Should England have a referendum ?

[Oruc]

So you don't regard the Scots as having a right to self-determination, either as a nation or as a collection of individuals?

British already have self-determination, If you really want to help some people get self-determination go to the balkans and help out the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo

I remember taking an English history class in college (in the US). The professor was British, and the only thing that I remember from that boring class was the end of it. The professor basically guaranteed that the UK would dissolve sooner rather than later. This was nearly a decade ago. I was surprised as I would be if someone said there was a reasonable chance Alaska could declare independence, which is a more real possibility than I would have thought, too. Could she finally be correct?

She's probably right we weren't as determined or successful as the French dealing with regionalism.

 

[Traitorfish]

British already have self-determination,

Evidently not, if one portion of them aren't allowed to form an independent state without the say so of the rest of them. That's quite precisely the opposite of self-determination.

If you really want to help some people get self-determination go to the balkans and help out the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.

This is a wholly vacuous comment.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Nothing convinces me more of the need for Scottish Independence then the opponents of Scottish Independence.

 

[Silurian]

Any referendem in England would have to be about England leaving the UK

 

[Oruc]

Evidently not, if one portion of them aren't allowed to form an independent state without the say so of the rest of them. That's quite precisely the opposite of self-determination.


This is a wholly vacuous comment.

Ok lets say Scotland had it's vote and the results were 60-40 in favour

Spoiler :

Grey wishes to remain in the Union, yellow wants independence. Now what would the borders of the independent Scotland look like?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Grey wishes to remain in the Union, yellow wants independence. Now what would the borders of the independent Scotland look like?

Scotland has a distinct cultural and historical identity, as well as separate legal and educational systems. Subdividing up further would not automatically make sense as Dumfries and Galloway (for example) has never existed as a separate country, nor does it have its own cultural and historical identity.

As a Scot living in England, I don't actually care that much if Scotland votes for independence. I was back up there earlier this week, and, honestly, wherever there is an opportunity for spouting national pride, the Scottish do it, and they do it as Scots, not as Brits - the hotels serve "A Full Scottish Breakfast" (it's the same as a Full English one, but we wouldn't want to use that sort of language up here, sir...), the supermarkets shelves proclaim their meat, milk, cheese etc as being "From the Farms of SCOTLAND", and the news programmes are horribly parochial.

If the Scots see themselves as separate (and I believe they do), then I think they should go their own way, and yes, of course it's just up to them, not to voters in England or Wales or Northern Ireland. It would need to be an equitable split, however; Salmond's view this week that a Scottish state would bear no element of the costs of rescuing RBS as the responsibilities for financial governance were in London is just laughable.

 

[Quackers]

Acoording to this site http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/13/scottish-independence-support-rising_n_1145227.html:

Support for independence is at 38%, while 57% disagree and 5% are still unsure.

That is one poll. I don't think Scotland will vote for independence. In fact I think Salmon wants to put a "devo-max" onto the ballet (a third option which will give more powers to holyrod yet keep them in the united kingdom) - he thinks that will succeed and then the Scots can milk us even more!

To the above poster. Yes Scotland has a distinctive identity and all the rest of it but our similarities are greater then our differences IMO.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

To the above poster. Yes Scotland has a distinctive identity and all the rest of it but our similarities are greater then our differences IMO.

I would tend to agree, but it's marginal - I feel Scotland to be just as different from the South-East of England (where I live) as the East coast of the US is, or Switzerland, or Germany, say. Once you get past the shared language (and what's spoken in Glasgow doesn't really bear a lot of resemblance to that spoken in London ), the cultural and social differences are pretty marked.

Anyway, my point about the distinct identity was to point out why you wouldn't sub-divide Scotland further in the way implied in Oruc's graphic.

 

[uppi]

Fair point. I suppose what I should say is that there aren't any provisions for simply abandoning sovereignty, rather than of transferring sovereignty as it would have been in this case.

Why should any provisions be necessary? Even if there was no way to formally abandon sovereignty, the UK could do it de facto by ceasing all its activities in Scotland. Sooner or later a Scottish government will emerge that the sovereignty can be transferred to.

I assume that the biggest problem would be EU laws, because as long as the EU considers Scotland to be a part of the UK, it would hold the UK to its contractual obligation to enforce EU laws in Scotland. So unilaterally granting Scotland independence would only work if the EU was on board (and then it wouldn't be quite unilaterally anymore) or if the UK left the EU.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Independence for Scotland means perpetual Conservative government in England, with Cameron (who looks like one of the bum faced goats) leading the pack.

No way.

EDIT: Checked for swearing. Just an arse or two

Notice the resemblance to David Cameron.

 

[Quackers]

I don't think so PS.

In the 2005 general election labour had a majority over the conservatives of 158 seats! Right now there are 40 Scottish labour MPs in the house of commons, so even with no Scotland in 2005 Labour would of still pwn the conservatives.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

OK. Vote independence and vote for the vibrating bum faced goats though, at your peril.

 

[Oruc]

Scotland has a distinct cultural and historical identity, as well as separate legal and educational systems. Subdividing up further would not automatically make sense as Dumfries and Galloway (for example) has never existed as a separate country, nor does it have its own cultural and historical identity..

It's not about historical identity (Look at what happened to Serbia's historical borders), it's about self-determination. Whats more important nice borders or the rights of the people to decide.
Why should those that wish indepedence dictate the borders of their state, in this hypothetical situation those dumfries could be 80% in favour of remaining in the Union and in Ayrshire 70%. But no these are the historical borders so you're coming with us. By what right can those who live in Aberdeenshire dictate to those in Ayrshire in Galloway.
Self-determination my arse.

As a Scot living in England, I don't actually care that much if Scotland votes for independence. I was back up there earlier this week, and, honestly, wherever there is an opportunity for spouting national pride, the Scottish do it, and they do it as Scots, not as Brits - the hotels serve "A Full Scottish Breakfast" (it's the same as a Full English one, but we wouldn't want to use that sort of language up here, sir...), the supermarkets shelves proclaim their meat, milk, cheese etc as being "From the Farms of SCOTLAND", and the news programmes are horribly parochial.

If the Scots see themselves as separate (and I believe they do), then I think they should go their own way, and yes, of course it's just up to them, not to voters in England or Wales or Northern Ireland. It would need to be an equitable split, however; Salmond's view this week that a Scottish state would bear no element of the costs of rescuing RBS as the responsibilities for financial governance were in London is just laughable.

pointless waffle, except that last part.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ok lets say Scotland had it's vote and the results were 60-40 in favour

Spoiler :

Grey wishes to remain in the Union, yellow wants independence. Now what would the borders of the independent Scotland look like?

Are we to assume that everyone in the grey voted union, and everyone in the yellow voted independence? Because I don't entirely follow your logic. You'll remember that the partition of Ireland, the only comparable scheme to what you appear to suggest, was a product of the deeper ethnoreligious tensions in the country- or, in the more immediate term, the fact that the Ulstermen were openly threatening rebellion if they were included in an independent Ireland- which is obviously not the case in Scotland. Any proposed Scottish state would be based around the existing legal and political jurisdiction of Scotland, an area with the majority of a potential state apparatus already in place. This isn't just like three people in a field are declaring an independent republic, you realise; Scotland is already very much a thing.

Why should any provisions be necessary? Even if there was no way to formally abandon sovereignty, the UK could do it de facto by ceasing all its activities in Scotland. Sooner or later a Scottish government will emerge that the sovereignty can be transferred to.

No doubt, but don't you think that this would be a bit of an international scandal? A country which thinks so very much of itself as the United Kingdom can't get away with just abandoning its legal obligations to a third of its territory.

I assume that the biggest problem would be EU laws, because as long as the EU considers Scotland to be a part of the UK, it would hold the UK to its contractual obligation to enforce EU laws in Scotland. So unilaterally granting Scotland independence would only work if the EU was on board (and then it wouldn't be quite unilaterally anymore) or if the UK left the EU.

I hardly think that the EU will object to an independent Scotland. Given its history of trouble with the United Kingdom, it would likely welcome us with open arms.

Acoording to this site http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/13/scottish-independence-support-rising_n_1145227.html:

That is one poll. I don't think Scotland will vote for independence. In fact I think Salmon wants to put a "devo-max" onto the ballet (a third option which will give more powers to holyrod yet keep them in the united kingdom) - he thinks that will succeed and then the Scots can milk us even more!

That's certainly the most popular option among the average Scot, and if it gets on the ballot then it's the most likely outcome. But if it doesn't, then you can't simply assume that people are going to stick with the Union in its absence. We're not going to be going into the polling station blind, and if people know full well that Cameron et al. has denied them the opportunity to vote for the option they actually want for the sake of his own cynical power-politics, then, well, they may find their distaste for the Westminster establishment sufficient that they tick the "Independence" box after all.

To the above poster. Yes Scotland has a distinctive identity and all the rest of it but our similarities are greater then our differences IMO.

So I take that you support a union between the United Kingdom and Botswana? We're both more similar to each other than we are to, say, a turnip, aren't we?

It's not about historical identity (Look at what happened to Serbia's historical borders), it's about self-determination. Whats more important nice borders or the rights of the people to decide.
Why should those that wish indepedence dictate the borders of their state, in this hypothetical situation those dumfries could be 80% in favour of remaining in the Union and in Ayrshire 70%. But no these are the historical borders so you're coming with us. By what right can those who live in Aberdeenshire dictate to those in Ayrshire in Galloway.
Self-determination my arse.

Hey, if you want to dissolve the British state as such, then I am entirely for it. Vive la commune, etc. But we're not exactly in that sort of situation, so any drive to self-determination necessarily finds its expression through the imperfect terms of bourgeois nationalism. Uninspiring, and if it wasn't for the fact that Westminster is such a bloated, corrupt, undemocratic mess, I'd say it was almost pointless. So you could say that I'm taking what I can get.

Although I do wonder how you can reconcile "self-determination my arse" with an apparent support for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Surely that sort of logic would lead you to a Europhillia even more ferocious than that of our good friend Winner.

Independence for Scotland means perpetual Conservative government in England, with Cameron (who looks like one of the bum faced goats) leading the pack.

And how that be in practical terms different from the last forty years of British government, exactly?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

It's not about historical identity (Look at what happened to Serbia's historical borders), it's about self-determination. Whats more important nice borders or the rights of the people to decide.

I note that you mention the historical identity point, but not the cultural or other ones. It is simply not practical to have self-determination of governments to be at an individual level - there has to be some level of integrity to the governing unit. Within that smallest practical governing unit, I am totally in favour of the rights of the people there to decide.

Why should those that wish indepedence dictate the borders of their state, in this hypothetical situation those dumfries could be 80% in favour of remaining in the Union and in Ayrshire 70%. But no these are the historical borders so you're coming with us. By what right can those who live in Aberdeenshire dictate to those in Ayrshire in Galloway.

The "what right" is popularly labelled democracy. I do sympathise with being in a minority in any area, on any issue, but that doesn't mean that we should veto any attempt at subsidiarity simply because we can't go as far as we might hope for in an ideal world.

pointless waffle, except that last part.

Ho hum. I don't think it was pointless, but I guess you place no real importance on the actual behaviour of Scots in Scotland. Meh. Regardless, if the post didn't interest or appeal to you, why not just ignore it ? You didn't need to be offensive. It's this sort of pointless discourtesy which has made me such a rare visitor to Off Topic.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Independence for Scotland means perpetual Conservative government in England

In all likelihood, it would just mean another realignment of the political parties in England, with Labour moving marginally to the right (to try and attract enough additional voters to form a government), and the Conservatives being able to move marginally to the right as they could still get elected despite being a bit more right wing. Given that the median point of the electorate would have moved to the right, it seems only reasonable (if perhaps undesirable from my or your personal opinions ) that the parties and thus the government would move to the right.

Might take a generation to happen, but England would get back to competitive elections.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I was surprised as I would be if someone said there was a reasonable chance Alaska could declare independence, which is a more real possibility than I would have thought, too.

Indeed, there is really no parallel between US states and UK nations. US states are not mirrored in the UK constitution, but the closest thing would have been old English counties like Cheshire and Yorkshire, rather than nations like England and Scotland.

Nothing convinces me more of the need for Scottish Independence then the opponents of Scottish Independence.

Indeed ... I'm hearing this a lot. Now the participation of UK politicians with no experience in this area appears to be making this matter worse. After the Cameron/OSbourne intervention this week, latest Telegraph poll puts vote at 40-43, a big jump in pro-independence support.

Scotland has a distinct cultural and historical identity, as well as separate legal and educational systems. Subdividing up further would not automatically make sense as Dumfries and Galloway (for example) has never existed as a separate country, nor does it have its own cultural and historical identity.

I don't disagree with this, but as a minor point about "Dumfries and Galloway" google "kingdom of Galloway" and "Na Renna".

I don't think so PS.

In the 2005 general election labour had a majority over the conservatives of 158 seats! Right now there are 40 Scottish labour MPs in the house of commons, so even with no Scotland in 2005 Labour would of still pwn the conservatives.

Dimbleby covered this issue well on Thursday. The whole Tory dominance stuff is a myth, and even if it was the case the electorate would simply readjust to become competitive. Indeed, the whole "rise of nationalism" in Scotland is arguably just the Scottish electorate making their system more competitive. Support for independence now is largely the same as it was in the early 1990s; only difference now is that the Scots have voted for someone other than Labour in the Scottish parliament.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Regarding OP, there could be:
1) A UK-wide referendum voting for or against the dissolution of the whole United Kingdom
2) A nation-specific referendum in one or more of its 4 de facto constituent parts voting to secede
In 2) England could secede; no-one would deny it that sovereignty, though England is in practice the core of the UK ... it is essentially the UK in historic terms and probably, were it ever tested, in international law. What this means is that England's secession would end the UK as a historic legal entity with England continuing as its singular successor, whereas neither Scotland's nor Northern Ireland's secession would. In 1) England could in practice vote to control Scotland's position, but it could not govern a decision of the Scots. I suppose it would be theoretically possible for the whole UK to expel Scotland, but that is not even a vague political possibility.

 

[Marla_Singer]

British already have self-determination, If you really want to help some people get self-determination go to the balkans and help out the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo

She's probably right we weren't as determined or successful as the French dealing with regionalism.

Two things:

1- France is a lot more diverse than Britain is. So regional independence would be pointless for little communities.

2- It's the Republic which made the unification a symbolic success in France. The problem is that no matter what happens, your Queen or King will always be English.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Two things:

1- France is a lot more diverse than Britain is. So regional independence would be pointless for little communities.

That's a pretty bold claim. Explain if you would ...