Scottish Independance, anyone?

JimHacker wrote:Personally I always supported decentralisation, with a federal view of the UK both down (scotland, england, wales, NI) and up (as part of a truly federal EU). The latter is looking further and further away, but the former is looking inevietable - if the UK remains united but under the terms of 'devo-max' the West Lothian question (the fact that english MPs have no say over purely Scottish matters but Scot MPs still have a vote over purely English matters) will be brought to the fore.

We don't care that England'll hate us, we'll have independence!
We don't care that we'll lose the money from the rest of the UK, we'll have independence!
We don't care that the multinationals are making plans to leave, we'll have independence!
We don't care that we'll have to rely on decreasing oil, we'll have independence!
We don't care that not enough of us work, we'll have independence!
We don't care our industry's collapsed, we'll have independence!
We don't care we'll have constant blackouts, we'll have independence!
We don't care that our children will starve, we'll have independence!
We don't care we'll all go broke, we'll have independence!
We don't care we can't afford an army, we'll have independence!
Hey, what just happened! We're being invaded! Well, time to learn to speak Russian.

I quite agree, federalism is the only solution if UK has any chance of remaining one country. Full devolution for all four nations is looking increasingly like the ultimate solution, ending the anomaly that the West Lothian Question represents.

Brown proposing to keep the Barnett Formula can only be viewed through the prism of the Labour vote in Scotland. Any mention of discontinuing it would lead to a further lurch toward the Yes campaign, something the Labour leadership is trying to stem. This is where the balefull effect of the "Red Clydeside" mentality in Scottish (i.e. Glasgow) Labour plays it's part. Labour may be too left wing for the south of England, but it's not left wing enough for areas of Glasgow! This is where my own intense dislike of the baleful political influence of that most heavily populated area of Scotland comes to the fore!

The stress the referendum has created in the relationship between England and Scotland will vent in a very ugly way if not released in some manner, preferably with constitutional change. Looking at the general tone of comments on pretty much every web page I've seen, England's patience has just about worn out. Although I consider myself British as much as Scottish, I feel now that if I went south of the border I wouldn't feel very safe. I'd be viewed as "other", not a fellow citizen of the same country.

Thank you, Mr Salmond!

Mike.

Michael Riddell wrote:For those outside the UK, here's what the SNP have to say on international and defence policy:

Anyway, we'll see what the result is on Friday. I make no bones about it, as I wrote above, I'm a No voter. I don't think that the SNP have covered all the bases, and my gut feeling says the time isn't right. The way that the debate has gone, the current UK will cease to exist, regardless of a yes or no vote. The constitutional consequences are immense and Michael Everett's post in the other thread highlights that many south of the border are, rightly, fed up with Scotland's shenanigans and it's privileged funding position.

Mike.

Zakharra wrote:The Constitution is not a 'useless piece of paper' or irrelevant.

Zakharra wrote:A constitution should be solid and hard to change, not something that can be altered on a whim or because the politicians follow 'current trends' or some such crap like that. If you have a country that has a constitution that is easily changed, you have a country that is weak and will be easily swayed one way or another and easily fall to evil politicians.

Us brits generally regard the US Constitution as being utterly inflexible, despite its amendment process. It's very inflexibility is what has forced your politicians, lawyers and judges to twist it into pretzels to make it work for the modern world.

The UK currently has a 'bill of rights' in the Human Rights Act, one of the constitutional statues. While in our system it is not entrenched, it is entrenched in the EU so we could only get rid of it after leaving the EU. And Scotland will have to have this law if they are to gain entry to the EU, one of their priorities. So I wouldn't be too worried about that. Although you might disapprove of the fact that there is no 'freedom to bear arms' in the ECHR, the Scots themselves definitely have no problem with that.

Also, we have generally been ok about protecting the rights of criminals to due process despite lacking your constitutional guarantees. And I'm not sure why you think jury trials for civil suits are such a good idea - in highly complex financial or industrial cases it comes down to a mix of bamboozeling the jury with jargon and emotionally-charged appeals rather than ascertaining the facts of the case.

Someone once asked 'which lasts longer, the mountains or the sea?'. I think that may apply in this case. The flexibility of the British system makes ours more turbulent but gives it greater capacity to change and adapt to the needs of the time. The US Constitution, while technically amendable, is incredibly rigid - which might make it look more durable in the short-run but in the long-term as society chnages more and more it may crumble under the stress.

biochem wrote:-snip-
Scotland may not be given the option to join the EU. Spain has publicly stated that they will veto it. So unless Scotland can come up with a big enough bribe to convince Spain to change it's mind, they are on their own.

Michael Everett wrote:A Bill Of Rights by itself is a recipe for disaster unless partnered with a Bill Of Responsibilities that makes it clear just what is expected of people, ie, the societal contract.

Society is a dynamic construct which is easily ruined if too many people refuse to play by the rules. What they don't realise is that the rules are there to protect them from the real predators.

If Scotland creates its Bill Of Rights, it must take care to ensure that it cannot be easily abused as abused it will be.