[Closed] Scottish independence - hmm, a thought

Fortunately, Dave's lendinga hand by supplying a few extra votes. Unless he wisens up and shuts up, but i can't see that happening soon.

Well in the interests of fairness, in the 70's vote, 2/3rds had to vote yes. So how about evening it up this time?

I doubt England would want Scotland to go to the euro regardless. Salmond stated last night that Scotland would continue to use Stirling until the people decided against it.

Valid comments, but are scotland happy to use currency with another nations queen on it?
The UK [i]could[/i] and perhaps should point them towards the Euro.

One of the reasons why Westminster is not trusted to set the referendum up - memories of what happened last time. it looked like a yes vote would go thru so the terms were changed to make a yes vote totally implausible

Wrecker - the Queen is the queen of Scotland and England - she would still be the Scottish queen.

The UK could and perhaps should point them towards the Euro.

You can almost guarantee that it will be used as a major point for voting no. There has already been a load of guff in the press about how any new nation in the EU has to adopt the Euro.

Alex Salmond is getting a very easy ride from the press. I think he's effectively shifted the onus onto Call Me Dave and chums to come up with answers, while he sits back and flannels. Very effectively, I might add

I think it is reasonable to answer some questions on this isuse with the idea they will need to be noegotiated after the vote - not that unreasonable as osme of the answers depend on the Unionists response

Its ironic. As its the same kind of thing Call Me Dave did on the run up to the last general election. Dodged questions, gave vague, fluffy non-commital answers, certainly no commitments or certainties. "We'll announce that later.... etc etc. Except they never do, obviously

Its exactly what Alex Salmond is doing now. Which is ok at this point, but as a referendum gets closer, you'd hope he'd be pressed for solid commitments

Dave wasn't though, so I'm not holding my breath

Zulu - you must pray we dont have a full vote on hunting ....its way more popular than that 😉

I doubt anyone thinks it will be won so i am not quite sure why the Unionists are getting so worried or why Dave is playing right inot thier hands by being "bosSy" and telling scortland what to do with their 1 mp and total absence of elctoral manadte ...this is the main case the SNP will bang on about if he does this and one can hardly deny they have apoint...Dave has no electoral mandate to do anything in Scotland.

Dave has no electoral mandate to do anything in Scotland.

When did having no electoral mandate ever discourage Call me Dave? Lest we forget - he's no electoral mandate anywhere. It hasn't stop him acting like he won with a landslide though, has it?

There has already been a load of guff in the press about how any new nation in the EU has to adopt the Euro.

One of the reasons why Westminster is not trusted to set the referendum up - memories of what happened last time. it looked like a yes vote would go thru so the terms were changed to make a yes vote totally implausible

What would count as a yes for the SNP, 50.01% of electorate?

Dave has no electoral mandate to do anything in Scotland.

And Alec has no legal or parliamentary mandate to do anything about independence - its an issue reserved for the parliament in Wesminster, nothing whatsoever to do with the Scottish parliament.

And who says Scotland isn't in the EU just now?
of course, if Independant Scotland isn't in the EU, then why should Indenpendant England be?
Euros for all. Woo-hoo

Scotland isn't in the EU and neither is England.
The UK is, and would continue to be should Scotland divorce it.

And Alec has no legal or parliamentary mandate to do anything about independence - its an issue reserved for the parliament in Wesminster, nothing whatsoever to do with the Scottish parliament.

So what? If he went ahead and won a referendum, illegal or otherwise, Westminster would be in a very difficult position. Would international laws on self determination not come into force?

Scotland isn't in the EU and neither is England.
The UK is, and would continue to be should Scotland divorce it.

There's arguments over which of the 3 ways would end up happening. Most likely is that The rUK would remain in the EU and Scotland would reapply. Scotland not have to reapply, or both the rUK and Scotland would need to re-apply. AFAIK there's not definitive answer and would likely end up with lots of negotiating and possibly in the courts.

Scotland isn't in the EU and neither is England.
The UK is, and would continue to be should Scotland divorce it.

Right... this may be me being very cynical.... but is that another reason for Call me Dave and the Tories not to be too bothered about Scottish independence?

I mean, thinking about it... Not only would it leave them with a permanent Tory government in the rest of the UK, but if they then had to renegotiate the UK's EU membership ... well... I can't see them being too averse to that either?

This really is starting to look worse and worse for the rest of us, you selfish Scottish bastards!!!

the Queen is the queen of Scotland and England

She's the Queen of several other places which are no longer ruled by Westminster as well. I can't make up my mind if some folks on this thread have really poor general knowledge, or are indulging an unattractive desire for destructive nitpicking.

And Alec has no legal or parliamentary mandate to do anything about independence

He has a mandate from the Scottish electorate, who gave him a supposedly impossible outright majority government in the Scottish Parliament on the basis of a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on independence. The SP may or may not have the constitutional powers to hold a binding referendum, but Salmond has a considerably stronger mandate from the electorate for this conversation than Cameron.

The SP may or may not have the constitutional powers to hold a binding referendum, but Salmond has a considerably stronger mandate from the electorate for this conversation than Cameron.

So he's promised something he can't lawfully deliver?

Ditch Jockey

Surely the only people with a real mandate on the issue are the Scottish MP's (mainly Labour and Lib Dem) that the Scottish people elected to the Westminster parliament

(ie. the people elected to the parliament which has constitutional responsibility for the issue)

he's promised something he can't lawfully deliver?

Well I suppose your sense of certainty must be a comfort to you, but on Radio Scotland last night, the professor of constitutional law from Edinburgh uni said it was legal, while the professor of constitutional law at Glasgow uni said it might require permission from Westminster.

Perhaps you could invite them to tea and clarify it for them.

Whilst no doubt you could argue the point zulu – it is quite hard, even for you , to deny the SNP stood on a platform to hold an devolution vote and that they won that election in an all Scotland vote…if you wish to claim it is undemocratic to listen to the people and get all constitutional you may have a legal point but you have mo moral point to make …insert usual jokey punch line here :wink

Surely the only people with a real mandate on the issue are the Scottish MP's

its the scottish people unless of course you have given up on self determination

Perhaps you could invite them to tea and clarify it for them.

I'll get the Darjeeling in. I hope they're OK with dogs.

Can I hold a referendum on making myself an independent nation state?

Junky - Manifesto pledges do not constitute lawfully enforcable promises

[i]Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council
House of Lords [1983] 1 AC 768

R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment ex parte Begbie
Court of Appeal [2000] ELR 445[/i]

(funnily enough, both regard broken Labour manifesto Pledges)

Morals? We're talking about politicians here 😆

Can I hold a referendum on making myself an independent nation state?

Of course you can - do you want some of us to act as independent observers?

Cheers DJ. That'd be nice. Best get writing my constitution to present on Newsnight later

Manifesto pledges do not constitute lawfully enforcable promises

You're conflating [i]mandate[/i] and [i]constitutional[/i] though - Salmond has a mandate because he asked the people of Scotland to vote for him on the basis that he would offer them the chance to give their views on independence. What he's proposing may or may not be constitutional, but that's a separate issue.

The referendum could be held, and Westminster could choose to ignore the result - (theoretically, I guess we could vote 'no' and Westminster could pass legislation granting Scotland independence whether we wanted it or not) - the question would then be [i]"what happens next"[/i]? I suppose if the situation got totally out of control, you could theoretically be facing civil unrest, but that's [s]an extremely remote possibility[/s] alternate reality stuff as the situation stands.

Best get writing my constitution to present on Newsnight later

I have some really nice good quality parchment left over from wedding invitations lying around somewhere - if you used that it would make a constitution look really proper and official!

True Zulu but we have a Scottish party elected to the parliament of scotland by the people on the promise of an independence referendum. This party then delivers on this pledge , holds a vote and the people vote yes. I am not sure exactly how the UK or Daves mandate will trump or that he can just ignore it.

Who has the legal right to hold the vote it is of far less relevance than how the people vote.
Civil war is quite unlikely

EDIT; BinnersI can do caligraphy -and lets be honest what constitution would be complete without some spelling mistakes

EDIT; [b]BinnersI[/b] can do [b]caligraphy[/b] -and lets be honest what constitution would be complete without some spelling mistakes

Oh, teh ironing! Unless it was intentional, of course!

I could knock a constitution up in no time.

I am both typographically aware and semi-literate! Its a win/win

Ok, I am willing to vote no. Here are the conditions.
1) No Iain Wright EVER on tv again.
2) Can we have Berwick back please?
3) The A9 dualled before 2025.
4) A reduction on the tax on tunnocks prducts.
5) No VAT on plaid.
6) John Inverdale (see 1)
7) Whisky given "world heritage" status, thus removing tax.
8 The same rights as the Spanish have off the Scottish coast.
9) Maggie T gets her arse out in Harrods window.

Shallow ain't I?

that one was most are not 😉

I am not sure exactly how the UK or Daves mandate will trump or that he can just ignore it.

As I understand it, mandates don't matter. The law does matter and as such, Dave could lawfully ignore any result should he choose to.

so you think he could just ignore it..I dont think it is a simpleas this...I dont know the rules on self determination or the UN charter but i would suspect that dave doing that violates a number of those.

It really wont be as simple as dave going no you dont have the power to vot ein your own country about what you want I AM TH LAW and you are staying.

I dont see how the UK could ignore a vote for independence tbh ..legalluy it is questionable IMHO [ experst argue it both ways so someoen would need to judge] but morally it would be indefensible...granted this might not put dave off 😉

More Scots voted against the SNP than voted for them, and a vote for the SNP in no way implies a vote for independence.

I think it's right that the Scottish are given the chance to vote on this, but the notion of Salmond having a popular mandate is guff.

Anyway, I don't see the problem: CallmeDave is helping Salmond to deliver his manifesto pledge.

Cameron's involvement is an irrelevance - lets put that aside for a moment, and forget the tories, they are merely the government, this is an issue of Parliamentary supremacy.

Lets say for one minute that the 59 Scottish MP's in Wesminster vote against a referendum - bearing in mind they are overwhelmingly Labour and Liberal

They were elected by the Scottish people to the parliament that has constitutional responsibility for the issue of devolution/independence/sovereignty

The SNP were elected to the Scottish parliament on only 45% of the national vote (ie. 55% of people voted against the SNP but they still took 69 seats out of 129)

How can Salmond claim any form of supremacy, moral or otherwise, over MP's that were elected by the Scottish people.

if you take the "moral" or "mandate" argument as you wish to view it, what do you suggest is the correct position between the two parliaments?

if they hold opposite views, should the overwhelming will of those elected to the National parliament, Westminister, with legal responsibility for the issue, hold sway, or should the will of those elected to the Scottish parliament by a majority of seats, but a minority of the electorate, hold sway.

So, the argument on who has a "mandate" falls apart, the only people with a mandate are those with constitutional responsibility for the issue, thats the only way it can work, otherwise you get two different parliaments, both elected by the people, both having an equal claim to a "mandate".

wrecker - Member

"I am not sure exactly how the UK or Daves mandate will trump or that he can just ignore it."

As I understand it, mandates don't matter. The law does matter and as such, Dave could lawfully ignore any result should he choose to.

He could but given the UN charter allowing for self determination and the precedent of Kosovo amongst others he would be in a rather foolish situation to do so.

Dunno what would happen next but sure as anything it would not be the continue of the UK long term

More Scots voted against the SNP than voted for them, and a vote for the SNP in no way implies a vote for independence.

Of course it doesn't. The SNP manifesto contained many other policies apart from the pledge to hold an independence referendum.

That is why there is now going to be a referendum so the people of Scotland can decide their own future.

So, the argument on who has a "mandate" falls apart, the only people with a mandate are those with constitutional responsibility for the issue, thats the only way it can work, otherwise you get two different parliaments, both elected by the people, both having an equal claim to a "mandate".

In Scotland the sovereignty is with the people not the parliament. So whether the Westminster MPs vote against a referendum does not matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath

self determination

What makes the Scottish people an identifiable "people" in their own right, surely they are just a segment of the British people (certianly, the vast majority speak the same language

Note, this was the weakness of TJ's position on the Shetlands - if the Scottish people are able to identify themselves as not being "British" then the Shetlanders have a strong claim to not being "Scottish" - Conversley, if the Shetlanders are by default part of the larger amorphous Scottish peoples, then there is an equivalent argument that the Scottish people are merely "British" and therefore would have no right to self determination as a "people" under the UN charter 😕

What makes the Scottish people an identifiable "people" in their own right

They're blue and translucent? 😆

That is why there is now going to be a referendum so the people of Scotland can decide their own future.

And the body with the authority to confer those powers has promised to make that happen. So what's the problem?

Declaration of Arbroath

I see your declaration of arbroath and raise you the 1707 act of union.

[i]
I That the two kingdoms of Scotland and England shall, upon the Ist day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain

III That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain.

along with

XXV That all laws and statutes in either kingdom, so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the terms of these articles, or any one of them, shall, from and after the Union cease and become void, and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said kingdoms.[/i]

Whish means that from that point onward, the sovereignty that you claim lay no longer applied, as it would be contrary to the act of union.

What are you wibbling on about Zulu?

[i]What makes the Scottish people an identifiable "people" in their own right, surely they are just a segment of the British people (certianly, the vast majority speak the same language[/i]

8th page, and finally back to my original question...