What happens to the British and Irish Lions 'IF' Scotland say Yes?

First topic message reminder :

So what happens to the British and Irish Lions 'IF' Scotland says Yes?

Surely not 'The British, Irish and Scottish Lions'?   

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:That is not my understanding of how it happens. As is stands, Scotland is part of the UK, which is part of the EU. If it moves for independence, it ceases to be part of the UK, and, therefore, loses its ties to EU membership. You have to formally ask for EU membership. You raise an interesting point Secret: would what would remain as the UK retain the right to be called the UK and would that said entity be entitled to EU membership?

Case in point. Kosovo gained independence from Serbia in 2008. The republic of Kosovo's independence was not recognised by Serbia and 5 other EU states. Although moving towards integrating its laws, policies, society and economy to fit EU requirements, it is yet to formally qualify for EU membership.

My understanding is that just because you had EU membership before, does not guarantee you retain EU membership after independence.

The UK itself ceases to be the UK that signed the treaty.  In Law that is the only conclusion to be made.  The rest will be a massive legal argument in the European courts IF people want to get dirty about things and actually try to deny Scottish people the rights they had as part of the EU treaty whilst allowing people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to still enjoy those rights.  
That would be a massive few years in court!  The English didn't own the Union idea.  It was an agreement.  Whilst under that agreement other treaties were signed.  Outside that Union agreement, England's rights earned whilst under the cloak of Union (EU membership), don't naturally become it's exclusive property.  The property of EU membership belonged to all the peoples of the Union.

I can imagine quite a few lawyers either with big boners or salivating around the lips just contemplating that level of litigation...

TJ wrote:As for the lions - no effect at all - we already have players from Eire in the lions

Hence why they are called the British and 'Irish' Lions.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I can imagine quite a few lawyers either with big boners or salivating around the lips just contemplating that level of litigation...

Salivating around the wallet more likely - if that isn't too tortured an expression!!

I was trying to include female lawyers and I wasn't talking about those lips on the mouth...

Sexism!! Now there's a topic that puts both Scottish independence and The Lions firmly in the shade

How can it be sexist if I mentioned both sexes? Lawyerist, yes...

In truth I don't think there will be any litigation at all on this topic.

In the event of independence it seems widely accepted that rUK will continue its existing membership as the surviving state and that Scotland will become a new member (whether you call that "negotiating from within" or "re-applying" strikes me as wordsmithing frankly). Despite being a "No thanks" voter I don't subscribe to the theory that Scotland would have any real difficulty in being/becoming/continuing to be a member of the EU.

The real question seems to be about the terms Scotland would have, for example around the rebate, currency, CAP etc. I don't know the answer to that. No-one does. The Separatists make optimistic predictions and the Better Together Campaign makes pessimistic predictions, but truth be told it'll be up to the EU to reach some sort of agreement, and will not be within the gift of Scotland to decide upon its terms.

I think there's too many anti-UK EU states to let an opportunity like this to slip them by, FES.

funnyExiledScot wrote:In truth I don't think there will be any litigation at all on this topic.

In the event of independence it seems widely accepted that rUK will continue its existing membership as the surviving state and that Scotland will become a new member (whether you call that "negotiating from within" or "re-applying" strikes me as wordsmithing frankly). Despite being a "No thanks" voter I don't subscribe to the theory that Scotland would have any real difficulty in being/becoming/continuing to be a member of the EU.

The real question seems to be about the terms Scotland would have, for example around the rebate, currency, CAP etc. I don't know the answer to that. No-one does. The Separatists make optimistic predictions and the Better Together Campaign makes pessimistic predictions, but truth be told it'll be up to the EU to reach some sort of agreement, and will not be within the gift of Scotland to decide upon its terms.

So maybe Independence from the EU itself might be the next deal on the cards for an Independent Scotland given so many people want to tell them what the conditions are for having a mind of their own - which is of course classic Anti-Euism according to the Politburo in Brussels.

Independence from the EU has a nice ring to it. I like the movement already.

We'll see, but I really don't think the EU is stupid enough to both kick out rUK and deny Scotland membership. I can't see how that helps anyone.

I wish some of us would kick ourselves out (of the EU) - and start the whole process again - this time with less dictatorism, more neighbourliness, less neighbours cutting your hedge and charging you for the privilege of not doing it yourself even though you wanted to...

A Brand New Europe of Less Europe... that's the dream. But first the curtains have to be dropped on the present unelected mini-dicator parties that go on in Brussels.

SecretFly wrote:

So maybe Independence from the EU itself might be the next deal on the cards for an Independent Scotland given so many people want to tell them what the conditions are for having a mind of their own - which is of course classic Anti-Euism according to the Politburo in Brussels.

Independence from the EU has a nice ring to it.  I like the movement already.

There are a number in Scotland who do actually believe that Scotland should leave both the rUK and the EU, adopt its own currency and achieve true independence. Truth be told I'd probably subscribe to that more than the cobbled together nonsense being peddled by the Separatist campaign.

The real issue for the EU is precedent. They don't want to do anything re: Scotland that can serve as a precedent for other separatist movements, or grant terms to Scotland that others will see as a road map, so whatever happens the Commission will be keen to differentiate Scotland as a "one-off", or phrase its membership (or continuing membership) in such a way that makes Scotland unique on its facts.

States like Spain didn't recognise Kosovo for fear of creating a precedent with the Basque Country and Catalonia. France equally wouldn't want to set another precedent with Corsica and their Basque Country.

But on the other side of the coin, they wouldn't want to pass up an opportunity to make life difficult for the UK. They would seek to undermine the independent Scotland as a warning to their own separatist movements and they'd also seek to undermine whatever remained of the previous entity the UK. In the latter agenda, I'd think they'd find more support than you'd think.

Again, I'm not so sure. The EU would be weaker both financially and diplomatically, certainly in my view, without rUK and Scotland as members. That doesn't mean both can dictate terms and seek to bully the EU, far from it, but it's not an entirely one sided relationship.

BNP, UKIP and factions of the Conservative Party would love nothing more than for the EU to get stroppy with rUK and Scotland, and if the end game is that rUK leave and Scotland doesn't become a member, then (again, in my view) everyone loses.

From my point of view it's win-win.

If Scotland stay in the Union, great.

If you leave, again great.

Positives for Scotland leaving are that there will be no more Scottish politicians dominating Westminster like we've had in the last 15 years (Blair and Brown), no more West Lothian question.Labour will lose a significant amount of it's voters etc.

rUK would be able to re-negotiate on the EU through sheer necessity.

Not all doom and gloom. I would like Scotland to stay in the union but if Scotland leaving the union means that Miliband won't become the next PM......

Number of MP's

England = 533
Scotland = 59
Wales = 40
Northern Ireland = 18

If the Scot's are 'dominating' then I think the English MP's need to 'grow some"   

Scrumpy wrote:British Lions vs Celtic Tigers

Predictions?

England vs Ireland, Scotland and Wales? Is that what you're on about?  :head scratch: 

I don't see that anything will change other than we'll drop the irrelevant prefix to the name.

It'll make a difference to the balance of power in Westminster, but it won't rule out a future Labour government, if that's your concern.

The secret to power, with or without Scotland, is the centre ground. New Labour had it, and would have won the UK without or without Scottish votes. The Conservatives had it in the 80s as well, despite Scotland's votes.

A credible party in Westminster that can decisively win the middle ground will win with or without Scotland. It is a fairly damning verdict on Cameron in my opinion that he was unable to win a majority given the complete mess that Labour were in under Brown. I'm a big admirer of Gordon Brown, but he completely lost it as PM and Labour lost its direction and sense of purpose completely. That the Conservatives could not capitalise tells its own story.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Again, I'm not so sure. The EU would be weaker both financially and diplomatically, certainly in my view, without rUK and Scotland as members. That doesn't mean both can dictate terms and seek to bully the EU, far from it, but it's not an entirely one sided relationship.

BNP, UKIP and factions of the Conservative Party would love nothing more than for the EU to get stroppy with rUK and Scotland, and if the end game is that rUK leave and Scotland doesn't become a member, then (again, in my view) everyone loses.

I think the idea that Scotland won't continue as a member of the EU is fantasy land stuff. There is oil, there are vast sources of renewable energy and if they go for independence the benefits of bringing them in for the rest of the EU far outweigh the downsides. Even the rUK will support their membership.

PenfroPete wrote:Number of MP's

England = 533
Scotland = 59
Wales = 40
Northern Ireland = 18

If the Scot's are 'dominating' then I think the English MP's need to 'grow some"    

Name them!   

a few years back the only English leader of a major political party was Nick Griffin.
 
2005
 
Tories - Michael Howard (Welsh)
Lib Dems - Charles Kennedy (Scottish)
Labour - Tony Blair (Scottish)
 
And given during the time we also had
 
Chancellor - Gordon Brown (Scottish)
Deputy PM - John Prescott (Welsh)
Lord Chancellor - Lord Falconer (Scottish)
Health & leader of the house - John Reid (Scottish)
Education - Ruth Kelly (N. Irish)
Trade - Douglas Alexander (Scottish)
Transport - Alistair Darling (Scottish)
 
Literally half the cabinet came from 15% of the country.
 
Even David Cameron is half Scottish. When I tell fellow Scots that it doesn't sit well with them.

Notch wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Again, I'm not so sure. The EU would be weaker both financially and diplomatically, certainly in my view, without rUK and Scotland as members. That doesn't mean both can dictate terms and seek to bully the EU, far from it, but it's not an entirely one sided relationship.

BNP, UKIP and factions of the Conservative Party would love nothing more than for the EU to get stroppy with rUK and Scotland, and if the end game is that rUK leave and Scotland doesn't become a member, then (again, in my view) everyone loses.

I think the idea that Scotland won't continue as a member of the EU is fantasy land stuff. There is oil, there are vast sources of renewable energy and if they go for independence the benefits of bringing them in for the rest of the EU far outweigh the downsides. Even the rUK will support their membership.

I agree. It will happen. The only question is on what terms.

Notch wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Again, I'm not so sure. The EU would be weaker both financially and diplomatically, certainly in my view, without rUK and Scotland as members. That doesn't mean both can dictate terms and seek to bully the EU, far from it, but it's not an entirely one sided relationship.

BNP, UKIP and factions of the Conservative Party would love nothing more than for the EU to get stroppy with rUK and Scotland, and if the end game is that rUK leave and Scotland doesn't become a member, then (again, in my view) everyone loses.

I think the idea that Scotland won't continue as a member of the EU is fantasy land stuff. There is oil, there are vast sources of renewable energy and if they go for independence the benefits of bringing them in for the rest of the EU far outweigh the downsides. Even the rUK will support their membership.

It's not automatic entry. There's a waiting list. That's not to say it won't happen eventually but you can bet some member states will delay and undermine the Scotland bid whether that's in their interests or not. The idea of Europe working together is what's fantasy. Everybody works for their own national interests. If you're a small member state, good luck having your voice heard.

I think the Scots need to think long and hard before they (DO VOTE) Because from what i have heared if they vote YES. And it does not go to plan. There is no going back.

majesticimperialman wrote:I think the Scots need to think long and hard before they (DO VOTE) Because from what i have heared if they vote YES. And it does not go to plan. There is no going back.

A lot fo them are convinced if they vote yes and it doesn't go to plan they are better off. Infact I heard recently that westminster have already started talks over trade, that kind of highlights the impact this could have on England and Wales.

majesticimperialman wrote:I think the Scots need to think long and hard before they (DO VOTE) Because from what i have heared if they vote YES. And it does not go to plan. There is no going back.

Of course. NO one thinks different.

One of the really interesting things with this for me is the high q7ality of the debate amongst the wider public in Scotland - and the ignorance of the positions and issues south of the border. A function of the press and media overwhelmingly taking the unionst line and grass roots campaigning up here.

Of course there is no going back. No one has ever suggested there could be bar scaremongering from the dependence parties. When has any newly independent country wanted to go back?

Wow. This is the bestest thread everest.
 
Before RDW comes on and gives me a wedgie for talking about politics:
 
A. The Lions is easy. Max "the silver Ewok" Clifford and Charles "what's wrong with publicly choking your wife?" Saatchi will be hired for the rebranding.
The team will be called "British, Irish, Scots & Cornish United In Tokenism": BISCUIT

 
B. On the referendum, a couple of things have recently emerged:
 
1. Alex Salmond officially has nothing by way of a back-up plan if Mr Osborne has a hissy and decides Scotland cannot use the pound.
 
2. Sir Ian Wood (the man who build a £7billion oil empire by setting up his own company 48 years ago and knows more about north sea oil than anyone currently alive) has publicly come out and said that the SNP has overestimated Scotland's remaining crude reserves by between 45 per cent and 60 per cent.
 
Not to worry. I'm sure the detail of setting up a new, fully independent nation isn't really all that important.

we could have two separate teams.

The Lions.

and

The Fishes (in honour of Salmond and Sturgeon).

that way we get around the whole country issue

Scrumpy wrote:So what happens to the British and Irish Lions 'IF' Scotland says Yes?  

Surely not 'The British, Irish and Scottish Lions'?   

Scots would still be British (as they are from the Island of Great Britain).

Sin é wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:So what happens to the British and Irish Lions 'IF' Scotland says Yes?  

Surely not 'The British, Irish and Scottish Lions'?   

Scots would still be British (as they are from the Island of Great Britain).

BISCUIT  

TJ wrote:Of course there is no going back.  No one has ever suggested there could be bar scaremongering from the dependence parties.  When has any newly independent country wanted to go back?

The point being made here by the Better Together camp is simply for undecided voters to think very carefully before committing to a "Yes" vote. That's all. It isn't "scaremongering" to emphasise the perminance of a "Yes" vote. It is a fact.

As for the question you ask, there are many examples of independent countries opting to depart from independence in a number of areas, the entire European Union being a very good example. This is a collection of independent countries sacrificing a degree of independence to achieve economies of scale, a currency union and a single market. Another example would of course be Scotland, in opting to join the Union in the first place.

Each and every independence movement is different, unique to its facts. Whichever side of the fence you are on, both sides acknowledge that this is going to be a close vote, and I suspect both sides will be within 5% of the magic majority. This means at least 45% of the country will be disappointed with the result, so to say "when has any newly independent county wanted to go back" is of course simplistic on the facts in question. If there is a "Yes" vote, I would suggest that at least 45% of the voters in Scotland will want to reverse the position immediately, and (as a result of my viewpoint on various issues), my opinion is that a majority of Scots will want to reverse the decision within 5 years, once the pitfalls and consequences of independence become a reality, and the risks materialise. I don't think the "we may be in a mess, but at least it's our mess" perspective will ultimately win out, and I don't think there's a valid parallel with other independence movements. By then it'll be too late, as the circumstances in which we would want to rejoin the United Kingdom will be if the independence project has failed and Scotland has suffered, and to rejoin will no doubt require a referendum in the rUK to take us back. It would take a bold betting man to think that Scotland would be voted back in those circumstances.

Just my opinion, and of course will be hotly disputed by those with a different take on the risks/benefits and various economic and political perspectives to this debate.

I don't know about people wanting to be back in the union. Ireland had a bloody awful time after gaining independence (including a civil war), but I doubt anyone would want to be ruled from London again.

*Ireland was a Free State within the Union initially - it didn't become a republic until 1949 (despite all the econimic misery that Ireland had up to then, it still went for full independence).

A very different set of facts and circumstances surrounded Irish independence, as well as a significant religious divide, and the approach from the UK government could not have been more different in dealing with Irish independence vs Scottish independence.

funnyExiledScot wrote:A very different set of facts and circumstances surrounded Irish independence, as well as a significant religious divide, and the approach from the UK government could not have been more different in dealing with Irish independence vs Scottish independence.

Different circumstances ok, but still the economic situation was dire in Ireland with mass emigration (mainly manual labour in England) particularly when Ireland gained full independence.

My point is that people are prepared to suffer for their independence (once you get a taste for it).

The Irish independence was extremely hard fought. The UK government fought Irish independence. People died for it. No wonder they wanted to hang onto it, regardless of economic circumstance!

Scotland is rather different. We are already prosperous and have our own Parliament. When we voted in the SNP majority, rather than start a war, David Cameron flew to Edinburgh and signed the Edinburgh Agreement, allowing the people of Scotland to vote on whether to separate from the UK. No-one died, and it has been an entirely democratic process.

The facts are too different to make a sensible comparison.

Sin - feel free to come onto the dedicated independence banter thread that has been set up (in order not to de-rail rugby threads with Alex Salmond's big shiny face):
https://www.606v2.com/t55268-606v2-scottish-rugby-fans-independence-thread

It's funny that some people who argue for Scotland to stay in Britain will use the opposite arguments when talking about Britain leaving the EU. And the Northern Irish discussing it is even funnier, particulary Sinn Fein. They think Scotland should leave. Haven't they been arguing for ages that politically partitioning one island is a really bad thing to do?

I'd say the pro independence side should just ensure Braveheart is broadcast every day at peak viewing times in Scotland in the lead up to the vote. It's pretty historically accurate I heard, and should be worth about 10% points.

Personally I think they could be a great country if independent, and as important as economics is, in their hearts if they want independence they should go for it, even though it'd be hard. My warning as an Irishman to the Scots though. Once independent you can only continue to blame England for all your problems for four generations. After that it's your own bleedin fault.

It won't change a jot as far as the lions are concerned. However the Lions are an anachronism from the amateur age and so I believe should be set aside for a 4 year northern hemisphere competition instead. To do this enables you to maintain the sancterty (cash cow) of the existing annual 6 nations.

You could run them simultaneously which would give the lesser nations a greater chance, however the self interest of the unions would soon put an end to the old lions.

Feckless Rogue wrote: My warning as an Irishman to the Scots though. Once independent you can only continue to blame England for all your problems for four generations. After that it's your own bleedin fault.

Feckless Rogue wrote:It's funny that some people who argue for Scotland to stay in Britain will use the opposite arguments when talking about Britain leaving the EU. And the Northern Irish discussing it is even funnier, particulary Sinn Fein. They think Scotland should leave. Haven't they been arguing for ages that politically partitioning one island is a really bad thing to do?

Sinn Fein would endorse any position they thought would help them strategically, up to and including the sale of their collective grannies. They are more opportunistic than principled.

Name me a principled political party of any hue and I'll duly laugh at a fast joke well told

It would just mean we don't take the token Scottish player anymore,then they can sit at home sulking with a glass of whiskey watching great Scottish sporting achievements on VHS.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:It would just mean we don't take the token Scottish player anymore,then they can sit at home sulking with a glass of whiskey watching great Scottish sporting achievements on VHS.

Thus why Scots want Independence. With friends like that sneer, who needs to pretend the marriage works anymore? Divorce is best for everyone.... even the kids.

I think the Lions stopped taking token Scots a while ago! Shame really.....you guys could have had Dan Parks. Now that would have probably triggered a referendum in the rUK to kick us out!

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think the Lions stopped taking token Scots a while ago! Shame really.....you guys could have had Dan Parks. Now that would have probably triggered a referendum in the rUK to kick us out!

That is truly funny! And you are probably right.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think the Lions stopped taking token Scots a while ago! Shame really.....you guys could have had Dan Parks. Now that would have probably triggered a referendum in the rUK to kick us out!

Of course the rumour is that if Scotland say NO, the English are going to demand a referendum if we want to keep them

On a serious note, the Scots have been offered further powers by Westminster if they stay together...and they already get more benefits than the English in certain areas...Prescription fees etc...and i cant see all the students voting to lose their free education.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I'd say the pro independence side should just ensure Braveheart is broadcast every day at peak viewing times in Scotland in the lead up to the vote. It's pretty historically accurate I heard, and should be worth about 10% points.

Good one. about as accurate as Chruchill: The Hollywood Years.

The Lions would stay the same, as Scotland is on the island of Britain the name wouldn't even need to change (although we really would need to get an official term for a citizen of the UK. It's bad enough enough with Irish people being 'British' when not from Britain, never mind with Scottish people not being British even though they're from Britain.

Main game will be Olympic team GB would have to go and the UK would become (probably) the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland, Wales and England (unless we go back to Wales being a part of England and just have it as UK of NI and E)

I wonder how sport Scotland will deal with the change over?

The olympic funding certainly is from the UK government. Can the Scottish government match it? Most countries look at the GB funding enviously and given GB had a bumper olympics (3rd), England came 1st in Commonwealth, Scotland had best medal figures ever at the commonwealths, team GB lead the Europeans in athletics and swimming in 2014 etc it seems its having a big impact.

Also things like the cycling success of chaps like Jason Kenny and Chris Hoy would become a lot less likely given that its such a expensive technical sport.. and they won't be able to train in the GB centre no doubt anymore as they won't be in the GB team. I think from an olympic perspective Scotland will see a big drop in success... the funding, the facilities etc just won't be the same.

But that ship for me sailed a long time ago. If the people in Scotland are happy with that (not necessarily the people of Scotland mind) then so be it.

TJ wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I think the Scots need to think long and hard before they (DO VOTE) Because from what i have heared if they vote YES. And it does not go to plan. There is no going back.

Of course.  NO one thinks different.

One of the really interesting things with this for me is the high q7ality of the debate amongst the wider public in Scotland - and the ignorance of the positions and issues south of the border.  A function of the press and media overwhelmingly taking the unionst line and grass roots campaigning up here.

Of course there is no going back.  No one has ever suggested there could be bar scaremongering from the dependence parties.  When has any newly independent country wanted to go back?

TJ, that's probably because we have no say in it. We are not getting a say in if we want independence from Scotland, therefore there are no discussions/forums here and the only things quoted are from politicians at Westminster which are all staunchly NO.

Like it or not Salmond is viewed as something of a joke down here, the nick name of Toad of Holyrood is how he is viewed. He is likened to one of the old style Labourites and not taken seriously especially when it comes to running an economy. There is a strong groundswell of opinion that is growing that we (the English) would be better off in the long run without Scotland.

Incidentally what happens to all the Scots that live outside Scotland if it goes solo, do they all become foreign nationals in the UK and if they do not; as seems likely, get automatic EU membership will they be allowed to work in the EU. It's a bit tough if you are a born Scot but have no say in the vote as you work abroad but have to suffer the consequences of the vote if it is a no.