Like all good Brits I believe in self determination. So when asked (openly) in a petition whether Scotland should prepare for a referendum on independence, I feel it is my duty to sign it.
It’s here if you want to too.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, October 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pm and is filed under News and Politics, Asides, English Parliament, Democracy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
24 Responses to “Scottish Independence”
Leave a Reply
Note
Your first post will be moderated -- if it is not spam and is not illegal it will be approved. Subsequent posts by you will automatically be approved.
Some words will automatically cause your comment to be blacklisted and there will be no warning. Avoid referring to the names of pharmaceutical drugs. If in doubt, copy your comment so that you can paste and amend it.
Apologies for any inconvenience; blame the spammers
October 1st, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Hm. I think if the Scottish were to have a referendum, the pro-Union people of Scotland would most likely win.
Where would the anti-Unionists go from there?
October 1st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Surely that would settle the need for a permanent solution to the West Lothian question. Namely an an English Parliament.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Although I have some sympathy with your line of reasoning, I have never understood why only Scottish people should be asked. This affects the whole of Britain, so why not ask all of us.
There is also the added problem that Scotland is not a member of the EU in its own right, it only became a member as part of Britain, so it would create some constitutional questions if Scotland were to separate from Britian. Would Britian leave the EU and then the separate parts rejoin? Would Scotland wish to leave the Union if it were not to become a member of the EU? If Scotland did separate what would be the position of the rest of Britian if we wanted to leave the union at some future date and Scotland did not?
October 1st, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Of course ideally, England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be asked what they think of Scotland leaving but given that England has no Parliament that cannot be done.
The difficulties of EU membership are beyond my knowledge, to be honest. I don’t know what the impacts would be on UK minus Scotland or Scotland.
The fact that it affects England and Wales is true, but I believe asking people in Cornwall whether people in Scotland should have independence, or asking people in Northumberland whether Wales should, is unreasonable and will likely lead to NI-esque backlashes.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:12 am
Yes of course it can be done through the process of a national referendum.
I am sorry I did not make myself clear; I was not actually asking for answers to the Constitutional questions, just pointing out that they would be created by allowing Scotland independence at this time in these conditions, where part of the British sovereignty is being controlled by and external authority.
I do not see it in quite those terms, the people of Cornwall are British the people of Scotland are British we are one peoples, with one central government, one Monarch, who is head of one nation state, to my mind the people of Cornwall have just as much say in the settlement of their nation state as the people of Scotland.
Like you I belive in self-determination, if the people of Scotland do wish independence from Britian we would have to agree the details of separation, but I do rather object to the idea that this would only affect Scotland and only Scotish voices should be heard on this matter, that after all is why we have the English question in the first place.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:33 pm
This is a major can of worms.
Would Scots south of the border be allowed to vote or would the become expats in their own country.
I wouldn’t mind a bit of self-determination; lets face it, when people talk England, they mean London and the southeast. (Of course losing Scotland wouldn’t do the tories any harm).
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:06 pm
…”Where would the anti-Unionists go from there?”
Same place they always go when they lose a vote… ask for another one.
The SNP used to have a policy of calling a referendum every 5 years until the people said yes. Totally ridiculous.
(Actually I’m not sure if it was offical policy but I certainly remember some of them suggesting it..)
.
I agree with Ken, I don’t like this arrogant attitude that Scots some how have a right to deside the constitutional settlement of the UK, especially when England doesn’t even have a parliament to argue for the best deal for us in such a negotiation.
Correct me if I am wrong here Gav, but in the devolution referendum didn’t Scots anywhere in the world get a vote? while non-Scots in Scotland even English and Welsh who had lived there most of their lives didn’t get a vote?
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:11 am
Correct me if I am wrong here Gav, but in the devolution referendum didn’t Scots anywhere in the world get a vote? while non-Scots in Scotland even English and Welsh who had lived there most of their lives didn’t get a vote?
The answers - no, no. All residents of Scotland were able to vote. Those living outside Scotland still had to be registered to vote in Scotland to vote. It is estimated that roughly one third of the Scottish population (i.e. residents of Scotland) originates in other parts of the UK and theire rights are no different, neither greater nor smaller, than those of anyone else.
As for the referendum idea, whilst I instinctively share Gav’s view, I must admit that I do believe firmly that all UK residents should have been allowed to vote in the Irish referendum some years ago (on both sides of the border) about their constitutional settlements, so I accept that my instinctive attitude to a Scottish referendum if logically indefensible - so in summary I think it should be open to all UK voters because it is certainly a matter that has implications for all UK citizens.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:40 am
The SNP used to have a policy of calling a referendum every 5 years until the people said yes. Totally ridiculous.
Sounds rather like the EU with it’s neverendums doesn’t it?
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:48 am
How about this then:
Scotland has a binding referendum on the principle of independence and then England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have referenda on the independence settlement’s options.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 am
Gav, Interesting suggestion councillor, I can see that your political post is having an affect on your political manoeuvring.
You are suggesting that the Scottish people alone have the right to decide on the settlement of this United Kingdom, the rest of us then only get to express our views on the following arrangements made to bring about the Scottish decision. Is that some form of modern equality?
The principal is that we are all British, and have been for three hundred years, ever since England was taken over by the Scottish Monarch, whilst Scotland and Wales have retained much of their original national identity, England has been completely dissolved into the union. If Scotland now wishes no longer to be part of the UK, that is a concern for all of us, it is not just a concern for Scotland and the Scotish people.
In any event what on earth have the Scots got to complain about, we have a Scotish Prime Minister, who is responsible for choosing all of his ministers, his replacement is likely to be Scotish Gordon Brown who at present is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, John Reid our home office minister is a Scottish MP, even though 90% of his power only concerns England the Secretary for Defence, Des Browne is Scotish, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is Scotish, The Secretary of State for Transport is Scotish, even though 100% of his remit is for England only. As if that were not enough the Scotish prime minister chose to select a Lord Chancellor one of the other most powerful men in Britian who is also is Scotish. Then just to add insult to injury the Scotish Prime Minister chose to make the same Scotish Lord Chancellor the unelected Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to then be responsible for the very department that will decide the basis of our constitution at the very time when that constitution is under extreme pressure of change brought about by the Scotish Prime minister.
It is not as though Scotland was not well represented in the British hierarchy or does not contribute to the power in Britain, and it was just these people who decided the settlement for the present Scotish parliament.
So far the Scotish Parliament has been able to offer Scotish residents a far greater level of government largess that we can expect in England.
There are free eye tests for all regardless of age, free personal and social care for the elderly, highly specialist cancer treatments available across the whole of Scotland, free bus travel throughout Scotland and free central heating installation for pensioners, and free prescriptions for 19-25 year olds.
Scottish university students do not pay either tuition fees or top-up fees which in England can be as much as £3000 a year. They don’t pay them even if they are at an English university.
No EU students (except the English, Welsh and Northern Irish) pay them either. English students at Scottish universities however must pay £3600 yearly in tuition fees for four-year degrees while Scottish (and EU) students pay nothing in advance and just £2000 after graduation. In addition there is
the -now notorious- Barnett Formula, brought in 1978 to check the rise of Scottish nationalism and the SNP (interestingly the same argument used with UK MPs to sell the devolution legislation of 1998). By reason of that Formula alone, each Scottish person is in receipt of at least £1300 more
per head expenditure than English people (Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2005).
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:42 pm
All of which convinces me of the advantages of allowing Scotland its independence. Those MPs who currently represent Scottish constituencies would no longer be able to lord it over England’s constituents.
I think, though, that we are discussing the practical fall out of independence rather than discussing the merit of referenda to decide independence.
Your suggestion that Britain is one country is one that I would have accepted pre-devolution… Now, though, the UK is two countries and two areas under direct rule. Given that the UK (which, as you point out is disproportionately run by members north of the border especially in departments whose remit affects only England) is no longer one country I welcome independence for any nation of the UK that is willing to leave.
Independence for Scotland would be good for the UK, good for England and good for Wales.
As I say, though, this is to debate the merits of independence rather than the merits of referenda. I would find it objectionable if Scotland’s electorate were to tell England it couldn’t have independence and I would find the reverse as objectionable.
I suggested England, Wales and NI get a say in the specific settlement to satisfy concerns that Scotland may negotiate more North Sea oil than is theirs or attempt to gain sovereignty of the south bank of the River Tweed…
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:15 pm
It would seem that when we are nation state forming we have one set of rules, yet when we are destroying a nation state we have another.
Those who want to press the EU constitution are calling for an EU wide referendum, thus hoping to undermine the authority and independence of the nation state by using votes from without that state to influence the outcome. Yet it seems perfectly acceptable to only ask one part of Britain which is a nation state if it wishes to destroy the UK, thus ignoring the wishes of the rest of us. The Government did attempt to create a rolling series of referenda in each of the English regions, ignoring the fact that we are one nation and the affects of one part wishing to have its own mini parliament would have knock on effect to the other parts, just as the Scotish parliament has an affect on the rest of us. They have created this half way house using only the votes in Scotland, that is why we are in the present position.
The only reason it matters that the Scots are over represented in Westminster is because of the devolution process. We are still however one nation the Scotish parliament it at the will of the Westminster parliament and is subsidiary to that parliament. Independence is a different step it actually means dissolving our nation state, such a decision should not be left to only Scotland.
I personally would vote to allow Scottish independence, because like you I belive in the right of self-determination, but want to have the opportunity to make my vote count, I am after all as much British as is Gordon Brown, except he is Scottish British and I am just British. While we are on the subject of Self-determination we could also address EU membership, we have never as a nation given our mandate for Britain to become a state in United States of Europe, or to exchange British nationality for EU citizenship, we also should address the EU dimension in the whole devolution process.
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Well Bill, I think there was an issue of people who were registered Scottish voters who had not been living there for a long time?
Maybe I got it wrong but I seem to remember something strange.
And you make my point anyway, you said you want a say on Scottish devolution even though you have said in a previous comments thread that you intend to move to live in the south of England within a few years.
What right should someone who has no intention of living in Scotland long term have to decide its future political settlement?
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
It it wasn’t for the nationalists going on about Scottish oil wealth and the Thatcher Poll tax experiments the nationalist cause would be nowhere today.
So that leaves the question, if Devon suddenly struck rich in the black gold could they demand independence to try to keep it all for themselves, without the rest of the UK or even England having a say?
Gav, I am not against a CEP but I don’t think the problems mentioned by Ken are the justification on their own because it would be relatively simple to redress the unfairness Labour has introduced without splitting up the country.
An EP is a more fundamental question of who are we, do we have a distinct identity and culture that requires unique representation, years ago I would have said yes, but after 40 years of mass immigration I’m not so sure..
October 4th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Oh, Dave, sorry… Let’s not confuse the CEP with what I am saying here. The CEP has no position on independence for England or Scotland.
A support for independence for England is a personal position.
Ken, From your position it seems to me that you think if the UK wanted to leave the EU is ought to have to have the permission of France, Germany etc.?
If not then the logical conclusion should be that Scotland should be allowed to choose for herself whether she is ruled from London whether it is democratic (from their point of view) or not.
October 5th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Gav; it is not my point of view that Britian “should” need the agreement of other independent nation states if it wishes to leave the EU.
I said that those who are attempting to force the EU constitution, want an EU wide referendum, they are taking the view that the EU is one entity and the peoples are one people, The fact is that this ignores the present agreements in the Treaties agreed by the Nation states, that each would have a veto on treaty change, does not seem to bother them. They are looking for a way to create the nation state of the European Union, their argument is that as we are all EU citizens we should all be counted as one people.
The reverse argument is applied to Scotish independence, even though we have been one United Kingdom for three hundred years.
I disagree with both arguments because the EU is not a nation state in its own right with its own demos and because Britain is.
At present the British parliament is sovereign in that it, without reference to any outside authority, has the final say in all matters, it could choose to repeal the 1972 act of accession to the EU and at a stroke we would no longer be members of the EU, however all the laws pertaining to that membership would still be in force because they were passed into British law by the British parliament.
But if we move down the road a few years and assume that the EU Constitution has been ratified, this situation is changed because the EU Constitution is the base for forming a state, it contains an exit clause, which sets out the present agreed method for leaving the EU, and that does require an input from the other member states. (none of the previous treaties needed such a clause because they were agreement between National states which obviously have sovereignty)
As the EU constitution also includes clauses that allow change to the EU Constitution itself without recourse to either the states parliaments or the states people, there is nothing to prevent a future Tony Blair or John Major for that matter, agreeing to the tightening of the exit rules.
The EU is building a nation state by removing sovereignty from the member nation states, we have already seen how this works, in practice in those areas where there is EU competence/authority/ power, the nation state government must agree changes at an EU level.
Back in 1971 the home office produced a report that envisioned the eventual prospect of Britain loosing is final sovereignty and would then no longer be able to leave the EU, but the report suggested this would not happen for many years, certainly not until the end of the century, that is the twentieth century! so we are already in extra time.
October 5th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Okay that makes sense.
I still do not see why Spain should have a say in Catalonia’s independence or England in Scotland’s. I guess that’s down to a difference of opinion that is unresolveable.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Would you see the difference if it were Gloucetershire or Devon?
October 5th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Cornwall does want independence!
October 10th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Great Britain never has been nor will be a nation state, and like most multi-national states forced into existence will fall apart
October 12th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Hello all and thanks Gav for signing the petition. Much appreciated.
It is interesting that Cornwall is mentioned as an English county however Cornwall in fact has similar rights to self determination as England, Scotland and Wales have and as you may know Mebyon Kernow campaigns for Cornish independence. Prince Charles uses the income from the Duchy of Cornwall to maintain a lavish lifestyle for him but in fact Cornwall could use their own money to fund their own Government (they already have the right to their own parliament) the Stannary parliament.
What Cornwall does not have a right to, nor does England is a vote on whether Scotland should leave Britain or the UK. That is up to Scotland to decide under international law.
Scotland and Wales rights to self determination have been grudgingly almost recognised by the establishment of devolved assemblies but these assemblies have thrown up constitutional anomalies which will only be solved by independence for Scotland, Wales and England.
It is a shame but I think some people in the English democracy movement still retain an imperial mindset which is why they are unwilling to discuss Cornwall’s rights and seem to believe that they have some choice over Scotland’s future destiny.
The point of self determination is that the people in the country concerned themselves decide. Therefore England or Scotland or Wales could decide to break up the union but none have the right to force another country to remain within it.
Current polling in Scotland and Wales suggests both countries wll vote for independence soon. If England wants to hasten this process they should support our rights to self determination.
However self determination is a principle and it cannot be removed from Cornwall if they decided to vote to leave England.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Imperialism is hardly the issue, although it maybe should be pointed out that the Scots were always very keen to be British when it involved colonising other countries (the Scottish regiments have always been very highly thought of by the English, although they are not so popular amongst nationlist Irish of course). Once the Empire was gone the Scots then decided that they were a downtrodden colony.
Self determination is all well and good, but just who decides what area gets a vote. Cornwall is not a country, but a county. Presumably on this kind of idea you will hold separate votes in each Scottish county and only those counties which wish to leave the union (and of course also the European Union as it’s the UK which is a memeber of the EU) will do so. But then maybe some of those counties might want independence from each other as well! What a glorious mess and all in the name of self determination. The city state beckons once again…
August 20th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I have written a bit of a blog on the whole subject. Bit too long too have as a comment. Check it out.
Basic question is touched on here but not expanded. “Independence for whom?”
http://www.hyam.net/blogs/pr.html