The flag might look like this. Ugly. It might be a bit better if the recentered the St. Patrick. Maybe they could annex some other territory. Most of their current overseas places just tack the Union Jack in the corner of some generic flag though.
Funnily enough I have just started reading this book.
It’s a very interesting narrative and explanation of the political context behind the Union. Right now he’s focussing on the period 1688-1702, where Scotland suffered severe economic depression and political instability through the ineptitude of its own Parliament and Kirk and the lack of interest of the King in Scottish affairs, leaving it to Scots noblemen to work it out and causing huge trouble.
The ‘Union’ bit obviously historically relates to the union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland (and Ireland), but I don’t see a problem with redefining what the Union means. We would still be a Kingdom, and we would still be a union of nations, albeit diminished. So The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be perfectly fine, I think. Shame to lose the word ‘Britain’ for ever more, but these things happen.
I don’t see them changing the Union Jack, it’s a design classic!
“United Kingdom” was never even used formally in the name of the country until the union with Ireland, so it’s not much of a redefinition, at least if you compare it to Irish independence. The rump Great Britain would still be a lot bigger than the rump Ireland.
I think all the Scots who didn’t want to be English lackeys left long ago, swam all the way to the Americas, if the old family stories are to be believed, mourning having to leave all their stolen herds of cattle behind…
But, seriously, we USians don’t really care. We think Canada should be part of the US, except for that odd Frenchy part that can’t seem to decide if it wants to stay Canadian or to offer itself to the French as a vacation destination, Quebec and Montreal being nice at least 2 months every year. The Canadians don’t want any part of us, but I could see how, if things had gone a bit different around 1812 or so, Canada might have become part of US, and might now be trying to get out of it.
Like I say, does it really make a big difference?
For many of us, being ‘British’ means something, on top of being English, or Scottish. It’s an emotional issue that cuts both ways.
And for the Scots, it’s going to make a hug difference! They’ll be going from a country of 60 million people to a country of 5 million, they will have to relook at or rebuild all their public institutions and international unions, right down to who issues driving licences or how do they fund their health service or what kind of military will defend their country or will the EU even let them back in. It’s unpicking a united country that’s over 300 years old. Independence may be for the better or it may be for the worse, the arguments will rage on that one, but to flippantly ask if it’s going to make a big difference is a bit daft.
They would have to establish their own defence system, border controls, sign up for countless international agreements, somehow get membership of the EU in the face of a number of less than enthusiastic Big Fish in there, and probably set up their own currency, despite Salmond’s insistence that England will let Scotland tack onto the pound.
The rUK couldn’t really stop the Scots using the pound, though. What Salmond wants is a currency union with the rUK with Scottish representation at the Bank of England. That’s likely going to be harder to achieve, and arguably would be pretty unpopular in the rest of the UK. The Welsh have threatened to veto it, for instance.
Whilst back in Scotland over Christmas I flicked through the SNP’s whitepaper which my in-laws had. The SNP tactics appear to be to convince everybody that absolutely nothing will change post-independence. Picking a random subject, e.g. how Scottish charities will be regulated, the answer is the same: everything will continue on as it is now. You could have condensed the rather large tome into a single paragraph: we will be independent, but we propose everything will stay the same. I think the SNP know that there’s a diehard group who want independence and will vote for it regardless. The push is on to convince those that are skeptical/scared of any sort of change.
Anecdotally, most of my friends and the friends of my (Scottish) wife are Scottish. We only know two people, a couple, who are pro-independence. The rest are vehemently against it whenever the subject comes up—most are from the Central Belt, however; I think there’s a geographical component to the popularity of independence. Two of my wife’s friends have also just moved back to Scotland from England recently, in part for other reasons, but also in part because they want to vote no in the referendum.
That’s what I meant to say, Capt. I half-remembered the claim.
It begs the question, why bother being independent if you want things to be the same as now? I mean, if the Union was preventing Scotland from doing something, or if it was attacking the freedom of Scots Law or something, sure, but otherwise it looks like an expensive, vain image makeover.
How many Scots have you asked? I mean, Scotland has many faults but we’re not basically stupid.
I agree with this. I’ve just ordered my copy of the SNP’s proposals, and sadly “due to high demand” it might be a few weeks before I actually receive it. But I did browse the associated website Q&A and the gist of it seemed to be “post-independence, Scotland will be exactly the same only much better!”
Charitably, I’d say that the SNP would prefer to push the philosophical issues rather than the practical ones - after all, I don’t really doubt that we’re capable of figuring out a way to issue driving licences and pay benefits etc. But the repeated reassurances that nothing much will change do indeed seem to suggest that the SNP also knows how most people feel, and that most people are reasonably happy with the way things are at the moment.
Oh, I think Scotland having control over energy policy, taxation, welfare, foreign relations … might make a difference.
Kay: *A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. *
Quite. Hence the scepticism about the white paper. Independence might have a lot of effect or only a little effect but it can’t have both.
I thought that the majority of pro-independence Scots were also Republicans.
Don’t something like 80 percent of Scots live in that region?
It looks vaguely fascist for some reason.
Of course Scottish Charity Law will remain the same- it is already Scottish Cahrity Law and nothing to do with English Charity Law. Much Scottish Law and custom is already totally Scottish or devolved last century.
Many areas are not (yet) devolved, and some will not be available unless independence is achieved.
The Welfare system is a UK wide responsibility (Scotland would not stand for the bedroom tax) and Motoring Law is not devolved. The only tax that Scotland can vary is the Income Tax- VAT and Corporation tax are fixed in London.
Much of this could change if Devomax is gained after a failed referendum vote.
Today the Scotsman published a Poll that for the first time in a non-campaign related poll showed a substantial (5%plus to Yes, 5%minus to No) swing!