The difference though is that most states would vote to keep California in the federation (apart from maybe Texas and some others from the bible belt states)Don't really see how a federal settlement would work. England is too big for that to work in my opinion. Also, a federal system would mean the component parts would lose the right to a referendum, at least under the conditions of the last one. If I understand correctly, the California idea of leaving the US would be subject to the vote in every state of the country. That condition goes with federalism in general, I think, and it would be unacceptable, presumably, to those in favour of Independence.
The difference though is that most states would vote to keep California in the federation (apart from maybe Texas and some others from the bible belt states)
I think its the opposite case with scotland. England would quite likely vote for scots to leave the union.
True there was some feeling about that, but a majority ? And at the time of the referendum nobody clarified what would happen to the nuclear subs. Where could/would they go ?
Thats chump change considering we are winging our exit from the eu. I am sure someone will come up with a plan on the fly.True there was some feeling about that, but a majority ? And at the time of the referendum nobody clarified what would happen to the nuclear subs. Where could/would they go ?
Currently they couldn't go anywhereTrue there was some feeling about that, but a majority ? And at the time of the referendum nobody clarified what would happen to the nuclear subs. Where could/would they go ?
Of course where the subs went would depend on who was in charge if/when independence happened. So we could see any one of the following cenarios :Ideally up Boris Johnson's arse.
Ideally up Boris Johnson's arse.
Don't really see how a federal settlement would work. England is too big for that to work in my opinion. Also, a federal system would mean the component parts would lose the right to a referendum, at least under the conditions of the last one. If I understand correctly, the California idea of leaving the US would be subject to the vote in every state of the country. That condition goes with federalism in general, I think, and it would be unacceptable, presumably, to those in favour of Independence.
What is the projected loss of jobs and impact on communities as a consequence of base closures across Scotland? Did the SNP have any answers for these people during the Indy referendum?
It works on two levels i would argue: Scotland would have greater autonomy than at present, which might just be enough to maintain the existing composition of the United Kingdom; second, we begin to address the devolution hotchpotch created by Labour.
Even if the Scots ultimately decide to ditch the union on these islands for the one across the Channel, the remaining home nations deserve something better than which exists currently.
An immensely complicated issue but for starters maybe the present distribution of seats would have to be changed. At the moment it's simply based on population with no regard for weighting, not that it's unfair, just not federal in the sense some people would like. To satisfy the other disgruntled parts of the UK, England would have to sacrifice its total dominance of parliament. I think this would be unacceptable in Westminster and maybe to the population of England. And that's why I think federalism is such a thorny issue.
In the US, as I understand it, this lack of dominance of one state over others is the price paid for unity.
In Britain we don't go for "grand concepts and written constitutions" in government, we tend to bumble along, quite successfully until now at least. But there seems to be a constitutional crisis in the air and maybe the time has come to set up something more solid.
The devil is in the detail. What things would affect England (85% of the population ?) which wouldnt affect the other parts ? To be honest I think the SNP had a policy of not voting on "English only" issues, though I have never seen an explanation of how that was decided. Many people in England complain that London awards itself more and thereby gets gets more funds because it has awarded itself more thereby....England would have devolved powers in its own right, and a parliament for such (something which Labour avoided out of self-interest). The crossover would mostly be on areas of an external nature.
Cheers for that.He makes some harsh but fair points. Namely that the SNP's vision in 2014 was probably a bit much of a utopia one, and that in an independent Scotland we'd potentially (at some point) have to make some difficult decisions. Still...from a campaigning perspective, it's obviously the job of whoever is promoting something to market it as being better than it will be. The SNP did try to outline some sort of detailed plan on independence through the White Paper, which was flawed but contained some semblance of vision for an indy Scotland, and a lot more than what was offered for Brexit.
He's incorrect on the point about the Euro, though. Countries are supposed to adopt it as a currency but there are sort of ways around it if you deliberately fail the criteria. Poland have been doing it for years.
I also think he's pessimistic in how Scotland would be viewed by the EU. Considering we are currently in the EU (granted, as a regional power and about to leave), there'd potentially be some back-alley dealings of some sort to get us in. People like to think of it as a 'queue' in the traditional sense but plenty of countries applied after Turkey and have naturally gotten in while they still wait...because they fail most of the entry criteria. Some countries would be hasty, but Scotland voting in a democratically held election would be massively different to Catalonia declaring universal secession. Either way, the EU is currently fractured with a rise of far-right parties in many areas. It'd be mental for them to completely reject a country with no far-right influence who are desperate to join.
An EFTA deal of some sort may turn out to be more beneficial in the end though, considering our closest neighbours will be outside the EU.
Blyth also makes another very important point in my opinion. That the Scottish independence campaign was unable or afraid to mention anything negative, a trait held in common with Brexiters. I can remember only a few posters on forums, but no one officially involved with the Yes campaign, saying - yes, there will be hard times and we will suffer economically at some point and we will make mistakes too, but they will be in and independent Scotland, vote for independence but be preapared to suffer and struggle for it.
Maybe if they'd been more realistic they'd have neutralised the obvious faults in the programme before the No campaign did it for them. As it was, by not doing so they undermined their own credibilty. Realism doesn't have to be negative anyway. If it can only be seen as such, it says something about people's committment to independence, doesn't it ? What is patriotism all about anyway ?Well yeah, but that's naturally going to be a feature of any campaign, isn't it? A campaign for something isn't going to highlight the negative aspects of something they're trying to promote. Just in the same way a political party standing for election aren't going to say, "Well, yeah, our opponents are kind of better with the economy, but we're not too bad on health. Vote for us please."
It's a little bit deceptive, of course, but it's the way such campaigns tend to work; the Yes side aren't going to promote the negatives of Scottish independence and the No side aren't going to promote the positives of it.
Far be it from me to defend Labour, but with a resurgent Scottish Tory Party increasingly being seen as the home of unionists, it's not so simple for them. They've been losing votes on two fronts these days.
More generally speaking, how is the SNP and its drive for independence not a populist movement? Moreover, Sturgeon's government has been responsible for some rather authoritarian policies of late.
Carolann Davidson, a member from Paisley, said Mr Khan was right to group the SNP with racists and bigots.
“The youth of today are very anti-English,” she said. “The SNP is breeding hatred.”
Populism may well have become a slur these days, however it encompasses a vast swathe of politics, both left and right. The SNP might not like the association with Trump, yet their indy ref was a precursor to what occurred in 2016. They are not particularly keen on the Brexit comparison either, despite some important similarities. For as with exiting the EU, any withdrawal from the UK is going to require the acceptance of economic turbulence. Instead of getting their hackles up over unwelcome bedfellows, the SNP should simply have frame Khan as the distant, unchanging establishment. Admittedly, this grows more difficult the longer they are i power (they being the Scottish establishment for all intents and purposes).
Like as not, there probably is a section of the nationalist base which is anti-English. Suggestions that it is broadly representative is where the issue arises. Sadly, conflating extremes is all too easy crutch for those in a position of control. IIRC, Khan resorted to something similar during the BBC's EU debate.
None of this does Dugdale any favours of course, who is in enough of a struggle as it is.
An example of the authoritarian policies to which i earlier referred, would be that state appointed guardians which drew so much controversy.
On the last point I'm guessing no... But if Theresa may looks at the general election numbers when you take the Scottish mps out of the equation then there may be a small possibilitySo an approximate date has been set for the next referendum, Autumn 2018 or Spring 2019. I wonder what the EU's take on this will be and whether Westminster will agree to it.
Predictions @Cheesy?
Here we go....
The arguments for Scottish independence are so pathetically weak at the moment that May might be tempted to let it happen.
And yet conversely it will most likely result in independence but more importantly great regret (much in the same manner as Brexit) amongst those who have voted for it.
I'm still wary of another vote so soon. For all the outrage over Brexit and for all the discontent with our current position, the polls tend to be varying from a narrow No vote to about events at the moment, and calling a vote when it could all easily go to shite is a risky move since a second failure would essentially kill off the argument for now.
Still...the UK will have major problems of their own. Risking losing Scotland during Brexit negotiations would be massive...how would May be able to portray the UK as strong and ready to thrive on their own when a literal chunk of the country is breaking off? And who's going to make the argument for No this time? For all their increase in votes, the Scottish Tories still remain quite unpopular...the fact they were celebrating getting figures less than what it's expected Corbyn would get UK-wide speaks volume. Their current popularity relies almost completely on Davidson, who will struggle to argue for a UK out of the EU considering it's not what she believed in.
And Scottish Labour have lost most of their credibility...so any attempt from them to be the face of the union kind of involves admitting most of the stuff they said in 2014 was either false or just hasn't come true. Back then they at least had some reasonably prominent and respected figures to fall back on...Darling held his own against Salmond in one of their debates, but they don't have anyone who'd probably manage to do that with Sturgeon now.
Overall though I'm still not sure it'll happen. May might not let it, but she may take this as a strong warning that she needs to give us concessions regarding Brexit, or risk losing the UK as it's known. And, of course, that happening would probably result in her being perceived as by far the worst British PM of all-time.
Any chance this is a negotiation tactic, or do people think Sturgeon 100% means and wants this?
Do the Scots believe that swapping a common market with the UK, with a common market with the EU would be disastrous? It's not an equivalent of us leaving the EU, it's closer to an equivalent of New Jersey leaving the USA and erecting trade barriers with the rest of the country. If Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU it'll be a complete economic disaster, and much worse than what it would have been pre-Brexit.
Here we go....
The arguments for Scottish independence are so pathetically weak at the moment that May might be tempted to let it happen.
