Split Thread Scottish Independence

And the more federal the better. However, you snipped part of my post.

Also, I don't see the Westminster government ever agreeing to allow Scotland to control and benefit from its own resources, in a federal situation.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Is there any country which insists on a minimum turnout at a referendum, otherwise the vote is invalid?
Click to expand...
Yes. Changes to the Danish constitution only take effect if at least 40% of the electorate vote in favour of them in a referendum.
... and of course also at least 50% of the votes cast must be obtained.
 
Rolfe said:
Out of interest, do you ever change your constitution?
Click to expand...
It does happen. The last time was in 1953.
The procedure is made more complicated by the fact that it also requires new elections to take place and the changes must be approved by both the old and the new parliament.
 
Rolfe said:
And the more federal the better. However, you snipped part of my post.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. I snipped the part that you couldn't get with federalism. Your response seems to suggest that it is "soft" issues like identity that really matter here rather than "hard" issues like resources and the economy.

Also, I don't see the Westminster government ever agreeing to allow Scotland to control and benefit from its own resources, in a federal situation.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Could be. I wouldn't know about that. Just speaking theoretically. But wouldn't advocating for federalism be perceived as less of a threat than outright independence? You might actually get somewhere if federalism was your goal.
 
Seems to me that the door to Scottish independance is unlocked though not yet open. Regardless, some think it's best if that door be knocked down with a battering ram soon as possible regardless of the damage done.

That a decision that affects the whole of the UK should involve the whole of the UK be that by referendum seems the fair soloution, though it raises a great deal of questions. Two big ones that occur to me straight away;
Should residents of Scotland vote overwhelmingly in favour of independance and the rest of the UK vote overwhelmingly against it, should Scotland then remain a part of the union?
Should Scotland vote against independance and the rest of the UK vote for it, should Scotland be cast out?

I suspect should a national referendum be held the rest of the UK wouldn't vote on the grounds that Scottish residents should be allowed to determine their own fate and the decision would be taken by the Scottish anyway, but I'm unconvinced that means that the rest of the UK should not be allowed to register their preference if they wish.
 
Why do you assume that resources discovered whilst you were part of the UK, developed using UK resources and currently held for the benefit of all in the UK, should be allocated to Scotland in the event of seperation?

Surely offshore oil resources, the national debt, superflous royal nobs and other items should be allocated as a proportion of population (should Scotland become independent)?
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
I'm not sure why you think they are alien to your parliamentary system, ours is very similar and we have referendums all the time, in fact they are a requirement of the constitution.
Unfortunately we aren't very good at them and usually need two goes to get the answer right.
Click to expand...

Because we don't have them all the time.
 
funk de fino said:
Read my posts in future before you reply with a stupid qestion. What you did was not discussion.
Click to expand...

Rolfe said:
Indeed, I made an earlier post giving some of the perfectly reasonable advantages to independence in Europe, and Darat simply quoted it back at me with "so why bother?" appended.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


As ever since neither of you are prepared to simply have a non-combative discussion about this issue I'll leave it at that.
 
I think that part of the problem I have with this discussion is that many appear to think that Scotland was abolished at some point. The union is a treaty between sovereign nations. That is how it was constituted and that is the legal reality. That it has been united for a long time does not make it one country. It has never been one country, any more than the constituent members of the EU are one country. You may wish it were otherwise and that is a perfectly understandable position: but it is not.
 
Fiona said:
I think that part of the problem I have with this discussion is that many appear to think that Scotland was abolished at some point. The union is a treaty between sovereign nations. That is how it was constituted and that is the legal reality. That it has been united for a long time does not make it one country. It has never been one country, any more than the constituent members of the EU are one country. You may wish it were otherwise and that is a perfectly understandable position: but it is not.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure this is wrong, although I wouldn't bet my house on my knowledge of UK politics.

Scotland is no longer a sovereign nation. The UK is a unitary state. It is not a quasi-federation of sovereign states like the EU. Nor is it a federation of semi-sovereign states or provinces like the USA or Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
 
No that is not correct D'rok. The union of parliaments was effected by the adjournment of the scottish parliament sine die. The UK is not a federal state, that is true: nor is it a quasi federation, as you say. It is quite literally, at least in respect of the relations between scotland and england, two sovereign nations who agreed through a treaty to accept one common government. Either can withdraw from that treaty at any time. At least that is my understanding.
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
No that is not correct D'rok. The union of parliaments was effected by the adjournment of the scottish parliament sine die. The UK is not a federal state, that is true: nor is it a quasi federation, as you say. It is quite literally, at least in respect of the relations between scotland and england, two sovereign nations who agreed through a treaty to accept one common government. Either can withdraw from that treaty at any time. At least that is my understanding.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware Drok is correct Fiona. The Act of Union 1707 abolished the two seperate soveriegn states of 'England and Wales' and 'Scotland' and created the new soveriegn state of Great Britain. (Becoming the UK in 1801 with the addition of Ireland).

Obviously the scrapping of the soveriegn state does not mean that all vestiges of statehood were lost (i.e. Scotland has its own football team).
 
No. It was a treaty. The treaty specifically provides that any law of either kingdom which is at odds with the terms of that treaty are void. It created a new unified parliament: and it determined the number of representatives from each nation who would comprise that parliament. Scotland did not just retain a football team: it retained a completely separate legal system.

It is a peculiar arrangement (though doubtless there are examples of similar arrangements elsewhere): but there is no doubt that the acts of union were separate: they were passed by the parliaments of both countries: and that the scottish parliament was not abolished: it adjourned.
 
With respect, I think you have an idea of the way things should be rather than the way they are.

The only powers that Scotland has within the UK are those that are devolved to it from the central government. And those powers still ultimately rest with the central government and can be repealed.

Scotland is not sovereign in any coherent sense of the word.

Can you point me to any reading material that is evidence for the proposition that Scotland retains its sovereignty? Everything I have googled says the opposite.
 
Rolfe said:
So we have to be persecuted before we can aspire to independence? Merely being economically disadvantaged doesn't cut it?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

How are you more economically disadvantaged than any other region of the UK outside the South East?
 
Rolfe said:
Personally, I require that we should be given access to and control of and benefit from our own resources, and that government decisions should be taken with the benefit of my country being the foremost consideration, not the benefit of the economy of the south-east of England.

I would also welcome the status and recognition that comes with independence, such as being able to describe myself legally as a Scottish citizen, and give my address as Scotland for international purposes.

Until such time as no country exists that has these benefits for itself, I cannot agree that it is "ugly" to aspire to them for oneself.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I agree with you more can and should be done to address the economic balance. This doesn't require a spit.

I can't understand your second point, being recognised as a free person is enough for me arbitrary titles are pointless.

Ok fine you carry on trying to create arbitrary divisions between people. Tribalism was once a useful survival mechanism but now it is the most dangerous idea on the planet. I await the future when you're seen as not much better than the BNP though I doubt I'll see it.
 
D'rok said:
With respect, I think you have an idea of the way things should be rather than the way they are.

The only powers that Scotland has within the UK are those that are devolved to it from the central government. And those powers still ultimately rest with the central government and can be repealed.

Scotland is not sovereign in any coherent sense of the word.

Can you point me to any reading material that is evidence for the proposition that Scotland retains its sovereignty? Everything I have googled says the opposite.
Click to expand...

It is more about logic. I presume that you see it follows from your post that parliament is sovereign? It is a corollary of that proposition that no parliament can make a law which is binding on any future parliament. That being so, the treaty is in force, unless and until either parliament decides to resile from it. Had the scottish parliament been abolished you would be right, I think. Many nations which have been "granted" independence make a point of rejecting the terms of that grant as soon as their new parliament is established, for that very reason. But the uk parliament did not do that.

This is of course difficult in practical terms since there is no obvious mechanism for reconvening the scottish and english parliaments: however that is more of a constitutional problem for the english because of the way their system was structured before their act of union. In scotland it was always the case that the power derived from some section of the people (tanism was not abolished here until the union of the crowns, though it was pretty much theoretical after Robert the Bruce, I think): and therefore it seems clear that if the scottish people choose (by whatever means they can agree) to reconstitute their parliament there is no principle to prevent them. It is true that Scottish power is currently derived from the uk parliament, because that is what the scottish (and english) parliament agreed to: but it is not true that the UK is one country, and it is not true that that power exists without the consent of the nations involved.

If you argue that the decison to unite is binding on any future parliament then you are arguing that scotland (and england) was never a sovereign nation prior to the union. I don't think that can be sustained
 
Last edited:
Just to complicate the issue, when the Holyrood parliament met for the first time, Winnie Ewing made a point of stating that the Scottish parliament, adjourned in 1707, was hereby reconvened.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom