English Chess Forum

All though I realize that this is a very complicated subject, I cling to the concept that economics is not about money, but about resource management.

Resource management is not about personal economics, but about planetary economics.

Rich people think economics is purely a personal matter.

_________________
Regards,

Peter.

http://dollyknot.com/nonlinear/Abstract.html

I wonder what the outcome would be if the English had a referendum on whether Scotland should be removed from the United Kingdom.

There's been a lot on whether Scotland wants in or out. I wonder what the English (and Welsh and Nothern Irish) think...

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

Scotland would have to apply to join the Euro (I thought)... Not having Scotland's economic breakdown to hand, I've no idea if that would be a good idea or not.



When you say England, are you including Cornwall? I find such debates rather tedious, although sometimes they produce some genuinely funny moments. What is the incentive to split into a multitude of supposed tradititional nations? I suppose it would make wars easier.

They would because adopting the Euro is now a condition of being part of the EU, thanks to the Lisbon Treaty. The UK can keep sterling thanks to a grandfather clause. I guess if the UK fully dissolved into its constituent units, England would be deemed the successor state, so may still get to keep sterling.



Yes, because Cornwall has hitherto failed to get recognition where Wales has succeeded. I don't think there's any prospect of warring with our new international neighbours. I can think of a few benefits:
(1) We'd be England in sports. It's not quite the same supporting Great Britain (or the UK). Whichever clot came up with the marketing concept of "Team GB" ... (rest of the sentence self-moderated)
(2) I like the idea of the country name being the "Kingdom of England". Would look much better on a passport than "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." I'd much rather be a citizen of the "Kingdom of England".
(3) BUCS would serve no purpose, because it could no longer be a member of FISU. A new organisation would have to be found, which could mean British chessplayers may play in the World University Chess Championship again.

The Netherlands Antilles recently split up into its constituent units, either forming independent countries, or becoming part of the Kingdom of Netherlands. They're not warring with other; it has done no harm.

To be honest, I'm in favour of the UK splitting up into its four elements simply because of (2). For me, this outweighs any political or economic arguments. I don't know why.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

My views are almost the opposite. But then I am a great sucker for regal and imperial trappings. Mostly when reading about the history of the British Empire. And the Scots played a great part in that history. I know there was lots that was bad about that Empire, but it will take me a while to see a country like Scotland breaking away in the same light as other countries becoming independent and/or the evolution of the Commonwealth (Wales is another story again). But I also realise that history shouldn't have too much influence on the present.

Here is an example of those trappings I was talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamati ... izabeth_II

Would "Kingdom of Great Britain" be any better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain

Given Scotland's exports it would surely make more sense to adopt the Dollar rather than the Euro.

I thought independent countries adopted their own currencies? You call it the Scottish pound, and start it off at the same level as the pound sterling, and then watch what happens.

I don't understand this. The UK can split up and Elizabeth II can remain the Queen of her realms. The two are different. Indeed, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could, if they so wished, become similar to places like Canada and Australia, where the Queen remains their Head of State, but they de facto rule themselves.



I don't like that name either, really. I just like the name "Kingdom of England".

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

you can keep your queen, prince and the rest of them thank you very much!

_________________
The FullPonty
Nidum Chess Club

Quick answer to the original question: no.

By the way, I saw a note that Westminster had issued on whether an independent Scotland would automatically remain in the EU or not

Rather helpfully, it suggested there were 3 possibilities:

1 Both Scotland and the residual UK would retain membership

2 Only the residual UK would retain membership

(or, and I imagine you are ahead of me here...)

3. Neither Scotland or the residual UK would retain membership.

So that's that clarified then.

I think in the words of Patrick Moore "we just don't know" whether an Independent Scotland would have to use the Euro or not. It might be an idea to find out over the next 1000 days though...

But she'd have to be careful how she styled herself in those countries that were never governed by her Tudor namesake.

In Scotland, in the period after her accession, there was I believe quite a lot of defacing of pillar-boxes and other street furniture that had been thoughtlessly adorned with the monogram "E II R".

_________________
"The chess-board is the world ..... the player on the other side is hidden from us ..... he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance."
(He doesn't let you resign and start again, either.)

Scotland and England are joined together by an Act of Union. The Union Jack is a symbol of that Union, and many Scotsmen have given their lives in defence of their flag.
If Scotland is to have a Referendum on Independence, then the rest of the United Kingdom must also be consulted.

Not least on the financial terms of the dissolution. British (including Scottish) taxpayers borrowed a lot of money to rescue a couple of Scottish based banks. Who will inherit the resulting majority shareholding and for that matter the borrowings that financed it?

It's not for the rest of the UK to have a say in a referendum on Scottish independence. Only the people of Scotland should be consulted on the question of whether they become independent or not.

The discussion on how to split the assets afterward (assuming independence was voted for) is a different matter. If England want to disolve the union themselves then they would have to have a referendum to remove themselves from the union, not one to kick everyone else out.

Might I suggest that the whole of the UK should not participate in a referendum on Scottish independence.
Instead the whole of the UK could have a referendum on if the union should be continued or terminated.
If the overall result was to terminate then all four countries should become independent.
If the overall result was to continue then each of the four which had a majority for continuing the union should remain within it, while any countries without a majority could leave.

_________________
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)