Osbourne says no to currency union.

The UK parliament has to allow them to leave.

I agree that would be the commonly argued and held belief – however there we get into an interesting discussion on the true extent of parliamentary supremacy, and whether a parliament can ever bind its successors, which is an ongoing constitutional dialogue that has never been successfully 100% put to bed – There’s certainly a strong school of thought within the law that some of the provisions of the Acts of Union of 1707 are so fundamental that they lie beyond Parliament’s power to legislate.

Not if the Union takes us out of the EU, it isn’t.

Ah, And since when has anyone suggested abandoning EFTA or the EEA – implying that the UK leaving the EU would end free trade could best be described as project fear, non?

Sorry to go back a bit but I had to go and do some work:

Scotland is a country so asking how to divide a country is a different questions all together- no one is suggesting breaking down a country here – its moving the goalposts to get us to discuss a similar but not identical area
We all accept countries have rights that areas within a country dont

It is isn’t moving the goalposts. Scotland as a country is a fairly recent notion. Until 13th Century the Lords of the Isles were effectively independent and their allegience was to Norway. It was only in the 15th Century that they were broken (If my memory serves, that was for trying to get the English to assist them in the overthrow of the Scots King). Is that irony?

Arguably, the country of Scotland within its current boundary existed for less time as a single nation than it has done within the Union.

So the question of how far back or how small you go is valid as we’re rewinding the clock – do we go back to 18th Century boundaries, or 15th Century or 12th Century?

implying that the UK leaving the EU would end free trade could best be described as project fear, non?

As would implying that Scotland leaving the Union would end free trade 😀

There’s certainly a strong school of thought within the law that some of the provisions of the Acts of Union of 1707 are so fundamental that they lie beyond Parliament’s power to legislate.

Winnie Ewing’s words when she opened the Scottish Parliament (or, to be more accurate, reopened) were a nod in that direction.

Arguably, the country of Scotland within its current boundary existed for less time as a single nation than it has done within the Union.

Use that argument, and the map of Europe would look very, very different.

The borders of a country are where everyone agrees the borders are. Not where they were in the 12th Century or where they have been for the longest time.

The borders of a country are where everyone agrees the borders are.

The concept of the Islands gaining independence from Scotland has been ridiculed on here. There is no difference between 20,000 islanders deciding they want independence from Scotland and 5M Scots deciding they want independence from the UK.

By your argument, the 62M people of the UK agree what the boundary of the UK is so we shouldn’t fragment that. Because that’s where the borders are now.

The concept of the Islands gaining independence from Scotland has been ridiculed on here

It’s ridiculed because it’s a spoiling tactic by Tavish Scott, the Lib Dem MP, which has minimal local support. nevertheless, if the people of Shetland want independence and can muster a referendum to say so, fine with me.

You are completely right – but that just underlines why Scotland has to leave. A union where one party isn’t free to leave isn’t exactly a union of equals.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that England has the right to leave the union?

if the people of Shetland want independence and can muster a referendum to say so, fine with me.

And what if Borders / D&G clearly votes No within an overall Yes vote? Is that a referendum to split from Scotland and remain with rUK?

if the people of Shetland want independence and can muster a referendum to say so, fine with me.

i) Does the referendum have to be Scotland wide or just Shetlands wide?

ii) What proportion of their ‘natural resources’ do they get to keep?

Are you suggesting that England has the right to leave the union?

England has far more MPs at Westminster than Scotland, so yes – if English MPs decided that England should leave the Union, Scotland would not be able to stop it if we wanted to. The contrary is not true.

@ben – I think we have to give you that last point. Sadly, begrudgingly 😥

It is interesting as in my mind without any doubt an independent England would be far richer than is the UK now. I would not be for it all but its worth noting. My argument for England to remain in the UK is largely emotive which in my view is exactly the same as the Yes/No referendum.

Ah, so the issue is simply that you’re smaller and you’re complaining that means you’re not equal?

And what if Borders / D&G clearly votes No within an overall Yes vote? Is that a referendum to split from Scotland and remain with rUK?

By that logic, Scotland should already be independent from the UK.

Anyway, no – the referendum is being held on a country-wide basis. Scotland is the country unit here.

That would be in the same way that the UK elections you don’t like the result of are held on a country-wide basis? It seems you’re quite happy with a minority not getting the result they want as long as you’re not part of that minority.

bencooper – Member

Being part of the Union is good for Scottish businesses.

Not if the Union takes us out of the EU, it isn’t.

We have guaranteed freedom of movement and employment and many close business links

Which we already have with Ireland, France, Germany and other EU countries. An independent Scotland would be in the same position. Again, the only thing risking that would be for the UK or rUK to leave the EU. [/quote]

So over the course of this thread, we’ve gone from iScotland would likely leave the EU, to no-one knows what would happen as it’s unprecedented, to our new position of definitely will remain in the EU with no doubt whatsoever.
Care to show me a copy of this new contract Ben?

And you pretend not to be an acolyte of Salmond…

It seems you’re quite happy with a minority not getting the result they want as long as you’re not part of that minority.

I’m happy* not getting the result I want, as long as the process is fair and democratic. At the moment, with the way Westminster is set up, the process is not fair and democratic.

As I’ve said before, if the UK introduced a federal system of government with proportional representation, I’d lose almost all interest in Scottish independence.

*for a given value of happy 😉

Are we back onto the House of Lords thing again?

if the UK introduced a federal system of government

How would that be different from what you’ve got in place already? (bearing in mind here that you don’t use many of the powers available, like setting different tax levels!)

proportional representation,

We had a referendum on that, and it was roundly rejected – including in Scotland, remember?

I appreciate the likelihood of Scots not being granted the right to freely live and work in the UK is negligable

‘Specially when they’re all UK citizens. It’s going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.

How would that be different from what you’ve got in place already?[/quote]

Apparently because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution. It seems Ben et al would actually be happy with just a constitutional change which made no practical difference whatsoever.

because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution.

Ah, project fear again!

‘Specially when they’re all UK citizens. It’s going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.

err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?

jambalaya – Member

‘Specially when they’re all UK citizens. It’s going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.

err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?

In your opinion, is that likely to happen? No, I didn’t think so either.

Probably more likely than devolved powers being removed in the event of a No vote. The prospect of which is the only reason Ben is voting Yes.

err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?

They’re not the easiest things to enforce, would be unprecedented in UK law, and would put a fair number of rUK citizens in a tricky position…and would also have some unintended consequences when it came to the integration of immigrants (cf Turks in Germany)…and would involve stripping citizens of UK citizenship, which has been a pretty rare thing in the UK…I think you might run into some difficulties with the Anglo-Irish Agreement but I might be wrong…but “err” you could give it a try…

err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?

I already have dual citizenship 🙂

Probably more likely than devolved powers being removed in the event of a No vote. The prospect of which is the only reason Ben is voting Yes.

Devolution isn’t a federal system – it’s a bodge on top of a first-past-the-post system. I assume – perhaps optimistically – that if the UK had a properly accountable democratic system of government then the other stuff I want* would happen as well.

*see the Green party manifesto for a list.

Specially when they’re all UK citizens. It’s going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.

Hey you poo pooed me whn I said this about the EU 😈

FWIW – as it affects me – rUK has said there response is dependent on iS response but the worst must be an Ireland type scenario

the worst would be me having to choose to naturalise here – i assume after 35 years they might just let me.

Brilliant we are now discussing fantastical what if scenarios about countries and regions and what of re a vote.

because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution

What do you mean purely theoretical – its a real power they can withdraw it…..can i say straw man pretty please 😉

According to the sources I checked the difference is that the central government can withdraw the devolved powers, so clearly given you’re in favour of one but not the other that’s the bit you’re bothered about.

Hang on, I saw a good response to that recently – oh here we go:

Brilliant we are now discussing fantastical what if scenarios

I miss elfinsafety he would have been fun on this subject.

“its the class war innit”

@kona/@duckman – yes I appreciate the UK has been one of the most flexible countries in terms of dual nationality. The Dutch for example do not allow you to hold citizenship of another EU country. Mrs T tried to downgrade the citizenship of the Falkland Islanders in the years running up to the war. So unlikely yes but possible.

@ben, very good again, on a roll today

They clearly can withdraw the power so it is an actual power. Its theoretical what if only if we discuss whether they will or they wont ;whether they can is not theoretical they can end of debate.
An amusing sidestep that almost glossed over your wrongness 😉

aracer – Member
“bencooper » At the moment, with the way Westminster is set up, the process is not fair and democratic.”
Are we back onto the House of Lords thing again?

Go on then, convince us that load of freeloading parasites are democracy in action.

(You’ll notice I have no bias 🙂 )

Apparently because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution. It seems Ben et al would actually be happy with just a constitutional change which made no practical difference whatsoever.

Or happy with a change that makes you worse off than before – main levers now controlled by a foreign government. Brilliant, but at least “we chose that.”

Not a bad chat on all this here

http://www.politicscymru.com/en/cat2/article9/

Are you saying that currently scotlands main levers are not being controlled by the foreign country and they got the govt they voted for 😉

It is interesting but to put it bluntly if the UK can takea way the power it is devolution if they cannot it is federalism
It is a fudge of apiece
Interesting and yes there are similarities

Living together is similar to being married but it is not being married.

Devolved is a bit like federalism but it is not federalism
Not really any wriggle room.

Can you have devolved federalism ? Genuine Q btw? Cannot think of anywhere.

molgrips – Member
…I mean really – why? The concept of nationhood is really just nominal…
I think even the so called “Proud Scots” would argue with you on that.

Go on then.

You really need a dictionary Molly

This is what happens if we all feign confusion over the meanings of words we all understand.
Granted it is not trolling but I have no idea what it or what purpose it serves.

OK, let’s do that then. There’s not a cat in hells chance of them doing so IMHO. Under what circumstances do you think such power will be withdrawn?

Not only has it happened, it was the Lords who did it:

Lords axe Holyrood’s power over Scottish renewables

So that’s the unelected House of Lords removing powers from the democratically elected Scottish Parliament.