On his programme this morning, Andrew Marr, a Scot, begins with this:
‘Are the Scots finally limbering up to leave the UK?’
No Andrew, what you should be saying is:
‘Are the Scots finally limbering up to BREAK the UK?’
He, like many others, seem to assume that the ‘UK’ will continue without Scotland. I can’t see how it can.
The basis of the ‘UK’ rests on the Act of Union from 1707 which forged the countries of England and Scotland into a new state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain. If one of the partners leave, how then can this enterprise continue to exist?
There appears to be this sense that the remaining three countries will continue as a United Kingdom, but I suspect some serious legal problems will arise if the Scots vote to leave. For example, will Scotland be expected to take its fair share of the British state debt? What about the issue of citizenship? How about the consequences for any or all international treaties, such as EU membership, if the British state comes to an end?
I don’t think politicians have actually got their heads around the consequences of a Scottish YES vote, but if it happens, there will no choice but to dismantle the British state. I do not believe the British state can continue if one of the two partners which created the British state leaves.
As many readers will know, I am a supporter of English independence. I believe England would do very well out of the British and European unions. I am disappointed, nay, angry, that the English will not be afforded the same option that Scotland will be. David Cameron has publicly stated no other country in the union will be allowed a say, so the future of a state of 60 million people will be left to around 3 million voter in Scotland.
What kind of democracy is that?
I believe Marx (sorry, Marr) has a point (and I agree with him about as often as Ian Paisley goes to mass). He seems to be assumng there would be a ‘United’ Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland if Scotland votes to leave. Whether the Brits would have the constitutional or legal right to do this is a moot point, because the Brits simply make up the rules as they go along, such is their ‘respect’ for laws, constitutions and ‘fair play’ (however you define that).
Re: citizenship. The Brits would simply allow Scottish citizens the same rights as ‘U’K citizens, as if nothing’s changed, just as Irish citizens have been treated as quasi-citizens in the ‘U’K for the last 90 years.
Re; the EU and other multi-government organisations. The Brits would simply continue the ‘U’K's membership, even though the ‘U’K of E, W & NI would clearly be a different entity from the ‘U’K of GB & NI. As I just said, they don’t worry about laws and constitutions.
In the sentence, “I believe England would do very well out of the British and European unions”, I think the wording should be “outside”, rather than “out of”. With all respect, I think your wording is slightly ambiguous, although I support your view entirely.
On the lack of democracy across the Kingdom, what can expect? The British state has never supported democracy. It simply gives us pseudo-democracy, and we in England get an inferior version of that, of course.
Having said all that, the Scots won’t vote for independence anyway, so I don’t know why the Brits are getting so worried.
How can there be a ‘United’ Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland’? Wales isn’t a kingdom. Would the Prince of Wales become redundant? We could feasibly have a ‘United’ Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland’, but that’s just getting a bit silly.
What kind of democracy was it that Scotland had no say for over 300 years always being over ruled by westminster and english based politicians getting the vital say over scottish based decisions , funny how now , after only 13 years , the shoe is now on the other foot. Your comment border on incitement and even racism.
How can you suggest Scots had no say? The two previous Prime Ministers are Scottish!
Not to mention the current PM. Or is Cameron really an old English name? I believe that, out of the last 20-odd PMs, roughly two thirds have been born in, or descended from, Scotland. When did Scotland last have that proportion of the Divided Kingdom’s population?
That is very strange logic, so if someone has a Scottish surname he is Scottish even if has been born in England and lived in England. I didn’t know surnames were so powerful and so influential.
I don’t think any Scotsman would recognize Tony Blair as Scottish. Remember that England with a population 50 million being represented by 600+ MPs has always dominated Britian before and after devolution. Our fault is that we have voted in self-serving Labour and Conservative governments who care NOTHING about England. Cameron’s ‘veto’ (which never existed) was only save London bankers, not English people from the EU, If you think the British are going to play fair, think again!
Don’t play the hard-done-by, Graham. The antagonistic and divisive witterings of Salmond and Sturgeon, go far further and are far nastier in tone than anything you might have read here.
What kind of democracy is it that 51m English people have no politicians representing English interests, though it is English taxes which fund 85% of Westminster spending? And who exactly forced Scotland to join the Union 300 years ago?
I think it is time for all nations in the UK to have a right to vote. I am English and wish to have my say, which will be to break free from the other nations in the UK and allow England to go it alone. In so doing, we should share the national debt equally, accrued through free prescriptions and university fees and subsidies to less productive parts of the nation and border controls should be established as we do not sign up the shengen visa protocols. The other nations can then go their own way and join the EU – a non elected and bureaucratic organisation that will stifle their economies.
We are all in this union together. Deny the English a vote and you will only alienate us which will lead to problems further down the road. The union should only survive if the majority of the union want to stay in for the good of the nation.
Of course if England had an English nationalist party (I won’t mentioned the BNP-dominated English Democrats) which had campaigned for an English Parliament against the Anglo-British Establishment, gained an English Parliament, had won an English election to form an English Government (all things that the SNP have successfully done after facing enormous obstacles at every step) then perhaps 50 million people in England could vote on the Union. But as we have done none of these things, just blamed the British establishment, perhaps we don’t deserve a say. After all, the Scots seem to have done all the hard work, we have just moaned about the injustice that the British Government had foistered on us.
Quote: “That is very strange logic, so if someone has a Scottish surname he is Scottish even if has been born in England and lived in England. I didn’t know surnames were so powerful and so influential”
‘Card’ I assume you are referring to one, David Donald Cameron here? You know the PM of mostly England and a little bit of the rest of the dis-united kingdom. The man who said, and i quote “there’s an awful lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins”
I should mention that I do weapons-grade sarcasm at times. On a serious note, I judge people in this context by their actions and attitudes towards England. Cameron is clearly an Anglophobic bigot (one of roughly 650 in the House of Commons), hence his description of the English people as ‘sour little Englanders’.
It is wrong to say “the Act of Union from 1707 forged the countries of England and Scotland into a new state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain”
In 1707, the term United Kingdom did not exist. The Act of Union 1707 created the ‘Kingdom of Great Britain’. It was when the Kingdom of Great Britain was united with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into being. In fact, the United Kingdom was already ‘broken’ when Southern Ireland left in 1921.