Give British People the vote

[ronmcd]

I haven't seen any answer to my earlier question.

If the residents of the Orkney and Shetland Isles decided they wanted independence, do they have a right to a binding referendum, and independence from Scotland?

If the residents of the islands wanted independence, voted for it, they would get it. Who could prevent self determination, and who would want to? It's worth remembering there IS no such demand for independence.

As for a "binding referendum", there is no such thing. The AV referendum wasnt binding, it was just accepted as such. A Scottish referendum would be accepted also, with or without legal approval from Westminister. And Orkney and Shetland would be the same.

[mistermack]

I haven't seen any answer to my earlier question.

If the residents of the Orkney and Shetland Isles decided they wanted independence, do they have a right to a binding referendum, and independence from Scotland?

If the residents of the islands wanted independence, voted for it, they would get it. Who could prevent self determination, and who would want to? It's worth remembering there IS no such demand for independence.

As for a "binding referendum", there is no such thing. The AV referendum wasnt binding, it was just accepted as such. A Scottish referendum would be accepted also, with or without legal approval from Westminister. And Orkney and Shetland would be the same.

Just wait till they strike oil just north of Orkney.
They would be voting for independence then.

And you might agree that they have a right to independence, but I bet Alex Salmond wouldn't.

When I said binding, I meant one that was agreed to be a mandate beforehand.

[Pappa]

A Scottish referendum would be accepted also, with or without legal approval from Westminister.

I agree completely with this. What the fuck would Westminster do if they disagreed, send the army in?

[ronmcd]

I haven't seen any answer to my earlier question.

If the residents of the Orkney and Shetland Isles decided they wanted independence, do they have a right to a binding referendum, and independence from Scotland?

If the residents of the islands wanted independence, voted for it, they would get it. Who could prevent self determination, and who would want to? It's worth remembering there IS no such demand for independence.

As for a "binding referendum", there is no such thing. The AV referendum wasnt binding, it was just accepted as such. A Scottish referendum would be accepted also, with or without legal approval from Westminister. And Orkney and Shetland would be the same.

Just wait till they strike oil just north of Orkney.
They would be voting for independence then.

Well, the oil fields already are all around Orkney and Shetland. Why havent they already done it? Theres been ample time. I would suggest the residents of Orkney and Shetland feel Scottish and want to be part of Scotland. The only time independence is mentioned is as a proxy argument against Scottish Independence, it's not raised by the islanders.

And you might agree that they have a right to independence, but I bet Alex Salmond wouldn't.

Why? Why would Salmond or whatever government governed Scotland at the time dismiss self determination? And Salmond is not Scotland, or the Scottish Parliament, and he would hardly be a supreme leader in an independent Scotland. Contrary to popular smear, Salmond isn't a dictator in a one party state lol.

When I said binding, I meant one that was agreed to be a mandate beforehand.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but as long as it can be proved that a referendum was fair and transparent, I don't see how anyone - Scottish Parliament or Westminister - could ever refuse to accept the result.

Of course, as with the 2014 referendum, the decision is just the start. The negotiations to divvy up debts and assets would be complicated.

[ronmcd]

A Scottish referendum would be accepted also, with or without legal approval from Westminister.

I agree completely with this. What the fuck would Westminster do if they disagreed, send the army in?

Largely Scots anyway!

The current way to try and impose conditions is of course to suggest it's not legal without approval from Westminister, and somehow the whole process could be subject to legal challenge in the UK Supreme Court if the SNP do it on their own. But the political reality is that the law is frankly irrelevant when faced by a majority voting for independence. No court is going to rule self determination illegal, and there is international law to consider.

[mistermack]

I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but as long as it can be proved that a referendum was fair and transparent, I don't see how anyone - Scottish Parliament or Westminister - could ever refuse to accept the result.
.

I do. We don't have government by referendum in this country. We have general elections, when parties publish their manifestos.
If someone wants to change the UK, they are free to put it to the UK electorate. If they win, they can do as they promised.

A referendum on independence has been agreed by Cameron. He didn't have to do that but he did.
I think it's an unnecessary gamble, but who cares?

But no other referendum like devo max has any relevance. Westminster can quite properly ignore any other referendum the Nationalists hold. That's what I mean by not binding.

The other question is, what majority would be needed for independence?
A simple majority simply isn't good enough for such a fundamental question.

Because if the majority was less than 5%, you could get the opposite result a week later.
It's normal to require a decisive majority for a fundamental constitutional change.

One more question : If Scotland votes not to split, does that vote stand forever?
Like it would if they voted TO split?
Or would Salmond be trying again in a couple of years?
To be fair to both camps, it would have to be binding for at least fifty years, if not permanently.

[ronmcd]

I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but as long as it can be proved that a referendum was fair and transparent, I don't see how anyone - Scottish Parliament or Westminister - could ever refuse to accept the result.
.

I do. We don't have government by referendum in this country. We have general elections, when parties publish their manifestos.
If someone wants to change the UK, they are free to put it to the UK electorate. If they win, they can do as they promised.

Referendums shouldnt be used for deciding policy, I agree. For example the death penalty, politicians know that if they offered a referendum people might go and vote for it, and they dont want that. Neither do I, so I agree with them! But the valid topics to decide ONLY by referendum are constitutional issues. Thats how independence all over the world occurs. It's how the Scottish Parliament was setup, it's how the North of England rejected a local assembly, it's how the UK decided against AV last year.

Constitutional issues only, thats my opinion. Other than that, we elect politicians to implement policies based on their stated manifestos.

How does one part of a larger entity EVER get to become independent, if the larger wont allow a referendum, or if it has to be based on putting policy manifestos to the larger public in a normal election such as UK-wide and the party wanting independence only exists in 1/10th of the country? No. As I've said before, thats like UK deiciding it wants to leave EU, and the EU countries being able to prevent it. They cant, it's self determination.

A referendum on independence has been agreed by Cameron. He didn't have to do that but he did.
I think it's an unnecessary gamble, but who cares?

He DID have to agree. He has no mandate and no legal power to stop it, and politically he would be cutting his own throat if he did. But again - Cameron is actually irrelevant here. Scots didnt vote for Camerons party in the Scottish elections, they voted for SNP knowing full well that meant a referendum. Cameron can do one, frankly.

But no other referendum like devo max has any relevance. Westminster can quite properly ignore any other referendum the Nationalists hold. That's what I mean by not binding.

They can indeed, as they could have ignored the AV referendum. They didnt, and they wont. Scotland entered into a union with England, and either party is free to dissolve that union. The Scottish People are sovereign, not Westminister. Westminister is the agreed system by which the UK is governed, but Scotland can remove itself from the union if it wants, and westminister can do nothing about it. Westminister can also certainly ignore an option that they dont agree with, and which would require westminister to change its systems, ie devo plus or devo max or whatever. That doesnt prevent the referendum from polling on the issue, and giving the Scottish government a mandate to pursue it. But you miss the real politic : all the parties including the Tories already accept that Scotland WILL have more devolution, and more tax powers transferred.

The other question is, what majority would be needed for independence?
A simple majority simply isn't good enough for such a fundamental question.

Because if the majority was less than 5%, you could get the opposite result a week later.
It's normal to require a decisive majority for a fundamental constitutional change.

Scotland voted over 50% for devolution in 1979, and the result was gerrymandered by imposing the same sort of thing. No. There is precedent here, the Scottish Parliament was setup using a simple referendum 12 years ago, and independence will be done - or not - in exactly the same way.

One more question : If Scotland votes not to split, does that vote stand forever?
Like it would if they voted TO split?
Or would Salmond be trying again in a couple of years?
To be fair to both camps, it would have to be binding for at least fifty years, if not permanently.

If Scotland were to split from UK, we would be independent for ever. Countries dont rejoin after becoming independent, doesnt happen. Ireland isnt clamouring to get back in to UK, despite hardships over the years. If the Scottish people reject independence, devolution will continue as a process, because THAT is what the people in Scotland want - more power and decisions here. All the parties, including Tories, agree Scotland will have more devolution over raising tax and spending if people vote no.

I said it before - devo max should be supported by people in England who believe the scare stories about Scotland being subsidised. Scotland would have to raise and spend, live within its means, with NO Barnett formula. No block grant. Whats not to like for people in England?

If people did vote either for the status quo (wont happen) or more devolution (most likely) then that wont prevent independence. I would suggest it would be an obvious stepping stone. Once people saw a Scottish parliament which successfully controlled all tax and spending except for the small number of reserved issues such as defense and foreign policy under devo max, they would find it very easy to take the final step to independence within a few years.

[mistermack]

You obviously sincerly believe what you say.
But the consequences of what you are saying is that ANY patch of land can vote itself independence.
I totally disagree that the scots would let any bit go that wanted to become independent. The nationalists would go right back on that principle as soon as they got power.

It's a crazy principle anyway, it would mean that eventually you could have a different country over every hill, like Java was 150 years ago, with hundeds of different languages.

It would mean that the Basques could just have a referendum and make a country. That Walloons could seperate from Belgium, (or whoever else had a vote). Etc etc etc.

The world would be going backwards at a phenomenal rate. And it all led to tensions and wars in the past. The EU was set up to break that cycle, not encourage it.

You quote the example of Ireland, but Ireland has never been independent. It's always been HIGHLY dependent on the UK, with Irish people free to come here and work, start businesses etc.

That has always suited both parties. And the Irish state has subtle but very strong control of the media. On Irish TV, you hear nothing but Irish this and Irish that the whole time. Irish nationalism is drummed into the people all of the time, it's not surprising they want to keep it.

But if they had had to be TRULY independent, they would have been in the shit from day one.

The same goes for the Scots. They only want independence now, knowing full well that they can move to the UK anytime to get jobs if times get hard, thanks to the EU. There is no way that Scotland would vote for REAL independence.

Like people everywhere, they would vote themselves a better deal if they could.

What if there is a strong majority in Glasgow against independence? Or if the south of Scotland is strongly against, and the North for? Do you draw a new border, because it's "the expressed will of the people"?

There have been bloody civil wars fought over this very principle for thousands of years.
Even in the US.
Yet you seem to ignore all that, and just argue that a snapshot of public opinion on one particular day is all the justification it needs.

[ronmcd]

You obviously sincerly believe what you say.
But the consequences of what you are saying is that ANY patch of land can vote itself independence.
I totally disagree that the scots would let any bit go that wanted to become independent. The nationalists would go right back on that principle as soon as they got power.

It's a crazy principle anyway, it would mean that eventually you could have a different country over every hill, like Java was 150 years ago, with hundeds of different languages.

It would mean that the Basques could just have a referendum and make a country. That Walloons could seperate from Belgium, (or whoever else had a vote). Etc etc etc.

The world would be going backwards at a phenomenal rate. And it all led to tensions and wars in the past. The EU was set up to break that cycle, not encourage it.

You quote the example of Ireland, but Ireland has never been independent. It's always been HIGHLY dependent on the UK, with Irish people free to come here and work, start businesses etc.

That has always suited both parties. And the Irish state has subtle but very strong control of the media. On Irish TV, you hear nothing but Irish this and Irish that the whole time. Irish nationalism is drummed into the people all of the time, it's not surprising they want to keep it.

But if they had had to be TRULY independent, they would have been in the shit from day one.

The same goes for the Scots. They only want independence now, knowing full well that they can move to the UK anytime to get jobs if times get hard, thanks to the EU. There is no way that Scotland would vote for REAL independence.

Like people everywhere, they would vote themselves a better deal if they could.

What if there is a strong majority in Glasgow against independence? Or if the south of Scotland is strongly against, and the North for? Do you draw a new border, because it's "the expressed will of the people"?

There have been bloody civil wars fought over this very principle for thousands of years.
Even in the US.
Yet you seem to ignore all that, and just argue that a snapshot of public opinion on one particular day is all the justification it needs.

No, I'm not ignoring all that. But the principle of self determination is not something that anyone seriously thinks applies to a city, or a town, or even an group of people, when it is historically not distinct from those surrounding it. It does apply morally, but practically it doesnt, for the simple reason that those people dont want to become independent and it would be impractical to do it.

Glasgow doesnt WANT to become independent. Could it? I suppose in theory, but in practical terms no, it wouldnt work. Theres a huge practical element. But Scotland is a country, it isnt even a region, it is one party to a union of two kingdoms. Orkney and Shetland are part of Scotland, but could they be independent? Probably, they are distinct from Scotland in many ways, and in practical terms it could work for them.

I also think you would find the Irish would dispute your claim they arent really independent. They decide their own policies, elect their own government, make their own decisions. They trade with UK, absolutely. Independence for a nation does not imply cutting yourself off and not interacting with your neighbours, that is something entirely different. Thats North Korea.

From a purely practical viewpoint, Scotlands economy is similar to the UKs, just a smaller version. Scotland would be fine independent, as would the rest of UK. In practical terms, Scottish independence is perfectly viable. Glasgow independence, even if there were a call for it? Not so much.

I am not a member of SNP, and I don't even know if I will vote yes. Don't mistake my putting forward the arguments with being a supporter of independence. I think i am quite representative of Scots - I voted Labour, would never vote Tory, and flirted with the LibDems momentarilly when it became obvious Blair was a Tory in disguise and when he led us into a war people didnt want in Iraq. But you have to understand what happened in Scotland between 1997 and 2007 to understand the situation today. The SCottish Parliament run by Lab/LibDem coalition in the early years gave Scotland the chance to choose more progressive policies in many areas than Labour were implementing in the rest of UK. The principle of free education in Scotland is overwhelmingly supported, the NHS is independent of the rest of UK and has NEVER had the private sector involvement that Blair brought in, our water is public not private etc.

It became obvious to people that Scottish Labour were more interested in Westminister politics than Scotland in the lead up to the 2007 Scottish elections, and the people decided to give the SNP a chance, although they barely managed to get enough votes to form a minority government. Labour politicians at Holyrood still even now see their career progressions as peaking when they reach Westminister, then the Lords. That ... doesn't go down well. The SNP are obviously seen as being focussed purely on Scotland, they did well in power as a minority govt, better than the previous administrations, and so they won outright last year.

Put all that together, and what you have is the people in Scotland supporting more decisions made here in Scotland, rather than increasingly distant and alien Westminister policies. But even then, people support the SNP as a government, they dont support independence particularly. Thats where I stand, as i say I think I am quite representative of the electorate here. I await the campaign and I'm open to being convinced by the arguments. The only option I rule out is the status quo.

[mistermack]

I didn't mean Glasgow wanting independence, or the South of Scotland.
I mean Glasgow voting against independence. Or any other area.

The same principle applies to any area. If Glasgow votes against leaving the UK, why should it be compelled to do so?

Or the border counties. If they all vote against, do you draw a new border? Otherwise, you are imposing on them membership of a country that they voted against.

Should California be allowed to separate from the US, just on a vote? Or Texas?

You've already got that situation brewing in Libya.
The oil rich east wants to separate from the West. It will lead to bloodshed. Again.
If Scotland had no oil, and England did, they wouldn't even consider it.

It's just self interest, masquerading as some sort of ancient human right.

[MrJonno]

Its not impossible for civilized peoples to decide to go their own way, they managed it in the old Czechoslovakia.

I wouldnt want Scotland to go independent as it would massively strengthen the Daily Mail/Conservative party but in the end of the day its up to the Scottish people. I do think wanting to use the English pound rather than the Euro is taking the piss a bit if you really want independance.

There is obviously a big problem in that Scottish politics is way to the left of Middle England

[Audley Strange]

It's just self interest, masquerading as some sort of ancient human right.

Well of course and until we are all individual self governing sentient animals, ALL political and territorial considerations are, those wishing for Scotland's independence are no different in that regard than those who still wish to nibble on Westminster's teat in that regard. Nor the English folk who want rid of us because they think us over subsidised or the ones who want us to stay to keep the union strong. It's all self interest, pretence at otherwise is obvious and embarrassing.

[ronmcd]

I didn't mean Glasgow wanting independence, or the South of Scotland.
I mean Glasgow voting against independence. Or any other area.

The same principle applies to any area. If Glasgow votes against leaving the UK, why should it be compelled to do so?

Or the border counties. If they all vote against, do you draw a new border? Otherwise, you are imposing on them membership of a country that they voted against.

Should California be allowed to separate from the US, just on a vote? Or Texas?

You've already got that situation brewing in Libya.
The oil rich east wants to separate from the West. It will lead to bloodshed. Again.
If Scotland had no oil, and England did, they wouldn't even consider it.

It's just self interest, masquerading as some sort of ancient human right.

But you could use the same argument over any policy - one city in a country might not agree with a policy, but people accept that they want to be governed as a whole country. Within Scotland there is no demand for individual cities to be excempt from national policy. It's a strange argument. Scotland IS a country.

I guess it comes down to how you see yourself. People in England for example presumably see themselves as English and British and want that to be how decisions are made - at the national level. Scots are the same. They dont see themselves as Glaswegians or Mancunians who want self rule for the city.

[ronmcd]

If Scotland had no oil, and England did, they wouldn't even consider it.

Thats not true though, the SNP pre-dated oil, and there have always been people who wanted independence. If it were about oil, wouldn't people have demanded independence in the 70's? It's not about oil at all, oil is accepted as a diminishing resource, but it's more about policies which are diverging between UK and Scotland, and a desire to have more control. Oil in addition to other huge natural resources and energy potential, plus a pre-existing government, civil service, independent legal system, NHS, education system, and so many other policies already devolved, all combine to persuade many people that independence should be considered.

Thats all it is.

[ronmcd]

Its not impossible for civilized peoples to decide to go their own way, they managed it in the old Czechoslovakia.

I wouldnt want Scotland to go independent as it would massively strengthen the Daily Mail/Conservative party but in the end of the day its up to the Scottish people. I do think wanting to use the English pound rather than the Euro is taking the piss a bit if you really want independance.

There is obviously a big problem in that Scottish politics is way to the left of Middle England

From what I have read recently, there have only been 1 or 2 occassions in the last 30+ years where a UK government would have been different without Scottish votes. The idea that England would be condemned to a continual Tory government is wrong. Blairs government was elected overwhelmingly by England as well as Scotland, Scotland's small numbe of MP's made no real difference.

Oh, and the Pound (and the Bank of England) are not English. Scotland can use Sterling if it wants.