Should Scotland Devolve Completely?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Russ

Force a change? All they have to do is raise objections to whatever the WA is asking for.

Yes, they'd have to force a change from current policy. You seen unwilling or unable to differentiate between the ultimate control of the WA which does emanate from the Westminster Government and Parliament (made up of MPs of all UK nationalities) and the power of English MPs to vote on Welsh matters on a day to day basis. The fact remains that on those matters currently devolved to the WA, English MPs as a group have no right to vote directly.

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.

[EBD3000]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Good post, sneaky politicians. or not.

We all know a vote is never the end just go and ask any irish resident right now their opinion didn't count for squat until it was the opinion the eu wanted. But what a vote would do Chris is take away a lot of the ammo the snp use's the people would have had a vote and would make a free choice something they havn't done so far and if in a few years the snp chime up again they will have a lot less support. We're never going to get rid of the core malcontents in any of the union nations they are too stuck in their ways and too backward and ignorant to see the fact the union benefits all of us in so many ways so they just have to be ignored once we give them a vote.

[Taf]

OOPS! Sorry! Misread the thread title... I though it said "Should Scotland dissolve completely"....


Plaid Cymru's propping-up of the Labour party in Wales is going to hell now as Labour won't look at a devolution referendum until after a general election.

Good.... that might kick some of Welsh Labour's plans in the goolies and take the minority Plaid out of any power position.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wal...cs/8376640.stm

Another good reason for not doing it Rizzy ... it legitimises the idea that minority political groups should periodically be indulged in their constant demands for their agenda to be given attention that the wider political and social context already tells us it doesn't deserve.

If we had a written constitution in the UK, that constitution would almost certainly demand some sort of super-majority before something so drastic as carving up the Union itself could be contemplated. The SNP's level of support is miles away from even a simple majority and it has simply never, ever, come anywhere remotely close to the sort of level where separation could be considered to be the settled will of the Scottish people.

This being the case, a referendum is simply pointless pandering that grants a veneer of legitimacy to a cause that has precious little of its own. We really ought not to be doing the SNP's job for it by granting it that legitimacy.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Osem

Yes, they'd have to force a change from current policy. You seen unwilling or unable to differentiate between the ultimate control of the WA which does emanate from the Westminster Government and Parliament (made up of MPs of all UK nationalities) and the power of English MPs to vote on Welsh matters on a day to day basis. The fact remains that on those matters currently devolved to the WA, English MPs as a group have no right to vote directly.

I understand it enough. The process may be different but if they wanted to, non-Welsh MPs could if they wanted to disrupt the proposals of the WA.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Russ

I understand it enough. The process may be different but if they wanted to, non-Welsh MPs could if they wanted to disrupt the proposals of the WA.

You understand it but continue to compare apples and pears.

Crumbs, get a room, you two ...

[nomadking]

Any vote should only take place once all the ramifications have been established (eg would Scots need passports to come to England, what would be their share of the National Debt). You can't have a vote on a simple premise without properly establishing the outcome of voting one way or the other.

While i get what your saying Chris and broadly agree nearly 33% of scots feel the snp is the way to go and is it fair to deny one third of a country (or near as dammit) a vote. Also if a vote took place and the majority voted as i expect they would to remain part of the union then it would also rob the snp from being able to say they speak for a silent section something i have heard slime salmond doing a few times. If nothing is done it will go on and on and eventually people in scotland and maybe elsewhere might start reading more into it then there is leading to more popular support.

The thing is, I think that's a very short-term analysis of what would happen following a referendum 'no' vote. Yes, in the short term, it would rob the SNP of the ability to claim there are more people in favour of 'independence' than their vote would indicate, but in the longer term it would simply serve to set a precedent, that you can hold a referendum on the issue, even in the absence of any obvious popular support for that issue. It's a recipe for perpetual calls for a referendum, probably once every 10-15 years or so. That serves to totally undermine the stability of the UK as an international partner, location for potential investment and a whole lot of other stuff. Who wants the spectre of permanent constitutional uncertainty hanging around like a bad smell?

Of course, the SNP knows this. They know they can't win a referendum today. It doesn't matter to them if they don't win one today. What they want is to establish the precedent that a referendum on Scotland's place in the Union can even be held. Once they have secured that precedent, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Perhaps we could pick one of the Scottish isles and let the SNP devolve that and live on it..

[broadbandking]

From the hate I have seen from Welsh, Scotland towards English (and I am not saying it doesn't happen vice versa, because it does) I personally couldn't care if we was to part, I am English I live in England so don't really care if we are a union because we don't seem like it.

But you could say the same about the antipathy between Yorkshire and Lancashire.