Scottish Independence

No. If the people vote to change Scotland's constitutional arrangement within the Union then that's how it is going to be. A referendum held by the Scottish Government may not be legally binding upon Westminster but it will be morally binding, as they themselves have admitted. Parliament, as the expression of the voice of the people, will be obliged to pursue for Scotland whatever it is told by the people to pursue.

That's the very basis of both our tradition of popular sovereignty and democracy as a concept. Christ, that's the reason we restored Parliament!

edited 6th Sep '12 8:43:26 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

EDIT: Need to read the bloody post.

Further EDIT: Now that my brain is switched on, Devo-max makes a lot of sense. If Holyrood and Westminister can successfully sort out revenues, and Scotland doesn't end up running into serious budget problems, then that will a) be fairer and b) prove that Scotland's economy isn't going to go under the moment it goes independent (assuming it can renegotiate its way into the EU). It's a good test run for independence, which right now, is like jumping into a dark room you think might contain a diamond, but could just as easily contain a few angry porcupines, some rusty nails, and the odd 100 foot drop with spikes at the bottom.

edited 7th Sep '12 4:59:07 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Ok no, there's some bollocks in that but there's a detail I think you really need to understand but I'm going to have to come back with some further details and arguments to hopefully really get it across.

Also I point out that some previous descriptions of "the option everybody wants seem to line up more with devo-plus rather than max. But then again maybe sometimes people meant plus and sometimes they meant max, and sometimes partial fiscal independence meant the Scotland Act. I know, let's have a referendum with 5 options.

edited 7th Sep '12 2:01:55 PM by SomeSortOfTroper

The social contract that underpins British democracy has that the system is validated by the involvement of all of its participants. The United Kingdom is a system that covers Scotland and everybody else therefore the rules need to involve Scotland and everybody else. They do effect the other side of the border.

Independence only needs to come from one side simply because it is a rejection of that system. You're not sharing anything. Ok, the system can't hold unwilling participants but if you're in it then you're in a system that covers more than just Scotland.

Analogy time: Imagine that my wife of 12 years decides one day that she thinks she should be allowed to sleep with other people. I don't have to agree to that. She might decide she wants a divorce because she just needs that extra sexual fulfilment, I might decide letting her have is worth avoiding the divorce, I might not and let the divorce happen, we might agree that she gets one one night stand with a total stranger a month and we have to pretend she's going to a book club. But the conditions for the marriage are set by both of us.

We can imagine some effects from some proposals. Already we have the West Lothian question. Imagine that we go devo max- what will be the nature of the scottish mps in the British parliament then? What if it's a system of mixed fiscal responsibilites- well we might separate out elements of a budget in theory but in practice fiscal policies are conceived as part of a whole. You might have some Mps elected on the basis of their platform about pensions but then their votes on that effect other issues that they weren't elected for. Even just the military has a budget, it has political issues around military base pork- if I'm in the military then under which system does my income tax get calculated? I have financial interests on both side of the border, can I only vote on matters dealing with one but not the other? Well, jeez, that changes the nature of moving across the border (which changes the nature of living on either side of the border) and i didn't even know that when I moved.

I'm not saying these are insurmountable issues, I'm saying that they are not only Scotland's business. I also don't think that they've really gone through the processes they need to in order to be voted on.

It's a system that has worked in other federated nations with a high degree of devolved authority from the central government. The USA, for example. 14 years on, with the benefits of devolution now more apparent than ever, we're still arguing about the principle of devolution?

Now, that's not to say that a change to devo-max won't lead to some sudden peculiarities, but that's why I won't be voting for it. The Union is becoming increasingly archaic and creating further inequalities between its members, which is contrary to the whole idea of having a Union.

edited 8th Sep '12 2:52:37 AM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Would you think that breaking up England is a Good Idea?

Keep Rolling On

What?

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Exactly what I said — extending devolution to England itself, and giving parts of England their own Parliments. Cornwall is pushing for Devolution, and it wouldn't be surprising if Scottish Independance makes the same happen in other parts of the country.

edited 8th Sep '12 3:05:46 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Not being English, and not living in England, I'd have to say it's an English matter.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

How is the union creating inequalities between its members?

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Yeah and in the United States the relationship between states and the federal government follows a constitution that belongs to the entire USA. You've avoided my entire point here and rather insultingly suggested I've never heard of federal countries. The point is that what the constitutional arrangement of a country is has to have the implicit consent of the entire country which is one problem of the second question/ third option

I think, Bat, a more reasonable analogy would be one closer to home, that of Spain. The regions have different levels of devolution to suit their needs. For example, Madrid City has devolution similar to that of Greater London (that is, being a glorified city council), whereas Catalonia (not too dissimilar to Scotland) has devolution that is essentially devo-max.

If you guys do achieve independence, bring back the Stuarts.

Trump delenda est

A quick bit of trawling around the web turned up this.

It does raise an interesting question; what's likely to happen to the Vanguards if the split does happen?

edited 13th Sep '12 2:27:31 PM by Deadbeatloser22

"Yup. That tasted purple."

I guess they'll get re-based down at Plymouth or Portsmouth, along with all their support infrastructure.

Keep Rolling On

Yeah, there's no way they'll be staying in an independence Scotland. The only way they'll be sticking around is if Scotland's first independent government is very Westminster-friendly (hardly likely) and Westminster agrees to foot the bill (again, hardly likely).

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Deal on referendum more or less done. There will probably be a single yes/no question and the vote will be extended to 16 and 17 year olds. Vote will be held in about two years.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

That compromise gives Alex and CMD both reasons to crow that they got something over the other guy. I am actually surprised that both men had the nous and the honesty to accept something that a lot of the voters on both their sides are going to vehemently disagree with.

As for a decentralized England? That would be a good idea. As long as the financial centre is ripped out of the guts of London, otherwise that hell hole will continue to exert undue influence on the rest of the country.

^

The financial centre been there for over four hundred years — and the City of London Corporation since before 1066 — it's virtually impossible to remove. Anyhow, the Government needs their money, especially from Taxes.

Keep Rolling On

It could be done over a longer period and should be. London has lived too high on the hog for centuries. It is a poisoning influence on democracy and sucks too much money from the rest of the whole of the United Kingdom. That something is continued to be done due to custom and practice always makes what is left of my teeth itch.

^

How long? Since the Romans, who made it their administrative centre? Do you think London should stop being the Capital?

Keep Rolling On

Yes. Wouldn't be the first time that England's capital city changed either.

Where to? Winchester? Oxford? Glasgow? Paisley? Nettlecombe?

edited 10th Oct '12 4:34:00 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Land's End.

This is not the topic people.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Manchester. Simples. Hell, most of the BBC is moving there anyway, why not formalize the arrangement, 8-) ?

And sorry, but it is the topic. One of the things that some Scottish independence campaigners and followers hate most about the United Kingdom is that we see ourselves as being dictated to by a government that we did not elect from a city on the southern coast of a completely different nation. Irrational as that may seem it is the thinking up here of at least some of us. And not just the lunatic fringe either.

From what I have heard of the thinking down south, even a lot of English people would prefer it if London was stripped of its capital city status. Maybe not all, or most, but enough for me to notice.

edited 10th Oct '12 7:18:08 AM by TamH70