Good grief lol.

At the nearest point we are fourteen miles from the coast of France so yes, much closer geographically than England. Close enough to pop over for lunch!

I can't see how it will affect us much one way or the other if there is split, we are not tied to the UK financially.

I had to laugh when I saw the comment about poor Kate's pregnancy being used, what tosh. She was having to cancel engagements which is why it had to be announced, the poor girl is suffering again with severe morning sickness.

It will be interesting to know about Balmoral if there is a split, presumably the Queen won't stop having family holidays there.

I know, the Kate thing was straight out of the Book of Bizarre Conspiracy Theories.

Scotland have said they will stay in the Commonwealth and keep the Queen as Head of State, so I guess the Balmoral holidays will continue as they always have done.

So what nationality are the Guernsians and Jerseyish?

They are British, just not in the UK.

Jersey and Guernsey, plus the other islands are lumped together as the Channel Islands but there are two bailliwicks, one for each of the two major islands. The Bailliwick of Guernsey has other islands under its umberella such as Alderney and Sark but even those two have their own little governments. We do not share goverments, laws etc with the other islands, the politicians make noises but I can't see anything much happening as neither island would want to give anything to the other. Going back in history, during the English Civil War Jersey was Royalist and gave sanctuary to Charles, Guernsey supported Cromwell. There is much rivalry, we only close ranks when threatened by the UK.

Sue will correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Channel Islands are British whichever way you look at it - they were once part of Brittany. During the Anglo-Saxon invasions of England, a large number of Britons left the area then called Britain (Britannia) and settled in north-western France. To distinguish the two areas, Brittany became known as "Little Britain" and the original Britain became known as "Great Britain". So the name of the island containing England, Scotland, and Wales is actually an historical name for a geographical area - it has nothing to do with whether we're great or not. (Though of course, we are. )

Anyway, the Channel Islands can be Breton Britons, Norman Britons, or Great Britons... or just British.

When I heard the islands mentioned by name, I thought of cows at first...

All kidding aside, how often are the islands threatened by the UK?

It's not them we threaten, it's their money.

They have a completely different tax system to the rest of the UK and they are a tax haven so the rich get rich and move their powerboats to Guernsey and the poor can't afford the ferry from England. Something along those lines.

The UK are bully boys at times. There used to be an arrangement whereby low value goods could be imported into the UK without payment of VAT (a goods and services tax), it was designed for the importation of flowers from here and there was a limit of £18. Then some companies, like Amazon and others decided to use this and built large companies shipping things like CDs, health food products etc. This fulfillment industry expanded so the UK government decided to stop it, but only from the Channel Islands, now any other countries can import low value goods without VAT, we cannot, naturally the industry collapsed here and many people lost their jobs. If they stopped the concession from everywhere that would be fine, but they didn't.

They do bully us in other ways from time to time, some in the UK government would like us to be in the UK but it won't happen.

Like trident, I find the whole thing pretty bewildering. You normally find nationalism only if people have a grievance, if they are (or believe that they are) under some kind of oppressive, colonial rule, and I don't see that the Scots have any grievance remotely comparable to that, especially since devolution. There may or may not be problems regarding imbalances between subsidies and oil revenues but that could be sorted out by negotiation.

Yes, it seems that Scottish Nationalism has come almost 'from nowhere', as it were. I remember a time when the majority of MPs for the Scottish constituencies were Conservative (not Labour or SNP). It now sounds almost unbelievable ... In 1963, when Alec Douglas-Home renounced his peerages in order to enter the House of Commons he stood for the constituency of Kinross and West Perthshire, which at the time was described as the third safest Tory seat in the country. The area is now Scottish Nationalist.

There's something that bothers me about the forthcoming referendum. If the Yes campaign wins by, say, 51:49 what kind of basis is that for establishing a sovereign nation-state? I would have hoped for a requirement for a qualified majoirty and a minimum turnout too.

Edited to correct typo.

I need some help in my understanding of the UK. I was led to believe that Wales is not considered to actually be part of the UK but part of England since they had no king but were subject to the English monarchs. Yes they had a flag of their own by tradition but that that tradition did not grant them kingdom status. So, if true, wouldn't the UK then just be England, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Following on on the thought of Monarchs and lines of succession, is there a recognized, but unpowered, separate king of Scotland, Wales or Ireland? Did I say that right? IOW, is there a Duke of Oshkosh somewhere who could claim to be king of Scotland if it leaves the UK?

Traditionally, for legal purposes and many statistical purposes the UK consisted of (a) England & Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland. However, since c. 1990s it has redefined itself. Those were (and for most purposes still are) the three jurisdictions - that is, areas with distinct legal systems.

However, I've never heard anyone say I live in England and Wales: 'England and Wales' was a legal and official entity.


Edited in order to clarify.

Thanks. So do the native Channel Islanders ever describe themselves as English? Or does being called/perceived as 'English' ruffle feathers, raise hackles etc? Or is it not much of an issue?

Yes! I always think of the cattle too.

True Channel Islanders would definitely not want to be referred to as English, they were not born in England. To be a true Channel Islander means being able to trace your roots back in time, if you listen to some, I have a friend who scathingly refers to her late husband's family as being incomers since they have only been here since the late 20th century. I have been here since 1972 and wouldn't dare to describe myself as one, I am English, and British.

Due to the relationship of Jersey with the UK, even though we are not in the EU we travel on EU passports. The main difference being that if a Channel Islander doesn't have a parent or grandparent born in the UK they are not permitted to live and work in the EU other than in the British Isles, so can work in Ireland. This is grossly unfair as people from any EU country can come here to live and work because of the UK and the EU.

Locally Jerseyborn people often refer to themselves as Jersey Beans and are proud of it. The people from Guernsey call us crapauds, or toads, and we in turn call them donkeys.

That does sound unfair...so someone from France can live and work there due to the EU, but if you are native, you can't live or work in France (or am I misinterpreting that?)

That sums it up Dave. There is a stamped piece in a Channel Islander's passport which says they do not have the right to live and work in the EU, it is a dreadful state of affairs when we have to accept everyone from the EU.

Good grief!

This has been a very interesting thread though I'm still not sure I've completely understood everything. Thanks for taking the time to explain in such detail.



Just a small correction here to avoid any confusion. While India is part of the Commonwealth, we definitely don't consider the Queen as Head of State. Our association with and separation from the British was a lot less amicable than Canada and Australia (to put it mildly ).

Good point. In fact it is worth pointing out that there are several Commonwealth countries who no longer have the Queen as Head of State, they have opted for their own elected Head instead. In fact out of 53 members of the Commonwealth the Queen is Head of State still in only 16. She is however accepted by all the members as Head of the Commonwealth and does visit those countries that she is no longer Head of State in.

Yes, I'm glad you corrected it, thanks. I was going to return to correct the thread when I realised the false implication but the conversation got onto the islands and I forgot!

So there doesn't seem to be many economical positives for Scotland to be independent .. so is it just purely an emotional vote they'll be making if they vote yes?

Probably for many.

I was seeing yesterday that if Scotland does break away then parts of Scotland might remain in the UK, such as Shetland and some other islands. They in turn will want their share of the oil and gas.

It gets more complicated.

Having been away from forums for a few days, I have returned to check out this interesting discussion. Thanks for all the comments and answers to my question a while back. And yes, I'm as confused as ever but that's okay. I stay confused about other things too...

That is very hard to say as there are so many factors involved and ways of calculating them.

The Better Together campaign has tended to stress what it believes will be the negative economic aspects, and worryingly, seems to have said very little about the positive side of Scotland remaining in the UK. (I should point out that I am dependent on reports of the campaign in the media).