If it were true that Scottish voters need London’s legal permission to vote on their own future, that would in itself be a strong argument for independence.
As it is, Cameron’s despicable effort to try to use legal pretexts to interfere in the timing and question of Scotland’s independence referendum, is almost certain to backfire. Cameron both with unionist lickspittle Marr yesterday and with Adam Boulton today, kept saying the government will “clarify the legal position” on a referendum.
Cameron’s constitutional knowledge seems worryingly shakey. The government cannot clarify legal positions; that is the role of judges. The government can make legal claims, it can even publish its own legal advice (something it hates doing); but the law is decided by judges. English judges interfering in Scotland’s referendum would of course be no more popular than English Tories.
We will see later today, but I cannot see any possible legal argument that Cameron can use to back his desire to bring the referendum forward to 2012 or 2013 instread of 2014. Why one date can be legally more justified than another is beyond me. Politically, the SNP campaigned very clearly on the basis of a referendum “in the second half” of this Scottish parliament. Salmond is trying to do what he said he would do when he won the election – a rare and praiseworthy thing for a politician.
I also cannot see the legal argument why there should not be a three choice question. Personally I would prefer a two choice question, and my two choices would be more devolution or independence, on the grounds electoral support for “status quo” parties was insignificant. Cameron of course wants two choices, status quo or independence. But plainly Cameron is acting purely politically, to try to boost the chances in both question and timing of status quo winning. Again his claims to be acting on “legal” grounds appear simple tripe.
Has he consulted Scotland’s Lord Advocate? Is this like the infamous decision of Lord Goldsmith to change his mind and argue that the war in Iraq was legal? Goldsmith flew to Washington to consult George Bush’s law officers, but did not ask the view of Scotland’s law officers.
I strongly suspect Cameron’s “legal” pretext is concocted by English lawyers – lineal descendants in office of those who tried Wallace for treason to a man who was never his King.
Most shameful of all is the position of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and their continued slide into unreconstructed unionism. I have explained before how the Liberal party’s very political identity was forged in opposition to unionism, how Gladstone fought a massive battle for Irish Home Rule, how Rosebery helped invent modern Scottish nationalism and Lloyd George fought huge battles for at least partial Irish freedom. Being the antithesis of the “Conservative and Unionist Party” is a vital part of the raison d’etre of liberalism as an independent political force in this country, and why for years organised liberalism survived largely in the Celtic fringes.
The political institutions descended from the old Liberal Party have now been taken over by political careerists with no ideological connection to, or interest in, the beliefs of their predecessors. Their only interest is personal power and income.
When I announced I was leaving the Lib Dems for the SNP, a very senior Lib Dem and friend of long standing tried to persuade me otherwise. I explained the party’s enthusiastic unionism as something completely antithetical to its traditions, something which this individual did indeed understand. He said the party remained strongly federalist. I asked whether that meant it would campaign stongly for the “Devolution max” option in a referendum. He replied that certainly, it would.
Yet we now see the Lib Dems are party to a coalition attempt to use legal pretexts to keep the devolution max option off the ballot paper, let alone campaign for it. The Lib Dems have become, as a party, lying, deceitful, untrustworthy bastards completely alienated from their ideological heritage. The good people remaining captive within the institution should leave now.
“they do all they can to prevent a vote to answer that question.”
“Cameron … seeks to hold it early to fix the result.”
Make up your mind JM!
Salmond and the SNP campaigned with the inclusion of the referendum taking place in the second half of his Scottish parliament, he was not shot down by the people for it, they voted and as far as I am concerned that has now become “The will of the people” accordingly. The arrogance of politicians is absolutely unacceptable, when the public has voted on pre-election promises then in effect that should be a legally binding contract in respect of firstly there was an offer made on the part of the politician campaigning, then that offer was accepted and ratified upon completion of the election vote. In the day to day running of government fluidity and the decision making process of the House of Commons is a necessary function, but with regard what is in theory the contractual process of offer and acceptance in the pre-election promise and subsequent vote based upon it, that should be cast iron and only changeable by having it put back to the whole population to vote on once more and give consent to the change being made. The political world is full of kings and queens who blind our eyes and steal our dreams, they are arrogant in the extreme that they consider it is their place to do it at all.
Roger,
The Scots and irish are muchintertwined, and many of the people of NI are certainly of Scots descent. But not most.
““Even more true if you delete Scotland and insert Ireland.”
Not according to many of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland”.
Craig, Roger – that all depends whether you focus on the “geographic” or the “cultural” aspect. They point different ways. As for “ethnic”, as I’ve mentioned before, that’s fairly meaningless. A person of pure Chinese descent who was brought up in Glasgow will tend to be far more Scottish than Chinese – which is one reason why we should try not be distracted by his “un-Scottish” appearance.
“If it were true that Scottish voters need London’s legal permission to vote on their own future, that would in itself be a strong argument for independence.”
Scotland ia part of the UK, so to this non-legal mind, for the result of any referendum to be effective, Westminster would either have to set it up or confirm the result afterwards. Since many Scots would reject the first option, Salmond may have to set up his own referendum, with no guarantee that Parliament will not dismiss it afterwards as being only advisory.
Which means that, one way or the idea, Scotland will remain part of the United Kingdom FOREVER! NYAH HAH HAH HAH HAH! 🙂
“Not according to many of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.”
.
Indeed, but they wish to join with England. They also wish to keep the Queen as head of state…Just like the SNP, even after “independence” scots will remain “subjects”.
>>In what pertinent respects is the British constitution different from that of the USA?
Following the Abraham Lincoln argument would have meant the Soviet Union could never morally have been allowed to break up, that the Czech republic and Slovakia or Norway and Sweden could never decide to peacefully co-exist. It is a strange argument to make. However, for the sake of discussion, the main differences between what Abraham Lincoln was describing and what Alex Salmond seeks are, as I see it:
*The states of the USA were never (AFAIK only Texas excepted) independent countries previously to being states.
*The treaty of union was a treaty between the legislatures of two countries and so can (in theory, though much has changed since) be rescinded by either.
*The claim of right stated in 1689 (and restated in the 1990s) that in Scotland the people, not parliament or the monarch, are sovereign.
*However unlike the US, there is no written consitituion in Britain and so most of it is made up as we go along.
*Slavery.
*The US at the time was an expanding empire: Britain is a contracting one.
*England will not invade Scotland and cause a massive war to hold on to her.
Perhaps you can think of other differences?
PS. Please disregard the last sentence and the capitalisation of the last word in the sentence before, as being unduly influenced by Dick Dastardly.
Craig, you replied that “The UK constitution is different to the US one in a host of different ways…” But that is immaterial and not germane. The key sentence of Lincoln’s speech is this:
“It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination”.
“Following the Abraham Lincoln argument would have meant the Soviet Union could never morally have been allowed to break up…”
Not so: I believe all the relevant authorities agreed to the breakup, thus meeting Lincoln’s criterion.
Oh, I see. My last statement applies only to Lincoln’s second (or fall-back) argument, that a contract can only legally be nullified with the consent of all parties.
Actually, I don’t suppose that is true either – as Lincoln, as a lawyer, should have been aware. I guess you can’t even trust politicians who are called “Honest”. Aw shucks.
Nick Clegg just recently described those who supported Scottish independence as “extremists”.
It has become an absolute fact that pre-election promises are made by politicians with absolutely no sincerity or intention to keep them once they are elected. Salmond is indeed to be applauded for sticking to his on this. We the population are in the vast majority little more than doormats that these politicians wipe their feet upon whilst crossing the threshold to power and position, they wipe their false promises on us and leave them behind at the door. In many respects because we do not stand up and bring them down when they make these promises and then break them its our own fault they continue to do it, because we have established a situation where it is very much an accepted Custom and practice to do so. Election campaigns and voting is an expensive process which in the absence of any sincerity and integrity we may as well just save money by running a one night election special based upon the Miss World Pageant, they can all line up, parade around in evening wear and swim costume and finally smile sweetly while telling us they want to see world peace and an end to cruelty to little furry animals,,,,,,,,,,, Because in the absence of any integrity, sincerity or obligation to keep pre-election promises made, aren`t we doing little more than voting for who has the best smile, kisses the most babies and cuts a dash in an evening suit anyway?
“A person of pure Chinese descent who was brought up in Glasgow will tend to be far more Scottish than Chinese – which is one reason why we should try not be distracted by his “un-Scottish” appearance.”
But how will they identify themselves, Tom Welsh? Many Chinese people brought up in London- especially if they are raised speaking Chinese- identify as culturally Chinese. it’s a complicated matter. Ethnicity may be a logically meaningless concept, despite (or because of) that it is often not emotionally meaningless.
The welsh people should also go for independence, start charging the english £10.00 a gallon to supply drinking water, well, its free market economics. The tories would be all for it, wouldn`t they ?.
@ Roger. With the greatest of respect the environment you are brought up in does have a great deal of influence over you regardless of initial cultural origin. My family down my grandmothers side have the surname Elliot and were from Ireland. She regarded herself and family as being 100% Irish and fiercely proud of that, but, research done by myself has found that the family was actually Scottish in origin and they moved to Ireland at some point. Her Scottish genetics were perfectly comfortable with the notion of being Irish and 100% so. But there are some cultures, especially I would say the Chinese, that tend to very much hold on to their culture wherever they may be, so I end up disappearing up my own ass on the issue and having to accept the notion that both sides of the argument can be equally very true lol
In my heart I believe the ‘tipping point’ towards Scottish independence came after agent Cameron gave double agent Moussa Koussa his ticket to Doha; a simmering situation boiled over in every home of the brave.
.
Far off in sunlit places
Sad are the Scottish faces
Yearning to feel the kiss
Of sweet Scottish rain.
Where tropic skies are beaming,
Love sets the heart a-dreaming,
Longing and dreaming
for the homeland again.
Who’s going to protect Scotland when the Americans decide to liberate it from it’s oil and fuel resources? Does Scotland seriously expect the English government to relinquish these resources? But I thought calls for Scottish independence had become muted of late, following the UK taxpayer bailout of their banks.
“With the greatest of respect the environment you are brought up in does have a great deal of influence over you regardless of initial cultural origin.”
Certainly, Dale Martin- but identification and self-identification are very different things to environmental influence and just as influential, for all their apparent irrationality.
PASSERBY – 9th Jan 11.20am
Your not talking about Alison from Arbroath are you? She was a nutcase!
Tom – I’m no expert on Soviet republics, but I suspect a number – especially the Baltics – would have dearly liked to have left the Soviet Union before they did, if only they had a choice.
It all boils down to the fact that Lincoln and the Kremlin were not averse to using armies to keep their countries together. The Yankees had the considerable cover of the moral high ground over slavery to do so, but it was still northern rule imposed on the south against their will. I do not believe that the relationship within the UK will ever become like that in the future, rather that we will be more like Norway and Sweden or the former Czechoslovakia, and for this we should be profoundly grateful.
I have to be honest Roger that I find all forms of self identification through nationality absolutely absurd and irrational. A homeless person on the streets of London has far more reason to identify with a homeless person in Bombay than they ever would with a fellow Londoner who works in the stock exchange. We blind ourselves with issues of national identification which in the end is nothing more than pure accident of birth. In the end we totally lose sight of the real issues, good and bad, right and wrong, those are the most fundamental and important issues and there are good and bad in everything. Its where I find myself agreeing with the establishment of a New World Order style single country world, because all that our accident of birth defined nationalistic bias serves no real purpose other than to divide us all on the planet and maintain inequality for some and huge over-indulgence for the few. But I don`t want that one country world to be established on the terms that I know they are wishing it, which is effectively just for the power brokers of the western world to extend the size of the goldfish bowl they presently swim in whilst remaining the sharks they are now and just have more to feed upon. Nationality, religion in the end is all bullshit and we are totally blind not to see that and drop it like a hot potato.
“The Yankees had the considerable cover of the moral high ground over slavery to do so, but it was still northern rule imposed on the south against their will”.
Very true indeed, contrary to all the propaganda that has been churned out since about “the war to liberate the slaves”. What Lincoln actually had to say about this was (I have chosen one statement out of many he made at various times):
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause”.
– Abraham Lincoln; The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388. http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html
Have been out all day and have not read all the comments yet. Just saw this on the BBC website.
.
9 January 2012 Last updated at 14:00
.Cameron denies ‘dictating’ terms of Scottish referendumComments
.
The future of Scotland should be decided by the Scottish people, says Nicola Sturgeon
.
David Cameron has denied trying to “dictate” the terms of a Scottish referendum and has said the country’s future must be decided by its people.
.
It is understood Downing Street may set a time limit for any binding vote, and insist it be a straight choice between leaving or remaining part of the UK.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16463961
.
What a week weed Cameron is.
“Does Scotland seriously expect the English government to relinquish these resources?”
.
The illusion that the “English government” will, will take care of that anomaly!. Where there is a will there is a way for the far right, and only for the reserve of the far right!. Things can be made very difficult for the scots if need be, remember how Scotland lost its independence in 1707, history can be made to repeat itself. You never know how these things can work out, Ireland brought back into the UK fold due to its financial mis-management ?, but then, who can foretell how future events will turn out.
“have to be honest Roger that I find all forms of self identification through nationality absolutely absurd and irrational. A homeless person on the streets of London has far more reason to identify with a homeless person in Bombay than they ever would with a fellow Londoner who works in the stock exchange. We blind ourselves with issues of national identification which in the end is nothing more than pure accident of birth. In the end we totally lose sight of the real issues, good and bad, right and wrong, those are the most fundamental and important issues and there are good and bad in everything. Its where I find myself agreeing with the establishment of a New World Order style single country world, because all that our accident of birth defined nationalistic bias serves no real purpose other than to divide us all on the planet and maintain inequality for some and huge over-indulgence for the few. But I don`t want that one country world to be established on the terms that I know they are wishing it, which is effectively just for the power brokers of the western world to extend the size of the goldfish bowl they presently swim in whilst remaining the sharks they are now and just have more to feed upon. Nationality, religion in the end is all bullshit and we are totally blind not to see that and drop it like a hot potato.”
Try persuading people of its truth, Dale Martin.
Dale at 3:17
Does that include civic nationalism, as the SNP defines their’s.
England joining the € when the £ collapses?
In the end I don`t see Scotland becoming independent or being part of Britain as being a fundamentally relevant issue. If Scotland were independent would it make any change in the fundamental nature of humans in Scotland and every other country in the world for the majority of those that have plenty to not get too concerned for those in poverty and need? Scotland could and would have some basis to argue that it gets a raw deal whilst being part of a Great Britain which is essentially English/London biased in its dealings, but then as a Yorkshireman I am part of England and could offer the same argument based upon the north/south divide bias that is applied also. If Scotland breaks away I will guarantee you now that nothing will change with regard those that have in Scotland and in the main don`t have any inclination to empathise or do anything about the plight of those that have not, if Scotland does break away it likewise wont make any difference at all south of the Scottish border in that respect either. Division, segregation and viewing life in terms of us and them will never be any step forward in the right direction, the whole world is in essence a large table at which we all sit and in the centre of that table is a cake, the money and resources on this planet. We operate under a socially accepted system where it is not only acceptable for greedy fat individuals to collect several slices of cake, it is positively seen as an achievement and admired when someone collects huge quantities of slices and stockpiles and warehouses them for personal ego gratification. But the whole point is that its logical that when someone collects 50 slices of cake, 49 people sat round that table will give up their fair shared slice in the process and be left scrabbling for the crumbs. Ghettos, impoverished council estates, those are the holding areas where the cake-less people are banished and where the crumbs from the table fall. Should the UK stay as it is or be divided into 50 separate single autonomous units it will make little difference at all because they will all still operate on the same fundamental concept of collecting slices of cake until there are no slices left to collect at all.
When do we Highlanders get a chance to split from those Lowland bastards who are after our oil?