Can England just opt out of the Uk?

gormdubhgorm

Why would England want to leave? When they are the constituent nation in the UK which is the dominant nation? Ruling through Westminster. The other Assemblies in NI, Wales and Scotland have a limited amount of powers to different levels. Plus it is interesting to think that NI has the most autonomy of the three constituent countries. Plus there is also the question of North Sea Oil/Scottish Oil?

Also the majority in NI, Wales, Scotland identify with the Royal family and view them as their representatives. Until that changes in those three constituent countries why would England consider leaving as the dominant parliament? Allied with the emotional ties of the other constituent countries to the British Crown?

IAMAMORON

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is rubbish, there will be pressure on Westminster to give a nod to a referendum if the SNP maintain and increase their support. There comes a tipping point where you can no longer pretend to be a democracy if you ignore that. That will be the pressure on Boris or a successor.
You seem to be holding to your position here just to have snide digs, like the one above.

From who ?

The SNP only want independence on paper, they know deep down that they can't orchestrate it. It only exists to antagonise the constitution of the UK.

They can only influence if Labour get back into power in UK , that is unlikely for the time being.

Articles in the Guardian might hit the headlines and get Twitterites hitting the like button, but it won't bother 10 Downing Street. It doesn't suit Brexiteers to change the status quo, that is why they won't.

Coillte_Bhoy

IAMAMORON wrote: »

So it's semantics now is it?

Probably not going to guarantee a vote on independence for the next 20 years either.

PR will not influence a yes or no vote. Only the British PM can authorise a vote, regardless of the voting system.

I prefer pedantics to semantics myself, try it sometime, at least it gives your argument a squeak.

Ah yes the old 'semantics' argument when pulled up on an uninformed post, off you go so

IAMAMORON

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Ah yes the old 'semantics' argument when pulled up on an uninformed post, off you go so

Go where exactly?

Not on another semantic tangent?

No sale please.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is rubbish, there will be pressure on Westminster to give a nod to a referendum if the SNP maintain and increase their support. There comes a tipping point where you can no longer pretend to be a democracy if you ignore that. That will be the pressure on Boris or a successor.
You seem to be holding to your position here just to have snide digs, like the one above.

Ah I see you're new to IAMAMORON threads.

Coillte_Bhoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah I see you're new to IAMAMORON threads.

As am i :pac: lesson learnt though, life's too short for that kind of chilidish nonsense

FrancieBrady

IAMAMORON wrote: »

From who ?

The SNP only want independence on paper, they know deep down that they can't orchestrate it. It only exists to antagonise the constitution of the UK.

They can only influence if Labour get back into power in UK , that is unlikely for the time being.

Articles in the Guardian might hit the headlines and get Twitterites hitting the like button, but it won't bother 10 Downing Street. It doesn't suit Brexiteers to change the status quo, that is why they won't.

'Doesn't suit Brexiteers'???

They have been fluttering around in a breeze of their own hot air since 2016. Fashioning victories out of humiliating defeats.

As I said, as with all things of this nature there will come a tipping point not even the Gods of Brexit will be able to resist.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah I see you're new to IAMAMORON threads.

He/she uses the same argument on the Irish constitutional debate...just changes the names but the inherent genuflection to his/her betters is common. Anyone who challenges 'the realm' is to be demeaned or ridiculed.

the purple tin

Who would have the power to dissolve the union? The crown or parliament?

IAMAMORON

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He/she uses the same argument on the Irish constitutional debate...just changes the names but the inherent genuflection to his/her betters is common. Anyone who challenges 'the realm' is to be demeaned or ridiculed.

Francis I am not sure that is an appropriate critique.

I am a republican at heart and refute any other interpretation of that. I fully support the achievement of a 32 county republic - under democratic means.

What is the realm? Exactly?

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

From who ?

The SNP only want independence on paper, they know deep down that they can't orchestrate it. It only exists to antagonise the constitution of the UK.

They can only influence if Labour get back into power in UK , that is unlikely for the time being.

The only response to the bold bit (without being carded) is to say "Yes Dear."


It won't take a labour government. But you're wrong. Another inconvenient poll says Boris would lose his majority if an election were called. Boris has time, but do you have any confidence in this buffoon? If so please tell us why.

the purple tin

the purple tin wrote: »

Who would have the power to dissolve the union? The crown or parliament?

Parliament. Rubber stamped by the Head of state, like all laws.

IAMAMORON

Deleted User wrote: »

The only response to the bold bit (without being carded) is to say "Yes Dear."


It won't take a labour government. But you're wrong. Another inconvenient poll says Boris would lose his majority if an election were called. Boris has time, but do you have any confidence in this buffoon? If so please tell us why.

Subjective nonsense.

Think before you write.

Johnson won't be the first or last unpopular prime minister of the UK.

The only squeak the independence movement has is if the Labour party include a referendum promise in their next manifesto. If anything that will put the SNP in a quandary support wise. Either ways, any such promises will only serve to galvinise Scottish unionists who will obviously vote against Labour - it is the happy fudge - they will vote Conservative or SNP - neither of which will allow a referendum.

To coin a Scottish phrase - the Scottish nationalist debate lingers on a Pole Axe. It is doomed either way - hence the online outrage.

Capt'n Midnight

Smee_Again wrote: »

England can’t opt out it would have to expel the other nations from the Union.

Edited to add: and I doubt they could actually expel the other nations.

The UK constitution consists of exactly three words. "Parliament is God"

Legally Westminster can do whatever it wants because anything can be changed by the next vote.

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The other 'nations' would need to first vote for independence, if they wanted to then join the EU they would be required to adopt the Euro.

Even if Scotland didn't grandfather in the Euro opt out they could do what Sweden did and keep missing the convergence criteria, like every year since 1995.

Or Scotland could join the EFTA.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

All the Nuclear Submarines and their arsenal are harboured in Scotland.

It is not going to happen.

It happened. We had the treaty ports.
We also used sterling , remained in the CTA, pensions, voting rights etc. all done before.

Look at the splitting up of Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.
This stuff happens. Usually is not this close to home.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Subjective nonsense.

Think before you write.

Obvious windup is obvious. Serves me right for taking you seriously.... yes, I know the name is a give away, but shoot me for giving people the benefit of the doubt.

IAMAMORON

Deleted User wrote: »

Obvious windup is obvious. Serves me right for taking you seriously.... yes, I know the name is a give away, but shoot me for giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I wouldn't give the Scots the benefit of the doubt either.

Look what happened in 2014......

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Between the two dates they stopped burning witches. So, progress can be made.

Yes they stopped burning and drowning them.

Helen Duncan, was sentenced to nine months under the Witchcraft Act 1735,
in May 1944 still within living memory.

The good people of Bruges can still use the fishing rights granted to them by King Charles in 1666. And Henry VIII's laws from 1539 were used to railroad through Brexit laws.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I wouldn't give the Scots the benefit of the doubt either.

Look what happened in 2014......

Yes Dear.

IAMAMORON

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It happened. We had the treaty ports.

Compares Spike Island or Lough Swilly to British nuclear disarmament. FFS. pleeeeease.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We also used sterling , remained in the CTA, pensions, voting rights etc. all done before.

The last time I checked " we " never achieved independence in 1921?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Look at the splitting up of Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.
This stuff happens. Usually is not this close to home.

This type of stuff is really irrelevant and does not warrant a response. Sorry, Soviet Union appeasement is not up for discussion atm. And eh, the entire planet witnessed how swimmingly the break down of Yugoslavia went...... genocide and mass graves spring to my mind.

Charles Babbage

the purple tin wrote: »

Who would have the power to dissolve the union? The crown or parliament?

A union of the crown would remain.

Capt'n Midnight

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I wouldn't give the Scots the benefit of the doubt either.

Look what happened in 2014......

Care to comment on what happened just eight months later in the 2015 general election in Scotland ?




SNP went from 6 seats to winning 56 out of the 59 seats in Scotland.

FrancieBrady

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Francis I am not sure that is an appropriate critique.

I am a republican at heart and refute any other interpretation of that. I fully support the achievement of a 32 county republic - under democratic means.

What is the realm? Exactly?

A realm is that which is owned and overseen by a monarch... which republicans reject except in your case. You denigrate and dismiss anyone who tries to disentangle themselves from monarchy. A curious position for a 'republican'.

wiggle16

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Dear.

:pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac:

IAMAMORON

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Care to comment on what happened just eight months later in the 2015 general election in Scotland ?




SNP went from 6 seats to winning 56 out of the 59 seats in Scotland.

If labour promises a referendum after the next GE in the UK it will polarise the Nationalist Socialist vote.

This will only play into Scottish unionist hands, especially first past the post.

I am in danger of reiteration here, but to clarify, the SNP is one of the biggest fudges in Scottish politics. They only want independence on paper - the reality is they would be ineffectual at delivering it. In essence they are patronising the people of Scotland, many Scottish voters are aware of this, they are a very smart bunch of people all said.

The SNP are far happier hanging around a devolved Scotland bitching about the Aul Enemy and making nationalist promises - which ironically, they are incapable of delivering.

wiggle16

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Compares Spike Island or Lough Swilly to British nuclear disarmament. FFS. pleeeeease.

The last time I checked " we " never achieved independence in 1921?

This type of stuff is really irrelevant and does not warrant a response. Sorry, Soviet Union appeasement is not up for discussion atm. And eh, the entire planet witnessed how swimmingly the break down of Yugoslavia went...... genocide and mass graves spring to my mind.

Yeah youre on a wind up with this craic.

Independence was on 6/12/1921. Free State was established exactly a year later.

No one mentioned nuclear disarmament. As another poster said they'd have to dig Maggie up to ask her first.

And I'm not the pearl-clutching type but I think to bring up ethnic cleansing in the Balkans as if it has anything to do with what we're talking about, simply to wind people up, is an obscene thing to do, tbh. I'm out.

MaccaTacca

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Geographically there is no where else to put a nuclear submarine harbour in the UK.

I think there lies another reason why it will never happen.

Apart from Scottish readers of the Guardian ( not all of them either ) there is no one else who wants an independent Scotland, apart from a few Catholic housing schemes in Glasgow. The rest of the Scots aren't arsed.

Wales couldn't survive outside of the UK. The capital of northern wales is Liverpool, Stoke or Manchester. Stoke is a toilet, don't bother, trust me. Although people from Staffordshire are quite nice.

This.

Scotland and Wales are as British as English people and are as responsible for Britains past atrocities.

What I want to know is what happens to Northern Ireland in the case of an independent Scotland?

How would the Ulster Scots cope with their homeland no longer part of the union?

IAMAMORON

MaccaTacca wrote: »

This.

Scotland and Wales are as British as English people and are as responsible for Britains past atrocities.

What I want to know is what happens to Northern Ireland in the case of an independent Scotland?

How would the Ulster Scots cope with their homeland no longer part of the union?

Northern Ireland would have no relevance to an independent Scotland, at all.

Apart from a few pissed up soccer fans on the Cairnryan ferry, in fact, nothing will change at all. Scottish soccer fans from the 6 counties will still blow their wages supporting it, that is about it.

No one drinks Irn Bru in Northern Ireland anyway , they all drink Fanta instead. Even the Ulster Scots can't stand it.

IAMAMORON

wiggle16 wrote: »

Yeah youre on a wind up with this craic.

Independence was on 6/12/1921. Free State was established exactly a year later.

No one mentioned nuclear disarmament. As another poster said they'd have to dig Maggie up to ask her first.

And I'm not the pearl-clutching type but I think to bring up ethnic cleansing in the Balkans as if it has anything to do with what we're talking about, simply to wind people up, is an obscene thing to do, tbh. I'm out.

I didn't bring up ethnic cleansing , the previous poster did.

So enough with the virtue signaling please?

MaccaTacca

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Northern Ireland would have no relevance to an independent Scotland, at all.

Apart from a few pissed up soccer fans on the Cairnryan ferry, in fact, nothing will change at all. Scottish soccer fans from the 6 counties will still blow their wages supporting it, that is about it.

No one drinks Irn Bru in Northern Ireland anyway , they all drink Fanta instead. Even the Ulster Scots can't stand it.

I disagree.

Northern Irish unionists are ethnically of Scottish origin, they arent English.

Scottish independence would bring up some interesting questions for Northern Irish unionists I think.

wiggle16

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I didn't bring up ethnic cleansing , the previous poster did.

Yes you did.

So enough with the virtue signaling please?

Please.

IAMAMORON

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A realm is that which is owned and overseen by a monarch... which republicans reject except in your case. You denigrate and dismiss anyone who tries to disentangle themselves from monarchy. A curious position for a 'republican'.

Nonsense Francis.

Not every republic needs to arrive the way you salivate over it happening.

I would imagine most Scottish nationalists would have no qualms about swearing allegiance to the British monarchy - in saying that I wouldn't know?

Anyway the monarchy is really a peripheral issue to Scottish Independence - the Queen has said as such. Although Balmoral could become an issue - not unlike those submarines.

IAMAMORON

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Look at the splitting up of Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.
This stuff happens. Usually is not this close to home.

wiggle16 wrote: »

Yes you did.

Please.

No I didn't.

Virtue Signaling is cheap enough, it is worse than throwing adjectives around.

FrancieBrady

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Nonsense Francis.

Not every republic needs to arrive the way you salivate over it happening.

I would imagine most Scottish nationalists would have no qualms about swearing allegiance to the British monarchy - in saying that I wouldn't know?

Anyway the monarchy is really a peripheral issue to Scottish Independence - the Queen has said as such. Although Balmoral could become an issue - not unlike those submarines.

None of which explains your curious brand of republican that always seems to favour the monarchists, titled and entitled.

IAMAMORON

MaccaTacca wrote: »

Scottish independence would bring up some interesting questions for Northern Irish unionists I think.

Like what currency to use when buying their Ibrox season tickies?

Whatever about Scotland being in with a shout of a referendum at some point in the next 20 years , it bears no resemblance to the plight of Irish unionism?

It is a different matter and with all due respect to the people of Scotland it has nothing to do with them. Or indeed does it bear any relevance to English Republican aspirations?

IAMAMORON

FrancieBrady wrote: »

None of which explains your curious brand of republican that always seems to favour the monarchists, titled and entitled.

I think you are just throwing mud now Frank. Give it up please?

FrancieBrady

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I think you are just throwing mud now Frank. Give it up please?

You need to own what you are doing and what you are.

riclad

Why would england leave the uk, it would increase the cost of trade,
there would have to be customs controls on items sent to scotland or wales,
the euro and eu was invented as a political alliance and as a way to to enable trade and commerce between european countrys.
english banks and finance companys will still have to comply with eu laws
on customer data if they want to provide services to eu customers .
it, will cost the uk billions just to set up systems to deal
with customs ,tariffs etc in order to trade with the eu .
if the pound loses value it will cost more to buy anything from the eu

Its more likely scotland might choose to leave the uk and join the eu
maybe in 10 years

wiggle16

IAMAMORON wrote: »

No I didn't.

Virtue Signaling is cheap enough, it is worse than throwing adjectives around.

The poster brought up Yugoslavia, the country.

You brought up genocide and mass graves, the result of ethnic cleansing.

You know you did. I don't understand why you're trying to deny you wrote something we can all read. So I conclude you're on a wind up.

the purple tin

Charles Babbage wrote: »

A union of the crown would remain.

So the state and crown would both have to agree on it for it to come into effect?

Capt'n Midnight

the purple tin wrote: »

So the state and crown would both have to agree on it for it to come into effect?

Have a look a this. There are hundreds of people on the Privy Council. - it's a long list.

Three of them namely Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg, Lords Leader Baroness Evans and Chief Whip Mark Spencer were sent to Balmoral for a Privy Council meeting with Queen Elizabeth to approve the timetable to prorogue parliament.

So the party with a majority in parliament can and has overriden the crown.

IAMAMORON

wiggle16 wrote: »

The poster brought up Yugoslavia, the country.

You brought up genocide and mass graves, the result of ethnic cleansing.

You know you did. I don't understand why you're trying to deny you wrote something we can all read. So I conclude you're on a wind up.

More virtue signaling.

Stay on topic at least.

To clarify, you have brought up the topic of 90's genocide in the Balkans over 3 times now. If you were genuine you would have dropped the insinuation posts ago?

I refused to be bullied on this either, to clarify, I am not afraid of admitting that genocide existed in the Balkans in the 1990's. If you are hoping to use it as a weapon to ridicule my opinion on Scottish nationalism it is you who is being distasteful. I have said enough on the matter for now.

wiggle16

IAMAMORON wrote: »

More virtue signaling.

Stay on topic at least.

To clarify, you have brought up the topic of 90's genocide in the Balkans over 3 times now. If you were genuine you would have dropped the insinuation posts ago?

I refused to be bullied on this either, to clarify, I am not afraid of admitting that genocide existed in the Balkans in the 1990's. If you are hoping to use it as a weapon to ridicule my opinion on Scottish nationalism it is you who is being distasteful. I have said enough on the matter for now.

Okay, dear.

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

England can’t opt out it would have to expel the other nations from the Union.

As a matter of interest, why do you say that? Genuine question here, I honestly don't presume to know. What prevents Scotland, Wales, NI, continuing as a united kingdom without England if they wish?

I mean had Scottish independence gone ahead it didn't automatically spell the end of the union between England and Wales, so why do you say it's up to England to kick them out as opposed to voting to voluntarily withdraw and allow the others to continue as they please?

For example, when the Soviet Union broke up it started when Russia decided to withdraw. Obviously the idea of a union continuing between Armenia and Kyrgyzstan after that was ludicrous but, you know, there was nothing technically in place to stop it if they wanted.

Scoondal

MaccaTacca wrote: »

I disagree.

Northern Irish unionists are ethnically of Scottish origin, they arent English.

Scottish independence would bring up some interesting questions for Northern Irish unionists I think.

That ship has sailed. Scotland had a vote for independance and they chose to stay within UK.
Give Northern Ireland an independance vote. They'd run a mile from it.

McGinniesta

Mulbert wrote: »

I often wonder why England don't just separate themselves from the rest of the UK. Is it even legally possible after all this time?

Why would they do that?

McGinniesta

Scoondal wrote: »

That ship has sailed. Scotland had a vote for independance and they chose to stay within UK.
Give Northern Ireland an independance vote. They'd run a mile from it.

Norfern Ireland iz da faaaackin' britz innit?

Hamsterchops

Deleted User wrote: »

What prevents Scotland, Wales, NI, continuing as a united kingdom without England if they wish?

I guess that would be like if Holland left the Netherlands, leaving the rump behind to fend for themselves? What good is s car without the engine?

Strumms

The English anyway would throw NI out in a fûcking heartbeat.

It has no strategic / military / tactical benefit. Every decade they pour billions into it, approximately 12.1 billion per year I’m reading. That is less now than it used be ok with peace but still they get fûck all back only agro from both sides but Unionists in the main... ... it’s a financial drain , time and effort drain too...

They’d be shut of it.... if you had a PM say ...”ok , let’s have a referendum, NI is bleeding us dry, we don’t need the hassle...I’m advocating a United ireland for the good of the island and the rest of GB....Britain will vote.... they are gone, out on their arse.. it wouldn’t be close...I don’t think anyway.

England leaving the whole lot themselves? They’d plunge the other countries into darknesss... it would be a piss weak Union.

Peregrinus

[HTML][/HTML]

biko wrote: »

In 2014 Scotland could have left the UK and joined the EU separately.
Alas, they voted no.

Is it really "independence" if they just swap UK for EU?

They wouldn't be "just swapping" the UK for the EU.

Within the UK, Scotland simply doesn't exist as a sovereign state. The Scottish government and parliament are set up by Westminster, have such powers as Westminster decides from time to time that they should have, and can be abolished at any time by Westminster. And, even without its governmental institutions being abolished, Scotlands wishes and interests can simply be ignored by Westminster (as happened with Brexit, for example).

Independent Scotland as a member state of the EU would not be in a remotely analogous position.

biko

The UK is really all about England, the other states are real countries but everything is really run from London.

Other than a fun though experiment, it's not going to happen that England would separate itself from the others (well, NI maybe).