nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scottish independence

Faye McAleer

Would you be in support of a politico-economic union and formal international intergovernmental cooperation between the three Gaelic nations, (united) Ireland, (independent) Scotland and the Isle of Man similar to Benelux?

The Benelux cooperation has served as a model for the EU, and is basically an EU lite, comprising a customs union and a parliament as well as shared resources.

This could work between the three Gaelic nations and when we get reunification and the Scottish get independence, I think it is something good that should be created.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

forgottenhills wrote: »

The next UK elections will centre on how their COVID programme is going, not on Brexit. To most Brexiteers Brexit is effectively over, the sky hasn't fallen in and any small delays at the ports or with customs forms is someone else's problem. If the UK's vaccine programme goes ahead reasonably well, and if Sunak continues to pay out COVID job support then the Tories will do as well as they normally do in mid term elections. Their Labour opposition are not exactly hitting it out of the park at present either.

I agree that Covid is likely to feature more strongly in the May 2021 elections than Brexit does, but I think my reasons for this are different from yours. Couple of thoughts:

You say that "to most Brexiteers Brexit is effectively over". This is not really relevant. People who consider themselves Brexiteers are a declining minority of the population, and most of them are rusted-on Tory voters; they are not going to decide the outcome of the election.

But to most non-Brexiteers Brexit is also effectively over. Unless it proves spectatularly painful in the short term people will swallow their feelings over it, one way or the other, and will be more concerned about Covid, which is ongoing. And because Johnson has accepted the offered deal, it's not likely to prove spectacularly painful in the short term. The harm inflicted by Brexit will be steady, progressive and cumulative; people may notice it over 5 years, but not over 5 months.

"If the UK's vaccine programme goes ahead reasonably well, and if Sunak continues to pay out COVID job support then the Tories will do as well as they normally do in mid term elections"; I think this is a bit optimistic. Job support is being paid right now, and the vaccination programme has been a world first and hasn't yet gone off the rails in any spectacular fashion. but yesterday's Focaldata poll suggests that if a general election were held tomorrow the Tory majority would be wiped out, Labour would outpoll the Tories, Johnson would lose his seat and the likely government would be Lab-SNP. As of right now, then, the conditions you set are satisfied but the Tories don't seem to be benefitting electorally from them.

Things could be different by May. But, of course, they could be worse. I've always thought that there was going to be a tricky period in the evolution of the pandemic in which (a) a vaccination programme would be well-advanced, but (b) not so far advanced that other restrictions could be abandoned, and (c) the public, and especially those already vaccinated, might be very intolerant of this. And this Tory government has pretty much squandered the kind of moral authority that would enable it to lead the country through that tricky period. And, it now seems, that period might come between March and May of 2021.

Peregrinus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just wondering, if Johnson continues with the 2055 for the next referendum, what can the Scots do to bring it forwards?
Are they completely at the mercy of the PM?

Well, Johnson's unlikely to be PM from now until 2055. These are dark days for UK democracy, but not that dark.

But, yeah, in general the Scots would prefer that any referendum be conducted with the consent of Westminster, and the PM of the day is well-positioned to ensure that Westminister doesn't consent. Which means that the SNP will want to create political conditions which make refusing to consent more politically costly to the PM of the day than consenting would be. (Note that the PM of the day will not be a Tory at all time between now and 2055.)

In the long run, simply refusing to allow a referendum to be held isn't a viable way of holding together the UK union. The union looses political credibility and legitimacy if it can only be sustained by refusing to allow its consituent nations to give or withhold their consent to it. History is littered with the corpses of multinational states that tried to do that.

So, in the long run unionists do actually have to win the argument; it won't be enough to try and prevent the discussion from happening. I don't think Johnson has a strategy for doing that; the cloth-eared idiocy of talking about a referendum in 2055 suggests either that he doesn't appreciate that he needs one, or that he simply doesn't care if the union falls apart, so long as it doesn't happen while he is still PM.

bob mcbob

forgottenhills wrote: »

The next UK elections will centre on how their COVID programme is going, not on Brexit. To most Brexiteers Brexit is effectively over, the sky hasn't fallen in and any small delays at the ports or with customs forms is someone else's problem. If the UK's vaccine programme goes ahead reasonably well, and if Sunak continues to pay out COVID job support then the Tories will do as well as they normally do in mid term elections. Their Labour opposition are not exactly hitting it out of the park at present either.

According to the latest polls, Boris is in line to lose both his majority and seat at the next election.

The public are deeply unhappy with the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the Brexit negotiations, a damning new poll suggests.

the results would leave the Tories with 284 seats and Labour with 282 – an increase of 82.

The SNP would appear to be the real winners. Not only do they win all but two Scottish constituencies, but the most likely outcome is a Labour-SNP coalition government, which would have an overall majority of just over 20 seats.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/02/poll-predicts-a-uk-general-election-now-would-wipe-out-tory-majority

Infini

bob mcbob wrote: »

According to the latest polls, Boris is in line to lose both his majority and seat at the next election.

The public are deeply unhappy with the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the Brexit negotiations, a damning new poll suggests.

the results would leave the Tories with 284 seats and Labour with 282 – an increase of 82.

The SNP would appear to be the real winners. Not only do they win all but two Scottish constituencies, but the most likely outcome is a Labour-SNP coalition government, which would have an overall majority of just over 20 seats.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/02/poll-predicts-a-uk-general-election-now-would-wipe-out-tory-majority

SNP only has to wait till 2024 at the latest and build up a solid and unassailable majority for independence. Once the conservarives lose votes and power they basically only need to make a deal with labour: Our Support in Government for a new Indyref.

The union isnt disintegrating because the scots want independence, its disintegrating because of Tory Intransigence and disrespect. They forced Brexit onto Scotland against its wishes and that it was EU membership that helped win the first one. In doing so they undermined the union and along with their attitude towards scotland they've made independence almost inevitable.

Sam Russell

Infini wrote: »

SNP only has to wait till 2024 at the latest and build up a solid and unassailable majority for independence. Once the conservarives lose votes and power they basically only need to make a deal with labour: Our Support in Government for a new Indyref.

The union isnt disintegrating because the scots want independence, its disintegrating because of Tory Intransigence and disrespect. They forced Brexit onto Scotland against its wishes and that it was EU membership that helped win the first one. In doing so they undermined the union and along with their attitude towards scotland they've made independence almost inevitable.

I agree with that view totally.

The only way they can stop the SNP is to devolve, devolve , devolve.

However, if anything, they are doing the exact opposite.

They could of course take the other line of defence and create regional assemblies in England based upon the current Regions with perhaps some amalgamations.

It would involve giving all the assemblies the same regional powers and make Westminster the parliament dealing solely with the non-devolved powers like defence and security, foreign affairs, central legal matters, central policing, and similar matters that can only be done centrally. Health, education, etc is currently devolved, and those headings could be expanded upon.

However, that will never happen, but if it did, it would blunt the independence axe.

forgottenhills

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree that Covid is likely to feature more strongly in the May 2021 elections than Brexit does, but I think my reasons for this are different from yours. Couple of thoughts:

You say that "to most Brexiteers Brexit is effectively over". This is not really relevant. People who consider themselves Brexiteers are a declining minority of the population, and most of them are rusted-on Tory voters; they are not going to decide the outcome of the election.

But to most non-Brexiteers Brexit is also effectively over. Unless it proves spectatularly painful in the short term people will swallow their feelings over it, one way or the other, and will be more concerned about Covid, which is ongoing. And because Johnson has accepted the offered deal, it's not likely to prove spectacularly painful in the short term. The harm inflicted by Brexit will be steady, progressive and cumulative; people may notice it over 5 years, but not over 5 months.

"If the UK's vaccine programme goes ahead reasonably well, and if Sunak continues to pay out COVID job support then the Tories will do as well as they normally do in mid term elections"; I think this is a bit optimistic. Job support is being paid right now, and the vaccination programme has been a world first and hasn't yet gone off the rails in any spectacular fashion. but yesterday's Focaldata poll suggests that if a general election were held tomorrow the Tory majority would be wiped out, Labour would outpoll the Tories, Johnson would lose his seat and the likely government would be Lab-SNP. As of right now, then, the conditions you set are satisfied but the Tories don't seem to be benefitting electorally from them.

Things could be different by May. But, of course, they could be worse. I've always thought that there was going to be a tricky period in the evolution of the pandemic in which (a) a vaccination programme would be well-advanced, but (b) not so far advanced that other restrictions could be abandoned, and (c) the public, and especially those already vaccinated, might be very intolerant of this. And this Tory government has pretty much squandered the kind of moral authority that would enable it to lead the country through that tricky period. And, it now seems, that period might come between March and May of 2021.

I stated that COVID would be the deciding issue in this years relatively minor elections in the UK and that the Tory government would do as well as they normally do in mid term elections. This statement allows them to do badly in mid term elections as ruling parties often do so. These sorts of elections are usually decided by the main issue du jour which in May will very likely still be COVID. So if the UK public thinks they are doing a bad job in this area, Labour will benefit and vice versa.

Brexit is now dead as an issue in the UK for all but the small number of political activists on both sides of the issue. Many people in Ireland don't see this, because they haven't yet reached the acceptance phase over the UK leaving and this has been the case ever since the vote in 2016. I would wager a bet that we will never see the UK back in the EU, particularly if there are any further moves towards EU political union. The bottom line is that the majority in the UK just don't at heart feel themselves at home in a political grouping of European states and that is unlikely to change in our lifetimes. Brexiteers may die off but young people will get older and become more insular and conservative, as always happens, to replace these.

Labour in the UK will be very conflicted when it comes to Scotland and the SNP. Traditional English "Red Wall" Labour constituencies have disappeared to the Tories. Their only hope of getting back into government seems to be to seek a coalition with the SNP in Westminster. However the price for that would undoubtedly be another Scottish independence referendum. And if the SNP won that then Labour would be forever tarnished with the label of being the political party that "lost" Scotland. And more importantly to them, they would have little prospect of regaining power in Westminster in a UK without Scotland, unless there is a fundamental shift in UK political trends.

Seth Brundle

https://twitter.com/Scotland/status/1346053544978378753?s=19

L1011

rUK would have to change to AV at the very least without Scotland, or else you need a 97 style result to have anything other than Tory rule

Water John

Starmer would have to be radical if he was, as PM keep the Union together. Devolved regional structures with real power, would be the only option. He would then have to hope, that would blunt the Indyref that he would have to give the SNP. With devolved areas, LB would dominate all the populated and wealthy ones.

First Up

forgottenhills wrote:

Brexit is now dead as an issue in the UK for all but the small number of political activists on both sides of the issue.

Brexit is only starting for UK industry and much else. I'd wait until the consequences start filtering through before calling it a dead issue.

Sam Russell

Surely, if the result of the GE was as predicted by the poll, that labour and Tory seats were basically equal, and a coalition with the SNP was the only possibility, Labour could offer an Indyref II to be held after negotiations, but within 3 or 4 years, plus a move to multi seat, proportional voting for all elections.

That would cause a complete change in UK, and rUK voting for ever, with the large parties splitting, and centre coalitions becoming the norm.

Labour would want to support the Scottish IndeyRef II so they can become a Scottish Labour Party with a significant player in future Scottish politics. I doubt it would do electoral harm their prospects in rUK. If the ship has sailed, then it becomes a memory for the electorate, just as the various scandals that exist with the current (and past Tory Gov) have become.

Anyone remember the Poll tax?

forgottenhills

Sam Russell wrote: »

Surely, if the result of the GE was as predicted by the poll, that labour and Tory seats were basically equal, and a coalition with the SNP was the only possibility, Labour could offer an Indyref II to be held after negotiations, but within 3 or 4 years, plus a move to multi seat, proportional voting for all elections.

That would cause a complete change in UK, and rUK voting for ever, with the large parties splitting, and centre coalitions becoming the norm.

Labour would want to support the Scottish IndeyRef II so they can become a Scottish Labour Party with a significant player in future Scottish politics. I doubt it would do electoral harm their prospects in rUK. If the ship has sailed, then it becomes a memory for the electorate, just as the various scandals that exist with the current (and past Tory Gov) have become.

Anyone remember the Poll tax?

This idea, though plausible, would require Labour undergoing a sea-change to embrace PR which they haven't been a fan of in the past. Basically they would have to accept that Scottish independence is inevitable and that Labour would never defeat the Conservative party under FPTP in a rUK. I don't think that they think that way and certainly will not if the next election in the UK turned out as per current polls (Labour with a slight lead in seats). Starmer made a tough choice to back Johnson's Brexit deal in parliament in order to help Labour's future election prospects in borderline English seats. He has also declared opposition to holding a referendum in Scotland any time soon, probably for the same reasons. I would expect him to only ever offer increased "Home Rule style" devolved powers to the SNP for a coalition pact rather than another referendum. But a week is a long time in politics as they say and the future is indeed hard to predict.

Sam Russell

forgottenhills wrote: »

This idea, though plausible, would require Labour undergoing a sea-change to embrace PR which they haven't been a fan of in the past. Basically they would have to accept that Scottish independence is inevitable and that Labour would never defeat the Conservative party under FPTP in a rUK. I don't think that they think that way and certainly will not if the next election in the UK turned out as per current polls (Labour with a slight lead in seats). Starmer made a tough choice to back Johnson's Brexit deal in parliament in order to help Labour's future election prospects in borderline English seats. He has also declared opposition to holding a referendum in Scotland any time soon, probably for the same reasons. I would expect him to only ever offer increased "Home Rule style" devolved powers to the SNP for a coalition pact rather than another referendum. But a week is a long time in politics as they say and the future is indeed hard to predict.

Yes, but a predicted wipe out in Scotland would concentrate minds in the Labour Party.

The opposition to PR was so they could lock out the Liberals, and then the Social Dems (who were a break away from Labour) and then lock out the LibDems.

The real question for the Labour Party is: 'Could Labour hold them selves together with PR, or is the split inevitable?' and 'Can the Tories hold their vote, or would it leak to the LibDems?' or alternatively: 'Will the One Nation lot split form the other lot?'

Well, that is politics.

Imreoir2

forgottenhills wrote: »

This idea, though plausible, would require Labour undergoing a sea-change to embrace PR which they haven't been a fan of in the past. Basically they would have to accept that Scottish independence is inevitable and that Labour would never defeat the Conservative party under FPTP in a rUK. I don't think that they think that way and certainly will not if the next election in the UK turned out as per current polls (Labour with a slight lead in seats). Starmer made a tough choice to back Johnson's Brexit deal in parliament in order to help Labour's future election prospects in borderline English seats. He has also declared opposition to holding a referendum in Scotland any time soon, probably for the same reasons. I would expect him to only ever offer increased "Home Rule style" devolved powers to the SNP for a coalition pact rather than another referendum. But a week is a long time in politics as they say and the future is indeed hard to predict.

Labour don't seem to mind long term Tory rule as long as they have a chance to capture the state for a few years now and again. They would rather unfetterd power for 5 years in 20 than introduce reforms that would place restrictions on them when they win power for the sake of restricting the Tories too.

Labour likes the winner takes all system, even if they end up not winning most of the time.

Sam Russell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Labour don't seem to mind long term Tory rule as long as they have a chance to capture the state for a few years now and again. They would rather unfetterd power for 5 years in 20 than introduce reforms that would place restrictions on them when they win power for the sake of restricting the Tories too.

Labour likes the winner takes all system, even if they end up not winning most of the time.

No party that wants to take power would take that view. Blair could have pushed through a STV system, but lost seats in each election. Labour could not hope to retain power if STV was introduced. It would need to be launched on a rising wave of popularity.

Remember, no single party Gov has got a majority of the popularity since 1932. So with that statistic, it would take a brave party forming such a Gov to bring in STV/PR.

I doubt it will ever be adopted by the UK. I think unicorn farming will be widespread first.

Mr.Nice Guy

Infini wrote: »

SNP only has to wait till 2024 at the latest and build up a solid and unassailable majority for independence. Once the conservarives lose votes and power they basically only need to make a deal with labour: Our Support in Government for a new Indyref.

Problem for the SNP is a lot of independence supporters are getting restless at having to wait. If the SNP poll strongly in May and then end up saying to those who voted for them, 'we just need you to vote for us one more time in a few years' there will be plenty of people who will see this as just a cynical ploy to stay in power, and that they're not seriously interested in bringing about separation.

The numbers right now are encouraging for the SNP, but there is an inescapable problem in an independence movement which at the moment seems to be dependent on the Westminster system to bring about its goal. Perhaps the court case this month will open up other alternatives, but if it doesn't, the SNP's supporters will be quite justified in asking exactly how independence is supposed to happen.

A Dub in Glasgo

Absolutely correct, there is a cohort in the independence movement who are accusing the SNP of pension grabbing. One look at some of the MPs with their cushy number will tell you that independence is low down on their priorities

Imreoir2

Sam Russell wrote: »

No party that wants to take power would take that view. Blair could have pushed through a STV system, but lost seats in each election. Labour could not hope to retain power if STV was introduced. It would need to be launched on a rising wave of popularity.

Remember, no single party Gov has got a majority of the popularity since 1932. So with that statistic, it would take a brave party forming such a Gov to bring in STV/PR.

I doubt it will ever be adopted by the UK. I think unicorn farming will be widespread first.

Labour could not hope to form a majority government, which is what they fear. But then again it is unlikely that the Tories could either, most of the time, which would put the brakes on their worst tendencies and give Labour a much greater chance of being in government as part of a coalition rather sitting in impetance on the opposition benches watching the Tories rule Britain while they dream of capturing power for a few brief years some day.

Labours fear of not being able to form a majority government under STV means that they get to watch the Tories rule GB under FPTP.

View

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Labour don't seem to mind long term Tory rule as long as they have a chance to capture the state for a few years now and again. They would rather unfetterd power for 5 years in 20 than introduce reforms that would place restrictions on them when they win power for the sake of restricting the Tories too.

Labour likes the winner takes all system, even if they end up not winning most of the time.

That’s correct.

The primary electoral aim of the Labour Party is to prevent the rise of another meaningful opposition party so that, when the electorate despair of the Conservatives, they will turn to the Labour as “the only alternative”.

FPTP guarantees safe seats for the overwhelming majority (circa 85%) of Labour and Conservative MPs. As a result, most of them have better job security than the average person working in the private sector. They aren’t going to rush to change that.

Water John

Well governing alone occasionally for Lb is a lot less enticing than governing most of the time with a junior partner. So, major devolution, while holding the Union would be the best strategy for LB and changing the FPTP.

View

Water John wrote: »

Well governing alone occasionally for Lb is a lot less enticing than governing most of the time with a junior partner. So, major devolution, while holding the Union would be the best strategy for LB and changing the FPTP.

The evidence on “governing most of the time with a junior partner” over the last decade is that the Conservatives were willing to do so, whereas Labour just wasn’t interested in even exploring the possibility.

As such, were there a sudden snap election in the U.K. and a resulting “hung Parliament”, it would almost certainly be a case that the Conservatives would emerge as the government while Labour would opt for the purity of the opposition benches.

serfboard

View wrote: »

FPTP guarantees safe seats for the overwhelming majority (circa 85%) of Labour and Conservative MPs. As a result, most of them have better job security than the average person working in the private sector. They aren’t going to rush to change that.

It's absolutely amzing looking in on this from the outside.

Whenever some Tory SNIP. No insults please comes out with some ridiculous comment, I look to see what constituency he (and it's invariably a he) comes from. And you see that the constituency has been Tory since ... forever.

So the hardest work you have to do in the safe seats is to actually get the nomination. Once you have gotten the nomination you have a job for life - well, unless you "bugger the bursar" (to quote Willy Russell). So you have to find a constituency where the MP either dies or retires. Which is why John Bercow did this:

Wikipedia wrote:

In 1996 he paid £1,000 to charter a helicopter so that he could attend the selection meetings for two safe Conservative parliamentary seats on the same day – Buckingham and Surrey Heath – and was selected as the candidate for Buckingham. He has referred to the hiring of the helicopter as "the best £1,000 I have ever spent".

And there he stayed until he decided to retire from politics (the Speaker in the UK has to contest every election, which he did).

By contrast, in Ireland in the last General Election, not one of the top 10 highest vote getters were Fianna Fail or Fine Gael.

20silkcut

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Problem for the SNP is a lot of independence supporters are getting restless at having to wait. If the SNP poll strongly in May and then end up saying to those who voted for them, 'we just need you to vote for us one more time in a few years' there will be plenty of people who will see this as just a cynical ploy to stay in power, and that they're not seriously interested in bringing about separation.

The numbers right now are encouraging for the SNP, but there is an inescapable problem in an independence movement which at the moment seems to be dependent on the Westminster system to bring about its goal. Perhaps the court case this month will open up other alternatives, but if it doesn't, the SNP's supporters will be quite justified in asking exactly how independence is supposed to happen.

Could they use disruptive tactics at Westminster like obstructionism etc to keep the issue alive and to make themselves a nuisance.
Speak in Gaelic in parliament insist on stuff being translated into Gaelic.
It’s a long way to 2055 maybe if they make a nuisance of themselves they could speed things up.

Peregrinus

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Problem for the SNP is a lot of independence supporters are getting restless at having to wait. If the SNP poll strongly in May and then end up saying to those who voted for them, 'we just need you to vote for us one more time in a few years' there will be plenty of people who will see this as just a cynical ploy to stay in power, and that they're not seriously interested in bringing about separation.

The numbers right now are encouraging for the SNP, but there is an inescapable problem in an independence movement which at the moment seems to be dependent on the Westminster system to bring about its goal. Perhaps the court case this month will open up other alternatives, but if it doesn't, the SNP's supporters will be quite justified in asking exactly how independence is supposed to happen.

There's an irony here, in that what you describe as a problem for the SNP is also a compelling illustration of the need for Scottish independence. The Scottish government lacks the legal powers to pursue independence unilaterally because — ta-daah! — Scotland is not independent. Whoever you blame for this situation, it is irrational to blame the SNP for it, since it is not of their making and they are foremost among those attempting to change it.

So what to do? The moderate route would be simply to wait for the next Westminster general election, and hope that produces an outcome in which any government requires, if not the support, at least the forbearance of the SNP. In the meantime, you continue to campaign, to do what you can to keep the issue alive, etc. The problem with this is that (a) it's a while before the next Westminster GE is due, and (b) while a possible outcome is that the next government will be to some extent dependent on the SNP, that's hardly a guaranteed outcome. If it doesn't happen, what then? The movement risks running out of steam.

The less moderate route would be to press harder for action under the current parliament, seeking to increase political pressure on the Westminister government by, e.g., withholding co-operation, protesting, even perhaps engaging in civil disobedience. (Not, I think, that the Scottish government would break the law. But advocates of independence certainly could. And enforcing the law against them is, of course, a matter for the Scottish government. This could get conveniently murky.)

All this would create a dilemma for Westminster — to repress or not to repress? The fundamental demand of the movement — that Scotland should be permitted to conduct a referendum on independence — is eminently reasonable, impeccably democratic, and hard for a Brexity government to resist without looking even more hypocritical than they already do. Why shoudl the Scots not be allowed to hold an independence referendum, if they elect a government whose central manifesto commitment is to do exactly that? All this make the political cost of resisting/repressing the Scottish independence movement higher, and the current Westminister government has already pretty much squandered most of its political capital, so they might find it difficult to bear that cost.

rock22

Peregrinus wrote: »

....

The fundamental demand of the movement — that Scotland should be permitted to conduct a referendum on independence — is eminently reasonable, impeccably democratic, and hard for a Brexity government to resist without looking even more hypocritical than they already do. ...

Is it though?
Would you support Bavaria looking for independence from Germany, Toscany wanting independence from Italy, Falnders from Belgium? Or have nations, recognised by the UN, the right to defend their integrity?

As the question is one of change to the integrity of the United Kingdom then surely , to be 'eminently democratic' all citizens of GB should be entitled to be heard.

I am not arguing for or against Scottish Independence, just the idea that Westminster must accept it without looking hypocritical. Politically, a comparison can be made with Brexit but that comparison cannot really be sustained on legal, constitutional or historic grounds.

Peregrinus

rock22 wrote: »

Is it though?
Would you support Bavaria looking for independence from Germany, Toscany wanting independence from Italy, Falnders from Belgium? Or have nations, recognised by the UN, the right to defend their integrity?

As the question is one of change to the integrity of the United Kingdom then surely , to be 'eminently democratic' all citizens of GB should be entitled to be heard.

I am not arguing for or against Scottish Independence, just the idea that Westminster must accept it without looking hypocritical. Politically, a comparison can be made with Brexit but that comparison cannot really be sustained on legal, constitutional or historic grounds.

This is not a line of argument likely to find much traction in Ireland, though, is it?

I do support the indepence of my own country from the United Kingdom, and it would be inconsistent of me to do that and at the same time support Bavaria being held within Germany against its will, or Tuscany within Italy. Ultimately the rest of the UK has to secure and maintain Scottish assent to remaining within the union, or the union loses democratic legitimacy and credibility.

The comparison with Brexit strongly favours Scottish independence, in my view. The supposed oppression of the UK within the EU was largely fictional, and the "brexit benefits" claimed by Brexiteers - blue passports, an end to the tampon tax, freeports - have mostly nothing to do with Brexit. But the constraint of Scotland within the union is very real - as illustrated, ironically, by Brexit itself. Not only was Scotland taken out of the EU, having voted to remain within it, but the Westminster government chose to pursue a very hard form of Brexit when the referendum result did not require that and, indeed, strongly pointed to soft Brexit as the model most likely to secure a consensus within the UK, and best fitted to take account of Scottish (and NI) views. If Scotland doesn't want to have its wished and interests systematically disregarded in this way, independence seems to be the only option, and Westminster has helped to bring about this state of affairs.

But, note, I'm not suggesting that Westminster "must accept Scottish independence"; rather, that it must accept that Scotland has a right to make a decision about independence. Westminster politicians can accept that right, permit a refernendum, and then argue, campaign, cajole and persuade as they see fit against Scottish independence and in favour of the union. I have no problem with that.

rock22

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is not a line of argument likely to find much traction in Ireland, though, is it?

I do support the indepence of my own country from the United Kingdom, and it would be inconsistent of me to do that and at the same time support Bavaria being held within Germany against its will, or Tuscany within Italy. Ultimately the rest of the UK has to secure and maintain Scottish assent to remaining within the union, or the union loses democratic legitimacy and credibility.

...
But, note, I'm not suggesting that Westminster "must accept Scottish independence"; rather, that it must accept that Scotland has a right to make a decision about independence. ...

I understand the dilemma of supporting our own independence while questioning Scotland. And i do think Scotland will, at some time, have another referendum .
But, as a matter of principle, if the people in a part of a country say then want to break away then surely the people in the rest of that country would have the right to resist the breakup of their country. Otherwise you are very much qualifying what democracy is and means, championing some peoples democratic rights while denying others.
Would you support the independence of Connaught for instance. Or of Galway?
Because if I accept your position then any geographic area can decide strive for independence. And Ireland, which you support, could never defend it's own integrity, any small group could claim independence for a part of the country they have a majority in .

A Dub in Glasgo

The people in Scotland were told during the 2014 referendum that the UK was a union of countries, a 'precious' one at that. If that is the case, why is it unacceptable for one of those countries to have a referendum especially when the parties seeking one have won all the elections in Scotland since the last referendum?

Peregrinus

rock22 wrote: »

I understand the dilemma of supporting our own independence while questioning Scotland. And i do think Scotland will, at some time, have another referendum .
But, as a matter of principle, if the people in a part of a country say then want to break away then surely the people in the rest of that country would have the right to resist the breakup of their country. Otherwise you are very much qualifying what democracy is and means, championing some peoples democratic rights while denying others.
Would you support the independence of Connaught for instance. Or of Galway?
Because if I accept your position then any geographic area can decide strive for independence. And Ireland, which you support, could never defend it's own integrity, any small group could claim independence for a part of the country they have a majority in .

No, I don't think any geographic area can assert a right to independence. Follow that line of thinking and you arrive at a positio in which No. 9 Acacia Avenue can become an independent republic, which is just silly.

I'd argue that it's not countries - i.e. territory - that have a right to self-determination, but peoples. As to what community constitutes a "people" witgh a right to self-determination, inevitably it's difficult to draw a precise line. But the fact that the line is fuzzy doesn't mean we can't find many cases that are very clearly on one side or the other - the family that lives at no. 9 Acacia Avenue is clearly not a people with a right to self-determination, whereas the Polish nation, the Irish nation, the French nation clearly are.

And I don't think there can be much argument but that Scotland is too - it's a long-established nation with its own history, traditions, cultural identity and characteristics, distinct territory, etc, and a long history of political independence. Plus, Westminster has already recognised it as possessing a right of self-determination by agreeing to the 2014 referendum.

And I think you are mistaken in suggesting a trade-off between the rights of the Scots versus the rights of other UK citizens. The question here is how Scotland is to be governed; whether Scotland should remain a part of the United Kingdom. It's obvious that this question concerns the Scots in a way that it does not concern the Welsh or the English. Equality with the Scots does not not mean that the English or the Welsh must have an equal voice in deciding how Scotland should be governed; it means that they have the same right to make decisions about how England or Wales should be governed as the Scots have in relation to Scotland.

Sam Russell

Democracy is defined differently in every democracy in the world. Every country finds its own version, and implements it based on their culture and history.

Why should the Isle of Mann be independent and not the Isle of Wight? The Isle of Wight does not even have its own County Council. So one rule for one island off GB and a different one for another.

Scotland has, as a separate country, in the past been independent of England and Wales (until 1603) when the King of Scotland (James VI) became King of England (James I). So historically, it has a claim for reverting back to being independent of England and Wales.

Poland as a territory moved west following the Yalta agreement to the benefit of the USSR and the loss to Germany - so historical borders can shift. [Following war and subsequent peace].

The problem with granting such changes are the transition procedure, and sharing out the debts and the assets.