Scottish Independance, anyone?

biochem wrote:
Not my country wither but since you guys have opinions of USA politics, turnabout is fair play.

Anyway, based on what I've been reading in the UK press, there hasn't been a lot of thought put into exactly how to implement the separation, what to write for a constitution, what to do for a military etc etc. You know all those pesky details involved in having a country. So either Scotland needs to vote no on independence or get serious fast on country building 101. The devil is in the details in these sorts of things and that can make post-indepence reality very different from what the idealists imagine. Everyone in the independence movement has their own mental picture of what the newly independent Scotland should look like but those images don't agree with each other. And as best as I can tell from the media reports, to date precious little effort has gone into reconciling those views.

If the vote is for independence, it's too early for me to see how it will work out. It all depends on whether the key players in Scotland can sit down, act like grownups and do it quickly. If Scotland manages to get a bunch of politicians to act like grownups, they are certainly doing better than most of the rest of the western world.


Heh, believe me there's plenty going on. At the moment the polls are indicating a current average of 49% Yes and 51% No vote, so it's going to be close either way.

Quebec 1995 springs to mind, there's plenty of parallels. Hopefully we don't get any rioting afterword though, but an awful lot of the Yes campaigners are a bit... "passionate", shall we say. As a No voter, I think I now have an idea how a Jew felt in Nazi Germany.

We'll see.

For info, here's all 670 pages of the SNP's white paper detailing it's vision of an independent Scotland:

http://82.113.138.107/00439021.pdf

I haven't read all of it, but I can see a fair few problems and holes in it.

For those outside the UK, here's what the SNP have to say on international and defence policy:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/10

The defence policy in particular is too ambitious as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, we'll see what the result is on Friday. I make no bones about it, as I wrote above, I'm a No voter. I don't think that the SNP have covered all the bases, and my gut feeling says the time isn't right. The way that the debate has gone, the current UK will cease to exist, regardless of a yes or no vote. The constitutional consequences are immense and Michael Everett's post in the other thread highlights that many south of the border are, rightly, fed up with Scotland's shenanigans and it's privileged funding position.

Mike.

Easier said than done. Especially with a two year timeframe. There are a lot of holes as would be expected in something this high level. I really hope that the SNP's people behind the scenes have written legislation on all of these issues because with the number of things that need to be agreed on in two years, there will be no time to write legislation. It will take those 2 years (and then some) to debate these issues, negotiate changes in the details etc in response to feedback.

On the bright side, the USA completely screwed up our first try at government but were able to fix it on the second try by re-negotiating among the states. So even if there are problems, a redo is possible.

A further bright note is the character of the Scottish people. They have a strong culture with the kind of values that make a country successful. Some of the best parts of the American melting pot came from the Scottish component.

Tenshinai wrote:

what to write for a constitution, what to do for a military etc etc. You know all those pesky details involved in having a country.

Hah, yanks are so obsessed with useless pieces of paper(as proven by how much use of lawyers there is to "interpret" your own one, despite how even just language drift has made the original writings almost irrelevant).

If there´s a yes vote, lack of a constitution is NOT likely to be an issue.
And separation issues has been discussed a fair amount.

The devil is in the details in these sorts of things and that can make post-indepence reality very different from what the idealists imagine.

Which is exactly why you do not make the initial legislation into holy writ.
A nation needs to be able to change.

The Constitution is not a 'useless piece of paper' or irrelevant. It's the most important pieces of paper in the US and extremely relevant since it's the basis for all law and the foundation of the USA.

A constitution should be solid and hard to change, not something that can be altered on a whim or because the politicians follow 'current trends' or some such crap like that. If you have a country that has a constitution that is easily changed, you have a country that is weak and will be easily swayed one way or another and easily fall to evil politicians.

Back on topic: I have little opinion on the vote. I have Scottish ancestry (Gorden, Wallace and Walsh (? It's been so long, I have no idea if that is the correct spelling.)), but this is something Scotland has to decide for their own.

Although this does bring up a thought, could North Ireland vote to secede from Great Britain and rejoin Ireland?

Zakharra wrote: Although this does bring up a thought, could North Ireland vote to secede from Great Britain and rejoin Ireland?

The population of Norther Ireland didn't want to join the Republic of Ireland, which is what led to The Troubles.
Given that the Irish Economy is tanking quite spectacularly thanks to the EU (although nowhere near the levels of Greece) and that there is a very strong religious component to the split between Northern Ireland and the ROI, all of Ireland uniting (they were never truly united in the first place) is very unlikely to happen.
Personally, I'd put Ireland uniting as only slightly more plausible than the non-violent re-unification of Korea.

Are you aware that the UK doesn't have a written constitution?
Some Googling lists the basis of the unwritten constitution as -

"Statutes such as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701.
Laws and Customs of Parliament; political conventions
Case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law
Constitutional experts who have written on the subject such as Walter Bagehot and A.V Dicey."

As such the rules can be changed by a simple majority in both houses followed by the Royal Assent. No need for a referendum or similar complex process.

In Australia we do have a written constitution that needs a complex referendum yes result to change it, and most proposals have failed. Along with our constitution we have a number of conventions (like gentleman's agreements) that all sides of politics are supposed to abide by and respect, but politicians (particularly conservatives) are generally not very honourable.
A classic case in 1975 saw a democratically elected government dismissed when a chain of solemn conventions were broken. All sides have agreed never again, however don't trust them.



Hah, yanks are so obsessed with useless pieces of paper(as proven by how much use of lawyers there is to "interpret" your own one, despite how even just language drift has made the original writings almost irrelevant).

If there´s a yes vote, lack of a constitution is NOT likely to be an issue.
And separation issues has been discussed a fair amount.

The devil is in the details in these sorts of things and that can make post-indepence reality very different from what the idealists imagine.

Which is exactly why you do not make the initial legislation into holy writ.
A nation needs to be able to change.[/quote]


The Constitution is not a 'useless piece of paper' or irrelevant. It's the most important pieces of paper in the US and extremely relevant since it's the basis for all law and the foundation of the USA.

A constitution should be solid and hard to change, not something that can be altered on a whim or because the politicians follow 'current trends' or some such crap like that. If you have a country that has a constitution that is easily changed, you have a country that is weak and will be easily swayed one way or another and easily fall to evil politicians.

Back on topic: I have little opinion on the vote. I have Scottish ancestry (Gorden, Wallace and Walsh (? It's been so long, I have no idea if that is the correct spelling.)), but this is something Scotland has to decide for their own.

Although this does bring up a thought, could North Ireland vote to secede from Great Britain and rejoin Ireland?[/quote]

As a brit, and one who once studied consitutional law, I should point out that the British constitution is unique. While 3 other nations (New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and Israel) lack a codified consitution, only New Zealand really comes anywhere close to having anything similar.

The UK constitution is drawn from multiple sources: 'consitutional' statutes, statutes, court judgements and constitutional conventions (gentlemen's agreements). The constitution is further embodied in various treaties and works of authority, although these do not actually form part of the constitution themselves.

Things get bloody complicated. There are definitely benefits to having a codified constitution. There are disadvantages as well. And consitutional scholars here basically defualt to using the American constitution as the example of an utterly inflexible constitution and the disadvantages that has.

Things get bloody complicated. There are definitely benefits to having a codified constitution. There are disadvantages as well. And consitutional scholars here basically defualt to using the American constitution as the example of an utterly inflexible constitution and the disadvantages that has.

There are definite disadvantages. It has a very high PITA factor (Pain in the Ass) but overall it has been worth it. The majority of politicians are power hungry scum, who use any opportunity to increase their own wealth/power. A written codified constitution protects we the people from them. Inflexibility is a problem but it is one the founders addressed by putting in place the constitutional amendment process. Because minorities (in this case they are referring to political minorities, not ethnic ones) are susceptible to tyranny of the majority, the amendment process requires supermajority approval.

Let's take the Bill of Rights for example (And of Scotland does choose to write it's own constitution, I highly recommend a Bill of Rights. Not necessarily one identical to ours but it has definitely been worth the PITA factor.)

1st - This is big one. It protects Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Religion in a single amendment. It has a huge PITA factor as it protects some really nasty speech but it also has protected people who state truth to power. And as we all know, the powers that be hate that and would suppress it if they could. Ditto for freedom of the press. Freedom of religion has had a different set of PITA factors, mostly involving areas where the secular and the religious overlap such as education but it also prevents the sort of state sponsored religious terror that once devastated Europe and is now such a problem in the middle east.

2nd - see Guns, Guns Guns thread for an extended discussion

3rd - Can't force people to house military in their own homes. Basically King George was trying to save some money by forcing people to house the military. Not a good idea (except in an emergency situation). But not exactly a big problem either.

4th, 5th, 6th and 8th protect the rights of criminals. Huge PITA factor. Criminals are by definition, unscrupulous and believe me they take advantage of these to the hilt!!! But the power of the state is enormous and can be easily abused. These rights protect the innocent as well and are often all that stands between them and corrupt and/or incompetent prosecutors. Frankly the protections these amendments afford innocent ordinary citizens against the overwhelming might of the all powerful state is well worth the PITA factor.

7th protects the right for a jury trial for civil lawsuits. A useful anti corruption measure.

9th "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Enough said

10th "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This one has been routinely ignored for decades and the problems that has caused. The USA is a huge country with very different needs and the one size fits all Washington policies have not been good for us.


As I mentioned before, if Scotland does choose independence and does write a constitution. I recommend a Bill of Rights that is suited to Scotland and Scottish culture in the strongest possible terms. Power will be abused and this is one of the few protections available.

Michael Everett wrote:

Zakharra wrote: Although this does bring up a thought, could North Ireland vote to secede from Great Britain and rejoin Ireland?

The population of Norther Ireland didn't want to join the Republic of Ireland, which is what led to The Troubles.
Given that the Irish Economy is tanking quite spectacularly thanks to the EU (although nowhere near the levels of Greece) and that there is a very strong religious component to the split between Northern Ireland and the ROI, all of Ireland uniting (they were never truly united in the first place) is very unlikely to happen.
Personally, I'd put Ireland uniting as only slightly more plausible than the non-violent re-unification of Korea.

Very true. I can't see Dublin wanting the political migraine represented by the protestant unionist population either.

As for Ireland's economy, it's recovering from the effects of the 2008 crash well enough:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf86aaf2-38ee-11e4-a53b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3DUi8PayY

Being forced to make some hard choices works pretty well. Pity that Salmond doesn't seem to want to acknowledge it publicly. Despite appearances to the contrary, the SNP is actually quite right wing to the extent that they're nicknamed "Scots Tories". This lurch to the left is designed to woo traditional Labour voters into voting Yes.

Mike.

Us brits generally regard the US Constitution as being utterly inflexible, despite its amendment process. It's very inflexibility is what has forced your politicians, lawyers and judges to twist it into pretzels to make it work for the modern world.

The UK currently has a 'bill of rights' in the Human Rights Act, one of the constitutional statues. While in our system it is not entrenched, it is entrenched in the EU so we could only get rid of it after leaving the EU. And Scotland will have to have this law if they are to gain entry to the EU, one of their priorities. So I wouldn't be too worried about that. Although you might disapprove of the fact that there is no 'freedom to bear arms' in the ECHR, the Scots themselves definitely have no problem with that.

Also, we have generally been ok about protecting the rights of criminals to due process despite lacking your constitutional guarantees. And I'm not sure why you think jury trials for civil suits are such a good idea - in highly complex financial or industrial cases it comes down to a mix of bamboozeling the jury with jargon and emotionally-charged appeals rather than ascertaining the facts of the case.

Someone once asked 'which lasts longer, the mountains or the sea?'. I think that may apply in this case. The flexibility of the British system makes ours more turbulent but gives it greater capacity to change and adapt to the needs of the time. The US Constitution, while technically amendable, is incredibly rigid - which might make it look more durable in the short-run but in the long-term as society chnages more and more it may crumble under the stress.

biochem wrote:There are definite disadvantages. It has a very high PITA factor (Pain in the Ass) but overall it has been worth it. The majority of politicians are power hungry scum, who use any opportunity to increase their own wealth/power. A written codified constitution protects we the people from them. Inflexibility is a problem but it is one the founders addressed by putting in place the constitutional amendment process. Because minorities (in this case they are referring to political minorities, not ethnic ones) are susceptible to tyranny of the majority, the amendment process requires supermajority approval.

Let's take the Bill of Rights for example (And of Scotland does choose to write it's own constitution, I highly recommend a Bill of Rights. Not necessarily one identical to ours but it has definitely been worth the PITA factor.)

1st - This is big one. It protects Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Religion in a single amendment. It has a huge PITA factor as it protects some really nasty speech but it also has protected people who state truth to power. And as we all know, the powers that be hate that and would suppress it if they could. Ditto for freedom of the press. Freedom of religion has had a different set of PITA factors, mostly involving areas where the secular and the religious overlap such as education but it also prevents the sort of state sponsored religious terror that once devastated Europe and is now such a problem in the middle east.

2nd - see Guns, Guns Guns thread for an extended discussion

3rd - Can't force people to house military in their own homes. Basically King George was trying to save some money by forcing people to house the military. Not a good idea (except in an emergency situation). But not exactly a big problem either.

4th, 5th, 6th and 8th protect the rights of criminals. Huge PITA factor. Criminals are by definition, unscrupulous and believe me they take advantage of these to the hilt!!! But the power of the state is enormous and can be easily abused. These rights protect the innocent as well and are often all that stands between them and corrupt and/or incompetent prosecutors. Frankly the protections these amendments afford innocent ordinary citizens against the overwhelming might of the all powerful state is well worth the PITA factor.

7th protects the right for a jury trial for civil lawsuits. A useful anti corruption measure.

9th "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Enough said

10th "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This one has been routinely ignored for decades and the problems that has caused. The USA is a huge country with very different needs and the one size fits all Washington policies have not been good for us.


As I mentioned before, if Scotland does choose independence and does write a constitution. I recommend a Bill of Rights that is suited to Scotland and Scottish culture in the strongest possible terms. Power will be abused and this is one of the few protections available.

JimHacker wrote:As a brit, and one who once studied consitutional law, I should point out that the British constitution is unique. While 3 other nations (New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and Israel) lack a codified consitution, only New Zealand really comes anywhere close to having anything similar.

The UK constitution is drawn from multiple sources: 'consitutional' statutes, statutes, court judgements and constitutional conventions (gentlemen's agreements). The constitution is further embodied in various treaties and works of authority, although these do not actually form part of the constitution themselves.

Things get bloody complicated. There are definitely benefits to having a codified constitution. There are disadvantages as well. And consitutional scholars here basically defualt to using the American constitution as the example of an utterly inflexible constitution and the disadvantages that has.

Well, I can imagine the political bun fight that's going to result from the "vow" made by Cameron, Clegg and Milliband this morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29219212

The Daily Record front page is the one with the details:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29217646

Keeping the Barnett formula in addition to handing over more tax raising powers is a major mistake. There's already grumbling from England about unfair bias in spending, this will make it worse. Also these are only promises as any legislation has to get past the commons and the English Conservative MP's will try to block it.

It's also interesting to see the differences in reaction between the Conservative MP's and the Labour ones over the prospect of further powers to Holyrood.

The former are asking questions about the role of Scottish MP's at Westminster with regards to legislation affecting England. The latter welcome the concept so that power can be wrested away from Westminster and Whitehall and back to a local level.

So it appears that the Conservatives prefer centralisation whilst Labour currently favours de-centralisation of power.

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out, assuming it's a No vote. It looks like the Liberal-Democrat idea of a federalised United Kingdom could become a reality after all...

Mike.

Michael Riddell wrote:
Well, I can imagine the political bun fight that's going to result from the "vow" made by Cameron, Clegg and Milliband this morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29219212

The Daily Record front page is the one with the details:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29217646

Keeping the Barnett formula in addition to handing over more tax raising powers is a major mistake. There's already grumbling from England about unfair bias in spending, this will make it worse. Also these are only promises as any legislation has to get past the commons and the English Conservative MP's will try to block it.

It's also interesting to see the differences in reaction between the Conservative MP's and the Labour ones over the prospect of further powers to Holyrood.

The former are asking questions about the role of Scottish MP's at Westminster with regards to legislation affecting England. The latter welcome the concept so that power can be wrested away from Westminster and Whitehall and back to a local level.

So it appears that the Conservatives prefer centralisation whilst Labour currently favours de-centralisation of power.

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out, assuming it's a No vote. It looks like the Liberal-Democrat idea of a federalised United Kingdom could become a reality after all...

Mike.

Personally I always supported decentralisation, with a federal view of the UK both down (scotland, england, wales, NI) and up (as part of a truly federal EU). The latter is looking further and further away, but the former is looking inevietable - if the UK remains united but under the terms of 'devo-max' the West Lothian question (the fact that english MPs have no say over purely Scottish matters but Scot MPs still have a vote over purely English matters) will be brought to the fore.