Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't see why the UK should be kicked off the security council if Scotland went independent.

The UK wasn't kicked off when India, Burma, Malaya, Nigeria, etc. etc. went independent.

 dogma wrote:

Which is what the word "neutral" means.

The US was "neutral" during world war 2 for a couple of years but everyone knew they were backing Britain. You could hardly say the same over the Falklands...seems a little dishartening that our "closest allies" aren't backing us up in a dispute when we are legally and ethically in the right. The other Europeans IIRC have been pretty bro-British, but thanks to our Eurosceptic elite that door is shut.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see why the UK should be kicked off the security council if Scotland went independent.

The UK wasn't kicked off when India, Burma, Malaya, Nigeria, etc. etc. went independent.

I'd say losing part of your country thats halfway across the world is way different from losing part of your country thats only a stones throw away from the capital(relativly speaking)

 mattyrm wrote:
No I don't see that, he clearly isnt a fething idiot. Its why he is cooler with the Israelis as well. Israel will ALWAYS be an American ally, so he can afford to relax a tad with those lads if it helps to have a better relationship with more volatile countries.. surely you can see the logic there?

I can see the logic, sure, but it doesn't appear to be getting results. I'm generally a believer in sticking by your friends as well.

I'd say losing part of your country thats halfway across the world is way different from losing part of your country thats only a stones throw away from the capital(relativly speaking)

Then what was all the fuss over Pearl Harbour for?

 Ratbarf wrote:

I'd say losing part of your country thats halfway across the world is way different from losing part of your country thats only a stones throw away from the capital(relativly speaking)

Then what was all the fuss over Pearl Harbour for?

That's such a bad analogy it doesn't need addressing.

 Testify wrote:

The US was "neutral" during world war 2 for a couple of years but everyone knew they were backing Britain.

My quotations weren't meant to denote euphemism.

 Testify wrote:

You could hardly say the same over the Falklands...seems a little dishartening that our "closest allies" aren't backing us up in a dispute when we are legally and ethically in the right.

Being legally and ethically in the right has no bearing on real GDP growth rates.

That's such a bad analogy it doesn't need addressing.

I don't think so, comparing the falklands to pearl harbour seems rather appropriate. The only difference is in scale.

You still think America doesn't need allies? Get with the 21st century, dude. You think India or China will give a gak about you when the bombs start dropping?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:

That's such a bad analogy it doesn't need addressing.

I don't think so, comparing the falklands to pearl harbour seems rather appropriate. The only difference is in scale.

Well both times they initiated a war with the party who invaded/bombed...

 Testify wrote:
You still think America doesn't need allies? Get with the 21st century, dude.

Getting with the 21st century involves abandoning the UK, and getting closer to Argentina and Brazil.

What is this thread even about anymore?

The sky is not going to fall if Scotland leaves the union, and they probably won't leave it anyway. End of story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Testify wrote:
You still think America doesn't need allies? Get with the 21st century, dude.

Getting with the 21st century involves abandoning the UK, and getting closer to Argentina and Brazil.

Brazil, yes. Argentina!? They're a fething serial basketcase with an economy a fraction of the size of the UK's. I don't normally accuse you of this, but you have to be trolling there, bro. I'm calling you out.

I don't usually agree with Albatross but i do have to say my thoughts are following a similar line...

 dogma wrote:

Explain how the French benefit from a UNSC that doesn't include the UK.

it limits our influence in europe, they will be the only go to guys with a UN veto. Come on dogma that would be obvious.
we would lose out, they would gain enormously, and that ignores the additional factor of beaucoup lulz.

 dogma wrote:

No, it really wouldn't be. You would lose international clout. That isn't good, but using the word "calamitous" is hyperbolic.

I am not sure. That loss of clout could also mean ther loss of the Falklands and its oil. Or Gibraltar with the Falklands being lost in a domino effect.

 dogma wrote:

Which is what the word "neutral" means.

Neutral and unsympathetic and neutral and sympathetic are two different things. Hostile Latin American governments can and do draw strength from the lack of sympathy that accompanies current US administrations neutrality.

There is also nasty undertones when a people group calling out for self determination are not listened to sympathetically by the so called 'leader of the free world'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see why the UK should be kicked off the security council if Scotland went independent.

The UK wasn't kicked off when India, Burma, Malaya, Nigeria, etc. etc. went independent.

I'd say losing part of your country thats halfway across the world is way different from losing part of your country thats only a stones throw away from the capital(relativly speaking)

The colonies were administered by not part of the UK.

The United Kingdom means The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Now even if there was full Irish unification we would still have Great Britain, but an independent Scotland would remove that, no more Great Britain connection to the UK.

Twice already UNSC members have technically transferred identity. First with the formation of Communist China. Second with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In both cases the core territory, Greater China and Russia were the remaining beneficiary. However the core territory of Great Britain would not exist except as the name of the single largest island landmass. Politically Great Britain would not exist, you would have England and Wales (and potentially not even that). This would involve a direct transfer and while England would technically and rightfully (same thing) have the strongest individual claim globally this is by no means certain.

 purplefood wrote:
I don't usually agree with Albatross...

Is it me, or is that fast becoming the new 'I agree with Nick' 'round these parts?

Several people have said that this week, iirc.

 Orlanth wrote:

it limits our influence in europe, they will be the only go to guys with a UN veto. Come on dogma that would be obvious.

It also reduces the influence of Europe.

 Orlanth wrote:

we would lose out, they would gain enormously, and that ignores the additional factor of beaucoup lulz.

And here I thought the British had stiff upper lips, and could take punishment. I was apparently wrong.

 Orlanth wrote:

I am not sure. That loss of clout could also mean ther loss of the Falklands and its oil. Or Gibraltar with the Falklands being lost in a domino effect.

You already buy oil from FOGL. If Argentina took the territory you would still buy from a corporation, and the price you paid would still be based on the market price of oil.

 Orlanth wrote:

Neutral and unsympathetic and neutral and sympathetic are two different things.

Indeed, one is neutral and the other is not.

A sympathetic position is not a neutral one, an unsympathetic position is a neutral one.

 Orlanth wrote:

There is also nasty undertones when a people group calling out for self determination are not listened to sympathetically by the so called 'leader of the free world'.

Wait, you really believe American foreign policy is based on the idea that freedom is valuable?

That you managed to call me naive is...impressive.

Warfare over the Falklands could drive the price of oil up simply by adding instability to the mix, which would effect oil prices everwhere.

Just like how the problems in Lybia drove up gas prices here even though we get almost none of our oil from there specifically.

I'm curious Dogma, why all the hate towards the UK & Europe?

Cheers

Andrew

 mattyrm wrote:
Its funny I was having a (relatively!) good natured bit of banter with a Scottish bloke in a pub in Edinburgh a couple years back and he said to me "All of you lot got conquered by the Romans, but not us, we built that big wall to keep the bastards out!"

And the French. You were also conquered by the French, and unlike the Romans you never managed to get rid of them.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

it limits our influence in europe, they will be the only go to guys with a UN veto. Come on dogma that would be obvious.

It also reduces the influence of Europe.

How many Vetos castare needed to block a bill Europe doesn't like. 1 or 2. Answer 1. By having one place to go France can set a price.

 dogma wrote:

And here I thought the British had stiff upper lips, and could take punishment. I was apparently wrong.

Stiff upper lip means standing up and fighting, not not squealing when bending over.

 dogma wrote:

You already buy oil from FOGL. If Argentina took the territory you would still buy from a corporation, and the price you paid would still be based on the market price of oil.

Go ahead you believe that. Everyone plays nice and fair over oil.

 dogma wrote:

Wait, you really believe American foreign policy is based on the idea that freedom is valuable?

That you managed to call me naive is...impressive.

American foreign policy doesn't usually blatantly deny such freedoms amongst 'western' cultural groups. It is an usual step actually.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see why the UK should be kicked off the security council if Scotland went independent.

The UK wasn't kicked off when India, Burma, Malaya, Nigeria, etc. etc. went independent.

Colonies with no voting rights in your government can be acquired and released without changing the basic political nature of your government. On the other hand, the UK as political entity is the united kingdoms, and if one kingdom leaves then that political entity no longer exists. Part of the voting public that gave the UK its legitimate government is now a different country.

Now, I'm not saying the UK will lose its permanent security council status, because that only becomes a plausible thing in a world in which Obama or some other US president becomes motivated purely by spite, but it is different than when India left.

I fail to see how Obama would have spite over Scotland leaving the UK.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I fail to see how Obama would have spite over Scotland leaving the UK.

The two are not (potentially) connected except incidentally.

So more like it would be a convenient excuse rather then the actual reason?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I fail to see how Obama would have spite over Scotland leaving the UK.

The issue of spite is, if Scotland were to leave the UK, then the permanent security status of the UK might no longer exist (possibly, I am not a student in either the UN Charter or the union of parliaments).

Orlanth believes Obama would jump at the opportunity to strip Great Britain of its permanent security status. I think the only way in which Obama acting that way makes any kind of sense would be if Obama were driven purely by spite, because in terms of geo-politics it makes no sense.

What would Obama, or indeed the US, gain from the UK losing its seat?

I can see how Russia and China would benifit, but it seems that the US and France would be at a disadvantage. Given that the UK, France, and the US are most likely to agree with each other and have China and Russia oppose them.

I know just one member can veto all actions of the others, but having one seat become up for grabs seems like nobody will benifit except those that are dissenting voices on the council.

If it was Russia or China, yeah I could see this being a big deal. But it seems like this situation would benifit only Russia and China.


I'd call it political suicide, but given that this won't happen unless Obama wins a second term he would be safe. Of course he probably couldn't show his face in any other political arena again. Not to mention it would be very bad press for the Democrats. It would take decades to shake the image of being called a traitor in the international community.

 Grey Templar wrote:
What would Obama, or indeed the US, gain from the UK losing its seat?

Nothing. They'd alienate a solid ally, and gain nothing for themselves.

Which is why the only way it'd make sense would be if Obama was motivated entirely by spite... and that spite was for some reason directed at the UK.

So who's coming up with this idea?

Even I don't believe Obama and/or the Democrats would pull something this stupid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So who's coming up with this idea?

Even I don't believe Obama and/or the Democrats would pull something this stupid.

Orlanth said Obama might do it.

 AndrewC wrote:
I'm curious Dogma, why all the hate towards the UK & Europe?

No hate, I love Europe and the UK in particular, but I also recognize that going forward the US relationship with the UK isn't as important as the US relationship with Argentina.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So who's coming up with this idea?

Orlanth and sensationalist UK press.

 sebster wrote:

The issue of spite is, if Scotland were to leave the UK, then the permanent security status of the UK might no longer exist (possibly, I am not a student in either the UN Charter or the union of parliaments).

As I said earlier in the thread there are already two examples of P5 states altering their political nature and maintaining their P5 status, the PRC and the Russian Federation (referred to in the Charter as the RoC and the USSR). There is no ground for a technical disqualification of the UK from UN membership (which is what would need to happen in order for them to lose P5 status), and no reason for any other P5 member to move for the removal of the UK.

If Scotland leaves the UK they would go through the same admission process that all other states go through, with perhaps a bit of whining from London.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

How many Vetos castare needed to block a bill Europe doesn't like. 1 or 2. Answer 1. By having one place to go France can set a price.

How many binding resolutions do you think the UK would block, but France would not? Maybe something over the Falklands, which is a specifically British issue, but that's it. Also maybe some GA resolutions about how horrible the British weather is and that they have cooties.

 Orlanth wrote:

Go ahead you believe that. Everyone plays nice and fair over oil.

Buy it from somewhere else if you don't like the price. The UK doesn't consume enough oil to be sensitive to minor supply shocks, and until 2005 you were actually a net exporter (thank you North Sea). Unless Argentina nationalizes the industry, which they won't because that would mean a complete infrastructure loss in a region that has proven difficult to explore, your petroleum purchasing circumstances will not change.

 Orlanth wrote:

American foreign policy doesn't usually blatantly deny such freedoms amongst 'western' cultural groups. It is an usual step actually.

No one in the US cares about the Falklands. In fact, the only people that care about the Falklands are the British, the Argentinians, and the Falklanders.

 Albatross wrote:

Brazil, yes. Argentina!? They're a fething serial basketcase with an economy a fraction of the size of the UK's. I don't normally accuse you of this, but you have to be trolling there, bro. I'm calling you out.

Argentina's GDP is ~20% of the UK's in nominal terms and around 40% in terms of PPP, but they also have a ~9% growth rate.

By contrast the UK's growth rate is ~1%, lower than Jamaica's.

 dogma wrote:
As I said earlier in the thread there are already two examples of P5 states altering their political nature and maintaining their P5 status, the PRC and the Russian Federation (referred to in the Charter as the RoC and the USSR). There is no ground for a technical disqualification of the UK from UN membership (which is what would need to happen in order for them to lose P5 status), and no reason for any other P5 member to move for the removal of the UK.

Well, China isn't the best example to argue that the US won't feth with the permanent status of another country, with the KMT in Taiwan being considered the government of China for like 30 years.

But that was because China became communist and it was the Cold War, so there were real, and meaningful reasons to keep pretending Taiwan was running China. The same isn't true with the UK.