The Scottish Government

Don't worry livilion from Livingston!

There was no bubble to burst! :)

I was pointing out how this country has evolved for the past 1000 years, and about that Orkney island crap the SNP sold everyone. They knew that those people are not stupid enough to become independent, its like saying the Isle of Wight could be economically viable enough to become independent.

He wanted to make a point of it, with a small island. I bet he wouldn't offer the Highlands independence.

Anyway, why does the SNP and other nationalist parties concern themselves with the Independence stuff when they could be making Devolution work within the frameworks of Great Britain

#312. Ellis Sims - Gosport
Monday, December 10, 2007 22:14

As Scotland as far south as Largs was once part of the Kingdom of Norway will you also argue to give similar consideration to claims by Norway to the West Coast of Scotland, those islands such as Skye, the Hebrides, etc, the North Atlantic, the North Sea and their islands?

In a similar vein do you think perhaps Denmark therefore might expect her share of the bounty of the southern north sea,(back dated?) given her previous occupation of the Danelaw?

Did you know that the SNP gave the Northern Isles a clear field to claim their independence by not putting up candidates against local independence candidates?

Those local prospective candidates eventually managed to come in 4th behind the Liberal, Labour and even the Tory candidates.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

#310. Malcolm - Glasgow
Monday, December 10, 2007 12:25

Sorry, I believe you are mistaken.

As has been pointed out more than once during this national conversation:
The Treaty of Union 1707 had to be ratified by Acts of both the Scottish and English parliaments before it could be signed.

England at that time had already absorbed Wales and Ireland centuries earlier to effectively become part of a Greater England.
I believe that it was the intention from south of the border that 'North Britain' would similarly be subsumed.

When the time comes to dissolve the Treaty of Union, then Scotland and (Greater)England will revert to their previous 'Union of the Crowns' status.

All treaties and conventions undertaken by the signatories to the Treaty of Union 1707 during their period of shared sovereignty will apply equally to both signatory states, eg Maastricht, the Geneva Convention, UN Conventions on Human Rights, etc, etc,..

ie Scotland and England, (or whatever England subsequently chooses to call herself) will have equal standing as regards membership of the EU.

Under what circumstances would anyone envisage either country being expelled from the European Union? given that Brussels is now casting its eyes across the Med to North Africa for possible future expansion.

Did anyone know that half of scotland (up to glasgow) used to be run by the "Kingdom of Orkney"? Scotland only was a buffer between them and England.

Would you suggest that Orkney take back its rightful claims? After all their wasn't a treaty for peace after the invasion.

Many people seem to think independance in europe is swapping one master for another. I see it differently as at the minute we have no say in europe as we have to go through London whereas being an independant european state we will be able to interact directly with Brussels. Also i'd much rather have a Scottish / EU passport than have to carry a British/Eu passport even though i do not feel British in the slightest.
But whatever we decide be it independant in europe or independant outwith it will still be better than to stay in a union that is well past its sell buy date. Alba gu Brath.

Bob Peffers #303

Wales didn't sign the Treaty of Union because it had been annexed by England (Statute of Rhuddlan, 1284). The act of union which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was signed in 1800.

Neither Wales nor Northern Ireland have signed acts of union with the Kingdom of Great Britain.

After independence, England and Wales would certainly remain a single entity (for a time, at least). Whether that entity would include Northern Ireland isn't so clear.

As far as the EU goes, what remains of the UK would continue as a member (Germany didn't have to leave and reapply after reunification, and I can't imagine, say, Spain being kicked out if Catalunya becomes independent), and Scotland would also remain a memeber as it would inherit the UK's treaty obligations.

To Bob Peffers

You highlight an interesting legal point, which would give judges headaches. My quibble though is with Wales. Wales has been legally subjugated as a principality of the Kingdom of England since Henry VIII, who also proclaimed himself King of Ireland. After the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland divorce, Wales (at least for a nanosecond!) would revert to being part of the Kingdom of England.
Northern Ireland is more complicated. As Unionists argue that the Kingdom of Ireland remains in the Six North Counties, they would remain tied to the Crown, if not necessarily the government at Westminster.
In reality, of course, all the three nations involved, well (two and a half, I can't see NI as a nation, sorry) would have to go to their own people via referendum to decide their future. Personally, I hope for Independence for Wales, Scotland and England, with NI going back to Eire.
Down With The Union!

There is something sad in admitting that a relationship of 300 years should be dissolved with so little regret on either side. Speaking as a beneficiary of a Scottish University education I do regret that the opportunities for an English person to be educated in Scotland or Scot to enter an English University will be greatly diminished however I suppose there are good reasons for divorce.

From the Scottish point of view, gaining the accountability of their leaders and denying them the age old excuse for incompetence and under-achieving that blaming Westminster allowed, has to be a good thing. Also it is undoubtedly true that nationhood confers more rights and opportunities than being a region of another nation. It is hard to imagine that the North East of Scotland would have remained a backwater if Scotland had been independent at the height of the oil revenues though it will be interesting to see how the Highlands fare in the future when independence leads to the inevitable situation that all real power is vested in the Edinburgh-Glasgow axis on exactly the same population basis that currently works in England's favour.

From the English point of view it is going to lead to interesting times: most depressing is the likely long period of Tory government however it cannot be in our long-term interest to attempt to retain political control where it is unwelcome and I hope we can contain the nannying instinct sufficiently to let the tide of affairs take its course.

The English are currently having to face reforming our sense of national identity which is quite scary. The sense of being British is disappearing and it feels as though this is happening quite fast. I only hope it doesn't go somewhere nasty as nationalism is never a good thing and as a basis for government it could be catastrophic.

For that reason although Scotland may need the SNP to achieve independence I hope you ditch them immediately afterwards!

Re: 301. ruth - west lothian
Wednesday, December 5, 2007 19:45

Sorry I misunderstood you Ruth; I was talking about political mandates not consultation.

In that sense yes its good the SNP are having this consultation & I apologise for misrepresenting you.

Mike

To Robert Peffers - I put quote marks around the phrase "independent" Scotland because I believe Scotland is already part of an independent country known as Great Britain.

I also have to question the use of the word "independent" by the SNP, who would take Scotland out of the Union & immidiately subrograte it into the EU.

You would then exchange rule from London (where Scots currently run the UK government) for rule from Brussels.

I simply don't see how that makes Scotland independent.