'The Union'
- Thread starter Uhtred
- Start date
There was a feature in the Guardian on the practicalities of independence, with the separation of Czech and Slovak republics as the blueprint for how a decent, civilized break up takes place. Everything from treaties on national resources down to the art work on the walls of westminster. However, it did say the major stumbling block strategically would be the absence of deep water ports to put Trident in if a nuclear England couldn't use the West of Scotland.
What is full independence, and what are the bits that are to remain within a federalised UK framework as per the apparent SNP policy in your mind?
The EU is a seperate issue which would be addressed upon an independence. Wedging in an EU referendum into an independence referendum would cause Westminster to blow its top I suspect.
I'll come to the other points once you have clarified the above questions.
Why would the SNP go back on their election campaign promises? Economic woes are the focus at present, and rightly so.
The relationship between the UK states are not as one sided as you imply. Perhaps why independence is now a more serious threat to the union.
Are the polls 'rogue'?
Two rogue polls in as many months eh, who'd have bet on that.
Funny how the polls are used to say no one supports independence, but when they do switch around, people apparently still don't support independence?
Odd.
I think, and I've have to check, that the current position is to offer to "rent" the facility for ten years after succession.
After that, if something isn't built elsewhere it's something that may have to be lost in this 'hypothetical'.
Frankly, it's something we could do with losing regardless of independence et al.
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more.
I have a great idea.....
Have a referendum.
And I am confident that we would win as we are, certainly with the 'entrance' polling that we have seen recently and the lack of credible opposition and the yet unformed "Team Union".
It might be worth noting that since contradicting themself in spectacular fashion and in a timeframe of less than a month the now incessant calling for a referendum on the issue is damaging the Unionist cause. I suspect it to be a primary driver since it is a very hypocritcal proposition to come from them for many factors and the SNP hasn't actually started campaigning although the Unionists have done in a defacto manner - the only effect to really move Scots Independence towards support at the present would be Unionist argument.
Before May they refused to support one (when it would have been in their favour considerably). Further to that many a unionist claimed a consultative referendum was impossible. It is I suspect percieved as lack of credible positive counter argument for the Union when all they can do is now shout for the referendum when it suits them and trying to force the SNP into renegading on a campaign promise.
They refused to support a referendum pre election citing the above causes and specifically during the campaign voiced concerns regarding the economic situation and what constitutional uncertainly would bring. The SNP agreed, and then campaigned on 'in the second half of the term'. Instantly after the landslide, forget all the valid contentions about the economy the Unionists immediately resound;
"Call the referendum".
The hypocrisy smells almost as bad as their fear.
A small aside note would be the lib dems, not only are they between the likes of Moore and Alexander giving out hot and cold opinions on independence but they have sold out their own political principles to lay in bed with Tories, specifically in terms of the UK framework. For a party that reportedly supports federalism refusing FFA is hypocrical, or 'yellow'. A mix of both I suspect.
It doesn't bode well, but I'm sure four years of 'hold your referendum' will continue to work miracles on the polls up here. It's doing swell so far.
Last edited:
Personally I see no reason why Scotland should not broadly follow the same model used for Eire. Why would Scots settle for anything less given the opportunity? Having said that I'd be interested to understand what model would you propose for a full and independent Scotland, allowed to stand on it's own two feet and live or die (so to speak) by it's own endeavours and fortunes?
If Scots voted for full secession from the Union to pursue Scotlands own independent future it seems only appropriate to give Scotts the opportunity to chose to retain, or withdraw from the obligations of membership to the European Union inherited from commitments undertaken on Scotlands behalf as part of the United Kingdom at the same time.
Indeed if Scotland voted for full independence, cutting it's ties with the rest of the Union, it would be of no concern of Westminster, Cardiff or Stormont beyond that of a fellow EU member state.
What would be your view on why such a choice could not be put in front of the Scottish people straight away, allowing them to set out the future vision for the country in one decisive act whilst they have the opportunity to express their commitments to a federalised future, both at a local and European level?
Last edited:
Well, you did pick a date to start throwing the mud though. Didn't you?
Simply because it was earlier than all the usual "it's all the fault of the English" dates.
We could all just blame the Romans instead
Pfft.... What have the Romans ever done for us...We could all just blame the Romans instead
An independent Scotland would not automatically be a member of the EU. They would have to apply as a newly independent state and the other EU Nations would have to ratify their acceptance.
There is no inherited rights or commitments imbued on a newly independent Scotland.
There is no guarantee that Scotland would be a member of the EU, either through choice or acceptance.
A referendum on independence would need no EU reference as either the referendum gives a No and Scotland remain part of the Union and therefore part of the EU, or the referendum gives a Yes and Scotland, newly independent can then hold a referendum on whether to apply for membership or not.
Last edited:
The two cases are nearly a century apart and under very very different circumstances. The fact remains the UK would still be intra-trade dependent.
Absolute isolationism and ancient protectionisms are in nobodies interest, where as political redress is for some.
One 't'. Scot's.
It would be and that is the quoted intention dependent upon success of succession. It need not be full blown walls on borders for that to occur.
The same time, no. Referendums have a clear ethos, and that is one subject at a time. Hence the furor, percieved faux or otherwise, at the AV/Holyrood election.
It isn't aimed at any one issue particularly as the general concern (which is scalable) is to provide clarity over the topic undergoing examination. Two such impacting and respectfully important decisions cannot be expected to arrive at once in a fair manner for the electorate.
Although for one I wouldn't be unhappy at seeing it although I would argue against it's inclusion here. I would vote against it and I think the prevailing popular opinion would too.
As an aside, do you think Westminster would also concede the need for similar redress in the remainder of the UK at this point?
Oh the bravado.
Well I'm afraid to say that even upon independence we still have a lot in common, politics is only but one concept.
See above.
Last edited:
Not with the EU, no.
No guarantee, no. Vote against? I don't know.
I'm not fussed personally if they did 'reject' Scotland. It would be beneficial. Greatly. Refusal to EFTA? Unprecedented certainly in the climate we stand in. Refusal outright to trade by individual agreement beyond that?
It isn't worth wasting time modeling to be honest.
Yes. This.
The preamble for the act would indeed be somewhat different and of course, given a vote for secession from the Union by the Scottish people the process of separation would reflect that.
I'm a little unclear, are you saying it is inappropriate or impracticable for Scotland to become a "fully" independent constitutional republic, perhaps similar to the model used in Eire?
I would be intrigued to hear your view as a Scot (one 't') on which model of independence you believe Scotland should pursue should such a mandate be forth coming in the current Scottish parliament or the next?
They will probably end up with a model that results in Alex Salmond being crowned King Alexander IV of Scotland....
Ah, I wondered if this was the case. Thank you for clarifying, that certainly puts more context around an independent Scotlands position.