1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Scottish Nationalists set for a majority

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by ThePirateHulk, May 6, 2011.

  1. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Hey! Took your time!! :p

    At present, no of course not. I too am sceptical about it in this term also, but it's out of my hands that's for sure.

    They couldn't disconnect themself like such they are Scottish territory. If the a majority yes on indenpendence was returned and lets say for argument sakes other regions on mainland Scotland rejected it (as would be expected) Scotland would not be fractured along the lines it's council regions. It would move along seperately, but together.

    If - and it's a long 'if' by this point - it happened they would need to politically in an independent Scotland they would need to push for independence from Holyrood.
     
  2. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    Perhaps, although the precedence of the Faroe Islands could make for an interesting proposition. The potential revenue per capita for the islands if allowed to take control of their own finances and resources coupled with EU membership allowing freedom of movement and trade could make for a compelling proposition however.

    Having said that I suspect the migrant population of Scots and English since the oil boom would make the chances of the islands getting a overwhelming referendum result for some form of independence unlikely. Let's face it, if Scotland ceded from the Union the Scottish politicians would never in practise be able to grant the islands independence given the huge financial and resource impact it would have on an independent Scottish economy.
     
  3. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Given the Prime Minister has said he will not interfere and has said he supports the Scottish right to decide I don't think it's much of a problem.
     
  4. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Which is why I think having a majority in Holyrood may not have been the best result for the SNP, it seems to have forced their hand a bit.



    Why?

    There are plenty of examples of borders being redrawn, even entire countries being created when independence is granted, especially when Britain is involved.

    I wouldn't be so sure what Scotland's borders would be if there was serious consideration toward independence.
     
  5. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Strange, most people use the EU membership as unlikey as a stick to hit Scottish independence with.

    Don't think I've never heard anyone proposing it for a population around 45,000-50,000. ;)

    It certainly would but I can't say there is a lot of presentation for this from the Islands.

    You don't have to be a EU member to enjoy free trade with Europe either I would add.

    No I don't think that's true at all.

    If it was an immediate approach then it would of course cause economic issues but not overpowering ones, just like it would to the UK state just now. There is a lot more to the Scottish economy than oil, but what it did do was take one of the poorest regions , Aberdeenshire and its surrounding areas, and turned it into one of the richest in the UK. Not all of Scotland was as impoverished in comparison before. Oil is a significant resource. But Scotland isn't this one industry band everyone seems to either believe it is or make out it is.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2011
  6. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    I'm not saying it would be, but asking the question if Holyrood have the power to challenge the Union and thus UK sovereignty without assent from Westminster?

    Do they have the legislative power to hold a referendum?

    If not, then the SNP may well be hedging their bets that Westminster will just say no, thus getting them out of a tricky situation, if they have and they do not hold one in the second half of this term or if they do and fail, that could push back the Scottish independence cause decades.

    It seems a big gamble coming out and promising a referendum so soon.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2011
  7. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    Oh I quite agree, however it would have a huge impact on a newly independent Scotland finances, possibly negating in large part any real advantage of ceding from the Union for decades to come.

    Given the Islands very distinctive differences from mainland Scotland and Norwegian heritage I think the Islands could have a valid claim for a referendum on independence.

    The scenario that occurs to me is that the Islands have a valid claim for independence (assuming it was supported by islanders). They also, as you mention seem to be for remaining part of the Union. There would be nothing to stop the Islands from voting to become independent from Scotland but choosing to remain part of the Union with a devolved government in much the same way as the isle of Mann.

    Just theoretical pondering really but an interesting aspect of the independence debate I thought.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2011
  8. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I don't think it's forced their hand at all this is exactly what they have compaigned for, this is their plan they believe they can do it. Although, in line with polls on the matter I can see how this can be drawn.

    With the press on board in areas, it has increased their confidence in getting fairer representation on this issue. Or at least significantly less anti-press.

    This will encourage them to put everything they have into this, the campaigning isn't planned to stop it's planned to switch from the parties side of things.

    Because it wouldn't be acceptable to the Scottish government or people they are rightfully Scottish territories.

    If there was a claim to land, it would have been settled by now. Westminster would have no rightful claim to any region.

    British interference abroad isn't a great example to follow and I think David maybe follows that line too with various statements recently. The difference is we have a lot together even after independence and Scotland willfully joined the union as it was (near enough..) and could leave as it was.

    Not everyone was happy with it going in, but enough were. And if enough are happy with it going, but not all.. the reverse will happen.

    Draw the map you think then :D
     
  9. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Currently they are rightly UK territories, so the question still stands.



    However, Westminster have a rightful claim to UK territory, the Islands are UK territory, Scotland is not sovereign and until they are granted independence they have no more rights to anything than Westminster.

    Independence is not quite as simple as getting a Yes in a referendum and then installing border controls in the aptly named borders.....if, during the negotiations for the transition to Independence, the Shetlander's simply said No en-mass and asked to remain in the union, do you really think Westminster will say No.

    I don't.
     
  10. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    The Scottish people are sovereign, as are all people. If political representation is that they want to decide their future, that is all that matters.

    UK sovereignty is made up in part by the Scottish people.

    The Scottish people's soveriegnty cannot be used, in part, to suppress their own sovereignty this is too circular.

    Westminster could certainly make it technically hard, but if there is the moral authoritity to ask the question it's happening at some point regardless.



    Yes Holyrood can hold polls and referendums, it would be a useless parliament if it could not after all wouldn't it?

    And it can pose a question on consitituion, depending on the wording.

    Just as well the conservatives aren't as arcane as views like this then.

    They've wanted a referendum for a long time even during their first minority government, far too early for my tactical liking, but the Scottish Unionists ran and refused to support it - flying in the face of clear evidence that Scotland for years has shown majority support for the chance to vote. The Scottish Unionists should have, because I had real doubts the SNP could have swung the support for independence then enough. I'm a still a bit unsure now, but they have been pretty confident though out.
     
  11. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    So they have the power to hold a referendum on independence, that is all I wanted to know.:)

    Personally I think they should, let the people decide for themselves, financially I doubt it will effect the UK (or whatever the new entity will be called) and may be beneficial to both countries, However I don't think they will win, and if they do, well then I'll have three passports and I'll live in the nicer place.....:)
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2011
  12. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    You know this is a false technicality and I’ve already explained the process is valid.

    This is more false technicality, and pointless. The Scottish government would be in UK territory right up until independence too it doesn’t mean anything.


    Oh silly me. I didn’t realise that… ;)

    Why or how would they say no en masse after a referendum?

    The Scottish government has the legitimacy to speak for all Scottish people, and it, like Westminster, would not have to consult the electorate again during the process.


    I can't see the islanders rioting, can you?
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2011
  13. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    There is debate over what it can ask and how it can ask, and of course the Lords/Westminster can theoritically put laws in place to disrupt, withdraw devolution at a pennies drop etc but in light of an SNP landslide - do you not think that a touch orwellian?

    I think that'd only show one thing, 'bondage and fear', if you would allow me to so emotively summarise for ease.

    It would, you surely agree, be a PR dissaster for the UK and blow any allusion as for there being a positive case for it. I said in the other thread I think, this is the time for Unionists to really go for not an inverse anti-SNP/Scotland vibe but really push a progressive Scottish angle for her to stay in the Union.

    They will have undoubtly learned from their experiences from the Thatcher era, and apart from our recent indiscretion with the oil tax, they are doing remarkably well in this respect of which I am glad because I do have overall conservative sympathies. I don't think anyone in politics hasn't noticed the spanking Labour just got, and how reactionary Scotland can be from the mainstream.

    I think Dave's started this off well this, and has been very respectful and I do think he handles himself very well for the situation is has been given constitutionally, I'm sure deep down he would have liked to have prevented this all in the first place.

    It could still call itself the UK afaik.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2011
  14. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Have you? I thought that was simply your opinion. I would like to see what, if any legislation says on that.



    Indeed, so until independence is granted then Westminster have a rightful claim on any region that comes forward and asks to remain. An independent Scotland doesn't necessarily have to follow any arbitrary rules, the entire process and final shape of an independent Scotland would be subject to negotiation.

    Northern Ireland?


    The Shetland Island Council could petition to remain during any negotiations between Westminster and Holyrood. I see no barrier to them doing that.

    You don't know my Nan....she is a one woman riot.:D

    Anyway I'm off to bed, I got to take my boy to a magic show convention tomorrow.....so goodnight and no doubt I will revisit this anon..:)
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2011
  15. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Yup.

    It's not just my opinion, it's that of well The Scottish government, most commentators, all of the political parties in Scotland, including unionists of course, also support it.

    So again, there is nothing stopping this happening when Holyrood has the right to consult it's population especially when they have returned a party with a pledge to hold a referendum. Support for the referendum is high, even if independence isn't.

    Again, this is the chance to blow independence out of the water by way of positive argument. If it does, it could be off the shelf for decades.





    They would have no way of doing such without Scottish Government concent. Matters of the consitution are for the parliament, not Scottish regional councils.

    The council is subject to Scottish authority under the Scotland Act, not UK in these matters, and under Scot's law which is enshrined in the articles of Union.


    The only things under negotiation would be fiscal assets, land is not coming into it. There may of course be smaller disputes, but there is nothing really there to contest. Scotland's borders are internationally recognised and will remain as such throughout the process.

    90 years is a very long time for attitudes to progress..


    They couldn't, not once the referendum has passed.




    Edit: whoops thought I replied, sorry man! I thought I did, but I must have imagined it lol (sleep deprivation) :o. Me too, I'll be sleeping all day no doubt! :p
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2011
  16. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    In fact here's a question, if it did happen.. and the title UK was or wasn't used would you expect Wesminster would keep Wales and NI, and all the other overseas territories currently in British possesion?

    If it didn't use the UK, what do you think the title would be? I can only think of silly sounding suggestions somehow :o
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2011
  17. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13323587

    And interestingly the BBC political analyist shares my points above;

     
  18. Weaver

    Hitman

    Joined: Jul 9, 2008

    Posts: 722

    Location: It's Grimm up Norf

    In my opinion Biohazard has been exceptionally polite in trying to address the issues raised in discussion. However it’s time to cut to the chase. The arguments discussed here so far are completely irrelevant to the process and this needs to be straightened out once and for all. England has absolutely no claim to any Scottish territories.


    Any international treaty is open to amendment or revocation by the expressed will of either nation.


    This is the key point in any argument the Nats are perfectly aware of this. After such a resounding thumping at the polls the unionist agenda has been placed very close to the irrelevant ‘file’ the Nats also know this and are still playing a blinder.



    http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=19077819&postcount=567



    ------
     
  19. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    For years Westminster has claimed a non-existent supreme parliamentary sovereignty over Scotland and it's people even when it know's it not to be the case.

    MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, the Lord President (Lord Cooper) [1953] stated that "the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law", and that legislation contrary to the Act of Union would not necessarily be regarded as constitutionally valid.
     
  20. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    The end of "Scottish" Labour?

    http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Peter-Jones-the-end-of.6764429.jp?articlepage=2

    And now Iain Gray has lost his party position, and what 'talent' was left from New Labour in Scotland for the clamour to England has been lost in an SNP victory. The new political heavyweight Labour itself helped in part to create is going to run circles around the new untested and inexperienced opposition with a majority government and experienced ministers.

    http://news.scotsman.com/holyroodelections/Labour-won39t-parachute-in-39big.6764461.jp?articlepage=3
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2011