Give British People the vote

[Coito ergo sum]

Can we all just have a referendum on independence from Westminster?

And, what about a referendum on reparations from England for their centuries of oppression meted out on much of the world?

Between 1885 and 1914 Britain took nearly 30 percent of Africa's population under her control, compared to 15 percent for France, 9 percent for Germany, 7 percent for Belgium and 1 percent for Italy.

Free the Scots!!! Braveheart said it best, "You can take our freedom, but you can not take our Scotch Whiskey!"

[MrJonno]

Yeah but you are forgetting what a good job we did in Palestine!

[ronmcd]

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.

No, i'm not dodging it. You just don't like my answer. As I said, the reality is that if the people vote for independence, it will happen, because the politicians and civil servants will come to practical arrangements for the benefit of the people on these islands.

Why would the two governments not be able to reach agreement? If there were outstanding issues that would need longer, they will take longer. It may need to come back to Scotland for the people to agree to whatever the governments have agreed, possibly the rest of UK, who knows. Either way, you are suggesting that Westminister could prevent Scottish independence in a vote. But if the UK govt has already accepted the result of the referendum and so is actively engaged in negotiations, you think its credible or even worthwhile attempting to stop it by voting in the HOC? We dont like it, you cant leave? If the principle has been agreed, ie the marriage assets are in the process of being split up, what would Westministers vote even mean? At that stage it would be irrelevant. Any outstanding issues would remain such, until they were later agreed, it wouldnt stop independence.

Scotland wont need a UDI because that would be silly. There would be calm negotiations and agreement on both sides, and an agreement over the future of the nukes will be reached, probably involving a period of x years during which UK seeks alternative arrangements. Thats not a cop out, it's the reality. The two countries would not end up in a stalemate over an issue, even one as sensitive as nukes.

Won't happen, but if as you suggest negotiations break down and there is some sort of westminister vote to refuse independence on the basis of nukes, negating the result of the referendum and the rest of the negotiations, then some form of UDI probably would be indicated by the Scottish government, and with the principle already accepted that the Scots had voted for it, it would be accepted internationally. What westminister thinks ... wouldnt really matter. But as I said, that won't happen, as it won't be needed.

[ronmcd]

In general, I suspect all the rhetoric and political arm waving will stop immediately theres a yes - or no - vote for independence. There won't be anger and bitterness after the event, thats for the politicians to synthetically generate before the vote. After? It'll all be sorted calmly and quickly.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah but you are forgetting what a good job we did in Palestine!

Well, you have a point there. Things would really be cocked up otherwise. Good point. Carry on!

[mistermack]

Scotland wont need a UDI because that would be silly. There would be calm negotiations and agreement on both sides, and an agreement over the future of the nukes will be reached, probably involving a period of x years during which UK seeks alternative arrangements. Thats not a cop out, it's the reality. The two countries would not end up in a stalemate over an issue, even one as sensitive as nukes.

Good. That's my point about your comment that Britain could cease to be a nuclear power.
It's not going to happen. Why should it be a headache for Cameron? It's potentially a much bigger headache for Salmond.
That's WHY it's not going to happen.

I'm just pointing out what would be driving Salmond's decision. If he dug his heels in, and tried to leave the UK without it's base, he would just make a giant problem for himself.

You are just refusing to even address what would happen if he did that. So your claim that the UK could be left without nukes doesn't stand up.

I would say that to refuse a proper settlement could derail the whole nationalist dream for Salmond.
Especially if the vote was a close one.
He could lose an election before the deal was done, and the next Scottish Government could hold another ballot. Time would not be on his side, if he only just scraped a majority.

[ronmcd]

Good. That's my point about your comment that Britain could cease to be a nuclear power.
It's not going to happen. Why should it be a headache for Cameron? It's potentially a much bigger headache for Salmond.
That's WHY it's not going to happen.

I'm just pointing out what would be driving Salmond's decision. If he dug his heels in, and tried to leave the UK without it's base, he would just make a giant problem for himself.

You are just refusing to even address what would happen if he did that. So your claim that the UK could be left without nukes doesn't stand up.

I would say that to refuse a proper settlement could derail the whole nationalist dream for Salmond.
Especially if the vote was a close one.
He could lose an election before the deal was done, and the next Scottish Government could hold another ballot. Time would not be on his side, if he only just scraped a majority.

Well, firstly I don't see why a Scottish govt insisting that the nukes are moved somewhere else after independence would be a problem for Salmond or the Scottish govt, rather than UK. It's the UK's problem, and I don't accept the premise that UK could - or would - prevent independence on that issue. I don't think UK can prevent independence, assuming the vote is for a yes.

But it's not me who is claiming that the UK could be left without nukes, it's the article I quoted, titled: "Trident nuclear deterrent 'at risk' if Scotland votes for independence". My point when I raised it was that Faslane is one of the primary reasons Cameron cares about the independence issue.

Put it this way mistermack: if Scots choose independence, forget the issues and the problems to be worked out, Scotland will be independent. That would be what the people had decided. Now, you are suggesting that between effectively two governments, UK would have the power to force a decision on nukes on Scotland, and/or prevent independence itself. Sorry, thats fantasy. And in any power balance between the two, I wouldnt suggest UK has the upper hand particularly to impose anything. Because their power and influence would have just been rejected by the Scottish people!

I think you are seeing this whole argument from the viewpoint that Westminister is sovereign, even after one party to the union has just rejected that very idea.

[Coito ergo sum]

Edward Longshanks is rolling over in his grave...

[mistermack]

Put it this way mistermack: if Scots choose independence, forget the issues and the problems to be worked out, Scotland will be independent. That would be what the people had decided. Now, you are suggesting that between effectively two governments, UK would have the power to force a decision on nukes on Scotland, and/or prevent independence itself. Sorry, thats fantasy. And in any power balance between the two, I wouldnt suggest UK has the upper hand particularly to impose anything. Because their power and influence would have just been rejected by the Scottish people!

I think you are seeing this whole argument from the viewpoint that Westminister is sovereign, even after one party to the union has just rejected that very idea.

Westminster is sovereign, until a law is passed agreeing to partition.
You dismiss the current legal position as fantasy.
It's strange how you post in one place that no referendum is binding, and then say the opposite later.

The UK parliament has the right to reject a deal from the Scot Nats. It's not obliged to accept anything and everything they care to demand.
I think the point is done to death now though.

We'll have to wait and see.

[Svartalf]

Edward Longshanks is rolling over in his grave...

Bugger his sodomite son with his shin bones.

[Pappa]

BTW ronmcd... I like the cut of your jib.

[Feck]

I don't think Nukes have anything to do with it ... unless Englandshire thinks that Scotland should be giving money for the rental agreement the UK has stupidly agreed to with the US .

[Coito ergo sum]

Can't you folks just settle it with a civil war? I'd like to see Lord Huxley leading the charge against an array of kilted Highlanders.

[ronmcd]

Put it this way mistermack: if Scots choose independence, forget the issues and the problems to be worked out, Scotland will be independent. That would be what the people had decided. Now, you are suggesting that between effectively two governments, UK would have the power to force a decision on nukes on Scotland, and/or prevent independence itself. Sorry, thats fantasy. And in any power balance between the two, I wouldnt suggest UK has the upper hand particularly to impose anything. Because their power and influence would have just been rejected by the Scottish people!

I think you are seeing this whole argument from the viewpoint that Westminister is sovereign, even after one party to the union has just rejected that very idea.

Westminster is sovereign, until a law is passed agreeing to partition.

Partition? A pejorative term. Interesting. Why not just accept the principle that the country of Scotland can seccede from the Union without there being unpleasantness. If it wants to.

You dismiss the current legal position as fantasy.

No, I dismiss the idea that if the people of Scotland decide on independence, UK could or even would attempt to prevent it in any way.

It's strange how you post in one place that no referendum is binding, and then say the opposite later.

Nonsense. You are just making stuff up now. No referendum is binding, they are all advisory. Westminister is trying to claim that only they can make the referendum legal and binding, but that is just an attempt to control it. Since they ARE offering to give the powers. I was pointing out that if Westminister gave these binding powers they claim are necessary, is it then credible they would later engineer a vote to deny independence in the HOC just because the Scots wanted rid of nukes?

The UK parliament has the right to reject a deal from the Scot Nats. It's not obliged to accept anything and everything they care to demand.

Likewise the Scottish government. And this isn't about the SNP, the negotiations would only come about if the people of Scotland decided. It wouldn't be the SNP negotiating, it would be the government of Scotland.

[HomerJay]

BTW ronmcd... I like the cut of your jib.