Hypothetical: Scotland Becomes Independent

[Harshad]

First of, what would happen to the Union flag? Would the St. Andrews cross be removed? Would it be replaced with an element of the Welsh flag?

Would Scotland become a NATO member, or take the Irish route, attempting to be neutral?

What would happen to Scottish serving in the British military?

Would it join the EU, and if so, would it adopt its own currency, or join the Eurozone?

And on and on.

---------------

I personally think it would not become a NATO memer, or if by virtue of being a former part of the UK is already a part of NATO, withdraw from it.

It would join the EU and the Eurozone. The UK quickly follows suit.

The British flag would drop the St. Andrews cross, and replace it with a Red dragon in the center of the flag.

I am not entirely sure what would happen to Scottish serving in the military.

 

[Bast]

Impossible. The Stuart line is finished. Who will take up the throne? Acts of Union 1707 forever seals it, I can't see it happening.

 

[Riffraff]

Impossible. The Stuart line is finished. Who will take up the throne? Acts of Union 1707 forever seals it, I can't see it happening.

yes, that is certainly the main obstacle facing scottish independance...

 

[RedRalph]

Impossible. The Stuart line is finished. Who will take up the throne? Acts of Union 1707 forever seals it, I can't see it happening.

Is this a serious post?

FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with what the OP says, but I think they would likely have some form of military arrangement with England, where the Royal navy etc can still use Scots bases in return for some concessions, maybe a guarantee of Scottish security etc, so I dont think scots being in the English army would be a huge problem.

 

[Moggy]

We would keep the flag pretty much the same just with a bit less blue and continue to ignore the Welsh.

 

[fugazi]

Impossible. The Stuart line is finished. Who will take up the throne? Acts of Union 1707 forever seals it, I can't see it happening.

Welcome to 2009, no one gives a damn about royalty anymore.

 

[str8_probe23]

If Scotland became independent?

We would go and take it back!

 

[Masada]

I expect England would rejoice as the persistent drain to its coffers committed fiscal suicide.

Impossible. The Stuart line is finished. Who will take up the throne? Acts of Union 1707 forever seals it, I can't see it happening.

Put someone from the House of Condé on the throne. French Huguenots on the Scottish throne makes for a great deal of amusement.

 

[Kraznaya]

A lot of wrangling over North Sea oil.

 

[GinandTonic]

The ideas being put forward by the nationalists is to keep part of the UK military for the short to medium term. This is basically because military contracts like trident keep being used as pork barrels for the scotts.

So the nationalist position can be summed up as "illegial war in iraq, ruinous waste of billions in trident, scotland must take it's rightful place on the international stage after centuries under the '"butchers apron"', but we'll stay part of uk millitary for the duration of the fat contracts such as, well now you come to mention it, trident".

Naked hypocrisy.

 

[really]

The Irish part of the union flag wasn't removed when we left - I doubt it would be changed.

I imagine QEII would still be the head of state - we kept the king (represented by a governor) for many years after independence. We also had Royal Navy ports for a couple of decades. The army pulled out pretty quickly. We shared our currency.

One of the things that did get messed up was customs and tariffs in the 30s - but everyone was doing that at the time.

 

[Munch]

We'd invade, immediately. It has been too long since we had a good battle together, and they certainly wouldn't be expecting it. Just think of all the natural resources we could acquire.

 

[RedRalph]

The Irish part of the union flag wasn't removed when we left - I doubt it would be changed.

I imagine QEII would still be the head of state - we kept the king (represented by a governor) for many years after independence. We also had Royal Navy ports for a couple of decades. The army pulled out pretty quickly. We shared our currency.

One of the things that did get messed up was customs and tariffs in the 30s - but everyone was doing that at the time.

I can't see the SNP keeping Mrs Windsor as HOS. I'm pretty sure it'd be a Republic.

 

[Quackers]

Over my dead body.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Impossible. The Stuart line is finished. Who will take up the throne? Acts of Union 1707 forever seals it, I can't see it happening.

Welcome to 2009, no one gives a damn about royalty anymore.

Strangely enough, royalty is probably way more important to the functioning of Canada than Scotland and the rest of the UK. Not because anyone here gives a rats arse, but simply because the crown is so central to our laws, courts, and (importantly) our endless treaties with the natives. Any attempt to turn us into a republic (or change the royal family) would be probably just disintegrate the country.

As for Scotland, it is probably not as relevant, because they have a simpler nation that could redefine itself relatively easily. The Scots are still Scots. That goes for the Aussies as well.

Union Flag: Why the heck would the UK change its flag because Scotland leaves? National branding is difficult and takes time. The Union flag is iconic, and I am sure they would just leave it as is, even if it contains anachronistic elements.

 

[Shekwan]

Scotland would be better off outside the UK, but in the EU. Could fall victim to the natural resource curse though, perhaps the Jacobite pretender(s?) will set up an petrodictatorship.

Strangely enough, royalty is probably way more important to the functioning of Canada than Scotland and the rest of the UK. Not because anyone here gives a rats arse, but simply because the crown is so central to our laws, courts, and (importantly) our endless treaties with the natives. Any attempt to turn us into a republic (or change the royal family) would be probably just disintegrate the country.

Its called a Republican constitution, write one some time, you might get a right or two.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Its called a Republican constitution, write one some time, you might get a right or two.

Woe!!! You are sure sharp. Perhaps Canada could learn a thing or two from the Irish about keeping peace and avoiding war amongst disparate peoples with different histories, religions, languages, ethnic origins, etc..

When Canada was stitched together, the eastern portion was roughly the size of western Europe and had, oh roughly the population of Ireland. We combined French, English, Scottish, Natives, and yes Green and Orange Irish. The latter two magically didn't slaughter each other here, either.

It is a friggen MIRACLE that Canada exists. Absolute miracle. And you know how it was done? By not worrying tooo much about republican constitutional ideals. Everything was basically a practical compromise. Who cares if the French are overrepresented? If it keeps the country together, that is all that matters. The queen is the head of state? It keeps us from being Americans, and is convenient for the courts, etc. In practice, we were way more egalitarian than the U.S. and the U.K. anyway, so the legal details were irrelevant.

Is it anachronistic in the 21st century? Ya, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the U.K. kicked out the Windsor's, we should build them a house in Ottawa just so we don't have to squabble through more Meech Lake or Charlottetown Accords. The problem is that if you look closely at us, our country doesn't make any freaking sense! So it is just best not to look closely.

When our country almost unravelled over a decade ago, it was fallout from when we tried to tinker and perfect our constitution, which was kinda silly since it was hurting us.

Fine, the Republic of Ireland does okay now, but what about Ireland as a whole? Every time we could have broken down into civil war, violence, and separation, we have opted for peace, order, and good government. Why do you think the FLQ failed in Quebec? The Quebecois are too sophisticated for violent separation, even if they are nationalists. In every way that your people have sucked, our people have rocked.

Rant over. BTW, I am not actually hostile to you, I had a great deal of fun writing this post

 

[Shekwan]

Woe!!! You are sure sharp. Perhaps Canada could learn a thing or two from the Irish about keeping peace and avoiding war amongst disparate peoples with different histories, religions, languages, ethnic origins, etc..

When Canada was stitched together, the eastern portion was roughly the size of western Europe and had, oh roughly the population of Ireland. We combined French, English, Scottish, Natives, and yes Green and Orange Irish. The latter two magically didn't slaughter each other here, either.

It is a friggen MIRACLE that Canada exists. Absolute miracle. And you know how it was done? By not worrying tooo much about republican constitutional ideals. Everything was basically a practical compromise. Who cares if the French are overrepresented? If it keeps the country together, that is all that matters. The queen is the head of state? It keeps us from being Americans, and is conveniently for the courts, etc. In practice, we were way more egalitarian than the U.S. and the U.K. anyway, so the legal details were irrelevant.

When our country almost unravelled over a decade ago, it was fallout from when we tried to tinker and perfect our constitution, which was kinda silly since it was hurting us.

Fine, the Republic of Ireland does okay now, but that is only but what about Ireland as a whole? Every time we could have broken down into civil war, violence, and separation, we have opted for peace, order, and good government. Why do you think the FLQ failed in Quebec? The Quebecois are too sophisticated for violent separation, even if they are nationalists. In every way that your people have (historically) sucked, our people have rocked.

I suppose you're looking for me to defend Ireland now? You're asking the wrong guy, Ireland is, and probably always will be poorly run corrupt and a crappy place to live. Why anyone would put themselves in harms way let alone die for it is something that baffles me, nonetheless violent republicanism is still aslive here. I would imagine the reason the Irish didn't fight each other when they got to Canada was because they realised there more to the world thany a rain hole piece of rock in the northern Atlantic.

That all has nothing to do with what you're saying though. Why couldn't Canada replace the current Head of State with a President? He wouldn't have to be directly elected or have any power. Just another figurehead. You are right in highlighting the success Canada has had in remaining unified but I don't see how a powerless figurehead couldn't be replaced with essentially the same thing (but Canadian) if the situation arose where it had to be.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Our laws and treaties are based on the crown in particular. The Natives signed their treaties with the crown, and to try to change it would probably mean having to deal with hundreds or even thousands of deals. And, again, the key is that to change anything would involve getting almost everyone to agree on the package to change everything. It is a recipe for extremely petty squabbles between annoyingly provincial peoples that are just looking for reasons to finger-point.

Why change? Everyone more or less just grumbles to themselves as long as we just leave things as they are. We are a fairly uncorrupt country. We are more democratic in many ways than, for instance, the republican U.S. Clearly the technicality of a "republic" doesn't mean much compared to the details of how the government actually functions. We have multiple parties, and an extremely cranky electorate that is willing to punish incumbents for even minor corruption (except maybe local politics in Quebec). What good would the word "president" do?

The monarchy is a slave to us. They are necessary for the way our government has evolved and they need our money to continue with their positions. They aren't even that bad. Ooooohh someone is having an affair... big deal! The Windsors aren't half as embarrassing as the Bushes, Clintons, or Reagans of the republican world. The Queen, in fact seems very smart, and relatively progressive. And, using the U.S. as an example, we treat the royals with way less royalty than the U.S. treats its republican leaders with all the ridiculous pseudo-religious ceremony and obsession over their bibl.... er constitution.

"Oh, here comes the presidential limousine... he is bringing out the wand of freedom... he is waving it over the screaming, praying onlookers... "

"Oh, now Tom he is saying the holy scripture of our blessed, good, slave-owning, duelling founding fathers... the crowd is now jeering at the bus carrying Ralph Nader."

"The heretic who dared challenge the two ruling far-right and centre-right parties."

MY point is that if it is de facto democratic and it is easier and more efficient for a country to continue with the present system, why fix it? I think Scotland would have a way easier time than Canada in creating a republic. It might even be more unifying for its people. Then again, maybe it wouldn't... I don't know. But the obsession over republican constitutionalism is a bit strange IMO.

 

[Moggy]

I agree with Desmond. Getting rid of the monarchy (I am talking from a UK point of view) is pointless. All that would happen is we replace the Queen (or King if it happens after Lizzie) with a President. Who would almost certainly be less popular, more expensive and a hell of a lot more corrupt.

I don’t buy the argument that the UK would get less tourists if we ditched the monarchy. But we would be a hell of a lot more boring as a republic.