ChatterBank0 min 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.
Yes. As I argued in another question last week, contrary to what the Scots believe, the decision is not theirs alone to make. In fact, although they may have the right to hold an advisory referendum (and even that is arguable) the decision whether to grant the Scots independence rests solely with the Westminster Parliament.
The Union was established by mutual consent, not by a takeover or invasion. The Scots embraced the Union because they were skint. It suited them. The Union established the UK as a single entity and Scotland is part of that United Kingdom in just the same way that Liverpool or Cornwall is. I cannot imagine too many people arguing that Cornwall (or indeed Acacia Avenue Epsom) has an automatic right to be granted independence if they so choose.
This situation has arisen because of the ridiculous devolution plans enacted by the last government. It was always going to lead to delusions of grandeur on the part of the Scottish Parliament. That is precisely what was forecast and precisely what has happened.
Any decision on whether any part of the country may secede from the UK and how the decision is taken (either with the advice from a referendum or by simple Parliamentary debate and vote) rests entirely with the UK Government and Parliament at Westminster.
The Union was established by mutual consent, not by a takeover or invasion. The Scots embraced the Union because they were skint. It suited them. The Union established the UK as a single entity and Scotland is part of that United Kingdom in just the same way that Liverpool or Cornwall is. I cannot imagine too many people arguing that Cornwall (or indeed Acacia Avenue Epsom) has an automatic right to be granted independence if they so choose.
This situation has arisen because of the ridiculous devolution plans enacted by the last government. It was always going to lead to delusions of grandeur on the part of the Scottish Parliament. That is precisely what was forecast and precisely what has happened.
Any decision on whether any part of the country may secede from the UK and how the decision is taken (either with the advice from a referendum or by simple Parliamentary debate and vote) rests entirely with the UK Government and Parliament at Westminster.
Despite what you say NJ - and we have discussed this very point before - it was made perfectly plain in Parliament last week that only the Scots WILL participate in the referendum, when and if it is ever held.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said early in his speech that the decision will be made "IN Scotland by the people OF Scotland". Later in the following debate, an English MP asked, "When will the English finally get a say over the future of the Union?" The Secretary of State replied (and this is verbatim), "As far as who decides this issue, I think it's important that the people of Scotland get to decide THEIR place in the United Kingdom."
(I put the word, 'their', in upper case because he did emphasise it.)
It is not yet totally clear precisely what "the people of Scotland" means, but it seems certain to be - as I claimed in our past debate - the people whose names are on one or another electoral register in Scotland. It won't be open to people like me, for example, a Scot but long resident furth the borders.
As for whether Scotland could do this alone regardless, of the views of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish, I refer you to the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Rhodesia in 1965. The Rhodesians were told they "couldn't" do such a thing but they did it anyway and eventually the world simply accepted things as they actually were. Basically, you can't just keep people involved in a political union if they choose to have nothing more to do with it. In addition, several central European countries split up in recent times, allowing the different parts to go their own way.
I think you can all count on NOT being consulted in this matter and rightly so.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said early in his speech that the decision will be made "IN Scotland by the people OF Scotland". Later in the following debate, an English MP asked, "When will the English finally get a say over the future of the Union?" The Secretary of State replied (and this is verbatim), "As far as who decides this issue, I think it's important that the people of Scotland get to decide THEIR place in the United Kingdom."
(I put the word, 'their', in upper case because he did emphasise it.)
It is not yet totally clear precisely what "the people of Scotland" means, but it seems certain to be - as I claimed in our past debate - the people whose names are on one or another electoral register in Scotland. It won't be open to people like me, for example, a Scot but long resident furth the borders.
As for whether Scotland could do this alone regardless, of the views of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish, I refer you to the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Rhodesia in 1965. The Rhodesians were told they "couldn't" do such a thing but they did it anyway and eventually the world simply accepted things as they actually were. Basically, you can't just keep people involved in a political union if they choose to have nothing more to do with it. In addition, several central European countries split up in recent times, allowing the different parts to go their own way.
I think you can all count on NOT being consulted in this matter and rightly so.
No, not at all Gromit.
The EU (for the moment anyway) is not a union of nations combined into a single entity. Despite its name it is an association of sovereign states which have agreements and treaties to enable business to be conducted with the minimum of fuss (though even that laudable aim seems beyond it most of the time). Each of the member nations retains autonomy, sovereignty and governence and can leave the “union” at any time it wishes.
The United Kingdom is not such an association. It is a single sovereign state with one government and the individual components (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) have no independent standing. Suggesting that Scotland is an independent state entitled to self-determination as of right is like saying that Tuscany should have the right to independence from Italy.
As I said, the confusion arises because of devolution. Calling the Scottish Assembly a “government” or a “Parliament” gives the impression that it has powers of self-determination, and it does not. In fact, it has no more such powers in that respect an Surrey County Council has.
“if wales wanted independence it would be their choice, and not for me to interfere in their politics.”
No it would not be their choice, anneasquith, for the same reasons as above.
Quite honestly, QM, I am not in the least bit interested whether Scotland remains in the Union or not and I don’t expect to be consulted. However, it is not what I want that counts. I did accept the alternative of UDI in the earlier question (and I believe this would be the most suitable resolution as it would not involve any cumbersome and expensive “transition” arrangements) but considering only legitimate methods, only the UK government can pass legislation which would enable Scotland’s independence. Whether they do so by listening solely to the Scottish people or to all the people of the UK is for them to decide. (And further it will be for the UK electorate to deliver their verdict on that decision at the following General Election). But the Union is everybody’s, not just the Scots’, and its legal dissolution rests with Westminster.
The EU (for the moment anyway) is not a union of nations combined into a single entity. Despite its name it is an association of sovereign states which have agreements and treaties to enable business to be conducted with the minimum of fuss (though even that laudable aim seems beyond it most of the time). Each of the member nations retains autonomy, sovereignty and governence and can leave the “union” at any time it wishes.
The United Kingdom is not such an association. It is a single sovereign state with one government and the individual components (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) have no independent standing. Suggesting that Scotland is an independent state entitled to self-determination as of right is like saying that Tuscany should have the right to independence from Italy.
As I said, the confusion arises because of devolution. Calling the Scottish Assembly a “government” or a “Parliament” gives the impression that it has powers of self-determination, and it does not. In fact, it has no more such powers in that respect an Surrey County Council has.
“if wales wanted independence it would be their choice, and not for me to interfere in their politics.”
No it would not be their choice, anneasquith, for the same reasons as above.
Quite honestly, QM, I am not in the least bit interested whether Scotland remains in the Union or not and I don’t expect to be consulted. However, it is not what I want that counts. I did accept the alternative of UDI in the earlier question (and I believe this would be the most suitable resolution as it would not involve any cumbersome and expensive “transition” arrangements) but considering only legitimate methods, only the UK government can pass legislation which would enable Scotland’s independence. Whether they do so by listening solely to the Scottish people or to all the people of the UK is for them to decide. (And further it will be for the UK electorate to deliver their verdict on that decision at the following General Election). But the Union is everybody’s, not just the Scots’, and its legal dissolution rests with Westminster.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Yes, Lord_Elphus, any member state of the EU can leave. There is a mechanism for departure enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, including a provision for trading agreements to be drawn up between the EU and the departed nation. I imagine your doubt is based on the lack of desire of the governments of individual states to initiate that departure which is, of course, an entirely different matter altogether.
There is, however, no established mechanism for a nation using the Euro to leave the single currency. And that may be needed sooner rather than later.
There is, however, no established mechanism for a nation using the Euro to leave the single currency. And that may be needed sooner rather than later.
Latest Posts
News10 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Uk Diplomats Meet Rebel Leader In...
News16 mins ago
News28 mins ago
Will There Be A Christmas Top Of The...
Artists30 mins ago
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |