Scottish Independence--Your thoughts? (castle, metropolitan area, areas)

[WIHS2006]

A "constituent country" is more or less like a state within the United States am I correct?

Paul there is nothing wrong with seeing yourself as both British and Scottish. I myself am both an American and a New Yorker at the same time.

[dunno what to put here]

You're correct.

However the countries of the UK are far more unique.. England and Scotland, if they were still separate nations, would be among the oldest on earth, and Wales would be too. Northern Ireland is less unique though.

[ian6479]

Originally Posted by WIHS2006

A "constituent country" is more or less like a state within the United States am I correct?

Paul there is nothing wrong with seeing yourself as both British and Scottish. I myself am both an American and a New Yorker at the same time.

Exactly.

[paull805]

Scotland has a lot more history than America or any of her states.

[Jaggy001]

The question as to whether Scotland is legally a sovereign country is very important in terms of an independent Scotland's relations with other countries.

1.1 Continuation and secession

In general, under customary international law, when a state breaks up, treaty obligations and membership of international organisations pass to the continuing state - if it is possible to discern one. The existence of a continuing state is, as a general rule, determined by the state itself and in light of the opinions of the international community and relevant international organisations. Secession of territory from an existing state will not affect the continuity of the latter state, even though its territorial dimensions and population have been diminished. The territory that has seceded will be a completely new state, free from the treaty rights and obligations applicable to the predecessor state.

1.2 Separation

The situation of separating a voluntary union of two recognised states is different. It appears to give rise to a presumption in favour of continuity of treaties with regard to each component part, though this is subject to expressed intention to the contrary.

BBC News - Plea to sort out issue of EU entry for go-alone Scots

There is an argument that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union of two recognised states. Scotland was an independent country prior to the Union in 1707 and has retained a number of its institutions, notably the church and legal system, subsequent to the Union. Thus it could be argued that Scotland never surrendered sovereignty but merely derogated it. Scotland would not be seceding from the United Kingdom because she was never annexed by the United Kingdom.

There would no longer be a United Kingdom because there were only two kingdoms in the initial state and, therefore, England and its Principality of Wales and Province of Northern Ireland would merely revert to their pre-1707 form.

The advantage for an independent Scotland of this interpretation is that Scotland would inherit the existing treaties with the EU including all the opt-outs and would not have to apply for membership as a new entrant.

Clearly, this is just one interpretation. I should imagine that this would be one for constitutional lawyers and would probably end up at the International Court of Justice.

[Acajack]

Scotland as a country is more of a semantic issue than anything else. Countries all over the world have different ways of describing their constituent parts. The UK just happens to have this quirky thing about calling them countries. The real country according to globally recognized definitions is the United Kingdom.

[ian6479]

Originally Posted by paull805

Scotland has a lot more history than America or any of her states.

What has that got to do with anything?

[Jaggy001]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Scotland as a country is more of a semantic issue than anything else. Countries all over the world have different ways of describing their constituent parts. The UK just happens to have this quirky thing about calling them countries. The real country according to globally recognized definitions is the United Kingdom.

Again, this is a question for constitutional lawyers. Because both Scotland and England were separate countries prior to the Treaty of Union and because the Union was the result of an international treaty rather than annexation or conquest, one can argue that it is sufficient to abrogate the Treaty - which has happened to many treaties in the past - for both countries to revert to their original status.

[paull805]

Originally Posted by ian6479

What has that got to do with anything?

Well as jaggy has pointed out we have been an independent country before, we have our own justice system etc.

[MaggieZ]

not sure who gains from all this, will the Scottish people be better off? If so, they ought to go it alone...I never understood why Great Britain wants to be part of the European Union but still needs to have its own currency, you're either in it or you're not...