Mr Salmond's greatest achievement?

[John Little]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that after the referendum Scotland decides to stay in the Union? Suppose that the margin for doing so is a narrow one.

What then?

Does the SNP continue trying to persuade people in the hopes of having another referendum in another 10 or 20 years and winning?

It’s clear that a significant number of Scots want independence for its own sake.

It’s also clear that a lot of Scots vote SNP because the alternatives are so unattractive.


So what is the future of the UK?

It’s an uneasy thing to live in an unstable country; a country which may cease to exist, and overall I personally would sooner not prolong the agony of it; one way or another. If Scotland wants Independence then Scotland should have it and now.

However-

The United Kingdom has had a stable polity for 300 years now, with the occasional threat of revolution which came to nothing in the end; political instability is not attractive, nor continued uncertainty about the future.

I wonder if the Washington government these days would tolerate California holding a referendum and seceding from the Union? They would not have done so in 1865; times have changed.

Or if it would be acceptable on Capitol Hill to have a situation where at any time any of the 50 states could up sticks and leave?

For strength and purpose, instability is not desirable.

Yet with a narrow defeat in a referendum I cannot see the SNP accepting it for ever, which leaves the UK as a country likely to dissolve and inherently unstable.

Unless there is an alternative where secession becomes undesirable and irrelevant; some sort of federal system, constitionally embodied, with Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments, with a council for the whole based more centrally for the UK- Carlisle for example.

States have moved capitals for similar reasons before now.

Whatever the outcome of a referendum I cannot see that it is in anyone’s best interests to just let things slump down to what they are now.

It may well be that Mr Salmond’s greatest achievement in the history books will not be that he gained independence for Scotland, but that he was the architect of a more equal, federalized and balanced UK. He has placed the future of the UK firmly onto the table for discussion, a thing unthinkable not so many years ago.

That is a considerable triumph.

[Phill]

Whatever the outcome of a referendum I cannot see that it is in anyone’s best interests to just let things slump down to what they are now.

What has slumped down?

It may well be that Mr Salmond’s greatest achievement in the history books will not be that he gained independence for Scotland, but that he was the architect of a more equal, federalized and balanced UK. He has placed the future of the UK firmly onto the table for discussion, a thing unthinkable not so many years ago.

In looking at the independence issues for, against, how etc. there are two positions to take and two different places to look at it from.
It is entirely possible that an independent Scotland would reap benefits for England, Wales & Northern Ireland from the electorates point of view.
Also, if Mr Salmond's campaign is unsuccessful, even by the slightest of margins, I suspect there may be quite a backlash from Westminster and a few 'establishment' movers and shakers.

I have thought that Mr Salmond in wanting to 'break up' the UK, could actually be giving the UK the kick up its arse it needs.

[RecQuery]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that after the referendum Scotland decides to stay in the Union? Suppose that the margin for doing so is a narrow one.

What then?

Does the SNP continue trying to persuade people in the hopes of having another referendum in another 10 or 20 years and winning?

It’s clear that a significant number of Scots want independence for its own sake.

It’s also clear that a lot of Scots vote SNP because the alternatives are so unattractive.


So what is the future of the UK?

It’s an uneasy thing to live in an unstable country; a country which may cease to exist, and overall I personally would sooner not prolong the agony of it; one way or another. If Scotland wants Independence then Scotland should have it and now.

However-

The United Kingdom has had a stable polity for 300 years now, with the occasional threat of revolution which came to nothing in the end; political instability is not attractive, nor continued uncertainty about the future.

I wonder if the Washington government these days would tolerate California holding a referendum and seceding from the Union? They would not have done so in 1865; times have changed.

Or if it would be acceptable on Capitol Hill to have a situation where at any time any of the 50 states could up sticks and leave?

For strength and purpose, instability is not desirable.

Yet with a narrow defeat in a referendum I cannot see the SNP accepting it for ever, which leaves the UK as a country likely to dissolve and inherently unstable.

Unless there is an alternative where secession becomes undesirable and irrelevant; some sort of federal system, constitionally embodied, with Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments, with a council for the whole based more centrally for the UK- Carlisle for example.

States have moved capitals for similar reasons before now.

Whatever the outcome of a referendum I cannot see that it is in anyone’s best interests to just let things slump down to what they are now.

It may well be that Mr Salmond’s greatest achievement in the history books will not be that he gained independence for Scotland, but that he was the architect of a more equal, federalized and balanced UK. He has placed the future of the UK firmly onto the table for discussion, a thing unthinkable not so many years ago.

That is a considerable triumph.

I'd assume that if full independence failed with a narrow margin then some form of full/maximum devolution indicated in a second question would have passed. As for holding another referendum, if the SNP put it in their manifesto for the next Scottish parliament elections, campaigned on it and won a majority then they could hold another referendum then. Right now the other parties are promising other things if the Scotland stays, more powers, devolution, more investment, etc. If those things don't appear which is pretty likely then the landscape will be different for a hypothetical second referendum. I recall similar promises being said in 1979, I can look out a quote or two if I must.

The distinction with the US is that they already have a federal system.

[John Little]

What has slumped down is the image of the United Kingdom as 'United'. It is apparent that a large number of people in Scotland and Wales are no longer content with the Union as it stands.

We have slumped from being a politically stable entity into a state of uncertainty and potential dissolution.

But yes - Mr Salmond has certainly shaken the UK out of its comfort zone.

[John Little]

The distinction with the US is that they already have a federal system.

I think this has gone beyond the 1979 level- Pandora's box is well and truly open now, but was not then.

We also have, de facto a federal system.

It's not a very good one.

[Phill]

The electorate being given an opportunity to vote on the future of their country a slump? When thinking about the Arab Spring, or even Syria right now. Quite stark contrasts I know.

But is it not showing democracy at its best? Even the Unionists, Westminster and the grubiment have a fantastic opportunity to be a beacon of light but in typical UK fashion its all the negatives that get rolled out.

[RecQuery]

I think this has gone beyond the 1979 level- Pandora's box is well and truly open now, but was not then.

We also have, de facto a federal system.

It's not a very good one.

I don't think we have a federal system de facto or not. As in similar to the US with states, state legislatures, an elected second chamber and a separate federal government. The US has a system where states with population alone can not bully people.

As for my other point here we go:

Nick Clegg says Scots will still get more devolution if they vote no (http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2012...#axzz1lgkYHA64)

Which reminds me of the 1979 referendum:

The campaign for a "no" vote was much helped by an assurance by former Prime Minister Lord Home of the Hirsel that a future Conservative Government would introduce legislation which would meet the objections. This pledge, made by Lord Home in a personal capacity, was not honoured by the Conservatives when they came to power a few months later.

And then Lord Home:

In the Scottish devolution referendum... Douglas-Home had no authority to give such an assurance, and in fact, Margaret Thatcher's government introduced no Assembly at all for Scotland, instead repealing the legislation that resulted from the referendum.

History will repeat itself if we believe the promises and assurances and vote 'No'.

[Nick Noble]

I think this has gone beyond the 1979 level- Pandora's box is well and truly open now, but was not then.

We also have, de facto a federal system.

It's not a very good one.

We are "de facto" no where near being a federal system. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies are all subservient assemblies. A Federal system gives real autonomy, including tax and spending powers to the constituent states. The fact that power for a legal referendum rests with Westminster demonstrates this perfectly.

Scotland needs, wants, and deserves far greater powers than currently permitted, but should remain part of a new Federal UK.

[John Little]

There is no one definition of Federalism; it comes in many forms.

It is fairly understandable to describe a system where 3 regions of a state have a devolved form of government, the whole being presided over by a central assembly with representatives from the component parts as in some way Federal.

That is a form of Federalism.

It is not, as you have pointed out, a very good one.

As to 'slump', I was not referring to people being given a choice in their future as a slump.

I'm British; the British state, a stable entity for so long, is no longer regarded as stable.

As I am British I see that, with some justification I think, as being a 'slump'. I do not like instability.

Therefore, if I am to be 'English' I would rather get on with it - then I will know where I am.

[Phill]

But is it unstable?

I appreciate the desire for getting it out of the way, just make the decision and then we can get on with it.
But, in fairness, it should be approached with some time. Although it is very clear the tactics being used for the timing but this is testament to Mr Salmond's tactics, so far outwitting the Westminster grubiment, maybe they are not fit to run UKPLC.

[RecQuery]

But is it unstable?

I appreciate the desire for getting it out of the way, just make the decision and then we can get on with it.
But, in fairness, it should be approached with some time. Although it is very clear the tactics being used for the timing but this is testament to Mr Salmond's tactics, so far outwitting the Westminster grubiment, maybe they are not fit to run UKPLC.

Exactly a consultation is underway it's a important issue and deserves suitable consideration. The manifesto said it would be in the second half of the parliament. A date has even been set.

[Phill]

Exactly a consultation is underway it's a important issue and deserves suitable consideration. The manifesto said it would be in the second half of the parliament. A date has even been set.

But tactically set, it's not really about consultation, it's about maximising the opportunity. And for that Westminster is slacking.

[Nick Noble]

Exactly a consultation is underway it's a important issue and deserves suitable consideration. The manifesto said it would be in the second half of the parliament. A date has even been set.

Just have to correct that slight inaccuracy. The manifesto said there would be a referendum.

Just because Alex keeps repeating the lie does not make it true, the first mention of "in the second half of the parliament" was by Alex Salmond 4 days before the election.

A small but distinct difference.

Trusting the People to Decide
Independence will only happen when people in Scotland vote
for it. That is why independence is your choice.
We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation’s
future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest
that most Scots agree. We will, therefore, bring forward our
Referendum Bill in this next Parliament.

http://votesnp.com/campaigns/SNP_Man...011_lowRes.pdf

[gleeber]

This thread is just more of the same. I'm enjoying keeping up with it. My mate accused me yesterday of being a nationalist. Thats one of Alex Salmonds greatest achievments, not that I am by the way. My mates a staunch unionist like me but ive noticed a softening in his condemnations of poor Alex Salmond just recently. Thats another great achievment. Theres 2 and a half years to go and Ill tell you something. Alex salmonds doing a good job. Thats another achievment. How can someone whose so condemned by some on the org, be so popular amongst others? Ive noticed since I got interested in the debate that the unionists and especially the Tory unionists are demanding positive reasons for Scotland becomeing Independent. There's non actually if you have a closed mind.

[RecQuery]

This thread is just more of the same. I'm enjoying keeping up with it. My mate accused me yesterday of being a nationalist. Thats one of Alex Salmonds greatest achievments, not that I am by the way. My mates a staunch unionist like me but ive noticed a softening in his condemnations of poor Alex Salmond just recently. Thats another great achievment. Theres 2 and a half years to go and Ill tell you something. Alex salmonds doing a good job. Thats another achievment. How can someone whose so condemned by some on the org, be so popular amongst others? Ive noticed since I got interested in the debate that the unionists and especially the Tory unionists are demanding positive reasons for Scotland becomeing Independent. There's non actually if you have a closed mind.

Interesting view point, conversely I've been looking for positive reasons for staying with the union but all I seem to find are supposed negatives and scare stories and some vague stuff about history, it's always been done that way, we'll be able to bully others/feel like a big man.

When both campaigns start in earnest it'll be quite intriguing.

[John Little]

But is it unstable?

I appreciate the desire for getting it out of the way, just make the decision and then we can get on with it.
But, in fairness, it should be approached with some time. Although it is very clear the tactics being used for the timing but this is testament to Mr Salmond's tactics, so far outwitting the Westminster grubiment, maybe they are not fit to run UKPLC.

I think that any state which is about to fall apart has to be seen as unstable.

[RecQuery]

I think that any state which is about to fall apart has to be seen as unstable.

Though falling apart and an amicable separation are two different things.

[squidge]

I think that any state which is about to fall apart has to be seen as unstable.

If the state was about to fall apart but this is a considered democratic process and is not really falling apart as much as potentially deliberately separating. A considered decision is hardly falling apart

[John Little]

I think that is probably a question of perception.

I'm trying very hard to see it from the point of view of world investors and our allies.

A lot of adjustment is going to be needed; not that this may be a bad thing.

The Security Council seat will almost certainly go, whatever its worth.

[RecQuery]

I think that is probably a question of perception.

I'm trying very hard to see it from the point of view of world investors and our allies.

A lot of adjustment is going to be needed; not that this may be a bad thing.

The Security Council seat will almost certainly go, whatever its worth.

Oh I agree, other countries will use Scottish independence as an excuse to re-evaluate the UK without Scotland or whatever it chooses to call itself and it'll probably lose the security council seat, despite the spin about Scotland having a lesser impact on the work they're worried about themselves. Is that really such a bad thing though it could help counter balance a lot of the imperialism guilt.