"redhouse1938 Online (926 )
11:38 AM
+1
As I said, I believe it's not just the Scottish who should get a say in this :P

Invictus Online (240 )
11:39 AM
Why do you believe that?"

My question was why do you believe people outside Scotland should get a say.


"And if I'm not mistaken it's Cameron who organizes this referendum no? So de facto what I propose - that the whole country gets a say - is what's happening, no?"

If all you're saying is that the national government needs to agree to allow the referendum to occur and agrees to be bound by it then you're not saying anything different than I am. But you're not. You talked about people in England and Wales and Northern Ireland VOTING on the issue. Very different.

Also, does it go through on a simple majority?

Can we talk about the democratic deficit of that? If 50.005% of the voting population on a particular day say yes, the bonds are immediately severed? We have seen that the opinion is fluctuating. Is it really fair to set in stone the opinions of so comparatively small a group of Scottish people, when there will be more tomorrow who feel perhaps differently, and many as well today who do?

Shouldn't there be a more convincing majority for something like this? If states could secede from the US by a vote, I would hope they would need at least 66%. It's a big step. It's not the same thing as, say, voting for school board.

It is a simple majority. I've been following this very closely for years now, and don't remember reading anything about required turnout. There probably isn't one, since that's what defeated the first devolution referendum in the 1970s.

A simple majority, yes. That way the option favoured by the most people is the one that is chosen. You Yanks really haven't got the hang of this democracy lark, have you? :p

But in all seriousness, a majority is a good idea. If you set it at a 2/3 majority, say, and you got a yes vote of 65% it would cause no end of problems.

"You talked about people in England and Wales and Northern Ireland VOTING on the issue. Very different."

I think they should get to vote on it in a referendum if the Scottish do too. IF you have a referendum - which you shouldn't - then ALL of the UK should vote.

It's not so clear one is better than the other, Octavious. Starting a state that 50% less 1 of the population don't even want to exist is not a recipe for success either.

"I think they should get to vote on it in a referendum if the Scottish do too. IF you have a referendum - which you shouldn't - then ALL of the UK should vote"

But why?

Let me change that to 50% less 1 of the people who voted. Who knows what turnout will be?

@ Invictus

I would argue that the difference between 50% of people being upset at being on the wrong side of a vote is far better a situation than 65% being on the wrong side.

Perhaps. But again, how do you create a new state that half the population does not want? That's not an insignificant problem.

"how do you create a new state that half the population does not want?"
It depends, at least to some degree, on how badly they don't want it.

@redhouse
Curiosity question on this: if the SNP legislated independence through the Scottish Parliament (with permission from Westminster) and then submitted it to referendum for ratification, would that be agreeable? Or just an unnecessary step since the two parliaments already mutually agreed on the split?

If Scotland votes for independence, how many people resign?

On the one hand, maybe no one. You people have a general election in six months or so. May be worthwhile to just wait it out and do the resigning then.

On the other, I can't see Cameron staying on after he's presided over the end of a united Great Britain. Also how can Miliband stay, after he's been just as pro-union as anyone? Both of them will be abject losers. How can they be leaders of their parties in the next election? And what if Miliband's majority relies on Scottish seats?


For what it's worth, I still think the Scots will vote no. But it's clear now that there margin needed to prevent a "neverendum" is impossible.

I see no reason for anyone resigning after a yes vote. Alec may resign after a no vote, but knowing him he won't. As far as future referenda go, this will be the last for this generation of politicians. In 30 odd years there may be another depending on public mood, but who can say?

Why wouldn't Cameron at least resign?

Cui bono?

What would be the reason for Cameron resigning? I'm genuinely struggling to follow the logic here.

Under what logic could he stay? Eden resigned after Suez. This must be just about as huge of a defeat. And if doesn't resign, why would the Tories keep him around as Leader in the upcoming election? They at least should try to win, even though that's pretty unlikely. Cameron, who would have just lost a sizable part of the island, would be a millstone around their necks.

Suez was a poorly planned war for the purpose of advancing Imperialism. In what sense is that in any way comparable to the Scots having a referendum? And why would the Scots voting yes make Cameron a millstone?

Not having the referendum, voting for independence. I'd think the dissolution of Great Britain is a national disaster comparable to Suez, at least from any government's perspective. Just my opinion, though.

He'd be a millstone because he'd be a loser. He'd be the prime minister who was in charge when the three hundred year old union was dissolved. It's a disaster from the persepctive of any sitting PM, regardless of what you think the merits of Scottish independence may be. I don't understand how he can go to the country and ask to stay in office when he's just presided over a sizable chunk of it choosing to break off.

Again, I think the Scots will still vote to stay. The currency thing should be determinative, as should clear statements by the EU that Scotland would have to reapply. The latest polls very well could be outliers like those Rasmussen ones in 2012 that had Romney winning handily.

Whilst the majority of the rest of the UK would prefer Scotland to stay a part of it, there was very little opposition to the idea of Scotland having a referendum. Nor will many consider it a disaster if Scotland leave.

To name a few, wouldn't the Spanish (Catalans, Basques), the Italians (Lombardy, Venice), the Belgians (Flanders, Wallonia) care about the precedent set here? Germany seems set now, but there's a long history or city-states and free ports which given forceful and inclined leaders, would prefer such referenda. How do the member states and the EU address that?

There being no opposition to the referendum occurring has nothing to do with whether or not a Yes vote would be a disaster for the government. And regardless of what the public considers now, the reality is that divorce would be messy, with both countries worse off than before.

Cameron will have presided over the end of Great Britain. Once it enormity of what occurred dawns on people in the rUK he'll have to go.


But again, all armchair talk. The Scots will stay.

The reason this is going forward is that both the regional government AND the national government agreed to allow it. One could argue--and the heads of government in these other capitals almost certainly will--that the reasons for the national government's acquiescence to the referendum are unique to the UK, potentially even to David Cameron and his coalition.

^So, whatever precedent this MIGHT set will probably be explained away as a case of a bad analogy. But even if the referendum fails, that isn't going to dampen the calls of "but we want our own referendum too!" from elsewhere, especially not in Catalonia.

And incidentally, I agree with Invictus about the likely outcome. I'm stunned that the Yes vote has even come within spitting distance.

The precedent that will really matter is if the EU really makes Scotland reapply. The example of Scotland out in the cold for at least five years ought to dampen Catalonian dreams.

Spain would almost certainly veto Catalonia's entry to the EU under any circumstances, even if Scotland were admitted (unless they've moved to qualified-majority voting for new members, in which case maybe there would be hope--I'm too lazy to look up whether that rule has changed), so I would think that prospect on its own would have already had the expected chilling effect?

"so perverse is mankind that every nationality prefers to be misgoverned by its own people than to be well ruled by another." - General Napier

As quotable as, if not the outright prototype of, Patton.

I'm sure Spain will claim it'll do that in the run-up to any referendum, but in reality they couldn't keep it up long, if they even do it once. The pressure that will be put on them by the rest of the EU would be enourmous, and Spain isn't exactly gonna be in a position to dictate terms to the EU anytime soon, for reasons that should be obvious.