Scots Independence Referendum

[Scary Bear]

Well, it is dismantling the country. You are taking a country and dividing it up on the whim of a minority. Whether the English, Welsh and Northern Irish would lose much is fairly irrelevant to that point.

However, they would lose the right to freedom of movement within the previously held borders, price of being educated in a Scottish university would increase as they would be coming from a foreign country. The millitary and political structures would have to be re-worked (albeit on a fairly minor scale) and as such would cost them money.

I'm also not suggesting that the Scottish electorate not have a say. Merely that Scotland's say should be proportionate to its size within the UK.

Why would that happen? If we join Europe, then it's pretty much the same deal, in that English/Welsh/N.I. can come and go as they please.

Under your way of thinking, the only way Scotland would ever get independence would be when England wanted shot of us (i.e. when the oil runs out).

[lzreid]

1. How many people were responsible for the initial union of Scotland and England?

2. Your point only holds water if you subscribe to the fact that we are just a region of the UK, rather than a separate country.

It would actually help the English out if Scotland was independent. It's mainly due to the Welsh and Scots that Labour get into power every now and again. As I recall the political map in England is usually decidedly blue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/fl.../html/map05.stm

3. Why would that happen? If we join Europe, then it's pretty much the same deal, in that English/Welsh/N.I. can come and go as they please.

4. Under your way of thinking, the only way Scotland would ever get independence would be when England wanted shot of us (i.e. when the oil runs out).

1. Irrelevant. The Act of Union was passed using the existing political structures. We are debating the use of a referendum to resolve the question this time.

2. That is exactly how I view Scotland.

3. If we are allowed entrance to Europe it will be done under an agreed timetable and there will be at least short term ramifications. Longer term, we still need photographic ID to move between European countries and this will limit movement to those who have photographic ID.

4. Democracy's a bitch but we claim its the best way to set up our society.

Now, I'm off to do some work.

[lzreid]

We'll just have to disagree on this one. I just can't see the logic at all in preventing Scotland from being able to have its say. If (and this is a hypothetical case), the Welsh were contributing masses of money, but were not getting any money back, then they would be getting a (hypothetical) raw deal. However, because they would be bringing in lots of cash for the rest of the UK while not costing much, then we would be loathe to let them go.

This means that (again hypothetically), you have an oppressed nation who, even if 100% of them voted for independence, would not ever be able to gain independence due to having a smaller population.

Now, I am not saying that Scotlands case is anything like this, that was an entirely hypothetical made up scenario, but does that sound like democracy in action to you?

I'm afraid we will just have to disagree. However, with your example. Yes, that is democracy. The minority don't always fet their own way.

[xbl]

I'm afraid we will just have to disagree. However, with your example. Yes, that is democracy. The minority don't always fet their own way.

Never have I so regretted agreeing to disagree! :: grinds teeth in frustration ::

[H_B]

Careful now, this sounds dangerously like we are in agreement! And you know what you've said about that.

[lzreid]

Never have I so regretted agreeing to disagree! :: grinds teeth in frustration ::

[Scary Bear]

1. Irrelevant. The Act of Union was passed using the existing political structures. We are debating the use of a referendum to resolve the question this time.

2. That is exactly how I view Scotland.

3. If we are allowed entrance to Europe it will be done under an agreed timetable and there will be at least short term ramifications. Longer term, we still need photographic ID to move between European countries and this will limit movement to those who have photographic ID.

4. Democracy's a bitch but we claim its the best way to set up our society.

Now, I'm off to do some work.

1. It seems pretty relevant to me. Not very democratic to form a union and not ask the people of the country.

2. Isn't that just as irrelevant. Scotland is a separate country.

3. I went to France, then drove through Belgium. Don't see why it would be any different between Scotland and England.

4. I believe in democracy, it's just that your take on democracy differs from mine. Personally, I think it should only be the people resident in Scotland who decide. People like myself, who are resident in London or some other part of the UK should not get a vote.

[Scary Bear]

I'm afraid we will just have to disagree. However, with your example. Yes, that is democracy. The minority don't always fet their own way.

That example sounds a bit like mild dictatorship.

[Guest]

Does anyone know the likely date in 2010 or an educated guess at the time this referendum will take place? I can't vote unless it's after September 3rd

[Savage Henry]

Does anyone know the likely date in 2010 or an educated guess at the time this referendum will take place? I can't vote unless it's after September 3rd

An educated guess? It won't happen.

[Guest]

An educated guess? It won't happen.

*cough* Unionist alert

[H_B]

*cough* Unionist alert

Whether the referendum appears or not is completely separate to what the expected outcome is.

I also think it will mysteriously disappear in 2010 for "further evaluation".

[Guest]

I think it might be delayed too, but it's going to happen eventually anyway... it was inevitable as soon as the Scottish Parliament opened up.

[xbl]

I think it might be delayed too, but it's going to happen eventually anyway... it was inevitable as soon as the Scottish Parliament opened up.

I wouldn't say it was! One of the architects of devolution, George Robertson's came out with that famous quote that devolution would “kill nationalism stone dead”. And it could have.

Theoretically, Labour and the Lib Dems could have become the first and second parties, with the SNP floating between second and third place, but never getting into power. It was by no means inevitable that a referendum was coming. However, I think the Unionists underestimated the strength of the SNP, they got the mood of Scotland badly wrong, and they got Hubris.

[H_B]

I think it might be delayed too, but it's going to happen eventually anyway... it was inevitable as soon as the Scottish Parliament opened up.

Maybe. I think the problem may be that both sides of the debate will be required to support it and both will seek an advantageous time to do so.

[capybara]

As ive said before it will be interesting to see how the Tories treat their relationship with a nationalist run Holyrood.

Cameron is clever,he never says that Scotland cannot go it alone but that he would prefer we stayed as the UK plc.

Salmond is banking on a Cameron run Westminster to be as bad as a Thatcher one. Im not so sure he will fall into that trap.

[lzreid]

1. It seems pretty relevant to me. Not very democratic to form a union and not ask the people of the country.

2. Isn't that just as irrelevant. Scotland is a separate country.

3. I went to France, then drove through Belgium. Don't see why it would be any different between Scotland and England.

4. I believe in democracy, it's just that your take on democracy differs from mine. Personally, I think it should only be the people resident in Scotland who decide. People like myself, who are resident in London or some other part of the UK should not get a vote.

1. It was wrong. It bears no relevance on how we should make the decision now.

2. You said my opinion only held water if I viewed Scotland as a region of the UK. Iconfirmed I did. Scotland is not a seperate country, if it was we wouldn't have this debate.

3.There will be a border, it will have border controls. Some of those controls will be with regards how you enter and leave the country some will never worry about it and some will.

4. Why? The impact that Scottish independence would have on the English is, again, irrelevant. If you are breaking up someone's country by referendum then they all have a right to be consulted.

That example sounds a bit like mild dictatorship.

Unfettered democracy is a mild form of dictatorship. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

The point I'm making is that if we have decided the best way to resolve this issue is to have a referendum then the majority will be allowed to dictate what happens just as in XBass' example.

[H_B]

Why? The impact that Scottish independence would have on the English is, again, irrelevant. If you are breaking up someone's country by referendum then they all have a right to be consulted.

It's two completely different things. Secessionism is obviously the desire for one part of a state to secede from the state as a whole. They shouldn't have to ask permission to do so.

The effect it has on the remainder state is irrelevant. Canada worked out Quebec's secession would have been financially catastrophic for them for example.

[Scary Bear]

1. It was wrong. It bears no relevance on how we should make the decision now.

2. You said my opinion only held water if I viewed Scotland as a region of the UK. Iconfirmed I did. Scotland is not a seperate country, if it was we wouldn't have this debate.

3.There will be a border, it will have border controls. Some of those controls will be with regards how you enter and leave the country some will never worry about it and some will.

4. Why? The impact that Scottish independence would have on the English is, again, irrelevant. If you are breaking up someone's country by referendum then they all have a right to be consulted.

Unfettered democracy is a mild form of dictatorship. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

The point I'm making is that if we have decided the best way to resolve this issue is to have a referendum then the majority will be allowed to dictate what happens just as in XBass' example.

1. Your opinion doesn't bear any relevance, as the English and Welsh people won't get a vote. The original act of union that I mentioned at least happened, unlike your opinion of how things should be done.

2. Scotland is a separate country that is part of a United Kingdom.

3. There is no border control in Europe that i've noticed. People are free to travel by road between France and Belgium without showing any documentation. Which borders on the European mainland have security control?

4. It's not their country. Their country is England, Wales, etc. If the impact that Scottish independence would have on the English is irrelevant, then why do they need a vote on it?

Thankfully you're not in charge. So your ideas on democracy hopefully won't see the light of day.

Incidently, the new independent Scotland should have a more broad spectrum of MSPs. If the majority in charge are just lawyers and accountants, then the country will fare no better than it does now.

[Gordon EF]

However, they would lose the right to freedom of movement within the previously held borders, price of being educated in a Scottish university would increase as they would be coming from a foreign country. The millitary and political structures would have to be re-worked (albeit on a fairly minor scale) and as such would cost them money.

What are you on about? English students would actually be eligible for free university education if Scotland gained independence.