Scotland "FREEDOM!!!" and a Republic of Jamaica?
Comments
-
Stone Glider wrote:Dave pulled a 'fast one' with the last referendum over AV, dodgy questions, dubious campaigning, etc. Do you think he would get away with it twice? does anyone trust him now? If the choices on the ballot paper are selected by Dave the offer on the table will be utterly unattractive.
It wasn't a "fast one" - there could have been a decade of debate over which question to ask. There would never have been a question that everyone would have been happy with - so it ended up being "AV or not". "Not" was the answer.
What you mean is tht you didn't like the result.0 -
daviesee wrote:
Given the perception that Scotland is a drain on the economy, that would be a very good question.TailWindHome wrote:Why would Britain/England not want Scotland to gain independance?
Maybe Scotland offers more than is obvious?
So can the English be included in the vote please? I still fail to understand why this is a unilateral scottish decision.0 -
W1 wrote:daviesee wrote:
Given the perception that Scotland is a drain on the economy, that would be a very good question.TailWindHome wrote:Why would Britain/England not want Scotland to gain independance?
Maybe Scotland offers more than is obvious?
So can the English be included in the vote please? I still fail to understand why this is a unilateral scottish decision.
The nature of separatist politics.
The issue affects Scots in a way it doesn't the rest of the UK.
It will have no noticeable affect on my life, for example. It will on Scots.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:daviesee wrote:
Given the perception that Scotland is a drain on the economy, that would be a very good question.TailWindHome wrote:Why would Britain/England not want Scotland to gain independance?
Maybe Scotland offers more than is obvious?
So can the English be included in the vote please? I still fail to understand why this is a unilateral scottish decision.
The nature of separatist politics.
The issue affects Scots in a way it doesn't the rest of the UK.
It will have no noticeable affect on my life, for example. It will on Scots.
Then no-one in England will vote or care.
More importantly, the Scottish would be scared that, rather than leaving the Union, they are kicked out by the English.0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:daviesee wrote:
Given the perception that Scotland is a drain on the economy, that would be a very good question.TailWindHome wrote:Why would Britain/England not want Scotland to gain independance?
Maybe Scotland offers more than is obvious?
So can the English be included in the vote please? I still fail to understand why this is a unilateral scottish decision.
The nature of separatist politics.
The issue affects Scots in a way it doesn't the rest of the UK.
It will have no noticeable affect on my life, for example. It will on Scots.
Then no-one in England will vote or care.
More importantly, the Scottish would be scared that, rather than leaving the Union, they are kicked out by the English.
Ooor, a load of English will vote on something that won't touch their lives. Say, hypothetically, you get a good strong majority in Scotland pro-independence, and a good load in England who are anti.
Then what? That's a recipe for disaster.
If people have an established, recognised identity, and the Scots do, it makes sense to let them decide their own national destiny.
It's not that hard to grasp, surely?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:You get what you can get now and then move on to the next thing you want. It's called strategy.
I get that. But Salmond is now playing the "I've got a mandate (from the electorate)" card, which is not that easy to back up given his party's manifesto.
The stuff this morning about the legal challenge is pretty interesting, IMO. If the Scotland Act does not devolve to Scotland the power to hold a referendum on independence, then I can't see that the Scottish Parliament has any more power to hold a referendum on that issue than it has to exercise any other non devolved power (such as financial autonomy, which Salmond plainly accepts the Scottish Parliament is unable to exercise). Compare the position in Ireland, tediously set out earlier in the thread.
More to the point, Salmond doesn't really have an answer to this, as far as I can see. Saying "I've got a mandate from the people to do this" just doesn't meet the objection: "but you have no legal power to do it, mandate or otherwise".0 -
W1 wrote:daviesee wrote:
Given the perception that Scotland is a drain on the economy, that would be a very good question.TailWindHome wrote:Why would Britain/England not want Scotland to gain independance?
Maybe Scotland offers more than is obvious?
So can the English be included in the vote please? I still fail to understand why this is a unilateral scottish decision.
It's a two stage process, isn't it? First the separatists express their wish, then the "parent" says yes/no/maybe. If no, either the process is dropped or civil war/ a war of independence ensues. If yes, there is a negotiated exit. See, eg former Dominions, Ireland and Quebec. The British Parliament would not have to put the issue to the English for a referendum (a referendum, on one view, being the arse-covering bottler's option), although it could if it chose to.
If it chose not to though, and resolved the issue without a referendum, should Scottish MPs be permitted to vote on the issue in the House of Commons? :?: Logic suggests not, but I wonder whether there's an express carve out that addresses this.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:If people have an established, recognised identity, and the Scots do, it makes sense to let them decide their own national destiny.
It's not that hard to grasp, surely?
Too wide a principle.
Wales. Cornwall. Yorkshire. Lancashire. The Home Counties. London. Hackney, Lambeth, RBCK, City of London.0 -
Ah, but this is politics. I would say that what's happening here is that Salmond, who everyone agrees is a very good politician whether they like him or not, is deliberately trying to manipulate the whole thing to get Cameron / the UK govt to behave in ways that wind the Scots up, thus increasing support for independence: this generates a positive feedback loop, because the more support there is, the more unreasonable the UK govt looks opposing it, which winds up the Scots more, which...Greg66 wrote:More to the point, Salmond doesn't really have an answer to this, as far as I can see. Saying "I've got a mandate from the people to do this" just doesn't meet the objection: "but you have no legal power to do it, mandate or otherwise".
...and so on until 2014. Talking of which date, happy anniversaries anyone? Do you suppose that's part of his calculation?0 -
You would think that Alex Salmond would jump at that opertunity.W1 wrote:More importantly, the Scottish would be scared that, rather than leaving the Union, they are kicked out by the English.
Maybe he is actually trying to do it properly and find out what the electorate actually want?
Nah. Couldn't possibly be the case.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If people have an established, recognised identity, and the Scots do, it makes sense to let them decide their own national destiny.
It's not that hard to grasp, surely?
Too wide a principle.
Wales. Cornwall. Yorkshire. Lancashire. The Home Counties. London. Hackney, Lambeth, RBCK, City of London.
That's not the same as Scotland is it?
You know that. I know that. Don't be silly.
There's no separatist movement in any of those (no idea what RBCK is) apart from Wales, and that separatist movement is nowhere near as far down the line as Scotland is.
Lived in Yorkshire for 3 years and I saw many many many more English and GB flags then I ever saw Yorkshire roses or flags.0 -
But Scotland is already a recognised Country within the Union. Like the UK is within the EU.Greg66 wrote:Too wide a principle.
Wales. Cornwall. Yorkshire. Lancashire. The Home Counties. London. Hackney, Lambeth, RBCK, City of London.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Separatists rarely have the legal power at the start.Greg66 wrote:More to the point, Salmond doesn't really have an answer to this, as far as I can see. Saying "I've got a mandate from the people to do this" just doesn't meet the objection: "but you have no legal power to do it, mandate or otherwise".None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Greg66 wrote:W1 wrote:daviesee wrote:
Given the perception that Scotland is a drain on the economy, that would be a very good question.TailWindHome wrote:Why would Britain/England not want Scotland to gain independance?
Maybe Scotland offers more than is obvious?
So can the English be included in the vote please? I still fail to understand why this is a unilateral scottish decision.
It's a two stage process, isn't it? First the separatists express their wish, then the "parent" says yes/no/maybe. If no, either the process is dropped or civil war/ a war of independence ensues. If yes, there is a negotiated exit. See, eg former Dominions, Ireland and Quebec. The British Parliament would not have to put the issue to the English for a referendum (a referendum, on one view, being the arse-covering bottler's option), although it could if it chose to.
If it chose not to though, and resolved the issue without a referendum, should Scottish MPs be permitted to vote on the issue in the House of Commons? :?: Logic suggests not, but I wonder whether there's an express carve out that addresses this.
If a proper well thought out and executed referendum in Scotland, legally binding or not, is found in favour of seperatism, Westminster would be under enormous pressure to agree to it. So much so, that I can't see how it wouldn't be inevitable.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If people have an established, recognised identity, and the Scots do, it makes sense to let them decide their own national destiny.
It's not that hard to grasp, surely?
Too wide a principle.
Wales. Cornwall. Yorkshire. Lancashire. The Home Counties. London. Hackney, Lambeth, RBCK, City of London.
That's not the same as Scotland is it?
You know that. I know that. Don't be silly.
There's no separatist movement in any of those (no idea what RBCK is) apart from Wales, and that separatist movement is nowhere near as far down the line as Scotland is.
Lived in Yorkshire for 3 years and I saw many many many more English and GB flags then I ever saw Yorkshire roses or flags.
That's precisely why your principle was too widely stated.
Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington. Pretty obviously an established recognised identity, markedly different to (say) Lambeth.daviesee wrote:
Separatists rarely have the legal power at the start.Greg66 wrote:More to the point, Salmond doesn't really have an answer to this, as far as I can see. Saying "I've got a mandate from the people to do this" just doesn't meet the objection: "but you have no legal power to do it, mandate or otherwise".
Quite so. And for that reason they either fight their way to independence or negotiate the principle entitlement to independence, recognising that they have no right to it. Neither of which Salmond is prepared to do.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:If a proper well thought out and executed referendum in Scotland, legally binding or not, is found in favour of seperatism, Westminster would be under enormous pressure to agree to it. So much so, that I can't see how it wouldn't be inevitable.
Really? A majority of those who were both eligible to vote and who did vote from a population of about 5 million, say yes to independence. Rough guess: say your eligible voters amount to 3 million. You get a 70% turnout: 2.1 million. Of those 1.5 million say yes to independence.
ETA: according to wiki voter turnout in Scotland is c 2.4 million for a GE and <2m for Scottish Parliament elections. The SNP took the Scottish Parliament with 900k votes.
60 million odd in the rest of the UK haven't had a voice.
I wouldn't say that amounts to "enormous" pressure.
Rick, I think your inner anti-colonialism is surfacing...0 -
If I were a Scot, and I was able to ask a question of Alex Salmond on Question Time, it would be: how are you going to pay for this in both the short and long term?
He's been dreaming of independence for long enough, so he and his party should have a highly-evolved plan to cover the cost of running a country.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If a proper well thought out and executed referendum in Scotland, legally binding or not, is found in favour of seperatism, Westminster would be under enormous pressure to agree to it. So much so, that I can't see how it wouldn't be inevitable.
Really? A majority of those who were both eligible to vote and who did vote from a population of about 5 million, say yes to independence. Rough guess: say your eligible voters amount to 3 million. You get a 70% turnout: 2.1 million. Of those 1.5 million say yes to independence.
60 million odd in the rest of the UK haven't had a voice.
I wouldn't say that amounts to "enormous" pressure.
Rick, I think your inner anti-colonialism is surfacing...
I don't think so. Things would start kicking off otherwise.
I think most English people couldn't care either way.
I can't see how Westminster could politically defend their position of failing to recognise a referendum if they didn't agree with the outcome.
The legal argument wouldn't work.
"Oh sorry, because you didn't do your referendum when we asked, now that you've voted to go seperate, we won't let you now." < It's petty and misses the point of independence. For all the politics, it's more than just politics. It's about identity.
How could it not be inevitable after a referendum result for?0 -
Greg66 wrote:Quite so. And for that reason they either fight their way to independence or negotiate the principle entitlement to independence, recognising that they have no right to it. Neither of which Salmond is prepared to do.
I think you will find that he is more than prepared to negotiate. He wouldn't have the power to command us to fight. That would be up to us.
Vote - if yes, Negotiate - if that fails and there is the will, fight.
3 steps to separation.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
And he would answer. You may not like or agree with his answer but it has been asked and he has answered.cjcp wrote:If I were a Scot, and I was able to ask a question of Alex Salmond on Question Time, it would be: how are you going to pay for this in both the short and long term?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I can't see how Westminster could politically defend their position of failing to recognise a referendum if they didn't agree with the outcome.
The legal argument wouldn't work.
"Oh sorry, because you didn't do your referendum when we asked, now that you've voted to go seperate, we won't let you now." < It's petty and misses the point of independence. For all the politics, it's more than just politics. It's about identity.
How could it not be inevitable after a referendum result for?
I don't think you understand the legal argument. It's nothing to do with timing, or agreeing with the result. It's whether the Scottish Parliament has the legal power to hold the referendum at all, and if it does, what the legal effect of the result is.
Westminster may well recognise the outcome of a referendum as expressing a desire for independence. That,it would see, gives Salmond a mandate to come to Westminster to ask for, and negotiate the terms of independence. Whether he gets independence and on what terms are matters for Westminster.
Salmond, OTOH, would see the outcome of a referendum as disposing of the question of whether there should be independence, legally, politically and any other way. Unfortunately for him, Scotland can't decide that, because it is not a sovereign nation.
The rule of law always wins.0 -
*sighs*Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I can't see how Westminster could politically defend their position of failing to recognise a referendum if they didn't agree with the outcome.
The legal argument wouldn't work.
"Oh sorry, because you didn't do your referendum when we asked, now that you've voted to go seperate, we won't let you now." < It's petty and misses the point of independence. For all the politics, it's more than just politics. It's about identity.
How could it not be inevitable after a referendum result for?
I don't think you understand the legal argument. It's nothing to do with timing, or agreeing with the result. It's whether the Scottish Parliament has the legal power to hold the referendum at all, and if it does, what the legal effect of the result is.
Westminster may well recognise the outcome of a referendum as expressing a desire for independence. That,it would see, gives Salmond a mandate to come to Westminster to ask for, and negotiate the terms of independence. Whether he gets independence and on what terms are matters for Westminster.
Salmond, OTOH, would see the outcome of a referendum as disposing of the question of whether there should be independence, legally, politically and any other way. Unfortunately for him, Scotland can't decide that, because it is not a sovereign nation.
The rule of law always wins.
I understand Westminster has the final say, in the same way the Queen has the final say on whether parliament is opened or not.
In reality, if Scotland reasonably choose independence, on what ground would Westminster say "no, we're not going to let this happen, since we have the final say" ?
My point is - the legally binding thing is a red herring. Even if it isn't, if the whole country turns out and votes for it, there case to deny them will become difficult to maintain, even if it is legally correct.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Unfortunately for him, Scotland can't decide that, because it is not a sovereign nation.
But Scotland IS a sovereign nation.
"The people of Scotland remain sovereign and have the same right to choose the form of their own government as the peoples of other nations that have secured independence after periods of union with, or in, other states."
From here - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 13103747/5
Wikipedia will give you the same answer but I didn't want to reference them
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
With all the discussion about how Scotland would move towards independence, I haven't heard anyone talk about why they would want to. Is it just a nationalist principle issue?0
-
daviesee wrote:
And he would answer. You may not like or agree with his answer but it has been asked and he has answered.cjcp wrote:If I were a Scot, and I was able to ask a question of Alex Salmond on Question Time, it would be: how are you going to pay for this in both the short and long term?
Fair enough. Do you have a link? (Genuinely interested, not being an @rse.)
Were you happy with his answer? It seems that Scotland would become the NZ of the Northern Hemisphere.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
cjcp wrote:Fair enough. Do you have a link? (Genuinely interested, not being an @rse.)
Were you happy with his answer? It seems that Scotland would become the NZ of the Northern Hemisphere.
Not Alex Salmond, but John Swinney the SNP Finance Minister -
http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2011/oct/j ... conference.
Never been to NZ but I am going next year. It looks very nice! None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
notsoblue wrote:With all the discussion about how Scotland would move towards independence, I haven't heard anyone talk about why they would want to. Is it just a nationalist principle issue?
That's how I understand it.
The trend in the polls is towards inde - with majority support for devo max (which it didn't have a couple years ago).0 -
Err, this would perhaps have been written by the SNP government maybe?daviesee wrote:But Scotland IS a sovereign nation.
"The people of Scotland remain sovereign and have the same right to choose the form of their own government as the peoples of other nations that have secured independence after periods of union with, or in, other states."
From here - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 13103747/50 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I understand Westminster has the final say, in the same way the Queen has the final say on whether parliament is opened or not.
No. That really isn't the same at all. You need to do some research on constitutional matters.Rick Chasey wrote:In reality, if Scotland reasonably choose independence, on what ground would Westminster say "no, we're not going to let this happen, since we have the final say" ?
It wouldn't need a ground. It can say that just because. I think you're confusing legalities with politics.daviesee wrote:But Scotland IS a sovereign nation.
"The people of Scotland remain sovereign and have the same right to choose the form of their own government as the peoples of other nations that have secured independence after periods of union with, or in, other states."
From here - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 13103747/5
Wikipedia will give you the same answer but I didn't want to reference them
No it isn't, and that link doesn't say it is. The (rather mealy mouthed) expression there is "the people" remain sovereign. That is not the same as being a sovereign nation (and I doubt that it really means anything at all, other than, perhaps, "the people retain the right to express a desire to have independence". Big deal).
See this (from the link you posted)3.6 Scotland therefore already possesses certain essential elements of statehood: an agreed territorial extent, and an acknowledged political and institutional identity. The people of Scotland have a continuing right to determine their own constitutional position, whether they choose that of an independent sovereign state, or that of membership of the United Kingdom as at present, with or without enhancement of the devolution scheme.
and this
from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-nat ... hite-Paper3.6 Scotland therefore already possesses certain essential elements of statehood: an agreed territorial extent, and an acknowledged political and institutional identity. The people of Scotland have a continuing right to determine their own constitutional position, whether they choose that of an independent sovereign state, or that of membership of the United Kingdom as at present, with or without enhancement of the devolution scheme.
Also this
from wiki on Scottish independenceScottish independence (Scots: Scots unthirldom,[1] Scottish Gaelic: Neo-eisimeileachd na h-Alba) is a political ambition of political parties, advocacy groups and individuals for Scotland to dissolve the United Kingdom and return to become an independent sovereign state again, separate from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
and this
from wiki on Scotland.The Kingdom of Scotland emerged as an independent sovereign state in the Early Middle Ages and continued to exist until 1707, although it had been in a personal union with the kingdoms of England and Ireland since James VI of Scotland succeeded to the English and Irish thrones in 1603. On 1 May 1707, Scotland entered into an incorporating political union with England to create the united Kingdom of Great Britain.[19][20] This union resulted from the Treaty of Union agreed in 1706 and enacted by the twin Acts of Union passed by the Parliaments of both countries, despite widespread protest across Scotland.[21][22] Scotland's legal system continues to be separate from those of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and Scotland constitutes a distinct jurisdiction in public and in private law.[23]
Scotland is no more a sovereign nation than England. Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the sovereign nation, and none of England, Wales Scotland or Northern Ireland can legislate contrary to the wishes of the British Parliament.0 -
daviesee wrote:cjcp wrote:Fair enough. Do you have a link? (Genuinely interested, not being an @rse.)
Were you happy with his answer? It seems that Scotland would become the NZ of the Northern Hemisphere.
Not Alex Salmond, but John Swinney the SNP Finance Minister -
http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2011/oct/j ... conference.
Never been to NZ but I am going next year. It looks very nice!John Swinney wrote:As the global economy recovers from recession all countries run a deficit but the UK deficit is higher than that in Scotland. In 4 out of the last 5 years Scotland has run a budget surplus. The UK was in deficit in each of these years. Scotland contributes more to the UK in tax revenue than we get back in UK public spending. Scotland is subsidising the rest of the UK. Our country pays her way.
...
The figures show that with a geographical share of our offshore resources Scotland would be the 6th wealthiest country in the world - ten places ahead of the UK at sixteenth. This is the time to put the wealth of Scotland to work for the people of Scotland.
Interesting, given the perception from darn sarf, no?0
