Can England just opt out of the Uk?

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

Are being a principality and a country exclusive? Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco are principalities and countries. Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy and a country.

I'm not sure Wales is actually a principality any more

Semantics really. By the time Wales had its first region wide leader it was within the orbit of England and rather risk drawing them on him he agreed a Prince designation rather than King. It didn't last long anyway and the English king named his first born son the Prince of Wales. And so it goes today.


It (as is Northern Ireland) is considered one of the 4 nations making up the UK. By the British at least. It was a forerunner to federalisation from which the likes of Germany rose. It too had loads of princes.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

And Guardian Readers. Throw in a few Dundee United fans.

Most Scots aren't arsed. Most Scots don't drink Irn Bru and Vodka either, they live in nice houses and drive nice cars and have British Passports - they like that.

You think most of the population aren't arsed about being part of a union it can't leave, and a union that means it is actually ruled from outside.. But most of the English population were arsed about a supranational organisation they could leave at any time and weren't ruled by.

Why were the English not happy with their nice houses and nice cars?

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

And Guardian Readers. Throw in a few Dundee United fans.

Most Scots aren't arsed. Most Scots don't drink Irn Bru and Vodka either, they live in nice houses and drive nice cars and have British Passports - they like that.

No, the majority don't like that, as the last 18 polls have demonstrated. But you are choosing to continue to ignore that and are instead choosing to assume that things like Brexit have not changed many people's mindset for whatever reason.

begbysback

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Semantics really. By the time Wales had its first region wide leader it was within the orbit of England and rather risk drawing them on him he agreed a Prince designation rather than King. It didn't last long anyway and the English king named his first born son the Prince of Wales. And so it goes today.


It (as is Northern Ireland) is considered one of the 4 nations making up the UK. By the British at least. It was a forerunner to federalisation from which the likes of Germany rose. It too had loads of princes.

Maybe it's more pedantry but is NI seen as a nation by anyone?

con___manx1

IAMAMORON wrote: »

That won't happen either, sure they only voted against independence a few years ago.

Most people in Scotland are very happy to remain the UK.

Another vote can only come about with the proposal of the British Prime Minister, so go figure.

The result of the Scottish referendum was only 55 percent that wanted to stay part or the UK. If that referendum had taken place after the brexit vote I think the result could have been alot closer.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

And Guardian Readers. Throw in a few Dundee United fans.

Most Scots aren't arsed. Most Scots don't drink Irn Bru and Vodka either, they live in nice houses and drive nice cars and have British Passports - they like that.

So, 45% of Scots (at least) are scroungers and/or Dundee United supporters? Phew, you pulled that out of the fire. For a second there I was worried about your credibility.

Hamsterchops

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe it's more pedantry but is NI seen as a nation by anyone?

No, of course it's not a nation, it's part of the island of Ireland, but it also a region within the UK.

begbysback

Hamsterchops wrote: »

No, of course it's not a nation, it's part of the island of Ireland, but it also a region within the UK.

Fifa would disagree

Hamsterchops

Fifa are on drugs

The J Stands for Jay

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You'd think the brexiteers would be fully behind a nation breaking away from a union and being independent.............

Yeah, I've never really got why Trump likes Brexit so much. It's exactly the same as, say, California deciding to leave the US. Trump would have a massive fit if that was being floated.

begbysback

begbysback wrote: »

Fifa would disagree

Some sporting and other organisations are All-Ireland basis. Brexit has muddied it even further.


To sum up. Its complicated.

wiggle16

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Like what exactly? What has changed?

This:

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Plus, one of the major points England had in its campaign for Scotland to vote no last time was that if Scotland left the UK it would take them out of the EU and they'd face years trying to get back in.

The full argument as it went at the time was that Scotland leaving the UK, and by extension the EU (for some reason), was an unacceptable risk because re-entering the EU was not at all guaranteed on account of the precedent it would set for other EU countries, specifically for Spain and the prospect of an independent Catalonia.

For Scotland to leave its EU "parent" country and then be automatically re-admitted would have been vigorously opposed by Spain, and have the potential to create a crisis for the EU if Catalonia were to unilaterally break away - Catalonia would have a legitimate precedent to cite for re-entry, but to re-admit Catalonia would necessitate recognition of its independence, an affront to Spain which it wouldn't tolerate.

In addition, with the sole exception of Murcia, the entire Spanish coastline is made up of regions which have separatist movements of varying support. There is no way Spain would have allowed Scotland to re-enter the EU.

With Brexit, that problem is now completely moot. For Scotland to leave its non-EU "parent" country and join the EU is not a threat to Spain's territorial integrity. And so the situation has completely changed. You can't use a 2014 election result to evaluate 2021's state of affairs. Too much has changed.

As for nuclear submarines, I imagine an arrangement similar to our Treaty Ports in 1921 would not be difficult for them to agree to. The remnant UK and a Scottish Republic are guaranteed to be exceedingly cooperative when it comes to defence.

McGaggs

McGaggs wrote: »

Yeah, I've never really got why Trump likes Brexit so much. It's exactly the same as, say, California deciding to leave the US. Trump would have a massive fit if that was being floated.

It's nothing like California leaving. Maybe something more like Guam or Puerto Rico.

IAMAMORON

Deleted User wrote: »

So, 45% of Scots (at least) are scroungers and/or Dundee United supporters? Phew, you pulled that out of the fire. For a second there I was worried about your credibility.

Sorry I forgot about the long term unemployed who live in social housing schemes in East Glasgow.

No one else is arsed. The facts are there for all to see.

Your average Scottish person wants to enjoy the benefits of remaining in the UK, they are not that fussed. Scotland were asked this 6 years ago and they said " no" , they voted to remain in the UK. I cannot see that changing in all honesty.

As I alluded to earlier the SNP are a fudge or a double bluff. They want

a) to be in power
b) to campaign for an independent Scotland
c) to reap the benefits of that campaign

they don't want

a) to orchestrate independence
b) to organise Proportional representation in Scottish voting systems - they know this won't work and their survival only works on a first past the post system.

The SNP exude the epitome of hypocrisy - they make me cringe.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I cannot see that changing in all honesty.

Cannot or will not? 'There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.'

The J Stands for Jay

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There is no opt out clause in the 1707 Act of Union.

WHICH ARTICLES OF UNION and Act immediately above-written Her Majesty with advice and consent foresaid Statutes Enacts and Ordains to be and Continue in all time coming the sure and perpetuall foundation of ane compleat and intire Union of the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

In the above Her Majesty is Queen Anne.

Queen Anne had ruled the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of Ireland since 8 March 1702. She became monarch of the Kingdom of Great Britain after the political union of England and Scotland on 1 May 1707.

Did the 1801 act change anything?

Hamsterchops

wiggle16 wrote: »

This:


The full argument as it went at the time was that Scotland leaving the UK, and by extension the EU (for some reason), was an unacceptable risk because re-entering the EU was not at all guaranteed on account of the precedent it would set for other EU countries, specifically for Spain and the prospect of an independent Catalonia.

For Scotland to leave its EU "parent" country and then be automatically re-admitted would have been vigorously opposed by Spain, and have the potential to create a crisis for the EU if Catalonia were to unilaterally break away - Catalonia would have a legitimate precedent to cite for re-entry, but to re-admit Catalonia would necessitate recognition of its independence, an affront to Spain which it wouldn't tolerate.

In addition, with the sole exception of Murcia, the entire Spanish coastline is made up of regions which have separatist movements of varying support. There is no way Spain would have allowed Scotland to re-enter the EU.

With Brexit, that problem is now completely moot. For Scotland to leave its non-EU "parent" country and join the EU is not a threat to Spain's territorial integrity. And so the situation has completely changed. You can't use a 2014 election result to evaluate 2021's state of affairs. Too much has changed.

As for nuclear submarines, I imagine an arrangement similar to our Treaty Ports in 1921 would not be difficult for them to agree to. The remnant UK and a Scottish Republic are guaranteed to be exceedingly cooperative when it comes to defence.

Fascinating view, specially when looked at in addition to all the issues raised in #59, in other words it's complicated

Hercule Poirot

Smee_Again wrote: »

England can’t opt out it would have to expel the other nations from the Union.

Edited to add: and I doubt they could actually expel the other nations.

Could England just not dissolve the Act of Union?

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Sorry I forgot about the long term unemployed who live in social housing schemes in East Glasgow.

No one else is arsed. The facts are there for all to see.

Your average Scottish person wants to enjoy the benefits of remaining in the UK, they are not that fussed. Scotland were asked this 6 years ago and they said " no" , they voted to remain in the UK. I cannot see that changing in all honesty.

As I alluded to earlier the SNP are a fudge or a double bluff. They want

a) to be in power
b) to campaign for an independent Scotland
c) to reap the benefits of that campaign

they don't want

a) to orchestrate independence
b) to organise Proportional representation in Scottish voting systems - they know this won't work and their survival only works on a first past the post system.

The SNP exude the epitome of hypocrisy - they make me cringe.

Yes the facts are indeed all there to see, and the facts show that your statement in bold is false as recent polls indicate.

The majority want to be part of both the UK and the EU, but if they can only be part of one of them, the majority want to be part of the EU.

Not quite sure why it's so difficult for you to understand something so basic.

McGaggs

McGaggs wrote: »

Did the 1801 act change anything?

Between the two dates they stopped burning witches. So, progress can be made.

wiggle16

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Queen Anne had ruled the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of Ireland since 8 March 1702. She became monarch of the Kingdom of Great Britain after the political union of England and Scotland on 1 May 1707.

But not of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, created by the Act(s) of Union 1800-1801 - ironically enough as a direct result of the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland. We got the whole f*cking sh*tshow going in the first place.

The J Stands for Jay

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe it's more pedantry but is NI seen as a nation by anyone?

FIFA have made a lot of weird concessions to these islands. They don't even allow our team to play under the name of the country.

IAMAMORON

Deleted User wrote: »

Cannot or will not? 'There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.'

There certainly will not be a referendum proposed while the post Brexit United Kingdom is in its' infancy. Not going to happen. The concept of a United Kingdom post Brexit only works with the entire British Island remaining in Union.

Controversially this does not apply to the 6 counties. The Brits are beginning to turn their backs on Loyalists - they are certainly hinting at this. However you are talking a long term PR battle here. I can see a 3 - 4 county northern Ireland before this is realised - quandary's like South Fermanagh and northern Armagh remain very much an issue - Portadown still says no. But economically the Brits are already prepping the North for ceding. Westminster wants them gone deep down.

The J Stands for Jay

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's nothing like California leaving. Maybe something more like Guam or Puerto Rico.

An association of areas with their own borders, flags, governments, etc that make their own laws, but subject in some cases to rules from the parliament of the association. Seems pretty similar to me.

Guam leaving would be like Greenland or Saint Martin leaving the EU (think this may have happened?).

FrancieBrady

Interesting reading around this and interesting that it happened so recently:
Harold Wilson considered expelling Northern Ireland from the Union. THe bonds aren't that strong if Westminster changes it mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jan/01/past.nationalarchives6

McGaggs

McGaggs wrote: »

An association of areas with their own borders, flags, governments, etc that make their own laws, but subject in some cases to rules from the parliament of the association. Seems pretty similar to me.

Guam leaving would be like Greenland or Saint Martin leaving the EU (think this may have happened?).

It's not, though.

banie01

The 1800 act of Union was amended in UK by the 1951 short titles act (Northern Ireland).
Which took the form that any reference in UK acts specifically excluded the Republic of Ireland.

A quick and dirty textual fix for a similar amendment to the 1707 act could be that the new act excludes Republic of Scotland.
Along the lines of the 2022 short titles act (Berwick upon Tweed).

The RT article in UK breakup is particularly interesting given it specifically excluded more recent break up examples, including USSR, Yugoslavia, Chezchislovakia and other more recent examples.

The treaty ports example for Faslane is a relevant one.
Defence equipment splits and allocations are also manageable and the usual approach is to take the GDP of the seceding regions into account and allocate on that basis.

Hanging on to the 2014 Scots referendum result as being representative of current opinions is just as valid as holding the UK 2016 brexit vote as representative of current UK opinions.
In that it isn't, the opinions have shifted quite dramatically.

wiggle16

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Controversially this does not apply to the 6 counties. The Brits are beginning to turn their backs on Loyalists - they are certainly hinting at this. However you are talking a long term PR battle here. I can see a 3 - 4 county northern Ireland before this is realised - quandary's like South Fermanagh and northern Armagh remain very much an issue - Portadown still says no. But economically the Brits are already prepping the North for ceding. Westminster wants them gone deep down.

Slightly spooky but I had myself awake all night last night thinking about how this would actually work, and I hadn't even seen this thread.

In the run up to Brexit there was so much talk about "does this bring a united Ireland even closer" and I always just thought about how shortsighted that question is.

If there was referendum on both sides of the border tomorrow, and the result was in favour of a United Ireland, you are looking at at the very least 15 to 20 years of serious preparation before it could be put in motion.

The Republic would have to find a way to replace the 11 billion pounds a year NI gets from the UK, and a huge transition in terms of employment. In the North, you have an employment population of 750,000 but a third of it (over 200,000) is employed in the public sector - that's over 10% of its population. By comparison, the Republic has approx 300,000 public sector workers, or 6.1% of the population. Northern Ireland carries a massive and completely unnecessary administrative bloat that would need to be sorted before unification could even begin, and just sacking 100k+ people seems a bit... unchivalrous.

Coillte_Bhoy

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Sorry I forgot about the long term unemployed who live in social housing schemes in East Glasgow.

No one else is arsed. The facts are there for all to see.

Your average Scottish person wants to enjoy the benefits of remaining in the UK, they are not that fussed. Scotland were asked this 6 years ago and they said " no" , they voted to remain in the UK. I cannot see that changing in all honesty.

As I alluded to earlier the SNP are a fudge or a double bluff. They want

a) to be in power
b) to campaign for an independent Scotland
c) to reap the benefits of that campaign

they don't want

a) to orchestrate independence
b) to organise Proportional representation in Scottish voting systems - they know this won't work and their survival only works on a first past the post system.

The SNP exude the epitome of hypocrisy - they make me cringe.

You are woefully misinformed.
Elections to the Scottish parliament combine both FPTP and PR, PR is also the system used for locl elections. For EU elections a list type system is used. FPTP is used for general elections but the SNP have no power to alter that.