Those are physical, immoveable items, which don’t have a history of being located or used in a country they are not in. The comparison is flawed.
The currency is a government-backed fiat, an institution of the British Government. Your argument is akin to Scotland demanding independence but still insisting on having seats in the Westminster Parliament.
And you know what? All of those other things could only be kept by Scotland with negotiation and consent of the British government. Fish and oil are easy - we simply go to the border, by and large, and draw a line out to the sea. But the armed forces? Apart from the names of the Scottish regiments, and the nationalities of the personnel, all of the equipment is owned by the UK Government. Scotland has no devolved control over it. The UK won’t, but if it felt like it, it could order the handover of every firearm in every Scottish regiment and ship them down to the border the day before Scotland went independent.
It would be seen as a rather heavy-handed move, but it would be within its rights.
The monarchy is probably the only thing in your examples which the UK Government would not have complete control over, as it would be under the prerogative of the Queen alone.
But for the pound? For it to remain a joint Scotto-r/UK currency, it would need the consent of the British Government for Scottish representatives to sit on the governing board. Otherwise, you’re simply tacking onto it as a dependent state.
You can protest all you like, but that’s within the rights of the UK as a sovereign state.
Nope. It’s the answer you have persuaded yourself to find convincing.
None of the legal or moral rules you’ve cited are actually relevant or true.
When Australia, New Zealand and Canada moved towards independence they used the pound sterling whilst having their own parliaments. Something similar happened even with Ireland. Eventually they all monetised their own currencies. I suspect that the same will happen with Scotland! Note that I am not claiming a certainty (as you seem to be) but suggesting a strong possibility based on previous separations.
What you state is nothing like what was discussed by the two Governments before the referendum. There was an understanding that should separation come the assets such as the Armed forces would be split by need and by cost; rump UK would not have the whip hand as all such negotiations would go to arbitration with the Hague should there be deadlock. You are telling yourself fairy stories.
Unlike the apparent lives of some posters, SDMB mods have lives off the board. The report was going to be addressed. Reporting it twice will not incur any penalties, but bringing it back to the board is not appropriate.
Carnalk, let’s avoid even the appearance of junior modding.
As noted above, the UK would not be sovereign in these matters but would need to go to arbitration in the Hague.
It is worth remembering that Scotland has the trump card of Faslane and this would be a major part of the bargain- maybe a twenty year lease in exchange for agreeing matters regarding armed forces and the currency.
You are minimising the problem. The UK Government even floated the idea of creating UK Sovereign territory over Faslane and surrounds- essentially trying to steal Scottish land! If they were willing to risk that, the problem must be a large one!
Sorry, my error. They had their own currency whereas Aus and New Zealand and the rest of the Empire used the Pound Sterling backed by the Gold Standard before separating their currencies. In 1816 an order was made enforcing the Gold Standard for sterling in all dominions including Canada but because of the poor exchange set Sterling versus the Spanish dollar, the result was the driving out of Sterling and its replacement by a new Canadian backed currency. I had forgotten that Canada was an exception to the effects of the enforcement of the Gold Standard to the Empire.
You might. Rump UK Government probably would not, at least for a transitional period. The Bank of England has already had to say that it would guarantee the national debt should Scotland renege.
An unnecessary temporary expenditure if the base was to be reprovided in rump UK later!.
Closure of Faslane would be phased whatever was agreed; the question is how well that could be managed. Sudden loss of Faslane (which would not happen) would be catastrophic and expensive.
As with most scaremongering by Unionists, it totally ignores the fact that two allied democracies would sort things out by negotiation and within International Law.
If Scotland does vote for independence (which increasingly I think it will within the next decade) there may be financial problems and social problems for both sides, but I expect the separation to be carried out relatively amicably. If such separation could be carried out between Ireland and the UK between 1921 and 1948 while there was a state of mutual mistrust just short of actual gunfire. I am sure that two mature Western democracies can succeed in negotiating a settlement with minimum harm to both sides in the knowledge that arbitration from the Hague or elsewhere is possible.
Nowhere have I said that it will be easy, but Unionists act as if they hold all the cards when that is most certainly not the realpolitik of the situation.
Conservatives are reelected in 2015 forming a government with UKIP on an in/out referendum. The British public vote OUT but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote overwhelmingly IN. UK starts negotiating to leave on behalf of the UK, essentially ignoring the fringe nations.
1/ What would be the effect on the politics of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
2/ Would the EU allow England to secede and allow an accommodation for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales either as associates with special status like Switzerland and Norway, or as a full member in some manner?