I have a problem with the phrase ‘rUK’


It’s a definition that’s crept in.

‘Rest of UK’ or ‘Remainder of UK’

It’s convenient and ‘known’ and definable, but it’s also very misleading and dangerous term to be unquestionably accepted by the yes camp.

If Yes are successful, there won’t be a UK, it’ll have been dissolved.

Accepting a remainder or ‘rest of’ grants legitimacy to the nonsense expounded about the Westminster parliament and it’s territories being the successor state or continuing state.

At present, The correct ‘official’ title on the passports is ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’

So, and forgive me. This noddy style lead through but.., ‘United’ means joined up, ‘Kingdom’ means you’re a Subject of Queen Elizabeth.

‘Great Britain and Northern Ireland‘ – er okay, that’s England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland – isn’t it?

Yeah, but Remember the United Kingdom bit?

It was created from The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England back in 1707 with the Acts of Union in the Scottish and English Parliaments.

Once The Union gets dissolved it goes back to it’s component parts.

There won’t be a United Kingdom after Scotland leaves, the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England are the main components left behind.

There isn’t a continuing state. How can a United Kingdom of Great Britain continue after a part of Great Britain is removed?

Britain is the island stretching from Thurso and Wick in the north, all the way down to Southampton, Kent or Cornwall.

The ‘Great’ bit can mean big (as opposed to smaller Ireland) or was it even a past way of saying it’s different to Brittany.

‘Great Britain’, then becomes more of a geographic term than a political one, it might be as contentious as. ‘British Isles’.

So, That basic initial somewhat arrogant assumption of Westminster and the No camp that rUK continues in some way after Scottish Independences and inherits everything that the current UK must and needs to be challenged over the next few months and throughout any negotiations.

We’re not leaving the UK, how can we leave something Scotland is a part of through the current union.

The remainder becomes England (with devolved Wales) with Northern Ireland, possibly Cornwall – but who knows how best to define it?

It will be ruled from Westminster under that system of government, no question and no doubt about that.

But it can’t be called Great Britain, it might be a new United ‘Kingdom’ of ‘England’ and Northern Ireland, as those are kingdoms or parts of kingdoms went into the acts of union, but surely they’d have to redefine to properly and wholly include Wales and/or the other dependencies.

So how do you negotiate a position where after a Yes vote, Scotland doesn’t accept the argument that Westminister is the continuing state after the UK is dissolved?

Scotland’s border with England was defined by the Treaty of York in 1237. Agreed for nearly 800 years taking aside the English grab of Berwick-Upon-Tweed in 1482.

That lasted through with a bit of movement of the border north of Carlisle to the Act of Union in 1707

The main thrust of the union was economic and the majority of terms were made on currency,trade and tax.

For legal purposes, the legal jurisdictions of ‘England and Wales’, ‘Scotland’ and ‘ Northern Ireland’ were kept separate.

The Westminster Parliament absorbed the powers for Scotland and Ireland after the unions, but it did not make A single national territory to take the gains by union into a ‘greater England’.

A Yes at Indyref isn’t seeking a secession of a territory from a unitary state, it’s the re-establishment of an old nation, one that already has definition in so many ways.

Our laws and education system are most obvious. Our exam body teaches English as a language, but is Standard Scottish English just a regional whim?

If, we are creating a ‘new’ nation, we’re not making something that’s entirely new, the border is already defined and known.

It’s the end of a political union of nations, for Scotland, it’s simply going back to an independent nation.

It’s not our task to define for Westminster what they have left, they must define and decide what England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be together.

But they’re not going to be going forward by defining themselves as the remains of a over 300 year old union.

Good luck to England, Wales and Northern Ireland or EWNI, one of the two successor states to the former UK.

But we need to be that pedantic to ensure our place in the world and our status in international bodies.

(Thanks for your patience in reading, this post is a new construct but rewrites sections and ideas from previous blog posts)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s