The Great Scottish FREEEEEEEEEDOOOMMMMM!!!!1!!! vote

[Dauphin]

No.

Democratic process #1

A referendum was held as to whether Scotland should have devolved power and a Parliament. That referendum was passed with a clear majority.

Democratic process #2

The Scottish electorate elected the SNP.

Democratic process #3

The SNP-controlled Scottish Parliament passed a referendum bill.

Democratic process #4

Here we are at the referendum.


Attempting to revoke that lot would be a clear violation of democratic process, of the principles of self-determination, and unacceptable tyranny.

You miss a big step in that the right to secede was not granted, only the ability to ask the question. There needs to be an act of parliament to allow secession (which will be given if the referendum is yes), which means the SNP March 2016 secession date is not binding and can be changed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The UK Parliament CAN tell the Scottish they can't vote for independence, but that would have the effect of making the Scots want independence far more than they may currently want.

[Hauldren Collider]

I realize the Scots probably don't give a flying **** about this angle, but it seems to me that from a US foreign policy angle, Scottish secession would probably be something of a disaster for us. I doubt a country led by a guy like Alex Salmond would be a particularly reliable foreign policy partner, Scotland has a bunch of very strategic NATO bases including nuclear early warning, and since Britain is one of the only countries in NATO that doesn't have its head completely all the way up its ******* and through its intestines a weaker Britain is just bad in general*.

So here's hoping they don't do it.

*I know I like to and have made fun of Britain's military in the past here but seriously the UK is basically our only really dependable NATO ally

[OneFootInTheGrave]

What is frequently misunderstood about the British political system is that what may be allowed on paper is not in any way, shape or form an indication of would be permitted to happen in reality. On paper our Queen could dissolve parliament tomorrow just because she felt like it, but it wouldn't be allowed to happen because it would lead to the immediate dissolution of the monarchy. Similarly, for government to refuse to allow people the right to self-determination, or to hold a referendum on independence and then try and ignore it would lead to dire political consequences.

We're a democracy and when people try and act undemocratically we get rather annoyed about it.

The stupid thing about the referendum is not that it's being held, but that a simple majority is enough to win it. For an issue as serious as independence that is absolute insanity. The polling is currently neck and neck, so whichever side wins, Scotland is going to be a deeply divided nation for years to come.

This is true, and I am surprised so many Scots want to stay in.

Whatever it is this should have been either three quarters majority required, or at least two thirds to pass, with compulsory participation.

[kentonio]

This is true, and I am surprised so many Scots want to stay in.

Why wouldn't they? Despite the austerity measures, people have mortgages and children and they want to know as accurately as possible how their economic futures are going to work out. This independence campaign is basically a blind leap of faith. Both sides are only giving the arguments that make their own position sound most palatable, and most of the big questions are genuinely unanswerable in advance given that no pre-negotiations were possible on most of the issues. It was inevitable that it would be so, given that until recently the yes campaign were running at about 35%, so the UK government had no incentive to negotiate in advance on most things. If they'd gone into this campaign with a large yes majority, then it would all have been different. The sudden rise in popularity has come from a well organized campaign designed to sweep people up in nationalistic fervour, not from any solid economic arguments.

[kentonio]

You miss a big step in that the right to secede was not granted, only the ability to ask the question. There needs to be an act of parliament to allow secession (which will be given if the referendum is yes), which means the SNP March 2016 secession date is not binding and can be changed.

Once the parties all agreed to honour the terms of the referendum it became a moot point. Any attempt to undermine the independence date in the case of a yes vote would be completely unacceptable.

[Dauphin]

I think the leave date is eminently open to change, and should be driven by negotiation progress, not an arbitrary declaration by Salmond.

[regexcellent]

The Scots don't gain anything by leaving. They're married to the much wealthier English at the moment, which benefits them.

No.

Democratic process #1

A referendum was held as to whether Scotland should have devolved power and a Parliament. That referendum was passed with a clear majority.

Democratic process #2

The Scottish electorate elected the SNP.

Democratic process #3

The SNP-controlled Scottish Parliament passed a referendum bill.

Democratic process #4

Here we are at the referendum.


Attempting to revoke that lot would be a clear violation of democratic process, of the principles of self-determination, and unacceptable tyranny.

But none of that says that it can't legally be done.

Anyway I find Kentonio's explanation satisfactory.

[Sava]

You aren't really buying into this "democracy" and "self-determination" concepts, are you?

reg saw democracy in action once, he didn't like it.

[kentonio]

I think the leave date is eminently open to change, and should be driven by negotiation progress, not an arbitrary declaration by Salmond.

It's become one of those things that's just become accepted. Any attempt to push it back significantly would lead to a lot of anger. Who knows though.

[Dauphin]

It's become one of those things that's just become accepted. Any attempt to push it back significantly would lead to a lot of anger. Who knows though.

Only if it was obstructionary. If it was because the SNP was still demanding joint control to the pound with no alternative in place and the rUK says 'hell no', it would be grossly negligent to not delay official independence.

[kentonio]

Grossly negligent to whom exactly? At that stage the UK would be negotiating for its own citizens interests, not for Scotlands. Unless Salmond was the one asking to push the date of course.

[Dauphin]

Having a basket case Northern border country with no currency would not be in the rUK's interest. It would be negligent by all parties.

[kentonio]

So the nationalists can accuse rUK of holding their sovereignty hostage and acting like the oppressive monsters they insist we are?

[Sava]

waht is happening there?

the bugs are loud