Why a one year wait for Scotland to leave?

Because, assuming the vote yes, that’s just the way you leave the UK:

The agreement was signed in London on 6 December 1921, by representatives of the British government (which included Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who was head of the British delegates) and Irish representatives including Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith. The Irish representatives regarded themselves as having plenipotentiary status (negotiators empowered to sign a treaty without reference back to their superiors) acting on behalf of the Irish Republic though this was never accepted by the British government. As required by its terms, the agreement was ratified by the members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and the British Parliament. In that sense it could be regarded as a treaty but it was not between two states. Dáil Éireann for the de facto Irish Republic also ratified the treaty. Though the treaty was narrowly ratified, the split led to the Irish Civil War, which was ultimately won by the pro-treaty side.

The Irish Free State as contemplated by the treaty came into existence when its constitution became law on 6 December 1922 by a royal proclamation giving the force of law to the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922.

Makes sense to me anyway.

23 thoughts on “Why a one year wait for Scotland to leave?”

  1. No, sorry, don’t agree. If the vote is declared for secession, it should take immediate effect. MPs should be removed from the Commons. Funding of local government should immediately transfer to the Scotch Government. They can try and negotiate anything else as a foreign power. Can’t have them hanging around once they’re declared “out”, voting on matters specific to their former co-nationals in England and Wales.

    As I said, it’s like a man who says he’s leaving his wife. That’s the point when he loses conjugal access, not after some transitional period. Because the terms of contract clearly do not apply from the moment the contract is rejected by either party.

  2. If the ‘yes’ vote wins I don’t like the idea of Scottish MPs still hanging around voting on rUK stuff when they know they are buggering off in a year.

  3. Jonathan Jones-

    It doesn’t come under conjugal rights. It’s a matter to sort out after the relationship is declared over, like who gets the coffee maker. The point is that power over one another ceases the moment that the declaration is made. The “yes” vote is the equivalent of that moment when the rubicon is crossed and you think, “well, I’ll never have any nookie with her again, but on the other hand I don’t have to pretend to like salad any more”. You’ve still got stuff to sort out, but you are free agents and neither is now required to subordinate to the other. There are no more marital rights or duties in operation.

    In political terms, it would obviously be utterly unacceptable for Scots MPs to be voting on UK issues- anything in the Parliament then- just as it would be unacceptable for Parliament to pass any legislation which applies to Scotland. The UK and Scotland would be from the moment of the vote, sleeping in separate beds.

  4. bloke (not) in spain

    Your analogy to a divorce doesn’t work because a divorcing couple have the recourse to law to arbitrate their post split affairs. With a UK/Scotland split, by definition, there’s no law available. It’s the law they’re splitting.

  5. BNIS-

    There’s no reason why a couple would need recourse to law; negotiations don’t need a higher power. One happens to be available to divorcees (and by all accounts does an appalling job of it) but people can negotiate between themselves and there’s no reason Scottishland and the UK can’t do the same.

    And if they’re too awkward we can just invade anyway, like Mr Putin.

    Anyway, the central point here is that Scottishers should immediately lose all access to UK democratic structures, including those working in the Quangos and civil service, etc. Since they are “conjugal rights” in the analogy. Two parties cannot negotiate if you have the bizarre idea that Party A also includes representatives of Party B, so you get A+B negotiating with B. It’s bollocks, isn’t it?

  6. Scottish residents will be much cheered to be reminded that the Irish Civil War after independence was far more destructive than The Troubles that led up to independence.

  7. I’d imagine it would take a bit because negotiations over equitable division of the assets and setting up a framework for iScotland and rUK’s coexistence – apportionment of assets and liabilities, position of nuclear bases &c, &c. As for why it Ireland seceded so quickly almost a century ago – because it was Ireland, and it was almost a century ago, and there was a war on.


  8. “Equitable division of the assets”? How so? They’re walking out unilaterally, so all they get is to hope we’re magnanimous. There seems to be a mistaken idea that the UK’s assets are somehow shared with Scotland. Not so. Just as they don’t get the currency or the bank. They can walk out on the debt if they like (since it belongs to the UK government and the bank). But they aren’t actually entitled to take anything with them. There really isn’t any negotiation to be done. The UK tells them waht they can have. That’s it.

    I really don’t know why we’re trying to be nice to the Scots Nats. They hate us. Unionist Scots should be welcome to retain UK citizenship. But the Scottish nation isn’t entitled to anything.

  9. Ian B,

    Returning to the nuclear warheads in RNAD Culdrose: your position is that these belong to rUK, but Scotland would have an absolute right to remove them from its sovereign territory and leave them piled up along the border? Or are you claiming that rUK can assert continued sovereignty over Culdrose? In which case it can do the same for, say, Edinburgh?

  10. It all should have been sorted before the vote so the voters would have a slight idea of what they were letting themselves in for. But that would involve politicians behaving like sensible adults.

  11. bloke (not) in spain

    “Scottish residents will be much cheered to be reminded that the Irish Civil War after independence was far more destructive than The Troubles”
    Might be worth reminding the Irish, as well. it’s an interlude seems to have been airbrushed out of Irish history. Remarkable how many Irish people have never heard of it.

  12. Pendantry.

    Culdrose is the Royal Naval Air Station near Heston in Cornwall.

    Royal Naval Armament Depot Coulport is the nuclear missile and ready-to-use warhead store on Loch Long (next one to the west of the Gareloch, which is where HM Naval Base Faslane / HMS NEPTUNE) is situated and the submarines live.

    And (back to the original point) is the putative HQ for the i-Scottish Armed Forces, come Ecktopia.

  13. JOnathan Jones-

    They’re on Scotch territory, so they could seize them. In practise, they probably will want to negotiate all kinds of things. The point I’m making is that they can’t negotiate simultaneously as Scotland as part of the UK, any more than the man leaving his wife can negotiate as both ex-husband and as part of “the couple”.

    So once they’ve decided to leave (fair enough) the Scotch can’t play a part in British governance. They’re now the independent Scots, and all their interests are directed towards Scotland. There is no reason there cannot be negotiation. But the idea of a “transition” where they are both is nonsensical.

  14. SE-

    My general theme here is that we ought to kick the ungrateful bastards out on their collective arse, while offering citizenship and asylum to those Scots who want to relocate to a first world country.

  15. @ SE

    The disconnect between Ian B’s utopia and the messy realities of the world has rarely been more evident.

    Oh I don’t know! I think IanB sets out an excellent place to start from!

    It’s their choice, after all, we’re not the ones asking for the split (actually I should rephrase that and say “we’re not being given the opportunity to…”).

    @ Jonathan Jones

    Yes, I know this technically doesn’t work, but howabout chuck the spare warheads into some “free pods”, drag up the anchors and sail over the to the East coast. Th US can happily house them for a few years until our new southern base is up and running…

    Or, if it gets bad tempered, just decide that they can’t actually have that bit of Scotland until it’s sorted and leave them be ’til later?

    I’m not sure “why” re Edinburgh – is there a good reason we should be aware of?

  16. IanB does have a point. If we get a Labour Government it will be charged with negotiating on rUK’s behalf whilst being full of MPs from Scotland and with a number of Scots who represent rUK constituencies.

    Furthermore as soon as the negotiations finish the Labour Government will become a minority.

  17. I’m with Ian B: we need to pull the plug as soon as any Yes vote is finalized. Otherwise we get the impossible situation BwaB describes.
    And moving the Tridents is not a problem. There used to be, and I’m sure still is, a well-oiled plan to move them to a non-Scottish base PDQ to avoid losing the lot to 10 megatons of trouble.
    Rebuilding a full refurb base will take several years, but the Yanks will help out in the meantime.

  18. Is there any consensus on how citizenship would work in the event of a yes vote?

    Hold a football match in Newcastle between England and ISIS. Anyone wearing an ISIS shirt will be Scottish. Hand out Scottish passport at exit turnstile.

  19. Seems obvious to me that any Scottish MPs should be suspended or withdraw from the Hoc immediately; however, discussions over assets should take place in an atmosphere of calm. Like a sensible divorce as opposed to a chav one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *