Democracy and Self Determination

LiveIsLife · 07-09-2014 10:00am #1

With all the talk of Scottish Independence, it has been interesting to see responses around the world. The supposed biggest proponents of democracy and self determination in the US and EU have come out in favour of a united UK, and in several cases from European ministers have used threatening language towards any new Scottish state. Does it make a mockery of the championing these rights to others on the world stage but doing the opposite when it hits too close to home?

Say what you want about the UK, but they're one of the few (possibly only?) major nations that would have allowed such a vote. I think its arguable that the UK is the one true major nation in terms of advocating democracy and self determination since the 60s. For all of the US rhetoric, a secession vote would never be allowed to take place on US soil and they've propped up some questionable characters in various countries around the world

nesf · 07-09-2014 10:05am

Coming out in favour of an united UK or an Independent Scotland says nothing about your views on democracy or self determination only what you think is best for either Scotland or the UK as a whole. I could be all for self-determination yet think that Leitrim going Independent would be a bad idea for Leitrim people.

The US or EU refusing to recognise an Independent Scotland would say a lot about what they think of the right of a section of a country to secede in a situation like this.

LiveIsLife · 07-09-2014 12:43pm

You'd imagine they'd say its an issue for the Scottish people and leave it at that if they truly believed in it, rather than threatening one side.

nesf · 07-09-2014 12:56pm

LiveIsLife wrote: »

You'd imagine they'd say its an issue for the Scottish people and leave it at that if they truly believed in it, rather than threatening one side.

Eh? It breaks up the Union and creates a new independent country in the heart of the EU, it's not simply a matter for just the Scottish people. Others are going to have opinions on whether this is a good idea as it will affect them.

LiveIsLife · 07-09-2014 2:28pm

nesf wrote: »

Eh? It breaks up the Union and creates a new independent country in the heart of the EU, it's not simply a matter for just the Scottish people. Others are going to have opinions on whether this is a good idea as it will affect them.

But thats the point isn't it, they're happy enough to call for democracy in other places but its different when its close to home, you won't see them backing Catalonia or Scotland. Which makes me think the UK is one of the few countries that actually backs up its rhetoric on democracy by actually allowing a referendum

A Dub in Glasgo · 07-09-2014 6:36pm

nesf wrote: »

Coming out in favour of an united UK or an Independent Scotland says nothing about your views on democracy or self determination only what you think is best for either Scotland or the UK as a whole. I could be all for self-determination yet think that Leitrim going Independent would be a bad idea for Leitrim people.

The US or EU refusing to recognise an Independent Scotland would say a lot about what they think of the right of a section of a country to secede in a situation like this.

Are you equating Scotland to Leitrim? :eek:

nesf · 07-09-2014 7:06pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Are you equating Scotland to Leitrim? :eek:

No. Just taking the idea to its logical extreme. :P

Sam Russell · 07-09-2014 9:02pm

No two countries agree of what is democratic.

Our system uses STV that gives a good approximtion between % of seats and % of votes (for parties that win over 5% of the votes.

The UK voting system has meant that the winner that forms the government has no requirement to have 50% of the vote. Margaret Thatcher never got more than 43% of the popular vot in all her elections.

Some countries use a list system drawn up by political parties (so who decides who goes on the list?)

The US has what appears to be a good system, but you need to be a tall very weathy man to become president.

Other countries have very peculiar ways of stuffing ballot boxes and the like.

Democracy is what you make it.

Permabear · 08-09-2014 2:50pm

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus · 10-09-2014 5:52am

There's no contradiction between (1) believing that the Scots (or any other nation) have a right of self determination and (2) holding and expression the opinion that it would be wise or foolish or good or bad or happy or sad if the Scots exercised that right by seceding from the UK.

I think the problem lies elsewhere; leaders of one country are usually very slow to comment on the internal affairs of another, and there is an expectation that they won't and a high risk that offence will be taken if they do. The question of whether Scotland should remain within the UK a question for the Scots and the remaining British nations, and the leaders of other countries risk giving offence if they have their say. Particularly the leaders of countries with a track record of heavy-handed and ill-judged intervention into the affairs of other countries. Not looking at anyone in particular.

Victor · 10-09-2014 7:40am

The biggest problem with secession, is that it tends to usually be about one group taking important resources and depriving the rest of the country of them - Eritrea (access to the sea) and Katanga (minerals) come to mind. In the case of the American South, those states wanted to go against the expected constitutional change regarding slavery - to pick and choose what rights would be upheld.

A peaceful secession / break-up will generally be accepted much more quickly than a violent one - Czechoslovia -v- Kosovo.

One of the important issues for the Scotland situation is that it puts both Scotland and the rest of the UK in an awkward position regarding the EU, with both suffering a form of suspended membership. Wow, maybe the Scottish Nationalists are UKIP's best friends.

The problem with Crimea is that there is direct external involvement and it went straight from no demand to secede to a violent attempt to secede. That isn't happening in Scotland - it's a gradual peaceful change.

In the case of the USA, states or other territories can secede - but only by agreement, not unilateral action.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not looking at anyone in particular.

Tap ... tap, tap ... tap, tap, tap. Yeah, I think my sarcasm meter is broken.

Sam Russell · 11-09-2014 5:55pm

I find it a bit undemocratic the the Govenor of the Bank of England is getting directly involved in the political debate about Scottish independence. Surely as a paid employee of the state, he should stay out of politics. He started off many months ago stating the a currency union could have problems to now stating that it is totaly out of the question. I would think that that is a political decision to be taken along with other matters in the negotiations after a YES vote, along with how much, if any, os the UK national debt that Scotland should assume.

I think the BBC is also getting involved on the NO side.

Matt Holck · 11-09-2014 6:21pm

Debtor Economy
It's a negative exponential game
how did we loss ?

If scotland is independent| will I get hassled at the border crossing ?

A Dub in Glasgo · 11-09-2014 6:27pm

The kitchen sink is currently being thrown at the yes side to save the union, have a look at this

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/510099132334481409

Fr Tod Umptious · 11-09-2014 9:07pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I find it a bit undemocratic the the Govenor of the Bank of England is getting directly involved in the political debate about Scottish independence. Surely as a paid employee of the state, he should stay out of politics. He started off many months ago stating the a currency union could have problems to now stating that it is totaly out of the question. I would think that that is a political decision to be taken along with other matters in the negotiations after a YES vote, along with how much, if any, os the UK national debt that Scotland should assume.

I think the BBC is also getting involved on the NO side.

So you think the head of the financial body that will have the biggest role in any independence negotiations relating to monetary issues sould not give an opinion on what he thinks may happen after a potential yes vote ?

Or would you just prefer to have all stakeholders who are concerned about the fallout from a yes vote silenced ?

Sam Russell · 12-09-2014 11:04am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So you think the head of the financial body that will have the biggest role in any independence negotiations relating to monetary issues sould not give an opinion on what he thinks may happen after a potential yes vote ?

Or would you just prefer to have all stakeholders who are concerned about the fallout from a yes vote silenced ?

No, it is up to politicians to put the case for and against the proposition, not for civil servants to spout their tuppence worth (or in his case - pound's worth) to sway the debate. Commercial interests are a different matter. As for RBoS to come out with pronouncements is wrong as they are 84% owned by the UK Government, and could be part of the settlement. How would it be taken if a few generals or admirals get involved in the debate?

It is quite clear that usual democratic rules/norms are being broken/not adhered to. They will now suffer the Nigel invasion today, having avoided the Norman invasion on 1066. I presume Farage is hoping for a YES vote and so is appearing, uninvited, on the NO side.

Democracy and Self Determination

Comments