Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Scottish Politics 2011-2017


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    Aside from the issue of housing nukes on Scottish soil, the agreements required for subs to access international waters would be very restrictive and in themselves probably unacceptable. There are currently restrictions on fishing, oil/gas exploration and offshore marine renewables in a large sector of the West Coast around the Clyde which could be lifted in an independent Scotland.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
    • Replies 30.9k
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Top Posters In This Topic

    • Scottish-Irish Skier

      8874

    • mountain shadow

      1528

    • skifreak

      1435

    • frogesque

      1306

    Top Posters In This Topic

    Popular Posts

    And that ignorant, offensive, rant sums up exactly why the YES campaign failed  

    Good god. What a load of boarish spiteful bile from bad losers has been posted during the night. I actually dread to think how Scotland would be run if this is representative of how the yes vote behav

    I'm disappointed in the lack of grace shown by some across the net in accepting this No vote. A complete lack of any empathy and understanding as to why fellow Scots didn't vote Yes.   I personally

    Posted Images

    Posted
  • Location: Knowle, Solihull - 400ft (122m) ASL
  • Location: Knowle, Solihull - 400ft (122m) ASL

    Tories want to ban Scots from voting in general election, admits Cameron

    David Cameron has revealed he is coming under pressure from some Conservatives to prevent Scots from voting in the 2015 General Election if their country votes for independence, according to a report.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ban-scots-from-voting-at-2015-general-election-if-they-gain-independence-say-tories-9234135.html

     

    Bish

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL

    Tories want to ban Scots from voting in general election, admits Cameron

    David Cameron has revealed he is coming under pressure from some Conservatives to prevent Scots from voting in the 2015 General Election if their country votes for independence, according to a report.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ban-scots-from-voting-at-2015-general-election-if-they-gain-independence-say-tories-9234135.html

     

    Bish

    And quite right too.

     

    Althought for a laugh, it would be good if the Scots did vote and voted for the Tories for a chuckle!

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie
  • Weather Preferences: Cold and snowy or warm and dry
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie

    No problem with that from me. As long as some procedure is put in place where the Scottish Government and Westminster agree on how to deal with issues affecting Scotland prior to full independence, then I see no need for the expense or constitutional issues that would arise from Scotland continuing to send MPs to Westminster.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Knowle, Solihull - 400ft (122m) ASL
  • Location: Knowle, Solihull - 400ft (122m) ASL

    BSkyB says debate is 'for the Scottish people'

    Satellite broadcaster BSkyB has said it has no plans to change its business in Scotland, whatever the outcome of September's independence referendum.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26871555

     

    Bish

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    I'm puzzled at the idea of Scots MPs standing in the 2015 election if it was a Yes.

     

    As long as no new laws passed in Westminster apply to Scotland, then there's no need. As Scots would have just voted against any new laws passed by Westminster being introduced in Scotland, I don't see how any could be. Likewise, what on earth would Scots MPs be doing voting on rUK matters.

     

    IMO Scots MPs withdraw shortly after a Yes. The negotiating teams then continue their work, ideally to have sorted out the most important, day to day aspects of the 'hand back' (I say hand back not hand over as we are just reversing what happened with the union). 

     

    Also, it's not as if Scots MPs really have any influence over anything anyway. I mean is that not kinda in a big way what's behind the referendum? 

     

    I suspect we are building to this. There is likely an already agreed position between the coalition and the SNP. We're just getting the seeds planted for this to be pushed.

     

    ---

     

    Anyway, I'm hearing another old Labour stalwart is coming out for Yes; Gordon McKenzie, former Provost of South Ayrshire Council. He's joining a growing list of senior old Labour and Lib Dem figures. The trickle is becoming a stream.

     

    I'll see if I can get a link later.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet

    I'm puzzled at the idea of Scots MPs standing in the 2015 election if it was a Yes.

     

    As long as no new laws passed in Westminster apply to Scotland, then there's no need. As Scots would have just voted against any new laws passed by Westminster being introduced in Scotland, I don't see how any could be. Likewise, what on earth would Scots MPs be doing voting on rUK matters.

     

    IMO Scots MPs withdraw shortly after a Yes. The negotiating teams then continue their work, ideally to have sorted out the most important, day to day aspects of the 'hand back' (I say hand back not hand over as we are just reversing what happened with the union). 

     

    Also, it's not as if Scots MPs really have any influence over anything anyway. I mean is that not kinda in a big way what's behind the referendum? 

     

    I suspect we are building to this. There is likely an already agreed position between the coalition and the SNP. We're just getting the seeds planted for this to be pushed.

     

    ---

     

    Anyway, I'm hearing another old Labour stalwart is coming out for Yes; Gordon McKenzie, former Provost of South Ayrshire Council. He's joining a growing list of senior old Labour and Lib Dem figures. The trickle is becoming a stream.

     

    I'll see if I can get a link later.

     

    I think because negotiations finish in 2016 there will have to be a number of laws go through parliament and obviously the Scottish MP's should be the ones voting since it concerns Scotland even as a final act.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    I think because negotiations finish in 2016 there will have to be a number of laws go through parliament and obviously the Scottish MP's should be the ones voting since it concerns Scotland even as a final act.

     

    It depends what the law is.

     

    Obviously, devolved areas already don't apply. So education, health etc.

     

    In terms of changes to Scotland's taxes, budget etc; there can't be any changes here for Scotland, not if Scotland has just voted for indy. From the instant a Yes vote is returned, you need to start ear-marking all revenues from Scotland as for Scotland. 

     

    Obviously, if Westminster still had 'power' over Scotland for some time after a Yes, it could e.g. introduce a new law to slash Scotland's budget for example or try to grab as much cash from the oil industry as it could. Scots MPs wouldn't have any friends to help them here; I mean even if Scots voted Labour in 2015 do you think Ed would give a crap since Scotland was leaving?

     

    The only sensible thing for me is that if it is a Yes, Scots MPs walk out of Westminster never to return. No new legislation passed by Westminster applies in Scotland. That would sit with international law. Scotland has said Yes; that's it. What follows is an orderly transition, but Westminster no longer has any power over Scotland. 

     

    I guess what it comes do is that if a party governing a country loses an election, it can't keep on governing for years after. That would be highly undemocratic / amount to a dictatorship. In terms of a Yes vote for independence, Westminster continuing to rule Scotland would amount to an occupation; even worse. 

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    I'm puzzled at the idea of Scots MPs standing in the 2015 election if it was a Yes.As long as no new laws passed in Westminster apply to Scotland, then there's no need. As Scots would have just voted against any new laws passed by Westminster being introduced in Scotland, I don't see how any could be. Likewise, what on earth would Scots MPs be doing voting on rUK matters.

    One reason for arguing there should still be Scottish MPs at Westminster is that the UK Government will set the 2015/16 and the initial 2016/17 Scottish Government Budgets (as the fiscal year starts before the 2016 election) - there is potential for the Westminster government to really play silly buggers, by slashing funding practically make the Scottish Government unworkable during the negotiations/transition.The only possible way around this is an amendment to the 1998 Scotland Act immediately after the referendum which reduces the list of reserved matters to zero, which would also mean the constitutional issues could be dealt with entirely in the Scottish Parliament, an act repealing the Scottish Treaty of Union is all that is necessary to formally dissolve the UK - it does not need Westminster's approval if the authority has already passed to Holyrood (and as far as Scots Law is concerned that authority would pass with the YES vote - the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament is not recognised in Scots Law). Edited by skifreak
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    There is a problem if negotiations take longer than till March 2016, this seemed to be the reason that Cameron didn't want to bar those Scottish MP's from standing.

     

    The March 2016 date isn't set in stone, that's just the preferred date. There are some things that maybe possible to negotiate after that date but some key issues like debt/assets/currency have to be negotiated before Westminster votes on any deal.

     

    The Edinburgh agreement gives guidelines and of course Westminster must respect the referendum result but is not legally bound to vote on this by a certain date, defacto status re independence only becomes official after a vote in Westminster as this passes powers to Scotland that enable it to become a sovereign nation in its own right.

     

    Scotland will not be officially independent until that vote takes place and will not be allowed a UN seat or any other official seat on global bodies until this official rubber stamp by Westminster.

     

    Now of course things could get difficult if negotiations hit a brickwall or theres an impasse and a lot of acrimony, could Scotland just say we're independent, sovereign and walk away from negotiations. historical precedent and international law says no because it doesn't fit the.criteria as an oppressed nation or where where the population are suffering human rights abuses.

     

    I doubt very much that we will reach this point because common sense and economics would prevail, its really in the best interests of both sides to have a smooth transition especially as the world will be watching!

     

    The timing to get to official status isn't just effected by negotiations but also if an international body has to mediate and rule on certain areas like oil/gas.

     

    There could also be further delays if the rUK has a referendum on a currency union, I think realistically the March 2016 date is looking a bit tight especially as a General Election will be taking place in the middle of these negotiations.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet

    It depends what the law is.

     

    Obviously, devolved areas already don't apply. So education, health etc.

     

    In terms of changes to Scotland's taxes, budget etc; there can't be any changes here for Scotland, not if Scotland has just voted for indy. From the instant a Yes vote is returned, you need to start ear-marking all revenues from Scotland as for Scotland. 

     

    Obviously, if Westminster still had 'power' over Scotland for some time after a Yes, it could e.g. introduce a new law to slash Scotland's budget for example or try to grab as much cash from the oil industry as it could. Scots MPs wouldn't have any friends to help them here; I mean even if Scots voted Labour in 2015 do you think Ed would give a crap since Scotland was leaving?

     

    The only sensible thing for me is that if it is a Yes, Scots MPs walk out of Westminster never to return. No new legislation passed by Westminster applies in Scotland. That would sit with international law. Scotland has said Yes; that's it. What follows is an orderly transition, but Westminster no longer has any power over Scotland. 

     

    I guess what it comes do is that if a party governing a country loses an election, it can't keep on governing for years after. That would be highly undemocratic / amount to a dictatorship. In terms of a Yes vote for independence, Westminster continuing to rule Scotland would amount to an occupation; even worse. 

     

    Legally Scotland's not independent until 2016 because the referendum is technically not binding and there will be a period of negotiations which may require legal change. Ski makes some good points but basically until 2016 it's as you were, Salmond should have held it in 2015 to get around all this.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Legally Scotland's not independent until 2016

     

    Under what law / legal system?

     

    And 2016 is just the Scottish Government's proposal for the day Scotland 'officially' joins the world as a full, sovereign nation (ceremoniously take up seats at the EU, UN, NATO etc). I don't recall it being anything other than that.

     

    If it's a Yes, it is the world that decides they're going to recognise Scotland as independent. Westminster doesn't get much of a look-in at that point, particularly since they signed the AE.

     

    The phone calls to the Scottish government from international heads of state will start on the 19th if it's a Yes. That will also be the day people get the fireworks out in years to come.

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    I don't doubt that common sense and the need for economic certainty will lead to both parties eventually getting to agreement on the key issues, eventually being the problem!

     

    The smoothest transition would be one whereby any negotiations with the EU have been finalized because then the official date coincides with a new EU agreement, its actually in Scotlands best interests to remain under the UK umbrella officially till that point because EU membership continues even with a Yes vote until such time as official independence.

     

    There are also several other issues that need a lot of negotiation, even putting aside the issues re debt/assets/ currency, taxation is another key area, there is no process to do this yet in Scotland, a system will take time to set up, in the meantime agreements would be needed for HMRC to collect this on behalf of Scotland and then to develop a system to transfer this across.

     

    Regardless of what the SNP might prefer re official independence they have to live in the real world, essentially this is like trying to separate Siamese twins, its a delicate operation.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    Keep in mind that the March 2016 date is not arbitrary, it is the date of dissolution of the current Scottish Parliament and start of the 2016 election campaign. The devolved parliament will be dissolved and an independent one elected so that there is a clean break in parliamentary terms.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    Correction Scotland will be independent the day after a yes vote.The 2 year timescale is to leave reasonable time to the negotiate asserts etc.Its called being reasonable but at any time after a yes vote the Scottish government can call an election to an an ndependent Scottish government.Yes is binding under international law and the signed agreement.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    at any time after a yes vote the Scottish government can call an election to an an ndependent Scottish government.

    No it can't and nor can a future Scottish Government after 2016 until/unless a constitution is put in place that removes the fixed terms specified in the 1998 Scotland Act, which the White Paper makes clear will continue to be the basis for the Scottish Parliament operation and elections until a formal written constitution is adopted in the future.
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    I am afraid you are wrong Ski Freak.You confuse domestic law with international law of succession. A people can change nationality under the UN charter on human rights.Domestic law cannot be superior to UN law as it would mean that any rogue nation could block the legitimately recognised vote of the people in the nation declaring independence from them.There are already UN peacekeepers ready to enter Scotland if a yes vote comes about.I kid you not its the normal process when a country mightvdeclare independence.Remember that the Scottish government could unilaterally declare independence tomorrow if they wished.Its unlikely to be recognised by the UN but the legitimate peoples free vote would be a declaration of that peoples right to change nationality.If domestic law could just brush aside UN law then half the independent nations would still be held against their will as part of the original single nation.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    No I'm not wrong. It is not in the Scottish Governments gift and absolutely nor should it be. It requires a 3/4s majority to dissolve a parliament prior to the fixed term ending.

    Edited by skifreak
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    Skifreak it is not the end of a parliamentary session.This is a vote on independence.The two are separate issues.Domestic law carries within the confines of the devolution settlement.However this would be the people declaring independence after a UN recognised legal vote.The current government can declare independence as they represent the people.I am afraid again that you are not differentiating international law with that of domestic government.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    The only sensible thing for me is that if it is a Yes, Scots MPs walk out of Westminster never to return

    There is a problem there! The MPs elected to Scottish constituencies who not only wont walk out voluntarily, but are likely to use the time between a YES vote and dissolution of the current Westminster Parliament to try their hardest to shaft their own constituents and the rest of Scotland - thinking Labour neanderthals like Ian Davidson?How this aspect of transition is handled should be nailed down long before 18th September, as demanded by the Electoral Commission. Ultimately though the UK government is only shafting itself it maintains it's infantile position of no pre negotiation / planning.
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    A referendum was held in Montenegro on 21 May 2006. It was approved by 55.5% of voters, narrowly passing the 55% threshold. By 23 May, preliminary referendum results were recognized by all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, indicating widespread international recognition of Montenegro once independence would be formally declared. The Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro made a formal Declaration of Independence on Saturday 3 June 2006. Serbian president Boris Tadić accepted the results of the referendum in favor of independence.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    .The current government can declare independence as they represent the people.I am afraid again that you are not differentiating international law with that of domestic government.

    The Scottish Government could declare formal independence on 19th Sept or any day after and it wouldn't be UDI because of the AE, but they can not dissolve the current parliament without a dissolution vote (actually it's 2/3rds not 3/4s as I posted above). To do so would be dictatorial, the executive absolutely should not have the power to time elections to their advantage - I'm a very strong supporter of fixed term parliaments as a critical check on the power of executive and in ensuring democracy.
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    We will agree to disagree.However the yes vote in the referendum allows for the declaration of independence as its no longer a devolved government under UK parliamentary law.Scotland will not be bound by any existing domestic government as its a new nation.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    Excellent article in the Japan Times neatly sums up the referendum opportunity:

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/04/04/commentary/scotland-a-nation-not-a-region/#.Uz6gfSxOXIU

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    The article here by a constitutional lawyer is a must read for all Scottish members, unbiased and clearly laying out what needs to happen from a Yes vote to official independence.

     

    I think what seems to have been missed in the SNP March 2016 date is that its not just about negotiations with Westminster but that these matters have to be debated by the Scottish government and both parliaments need to pass legislation, its not just about possible disagreements between both negotiating sides but differences of opinion that are likely to occur both within Holyrood and Westminster.

     

    The March 2016 date cannot be used as a means to fast track negotiations because rushing through this process is likely to lead bad legislation and a raw deal for Scotland and the rUK, the key thing is that both sides can move on and feel happy that any deal they make satisfies their voters.

     

    http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2014/01/14/nick-barber-after-the-vote/

     

    I'd also link to this article who originally supported the SNP timetable but is now having doubts:

     

    http://constitution-unit.com/tag/scottish-independence/

     

    I think Alex Salmond just expects everyone to jump to his timetable forgetting that theres a General Election which is going to derail negotiations and then there maybe a change of government who might have a different take on things.

     

    As I've also mentioned a few times in here Scotland will not officially become independent until both parliaments have voted on their respective Independence Bills, and then Westminster votes again to deliver the final seal of approval.

     

    This extract from the first article clearly lays out the situation:

     

    Furthermore, just as the Scottish Parliament will review and, ultimately, approve the agreement on the Scottish side, the UK Parliament will play a similar role on the UK side.  Under our existing constitution, the final decision about Scottish independence rests with the UK Parliament, which will confer sovereignty on Scotland through a statute.

     

    I don't doubt that governments across the globe will be congratulating Scotland if they vote Yes, because at the end of the day official independence is just a matter of time after that vote, it will happen but the process to get there is going to take a lot of hard work, this needs a lot of good will on both sides and selling any deal to both Scotland and the rUK voters.

     

    There seems to be an assumption that Scottish voters will swallow any deal that leads to independence but both governments have responsibilities to their voters, Salmond can't just act with carte blanche and neither can Westminster. This deal has ramifications for both sides.

    • Like 3
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...