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.
It seems to me that the only aspect of Cameron’s intervention that’s informed by “legal” concerns is that constitutional powers are reserved to Westminster. That’s to say, Westminster is sovereign. The timing and structure issues, and even the designation that a referendum be “binding” (in what way, given aforementioned sovereignty?), are policy choices rather than legal requirements. The coalition could choose a policy of respecting the mandate delivered in the last Holyrood election, but it seems they may do otherwise.
It’s conceivable that Westminster could use its sovereignty to enact a referendum on Scottish independence at a time of its choosing. It would be peculiar but possible to hold such a referendum against the wishes of the Scottish Government (who could perhaps obstruct it operationally). It’s hard to see how Westminster could prevent the Scottish Government administering an “indicative” referendum in accordance with its present mandate. The latter would not bind Westminster to any particular action, but it would create some politics. We may have two referenda.
An Irishman living in Glasgow, I am undecided about Scottish independence, but I certainly believe in national self-determination and that Scotland is as such a nation. The question the coalition should answer is this: if the Scottish Government holds a referendum in the second half of this parliament, will Westminster choose to respect whatever mandate that referendum delivers?
There are no countries left,just multi-nationals and the military-industrial complex shafting us all royally.
.
Is there life on Mars?
Thatcher was to blame. No country would need to devolve if they had listened to Tony Benn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqOvBKnKdk&feature=share
You are very right there Jives, whilst the majority are busy debating the semantics of politics from within their illusion of nationality, the multi-nationals and the military-industrial complex spreads its web across it all, buys what it needs and takes what it wants. You can debate politics all you want, but in the end within the framework of the system we have now the dollar dictates the tune that the piper plays and debate just isn`t providing the dollars to to call any tunes at all. If the rules of the system are not completely rewritten so that the corporations cannot buy the politicians because the law says that the politicians are not for sale at all, then who on earth are we kidding if we think that politicians who are human and nothing else will turn down the bribes when offered them. Zero political contributions, zero consultancy work and lobbying with cash, zero all expenses paid trips funded by business and zero freebies for all politicians is the only way things will change. They are paid to represent and further the interests of society and it should be made legally binding that that is all they do.
Nicola Sturgeon said this morning on the Today programme that “referenda in the UK are always consultative and advisory”. This view of the role of referenda sits better with a tradition on both sides of the border of representative parliamentary democracy than it does to regard a referendum as binding on the political authority under which it is carried out. In the case of a referendum restricted to voters resident in Scotland that authority would be the Scottish Parliament, not Westminster. However, the political conventions regarding referenda are still evolving: as is highlighted by the controversy about whether there should be two or three options in this case. The trouble with three options is that – unless voting is by single transferable vote – interpreting the result becomes even trickier: no option would command majority support if 20% voted for the status quo, 35% for full independence and 45% for greater devolution.
.
A considerable number of voters may be undecided because they do not yet know what independence would mean in respect of such issues as joint nationality, sharing out the UK’s National Debt, the apportionment of offshore oil and fisheries resources etc. What about a two-stage referendum? For the first, the question would be: “I authorise the Scottish Parliament to implement a strategy based on whichever of the following options secures the greatest number of votes:
A) to maintain the current devolution settlement;
B) to negotiate maximum devolution;
C) to negotiate full independence.”
MY VOTE IS FOR OPTION A/B/C (choose one option only)
.
If A won (first past the post), there would be no further referendum, If either B) or C) got the greatest vote the outcome of the subsequent negotiations would then be put to voters in Scotland. Given the extent of the change to full independence, there is a case for requiring either a majority of the electorate to vote for the new arrangements; or for at least 60% of those voting to vote in favour. Full independence opposed by 51% of those voting would be a recipe for instability.
Roger
just a thought, but the [uk] secretary of state for scotland has said that the present Scotland Bill [which is to contain the provision for a referendum a la cameron] can only become an Act with the consent of the Scots Parliament [in which there is an SNP majority]. I can see some ground for difficulty there. The 18 month window for the referendum commennces only on the Royal Assent. So on that basis, perhaps the vote will be held in 2014 after all.
just a thought, could be wrong, perhaps Cameron is just postering in the hope that he has a brighter idea oin the meantime
When do we Highlanders get a chance to split from those Lowland bastards who are after our oil? —— Can Speccy,
I’m afraid to say that 300 years of divide and rule has come to an end. Scots from all the pairts, rich and poor, have woken up to these tricks. The shenanigans of the Tories and Labour governments of the past 30 years have brought the people back together, it’s like a “wartime” spirit.
TFS wrote “What are the financial implication of Scotland going it alone?”
Overall it would have little effect on Scotland’s finances in terms of tax receipts if you take into account a large part of North Sea oil and gas and all the Shetland and deep sea stuff being in Scottish territorial waters.
We might lose some British military bases in Scotland, but we wouldn’t have to pay the costs in money or lives of future Iraq or Afghanistan or similar wars, nor of white elephant aircraft carriers the UK government are paying BAE systems to build for £5 billion each and then leave to rust. We could also scrap PFIs and fund infrastructure far more cheaply by bond issues, loans and/or from taxes.
The biggest risk would be of the UK ending up like the former Yugoslavia due to disputes over who gets oil and gas reserves, but i think that’s pretty unlikely.
———————–
Passerby wrote “Given that Iceland has done a far better job navigating the events of the recent past, we can safely assume Scottish can do a far better job on their own.”
Iceland is much worse off than the UK as it allowed banking de-regulation and allowed Icelandic banks to take over much larger banks in other countries, leading to massive debts for a very small country.
Norway or Sweden would be better examples – both are small countries with well regulated financial and industrial sectors, good public services and who have seen their economies continue to grow throughout the current crisis elswhere as a result.
First they loose all their support in Scotland, now they malinger, like a bad smell.
p.s whenever UK governments put out figures seemingly showing Scotland would be worse off if it was independent they are playing a trick with the statistics by assuming that on independence oil revenues would be split on the basis of population between Scotland and the remaining UK.
In fact under international law Scotland would get by far more of the oil and gas reserves than England, Wales or Northern Ireland, as they would be within it’s territorial waters.
Duncan
At least Iceland have issued arrest warrants for a number of their banksters and (possibly) politicians. They have actually collared a number of them already.
Questioning Camerons right to interfere in Scotland, there was a comment on the Scotsman that Scotland had more Panda’s than Tory MP’s. Someone else added that there was a much greater hope of the pandas increasing in number than there was for the Tories.
Totally agree Craig. In any case my understanding is that the original Scottish Parliament was disolved by corrupt Scottish nobles in return for English money and land. Acting as traitors that decision has to be regarded as both corrupt and unlawful? The whole concept of the UK is flawed since England massively dominates the UK – London – Parliament. As a result this is not, and never has been, a union of four equal countries.
If Scotland had the full benefit of Scottish oil it would, like Norway, now be a wealthy country.
It will be interesting to see how far the Tory Establishment will go to try and scare Scottish voters. There can these days be few other countries in the world who are ruled, in effect by another country, and whose people have never had any say in that situation! Would the Tories makes the SNP an illegal party or send in troops? As they did in times past to Ireland.
If Scotland had been independent before the Thatcher years it would now have a totally different character to England. Still have a mining industry and have a much larger public sector for example. Plus still have virtually no Tory party!
Enough is enough – time for England to rule England not Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well.
@Ian
.
“Then I can once again be proud to say (as I did in France years ago when asked if I was anglais): no, I am Scottish.”
.
I love Beckett’s habitual reply when asked if he was English: “Au contraire”.
.
@the other Craig
.
“England will not invade Scotland and cause a massive war to hold on to her.”
Don’t take any bets on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square
.
But to the point. Cameron has noted that support for independence has been growing steadiliy for some time and that this trend can be expected to continue. Salmond therefore wants to have the referendum as near to the end of the present parliament as possible in order to maximise support for a ‘yes’ vote. Cameron is consequently reasoning that if he can force the vote earlier he has a better chance of keeping Scotland in the Union. However as you say this could be a serious misjudgement. Support for separation is driven by disaffection with a reactionary regime in London – adding to that perception by meddling with well-established Scottish plans might actually precipitate constitutional disaster – well, disaster as Cameron would perceive it. The predicament of the unionists always reminds me of the situation in chess called zugswang, where the worst thing you can do is move – but it’s your move.
“within it’s territorial waters.”
.
Didn`t that used to be twelve miles, then changed to two hundred miles ?, could be changed back again, especially if Scotland votes to become independent.
Cameron’s Caledonian Gamble: Unwise and Unnecessary
Alex Massie
Monday, 9th January 2012
.
So. it looks as though David Cameron is following the Spectator’s advice not mine. What a nincompoop! But if the reports are correct then Cameron is playing us for fools. That is, there’s nothing wrong with suggesting a referendum on Scottish independence be held sooner rather than later; adding conditions to it is a different matter.
.
It matters little, really, whether a referendum is binding or advisory; a Yes to Independence vote would be impossible to ignore, politically and practically speaking, even if the referendum were only advisory. So, to this extent, Cameron’s suggestion that a vote can be binding if held within 18 months but only advisory if held after that point is a futile distinction without a meaningful difference. It is barmy too, to suggest a referendum can be an orange if held in 2013 but becomes an apple if organised in 2014.
.
Moreover, Cameron’s gambit is plainly a move designed to put Alex Salmond on the back foot. That would be fine too if there were any other advantages or reasons for this ploy. That is, inconveniencing Salmond should be a susidiary benefit, not the point of the exercise itself. Nakedly political moves of this sort are not always that useful.
.
/….
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/7560844/camerons-caledonian-gamble-unwise-and-unnecessary.thtml
O/T The decline and fall of the American empire. Was it Nero who fiddled while Rome burnt?
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9001133/White-House-covered-up-Tim-Burton-staged-Alice-in-Wonderland-Halloween-party.html
@ Bugger (the panda) I would include any form of nationalism. We have played religion and nationalism since we were first able to stand upright and walk, the only place it has and ever will get us is one of division and conflict. Many many wars and billions of deaths later, all of which done in the name of King/Queen, warlord and country and all because the vast majority of people were so easy to manipulate through nationalistic pride and fervour, yet in reality because King/Queen or warlord wanted to extend their own power and wealth, here we are still chanting the mantra of nationalism, still divided and killing, still perpetually debating the intellectual semantics and nuances of the political arena and still too dumb to see that in the end its all ephemeral. Our system is corrupt, despite our illusion of democratic politics which we debate so intellectually wars rage for resources and corporate profit and they rage so that the corporations can sell those resources back to us at a huge fat profit, but meanwhile while this all goes on, we buy into nationalism, cheer on the flag, continue to bury our soldiers and change nothing. The vast majority of (not all) politicians are in it for the money, power, connections and consultancy fees, theirs is not a world of nationalism it is a world of self interest and furtherance, nationalism is just the speech they give us when they want to motivate us in a certain direction, it`s a tool that works every time when they want to promote their selfism. lol @ Roger,,,,,,,,, I have more chance of falling pregnant than convincing anyone of its truth lol But occasionally some do educate themselves while burying those near and dear, it`s just a shame that many have to get there first before sitting back and asking “why”, rather than asking why before they got there.
A redrafting error in my comment at 4.47 pm – the figure in the last sentence should be 49%.
.
Scotland provided many of the politicians, civil servants, soldiers, engineers and traders who helped create and support the British Empire. The UK’s Overseas Territories are reminders of the constitutional/ legal anomalies that are left when the balloon of empire deflates. Is there a case for offering Anguilla, Bermuda, Pitcairn, Tristan etc the option of going with an independent Scotland or staying tied to Whitehall, when London becomes the capital of FCUK (Former Country known as the UK)?
.
Thanks, Mary, for the link to Alex Massie’s article. Alex Salmond would be my tip win judo gold, using his opponent’s blundering weight to throw him.
@CanSpeccy…you can have the oil pal..I will swop you for the highlands anytime..and if you can throw in a few golf courses, us lowland lowlives will chuck in Glasgow in the deal as well…
Duncan
Actually its the exclusive economic zone and continental shlef, not the territorial sea.
I actually, personally, negotiated the relevant international boundaries with the Faeroes and Ireland. I look forward to negotiating the England Scotland boundary too.
Both Salmond and Cameron are playing the same game – wanting to time the vote and the questions to best suit their different agendas. So this is just an artificial argument. I say Scotland should be separated from the union forthwith. But if it comes to a referendum then there must be one in England, Wales and N. Ireland too – to say whether we want to stay in a union with the Scots. My guess is there would be a majority for separation just to get shot of them, regardless of how they vote.
Duncan, you are wrong about Iceland’s banking industry being worse off than the UK.
We’re all in one big financial Ponzi scheme, and the epi centre is the unregulated city of london. Hypothecation and re-hypothecation are taking us down the sewer with the COL leading the way.
regards
TFS
Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani pokes his nose once too often into the others affairs
,
Ends up getting told; to feck off mate;
,
“ended with his expulsion from the country.” The Mauritanian Siraj newspaper conveyed the official visit had concluded without a formal farewell by the Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, who was seen greeting warmly his guest upon his arrival to the country last Thursday.
,
These little emirs remind me of the puny guys in the goon squad of the genial Harry Grout (Porridge), throwing their weight around.
So lets see here. We had a minority SNP administration before the last election who wanted a referendum on Independence. The other 3 parties in the PR elected Parliament conspired to ensure that the minority SNP administration couldnt have their referendum. So we held an election where the same policy of an Independence referendum was put forward by the SNP. Lo. The SNP managed to obtain an outright majority in the PR elected parliament. A majority mind. A majority that the whole wheeze was designed to ensure they would be denied. So now they want to hold their referendum on their terms and their time scale and suddenly the 3 parties who said no two years ago are dead keen to have the referendum now.
Who is it exactly thats daft here?
It is for the people of Scotland to decide how they want to be governed. Just as its for the people of the Falklands or the people of Libya or of Syria or of any damned country in the world that want to. We have elected a party – a majority ( in a PR system ) – with their own agenda that everyone knew about before the election. Its nobody elses business but ours what we vote on, how we vote on it and what we want.
The first comment above should get out more and stop reading the daily mail. Personally I do not expect to be better off in an independent Scotland, but I am donating money to the cause and I am voting yes.
Better a poor free man than a rich slave.
There is no way Scotland will be allowed to go independent – with the UK to lose, the English will never let them, even if Salmond has to have an ‘accident’. Interesting that Cameron is trying to hijack the referendum, think that things will get dirtier now. BBC news 24 tonight – quite a big report but not a single Scottish voice, no opinion at all to answer the official line.
Craig wrote “Duncan
Actually its the exclusive economic zone and continental shlef, not the territorial sea.
I actually, personally, negotiated the relevant international boundaries with the Faeroes and Ireland. I look forward to negotiating the England Scotland boundary too.”
Right – thanks for the correction Craig. I look forward to it too.
@ Can Speccy, most of the oil seems to be brought in by Aberdonians or Shetlanders, neither areas part of the Highlands last time I looked.
To all the sassenachs assuring us of the magnitude of Englands’ love for Scotland may I quote Mr. Tolstoy
I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means – except by getting off his back.
Alba gu Brath!
@Tom Welsh
The simple possibility that Abraham Lincoln was incorrect does not seemed to have occurred to you.
According to the polls it looks like the scottish people want Scotland to remain as the largest county in England. You have to seriously ask yourself if the term nation can be applied in anyway, shape or form to Scotland after over three hundred years of full integration with England. Does anyone know how many scots still speak their own language, the answer says it all.