Many of you will have read the Scottish History pages on the long fight to maintain an independent country of Scotland (from 844 AD to the current day) and saw the forced marriage Scotland was dragged into by its neighbour England.
Annulling A Forced Marriage
That thought made me stop and think. Is it fair for Scotland to walk away with none of the assets built over the last three hundred years of marriage to England? Three hundred years ago a marriage of convenience was very common. So should we now simply annual that marriage. If that was the case we should split the assets built up more equally between the two sides of that family.
George Osbourne, the current UK Chancellor of Exchequer in discussing whether we use the pound currency has even referred to the current UK as a family saying,
“Let’s stop speculating and look at the evidence. Would the rest of the U.K. family agree to take that risk? Could a situation where an independent Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom share the pound and the Bank of England be made to work?” he asked. “Frankly, it’s unlikely because there is real doubt about the answers to these questions.”
Obviously, we are not alone considering the union as a marriage family issue.
We will look at past British Divorce court decisions shortly.
Breaking Up The Company of Union UK Limited.
Let’s just suppose the Act of Union in 1707 had been the formation of a new limited company called Union UK Limited.
Three hundred years later, the company directors who look after different geographical divisions of the company have fallen out over direction and policy the company should be taking.
One of the main directors says that they spend the majority of the their resources mainly in corporate venture in his geographical area (Country A).
Another director looking after a different geographical area Country B says the split between the company divisions is unfair. Using all the assets in Country A is not in the best interests of the factories and staff working in Country B. That division has after all been contributing to the company’s profits since Union UK Limited started.
The directors of Union UK Ltd might be forced to break the company up and split the assets between them. Each would put forward their arguments as to how the company would be split. Arbitrators may need to be called in to make a final decision to finally recommend how the assets and debts of the company should be split. But the decision would be according to the amount of money and effort they had each put into the company.
Three hundred years is a very long time for a company to build up assets worldwide and Union UK Limited has done that. For example, it has built a range of very strong and well populated embassies and outposts throughout the world. The combined staff of Union UK Ltd have built strong connections designed to help trade and commercial enterprise throughout that time. This has involved using resources contributed by staff based in Country A and Country B both in skills or in taxes paid to Union UK Ltd.
Yet going back to real life official spokespeople from the British Parliament are now arguing that Scotland does not gain back any share of the resources it has paid for over the last three hundred years. However they also argue that Scotland should still be required to take its share of the companies bank overdraft.
Share the bank overdraft (National Debt) but then worldwide resources that support it does not sound fair to me.
Dividing up the company or family assets.
In a marriage divorce a court would look at the contribution each partner has made. In most cases one person would be going out to work whilst the other shared the work maybe contributing less in cash as they were at home looking after the household and children. In this case both partners would be considered as contributors during the marriage.
For that reason they would both walk away from the marriage agreement with a settlement having divided up all assets developed during the time they had been together.
An independent valuation of the British owned buildings would raise millions of pounds even in the one country of USA. Adding in the worth of physical assets in owned by the other countries throughout the world would amount to billions if not trillions of pounds. However, the UK government says that none of that world wide worth will be considered as being part of the settlement and the only assets being what is in Scotland at the time of the breakup.
Meanwhile to protect the UK assets are being closed or moved out of Scotland prior to the referendum. For example looking solely at military areas only
- RAF camps are being closed.
- British Army regiments being reduced in size and associated armaments moved back to England.
I have even read that MI5 and MI6 staff would be restricted from passing information to Scottish intelligence agencies. In addition none of their agents (whether working openly or as undercover spies in another country) for would be allowed to work for a foreign government like Scotland. More likely they would be planting secret spies within the Scottish equivalent agencies.
Would James Bond (born a Scotsman) have to stop working with M and Q and take a new job? Would he still be in partnership with his contacts in CIA (like Kelly) in future films.
We have also shown in our Scottish Oil section how the English government under Margaret Thatcher re-drew the border extending into the north sea to take control of a large number of the oil drilling platforms that were previously clearly in Scottish waters.
Seriously is Scotland going to have start completely afresh from zero? Despite having directly contributed so much to the UK it walks away with empty hands nothing is being given back apart from a huge overdraft.
Would Scotland be better off seeking a divorce or a company breakup rather than fighting for independence. At least we would be allocated some of the assets we paid for over the last three hundred years.
Could Scotland be totally debt free. Law experts say we can be independent with NO national debt to be concerned about.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments if you think the split of assets is reasonable.