Quote:
Originally Posted by Wad_2002
Kabaal, what are we breaking extactly?? other than removing ourselves from a union drawn up hundreds of years ago i.e. in bibilcal times.
We have all the ingredients necessary to move forward with this like, we did in the 70's when we DID vote for indenpendance, but again due to a "technicality" it was not fullfilled.
p.s. to answer your question, no I don't thknk we would be aloud back in. We made our bed and we have to sleep in that...I can accept that responsbility
|
Erm no, Scotland did not vote for independence in the 1970s. There was a devolution referendum, which was defeated. The "technicality" was a quorum, which is a totally uncontroversial device in decisions involving constitutional change. IMO there should have been one in 1997 as well, although I believe Scotland would have met it. Wales certainly wouldn't and as a result the Assembly came into existence with the active support of fewer than 25% of Welsh voters.
I believe there should have been a quorum for this year's referendum as well. It can in no way be said to be the settled will of the Scottish people to effect permanent, radical constitutional change unless a majority of adults - all of them, not just the turnout - are sufficiently motivated to go out and vote for it.
Permanent and major constitutional changes should be demonstrated by more than 50% +1 of whichever voters turn out on the day. If the result is 49-51 for the union, the separatists will keep agitating forever and a day until they get what they want, arguing that opinions might have changed, but if it goes 51-49 the other way, the destruction of the modern British state will be permanent.
It's all very well you being happy with the consequences but our children have to live in the land we are at risk of birthing this year and we have a responsibility to them.
Cameron has been a pragmatist in allowing the seps to have their referendum, with votes for teens and no quorum, because he knew there was a risk that Salmond the ever-reckless would simply go ahead anyway and plan to try to fight for his result through the courts if necessary. But there is a real risk now, if the result is close, whichever way it falls, of long lasting social damage.