Reply to: Barroso: Scotland would need to apply to join EU, process might be long.

[Doggy Styles]

Yeah we could add the Welsh dragon to it, front and centre

With St George skewering it!

[The Spartan]

I hadn't considered that. It would look a bit odd without the saltire, just white with the two red crosses.

Yeah we could add the Welsh dragon to it, front and centre

[MyUserName]

I hadn't considered that. It would look a bit odd without the saltire, just white with the two red crosses.

How about just having a dragon?

[Doggy Styles]

Ok but we're not changing the flag

I hadn't considered that. It would look a bit odd without the saltire, just white with the two red crosses.

[Robinho]

Probably true, but that's another question.

My point was only that if Scotland left the remainder would have to change their name.

Ok but we're not changing the flag

[Doggy Styles]

It ain't gong to happen Doggy Woggy.

Even if it made sense i doubt people the electorate have the balls to go through with it.

Probably true, but that's another question.

My point was only that if Scotland left the remainder would have to change their name.

[Robinho]

They are "constituent countries". The question is whether Scotland should change from being a consituent country of the United Kingdom to being an independent country.

Which is just a fluffy term to appease the natives and means absolutely nothing legally. The UK is a unitary state.

[Robinho]

It would have to change, because currently its name is actually the 'UK of GB and NI'.

If Scotland left, it would then include only part of GB, and so it would have to become something like the 'UK of England, Wales (presumably), and NI'.

Or the 'UK of Quite A Lot Of GB and NI'.

They could still shorten it to UK in the Eurovision Song Contest though.

It ain't gong to happen Doggy Woggy.

Even if it made sense i doubt people the electorate have the balls to go through with it.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Scotland and England aren't countries, not by any quantifiable standard - nations perhaps. They're more like regions, they have far less rights than US states, and i don't hear people calling US states countries.

They are "constituent countries". The question is whether Scotland should change from being a consituent country of the United Kingdom to being an independent country.

[Doggy Styles]

That's not the case though...

The Kingdom of Scotland and The Kingdom of England don't exist any more. The UK is a state, and there are no get-out clauses in it. Scotland would be leaving the UK and thus become a successor state, the rest of the UK will continue to be, the UK.

It would have to change, because currently its name is actually the 'UK of GB and NI'.

If Scotland left, it would then include only part of GB, and so it would have to become something like the 'UK of England, Wales (presumably), and NI'.

Or the 'UK of Quite A Lot Of GB and NI'.

They could still shorten it to UK in the Eurovision Song Contest though.

[KentPhilip]

Great. So as the UK no longer officially exists, the UK government can dissolve itself along with all state pension payments, gilts, and national savings certificates. Stop all UK taxation and bring on anarchy!

[Robinho]

But the countries of England and Scotland do explicitly exist..... so after the break-up of the UK, presumably both Scotland and England would share a monarch. I'm OK with that.

Scotland and England aren't countries, not by any quantifiable standard - nations perhaps. They're more like regions, they have far less rights than US states, and i don't hear people calling US states countries.

[Ignis Fatuus]

That's not the case though...



The Kingdom of Scotland and The Kingdom of England don't exist any more. The UK is a state, and there are no get-out clauses in it. Scotland would be leaving the UK and thus become a successor state, the rest of the UK will continue to be, the UK.

The kingdoms are united, but the countries of England and Scotland do explicitly exist..... so after the break-up of the UK, presumably both Scotland and England would share a monarch. I'm OK with that.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Were is formed with both sides as equal partners? If so, then I am not sure why they is a debate.

Scotland can separate without any further discussion, we can then bomb it for a while (to improve things a little) and invade.

Simples. Although we do get stuck with Scotland again - perhaps use it as a prison?

The union was formed between 2 equal partners. It was not that one country joined the other, although ISTM that the people of the larger country occasionally forget that.

The highest court in the country judged (in McCormick v Lord Advocate, 1953) that:

Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done.

[Robinho]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed by the union of exactly 2 parties: England and Scotland. Either of those should be free to dissolve the union, which would mean that the United Kingdom of Great Britain would cease to exist.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the successor to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, formed in 1800 by the union between Great Britain and Ireland. Should the constituent United Kingdom of Great Britain cease to exist, the union between it and Ireland (or part thereof) would be defunct.

So actually I do not see how, in the event of secession by either of the 2 parties to the Acts of Union that created the United Kingdom of Great Britain, there would be a "rump" United Kingdom to continue as if one party had merely left it all to the other. England would of course be free to suggest a new United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland; and to apply for membership of the EU if she so chose.

That's not the case though...

the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN.

The Kingdom of Scotland and The Kingdom of England don't exist any more. The UK is a state, and there are no get-out clauses in it. Scotland would be leaving the UK and thus become a successor state, the rest of the UK will continue to be, the UK.