PDA

View Full Version : The End of the United Kingdom?


Grachka
Nov 21st, 2006, 06:13 PM
An American perspective. :)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/david_goodhart/2006/11/end_of_the_united_kingdom.html

The End of the United Kingdom?

London, England - One of the world's most successful multinational states, and a key ally of the United States, could in a few months time start to unravel: I mean, of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The process will be set in motion if the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) ends up the largest party in the Scottish parliament after elections next May. This is a distinct possibility. The break up of the UK will not be inevitable even if the SNP do dominate the parliament, but it will certainly make the political classes of Britain -- and perhaps of the U.S. and the main EU states too -- think hard about the point and value of the union to them. (Ironically, the elections will come just a matter of days after the 300th anniversary of the creation of modern Britain when the Scottish and English parliaments were merged in 1707.)

Most people in England who think about these things assumed that the "Scottish question" had been dealt with when, as one of the first acts of the Blair government elected in 1997, it announced the creation of a devolved Scottish parliament with wide ranging powers over domestic matters. But disillusionment with the performance of that parliament (and the UK parliament in London), the long-standing belief that the English "stole" Scotland's oil and gas, and the postmodern temptations of identity politics, have put independence back on the agenda (a recent opinion poll found 51 percent of Scots favoring it).

And a new front has now been opened up in the independence debate from the political right. Writing in the latest issue of London-based Prospect magazine, Michael Fry, a conservative Scottish historian, argues that the only way to revive the moderate right in Scotland and to better reflect the country's conservative Calvinistic soul is for former Tories like himself to back the SNP. If enough Tories heed Fry's advice it makes the likelihood of a SNP victory in May even more likely.

That would be bad news for Gordon Brown, the British chancellor, who should be taking over from Tony Blair as prime minister soon after those May elections. Brown, who is a Scot, is well aware that following devolution many people in England question whether it is possible for a Scot to become prime minister -- hence he has been making many speeches about the importance of Britishness. (Unfortunately for him Britishness continues to become less meaningful, especially to the Scots, as those things that helped to create and sustain it such as empire, world wars, Protestantism and the labor movement, fade from memory and importance.) If the chatter about full independence started to grow louder, as it surely would with an SNP-dominated parliament, that could cast further doubt on Brown's standing as an all-British prime minister. It might also tempt David Cameron's reviving Conservative party to finally cast themselves as an English party.

Losing Scotland's 5 million people would not be a huge blow to England's size (more than 50m) and would not damage its main economic and cultural assets. But it would dent its standing in the wider world and might call into question things like the UK's permanent membership of the UN security council. More important it would be another depressing victory for tribalism. The Anglo-Scottish double act has been a rare example of successful multi-culturalism, with the moral earnestness of the Scots leavening the famous pragmatism of the English. On a more practical note, the Ireland model -- with its dynamic economy, and national self-confidence -- is increasingly popular in SNP circles. Yet Ireland looks far more like America than the social-democratic Scandinavian states that the left-wing Scots Nationalists admire. To emulate the Irish model, the Scots would probably need to cut public spending by one-third, not a good start to life as an independent nation.



The final paragraph should be consumed with a large pinch of salt, but the article remains largely decent until then. It's an issue that would fundamentally change the balance of power in global politics, but is rarely discussed at present.

Bayo
Nov 21st, 2006, 10:15 PM
You're right, Grachka. This is big stuff and yet the first I've read of it. Thanks for posting the article. I'll try to keep up with this.

Chris 84
Nov 21st, 2006, 10:24 PM
I don't think that the SNP have much of a chance of securing a majority at the elections. The LibDems and the Tories will hold the balance of power, and neither will sacrifise their unionistic tendencies to join the SNP in a coalition.

Moreover, the SSP, who looked to be a fast growing, pro independence and left leaning party, have sadly been left decimated since the Tommy Sheridan situation, and I doubt that Solidarity will pick up those votes. The Green Party's pro independence streak seems faint to me, so i feel that the SNP will be left isolated.

Moreover, even if the SNP were to call a referendum to which the Scottish people replied in favour of independence, the actual Act of independence would have to come from Westminster, which is strongly unionist, of course. The constitutional implications from a legal perspective are most interesting.

Martian Willow
Nov 21st, 2006, 11:20 PM
I would think independence is a long way off, whatever happens in the elections. Thats why it isn't discussed much. :)

Nakamuras free kick was impressive, though.

Grachka
Nov 21st, 2006, 11:27 PM
I don't think that the SNP have much of a chance of securing a majority at the elections. The LibDems and the Tories will hold the balance of power, and neither will sacrifise their unionistic tendencies to join the SNP in a coalition.

Moreover, the SSP, who looked to be a fast growing, pro independence and left leaning party, have sadly been left decimated since the Tommy Sheridan situation, and I doubt that Solidarity will pick up those votes. The Green Party's pro independence streak seems faint to me, so i feel that the SNP will be left isolated.

Moreover, even if the SNP were to call a referendum to which the Scottish people replied in favour of independence, the actual Act of independence would have to come from Westminster, which is strongly unionist, of course. The constitutional implications from a legal perspective are most interesting.
Very true, and Westminster wouldn't be obliged to accept the results of a referendum, as legally Holyrood would only be able to call a referendum on a consultative basis. The likelihood of Westminster rejecting it are slim though, as that would validate what the SNP have been saying all along: that Westminster don't treat Scottish demands and wishes seriously (= serious political capital for the SNP).

I don't think the Tories will be holding any sort of balance of power, as their vote seems to be slipping with every passing poll, and neither Labour nor the SNP seem at all interested in cooperating with them. The SNP will be relying on the Lib Dems being 'bought' (again :lol: )...with lots of cabinet seats and concessions. This could realistically happen, providing SNP do well next year.

SSP/Sheridan are dead, and good riddance. They were always a farcical imitation of the intellectual socialism that emerged from the UK in the 20th century, and did nothing but undermine socialist ideas with their modern day Stalinism.

I think it won't happen next year, but if there is an emergent right-wing independence-supporting party as is currently being touted then that could hasten the process, as that would effectively supplant the awful Tories. The isolation of the SNP is only harming the process, as it is effectively them against all parties and the Establishment. Given this is the most important step we could ever take, that's a sad state of affairs.

Number19
Nov 21st, 2006, 11:30 PM
FREEDOM!!!
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/original/braveheart.gif

controlfreak
Nov 21st, 2006, 11:44 PM
The End of the United Kingdom? What a load of sensationalistic garbage, the separation they are describing would take years to put into place, even if the people and politicians were ready for it tomorrow. Which they will not be.

Chris 84
Nov 21st, 2006, 11:51 PM
SSP/Sheridan are dead, and good riddance. They were always a farcical imitation of the intellectual socialism that emerged from the UK in the 20th century, and did nothing but undermine socialist ideas with their modern day Stalinism.

I thought the SSP provided some much-needed left wing opposition and ideas to a Parliament which in my opinion is very right-oriented. And in what way did Stalinism come into SSP politics?

They also provided people like myself with someone to vote for, cos no way would I ever vote for any of the other political parties.

The_Pov
Nov 22nd, 2006, 12:54 AM
Won't happen so easily seeing as the UK parliament in westminster still has sovereignty over the scottish parliament.

Chris 84
Nov 22nd, 2006, 12:57 AM
Won't happen so easily seeing as the UK parliament in westminster still has sovereignty over the scottish parliament.

I did point that fact out.
However, as Grachka said, politically it would be difficult for Westminster to justify not allowing independence if it had been achieved by a legitimate referendum of the Scottish people.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 22nd, 2006, 01:10 AM
If it happens, then it happens.
I just see it to be a very doubtful.
The UK union is the last battle for England and its grasp on a time when the sun never set for its Empire.

It will stay that way.
The power hold on the Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the other Brit Isles is interesting to say the least.

Lord Nelson
Nov 22nd, 2006, 12:33 PM
As long as the monarchy is in place, the UK will always remain intact (including Northern Ireland).

Zlatan 9
Nov 22nd, 2006, 12:44 PM
Let them have independence. Seal the borders, rebuild Hadrian's Wall and let the lefty-loving Jocks suffocate in their own piss-stained alcoholism if that'w what they want.

There's more loyalty to the crown in Australia than there is in Scotland!!

Grachka
Nov 22nd, 2006, 12:56 PM
I thought the SSP provided some much-needed left wing opposition and ideas to a Parliament which in my opinion is very right-oriented. And in what way did Stalinism come into SSP politics?

They also provided people like myself with someone to vote for, cos no way would I ever vote for any of the other political parties.
They are certainly a left-wing party, but all the other parties (bar the Toerags) are left-of-centre, so I don't know why you think it's right oriented!? All the other parties have big spending commitments, believing in big government and state provision. Only the SNP have made rightish noises recently, but that's because they're prostituting themselves to big business to seal legitimacy for independence - normally they'd be further to the left than Labour. Personally, I've believed the SSP has always been a personality cult, and has reflected this in their style of internal governance - comrades and so forth. Their explicit policy of absolute 'nationalisation without compensation' is frankly frightening.

Al long as the monarchy is in place, the UK will always remain intact (including Northern Ireland).
The monarchy are as irrelevant in this question as they are in everything else. :lol:

Let them have independence. Seal the borders, rebuild Hadrian's Wall and let the lefty-loving Jocks suffocate in their own piss-stained alcoholism if that'w what they want.

There's more loyalty to the crown in Australia than there is in Scotland!!
You criticise piss-stained alcoholics, and then declare your loyalty to the Crown? :tape:

Supporters of independence are often criticised for being hateful and xenophobic, but from what I can see, most of the vitriol and bile comes from the other side. :)

A_S
Nov 22nd, 2006, 12:57 PM
forget hateful and xenofobic and replace them with economically niave.... on that basis its a f*cking stupid idea, but sadly nationalism takes presidence over sensible thought, imho anyway. And thats both from a scotish and english point of view. we've got one of the most economically powerful united bodies of countries/nation/kingdom whatever you wanna call it, and lets throw that down the pan just for what? It aint gonna make everything magically better. Your only gonna get more of the shit you already get from hollyrood (or wherever the parliment is these days) And anyway, id like to go and visit my family without having to take my passport thank you very much :lol:

Grachka
Nov 22nd, 2006, 01:12 PM
forget hateful and xenofobic and replace them with economically niave.... on that basis its a f*cking stupid idea, but sadly nationalism takes presidence over sensible thought, imho anyway
What basis do you have for saying that? The economics of a country depend on the policies pursued by the government, and on external factors. The ability to cope with those, and the nature of the policies, is aided by natural resources, key industries etc. which Scotland has in abundance (moreso than super-rich Ireland, Norway, Iceland et al). The cost of state building is reduced by the fact that many parts of the state already exist, with separate legal/judicial, education and local government. The economy is shit at the moment because we fall under the same economic policy as SE England, which has completely different needs. It has nothing to do with nationalism, and everything to do with good governance.

So how again is that economically naive?

And thats both from a scotish and english point of view. we've got one of the most economically powerful united bodies of countries/nation/kingdom whatever you wanna call it, and lets throw that down the pan just for what? It aint gonna make everything magically better. Your only gonna get more of the shit you already get from hollyrood (or wherever the parliment is these days) And anyway, id like to go and visit my family without having to take my passport thank you very much
The SE of England is an incredibly powerful economic center (which makes the overall pretty strong) but this tends to suck from everyone else in the economic state. Best indicator for that is the Scottish population decline; Nothing indicates shitty economic growth and opportunity like a declining population.

You wouldn't need a passport, as we are both part of the Schengen agreement on the free movement of peoples in the European Union, so Border Controls would be illegal. Besides, Scotland and England would have a free movement agreement even if that weren't true.

A_S
Nov 22nd, 2006, 02:00 PM
So how again is that economically naive?

well for a start its dilution of power, splitting one of the most economically powerfull entities in 2. when your in one of the most powerful nations in the world why give that up? for what? so a few people (and lets face it in the big sceme of things it is a few people) want to be nationalistic and backward. The future is about integration, Check the intergration of europe over the last 50 years.... Not seperation :rolleyes: Collectiveness and collaboration always outweigh the individual...

Secondly if scotland was to want independence it would have to have its own currency, its own currency in a new nation isnt going to start strong, by nature people will be worried and wary plus the fact that it would be very much an importer of goods, so its gonna start low whatever. A week currency means that imports are cheap and exports are expensive. Now, i havent checked any stats but i presume a large proportion of the investment in scotland is foriegn (that would include the other current kingdom states) and of course it doesnt take a genious to work out the effects of high export prices. Foriegn companies wouldnt invest and current investors in the scottish economy would pull out, theres no question of that, businesses are in the business of wealth maximisation. Local industry would also struggle but thats a given in this sort of situation. Check british manufacturing in the 1990s/00s as a classic example

Not only that but the countries balance of payments would be severly negative due to the countries inability to sustain its own people (after loosing all the previously encompacing industries/companies under the kingdom, a double effect of taking away postive balance of payments issues and making them negative, britains current BoP is slightly negative already and i dont have any stats but i would say more than 70% of all industry is based outside scotland....). Severe money would have to be borrowed and the country would struggle for 5 or 10 years to get off its feet. Thats the case in any split or new nation, they are proven factors, the same would be the case for Wales, NI and england they happen in pretty much every case, whats to say scotland will be any different? I am no economist, i'm an accountant, so i cant say i am an expert, but in 5 minutes, thats my take on it.... I could delve into the stats and figures, to prove all this, but there is just no point for an internet messageboard...

Edit: I reject your view about having natural resources (i really dont see what that has to do with a major economic benefit, many countries have little of there own resources, ok you have a little oil and coal, and a few windfarms but the resources are running out..) and industries in abundance too. The decline (of one of your natural resources) of mining over the last 25 years has lead rise to a massive sector of the british service industry being based in scotland, and now form, i would presume a heafty stake of the scottish economy and employment in the most populated, lowland areas. Now, by nature a service industry neither consumes much, or produces anything other than serving its own people, nothing to export, nationally, in macro economic terms, that is not healthy for an individual state. Not to mention the fact these service industries, which have been designed for the Uk market would now primarilly be operating in foriegn lands, and we are back to the currency and balance of payments issues...

Epigone
Nov 22nd, 2006, 02:11 PM
There's more loyalty to the crown in Australia than there is in Scotland!!Down with the crown! :rocker2:

Johno_uk
Nov 22nd, 2006, 04:40 PM
Hell to the no!

I love living in the UK, if Scotland and England separated evrything would be diluted. There is just no point; we are a succesful and powerful country, so why change.

The argument about Scottish oil is piffle; it has nearly run out. Besides how would you divide it; there are two option either continue the border out into the sea at the same diretion as it is on land, in which case a lot would be English, or make a horizontal line out.

Scotland will never be like Scandinavia; taxation levels of 70-80% would not be accepted by a population used to low UK taxes.

I just don't see it happening; the EU is about integrating not dividing.

Chris 84
Nov 22nd, 2006, 07:20 PM
Let them have independence. Seal the borders, rebuild Hadrian's Wall and let the lefty-loving Jocks suffocate in their own piss-stained alcoholism if that'w what they want.

There's more loyalty to the crown in Australia than there is in Scotland!!

Gotta love the anti-Scottish racism :D

As a piss-stained, alcoholic Scot, could you please tell me what "that'w" means? :confused:

Chris 84
Nov 22nd, 2006, 07:26 PM
They are certainly a left-wing party, but all the other parties (bar the Toerags) are left-of-centre, so I don't know why you think it's right oriented!? All the other parties have big spending commitments, believing in big government and state provision. Only the SNP have made rightish noises recently, but that's because they're prostituting themselves to big business to seal legitimacy for independence - normally they'd be further to the left than Labour. Personally, I've believed the SSP has always been a personality cult, and has reflected this in their style of internal governance - comrades and so forth. Their explicit policy of absolute 'nationalisation without compensation' is frankly frightening.

New Labour are right of centre, and although they aren't so bad in Scotland as they are in England, I still regard them as right of centre.
The Lib Dems are left and right as it suits them.

I applaud policies of nationalisation without compensation when it comes to certain businesses.

I don't understand why you think that the SSP has always been a personality cult. The internal governance of the SSP, I can assure you is a thoroughly open and democratic one. And let's remember that the SSP did remove Tommy Sheridan as leader, so clearly the convenor of the party is not in a "Stalin-like" position. If the SSP was based on personality, surely it was the personality of Sheridan, and this can't have been a particularly strong kind of cult of personality since Sheridan was removed as convenor.

pla
Nov 22nd, 2006, 07:28 PM
Gotta love the anti-Scottish racism :D

As a piss-stained, alcoholic Scot, could you please tell me what "that'w" means? :confused:

You must be still drunk because of yesterday and don't understand the very well hidden message behind this :scratch: ;) :lol:

Congrats btw ;) :bounce: :lol:

As a converted already into a Scottish nationalist and to not be completely off topic, I would say that if Scotland had the same authonomy as Australia, I doubt there would be even thoughts of an eventual referendum.

Grachka
Nov 22nd, 2006, 08:20 PM
This was almost all complete rubbish:

well for a start its dilution of power, splitting one of the most economically powerfull entities in 2.
The position of the UK as an economically powerful entity is receding with every passing year. In fact, it is almost an irrelevance compared to the US, and especially the emerging Asian economies. This is where the money is to be made, and companies such as RBS should and could be investing in these burgeoning markets, rather than the declining UK!

when your in one of the most powerful nations in the world why give that up? for what? so a few people (and lets face it in the big sceme of things it is a few people) want to be nationalistic and backward.
Fallacy #1: Independence is "backward" and nationalistic. :lol: Currently, Scotland has no voice or part in the world. Independence changes this and enables Scotland to have a direct stake in the international community. A smaller, more self-confident Scotland would be proud of its international standing in the world *unlike under current arrangements*, and would work together with other nations in collective fashion to the benefit of us all. Given the isolated nature of the UK's foreign policy, can the same be said of the UK? :)

The future is about integration, Check the intergration of europe over the last 50 years.... Not seperation :rolleyes: Collectiveness and collaboration always outweigh the individual...
Oh, you're absolutely right about that. However, in reality Scotland gaining independence does not change this. Instead, it would be about Scotland integrating where and when it chose to, integrating with Europe, possibly even with the expanding Asian economies.

Collective action and cooperation does outweigh the individual, and nobody is saying that Scotland won't be doing this when it gets independence, however it certainly can't be claimed that we are weighing OUR options when attached to the Union.

Secondly if scotland was to want independence it would have to have its own currency, its own currency in a new nation isnt going to start strong, by nature people will be worried and wary plus the fact that it would be very much an importer of goods, so its gonna start low whatever. A week currency means that imports are cheap and exports are expensive. Now, i havent checked any stats but i presume a large proportion of the investment in scotland is foriegn (that would include the other current kingdom states) and of course it doesnt take a genious to work out the effects of high export prices. Foriegn companies wouldnt invest and current investors in the scottish economy would pull out, theres no question of that, businesses are in the business of wealth maximisation. Local industry would also struggle but thats a given in this sort of situation. Check british manufacturing in the 1990s/00s as a classic example
Rubbish. Independence does not necessitate a separate currency, especially in the short-term. It is FAR more likely that in the short-to-mid-term Scotland will retain the Pound, with a possible view to joining the Euro in the future, providing our economy meets the stringent criteria in order to do so. If we were to reject Eurozone membership, then it can still retain the Pound. It could print it's own banknotes (as it currently does) and maintain parity with the Pound, or it could set up its own monetary institutions. However, nobody has suggested that this will happen anytime in the near future post-independence :rolleyes:.

May I just add that foreign investors will not pull out of an economy because of "constitutional" change. Businesses run on money and profit, this is their primary objective and generally all they care about. Quality of workforce and general stability are important, but profit is the main concern. Independence would not change any of these things, and in fact may even reinforce them. Provided we don't elect a government that is hostile to business (unlikely given the popular parties) and guarantee them unfettered access to markets, they won't care too much, as businesses don't walk away from their investments. and their sunk costs very easily because they don't like the shade of government or constitutional apparatus we have. A case in point recently was an international oil company operating in Scotland (which has relations with the government vis a vis taxation), was asked in a House of Commons committee how it would deal with working with an independent Scottish government. The answer was that the business worked with all sorts countries across the world and Scotland would be no different.

Not only that but the countries balance of payments would be severly negative due to the countries inability to sustain its own people (after loosing all the previously encompacing industries/companies under the kingdom, a double effect of taking away postive balance of payments issues and making them negative, britains current BoP is slightly negative already and i dont have any stats but i would say more than 70% of all industry is based outside scotland....). Severe money would have to be borrowed and the country would struggle for 5 or 10 years to get off its feet. Thats the case in any split or new nation, they are proven factors, the same would be the case for Wales, NI and england they happen in pretty much every case, whats to say scotland will be any different? I am no economist, i'm an accountant, so i cant say i am an expert, but in 5 minutes, thats my take on it.... I could delve into the stats and figures, to prove all this, but there is just no point for an internet messageboard...
Er, what?

That is total rubbish - are you sure you are an accountant? According to studies (for example the recent one by Kemp & Stephen) Scotland's trade (minus oil) mimics that of the UK - with perhaps a small deficit, but nothing really major. The analysis with oil shows that "under all conceivable conditions Scotland would actually have a Balance of Payments surplus". [If you want more information on these studies and those of the Scottish Executive, they are all freely available]. I agree that we do trade services as well - one of our strongest growth areas in recent years. You don't just trade on physically produced assets.

I reject your view about having natural resources (i really dont see what that has to do with a major economic benefit, many countries have little of there own resources, ok you have a little oil and coal, and a few windfarms but the resources are running out..) and industries in abundance too. The decline (of one of your natural resources) of mining over the last 25 years has lead rise to a massive sector of the british service industry being based in scotland, and now form, i would presume a heafty stake of the scottish economy and employment in the most populated, lowland areas. Now, by nature a service industry neither consumes much, or produces anything other than serving its own people, nothing to export, nationally, in macro economic terms, that is not healthy for an individual state. Not to mention the fact these service industries, which have been designed for the Uk market would now primarilly be operating in foriegn lands, and we are back to the currency and balance of payments issues...
Scotland has some of the best energy resources in Europe. Oil revenue on the government's own figures is higher this year than any other since 1984. Regarding renewables we have more than a "few" windfarms :lol: we have multi-billion pound wind/wave and tidal potential which, whichever way you look at it, can only make a positive contribution to the economy.

Parts of England are far more dependent on services than Scotland (London). And as said before Scotland is a net exporter of services - ie you can export services. A lot of services "designed for the UK market" have been offshored in recent years - to India, rubbishing the "operating in foreign lands" argument. As part of Europe of course, England and Scotland would still be part of the pan-European free trade area. Scotland is part of the global economy, it is part of a free market of 450m, hopefully its ambitions are higher than that of solely the UK.

That being said, I still think it's more important to look at the prospect of independence on a social and political level, rather than solely economic. But, as most people vote with their wallets, it is important to bust the Ethiopia/Sudan myths perpetuated by people with vested interests in maintaining the sub-standard status quo. :)

Grachka
Nov 22nd, 2006, 08:27 PM
Hell to the no!

I love living in the UK, if Scotland and England separated evrything would be diluted. There is just no point; we are a succesful and powerful country, so why change.

The argument about Scottish oil is piffle; it has nearly run out. Besides how would you divide it; there are two option either continue the border out into the sea at the same diretion as it is on land, in which case a lot would be English, or make a horizontal line out.

Scotland will never be like Scandinavia; taxation levels of 70-80% would not be accepted by a population used to low UK taxes.

I just don't see it happening; the EU is about integrating not dividing.
You can still love both countries if this were to happen. Nobody is suggesting that we erect walls and stab intruders etc. (well, except that Australian Zlatan numpty).

Oil companies have extracted about half as much oil as they are going to extract, so with current oil prices and future oil price projections, we can expect the profits from the second half of a 'declining' industry to be even greater than the first half, and even if they are wrong by a significant degree, we would most likely still be in budget surplus it has only ever been a lucky bonus.

And the ownership of oil has already been determined by international law. The Continental Shelf Act (1964) and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order (1968) determined that over 90% of oil lay in Scottish jurisdiction, and those are the parameters that would govern the independence negotiations over oil revenues.

Scotland is probably more likely to integrate further into the EU than if it remained as part of the UK, with the other members of the UK being traditionally more hostile to it than Scotland. :lol:

fufuqifuqishahah
Nov 23rd, 2006, 12:17 AM
An American perspective. :)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/david_goodhart/2006/11/end_of_the_united_kingdom.html

The End of the United Kingdom?

[I]London, England - One of the world's most successful multinational states, and a key ally of the United States, could in a few months time start to unravel: I mean, of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The break up of the UK will not be inevitable even if the SNP do dominate the parliament, but it will certainly make the political classes of Britain -- and perhaps of the U.S. and the main EU states too -- think hard about the point and value of the union to them.

this is true. the problem with a republic & similiar governments is that it can encourage geographic separation as evidenced in this UK situation... in America... in Canada... and other segregated states.

Zlatan 9
Nov 23rd, 2006, 01:15 AM
Gotta love the anti-Scottish racism :D

As a piss-stained, alcoholic Scot, could you please tell me what "that'w" means? :confused:

Come on, you must be above pointing out people's typing errors.

Grachka
Nov 23rd, 2006, 07:50 AM
Come on, you must be above pointing out people's typing errors.
I think you should be thankful that he was above pointing out, in more explicit terms, what a jaw-droppingly ignorant post it was, and what an award-winning ignoramus you are. :o

fifiricci
Nov 23rd, 2006, 08:28 AM
forget hateful and xenofobic and replace them with economically niave.... on that basis its a f*cking stupid idea, but sadly nationalism takes presidence over sensible thought, imho anyway. And thats both from a scotish and english point of view. we've got one of the most economically powerful united bodies of countries/nation/kingdom whatever you wanna call it, and lets throw that down the pan just for what? It aint gonna make everything magically better. Your only gonna get more of the shit you already get from hollyrood (or wherever the parliment is these days) And anyway, id like to go and visit my family without having to take my passport thank you very much :lol:

I agree, we get the same nationalist nonsense in Wales. God forbid that we should ever seek independence from the UK. The Welsh Assembly Government is a joke, they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery and the quality of the politicians that we have to put up with here is laughable. Most of them are jumped up local councillors with all the self importance and parochialism that nightmares are made of. :help:

LondonLewis
Nov 23rd, 2006, 08:31 AM
no, the UK should stick together, and take over the world :devil:

Zlatan 9
Nov 23rd, 2006, 10:13 AM
I think you should be thankful that he was above pointing out, in more explicit terms, what a jaw-droppingly ignorant post it was, and what an award-winning ignoramus you are. :o

I said it was an option for Scotland, they're not bound by necessity. But in truth, to point out such petty criticisms as above says more about him than anything. The w is next to the s, you know the intention so why pinpoint the mistake?? Because it's about the best comeback that can be mustered?? It had the impotency of a ninety-year-old. I wouldn't search your histories for typing errors because I'm not that sad.

I take it you didn't absorb the comic satire associated with the post.

LK_22
Nov 23rd, 2006, 12:14 PM
This isn't going to happen.....

Scotland has too much to lose and not enough to gain by breaking away from Great Britain completely.