Give British People the vote

[mistermack]

My opinion? I think the SNP and Salmond have been even more clever than people think. They have managed to trick the westminister parties into thinking that they want devo max on the paper, as a fall back position. Actually, I think they have calculated that if westminister think they want it they will do everything in their power to stop it, just to stick it to Salmond.

Consider for a second ... Salmond appears for 2 years to secretly want the devo max option, eventually giving in at the last moment and only asking one question. His question. And reminding the Scottish people who it was who prevented him from adding it to the paper despite it being THE most popular option ... so ... do you think people will vote YES or NO after that?

Hmmm

I think Cameron might be being more clever than people think. Why would he want to hang on to Scotland? It doesn't do much for the UK, and it's not going anywhere. And as others have pointed out, Scotland going would ensure Tory majorities for years to come.
On balance, Cameron comes out smelling of roses.
It's labour who would be the losers.
All this talk about keeping Scotland in might be Cameron's own smokescreen.

[Feck]

It is true but then where would the cuntservatives try out their 'social' policies to see if the people actually do rebel if it weren't for Scotland ?

[ronmcd]

My opinion? I think the SNP and Salmond have been even more clever than people think. They have managed to trick the westminister parties into thinking that they want devo max on the paper, as a fall back position. Actually, I think they have calculated that if westminister think they want it they will do everything in their power to stop it, just to stick it to Salmond.

Consider for a second ... Salmond appears for 2 years to secretly want the devo max option, eventually giving in at the last moment and only asking one question. His question. And reminding the Scottish people who it was who prevented him from adding it to the paper despite it being THE most popular option ... so ... do you think people will vote YES or NO after that?

Hmmm

I think Cameron might be being more clever than people think. Why would he want to hang on to Scotland? It doesn't do much for the UK, and it's not going anywhere. And as others have pointed out, Scotland going would ensure Tory majorities for years to come.
On balance, Cameron comes out smelling of roses.
It's labour who would be the losers.
All this talk about keeping Scotland in might be Cameron's own smokescreen.

Except it's not true - only twice in the last 30+ years have Scottish votes mattered. England voted for "new labour". Scotland has a tiny number of MP's compared to England. And there are a few reasons for Cameron wanting to hang on to Scotland - Faslane being the major one, but the oil and renewables potential are not to be sniffed at. But Faslane is the major one. If Scotland chooses independence the UK will be in very real danger of ceasing to be a nuclear power.

There is no alternative base for the UK's nuclear deterrent than its existing sites in Scotland, leaving it with the prospect of having nowhere to go should Scots vote for independence.

That is the conclusion of a detailed study to be published on Monday on what is emerging as a huge question for defence chiefs. They are only now beginning to face the consequences of a possible future Scottish parliament voting to get rid of the Trident nuclear weapons bases at Coulport and Faslane.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/2 ... dependence

[ronmcd]

Let's face it the Scots will vote for Independence because they think Braveheart was history ,they would probably vote Mel Gibson in as King unless a 'smear' campaign was started to explain he's actually an Aussie . And they can't blame the blue noses anymore since they went broke so that will be it Scotland the brave and Mel Gibson as King .

Good one. It's always worth noting who raises Braveheart in any Scottish Independence discussion.

[Audley Strange]

Let's face it the Scots will vote for Independence because they think Braveheart was history ,they would probably vote Mel Gibson in as King unless a 'smear' campaign was started to explain he's actually an Aussie . And they can't blame the blue noses anymore since they went broke so that will be it Scotland the brave and Mel Gibson as King .

Down my local Gibson would be seen as a "fuckin' poof" for his moderate religious views, negligible use of alcohol and lack of using sportswear as ersatz pyjamas because they're too thick(physically and mentally) to dress themselves properly. However, if we were independent we could exterminate them with free poisoned skag and buckfast and then apologise to the U.N. before they muster an official finger wag.

We did that, we'd be one of the richest countries in the world pretty quickly.

[mistermack]

If Scotland chooses independence the UK will be in very real danger of ceasing to be a nuclear power.

In your dreams maybe. A referendum doesn't give Scotland independence.
Only the UK Parliament can do that. If the UK parliament doesn't get binding terms on it's defence institutions, no independence bill would get through. Simple as that.

Are they ready to try UDI in Scotland? I don't think so.

[HomerJay]

It isn't how it is and it isn't how it should be.

EU law only allows voting on regional not constitutional issues. You can't have foreign nationals voting on UK foreign policy towards their home countries.

It possibly delegitimises Salmond's mandate for power and it would certainly delegitimise an independence vote, as it becomes a national, not regional issue.

The UK Electoral Commission don't appear to agree with your claim. They released a response to the two consultations this week, from Scottish and UK governments, and they confirm that : "The franchise for elections and referendums is properly a matter for Governments and Parliaments to determine

This is the crux of my point, which I made in my first post.

The poll is not technically a constitional referendum because it is non-binding on the UK government. If it were binding then the EU citizens have no right under EU law to vote.

As it is non-binding does that mean that they must be part of the franchise or would they be prevented from exercising their EU rights if not included?

Either way, they would not have a right to vote for the Scottish parliament once it became a national body.

[ronmcd]

If Scotland chooses independence the UK will be in very real danger of ceasing to be a nuclear power.

In your dreams maybe. A referendum doesn't give Scotland independence.
Only the UK Parliament can do that. If the UK parliament doesn't get binding terms on it's defence institutions, no independence bill would get through. Simple as that.

Are they ready to try UDI in Scotland? I don't think so.

UDI? Wouldnt be needed if people voted yes in a Scottish Parliament referendum. That would be self determination, and Westminister would not refuse. Westminister has no power if Scotland votes yes, that is the practical reality.

Westminister only has power over Scotland because of the Union ... if the Union is dissolved, Westminister has no power.

[ronmcd]

I hate to quote wikipedia here mistermack, but it does summarise it quite well :

The United Nations Charter enshrines the right of peoples to self-determination, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also guarantees peoples' right to change nationality; the UK is a signatory to both documents. Politicians in both the Scottish and British parliaments have endorsed the right of the Scottish people to self-determination, including former UK Prime Ministers John Major and Margaret Thatcher.[58] The Claim of Right 1989 was signed by every then-serving Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democrat MP, with the exception of Tam Dalyell. Johann Lamont stated in her December 2011 acceptance speech for the Scottish Labour leadership that "sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland".

To be able to exercise self determination, against a theoretically hostile larger state such as UK if they do as you suggest and refuse, Scotland has to run it's own referendum. And this will be perfectly acceptable to Scots and the International community, even if Westminister were to claim it wasnt legal.

[mistermack]

That gives them the right to seek a mandate. It doesn't give them the right to UDI.
You just ask the Basques.
A referendum gives the Scots the right to negotiate terms of independence, not impose them. And if it's not passed by the UK Parliament, it's not legal.

[ronmcd]

It isn't how it is and it isn't how it should be.

EU law only allows voting on regional not constitutional issues. You can't have foreign nationals voting on UK foreign policy towards their home countries.

It possibly delegitimises Salmond's mandate for power and it would certainly delegitimise an independence vote, as it becomes a national, not regional issue.

The UK Electoral Commission don't appear to agree with your claim. They released a response to the two consultations this week, from Scottish and UK governments, and they confirm that : "The franchise for elections and referendums is properly a matter for Governments and Parliaments to determine

This is the crux of my point, which I made in my first post.

The poll is not technically a constitional referendum because it is non-binding on the UK government. If it were binding then the EU citizens have no right under EU law to vote.

As it is non-binding does that mean that they must be part of the franchise or would they be prevented from exercising their EU rights if not included?

Either way, they would not have a right to vote for the Scottish parliament once it became a national body.

Not technically a constitutional referendum? Surely that differentiation doesn't really exist? No referendum is binding, and is there actually any difference between a constitutional referendum and any other? I get your point that in UK general elections EU citizens cannot vote, but that does not somehow negate any referendum in Scotland which uses a different franchise. And this reality is exposed by the fact the UK government are explicitly offering to make the Scottish Referendum binding and legal in exchange for concessions on timing and the question!

The UK govt are currently trying to gain these concessions from Holyrood by offering to make it binding and legal, using a section 30 order which transfers the legal powers to Holyrood. But thats a smokescreen, many SCOTS law experts say it isnt necessary, and in fact the UK govt themselves only claim it's not currently binding or legal because without the section 30 from westminister it could theoretically be challenged in the Supreme Court.

But the Supreme Court would throw it out, as it represents self determination!

[ronmcd]

That gives them the right to seek a mandate. It doesn't give them the right to UDI.
You just ask the Basques.
A referendum gives the Scots the right to negotiate terms of independence, not impose them. And if it's not passed by the UK Parliament, it's not legal.

I'm not claiming anything about UDI at all, just that it wont be necessary, as a transparent and open referendum would represent the will of the Scottish people, and no one in Westminister or the Supreme Court could even try to inist Scotland did not have the right to be independent after such a vote.

You are absolutely correct that the details, the spitting of the assets, the liabilities and debts etc, would all be negotiated after a vote. The vote gives the Scottish government the mandate to negotiate, in fact that is exactly what past white papers from the SNP explicitly said in the question. There is some opinion that a second referendum would then be likely, if not necessary, in order to put those terms to the people. But that isnt currently the Scottish Governments position.

Finally, if Scotland voted for independence, and the UK government - or westminister generally - vetoed it, THEN of course Scotland would be quite entitled to a UDI. That will not happen, because it is in no ones interest to have animosity between the two. If Scotland does vote for it, the negotiations will be tough, but the transition will be smooth and westminister will not even try to prevent it.

(edit - damn spelling)

[mistermack]

Finally, if Scotland voted for independence, and the UK government - or westminister generally - vetoed it, THEN of course Scotland would be quite entitled to a UDI. That will not happen, because it is in no ones interest to have animosity between the two. If Scotland does vote for it, the negotiations will be tough, but the transition will be smooth and westminister will not even try to prevent it.

(edit - damn spelling)

But you're deliberately dodging your own point.
I'm just saying that Westminster WOULD prevent it, if the nuclear deterrent was not 100% safeguarded.
They would have no choice. You seem to be saying that the UK would be forced to walk away from it's nuclear deterrent, because of a non-binding (your words) referendum.
Scotland has NO entitlement to UDI.
They could declare all they want, it wouldn't affect the legal position in the slightest.

Personally, if I were the UK government, and if the Scots did vote for independence, I would insist on a Guantanamo Bay type deal, or a Hong Kong type 100 year lease.
No deal, no independence. That would be the choice for Salmond.

[ronmcd]

Finally, if Scotland voted for independence, and the UK government - or westminister generally - vetoed it, THEN of course Scotland would be quite entitled to a UDI. That will not happen, because it is in no ones interest to have animosity between the two. If Scotland does vote for it, the negotiations will be tough, but the transition will be smooth and westminister will not even try to prevent it.

(edit - damn spelling)

But you're deliberately dodging your own point.
I'm just saying that Westminster WOULD prevent it, if the nuclear deterrent was not 100% safeguarded.
They would have no choice. You seem to be saying that the UK would be forced to walk away from that, because of a non-binding (your words) referendum.
Scotland has NO entitlement to UDI.
They could declare all they want, it wouldn't affect the legal position in the slightest.

Personally, if I were the UK government, and if the Scots did vote for independence, I would insist on a Guantanamo Bay type deal, or a Hong Kong type 100 year lease.
No deal, no independence. That would be the choice for Salmond.

Yes, I'm saying the practical result of a "yes" referendum - even non-binding by westministers terms - would still result in an agreement in short time. It would be in noones interest to let things get nasty. But I still say you are wrong on the legality. Westminister accepts that Scotland has the right to self determination, they even offer to remove any doubt by passing Holyrood the powers to hold a "binding" referendum, in exchange for concessions. But it's a smokescreen, because internationally, self determination for a country overrides the (for want of a better word) 'host' counties legal or political objections.

I'm not ruling out a Scottish govt accepting that Faslane would be required for a set period, time for UK to arrange somewhere else. Just that Faslane is one of the top problems UK has with Scottish independence, one of the few areas where Scotland leaving would potentially cause UK a headache. And under your scenario where UK could prevent Scottish independence as being non legal, what would happen if they had already transferred the legal power to Holyrood to hold a binding referendum, as they propose? Westminister would grant the power for the referendum to be legal and binding, then what? Create a new law to revoke Holyrood's powers because the negotiations didnt turn out quite as they hoped?

I just dont think thats reality- if people vote for it, no matter what, it will happen.

[mistermack]

I just dont think thats reality- if people vote for it, no matter what, it will happen.

No, you are still dodging it.
If the UK doesn't get a bombproof legally binding long-term deal on the nukes, it won't get through parliament. That's an absolute fact.

So Salmond would only have two choices. Agree to it, or try to do independence unilaterally.
If you know of a third choice, I'd like to hear it.

Just saying " if people vote for it, no matter what, it will happen" is a cop out.
You don't say how.