Scottish independence

ArmaniJeanss

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Is that the second time the plans were scrapped? I recall during May's government with the DUP, the proposed new boundaries were "revised" after they'd have resulted in the DUP losing a seat or 2 up North.

I think so. It's a torrid tale as per wiki of a review that started in 2011 and never actually got implemented - my head started hurting halfway through. The Northern Ireland stuff is fun.
Anyway, as I thought earlier a new review has commenced with the aim of reporting back by October 2023. With natural slippage and the likelihood of an election in Spring/Summer 2024, I'd say its marginal at best for it to get through in this parliament in time to be implemented for the next GE.

Sam Russell

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think so. It's a torrid tale as per wiki of a review that started in 2011 and never actually got implemented - my head started hurting halfway through. The Northern Ireland stuff is fun.
Anyway, as I thought earlier a new review has commenced with the aim of reporting back by October 2023. With natural slippage and the likelihood of an election in Spring/Summer 2024, I'd say its marginal at best for it to get through in this parliament in time to be implemented for the next GE.

Unless there is a Indy Ref 2, then it is all bets off.

Water John

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just a pedantic note - James VI os Scotland became James the first of England. It niggles the Scots the Queen Elizabeth II (of England) but Queen Elizabeth the First (of Scotland).

However, other than that, I agree with you. Losing Ireland was a deep deep wound that still rankles with the Tory class. Why did we want to leave? Why do we still want to be in the EU now that the mother country has left?

I was just trying to put party politics view above Tory nationalism - a thought experiment.

I don't think any Irish people would consider England the 'mother' country.

BonnieSituation

Water John wrote: »

I don't think any Irish people would consider England the 'mother' country.

Yeah, but Tories don't really get that at all. EVER!

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

I don't think any Irish people would consider England the 'mother' country.

I know. It was an attempt at ironic humour. Only the English Tories see it that way. They have a few name checks on 'English'* that does not cause any problems to true British nationalists.



*Church of England; Bank of England; Queen of England; English (the language); England - used as a synonym for Britain; plus many more.

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just a pedantic note - James VI os Scotland became James the first of England. It niggles the Scots the Queen Elizabeth II (of England) but Queen Elizabeth the First (of Scotland).

However, other than that, I agree with you. Losing Ireland was a deep deep wound that still rankles with the Tory class. Why did we want to leave? Why do we still want to be in the EU now that the mother country has left?

I was just trying to put party politics view above Tory nationalism - a thought experiment.

Given what they did to us over the centuries it would be pretty easy to see why we wanted to leave and "mother country" you must be kidding. I can think of many ways to describe England's colonial history but the mother country is nowhere on the list.


Ooops I am just seeing your later post clarifying you were being humours with the "mother country" comment. Makes sense now.

Sam Russell

eire4 wrote: »

Given what they did to us over the centuries it would be pretty easy to see why we wanted to leave and "mother country" you must be kidding. I can think of many ways to describe England's colonial history but the mother country is nowhere on that list.

I think you are missing my point.

The term 'mother country' would only be used by rabid Tories who could not understand why anyone would wish to leave he comfort of knowing their betters are looking after them.

Of course, anyone who is not a rabid Tory sees the irony of this term.

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

I know. It was an attempt at ironic humour. Only the English Tories see it that way. They have a few name checks on 'English'* that does not cause any problems to true British nationalists.



*Church of England; Bank of England; Queen of England; English (the language); England - used as a synonym for Britain; plus many more.

I have always felt for all the claims that the UK is some kind of union of partners was nonsense. It is just the core rump of the old English empire. The Scots and the Welsh have never been real partners in the UK they take orders from England when it comes right down to it.

Sam Russell

If Scotland managed to wrest power from Westminster and become a truly independent state and kicked out the Trident missile base, and NI also left the UK and Ireland was united, (lots of if) would England's place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council be called into question?

Now the PRC was precluded by the USA from becoming the permanent member in favour of Taiwan for as long as they could, but that was reversed and PRC took the Chinese seat. If the United Kingdom of England and Wales tried to take the seat, could it be gifted to either Germany, the EU, or India?

I would expect India, but it could just be extinguished and another temporary seat be created.

I can see why Westminster can see a downside to Scottish independence - power is so addictive.

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you are missing my point.

The term 'mother country' would only be used by rabid Tories who could not understand why anyone would wish to leave he comfort of knowing their betters are looking after them.

Of course, anyone who is not a rabid Tory sees the irony of this term.

Thanks for clarifying. Makes total sense.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Scotland managed to wrest power from Westminster and become a truly independent state and kicked out the Trident missile base, and NI also left the UK and Ireland was united, (lots of if) would England's place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council be called into question?

Now the PRC was precluded by the USA from becoming the permanent member in favour of Taiwan for as long as they could, but that was reversed and PRC took the Chinese seat. If the United Kingdom of England and Wales tried to take the seat, could it be gifted to either Germany, the EU, or India?

I would expect India, but it could just be extinguished and another temporary seat be created.

I can see why Westminster can see a downside to Scottish independence - power is so addictive.

It can't be "gifted" to anyone and it's not a decision that could be made on the fly. The membership of the Security Council is prescribed by the UN Charter, a multilateral treaty which would require amendment to make any change. Every single member state of the UN would have to agree to the amendment.

The issue here is what is known as "state succession". When states merge or split, to what extent is one of the states that emerges at the end of the process to be idenfitied with one of the states that went into the process? This matters because the answer to the question determines the extent to which one state inherits, e.g., rights and obligations under a treaty entered into before the merger/split.

For example, in 1922 a part of Ireland left the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Irish Free State was clearly a new state, but was the residual stake which became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a continuation of the existing UK, or a second new state? If it was a new state, then it wasn't bound by or entitled to the benefit of, all the treaties that the old UK had made, it had no obligation to honour debt securities issued by the old UK (unless it chose to) etc, etc. So a lot rides on the question.

The question is answered case-by-case, and usually with a fair degree of pragmatism. In that particular case, it made no sense at all to regard the post-1922 UK as a new state. It did not treat itself as a new state or demand or expect to be treated as a new state, and no other state sought to treat it as a new state.

By contrast, when Czechoslovakia split into Slovakia and the Czech Republic, the two countries agreed between themselves that both would be regarded as new states and neither would claim to be the continuation of the old, dissolved state. The existing public debt of the old state was divided between them in agreed proportions, each taking responsibility for repayment of a share. Both states applies for UN membership, neither claiming to be entitled to the seat formerly occupied by Czechoslovakia. And so forth. The international communit generally accepted this, because why wouldn't you? It was an orderly and effective way of handling the matter.

So, in the event of Scottish independence, it will likely happen on terms negotiated between Edinburgh and Westminster. As regards state succession, the likely agreement will stipuate that the UK-without-Scotland is a continuation of the existing UK, and that Scotland is a new state. By agreement, Scotland may accept responsibility for some share of the UK national debt; they could do this either by taking on a share of the debt and issuing bondholders with Scottish Bonds in substitution for a proportion of the UK bonds that they currently hold, or simply by letting the UK pay the bondholders as the bonds fall due, with Scotland reimbursing the UK for an agreed proportion of the cost of doing so. The UK would continue as a member of the Council of Europe, a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, etc; Scotland would have to apply to join. And so forth.

Assuming the rest of the international community accepts this - and they almost certain would - no question would arise over the UK's permanent seat on the Security Council. The UN Charter says that the UK has a permanent seat; the UK-without-Scotland would identify itself as the UK referred to in the Charter; everyone else would agree; the UK-without-Scotland would hold the seat.

Separately, people might ask whether it was appropriate that the UK should be a permanent member. They could, of course, ask that already, given that the UK is not a world power, hasn't been for decades and certainly never will be again. The loss of Scotland may draw attention to this fact, but doesn't really change anything fundamental.

But, as noted above, there is a big inertia factor. Changing the UN Charter would be a huge production, requiring unanimous agreement from every member state. Once the question is opened, inevitably the matter of a permanent seat for France would come up, since France's situation and world status is very similar to the UK's. If those seats are being discussed, what is the justification for seat for Russia, which in economic and strategic terms is a shadow of what the USSR used to be. So to raise this question at all is to open
a huge can of worms. And I suspect there wouldn't be a huge appetite for opening it, given that arriving at unanimous agreement on a change would not be easy. And, without unanimous agreement, nothing happens.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Scotland managed to wrest power from Westminster and become a truly independent state and kicked out the Trident missile base, and NI also left the UK and Ireland was united, (lots of if) would England's place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council be called into question?

The US supported their subs from a ship in Scottish Waters. There is also the precedent of the Irish Treaty Ports. So a non issue.

Anytime you think there is an issue with Scottish independence look at our history for lessons learned.



Realistically the permanent members always have at least one nuclear powered ballistic missile sub on patrol and a GPS system. After months submerged they can emerge from the depths an ocean away, get a exact location fix and take out your capital city. It will be a while before India joins that club.

Everyone apart from the UK has full control of their missiles and full access to their GPS systems* and have other delivery systems as well as the subs.



* The US insisted that the UK get the EU to deny Galileo access to non-EU countries like China, especially China.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The US supported their subs from a ship in Scottish Waters. There is also the precedent of the Irish Treaty Ports. So a non issue.

Anytime you think there is an issue with Scottish independence look at our history for lessons learned.



Realistically the permanent members always have at least one nuclear powered ballistic missile sub on patrol and a GPS system. After months submerged they can emerge from the depths an ocean away, get a exact location fix and take out your capital city. It will be a while before India joins that club.

Everyone apart from the UK has full control of their missiles and full access to their GPS systems* and have other delivery systems as well as the subs.



* The US insisted that the UK get the EU to deny Galileo access to non-EU countries like China, especially China.

One could see the UK as just a USA satellite/puppet regime. Their acceptance of the USA demands to remove Huawei* equipment from their 5G network is further evidence.

Of course November might see a change to this as Biden might see things differently.

*I would see the Huawei issue as a commercial issue, not a state security issue. Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook etc. are all greater threats.

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

One could see the UK as just a USA satellite/puppet regime. Their acceptance of the USA demands to remove Huawei* equipment from their 5G network is further evidence.

Of course November might see a change to this as Biden might see things differently.

*I would see the Huawei issue as a commercial issue, not a state security issue. Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook etc. are all greater threats.

I think your right about the Uk to a greater or lesser extent becoming a US puppet state. I think I would disagree about Biden making on meaningful changes American empire wise and or militarily. The Democrats especially corporate Democrats are as in love with the US empire and military as the Republicans are.

Sam Russell

eire4 wrote: »

I think your right about the Uk to a greater or lesser extent becoming a US puppet state. I think I would disagree about Biden making on meaningful changes American empire wise and or militarily. The Democrats especially corporate Democrats are as in love with the US empire and military as the Republicans are.

I think the UK is already a USA puppet state, and has been since 1944, with a few bumps on the way. They owed too much for the war supplies to them not to be.

Not sure about Biden myself but I am sure about the other guy, but not in a good way.

[Edit: The 'Special relationship is but a fig leaf to cover for their subservience towards the USA. Why would Blair go to war against Iraq?]

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

[Edit: The 'Special relationship is but a fig leaf to cover for their subservience towards the USA. Why would Blair go to war against Iraq?]

The special relationship ended a long time ago.

Was it 1947 when the US forced the UK to abandon the gold standard ?
This led to a devaluation of the pound from $4.02 to $2.80 in 1949 with a corresponding increase in the Ango-American loan that the UK was still paying off until 2006.

Or was it earlier when the US stopped the two way flow of nuclear weapons research ? Many critical paths of the Manhattan Project were inherited from Tube Alloys. The UK had to develop their own H-Bomb to get sharing again.

The UK always handed over the family silver to the US for a fraction of it's worth. The UK got very little in return for the Tizard Mission of 1940. And Brexit is just the latest episode.

An independent Scotland, home of the enlightenment, should fare better.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The special relationship ended a long time ago.

Was it 1947 when the US forced the UK to abandon the gold standard ?
This led to a devaluation of the pound from $4.02 to $2.80 in 1949 with a corresponding increase in the Ango-American loan that the UK was still paying off until 2006.

Or was it earlier when the US stopped the two way flow of nuclear weapons research ? Many critical paths of the Manhattan Project were inherited from Tube Alloys. The UK had to develop their own H-Bomb to get sharing again.

The UK always handed over the family silver to the US for a fraction of it's worth. The UK got very little in return for the Tizard Mission of 1940. And Brexit is just the latest episode.

An independent Scotland, home of the enlightenment, should fare better.

That is exactly my implication.

The 'special relationship' is never mentioned by the USA side but always by the UK side. It is like the younger brother being allowed to join the gang as long as they do all the running and fetching, and subbing the others. All one way.

The UK even faked an H-bomb with a fission explosion large enough to fool, so they could pretend to have the H-bomb. They were well ahead in aerospace but were thwarted by the USA. The three V bombers were ahead, and their V-TOL design was also way ahead. It all was taken by the USA for free. Also, the TSR2 and Concorde was important and was squashed by the USA refusal to allow over flight.

With friends like that ......

Even the 'Five Eyes' security blanket is one way - with the USA garnering all the intelligence and sharing none. It is all a one sided arrangement benefiting the USA.

Any trade agreement will be the same.

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the UK is already a USA puppet state, and has been since 1944, with a few bumps on the way. They owed too much for the war supplies to them not to be.

Not sure about Biden myself but I am sure about the other guy, but not in a good way.

[Edit: The 'Special relationship is but a fig leaf to cover for their subservience towards the USA. Why would Blair go to war against Iraq?]

Shhh don't tell the UK that. Haha but seriously I think that is fair. They are in many ways already a US puppet state and with the UK looking for trade deals that is likely to only get worse for them if they enter into a trade deal with the US.

I totally agree with you about the other guy. Quite frankly whether we like it or not the president of the US is the most powerful person on the planet so having a dangerous demagogue in that position is not just a threat to the American people it is a clear and distinct threat to the whole planet.

My point is just that Biden being a corporate democrat will not solve the problems that the US faces. He will throw a few crumbs to the masses but then get right back to governing for the benefit of the wealthy and major corporations just like Obama and Clinton did. He will not be as reckless from an international standpoint as well so the world will be safer but lets not kid ourselves corporate democrats worship the US military and pour money into and support the military industrial complex and US empire just as much as Republicans do so that won't change either.

Sam Russell

But to get back to Scottish independence:

Scotland needs to campaign on the basis of Scottish sovereign destiny - appeal to the emotion, not economics. The EU might be left as a 'nice to have' while 'Scotland run by Scotland - for Scotland - all of Scotland' should be a must have.

The Brexit campaign was truer to the lies than the truth.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

But to get back to Scottish independence:

Scotland needs to campaign on the basis of Scottish sovereign destiny - appeal to the emotion, not economics. The EU might be left as a 'nice to have' while 'Scotland run by Scotland - for Scotland - all of Scotland' should be a must have.

The Brexit campaign was truer to the lies than the truth.

I think there are few or no examples in history where a campaign for independence was won, or even substantially run, on economic arguments. A transition to independence is quite disruptive, and involves at least short-term economic pain, and I think most voters will know this. Economic arguments for independence tend not to be especially strong or convincing, and you're unlikely to carry the day if you focus on the economic case.

(That's not to say that independence may not be economically beneficial, of course. It often is, in the medium to longer term, as in our own case. But it's hard to be confident in advance that it will be, and very hard to persuade sceptics and doubters that it will be.)

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think there are few or no examples in history where a campaign for independence was won, or even substantially run, on economic arguments. A transition to independence is quite disruptive, and involves at least short-term economic pain, and I think most voters will know this. Economic arguments for independence tend not to be especially strong or convincing, and you're unlikely to carry the day if you focus on the economic case.

(That's not to say that independence may not be economically beneficial, of course. It often is, in the medium to longer term, as in our own case. But it's hard to be confident in advance that it will be, and very hard to persuade sceptics and doubters that it will be.)

There are few cases where a campaign for independence is won without some civil unrest, usually armed insurrection, since the ruling Gov is reluctant to move out no matter how unpopular and unjust they are.

I cannot think of one where that happened. Ours, India, most African states, Algeria, Timor l'Est, Southern Sudan - loads of them. Perhaps Canada, Australia, and NZ are cases, but most are armed insurrection.

Hong Kong does not count as it was from one coloniser to another.

If the Scots manage it without serious civil unrest, they will have achieved a monumental victory. Even with civil unrest, it will be.

Peregrinus

The Czech and Slovak separation was peaceful. Slovenia's separation from Yugoslavia was uncontested, if I recall rightly. And I'm not conscious of much of an armed struggle for independence in Ghana, Nigeria or many other British colonies in Africa. To some extent the struggle in Kenya may have served as a proxy for other British possesions in Africa; once the UK conceded the case for independence in Kenya they were not going to resist it by force elsewhere. Similarly I think most of the French possessions in sub-Saharan Africa transitioned by stages from colonial status to full independence between 1945 and 1960 - Algeria was the exception, not the rule.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Czech and Slovak separation was peaceful. Slovenia's separation from Yugoslavia was uncontested, if I recall rightly. And I'm not conscious of much of an armed struggle for independence in Ghana, Nigeria or many other British colonies in Africa. To some extent the struggle in Kenya may have served as a proxy for other British possesions in Africa; once the UK conceded the case for independence in Kenya they were not going to resist it by force elsewhere. Similarly I think most of the French possessions in sub-Saharan Africa transitioned by stages from colonial status to full independence between 1945 and 1960 - Algeria was the exception, not the rule.

I think you are right about Kenya being a proxy, but Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is the exception, but of course they had a significant white population, unlike the others. Also South Africa had the Boer war remember.

The French looked on their overseas possessions as part of France, not colonies in the way Britain did - subtle difference. Algeria was hard fought on both sides, though.

Czech and Slovak was a separation rather than an independence struggle. It was the separation from dominance by the USSR that was the independence struggle - fought by Hungary in 1956 and again in 1969 - both squashed by Russian tanks - but eventually successful following the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. The Berlin wall was put up to prevent the exodus of so many people across the open border into West Germany, so when it fell, it was the end of the USSR.

Not universal, but most independence is gained by civil unrest - usually by armed rebellion. I hope Scotland achieve it in a constitutional way without bloodshed.

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you are right about Kenya being a proxy, but Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is the exception, but of course they had a significant white population, unlike the others. Also South Africa had the Boer war remember.

The French looked on their overseas possessions as part of France, not colonies in the way Britain did - subtle difference. Algeria was hard fought on both sides, though.

Czech and Slovak was a separation rather than an independence struggle. It was the separation from dominance by the USSR that was the independence struggle - fought by Hungary in 1956 and again in 1969 - both squashed by Russian tanks - but eventually successful following the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. The Berlin wall was put up to prevent the exodus of so many people across the open border into West Germany, so when it fell, it was the end of the USSR.

Not universal, but most independence is gained by civil unrest - usually by armed rebellion. I hope Scotland achieve it in a constitutional way without bloodshed.

I get what your saying that most independence movements ultimately end up in civil unrest if not outright violence and war before independence is secured. I certainly do not see London sending in tanks to Edinburg. But I can see the Scots having to engage in mass independence rallies and things of that nature to force an independence referendum. But certainly at this point it would seem all the momentum and signs point towards Scottish independence sooner or later.

Capt'n Midnight

Closer to home Norwegian independence was peaceful.

And Scotland could look at them like they should look at us for lessons learned after independence

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Closer to home Norwegian independence was peaceful.

And Scotland could look at them like they should look at us for lessons learned after independence

Our problems after independence centred on an inability to borrow state backed finance, coupled by an inability to break free from the British market that made us a price taker. Our agricultural economy and lack of any industrial base (owing to the long term policy of the British Gov that we were to be the bread basket of the British nation) meant we had no negotiating power.

Dev's self sufficiency did not work, and it was Lemass's policy of industrial development that allowed us to break free. Ultimately, it was joining the EU, and DFI that allowed us to get to were we are today.

Scotland would do well to break free from England's grasp as soon and much as possible. The Tories are not to be trusted at any level.

eire4

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Closer to home Norwegian independence was peaceful.

And Scotland could look at them like they should look at us for lessons learned after independence

Iceland's independence from Denmark was also peaceful I think and another country that Scotland could learn from.

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

Our problems after independence centred on an inability to borrow state backed finance, coupled by an inability to break free from the British market that made us a price taker. Our agricultural economy and lack of any industrial base (owing to the long term policy of the British Gov that we were to be the bread basket of the British nation) meant we had no negotiating power.

Dev's self sufficiency did not work, and it was Lemass's policy of industrial development that allowed us to break free. Ultimately, it was joining the EU, and DFI that allowed us to get to were we are today.

Scotland would do well to break free from England's grasp as soon and much as possible. The Tories are not to be trusted at any level.

I would agree with that. I think re-joining the EU would be crucial for Scotland as it would really allow them to move away from London both politically and economically.

Sam Russell

Do not forget the economic war of the 1930s where Dev claimed the land annuities were the property of the Irish Gov, not the British Gov. The British Gov retaliated by stopping Irish imports, primarily of beef. As a result, the beef production ceased, and animals were culled. Then in 1939, when Britain needed the beef, there was none.

Britain was never a friend of Ireland, ever, and still is not. Queen Victoria was so overcome be grief when she heard of the famine in Ireland and the hardship of the starving, she donated £5 o help them. I think that says a lt.

Scotland should be aware of the perfidy displayed towards Ireland and should expect the same. Mind you, they just need to read their recent newspapers.

Capt'n Midnight

eire4 wrote: »

Iceland's independence from Denmark was also peaceful I think and another country that Scotland could learn from.

There were a lot of "voting advisors" there at the time and for some time later*

Ástandið (Icelandic: "the condition" or "the situation")
At its peak the population of foreign soldiers was equal to that of Icelandic men.

*a substantial US military presence remained in Iceland until 30 September 2006



But Scotland could learn from Iceland about keeping English boats out of it's waters