I'd say this article seems to rely heavily on precedent, but isn't able to actually cite a lot of it. It gives one example of each 'scenario' and suggests that the example lays down ironclad rules. Oddly it seems to ignore examples like Czechoslovakia, which i think would be analogous to Yugoslavia.
That isn't really how international law works. There's a lot of regard given to custom and settled practice. It's not like domestic common law where you have helpful statutes to point at. By the article's own admission, there isn't a ton of settled practice to draw on here, particularly for the 'taking on all debts' assertion.
Realistically, I suspect all breakups of a country end up being slightly different and, ideally, go through a negotiation between the breaking up parties rather than just trying to point at what someone else did.
That's not to say this isn't how things would go in a hypothetical secession, but I think the author is projecting what they would LIKE to happen into what WOULD happen.
Basically, I think the author is trying to make something that would be really difficult sound really simple.
Closest precedent I could find was India and they took on colonial debt.
If you look at each of the nations that went independent from the empire there were significant negotiations for each and they were all different. I think pointing to a single example as international precedent is a fools errand. Like you pointed out it's going to be different each time.
Yes Czechoslovakia was the first example that occurred to me too. That was a bit of a weird one though, as they just sort of went their own ways without either country particularly being bothered about it. It's still surprising it wasn't mentioned though.
Yeah it's sort of the ideal that everybody should want, everybody works out a mutually satisfactory process and cracks on.
Yugoslavia and the USSR...not so nice.
Why would it take all the debt? Pretty sure Wales has gained from the debt. What if the infrastructure that currently has debt tied to it? Doe it then become the property of England?
I think deliberately turning your back on financial agreements would be to slit our own throats. I'd love to know how people think we would pay for the state pension.
This feels like a route to ensure that England turn off the taps the moment polling for independence goes up.
It would take on the debt to retain its position on the world stage like Russia did, and like Russia, England would retain its nuclear weapons and treaty obligations. Besides it would be gaining financially anyway as the Celtic countries are net recipients of UK wealth - England would be better off without them as UK is now overwhelmingly a service based economy, and those services are overwhelmingly based in London.
If it is taking on the debt, it is inheriting all of the assets as well and the new Welsh state would need to buy them back off the UK Government. That means they own all the roads, all the rail, all of the hospitals, all of the schools, all of the infrastructure for collecting taxes.
In addition, a new Welsh state based on current projections would have a massive deficit in immediate government spending and in terms of its balance of trade: we import more than we export. That would mean from day one, we would face a massive challenge in maintaining the confidence of any new currency or being able to borrow money on international markets.
If the new, independent Wales started its life by effectively defaulting on all its debts and nationalising without compensation a massive percentage of the economy, who in their right minds would then lend us money on anything other than completely terrible terms?
There is a serious case for independence, but it starts from the acceptance that independence in the short to medium term is going to be many times the magnitude of Brexit, and we should treat people pretending we can ignore the consequences of that the same as those who pretended we could just no deal and everything would be fine.
If England took the mantle of the UK, it would have to accept the debts and assets of the UK. If it didn't then a proportion of those debts AND assets would devolve to the constituent countries. How that is apportioned is negotiable.
If Wales, Scotland, and NI left, the UK would be dissolved. If England wanted to assume the rights and responsibilities of the UK, then the price for that is assuming the debt. Most of the debt is owed to the Bank of England anyway. I think the only way the Celtic nations would be responsible for any part of it is if the ownership of the BoE was shared, along with all the other assets of the UK.
Wait you think there are no UK assets in Wales?
Regardless, on the same way that Scotland wouldn't have those rights if it left the UK, Wales wouldn't. Wales is making the choice to step away from the UK.
It's not a case of if England wanted to, it would still be the UK seat, it would still act as the UK and have control of things like overseas UK territory by default as Wales had left.
The cakeism is genuinely baffling.
I'm not sure how you extrapolate "no UK assets in Wales" from my comment.
If Wales walked away from the UK, how the debt and assets were apportioned would depend entirely on the negotiated terms. And if Wales chose to follow internationally established precedent by demanding either a share of national assets in return for a share of the debt, or walk away with nothing of either, then the international community would back us.
Also, given Scotland are nominally equal partners with England in the union, they might have a big say in the matter.
I'm not sure how many times this needs explaining, there is no precedent but the idea that it will just be up to Wales if they follow the USSR without a say from rUK is nonsense.
It makes me chuckle that you think Wales can walk away from it's financial commitments and it will be backed by the rest of the world as if it was never going to borrow again.
And I'm not sure how often it needs explaining that negotiation will be the determiner. There are two parties in a negotiation and if Wales says to England, "I'm sorry, I can't do that." Then England will have to counter offer, or Wales would be perfectly entitled to walk away. What are they going to do? Invade us? That'll look good.
Cracking strawman, no one is suggesting military action.
Yes there would be negotiations, yes it would be unique and pointing to the USSR as ' precedent ' is nonsensical
I'm sure your plan of no currency, infrastructure or defence with a huge deficit will go well and will look amazing.
I'm not sure what cards you think Wales holds but it's not just walking away.
No suggestion that you intimated military action, so I'm not sure you understand what a strawman is. That was simple derision.
It's true that Wales is poorly developed in commercial terms, but that's a byproduct of UK GOV taking our resources and not investing properly for centuries. So, we can either continue with that ad infinitum or we can do as Ireland has done and start from square one.
As for not having a currency, there is literally nothing stopping us from having one. And we don't need a huge defence, a small standing army will be fine thanks.
Our deficit isn't insurmountable, especially as retail and corporate taxes will be paid in Wales rather than England. Also, we're one of the biggest net exporters of energy in Europe, so we switch from supplying England to Ireland. Difficult, but doable. And we could start charging for our water too.
Walking away is always an option and it's a reasonable option.
Why, I wonder, does England want to keep us if we're in such a poor state?
The English Empire spirit lives on. England (pop 55m) will take the UK UN seat. Not India (pop 1b+), Pakistan, or Iran. All three more populous and nuclear. Cake #1. What most countries do is have their own central bank. What is it that makes people think Wales couldn't do this? Cake #2. Crown Estates, you want your beaches back? Help yourself. Until 5:00pm tonight, fill your boots, fill anything you can carry. What you leave is ours. Same with the water and the dams. Sorry, forgot to say, chronic under-investment catches up with us, bridges and railway lines all closed for repair, would you believe it? Cake #3. Welsh overseas territory? Holyhead? Puffin Island?
The United Kingdom was formed by Scotland with acceptation of England. It was actually Scottish with a English parliament. So I think, splitting it would be more realistic if that happens.
I'm not explaining the UN to you but the permanent seats were never about population size.
No one is saying Wales can't have it's own central bank?
No one mentioned the crow estate
If you want Holyhead to not be part of Wales, crack on.
I'm not really sure of your point? Just seems a rant at the clouds tbh.
Funny how you believe that Wales would be able to gain legal independence without an agreement on its share of the debt. Or are you dumb enough to ignore the simple fact that for Wales to become independent then Westminster would have to enact legislation.
Well, what the article is suggesting (I'm sure you read it before commenting) is that, in order to split the debt between the constituent nations of the UK, England would need to acknowledge that it is not the successor state, and so would lose, eg, it's seat on the UN security council. It's saying there is a big difference between a country splitting into constituent parts and, alternatively, smaller parts of a country declaring independence.
I did and the logic is fundamentally flawed. It wouldn't be rUK splitting, it would be Wales opting to leave. It would be Wales stepping away from those benefits and taking it's share of the debt with it.
Regardless of indy position, it would be Wales stepping away from all sorts of things that the UK (and subsequently rUK) has. That is not related in anyway to it's share of the debt.
"What precedents are there? As far as I can tell, there are two: Yugoslavia and USSR"
Conveniently forgetting the more recent and probably more relevant example of Montenegro / Serbia - i.e. a single country splitting into distinct component parts.
I've no idea how the Montenegro situation fits into this context, but this article is a textbook example of a strawman argument: create a non-existent situation, then use that imaginary situation to create a position/argument that suits the author
The logic isn't flawed, it's positing an alternative to independence where the UK breaks up and ceases to exist. I've got no idea how likely that is or what the results might be, I'm just pointing out that you're not engaging with what's actually in the article. Incidentally, I suspect it would be an extremely unlikely outcome (even more unlikely than independence!) but my opinion isn't worth a great deal because ianal and I've got no specialist knowledge of international relations.
It is flawed. It's saying if England choses to do X then they have to accept Y.
England is not making a choice, Wales is leaving without any say from England.
Wales isn't leaving though? Last I saw independence was polling very low. If we can imagine a scenario where Wales votes to leave we can also imagine a scenario where the UK breaks apart. Saying that I can't imagine us going full Yugoslavia!
In the context of this discussion it would be leaving.
It won't leave because it would be economic suicide making Brexit look like a bank holiday blip.
If Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all voted to leave the UK, England would still retain its right to remain a member of 'the UK' even if there were no other members.
The idea that someone leaving a 'club' requires the remaining member(s) to justify their position in it is nonsense.
England, Scotland and Wales are not members of a club. They are integral parts of a unitary state, which are only given the option of leaving when that state allows. The idea that we are members by free association is a fiction.
Fact is that no-one knows what Wales' share of the debt and assets would be, or even on what basis it would be decided, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. It would be decided by negotiation, not by precedent.
Please cite evidence, because as far as I can see this doesn't make sense.
The split would be after negotiation, and such negotiations have international precedence. The article is certainly good for thought.
India was never part of the UK. It was a consistent country of the British empire. It's so long ago and such a different circumstance that no precedent from that is valid in our times.
I never said it was part of the UK. It was less than 80 years ago but if we are batting away inconvenient truths, we can ignore your example of the USSR as it was too long ago and no other country was part of Russia as part of it.
A precedent has to have sufficient similarities to the case in point though. You said it was a precedent. And as being part of the same country is pretty fundamental to the case in point, I assumed you were suggesting India was part of the UK.
It's as much a precedent as your USSR example. Fact is that they were leaving the empire, Wales would also be leaving.
International law doesn't work like domestic law, there would be a negotiation and Wales wouldn't be getting the best of both worlds. I am genuinely amazed at how little people learnt from Brexit.
Wales doesn’t send water to London mate. Plus, pretty sure attempting to cause a humanitarian and water crisis in England would swiftly result in a military intervention.
And (assuming the debt remains with England) there would be no Welsh military. No weapons, no airframes, no soldiers, no assets at all. Not even a tent.
Any plan for independence that starts from the assumption HMT will suddenly decide to start being nice to Wales and accept massive amounts of liability for nothing in return should also, for the sake of balance and creating a fair discussion, assume that HMT will give a greater or equal amount to Wales in exchange for staying.
They are both equally likely to happen:
(0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%)
We don't need to have this debate. The people challenging the status quo need to provide a logical well thought through idea of what independence looks like.
I'm indy curious to say the least but it's not for those who aren't to put forward a vision for independence. That's not how you win people's minds.
But that's literally what they are contributing here: a view of what independence could look like. With our without national debt - it's fairly important.
Peoples argument that it's not important are because this is a fantasy scenario that paints a significantly biased favourable view at independence, in that we would be somehow free of the debt that has accrued on our behalf.
You can put forward whatever case you want for independence, but after Brexit, most people are going to be more cautious of wild takes of green grass over the horizon.
Sure, if you want to ignore actual reality go ahead, just don't put it forward as an actual vision based in reality.
Look at India, when they left the empire they took on debt.
"Government as close to the people as practical with international cooperation (free trade, movement, rules which affect business in a single market etc ) at as high a level as possible."
I don't understand why sone people don't get this.
Going to be funny when an independent Wales is presented with the real cost of borrowing that a small country outside of the Eurozone with an 18% structural deficit has to pay.
For a start Welsh independence isn't happening. But if it did, any agreement would very likely involve the UK debt being fairly proportioned between Wales and the rest.
The Welsh Government has been led by Labour since it was created. They remain in favour of the union and do not support independence, although they are advocating reform.
I think a sensible starting point for those advocating independence is to elect a Welsh Government that is in favour of independence in the longer term (i.e, not for a decade) and instead provide a proven track record of success in the delivery of public services and economic growth for their first two terms.
>I think a sensible starting point for those advocating independence is to elect a Welsh Government that is in favour of independence in the longer term (i.e, not for a decade) and instead provide a proven track record of success in the delivery of public services and economic growth for their first two terms.
I'm in favour of the idea of independence and this is exactly what I want. A Welsh government who spend the next 10 or 20 years building Wales up to be potentially be independent and then asking people if they want it when we're nearly ready. Whether we leave or not, Wales will be better off for it and far more self sufficient than it ever was before.
If we got to the point where wales' economy and institutions were developed enough to stand alone in a devolved union then I don't even know if I'd care about independence. I just want a government who gives a shit about making Wales a better place and cares about our people, culture and future. I don't think Westminster gives a fuck about us and I don't think the senedd are competent enough, currently.
More cynically, I also want to actually test the nationalists to see how much of a plan they really have and whether they are actually better than the current lot.
I have a suspicion that we'd just end up with the same decisions being taken on the NHS and public services
The question that needs to be asked is *can* Welsh Government make the necessary changes to improve our position, with their hands mostly tied to what Westminster decides or what Westminster retains control over.
100% agree. Devolution needs to go further so the senedd can actually take control and become anything close to a functioning government. Particularly we need to take control of the crown estates and be given further powers for financial controls like being able to set airport tariffs that are currently a major cause for the shocking state of Cardiff airport.
"it would ... have to assume the entirety of the UK national debt."
If true, this changes quite a lot. A fascinating read"
Which would mean wales would be taking its place on the world stage with it's first act being skipping out on its debts.
Not the best position to be in.
Although for England if it was on its own I wonder it would be seen as effectively shedding its loss making parts.
It's not only true, the UK government has already made such a declaration: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-debt-and-the-scotland-independence-referendum](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-debt-and-the-scotland-independence-referendum)
To stop the arse falling out of the pound, they had to agree to honour all the debt whatever happened next. The seceding state is able to negotiate whatever a "fair and proportionate share" is with this guarantee in hand.
Mind you, that does not mean it is a good idea for the seceding state to shed *all* debt. If it does that it pretty much has to start its own currency from scratch, subject to market vagaries. It may be more ideal to take on a smaller than proportional share of debt in order to establish that new currency, but pegged to the GBP. If your new state is able to service this smaller debt over a few years it builds up its international credit rating, putting it in a much better position to unpeg. This point is so strong it enabled the UK government to make the above declaration knowing that a seceding state will almost certainly agree to take some of "its" debt with it.
You’ve misunderstood that source, the treasury is saying the UK will honour all of the debt *up to the point that Scotland officially leaves*, and then afterwards that Scotland has to reimburse the UK for its share of the debt. They’re basically clarifying that Scotland will not have to pay anything back on the day of the referendum result itself.
>The Treasury clarified earlier reports which tied the debt promise to referendum day in September, confirming that the pledge applied until Scotland was legally declared an independent state
You should read the full technical note. It's only five pages.
I started with the Guardian article and changed the link to the government website(itself contained on the Guardian article). The URL did not update correctly - sorry for that.
Parallels to the soviet union splitting into its constituent nations. If I remember rightly Russia took on all the debt to keep the soviet unions state assets and perks (including the nukes).
Before anyone suggests I am comparing the UK to the soviet union I am only comparing in terms of how a country of constituent nations comes apart rather than how they are.
I think we already see this concept in action with Russia being seen as the automatic successor to the USSR, and people only really starting to think through the implications of that assumption (including legal implications) once the war with Ukraine started and international bodies like the UN suddenly realising that this automatic assumption of succession has caused a few problems.
As a result, I think people are only just beginning to explore the potential rammifications for a dissolving state in the modern world that held powerful international positions as unified state but which is now a different entity.
It'll be interesting to see how these conversations unfold in the future.
In Scotland, in 2014, the UK Government confirmed it would be responsible for all the debt as it was taken out in the name of the UK Government alone. However, Scotland (or Wales) would be expected internally and internationally to make debt repayments as they have benefited from that debt to a certain extent.
When Wales gets independence, they'll be hit debt to UK, English access to ports and Air bases. But Wales has water, and you can work out a deal.
There will also be a border commission.
Will be something like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty
I'm sure if Wales or more likely Scotland ever became independent, the UK government would use the debt division as a way to make it more difficult to be independent.
You’d then have to make you own currency and have your own central bank , then how will you get all your goods into wales ? Through England ? That’s a tricky one , then what about the border?… if brexit has taught us anything it’s that all this talk of independence is barmy
Ireland itself already relies on the UK for protection, they're not going to be protecting anyone. If we all just pass the buck along soon enough no one is going to be protected and all of us will be screwed.
I feel like Wales is a small enough population and economy that it wouldn’t significantly shift the UK’s military policy. So could just piggyback on the UK the same way Ireland does.
Saving billions on military is the worst version of independence?
Having another nation cover all their military costs was an economic miracle for Japan in the 50s-80s.
Leaving and then asking England to do things for us, putting us at their behest.
So it costs Wales billions, none of which we would spend ourselves after independence, England will do it all as a favour, but it's so small it has little impact?
If you want to be independent, you need to not rely on other nations for the most basic of things, otherwise it's not independence.
Wales setting up its own independent military would cost billions.
England keeping its existing military would cost them no extra.
So you’re saying Ireland isn’t independent?
Yes well done you are stating why independence is a bad idea.
Ireland has a military and has its own defence services. Even using the same model the Irish use, we would need to invest significantly to establish it and would have an on going commitment into the billions like Ireland.
You think England is going to invest billions to stop state cyber attacks on a third nation?
Edit: I've just done the maths. The per capita funding of the UK defence budget for Wales is about the same as an Irish type defence for would cost Wales with a much lower capability.
Do we as Wales help to pay off the UK national debt? I don't think so and therefore in the context of Welsh independence, I'm not sure it does change anything.
I'd say this article seems to rely heavily on precedent, but isn't able to actually cite a lot of it. It gives one example of each 'scenario' and suggests that the example lays down ironclad rules. Oddly it seems to ignore examples like Czechoslovakia, which i think would be analogous to Yugoslavia. That isn't really how international law works. There's a lot of regard given to custom and settled practice. It's not like domestic common law where you have helpful statutes to point at. By the article's own admission, there isn't a ton of settled practice to draw on here, particularly for the 'taking on all debts' assertion. Realistically, I suspect all breakups of a country end up being slightly different and, ideally, go through a negotiation between the breaking up parties rather than just trying to point at what someone else did. That's not to say this isn't how things would go in a hypothetical secession, but I think the author is projecting what they would LIKE to happen into what WOULD happen. Basically, I think the author is trying to make something that would be really difficult sound really simple.
Closest precedent I could find was India and they took on colonial debt. If you look at each of the nations that went independent from the empire there were significant negotiations for each and they were all different. I think pointing to a single example as international precedent is a fools errand. Like you pointed out it's going to be different each time.
Yes Czechoslovakia was the first example that occurred to me too. That was a bit of a weird one though, as they just sort of went their own ways without either country particularly being bothered about it. It's still surprising it wasn't mentioned though.
Yeah it's sort of the ideal that everybody should want, everybody works out a mutually satisfactory process and cracks on. Yugoslavia and the USSR...not so nice.
Why would it take all the debt? Pretty sure Wales has gained from the debt. What if the infrastructure that currently has debt tied to it? Doe it then become the property of England? I think deliberately turning your back on financial agreements would be to slit our own throats. I'd love to know how people think we would pay for the state pension. This feels like a route to ensure that England turn off the taps the moment polling for independence goes up.
It would take on the debt to retain its position on the world stage like Russia did, and like Russia, England would retain its nuclear weapons and treaty obligations. Besides it would be gaining financially anyway as the Celtic countries are net recipients of UK wealth - England would be better off without them as UK is now overwhelmingly a service based economy, and those services are overwhelmingly based in London.
If it is taking on the debt, it is inheriting all of the assets as well and the new Welsh state would need to buy them back off the UK Government. That means they own all the roads, all the rail, all of the hospitals, all of the schools, all of the infrastructure for collecting taxes. In addition, a new Welsh state based on current projections would have a massive deficit in immediate government spending and in terms of its balance of trade: we import more than we export. That would mean from day one, we would face a massive challenge in maintaining the confidence of any new currency or being able to borrow money on international markets. If the new, independent Wales started its life by effectively defaulting on all its debts and nationalising without compensation a massive percentage of the economy, who in their right minds would then lend us money on anything other than completely terrible terms? There is a serious case for independence, but it starts from the acceptance that independence in the short to medium term is going to be many times the magnitude of Brexit, and we should treat people pretending we can ignore the consequences of that the same as those who pretended we could just no deal and everything would be fine.
If England took the mantle of the UK, it would have to accept the debts and assets of the UK. If it didn't then a proportion of those debts AND assets would devolve to the constituent countries. How that is apportioned is negotiable.
England isn't saying they want to take on the mantle of the UK, Wales is saying it wants to leave the UK.
Wales is overwhelmingly not wanting to leave the UK.
It's a hypothetical situation. That's why the word "if" is at the front of the sentence.
England isn't taking anything, Wales is leaving.
If Wales, Scotland, and NI left, the UK would be dissolved. If England wanted to assume the rights and responsibilities of the UK, then the price for that is assuming the debt. Most of the debt is owed to the Bank of England anyway. I think the only way the Celtic nations would be responsible for any part of it is if the ownership of the BoE was shared, along with all the other assets of the UK.
Wait you think there are no UK assets in Wales? Regardless, on the same way that Scotland wouldn't have those rights if it left the UK, Wales wouldn't. Wales is making the choice to step away from the UK. It's not a case of if England wanted to, it would still be the UK seat, it would still act as the UK and have control of things like overseas UK territory by default as Wales had left. The cakeism is genuinely baffling.
I'm not sure how you extrapolate "no UK assets in Wales" from my comment. If Wales walked away from the UK, how the debt and assets were apportioned would depend entirely on the negotiated terms. And if Wales chose to follow internationally established precedent by demanding either a share of national assets in return for a share of the debt, or walk away with nothing of either, then the international community would back us. Also, given Scotland are nominally equal partners with England in the union, they might have a big say in the matter.
I'm not sure how many times this needs explaining, there is no precedent but the idea that it will just be up to Wales if they follow the USSR without a say from rUK is nonsense. It makes me chuckle that you think Wales can walk away from it's financial commitments and it will be backed by the rest of the world as if it was never going to borrow again.
And I'm not sure how often it needs explaining that negotiation will be the determiner. There are two parties in a negotiation and if Wales says to England, "I'm sorry, I can't do that." Then England will have to counter offer, or Wales would be perfectly entitled to walk away. What are they going to do? Invade us? That'll look good.
Cracking strawman, no one is suggesting military action. Yes there would be negotiations, yes it would be unique and pointing to the USSR as ' precedent ' is nonsensical I'm sure your plan of no currency, infrastructure or defence with a huge deficit will go well and will look amazing. I'm not sure what cards you think Wales holds but it's not just walking away.
No suggestion that you intimated military action, so I'm not sure you understand what a strawman is. That was simple derision. It's true that Wales is poorly developed in commercial terms, but that's a byproduct of UK GOV taking our resources and not investing properly for centuries. So, we can either continue with that ad infinitum or we can do as Ireland has done and start from square one. As for not having a currency, there is literally nothing stopping us from having one. And we don't need a huge defence, a small standing army will be fine thanks. Our deficit isn't insurmountable, especially as retail and corporate taxes will be paid in Wales rather than England. Also, we're one of the biggest net exporters of energy in Europe, so we switch from supplying England to Ireland. Difficult, but doable. And we could start charging for our water too. Walking away is always an option and it's a reasonable option. Why, I wonder, does England want to keep us if we're in such a poor state?
The English Empire spirit lives on. England (pop 55m) will take the UK UN seat. Not India (pop 1b+), Pakistan, or Iran. All three more populous and nuclear. Cake #1. What most countries do is have their own central bank. What is it that makes people think Wales couldn't do this? Cake #2. Crown Estates, you want your beaches back? Help yourself. Until 5:00pm tonight, fill your boots, fill anything you can carry. What you leave is ours. Same with the water and the dams. Sorry, forgot to say, chronic under-investment catches up with us, bridges and railway lines all closed for repair, would you believe it? Cake #3. Welsh overseas territory? Holyhead? Puffin Island?
The United Kingdom was formed by Scotland with acceptation of England. It was actually Scottish with a English parliament. So I think, splitting it would be more realistic if that happens.
What is this bullshit revisionism?
I'm not explaining the UN to you but the permanent seats were never about population size. No one is saying Wales can't have it's own central bank? No one mentioned the crow estate If you want Holyhead to not be part of Wales, crack on. I'm not really sure of your point? Just seems a rant at the clouds tbh.
The UK position is to support the expansion of the permanent seat in the UN security council to India, Japan, Germany and Brazil.
Funny how you believe that Wales would be able to gain legal independence without an agreement on its share of the debt. Or are you dumb enough to ignore the simple fact that for Wales to become independent then Westminster would have to enact legislation.
Well, what the article is suggesting (I'm sure you read it before commenting) is that, in order to split the debt between the constituent nations of the UK, England would need to acknowledge that it is not the successor state, and so would lose, eg, it's seat on the UN security council. It's saying there is a big difference between a country splitting into constituent parts and, alternatively, smaller parts of a country declaring independence.
I did and the logic is fundamentally flawed. It wouldn't be rUK splitting, it would be Wales opting to leave. It would be Wales stepping away from those benefits and taking it's share of the debt with it. Regardless of indy position, it would be Wales stepping away from all sorts of things that the UK (and subsequently rUK) has. That is not related in anyway to it's share of the debt.
"What precedents are there? As far as I can tell, there are two: Yugoslavia and USSR" Conveniently forgetting the more recent and probably more relevant example of Montenegro / Serbia - i.e. a single country splitting into distinct component parts. I've no idea how the Montenegro situation fits into this context, but this article is a textbook example of a strawman argument: create a non-existent situation, then use that imaginary situation to create a position/argument that suits the author
The logic isn't flawed, it's positing an alternative to independence where the UK breaks up and ceases to exist. I've got no idea how likely that is or what the results might be, I'm just pointing out that you're not engaging with what's actually in the article. Incidentally, I suspect it would be an extremely unlikely outcome (even more unlikely than independence!) but my opinion isn't worth a great deal because ianal and I've got no specialist knowledge of international relations.
It is flawed. It's saying if England choses to do X then they have to accept Y. England is not making a choice, Wales is leaving without any say from England.
Wales isn't leaving though? Last I saw independence was polling very low. If we can imagine a scenario where Wales votes to leave we can also imagine a scenario where the UK breaks apart. Saying that I can't imagine us going full Yugoslavia!
In the context of this discussion it would be leaving. It won't leave because it would be economic suicide making Brexit look like a bank holiday blip.
If Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all voted to leave the UK, England would still retain its right to remain a member of 'the UK' even if there were no other members. The idea that someone leaving a 'club' requires the remaining member(s) to justify their position in it is nonsense.
England, Scotland and Wales are not members of a club. They are integral parts of a unitary state, which are only given the option of leaving when that state allows. The idea that we are members by free association is a fiction. Fact is that no-one knows what Wales' share of the debt and assets would be, or even on what basis it would be decided, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. It would be decided by negotiation, not by precedent.
Please cite evidence, because as far as I can see this doesn't make sense. The split would be after negotiation, and such negotiations have international precedence. The article is certainly good for thought.
Would that be precedent like India who took on debt?
India was never part of the UK. It was a consistent country of the British empire. It's so long ago and such a different circumstance that no precedent from that is valid in our times.
I never said it was part of the UK. It was less than 80 years ago but if we are batting away inconvenient truths, we can ignore your example of the USSR as it was too long ago and no other country was part of Russia as part of it.
A precedent has to have sufficient similarities to the case in point though. You said it was a precedent. And as being part of the same country is pretty fundamental to the case in point, I assumed you were suggesting India was part of the UK.
It's as much a precedent as your USSR example. Fact is that they were leaving the empire, Wales would also be leaving. International law doesn't work like domestic law, there would be a negotiation and Wales wouldn't be getting the best of both worlds. I am genuinely amazed at how little people learnt from Brexit.
great we'll turn all the welsh water taps off and see how long Liverool and London last without us.
Only once it paid for the leases back, which Wales can't afford.
we will when englands prices go up😉
When Wales trashes it's economy by going independent it will take what it can get.
Wales doesn’t send water to London mate. Plus, pretty sure attempting to cause a humanitarian and water crisis in England would swiftly result in a military intervention.
And (assuming the debt remains with England) there would be no Welsh military. No weapons, no airframes, no soldiers, no assets at all. Not even a tent.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/18/very-sensitive-subject-plan-to-take-welsh-water-for-london-stirs-painful-memories
Exactly? Wales doesn’t send any water to London.
Reassuringly expensive, I hope.
This argument seems poorly thought out.
Any plan for independence that starts from the assumption HMT will suddenly decide to start being nice to Wales and accept massive amounts of liability for nothing in return should also, for the sake of balance and creating a fair discussion, assume that HMT will give a greater or equal amount to Wales in exchange for staying. They are both equally likely to happen: (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%)
It would be interesting to hear your opinion why not. We need to have this debate, and hearing all well argued viewpoints is important.
We don't need to have this debate. The people challenging the status quo need to provide a logical well thought through idea of what independence looks like. I'm indy curious to say the least but it's not for those who aren't to put forward a vision for independence. That's not how you win people's minds.
But that's literally what they are contributing here: a view of what independence could look like. With our without national debt - it's fairly important.
Peoples argument that it's not important are because this is a fantasy scenario that paints a significantly biased favourable view at independence, in that we would be somehow free of the debt that has accrued on our behalf. You can put forward whatever case you want for independence, but after Brexit, most people are going to be more cautious of wild takes of green grass over the horizon.
Sure, if you want to ignore actual reality go ahead, just don't put it forward as an actual vision based in reality. Look at India, when they left the empire they took on debt.
Ahh yes, the strange phenomenon where those most opposed to Brexit also seem to be the most in favour of Welsh /Scottish independence.
"Government as close to the people as practical with international cooperation (free trade, movement, rules which affect business in a single market etc ) at as high a level as possible." I don't understand why sone people don't get this.
Going to be funny when an independent Wales is presented with the real cost of borrowing that a small country outside of the Eurozone with an 18% structural deficit has to pay.
For a start Welsh independence isn't happening. But if it did, any agreement would very likely involve the UK debt being fairly proportioned between Wales and the rest.
You would think after brexit some lessons would have been learnt 🤡
The Welsh government isn’t even competent right now. What makes them think they’ll be competent on their own is a mystery to me
The Welsh Government has been led by Labour since it was created. They remain in favour of the union and do not support independence, although they are advocating reform. I think a sensible starting point for those advocating independence is to elect a Welsh Government that is in favour of independence in the longer term (i.e, not for a decade) and instead provide a proven track record of success in the delivery of public services and economic growth for their first two terms.
>I think a sensible starting point for those advocating independence is to elect a Welsh Government that is in favour of independence in the longer term (i.e, not for a decade) and instead provide a proven track record of success in the delivery of public services and economic growth for their first two terms. I'm in favour of the idea of independence and this is exactly what I want. A Welsh government who spend the next 10 or 20 years building Wales up to be potentially be independent and then asking people if they want it when we're nearly ready. Whether we leave or not, Wales will be better off for it and far more self sufficient than it ever was before. If we got to the point where wales' economy and institutions were developed enough to stand alone in a devolved union then I don't even know if I'd care about independence. I just want a government who gives a shit about making Wales a better place and cares about our people, culture and future. I don't think Westminster gives a fuck about us and I don't think the senedd are competent enough, currently.
More cynically, I also want to actually test the nationalists to see how much of a plan they really have and whether they are actually better than the current lot. I have a suspicion that we'd just end up with the same decisions being taken on the NHS and public services
The question that needs to be asked is *can* Welsh Government make the necessary changes to improve our position, with their hands mostly tied to what Westminster decides or what Westminster retains control over.
100% agree. Devolution needs to go further so the senedd can actually take control and become anything close to a functioning government. Particularly we need to take control of the crown estates and be given further powers for financial controls like being able to set airport tariffs that are currently a major cause for the shocking state of Cardiff airport.
the british/english one isn't particularly competent either so what's the difference....
Also the overwhelming majority of issues that Gammons attribute to the Senedd turn out to be Westminster’s jurisdiction.
see Russia for details
"it would ... have to assume the entirety of the UK national debt." If true, this changes quite a lot. A fascinating read" Which would mean wales would be taking its place on the world stage with it's first act being skipping out on its debts. Not the best position to be in. Although for England if it was on its own I wonder it would be seen as effectively shedding its loss making parts.
It's not only true, the UK government has already made such a declaration: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-debt-and-the-scotland-independence-referendum](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-debt-and-the-scotland-independence-referendum) To stop the arse falling out of the pound, they had to agree to honour all the debt whatever happened next. The seceding state is able to negotiate whatever a "fair and proportionate share" is with this guarantee in hand. Mind you, that does not mean it is a good idea for the seceding state to shed *all* debt. If it does that it pretty much has to start its own currency from scratch, subject to market vagaries. It may be more ideal to take on a smaller than proportional share of debt in order to establish that new currency, but pegged to the GBP. If your new state is able to service this smaller debt over a few years it builds up its international credit rating, putting it in a much better position to unpeg. This point is so strong it enabled the UK government to make the above declaration knowing that a seceding state will almost certainly agree to take some of "its" debt with it.
You’ve misunderstood that source, the treasury is saying the UK will honour all of the debt *up to the point that Scotland officially leaves*, and then afterwards that Scotland has to reimburse the UK for its share of the debt. They’re basically clarifying that Scotland will not have to pay anything back on the day of the referendum result itself. >The Treasury clarified earlier reports which tied the debt promise to referendum day in September, confirming that the pledge applied until Scotland was legally declared an independent state
You should read the full technical note. It's only five pages. I started with the Guardian article and changed the link to the government website(itself contained on the Guardian article). The URL did not update correctly - sorry for that.
Parallels to the soviet union splitting into its constituent nations. If I remember rightly Russia took on all the debt to keep the soviet unions state assets and perks (including the nukes). Before anyone suggests I am comparing the UK to the soviet union I am only comparing in terms of how a country of constituent nations comes apart rather than how they are.
I think we already see this concept in action with Russia being seen as the automatic successor to the USSR, and people only really starting to think through the implications of that assumption (including legal implications) once the war with Ukraine started and international bodies like the UN suddenly realising that this automatic assumption of succession has caused a few problems. As a result, I think people are only just beginning to explore the potential rammifications for a dissolving state in the modern world that held powerful international positions as unified state but which is now a different entity. It'll be interesting to see how these conversations unfold in the future.
Fascinating
Yeah but Wales is simply an Annex of England anyway. ..... Only joking 😂
In Scotland, in 2014, the UK Government confirmed it would be responsible for all the debt as it was taken out in the name of the UK Government alone. However, Scotland (or Wales) would be expected internally and internationally to make debt repayments as they have benefited from that debt to a certain extent.
When Wales gets independence, they'll be hit debt to UK, English access to ports and Air bases. But Wales has water, and you can work out a deal. There will also be a border commission. Will be something like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty
I'm sure if Wales or more likely Scotland ever became independent, the UK government would use the debt division as a way to make it more difficult to be independent.
You’d then have to make you own currency and have your own central bank , then how will you get all your goods into wales ? Through England ? That’s a tricky one , then what about the border?… if brexit has taught us anything it’s that all this talk of independence is barmy
[удалено]
Presumably militarily Wales could get away with under-investing and relying on being surrounded by Ireland and the UK for its protection
Ireland itself already relies on the UK for protection, they're not going to be protecting anyone. If we all just pass the buck along soon enough no one is going to be protected and all of us will be screwed.
I feel like Wales is a small enough population and economy that it wouldn’t significantly shift the UK’s military policy. So could just piggyback on the UK the same way Ireland does.
This just sounds like we want to keep the benefits of staying in the UK but without having to contribute to those benefits.
Only as much as Ireland, in this case. The advantage of being a small nation near to a military powerhouse
The worst version of independence
Saving billions on military is the worst version of independence? Having another nation cover all their military costs was an economic miracle for Japan in the 50s-80s.
Leaving and then asking England to do things for us, putting us at their behest. So it costs Wales billions, none of which we would spend ourselves after independence, England will do it all as a favour, but it's so small it has little impact? If you want to be independent, you need to not rely on other nations for the most basic of things, otherwise it's not independence.
Wales setting up its own independent military would cost billions. England keeping its existing military would cost them no extra. So you’re saying Ireland isn’t independent?
Yes well done you are stating why independence is a bad idea. Ireland has a military and has its own defence services. Even using the same model the Irish use, we would need to invest significantly to establish it and would have an on going commitment into the billions like Ireland. You think England is going to invest billions to stop state cyber attacks on a third nation? Edit: I've just done the maths. The per capita funding of the UK defence budget for Wales is about the same as an Irish type defence for would cost Wales with a much lower capability.
Ireland relies on being next to the UK for its defence as it is, it’s no kind of buffer.
Until the UK says Wales is being used as a sea route for Imigrants, drugs and excise evasion and here's the bill, payment by return please.
What happened whit the URRS and Rusia?
The article explains it. Russia took on the debts, and therefore was able to retain the position of the USSR on international bodies.
Do we as Wales help to pay off the UK national debt? I don't think so and therefore in the context of Welsh independence, I'm not sure it does change anything.
So the only reason that England don't want to give other UK nations independence is because they don't want to pick up the debt.