Can England just opt out of the Uk?

Bannasidhe

touts wrote: »

England owns Wales and Scotland by right of conquest. They could just set them free again. The Scots would probably immediately bolt for the hills but the Welsh are totally domesticated and would keep hanging around pawing at the door until their English masters took pity on them and left them back in.

Untrue.

Scotland and England were formally united when both parliaments ratified a treaty in 1707. The Stuarts of Scotland succeeded to the Crown of England following the death of Elizabeth Tudor (the Tudors were Welsh by the way). Henry VIII's sister Margaret had been married to James IV of Scotland - their grandchild was Mary Stuart, their great grandson James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603.

England never conquered Scotland - despite many attempts to do so.
Wales was conquered by the Normans - as was England, so perhaps both should be pawing at the door of the French?

Have you ever ready an actual history book written by actual historians?

IAMAMORON

wiggle16 wrote: »

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.

That is before the riots start.....

IAMAMORON

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

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.

So what part of woefully misinformed am I?

PR is only used in local elections - as you say. This cannot alter the constitutional direction of Scotland.

Adjectives are a poor mans' freedom of speech.

Hyperbollix

Pre Brexit, I would have said Scotland would never leave the union. Too many risk averse voters who didn't see enough benefit in cutting the apron strings to Mammy in London...

Now, I think it's very different. Brexit is an English nationalist/Tory/Elitist conjob which is removing Scots rights. If it goes badly wrong in the short to medium term, I could see a successful independence vote. All that Boris and co have to do is to make sure another referendum is a long term project. That way the economy may have recovered, people are back in full employment and are, again, too risk averse/apathetic to change things.

As for England extracting itself voluntarily from the union.............why would they do that? The average english voter and certainly the average Brexit voter is quite happy to have dominion over the Scot's and the Welsh. They like having an Eton bullshít artist dictating to other nations what they can do and when.....

They just don't like the idea of "Ze Germans" dictating to them.

Coillte_Bhoy

IAMAMORON wrote: »

So what part of woefully misinformed am I?

PR is only used in local elections - as you say. This cannot alter the constitutional direction of Scotland.

Adjectives are a poor mans' freedom of speech.

You said to the SNP didnt want 'organise Proportional representation in Scottish voting systems' . You didnt specify a General Election, you specifically said ;voting systems'

Harry Palmr

Covid and Brexit have sealed the fate of the UK, an independent Scotland also suits the Tory party, it'll happen.

IAMAMORON

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

You said to the SNP didnt want 'organise Proportional representation in Scottish voting systems' . You didnt specify a General Election, you specifically said ;voting systems'

So it's semantics now is it?

Probably not going to guarantee a vote on independence for the next 20 years either.

PR will not influence a yes or no vote. Only the British PM can authorise a vote, regardless of the voting system.

I prefer pedantics to semantics myself, try it sometime, at least it gives your argument a squeak.

FrancieBrady

IAMAMORON wrote: »

So it's semantics now is it?

Probably not going to guarantee a vote on independence for the next 20 years either.

PR will not influence a yes or no vote. Only the British PM can authorise a vote, regardless of the voting system.

I prefer pedantics to semantics myself, try it sometime, at least it gives your argument a squeak.

Democratic pressure will dictate when there is a vote just like it did the Brexit one.
A strong showing by the SNP in elections will put pressure on Westminster whether you, Boris etc stamp your feet or not.

IAMAMORON

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Democratic pressure will dictate when there is a vote just like it did the Brexit one.
A strong showing by the SNP in elections will put pressure on Westminster whether you, Boris etc stamp your feet or not.

Won't happen Francis - you know this.

The ruling authority in the UK are not going to risk losing their power by offering another Scottish vote on independence. Particularly in an infant post Brexit Britain. There is a better chance of a Border Poll over here - in fact that is more likely to happen first - if only to patronise Scottish nationalist ambition.

FrancieBrady

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Won't happen Francis - you know this.

The ruling authority in the UK are not going to risk losing their power by offering another Scottish vote on independence. Particularly in an infant post Brexit Britain. There is a better chance of a Border Poll over here - in fact that is more likely to happen first - if only to patronise Scottish nationalist ambition.

That is rubbish, there will be pressure on Westminster to give a nod to a referendum if the SNP maintain and increase their support. There comes a tipping point where you can no longer pretend to be a democracy if you ignore that. That will be the pressure on Boris or a successor.
You seem to be holding to your position here just to have snide digs, like the one above.

gormdubhgorm

Why would England want to leave? When they are the constituent nation in the UK which is the dominant nation? Ruling through Westminster. The other Assemblies in NI, Wales and Scotland have a limited amount of powers to different levels. Plus it is interesting to think that NI has the most autonomy of the three constituent countries. Plus there is also the question of North Sea Oil/Scottish Oil?

Also the majority in NI, Wales, Scotland identify with the Royal family and view them as their representatives. Until that changes in those three constituent countries why would England consider leaving as the dominant parliament? Allied with the emotional ties of the other constituent countries to the British Crown?

IAMAMORON

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is rubbish, there will be pressure on Westminster to give a nod to a referendum if the SNP maintain and increase their support. There comes a tipping point where you can no longer pretend to be a democracy if you ignore that. That will be the pressure on Boris or a successor.
You seem to be holding to your position here just to have snide digs, like the one above.

From who ?

The SNP only want independence on paper, they know deep down that they can't orchestrate it. It only exists to antagonise the constitution of the UK.

They can only influence if Labour get back into power in UK , that is unlikely for the time being.

Articles in the Guardian might hit the headlines and get Twitterites hitting the like button, but it won't bother 10 Downing Street. It doesn't suit Brexiteers to change the status quo, that is why they won't.

Coillte_Bhoy

IAMAMORON wrote: »

So it's semantics now is it?

Probably not going to guarantee a vote on independence for the next 20 years either.

PR will not influence a yes or no vote. Only the British PM can authorise a vote, regardless of the voting system.

I prefer pedantics to semantics myself, try it sometime, at least it gives your argument a squeak.

Ah yes the old 'semantics' argument when pulled up on an uninformed post, off you go so

IAMAMORON

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Ah yes the old 'semantics' argument when pulled up on an uninformed post, off you go so

Go where exactly?

Not on another semantic tangent?

No sale please.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is rubbish, there will be pressure on Westminster to give a nod to a referendum if the SNP maintain and increase their support. There comes a tipping point where you can no longer pretend to be a democracy if you ignore that. That will be the pressure on Boris or a successor.
You seem to be holding to your position here just to have snide digs, like the one above.

Ah I see you're new to IAMAMORON threads.

Coillte_Bhoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah I see you're new to IAMAMORON threads.

As am i :pac: lesson learnt though, life's too short for that kind of chilidish nonsense

FrancieBrady

IAMAMORON wrote: »

From who ?

The SNP only want independence on paper, they know deep down that they can't orchestrate it. It only exists to antagonise the constitution of the UK.

They can only influence if Labour get back into power in UK , that is unlikely for the time being.

Articles in the Guardian might hit the headlines and get Twitterites hitting the like button, but it won't bother 10 Downing Street. It doesn't suit Brexiteers to change the status quo, that is why they won't.

'Doesn't suit Brexiteers'???

They have been fluttering around in a breeze of their own hot air since 2016. Fashioning victories out of humiliating defeats.

As I said, as with all things of this nature there will come a tipping point not even the Gods of Brexit will be able to resist.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah I see you're new to IAMAMORON threads.

He/she uses the same argument on the Irish constitutional debate...just changes the names but the inherent genuflection to his/her betters is common. Anyone who challenges 'the realm' is to be demeaned or ridiculed.

the purple tin

Who would have the power to dissolve the union? The crown or parliament?

IAMAMORON

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He/she uses the same argument on the Irish constitutional debate...just changes the names but the inherent genuflection to his/her betters is common. Anyone who challenges 'the realm' is to be demeaned or ridiculed.

Francis I am not sure that is an appropriate critique.

I am a republican at heart and refute any other interpretation of that. I fully support the achievement of a 32 county republic - under democratic means.

What is the realm? Exactly?

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

From who ?

The SNP only want independence on paper, they know deep down that they can't orchestrate it. It only exists to antagonise the constitution of the UK.

They can only influence if Labour get back into power in UK , that is unlikely for the time being.

The only response to the bold bit (without being carded) is to say "Yes Dear."


It won't take a labour government. But you're wrong. Another inconvenient poll says Boris would lose his majority if an election were called. Boris has time, but do you have any confidence in this buffoon? If so please tell us why.

the purple tin

the purple tin wrote: »

Who would have the power to dissolve the union? The crown or parliament?

Parliament. Rubber stamped by the Head of state, like all laws.

IAMAMORON

Deleted User wrote: »

The only response to the bold bit (without being carded) is to say "Yes Dear."


It won't take a labour government. But you're wrong. Another inconvenient poll says Boris would lose his majority if an election were called. Boris has time, but do you have any confidence in this buffoon? If so please tell us why.

Subjective nonsense.

Think before you write.

Johnson won't be the first or last unpopular prime minister of the UK.

The only squeak the independence movement has is if the Labour party include a referendum promise in their next manifesto. If anything that will put the SNP in a quandary support wise. Either ways, any such promises will only serve to galvinise Scottish unionists who will obviously vote against Labour - it is the happy fudge - they will vote Conservative or SNP - neither of which will allow a referendum.

To coin a Scottish phrase - the Scottish nationalist debate lingers on a Pole Axe. It is doomed either way - hence the online outrage.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

The UK constitution consists of exactly three words. "Parliament is God"

Legally Westminster can do whatever it wants because anything can be changed by the next vote.

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The other 'nations' would need to first vote for independence, if they wanted to then join the EU they would be required to adopt the Euro.

Even if Scotland didn't grandfather in the Euro opt out they could do what Sweden did and keep missing the convergence criteria, like every year since 1995.

Or Scotland could join the EFTA.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

All the Nuclear Submarines and their arsenal are harboured in Scotland.

It is not going to happen.

It happened. We had the treaty ports.
We also used sterling , remained in the CTA, pensions, voting rights etc. all done before.

Look at the splitting up of Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.
This stuff happens. Usually is not this close to home.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Subjective nonsense.

Think before you write.

Obvious windup is obvious. Serves me right for taking you seriously.... yes, I know the name is a give away, but shoot me for giving people the benefit of the doubt.

IAMAMORON

Deleted User wrote: »

Obvious windup is obvious. Serves me right for taking you seriously.... yes, I know the name is a give away, but shoot me for giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I wouldn't give the Scots the benefit of the doubt either.

Look what happened in 2014......

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Yes they stopped burning and drowning them.

Helen Duncan, was sentenced to nine months under the Witchcraft Act 1735,
in May 1944 still within living memory.

The good people of Bruges can still use the fishing rights granted to them by King Charles in 1666. And Henry VIII's laws from 1539 were used to railroad through Brexit laws.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I wouldn't give the Scots the benefit of the doubt either.

Look what happened in 2014......

Yes Dear.

IAMAMORON

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It happened. We had the treaty ports.

Compares Spike Island or Lough Swilly to British nuclear disarmament. FFS. pleeeeease.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We also used sterling , remained in the CTA, pensions, voting rights etc. all done before.

The last time I checked " we " never achieved independence in 1921?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Look at the splitting up of Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.
This stuff happens. Usually is not this close to home.

This type of stuff is really irrelevant and does not warrant a response. Sorry, Soviet Union appeasement is not up for discussion atm. And eh, the entire planet witnessed how swimmingly the break down of Yugoslavia went...... genocide and mass graves spring to my mind.

Charles Babbage

the purple tin wrote: »

Who would have the power to dissolve the union? The crown or parliament?

A union of the crown would remain.