Yes - part of the “Commonwealth of Nations” nee British Commonwealth nee British Empire.
Wow. An independent Scotland and Wales. I had never thought that would be possible. I noticed that nobody mentioned an independent Northern Ireland, presumably because at some point in the future Northern and Southern Ireland may be one “country”.
Should Scotland and Wales choose someday to become independent they will need to fund their own government and military, which I suppose they are doing now in a way. Scotland seems to have the resources (including oil reserves) and industry to survive as and independent “country”, but could Wales pull it off? It seems they would be completely dependent on England for just about everything…
Not everywhere in the Commonwealth has Queen Elizabeth as head of state.
Well, if you grant samjones’s bizarre claim that Canada, Australia, Scotland, and all other members of the Commonwealth are in fact the same country, then I suppose it’s no great leap to believe the Queen is their collective head of state. :rolleyes:
Heh heh - psychonaut hates me. Wonder how long it will take him to realize I don’t give a fuck.
So - it is not much of a leap to believe that She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named-By-Sam is the head of state of Canada, Australian and Scotland. Mostly because she is. Are they one “country” - well, I guess it depends on how you define “country”.
Isn’t this the whole point of the thread? :dubious:
Yes, but according to samjones the fact that “Scotland” has existed longer than the United States means that it’s “stupid” to think of Scotland as potentially not being a sovereign state.
Because we all know that when determining sovereignty “length of existence” is all that matters.
I hope the Kings of Burgundy, Bavaria, Bohemia, and Aragon realize that their countries are all sovereign states since they predate the founding of the United States.
And a cod and six?
I’ve been meaning to ask about that. Isn’t the principality, Wales, a principality of England and thus part of England?
No one is trying to get anywhere with you. You appear to be using flippant remarks to avoid admitting that the “information” you have provided in this thread has been so inaccurate that it hasn’t helped the OP at all.
Exactly - they haven’t outlawed bagpipe music, for one thing 
Salmond’s stated recently that any independent Scotland will have Queen Elizabeth as head of state, resulting in a separate Scottish crown.
But, that’s beside the point. Scotland will not become independent. I don’t even believe that Salmond and the SNP want an independent Scotland, as that would be financial suicide (and not for the reasons commonly supposed: Scotland as an independent nation can survive on its own, it’s just the negotiations to make Scotland independent will take decades, a period where the rump UK seemingly holds all the cards in the negotiations and businesses flee south due to the uncertainty of whether Scotland gets to remain in the EU or not, etc.) It’s just a carrot they put in front of their base, the 25% of Scots who want independence, to get them to keep voting SNP. Further, I doubt Salmond et al relish the thought of funding Scottish diplomatic missions around the world, setting up their own armed forces, etc.
Rather, what will more likely happen is that the UK becomes a federalised state. Scotland, England, Wales and NI have their own parliaments with taxing and spending powers devolved to them. Westminster exists solely to handle federal issues, defence and foreign relations, etc.
But England didn’t take “Scotland’s” North Sea oil. The United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part, struck oil in the North Sea, not Scotland. Scotland no more “struck oil” than the Independent People’s Republic of Lancashire struck coal.
Besides, didn’t Scotland get most of its money back when Westminster dumped £45 billion of mostly English tax monies into the Scottish banking sector, keeping it afloat?
Yes, it clearly deserves to be called “London’s oil”, after all that’s where the revenue is collected. :rolleyes:
No - RBS and the now-swallowed-up HBOS are/were UK-wide banks; their branches, customers and even owners (to wit, largely institutional shareholders *) are spread pretty broadly across the UK and beyond. And Lloyds TSB got bailed out too, and it’s not noticeably a Scottish bank, is it? And the bailout was an equity purchase of a large portion of these banks, describing it as a “dump” is wildly inaccurate.
- This pagedoesn’t break down the RBS ownership inside the UK, but interestingly RBS was almost 50% foreign owned before, during & after the credit crunch - and 80% institutionally-owned pre-crunch.
Perhaps, but the Bank of Scotland had been effectively taken over by the English-based Halifax before that, iirc.
The UK government (or taxpayer, as they always put it) have ended up owning large amounts of the banking industry on both sides of the border, and this is almost certain to show a net gain over time.
addendum: just saw jinty’s post before posting mine, which addresses the ownership of the banks. So I’ve edited most of my post out.
I didn’t say that or anything like it. I said that whether the US recognizes Scotland as a state or has no bearing on whether Scotland exists. It doesn’t matter who collects their taxes or who makes their laws, Scotland remains a people, a language, a land and a nation with it’s own history and culture. I see no constructive reason to doubt the truth of that.
IN FACT Scotland and Puerto Rico face similar challenges. They would like to find a peaceful path to independence from the country that would be their closest ally. Just because it’s not a perfect analog doesn’t mean there’s no reason to discuss the similarities.
It is without a doubt true that 10 Downing can stop Scottish Independence from happening if they want to. Same’s true for the White House and Puerto Rican Independence.
But why would they want to? That’s the more important question. We’re talking about people and nations, not about mine vs. yours.
I’m afraid you’re misinformed about the situation in Puerto Rico. The White House – regardless of its occupant – would do nothing to block independence.
Or Londonshire’s according to a Scottish friend of mine. He also uses the term Englandshire.
There are peoples/languages/lands/nations that are not countries or states. Scotland wouldn’t be the only one.
To elaborate more, there’s huge difference between Scotland and Puerto Rico. They do not face similar challenges and it’s questionable whether what they want for their futures is similar.
Scotland is one of the two foundational parties of the United Kingdom. Without Scotland, the United Kingdom essentially doesn’t exist. The Act of Union that created the union created it by uniting Scotland and England. The prospect of Scotland’s leaving the union would fundamentally change the nature of the state that it is part of and might require dissolution altogether. Separating Scotland from the U.K. would requires working out all kinds of issues that would have significant consequences for both the English and the Scots. Scotland would surely get a portion of the British armed forces, for example, including capital equipment.
On the other hand, Puerto Rico is an external territory of the United States, more like Bermuda is to the United Kingdom. It has no constitutional status. Should the Puerto Ricans decide that they want independence, they’ll get it, with hardly any objection from the union that it’s appended to. Any problems to be resolved would mostly just have an impact on Puerto Ricans, and almost no impact on the United States.
No. What evidence is there for its being a “principality of England?”
The title Prince of Wales (Tywysog Cymru) existed prior to conquest—admittedly mostly notionally, but Llywelyn Olaf for example certainly held it. After the English conquest, monarchs often bestowed the title on their heirs by right of conquest. When the future Edward II held it, Wales was not yet annexed into England, so it was more after the model of a feudal state.
In 1536, Wales was “united and annexed to” England, and English laws applied, but that isn’t quite the same as becoming part of England. Wikipedia says the Acts of Union were repealed in the 1990s, though I don’t see anyone rushing to restore the native Welsh legal system.
As far as economic viability, I think they’re counting on the same deal other small EU states have gotten.
The armed forces belong to Old Whats Her Name. Presumably Scottish Independence includes continuing loyalty and allegiance to the House of Windsor, so that doesn’t necessarily pose the problem that might think. No different than Canadian or Australian Independence which both happened recently (in Royal terms) within the last 100 years almost anyway you cut the cake.
It would still be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
How conscription, budge, defense, etc. would be divvied up would be a unique challenge - but I don’t see that it is totally insurmountable. Especially given time and patience.
It’s very unlikely that Puerto Rico would be truly responsible for their own defense in my lifetime. US/Puerto Rican ties run deep and I don’t see the US ever losing Puerto Rico like we lost Cuba.
I agree that the parallels between Scotland and Puerto Rico are imperfect, to put it gently.