I’m starting to think that, contrary to some analysts, an independent Scotland could be economically viable solely on the basis of exporting paragraphs.
Would an independent Scotland hold a referendum on rejoining the UK every time there was a dip in the polls? 
You folk who don’t live in Scotland are lucky you don’t have to deal with this level of zoomerism in real life. It’s pretty wearying. I never expected to see such a cadre of True Believers emerge.
If you want to hurl insults, take it to The BBQ Pit. Do not continuee this behavior in this forum.
= = =
Pjen, your continued references to colonialism do appear to be inserted solely to rile up your opponents.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Here’s a question:
Could the rest of the UK have a referendum to kick Scotland out? If so and it passes, what would Parliament and/or the Queen do?
Second question:
Scottish independence referendum passes, Parliament says “Fuck 'em.” and passes a bill to grant independence but QE2 withholds Royal Assent refusing to allow the nation to be broken up. End of the Monarchy? End of QE2’s reign and welcome Charles III? Parliament dissolved or PM dismissed?
I think he really believes it. Isn’t the basis of the separatist case the claim that the UK is somehow a foreign power somehow subjugating Scotland? That’s purely an appeal to emotion, and any effective response also requires emotion.
Comments on moderation belong on ATMB.
If you bothered to read what I have posted, I am not a fervent nationalist or emotive about the issue. I am rational about political entities having as much devolved power as possible (admiring for instance the German or American federal models. Having moved to Scotland I was keen on further devolution but do not believe that this has happened fast enough. I feel quite sure that we shall move in that direction if the current mood here continues. But I also believe that the English response is quite likely to move the electorate towards independence.
It could indeed - What Parliament decides is the law. If it passed, then Scotland would be ejected, Singapore-style.
If the Queen refused to accept the advice of Her Ministers then the Government would be obliged to resign. The Queen must then find a new Prime Minister, and likely in such a scenario nobody would be willing to work with Her. It would politicize the monarchy, and undermine one of the fundamental tenets of our Constitution. I reckon it would end with the Queen’s abdication at the very least, but probably the entire monarchy would be abolished too.
No state can strip its citizens of their nationality if it would make them stateless. But Westminster could make life in Scotland bad enough to encourage independence.
The Assent to legislation required of the monarch is not possible given the set up of government. It is like a bee sting- it may be effective once but would result in the death of the organism.
This isn’t about making them stateless, it’s about ejecting them from the UK. Malaysia did that to Singapore once.
That’s actually a good analogy!
If you didn’t notice, there was a referendum not long ago where the majority of the Scottish electorate disagreed with you, and settled that question for the foreseeable future. Until and unless there’s a massive change in circumstances - not just poll figures, actual social or economic change - there’s no need to ask them again.
Your disdain for the views of your adopted countrymen is rather sad, really.
Times and international law change. If the UK ejected some of its citizens from the protection of British Citizenship then it would be in breach of several treaties and fond its international relations severely impeded
In your humble Opinion. Wrong forum.
There is no law preventing a subsequent referendum - that is all dependent on circumstances.
This is only really a thought experiment. We were discussing the domestic constitutional situation, without context of whatever international obligations the UK is currently under.
Anyway, if it came to such a state that England wanted Scotland out but Scotland wanted to stay in, we’d be in the Twilight Zone!
Agreed. It is so unlikely it is absurd.
If that’s what they are, instead of comments about the absurdity of the OP’s position. Which is what that was. BTW, you do need to learn the meaning of “straw man” - you’ve been throwing the term around entirely too loosely.
Cheers.
I know exactly what a straw man argument is thank you; and when I accuse someone of imputing ideas to me that I have not supported (as happens frequently on this thread) then I feel free to point that out.
If you feel that I have somehow used the phrase wrongly, then you will have no problem giving specific references to what I said and what the original statement was that I was asserting was a straw man. If not, please withdraw the accusation.
no, it looks rather more like you use the phrase “straw man” to side step criticisms and avoid engaging in responses where you know you are weak.
If you are going to cast aspersions you should give cites and examples.
Eh, so? The UK did much worse in Iraq as far as international law is concerned and tell me wbst effect that had on the UK? Did the UK financial services industry collapse? Did people stop buying British products? Or visiting Britain? Did British leaders get hauled up for war crimes?
If it happened the it will have little effect. The UK is a large and very powerful and influential country, with or without Scotland. No one is going to risk drawing the ire of Britain over the Scots.