Alex Salmond and Independence

[Team Brian GB]

The Isle of Mann uses Sterling but prints its own notes. It's not part of the UK, it's a Crown Dependency. I see no reason why this could not be done with Scotland. Also, the Irish Punt was directly linked to Sterling up until around 1979.

The Irish economy at the back end of the seventies and in the eighties was in trouble so deep that the UK with its problems at the time couldn't even imagine and was the poorest country in northern Europe this side of the iron curtain as it was. The Isle of Man is a micro-economy and is effectively a territory of the UK, Scotland would be independent and does not have a micro-economy and would have the strength to cause great problems for Sterling if they got into trouble - something the Isle of Man never could.

Not to mention that was only a few years after the Bretton Woods system was no more when the idea that currency exchange rates freely floating was novel - you wouldn't get that now if you could help it.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I think you're going off on one and making things far more complicated than they really are. Irish monetary policy for example is dictated by the ECB. In the case of Scotland, WTF would be the difference in the short term between the Bank of England and the ECB? Just like Ireland, they would have no real say in their own monetary policy. The Isle of Mann has no control over its monetary policy either, the IMP is locked to the GBP, however they have total control over fiscal policy - no capital gains tax for example.

Ireland is a part of the Eurozone, it has membership of it and has its albeit small share of oversight over the ECB - Scotland not being part of the UK has none.

And since when is the Eurozone a good example of good practice? Europe is on its knees exactly because of the way the Eurozone is structured and the last thing we want in the British Isles is to have a monetary union but no fiscal union as well.

 

[WeasteDevil]

Ireland is a part of the Eurozone, it has membership of it and has its albeit small share of oversight over the ECB - Scotland not being part of the UK has none.

And since when is the Eurozone a good example of good practice? Europe is on its knees exactly because of the way the Eurozone is structured and the last thing we want in the British Isles is to have a monetary union but no fiscal union as well.

You are missing the point here. Salmond wants an extra question in the referendum asking for devolution+, basically placing it on a similar level to the Crown Dependencies (as he knows full well that the Scottish people are not going to vote for full independence). It's Westminster that does not want such an option. Scotland has no control over the Bank of England as it stands in any case. For step 1, they don't need to have their own currency or their own central bank, there would be nothing stopping them using Sterling.

 

[WeasteDevil]

The Isle of Man is a micro-economy and is effectively a territory of the UK

No it's not! That's as daft as saying that Luxembourg was never a country.

 

[Team Brian GB]

No it's not! That's as daft as saying that Luxembourg was never a country.

A Crown Dependency is effectively a British territory - there is no practical difference between a Crown Dependency and a British Overseas Territory, they both have jurisdiction of internal affairs and they both cede foreign policy and defence to London.

And if we want to legislate for them that is our right.

 

[Team Brian GB]

The reason why we allow The Isle of Man to be part of Sterling is because it is a token economy on the world stage, they could do everything they could to crash it and there would be no effect on the United Kingdom or on Sterling.

They have a smaller economy than Swindon.

 

[WeasteDevil]

A Crown Dependency is effectively a British territory - there is no practical difference between a Crown Dependency and a British Overseas Territory, they both have jurisdiction of internal affairs and they both cede foreign policy and defence to London.

And if we want to legislate for them that is our right.

There is significant difference between a Crown Dependency and a British Dependency.

Maybe you'd like to explain how the Luxembourg Franc has over time been pegged to both the Belgium Franc and the German Mark?

 

[WeasteDevil]

The reason why we allow The Isle of Man to be part of Sterling is because it is a token economy on the world stage, they could do everything they could to crash it and there would be no effect on the United Kingdom or on Sterling.

They have a smaller economy than Swindon.

It does not have to be "allowed", this is the point you miss. Anyway, there would be no reason for the rest of the UK to refuse it.

A few nations besides the United States use the U.S. dollar as their official currency. Ecuador, El Salvador and East Timor all adopted the currency independently; former members of the US-administered Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (namely Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands) decided that, despite their independence, they wanted to keep the U.S. dollar as their official currency. Additionally, local currencies of several states such as Bermuda, the Bahamas, Panama and a few other states can be freely exchanged at a 1:1 ratio for the U.S. dollar. Finally, a number of nations have tied their currencies to the U.S. dollar - including Argentina (1:1 fixed exchange rate from 1991 until 2002), Lebanon (one dollar = 1500 Lebanese pound), Hong Kong (one U.S. dollar = HK$ 7.8 since 1983), and several more. A significant recent development is the action of the People's Republic of China: the renminbi had once been informally and controversially pegged to the dollar (since the mid-1990s, at 1 U.S. dollar = 8.28 Y); however the peg was removed on July 21, 2005. Instead, China has a managed float against a basket of currencies.

 

[711]

It's all a bit of a red herring anyway. Whilst not being said in so many words, the implication is that Scotland could never become independent because they could not possibly solve the ensuing currency problem. Like no other country has ever done it. Need to come up with something better than this boys.

 

[WeasteDevil]

Like no other country has ever done it. Need to come up with something better than this boys.

It's clear that they would keep Sterling as an interim measure. There would be no reason not to do so.

 

[Team Brian GB]

It does not have to be "allowed", this is the point you miss. Anyway, there would be no reason for the rest of the UK to refuse it.

It has to be allowed if it wants any influence into determining monetary policy or if it wants to be factored into monetary policy decisions - if Scotland were to use Sterling without our permission and without us taking their needs into concern it could destroy their economy very quickly indeed.

The UK would refuse it, the British population would want them to refuse it - we wouldn't want Sterling to be diluted by serving a bloc of countries without any semblance of fiscal unity. That is what has caused such great trouble in the Eurozone and we wouldn't want any possiblity of ourselves being harmed in such a way also. If Scotland wants to be an independent country then it is not entitled to any special favours, it should have to stand on its own two feet and it should not be allowed into any monetary union with us simply because it is too difficult for them to do something else - if they want independence then their prosperity is their responsibility, not ours.

 

[WeasteDevil]

It has to be allowed if it wants any influence into determining monetary policy or if it wants to be factored into monetary policy decisions

They don't need it in the short term, and I doubt that they even want it. This is what you miss. How much influence does Scotland currently have over hte MPC of the Bank of England? Right, feck all, less than Ireland has over the ECB.

 

[WeasteDevil]

The UK would refuse it

The UK can't refuse it!

 

[Team Brian GB]

There is significant difference between a Crown Dependency and a British Dependency.

Maybe you'd like to explain how the Luxembourg Franc has over time been pegged to both the Belgium Franc and the German Mark?

There isn't any significant differences between a Crown Dependency and a British Overseas Territory in constitutional terms - they both run their internal affairs in which the UK can intervene and they both cede control of their defence and their foreign policy to the United Kingdom.

The Crown in practical terms refers to the Privy Council, and what is the practical manifestation of the Privy Council you ask? That would be the British Cabinet.

The Luxembourg Franc I couldn't care less about, I have explained on a long list of occasions why Scotland couldn't or shouldn't peg a new currency to Sterling or use Sterling without any say or involvement in monetary policy.

 

[Team Brian GB]

The UK can't refuse it!

What part of, the Bank of England and HM Treasury being institutions of the United Kingdom do you not understand?

If we refuse access of such institutions to Scotland then they would be joining a currency which they have absolutely zero control of or authority over. If the Bank of England wanted to pursue an economic policy that would be to the benefit of England but which would sink Scotland it would do so as it would be responsible to the economic needs of England and not Scotland - this status quo would give Scotland no economic credibility at all.

The other issue is that without our authorisation Scotland could not print money and no money would be printed for them - everything they spend they would have to borrow on the international bond markets - I'd like to see what their credit rating would be in such circumstances.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

It's all a bit of a red herring anyway. Whilst not being said in so many words, the implication is that Scotland could never become independent because they could not possibly solve the ensuing currency problem. Like no other country has ever done it. Need to come up with something better than this boys.

I don't think any one is saying or implying that Scotland can't become independent because it would have to have its own currency. Of course it can have both but don't think it can have the one without the other.

 

[Team Brian GB]

They don't need it in the short term, and I doubt that they even want it. This is what you miss. How much influence does Scotland currently have over hte MPC of the Bank of England? Right, feck all, less than Ireland has over the ECB.

There is no sovereign state of Scotland that has its own economy, monetary and fiscal policy, national debt and credit rating so that point is completely redundant.

 

[Team Brian GB]

It's all a bit of a red herring anyway. Whilst not being said in so many words, the implication is that Scotland could never become independent because they could not possibly solve the ensuing currency problem. Like no other country has ever done it. Need to come up with something better than this boys.

When have I said that Scotland cannot become independent? I have never said anything to that end so why are you thinking it?

What I am saying is that if they want to become independent then fine but it is for them to live with the consequences and without any undue support from the United Kingdom.

 

[#07]

I really don't understand why the Scots want out of the U.K. anyway. Put aside the utilitarian benefits that some seem (mistakenly) to believe would come from dismantling the U.K. what exactly is wrong with the union?

For me the U.K. is a visceral thing. If I meet a Scot, a Welshman or someone from Northern Ireland on holidays I instinctively feel a sense of familiarity. I feel, in my gut, that that fella or that woman is my countryman. If we're surrounded by a bunch of others speaking foreign and I want a little piece of home I feel like I can randomly start a conversation about the football, the weather, the flight over, anything. May even share a glass of something, whisky, and comment about how good it is but not as good as the stuff back in Britain.

Genuine question to the Scots on the board. Is that not something you guys feel? Cos you know to me, and this is just my perspective, it feels like Salmond is trying to destroy my country and I resent it.

 

[711]

Yeah, I think some people do feel like they've been rejected. I reckon that's why Brian's so bitter about it all, it's like Scotland's his girlfriend and he's found out she's about to run off and leave him all alone. 'Well just go then, but the cd's are all mine'.

 

[rcoobc]

I really don't understand why the Scots want out of the U.K. anyway. Put aside the utilitarian benefits that some seem (mistakenly) to believe would come from dismantling the U.K. what exactly is wrong with the union?

For me the U.K. is a visceral thing. If I meet a Scot, a Welshman or someone from Northern Ireland on holidays I instinctively feel a sense of familiarity. I feel, in my gut, that that fella or that woman is my countryman. If we're surrounded by a bunch of others speaking foreign and I want a little piece of home I feel like I can randomly start a conversation about the football, the weather, the flight over, anything. May even share a glass of something, whisky, and comment about how good it is but not as good as the stuff back in Britain.

Genuine question to the Scots on the board. Is that not something you guys feel? Cos you know to me, and this is just my perspective, it feels like Salmond is trying to destroy my country and I resent it.

They aren't represented in UK politics are they? The dominant party in the UK is the conservatives, and they got a single seat in Scotland. Scotland feels more left wing, more liberal, which the UK would be except for FPtP.

Scotland is not represented by UK politics. At all.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Yeah, I think some people do feel like they've been rejected. I reckon that's why Brian's so bitter about it all, it's like Scotland's his girlfriend and he's found out she's about to run off and leave him all alone. 'Well just go then, but the cd's are all mine'.

I am annoyed about it because we are going to have to spend nearly three years on the matter not knowing whether our country will exist or not in the near future.

Though what annoys me more is that the rhetoric supports complete independence but every now and then Salmond suggests things like military co-operation purely because it would be easier for them, and would project their influence. If Scotland wants independence then it should get it but as a clean break without entanglements.

 

[Team Brian GB]

They aren't represented in UK politics are they? The dominant party in the UK is the conservatives, and they got a single seat in Scotland. Scotland feels more left wing, more liberal, which the UK would be except for FPtP.

Scotland is not represented by UK politics. At all.

It is what we call party politics - the South of England sat it out for a generation because the Conservatives were not in power and nobody even fathomed leaving, now the pendulum has swung and Scotland has to sit it out - under Labour they got the government they wanted and had a Scottish born PM and a Scottish chancellor for ten years and then a Scottish PM and chancellor for three years.

 

[711]

It's always the kids that suffer the most.

 

[Team Brian GB]

It's always the kids that suffer the most.

Who are the kids in this equation?

Wales? I wonder what the Welsh nationalists are thinking about the affair.

 

[711]

Who are the kids in this equation?

Wales? I wonder what the Welsh nationalists are thinking about the affair.

I've wondered that too. My unreliable memory tells me that the last bid for Welsh independence failed because it was put about that no one would be able to work for the new Welsh government unless they spoke Welsh. Which of course most don't, but they would have been ruled out of half the jobs going. Maybe you could think of some equivalent to put the Scots off? Not the currency thing though, you've failed with that one.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Why do you think I have some ulterior motives? You are rating this forum very highly that you believe I am hiding my actual views to somehow manipulate affairs.

The fact Osborne came out this week and questioned what the SNP were thinking with regards to monetary policy suggests everything I have been saying is how it would play out - if the Chancellor appears to be weary of their use of Sterling then it is fair to say the issue of currency is very much in play.

 

[rcoobc]

It is what we call party politics - the South of England sat it out for a generation because the Conservatives were not in power and nobody even fathomed leaving, now the pendulum has swung and Scotland has to sit it out - under Labour they got the government they wanted and had a Scottish born PM and a Scottish chancellor for ten years and then a Scottish PM and chancellor for three years.

So you think that the percentage of Labour/Lib Dems/Other in the South of England, is similar to the percentage of Conservatives in Scotland?

No. Scotland's political system is a form of PR, which represents Scotland proportionally and is fair. It properly represents the feelings of the Scottish people. I understand what you are trying to say, but it is fair to say that Scotland is adequately represented in Westminster.

The percentage of votes by Scottish people in the UK General Election:
Labour 42.0%, Liberal Democrat 18.9%, SNP 19.9 %, Conservative 16.7% Results breakdown of the United Kingdom general election, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Scotland is 16.7% Conservative, whereas the UK as a whole is 36.1% Conservative United Kingdom general election, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now bare in mind that most Scottish people wouldn't vote Conservatives in their life. Once again they find themselves run by a bunch of people that only 16% of them voted for. In most countries, being run by a government that only 16% support is called a dictatorship. In Scotland it's called being Clad onto England.

And so fast forward 1 year and the SNP get a huge boost.

 

[rcoobc]

Or to put it another way, in 10 years time if you where part of an EU "country" which was run by a government that only 16.1% of your people supported, would you be happy. Of course fecking not.

 

[#07]

They aren't represented in UK politics are they? The dominant party in the UK is the conservatives, and they got a single seat in Scotland. Scotland feels more left wing, more liberal, which the UK would be except for FPtP.

Scotland is not represented by UK politics. At all.

So there aren't Scottish MPs at Westminster? There are no Scottish constituency's at all? Strange cos I was working under the assumption that there were a whole lot of them. Plus many issues are devolved to the Scots anyway so the idea that they have no say in the things that effect them just isn't true. In fact they have more say over the English than the other way around because of their representation at Westminster e.g. Scots MPs can vote on the NHS in England, Englishmen can't do the same to the Scots.

Yes the dominant party in UK politics are the Tories. What has that got to do with anything? If sense of belonging to the country ebbs and flows depending upon which party has control over the government then shouldn't Lancashire, Merseyside and large swathes of the North not be declaring their independence too? For me personally whether a man votes left, right, centre or whatever doesn't change how I feel about the passport in my pocket.

I don't mind declaring the fact that I resent the fact that the SNP want to destroy my country though it seems to be an unfashionable sentiment to hold on these boards. I've never considered Welshmen, Scots or Ulstermen foreigners and I find it odd that that feeling isn't mutual.

 

[#07]

Or to put it another way, in 10 years time if you where part of an EU "country" which was run by a government that only 16.1% of your people supported, would you be happy. Of course fecking not.

That's a nonsense argument. What has this got to do with the EU?

The British unlike the EU have a shared history, a shared language, a shared tradition that binds us together. Of course there are quirks and differences that come from the UK being comprised of different nations but the things we share tie us more strongly than the things we don't.

The most successful period of this country's history came about due to the combined efforts of all its people. We celebrate Hume equally as we celebrate Locke, we honour the efforts of Cochrane alongside those of Nelson and I've yet to meet an Englishman who resented singing Old Lang Syne cos it was written by a Scot! The battles that Britons have fought together, the challenges we've faced as a country have bound us in a way that can't even be compared to the way the EU has been jumbled together by back room deals among politicians.

 

[rcoobc]

So there aren't Scottish MPs at Westminster? There are no Scottish constituency's at all? Strange cos I was working under the assumption that there were a whole lot of them. Plus many issues are devolved to the Scots anyway so the idea that they have no say in the things that effect them just isn't true. In fact they have more say over the English than the other way around because of their representation at Westminster e.g. Scots MPs can vote on the NHS in England, Englishmen can't do the same to the Scots.

Yes the dominant party in UK politics are the Tories. What has that got to do with anything? If sense of belonging to the country ebbs and flows depending upon which party has control over the government then shouldn't Lancashire, Merseyside and large swathes of the North not be declaring their independence too? For me personally whether a man votes left, right, centre or whatever doesn't change how I feel about the passport in my pocket.

I don't mind declaring the fact that I resent the fact that the SNP want to destroy my country though it seems to be an unfashionable sentiment to hold on these boards. I've never considered Welshmen, Scots or Ulstermen foreigners and I find it odd that that feeling isn't mutual.

See, there you go you've gone and done it. You've compared Scotland to a county, several counties in fact. Scotland are not a county, they are a country and there is meant to be a difference.

And what you've said about more representation at Westminster is the funny thing about politics. That it matters not one bit. Scotland don't have more representation that the average Englishman, because the political system doesn't work like that. Scotland gave the Conservatives just 1 seat and yet they find they are being rules by them. Scotland gave Labour 41 seats and they didn't even get into the coalition.

 

[#07]

See, there you go you've gone and done it. You've compared Scotland to a county, several counties in fact. Scotland are not a county, they are a country and there is meant to be a difference.

And what you've said about more representation at Westminster is the funny thing about politics. That it matters not one bit. Scotland don't have more representation that the average Englishman, because the political system doesn't work like that. Scotland gave the Conservatives just 1 seat and yet they find they are being rules by them. Scotland gave Labour 41 seats and they didn't even get into the coalition.

My country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This country is comprised of various kingdoms which were once independent but now form a single state. That's the state to which I am proud to belong and there have been more than enough English, Scots, Welsh and Ulstermen who felt the same to make me feel its worth a damn. Clearly you feel differently. That's your prerogative I guess. But don't try to make out that everything Britain has achieved since the Stewart monarchy and the act of 1707 that followed was somehow an English joke played on the rest.

 

[dinners85]

Well my daughters Union Jack curtains seem quite apt just now although I worry people will mistake us for a Rangers household.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

See, there you go you've gone and done it. You've compared Scotland to a county, several counties in fact. Scotland are not a county, they are a country and there is meant to be a difference.

And what you've said about more representation at Westminster is the funny thing about politics. That it matters not one bit. Scotland don't have more representation that the average Englishman, because the political system doesn't work like that. Scotland gave the Conservatives just 1 seat and yet they find they are being rules by them. Scotland gave Labour 41 seats and they didn't even get into the coalition.

As a Yorkshireman a county with a population about the same as Scotland, which has also never voted for a conservative govt I would like to ask, what the difference is meant to be?

 

[spinoza]

Which is what makes their plans somewhat farsical, the only way they would satisfy the Bank of England and HM Treasury to have fair access to Sterling is if they surrendered all rights of monetary policy to them and gave us approval of their fiscal policy. Something they wouldn't give and we would require otherwise they have to find something else.

They don't need the Bank of England or the Treasury's approval. All they would be doing is accumulating sterling. Some central banks do this. It's not hard to do, provided you have sufficient wealth or exports. It is then a small step to letting the pile of sterling circulate within the country as the local currency, instead of exchanging it with the public for the local currency.

They would however be surrendering control of monetary policy to the Bank of England.

 

[spinoza]

The Isle of Mann uses Sterling but prints its own notes. It's not part of the UK, it's a Crown Dependency. I see no reason why this could not be done with Scotland. Also, the Irish Punt was directly linked to Sterling up until around 1979.

Scotland wouldn't be able to print its own notes. Scottish notes would cease to be legal tender in the UK. It would just have to depend on inflow of sterling notes for its printed currency.

The Irish economy at the back end of the seventies and in the eighties was in trouble so deep that the UK with its problems at the time couldn't even imagine and was the poorest country in northern Europe this side of the iron curtain as it was. The Isle of Man is a micro-economy and is effectively a territory of the UK, Scotland would be independent and does not have a micro-economy and would have the strength to cause great problems for Sterling if they got into trouble - something the Isle of Man never could.

Not to mention that was only a few years after the Bretton Woods system was no more when the idea that currency exchange rates freely floating was novel - you wouldn't get that now if you could help it.

The Isle of Man has permission to print its notes because it is part of the UK economy. Pegging a currency (as the Irish did) is different from importing a currency (as the Scots may do).

Ireland is a part of the Eurozone, it has membership of it and has its albeit small share of oversight over the ECB - Scotland not being part of the UK has none.

And since when is the Eurozone a good example of good practice? Europe is on its knees exactly because of the way the Eurozone is structured and the last thing we want in the British Isles is to have a monetary union but no fiscal union as well.

The ECB model is in fact state of the art, and would be able to solve the Eurozone crisis tomorrow, if politicians allowed it.

The reason why we allow The Isle of Man to be part of Sterling is because it is a token economy on the world stage, they could do everything they could to crash it and there would be no effect on the United Kingdom or on Sterling.

No, it's because the Isle of Man is part of the UK economy and accepts its monetary policy.

It has to be allowed if it wants any influence into determining monetary policy or if it wants to be factored into monetary policy decisions - if Scotland were to use Sterling without our permission and without us taking their needs into concern it could destroy their economy very quickly indeed.

Or it might not.

The UK would refuse it, the British population would want them to refuse it - we wouldn't want Sterling to be diluted by serving a bloc of countries without any semblance of fiscal unity. That is what has caused such great trouble in the Eurozone and we wouldn't want any possiblity of ourselves being harmed in such a way also. If Scotland wants to be an independent country then it is not entitled to any special favours, it should have to stand on its own two feet and it should not be allowed into any monetary union with us simply because it is too difficult for them to do something else - if they want independence then their prosperity is their responsibility, not ours.

The UK doesn't need to be asked. The Scots can just do it.

On the basis that it's not a good idea not to let your close trading partners fall into ruin, an intelligent and far-sighted UK government could actually allow the Bank of England to establish swap lines with any Scottish central bank, to rescue them if they ran out of sterling. Unfortunately little Englander type mentalities would probably outweigh common sense in this instance. As evidence I note that the fecking obvious, cheapest and easiest solutions to the Eurozone crisis are continually ignored by the feckwits in office.

They don't need it in the short term, and I doubt that they even want it. This is what you miss. How much influence does Scotland currently have over hte MPC of the Bank of England? Right, feck all, less than Ireland has over the ECB.

Technically, no government is supposed to have influence over the MPC. That's what being an independent central bank means. How much influence does Hampshire have over the MPC?

 

[rcoobc]

My country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This country is comprised of various kingdoms which were once independent but now form a single state. That's the state to which I am proud to belong and there have been more than enough English, Scots, Welsh and Ulstermen who felt the same to make me feel its worth a damn. Clearly you feel differently. That's your prerogative I guess. But don't try to make out that everything Britain has achieved since the Stewart monarchy and the act of 1707 that followed was somehow an English joke played on the rest.

No, I am British and I want the Union to continue, as I have said several times.

But what the Scottish people want is vastly different to what the English want (or the English think they want). Do you want their to be a Great British football team may I ask? Should Celtic and Rangers join the Football League?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

spinoza.

Yes the scots could just do all that but would it be a good idea to do so? I understand that the UK can't stop an Independent Scotland (or any other country) from using Sterling; it is a currency if you hold the paper it has worth. I can't understand why it would be a good idea to try. If the newly independent Scotland was as is likely running a deficit it would be more expensive to borrow.

 

[rcoobc]

As a Yorkshireman a county with a population about the same as Scotland, which has also never voted for a conservative govt I would like to ask, what the difference is meant to be?

I imagine a historian would come up with a list like this:

1) Recent independence. Scotland joined with England only in 1707.
2) A separate Legal and Educational system throughout the whole of its history
3) A National Identity towards Scotland. This might sound like a cop-out, but the feeling is as important as any other. Do the Scottish people feel Scottish than British, you imagine so. Do your fellow Yorkshireman feel more Yorkshireish or English? If so you might have a case.
4) Sports teams. Some EU person remarked that Sports lines are becoming the only times you see political boundaries, and whilst this isn't true you see what they are getting at. Catalonia, which is not recognised by FIFA, has a manager and players, and arranges friendlies with the likes of Argentina. Scotland has a football team, does Yorkshire? You want Yorkshire to be a country, arrange a friendly against another Nation.
5) A language. Apparently they still have people who speak Scottish Gaelic, any Yorkshire speakers?
6) Wars. Lots of historical boundaries between Scotland and England. It could be argued there are many between Yorkshire and Lancashire too, so perhaps you have more of a claim than most.
7) Films, media, songs, anthems etc.


We can become extremely flippant about this, because the idea of what is and isn't a country is not an easy one. If a country is decided by the highest level of elected governmental representation (which is usually the definition of a country), then the EU is a country, the nations its greater constituents, in a manner of speaking. Ask a Scotsman what the difference is between Scotland and an English country, and see what answer you get back.