[OSharp]

I've been thinking about this for some time now, my thoughts are as follows.

If the government where to hold a referendum on EU membership then it would be morally unable to deny Scotland a referendum on independence without getting egg all over its face and Visa Versa.

Currently the government position on leaving Europe and Scottish independence is no to both but with Tory unrest amongst many backbenchers over Brussels and a bleak outlook for the euro zone things might have to change.

With many similar issues effecting the UK in Europe and Scotland in the UK.
i.e. Scotland has a different more socialist approach to healthcare and education ect,
as well as certain liberties not present in the rest of the UK eg minors being able to refuse treatment in Scotland but not the rest of the UK, with some support from the SNP for votes at 16.

My question is not whether either of these decisions is right or wrong indeed this has been discussed thoroughly on TSR already.

it also to me seems that the people who are most Anti EU are most pro the UK Union as it where


my question is would it be right for the government to have a referendum on Europe without allowing a referendum for Scottish independence

Discuss

[L i b]

(Original post by OSharp)
If the government where to hold a referendum on EU membership then it would be morally unable to deny Scotland a referendum on independence without getting egg all over its face and Visa Versa.

There is a world of difference between a sovereign state having a referendum on an issue its national parliament has competence on, viz: leaving an international organisation and a sovereign state supporting a move to break-up their country, an issue over which only central government has authority.

My question is not whether either of these decisions is right or wrong indeed this has been discussed thoroughly on TSR already.

I support neither.

it also to me seems that the people who are most Anti EU are most pro the UK Union as it where

Nope.

[dannyk]

(Original post by OSharp)
I've been thinking about this for some time now, my thoughts are as follows.

If the government where to hold a referendum on EU membership then it would be morally unable to deny Scotland a referendum on independence without getting egg all over its face and Visa Versa.

Currently the government position on leaving Europe and Scottish independence is no to both but with Tory unrest amongst many backbenchers over Brussels and a bleak outlook for the euro zone things might have to change.

With many similar issues effecting the UK in Europe and Scotland in the UK.
i.e. Scotland has a different more socialist approach to healthcare and education ect,
as well as certain liberties not present in the rest of the UK eg minors being able to refuse treatment in Scotland but not the rest of the UK, with some support from the SNP for votes at 16.

My question is not whether either of these decisions is right or wrong indeed this has been discussed thoroughly on TSR already.

it also to me seems that the people who are most Anti EU are most pro the UK Union as it where


my question is would it be right for the government to have a referendum on Europe without allowing a referendum for Scottish independence

Discuss

There will be a referendum on Scottish independence, so your question doesn't really matter - it's happening. Cameron has to respect the democratic wishes of the Scottish people. It will happen in 2014.

[L i b]

(Original post by dannyk)
There will be a referendum on Scottish independence, so your question doesn't really matter - it's happening.

The SNP said they'd introduce a referendum bill in the last parliament and failed to do so. If it doesn't look like they can win it, reneging on their plans is at least a possibility.

Cameron has to respect the democratic wishes of the Scottish people.

He has to respect the democratic wishes of the British people within the confines of a representative parliamentary democracy. As for secession referendums, they are inherently undemocratic as they undermine the legitimate demos of a state. Secession and democracy are not compatible bedfellows - democracy tells you how to run a state, not how its borders should be set.

[MagicNMedicine]

There will be a referendum on Scottish independence and more than likely the Scots will vote no.

[OSharp]

Actually that is my point Cameron has no obligation to allow a Referendum for scotland or indeed to pay any attention to it if they do have one.

Rightly or wrongly so, and last time LIB the SNP didn't have the majority in Hollyrood

[UnderPost]

(Original post by L i b)
The SNP said they'd introduce a referendum bill in the last parliament and failed to do so. If it doesn't look like they can win it, reneging on their plans is at least a possibility.

He has to respect the democratic wishes of the British people within the confines of a representative parliamentary democracy. As for secession referendums, they are inherently undemocratic as they undermine the legitimate demos of a state. Secession and democracy are not compatible bedfellows - democracy tells you how to run a state, not how its borders should be set.

If you followed Scots politics you'd know that the SNP did not have a majority in the last Parliament. More importantly, the other three parties said they would vote against any Referendum Bill put forward. The SNP's hand were tied- they knew that a Referendum couldn't be given. Looking back this was a key flaw for unionists, as if a Referendum had taken place in 2011, it looks likely to have been lost. Instead, the SNP has 5yrs to build support in an unrivalled position of being in Government (with all its resources). And may well get a Yes vote.

This Referendum IS going to happen, Salmond would lose all credibility inside the party, in Scotland and in the rest of the UK if he didn't go ahead with it.

The second part of your argument is just ridiculous. All very nice and good. However if the people of Scotland want independence they will and should get it. You cannot have the rest of Britain (i.e England/London) saying they should have a say - these colonial days are long gone.

I genuinely wish Scotland good luck, it's a once in a generation event and I hope all will think carefully.

The constitution of the UK is going to be very interesting in the next few year. The Scots referendum. Regardless of the result it is likely that there wil be a vote in NI. This is allowed WITHOUT a majority in the Assembly under the terms of the GF Agreement (the nationalist can call for a referendum on a united Ireland at ANY time). This may well be lost, but every wound that has been hidden under the carpet I'm sure will re emerge. We then have a commission in Wales set to release its results in 2014. It is likely to want to introduce wide tax powers to the Assembly and even more devolved fields. England I am sure will remain unchanged.

[UnderPost]

(Original post by OSharp)

my question is would it be right for the government to have a referendum on Europe without allowing a referendum for Scottish independence

Discuss

The Referendum on independence IS going to happen. Cameron has said so, and has said he doesn't mind the dates (so I don't know what the fuss was at the start of March!).

Whatever the issue, it is wrong for Governments to block referendums if the people / elected bodies want them. Otherwise it creates trouble.

In Wales, the last Labour government dragged its feet on giving the Assembly a Referendum. This created great anger, and possibly was one factor why all the parties united and we ended up having a huge Yes vote.

An even more interesting question: if the Gov gave a vote on remaining in EU (Yes=remain) and the result of the referendum was: England - No, Wales - Yes, Scot - Yes, NI - No. What would happen then? would this trigger even more nationalists sentiments?

[NR09]

Even if the Scottish people say yes to independance in the referendum, it doesn't mean that we will get independance. It is still completely in the power of the Westminster government to reject the appeal and say no. Although I don't think they would do that, as it would appear very dictatorial and would be a PR nightmare.

[L i b]

(Original post by UnderPost)
If you followed Scots politics you'd know that the SNP did not have a majority in the last Parliament. More importantly, the other three parties said they would vote against any Referendum Bill put forward. The SNP's hand were tied- they knew that a Referendum couldn't be given. Looking back this was a key flaw for unionists, as if a Referendum had taken place in 2011, it looks likely to have been lost. Instead, the SNP has 5yrs to build support in an unrivalled position of being in Government (with all its resources). And may well get a Yes vote.

If you followed Scottish politics, you'd know that the commitment to introduce a referendum bill in that parliamentary term was reiterated after the 2007 elections. Nothing changed in the formation of the parliament.

If a referendum is held in 2014 it looks equally likely to be lost.

This Referendum IS going to happen, Salmond would lose all credibility inside the party, in Scotland and in the rest of the UK if he didn't go ahead with it.

So what? He does things every day that make him lose credibility; that's never been a problem before.

The second part of your argument is just ridiculous. All very nice and good. However if the people of Scotland want independence they will and should get it. You cannot have the rest of Britain (i.e England/London) saying they should have a say - these colonial days are long gone.

A colony is an external territory of a state. Scotland is not a colony, and frankly the suggestion is absurd. As with any other state, the UK has every right to maintain its territorial integrity. I don't think for a second that any part of a country should have the right to secede - for one, it is often based on nationalism, an exceptionally dodgy ideology; for another, it could be used to escape the region's responsibilities to the central state.

[L i b]

(Original post by UnderPost)
The Referendum on independence IS going to happen. Cameron has said so, and has said he doesn't mind the dates (so I don't know what the fuss was at the start of March!).

The Prime Minister has not said so: he has said that the UK Government will help to facilitate a legal, fair and decisive referendum. Holding it, however, would be down to the Scottish Parliament with powers devolved by means of a section 30 order.

Whatever the issue, it is wrong for Governments to block referendums if the people / elected bodies want them. Otherwise it creates trouble.

Not blocking anything, it's just not an issue within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, it's a reserved matter.

[Sambo2]

within the belief that the UK government holds authority to deny the outcome of a scottish referendum - I suspect the EU courts would have something to say about an attempt to block the outcome of a scottish government sponsored referendum which voted for independance.. Ultimately, if Scotland wants to be independant, there is no way for Cameron to stop it, he might have the legal power to do so in theory, but I suspect in the grander scheme of things, the democratic will of scotland trumps the theoretical law of an establishment which its people (one might suggest hypothetically) don't want to be part of.

(Original post by L i b)
The Prime Minister has not said so: he has said that the UK Government will help to facilitate a legal, fair and decisive referendum. Holding it, however, would be down to the Scottish Parliament with powers devolved by means of a section 30 order.



Not blocking anything, it's just not an issue within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, it's a reserved matter.

[ukip72]

The government opposes and EU referendum (the EU is about to change dramatically anyway, so it would be pointless), and it has agreed on a referendum in 2014 on dismantling the union.

Did you not realise this?

[L i b]

(Original post by Sambo2)
within the belief that the UK government holds authority to deny the outcome of a scottish referendum - I suspect the EU courts would have something to say about an attempt to block the outcome of a scottish government sponsored referendum which voted for independance.

Er, no they wouldn't. There are no issues of European Union law arising here whatsoever.

Ultimately, if Scotland wants to be independant, there is no way for Cameron to stop it, he might have the legal power to do so in theory, but I suspect in the grander scheme of things, the democratic will of scotland trumps the theoretical law of an establishment which its people (one might suggest hypothetically) don't want to be part of.

It depends. You can argue that point theoretically, but it is a political consideration which ebbs and flows. It is conceivable that, as with the 1978 devolution referendum, a majority could be won in favour of a proposal yet the proposal still dropped.

The law, on the other hand, is clear. And this is a country which, ultimately, respects the rule of law.

[dannyk]

(Original post by Sambo2)
within the belief that the UK government holds authority to deny the outcome of a scottish referendum - I suspect the EU courts would have something to say about an attempt to block the outcome of a scottish government sponsored referendum which voted for independance..

If the UK government managed to deny the Scots something for they voted for democratically, ignoring the wishes of an 'EU court' you mention would be a piece of cake compared to that! Anyway, where does it say anything in the EU about this?

(Original post by ukip72)
The government opposes and EU referendum (the EU is about to change dramatically anyway, so it would be pointless), and it has agreed on a referendum in 2014 on dismantling the union.

Did you not realise this?

The government opposes a Scottish referendum too, but has to hold one because the SNP has been democratically elected to hold a majority in the Scottish Parliament (under a proportional system too, quite an achievement!). UKIP has not managed to hold a majority in any political institution in this country, therefore it cannot hold/force a referendum on the issue.

[ukip72]

(Original post by dannyk)
The government opposes a Scottish referendum too, but has to hold one because the SNP has been democratically elected to hold a majority in the Scottish Parliament (under a proportional system too, quite an achievement!). UKIP has not managed to hold a majority in any political institution in this country, therefore it cannot hold/force a referendum on the issue.

The success of UKIP has nothing to do with this and it seems a bit pathetic that you would raise it.

My point was the question is only relevant if the UK government had blocked a referendum on Scottish independence but they haven't.

[dannyk]

(Original post by ukip72)
The success of UKIP has nothing to do with this and it seems a bit pathetic that you would raise it.

My point was the question is only relevant if the UK government had blocked a referendum on Scottish independence but they haven't.

It has every relevance - I am answering your question as to why the British government are holding a referendum on Scotland but not the EU. The SNP and UKIP are single issue parties, and one has massive democratic support, the other not. Hence the SNP has been able to force the UK government's hand.

[ukip72]

(Original post by dannyk)
It has every relevance - I am answering your question as to why the British government are holding a referendum on Scotland but not the EU. The SNP and UKIP are single issue parties, and one has massive democratic support, the other not. Hence the SNP has been able to force the UK government's hand.

An EU referendum doesn't have to be about UKIP, David Cameron has ruled out an EU referendum regardless of UKIP. UKIP and the SNP are not single issue parties, both produced wide ranging manifestos in 2010. You say UKIP doesn't have democratic support on the basis of having no MP's I assume. This is because FPTP stops UKIP having people elected, just look at the EU parliament, the only election via PR and UKIP are the 2nd largest British party.

[dannyk]

(Original post by ukip72)
An EU referendum doesn't have to be about UKIP, David Cameron has ruled out an EU referendum regardless of UKIP. UKIP and the SNP are not single issue parties, both produced wide ranging manifestos in 2010. You say UKIP doesn't have democratic support on the basis of having no MP's I assume. This is because FPTP stops UKIP having people elected, just look at the EU parliament, the only election via PR and UKIP are the 2nd largest British party.

Oh come on they are single issue parties, yes they come up with these manifestos but if someone doesn't want a referendum on the EU or on Scottish independence, they would not vote for UKIP or the SNP respectively, even if they loved the other policies.

I agree, FPTP does stop UKIP MPs from being elected - but they still only managed to get 3% of the national vote. So they deserve a few MPs, but not a majority like the SNP have in Scotland.

In the EU Parliament elections (you could say the EUP is to UKIP as the Scottish Parliament is to the SNP), they managed 16.5% of the vote, on a 35% turnout, so less than 6% of the electorate. Hence again why the SNP have managed to force a referendum on their issue, and UKIP have not.

[Will Lucky]

(Original post by ukip72)
This is because FPTP stops UKIP having people elected, just look at the EU parliament, the only election via PR and UKIP are the 2nd largest British party.

Yes well it doesn't surprise that a single issue party is able to attain success in the only election that happens to coincide with that single issue. Not to mention you had the Expenses Scandel to jump off.