Lets talk about the Scottish referendum

[Vendetta]

A small price for freedom from the British crown, is it not? Many paid an even greater price.

Irony: The creation of the "British" crown was the assumption of the English one by a Scottish king.

[Sharp-kun]

Strikes me the 'No' Campaign's tactic of saying We'll devolve more powers to you if you stay is a losing tactic. Because you can't devolve them more powers than they would have if they're independent.

Not really, there's a decent amount of people that would support "Devolution Max" over full independence (myself for example).

Unfortunately Westminster didn't want that as an option on the ballot (presumably hoping that the people that would vote for it would vote no rather than going all the way). Also suddenly coming forward with loads of "we'll give you X!!!" a week before the ballot comes across badly.

[Irbis]

Scotland contains roughly 10% of the British population. In relative terms they would shrink less than the USSR did.

It would shrink to be smaller than Poland and become at most the same weight economically as states like South Korea or Italy. Today, they at least are G8 state, without Scotland having a seat while much stronger states don't have one won't be very defensible.

Also, a nuclear arsenal is not a logical requirement for UN Security Council membership- hence the argument for letting, say, Brazil have a seat.

And that's why Brazil is at the bottom of the list of realistic applicants. They might have some trappings of economic power, but lack all other strengths of great power state.

It would be a trivial matter, as a part of the (orderly) secession process, for the British parliament to pass laws that serve the same legal function as the annulled portions of the Acts of Union.

To put it in simple terms, if 1+2 = 3, then no amount of legislation will make 3-1 = still 3. It will be 2.

Are you saying that Scotland is half (or six thirteenths) of Britain?

It is slightly smaller half of kingdom of Great Britain, yes. It was formed from union of two crowns. Without it, it's back to two original states.

Would you mind trying to rewrite that as something other than a non sequitur?

We were talking about BE seat. British Empire compared to kingdom of England would be like USA with 6-7 states, yes.

Have you read the population and economic statistics? Or are you just assuming blobs on a map are what count?

Yes, I did. Did you? Compare just population of India to England. In fact, today you can make much better argument, IMHO, that India should be real successor to British Empire's UN position, just like Russia was of Soviet Union.

[Zaune]

It would shrink to be smaller than Poland and become at most the same weight economically as states like South Korea or Italy. Today, they at least are G8 state, without Scotland having a seat while much stronger states don't have one won't be very defensible.

So? It's not like they're planning to wage war on anyone.

[Thanas]

If we go down that route, we might just as well ask what France has done to deserve its current seat or what Russia has done to deserve theirs, because there are much larger nations around.

[Simon_Jester]

Scotland contains roughly 10% of the British population. In relative terms they would shrink less than the USSR did.

It would shrink to be smaller than Poland and become at most the same weight economically as states like South Korea or Italy. Today, they at least are G8 state, without Scotland having a seat while much stronger states don't have one won't be very defensible.

If Britain's current claim hinges on being only 10% larger than nations which are not on it, then its claim is no stronger now than it will be after the loss of Scotland.

In other words, not strong at all. In which case you should have been arguing for this years ago, and removing Scotland changes nothing.

Also, a nuclear arsenal is not a logical requirement for UN Security Council membership- hence the argument for letting, say, Brazil have a seat.

And that's why Brazil is at the bottom of the list of realistic applicants. They might have some trappings of economic power, but lack all other strengths of great power state.

Ah. Well then. When the British nuclear arsenal vanishes, by all means, let us debate the UK's security council seat.

It would be a trivial matter, as a part of the (orderly) secession process, for the British parliament to pass laws that serve the same legal function as the annulled portions of the Acts of Union.

To put it in simple terms, if 1+2 = 3, then no amount of legislation will make 3-1 = still 3. It will be 2.

Nonsense. Any action which passed into law through the Acts of Union can be confirmed by a law in 2014 or 2015, a law which is not an act of Union.

In no legal sense would the basic constitutional structure of Britain (no matter what name you apply to the country) be changed by repealing the Act of Union. Not if any relevant statutes are re-affirmed in a separate bill before repeal.

Are you saying that Scotland is half (or six thirteenths) of Britain?

It is slightly smaller half of kingdom of Great Britain, yes. It was formed from union of two crowns. Without it, it's back to two original states.

Are you a royalist? Do you think that the significance of a nation depends solely on its land area?

If not, then neither of the two arguments you just presented matters at all. Number of crowns involved does not matter. Land area doesn't matter or Greenland would be more important than France and Germany put together.

Would you mind trying to rewrite that as something other than a non sequitur?

We were talking about BE seat. British Empire compared to kingdom of England would be like USA with 6-7 states, yes.

In which case your real argument is that Britain should have lost its seat on the security council in 1948, and you should have admitted that up front instead of pretending that the loss of Scotland is the real issue at stake.

Have you read the population and economic statistics? Or are you just assuming blobs on a map are what count?

Yes, I did. Did you? Compare just population of India to England. In fact, today you can make much better argument, IMHO, that India should be real successor to British Empire's UN position, just like Russia was of Soviet Union.

That is not an unreasonable position today. In 1948 it would have been farcical because India at that time had effectively no power to influence world affairs beyond its own borders. But today it makes a considerable amount of sense.

Except that the loss of Scotland has nothing to do with this, so your argument about "losing Scotland should mean the UK loses its security council seat" remains a non sequitur.

[Borgholio]

If we go down that route, we might just as well ask what France has done to deserve its current seat or what Russia has done to deserve theirs, because there are much larger nations around.

At first glance, the major allied combatants in WW2.

I wonder if it would be positive for the overall effectiveness of the UN if the permanent seats and their vetos were entirely eliminated?

[Thanas]

If we go down that route, we might just as well ask what France has done to deserve its current seat or what Russia has done to deserve theirs, because there are much larger nations around.

At first glance, the major allied combatants in WW2.

Reread the thread for I don't think you are getting my point.

[Borgholio]

Reread the thread for I don't think you are getting my point.

Apologies if I misinterpreted your question. I thought we were discussing how a smaller UK without Scotland would be somehow less deserving of a permanent seat on the Security Council than it currently is.

[Simon_Jester]

The basic logic of the Security Council is that any real attempt to enforce a UN resolution will necessarily fall heavily on the current... let us be frank, the current great powers. Moreover, any attempt by the UN to enforce a resolution that seriously harms a great power is likely to result in a world war.

So by putting the great powers on the Security Council, you ensure that the people who will most likely be called on to enforce UN resolutions have a significant say in making those resolutions happy, rather than having to passively listen to them.

You remove the fear that the UN will be used as a weapon against them, which means they are more likely to trust and cooperate with the UN as a peacekeeping body and catalyst for international cooperation.

And you give them a stake in staying engaged with the UN- it becomes a body where their participation is meaningful because they can't be outvoted by a swarm of Montenegros and Liberias. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much point for them in showing up.

[mr friendly guy]

While I can see how people would see the permanent members of the UNSC as the Great powers, one must realise it wasn't so when it was formed. The positions were awarded to those who vowed to continue prosecuting the war against the Axis Powers. At that time only 3 of the 5 could be considered great powers. The US, the USSR and the British Empire.

For the others, France was occupied by Germany and China isn't like what it is today. In fact Winston Churchill described China becoming a permanent member as a joke and couldn't believe the US support of China at that time.

After the CCP won the Chinese civil war, the Republic of China pretty lost all of its territory except Taiwan. That's a ginormous lost and that didn't cause it to lose its security council seat even though anyone who wasn't an ideologue could see that the PRC was clearly the stronger China.

Now we can go into whether the criteria for being permanent members of the UNSC should change to some other criteria, ie whether you're a Great Power or not. However while the UK still holds veto power and since its not in its national interest to dilute its power further, expect it to fight it with its veto power. The only way would be if the UK accepts this argument of Great Power only allowed to be permanent members and willingly gives up its seat. Because as I explained earlier, the legal argument which allowed the PRC to muster support and oust the ROC from the seat reserved for "China" isn't applicable to the UK seat.

[Simon_Jester]

While I can see how people would see the permanent members of the UNSC as the Great powers, one must realise it wasn't so when it was formed. The positions were awarded to those who vowed to continue prosecuting the war against the Axis Powers. At that time only 3 of the 5 could be considered great powers. The US, the USSR and the British Empire.

France had been one of the great powers before the war, and I think a fair number of people expected it to become one again. This may not have been realistic in hindsight given France's limited size and the decline of colonial empires, but in 1945 that was not as obvious as it is today. Also, France provided at least one representative for continental Europe, which would otherwise have been quite lacking.

For the others, France was occupied by Germany and China isn't like what it is today. In fact Winston Churchill described China becoming a permanent member as a joke and couldn't believe the US support of China at that time.

China as a security council member was rather farcical from that point of view. I think the best argument for the American backing of China was that the Far East was obviously not going to remain a colonial backwater indefinitely, and that making the Security Council a purely Western phenomenon would limit its remit and create problems down the line.

Churchill, while he was in some ways a competent geopolitical analyst, never really quite got past his characteristically Victorian vision of "the Orient" as a place for other people's actions to happen to.

After the CCP won the Chinese civil war, the Republic of China pretty lost all of its territory except Taiwan. That's a ginormous lost and that didn't cause it to lose its security council seat even though anyone who wasn't an ideologue could see that the PRC was clearly the stronger China.

The main reason for that was inertia- nobody wanted to set a precedent of stripping a nation of its security council veto, plus the Western democracies on the security council spent most of the 1950s and '60s hoping that if they ignored communist China hard enough, the PRC would go away.

Now we can go into whether the criteria for being permanent members of the UNSC should change to some other criteria, ie whether you're a Great Power or not. However while the UK still holds veto power and since its not in its national interest to dilute its power further, expect it to fight it with its veto power. The only way would be if the UK accepts this argument of Great Power only allowed to be permanent members and willingly gives up its seat. Because as I explained earlier, the legal argument which allowed the PRC to muster support and oust the ROC from the seat reserved for "China" isn't applicable to the UK seat.

Another point is that, frankly, Britain is still one of the leading nations in the world in terms of global strategic reach, although to a large extent it now piggybacks on the US for this. It's got about as much ability to reach out and touch a situation on the other side of the world as France or China, or for that matter modern Russia. Regionally it's weaker than China or Russia are in their own respective regions, but globally it's preserved some degree of overall power.

If the European Union collectively had a military with expeditionary capability, and a foreign policy that impacted the globe and not just their own region, now... that would make both the French and UK council seats rather silly.

[Lonestar]

Though I do agree the security council seat would better work as a European one. Actually, I think both France and Englands should be European seats, not national ones.

Why? No country in Europe *other than* the UK or France has the muscle to really claim it.

[Thanas]

Though I do agree the security council seat would better work as a European one. Actually, I think both France and Englands should be European seats, not national ones.

Why? No country in Europe *other than* the UK or France has the muscle to really claim it.

Which is why it should be a European seat, duh. After all, Europe includes these two. It should be filled out by the head of the EU.

[Lonestar]

Which is why it should be a European seat, duh. After all, Europe includes these two. It should be filled out by the head of the EU.

Fine, I'll be okay with that right about the same time the EU has a unified foreign policy and military.

Until that day comes though...

[Thanas]

That's certainly a valid objection, but we are moving in that direction.

[Simon_Jester]

Also, EU policy as a whole seems... call it 'characteristically regional.' One does not often see the EU as a governing body getting involved with anything important, if it doesn't happen either in the EU or immediately next to it.

Since Security Council votes almost always involve voting about what happens to a remote part of the world, it seems more logical to make sure the nations on the Council are ones that actually have a policy on foreign affairs outside their own region, and care, and could conceivably enforce that policy.

[mr friendly guy]

France had been one of the great powers before the war, and I think a fair number of people expected it to become one again. This may not have been realistic in hindsight given France's limited size and the decline of colonial empires, but in 1945 that was not as obvious as it is today. Also, France provided at least one representative for continental Europe, which would otherwise have been quite lacking.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. My point is that at the time the five powers decided to set up the UNSC, France was still occupied and China was certainly not a great power. Churchill might think being one or at least having a reasonable potential to have one was a criteria, but ultimately it wasn't the deal breaker on who gets to be the permanent members in the UNSC.

.
Churchill, while he was in some ways a competent geopolitical analyst, never really quite got past his characteristically Victorian vision of "the Orient" as a place for other people's actions to happen to.

Agreed.

The main reason for that was inertia- nobody wanted to set a precedent of stripping a nation of its security council veto, plus the Western democracies on the security council spent most of the 1950s and '60s hoping that if they ignored communist China hard enough, the PRC would go away.

Again, I don't think this particularly invalidates my point. No longer being a great power certainly didn't strip the ROC of its UNSC position. Of course we know eventually Taiwan was stripped of the position.*

* I will add the caveat that at the end of WWII with all the weapons floating around in China it was at least a decent regional power unlike at the time when the five powers decided to form the UNSC.

Another point is that, frankly, Britain is still one of the leading nations in the world in terms of global strategic reach, although to a large extent it now piggybacks on the US for this. It's got about as much ability to reach out and touch a situation on the other side of the world as France or China, or for that matter modern Russia. Regionally it's weaker than China or Russia are in their own respective regions, but globally it's preserved some degree of overall power.

If the European Union collectively had a military with expeditionary capability, and a foreign policy that impacted the globe and not just their own region, now... that would make both the French and UK council seats rather silly.

I think Britain is still a great power. However..... I would argue that even with Scotland its been surpassed in some important metrics like economy by countries like Japan and Germany. Thus if you're only going to have 5 seats, and all the other members magically agree that being a great power is all the requires and it doesn't matter about the relationship this new member has with existing UNSC permanent members, then Britain would be seriously challenged by those two countries for a seat. Without Scotland it just makes its position worse.

[Thanas]

Also, EU policy as a whole seems... call it 'characteristically regional.' One does not often see the EU as a governing body getting involved with anything important, if it doesn't happen either in the EU or immediately next to it.

Yes, definitely immediately next to it.

I'd say that since this common policy has only existed for a few years the fact that they got a mission of that size up and running should be counted as a huge success.

Since Security Council votes almost always involve voting about what happens to a remote part of the world, it seems more logical to make sure the nations on the Council are ones that actually have a policy on foreign affairs outside their own region, and care, and could conceivably enforce that policy.

And the EU does not have a policy on foreign affairs outside Europe?

[Simon_Jester]

Thanas, there are individual exceptions, the point is that there aren't a lot of them. The EU policy on, for example, South America seems to be "let the member states decide how to interact with South American countries." That's not inherently wrong or anything, it's arguably a good thing... but it also means that the EU is often going to use a Security Council seat to make decisions on issues where it didn't already have a coherent state policy.

This promotes, in my opinion, a certain frivolity in Security Council decisions.

France had been one of the great powers before the war, and I think a fair number of people expected it to become one again. This may not have been realistic in hindsight given France's limited size and the decline of colonial empires, but in 1945 that was not as obvious as it is today. Also, France provided at least one representative for continental Europe, which would otherwise have been quite lacking.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. My point is that at the time the five powers decided to set up the UNSC, France was still occupied and China was certainly not a great power. Churchill might think being one or at least having a reasonable potential to have one was a criteria, but ultimately it wasn't the deal breaker on who gets to be the permanent members in the UNSC.

That's true. On the other hand, the UN Security Council was designed with an eye to the immediate postwar world. So "France will rebuild and be back in shape by 1950 or so" is a valid argument if you were picking Council members in 1945. "China's economy will be very in a generation or two" is a more debateable argument, but then that's where Churchill and the Americans apparently disagreed.

The main reason for that was inertia- nobody wanted to set a precedent of stripping a nation of its security council veto, plus the Western democracies on the security council spent most of the 1950s and '60s hoping that if they ignored communist China hard enough, the PRC would go away.

Again, I don't think this particularly invalidates my point. No longer being a great power certainly didn't strip the ROC of its UNSC position. Of course we know eventually Taiwan was stripped of the position.*

* I will add the caveat that at the end of WWII with all the weapons floating around in China it was at least a decent regional power unlike at the time when the five powers decided to form the UNSC.

The UN Security Council was formed late enough in the war that the basic shape of the postwar world was already obvious to everyone, pending a few details that hadn't been negotiated yet.

That said, you are basically right that "not being one of the greatest powers" is not in itself justification for removing UN Security Council status. On the other hand, it is clearly a bad situation if the nations on the Council become stagnant and weak relative to more powerful nations that are not on the Council. Take that far enough and you get something like the WWII situation where rising powers feel an incentive to violate international law, because they don't have an enshrined place in the existing international order.

I think Britain is still a great power. However..... I would argue that even with Scotland its been surpassed in some important metrics like economy by countries like Japan and Germany. Thus if you're only going to have 5 seats, and all the other members magically agree that being a great power is all the requires and it doesn't matter about the relationship this new member has with existing UNSC permanent members, then Britain would be seriously challenged by those two countries for a seat. Without Scotland it just makes its position worse.

Incrementally worse, anyway.

On reflection, and this is somewhat at odds with I a thing I said to Irbis, one of the big single arguments for Security Council status is that the nation in question have a nuclear arsenal, especially one with strategic global reach and nation-devastating potential. The reason for that is that, realistically, a nation with such an arsenal cannot be conquered, because even if it loses

Therefore, the UN lacks the power to compel such a nation. And any resolution which that nation opposes firmly enough might well result in a nuclear war.* So rather than create a situation in which the UN might inadvertently provoke a nuclear war by treading on the toes of a nuclear power, we put the substantial nuclear powers into a special position: the UNSC seats. That way, a major nuclear power has the de jure power to block UN resolutions that goes with its de facto power, which means it has no need to use or threaten to use the de facto power to get its way.
_______________________________

*As in... Imagine if the UN suddenly outlawed mom, apple pie, and waterboarding, and declared that the US was to be invaded and chunked up into occupation zones. Just imagine. If this imaginary thing happened, realistically the US would see the invading armies and use nuclear weapons on them- and, for that matter, probably on the countries of origin the armies came from. The result: World War Three. Probably more trouble than the original resolution was worth.

[Thanas]

Thanas, there are individual exceptions, the point is that there aren't a lot of them. The EU policy on, for example, South America seems to be "let the member states decide how to interact with South American countries." That's not inherently wrong or anything, it's arguably a good thing... but it also means that the EU is often going to use a Security Council seat to make decisions on issues where it didn't already have a coherent state policy.

No, it doesn't. Nowhere does "Eu gets a seat to act in common policy" only lead to "member x will use it for Y".

[Zaune]

Thanas, there are individual exceptions, the point is that there aren't a lot of them. The EU policy on, for example, South America seems to be "let the member states decide how to interact with South American countries." That's not inherently wrong or anything, it's arguably a good thing... but it also means that the EU is often going to use a Security Council seat to make decisions on issues where it didn't already have a coherent state policy.

This promotes, in my opinion, a certain frivolity in Security Council decisions.

Or it could mean there's at least one permanent member who can claim a position of complete neutrality, or as close to it as is practical in this day and age. That could be quite useful if China and Japan get into another spat over possession of some speck of rock in the middle of nowhere that might have an oilfield nearby that escalates into shots being fired.

[Purple]

Generally speaking, is anyone here from Scotland? And if so how would you rate the odds of the vote passing and GB being split? I am not interested into getting pool numbers or anything like that from the net but what your personal impression of the public mood is.

[Sharp-kun]

Going by just my social circle I would say 60/40 in favor of No.

Public polls are around 40/40 with 20% undecided so could go either way. I think no will win but there are a lot of things that can swing it.


Speaking for myself I am intending to vote no. That said part of me would like to be able to vote yes as I am concerned about the attitude to the EU in Westminster and other matters where I feel the view up north differs significantly from down south.

There's also just the potential to "do things better". You see something down in London and think "maybe, we could actually do that right".

[Iroscato]

Does anyone know the kind of timescale for separation if the Yes vote goes through? Will it be spread out over a few weeks or months, or will the Scottish people literally wake up the next day in a new, different country?