I would say that a neo-colonial attitude leads to being cast as a neo-colonialist, not anything to do with ethnicity. That would be the Scottish view of any attempt to divert the process of independence if there is a YES vote.
Scotland isn’t going to make a UDI, Pjen. C’mon, man.
Weird, you seem to lump all Unionists together as Conservative Colonel Blimps who only want the empire back to rule Scotland.
If it’s anyone being neo-colonialist, it’s the Scottish, they get to vote on laws which affect the English where as we do not. So maybe you’re just projecting.
That’s a long-predicted failure of the Westminster system though. It’s not designed for any kind of devolution of power from the centre.
To which the obvious solution, if devolution is insisted upon by certain regions, is to devolve all regions. Meaning an English parliament, or possibly several such, and Westminster governing the whole union.
Exactly. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all now have (to varying degrees) devolved powers, and I suspect the London Assembly will be beefed up at some point too. Even if the indyref is “No”, Westminster needs to change.
Of course. Scotland will presumably pay the rUK compensation for depriving it of these areas, into which it has invested large amounts of money in expectation of return. Return we shouldn’t allow Scotland to steal.
You won’t go down that route, though, and even if you do, you’ll have no more right to Faslane than Cuba has to Guantanamo. I like the assumption that you’ll just join the EEA, though… That’s not going to happen if you piss off several large European countries.
Not really, no. You can owe the debt in Sterling without having sterling as a currency, just as other countries have debts in dollars, euros, sterling and so forth. You’ll have no more right to Sterling than any other country - that is, you can use as much as you have, but you can’t mint any. Good luck borrowing anything else when you have no currency of your own to pay it back with, and a history of reneging on your debts, though.
One would hope so, as opposed to the irrational ideas you keep proposing.
Oh, and remember, Scotland isn’t going to unilaterally declare independence with the “mandate” of just over a third of its population. No country will recognise that, and if the Scottish parliament attempts that it will be laughed at, then dissolved.
According to the Edinburgh agreement, neither side should play hardball for their own ends:
The Edinburgh Agreement states that both governments must respect the result of the referendum:
“The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.”
They will have the right to take their problem to the International Court in the Hague. Let the world decide.
That was a choice by the Labour party to maintain their majority in Westminster. All that would be needed is anEngland Grad Committee, but that would strip Labour of control over English domestic issues.
I have no objection to internal parliaments for England, Wales and Northern ireland after Scottish independence.
You really have no idea do you.
How much has the UK invested in North Sea Oil: NOTHING
Think why!
I will help you later. You really should read more.
All the oil in Scottish waters is Scotland’s by right. No compensation due.
Try to think why.
You are seriously misinformed.
The USA has a right to Guantanamo becasue it concluded a trety with the previous Cuban Government in the early part of the last century for a coaling station on an indefinite renewable lease on an international treaty basis. rUK will have no right to retain any part of an independent Scotland.
The EEA is automatically open to any eligible European country, and Scotland will be eligible. There is no veto procedure, merely a procedure of box ticking.
But I don’t see it as a failure, I see it as an archaic form of affirmative action due to Scotlands smaller population, it needed larger political influence in the form of the West Lothian question.
However, now they have their own parliament, it’s not necessary anymore.
If independence is going to happen, a republican style system for RUK should be implemented.
(Bolding mine)
Why do you keep ignoring this bit?
That’s not right, I’m afraid. The UK did invest a lot in the early 1970s, when there was a state-owned North Sea exploration and development corporation, but that was privatized (by guess who?). It’s been private companies spending the money since then. Norway went a different way with Statoil, because they are not daft.
The post-indy sea boundaries are well established, btw.
No wonder you make so many errors. You do not understand what you are arguing about.
The National debt belongs to the UK and the UK economy benefits from Sterling and has raised the debt to keep Sterling solvent. The two go together. The Governor of the Bank of England is unwilling to say that the debt should be owed by Scotland if it does not also benefit from Sterling and has stated that Scotland should benefit from Sterling.
There is international law on the debts of successor states and this too could end up in the Hague.
Well, a federal system maybe, not sure what you mean by republican. Tony Blair’s government was initially keen on regional devolution, but the referendum in the North-East of England about whether to have a regional assembly did not go well, so the idea was dropped.
Any money that has been invested by the government in the last 300 years has been invested by the UK. Yes, Scotland may have the right to all the oil. The UK has many rights, most of which you’ve been trying to downplay or deny in this thread, which could fuck Scotland over big time. Hopefully a negotiated settlement will lead to neither side having to assert its rights, because whilst doing so would harm the UK it would harm Scotland far more.
No, the UK can’t claim any of that oil. But it can claim back 90% of the money spent by the UK government over the last 300 years that would allow you to exploit it.
Or we could negotiate like adults, something you seem to not want to do.
Given the words of the Edinburgh Agreement signed by both Governments, they are committed to negotiate independence:
“The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.”
Your constitutional Law knowledge is rather poor too. Given that the UK government made the above statement and agreed the referendum means that a failure to accept it would lead to the case being decided in the Hague.
As I keep on pointing out, no one has suggested anytime during the campaign that the vote would be ignored. You have no report of that and no cite for it.