andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2012-02-21 09:48 am

Amy international law experts around?

I am confused by some of the reporting around Independence, so hopefully someone can clear things up for me*.

My understanding is that if Scotland becomes independent, then that ends the United Kingdom (which is named after the uniting of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into one Kingdom). We are not left with The United Kingdom, and "that bit which used to be part of it, but isn't any more". We have two new countries.

So why is it that I keep reading stories about how Scotland will have to renegotiate X and Y with Europe, NATO, the UN, etc. - which also assume that England+Wales+NI won't have to negotiate anything at all. Surely either both new nations will have to negotiate their relationship with various organisations, or both will inherit the relationship from the nation they are successors to.

Anyone care to put me right? Or at least tell me that everyone disagrees?



*Although the experts also seem to be confused, so probably not.
cheekbones3: (Default)

[personal profile] cheekbones3 2012-02-22 08:57 am (UTC)(link)
As far as I understand it, the standard procedure would be for Scotland to secede from the union, and the union therefore still exists as a legal entity. Scotland would probably have to start afresh, join the UN etc, but I don't see why the UK would be affected.

As for the situation where, say, mainland Australia seceded from Tasmania, or the USA seceded from Florida, I think it would be the same, where the secessionists are creating a new country, even if that new country contains the rump of the old one.