(September 16, 2014 at 11:23 am)Chas Wrote:

(September 16, 2014 at 11:22 am)Chuck Wrote: Well, if Scotland were to leave Great Britain, it also leaves United Kingdom.

But the United Kingdom would remain.

Yes, so a proportionally less great Great Britain would be a less united United Kingdom.




Considering how centralized power and wealth of the United Kingdom is focused in London, and how much influence of London derives from its status and international financial center, I don't expect internationally Britain would be much reduced as a result of this, unless Britain were to lose her nuclear arsenal or UNSC permanent seat as a result of this.

(September 16, 2014 at 12:59 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(September 16, 2014 at 11:23 am)Chas Wrote: But the United Kingdom would remain.

Yes, so a proportionally less great Great Britain would be a less united United Kingdom.




Considering how centralized power and wealth of the United Kingdom is focused in London, and how much influence of London derives from its status and international financial center, I don't expect internationally Britain would be much reduced as a result of this, unless Britain were to lose her nuclear arsenal or UNSC permanent seat as a result of this.

Why would we lose our nuclear capability?!

Oh and small gripe. The great bit of great Britain is not us bigging ourself up. It was to distinguish us from the other Britain (brittany) after the Norman conquest.

---

(September 16, 2014 at 10:30 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: If the Scots go independent, will the United Kingdom (UK) become the Former United Kingdom (FUK)?

If they go we will be FUKed for a while.

But on the bright side in the rest of the UK.

Average life expectancy will go up.
Average sun shine will go up.
Average Rainfall go down.

And Scots will have one less thing to whine about.

(September 16, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Why would we lose our nuclear capability?!

---

Because all of your nuclear capabilities are now in Scotland. Moving the bullseye back home is not only extremely costly, but could puts the potential penalties of nuclear deterrence into sharper relief.

(September 16, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Oh and small gripe. The great bit of great Britain is not us bigging ourself up. It was to distinguish us from the other Britain (brittany) after the Norman conquest.

---

I think not. The 'Great' was the union of the English and Scottish crowns in 1707.

(September 16, 2014 at 3:13 pm)Chas Wrote:

(September 16, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Oh and small gripe. The great bit of great Britain is not us bigging ourself up. It was to distinguish us from the other Britain (brittany) after the Norman conquest.

---

I think not. The 'Great' was the union of the English and Scottish crowns in 1707.

So it would now be the United Kingdoms of Lesser Britain and Northern Ireland?

(September 16, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(September 16, 2014 at 3:13 pm)Chas Wrote: I think not. The 'Great' was the union of the English and Scottish crowns in 1707.

So it would now be the United Kingdoms of Lesser Britain and Northern Ireland?

Or The United Kingdom of Not-So-Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

(September 16, 2014 at 2:38 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(September 16, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Why would we lose our nuclear capability?!

---

Because all of your nuclear capabilities are now in Scotland. Moving the bullseye back home is not only extremely costly, but could puts the potential penalties of nuclear deterrence into sharper relief.

Um...
No.
The bit of our nuclear capability that is public knowledge, and I'm fairly sure that's not all of it, Is on submarines and they are pretty easy to move about. In fact there is always at least one Nuclear sub on patrol, so nobody really knows where our nuclear capabilities are at any given time.

---

(September 16, 2014 at 3:13 pm)Chas Wrote:

(September 16, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Oh and small gripe. The great bit of great Britain is not us bigging ourself up. It was to distinguish us from the other Britain (brittany) after the Norman conquest.

---

I think not. The 'Great' was the union of the English and Scottish crowns in 1707.

Depends how far back you want to go.

Quote: Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany, which had been settled in the fifth and sixth centuries by Celtic immigrants from the British Isles.[25] The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee."

(September 16, 2014 at 7:06 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Depends how far back you want to go.

Quote: Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany, which had been settled in the fifth and sixth centuries by Celtic immigrants from the British Isles.[25]

Hardly the same thing.

Quote:The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee."

Right, the term was used in the context of uniting the crowns of England and Scotland. The point being that this context is not the name "United Kingdom".

(September 16, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Chas Wrote:

(September 16, 2014 at 7:06 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Depends how far back you want to go.


Hardly the same thing.

Right, the term was used in the context of uniting the crowns of England and Scotland. The point being that this context is not the name "United Kingdom".

I was just saying that great britain was FIRST used to distinguish us from brittany, NOT to distinguish the post merger britain from the pre merger britain. I'd say that there's a good chance that the later title "great britain" is a derivative of the norman title "greater Britain", wouldn't you?