The dissolution of the Union

[Pannonian]

I guess they could always invite over a real Scot to become King of Scotland:
Franz, Duke of Bavaria, heir of Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Presumably when he takes his seat on the Stone of Scone he'll rename himself Fran.

[InsaneApache]

Sorry the Act of Settlement forbids it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Also, can someone fill me in on the whole "devolution" thing? As I understand it, Scots have a parliament exclusively for themselves (and similar things planned for the Welsh and N.Irish) while the English don't as they have to share parliament with the Scots?

Devolution is the assignment of powers to a lower level of government. There are different powers seceded to the Scottish Parliament than to those of Wales and Northern Ireland. (Note that the N.I. Assembly is currently suspended and on life support). This is reflected in the names - The Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament. The latter has tax raising powers, for example (which make it rather powerful) whereas the former does not, making the Welsh Assembly little more than an expensive talking shop of the order of an English County Council.

The anomaly to all this is that the British Parliament at Westminster is still a government of the whole island. It sets foreign policy for Scotland for example, but not education policy. England does not have an equivalent of the Scottish Parliament for its own territory (although there are a couple of Regional Assemblies - see description of the Welsh Assembly for uselessness).

Because the members of the Westminster Parliament are elected from across the whole country, this leads to what is known as the West Lothian question. The Member for West Lothian (in Scotland) may vote on matters that affect the people of England, but those English voters have no equivalent representation on Scottish matters.

As IA noted, New Labour is largely made up of Scottish MPs as historically Scotland has been left-leaning. Devolution allows them to have an in-built majority in Scotland, and retain the power of that lobby in Westminster.

If Scotland becomes independent, the resolution of the West Lothian question will be the ejection of all MPs with a Scottish constituency - they will have to stand for the Independent Scottish Parliament. New Labour will suffer greviously in that scenario. The Tories, who have no seats in Scotland at all (or maybe they got one last time) would be unaffected and likely to have the in-built permanent majority in England and Wales that Labour would enjoy in Scotland.

Except the Scottish Nationalists would probably eclipse Labour there too.

Gordon Brown would not be eligible to be Prime Minister of England and Wales, unless he moved and stood for election in an English constituency.

I do not know. It would certainly be a member of the Commonwealth, just as England would be.

Not necessarily. The Republic of Ireland declined to be a member of the Commonwealth after independence.

[BDC]

If Scotland gets independence, then we may as well go the whole distance and split up into the old pre-England kingdoms.

Whoever gets the City will be very happy. Everyone else less so.

[King Henry V]

Sorry the Act of Settlement forbids it.

But surely such a racist/chavinistic/imperialist/nazi act can not be allowed in a multi-faith, multi-cultural society as our own, can it? It's against the European Covention of Human Rights!

If Scotland gets independence, then we may as well go the whole distance and split up into the old pre-England kingdoms.

Whoever gets the City will be very happy. Everyone else less so.

Wessex! Yarrrrr!

[scotchedpommes]

I'm not sure the oil is too big a factor. Even with it taken into account, there is still a net flow of money out of London and the South East towards Scotland.

The split would be financially beneficial for England. Not that that means it's a good idea, of course. Perhaps proper federalism would satisfy both parties?

Given that it was the oil that sparked Nationalism before now and that they're
still talking about taking the benefit from it, I think they might still see it as a
major factor.

As far as federalism is concerned, I very much doubt that it would be accepted
up here, as they've said that nothing short of full independence would be an
objective. The idea of staying part of the Commonwealth given that fact also
seems absurd. Connection to the monarchy [including that in Bavaria] should
dissolve completely.

If Scotland becomes independent, the resolution of the West Lothian question will be the ejection of all MPs with a Scottish constituency - they will have to stand for the Independent Scottish Parliament. New Labour will suffer greviously in that scenario. The Tories, who have no seats in Scotland at all (or maybe they got one last time) would be unaffected and likely to have the in-built permanent majority in England and Wales that Labour would enjoy in Scotland.

Except the Scottish Nationalists would probably eclipse Labour there too.

Cue the conference panic and backlash speeches.

The Tories gained a single seat, as far as I am aware - and no doubt as Malcolm would mention, they probably have control of a fair few insignificant positions around the country.

I'd venture that neither party [Labour or SNP] is sure which way a vote would go, and that's why we'll be seeing pushes from both sides. Whether or not polls seem to indicate that a majority would vote for independence, I would imagine regional variation is considerable. Whenever the local news programmes conduct their 'man on the street' style questioning, a majority seem to be in favour of the status quo, if not entirely apathetic. That said, the demographic never seems to be that varied. I personally find it hard to see the SNP winning the election, and so all this talk about polls is rather pointless. All it does is give IA and co. a chance to have a whine.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Wessex! Yarrrrr!

Given the current Earl of Wessex, the prospect of independence might pall somewhat.

[Pannonian]

The anomaly to all this is that the British Parliament at Westminster is still a government of the whole island. It sets foreign policy for Scotland for example, but not education policy. England does not have an equivalent of the Scottish Parliament for its own territory (although there are a couple of Regional Assemblies - see description of the Welsh Assembly for uselessness).

The north east turned down a regional assembly because they didn't want another level of government wasting their tax money. Devolution of the regions is rather unpopular for this reason.

[InsaneApache]

All it does is give IA and co. a chance to have a whine.

No whining here I think it's a good idea that Scotland bankrupts rules itself.

Did I mention that I lived in bonnie Scotland for a few years when I was a kid? So no rose tinted spectacles either when it comes to the racism a lot of the Scots have towards the English.

[therother]

As IA noted, New Labour is largely made up of Scottish MPs as historically Scotland has been left-leaning.

41 of 356 New Labour MPs were from Scottish seats at the last election.

New Labour will suffer greviously in that scenario. The Tories, who have no seats in Scotland at all (or maybe they got one last time) would be unaffected and likely to have the in-built permanent majority in England and Wales that Labour would enjoy in Scotland.

New Labour would still have a majority in the remainder of the UK if the Scottish MPs were excluded. Labour had 356 seats in total at the last election, so they would have had 315 without Scotland. The new threshold for overall majority, substracting the 59 Scottish seats, would be 294.

[scotchedpommes]

Did I mention that I lived in bonnie Scotland for a few years when I was a kid? So no rose tinted spectacles either when it comes to the racism a lot of the Scots have towards the English.

And no tarring the rest of us with the same brush either, eh?

[ZombieFriedNuts]

I hear that if Scotland leaves they will become a 3’rd world country overnight

[Duke Malcolm]

I hear that if Scotland leaves they will become a 3’rd world country overnight

Evidently you have not been to Scotland recently...

Banquo- The Scottish Parliament does not have tax-raising powers, and the SNP have stated that they would remain in the Commonwealth.

Sorry the Act of Settlement forbids it.

That does not apply to Scotland, since it was passed by England in 1701, before the Act of Union. However, Article 2 of the Treaty of the Act of Union effectively enshrines it in Scots Law. If the Act of Union was repealed, then it would no longer be applicable.

[InsaneApache]

And no tarring the rest of us with the same brush either, eh?

Not at all. I made some very good friends in Ardrossan, probably more enlightened than most. However even these guys hated teh English...just not this particular one.

Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Did I mention that I lived in bonnie Scotland for a few years when I was a kid? So no rose tinted spectacles either when it comes to the racism a lot of the Scots have towards the English.

I never said all...but there is a majority with this victim mindset......I take it you're a Scotchman then?

NB: I just ran this through the spellchecker and it accepted Scotchman....

[Louis VI the Fat]

NB: I just ran this through the spellchecker and it accepted Scotchman....

Thats weird! When i run my post's true the brilliant spellczech none mistake are left.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is interesting.

Personally, I'd prefer an Britain without the labour party, and if this did it, well why not if the people support it? And the labor party's dominance of Scotland, and subsequent economic 'slowdown' might force them to rethink the glory of high taxes and regulations galore.

I think Scotland could have a decent economy, but they'd have to go the Milton Friedman route - low taxes and free trade, ala Ireland and Estonia.

Crazed Rabbit

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo- The Scottish Parliament does not have tax-raising powers, and the SNP have stated that they would remain in the Commonwealth.

Does it not? Then I stand corrected. Is it tax-spending then? They certainly appear to have substantial differences in spending powers.

[InsaneApache]

Does it not? Then I stand corrected. Is it tax-spending then? They certainly appear to have substantial differences in spending powers.

They do indeed.

[caravel]

Independence may be the catalyst to poducing a decent Scottish economy. As things stand, where is the incentive?

[IrishArmenian]

What about the Welsh and the Ulstermen? BKS, could you give us the thoughts of the average Welshman on indpedence? From what I read, most of the Welsh despise being part of the UK, but the oly Ulsterman I know says he is "British and Proud."
EDIT: By the way, just so everyone is clear, the U.K. has never been the land of Peace, Love and Understanding (Sorry McManus, I mean Costello). Everyone hates everyone else. Everyone has their own football except for the Welsh, who have to deal with having most of their international squad play for the English Clubs (I will catch a lot heat for this but, I like how Craig Bellamy plays, very intense, always aware* dodges bottle thrown by drunken English man*)
So, in conclusion, in the U.K., everyone hates everybody else!

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

What about the Welsh and the Ulstermen? BKS, could you give us the thoughts of the average Welshman on indpedence? From what I read, most of the Welsh despise being part of the UK,

I have never met any Welshman who has complained about being part of the UK. They are well aware that we don't have a sustainable economy, and that independance from the UK would ruin us.

Bear in mind, however, that I'm from the south, which is far more cosmopolitan. If you did a survey in the valleys, I'm sure that you'd find far more people who desired independance-most of this kind of sentiment is rooted in the Conservatives shutting the coal mines in the eighties.

[KukriKhan]

... Bear in mind, however, that I'm from the south, which is far more cosmopolitan. If you did a survey in the valleys, I'm sure that you'd find far more people who desired independance-most of this kind of sentiment is rooted in the Conservatives shutting the coal mines in the eighties.

"All Politics is Local". Thus spake Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, longtime Speaker of the US House of Reps. I'm continuously amazed that in a country with less land mass and population than California, such diversity of opinion and outlook can exist (and co-exist, for that matter).

Does such distain for England and the English actually rise to the level of racial hatred among non-English citizens, as InsaneApache suggests? My whole life, I've thought there existed a rivalry between Angle, Scot, Welshman & Irisher, more on the lines of a good-natured sports rivalry. And I thought the addition of former colonists (Pakistanis, Indians, etc) as immigrants would just make the rivalry more diverse (kind of like our NFL 'expansion teams').

Should I re-think that relationship?

[GoreBag]

It varies from person to person, obviously, but it's not uncommon for there to be anglophobes in the other regions of the UK.

[InsaneApache]

"All Politics is Local". Thus spake Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, longtime Speaker of the US House of Reps. I'm continuously amazed that in a country with less land mass and population than California, such diversity of opinion and outlook can exist (and co-exist, for that matter).

Does such distain for England and the English actually rise to the level of racial hatred among non-English citizens, as InsaneApache suggests? My whole life, I've thought there existed a rivalry between Angle, Scot, Welshman & Irisher, more on the lines of a good-natured sports rivalry. And I thought the addition of former colonists (Pakistanis, Indians, etc) as immigrants would just make the rivalry more diverse (kind of like our NFL 'expansion teams').

Should I re-think that relationship?

When my fathers wife initially arrived in the UK from the USA she too was amazed at the diversity. You can drive for 10-15 minutes in any direction and hear the difference in accents alone. She was fascinated with the Welsh and the Scots accents, often saying she could hear how the Mid-Atlantic accent came about. She's lived in Washington DC, New York and latterly Jacksonville (home to King Edward cigars ) and told me that you could literally drive for hundreds of miles in the USA and not hear an appreciable difference in accents. Living here I suppose you don't really pay it much attention.

There is as much rivalry between the counties, (War of the Roses anyone?), as there is between the countries. Perhaps because we inhabit such an ancient land.

[Ignoramus]

I am split on the issue. The term "British" has no foundation. And I can see why the Scots would prefer independence; everytime the word British is used is almost always interpretated as meaning English. However, it would be sad if Scotland didn't have a monarchy. I wouldn't mind Scotland breaking away when Charles becomes king.

[Duke Malcolm]

Does such distain for England and the English actually rise to the level of racial hatred among non-English citizens, as InsaneApache suggests? My whole life, I've thought there existed a rivalry between Angle, Scot, Welshman & Irisher, more on the lines of a good-natured sports rivalry.

I must say that "Angle" is not a word for someone from England. Angle are old German folks, who inhabite various parts of Britain, including Southern and lowland Scotland...

[macsen rufus]

"Britishness" does exist in a biological sense, but not a cultural sense. The difference between England/Wales/Scotland is largely social and cultural, as recent genetic studies have found the populations to be virtually indistinguishable, and the English are largely of Celtic and pre-Celtic stock too, despite all the waves of migrants from mainland Europe. Each new wave - Normans, Vikings, Saxons etc largely just added a top tier to society rather than displacing or transforming the entire population. The history of "nations" is more the story of their rulers and the languages and cultures they bring with them, not their people.

@Kukri:

My whole life, I've thought there existed a rivalry between Angle, Scot, Welshman & Irisher, more on the lines of a good-natured sports rivalry.

Nah -- it's more a centuries/millenia long history of warfare, oppression, rape, slavery and pillage. We just seem to have a better ability to sweep things under the carpet every now and then and forget our differences in the face of foreign threats. And as IA points out, rivalries between counties can be pretty fierce - I'm sure he'll fill you in on what a wonderful place Lancashire is Heck, even neighbouring villages can be downright antagonistic. As for accents in England - the town 5 miles west of my village, and the city 5 miles east have quite different accents, both different to the village itself.

There used to be a saying: "(Unacceptable non-PC term for foreigners of slightly tinted hue) begin at Calais", but having said that the English word "Welsh" derives from the Old English for "foreign" ('waelisc'). The Scots call us "sassenachs" which I used to believe meant "southerners" but seems more likely to be derived from "Saxon". You can certainly find true racists in Wales and Scotland - ever been into a pub that goes dead silent as soon as you speak??? By and large most people are friendly and warm, but when there is animosity it's heartfelt and genuine too, and often based on real historical grievances.

On the practicalities of devolution, why shouldn't the Scots be ruled over by a Bavarian Duke? After all, the current royal family is basically Hanoverian

Trying to extricate the economies and tax etc would be an absolute nightmare, and no telling really whether there is a net subsidy northwards. And would two smaller economies be better off or not than one larger one? Given the wider context of the EU, talk of devolution and independence strikes me as a bit redundant. What we really need is a proper application of subsidiarity wherein local decisions are taken locally, and higher levels of government only take charge on issues that can only be dealt with over a wider area, with as few "layers" of government as possible. This is something England and Wales (and NI) could all benefit from. Government should be as close to the people as possible.

For IrishArmenian: if someone describes himself as an Ulsterman he is usually a loyalist. If he lives in Ulster but is not a loyalist, he'll usually call himself Irish, so the "British and Proud" comment seems quite in keeping. The irony is that most of the loyalists are descended from Scots settlers, and the Scots were originally Irish who had invaded Pictland.... just to give another example of the convoluted history of these islands

Ultimately, though we're all humans, and citizens of the planet etc and obsessing about national governments and the like is bit of a distraction. I'd be quite happy to see a dissolution of nation states generally in favour of smaller, more human-scale units under the umbrella of the EU.

[Justiciar]

I thought the vast majority of genetic studies have shown the Enlgish to be similar in stock to the French, Dutch, Scots, and Danes moreso than the Welsh and Irish?

[Rank Bajin]

Nice thread.

While I certainly agree that the English deserve their own referendum on if they want an English parliament, I am most curious where many English people get this idea that they are the great benefactors and that their hard-earned cash is going north of the border to support a Scotland that heavily relies on England to prop her up?

Sorry to break it to everyone, but it can really only be England that is the real subsidy junky. The last Tory Government actually had to admit that the flow of cash could only have been happening in the other direction:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...w07.html_sbhd0

The link above shows the parliamentary answer from William Waldegrave - the then Tory Treasury minister - which gives figures of a net flow of cash from Scotland to the UK over the period of £26.7 Billion from the years 1978 to 1996.

They are the true figures of the whole period as they show the real picture when all taxes, revenues and the revenues for Scotland’s natural resources are apportioned fairly. You should check the rest of the UK’s figures (which is namely England’s) over that whole period as it will show that England didn’t have the money to support herself, never mind “subsidise” anybody. :

Also, later on, there was the independent report by the Constitution Unit, of the University College in London, which also confirms the figures in the above link. During 2002, the Constitution Unit did a review of the treasury figures for the previous 20 years.

On their analysis of the government’s own figures Scotland had been in surplus of £1.2 billion per year (from the fiscal years 1980/1981 to 2000/2001) while the UK was in a large deficit.

Indeed, by the authors’ reckoning, over that 20 year period, Scotland had a £24 billion cumulative surplus while the UK had a cumulative deficit of - hold it! - £410 billion. Which really means that England, Wales and Northern were a total of £434 billion in the red, while Scotland was actually in the black.

So where is all this magical English money heading north to support the Scots? Is it really just a figment of English imagination? I know what I think!

Another thing:

Scotland - which you really need to know - is, in fact, a net exporter of oil, gas, electricity and food.

Scotland also has vast amounts of fresh water (i.e. Loch Ness has more fresh water than all the freshwater lakes and rivers in England combined). Also, due to her small population, Scotland has a great share of these resources per head of the population. Add in the fact, that she also has a very great potential for renewable energy on top of all that. In the scheme of things, for a country, that is really true riches!

In direct comparison to Scotland, England is, in fact, a net importer of oil (from internationally-recognised Scottish waters), gas (ditto and soon to be from Norway), electricity (Scotland produces more than she needs), water (Wales - much of the west of England relies on it) and food (from many sources around the globe).

England - if we are being very truthful - is so very overpopulated that she cannot even sustain her own growing population through her own resources. Half of all her food has to be imported which makes England one of the biggest importers of food per capita in the world.

Scotland, for example, has actually around a quarter of the UK’s cattle production and it is a similar tale for other agricultural produce but she has only 8.6% of the UK’s total population. Add in the oil, gas, electricity and water, Scotland has more natural resources than she even requires.

In case the implication is lost on you all it is this - Scotland can easily exist upon her own resources but England cannot.

The question you now really should ask yourself is who is really the richer country and who really needs who then?

:Edit: For some spelling and grammer mistakes.

[Pannonian]

Nice thread.

While I certainly agree that the English deserve their own referendum on if they want an English parliament, I am most curious where many English people get this idea that they are the great benefactors where their hard-earned cash is going north of the border and that Scotland heavily relies on England to prop her up?

The question you now really should ask yourself is who is really the richer country and who really needs who then?

I'm a Londoner, so I can safely say my local region is a net contributor. Independence for the south-east, and the rest of the UK can look for their subsidies from elsewhere.