Quote:
Originally Posted by EBD3000
True, I was just stating the worst case scenario. It'd still be true for the individual country that left the union.
Anyway I thinks its a moot point as Scotland is likely to be still part of the union in 100 years.
Let the SNP have its referendum so the topic can be put to bed either way.
|
It's tempting to just say 'have the referendum and get it over with,' but there are very good reasons
not to do it. First of all, the Scottish people know there are only 2 or 3 parties in the country that advocate breaking away from the Union, and they have absolute discretion to support any one of them at the ballot box. Separatist parties have never got anywhere near an outright majority in Scotland, so (despite the loud noise the SNP makes) there is no case for a formal national debate about separation.
Second, referendums cost money - money that can be better spent on other things. This is always the case but especially right now. It would be a pointless waste of scarce public resources.
Third, it wouldn't put the issue to bed. It would simply kick it into the long grass for perhaps 10 years. You can bet the SNP isn't going to pull up the stumps and walk away if they don't get the answer they want. They will simply review their strategy, seek to change people's minds and after a while start agitating for another referendum, looking for any spurious reason they can find that demonstrates things have substantially changed and therefore we can no longer rely on the X-year-old results of the last referendum. This would be guaranteed to go on, ad infinitum. It is a well-attested fact, all over the world, that when someone sponsors a referendum, then doesn't get the result they want, where they have the opportunity they simply keep repeating the referendum until they
do get the result they want. c.f. Ireland's recent experiences in the EU.