Why wont he debate the potential end of the Union?

mogrim – Member

Really? How? Cameron didn’t have to allow a referendum, he could have ignored the SNP’s demands indefinitely.

Yes, the prime minister of this democratic nation could in theory have refused the will of the people as demonstrated in a fair and legal election. But it would look quite bad on his report card.

I’m still waiting for the Better Together campaign to give a good reason why Scots should consider staying in the Union.

So far we have had border guards, potential bombing to protect English interests, we’ll be out of EU, out of NATO, no BBC, and a list of other spurious and laughable propaganda. Are they really sure Lord Haw Haw was executed at the end of WWII, because he seems to have been reincarnated?

If we had a democratic government in the UK, then maybe it would be worth preserving.

I believe the Secretary of State Against For Scotland is supposed to be giving 20 reasons sometime today.

epicyclo – Member – Quote
If we had a democratic government in the UK, then maybe it would be worth preserving.

We get the government elected by the process we have. It’s about as democratic as anything else – though some sort PR might make it more representative than the FPTP system currently in operation. Mind you, we might end up with a Tory-LibDem alliance and where would that get us?

I bet one of them is Doctor Who

Can’t think of many others

We get the government elected by the process we have. It’s about as democratic as anything else – though some sort PR might make it more representative than the FPTP system currently in operation

Had this discussion today with my (Spanish) colleagues – and they hate PR, and also complain the current government is “undemocratic”, despite having been freely elected following the rules laid out in the Spanish constitution.

Basically the problem is that you vote a party list, not a person, which just entrenches party power even further. The current Madrid mayor was #2 on the list (the previous mayor is now the Justice Minister), the current Madrid Autonomous Community president inherited the post after the #1 decided to retire from politics (sort of…) Etc.

Yes, the prime minister of this democratic nation could in theory have refused the will of the people as demonstrated in a fair and legal election. But it would look quite bad on his report card.

Yes and no – AFAIK there’s no UK wide mandate for offering Scotland a referendum. You could spin it both ways, basically.

If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.

M. Thatcher

mogrim – Member

Yes and no – AFAIK there’s no UK wide mandate for offering Scotland a referendum. You could spin it both ways, basically.

You could try, til the UN taps you on the shoulder and asks for a word about that self-determination thing you’re committed to…

You could try, til the UN taps you on the shoulder and asks for a word about that self-determination thing you’re committed to…

Waiting for them to tap the Spanish government on the shoulder, they haven’t yet – and Spain’s not even a member of the Security Council.

Still an ongoing situation, that, no final decisions made.

Still an ongoing situation, that, no final decisions made.

True, but I’m unconvinced the UN will step in when there’s a written constitution setting out exactly what steps need to be taken to break up Spain, and the Catalan vote won’t be sufficient to trigger it. Spain has its problems, but it’s hardly Sri Lanka and the Tamils or Russia and Chechnya.

Out of interest, and a bit of reductio ad absurdum: how big does a sub-population need to be to force the UN to act? If, say, Skye decided it wanted to be independant would the government be forced to act?

I have no idea tbh- the principle is based on “peoples” rather than nations, states or governments but that’s nicely wooly

I would imagine a sub-population would need to be big enough to avoid the government boosting the existing population with new “residents” to skew any vote. Skye has a population of only 10,000 so wouldn’t be difficult to rig a vote to suit the government trying to hold onto it.

I’ve just read that one of Carmichaels “20 reasons to say no” was the strength of Britains sporting teams – like the British and Irish Lions. There’ll be a few players from the Republic of Ireland that might take issue with that 😆

But while we maintain a strong pride in our teams for football, rugby and so much more we also maintain an enormous pride in the sporting clout that we represent together.

Whether that’s the British Lions, or next month’s Winter Olympics, or of course, our astonishing achievements in the London 2012 Olympic Games.

I would imagine a sub-population would need to be big enough to avoid the government boosting the existing population with new “residents” to skew any vote.

This has been gone through a million times over the twentieth century eg the votes over independence in Djibouti.

The real limitation is the viability of the unit: there’s never going to be a Tooting Liberation Front because not enough Tootingers would want to see Tooting as an independent state.

#FFT

Back to original question; if Camerons excuse is that it’s a debate for the residents of Scotland, why is William McHague up in Glasgow today to lecture us about the pitfalls of independence?

Back to original question; if Camerons excuse is that it’s a debate for the residents of Scotland, why is William McHague up in Glasgow today to lecture us about the pitfalls of independence?

‘Cos he’s a lying politician (is there any other sort) and we all know it’s just a handy excuse to avoid this turning into Scotland vs. the service-cutting Southern toffs?

I see no problem with support or comments for either side from where ever they come. I have no issue with support shown towards independence from similar movements in other countries, as was seen in a march in Edinburgh for example. Why should a UK politician not be allowed to voice a view? I thought that was a corner stone of democracy. I am sure plenty of after dinner speakers from around the world will be used to promote independence over the coming year. Sir Sean perhaps to name but one.
A Tory politician ffs, not too many will listen anyway.
If the vote in Scotland is No I understand there will be a large portion of the populace not happy with this. We need to progress to ensure people do not feel further disenfranchised. I also hope that if the vote is Yes then the voice of those that to some degree feel a connection with the UK will not be lost amongst an air of triumphalism.

I would like to see Cameron debate Salmond, and have now come to the belief he may not be hammered as much as people think. I agree he is scared though, but in reality a TV debate will probably have little effect

Cameron would have to be a blundering idiot to debate with Salmond for the obvious reason.

Fingers crossed.

I wonder if there’s a bigger issue? The independence of Scotland is not the case of a territory seceding from a parent country.

The UK came into being by an agreement between 2 sovereign countries, England and its territories and colonies, and Scotland. It was an international treaty, not the acquisition of Scotland by England (or vice versa).

Come the divorce there won’t be a Scotland and the UK, it will be Scotland and England again.

England will not be the UK, although they will try and spin it that way. It wasn’t before, so it can’t be after.

So all the dire things that the Better Together campaign say will happen to an independent Scotland (eg having to reapply to EU, NATO, etc) will also be the case for England.

If I’m right, I can see why Cameron wouldn’t want to discuss it publicly just yet. He’s not stupid.

epicyclo, you can’t seriously make the point that rUK would be so affected that it would have to reapply to the EU or NATO without giving rUK a vote in the referendum?

I believe EU membership would happen relatively quickly for Scotland following a Yes vote but conditions may not be as favourable as some would hope. May be difficult to maintain Scotland should receive UK rebate despite larger farming sector than rUK for example.

Would you expect Scotland to have to renegotiate it’s membership of EU again if say Orkney and Shetland wished to go it alone with their wealth of natural resources?

rUK would certainly have to do some renegotiation with the EU over things like budget rebate, contributions, representation etc. Losing 9% of it’s population must have some effect?

I would suggest that the ‘yes” campaign could be a little smarter in exploiting the issue of the likes of Hague and Alexander marketing the latest “Scottish Analysis” reports (quite interesting stuff all on the government website that negates the idea that the UK government has not provided clear analysis etc, but that’s another point).

Ahead of Mr Hague’s speech, Yes Scotland’s published 10 main reasons why Scotland’s place in the world will be boosted with a Yes vote.

1. With a Yes vote, Scotland will be able to speak with its own voice on the world stage and make sure the interests of our people are properly represented – not by Tory governments we didn’t elect.

etc…..

Ok a valid point but tactically naive as it highlights the desire to centre the debate as an anti-Tory issue. Tone that down and re-focus the point and the pressure may mount on Cameron. Otherwise, he is unlikely to fall for such a tactical trap and IMO nor should he.

Seems fair to renegotiate scotroutes, but not reapply. If however rUK does not wish to renegotiate terms, what options are realistically available to the EU?

I hope that this would not be the straw that breaks the camels back, and would see rUK come out of EU. This scenario I don’t feel is in either the interest of EU rUK or an iScotland.

If rich Scotland has been funding a poorer neighbour for so long, could rUK not negotiate better terms on some aspects of membership?

Well just poured myself a wee dram, toasted my friends north off the border ( :wink:) and settling down to watch QT.

(I hope the panel are better that last week. Nadine Dorries and UKIP, Aaargh. At least Chukka made an interesting slip that made it worth watching!!)

Come the divorce there won’t be a Scotland and the UK, it will be Scotland and England again.

That’s just not true.

Why is it not true Konabunny? What would the position of Northern Ireland and Wales be?

The White Paper rightly acknowledges that there is no direct precedent for a territory of a Member State to secede from that Member State while simultaneously seeking continuity in its EU rights and obligations. At best, there are more or less plausible arguments and analogies. The dominant legal view – as illustrated in the Boyle and Crawford legal opinion for the UK government – is one that gives preference in continuity to the rights and obligations of the entity which would be the successor state to the United Kingdom, with the seceding entity treated as an entirely new state in international law. In other words, post-independence, the ‘United Kingdom’ would retain its EU membership, with Scotland having to seek EU membership on its own account. The idea that the treaties would cease to apply to the territory of a seceding entity has also been supported by the European Commission President in a letter to the chair of the House of Lords economics committee.

Kenneth A. Armstrong, Professor of European law, University of Cambridge

Not surprisingly, this interpretation is contested in the White Paper.

Same source!!! A bit of a trend here????

“Why is it not true Konabunny? What would the position of Northern Ireland and Wales be?”

The UK will still exist. It will be smaller.

konabunny – Member
“Why is it not true Konabunny? What would the position of Northern Ireland and Wales be?”

The UK will still exist. It will be smaller.

Two countries made a partnership agreement in 1703. Those countries were the Kingdom of England with its territories, and the Kingdom of Scotland. The UK is the name given to the partnership.

If the Union is dissolved, surely both parties return to their previous status.

England is not the UK, and never has been the UK.

Ergo, split the UK and you have England, its territories, and Scotland, not rUK and Scotland.

Any membership provisions of the various international treaties that have to be revised because of the split will have to be the same for both parties.

Two countries made a partnership agreement in 1703

1707

Those countries were the Kingdom of England with its territories, and the Kingdom of Scotland. The UK is the name given to the partnership. .

Great Britain is the name given to the partnership formed in 1707.

If the Union is dissolved, surely both parties return to their previous status.

Scotland is voting to leave the Union, not dissolve it.

England is not the UK, and never has been the UK.

Agreed

Ergo, split the UK and you have England, its territories, and Scotland, not rUK and Scotland.

Nobody is proposing to split the Union, Ireland left the UK and yet it still exists.

Any membership provisions of the various international treaties that have to be revised because of the split will have to be the same for both parties.

It won’t, there are precedents for this.

Wales is a country too, won’t somebody think of the Welsh

Don’t worry, no-one ever does unless they need a cheap lazy joke.

*goes googling

irelanst – Member
Two countries made a partnership agreement in 1703
1707

Correct, sorry – typo

If the Union is dissolved, surely both parties return to their previous status.
Scotland is voting to leave the Union, not dissolve it.

There were only 2 parties to the Union, if one leaves, surely that is it dissolved.

Ergo, split the UK and you have England, its territories, and Scotland, not rUK and Scotland.
Nobody is proposing to split the Union, Ireland left the UK and yet it still exists.

At the Union Ireland was owned by England, no longer a sovereign nation, had no representation in parliament, and was not a party to the Union. Thus Ireland is not a comparable case.

Any membership provisions of the various international treaties that have to be revised because of the split will have to be the same for both parties.
It won’t, there are precedents for this.

I am not aware of any precedents where 2 equal sovereign nations dissolve/terminate a partnership.

I believe the precedents apply to territories splitting from a superior state, eg a conquered country getting self determination.

Scotland was not a territory of England so how can those precedents apply?

If they are precedents for new states, then both England and Scotland will be new states, and both should be treated equally by the EU, NATO, etc.

You’re confusing yourself because you think that there are multiple states within the UK. There aren’t. There is a single state called the UK.

If they are precedents for new states, then both England and Scotland will be new states, and both should be treated equally by the EU, NATO, etc.

No. Scotland will secede from the UK giving two states. Those will be Scotland and the UK. Typical SNP thinking they can dictate the rest of the UK has to change because of them.

Oh, and I’m Scottish and proud of it. However I’m also British and proud of it. I see no sense in breaking up a hugely successful union. Thankfully the majority of my countrymen agree.

I see no sense in breaking up a hugely successful union.

Nor do I.
An estimate for Yes Scotland put the projected national debt for Scotland after independence at
“£126 billion, equivalent to 72% of Scottish GDP. This would be slightly lower than the equivalent UK figure of 77%.”
I thought some people might dispute the figures so I looked again
“As of Q1 2013 UK government debt amounted to £1,377 billion, or 91% of total GDP.[1]” Figures from Eurostat.
Inequality is growing, in the UK and has been for 30 years
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2013/oct/08/inequality-how-wealth-distributed-uk-animated-video. The poorest 20% of the UK population have less than 1% of the wealth.
This particular union is not hugely successfuland it is time to try for something better.

CMD is debating the future of the union but he is doing it by proxy in Scotland at least because he does not want the no campaign to be seen as a tory campaign.

Gordimhor. Your last post is correct. The No campaign is not a Tory one.

I do wonder though how your solution of ‘something new’ is intended to help some of the poorest 20% in Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester? The truth is you don’t care, so no need to quote those statistics.

What is the difference between nationalists and conservatives? One group is intent on redistribition of UK wealth amongst the few in a selfish ‘I am alright Jack’ manner, and the other are conservatives.