Crosswords2 mins ago
Scottish Independence
Much has been spoken and written about the rights of the Scottish to hold a referendum and decide whether or not they want to end the 300 year old union, but surely the English (and Welsh and Northern Irish) have just as much right to be included in any decision as to whether the Union should be broken up, don't they?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Scottish are just like Piles, both are much better when they go back up again.
Scottish independance cant come quick enough. We then need to stick in border posts and passport control in the same way we do with other countries. Perhaps rebuild Hadrians wall (that will eimploy a load of builders too)
And just how long will it be before the Sweaties are broke. They seemed to think they would have all the oil but only about 14% is in Scottish waters, rest is England/Norway/Holland. It wont go far, particularly with Glaswegian benefits to pay.
Scottish independance cant come quick enough. We then need to stick in border posts and passport control in the same way we do with other countries. Perhaps rebuild Hadrians wall (that will eimploy a load of builders too)
And just how long will it be before the Sweaties are broke. They seemed to think they would have all the oil but only about 14% is in Scottish waters, rest is England/Norway/Holland. It wont go far, particularly with Glaswegian benefits to pay.
I do not see the reason for the animosity. IMO the Union has been advantageous to the island.
Yes all members should have a say in whether one member is allowed to secede, but as I mentioned in the other thread, I don't see much to gain by forcing a member to remain if they have is a clear desire/sizable majority for leaving. (I'm less enthralled with a just over 50% wish though as constitutional matters ought not be enacted on a simple majority that could change year to year.)
Yes all members should have a say in whether one member is allowed to secede, but as I mentioned in the other thread, I don't see much to gain by forcing a member to remain if they have is a clear desire/sizable majority for leaving. (I'm less enthralled with a just over 50% wish though as constitutional matters ought not be enacted on a simple majority that could change year to year.)
If my understanding is correct, the devo max 'compromise', in a nutshell, allows the Scottish parliament to run Scotland without interference from Westminster, whislt retaining the benefit of being in the union in terms of having access to our (our being English, Welsh and NI) money.
If this is the case, then as an Englishman, I wouldn't be happy with this solution.
I'd rather we kept the union, but given the choice of devo max or the break-up of the union, then I'd choose the latter (either stay or don't).
If this is the case, then as an Englishman, I wouldn't be happy with this solution.
I'd rather we kept the union, but given the choice of devo max or the break-up of the union, then I'd choose the latter (either stay or don't).
Never has more rubbish been spoken by more people with little knowledge than on this topic.
You should all acquaint yourselves with the 1988 Claim of Right, which was signed by most Scottish MP's, business and church leaders and senior members of Civic Scotland, and restates the ancient Scottish Constitutional position that sovereignty rests solely with the people; not the Crown nor the Parliament and certainly not with anybody firth of Scotland.
You should all acquaint yourselves with the 1988 Claim of Right, which was signed by most Scottish MP's, business and church leaders and senior members of Civic Scotland, and restates the ancient Scottish Constitutional position that sovereignty rests solely with the people; not the Crown nor the Parliament and certainly not with anybody firth of Scotland.
Yes, I’ve read all about the “Claim of Right”, rich. A document with no legal or constitutional status whatsoever and which expresses nothing more than the views of a few Labour MPs and other dignitaries. It takes its name from a document and a principle which predates the Act of Union, in a time when circumstances were very different to those prevailing today.
The argument for self-determination would be a little stronger if Scotland was an independent sovereign state. But it isn’t. It is an integral part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom
The argument for self-determination would be a little stronger if Scotland was an independent sovereign state. But it isn’t. It is an integral part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom
"A document with no legal or constitutional status whatsoever..."
At the risk of being repetitive, I daresay the very same was said by the British government in 1965 about anything written down by Ian Smith and his colleagues as regards the independence of Rhodesia. The fact, however, remains that that country WAS recognised as independent by the whole world relatively soon after their Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
I repeat...you cannot force people to stay in a political union any more than you can force them to stay in a marital one, even if you have a pile of law documents a mile high suggesting that you can.
Also at the risk of being repetitive, the thing I wish would happen is that the (mainly) English people on this thread would finally grasp that - according to the UK Government statement made in Westminster (not Edinburgh) a week or so ago - "the decision will be made IN Scotland and BY the people of Scotland." It could scarcely be clearer that the peoples of England, Wales and NI are simply NOT going to be consulted! It is of no consequence that they go on insisting that they SHOULD be.
At the risk of being repetitive, I daresay the very same was said by the British government in 1965 about anything written down by Ian Smith and his colleagues as regards the independence of Rhodesia. The fact, however, remains that that country WAS recognised as independent by the whole world relatively soon after their Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
I repeat...you cannot force people to stay in a political union any more than you can force them to stay in a marital one, even if you have a pile of law documents a mile high suggesting that you can.
Also at the risk of being repetitive, the thing I wish would happen is that the (mainly) English people on this thread would finally grasp that - according to the UK Government statement made in Westminster (not Edinburgh) a week or so ago - "the decision will be made IN Scotland and BY the people of Scotland." It could scarcely be clearer that the peoples of England, Wales and NI are simply NOT going to be consulted! It is of no consequence that they go on insisting that they SHOULD be.
What's clear is that people south of the border will soon be past caring, if they're not already.
I don't know about the legalities of it, but it makes sense to me that the Scots alone should and will decide whether they want independence or not. But that really should be the decision they make - are we in or out.
If there are any other in-between options, like 'do we want all the benefits of independence with none of the risks', then that's something that needs to be agreed by everyone in the union.
As QM says, you can't force someone to stay in a club they don't want to be a member of, irrespective of what the rules say, but similarly, that person can't unilaterally renegotiate the terms of his membership. That's something which the whole club needs to be consulted on.
I don't know about the legalities of it, but it makes sense to me that the Scots alone should and will decide whether they want independence or not. But that really should be the decision they make - are we in or out.
If there are any other in-between options, like 'do we want all the benefits of independence with none of the risks', then that's something that needs to be agreed by everyone in the union.
As QM says, you can't force someone to stay in a club they don't want to be a member of, irrespective of what the rules say, but similarly, that person can't unilaterally renegotiate the terms of his membership. That's something which the whole club needs to be consulted on.
But the question is not about what hypothetically might happen if the Westminster parliament does not agree to the Scots' demands. I have always accepted in both questions to which I've contributed that UDI is a possibility (albeit a highly improbable outcome). The question is about what should happen within the law.
Yes, we should all have a vote about ending the Union.
I think the English would overwhelmingly vote "Yes" ... because then we would no longer have to listen to the SNP going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ... about it.
Also, if they lose their Scottish MPs, the Labour Party would probably never again be able to form a Government, which would be such a relief.
I think the English would overwhelmingly vote "Yes" ... because then we would no longer have to listen to the SNP going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ... about it.
Also, if they lose their Scottish MPs, the Labour Party would probably never again be able to form a Government, which would be such a relief.
It is amusing that we have the Nationalist Mr Salmond desperately trying to persuade the Scots to vote in favour of independence (when polls suggest they overwhelmingly would not). Meanwhile we have the Unionist Mr Cameron desperately trying to persuade the English to continue to support the Union (when polls suggest they overwhelmingly do not).
Now that’s real democracy for you !!!
Now that’s real democracy for you !!!
It's also worth pointing out that the current "on-and-on-and-on" was not created by Scottish Nationalists but by Cameron trying to plonk his size 11 jack-boots into matters! He may well be legally correct but, if he thinks that is the way to influence the Scots, he's got another think coming. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there are more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs!
it is a great pity that NJ and others cannot seem to get their collective heads round the fact that it is not simply a question of current legal competence; it is about feelings and passion and right and sense and history.
Scots have a distinct identity which is nurtured from birth and centres around equality and individual significance. People who come to live in these lands from elsewhere pick up and empathise with this quite quickly.
In history monarchs in Scotland have been "first among equals", not rulers over us, the people have always been sovereign.
The more the Westminster politicians tell us that we cannot, then the more the Scottish sense and history will determine and insist that YES WE CAN.
Scots have a distinct identity which is nurtured from birth and centres around equality and individual significance. People who come to live in these lands from elsewhere pick up and empathise with this quite quickly.
In history monarchs in Scotland have been "first among equals", not rulers over us, the people have always been sovereign.
The more the Westminster politicians tell us that we cannot, then the more the Scottish sense and history will determine and insist that YES WE CAN.
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |