An independent Scotland?

[ronmcd]

So you think the section 30 order will include a clause to make the poll legally binding, do you?

Um. No. Did I say that?

In spite of the fact that a section 30 order doesn't have that power?

Um. No. Did I say that?

I think you're making it up as you go along. Someone can take that power away from parliament, with no vote? I'd like to see you prove that.

Someone is making it up, thats for sure! The section 30 simply devolves specified powers to the Holyrood parliament. That is all. There is a memo with it which includes other agreements and notes. As I said before - NO REFERENDUM IS LEGALLY BINDING. I'm not sure how else to write it to make it easier for you to understand. All that this agreement does is fix the situation that Holyrood's powers to hold any referendum on the constitution were lacking. The agreement does not make this referendum any more or less binding than ANY other UK referendum.

It does however include an agreement between the governments that both sides will respect the result. Thats all. It would be difficult to imagine either govt then reneging on that agreement, as they both set it up and signed it. That does not stop Westminister MP's ignoring the agreement, or the section 30, against the wishes of the UK govt. But it would be self defeating, and would end up in a right mess. I trust that MP's would respect the outcome, as democrats how could they not?

It's really not that complicated.

[ronmcd]

That's just so much hot air.
If democracy is so important, why don't the English and Welsh get a vote on it?

Because it's self determination for Scotland. You must see the difference. Again, you are implying that the EU could hold a vote across the whole of Europe to decide if UK could leave, which would be ridiculous.

You only want the version of democracy that suits your ends.

The version of democracy that is democratic? Yes please. You seem to be suggesting a version which isn't.

What if the Scottish lowlands voted overwhelmingly against.
Would you respect their democatic wishes, and allow them to remain part of the UK?
Absolutely not. You only want democracy when it's going your way.

What if the Orknies and Shetlands wanted independence from the new Scotland.
Again, that's not the version of democracy we want.

No, the lowlands or the islands could NOT remain in UK. Why? Because it is the country of Scotland which is having a referendum on leaving the UK, and they are part of Scotland. However, if there were a movement within one part of Scotland for independence from Scotland, a party could form, propose the policy, get elected, have a referendum on it, and the people of that area decide. That is self determination.

What YOU are proposing is politically motivated divide and rule, partition. Something that is not supported by those in the areas you mention, incidentally.

[mistermack]

The referendum is NOT legally binding, no referendum is........What the agreement between the UK and Scottish parliaments (the Section 30 order) will do is devolve the power expressly to hold this referendum, and include an agreement that both sides will accept the result. This removes the option for people to challenge legally after the event.

I don't think you understand what you are actually writing.
You are writing one thing, and then the exact opposite, in the same paragraph.
What's the difference between something that can't be challenged legally, and something that's legally binding?

[ronmcd]

The referendum is NOT legally binding, no referendum is........What the agreement between the UK and Scottish parliaments (the Section 30 order) will do is devolve the power expressly to hold this referendum, and include an agreement that both sides will accept the result. This removes the option for people to challenge legally after the event.

I don't think you understand what you are actually writing.
You are writing one thing, and then the exact opposite, in the same paragraph.
What's the difference between something that can't be challenged legally, and something that's legally binding?

Well, you are absolutely right, that is not what I was trying to say and is incorrect. Lets remove my admittedly confusing emphasis:

The referendum is NOT legally binding, no referendum is. What the agreement between the UK and Scottish parliaments (the Section 30 order) will do is devolve the power expressly to hold this referendum, and include an agreement that both sides will accept the result. This removes the option for people to challenge legally after the event.

As I said, no referendum is legally binding. The AV last year wasnt, and the independence ref wont be. But the section 30 was required to devolve power to holyrood, and it was this which was likely to be subject to legal challenge if no section 30 had explicitly devolved the power. There was an expectation that without the section 30, the referendum would have been challenged and perhaps would not have taken place on time because the Scottish govt (it could have been argued) didnt have the legal authority to hold it.

I should not have conflated that issue with the next in the highlighted portion.

The part about the section 30 agreement including a line saying both sides will respect the result is just an agreement between the two governments. As I said, MP's could refuse to take any notice. And anyone can challenge any government decision in court, so of course I was wrong to suggest THE AGREEMENT "removes the option for people to challenge legally after the event". What it does do is signify that both the UK govt and Scottish govt will respect the outcome, and that is the most that could be done.

So in summary, as I have said - the referendum is not legally binding, they never are. But the two governments have agreed to respect the result. That does not prevent MP's ignoring the agreements. And anything and everything is challengeable in court. It is inconceivable however that Westminister would prevent independence after a YES vote, as I am sure our politicians are democrats and believe in self determination.

[mistermack]

That's all I'm saying really. I can't see parliament rubber stamping anything put to them, that automatically put the new UK out of the EU.
Cameron might actually like that, but the combined votes of the Liberals and Labour and the Conservative EU supporters would certainly out-vote them.

[Svartalf]

Ron, you seem to be making up your own law, as you go along. It doesn't work that way.

The referendum doesn't make law. It simply indicates the wishes of the majority in Scotland.
Only the UK parliament can make the law that splits the country. And that's a fact. Prove it isn't so.

It's not legal for a Scottish government to declare UDI. They don't have the legal power for that.
They didn't even have the legal power for the referendum.

So it can only be done in the UK parliament. I'm sure that it will, as that SEEMS to have been agreed, although it has never been spelled out.

But how, and when, on what terms, has to be agreed and passed into law in the commons and the lords, and signed by the queen. And that is the reality. That's how it stands.
If you think it can be done without that, where's your evidence?

It's no good saying "oh, they would HAVE to agree".
They would be obligated in principle, but the how and when would have to be agreed.
And like I said, the when isn't going to arrive, until the UK is assured of remaining in the EC without having to reapply.

Or, of coursse, Salmond could do it proactively and launch a Constituante assembly and provisional gummint without waiting for westminster to acknowledge and grant independence ... Of course, such an accelerated schedule would guarantee that the New Scotland would not be a part of the EU for quite some time, since no time would be spent negociating with us and getting assessed and sweettalking the 27 into full cooperation.

[Svartalf]

So you think the section 30 order will include a clause to make the poll legally binding, do you?

In spite of the fact that a section 30 order doesn't have that power?

I think you're making it up as you go along. Someone can take that power away from parliament, with no vote? I'd like to see you prove that.

Technically, if Holyrood has the power to put such a question to referendum, it has the power to do what follows (or only Westminster would have the power to organize such an event as a formal poll).
Salmond CAN declare independence if the poll is in favor, and westminster would have the option of launching its Hessians and ironsides on Scotland, or of making a law saying "scotland is no longer part of the UK, all taxation, fund disbursement, and legal enforcement beyond the Tweed are hereby terminated".

Of course, that would be stupid, but it might go that way with enough stupid going on.

[Clinton Huxley]

As an end result, I'll be quite happy for the responsibility for subsiding Scotland to move from England to Germany...

[Santa_Claus]

The legal side is 100% irrelevant.

The UK Parliament (aka the English) will not try and prevent Scotland from becoming independent IF (still an if!) the referendum goes that way. For sure there will be huffing and puffing and various people making legal challenges (and lots of arguments over various things that need to get divided / which BOTH countries will want to continue to work together on).......but the reality is that if England said no, then Scotland would ultimately just cease to recognise the UK parliament (and it's "legal" authority), the cure for that could only be English troops on the ground. and the English can't afford that, plus the long military occupation. Besides they know they would just look weak and silly if they even tried to raise that option.

The reason Cameron had to back down on his early referendum was nothing to do with the UK legal side (He had UK legal authority to do his referendum - Salmond only had Scottish).....it was simply a recognition of political reality that hold an English set referendum early (and then a Scottish one second!) would be an own goal!

The EU thing is a(nother) red herring (EOTW scare story). The EU will rubber stamp anything in self interest (with lots of talking and discussions for show). And a Pro-EU Scotland will be welcomed in with open arms (whether as a new Country or successor state, the detail don't matter). The English rump state will likely remain in the EU - even if the EU makes the English beg to remain in!

The thing folks have to remember about "the law" (especially at the international end) that it is written to suit the wants of those doing the writing - and when it is no longer wanted, it gets changed by them.

[Clinton Huxley]

The English "rump" state, with 90% of the population and GDP. Heh

[ronmcd]

As an end result, I'll be quite happy for the responsibility for subsiding Scotland to move from England to Germany...

Scotland is not a subsidy junkie. In fact, Scotland received no net subsidy unlike many parts ok UK, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR)

The biggest beneficiaries are Northern Ireland, Wales and the North East, which receive more than a fifth of their income as subsidies from the taxpayer.

Northern Ireland pays tax worth just 27.7 per cent of GDP generated by Northern Ireland. This compares to London, which pays tax equivalent to 45.2 per cent of GDP created in the capital.

Additionally, the analysis showed that regions where the level of tax paid was low as a proportion of GDP also used a higher proportion of GDP for state spending.

For some taxes, the regional differences are huge. The bulk of Stamp Duty Land Tax is paid in London and the South East. The 50p income tax rate is also largely a London and South East tax.

Overall, London provides a net subsidy of 20.3 per cent of GDP. Northern Ireland receives a net subsidy of 29.4 per cent, while Wales receives a subsidy of 26.0 per cent and the North East 22.2 per cent.

The figures will be relevent to the ongoing discussion of independence for Scotland. Scotland receives no net subsidy. Using and established Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues - which gives Scotland 83 per cent - the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil sector.

No reason why this wont continue: latest Ernst & Young UK Attractiveness Survey says Scotland continues to be the most attractive place in the UK to do business based on 2011 figures.

The Ernst and Young report echoes the findings on Channel 4’s renowned factcheck analysis which confirms that outside London Scotland is the leading destination in the UK for Foreign Investment creating more high value jobs in 2010 than were created through foreign investment in London and that foreign investment in Scotland has continued to rise at a time when it is flatlining in other parts of the UK.

http://politicshome.com/uk/article/5621 ... ering.html

[ronmcd]

The legal side is 100% irrelevant.

The UK Parliament (aka the English) will not try and prevent Scotland from becoming independent IF (still an if!) the referendum goes that way. For sure there will be huffing and puffing and various people making legal challenges (and lots of arguments over various things that need to get divided / which BOTH countries will want to continue to work together on).......but the reality is that if England said no, then Scotland would ultimately just cease to recognise the UK parliament (and it's "legal" authority), the cure for that could only be English troops on the ground. and the English can't afford that, plus the long military occupation. Besides they know they would just look weak and silly if they even tried to raise that option.

The reason Cameron had to back down on his early referendum was nothing to do with the UK legal side (He had UK legal authority to do his referendum - Salmond only had Scottish).....it was simply a recognition of political reality that hold an English set referendum early (and then a Scottish one second!) would be an own goal!

The EU thing is a(nother) red herring (EOTW scare story). The EU will rubber stamp anything in self interest (with lots of talking and discussions for show). And a Pro-EU Scotland will be welcomed in with open arms (whether as a new Country or successor state, the detail don't matter). The English rump state will likely remain in the EU - even if the EU makes the English beg to remain in!

The thing folks have to remember about "the law" (especially at the international end) that it is written to suit the wants of those doing the writing - and when it is no longer wanted, it gets changed by them.

Again, good post! Once a decision is made, either way, I can't imagine there will be anything other than a desire on all sides to make whichever option is chosen work in everyones interest.

[Clinton Huxley]

There's a lot of assertion and wishful thinking on the pro-separatist side but precious little in the way of hard facts. I guess the SNP prefer to keep the facts a bit blurry.

[Red Celt]

There's a lot of assertion and wishful thinking on the pro-separatist side but precious little in the way of hard facts. I guess the SNP prefer to keep the facts a bit blurry.

Well, above, you said that England is subsidising Scotland... so, if we're playing the "facts a bit blurry" game...

[Red Celt]

The English "rump" state, with 90% of the population and GDP. Heh

Imagine what those figures would be like if Scotland hadn't been treated like a poor neighbour all these years. Non-heh.