Those countries developed a strategy developed over many years. Export-led manufacturing, targetting high value industries.
There was no UK plan for Brexit because the goverment did not anticipate that the public would vote to leave. There still is no real plan except to hope for the best and try to very quickly replace the trading framework provided by the EU with one negotiated from scratch by the UK with…how many countries and blocs? A process that could take many years. While it may be urgent for the UK, the rest of the world might not be in so much of rush. Those long negotiations are likely to seriously disrupt UK trade with the rest of the world. Moreover, there is very little incentive for the EU to grant favourable terms otherwise other EU members might want to leave.
Any country or region that wants to live outside an existing country or trading bloc needs to replace all the services they currently enjoy with their own independent alternative. There is a cost associated with that. Moreover the country or region leaving is obliged to bear their share of debt. Spain, like many countries, has an economy with a substantial national debt. Catalonia would be liable to take on part of that debt. The same arguement pertains between the UK and EU. The EU wants the UK to honour is portion of EU financial commitments. These overheads put the country or region leaving at a serious economic disadvantage.
The UK Brexit negotiations are currently trying to resolve some of these matters, without a lot of progress. I am keen to see an estimate of the final bill. Because Brexit was sold to the UK public as a great way to save money we send to the EU that could be more usefully spent on the NHS. People are happy to vote for independence, freedom, sovereignty…but they will complain mightily if it comes with a big bill to pay and this is the case where there is a high degree of long term economic integration.
And at exactly the same time Chancellor Osborne, as part of Project Fear, was explaining how a Brexit vote would cause an emergency budget and the need to inject £30 billion.
Still waiting for that, though we can’t ask Chancellor Osborne for obvious reasons.
I didn’t think the question really addressed devolving greater autonomy upon territorial subjects - Nunavut is still very much part of Canada - or independizing extraterritorial possessions (most of the British West Indies), but more about spinning off integral parts of the home state.
Scotland and the rest of the UK speak the same language, with regional dialects; some regional minority languages, but they are minorities even within the smaller countries (Gaelic, Welsh).
Protestant Christianity is the nominal majority throughout the UK, although with different denominations, and no difficulty for Scots to live and work in the majority country.
Western liberal democracy/rule of law/constitutionalism is strongly entrenched in Scotland and the rest of the UK; Labour is stronger in Scotland than in England, and the Conservatives stronger in England than in Scotland, but both parties have MPs from both countries and the differences, largely on economic policy, are similar to those found in other liberal democracies.
The UK has voluntarily devolved power to Scotland by creating a Scottish Parliament and giving it substantial legislative powers.
No, the Statute recognized that those dominions already were independent and autonomous, as previously declared by the Balfour Declaration of 1926, and then provided legislative changes to implement that independence and autonomy.
The Dominions’ independence and autonomy had already occurred, and the Statute was providing the legal catch-up.
Nunavut is a federal territory of Canada. It’s not a separate country. It was established by peaceful means, just like the other two federal territories and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, but it’s not an example of secession.
So it is said that Brexit is the biggest political challenge the UK has faced since WW2. We went from an economic trading network based on Empire and Colonies to one based around membership of the EU as a trading bloc.
Suddenly we change to…what?
Treating this sort of economic shift in a trite manner, superficial manner is what members of the public do when they are asked to vote on something they do not understand.
For governments, handling the consequences is an altogether more serious business because they are responsible for managing the economy and the prosperity of the nation.
No UK party has a plan regarding Brexit except to measure each other by how well they satisfy a vague definition of what it means framed for their own internal party power struggles.
Political revolutions are very glorious and full of grandstanding and posturing until there comes the big question: OK, the decision is made, what do we do next?
I don’t think anyone in the UK is feeling that we are about to enter a wonderful world of prosperity and opportunity as a result of Brexit. It is a problem that will consume the next several governments and hand like an albatross around the neck of any administration, preventing them from pursuing other important political programmes.
Open warfare would probably be one-sided but guerrila-style attacks could be a problem if groups form that see that as a viable option. Particularly if an outside nation starts supplying matériel to those who want to use it. I don’t think things are at that point yet but there are definitely some folks who would be delighted with anything that might destabilize a member of the EU.
Presumably the “some folks” is Putin. I’m not sure how weapons could be smuggled in. I assume Spain would close it’s new border with Catalonia and request that France close their border as well. Put some naval vessels in the Mediterranean to prevent the Russians from sending in arms that way, and how could any large scale arms smuggling occur?