Stephen Williams I've already been told that they haven't left yet and I know it'll take at least 2 years if not more. Also I realize we would have to find out what the rules would be when/if the UK does leave.
+HamishPlays That would have been interesting is Scotland had voted to leave since the SNP wanted the nukes out of Scotland but doing that would have meant significant costs to the rest of the UK. I wonder how those talks would have played out.
+Soliloquy Independence would not have been effective immediately so the UK would have had a couple of years or so to relocate Trident or anything related to nuclear weapons. Still, not an expert but 2 years seem pretty short for such a complex project to be completed. There would likely have been some sort of deal to give the British more time. After all, there is nothing the Scots can do about it unilaterally.
+British Traditionalist Even more as i doubt futher RN ships would have been built in Scotland which might have been good news for the North of England.
Why? Now that the UK has left the EU, Scotland would be really alone for a few years, and Spain may refuse to accept Scotland into the union. Second the US and UK would probably question Scotland inside NATO. Third what currency would Scotland use? Keeping the Pound is dumb because you're still tied to England and getting the Euro is dumb because you'll lose sovereignty to the Belgians and Germans. Scottish Independence is a terrible, horrible, idea that us being pushed on the Scottish people by the leftist SNP who are just power hungry. Scotland gains so much more by being part of the UK. And if you think England has too much power over Scotland than reform the House of Lords and give it some power, had make Scotland have a voice in the upper chamber of Parliament.
A Panelbase survey asked people for their views on what should happen if the UK Government continues to refuse to give permission for an independence vote - asking if the Scottish Parliament should legislate for such a ballot and then allow the courts to decide if it could go ahead. Of those who expressed an opinion, 56% agreed with such an approach, with 44% opposed.
I don't think it would affect the world very much. It would certainly affect Scotland, to a lesser extent England, but even the effect on England may be minimal, especially after a short number of years.
I know this is past tense, but I never got why the rest of the UK would be allowed, by default, to stay in the EU and/or keep all other treaties it has before the split, but Scotland would not. The treaties were made at the time Scotland would've still been part of the rest of the UK, and after the separations the there would be two new countries, since the UK changed a lot too.
As a matter of law there can be only one continuator state. The remainder of the UK would be retaining the majority of the territory, population and government institutions so it was not seen as a realistic option for Scotland to claim continuator status. It would be also rather complicated if the rest of the UK was not to be a continuator state given it's nuclear status in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and permanent seat on the UN security council . However, for the rest of the UK there is precedence set by Russia continuing to take the seat of the USSR after the breakup of the USSR.
+Soliloquy Well the UN security council seat of China went to what we now call Taiwan. So that (territory, population, gov. institutions) is no necessarily the guiding principle. *As a matter of law there can be only one continuator state.* Is this international law? And.. does it have to happen? And won't it also create similar oddities for the Scottish example. I mean... isn't Scotland where the nuclear subs are located? Also... didn't the UK 'recently' decided to renew their subs, which would be in contradiction with the nuclear proliferation treaty? imo there are just to many glaring problems that would in one way or another also arise for the 'UK' as the would for Scotland that it would not be a totally done deal. Or at least... it ought not to be. It's just 'empire/hegemony' all over again. Might is what makes right, now law. And laws are made with power too :P Yes, now (with that last sentence) I made it water proof: I'm right! xD
+daddyleon Well the UN security council seat of China went to what we now call Taiwan True, the Republic of China (Taiwan) was eventually expelled and the Peoples Republic of China took it's seat at the UN. PROC at that point became the continuator state, at least officially. The PROC was initially a rebellion, the ROC does not recognise the PROC and vice versa. In the case of the breakup of the USSR, Russia claimed continuator status and the other former soviet republics agreed. The UK Scotland situation would likely be more like the USSR than China in this respect. Is this international law? As far as international law/convention goes yes. With the notable exception of the human rights conventions only one nation can be a continuator state with regards to a international treaty; other states must resign treaties. It can be complecated who is the continuator state, sometimes like in the breakup of Malaysia and Singapore it is simple and included in the separation treaty; other times is is less obvious. Singapore split from Malaysia on good terms and so it was very easy for Singapore to enter diplomacy and for Malaysia to be the official continuator state. isn't Scotland where the nuclear subs are located? Yes, but the SNP had declared their intention to be nuclear free. So by agreement between Scotland and the UK the nuclear weapons would remain in control of Westminster, and regardless of where they are located they would be under the control of the UK military. didn't the UK 'recently' decided to renew their subs, which would be in contradiction with the nuclear proliferation treaty? The nuclear proliferation treaty doesn't prohibit development of new subs or missiles. The disarmament clause only requires them to negotiate towards the goal of total disarmament in good faith. Other treaties prevent the creation of new warheads.
+Soliloquy *The UK Scotland situation would likely be more like the USSR than China in this respect.* I agree, but maybe for different reasons than yours? PROC was a rebellion that was successful, it gained the landmass and population, it imposed its will on the UNSC in that respect. Yes, diplomatically and not with guns, but still. The ex soviet countries did recognize it for obvious reasons, there would be little chance of success in fighting that idea. I also don't think there was any real idea to even attempt, it just didn't occur. The whole nature of the UNSC was not based on some sort of treaties claim and historicity, but on the practical situation in the world. E.g. If Russia and PROC would not be part of it but the ROC and.... Mongolia would be... who would take that constellation seriously. The situation between the UK and Scotland would not be similar to these examples. Scotland does have need for things like EU treaties, the soviet states did not have such needs. *Other treaties prevent the creation of new warheads* So it's still, somewhat shady? Thanks for your reply btw :3
So it's still, somewhat shady? Not really, since they are not expanding their arsenal of nuclear warheads. Scotland does have need for things like EU treaties The Scottish parliament could apply for EU membership. They could even do this in advance of becoming independent. I agree, but maybe for different reasons than yours? The reason I think the USSR example is more applicable to the Scotland example is that PROC and ROC were not getting along well (being at war) while Russia and the former soviet republics at least to some extent were working together.
I'm sorry, but why do people always get the flag wrong? The hypothetical new flag wouldn't be the one shown at 0:55 - it would be St. George's Cross combined with a SYMMETRICAL St. Patrick's cross. In the current Union Jack, the diagonal red stripes of St. Patrick's cross are placed asymmetrical because othewise they would be on top of the white stripes of St. Andrew's cross. In vexilogy this means that Northern Ireland is more important than Scotland, which would be quite problematic of course. In order to avoid this problem, it was chosen to place the red stripes asymmetrical relative to the white one's in order to show that both St. Patrick's cross and St. Andrew's cross are equally important. Just removing the blue parts (the background of the scottish flag) is simply ignorant.
A kingdom is only united if it involves two or more kingdom's (ie plur). Scot Ind will leave only one kingdom (ie Eng) (reigned over by a female king (ie a queen'(?)) united to a principality (ie Wales) and a neo-provincial statelet (ie Nth IRL). Orig Eng/Scot settlement was called Kingdom of Britain (KoB). Scot Ind will also take the Gt out GB.
@George Job There you go again, showing your hatred for all things European. You lot hate the English because our DNA is supposedly more European as yours. Why do you Gaelic... (never were Celts, you just took their culture and twisted, distorted and corrupted it, and created a cult of hatred.) ...people hate European DNA so much.
Okay so I am an American and I know little about UK politics. The best examples I have about people's views on this are a century out of date at least. Would one of my friends over the pond kindly explain all of this to me, please?
Basically, Scotland is literally split down the middle about Independence, like literally 50/50. There was a referendum in 2014 which ended up being 49% to 51% in favour of staying. But now the UK has left the EU, which scottish people quite like, mainly due to the amount of money the Eu grants to Scotland for cultural heritage and roads and especially farming. The EU also loves Scotland because of fishing rights, the West coast of Scotland, is literally flooded by Spanish, Irish, Norwegian... boats. As well as the North Sea and Atlantic Sea oi, which btw will still last a 100 or so years, google North Atlantic oil if you doubt me. Anyway basically the UK wants Scotland, and half of Scotland wants them but the other half only wants Scotland and crossing over all of that two thirds of Scotland wants the EU and the whole of the Eu wants Scotland except like the Spanish government who doesn't want Catalan to get Independence because Catalan puts in way more money to the spanish government than they get back, it literally holds up Spain, the same way as some people say Scotland holds up the UK's Economy/ There enjoy, if you have any more questions, feel free.
Queen Elizabeth isn't the true rules of Scotland there still remains to this day a man from the old Scottish family, check up the group were all the different countries royalties are a part of, the English government doesn't won't anyone to know the truth about the kingdom of Scotland but we here in Scotland and many in Europe do know, the current royal family has no rightful claim to the Scottish throne
I'm not completely sure of the whole EU thing. No country has ever left the EU, and I'm not sure that Brussels would strip 5,000,000 people of their citizenship because they achieved independence from another EU member state. Without a proper mandate on how this would be handled, along with a lack of public permission for that change would lead me to think it would be unconstitutional.
Soviet union fell in 1991. We the people of Finland still haven't joined Nato. Until the Eu-Russia trade sanctions there have been trade benefits with that decision. Only history will tell if it was a wise decision. Finlandization isn't totally dead either. Unfortunately.
Great Wolf Scotland is already is part of the EU. As Scotland is part of the UK and the UK as a whole is a EU member. When Scotland becomes independent from the UK, Scotland will become a new country and not part of anything, until Scotland decides who or what to join.
Hi Solioquy you need to do a new one like this on now after the brexit what will scotland have another indy and join the eu from a Brexit england an wales
Since BREXIT they're talking about yet another Scotland secession referendum. Rather indecisive, aren't they? Maybe they want to make this an annual event - sometimes leaving the UK, sometimes rejoining, sometimes keeping whatever the current status might then be.
If a week is a long time in politics then two years is an era particularly with regard to this video . The SNP has 95% of the Scottish representation at Westminster and the once mighty Labour party is to all intents extinct in Scotland and ,England has voted to take the whole of the UK out of the EU against the wishes of the Scottish electorate . The UK is a very different country from the one in 2014.
The Bloc Québécois is a Québec independance party which had the majority of Québec members of the Canadian parliament for about 20 years, until they were wiped out. These movements come and go.
Which doesn't make sense to me. Why does Scotland want independence from London but is willing to surrender sovereignty to Brussels? Someone is giving someone money, that's the only answer.
Scotland wouldn't have any reason to give up the pound, since it's just as much Scotland's currency as England's. I mean, no-one would say to Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Jamaica, and Hong Kong that they can't have their own dollars just because they're independent of the US (thank goodness). That said, if Scotland did get their own currency, it should be the Not, with 100 Sgillin(ean) per Not. I only say this because "not" is Gaelic for "pound", and "sgillin" is Gaelic for "penny". (So essentially, it would still be the same currency).
The pound is, and would still be, run by the Bank of England; who sends keep one million pound notes in it vaults that allow the Bank of Scotland to issue it's own pounds (backed by those notes in the vaults). Westminster and the Bank of England made it clear they would not be interested in a formal currency union with an independent Scotland. So sure Scotland could keep using it informally in the same way as Montenegro uses the Euro. The downside being that Scotland would have no control over their fiscal policy.
+Soliloquy The Scottish government pointed out that in the case that Westminster wasn't going to fairly share out joint UK national assets like the pound sterling, they wouldn't feel obliged to take on their fair share of the national debt as it stood.
What would happen: Great Britain would not exist but the United Kingdom still would the full name of the UK would be like you said The United Kingdom of England,Wales and Northern Ireland and Wales would finally be known as a state of the UK
One aspect you didn't touch on and seems of some importance is the effect of Scottish independence on peace in Northern Ireland. Currently, the province is at peace under a power sharing arrangement following the Good Friday Agreement. But things are only stable because of pragmatic decisions on both sides. Would Scotland's independence rekindle aspirations of a more ideological nature and collapse the Good Friday agreement? Also, I understand that the European Union can't simply advertise that an independent Scotland would automatically become an EU member, this would be interfering in purely internal UK affairs where the EU has no authority. And since the EU is ideologically opposed to nationalism and regionalism, it can't possibly be seen as supporting separatism. But I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would have been a member of the EU by the time independence was effective and that there would have been no change. Scotland's application to join the European Union would be a mere formality as the country already meets all entry criteria. If the people of Scotland had voted for independence, the EU would quickly have changed their stance and worked on Scotland's membership to ensure a smooth transition by independence day.
***** I explained that. The EU simply cannot promise to grant membership to an independent Scotland before the referendum, it would be giving a huge boost to the Yes camp. Politically, it is simply not possible. But after a vote to leave the UK, the EU would soften their stance and a number of respected EU figure have said the EU should not remove rights of existing EU citizens. Pat Cox, former president of the European Parliament wrote an entire report on the subject. And it goes without saying that, if there is a Brexit, the EU wouldn't think twice before granting EU membership to a possible independent Scotland, as the UK would likely be in bad terms with the EU. If there is a Brexit, and this looks far more likely now that ever before, it would be a PR disaster for the EU. Allowing Scotland's accession to the bloc could be used as an anti-Brexit PR remedy, demonstrating that not every wants to leave the Union, other successful countries like Scotland want to go the other way.
***** I agree it's a lack of certainty, I'm simply saying that the EU has this stance primarily because, politically, they cannot have another one. I'm a die hard supporter of the European project so I don't like the current situation but let's face it, the EU is in dire need of some supporters right now. In these circumstances, can you seriously imagine them refusing an entire nation? In any case, it really looks like Brexit could be the only way for the nationalists to call a second referendum in the near future.
***** A vote to remain will set back the independence project. But longer term, Scottish independence may well be just a question of time, Brexit or not. If you look at the demographics of Scottish independence, you'll find that it is mostly supported by younger people and largely opposed by older voters. In a generation, that generation of pensioners will be gone. A Lord Ashcroft poll taken just after the referendum revealed who voted what and that demographic tend was about as clear as it could get, the only surprise being the 18-24: 16-17: Yes: 71% No 29% 18-24: Yes: 48% No 52% 25-34: Yes: 59% No 41% 35-44: Yes: 53% No 47% 45-54: Yes: 52% No 48% 55-64: Yes: 43% No 57% 65+ : Yes: 27% No 73% As you can see, it's the 55-64 and the over 65 that made the difference. Of course the problem with that analysis is that young voters are young today but in a generation, they will be middle aged and today's middle aged will be pensioners. Who knows if these people will remain proponents of independence. You sure grow more conservative as your grow older. I really took a keen interest in the Scottish referendum campaign, despite being neither Scottish nor British (I'm French). I was reading analysis on it almost daily for about a year. I must say I was impressed by the quality of the debate. It was very constructive unlike the EU referendum one. It's a real shame, I really thought this was an opportunity for Britain to get educated about the EU but the debate remains stuck at the EUSSR level or about whether Vladimir Putin would have a big smile on his face on the 24th. Pretty poor show I think. I have to say that the Yes camp swayed me during the indy ref campaign, to me they clearly won the argument. Unlike most nationalists, they were able to demonstrate how they would use this independence. I began thinking Scottish independence was for loonies and ended up undecided by the day of the vote. But as it is with the EU vote, there is just too much uncertainty and the result didn't surprise me. Finally, I'm slightly schizophrenic on the Brexit vote. On the one hand, I'm making the case for remain because I believe in the EU project, but as a continental European, I secretly hope for a Brexit. The EU project is at a standstill and I'm kind of hoping that the UK leaving is the impetus the project needs to push for further political integration. Obviously, we can't do that with the UK on board. We may even have to allow others to go. Frankly, right now I'm really scaling back my dream ambition of a United Europe. A mere merger of my country with Germany would already satisfy me. And I'm not even sure the Germans would have us given how much of a mess we are right now.
***** Well I was really talking about the debate in the media. They really addressed the key issues regarding Scotland and both sides made good points. Never did you have a week where one camp was comparing the other side to Hitler and the other camp saying their opponents were on the side of ISIS! But incredibly enough this did happen in the Brexit referendum campaign. I'm far more of a centrist voter to ever vote for an outfit like the SNP (I supported the Lib Dems back when I was living in the UK) but I also realised that Alex Salmond wasn't the boogieman he is supposed to be. I remember how he was asked about the difference between the Irish quest for independence and the Scottish. He replied that the main difference was that the Scots were never oppressed by the English. That was refreshing to hear a nationalist leader say that. Just compare it to what you hear from Catalan nationalists. Do people look oppressed to you when you visit Barcelona? Not even talking about Flemish nationalists, they are literally deranged. In some municipalities in Flanders, a French speaker can inquire about something in French (banning that would be against federal laws) but the civil servants are banned from replying in any other language than Flemish. French speaking visitors have to request an interpreter despite everyone in the building speaking fluent French. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Believe me, the Scottish nationalists are tolerant compared to these other guys and actually talk in ways that sane people can understand. As for your last point, I can't deny there is bigotry against the other side but there is one key difference. Scottish nationalists are not trying to destroy the rest of the United Kingdom. UKIP supporters are not merely advocating for a withdrawal from the EU, they are opening calling for the collapse of the European Union and their politicians in Brussels are actively working to make that happen. And as a pro-EU Frenchman that's when they stop being my opponents and become my enemies. The EU referendum campaign is waged on 3 fronts: - The economy: not really a surprise since the EU is first and foremost a trade bloc. But since no one understand economics and trade, that's not helping the debate. - Sovereignty: that's just a far right talking point mixed with ignorance of how the EU legislative process works. After months of campaigning, the entire country is still convinced that the majority of laws come from Brussels when in reality, these laws are mere norms and standards relating to the single market. - Immigration: A nostalgia of what Britain used to look like in the 1950s and most people don't even know what it really did look like. Frankly, the UK was a mess back then. The country had negative net migration, for good reasons. Believe me, no one in Europe envied the British back then. The country managed to turn things around and current high levels of immigration are a sign that the UK is again one of the best place to be in Europe. People should celebrate immigration. No wonder the debate is so poor if those are the main talking points, they are all a symptom of national egoism. Meanwhile, the number one issue relating to the EU, actually, probably the only issue worth debating, is not even mentioned: What is good for our continent? How we can put ancestral enmities behind us and move forward in peace and prosperity? Nah!, that's not part of the debate.
Polls now the highest for Independence 63% 12/4/20 Opinium found that 54 per cent of people would vote Yes 25/5/20 YouGov found that 54 per cent of people would vote Yes 4/6/20 Opinium found that 54 per cent of people would vote Yes 21/6/20 Panelbase found that 54 per cent of people would vote Yes 12/8/20 YouGov found that 53 per cent of people would vote Yes 19/8/20 Savanta ComRes found that 54 per cent of people would vote Yes 19/8/20 Panelbase found that 55 per cent of people would vote Yes 02/9/20 Panelbase found that 63 per cent of people would vote Yes This is a turning point for Britain it won't be called the United Kingdom anymore as Scotland will soon be Independent, N Ireland will soon join Ireland so Wales and England will have to be called rUK (rest of the UK) or little Britain.
No, it wouldn't. An independent Scotland would just make the West weak and ruin a bunch of economics and overall be a horrible situation. Scotland is stronger and better inside the UK.
@@walterfielding9079 I really do not care about the West but rather about the Scottish people so I still won't support Scottish Independence because the SNP Are bad for the Scottish people and they really should not be given any more power
Really curious with what's going to happen with indyref2. The main reason that we voted to stay united the first time, was because we feared that it'd take a long time to reapply to the EU. Now that Brexit has happened and Artical 50 is being triggered on the 29th, the first minister proposed indyref2, as scotland really doesn't want to leave the EU. Personally, I want to wait until brexit is underway until we truely decide on another referendum. I mean, the pound may grow strong again, and living standards may become better than they are now, in 5-10 years maybe. Or perhaps we'll all be thrown out of the single market, everything goes to hell and we become a hermis country. Let's wait, shall we?
Neither, it was absorbed into the Kingdom of England. There is still a title but it means nothing because Wales isn't a Kingdom, Principality, or even Republic.
Yep, Cornwall and Northumberland are going with Scotland. Scotland is a country, not a part of England, If Scotland ever goes indy then the whole of Scotland leaves, not the bits that Westminster wants. It is a countrywide decision, not a pick and choose. So you can point out what you like. The UK is a union of countries, not joining up to be parts of England.
If Scotland had left and then had very liberal approach to immigration, it might be necessary for the UK to build a third wall against Scotland. Call it something catchy, like Farage's Wall
Has any country within the EU had a part of it gain independence before? Couldn't there be a argument that Scotland is already a member of the EU by virtue of its relationship with the UK thereby ignoring any care for the Spanish vote? Regardless, there has also been talks of joining the Nordic Council, this could be a part-way step with countries that enjoy liberties that the EU is modeled after, given Scotland's history with the other Nordic nations it wouldn't be an absurd notion and the other Nordic countries would surely welcome preferential access to the Scottish market.
Nikolaj11 the Nordic Council isn't really as big of a union as the EU is(although there has been a proposal for one when the EU was just the EEC but Finland later backed down ending the idea)plus if Scotland face economic problems,the Nordics would probably wait for it to go better,which a deal with the U.K. enabling the possibility of membership or EU membership its self(which is more favorable with the Scottish people)could come before
Some is better than none. If the EU played hard to get with a independent Scotland I don't see why they wouldn't consider the Nordic Counsil at the very least.
Scottish history with nordic Countries? Don't make me laugh!The Scots and the Irish hate the English because of their "impure" Nordic and European DNA.
A little late to the party, but wouldn't a hypothetical new U.K. Flag have the Irish cross, and not just half of it as it is today to honour the white cross of SC?
Just turn the blue black, so the Scottish part is gone www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbgf3lm8TOAhXFPBQKHRulCFsQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dezeen.com%2F2014%2F02%2F27%2Falternative-designs-proposed-for-a-union-jack-without-scotland%2F&psig=AFQjCNEq6DDjT75VjN_XMH_Aj4mSiHAGHA&ust=1471377854885413
There's a lot of nuclear weapons based in Scotland, but they'd still be owned by the UK, so Scotland would technically be a nuclear bomb free state, as the military bases would be UK soil.
Iain Campbell the problem is that scotland is the only place in the UK with places of significantly lower popn density (arguably) so moving these bombs south would put more citizens in danger of attack incase someone targeted the bombs. So if Holyrood forced nuclear out of Scotland, theyd be actually risking more peoples lives (but they're not Scottish lives, so I doubt they'd care sadly)
It is more that the Clyde is the best place to store them. It also happens to be near Glasgow, so the low population density stuff is bull. What they need is an Atlantic facing port, where a large military establishment can be made and is sheltered enough, yet accessible enough, to look after submarines that need to leave quickly.
Iain Campbell consider that although 500,000 people is a lot, in comparison to placing them in Liverpool, with manchester, there is much more risk of life there (really one of the only real logical places) than Glasgow
Horny Aleks Hey my American friend, just so you know, William Wallace was a patriot of Scotland who fought against England when it was invading and trying to dominate Scotland by force and annex it into a greater England around the year 1300. He died, but his cause and Scotland succeeded in that war. Several hundred years later the Scottish King inherited England because of an English princess had married his great grandfather and then the English royal line died out. So the kingdoms were joined dynastically, and then later the governments decided to form a union to create a single country, Great Britain. The 2014 vote was just about whether to continue that governmental union. We'd still have our Queen, and it' s completely unrelated and a completely different situation to the wars that Scotland fought for, for Scotland's national survival. Please be more informed before you call people traitors to other countries when you don't know all the history.
Horny Aleks That's okay. Well Scots are British... and the US and the UK have been the closest allies for a century. I am glad Ireland won their freedom though.
The current Scottish bank notes are pound sterling. It's likely Scotland would use a currency called the Scottish pound but it wouldn't be pound sterling.
If the remainder of the UK takes the place if the UK and becomes the continuator state, it also assumes responsibility for its debt, and Scotland would have none.
Not wholly true. While the UK did say it would assume any debt Scotland chose to not take on for financial purposes, countries are expected to take a part of the debt (usually depending on population) when they separate. Failure to do so is considered an effective default on that debt and the country ends up locked out of international lending markets for a while as a result.
I didn't mention what the UK said it would do. The simple fact of the matter is that if the UK chooses to be the continuing state (i.e. it retains its memberships of international bodies and treaty obligations) it is also responsible for all the the UK's debt, since it would still be the UK. This is international convention. Google "continuator state" and you'll see what I mean. Scotland would have no debt.
Malcolm Bailey No. When a country splits each section is expected to take on a portion of the debt of the previous nation, whether officially the continuation state or not. This is why then Salmond threatened not to take a portion of the debt it was widely panned as a stupid idea.
Humour me. Google "continuator state" and do a bit of research. It all comes down to the negotiations, though. IF rUK were to claim continuator status, it would retains the UKs treaty obligations, asset and liabilities. Have a look at this article from the New Statesman: www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union
Malcolm Bailey It isn't a matter of humoring you, I've already done more than a "little bit of research" on the matter and the very fact all you can do it to pull up things like the statesman should give you a very big clue as to how your position would pan out. The UK government moved to guarantee all of Scotland's liabilities - at it itself would pay if Scotland wouldn't. It wouldn't have had to do that if there wasn't an expectation for Scotland to take on a portion of the debt. What you're doing is arguing technicalities, when in reality if Scotland wants assets - and it does- it would need to take liabilities as well.
Crimea is in Asia, not Europe. If either claimant is so sure of popular support, why not put it to the vote under UN supervision? NEITHER side has proposed this.
So if Turkey is Asia Minor, and Russia is in Asia, how does "Europe" have a salient stretching into the Black Sea? Presumably "Europe" will soon stretch to the Bering strait? Shall the subcontinent be officially larger than the continent at that rate? Or is "Europe" whatever geographical territory the EU and its pals say it is?
Mike Reger yea but ukraine is generally consider apart of Europe. but crimea is now technally apart of Russia, so is it now Asia? even thought it hasnt moved. Contient to begin with arent very well defind. So u could probably say both.
Ha! OK, we'll just say "opinion is divided", fair enough. Still not sure why they don't just get the UN to hold a fair and monitored plebiscite, there's lots of precedent for it. Possibly neither party wants to take a chance, or trusts the other side not to cheat.
1.00 A difference to the flag being "one of the truly noticeable changes for your average citizen". I doubt it. One reason why the current UK manages reasonably well with such free markets is because of its political balance. But without Scotland, Labour would have won only two general elections since the War. The result of losing Scotland would be a significant political shift to the right in the UK, which would be highly significant for your average citizen - and not in a good way!
@@mrinman7407 Labour had to moderate after doing so badly after the crisis of the 70s, but the entire crisis could've been avoided if Labour was more moderate in the first place.
@@DaDARKPass Not so. The "crisis of the 70s" as you call it was the result of inflationary pressure caused by the colossal rise in oil prices at the time: i.e. it was an EXTERNAL SHOCK. The resulting inflation caused strikes across Europe (Germany's strike rate was higher for a large part of this period) Because of its historical interdependance with the Trades Union movement, Labour was not in any position to "be more moderate in the first place" (sorry, but I can't help laughing at this notion).
@@mrinman7407 They should've abandoned the trade unions long ago, you f*cking moron. The Uk was affected far more than most countries were, and it's because of the reliance on the trade unions.
Dan Rickard You explain why. You made the comparison. Tell me how Scotland is the same as Iraq? How the future relationship of Scotland with rUK would look even remotely close to the UK relationship with a country like Iraq? Explain how the UK Gov and rUK population, and the rest of Europe, let alone the world, would play up invading Scotland and stealing resources, murdering people etc?
Scotland would be unable to joint the EU as under the current state of the EU Germany doesn't have the diplomatic capital or the will to force member states to accept the entry of a state whose existence somewhat harms the interests of some members. Not to mention that it's existence undermines the principle of the EU, which centralise in order to prevent national-scale disagreement. Scotland would be unable to join NATO as member states would be hostile to the plans in Scotland to evict a component of NATO's defence structure and take a fully anti-nuclear stance, given that NATO is in essence an alliance of nuclear deterrence. Furthermore Scotland's politicians have made it clear they are not willing to spend the required amount to allow NATO entry, or the required amount to contribute their fair share of defence of the North Sea oil fields, effectively freeloading from Norway and Denmark as a buffer. This would sour relations with Scandinavia instantly. Diplomatically they're ruined.
+Das Staubkorn Diplomatic pressure, influence over western actions abroad. On the one hand, Scotland has more to gain immediately by ignoring NATO, but at the expense of two things -they would be relying for their global security (i.e against Russia) on a fragile international organisation which they have no influence in. -their not helping with the main function for western security despite benefitting from it (as Britain and Scandinavia would end up policing the oil fields and with NATO deterring Russia) would piss all their allies off no end. Sweden is different, as it has an extensive history of neutrality which is well established and respected. People get that it and to some extent Finland have chosen not to piss off Russia and are in a trickier situation with Russia- Scotland doesn't have that luxury. Scotland is further within NATO protected space, has more shared interests and geographically would find it hard not to co-operate with the U.K. mad NATO for security.
+Das Staubkorn of course since I wrote that comment Britain has voted to leave the EU and that changes everything. If Scotland voted to leave IN SUPPORT OF THE EU, the EU would likely let them in and then NATO wouldn't be so important for them.
Watching this after Brexit is kinda funny
Might have to make a second version.
Soliloquy Might very well
+Soliloquy Yes, please!!! ^^
Please do!
I was just thinking that😂
Can you do an updated video now that the UK has left the EU?
Would love that.
still has not left
Primarch Alpharius
That's true. UK/Brittan will have to work out how their new system will work with the EU first.
The UK has not left the EU and is highly unlikely to!
Stephen Williams
I've already been told that they haven't left yet and I know it'll take at least 2 years if not more.
Also I realize we would have to find out what the rules would be when/if the UK does leave.
0:07
The map is wrong. The Isle of Man is not part of either the European Union or the United Kingdom.
But the UK's nukes are based in Scotland
+HamishPlays That would have been interesting is Scotland had voted to leave since the SNP wanted the nukes out of Scotland but doing that would have meant significant costs to the rest of the UK. I wonder how those talks would have played out.
+Soliloquy
Independence would not have been effective immediately so the UK would have had a couple of years or so to relocate Trident or anything related to nuclear weapons. Still, not an expert but 2 years seem pretty short for such a complex project to be completed. There would likely have been some sort of deal to give the British more time. After all, there is nothing the Scots can do about it unilaterally.
+HamishPlays Yes, and it adds up to 20,000 jobs that Scotsmen would have lost had they made the foolish choice of leaving the UK.
+British Traditionalist Even more as i doubt futher RN ships would have been built in Scotland which might have been good news for the North of England.
Yes and the Nukes would move somewhere else. it is unlikely Scotland would keep them.
Ahh I love how this was published on the date for the 2014 elections and it's so funny watching this after Brexit
I guess it's getting a bit outdated now, but the SNP want another go at a referendum so perhaps I'll need to update it (sounds like work though)
Run, Scotland. Run as fast as you can.
Can you please make a video on Catalonia and Basque Country?
dainous e
Catalonia has NEVER been a country and NEVER WILL BE
They aren’t not even close to the status of past country that Scotland has
Is this video picking up for you? It just got suggested to me on the home page!!
Nothing unusual in the analytics.
I really don’t want Scotland to leave the Uk
Me too.
This is all of a sudden a relevant question again
Edit in Fall 2020: This is all of a sudden a relevant question again
Nope
Marfor (Son Of Lucifer)
The situation has changed. (sort of)
if they start another référendum i would say VOTE YES!!
Is this a change from your previous position?
Why? Now that the UK has left the EU, Scotland would be really alone for a few years, and Spain may refuse to accept Scotland into the union. Second the US and UK would probably question Scotland inside NATO. Third what currency would Scotland use? Keeping the Pound is dumb because you're still tied to England and getting the Euro is dumb because you'll lose sovereignty to the Belgians and Germans. Scottish Independence is a terrible, horrible, idea that us being pushed on the Scottish people by the leftist SNP who are just power hungry. Scotland gains so much more by being part of the UK. And if you think England has too much power over Scotland than reform the House of Lords and give it some power, had make Scotland have a voice in the upper chamber of Parliament.
Checking out yiur channel for the first time. You remind me of CgpGrey
No More Feeling Alone as We will Be Part of A "United States Of Europe" .
The Isle of Man 🇮🇲 is not part of the UK
You make many interesting and great videos! :)
Thanks
Soliloquy You're welcome. :)
+Soliloquy +1 sub
Thanks and welcome +tiritera
Scotland founded the UK under Scottish King James 6th of Scotland
Scottish Independence was always such a heap of contradictions
0:04 *Oh* you just called the Isle of Man part of the UK. Bad doodoos, sir. Other than that, cracking vid.
Scotland Ireland will always be with you!
Jack McQuade most of the sckta would rather be with the british.not the irish
Tomas Burns thats a fuqqib lie
Scotland and Ireland = Marvel team up 💪🏻😂
Don’t you mean the other way around. Northern Ireland is British because of Scotland & it’s people.
Russia will probably influence another Scottish independent vote as the SNP no longer want trident, crazy.
Great channel hopefully you become one of the more known "braniac" channels :)
+Ravenshadow415 Thanks, I'd like that.
A Panelbase survey asked people for their views on what should happen if the UK Government continues to refuse to give permission for an independence vote - asking if the Scottish Parliament should legislate for such a ballot and then allow the courts to decide if it could go ahead.
Of those who expressed an opinion, 56% agreed with such an approach, with 44% opposed.
I don't think it would affect the world very much. It would certainly affect Scotland, to a lesser extent England, but even the effect on England may be minimal, especially after a short number of years.
I know this is past tense, but I never got why the rest of the UK would be allowed, by default, to stay in the EU and/or keep all other treaties it has before the split, but Scotland would not. The treaties were made at the time Scotland would've still been part of the rest of the UK, and after the separations the there would be two new countries, since the UK changed a lot too.
As a matter of law there can be only one continuator state. The remainder of the UK would be retaining the majority of the territory, population and government institutions so it was not seen as a realistic option for Scotland to claim continuator status. It would be also rather complicated if the rest of the UK was not to be a continuator state given it's nuclear status in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and permanent seat on the UN security council . However, for the rest of the UK there is precedence set by Russia continuing to take the seat of the USSR after the breakup of the USSR.
+Soliloquy Well the UN security council seat of China went to what we now call Taiwan. So that (territory, population, gov. institutions) is no necessarily the guiding principle.
*As a matter of law there can be only one continuator state.* Is this international law? And.. does it have to happen? And won't it also create similar oddities for the Scottish example. I mean... isn't Scotland where the nuclear subs are located? Also... didn't the UK 'recently' decided to renew their subs, which would be in contradiction with the nuclear proliferation treaty? imo there are just to many glaring problems that would in one way or another also arise for the 'UK' as the would for Scotland that it would not be a totally done deal. Or at least... it ought not to be. It's just 'empire/hegemony' all over again. Might is what makes right, now law. And laws are made with power too :P Yes, now (with that last sentence) I made it water proof: I'm right! xD
+daddyleon
Well the UN security council seat of China went to what we now call Taiwan
True, the Republic of China (Taiwan) was eventually expelled and the Peoples Republic of China took it's seat at the UN. PROC at that point became the continuator state, at least officially. The PROC was initially a rebellion, the ROC does not recognise the PROC and vice versa. In the case of the breakup of the USSR, Russia claimed continuator status and the other former soviet republics agreed. The UK Scotland situation would likely be more like the USSR than China in this respect.
Is this international law?
As far as international law/convention goes yes. With the notable exception of the human rights conventions only one nation can be a continuator state with regards to a international treaty; other states must resign treaties. It can be complecated who is the continuator state, sometimes like in the breakup of Malaysia and Singapore it is simple and included in the separation treaty; other times is is less obvious. Singapore split from Malaysia on good terms and so it was very easy for Singapore to enter diplomacy and for Malaysia to be the official continuator state.
isn't Scotland where the nuclear subs are located?
Yes, but the SNP had declared their intention to be nuclear free. So by agreement between Scotland and the UK the nuclear weapons would remain in control of Westminster, and regardless of where they are located they would be under the control of the UK military.
didn't the UK 'recently' decided to renew their subs, which would be in contradiction with the nuclear proliferation treaty?
The nuclear proliferation treaty doesn't prohibit development of new subs or missiles. The disarmament clause only requires them to negotiate towards the goal of total disarmament in good faith. Other treaties prevent the creation of new warheads.
+Soliloquy *The UK Scotland situation would likely be more like the USSR than China in this respect.*
I agree, but maybe for different reasons than yours? PROC was a rebellion that was successful, it gained the landmass and population, it imposed its will on the UNSC in that respect. Yes, diplomatically and not with guns, but still. The ex soviet countries did recognize it for obvious reasons, there would be little chance of success in fighting that idea. I also don't think there was any real idea to even attempt, it just didn't occur. The whole nature of the UNSC was not based on some sort of treaties claim and historicity, but on the practical situation in the world. E.g. If Russia and PROC would not be part of it but the ROC and.... Mongolia would be... who would take that constellation seriously. The situation between the UK and Scotland would not be similar to these examples. Scotland does have need for things like EU treaties, the soviet states did not have such needs.
*Other treaties prevent the creation of new warheads*
So it's still, somewhat shady?
Thanks for your reply btw :3
So it's still, somewhat shady?
Not really, since they are not expanding their arsenal of nuclear warheads.
Scotland does have need for things like EU treaties
The Scottish parliament could apply for EU membership. They could even do this in advance of becoming independent.
I agree, but maybe for different reasons than yours?
The reason I think the USSR example is more applicable to the Scotland example is that PROC and ROC were not getting along well (being at war) while Russia and the former soviet republics at least to some extent were working together.
The diagram is wrong from the start. The Isle of Man is not part of the UK or Great Britain. It also isn't part of the EU.
Should probably update this now lol
I'm sorry, but why do people always get the flag wrong? The hypothetical new flag wouldn't be the one shown at 0:55 - it would be St. George's Cross combined with a SYMMETRICAL St. Patrick's cross. In the current Union Jack, the diagonal red stripes of St. Patrick's cross are placed asymmetrical because othewise they would be on top of the white stripes of St. Andrew's cross. In vexilogy this means that Northern Ireland is more important than Scotland, which would be quite problematic of course. In order to avoid this problem, it was chosen to place the red stripes asymmetrical relative to the white one's in order to show that both St. Patrick's cross and St. Andrew's cross are equally important. Just removing the blue parts (the background of the scottish flag) is simply ignorant.
I hope Scotland don't leave
I hope we do and we will, sorry but it's going to happen one day or another.
A kingdom is only united if it involves two or more kingdom's (ie plur). Scot Ind will leave only one kingdom (ie Eng) (reigned over by a female king (ie a queen'(?)) united to a principality (ie Wales) and a neo-provincial statelet (ie Nth IRL). Orig Eng/Scot settlement was called Kingdom of Britain (KoB). Scot Ind will also take the Gt out GB.
@@carlhilber2275
They said so, yeah...
Would Scotland become The Republic Of Scotland?
Roblox Riley no
@George Job There you go again, showing your hatred for all things European. You lot hate the English because our DNA is supposedly more European as yours. Why do you Gaelic... (never were Celts, you just took their culture and twisted, distorted and corrupted it, and created a cult of hatred.) ...people hate European DNA so much.
Where is the gate in the Cuetta and Melilla eu fence hard border.
Okay so I am an American and I know little about UK politics. The best examples I have about people's views on this are a century out of date at least. Would one of my friends over the pond kindly explain all of this to me, please?
Basically, Scotland is literally split down the middle about Independence, like literally 50/50. There was a referendum in 2014 which ended up being 49% to 51% in favour of staying. But now the UK has left the EU, which scottish people quite like, mainly due to the amount of money the Eu grants to Scotland for cultural heritage and roads and especially farming. The EU also loves Scotland because of fishing rights, the West coast of Scotland, is literally flooded by Spanish, Irish, Norwegian... boats. As well as the North Sea and Atlantic Sea oi, which btw will still last a 100 or so years, google North Atlantic oil if you doubt me.
Anyway basically the UK wants Scotland, and half of Scotland wants them but the other half only wants Scotland and crossing over all of that two thirds of Scotland wants the EU and the whole of the Eu wants Scotland except like the Spanish government who doesn't want Catalan to get Independence because Catalan puts in way more money to the spanish government than they get back, it literally holds up Spain, the same way as some people say Scotland holds up the UK's Economy/
There enjoy, if you have any more questions, feel free.
As a point of correction, the vote was 55% Stay and 45% Leave.
Queen Elizabeth isn't the true rules of Scotland there still remains to this day a man from the old Scottish family, check up the group were all the different countries royalties are a part of, the English government doesn't won't anyone to know the truth about the kingdom of Scotland but we here in Scotland and many in Europe do know, the current royal family has no rightful claim to the Scottish throne
Really? No rightful claim. They're the ones on the throne. That seems pretty rightful to me.
Relevant again.
I'm not completely sure of the whole EU thing. No country has ever left the EU, and I'm not sure that Brussels would strip 5,000,000 people of their citizenship because they achieved independence from another EU member state. Without a proper mandate on how this would be handled, along with a lack of public permission for that change would lead me to think it would be unconstitutional.
It's amazing how things are different now after Brexit
Soviet union fell in 1991. We the people of Finland still haven't joined Nato. Until the Eu-Russia trade sanctions there have been trade benefits with that decision. Only history will tell if it was a wise decision. Finlandization isn't totally dead either. Unfortunately.
Scotland wants to leave one union but join another union.
+Great Wolf I guess it's a little ironic.
Great Wolf leave a dying union for a more effective one
Great Wolf Scotland is already is part of the EU. As Scotland is part of the UK and the UK as a whole is a EU member.
When Scotland becomes independent from the UK, Scotland will become a new country and not part of anything, until Scotland decides who or what to join.
Says who
Grant Imo, the UK is a much more effective union than the EU
UK will lost vast majority of maritime boundaries with oil reserve, tactical sea port and natural resources.
how time changes things!
Hi Solioquy you need to do a new one like this on now after the brexit what will scotland have another indy and join the eu from a Brexit england an wales
Update?
Please update this, post-Brexit ~
Since BREXIT they're talking about yet another Scotland secession referendum. Rather indecisive, aren't they? Maybe they want to make this an annual event - sometimes leaving the UK, sometimes rejoining, sometimes keeping whatever the current status might then be.
2020 looks back and laughs.
If a week is a long time in politics then two years is an era particularly with regard to this video . The SNP has 95% of the Scottish representation at Westminster and the once mighty Labour party is to all intents extinct in Scotland and ,England has voted to take the whole of the UK out of the EU against the wishes of the Scottish electorate . The UK is a very different country from the one in 2014.
The Bloc Québécois is a Québec independance party which had the majority of Québec members of the Canadian parliament for about 20 years, until they were wiped out. These movements come and go.
Which doesn't make sense to me. Why does Scotland want independence from London but is willing to surrender sovereignty to Brussels? Someone is giving someone money, that's the only answer.
Where are the subtitles?
Scotland wouldn't have any reason to give up the pound, since it's just as much Scotland's currency as England's. I mean, no-one would say to Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Jamaica, and Hong Kong that they can't have their own dollars just because they're independent of the US (thank goodness). That said, if Scotland did get their own currency, it should be the Not, with 100 Sgillin(ean) per Not. I only say this because "not" is Gaelic for "pound", and "sgillin" is Gaelic for "penny". (So essentially, it would still be the same currency).
The pound is, and would still be, run by the Bank of England; who sends keep one million pound notes in it vaults that allow the Bank of Scotland to issue it's own pounds (backed by those notes in the vaults). Westminster and the Bank of England made it clear they would not be interested in a formal currency union with an independent Scotland. So sure Scotland could keep using it informally in the same way as Montenegro uses the Euro. The downside being that Scotland would have no control over their fiscal policy.
+Soliloquy The Scottish government pointed out that in the case that Westminster wasn't going to fairly share out joint UK national assets like the pound sterling, they wouldn't feel obliged to take on their fair share of the national debt as it stood.
In Ireland b4 yhe euro they done a smilliler thing with punt (Irish for pound)
***** Interesting... Gaelic uses the word "punnd", but only for weights, not for money.
O, the irony of hindsight!
Who do you work for? .
What would happen: Great Britain would not exist but the United Kingdom still would the full name of the UK would be like you said The United Kingdom of England,Wales and Northern Ireland and Wales would finally be known as a state of the UK
GB would still exist, it's an island
One aspect you didn't touch on and seems of some importance is the effect of Scottish independence on peace in Northern Ireland. Currently, the province is at peace under a power sharing arrangement following the Good Friday Agreement.
But things are only stable because of pragmatic decisions on both sides. Would Scotland's independence rekindle aspirations of a more ideological nature and collapse the Good Friday agreement?
Also, I understand that the European Union can't simply advertise that an independent Scotland would automatically become an EU member, this would be interfering in purely internal UK affairs where the EU has no authority. And since the EU is ideologically opposed to nationalism and regionalism, it can't possibly be seen as supporting separatism.
But I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would have been a member of the EU by the time independence was effective and that there would have been no change. Scotland's application to join the European Union would be a mere formality as the country already meets all entry criteria.
If the people of Scotland had voted for independence, the EU would quickly have changed their stance and worked on Scotland's membership to ensure a smooth transition by independence day.
*****
I explained that. The EU simply cannot promise to grant membership to an independent Scotland before the referendum, it would be giving a huge boost to the Yes camp. Politically, it is simply not possible.
But after a vote to leave the UK, the EU would soften their stance and a number of respected EU figure have said the EU should not remove rights of existing EU citizens. Pat Cox, former president of the European Parliament wrote an entire report on the subject.
And it goes without saying that, if there is a Brexit, the EU wouldn't think twice before granting EU membership to a possible independent Scotland, as the UK would likely be in bad terms with the EU.
If there is a Brexit, and this looks far more likely now that ever before, it would be a PR disaster for the EU. Allowing Scotland's accession to the bloc could be used as an anti-Brexit PR remedy, demonstrating that not every wants to leave the Union, other successful countries like Scotland want to go the other way.
*****
I agree it's a lack of certainty, I'm simply saying that the EU has this stance primarily because, politically, they cannot have another one.
I'm a die hard supporter of the European project so I don't like the current situation but let's face it, the EU is in dire need of some supporters right now. In these circumstances, can you seriously imagine them refusing an entire nation?
In any case, it really looks like Brexit could be the only way for the nationalists to call a second referendum in the near future.
*****
A vote to remain will set back the independence project. But longer term, Scottish independence may well be just a question of time, Brexit or not. If you look at the demographics of Scottish independence, you'll find that it is mostly supported by younger people and largely opposed by older voters. In a generation, that generation of pensioners will be gone.
A Lord Ashcroft poll taken just after the referendum revealed who voted what and that demographic tend was about as clear as it could get, the only surprise being the 18-24:
16-17: Yes: 71% No 29%
18-24: Yes: 48% No 52%
25-34: Yes: 59% No 41%
35-44: Yes: 53% No 47%
45-54: Yes: 52% No 48%
55-64: Yes: 43% No 57%
65+ : Yes: 27% No 73%
As you can see, it's the 55-64 and the over 65 that made the difference.
Of course the problem with that analysis is that young voters are young today but in a generation, they will be middle aged and today's middle aged will be pensioners. Who knows if these people will remain proponents of independence. You sure grow more conservative as your grow older.
I really took a keen interest in the Scottish referendum campaign, despite being neither Scottish nor British (I'm French). I was reading analysis on it almost daily for about a year. I must say I was impressed by the quality of the debate. It was very constructive unlike the EU referendum one. It's a real shame, I really thought this was an opportunity for Britain to get educated about the EU but the debate remains stuck at the EUSSR level or about whether Vladimir Putin would have a big smile on his face on the 24th. Pretty poor show I think.
I have to say that the Yes camp swayed me during the indy ref campaign, to me they clearly won the argument. Unlike most nationalists, they were able to demonstrate how they would use this independence. I began thinking Scottish independence was for loonies and ended up undecided by the day of the vote. But as it is with the EU vote, there is just too much uncertainty and the result didn't surprise me.
Finally, I'm slightly schizophrenic on the Brexit vote. On the one hand, I'm making the case for remain because I believe in the EU project, but as a continental European, I secretly hope for a Brexit. The EU project is at a standstill and I'm kind of hoping that the UK leaving is the impetus the project needs to push for further political integration. Obviously, we can't do that with the UK on board.
We may even have to allow others to go. Frankly, right now I'm really scaling back my dream ambition of a United Europe. A mere merger of my country with Germany would already satisfy me. And I'm not even sure the Germans would have us given how much of a mess we are right now.
*****
Well I was really talking about the debate in the media. They really addressed the key issues regarding Scotland and both sides made good points. Never did you have a week where one camp was comparing the other side to Hitler and the other camp saying their opponents were on the side of ISIS! But incredibly enough this did happen in the Brexit referendum campaign.
I'm far more of a centrist voter to ever vote for an outfit like the SNP (I supported the Lib Dems back when I was living in the UK) but I also realised that Alex Salmond wasn't the boogieman he is supposed to be.
I remember how he was asked about the difference between the Irish quest for independence and the Scottish. He replied that the main difference was that the Scots were never oppressed by the English. That was refreshing to hear a nationalist leader say that. Just compare it to what you hear from Catalan nationalists. Do people look oppressed to you when you visit Barcelona?
Not even talking about Flemish nationalists, they are literally deranged. In some municipalities in Flanders, a French speaker can inquire about something in French (banning that would be against federal laws) but the civil servants are banned from replying in any other language than Flemish. French speaking visitors have to request an interpreter despite everyone in the building speaking fluent French. What the fuck is wrong with these people?
Believe me, the Scottish nationalists are tolerant compared to these other guys and actually talk in ways that sane people can understand.
As for your last point, I can't deny there is bigotry against the other side but there is one key difference. Scottish nationalists are not trying to destroy the rest of the United Kingdom. UKIP supporters are not merely advocating for a withdrawal from the EU, they are opening calling for the collapse of the European Union and their politicians in Brussels are actively working to make that happen.
And as a pro-EU Frenchman that's when they stop being my opponents and become my enemies.
The EU referendum campaign is waged on 3 fronts:
- The economy: not really a surprise since the EU is first and foremost a trade bloc. But since no one understand economics and trade, that's not helping the debate.
- Sovereignty: that's just a far right talking point mixed with ignorance of how the EU legislative process works. After months of campaigning, the entire country is still convinced that the majority of laws come from Brussels when in reality, these laws are mere norms and standards relating to the single market.
- Immigration: A nostalgia of what Britain used to look like in the 1950s and most people don't even know what it really did look like. Frankly, the UK was a mess back then. The country had negative net migration, for good reasons. Believe me, no one in Europe envied the British back then. The country managed to turn things around and current high levels of immigration are a sign that the UK is again one of the best place to be in Europe. People should celebrate immigration.
No wonder the debate is so poor if those are the main talking points, they are all a symptom of national egoism. Meanwhile, the number one issue relating to the EU, actually, probably the only issue worth debating, is not even mentioned: What is good for our continent? How we can put ancestral enmities behind us and move forward in peace and prosperity? Nah!, that's not part of the debate.
I SUPPORT SCOTLAND'S INDEPENDENCE
INDEPENDENCE
In lieu of recent events, looks like another Independence Referendum is on the horizon.
If it another referendum happens, does that mean I need to remake this video?
+Soliloquy You should , yeah , but looking for what caused this new referendum ( Brexit )
Its up to you really!
Polls now the highest for Independence 63%
12/4/20 Opinium found that 54 per cent of people would vote Yes
25/5/20 YouGov found that 54 per cent of people would vote Yes
4/6/20 Opinium found that 54 per cent of people would vote Yes
21/6/20 Panelbase found that 54 per cent of people would vote Yes
12/8/20 YouGov found that 53 per cent of people would vote Yes
19/8/20 Savanta ComRes found that 54 per cent of people would vote Yes
19/8/20 Panelbase found that 55 per cent of people would vote Yes
02/9/20 Panelbase found that 63 per cent of people would vote Yes
This is a turning point for Britain it won't be called the United Kingdom anymore as Scotland will soon be Independent, N Ireland will soon join Ireland so Wales and England will have to be called rUK (rest of the UK) or little Britain.
Unity brings power
OMG That would be awsome! I have Scottish ancestry :D
No, it wouldn't. An independent Scotland would just make the West weak and ruin a bunch of economics and overall be a horrible situation. Scotland is stronger and better inside the UK.
@@walterfielding9079 I really do not care about the West but rather about the Scottish people so I still won't support Scottish Independence because the SNP Are bad for the Scottish people and they really should not be given any more power
Really curious with what's going to happen with indyref2. The main reason that we voted to stay united the first time, was because we feared that it'd take a long time to reapply to the EU. Now that Brexit has happened and Artical 50 is being triggered on the 29th, the first minister proposed indyref2, as scotland really doesn't want to leave the EU. Personally, I want to wait until brexit is underway until we truely decide on another referendum. I mean, the pound may grow strong again, and living standards may become better than they are now, in 5-10 years maybe. Or perhaps we'll all be thrown out of the single market, everything goes to hell and we become a hermis country. Let's wait, shall we?
Wouldn't it just be the UK of England and Northern Ireland since Wales is incorporated into England?
Wales is still a Kingdom.
Neither, it was absorbed into the Kingdom of England. There is still a title but it means nothing because Wales isn't a Kingdom, Principality, or even Republic.
@@Gothera Yet it has it's own parliamentary assembly and it's own First Minister
This needs a redo after the whole brexit thing XD
+Jonathon Riley What makes you think that us Scots would want to be anything to do with Northern Ireland
When did it say that we wanted to have something to do with Northern Ireland
why does the new flag not have wales
When you realize this works well 3 years later, unlike the average thing
6 years later and better than ever
Would wales go for independence?
Clement Ng
Nope. Their economy and population would be even smaller than Scotland's.
7 years down the line still waiting for this 💩 to end
I should point out that the fishing zones would be much less as the northern + western isles would vote to stay in the uk going by their islanders.
+VC YT They would still stay loyal to the rest of Scotland whatever the vote had been, they aren't separate.
Yep, Cornwall and Northumberland are going with Scotland. Scotland is a country, not a part of England, If Scotland ever goes indy then the whole of Scotland leaves, not the bits that Westminster wants. It is a countrywide decision, not a pick and choose. So you can point out what you like. The UK is a union of countries, not joining up to be parts of England.
If Scotland had left and then had very liberal approach to immigration, it might be necessary for the UK to build a third wall against Scotland. Call it something catchy, like Farage's Wall
Has any country within the EU had a part of it gain independence before? Couldn't there be a argument that Scotland is already a member of the EU by virtue of its relationship with the UK thereby ignoring any care for the Spanish vote?
Regardless, there has also been talks of joining the Nordic Council, this could be a part-way step with countries that enjoy liberties that the EU is modeled after, given Scotland's history with the other Nordic nations it wouldn't be an absurd notion and the other Nordic countries would surely welcome preferential access to the Scottish market.
Nikolaj11 the Nordic Council isn't really as big of a union as the EU is(although there has been a proposal for one when the EU was just the EEC but Finland later backed down ending the idea)plus if Scotland face economic problems,the Nordics would probably wait for it to go better,which a deal with the U.K. enabling the possibility of membership or EU membership its self(which is more favorable with the Scottish people)could come before
Some is better than none. If the EU played hard to get with a independent Scotland I don't see why they wouldn't consider the Nordic Counsil at the very least.
Scottish history with nordic Countries? Don't make me laugh!The Scots and the Irish hate the English because of their "impure" Nordic and European DNA.
@@sickymicky36 The history's still there regardless of what caricature you make of the Scots.
This is Lulu ~ 🐻
She can't swim.
Don't let her sink to the bottom of the comment section!
With the strong accent, this is kind of hard to follow at the speed at which this is presented.
Not too sure Scotland would want to keep Elizabeth as queen, they could look into the Stuart’s for a new Scottish king
raymond reno they might stick with Queen Elizabeth because she is an ancestor of the Stuarts
A republic mate, true democratic state.. An elected head of state for a certain period ,but democratically elected.
YES🏴 Scotland Independence🏴🏴 💯%✔️ Most Developed Nation in European Union.
A little late to the party, but wouldn't a hypothetical new U.K. Flag have the Irish cross, and not just half of it as it is today to honour the white cross of SC?
There is that. In theory they could also attempt to integrate the Welsh flag into the Union Jack.
Just turn the blue black, so the Scottish part is gone
www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbgf3lm8TOAhXFPBQKHRulCFsQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dezeen.com%2F2014%2F02%2F27%2Falternative-designs-proposed-for-a-union-jack-without-scotland%2F&psig=AFQjCNEq6DDjT75VjN_XMH_Aj4mSiHAGHA&ust=1471377854885413
Did you know that the Flemish are the majority in Belgium
I'm actually considering Belgium for the next "why is X country not part of Y country?" series.
coud you do one about Indonesia why it "colonial" power and why the do not use dutch anymore
Independent Sotland!
UK now looking to leave the EU, Scotland might get another chance
Hope not it's far too soon.
They would remain in the eu ummmm
yeah it's become a touch outdated now
EU wouldnt have them on there own
Excellent video with very nice visuals. It certainly would be something if Scotland were to become independent someday.
Gerelos It would be interesting, a part of me was a little relieved they didn't after I made all of these predictions.
If Scotland votes for independence i will renounce my scottish citizenship. Quote me on that.
So aall Saxons
🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋 Cheerio then, see how your accent is reviled " don't know what your saying" pish.. Best of ?? English.
Are there no nuclear weapons based in scotland?
There's a lot of nuclear weapons based in Scotland, but they'd still be owned by the UK, so Scotland would technically be a nuclear bomb free state, as the military bases would be UK soil.
As it happens there are more nuclear weapons in Scotland than the rest of the UK combined (big pollitical isue atm)
Iain Campbell the problem is that scotland is the only place in the UK with places of significantly lower popn density (arguably) so moving these bombs south would put more citizens in danger of attack incase someone targeted the bombs. So if Holyrood forced nuclear out of Scotland, theyd be actually risking more peoples lives (but they're not Scottish lives, so I doubt they'd care sadly)
It is more that the Clyde is the best place to store them. It also happens to be near Glasgow, so the low population density stuff is bull. What they need is an Atlantic facing port, where a large military establishment can be made and is sheltered enough, yet accessible enough, to look after submarines that need to leave quickly.
Iain Campbell consider that although 500,000 people is a lot, in comparison to placing them in Liverpool, with manchester, there is much more risk of life there (really one of the only real logical places) than Glasgow
Funny looking at this now how wrong it was...
I'm actually watching this in Crimea haha
Tim Sh hows the russian occupation ?
Russia isn't occupying? Crimea voted for rejoining.
Кира Терещенко with the Russian military occupying crimea at the time of the referendum
Яна 00000 that was a show election moron
No more bagpipe music in royal ceremonies. Hallelujah.
Needs to be updated. 😃
An Independent Scotland would get rid of the Monarchy.
There would be a Stuart claimant, though.
Why'd you have to go and get political at the end there...
0:22 isle of man is not the uk
Antony?
Glad the Scotts stayed, i'm from England and I know they don't like us, but they really just hate London which everyone does.
+Amnesia We don't dislike you, you have been our countrymen for over 300 years.
+xWHITExEAGLEx Everyone hates England mate
TheProfProfessor Haha
Horny Aleks Hey my American friend, just so you know, William Wallace was a patriot of Scotland who fought against England when it was invading and trying to dominate Scotland by force and annex it into a greater England around the year 1300.
He died, but his cause and Scotland succeeded in that war.
Several hundred years later the Scottish King inherited England because of an English princess had married his great grandfather and then the English royal line died out. So the kingdoms were joined dynastically, and then later the governments decided to form a union to create a single country, Great Britain.
The 2014 vote was just about whether to continue that governmental union. We'd still have our Queen, and it' s completely unrelated and a completely different situation to the wars that Scotland fought for, for Scotland's national survival.
Please be more informed before you call people traitors to other countries when you don't know all the history.
Horny Aleks That's okay. Well Scots are British... and the US and the UK have been the closest allies for a century.
I am glad Ireland won their freedom though.
Scotland already has the Scottish pound they would just keep that would they not
There isn't a Scottish pound, only something certain banks have permission to print from the BOE.
The current Scottish bank notes are pound sterling. It's likely Scotland would use a currency called the Scottish pound but it wouldn't be pound sterling.
The UK would cease to exist, so would the Union Jack, as the kingdoms which united to create the UK were Scottish and English.
Im glad we got to keep the union flag
Your profile picture would of been ruined
If the remainder of the UK takes the place if the UK and becomes the continuator state, it also assumes responsibility for its debt, and Scotland would have none.
Not wholly true.
While the UK did say it would assume any debt Scotland chose to not take on for financial purposes, countries are expected to take a part of the debt (usually depending on population) when they separate. Failure to do so is considered an effective default on that debt and the country ends up locked out of international lending markets for a while as a result.
I didn't mention what the UK said it would do. The simple fact of the matter is that if the UK chooses to be the continuing state (i.e. it retains its memberships of international bodies and treaty obligations) it is also responsible for all the the UK's debt, since it would still be the UK. This is international convention. Google "continuator state" and you'll see what I mean. Scotland would have no debt.
Malcolm Bailey No.
When a country splits each section is expected to take on a portion of the debt of the previous nation, whether officially the continuation state or not. This is why then Salmond threatened not to take a portion of the debt it was widely panned as a stupid idea.
Humour me. Google "continuator state" and do a bit of research. It all comes down to the negotiations, though. IF rUK were to claim continuator status, it would retains the UKs treaty obligations, asset and liabilities. Have a look at this article from the New Statesman: www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union
Malcolm Bailey It isn't a matter of humoring you, I've already done more than a "little bit of research" on the matter and the very fact all you can do it to pull up things like the statesman should give you a very big clue as to how your position would pan out.
The UK government moved to guarantee all of Scotland's liabilities - at it itself would pay if Scotland wouldn't. It wouldn't have had to do that if there wasn't an expectation for Scotland to take on a portion of the debt.
What you're doing is arguing technicalities, when in reality if Scotland wants assets - and it does- it would need to take liabilities as well.
Crimea is in Asia, not Europe. If either claimant is so sure of popular support, why not put it to the vote under UN supervision? NEITHER side has proposed this.
Crimea is in Europe a simple Google search would of told you that.
So if Turkey is Asia Minor, and Russia is in Asia, how does "Europe" have a salient stretching into the Black Sea? Presumably "Europe" will soon stretch to the Bering strait? Shall the subcontinent be officially larger than the continent at that rate? Or is "Europe" whatever geographical territory the EU and its pals say it is?
Mike Reger yea but ukraine is generally consider apart of Europe. but crimea is now technally apart of Russia, so is it now Asia? even thought it hasnt moved. Contient to begin with arent very well defind. So u could probably say both.
Ha! OK, we'll just say "opinion is divided", fair enough.
Still not sure why they don't just get the UN to hold a fair and monitored plebiscite, there's lots of precedent for it. Possibly neither party wants to take a chance, or trusts the other side not to cheat.
Mike Reger yea i dont think either side trust each other enough to do it. Aswell as UN has a crazy guy with nukes to deal with first.
Hasn't aged well.
We would not have that awful Oxford comma
1.00 A difference to the flag being "one of the truly noticeable changes for your average citizen". I doubt it. One reason why the current UK manages reasonably well with such free markets is because of its political balance. But without Scotland, Labour would have won only two general elections since the War. The result of losing Scotland would be a significant political shift to the right in the UK, which would be highly significant for your average citizen - and not in a good way!
Actually, it would be better because the Labour wouldn't be so f*cking Socialist, and would try to be more moderate, avoiding the crisis of the 70s.
@@DaDARKPass Sorry, I forgot Scotland was independent during the Blair years. My memory...
@@mrinman7407 Labour had to moderate after doing so badly after the crisis of the 70s, but the entire crisis could've been avoided if Labour was more moderate in the first place.
@@DaDARKPass Not so. The "crisis of the 70s" as you call it was the result of inflationary pressure caused by the colossal rise in oil prices at the time: i.e. it was an EXTERNAL SHOCK. The resulting inflation caused strikes across Europe (Germany's strike rate was higher for a large part of this period) Because of its historical interdependance with the Trades Union movement, Labour was not in any position to "be more moderate in the first place" (sorry, but I can't help laughing at this notion).
@@mrinman7407 They should've abandoned the trade unions long ago, you f*cking moron. The Uk was affected far more than most countries were, and it's because of the reliance on the trade unions.
More likely now that turns out that Scotland that wanted to stay in EU and voted to stay in 2014 because of hope UK would stay in EU.
Something tells me that if Scotland did leave the UK, taking their oil with them might be easier said than done.
Dan Rickard Nope. Pretty easy. International law does mean something. Idiot.
Vipassana Jock the war in Iraq.
Nuff said?
Dan Rickard No. Not comparable.
Vipassana Jock care to explain why?
Dan Rickard You explain why. You made the comparison. Tell me how Scotland is the same as Iraq? How the future relationship of Scotland with rUK would look even remotely close to the UK relationship with a country like Iraq? Explain how the UK Gov and rUK population, and the rest of Europe, let alone the world, would play up invading Scotland and stealing resources, murdering people etc?
Scotland would be unable to joint the EU as under the current state of the EU Germany doesn't have the diplomatic capital or the will to force member states to accept the entry of a state whose existence somewhat harms the interests of some members. Not to mention that it's existence undermines the principle of the EU, which centralise in order to prevent national-scale disagreement.
Scotland would be unable to join NATO as member states would be hostile to the plans in Scotland to evict a component of NATO's defence structure and take a fully anti-nuclear stance, given that NATO is in essence an alliance of nuclear deterrence.
Furthermore Scotland's politicians have made it clear they are not willing to spend the required amount to allow NATO entry, or the required amount to contribute their fair share of defence of the North Sea oil fields, effectively freeloading from Norway and Denmark as a buffer. This would sour relations with Scandinavia instantly. Diplomatically they're ruined.
+Das Staubkorn Diplomatic pressure, influence over western actions abroad. On the one hand, Scotland has more to gain immediately by ignoring NATO, but at the expense of two things
-they would be relying for their global security (i.e against Russia) on a fragile international organisation which they have no influence in.
-their not helping with the main function for western security despite benefitting from it (as Britain and Scandinavia would end up policing the oil fields and with NATO deterring Russia) would piss all their allies off no end.
Sweden is different, as it has an extensive history of neutrality which is well established and respected. People get that it and to some extent Finland have chosen not to piss off Russia and are in a trickier situation with Russia- Scotland doesn't have that luxury. Scotland is further within NATO protected space, has more shared interests and geographically would find it hard not to co-operate with the U.K. mad NATO for security.
+Das Staubkorn of course since I wrote that comment Britain has voted to leave the EU and that changes everything. If Scotland voted to leave IN SUPPORT OF THE EU, the EU would likely let them in and then NATO wouldn't be so important for them.
The queen wouldne be our head o state