:D:)
The Scottish Government has announced plans to hold an independence referendum
It could well be curtains for the most successful nation in the history of the world. And that sad. OTH, no more having to explain Scotland is in fact British, when it will not be anymore. And Perhaps the Scottish regiments can be reraised.
Unsure if this is right forum, I think GD or IMHO could be more suitable.
I hope Scotland votes for independence so we don’t have to hear any more whinging about how oppressed they are by the huge funding subsidy they get from their rich evil over lords, the English. I’d like to see quite how Scotland intends to have free university tuition and a top notch medical system where noone pays for anything purely from its own economy.
Come on, let’s drop the “Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK” and the Scot Nat converse “Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK”. What difference there is between the Scottish population and the respective size of their contribution to treasury coffers is minuscule.
I hope, as somebody living in Scotland for the past 8 years, that Scotland doesn’t become independent, but votes for devolution max (i.e. full federalism). Hopefully this will kick England into demanding its own parliament then, and the constitutional relationship between Scotland, England and Westminster is finally clarified. I further believe that if Scotland does become independent England will absolutely maul them in any negotiation over who gets what.
Though, the vote itself will be interesting. Who gets to vote in it? It seems likely to me that it will be voted on by those registered to vote in Scotland. Though, suppose a Scot has lived in Scotland all their lives, then moved to London for a job in the last few years. Is it really the case that this individual will be disenfranchised in the vote to decide what happens to their homeland, despite them never leaving the country in which they were born (the UK)?
The UK is a state, but not a nation. The English, Scottish, and Welsh are nations within the UK. The Irish are a nation, part of which is within the UK.
That we conflate “English” with “British” (in its meaning of “of the UK”) is merely an artifact of England having been the dominant nation within the UK. This is similar to conflating “Russian” with “Soviet” during the times of the USSR; Russia was merely the dominant nation within the Soviet state.
I was called to the Bar of England and Wales, do you think I don’t know that? ;)My point is that many people think that Scotland is a nation state in its own right which it is not, which leads to lovely howlers like; Sean Connery was the first non-British actor to play James Bond.
As someone who is not British, but as a former long term resident of those Isles and someone who has an innate fondness for the UK, I have to say that while I can agree with the theory of full federalism,its something which is impractical, England is too big in relation to the rest and it would lead to endless sqabbles, with England winningl; usually.
I also think that while many Scots I have met, are supportive of the idea of independence, I don’t think that many of them have quite realised that Independence means that they are no longer part of the UK. Scotlands current and historic influence and prominence in world affairs is a direct result of Scotland’s membership of the UK, and would be lost if Scotland was not in it, with frankly devastating results for Scotland.
Well, if you’d written “state” instead of “nation”, I wouldn’t have nitpicked. You’re a lawyer, I’m a technical writer; we both know about the importance of precision and clarity in writing. 
When I was in England visiting my cousin, she was adamant about her opposition to federalism. I was puzzled by this, having come from a country where federalism works quite well in a Westminster-style parliamentary context. I could understand opposition to non-democratic federalism, but to all federalism?
If the Scots do not separate from the UK, maybe this will be a push towards England getting its own assembly and thus the creation of a true federal state in the UK.
Okay fine, let’s drop that.
I’ll be really glad when Scottish MPs can no longer vote on legislation that doesn’t affect Scotland to ensure that English students have to pay thousands of pounds for their university tuition, whilst students in Scotland pay nothing. Best solution to the West Lothian question I’ve encountered to date.
Better?
As an American, I can only hope that the entire assemblage falls apart so I never have to read an explanation like that again.
You won’t want the Venn diagram, then.
Don’t do it Scotland, we’re regretting it 90 years later. Keep your English sugar daddy.
But Scotland would still remain in the Commonwealth like Canada and Australia?
Isn’t Wales wanting out of the UK too?
Scotland wouldn’t totally pull out like India did?
Yes, Scotland would remain in the Commonwealth.
There’s a Welsh nationalist movement, but it has had less electoral success than the Scottish equivalent.
India is still in the Commonwealth. Your last point makes me speculate that you aren’t sure what being a member of the Commonwealth means?
Sorry, I thought India left the Commonwealth after independence.
Isn’t the commonwealth a collection of former colonies that still trade and have a special relationship with England? I know the Queen visits Canada and Australia.
I’m American. So, my terminology may be off. 
No. It’s just a collection of former territories, with some that never were colonies thrown in too so they don’t feel bad (Mozambique and Rwanda basically got invited because their best friends were members and it would be rude not to invite them to parties). There is no trade involved, and the Queen visits Canada and Australia frequently (compared to other countries) because she’s the Queen of Canada and the Queen of Australia. Either country could leave the Commonwealth and not change that fact. They don’t get any special trade rules with the UK, and the “special relationship” is pretty much limited to having a high commissioner instead of an ambassador.
Do you know that for sure? I’ve not read the terms of independence suggested by the nationalists but I’ve not seen anything relating to their position within the commonwealth.
I recall reading that they’d organise it so that independence would happen on the same day as acceding to the EU.
The Commonwealth of Nations is an association of countries, most of which are former colonies of the UK, that get together to talk every now and then.
Only a subset of the Commonwealth countries have the Queen as their Head of State; Canada is one of those. These countries are monarchies. They have their own governments, completely separate from that of the UK. Only the monarch is shared.
Other Commonwealth countries are republics or even monarchies with a different monarch (Tonga, I believe).
The Queen also has a post as the “Head of the Commonwealth”, but that’s pretty much ceremonial.
ISTR that there were special Commonwealth trading preferences, but that those went bye-bye when the UK entered the European Economic Community in the early seventies. IIRC, those trading preferences were the reason Toronto could buy its first subway cars relatively-inexpensively from the UK in the fifties, rather than from closer manufacturers in the States.
I don’t think Commonwealth membership is all that relevant or important to the ultimate question. The Republic of Ireland isn’t a member yet it undoubtedly has much more integral economic and cultural ties with the UK than any current Commonwealth state.
The long-standing nationalist policy is that the Queen would be head of state post-independence, so Commonwealth membership seems a given. The SNP is a very broad church though, so there are republican elements in there. shrug independence isn’t going to get a majority vote anyway.