Understanding British "devolution"

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54842734


Good morning all,

Article provides some insight as to what "devolution" really means.

Article specifically addresses that area known as Scotland.

 

So, let's get a few things straight here, Scotland is not an "area", it is a sizeable country within the UK. It has, in past times, shared the same monarch as England, and on more than one occasion that monarch has been Scottish. It is a proud country with it own language and identity. What it is not able to do is self finance itself if it has full independence. Mostly this is because industry in the UK is, for obvious reasons, situated largely in its centre. Oil and natural gas, fishing, wind power and farming, shipbuilding etc have all been key Scottish industries but, sadly, many of these industries are now on the wain.

One of the perpetual irritations when devolution is mentioned is that Scotland is somehow not the fiercely proud and rich cultured country that it actually is.

Personally I believe that Scotland should be a wholly independent country - sure, it will need to regenerate its industry to survive, but that is the price of independence and, if any country can make that work, Scotland sure as heck will.

 

Good morning Brownbear,

Apologies if necessary. I really should have put quotation marks around "area".

We colonialists on this side of pond were taught ... fully aware much taught here is trash ... that Scotland is not a country like being a nation-state but it is a part of the UK since the Act of Union (1707 ?). Analogies here would be, for example, the Republic of Texas, the Republic of California.

"Should" is not applicable to politics. No risk of loss of fortifications will be happening that involves the Scottish fortifications, being mainly sub bases and air fields for patrol aircraft. The UK, US and Canadian defenses are just too important - They are existential.

North Sea oil has its value from pricing in London and New York City.

......

It's not just Scotland. Add some alcohol to those world famous single malt medications. Don't copy us colonialists with the dilluted Jack Daniels !

If both sides don't, the end is near.

 

No apologies necessary and no criticism, implied or otherwise, of your post. Just adding a few details from this side of the pond. I think the key difference, historically, is one of time. The US was formed over a few hundred years to how we know it now, whereas Scotland is an "historic" country being known as Scotland since Roman times in the UK (1st to 5th century BCE). The name, I believe, came for the Scotti tribe who, ironically, came from Ireland originally (many of the Western Isles Scots are descended from a mixture of Irish and Scandinavian settlers). Of course much of Scotland's ancient history goes back before written texts

 

Good afternoon Brownbear,

Well received.

Understand.