Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Scroll to see replies

I'm sure it has been described by Cameron as "binding". What did he actually mean by that? Did he just mean that as an informal promise that the result will be respected? Or does it mean that independence will go ahead in the case of a yes vote unless Parliament explicitly revokes it?

I assume he meant something similar to 'cast iron', except that it is fairly difficult to imagine the referendum not being carried out or result of the referendum not being respected.

Since the agreement isn't an Act it can't cause anything to go ahead on its own. There will need to be an Act declaring Scotland's independence for it to become independent as a matter of UK law.

Further, from the document I linked:

Interestingly one additional matter relating to the referendum is not specifically dealt with by the Agreement; namely the Agreement does not tightly specify what will follow from the referendum result. The Agreement talks of the parties agreeing that the referendum, ‘deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect’. Paragraph 30 of the Memorandum of Agreement provides that ‘The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.’ But even this does not clearly say what either government must do to respect the result.

What would be the obligations of the UK government in the event of a ‘yes’ vote? Historical statements, precedent, and the statements of the current UK government seem to make it clear that a yes vote will be implemented by the UK government and that this is not contentious. However, the exclusion of any firm commitment to implement the result should perhaps still be noted, particularly given that the only other legal provision for a secession referendum, in the case of Northern Ireland, provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, does make clear legal provision for implementing the result in Westminster legislation. Even if implementation of a ‘yes’ vote is assured, does this mean that the UK government has to agree to independence in whatever shape the Scottish Government wants? In fact, the wording of paragraph 30 may indicate not.

Reply 6821

CFL2013

Original post by Midlander

The Edinburgh Agreement, signed some time ago by Cameron and ratified by the Queen, makes the referendum legally binding. There is no way for Westminster to revoke it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

My understanding is that dissolution of the Union, and therefore Scottish independence, would have to be through Parliament.

If the terms where not favourable (or at least acceptabe) to the rUK (for example, SNPs dummy spitting over the debt), then it would struggle to get through, no?

Like I said, unlikely, but another bargaining chip.

Reply 6822

MostUncivilised

Original post by Midlander

The Edinburgh Agreement, signed some time ago by Cameron and ratified by the Queen, makes the referendum legally binding. There is no way for Westminster to revoke it.

The Edinburgh Agreement was not signed by the Queen, it was signed by David Cameron and Alex Salmond. And it is not legally binding in any way.

Nothing can bind parliament, we have a doctrine in this country known as parliamentary supremacy.

Reply 6823

MostUncivilised

Original post by Psyk

I'm sure it has been described by Cameron as "binding". What did he actually mean by that?

Morally binding, perhaps?

It does not matter, an agreement signed by the Prime Minister is not binding on parliament.

Reply 6824

Psyk

Original post by MostUncivilised

Morally binding, perhaps?

It does not matter, an agreement signed by the Prime Minister is not binding on parliament.

I know, but I figure they could pass an act that will be applied at some point in the future unless they explicitly repeal it. Seems that's not what happened in this case though.

Reply 6825

L i b

Original post by TheBugle

Extreme nationalist websites like the Herald and the BBC? Jesus christ.

Neither of which have "discredited" anything. The BBC is a neutral bloody public service broadcaster: it doesn't discredit any politician.

Reported in the Scotsman too if you'd like (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-barroso-incorrect-on-eu-1-3313437)

In all honesty, you might as well quote Craig Murray at me. Jim Currie was an EU civil servant. His say-so doesn't really go far in countering the stated official legal position of the European Commission, the European Council - not to mention the clear arguments of an overwhelming number of legal academics.

or by this academic (although snp leaning, is pretty impartial)http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2014_02_01_archive.html.

I have a great deal of time for the guy who writes that blog, and I take him seriously. But he doesn't actually undermine the argument. [I don't mean to attack him either, but he's hardly just SNP-leaning, he's a party member.]

Anyway, to quote what he said--

"For what it is worth, my own view is that the Nats bungled the early argument on Scotland's EU status, the rhetoric of "automatic" membership offering Better Together an easy and predictable free shot at our vitals on the reasonable basis that (a) there are legal protocols governing EU accession and (b) EU treaty amendment requires unanimity among Member States. However smooth or rough Scotland's accession to the EU might be, and whatever might be lost or gained in terms in that negotiation, "automatic" seamless and unruptured the process ain't. "

In reality, I think the SNP did try to make a legal argument and lost it entirely. Now, as he says, we have to consider the political dimension. Yes, things can be done - if there is consent of all 28 existing member-states. The central problem is that these member-states don't seem particularly inclined to give Scotland an easier ride than many of them got, nor do they seem massively inclined to (at a very hasty speed) amend their treaties to allow negotiations to happen before Scotland is an independent state.

Salmond's only credible response to this is to suggest that Scotland is well-off and that other countries wouldn't want to lose it in the common market. Well, tell that to countries like Bulgaria, who've had to put up with very stringent entry requirements and do virtually no trade with Scotland at all. How do you persuade them that Scotland should retain a rebate? Or that it shouldn't have to join the Euro, or any other of the many opt-outs we take for granted in the UK that the rest of the EU doesn't have?

Reply 6826

L i b

Original post by KevK92

With the eyes of The World on this debate, I'd think it would be in the interests of Westminster and everybody else involved that democracy is carried through. Whether you believe a YES vote will happen or not is irrelevant. You're point is arrogant and disrespectful.

Say what you will about secession, it has nothing to do with democracy. It is about breaking up a demos.

It would be fallacious to believe you can design a democracy by democratic means: it is a way of governing a state, not of setting a state's borders. Scottish nationalism presupposes Scotland as a political unit.

Arrogant and disrespectful? Ultimately it is the preserve of the UK Parliament. It is their right to make that decision. By trying to question their proper powers, I would suggest it is you who is being arrogant and disrespectful.

We all live in political realities, and they are worth considering. But there are legal realities here too - and choices that can legitimately be considered by people making decisions. Although it's a battle I'm hardly going to fight, I think giving collective rights to nationalist movements to declare independence is inherently discriminatory and improperly brings identity into politics. In strictly moral terms, I don't think the state should endorse that.

Reply 6827

mimilovell

You keep telling yourself that your in a free and fair society and that certain parts of the country can break off as and when it pleases. IF that was the case why was the CIA doing convert operations in Northern Ireland back just a few decades ago. And if it was simply half the people wanted Northern Ireland to break off from Britian and join Ireland and the other helf didnt, then they could have easily split that part of the country in two. Besides the country was split back then.

Scotland independent talk is just another diversion to get the people Britain to talk about something that isnt really going to happen or be or that much significance, while they implement more important policies, most of us should be talking about. ie, letting bankers and corporations rob the country blind/ making Britain poor and people dependent on the state / introducing fracking and making there is a government has already stated the tax payer will pick up the tab when things goes wrong (privatising the profits and socialising the loses) etc.....

Also real world news, such as the truth in what is happening in Ukraine + Russia vs EU and USA. China and Japan gearing up for war, and how the other Asian countries are reacting to this situation. The middle east and North africa conflict. Idea is to keep us busy talking away about this, so we only watch the mainstream news to get our info, rather than read around and get info from other countries and indepdent news organisatons.

Original post by KevK92

In what sense will Britain "not let" Scotland go?, Ignorance at it's finest. It is not for Britain to decide if Scotland becomes independent, it is for Scotland to decide & I'll add whichever way the vote goes it must be respected by both sides.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 6828

L i b

Original post by Midlander

The Edinburgh Agreement, signed some time ago by Cameron and ratified by the Queen, makes the referendum legally binding. There is no way for Westminster to revoke it.

The Queen didn't ratify the Edinburgh Agreement, she had the associated draft section 30 order - which contains a tiny number of legislative provisions - signed off by her command.

The distinction is important: the Edinburgh Agreement is an agreement of the Government - the section 30 order, entirely different in content, is a law endorsed by Parliament. Only the government is bound by the Edinburgh Agreement, not Parliament - and it is the latter body that decides whether a referendum result should be respected. In theory, they can take different decisions - a theory that would be even more relevant if the UK Government collapsed, as I suspect it may well if there was a 'yes' vote.

It also does not make the referendum binding. It devolves the power to hold a strictly consultative referendum to the Scottish Parliament for a short period of time. There is no legislative provisions anywhere about any basis for Scottish independence - so there is nothing to revoke.

Before this becomes blurred with politics, which I find many people are inclined to do, this is a strict legal interpretation. It is not designed to say how a power should be exercised, simply to point out where it lies.

Reply 6829

Midlander

Original post by L i b

The Queen didn't ratify the Edinburgh Agreement, she had the associated draft section 30 order - which contains a tiny number of legislative provisions - signed off by her command.

The distinction is important: the Edinburgh Agreement is an agreement of the Government - the section 30 order, entirely different in content, is a law endorsed by Parliament. Only the government is bound by the Edinburgh Agreement, not Parliament - and it is the latter body that decides whether a referendum result should be respected. In theory, they can take different decisions - a theory that would be even more relevant if the UK Government collapsed, as I suspect it may well if there was a 'yes' vote.

It also does not make the referendum binding. It devolves the power to hold a strictly consultative referendum to the Scottish Parliament for a short period of time. There is no legislative provisions anywhere about any basis for Scottish independence - so there is nothing to revoke.

Before this becomes blurred with politics, which I find many people are inclined to do, this is a strict legal interpretation. It is not designed to say how a power should be exercised, simply to point out where it lies.

Why do you think Scotland leaving would precipitate the collapse of the UK government?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6830

Midlander

Original post by MostUncivilised

I think you'll find a Windsor elected by birth can dissolve Parliament when she likes and decide the Prime Minister at certain times.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6831

Midlander

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I came to this thread just to comment on how brazen Alex Salmond's lies are, but while I'm here:

You realise that the highest legal authority in the UK, of which Scotland is still part, is Parliament, right? You realise that, not only agreements signed by anyone outside of Parliament, but also Parliament's own legislation, are not binding on Parliament, right?

So far is Parliament from being bound by any agreement with the Scottish government that it could pass a law tomorrow abolishing the latter.

As Christine Bell, professor of constitutional law at the (Scottish) University of Edinburgh, concludes, the agreement is not binding in national or international law: http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/431/Christine-Bell-The-Legal-Status-of-the-Edinburgh-Agreement.aspx

Citing professors seems to be all people from both campaigns get up to these days...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6832

CFL2013

Original post by TheBugle

And all of this debt malarky, Westminster has already guaranteed it all so Scotland has nothing to default on. I hope they take its fair share obviously, as Salmond pointed out, for a fair share of the assets.

Sterling is not a asset, it's an instrument of monetary control. Why should the rUK base its monetary policy on the economy of what would be a foreign country?

Doesn't matter how many times Salmond says it, it's not going to happen. Neither is a debt default.

Reply 6833

TimmonaPortella

Original post by Midlander

Citing professors seems to be all people from both campaigns get up to these days...

Posted from TSR Mobile

The flaw in my argument is that I have strong academic authority for it?

Nice.

Original post by CFL2013

Sterling is not a asset, it's an instrument of monetary control. Why should the rUK base its monetary policy on the economy of what would be a foreign country?

Doesn't matter how many times Salmond says it, it's not going to happen. Neither is a debt default.

Is it possible that Salmond is making this silly threat just to goad the Westminster parties into saying that they won't allow it, so he can call them bullies some more? Because surely the Westminster parties could just come out and say we will not permit you to have independence on these terms...

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 6834

Midlander

Original post by TimmonaPortella

The flaw in my argument is that I have strong academic authority for it?

Nice.

Is it possible that Salmond is making this silly threat just to goad the Westminster parties into saying that they won't allow it, so he can call them bullies some more? Because surely the Westminster parties could just come out and say we will not permit you to have independence on these terms...

That isn't what I'm saying. What I am saying is that a lot of academics have anything they say leapt upon by campaigners trying to justify something with 'this professor said it so it must be true'. It shows that these people can't think for themselves or be bothered to look up the information.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6835

Sir Fox

Original post by Midlander

It shows that these people can't think for themselves or be bothered to look up the information.

Maybe because the average person does not have either the time or the education to 'look up' complicated economic issues on himself/herself? That's what we have academics for, to provide expertise in their chosen field of study.

Reply 6836

Midlander

Original post by Sir Fox

Taking somebody's word with no questions asked is a dangerous game to play.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6837

TimmonaPortella

Original post by Midlander

Taking somebody's word with no questions asked is a dangerous game to play.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Said the climate change deniers and the anti-vaccination crowd.

Reply 6838

Midlander

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Said the climate change deniers and the anti-vaccination crowd.

The anti-vaccination crowd believed what the media told them without criticising it. Climate change denial is quite different and can be countered by a few very simple graphs.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6839

Sir Fox

Original post by Midlander

Taking somebody's word with no questions asked is a dangerous game to play.

Choose your battle. We do just that in school, at university, most of our life. None of us can really verify wether the Theory of Relativity is true, whether dark holes exist, how DNA replication works or what caused the 2007 financial crises. We have to take that at face value from those who taught us.

Most of us will, over time, acquire expertise in one or several fields that allow us to question issues in these fields more profoundly. But that doesn't mean we have the ability to really understand complicated issues in another field. Stephen Hawking might know close to nothing about child psychology or economics and Paul Krugmann is most likely not able to challenge a plant biologist on what he tells him.

If by asking questions you mean that we should make sure to gather information and opinions from different individuals and make up our own mind, I agree. If you mean that most of us are really capable of finding out whether in economic issues the pro- or contra-independence experts are right - good luck with that.