Scottish Independence - how would you vote?

[Rolfe]

Some (possibly inaccurate) reading of the thread on Scottish independence led to me interesting speculations about the prevailing views on this forum. I thought I'd give people the chance to vote more formally.

I'd like to see, primarily, how members who will actually be entitled to vote in the proposed referendum would choose. However, I recognise that everybody likes to get their oar in and pleas of "Scottish voters only" are unlikely to be heeded. I've therefore added two other categories, people without a vote in Scotland but with a direct interest because they live in or have ties to Britain, and onlookers (furriners). Ethnic Brits (Scots or not) who live abroad, can vote in the former of these to categories.

I've made the poll private, as a real election would be, but feel free to declare your vote in the thread, and give your reasons, if you want.

I haven't given an "abstain" category for those who wouldn't have a vote anyway - if you don't have an opinion, just don't vote.

Rolfe.

[DoubtingStephen]

Although I have enjoyed visiting Scotland a number of times, and will certainly return because my Out-Laws live there (it would be illegal for them to be my In-Laws), I am nay Scottish myself.

I'm in favor of the peace loving peoples of Scotland choosing their own path.

I was startled one time when a Scotsman was discussing some incident of soccer hooliganism, and he referred to a clash between Scottish and English soccer fans as a racial struggle. I was WTF? My point is that to this day people in Scotland and England are very much conscious of old bones of contention and it does inform their opinions.

Again as an outsider, it seems the process of devolution is being discussed in a much more calm way than we see similar issues handled in some other parts of the world. I think it is admirable that it is all being discussed in a rational and democratic way.

[Damien Evans]

I voted yes and strong UK ties, because as far as I can trace my ancestry is Irish and Scottish, plus Australia is closely tied (both politically and historically) to Britain. I assume that was what the strong UK ties column was for?

[Rolfe]

Well, it was mainly for people living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, who are obviously affected by this matter but would not have a vote on the issue. And for people living in Scotland who are for some reason not on the electoral register. However, I added the "strong UK ties" but because of course UK citizens living abroad and their families might also consider themselves directly affected.

It's not that important, but I'd say in general that distant genealogical ties only, with present-day citizenship firmly invested in another country, would be more appropriate in the foreigner category.

Rolfe.

[FreeRomanian]

Scotland has now the moral, legal and the historical right to be independent!

The citizenship will be given to everyone who sees himself as a free scot!


Kosovo, where the albanians killed and forced the serbs to move away from there, was recognised independent.


Scotland is the land of scots,and have always fought againgst the english to keep their independence. But they were conquered by english troops in the middle ages, and by money in 1707 to merge into UK... :(

Now they have the chance to once again win their FREEDOM(like Whilliam Wallace cried while beeing savagely tortured and before he was killed by the English...)

Watch Braveheart movie , and learn about William Wallace!
What he did tells a lot about the Scotish spirit!

You will understand!

Scotland would be fair to be independent, but it isn't...


Kosovo isn't right to be independent, but it is...


To free Scotland!

in Romanian:

SCOTIA libera!


So I have already answered this question: Totally FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF SCOTLAND!

[ddt]

I haven't given an "abstain" category for those who wouldn't have a vote anyway - if you don't have an opinion, just don't vote.

Are you doing a separate poll if an independent Scotland could be part of the EU?

[DaChew]

My vote in this poll is now up for sale to the highest bidder since there is no Planet X option.
Whichever side, Scotland or the U.K., agrees to lower the cost of single malt scotch the most - either through price reductions or export duties - will win my vote.

You may start the bidding at any point you like.


Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnndddd go!

[PogoPedant]

I voted for Scottish independence, for the simple, and possibly naive reason, that people that want independence, should have independence.*

I'm a Norwegian living in Newcastle with an English girlfriend that has a Norwegian passport, so I chose resident in the UK.

Best of luck!

* I'm sure there are exceptions, though... There are always exceptions.

[Rolfe]

Free Romanian, I'm getting close to reporting you for spamming the forum. Repeating the same inaccurate post in several threads isn't much of a contribution to debate.

Scotland wasn't conquered in the middle ages. We won our wars of independence then, as several people have pointed out to you. My post pointing out the inaccuracies and over-simplification of your take on 1707 got split and moved to a different forum, so I won't repeat it.

You've been watching too many bad American movies, starring too many bad Australian actors. If anyone really wants to learn what actually happened (so far as is known, anyway) from 1296 (the sacking of Berwick) to 1320 (the Declaration of Arbroath), there are some good historical sites available on the internet. The role of Robert the Bruce, his conversion from a class-based alliegence to nationalism, and the codification of the constitutional monarchy are interesting topics. Over-dramatised, historically inaccurate blockbuster movies are not a good place to start.

And ignorant ranting about Scotland "winning its freedom", is simply childish.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I'm .... living in Newcastle .... so I chose resident in the UK.


Well, duh! :D

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

My vote in this poll is now up for sale to the highest bidder since there is no Planet X option.


Damn! I forgot the Planet X option!

Accept my humblest apoligies. I did intend to include one. It was going to be "On Planet X we are all Anarcho-syndicalists", in deference to "Hamish McKropotkin" on the Herald pages, and a couple of posters here with comparable views.

If anyone knows how I can add such an option, please let me know.

DaChew, from the rest of your post I think you'll be voting for Japan.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

...snip...

And ignorant ranting about Scotland "winning its freedom", is simply childish.


Rolfe.

Are you sure?

Best way to gain independence quick: fix the football world cup to get Scotland and England to the final, doesn't matter who wins the union would be ended with the final whistle!

[Rolfe]

And if either team was actually capable of getting to the final, that might be a plan.... :D

Darat, is there any way to add that Planet X option I forgot? It wouldn't affect the poll, as it's essentially just a formal abstention.

On Planet X we are all Anarcho-syndicalists

Rolfe.

[Darat]

(Psst - look up it's already been added.)

[Rolfe]

Aw, Darat, you know I love you really!

I can think of at least a dozen forum members I'm pretty sure are on the electoral register in Scotland, it will be interesting to see how many of them stop by.

Rolfe.

[lucan]

I am very Scottish. At least 3 ancestors were killed at The Battle of
Flodden Field. But I will vote to stay British. Alex Salmond reminds me
of Homer Simpson when he was head of Cleansing for Springfield. Spend
all his budget for popularity and then blames others when he runs out of
money.

[albion]

I reside in the UK (or have strong UK ties) but I am not on the electoral register in a Scottish constituency, and I am in favour of Scottish independence

I'm English with no discernable Scottish ancestry but would vote yes.

[Rolfe]

I am very Scottish. At least 3 ancestors were killed at The Battle of
Flodden Field. But I will vote to stay British. Alex Salmond reminds me
of Homer Simpson when he was head of Cleansing for Springfield. Spend
all his budget for popularity and then blames others when he runs out of
money.


Why would you give as your only stated reason for your vote, that the First Minister reminds you of an American cartoon?

Your choice, obviously, but I was hoping for something with a bit more substance to it.

Rolfe.

[Civilized Worm]

I'm scottish and don't have a clue how to vote.

[mummymonkey]

I voted no before and will vote no again.
I am already a free person with an elected representative in a national parliament. I do not feel subjugated, not free, less than free, shackled, down trodden or second class.
I am Scottish and British with an English mother and Scottish father living in Scotland alongside Scottish people and English people. There is no burning desire amongst the majority of the people I know to destroy our country.
Salmond is a good politician who picks his fights well and loses no opportunity to blame The South/The South East/London/Westminster. (SNP code words for England)
It helps that his opposition are a bunch of no marks.

[Uzzy]

I'm British, but living south of the border. I'm against Scottish independence, as I believe our countries are better off together, though if the Scots voted for it, I'd respect that.

I do think, however, that things need to change. A proper solution to the West Lothian question needs to be found, before resentment towards the unfair current situation builds up south of the border. I favour the English 'Grand Committee' idea put forward by Sir Malcolm Rifkind. Secondly, I think the Scottish parliament should get full control over their economy, which includes the full ability to set taxes.

[andyandy]

I'm a brit and if the referendum was opened to English folk, then I'd vote against it. Maybe it would just be a vote for the status quo, because I just quite like the UK as it exists. Whilst the tabloid press occasionally like to whip up Middle English indignation over per capita spending north of the border, I've never seen this figure adjusted for population density, and once you take into account the increased cost of rural community social provision, it seems to be fair enough to expect different comparative levels.

The other reason of course to vote against independence would be the monumental upheaval it would precipitate. There is no way the UK government would cede the rights to the North Sea oil fields to the Scottish government purely by dint of geography, the absolute best case scenario would be a cobbled together compromise, equally likely one could imagine a long and intractable dispute going through the UN.... with Britain sitting on its veto just in case there were any resolution that we didn't like.

And with the North Sea oilfields pretty much essential to the economic arguments of the SNP for a prosperous Scotland benefiting from independence, but also pretty important to the British economy, the issue would cause a tremendous amount of bad feeling one way or the other....

And whilst the union is not universally harmonious, it would seem a real shame to stoke nationalist tensions and create much deeper divisions....

Of course, as an Englishman it is unlikely that I will have any say in the matter, I'll just have to hope that there are enough Englishmen north of the border who feel like me and who can scupper any vote. Perhaps we should enact some sort of sleeper cell English action to settle pro-unionists north of the border :D

[Fiona]

I am Scottish and I voted yes and would do so in any referendum. My reasons are largely economic. I regret we have left it so late since the transition will be difficult and more oil would have helped: as would the assistance of the EU before enlargement. I have just returned from a holiday in Ireland and I have been going there off and on for a long time. I watched the improvement of infrastructure assisted by EU money and the long delay before the benefits were really seen. But benefits there certainly are and when I compare it to the situation in Scotland I can see no case for the union at all.

As to the West Lothian question: I cannot at all see the problem. There is a Scottish assembly and a UK assembly. Wales and Northern Ireland also have some form of local government. If England so chooses they can have one too. They do not so choose but that is nothing at all to do with Scotland. It appears that the English imagine the uk parliament is the English parliament, but that is not my problem. I think it would help if some basic constitutional education were made available

[Architect]

I do think, however, that things need to change. A proper solution to the West Lothian question needs to be found, before resentment towards the unfair current situation builds up south of the border.



As opposed to the historic unfair situation whereby Scottish matters were decided by an English majority prior to devolution........

[Big Les]

You're right about the history of course, but that's a tu quoque. To which I respond "yer ma!". ;)

[lucan]

Scotland already has the power to direct its resources and to solve its internal problems.

I find the argument that says that we should integrate with countries that are not our neighbours but we should break away from the country that is our neighbour completely logical.

I can think of no cultural differences or economic reasons for separation. To separate from another country means you have to create a totally pointless bureaucracy to prove that you are separated from that country in the way of separate tax system, financial system and diplomatic representation all at completely waste of Scottish taxpayers' money.

[Rolfe]

I voted no before and will vote no again.


You mean you voted no to devolution, I presume, since we haven't had a referendum on independence, ever.

Now we've got what you voted against, how do you feel about it? Would you think we'd be better off without it?

I am already a free person with an elected representative in a national parliament. I do not feel subjugated, not free, less than free, shackled, down trodden or second class.


And that is to a very large extent true, which is why Free Romanian's ranting got up my nose.

I am Scottish and British with an English mother and Scottish father living in Scotland alongside Scottish people and English people. There is no burning desire amongst the majority of the people I know to destroy our country.


I have a feeling that people aren't talking about it for fear of getting into destructive arguments. That's one of the reasons I put up the poll, to see how the balance of the argument split.

Salmond is a good politician who picks his fights well and loses no opportunity to blame The South/The South East/London/Westminster. (SNP code words for England).


Actually, that's not quite right. If the word England is used in that context, the result is a furious riposte from people from Yorkshire and Northumberland and Cheshire and Devon, all complaining that they feel the same way about the south/south-east of England, London or Westminster. The problem is not England as such, but the concentration of power in London and the south east, and in particular the Westminster system.

It helps that his opposition are a bunch of no marks.


Oh no, Wendy's performance is ten out of ten, she said so herself!

Rolfe.

[Complexity]

I'm an American and assume that the past few generations of my ancestors have been born in America (don't really care). I'm a mutt of the British isles - my ancestors have apparently come from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Isle of Man, and England.

I dislike bullies and have never liked England's imperialistic tendencies. I don't regard the 'union' under English rule as either valid or desirable. The phrase 'Prince of Wales' offends the hell out of me.

I'd favor the full dissolution of the British empire.

If you're concerned about consistency on my part, I feel the same away about the American empire. I would have supported the secession of the southern states.

I voted as a 'furriner' because my ties to the various countries under discussion are abstract at best.

[Uzzy]

As opposed to the historic unfair situation whereby Scottish matters were decided by an English majority prior to devolution........



A historically unfair situation, which was last in effect 11 years ago (when I was 10), does not excuse the currently unfair situation in anyway shape or form.

[Darat]

...snip...

I dislike bullies and have never liked England's imperialistic tendencies. I don't regard the 'union' under English rule as either valid or desirable. The phrase 'Prince of Wales' offends the hell out of me.

...snip...

At the risk of a derail: apart from the problem of retaining a Monarchy is there any reason this particular title irks you?

[Fiona]

A historically unfair situation, which was last in effect 11 years ago (when I was 10), does not excuse the currently unfair situation in anyway shape or form.

What is unfair about it?

[Uzzy]

The West Lothian Question? Simple. Scottish MP's are able to vote on entirely English (and Welsh) matters. This has been shown to directly affect English policy, for instance in the top up fees vote, which Labour won by 5 votes. Now, if the Scottish Labour MP's had not been able to vote on that issue, Labour would not have been able to pass that bill. Top up fees only affect English/Welsh universities.

Simply put, Scottish MP's are able to vote on matters that only affect England and Wales, while English and Welsh MP's are unable to vote on the same matters in Scotland, as the devolved assembly deals with them.

[Fiona]

I have already said why this is nonsense Uzzy.

[Uzzy]

Actually, you said that

There is a Scottish assembly and a UK assembly. Wales and Northern Ireland also have some form of local government. If England so chooses they can have one too.

Given that Labour have quite the incentive in keeping the current situation as it is, namely staying in power, it is impossible to have a English Assembly at the moment. As such, we cannot choose to have one. Proposals have been made to change the current situation, but as yet, none of them have been brought forward.

Your argument seems to be that because the situation can be changed, it's not a problem. But that doesn't stop the current situation being a problem. Which it is, for the reasons I mentioned above.

[Fiona]

No Uzzy it is not a problem. If the English wanted an assembly they could certainly have one. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent and I happen to think it a very good idea. However they have not chosen to do this and so they can hardly complain that the current position is unfair.

What would certainly be unfair is to disenfranchise UK politicians within the UK parliament.

[Mobyseven]

I voted Planet X, because while I would support Scottish independence if the Scots vote 'yea' for it, I don't know how I would decide if it were up to me. It's honestly not something I'm well enough informed about to make a decision on.

[Architect]

A historically unfair situation, which was last in effect 11 years ago (when I was 10), does not excuse the currently unfair situation in anyway shape or form.



I entirely agree. I just find it deeply amusing to see how the English editions of the national press react now that the shoe is on the other foot. Back in the 1980s, when Scotland voted Labour but was represented by a handful of Tories, there was ne'er a voice south of Carlisle who thought it worth complaining about. The Poll Tax was introduced her first on the back of English votes. Educational and legal matters were voted on by Tory MPs in the South. There was a massive democracy defecit. Whenever I hear someone in the South moan about it, I fell like saying "aye, know you know how we felt.....".

[Fiona]

I am sorry but I do not think either situation could be said to be unfair. In both cases the solution lay with the population. Scots could have voted for independence at any time: or for devolution. So can the English. That they choose not to is their own affair. But they do need to understand that the UK parliament is just that - the UK parliament. There are no issues which are purely English voted on there because there is no separate budget.

[Uzzy]

No Uzzy it is not a problem. If the English wanted an assembly they could certainly have one. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent and I happen to think it a very good idea.

Except for the party currently in power having a direct interest in preventing an English assembly? If an English assembly was brought about, Labour would not have a majority in it. Further, a lot of the current cabinet members couldn't vote on the policies they put forward, including the Prime Minster and Chancellor. Ergo, they would not want to see it happen, nor allow a vote on it to occur, throwing about absurd allegations that those who want to have an English Grand Committee/Assembly want to see the union broken up.

If an English Grand Committee or assembly or whatever was brought in, then it would not be a problem. Until that day occurs, then the West Lothian question is still an issue, one that has serious ramifications for people today. Why, in a years time, I'm going to be paying those Top up fees that were voted for thanks to this unfair situation.

If you don't want to disenfranchise UK parliamentarians, then you should be asking for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, as the existence of that body disenfranchises the English MP's from deciding issues relating to Scotland.

Having a English Grand Committee/Assembly would disenfranchise Scottish MP's from voting on English matters. But the opposite already occurs!

Finally, I believe that fixing some of the issues surrounding this and the Barnett formula will actually increase the strength of the Union, thanks to the increased fairness of the situation.

Architect, I agree with your point too! If I was alive back then, I would probably have commented on the unfairness of the situation back then too. :)

[Fiona]

I do not think you understand democracy Uzzy. If it were the settled will of the English that they wished to have an assembly then that is what they would have. The fact is it is not. They want to have their cake and eat it, just as they always have. I realise it is probably quite hard for some to realise that the uk parliament is not the English parliament. I realise that some feel in some way deprived. But this just is not true.

The uk parliament votes on the issues which are controlled by that parliament. Decisions taken there are paid for by the uk treasury: not by a separate English budget. Many matters are not devolved and so whatever decisions are made by the UK parliament has cost implications for the UK, not just for England. There are no purely English matters because that is what your population has chosen to ensure.

If you do not like it then change it: but do not attempt to disenfranchise others while claiming to support the union. What you are actually advocating is hegemony of the English over UK matters. This is hardly likely to strengthen unionist feeling in the rest of the UK. I get a bit irritated with this whinging. Take some responsibility for yourselves,

[Uzzy]

Polling last year suggested that most in the UK supported the setting up of an English Parliament, as you can see here. Source. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm)

Even if it were the settled will of the English people that they wanted an English Parliament/Assembly/Grand Committee, they could not have it at present until 2010 at the earliest, when the next general election occurs. If Labour win that, then it won't happen for another five years, as Labour have a vested interest in not allowing an English Parliament, as they would lose power in such a situation. Even if it were shown that 90%+ of people wanted an English Parliament, Labour wouldn't change that position. That's democracy for you. Something I understand quite well. ;)

Now, your argument that I want English Hegemony over UK issues is nonsense. The UK Parliament would exist to discuss issues that relate to the entire UK, such as foreign policy, defence and the environment. The English Parliament would discuss issues that relate to England, like health, education and social policy. The Scottish Parliament would discuss issues that relate to Scotland, like health, education and social policy. This seems quite fair. Further, I would give the Scottish Parliament the right to set it's own taxes, allowing it to operate it's own, independent budget (with a percentage agreed upon by all nations to be put into the 'UK' Purse, which gets spent on defence etc)

[Fiona]

Why do you think it is ok to disenfranchise us now, but not to remain disenfranchised (as you see yourselves), for the period you describe? Why do you say you cannot vote for what you want? There is no reason at all not to set up a party for an English parliament and vote for that. Your link shows there is already a movement in the "English Democrats", so vote for them if this is what you want. You would soon find that the other parties changed to be in favour if they were losing votes. The fact is that, despite your poll, not enough English people want this to make it a problem for the main parties. But if they did you are correct, it could not happen before the next election (barring enough support to trigger a referendum). That is how our system works. The Scottish people accepted it for a very, very long time, albeit unhappily. You have the remedy in your own hands. Unless you have separate budget there are no purely English issues and that is all there is to it.

[kittynh]

you see the high number of people not living in the UK that want Scottish independence ....

well, we had our butts kicked out of Scotland by the British.

And even though it has been one heck of a long time...the anger is still there.

It isn't about economics.

Economics - it made sense for the colonies to stay with Great Britian. But, there are things besides money. Despite the "taxation" cry, it wasn't about taxation, it was about how we felt about ourselves as a people. It was being a second class citizen. It was being looked down upon.

For many years in the US the government did not allow the Native people to run their own affairs. We had a whole part of government (still do) that "managed" the native tribes. They weren't capable and didn't have the resources to be on their own. Well, guess what? Even though many reservations have problems still, they are happier on their own and the problems are LESS than they were when the US government had total control. It's like "if you make a mistake we have only ourselves to blame". A LOT of tribes are doing really well. Gambling is going great guns. The group that runs Foxwoods makes a lot of money which they invest and also use for education AND have one of the best Native museums in the world. They are dedicating a large part of their profits to conserve the languages and cultures of ALL the native tribes in the United States. I've taken kids on school trips there, and it's enough to bring tears to your eyes.

I remember being in Scotland and hearing a speech by John Major in which he openly said that Scots were capable of handling their finanaces. He said this in Glasgow, and he was lucky he wasn't lynched. I know things are different NOW, but you know, memories are long. It's not a good history.

It would be nice...a lot of us still think that. Scots all over the world think that. Because we know, the people that kicked our families out are still running things.

Plus those Germans you have as royalty! Yikes!

[kittynh]

oh and what about all that red head prejudice? Huh?

And if one more person says that Dr.Johnson quote....

Actually England is lucky that Scotland has not taken the same route as Northern Ireland.

what would it hurt? Not much.

It's like an unhappy marriage. Well you've put up with it for so long.

Yeah, time to cut to the chase and end it.

[Complexity]

At the risk of a derail: apart from the problem of retaining a Monarchy is there any reason this particular title irks you?


The sheer arrogance of the notion that the heir to the English throne is the 'prince' of Wales.

I've never bought into the fiction of 'Britain'.

[Darat]

The sheer arrogance of the notion that the heir to the English throne is the 'prince' of Wales.

I've never bought into the fiction of 'Britain'.

Well this stems from the fact that there is more than a hint of er "special beliefs" in regards to the monarchy. And remember that the Tudors were a Welsh royal dynasty.

[Darat]

oh and what about all that red head prejudice? Huh?

And if one more person says that Dr.Johnson quote....

Actually England is lucky that Scotland has not taken the same route as Northern Ireland.

...snip...

I am assuming you didn't mean it to read like this but to me you may as well have said:

""England is lucky" that English people weren't murdered, maimed and tortured in terrible terrorist incidents by Scottish people"

Perhaps "we" were so lucky because USA folk didn't send money to pay for the explosives and bullets and guns that murdered and maimed so many of my fellow citizens of the UK.

[Uzzy]

Fiona: I actually want an English Parliament/whatever, so I won't vote for the English Democrats. Far better to vote for the Conservatives, who would appear to have the position of wanting a grand committee to discuss English issues. Even if the English Democrats were standing for election in my area, I wouldn't vote for them, as it's a wasted vote.

Labour would never allow a vote, or a referendum on an English parliament, for the simple reason that they would lose power. As it's not a major issue, Labour assume (correctly) they can see out any discussion about it. Heck, it rarely comes up, even in political debates. I rarely see it brought up on newsnight, and it took an idiotic gaffe by the leader of Scottish Labour for the issue to be brought up now. Come 2010, I doubt it will be a major issue either, though I hope that both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives offer policies that lead to a solution to this issue.

We do indeed have the solution in our own hands, which is why I'm arguing for an English Grand Committee. Hopefully this will come to pass sooner rather then later, as I'm sure that when it comes into existence, the union will be strengthened. However, the current Labour government is not thinking about keeping the union together. They are only concerned about their own political ends.

Your argument about the UK budget is a good one, though the implication of that is that there aren't any purely Scottish issues either, so the Scots shouldn't have the exclusive rights to vote on Scottish matters. Really, there are only two defensible positions in this. Just one Parliament, the UK Parliament, that decides all issues relating to the UK, or a series of devolved institutions to decide issues relating to the various nations that constitute the UK. Any other set-up is obviously unfair.

A solution to the West Lothian question, and setting up separate budgets for England and Scotland, would strengthen the union, as it resolves the inbuilt unfairness of the current set up, and restores constitutional equilibrium. The West Lothian question, along with the Barnett formula, may not come up that often as a major concern among voters, but when it does and people realise the implications, there is a fury over the current situation, and people want change. That will hopefully come in 2010.

[Fiona]

Fiona: I actually want an English Parliament/whatever, so I won't vote for the English Democrats. Far better to vote for the Conservatives, who would appear to have the position of wanting a grand committee to discuss English issues. Even if the English Democrats were standing for election in my area, I wouldn't vote for them, as it's a wasted vote.

If you won't vote for it then it won't happen

Labour would never allow a vote, or a referendum on an English parliament, for the simple reason that they would lose power.

It was allowed in Scotland despite the fact that labour ran the risk of losing power in England if the Scots went for independence, so I think this argument is a non-starter.

[b] As it's not a major issue, Labour assume (correctly) they can see out any discussion about it. Heck, it rarely comes up, even in political debates. I rarely see it brought up on newsnight, and it took an idiotic gaffe by the leader of Scottish Labour for the issue to be brought up now. Come 2010, I doubt it will be a major issue either, though I hope that both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives offer policies that lead to a solution to this issue.[b]

Precisely. Your compatriots don't want it. And that, I am afraid, is democracy. Tough, ain't it?

We do indeed have the solution in our own hands, which is why I'm arguing for an English Grand Committee.

Why a Grand Committee? What is the point in that rather than a separate assembley? Is it to preserve the view that the UK parliament and the English parliament are one? If not what is it for?

Hopefully this will come to pass sooner rather then later, as I'm sure that when it comes into existence, the union will be strengthened.

I assume you mean the English will stop whining about the change in the political weather? It won't do a thing to strengthen unionist feeling on this side of the border and unless it comes complete with a budget separate from the UK budget then it will certainly speed independence, for the reasons I have given

However, the current Labour government is not thinking about keeping the union together. They are only concerned about their own political ends.

Yes. That is true of all parties and it is why if there were support for an English assembly you would get it

Your argument about the UK budget is a good one, though the implication of that is that there aren't any purely Scottish issues either, so the Scots shouldn't have the exclusive rights to vote on Scottish matters.

Not so. The budget for the Scottish parliament is separate from the budget of the UK parliament. How Scotland chooses to spend it has no implications for the English. This is not true in reverse. That is the point of this argument

Really, there are only two defensible positions in this. Just one Parliament, the UK Parliament, that decides all issues relating to the UK, or a series of devolved institutions to decide issues relating to the various nations that constitute the UK. Any other set-up is obviously unfair.

With the third option of independence taken as read, I agree. The problem is you compatriots don't. To me their stance is wholly illogical but it is their stance and it is not for me to tell them where their interests lie. Meantime I will not accept that I should be disenfranchised because they are being silly

A solution to the West Lothian question, and setting up separate budgets for England and Scotland, would strengthen the union, as it resolves the inbuilt unfairness of the current set up, and restores constitutional equilibrium.

I repeat, there is no unfairness. UK MP's vote on UK issues, as they should. Scottish MP's vote on Scottish issues, as they should. This system has persisted for a very long time prior to Scottish and Welsh devolution and it is only the English who wished to maintain it in the earlier form. And that is entirely up to them. There is no unfairness at all - they have what they voted for and so do we. Can you really not understand that there are good and bad side effects of political decisions and that which you see as unfairness is a predictable and entirely reasonable consequence of the decisions of the different populations? This has nothing whatsoever to do with Scottish devolution or Welsh or Northern Irish devolution: It is entirely an English problem, if it is a problem at all. Fix it or don't. But leave us out of it


The West Lothian question, along with the Barnett formula, may not come up that often as a major concern among voters, but when it does and people realise the implications, there is a fury over the current situation, and people want change. That will hopefully come in 2010.

There is fury because they got what they voted for. But there is no evidence at all that there is anything other than temper tantrum at the base of it. They don't want Scotland to have better services than they have themselves:but they don't want to pay tax: and they don't want a social democratic government, it seems. We do, and we have not had that option for many many years because of the union.

I do not see you have a substantive point at all Uzzy. All I see is people who had it their own way for a long time and smugly assumed the UK parliament was the English Parliament. They now realise it is a British Parliament and that does not suit them at all. If the union is to be maintained then they better stop bellyaching and recognise the realities of the constitution. Then they can get their own assembly as soon as they like and we can stop this arrant nonsense.

Meantime it is a UK parliament and there is no argument at all for having second class MP's in it.

[Architect]

At the moment we're partly federal. It's a recipe for trouble. I agree with Fiona's last paragraph (and sentence thereafter). We go all the way federal, or I suspect we go our separate ways. And as you know, I'd welcome the latter.

[Architect]

At the moment we're partly federal. It's a recipe for trouble. I agree with Fiona's last paragraph (and sentence thereafter). We go all the way federal, or I suspect we go our separate ways. And as you know, I'd welcome the latter.

[Uzzy]

If you won't vote for it then it won't happen.Read what I said. I would not vote for the English Democrats as it would be a wasted vote. I would vote for the Conservatives, however, as they have a policy of an English Grand Committee.

It was allowed in Scotland despite the fact that labour ran the risk of losing power in England if the Scots went for independence, so I think this argument is a non-starter.Hardly. Labour assumed that it would be a popular policy in Scotland, ensuring continued support from the Scots, both in the national and Scottish parliament. Further, the 1997 referendum only asked the question of a parliament, not independence. So the Scots could not have gone for independence.

Labour took a risk in assuming that, having given the Scots a parliament, Scotland would be grateful to them, knowing that the SNP could never have achieved that on it's own. That's a fair assumption, and one that worked for 8 years.

Precisely. Your compatriots don't want it. And that, I am afraid, is democracy. Tough, ain't it? Read what I said. Read the poll I showed you. My compatriots do want an independent English parliament/whatever. As do the Scots. As do the SNP. It is not, however, a major issue, compared to taxes, Iraq, the health service etc.

Why a Grand Committee? What is the point in that rather than a separate assembley? Is it to preserve the view that the UK parliament and the English parliament are one? If not what is it for?Saves money. Means that we can use Westminster still. Really it's just a practical solution. I wouldn't object to building a new chamber to have an English Assembly/Parliament, but it would cost a fair amount.

I assume you mean the English will stop whining about the change in the political weather? It won't do a thing to strengthen unionist feeling on this side of the border and unless it comes complete with a budget separate from the UK budget then it will certainly speed independence, for the reasons I have givenNo. They will stop 'whining' about the gross unfairness of the current situation. Further, I have been arguing for a separate budget for Scotland! Anything to end the perverse Barnett formula.

Yes. That is true of all parties and it is why if there were support for an English assembly you would get it I am sure we will get it when a party that supports an English assembly is actually in power and able to change things. The Tories will likely push for it in 2010, knowing full well that if they get one, it will likely prevent Labour from returning to power in England for quite some time.

Not so. The budget for the Scottish parliament is separate from the budget of the UK parliament. How Scotland chooses to spend it has no implications for the English. This is not true in reverse. That is the point of this argumentIncorrect, given that it's UK taxes that pay for the Scottish parliament's budget. We all put money into the UK purse. However, only the Scots have any say over how Scotland spends it's share of the purse. How the English spend their share of the purse is decided upon by the entire UK parliament, including Scottish MP's.

With the third option of independence taken as read, I agree. The problem is you compatriots don't. To me their stance is wholly illogical but it is their stance and it is not for me to tell them where their interests lie. Meantime I will not accept that I should be disenfranchised because they are being silly So why should English MP's be disenfranchised from deciding upon Scottish issues?


I repeat, there is no unfairness. UK MP's vote on UK issues, as they should. Scottish MP's vote on Scottish issues, as they should.You see no unfairness over Scottish MP's deciding upon purely English issues? You see no unfairness over bills enforcing Top-up fees on England being carried by Scottish votes, while Scotland has no Top-up fees? You see no unfairness over that situation while English MP's cannot have any say over purely Scottish issues?

I have every intention of leaving the Scots out of it. I want Scotland to have full control over it's economy, to have full tax rights.

Why, infact, are you determined to enforce your rule over England? The supporters of an English Parliament want nothing more then a fair playing field. If we are bitter, we are bitter over the unfairness of the current situation. Saying that 'it was like this in the past' has no bearing upon my opinion, as frankly, I wasn't alive. So why should I have to deal with an unfair system, where things like Top-up fees get enforced by Scottish MP's? Or why should my taxes be used to give Scotland an advantage in terms of public spending, thanks to the Barnett formula, something even Lord Barnett himself now sees as unfair.

Saying that English concerns over the situation is 'whining' is not a way to keep the union together. Actually addressing the concerns and restoring a measure of fairness to the union is, infact, a way of keeping the union together.

[mummymonkey]

You mean you voted no to devolution, I presume, since we haven't had a referendum on independence, ever.Indeed. No & no.

Now we've got what you voted against, how do you feel about it? Would you think we'd be better off without it?It's a complete waste of money. If it were to disappear tommorrow the only difference would be a few less ********* on the telly and a few bob less spent on nest feathering in Edinburgh.

I have a feeling that people aren't talking about it for fear of getting into destructive arguments. That's one of the reasons I put up the poll, to see how the balance of the argument split.People aren't talking about it because by and large people have more interesting things to talk about. Politics is dull and Scottish politics is duller.

The problem is not England as such, but the concentration of power in London and the south east, and in particular the Westminster system.So reform Westminster and move it to Leeds.

[Fiona]

@ Uzzy. In the first place: I don't want to keep the union together, but I don't think that is relevant, since you do.

Secondly: Scottish MP's do NOT vote on English issues: UK MP's do. Why can't you understand that?

Third: It is relevant what happened in the past because that is the system we have until you change it.

[lucan]

I dont know every time I have to visit the Scottish Parliament for some reason I keep thinking I am in Douglas Adams's B ARK from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

[Nogbad]

I dont know every time I have to visit the Scottish Parliament for some reason I keep thinking I am in Douglas Adams's B ARK from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy


Harsh words if you are saying the likes of John Prescott, Lembit Oatbiscuit and George Osborne are the A Ark. :eek:

[Architect]

I assume that he's only seen Wendy in action.....

;)

[Nogbad]

I assume that he's only seen Wendy in action.....

;)

A scary image to take to bed with me :eek:

[Architect]

LOL

[Rolfe]

Please carry on. This is fascinating. [Rolfe reaches for popcorn....:popcorn1 ]

By the way, I'll just mention that it has been SNP policy like forever that its members should not vote on matters which do not apply to Scotland. This had the entertaining consequence of some Labour apparatchik trying to smear SNP MPs for their poor voting record.

Rolfe.

[Uzzy]

You know, I've no problem when Scottish MP's vote on UK issues, along with the rest of the UK parliament. That is entirely right and proper.

Look. The Higher Education Act 2004, which introduced Top-up fees, in England and Wales only, was passed purely thanks to the votes of Scottish MP's. As University Funding is a devolved issue, it's decided upon by the Scottish parliament, who decided against Top-up fees in Scotland.

That is my problem. Issues that affect England only should only be voted upon by the members of parliament that are elected by the English.

[Architect]

The UK parliament is empowered to legislate on all UK issues. You cannot create two classes of MPs. Next it'll be the old canard about how a Scotsman can be PM when an Englishman can't be FIrst Minister (note: this is not correct). If you want an English body to vote on English issues, then create an English Parliament.

[Uzzy]

If you want an English body to vote on English issues, then create an English Parliament.

That's my idea. Though to avoid wasting money, I find the English Grand Committee idea quite appealing. Purely from a financial perspective, of course.

[martu]

I voted 'No' as a UK resident who doesn't get to vote, my reasons were discussed in the other thread but basically I find Nationalism ugly, irrational and harmful.

[Architect]

And I fear you may be confusing Balkan nationalism with self-determination movements in (say) Scotland and Wales. Surely you can't object to self determination?

[martu]

Irrelevant

[Architect]

I decided that the quoted text didn't really add anything to the conversation and changed it.

[martu]

And I fear you may be confusing Balkan nationalism with self-determination movements in (say) Scotland and Wales. Surely you can't object to self determination?

I don't know what self determination means in this context, what different desires do the Scottish have to the rest of the UK? Or the rest of the world for that matter?

[Nogbad]

I don't know what self determination means in this context, what different desires do the Scottish have to the rest of the UK? Or the rest of the world for that matter?

So in your view it was wrong of Norway to separate from Sweden?

Not that I have a problem with that if you do like.

[martu]

So in your view it was wrong of Norway to separate from Sweden?

Not that I have a problem with that if you do like.

Yes - I would like to see barriers between people torn down rather than erected. Are the Swedes and the Norwegians so different they can't work together? No.

[Professor Yaffle]

I indicated on the other thread that I didn't feel that strongly either way, but have voted yes to independence here on the grounds that it is more likely to leave me in a country which is not ruled by a Tory/Tory-lite government.

[PogoPedant]

Yes - I would like to see barriers between people torn down rather than erected. Are the Swedes and the Norwegians so different they can't work together? No.

... and in fact we do work together. We have an open border, fairly free trade, and a very close relationship*. However, we are two different people with different (just about) languages, different history, and different identities.

I think we work together as well as we do, in part because we do recognize that we are different and that we both need self-determination. Once we treat each other as equal and sovereign, we can engage in a meaningful, peaceful, and mutually beneficial relationship.

*despite the evil bastards stealing our land and having generally more successful pop-stars than we do.

[martu]

... and in fact we do work together. We have an open border, fairly free trade, and a very close relationship*. However, we are two different people with different (just about) languages, different history, and different identities.

I think we work together as well as we do, in part because we do recognize that we are different and that we both need self-determination. Once we treat each other as equal and sovereign, we can engage in a meaningful, peaceful, and mutually beneficial relationship.

*despite the evil bastards stealing our land and having generally more successful pop-stars than we do.

What is so different between you that you require different governance? What desires do you have that are different? What needs do you have that are different?

We all want the same thing - peace, safety, food, health and time to play.

[PogoPedant]

What is so different between you that you require different governance? What desires do you have that are different? What needs do you have that are different?

We all want the same thing - peace, safety, food, health and time to play.

When we split, the Norwegian people were dependent on trade with continental Europe. We sold fish and other goods to the Europeans, and got much needed grains and stuff in return. Sweden, on the other hand, was developing their industrial base and wanted to raise trade barriers, to help their own industry to mature without the added pressure of foreign competition.

This posed a problem, as Norwegians would suffer from Swedish foreign policy. The solution was to give the King his marching papers, and get an independent government for Norway, so we got to decide our own foreign policy.

We all want peace, safety, food, health, and time to play, but the way to achieve said benefits will vary from people to people.

[ddt]

*despite the evil bastards stealing our land
Just curious: which land? I know about Skaane, but that was Danish :)


and having generally more successful pop-stars than we do.
They do share, though. Anni-Frid, of Abba fame, was Norwegian :)

[PogoPedant]

Just curious: which land? I know about Skaane, but that was Danish :)

Well, there was Jämtland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4mtland) and Herjedalen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A4rjedalen) as well, but I don't think we're going to need them back. :)


They do share, though. Anni-Frid, of Abba fame, was Norwegian :)

That's a good point. See martu? We can all live harmonious lives, even if we don't vote in the same parliament.

... also at least one of the guys in Europe (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0ZkllM8znx4) was sort of Norwegian.

However, this was about Scotland and it's upcoming, potential independence, so I apologize for the derail.

[martu]

When we split, the Norwegian people were dependent on trade with continental Europe. We sold fish and other goods to the Europeans, and got much needed grains and stuff in return. Sweden, on the other hand, was developing their industrial base and wanted to raise trade barriers, to help their own industry to mature without the added pressure of foreign competition.

This posed a problem, as Norwegians would suffer from Swedish foreign policy. The solution was to give the King his marching papers, and get an independent government for Norway, so we got to decide our own foreign policy.

We all want peace, safety, food, health, and time to play, but the way to achieve said benefits will vary from people to people.

Another solution was to work with Sweden to resolve the issues was that tried at all? Convince Sweden that, for the good of both countries, a different policy was required.

[PogoPedant]

Another solution was to work with Sweden to resolve the issues was that tried at all? Convince Sweden that, for the good of both countries, a different policy was required.

This is getting far off topic, but wikipedia has a good article on the dissolution of the union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden _in_1905). In very broad terms, what was good for Sweden was bad for Norway, and vice versa. In effect, it was a good marriage turned bad for reasons of growing apart; our interests diverged. We split and remained good friends.

Another analogy could be a corporation with multiple divisions. If one division is heading in a different direction than the rest of the corporation, it might be in everyone's interest, if that one division branches off and becomes an independent corp. I don't understand this issue you have with self-determination.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Look. The Higher Education Act 2004, which introduced Top-up fees, in England and Wales only, was passed purely thanks to the votes of Scottish MP's.

My recollection is somewhat different - I think one vote at one intermediate stage of the bill's progress was influenced by Scottish votes. However the vote on the third reading (which is the critical one in that this is the approval of the legislation in its final form) would have been passed even if the votes of all Scottish MP's had been ignored.

Difficult to see that as being passed purely thanks to the votes of Scottish MP's, but of course that isn't as good a soundbite.

I recollect there was something similar in regard to Foundation hospitals.

Now that I have listed all of the occasions when Scottish MP's could conceivably have been said to have imposed legislation on the English without their consent in the last 30 years, do you want to start a list of all the legislation imposed on Scotland over that period by the votes of English MP's without their consent? Or shall we stop pretending that the two are in any way comparable?

That is my problem. Issues that affect England only should only be voted upon by the members of parliament that are elected by the English.

I agree. That's why I support independence.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Another solution was to work with Sweden to resolve the issues was that tried at all? Convince Sweden that, for the good of both countries, a different policy was required.

And if in fact the interests of the two countries were actually different? I.e. what was good for Norway was bad for Sweden and vice versa? What then? Why do you object to them being separate so both can follow the best policy for their own interests? Why must one (or both) follow a less than ideal solution?

[Architect]

Martu

You're sentiments are laudible, but wholly unrealistic. Peoples do not work in harmony other than in the Coca-Cola inspired adverts of a bygone era. If we eventually reach that position then good and well, but in the interim what is fundamentally wrong with peoples chosing self-determination and the right to govern their own affairs?

[martu]

Martu

You're sentiments are laudible, but wholly unrealistic. Peoples do not work in harmony other than in the Coca-Cola inspired adverts of a bygone era. If we eventually reach that position then good and well, but in the interim what is fundamentally wrong with peoples chosing self-determination and the right to govern their own affairs?

I'll answer just this post if I may as it answers (I hope) what I have been asked.

All the people we are discussing can and do govern themselves, I believe they all live in democracies with basic human rights. All well and good. What they also have is this belief they are 'Norwegian' or 'Scottish' (for example) and this makes them different from other people in other countries. Why? Well history mainly, a long time ago some bugger with a big sword claimed a bit of land for his tribe and that was it. Causing problems ever since, wars over land and resources beat all other causes for war hands down. Isn't time we decided to grow up a bit, realise that guy who lives in the country over there is the same and maybe if we co operated we could achieve more?

Thousands of years ago it was the other village who we couldn't work in harmony with. A few generations on and the villages got together and it was the other collection of villages we couldn't work in harmony with. Then these villages became city states and it was the other city states we couldn't work in harmony with. Then nations etc and so on. At each step we have realised that actually that other person in that village, town, nation is basically the same and we can work with them. And should work with them.*

Architect you say

If we eventually reach that position then good and well


agreeing with me this end state, a world with one government looking after all equally, would be a good thing yet right now you want to take steps away from it, steps to create divisions between people. I am not sure why.

It's just a matter of scale - thousands of years ago people would have been shocked that millions of people could consider themselves one tribe (or indeed exist but go with it please...), now it's ordinary. Let's make our tribe billions strong and see what we can achieve.

*apologies for those that read the other thread, this was in that.

[martu]

And if in fact the interests of the two countries were actually different? I.e. what was good for Norway was bad for Sweden and vice versa? What then? Why do you object to them being separate so both can follow the best policy for their own interests? Why must one (or both) follow a less than ideal solution?

It would be rude not to answer these direct questions. Unfortunately with questions of my own, I apologise.

Are the interests of all the people in Scotland and Norway the same? Why do you think the group of people that live in Scotland can all get along and work together yet when they join up with those in England they can't? Are the people there that different do you think? Or maybe you think it's caused by geography or social issues - just how similar is someone who works in Edinburgh and someone who lives and works in the Shetlands? Does the bank teller in Edinburgh have more in common with the bank teller in London or the shepherd in the Highlands?

I do not see why you think an accident of birth shapes you - unless you think people are fundamentally different somehow?

[Fiona]

Well it is not really about people. As has already been pointed out, the economics of different regions are different. That is why Norway and Sweden parted and it is also why Scotland and England should part (though if folk were rational the border would be somewhat different, and to that extent you are right about the sense of identity being important as well. )

[Architect]

Martu

That different peoples can have things in common is obvious; yes, the bank teller in Scotland will have much in common with the bank teller in London.....or Paris.....or Berlin......or Montreal. However to suggest that they may be identical in societal outlook is clearly wrong. It sets at naught the culture, the history, the language, the aspirations of our different nations. It seeks to create harmony through the removal of differentation, the levelling of humanity, the creation of a hemogenised humanity.

[pdw709]

I'm an Englishman living and working in Scotland, and as I geologist I work in the oil industry. I voted a NO in the poll.

It really is such a stupid issue. There is no need for independance, we function perfectly well as a single country. With independance would come increased buracracy, wasted money and complications. For a start its almost certain that Scotland would adopt the Euro, and that would be a mistake. The amount of business that is done between Scotland and England is enourmous, and people are used to crossing the border all the time.

There are so many more important things to be worrying about..........

Phil

[Phytotherapist]

I'm a foreigner with no ties with UK so I don't have the right to say whether I'm for or against Scottish indipendence. I live in Italy near the Slovenian border and I witnessed the breakdown of former Yugoslavia in many(6) national states which is very bad for them in terms of costs (human and economic).

A few days ago I visited an engineer friend of mine in Zagreb (the capital of Croatia) and asked him whether he was happy with the indipendence of his country. His reply was a firm NO although he supported the indipendence. He told me that the "Belgrade mafia" was replaced by the "ZAgreb mafia" and that his living condition is worse than it was 20 years ago (he barely earns the equivalent of 1,000 EUR). The fact that his country is now sovereign means nothing to him (and to many of his countrymen). The facts are that the country is too small and the costs soared (just think on all embassies around the world etc.). Moreover the gap between rich and poor increased as well as crime rates. We agreed that the only thing that matters are living standards and the proper functioning of the justice system. The worst thing in his opinion is that now people can't blame Belgrade for all the trouble they are experiencing.

If the question was: Are you for or against the indipendence of Slovenia, Croatia,Serbia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Montenegro and Macedonia (the 6 Republics of former Yugoslavia), I would have voted against.

[Rolfe]

Fiona, where would you put the border? Is this "Give Back Berwick" again, or something more?

Rolfe.

[Fiona]

I am not entirely certain, but it seems to me that the economy of the north of england is very much more like ours than it is like the south east of that country. I am not sure where the change comes but I think that policy based on the interests of London is detrimental to much of the country, not just to scotland and wales

[Rolfe]

You may well be right in strict economic terms, however this isn't just about economics. Berwick is a special case, obviously, but apart from that I don't know how much support you'd get from either side of the accepted border for that idea. In spite of various incursions on either side over the years is it actually one of the oldest land borders in Europe, and the feeling of being either English or Scottish isn't something you can change overnight.

Rolfe.

[Fiona]

I did acknowledge that sense of identity is very important in this. It just happens it isn't very important to me. :)

[Architect]

The amount of business that is done between Scotland and England is enourmous, and people are used to crossing the border all the time.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

1. I believe that the SNP indicated that they would stick with Sterling for the foreseeable future for pretty much reasons of UK trade.

2. Are you seriously suggesting/concerned that independence would see the introduction of border controls/restrictions?

I'm a Scot who works in England - about 40% of my workload, in fact - but also in Ireland, where none of the problems you seem to be concerned about arose.

[martu]

Martu

That different peoples can have things in common is obvious; yes, the bank teller in Scotland will have much in common with the bank teller in London.....or Paris.....or Berlin......or Montreal. However to suggest that they may be identical in societal outlook is clearly wrong. It sets at naught the culture, the history, the language, the aspirations of our different nations. It seeks to create harmony through the removal of differentation, the levelling of humanity, the creation of a hemogenised humanity.

No it doesn't - what I am yet to hear is why the collection of people considered Scottish, who are as diverse as any group of people in the UK, can be considered by you as a group with similar aspirations yet move the border south to Dover and suddenly these people don't have similar aspirations.

It's a truism that different people have different needs, desires, aims and goals. What I don't understand is why Nationalism, this accident of birth based on historical precedence, should decide how people are split up. Can't we be a bit more logical about it all?

[martu]

I am not entirely certain, but it seems to me that the economy of the north of england is very much more like ours than it is like the south east of that country. I am not sure where the change comes but I think that policy based on the interests of London is detrimental to much of the country, not just to scotland and wales

Yes I have to agree, perhaps if we had reform in the UK the calls for Scottish independence would be fewer?

[pdw709]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

1. I believe that the SNP indicated that they would stick with Sterling for the foreseeable future for pretty much reasons of UK trade.

2. Are you seriously suggesting/concerned that independence would see the introduction of border controls/restrictions?

I'm a Scot who works in England - about 40% of my workload, in fact - but also in Ireland, where none of the problems you seem to be concerned about arose.

Firstly Ireland is a non issue, as it is a separate country and not part of the UK. As to the border control restrictions, I'm not so sure. The UK is not part of the Schengen Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement), and all other borders are actively enforced, so why would they make an exception for Scotland?

Also to answer your question on currency, why would the UK allow the Pound be used north of the border? Although perhaps more importantly, why would the the Scottish government want to adopt it? - why adopt a currency over which it has no control? The whole point of having independance would be to have control over its own finances. The only way Scotland could move forward would be IF the EU would recognise them as a nation state and let them adopt the Euro. Even that would open a can of worms as the EU would then have to consider similar requests from say the Basque region of Spain and others.....

Phil

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Firstly Ireland is a non issue, as it is a separate
country and not part of the UK.

And yet Architect can work quite easily there, despite being based in the Uk without the problems that you seem to think must be insurmountable.

You are right that it is not an issue, but not for the reason you think.

As to the border control restrictions, I'm not so sure. The UK is not part of the Schengen Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement), and all other borders are actively enforced, so why would they make an exception for Scotland?

I would imagine arrangements would work in exactly the same way they do on the existing land border between the UK and another EU member state, i.e. extremely simply and extremely well. Do you consider that border to be "actively enforced"? What would stop the same solution being adopted for the Scottish/English border?

Also to answer your question on currency, why would the UK allow the Pound be used north of the border?

What are you going to do, storm over the border and grab all the notes and coins? Demand copyright payments for all computer programmes that use the £ symbol? How precisely is the UK going to stop it? I made a bet with a friend the other day in euros and neither of those sought the permission of the European Central Bank - who are you going to report us to?

[Soapy Sam]

My mother's parents were from Somerset, so what I want is to see the Independent Republic of Scotland, Wales, Ireland (both bits), the South West of Britain, Newcastle & environs, Liverpool, Large Tracts of Yorks., Northumberland, The Lakes, The Pennines and damn near Everywhere Else, leaving essentially the Home Counties and Morningside (linked by a direct tram line) to go their own way.

We would then unite with Canada, invade the USA and teach the Benighted Heathens how to play proper football.

As to the current question, I am emotionally for independence , if only to make so many of my friends stop blaming the awful English for all evil.

Logically though, I see no sense in it. In an Independent Scotland the various factions, political and economic, would rapidly fall into the usual internecine squabbling- and by god, Wallace and Bruce knew whereof I speak.
The Kirk would perhaps seek to become again a power in the land, a land now half Roman catholic, half atheist, half muslim, half Prod, half innumerate.
The electorate of Scotland is half-assed socialist, for the same reason they are Catholic or Protestant atheists- because their fathers were. Traditionalist to a man. Same reason they support Rangers and simultaneously drink to the King over the Water (Donald Trump)- because they never read a history book in their life and fail to realise that the "Scottish" character is as much a series of contingent paradoxes as any other national identity.

Who would rule an independent Scotland? Certainly not the SNP, which would fly apart without the centripetal pull of the Nationalist Cause.
The Conservative (and Unionist) Party? HA!
Lib Dems? They would probably get a foot in the door, but I can't see them in power.
The Labour Party? Which one? There are so many. We spawn them as America spawns protestant denominations.

There's not much doubt that we would be dominated by various shades of socialism, none of them to my taste.
And they would be in the pocket of a cabal of Edinburgh lawyers who ought to be first against the wall in any real revolution. (First thing we do...)

Who would be head of state?
Tommy and Gail? (Free upgrades to business class for all).
Princess Anne? (We could do worse).
Kirsty Wark? Get me out of here.

Who would be the real power brokers? The energy companies? The Russian Mafia? The banks? The Masons? The Illuminati?

My god- that's it! Rolfe is a closet Templar! This explains the move to Roslynn and the raised political profile in the Herald. It's all coming clear- she actually is part of the NWO and it's happening here!

No, thanks. Better the devil you know, I reckon. I'm with MummyMonkey- The UK is a cludge, but it's a reasonably decent cludge. If it needs reform, lets reform it; just walking away looks too much like sheer gutlessness.

[Lothian]

Also to answer your question on currency, why would the UK allow the Pound be used north of the border? Same reason they allow it to be used in Eire and the Euro to be used in Northern Ireland.

[Lothian]

My mother's parents were from Somerset, so what I want is to see the Independent Republic of Scotland, Wales, Ireland (both bits), the South West of Britain, Newcastle & environs, Liverpool, Large Tracts of Yorks., Northumberland, The Lakes, The Pennines and damn near Everywhere Else, leaving essentially the Home Counties and Morningside (linked by a direct tram line) to go their own way.That would be my preference. I voted for the Northeast assembly, which was sadly rejected as an additional layer of bureaucracy. Regional Government works where the regions have real power and there is a cheap building for them to be housed in :).

I would prefer that more power is given to the Scottish parliament and ideally to newly created regional equivalents in England while keeping a UK government for national issues.

My regions would be

London,
SE
SW
East Midlands
West Midlands
NW &
NE

[Soapy Sam]

Regional Government works where the regions have real power and there is a cheap building for them to be housed in :).

Of which there are several along the M8 between Harthill and Livingston, but they were too far from the buses to suit the Nabobs of Scottish Politics- hence the sinking ship at Holyrood- (Which I predict will require major repair to crumbling concrete within a decade).

[Lothian]

Of which there are several along the M8 between Harthill and Livingston, but they were too far from the buses to suit the Nabobs of Scottish Politics- hence the sinking ship at Holyrood- (Which I predict will require major repair to crumbling concrete within a decade).I thought masonry falling on the conservative SMPs heads was a commissioned design feature.

[Soapy Sam]

There's little sense there to knock out.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I thought masonry falling on the conservative SMPs heads was a commissioned design feature.

To be fair, it was only going to fall on Derek Brownlee's head, and there is nothing in there to be harmed.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

There's little sense there to knock out.

Great minds think alike.

DB went from a relatively lowly manager in an accounting firm to Tory finance spokesman overnight. Tells you something about the standard of MSP.

[Lothian]

Great minds think alike.

DB went from a relatively lowly manager in an accounting firm to Tory finance spokesman overnight. Tells you something about the standard of MSP.Given that there are 16 ministerial posts and 16 Tories I guess it would have been rather obvious if he wasn't made spokeman for something.

[Architect]

Firstly Ireland is a non issue, as it is a separate country and not part of the UK. As to the border control restrictions, I'm not so sure. The UK is not part of the Schengen Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement), and all other borders are actively enforced, so why would they make an exception for Scotland?


With respect, your grasp of the Irish issue is flawed. There has always been an open border with the Irish republic, indeed even prior to the EC/EU Irish citizens were entitled to reside in this country and have access to the welfare state without worrying about entrance/visa requirements.

Any suggestion that we might have border controls is little more than scaremongering; given the close economic links between both states and frequency of cross-border traffic it would be unworkable and the Irish model would certainly apply.



Also to answer your question on currency, why would the UK allow the Pound be used north of the border? Although perhaps more importantly, why would the the Scottish government want to adopt it? - why adopt a currency over which it has no control? The whole point of having independance would be to have control over its own finances. The only way Scotland could move forward would be IF the EU would recognise them as a nation state and let them adopt the Euro. Even that would open a can of worms as the EU would then have to consider similar requests from say the Basque region of Spain and others.....


Let's break this down:

1. The Irish Punt was linked to Sterling until I was well into secondary school and didn't seem too much of a problem, albeit that they latterly went their own way in order to control interest rates and then more recently still have joined the Euro. There would be no impediment to such a route here.

2. You've raised a new point about recognition which overlooks the fact that Scotland is already a member of the EU and, in the same manner as Greenland, would actually have to negotiate to secede rather than to join. More over if independence was based on repeal of the Act of Union then, by your rules, England/Wales/NI would have to reapply too. Clearly that's not going to be the case, is it?

3. If the Basques vote for independence, then good for them. It doesn't look veyr likely, however, and it seems you're on the verge of a "slippery slope" argument.

[pdw709]

Any suggestion that we might have border controls is little more than scaremongering; given the close economic links between both states and frequency of cross-border traffic it would be unworkable and the Irish model would certainly apply.


Surely your forgetting about the issue of security. If Scotland enters the EU and adopts the Schengan "Open Borders" policy, then without an English/Scotish border control there would be no way to stop people entering Britain (England & Wales). At present we have no land borders with EU countries - we are an Island. Aiports/seports have passport control & security.

In this modern time of global terrorism I can't see the UK government NOT doing something to address the risk.

This is definitely NOT the same a Ireland/NI as we are talking about direct access to mainland UK and London.

[PogoPedant]

Surely your forgetting about the issue of security. If Scotland enters the EU and adopts the Schengan "Open Borders" policy, then without an English/Scotish border control there would be no way to stop people entering Britain (England & Wales). At present we have no land borders with EU countries - we are an Island. Aiports/seports have passport control & security.

In this modern time of global terrorism I can't see the UK government NOT doing something to address the risk.

This is definitely NOT the same a Ireland/NI as we are talking about direct access to mainland UK and London.

I don't understand this issue, and I apologize for once again bringing up Norway/Sweden. Norway is a Schengen country, Sweden is a member of the EU. There are no border controls between Norway and Sweden, and when Norwegians travel to England, we pass as EU citizens, which means that there's next to no control there either.

Now, if Scotland became independent and joined Schengen, how would England's situation differ from Swedens? (Apart from that Sweden also borders Russia, the only realistic threat left in Europe.) Who would get access to England that didn't already have access today?

[Architect]

This is definitely NOT the same a Ireland/NI as we are talking about direct access to mainland UK and London.

So, for doubt, you believe that the rump UK government would wish to implement strict border controls because of an unspecified risk to London (presumably terrorism and/or immigration) when we operated no such controls between Eire and Northern Ireland despite their being a full-blown terrorist campaign going on there for some 30 years?

You realise how illogical that is, don't you?

You also assume that Scotland would join Shengenland (as it was referred to jokingly at the time of its introduction) when it is at least as likely that it might instead opt for a wholly open border with the rump UK instead. What sources do you have for the Shengen point, or is it just an assumption?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

At present we have no land borders with EU countries - we are an Island. Aiports/seports have passport control & security.

I can think of one land border that we have with another EU country. You even mention it in your post.

I assume you are aware that you don't even need a passport to travel between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. So there already exists a perfect example of the solution to the "problem" that you are so deeply concerned about.

This is definitely NOT the same a Ireland/NI as we are talking about direct access to mainland UK and London.

Mmmm, perhaps you don't realise that it is possible to travel from Dublin to London without a passport, just as it is possible to travel from Edinburgh to London without one.

Of course that will change in 2009 when electronic borders comes in, but guess what? The NI/Republic border will STILL be open as the Republic are going to introduce electronic borders at the same time. So you will have no passport check when you travel across an international border (Republic/UK) but you will have one when you travel internally within the UK (NI/Mainland).

Again, not exactly difficult to see a very simple solution for the Scotland/England border, is it?

[Soapy Sam]

Even with full independence, I can see no reason for the border to take on any more significance than it has already- a windy carpark where people are photographed eating bad hamburgers.

I was just perusing the poll results and find the figures unsurprising- except one glaring exception - that 30% pro independence vote from the foreign faction. Is this the NWO again, or have they been eating too much tartan shortbread washed down by way too much single malt?

[peteweaver]

If Scotland were to go independent it would remain part of the EU. A decade ago Alex Salmond was proposing Scottish entry into the Euro.

As a Yorkshireman I'm indifferent, if the Scots want independence let them have it, if they don't thats fine by me too.

Only benefit of an independent Scotland I can see, is that Gordon Brown's career would be over.

[Architect]

Just don't send him home.....even if it is to Fife

[JAStewart]

I am on the UK electoral register in a Scottish constituency and I would vote no to an independent Scotland

[Architect]

What about an independent Shetland then?

[Darat]

If that's what the ponies want.

[SpitfireIX]

"I'm a foreigner with no UK ties [to speak of], and I am against Scottish independence."

I'm an American, and although I have some Scottish ancestors, I don't feel that that entitles me to claim any sort of stake in the question of independence, anymore than the fact that I'm 1/32nd Shawnee Indian entitles me to claim any sort of stake in the affairs of the three major Shawnee tribes.

That aside, I'm currently opposed to Scottish independence because I'm not convinced that a clear majority of Scots are in favor of it, and I feel that the prudent policy for the time being would be to err on the side of maintaining the status quo until the wishes of the people of Scotland can be clearly ascertained.

Also, (and I fully understand that some of you will strongly disagree on this), I don't believe that a simple majority vote in a single referendum should be sufficient for independence. The reason is that because independence is such a momentous and (theoretically) irrevocable step, I feel that some sort of super-majority should be required. I've felt this way about the Quebec independence movement for a long time, so I'm not just picking on the Scots.

[Rolfe]

As to the current question, I am emotionally for independence , if only to make so many of my friends stop blaming the awful English for all evil.


I share that sentiment!

Logically though, I see no sense in it. In an Independent Scotland the various factions, political and economic, would rapidly fall into the usual internecine squabbling- and by god, Wallace and Bruce knew whereof I speak.
The Kirk would perhaps seek to become again a power in the land, a land now half Roman catholic, half atheist, half muslim, half Prod, half innumerate.
The electorate of Scotland is half-assed socialist, for the same reason they are Catholic or Protestant atheists- because their fathers were. Traditionalist to a man. Same reason they support Rangers and simultaneously drink to the King over the Water (Donald Trump)- because they never read a history book in their life and fail to realise that the "Scottish" character is as much a series of contingent paradoxes as any other national identity.

Who would rule an independent Scotland? Certainly not the SNP, which would fly apart without the centripetal pull of the Nationalist Cause.
The Conservative (and Unionist) Party? HA!
Lib Dems? They would probably get a foot in the door, but I can't see them in power.
The Labour Party? Which one? There are so many. We spawn them as America spawns protestant denominations.

There's not much doubt that we would be dominated by various shades of socialism, none of them to my taste.
And they would be in the pocket of a cabal of Edinburgh lawyers who ought to be first against the wall in any real revolution. (First thing we do...)

Who would be head of state?
Tommy and Gail? (Free upgrades to business class for all).
Princess Anne? (We could do worse).
Kirsty Wark? Get me out of here.

Who would be the real power brokers? The energy companies? The Russian Mafia? The banks? The Masons? The Illuminati?


Leaving aside the levity, that's the sort of argument that really gets up my nose (saving your august presence).

Yes, the part where you in effect say that you feel that the political alignment of an independent Scotland would not chime with your own views does make sense as a reason to oppose independence. I would just comment that the converse of that is worth examining - the political alignment of the majority of Scots, you imply (correctly I think), is different from that imposed by being a small part of an England-dominated UK. This is in fact the main driving force for many proponents of independence, and seen in the context of Scottish nationhood it is a democratic position. Wanting to hold Scotland in the union because that delivers a political hue you happen to like, courtesy of the population of England but against the views of your countrymen, might be seen as less democratic.

The rest, however, as I said, gets up my nose.

It's just a version of "we're all too stupid and disorganised and generally incompetent to govern ourselves".

Well, sorry, no. I have a better opinion of my compatriots than that. Indeed, some of them have been pretty big beasts at Westminster within living memory, and I don't have to be a great fan of John Smith, Alec Douglas-Home, Robin Cook, Menzies Campbell, Teddy Taylor and I could go on but you get my drift, to recognise their political stature.

Do you think the Estonians or the Slovenians or the Romanians or even the Irish looked at the prospect of independence and backed off because they thought their genes didn't have the stature or what? Oh no they didn't, they carped the diem I seem to recall. What makes us so different?

And by the way, have you considered that part of the reason for the "half-assed socialism" as you call it is the dependency culture, the feeling of being less than a country living on handouts from Big Brother, and that this might change big time after independence? Personally, it's something I very much hope for.

My god- that's it! Rolfe is a closet Templar! This explains the move to Roslynn and the raised political profile in the Herald. It's all coming clear- she actually is part of the NWO and it's happening here!


Damn! Outed! :D

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

[quote=SpitfireIX;3727904That aside, I'm currently opposed to Scottish independence because I'm not convinced that a clear majority of Scots are in favor of it, and I feel that the prudent policy for the time being would be to err on the side of maintaining the status quo until the wishes of the people of Scotland can be clearly ascertained.

Also, (and I fully understand that some of you will strongly disagree on this), I don't believe that a simple majority vote in a single referendum should be sufficient for independence. The reason is that because independence is such a momentous and (theoretically) irrevocable step, I feel that some sort of super-majority should be required. I've felt this way about the Quebec independence movement for a long time, so I'm not just picking on the Scots.[/quote]


I think the first part of that statement is really self-contradictory. This thread is about a referendum, to ascertain the wishes of the Scots. To say you're against independence because you don't think there is a majority in favour doesn't seem to me like an argument. While I was enquiring, with the poll, as to the voting intentions of members who would have a vote in such a referendum, the question is rather different for the onlookers. Of course independence will not happen unless there is a majority vote for it. The question is more, are you in favour or not, on principle. The majority is rather assumed, as it won't happen otherwise.

As to the second part of the argument, I've heard that before. The fact is that with one single exception that I know about, a majority vote is considered to be sufficient. Why? Because the other side of the argument is that many voters tend to the conservative. Better the devil you know, and all that. There is an inbuilt reactionary vote inevitably in any decision of this nature. Even to get 51% of the vote for a major change is an achievement which demonstrates a very very significant level of popular support.

The exception I know about is the infamous 40% rule introduced in 1979, for just the reasons you state. This meant that a 53% vote for devolution was deemed to be a loss because that 53% of the vote did not amount to 40% of the (out-of-date) electoral register. Instead of getting a devolved parliament, Scotland got centralising Thatcherism, and its assets plundered to fund the yuppie tax cuts of the 1980s. Resentment of the entire process was ferocious, so much so that when we finally got the chance to vote on it again, there was a landslide of Szechuan proportions. But we lost 20 years, and a huge amount of non-renewable resources in those 20 years. We can only look with envy at the Norwegian oil fund - from being in the same position as Norway in the 1970s, our oil fund stands at zero, and we are accused of being "subsidy junkies" because the giving back to us of our own assets is portrayed as subsidy from Westminster.

So don't try to talk about vote-rigging "super-majority" rules in Scotland. If there's one good thing that might have come from 1979, it's that I doubt if anyone will ever get away with pulling that one on the Scots again.

Rolfe.

[SpitfireIX]

I think the first part of that statement is really self-contradictory. This thread is about a referendum, to ascertain the wishes of the Scots. To say you're against independence because you don't think there is a majority in favour doesn't seem to me like an argument.


That had occurred to me, and I probably should have elaborated on what I meant, which is that I would want to know that a clear majority of Scots are sure that independence is what they want, and that they understand and have thought through exactly what they'd be getting into. I'm not currently convinced that a single referendum can demonstrate the truth of either of those. Along those lines, there are obviously a lot of questions about what would happen after Scotland becomes independent--currency, trade, citizenship, etc., and I feel those questions ought to be settled before a final vote is taken. Perhaps this is a naive hope; you're clearly far more knowledgeable about Scottish politics than I could ever hope to be, so you may feel that such attempts would be futile. (And yes, before anyone mentions it, I know that it took more than 10 years from the time America declared independence until we had a good plan for running the country.)

While I was enquiring, with the poll, as to the voting intentions of members who would have a vote in such a referendum, the question is rather different for the onlookers. Of course independence will not happen unless there is a majority vote for it. The question is more, are you in favour or not, on principle. The majority is rather assumed, as it won't happen otherwise.


Part of the reason I responded as I did is that there was, as you mentioned, no option for "I don't know," and I did want to comment. What I was trying to say is that I'm in favor of whatever a clear majority of Scots are in favor of, but because I personally can't know that at the moment, I wanted to err on the side of caution and say I'm currently opposed, if forced to choose. As for my opinion on principle, I need to have a lot more information. I didn't notice the other thread until after I commented in the poll, when it was bumped; I've been working my way through that. I'll comment there when I've studied the issue in more detail. In retrospect perhaps it was a bit of a "cop-out" on my part to say that I shouldn't even presume to hold an opinion, just because I don't have a stake in the outcome.

As to the second part of the argument, I've heard that before. The fact is that with one single exception that I know about, a majority vote is considered to be sufficient. Why? Because the other side of the argument is that many voters tend to the conservative. Better the devil you know, and all that. There is an inbuilt reactionary vote inevitably in any decision of this nature. Even to get 51% of the vote for a major change is an achievement which demonstrates a very very significant level of popular support.


That is a view of the question I hadn't taken before; I'll have think about that.

The exception I know about is the infamous 40% rule introduced in 1979, for just the reasons you state. This meant that a 53% vote for devolution was deemed to be a loss because that 53% of the vote did not amount to 40% of the (out-of-date) electoral register. Instead of getting a devolved parliament, Scotland got centralising Thatcherism, and its assets plundered to fund the yuppie tax cuts of the 1980s. Resentment of the entire process was ferocious, so much so that when we finally got the chance to vote on it again, there was a landslide of Szechuan proportions. But we lost 20 years, and a huge amount of non-renewable resources in those 20 years. We can only look with envy at the Norwegian oil fund - from being in the same position as Norway in the 1970s, our oil fund stands at zero, and we are accused of being "subsidy junkies" because the giving back to us of our own assets is portrayed as subsidy from Westminster.


The oil issue was one (of several) of which I was totally unaware before I started reading the referendum thread. This is certainly something that would make me consider supporting independence on principle. As I said, I'll comment further in that thread when I've studied the issues more.

So don't try to talk about vote-rigging "super-majority" rules in Scotland. If there's one good thing that might have come from 1979, it's that I doubt if anyone will ever get away with pulling that one on the Scots again.


My reasons for favoring a super-majority have less to do with potential margin of error in polling and more to do with the issue of what happens if three years later a majority feels that independence was a mistake. Will the unionists be clamoring for another referendum? That's my concern. If a super-majority is required, then the unionists will have a much weaker case for that, IMO.

[Rolfe]

Just a thought. We've seen quite a number of countries gaining their independence from larger states over the past century. Has there been even one case where afterwards, the population felt three years later that a mistake had been made?

I believe suppport for Irish independence was doubtful at the time it happened - I'm not even sure there was a simple majority. About 20 years ago, I heard that the percentage who would favour returning to British rule was less than 5%. I suspect it's even less now - possibly it's a question that would elicit only incomprehension, or laughter.

I say Ireland, because it's the most clear parallel. And they didn't even have any oil. Would the Norwegians vote to returm to Swedish rule? Slovakia was almost engineered into independence when what they really wanted was devolution. Now, though, I don't believe there's any substantial lobby which regrets it.

Living in Scotland, I lament a lack of vision. Too many people respond with superficial wisecracks such as Soapy Sam's comments about Tommy and Gail and Princess Anne. Far too many others have taken the Labour and Tory scaremongering to heart, and truly believe that we're too small, too poor and too stupid (yes, really - and wasn't that in a way what Soapy Sam was saying?) to govern ourselves.

I think it's only after independence that these people understand the vision, when it is there in the reality. To insist that the visionaries must number not a simple majority but a substantial majority may be asking too much of any country not literally under the jackboot.

One man with a dream, at pleasure,
Shall go forth and conquer a crown;
And three with a new song's measure
Can trample a kingdom down.
[....]
For each age is a dream that is dying,
Or one that is coming to birth.
A breath of our inspiration,
Is the life of each generation.
[....]
They had no vision amazing
Of the goodly house they are raising.
They had no divine foreshowing
Of the land to which they are going:
But on one man's soul it hath broken,
A light that doth not depart
And his look, or a word he hath spoken,
Wrought flame in another man's heart.
And therefore today is thrilling,
With a past day's late fulfilling.
And the multitudes are enlisted
In the faith that their fathers resisted,
And, scorning the dream of tomorrow,
Are bringing to pass, as they may,
In the world, for its joy or its sorrow,
The dream that was scorned yesterday.


Rolfe.

[gtc]

Even to get 51% of the vote for a major change is an achievement which demonstrates a very very significant level of popular support.

I don't think it does. It simply means that 51% of the people support the proposal. Scottish politicians assuming that they know the wishes of the Scottish people better than the people themselves seems to be no better than the current situation where the wishes of the majority of the British people often goes against the wishes of the majority of Scottish people.

Super majorities are not uncommon when it comes to constitutional changes.

Australia has a double majority rule for referendums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia) (i.e. more than 50% of the national vote and more than 50% of the vote in at least 4 of the 6 states).

The US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) requires a two thirds majority in both houses of congress (technically two thirds of the state legislatures would also be acceptable) and then three quarters of the states have to agree.

Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_constitution) requires the assent of their House of Commons and their Senate and two-thirds of the provincial legislatures and those provinces must include at least 50% of the Canadian population.

[Architect]

However Westminster espouses a first past the post system. Cake ---> Eating it.

[gtc]

Cake ---> Eating it.

Not really. Australia uses different rules for ordinary elections and for ammendments to the constitution. I believe the rationale is that there should be a greater evidence of a consensus for changes to the constitution than for ordinary elections. Plus Australia's voting system is far more sophisticated than first past the post.

I would never endorse first past the post.

[Rolfe]

What I was trying to convey was that there have been many examples of countries regaining their independence where the majority at the time in favour was slim, and perhaps in some cases non-existent. And yet these countries have gone on to become successful, arguably far more successful than they could have been as regions of larger, often hostile states. To the point where, some years down the line, you couldn't win a vote for re-integtation on a bet.

If there were examples of such countries (where independence had been gained by a slim or no majority), where subsequent events had shown the move to have been detrimental to the wellbeing of the country such that a majority of its citizens wished independence had never happened, then there might be some point in the argument. However, such examples seem to be conspicuous by their absence, particularly among countries at all comparable to Scotland. International experience suggests that political independence is generally welcomed and works out well. In view of that, I can't see any reason for inserting unnaturally high obstances to its achievment.

I think there is an essential difference between what we are talking about here, and alterations to the constitutions of countries which have such constitutions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but US, Canadian and Australian constitutions were not forced on these countries, and at the time were considered and adopted as being the best consensus on running the show. I can see why one might not want to allow such a constitution to be amended willy-nilly.

However, this present argument is about the dissolution of the 1707 Treaty of Union, which was forced on Scotland by a combination of political bribery and subversion, backed up by overt threats of armed invasion. It was bitterly opposed and resented at the time, to the point of riots in the streets. Is this the sort of "constitution" that should be protected by requirements for "super-majorities"?

I do understand the argument to some extent, but I certainly don't agree with it. Given the way the British State jumps into action to frustrate any attempt at messing with their cosy little sinecure, it's like asking an elite runner to compete with a ball and chain attached. We know we'll get every dirty trick in the book hurled at the voters as soon as referendum campaigning starts. It won't be pretty, and it will all be about frightening people into voting against independence. It won't have to be true, it never has been (look at the now-admitted lies peddled in 1979 for example), it just has to scare the poor and vulnerable into voting the way the establishment wants. Part of this tactic is of course to raise the bar required for a majority if possible. However, after what happened when they did that in 1979, there's not much chance they'd succeed in imposing a similar restriction this time.

It's nice to think that a referendum debate will be nice, straightforward, truthful weighing of the pros and cons. It won't be. It will be the British Establishment fighting for its life, with all the misinformation and dirty tricks it can muster. Then of course I'm afraid we will have the US influence, from a president who doesn't want to see the part of the UK where the nuclear missiles have been located (by parliamentarians who didn't want them anywhere near their seats of power, but 30 miles from Scotland's largest city was just fine of course) achieve its independence, especially as Scottish opposition to nuclear weapons on Scottish territory is pretty absolute. The US has an ugly history of manipulating "regime chance" to its own advantage, and I'm sadly anticipating this in the Scottish context as well. "Super-majority" in this situation is simply another dirty trick imposed by the ruling elite to frustrate an outcome they don't want.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

gtc

As it happens, the Scottish political system isn't first past the post and we've reformed even local elections to ensure more proportional representation. However Westminster doesn't agree with this - quite the opposite, in fact - hence I've no problem at all accepting their rules in this case.

[Rolfe]

I left the poll open, but seeing the thread had slipped off the front page I thought I'd take stock of the votes.

Total number of voters registered to vote in a Scottish constituency, 21. (More than I thought, we could have an even bigger party at this year's Festival!)

Only one undecided, giving a 95% turnout. Excellent! (Though possibly unrepresentative.)

Percentage in favour of independence, 60%.
Percentage against, 40%.

Again, possibly unrepresentative, but a fun exercise nonetheless.

Rolfe.

PS. I know that the "UK-ties" category is not necessarily all non-Scottish UK voters, but let's assume for now that it is. 54% against Scottish independence, 46% in favour.

If the issue were subject to a UK-wide vote, and assuming that there are 10 times as many non-Scottish votes as Scottish, we get 47% in favour of independence and 53% against. This demonstrates how a reasonably strong pro-independence vote in Scoitland could be completely negated by even a relatively small anti-independence majority in England.

Fortunately nobody in any position of power in the real world is actually proposing this.