Would Salmond abandon the Falklands?

If a state such as the UK breaks up, its assets and liabilities should be divided on reasonable lines, perhaps proportionately to GDP or population, or according to some sensible geographic or cultural delineation. I’ve mentioned the case of the Falkland Islands in passing before. This week’s curious visit of SNP veterans minister Keith Brown to the islands to mark the 30th anniversary of their liberation prompts a little more exploration of the subject.

The islands were colonised by Britain (in other words jointly by Scotland and the other constituent nations). The population, however, is disproportionately of Scottish descent (coming mostly from Orkney and Shetland originally). It’s really a Scottish colony, therefore.

So in the event of a break-up of the UK, who should be responsible for the continued governance and defence of the islands? Well, logic suggests Scotland should at least pay a contribution towards the defence of the islands, including a proportion of the cost of military assets such as the naval vessels, fighter aircraft and missile systems which are needed for their long-term security. Arguably, Scotland should be solely in charge (perhaps with England taking on Gibraltar and other colonial left-overs) in which case the Scottish defence requirement would be considerably greater (and more expensive) than I suggested in my last blog.

Now, I don’t know what the SNP’s get out for this is. Someone should ask Mr Salmond. Perhaps he’d say something like “we’re leaving the UK, just like the Irish did, and remaining British colonies should continue to be looked after by London.”

But does that mean that if England seceded from the UK, then the rump Scotland/Wales/NI state would be left holding all the post-colonial babies? Hardly fair, is it?

Clearly, if Scotland does leave the UK, it’s not going to be required to look after the Falklands, whatever its moral responsibilities. It can run away if it  wants, and no doubt the remaining UK countries will continue to do the right thing. But if I was negotiating from the rump-UK point of view I’d certainly factor in the Falklands and its associated costs when negotiating the division of more mainstream assets and liabilities.

Here’s a great picture, by the way, of what the Falklands flag might look like under Scottish rule, thanks to the Quizzical Gaze blog:

This entry was posted in Scottish politics, UK and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Would Salmond abandon the Falklands?

  1. If we look after the Falklands, does that mean we get its oil too? Is that not what the huge defence capability down there is about? And also why the UK wants to keep them away from Argentina.

  2. The . . “UK prime minister said the islands should remain a British territory if that was what its inhabitants wanted.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18361961)

    If they want to appeal to Salmond and his newly formed SSAS to protect the islands they are then probably allowed.

  3. If England seceded, it would break up the entire union. All colonies would be set adrift, probably.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s