Re: Scotland: Unilateral Declaration of Independence
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:01 am
Endless referenda tho innit
Open to critical enquiry
https://scrutable.science/
That might work if there were only two parties that mattered, London and Edinburgh.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:24 amAn honest way to do it would be to have three (or more) steps:
- Hold a vote to ask if there should be negotiations for independence
- If the answer is Yes, the Scottish government negotiates terms
- Then the people get a referendum chosing between:
- independence on those terms
- keep negotiating,
- no independence for some specified fixed period (e.g. 10 or 25 years)
Not necessarily. Independence for a small country also brings vulnerability. There are some examples of peoples who appear to want a high level of regional autonomy but haven't gone for full independence, for example Quebeq or Flanders. Opinion polls suggest that there is still a narrow majority for 'no' in Scotland. So perhaps the Scottish people would prefer not to have more control.discovolante wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:51 pmWell, if you want more control and you're given an opportunity to have it, you will probably take it.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 7:28 pmYes, it’s all f.cked up.discovolante wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 1:57 pm
So, with Brexit the UK government has created a problem that Scotland didn't vote for, but can't admit that it's a problem and therefore can't be honest about the impact of Scottish independence on the rest of the UK, so instead they (and Labour) are stuck with having a go at the SNP and not allowing Scotland to sort out the referendum issue itself, which takes us back to the question as to why, politically (if not legally), a referendum should be Westminster's gift to give.
As for “why, politically (if not legally), a referendum should be Westminster's gift to give.”
That’s what the Scottish people voted for.
They voted in 1997 for a devolved parliament in which matters that affected Scotland would be decided in Edinburgh and matters that affected the UK would be decided in Westminster (eg defence, macroeconomic policy, diplomacy etc).
They had the opportunity in 2014 to change and vote for independence and the right to decide upon everything in Edinburgh, and they voted against that. Prior to that vote the referendum legislation was passed in Westminster not Edinburgh.
It seems to me that Edinburgh deciding upon a referendum would amount to Scotland being independent in effect, but without it actually having become an independent state.
Yes.discovolante wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:51 pm
2014...well we've kind of been over that, Brexit is significant.
Its the eternal difference between law and politics. Legally speaking the Supreme Court confirmed that a referendum on secession isn't a devolved power and the decision should be taken in Westminster. What decision will be made in Westminister is a matter of politics.discovolante wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:51 pmFundamentally I think I take issue with the conflation of the questions 'should Scotland have another independence referendum' with 'should Westminster allow Scotland to have another referendum', particularly when the reasons given for the answer to the second question being 'no' are pretty dishonest (er that was a weirdly constructed sentence).
The EU were quite forthcoming with information about how things would work before the brexit vote.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:28 amThat might work if there were only two parties that mattered, London and Edinburgh.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:24 amAn honest way to do it would be to have three (or more) steps:
- Hold a vote to ask if there should be negotiations for independence
- If the answer is Yes, the Scottish government negotiates terms
- Then the people get a referendum chosing between:
- independence on those terms
- keep negotiating,
- no independence for some specified fixed period (e.g. 10 or 25 years)
However many of the key decisions will be taken in Brussels - how long would the EU accession process take, when and whether Scotland would need to join the Euro, could there be any special arrangements for Scotland-England trade, could there be a phased transition before full membership etc.
Its likely that definitive answers won't be forthcoming from Brussels until after Scotland is independent and submits a membership application.
The EU refused to discuss terms until after Theresa May had submitted the official withdrawal notification.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:59 pmThe EU were quite forthcoming with information about how things would work before the brexit vote.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:28 amThat might work if there were only two parties that mattered, London and Edinburgh.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:24 amAn honest way to do it would be to have three (or more) steps:
- Hold a vote to ask if there should be negotiations for independence
- If the answer is Yes, the Scottish government negotiates terms
- Then the people get a referendum chosing between:
- independence on those terms
- keep negotiating,
- no independence for some specified fixed period (e.g. 10 or 25 years)
However many of the key decisions will be taken in Brussels - how long would the EU accession process take, when and whether Scotland would need to join the Euro, could there be any special arrangements for Scotland-England trade, could there be a phased transition before full membership etc.
Its likely that definitive answers won't be forthcoming from Brussels until after Scotland is independent and submits a membership application.
Scottish Independence folks could take the unusual step of listening and planning accordingly
I'd expect the EU as a whole would be quite keen to have Scotland for the symbolism alone, as long as it didn't cost them an arm and a leg or result in an unfudgably leaky border.
At most, that is disputes with other member states - what the Soviet Union grabbed in WW2 is another matter, and Cyprus was allowed in despite failing to resolve its major territorial issues. And rUK isn't a member state, so I don't think that is an issue.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:34 pmIn particular, hitherto the EU has required that applicants resolve territorial disputes before they can join.
At least the UK appears to allow Scotland the chance of a referendum from time to time. Spain says that Catalunya can't have one, because its constitution bans secession. India is another example of a multi-ethnic country that has banned secession in its constitution.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:47 amIts the eternal difference between law and politics. Legally speaking the Supreme Court confirmed that a referendum on secession isn't a devolved power and the decision should be taken in Westminster. What decision will be made in Westminister is a matter of politics.discovolante wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:51 pmFundamentally I think I take issue with the conflation of the questions 'should Scotland have another independence referendum' with 'should Westminster allow Scotland to have another referendum', particularly when the reasons given for the answer to the second question being 'no' are pretty dishonest (er that was a weirdly constructed sentence).
Yes, exceptions are granted in some cases.IvanV wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:06 pmAt most, that is disputes with other member states - what the Soviet Union grabbed in WW2 is another matter, and Cyprus was allowed in despite failing to resolve its major territorial issues. And rUK isn't a member state, so I don't think that is an issue.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:34 pmIn particular, hitherto the EU has required that applicants resolve territorial disputes before they can join.
But even then, Ireland's constitution still claims Northern Ireland; Spain still claims Gibraltar. So some substantive territorial disputes between member states were allowed to lie on file, as it were.
The EU requires all members to join the Euro, but only when they qualify. Only Denmark, Sweden and UK got explicit opt-outs. But the qualifications for joining are sufficiently imprecise, that it is pretty much the choice of new members whether to join or not. Those recent members that evidently don't want to join - Poland, Czech, Hungary, at least - have put it off indefinitely. It seems to be no coincidence to me that it was smaller new joiners who joined the Euro, and larger ones that didn't. Bulgaria, perhaps, is another matter, I don't think the EU would be stretching the criteria s very far to let them in. But in Czech, the possibility of joining the Euro gets no mention at all by anyone.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:28 amHowever many of the key decisions will be taken in Brussels - how long would the EU accession process take, when and whether Scotland would need to join the Euro, could there be any special arrangements for Scotland-England trade, could there be a phased transition before full membership etc.
Its likely that definitive answers won't be forthcoming from Brussels until after Scotland is independent and submits a membership application.
The reason for the delay to immigration was specific to the economic situation of those joining countries, low labour costs, high unemployment, and a large batch in a short time. That wouldn't apply to Scotland joining. I don't think it was applied to Croatia.
From that perspective, Scotland joining the EU should be the easiest ever. But I suspect that Scotland will want an easy border with rUK, and that might make Northern Ireland look easy. Another complication is that most surface transport from England to Northern Ireland goes via Scotland, because there is a short sea crossing. I think it would be at least an 8 hr crossing from any existing port in rUK. Though maybe sealed transitting freight traffic would be fine.
Would a Scot/England border not be quite similar to NI/Eire border under existing rules? It's also a lot shorter, and has relatively few roads crossing it.IvanV wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:55 pmFrom that perspective, Scotland joining the EU should be the easiest ever. But I suspect that Scotland will want an easy border with rUK, and that might make Northern Ireland look easy. Another complication is that most surface transport from England to Northern Ireland goes via Scotland, because there is a short sea crossing. I think it would be at least an 8 hr crossing from any existing port in rUK. Though maybe sealed transitting freight traffic would be fine.
It'd be nice if the UK managed to play 2d chess in dealing with the EU, rather than chicken.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:33 pmWell there's no Good Friday equivalent, nor I suspect any significant risk of violence, so from that perspective there's a little more flexibility on the hardness of the border.
Long term it might also force the rUK's hand into more EU cooperation, should the EU fancy playing 4D chess.