An end to the UK?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: pubmanager Another thought... The break up of the UK may give us an opportunity to get rid of the Monarchy by stealth: Duke of Edinborough - Scotland keep him Prince of Wales - Wales keep him Queen - Old and fading fast stays with England Line of succession broken on account of there being no heir to the throne = Republic of England Bring it on!

The line of succession was broken on the day Henry Tudor stole the crown from Richard III. The real King of Enland, the descendant of Richard III, is this man, a rice researcher. I for one support his claim to ascendency, anything to get these inbreds off the throne.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Autolykos Of course, that would toll the death knell for the United Kingdom.

That happened in 1776

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Compugasm That happened in 1776

you need to look up what exactly they mean by "united kingdom"

[Compugasm]

Quote by: G. Adams The line of succession was broken on the day Henry Tudor stole the crown from Richard III.

They've actually been tracking an alternate lineage all this time?:eek:

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Compugasm They've actually been tracking an alternate lineage all this time?:eek:

Yes, due to illegitimacy and unlawful ascension. Henry Tudor, who became Henry VII, was from an illegitimate line. The article says more.

Additionally, for a bill to become law in the UK, even today, it must gain royal assent. Therefore in the Glorious Revolution where Parliament passed an act to get William of Orange on the throne, it needed the signature of the royal they were deposing, James II. Funnily enough he didn't give it. So, even if you ignore the illegitimacy claim, we would then have to find the Stuart descendant to find our rightful monarch.

[Forthright]

Quote by: pubmanager How would independence affect the north sea gas and oil fields? who would get the rights and how would it affect the English economy if Scotland were to get sole rights as I imagine the fields lie in their territorial waters?

Indeed pubmanager, this was a matter which was urgently discussed by the UK Government (both Labour under Harold Wilson and the Conservatives under Ted Heath) back in the earlly 1970's when North Sea Oil was coming on stream. It was recognised, in official Government papers recently made public under "Freedom of Information" rules in the UK that both Governments knew that an Independant Scotland would have rights to the revenues from North Sea Oil and Gas in the Scottish sector of the North Sea, and deliberately covered this fact up, because they feared a huge surge in support for the SNP and Independance if that information became public. Indeed the disclosure of this information has been a contributary factor in the current rise in popularity of the SNP in the run up to next years Scottish Parliament elections.

[G. Adams]

If North Sea Gas were entirely privately owned, what are the chances that it would matter? The profits would be in private hands. Is Scotland so damned statist that they would nationalise, or part nationalise, an industry?

Besides, seeing as the purpose of independance for England, as I see it, would be to liberalise our economy, the difference in revenue for government shouldn't be vast.

[Praxius]

Well with all the fighting and wars throughout the centuries between Scotland/Ireland and England and trying to get their independence, to just give it up now wouldn't be the "English" way, lol.

But I don't think you guys have anything to worry about happening anytime soon. Like I said, here in Canada, Quebec has been trying to become its own nation since the 60's and it still hasn't happened.

[Athena]

Quote by: theco805 Hmmmm, considering I have never in-depthly studied the UK or either country referred to in this article... I feel they should do as they feel is necessary, if a majority of the people want independence from either side, they should PEACEFULLY confront the others and discuss it....

Wow would you say the same thing of the break up of the US? What would happen to the power of the US if it broke up?

It is unnerving that at one time the UK could rule over much of the world, and is now reduced to one little island and may become only 1/2 of the little island.

The US has followed in where the UK has retreated, and now is talking about the draft which is necessary to maintain military control of foreign countries. The draft is not a popular idea and tax payers are not pleased with what they are shelling out for Bush's New World Order. But to maintain its power, the US must secure its foriegn resources and markets, that were once what gave the UK a good economy and power, and this is closely tied to its relationship with the UK.

Really, what is happening to the UK, and might this also be happening to the US? Historically, native Americans have maintain a nation within a nation, and if the US weakens, will the native American nation break free of the US?

[Praxius]

Canada actually just passed the bill that states that Quebec is "A Nation within Canada" ~ whatever the hell that will screwup remains to be seen.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Praxius But I don't think you guys have anything to worry about happening anytime soon. Like I said, here in Canada, Quebec has been trying to become its own nation since the 60's and it still hasn't happened.

The fact that it won't happen soon is what is worrying. Scotland and England have very different priorities and would be better served by seperating. That way we can forge our own futures, rather than both sides being upset at poor compromises.

[Forthright]

Quote by: G. Adams The fact that it won't happen soon is what is worrying. Scotland and England have very different priorities and would be better served by seperating. That way we can forge our own futures, rather than both sides being upset at poor compromises.

Here here! I forget who it was but someone once said of Scotland regaining her independance that England would "lose a surly lodger and gain a good neighbour."