In my mind if the Scots eventually manage to enable a breakaway from the the rest of the UK, it throws up some interesting points.
With regards to finance. If the extra funding which the UK in general provides Scotland is removed, how does Scotland make up the shortfall? As taxes are high in general, how will the Scottish parliament raise the extra revenue. Of course they could raise Income tax, NI, or VAT. Then of course they could re-instate prescription charges, University fees, and anything else they have hoodwinked their electorate with, to win the election. No win situation to me.
Defence. Providing that they want any of course. If they don’t then we just invade them and take Scotland back for free.
If they do in itself raises interesting points. How much do they want? Do they want a bluewater navy or just a coastal patrol force? What sort of Army and Airforce do they think they’ll need?
Of course if they want anything at all in regards to Armed forces, they’re going to have to build a complete Ministry of Defence from scratch. That won’t be cheap.
Nukes. What happens to the Nuclear submarine base at Faslane? Will they rent it out to the English/Welsh/ Irish?
Now this is not the main thrust of the post. The above is just some of the horrendous nuts and bolts stuff that will have to be addressed after Scotland breaks away.
My point that I’m now making is that the UK is made up of a joining of two kingdoms to make a “United Kingdom”.
By the start of the 16th century, the number of states in Great Britain had been reduced to two: the Kingdom of England (which included Wales and controlled Ireland) and the Kingdom of Scotland. The Union of Crowns in 1603, the accidental consequence of a royal marriage one hundred years earlier, united the kingdoms in a personal union, though full political union in the form of the Kingdom of Great Britain required a Treaty of Union in 1706 and Acts of Union in 1707 (to ratify the Treaty). A further Act of Union in 1800 included Ireland in the Union to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Surely if Scotland left then we could no longer be called the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” anymore. Just the “Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
In that case, as we have signed up to the European Union as the UK as a whole, would webe obligated to leave the union and re-sign under a new name?
After all. If you changed your name, your bank would expect you to close your account and open one with your new name.
Just a thought.
I've seen this mentioned elsewhere, and I think the suggestion is that we would automatically be excluded from the EU and would have to re-apply.
ReplyDeleteGo Scotland, GO!!!!
My thoughts entirely.
ReplyDeleteWhat's horrendous about the nuts and bolts? It's what many nations have done successfully when they've taken independence from the more dominant partner.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget, Scotland provides a much higher percentage of men and women to the current HM Forces so they would have little trouble forming a military, the structure of which is already in place.
But I foresee Westminster wanting to share military facilities ie Scotland would pay a percentage towards the joint military.
As far as I understand it you (England etc) would have to reapply to the EU for the reasons you state.
Lastly, but by no means least, is your assumption that Scotland gives no finances to you and we are scroungers, living off the back of the English. It's laughable really but I'm happy to go along with that if it helps us to gain independence. One example: we send a vast amount of our surplus power to England, where the consumer pays lower prices than we do here, the reason being the National Grid refuses to reduce the price we pay to connect to the Grid here. Therefore we subsidise your power.
Subrosa
ReplyDeleteI wasn't actually implying that there is anything wrong with the Scots leaving the union. If that's what you decide to do I would applaud you for doing so. You have that right. I just think that it is going to be difficult to extract yourselves from the tentacles of us evil English in the short to medium term. We see too many hasty decisions taken these days without thinking through the wider ramifications.
As for the power situation I think that we'll have to seriously think hard about that anyway. Before the lights go out due to the dithering of the UK government, over the building of new plant.
Subrosa
ReplyDeleteMark my words 12:05:2011
Salmond doesn't want independence!
Cameron doesn't want independence!
But most of all the EU will not allow independence!
No matter how strong your arguments for it.
Don't get me wrong I really hope you get independence, but its not going to happen without blood being spilled.
Scotlands population as a %age of UK amounts to about 9% let's say 10% (easier on the arithmetic).
ReplyDeleteDefence, Scotland has 7 infantry battalions (2 of which are TA), no armoured (tanks). 10 % of the UK 36 battalions would be only 3.6 battalions but hey keep your own troops.
10% of the Royal navy would be close to an old leaky submarine, a fisheries protection vessel, 2 tug boats and a rubber raft.
Airforce, UK 89 typhoons (proposed) so 9 fighter jets and sundry support (a hercules + a sea king or 2).
Good luck in protecting those oil platforms out there.
"Don't forget, Scotland provides a much higher percentage of men and women to the current HM Forces so they would have little trouble forming a military, the structure of which is already in place.
ReplyDeleteBut I foresee Westminster wanting to share military facilities ie Scotland would pay a percentage towards the joint military" ...
Interesting theory ..
Scotland does indeed produce a high percentage of Armed Forces personnel .. mainly because they can't find jobs in Scotland ..
Westminster might just have big legal problems with any notion of a "shared" Military, in that all those currently serving took an Oath of Allegiance to "Our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth and all her Heirs and Successors" ..
If Scotland became an independent nation, those Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen & Marines wouldn't be permitted to serve TPTB in Scotland, under their current terms of Engagement ..
Captain.
ReplyDeleteWestminster might just have big legal problems with any notion of a "shared" Military, in that all those currently serving took an Oath of Allegiance to "Our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth and all her Heirs and Successors" ..
Another unforseen circumstance.
I stopped reading here: "If the extra funding which the UK in general provides Scotland is removed, how does Scotland make up the shortfall?"
ReplyDeleteDo some research please...
Kingdom of Great Britain ... KGB ... I thought that was the aim of the Europhiles.
ReplyDeletebtw Everyone knows that Scotland pays for everything in the UK and that university tuition fees, prescription and elderly care charges are needed to pay for the soft southern whims of the feckless sassenachs.
"The Barnett Formula was designed as a temporary measure but has lasted for 30 years.
ReplyDeleteLord Barnett, then the Labour chief secretary to the Treasury, drew up a system for the division of public spending in 1978 partly to settle rows with other Cabinet ministers about spending allocations, and partly to allow for Scotland's larger physical area, lower average incomes and its particularly acute needs in health care and housing.
The formula dictates that for every £1 the Government distributes, 85p goes to England, 10p to Scotland and 5p to Wales. With five million people, Scotland now has only 8.3 per cent of the UK population. That has led to a situation where "identifiable spending" in Scotland on public services is £1,500 higher per person than in England, according to Treasury figures.
The formula was relatively uncontroversial at its origins, but friction has arisen as the wealth gap between Scotland and England has closed.
While the annual increase in Scotland's allocation is falling, the historical disparity created in 1978, and Scotland's increasing prosperity have meant the apparent generosity of the Treasury towards Scotland has persisted."
When Scotland abrogates the Treaty of Union there will be NO United Kingdom. There cannot be.
ReplyDeleteThe United Kingdom of Great Britain came into being following two Acts of Parliaments, one in Scotland and one in Edinburgh. Both parliaments effectively voted to dissolve themselves, the Scottish one was actually prorogued and reawoken when Holyrood was opened. Wales was incorporated into England by way of being conquered by England. Great Britain is the geographical name for the big island, great referring to larger, when compared to Bretange or Brittany. Ireland was later incorporated by act of UK Parliament to give the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (two islands) This was reduced Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
No Scotland, no United Kingdom although the Disunited Kingdom does have a certain ring to it.
Byeeeeeeeeeee!