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.
nwhyte: (scotland)

[personal profile] nwhyte 2012-02-21 11:19 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, I found that convincing. There are precedents both ways, and it will essentially be a political judgement. If I were the rUK government at the time of Scottish independence I would want to make the process as smooth as possible, which really means allowing Scotland to be a joint heir of the UK's current status rather than forcing a renegotiation from the beginning. It's not really in England's interests to block Scotland's EU integration.

Just on a technical point, Andy - the United Kingdom was formed by the Union of 1801, not 1707. The state formed in 1707 was called Great Britain; the state formed in 1801 was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Northern Ireland from 1922).