The USSR. Russia was accepted as the successor state, because it was the biggest.
Yugoslavia. There was no successor state (it would have been Serbia and Montenegro, but the US objected).
Czechoslovakia. Both countries jointly inherited membership.
Now, by “successor state” here I am purely referring to membership of international organisations such as the UN, not obligations under other kinds of international treaties, which may be inherited by all the newly independent parts of a fissile state.
So, what lesson can we draw from the above three cases? Only that the question is effectively decided on a case by case basis, by the other member countries.
Which of the three cases most closely matches that of the UK and Scotland? In my opinion, that of the USSR.
Even more out of line since the EU cautiously avoided making any official statement on the issue.
Besides the issue of EU membership, there’s also the issue of EU citizenship, by the way. Many think that people can’t be deprived of EU citizenship. Which should weight in favour of keeping both successor states within the EU.
Anschluss is the German term for political union or annexation, and capitalized it referred to the idea that Germany and Austria should form a union of German-speaking peoples.
Because Scotland will be seceding. It will be a new sovereign, rather than an extant one with less territory. And because the historic definition of the United Kingdom is irrelevant; the UK was a union of four countries when it entered the Common Market and has remained so since.
In other words, of the two countries which formed the union in 1707, only one wants to leave, so it must suffer. The analogy of a spouse in an abusive marriage springs to mind!
Studiously dodging the remark about the UK comprising 4 countries, not 2. And this idea that Scotland is an abused spouse is such a load of bullocks and really insulting to the rest of the UK
Plus, not being regarded as the successor state is not all downside, or “suffering”; the national debt, for example, remains an obligation of the successor state (unless some other arrangement is negotiated).
There is a precedent for secession from the UK, of course; the Irish Free State, in 1922. The IFS did, by agreement, take over a proportion of the UK national debt. It also accepted other obligations - e.g. pension obligations to former employees of offices in the UK public service which were transferrred to the IFS - while not accepting other - e.g. pension obligations to former servicemen in “Irish” regiments of the British army which were dissolved in 1922.
The fact is that, when there is an orderly dissolution by negotiation, as opposed to violent secession, the question of which state will succeed to which obligations gets agreed. not only between the two states but, if necessary, with other interested parties.
What? Of course they can. EU citizenship is tied to member country citizenship. If you renounce your French citizenship, for instance, you also automatically lose EU citizenship. There’s no independent notion of being an EU citizen.
That debate is completely moot anyway, as Scots who currently hold British citizenship, hence EU citizenship, will presumably still have a British passport post-independence. It’s just Scots born after the referendum that won’t be EU citizens.
No, studiously addressing it: neither Wales nor Ireland had a voice in the formation of the UK in 1707. Ireland’s example is particularly compelling, I think: people thought it was the end of the world when they wanted to leave, it was resisted and handled badly by London.
I am sorry if the UK feels seriously insulted, but you have to face facts. The UK, like most other nations including my own, has an aggressive policy of cultural assimilation up until very recently. The assimilation was to English culture, at the expense of Scottish, Welsh, and Irish cultures, and there were knock-on economic effects. It’s not that London is full of bad people, it’s just that they weren’t considering all perspectives. The net effect, though, is that Scotland (and Wales, and NI) have some very real grievances that are not being taken seriously enough. I think if they were to be addressed, and the UK were to form a fully federal state of those four countries, the independence movement would fizzle in the face of the advantages of union. As it stands, though, there are movements toward independence (or unification with Ireland) in all three of these countries, and it’s hard to see that as a coincidence if England is a benevolent behemoth.
Assuming, arguendo, that everything you just said is true, that is completely irrelevant to the issue of which state succeeds to EU membership. In fact, it’s more evidence that the United Kingdom of Britain & Northern Ireland[sup]TM[/sup] should be treated as the UK’s successor state, because Scotland was apparently dragged kicking and screaming into the EU by its Sassenach oppressors.
Your argument apparently boils down to “England is mean!” While true, for much of its history, nobody cares. The EU itself accepted the UK as a unitary member state with no preconditions about self-determination for the Celtic peoples or other such nonsense.
One of the two countries has to be the successor state because somebody has to assume its obligations. Scotland is quite clearly a junior partner in the Union even if you don’t count Wales and Northern Ireland. It’s smaller, has one tenth the population, and its GDP is one eighth that of England’s (even though nearly all North Sea oil revenues are accounted to Scotland.)
Legally and practically, England Plus is the successor state to the UK.
Ireland weren’t even in the Union in 1707. What happened in 1707, or 1922, are not relevant to the modern country that is the UK or the attitudes of the people within it.
You could say the same about people from the North, or the Midlands, or Cornwall or East Anglia. England is not London, and the UK is not England, and at the moment you are liberally mingling all three as if they are interchangeable terms. As things currently stand, it’s actually the English outside of London that have the least local control over their governance and finances. If the SNP hadn’t been so desperate to push their independence agenda, the strong likelihood is that they would have got ‘devo-max’. They have shot themselves in the foot.
There is no serious movement for independence in Wales (here’s a cite from 2012, 7% support it, wowee), and Northern Ireland is a special case as you should be well aware. Using these two countries as examples of England’s bullying just doesn’t wash.
Heck, the majority in Scotland aren’t in favour of independence yet, they clearly aren’t as pissed off with the English as you think they are.
If England’s policy of cultural assimilation was so aggressive, why was Scotland brought into Union with England with its Church, its code of laws, its legal system and various other local systems of organisation largely untouched in 1707?
I’m not saying England isn’t/wasn’t culturally aggressive, but the 1707 Union was not at all some kind of hostile takeover. All sorts of concessions were given to Scotland to make Union palatable, and England’s Parliament was not given the same opportunities to make demands.
I am not British, so this isn’t my fight, but I did want to address a couple of points:
I know Ireland wasn’t in the union in 1707: that was my original point about “2 countries” that **SanVito **objected to in the first place.
Really Not All That Bright’s “nobody cares”: that is precisely the point. In England, nobody much cares. In the other countries, people DO care.
Saying only 7% of Wales wants independence is not the same as saying 93% are happy with the status quo. A lot of people want change (devolution, etc.) without independence. In my experience, people’s British identity is quite important to them, sometimes more important than the national identity and sometimes not.
I am using London metonymously for the UK, because that’s the place most of the political decisions are handed down. I’m not confusing England with the UK, I’m trying to point out that England has the lion’s share of the UK in population, economic might, and political power, and that has been the case since Union. Since this is GQ and not GD, I’m prepared to be corrected.
Of course history is relevant to the contemporary world. I can’t imagine how you could think that it isn’t.
Edit: #6 for Malden Capell: Some of it is mission creep. Some of it is that the Scots, themselves, were in exactly the same world as the English. Read what they said about Highlanders in Edinburgh! I’m not trying to paint the English as Bad Guys. Really. They were the same as everyone else, they just had more power and weren’t really concerned with cultural diversity. I don’t think the Scots would have been any different if the balance of power were reversed. It’s about people in the 18th, 19th, & 20th centuries, not some mistaken notion of the Evil English.
Having clarified, though, I don’t think there’s much point to continuing to argue my points. I’ve made them, you’ve heard, you disagree, and since I don’t really have a dog in the fight, I’ll drop it. (I’ll keep reading, though: I’m not insisting on the last word, I just think I’m dragging this too far towards GD and probably irritating everyone.)
It should just be “England”. To call it something else would be as silly as “Italy, Sardinia and Sicily”. It will no longer be a united kingdom, since neither Wales nor Ulster have been kingdoms in the past 700 years, and England would be the only kingdom left in the union. Get over it, Wales and Ulster, you’re part of England now.
Great Britain was united for a century before anybody ever called it the United Kingdom, and even that did not supercede Great Britain in usage until after WWII.
According to the Ngram Viewer, England has dominated usage, wy a wide margin, in forever. That, simply, is what everybody calls it, except pedants.
“SPOILED BALLATS”?