WD>>> I rather see the desintegration of the UK. Scotland (with its oil WD>>> and gas industry) declaring independance would seriously weaken the WD>>> UK economy,
RB>> It would, but isn't possible without an all-out war. Legally it's RB>> impossible, as Westminister has to approve any further secession RB>> vote, and certainly doesn't plan to do that until the BREXIT RB>> negotiations are finished, at least that's what Ms. May has said. And RB>> sinc a plebiscite in Scotland would toprpedo any negotiation RB>> advantage she might have, she'll probably stick to that point.
MV> That may be the point of Ms May, but she is not the only party MV> concerned. If Scotland really wants out of the UK, than that is what MV> will happen, one way or another. The legal requirement of needing MV> formal approval from Westminster will not stop it. It never does. The MV> King of England refusing his fiat to the independence of what is now MV> the US did not stop the declaration of independance either.
I wasn't aware that the UK and the USA were connected by large land borders. Thank you for this insight.
MV> If Scotland - or Wales or Ulster - really wants out of the UK, then MV> that is what will happen, wether Ms May likes it or not.
Ms. May is not a dictator, whatever you may think. She has parliament (both houses) to consider and the law of the land. It's not her choice to abdicate Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
WD>>> Heathrow's importance will be scaled-back, maybe Wales will get WD>>> ideas to break away from the UK and join the Union. And the people WD>>> in Ulster don't want a hard border as there used to be some decades WD>>> ago ...
RB>> Those are about as likely as other EU countries, tired of having RB>> their internal affairs dictated by bureaucrats in Brussels, deciding RB>> to leave the EU behind them as the UK plans to.
MV> So why is Texas still part of the US?
Maybe you missed it, but they seceeded from the Union during the Civil War ;-)
Very few battles were fought in Texas during that period, however. And in the meantime, Texas has become so rich in oil and gas, and so independent in it's politics, that it has no real reason to want out again. Remember "states rights"?
MV> They are a net contributor aren't they?
In terms of income taxes perhaps, but less so than California.
MV> Why do'n't the people in Texas get tired of Washington neddling in MV> their interbal affairs.
Because Washington has it's own limits and doesn't do that. The constitution is still the law of the land.
MV> Why does Silicon Valley not step out of California? Thety are net MV> contributors to the almost bankruopt state of California are they?
So how would they go about that? Dig a trench between the valley and the rest of California?
WD>>> The loser in all this will be the ordinary small people in the UK, WD>>> they will suffer.
RB>> Don't we always?
MV> "we"? Since when are "we" the small people in the UK?
The term "we" - I don't suppose you noticed - was based on Ward's comment that the "orfinary small people" will suffer. And as far as BREXIT is concerned, I think we in the rump-EU have as much to be concerned about that as those in the UK.
