from the "United Kingdom".

Btw, on the issue of the currency, the central bank status of the Bank of England has always been a misnomer since the Act of Union and in fact was founded by a Scot.

But the extent to which it has become established and the length of time over which it's done so rather weakens any argument about the purported significance of such an alleged "misnomer".

I've never heard Alex Salmond tease the likes of Cameron and Osborne about this which has surprised me somewhat ... teasing his Westminster counterparts over political ironies is the very thing at which he excels.

I think that even Salmond has more sense than to make himself look even sillier than he already does at times by trying on this one.

Anyway, since this entire "independence" charade remains little more than just that (because of the uncertainties over currency, monarchy, EU membership et al), I remain less than convinced about the extent to which it all matters, for the foreseeable, at least...

[P. G. Tipps]

OK, but an awful lot of water's flowed under the bridge since then and it does not follow in today's terms that, just because one of the four members of the UK leaves it, the UK as such would necessarily collapse and/or be no more; for example, the notion that UK would be a part of an organisation such as EU would have been unthinkable at the time of the Act of Union, but that was then whereas this is now..

The UK as it is now (and this is now!) would certainly 'collapse' and be replaced by smaller states. For example, The Soviet Union 'collapsed' and was replaced by smaller independent states?

The "Great" in "Great Britain" has long - if not always - been as much of an absurdity as it is an anachronism; in terms of square kilometres, it's a relatively tiny country and there are several in Europe that are consideably larger. That said, what do you mean by "the two main components"?

The two main components of Great Britain (and indeed the UK) are England and Scotland, as far as I know.

Why? There would have been four and now there are the three that Flosshilde has identified. Simples.

Not so 'simples'. As far as I know Wales and N.Ireland, unlike Scotland & England, were never separate kingdoms when joining the Kingdom of Great Britain so there would be very little to unite!

I don't really see the point of the term "Britain" even now (other than as some kind of convenient historical artefact), let alone after Scotland's depart therefrom should that occur; "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is surely as clumsy an epithet as could be. It seems to me that it would be better dropped altogether, as indeed it would have to be if ever Wales departs the UK whereafter there would be "Scotland", "Wales", "England" and "Ulster" (or something) unless it reunited with the rest of Ireland following its isolation from the "United Kingdom".

You might not see the point but the name does have a point when it includes Scotland. I agree it certainly becomes pointless and absurd otherwise.

But the extent to which it has become established and the length of time over which it's done so rather weakens any argument about the purported significance of such an alleged "misnomer".

The name Bank of England suggests English ownership which is inaccurate. The same of course applies to 'Scottish' banks like RBS, Bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale!

I think that even Salmond has more sense than to make himself look even sillier than he already does at times by trying on this one.

Anyway, since this entire "independence" charade remains little more than just that (because of the uncertainties over currency, monarchy, EU membership et al), I remain less than convinced about the extent to which it all matters, for the foreseeable, at least...

Salmond, for all his irritations, is no mug ...

The fact that you don't agree with the idea of Scottish Independence doesn't mean it doesn't matter. It surely matters very much to the political future of these islands, not just Scotland!

[MrGongGong]

The fact that you don't agree with the idea of Scottish Independence doesn't mean it doesn't matter. It surely matters very much to the political future of these islands, not just Scotland!

Salmond doesn't seem to agree with it either (or he seems to have lost his dictionary ? come back Scotty ?)

[ahinton]

The UK as it is now (and this is now!) would certainly 'collapse' and be replaced by smaller states. For example, The Soviet Union 'collapsed' and was replaced by smaller independent states?

It did indeed, but that was beause the Soviet Union as a whole collapsed, which is rather different to what might have occurred had just one part of it decided to secede, like Catalunya from Spain, Québec province from Canada or indeed Scotland from the rest of the UK of GB & NI. Are you implying that, were Scotland to break away from UK and Wales ultimately follow suit, each of those individual states might then further fragment?

The two main components of Great Britain (and indeed the UK) are England and Scotland, as far as I know.

OK, but Scottish independence (if it happens) won't be a simple case of one nation splitting into two uneven parts; it will be one state breaking away from a union of four. That's why I didn't understand what you meant by this.

Not so 'simples'. As far as I know Wales and N.Ireland, unlike Scotland & England, were never separate kingdoms when joining the Kingdom of Great Britain so there would be very little to unite!

You're reverting to the pre-Act of Union situation again! We're discussing what would be left after Scottish independence and that would clearly be a union of three nations instead of one of four, at least for the time being, although that union might well be weakened by Scotland having broken away from it and the incentive to break it up altogether might possibly become greater.

You might not see the point but the name does have a point when it includes Scotland. I agree it certainly becomes pointless and absurd otherwise.

What particular point is that, pray? I'm not saying that there isn't one; I merely point out that it's well less than clear to me!

The name Bank of England suggests English ownership which is inaccurate. The same of course applies to 'Scottish' banks like RBS, Bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale!

Exactly! We're dealing once again with the here and now. One might say something similar about the "Church of England". In any case, when all the banks behave as they do, almost without exception and some of them on a global scale, the very matter of "accuracy" seems hardly to have any place in the argument!

Salmond, for all his irritations, is no mug ...

I didn't suggest that he is; all the more reason, indeed for him not to try the "flaws in the Bank of England" argument!

The fact that you don't agree with the idea of Scottish Independence doesn't mean it doesn't matter. It surely matters very much to the political future of these islands, not just Scotland!

Of course it matters! And I didn't say that I "disagree with the idea of Scottish Independence" either; au contraire, what I did and do say is that the very nature and extent (to say nothing of the possible outcomes) of this "independence" are still far too loosely defined and uncertain to attract the level of credibility that one would reasonably expect to be invested in an issue of such significance.

[amateur51]

So good to see ahinton and scotty back in mutual sentence-by-sentence analysis. There can be no doubt about the identity of the bonobo now :biggrin:

[ahinton]

So good to see ahinton and scotty back in mutual sentence-by-sentence analysis. There can be no doubt about the identity of the bonobo now :biggrin:

It wouldn't be so even if it were; I can detect more than enough differences of style and manner between the Celtic Scottster and the Tea-soaked Tippster to have to disagree with your surmise about "identity" here!

More importantly, however, I did think it worthwhile to emphasise that I have no particular problem with the principle of there being a referendum on Scottish Independence but that my concerns about this particular one relate largely to a woeful lack of joined-up thinking about certain fundamental matters of grave importance in advance of its announcement, as well as to point out that the term "Britain" seems, to me at least, rightly or wrongly, to have assumed something of an air of redundancy (or at least a much changed and undermined connotation) ever since the collapse of the British Empire. I was also concerned to stress the risks inherent in attempts to nail too many contemporary colours to an historical mast when seeking to address aspects of the possible aftermath of Scottish independence in the second decade of the 21st century. Do these things seem resonable to you?

[aeolium]

I think this George Monbiot article is the most powerfully stated case I have seen in favour of Scottish independence, and contains most of the reasons I would vote in favour if I were living in Scotland:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

I certainly wouldn't vote Yes out of any great sympathy for Alex Salmond or his party, but because of the possibility that a future might be created in which a different political and economic approach were taken - something currently impossible to conceive about the Westminster government. Like Monbiot and some others on this thread, I think Scotland ought if independent to go for an independent currency not the pound, otherwise it remains tied to the monetary policy of a foreign central bank.

[ahinton]

I think this George Monbiot article is the most powerfully stated case I have seen in favour of Scottish independence, and contains most of the reasons I would vote in favour if I were living in Scotland:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

I certainly wouldn't vote Yes out of any great sympathy for Alex Salmond or his party, but because of the possibility that a future might be created in which a different political and economic approach were taken - something currently impossible to conceive about the Westminster government. Like Monbiot and some others on this thread, I think Scotland ought if independent to go for an independent currency not the pound, otherwise it remains tied to the monetary policy of a foreign central bank.

Scotland should either elect to have its own currency or apply to join the Eurozone (assuming that it would become, either by successful application or default, an EU member in its own right); were such application to be unsuccessful or were Scotland not to become part of the EU for any reason, it should default to adopting its own currency.

It should also cut its ties with the monarchy and either have its own monarchy or become a republic, a decision that should best be made by the Scottish people by way of a second referendum.

Monbiot's idealism might well be genuine, but precious little purpose would appear to be served by complaining that "England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal" and accordingly questioning "who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?" when Scotland's hardly any different, other than in scale?

Catalunya's in a broadly similar situation in that, as part of Spain, it's subject to the Spanish monarchy but, after independence (if that occurs), it ought to give its the same choices (the currency situation is likely to be somewhat different there, as Spain's already a Eurozone member and, unless an independent Catalunya did not become an EU member or if EU rejected its application for Eurozone membership in its own right, it would seem to have no particular need to adopt its own currency).

To return to Scotland, it seems to me that, until and unless the currency and monarchy situation changes, Scotland will not become "independent" in any meaningful sense, whatever the outcome of the independence referendum might seek to have anyone believe.

[MrGongGong]

To return to Scotland, it seems to me that, until and unless the currency and monarchy situation changes, Scotland will not become "independent" in any meaningful sense, whatever the outcome of the independence referendum might seek to have anyone believe.

Spot on IMV

[ahinton]

Spot on IMV

Thank you; or maybe even "Scot on" (except that, although one of that particular variety of "furriner", I live in England and, like lots of other Scots not resident in Scotland, am therefore unentitled to vote in the referendum)...

[aeolium]

Scotland should either elect to have its own currency or apply to join the Eurozone (assuming that it would become, either by successful application or default, an EU member in its own right); were such application to be unsuccessful or were Scotland not to become part of the EU for any reason, it should default to adopting its own currency.

Yes, those are possible options. Personally I would not wish the fate of being a citizen of a small Eurozone country on my worst enemy at the present time, but that would be a judgement for others to make.

It should also cut its ties with the monarchy and either have its own monarchy or become a republic, a decision that should best be made by the Scottish people by way of a second referendum.

I think the likeliest outcome here, given the popularity of the monarchy, would be that the Queen would remain the monarch rather as she is of some Caribbean countries, Australia etc.

Monbiot's idealism might well be genuine, but precious little purpose would appear to be served by complaining that "England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal" and accordingly questioning "who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?" when Scotland's hardly any different, other than in scale?

Surely the point is that there would be a real possibility of change, given the predilection of most Scottish people for more progressive options - there being hardly any Conservative representation north of the border. It is the continued implementation of unpopular Thatcherite policy from Westminster, at least since 1979, that is the problem here.

[ahinton]

Yes, those are possible options. Personally I would not wish the fate of being a citizen of a small Eurozone country on my worst enemy at the present time, but that would be a judgement for others to make.

Indeed it would - either for Scots themselves if given the opportunity to make their wishes known or by EU itself by saying yes or no to any application for EU membership that Scotland might choose or see itself as being forced to make; as to whether or not to wish the fate of being a citizen of a small Eurozone country on your worst enemy at the present time, perhaps the views of Lithuanians, Irish, Estonians, Slovenes, Latvians, Maltese and Croatians on that might be salutary, given that their respective populations are similar to or less than that of Scotland (and, for that matter, the Danish and Slovakian populations aren't much greater)...

I think the likeliest outcome here, given the popularity of the monarchy, would be that the Queen would remain the monarch rather as she is of some Caribbean countries, Australia etc.

I suspect that you're probably right about this but I still find it hard to believe that it creates a credible impression of the new-found "independence" of a state when it retains the monarchy of another by efault instead of putting it to the test in a referendum.

Surely the point is that there would be a real possibility of change, given the predilection of most Scottish people for more progressive options - there being hardly any Conservative representation north of the border. It is the continued implementation of unpopular Thatcherite policy from Westminster, at least since 1979, that is the problem here.

Whilst I take your point about Conservative representation in Scotland (or rather the paucity of it), the dysfunctionality, corruption and vast inequality of which Monbiot accuses England is no more all down to Conservative governments there than the same in Scotland is down to the depletion of Conservative influence there. Apart from the scale of these things, there's not so much difference between any of them as they apply both north and south of the border and, whilst the extent to which it might be exacerbated in Scotland by the current and immediate past influence of English institutions there, that's hardly likely to change post-independence because those institutions will continue to exert influence on Scotland, just as will EU whether or not a post-independent Scotland is a member of it; this is one of the factors that Farage and his gang consistently and conveniently ignore in their wild and noisy blatherings about severance of British membership of EU, namely that EU will continue to exert massive influence on Britain (or what's left of it at any time) whether or not it or any part of it retains its EU membership.