They had their say when the text of the treaty was agreed upon. If they didn't want other member countries to be able to leave unilaterally they should have had that in the treaty instead. Of course they'd then run the risk that the other countries wouldn't actually sign it.
Split Thread Scottish Independence
- Thread starter Rolfe
- Start date
My knowledge of the Act of Union is fairly limited, but wouldn't a majority in Westminster have to vote for it before Scottish independence could happen?
If that is so then the people of all of the UK do actually get to have a say in the matter through their elected representatives.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
When marriage is classed as a union not both parties have to want to split the union for a divorce to go through. If the people of Scotland want to be free from the Union then they have to vote on it. If the vote is favourable then the union between Scotland and the rest of the UK is dissolved. The UK carries on and Scotland goes alone and joins the EU.
It has nothing do with voters in England. Just as I do not agree with Scottish MP's voting on English only issues the English MP's should have no say in Scotland only issues.
It has nothing do with voters in England. Just as I do not agree with Scottish MP's voting on English only issues the English MP's should have no say in Scotland only issues.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
I'm saying the Lisbon Treaty was not voted on by member nations voters. It was pushed through by member states after being rejected when it was called something else and hadto be voted on. The voters in the UK had no say on the Lisbon Treaty so why should they have any say in the Scottish referendum?
The majority of the people in Scotland were against the Union anyway. It had to be brought through with bribery and signed in secret. If the UK government want to block anything they would have to change the Scotland act. Something I do not think they would be stupid enough to consider.
But what is the legal situation?
Isn't it the case that what's required technically is for the UK parliament to pass some "Act of Disunion" and then Scotland is independent?
In practice I'm sure there'd be a referendum as part of the process somewhere, but if the separate parliaments back then had the power to set up the union doesn't the UK parliament now have the power to dissolve it again? Without holding any referendum anywhere?
Yes they did. Through their elected representatives.
And if they're sufficiently unhappy about it they could now vote for candidates who promise to reverse the decision.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Have a read of this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/29/snp.scotland
So you think the UK govt could do it againt the will of the people and that would be OK?
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
That is a crock of crap. We all know what the European Constitution was and what the situation was when the UK held an election vote. It was then railroaded through as a treaty after being voted against in EU countries. Much to the disgust of the Tories.
Yet the only ones who might have done this are the Tories and they have said it is too late. Try again. (UKIP would take us out of the EU altogether I suppose but thats a different vote)
ETA - I just saw your location. That explains some of you confusion.
Last edited:
This seems to confirm my belief:
The article doesn't seem to consider the (somewhat ridiculous) scenario of Westminster imposing Scottish independence against the will of the Scottish people.
I think they've technically got the power to do so. I certainly don't think that would be the right way to go about it.
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
However there is a legal framework to allow a referendum on independence to be held in Scotland, and realistically if there was a properly run referendum Westminster wouldn't stand in Scotland's way.
It's rather like the Queen having to put her mark on everything Parliament passes. In theory if she doesn't do so then it won't become law. In reality there's no way she'd ever not go along with it.
It just wouldn't happen. If Scotland takes the independence train, Westminster will stand on the platform waving its hanky. (Or more likely shouting Tickets Please!"
)You (the UK electorate - not you personally) elected the people who were given the power to make such decisions on your behalf. That's how the system currently works. If most people were unhappy with that they could vote for people who'd change the system.
(Although the lack of proportional representation in the UK parliament can make that a bit more difficult than perhaps it should be imo.)
It now probably is a matter of leaving the EU altogether - perhaps getting an arrangement similar to the Norwegian one. In that sense the decision isn't reversible - you can't simply undo Lisbon and nothing else because there's no way the rest of the EU would go along with that.
Too much pickled herring makes you dizzy?
I completely agree with that.
So my point is:
By electing a parliament which wouldn't stand in Scotland's way in this situation the rest of the UK have in fact been given a say in the question. Because if they didn't agree with this stance and felt very strongly about it they could have voted for candidates who'd promised to never under any circumstances allow Scotland to leave.
Rolfe
Adult human female
What happened when Iceland became independent from Denmark? Greenland? I genuinely don't know, and it all looks quite complicated, but in the case of Iceland, Wikipedia refers to a referendum apparently held only in Iceland.
Exactly.
This discussion reminds me a lot of the vehement protests of a monarchist SNP member about how it would be legally impossible for an independent Scotland to ditch the monarchy. (We were discussing the suggestion, by an Edinburgh professor, that an independent Scotland should in fact declare the throne vacant in perpetuity and appoint a Guardian in the old tradition, who would be de facto president.) The monarchist started quoting all sorts of ancient precedent and law about how this couldn't possibly happen. Which was all nonsense. If that was what Scotland wanted to do, it would just do it.
Same with independence. Neighbouring countries and remaining partners in a union don't have a veto over the independence of a state that votes for independence in an internal referendum, and that's the long and the short of it. Westminster recognises this perfectly. Even Maggie Thatcher explicitly acknowledged it. A country cannot be held in a union against its will in modern-day realpolitik.
Rolfe.
Exactly.
This discussion reminds me a lot of the vehement protests of a monarchist SNP member about how it would be legally impossible for an independent Scotland to ditch the monarchy. (We were discussing the suggestion, by an Edinburgh professor, that an independent Scotland should in fact declare the throne vacant in perpetuity and appoint a Guardian in the old tradition, who would be de facto president.) The monarchist started quoting all sorts of ancient precedent and law about how this couldn't possibly happen. Which was all nonsense. If that was what Scotland wanted to do, it would just do it.
Same with independence. Neighbouring countries and remaining partners in a union don't have a veto over the independence of a state that votes for independence in an internal referendum, and that's the long and the short of it. Westminster recognises this perfectly. Even Maggie Thatcher explicitly acknowledged it. A country cannot be held in a union against its will in modern-day realpolitik.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
Yeah, but you vote for parties based on a whole basket of policies, not just on one eventuality which may or may not come to pass at the time when you're considering your vote, and that's assuming you can find one that supports that one thing you're looking for.
For example if the BNP were the only party promising something dear to my heart I would still have to vote elsewhere, because even though I might like that one particular policy too many of their others are abhorrent or ridiculous.
Edit:
I'm pretty sure no mainstream party has promised this; in the past the Tories have threatened to cancel devolution (figures) but there were conditions attached (i.e. it had to be working disastrously badly).
I'm sure you could find an oddball individual who'd want to do it, but the whole country can't vote for one nutter, and even if they got voted in a couple of seats in parliament won't change much.
Last edited:
I know you're not supposed to answer rethorical questions...
But if having such a position would win you loads of seats don't you think the candidates would be there?
Denmark itself wasn't independent at the time (1944) so that's an unusual case. I'm not certain how the technicalities would have played out in peacetime. If a change in the Danish constitution was needed then a referendum is unavoidable. Everything else can be done by a sufficiently large (up to 5/6) majority in parliament.
Of course Denmark would neither have had the power or the wish to keep Iceland against its will. Like the UK wouldn't today with Scotland.
When the Danish West-Indian Islands were sold to the US ($25 million) a referendum was held in Denmark, but not on the islands. A rather shameful episode in our history.
Again, I'm not sure whether or not a referendum in Denmark would be required. If it is then we might actually have a problem because although I can't imagine many Danes would vote against there might well be quite a few who couldn't be bothered to vote at all.
Last edited: