Yes? I don’t consider them British once they decide to break up the country.
The English and Welsh certainly have a choice of whom to have a CTA with.
The CTA is a product of the partition of Ireland as it helped to streamline the flow of people between both parts of the country, its not a single legislative act either, but a process of continually negotiations between the UK and Ireland since 1922.
Why? Breaking up the UK would make all of us worse off
They wouldn’t go anywhere, the newly minted Scottish government would lease them out, either that or sovereign base areas.
Yes let’s ethnically cleanse NI of the Unionist communities which have lived there for centuries, dont take it for granted all Catholics are automatically going to vote to reunify once they realise the differences between Slaintcare and the NHS become apparent.
I have no more questions and I am done with you.
Are you even Scottish?
Yes. That is as much as you get from me now.
Wow. An almost literal “No True Scotsman” argument.
(I’m an American, I don’t have a dawg in this fight. I just had to pause to note the oddity.)
I only asked because there’s certain Americans who have a romantic notion of the dissolution of the United Kingdom, and some who act like authorities on the UK who have never been here
Really? Why? Is it an anti-royalty thing?
Lots of Irish Americans plus Americans in general looking at the Union through the lens of colonialism rather than what it actually was, the culmination of a Scottish monarch(James 1st) Uniting both crowns and then a century later the countries unifying with Scotland having access to England’s overseas markets, a unique partnership which has been successful for over 300 years
Yes, there are; I used to be one of them, back when I learned about my family’s Scottish origin. Fell in love with kilts and clans and the whole bens-and-glens shortbread-tin tartanry schtick.
But learning more about Scotland’s history, as well as actually visiting the nation, cured my sentimental Jacobitism. Which is why I thought independence was a bad idea, back during the referendum (with the caveat that my opinion was only that of a moderately-informed outsider); it seemed to me that Scotland was better off part of a unified British and European market and community.
However, that’s changed now, thanks to Brexit. Scots no longer have the same access to opportunity that they did back in 2014, do they? So the fact that the union might have been good for Scotland in 1707, doesn’t mean it’s still good for Scotland in 2024.
Again, not my country so not my decision. But I can see an argument for independence now that didn’t obtain in 2014.
Just my 2p.
Quite simply the union has not been good for Scotland for many decades, and it’s only deal is that it gets actively slapped down when Tories are in power, and slightly less when labour is in power. Yet some Scots seem to think it’s to be grateful to have those crumbs and it’s fine to have no functional industry and a union government which actively works against it. The term is “managed decline” and it was applied to the north of the UK for a long time, but some parts have climbed out of it, Manchester and Leeds, but Scotland has not.
It’s a poor country in the UK. High unemployment all around. Even Glasgow is a shell of it’s former shelf (the bit which used to have something). So many foreign investors are long gone (they went the ERM was left in the mid 90s, heading to Ireland). The country continues to have little of offer except to be a museum for rich americans.
A persistent unionism continues, often linked to in all idiocy, Rangers football club and Protestantism, not anything logical or positive. For some reason they think this grim state of affairs is the best they can get and also have insane ideas that they’re somehow the only one who understands being British and Scottish. Like Ireland in the 80s, their children leave once they graduate university (I worked in Cork in 2000 at the time the UK tech industry fled there post ERM, and they had the first generation of graduates staying and were taking back people from overseas, there was a nobody from aged 30-60 in the city). The prospects are emigrate, become unemployed (and often career on drugs) or, for the lucky, work in the social support for the unemployed (universities are one of the few others).
The battered wife demographic, subservient and being grateful for the roof over their head, however, is dying out, and Scotland will be independent and almost certainly will join a union which is actually beneficial to it. Whatever the details involve.
Those I know who are “horrified” by the concept plan to flee to the delights of Newcastle, another city in managed decline. Their loss. They’re usually ones who voted for Brexit, and had plans to live in Spain (Golf also features heavily in that type), so we know how clever they are.
This lot spend most of their time blaming the Scottish Government for bad things that they don’t have control over (their power is very limited), almost like a Schrodinger’s independence.
I have no time for them.
Because Brexit was bad this time let’s do a Scottish version on Steroids
Neither do 49% of the English who voted leave either, we didn’t vote as Scots or English men, we voted, as British citizens who wanted the UK to leave or not.
That’s what people on the outside don’t understand, and they accentuate the ethnic differences without understanding there’s hardly any English person, aristocratic or not, who doesn’t have Scottish Irish Welsh or English ancestry in them.
I’m not talking about ethnicity. 62% of the citizens of Scotland, who lived and worked there at the time, which of course included people of English and South Asian and Irish and Polish and Italian descent, voted to stay in the EU. That gives them an argument for independence. It’s a bit of tough luck for the 49% of English citizens who voted Remain, but the Scots can at least make the historical case that they haven’t always been part of the UK, and they have an option that the poor English Remainers don’t. Again, I’m talking about nationalities rather than ethnicities; about people who live and work in Dumfries versus people who do so in Newcastle.
Nah I wouldn’t agree with that it gives them a argument for independence, because enacting a Scexit from the UK would be basically turbo-Brexit for Scotland.
The ‘UK’ Came into existence when England and Scotland pooled their sovereignty, there was no UK beforehand.
Has the Scottish independence movement indicated what kind of government Scotland would have post independence? Would they become a republic? Or go back to being a separate kingdom under a shared monarch like before 1707? Or find their own monarch? Or become a dominion like Australia or Canada with a Governor General?
They made a more serious attempt at mapping their proposed future than the Brexiteers did:
Separate countries with same Monarch