Apparently, the heads of various regional assemblies have expressed a shared desire for future independence from Westminster at some point. Is this truly a serious proposal or even a desirable one? And what would real independence actually look like?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
