True (or at least I assume that's true, it sounds pretty likely). The point is that there are forms of "independence" that don't necessarily require the dissolution of the armed forces, the adoption of a new currency, the formation of an independent foreign policy, or even a new head of state.
And if, as you say, the Isle of Mann is solvent under the current constitutional settlement, then there is at least some justification for suggesting that Scotland should be too.
Anyway, I am not advocating for it, I am deeply skeptical about nationalism of any kind, and it's clear to me that the Union is, like all the best partnerships, greater than the sum of its parts.
The Isle of Mann isn't independent, it's a self-governing Crown dependency. That means it has our Monarch as head of state, it has no armed forces of its own but comes under the protection of the UK's national defences and its interests abroad are represented by the UK government. It doesn't have it's own currency either. Though it issues IoM notes and coins and sets its own taxes (very few of them) it uses Sterling and is in a currency union with the UK with the Bank of England setting monetary policy. And it is not a member of the EU and wasn't even before Brexit.
Scotland as a crown dependency tax haven and a one party state with a socialist government? Can't see it somehow.
Shame. If it wasn't for the socialist government bit, it wouldn't be a bad existence.
Last edited:
