The Breaking Up of the UK.

In a dangerous world, no matter how much independence there is, it's vital to retain some kind of unity. I don't think anyone wants to return to medievalism or tribal systems. This is such a multicultural country it would be better to ensure each section has a voice, rather than arbitary geographical boundaries or even cultural boundaries which have less and less meaning as history moves on. [Hope this makes sense. My brain is definitely slowing down!]

You also wonder what these people mean by “independence.” Do they mean true independence, where the country is left entirely on its own to survive in a highly competitive world? Or do they really mean (which I suspect is actually the case) that they simply still want to be subsidised by Westminster, yet have the freedom to make autonomous decisions about, for example, whether to rejoin the EU or not participate in foreign wars, etc.? And what about the NHS? Would they be expected to provide their own independent health service? I rather doubt it.

Would free movement between regions still be allowed, like it is now, with many people heading south in search of jobs?

lostmyway said:

Do they mean true independence, where the country is left entirely on its own to survive in a highly competitive world?

That's what Scotland and Wales mean (although Wales isn't looking for that, yet). NI means unification with Ireland.

lostmyway said:

Or do they really mean (which I suspect is actually the case) that they simply still want to be subsidised by Westminster, yet have the freedom to make autonomous decisions about, for example, whether to rejoin the EU or not participate in foreign wars, etc.?

Scotland is self-financing, if it had access to its own resources rather than being forced to give them to the UK. 
None of the three countries - Scotland, Wales or NI, would be able to join the UK while being a part of the UK, so any desire to do means means leaving the UK entirely. 

The basic three options for the four countries of the UK are:
(1) continue as we are, with England imposing its will on the other three countries
(2) splitting into 4 separate nations, independent of other in the same way France and Germany are different nations
(3) having a federal system, rather like the EU, where each nation has an equal voice in laws, military action etc

Choosing (2) will indeed involve having separate everything - NHS, army, navy, police/fire etc, currency etc.These implications were hotly discussed in Scotland ten years ago, at the time of the last referendum.

lostmyway said:

Would free movement between regions still be allowed, like it is now, with many people heading south in search of jobs?

Who knows? That would have to be negotiated. Many English people move north, if we have the chance. The Scottish oil fields are full of English workers.

lostmyway said:

Do they mean true independence, where the country is left entirely on its own to survive in a highly competitive world?

That's what Scotland and Wales mean (although Wales isn't looking for that, yet). NI means unification with Ireland.

lostmyway said:

Or do they really mean (which I suspect is actually the case) that they simply still want to be subsidised by Westminster, yet have the freedom to make autonomous decisions about, for example, whether to rejoin the EU or not participate in foreign wars, etc.?

Scotland is self-financing, if it had access to its own resources rather than being forced to give them to the UK. 
None of the three countries - Scotland, Wales or NI, would be able to join the UK while being a part of the UK, so any desire to do means means leaving the UK entirely. 

The basic three options for the four countries of the UK are:
(1) continue as we are, with England imposing its will on the other three countries
(2) splitting into 4 separate nations, independent of other in the same way France and Germany are different nations
(3) having a federal system, rather like the EU, where each nation has an equal voice in laws, military action etc

Choosing (2) will indeed involve having separate everything - NHS, army, navy, police/fire etc, currency etc.These implications were hotly discussed in Scotland ten years ago, at the time of the last referendum.

lostmyway said:

Would free movement between regions still be allowed, like it is now, with many people heading south in search of jobs?

Who knows? That would have to be negotiated. Many English people move north, if we have the chance. The Scottish oil fields are full of English workers.

We get taught about the Romans, as well. 

No it's spent on events from WW1 onwards,.

I don't think you'd ever get away with teaching creationism as science in this country

TheCatWoman said:

One of the things we don't have here is the religious motivations in schooling that I hear you have in the US.

HOO BOY has that been a major issue recently. Texas has just announced certain Biblical passages being mandatory reading for English courses in K-12. No other religious text gets the same treatment. Absolutely bonkers that is allowed to happen.

TheCatWoman said:

History as taught in schools here tends to start post WW1, they're taught almost nothing about the country before the 20thC, or if they are it might be a couple of weeks doing the Tudors or something. 

INTERESTING! I actually expected the opposite, where y’all would focus mostly on Churchill and everything before him. That’s wild that most attention is spent on post WWI.

History as taught in schools here tends to start post WW1, they're taught almost nothing about the country before the 20thC, or if they are it might be a couple of weeks doing the Tudors or something. 

One of the things we don't have here is the religious motivations in schooling that I hear you have in the US. It's always struck me as ironic that a country where there's seperation between state and church has more problems with religion in education, that we do where we have no such seperation.

Something we’re dealing with over here (ex. Texas) is complete misrepresentation of history in education (ex. teaching that slavery was not as horrible as it really was). Hopefully it’s not getting that low in UK and is just limited to teaching useless history, which is how I interpret your comment.

Obviously, you could go back even further, but I don't think thats helpful, but I do agree that people should know more about the history of Britain and not just the stuff thats taught in school. Many people are lucky if they're taught any history, or what I would call history instead of old news.

Health is a devolved power, so we would be no better or worse off as far as bed blocking goes.  

profdanger said:

I appreciate the simplification. I am a dumb yankee and damn proud of it!

LOL

I don't understand the politics of the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland either.

It’s ok really. I’m not surprised as the terminology is used in a different way here.

ArchaeC said:

The DUP isn’t a nationalist party, it’s staunch unionist

My bad. I was thinking unification, not unionist. My fingers ran away with me.

I appreciate the simplification. I am a dumb yankee and damn proud of it!

The DUP isn’t a nationalist party, it’s staunch unionist, i.e., wants to remain British and part of the UK. Yes, Sinn Féin is nationalist. 

It’s ok, it’s all very complicated. 

Apologies, ArchaeC, I was trying to simplify for an American who has little idea of politics in the UK. So, I concentrated on the DUP and  Sinn Féin (given the set up produced by the GFA) rather than all the available parties across the spectrum of right to left. As to the rising non-nationalist (by which taking a neither unitarian nor pro-British stance), I meant the Alliance party.

I expected you to be after me, but it was my best effort at simplification. 

Alexa said:

Both the main historical parties are nationalist, but the one that is staunchly pro-British is also conservative, while the main united-Ireland party is now progressive. Things are becoming muddied by a split between them and a rising non-nationalist party

Could you explain please Alexa. I don’t understand what you mean by both main historical parties. Which parties are these? One appears to be nationalist and pro-British? Which party is the rising non-nationalist party? It may be just the way it reads.

II was thinking about the cost of the NHS and social care. One big issue for the NHS is “bed blocking,” where some beds aren’t available because there’s no one at home to care for patients. If Scotland and the other nations truly went independent, this is a problem they would face. Admittedly, the population of Scotland and others is much smaller than England’s, but the fact is, people will always get older and live longer, so it’s a problem that would only grow. Then what about the benefits system?

profdanger said:

I’ll have to be careful mentioning red versus blue states here in America

I was going to reassure you that most of us on this side of the pond are aware that donkeys are blue and elephants red, but I'm not sure that's true. I've been glued to politics all my life, so it's easy for me. Maybe it's safer for you to avoid colours. 

In times of danger, eg war, there is usually a coalition government, that is, all party. Perhaps we need that now, in view of AI issues and climate change.

Alexa said:

having a federal system, rather like the EU, where each nation has an equal voice in laws, military action etc

That sounds a fairer system. 

VERY INTERESTING!!

I wish we had multiple parties with authority. Yeah, we have more than Democrat and Republican, but the two strongest parties actively campaign to dissuade voters from voting “third party.” Basically, if you vote Libertarian, then Democrats will say you are effectively throwing away your vote or voting directly for Trump. Visa versa the other way. It’s sad and those two parties only have authority in the first place because of the sheer power of money. This is why I don’t support a party officially.

I’ll have to be careful mentioning red versus blue states here in America, since it sounds as if that means the opposite end of the political spectrum over there.

profdanger said:

Is that urban/rural political divide similar in the UK?

Yes. The counties in Scotland that tended to be blue (the colour of conservatism here) were the main farming counties, whereas the cities were traditionally red (the Labour Party). Labour lost power in the last election because it had become less socialist (which is not the same as communist). However, things are muddied in the three non-English countries of the UK because of the rise of nationalist parties in those countries, which tend to be social-democrat. The Scottish National Party holds the most seats, while the Welsh nationaist party, Plaid Cymru, is on the rise there due to the collapse of the Labour vote. 

The situation is more complex in NI, which have their own parties that don't exist on mainland Britain. Both the main historical parties are nationalist, but the one that is staunchly pro-British is also conservative, while the main united-Ireland party is now progressive. Things are becoming muddied by a split between them and a rising non-nationalist party.

Heh. Nothing's straightforward in the UK.