This is a serious question.
Does anyone know what the post-Scottish independence rump of England, Wales and Northern Ireland be called?
Surely it's not the Disunited Kingdom?
Indeed, given that Wales and Northern Ireland have not contributed kings to the Union, meaning it would be pointless to refer to them doing so, will Kingdom be in the title at all unless governance from Westminster is meant to be the message.
So what is the plan?
Anyone know?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
We don’t need a plan, we are at the mercy of the Scottish people.
It will be called City of London
Kingdom of Britain
@ Jenaolivier – “Kingdom of Britain” – now way! Scotland and the Irish Republic are part of the British Isles, and any attempt to capture the title “Britain” will fail, in my view, though it won’t prevent the Westminster Government trying to do so.
Besides, I’ve said it before, if Scotland severs ties with the UK, Wales will undoubtedly follow, first by demanding a real, Scottish-style, Parliament, and then following Scotland into independence, and we will probably then see the Celtic nations come together in a sort of Celtic Free Trade Area, or even a confederacy, which could lead to a de facto re-unification of Ireland.
When one realises too that not only will Scotland need to re-negotiate its relationship with the EU (it’s been made clear that an independent Scotland WILL have to re-apply) so too will the remaining rump, which will no longer be able to call itself the UK, and so will lack the identity of the nation that was a signatory in 1973 – a fact that will assist the fissiparous move away from a UK and towards the sort of Celtic Free Trade Area I’ve suggested above.
And it won’t be long before the Celtic north of England – Cumbria and Northumbria, which was at one time under Scottish rule – seek to break away from a Tory dominated south, by joining that Celtic Free Trade Area, so heartily sick are they of the bloated, vindictive, neo-liberal, Tory-dominated Westminster south.
Richard asks what we will call the rump? I ask, what will the rump be? It will certainly be smaller than the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy (made up of the Kingdoms of East Anglia, Mercia [= Midlands], Northumbria, including sub-kingdoms Bernicia [= Northumberland] and Deira [= Yorkshire], Wessex, Essex, Kent and Sussex), so we might end up being the Kingdom of New Saxony!
Economically what you suggest makes a lot of sense for all concerned
The prospect of England’s EU membership lapsing with Scotland’s, should they vote to separate, will get the Scottish Nationalists a lot of support from South of the border. Not mine, but I know so many people who do want out.
What about N.Ireland Andrew? Do they still seem keen to remain with ‘the kingdom’ or are they likely to go with the Rep. of Ireland (which the unionists will resist to the end)?
More importantly for me is what currency will these new states adopt. Will Scotland retain the British Pound or take up the Euro? Or will we see new currencies? I’m willing to bet they end up with the former, i.e. someone else’s currency. In which case they will end up with the same pro-austerity deficit hawks as everywhere else in Europe. Anyone for a wager. 🙂
It’s been made clear by the European Commission that, in their view, Scotland would have to reapply; the implication of the answer they gave (see the Parliamentary briefing paper here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06110) is that the remaining part of the UK would stay a member.
Although the paper says the position is not clear, and that any of the three combinations of having to reapply is possible, it does point out that Greenland left the EU and renegotiated its status. While it gives reasons why that might not give much comfort to Scotland, it doesn’t appear to have affected the status of Denmark.
The English Empire? Or perhaps, to be more inclusive, the British Empire? Greater England?
England will become the two nations it has been for a long while.
England, and London.
The only question is: who will the Queen rule.
Or will it be the republic of London?
“The Untied Kingdom” – only involves swapping two letters around, and can keep the abbreviation “UK”.
if we go back far enough, the Queen is descended from princes of Wales (and the Tudors were partially Welsh) and from men who claimed descent from the High king of Ireland. So we might get away with being UK-it would save a lot of re-branding expenses!
You’re getting very tenuous
The Semi-United Kingdom (or SUK for short?) That sure SUKs 🙂
An independent Scotland? I`m prepared to bet it will not happen. The word “canny” is not applied to the Scots without good reason! Most north of the Border will not want full independence,if it quite possibly comes at a price,however they might feel if the cost did not enter into it.But it`s their decision,and as a nation they should be able to exercise their right to self determination,but I wish them well,whatever the outcome.
Being of Cornish origins,I do find the idea of a Celtic Free Trade Area mildly interesting – but as mentioned,that might draw in Wales and Ireland – and if it included Cumbria and Northumbria also – well! – what would be left of that former world power,the late and possibly unlamented United Kingdom?!
@Brian
Brian, I agree that I think the Scots WILL opt to stay in the Union, at least in part because they will recognize the very REAL possibility of the sort of break-up that I posited, along with the Celtic FTA idea, which I believe would be a real possible development – and @Anthony Zappia, my original post DID speak of effective re-unification of Ireland, as NI would find its real interests lay with the CFTA. You ARE right about the currency question, though, which would be a real worry.
Returning to Brian’s question – what name to give to the “rump of a rump” that I posited? I withdraw my earlier “Kingdom of New Saxony” because it ignores the “Englishness” of England, and also discard any new coinageN such as “Anglo-Saxonia”.
No, the ONLY really apt name – in EVERY respect! – for the “rump of the rump” is “Little England”!
Very good
Surely you mean “Little Britain”?
Given that Scottish independence would mean perpetual Tory rule this is very apt.
Albion
The City of London and its thirteen fiefdoms? The Anglicized version of course – after all “district” is a little anodyne 😉
Two follow-up responses:
@ Mike Truman – and the example of Greenland and Denmark.
This seems to me to be a poor analogy – on a par with a poorly matching precedent in a law suit, capable of being easily distinguished 1. Greenland and Denmark ar not contiguous, and do not form part of the same land-mass. 2. Greenland was originally a Danish colony, and was only subsequently declared Danish territory 3. The definition of Denmark and Danishness, as also the enumeration of its economic reality hardly require the inclusion of Greenland, a tiny fraction of Denmark’s social and economic and even existential. In the case of Scotland and England ALL of the above produce not just radically, but diametrically, opposed answers, such that, at least since the Union of the Crowns, and certainly since the Union of the Parliaments in 1707, the definition of each of the components parts of the Union is incomplete without the other. Put briefly, England WITHOUT Scotland is not the same place as England WITH Scotland, and vice-versa. I therefore stick to my assertion – England TOO should re-apply for entry to the EU, if Scotland becomes independent.
@ Neil and the disagreement over Little England or Little Britain.
No, I mean – deliberately – Little England not Little Britain. 1. England has NO right to arrogate the title of Britain to itself (see the above – England WITHOUT Scotland is not the same place as England WITH Scotland). 2. The Tories are increasingly “Little Englanders”, always whingeing about the EU, and harking back to the days of Empire and “top dog”, appearing, for all the world, like Gloria Swanson in “Sunset Boulevard”, not realizing what spectacles they have made of themselves, and how everyone is really laughing at their self-deceiving illusions.
Looking at it from a tax justice point of view are we not likely to see another tax haven created in the EU, along the lines of Luxembourg? Is the plan to lure businesses North with aggressively competitive cuts to corporate taxation?
It’s possible that is Salmond’s plan
I think a comparison with the Isle of Man more apt
If so it is worrying, I agree
@Andrew Dickie. You may think that, but it is what the European Commission and, ultimately, the CJEU think that matters. The one example we have of a part of a member state ceasing to be within the EU is Greenland, and it did not affect the status of Denmark (nor do I remember there even being any suggestion that it should). Similarly, when Germany reunited it was not required to reapply because it was now a very different country from the West Germany which had originally joined.
As to Richard’s original question, presumably the answer is the United Kingdom of England & Wales and Northern Ireland. The current title does not suggest that there used to be a king of Great Britain and a king of Northern Ireland which had been combined, just that the nations comprised in the geographical area were now one kingdom. Technically you could just say England and Northern Ireland, but that would be a bit of a red rag to a dragon… Or the United Kingdoms, being those of Wessex, Mercia, Ulster, etc…
@ Mike Truman
Mike, the German re-unification precedent is far more persuasive, and I concede on that one – no doubt it’s the precedent for the CJEU’s arguing for a shorn UK, consisting of only England, Wales and Northern Ireland would not need to re-apply. So, I repeat, I concede on that.
On the title of the above rump (I.e. not my CFTA, but England, Wales and Northern Ireland), you are undoubtedly also right, in practical terms, a fact that probably also had influence of the CJEU’s ruling.
However, I’d still call the rump I envisaged “Little England” and not “Little Britain”, for the reasons given. Secondly, there has been a “King of Great Britain”, for James I and VI liked so to refer to himself, and is so depicted in a painting by John de Critz, wearing in his hat a jewel called “the Mirror of Great Britain”, composed of 4 jewels, one for each component country making up the whole (but also with a pearl at the top, probably representing Scotland’s Norwegian inheritance from the marriage that produced the Maid of Norway in 1283.
I did not know that (James I /VI)! Amazing what you learn, thanks.
Forget about old Kings and Queens.
United Kingdom.
Currently, the UK is in effect the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We call it the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland can still be called the United Kingdom. Nothing changes.
The subs come south (Milford Haven has already offered), we keep our UN seat, and RBS can go north!
It’s all a bit academic as it won’t happen..:) If the EU can prevent the UK having a referendum on its membership, then dealing with the Scots should be child’s play!
@ P Frank
With all due respect (usually an intro for completely disagreeing with someone, which is the case here), except for your little rider “in effect” you are simply wrong to say “the UK is in effect the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We call it the United Kingdom.”
First of all, there is a radical difference between the terms “United Kingdom” and “Great Britain”.
The UNITED Kingdom only came into existence with the UNION of the Crowns in 1603, and can ONLY refer to the Union of the KINGDOM of Scotland and the KINGDOM of England: without Scotland there can be NO United Kingdom, and the term only refers to England and Scotland, properly construed, (with, admittedly, Wales being subsumed into the definition of “England”.)
The case of Ireland, the question is somewhat confused, but probably since the Union of the Parliaments in 1801, up to Irish independence in 1922, Ireland too was probably subsumed into the definition of England, legally speaking.
As regards the term “Great Britain”, this can ONLY be used to describe those parts of the British Isles which formed a political unit, namely England, Scotland, Wales, and after the independence of Eire, (see above) Northern Ireland.
So your description “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” conflates two different political realities (though I grant you, most people use the terms UK and GB interchangeably – but note, we are only GREAT Britain to distinguish us from Brittany, which is merely “Bretagne” in French, where we are “Grande Bretagne”)
Secondly, were we to adopt your definition of the United Kingdom as “The United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland” I seriously doubt whether I would continue to agree with Mike Truman, indeed, he might change his mind over the EU’s attitude to such a United Kingdom, which would indeed be a radically different UK from the UK defined above.
For Wales has never been a Kingdom, and Northern Ireland is made up of parts of different Kingdoms in the history of Ireland – so there are no separate Kingdoms from which to form a unity.
Finally, your last point – it was not the EU that prevented our having a referendum on EU membership, but internal UK politics, both in the previous Government as well as the current one.
Accordingly, I certainly would not characterize the Scottish Referendum on independence as “academic”, as I think it a real possibility that the Scots will opt for independence, and also that the SNP will then set up Edinburgh as a rival to the City of London, especially, as I said on an earlier post, if an independent Scotland stays IN the EU, and our head-banger Tory Government takes us OUT of the EU.
Agreed Andrew