The United Kingdom of England and maybe Wales

Nicola Sturgeon ‘not asking permission’ to hold Scottish referendum

And as for Northern Ireland

6 thoughts on “The United Kingdom of England and maybe Wales

  1. The percentage voting for the Scottish Nationalist Party at this election was about the same as voted for independence in the ‘once in a generation’ referendum in 2014, i.e. about 45%, so the UK government can, and will, argue that nothing has changed to oblige it to grant another referendum. As for Northern Ireland, there is still a simple majority of Unionists for the time being. All these things may well change in time, but it’s worth understanding that the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon will claim that having a particularly satisfying morning shit gives her a mandate for independence, so there is nothing particularly new to see here.

    1. 1.The SNP may be able to take the British government to court claiming that it has a mandate since it was reelected after the last referendum and saying that there has been an obvious material change in status since the last referendum. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that if a province holds a referendum on separation and the referendum passes that the government of Canada is obligated to respond in some way. Since British and Canadian law both derive from British Common Law, this may be of relevance to the situation.

      2.Even if Johnson refuses another referendum, there is nothing that prevents Scotland from holding a plebiscite on independence. I mean, he could try to arrest those organizing the plebiscite and I wouldn’t completely put that past him, but I don’t think that’s too likely. If that passes with a significant turnout, it would likely be very difficult for him to deny Scotland given his personal rhetoric on the sacrosanct nature of referendums and plebiscites.

  2. Don’t think most Brits have thought through what this does to their permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. That seat is designated under the UN Charter for “The United Kingdom of Great Briton and Northern Ireland”. The last time a change in name for a permanent member of the Security Council, it was decided that unanimous consent of the 15-member body is required. That was when The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was replaced by Russia. Approved by unanimous vote.

    Anyone care to bet on the likelihood of current Security Council members Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Equatorial Guinea, or Cote D’Ivoire (to say nothing of Russia or China) meekly agreeing to that change? Most of these are countries that have already sign off on UN General Assembly motions to ban permanent member status entirely.

    There is no way that the “United Kingdom of England and maybe Wales” — or “UK-Lite” as I call it — will be able to hold on to its existing UN status if it changes it’s name land area.

    1. The Security Council is an absurdity…neither France nor the UK belong. One seat for the EU and another for India. No seats deserve permanence.

Comments are closed.