| being surprised that more people around the world aren't interested in Scottish devolution, as if it occurs in full the UN Security Council will technically have lost a permanent member, among other things | REGRET INDEX:
0.5a regret index of 1 is ultimate regret
this result collects the hard-earned
experience of 2 lifetimes of regret
permalink to this result commentsI don't really understand this regret: because wouldn't the new UK (whatever they happen to call it) just replace the old UK? Isn't that what happened when Russia replaced the Soviet Union?
That's a precedent, but I think it would depend on how the transition occurred. Russia, technically, was the Soviet Union (although the USSR was a federal entity not a single nation on paper, it was clear where the power lay): whereas the UK has existed as a single entity for much longer and is essentially a single nation (extant kingdoms and their archaic legal boundaries notwithstanding). Total separation would mean repeal of the Acts of Union 1707.
Which, to go back to precedent, would be much like the planned settlement over the repeal of the Acts of Union 1800 (the union with Ireland), which were detrimental to the ailing Empire and the fledgling Commonwealth both. : I don't know that it would make much difference, of course, and only time will tell, but I suspect there will be a great deal of noise from nations who consider the permanent UNSC seats to be unfair.
I do know it would come as a surprise to a lot of people in Argentina: who often don't seem to be aware that Scotland and England are part of the same country.
I've been searching for an hour for anything that suggests this, and all I can find is a passing comment by David Cameron in a speech that outlined more reasons why it was a bad idea.: So, while there is a possibility, what would really happen is that the US (and probably France and whatever other European countries are in the SC at the time) would push for the seat to pass to New Englandonia.
Prooobably but it really depends on how canny the Scots are at negotiation time. There isn't really a Navy or RAF to give them any more, they'd be spending huge amounts on renegotiating EU membership, setting up embassies, and all that international stuff: so they may want a say in the appointment of UN diplomats, which gets harder to justify to other countries. It's all hypothetical at this stage anyway. Generally, Independence is used to beat Westminster over the head rather than genuine desire to split.
Okay, so that's fine, point taken, Scottish devolution would probably hurt Scotland: but I think the premise of this regret was that it would hurt England, Europe, and the world in general, and that we should be paying more attention. And I think that's a far harder point to make.
Quebec: Mon dieu! Tout le monde ignore que nous!
It is a hard point to make, but at the heart of that is the unknowable future: it's easy to say "nothing would change" and plan accordingly, but it's also easy to say "Latin America would take the opportunity to push for the dissolution of the permanent UNSC seats, again, and be joined by a lot of smaller nations" and plan for that.
But you don't get to find out which is the right plan until long after the time you should've been doing the other thing, if you need to do the other thing. : I think I probably come down on the side of "the status quo will remain", if that helps.
comment on this regret |
| |
