Re: Scottish Independence
- From: Donald4564 <dbinks@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 20:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
On Nov 2, 1:10 pm, David <ds...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:41 pm, "wulfit" <wul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All of the implications of a Yes vote are not clear. For example, if
Scotland seceded, would this mean that the Union would be dissolved, meaning
no more UK of GB and NI. Each country would exist in it's own right and
once again, for the first time since Queen Anne, there would be a queen of
England. But a queen of NI? And what of Wales?
First of all, Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from the United
Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament is subordinate to the Westminster
Parliament. An Act of the Scottish Parliament affecting the
arrangements of the Union, even if supported by a positive vote in a
referendum on the Union, could not go into effect until and unless the
Parliament at Westminster passes legislation to dissolve the Union.
The UK parliament actually could simply dismiss any referendum for
various reasons, but the likelihood of course is that a positive
result in a Scottish referendum would be taken very seriously.
Implementation of disunion, if approved by the Parliament, would be a
lengthy affair -- taking not less than a year, possibly more -- and
would involve several acts by both the UK and Scottish Parliaments,
and eventually a treaty between independent Scotland and the UK (which
would, I don't doubt, still be called the United Kingdom, not
"England"). The process would address all the issues you suggest and
could have several possible outcomes, which are impossible to predict.
However, leaving aside possible political repercussions within the UK,
there is nothing intrinsic to the separation of Scotland that would
require altering the internal arrangements of the UK. The UK without
Scotland would, or at least could, look exactly like the UK does now,
except without Scottish representation at Westminster and a new
(probably very porous) international border to the north of England.
The Union between England/Wales and Northern Ireland would remain as
NI and Scotland (if it
retains the Queen) would both presumably need governors-general.
That seems like an unwarranted presumption. The Queen is a resident
of both Scotland and England, and travels frequently between both
countries. She is perfectly capable of acting in person as monarch of
both countries, without any need of a viceroy. In fact, the Queen's
personal performance of her duties with respect to the two realms (as
they may be) would be the greatest assurance that the personal union
would be maintained. It's a lot easier to oust the viceroy of an
absentee monarch than to kick out the monarch herself.
Has anybody yet come out with a succinct reason why Scotland should
wish to become an independent country? Although it is tangled up in
the Union which is the United Kingdom it is still for all purposes
known as "Scotland" and its peoples "Scots" .I can't see that by
becoming independent anything or anyone would benefit - other than a
plethora of lawyers and politicians.
It seems to me that we go through cycles - one minute we are trying to
create the largest Empire the world has ever known - then we are
hacking it to pieces and creating states in miniature. (I believe it
was mooted not so long ago, that London should become a "City
I am therefore looking forward to the day when Mrs. Elsie Gibbering
becomes Queen of No 37 Dumpington Crescent, Hackney and has to address
her next door neighbour Mrs. Mavis Snott as Her Majesty as she has in
turn become Queen of No 39....
- Re: Scottish Independence
- From: Graham Truesdale
- Re: Scottish Independence
- Prev by Date: Re: Scottish Independence
- Next by Date: Son of Silberrücken ROUTUTU Berlin Zoo named King Ivo Silberrücken related to Prussian Royalty
- Previous by thread: Re: Scottish Independence
- Next by thread: Re: Scottish Independence