In regards to legality in according with an independence vote.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

This will generally be a British topic, but by all means, all input is welcome and appreciated.

If you've bothered watching the evening news, or reading the papers; you've bound to have seen a piece of journalism talking about the legality as to who can hold and dictate/set the date for the Scottish referendum on independence - a vote, for the linguistically challenged -.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

With this in mind, I think I should give a little back drop to the political/history situation within Scotland. Scotland is a country that went into a pack with the rest of the UK, in the early stages of the 18th century. The joining of the crowns, and all that nonsense. It was under Queen Anne that it became truly a binding contract, connecting both kingdoms. After this happened, the traditional Scots parliament - house of government - was disbanded, scaled down and sent to West Minster in London. In the late 1990's, Scotland was granted - through yet another referendum - its parliaments return; making Scotland a devolved state.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With the history out of the way, now comes the political talk. We number of parties. We have the Scots Labour, Scots Liberal Democrats and the Scots Tories. We then have the greens, independents and lastly the SNP, or properly known as the Scottish nationalist party. In the last British election, the Tories took only one MP down to London from Scotland. In the last Scots election, the Liberal democrats - who went into a coalition with the Tories/conservatives - were demolished and nearly completely wiped off the face of the political map within Scotland. Labour and the Tories suffering similar - but not as dramatic - affects. Due to the Lib-dems defeat, and the small loses on all sides - other than the SNP's -, the SNP managed to gain a majority government to control parliament.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With all that out of the way.
We've come to the meat of the situation, or debate.
Who has the right to set the date, conditions and wording of the Scottish vote.
The Tories and Lib-dems in London, who're clearly at odds with the Scottish public.
Or the SNP, who both elections in the Scots parliament in the last two parliaments?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It is clearly the Westminster parliament that has the power, by virtue of legal prescendent. The UK is, as its name suggests, a Unitary country rather than a Federal one. Power flows down, not up. The existence of the Scottish Parliament in the first place is the result of a Westminster statute. To say that Scotland can unilaterally decide to run the referendum themselves, whenever they like, undermines the fundamental basis on which the agreement to give them their parliament was based. IE it was a gift of the Westminster Parliament. They were not obliged to do so. Although there was a referendum in Scotland on that originally, it is not legally binding. Westminster had to put that decision in place.

Furthermore, Alex Sammond is being rather...unrealistic and odd as a politician. He has been demanding 80% of the oil revenues, but only wants 9% of the national debt. This, combined with the fact that many analysts were finding his earlier campaigns questionable (the use of 'blood and soil' nationalism) and his association with some fairly absurd people within the European parliament, makes me think significantly less of him as a politician.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

"To say that Scotland can unilaterally decide to run the referendum themselves, whenever they like, undermines the fundamental basis on which the agreement to give them their parliament was based. IE it was a gift of the Westminster Parliament. They were not obliged to do so. Although there was a referendum in Scotland on that originally, it is not legally binding. Westminster had to put that decision in place."

                                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In response to the first part, I'd agree that the the referendum should be run by the Electoral Commission, or a third party. I think we can both agree that to allow either a Unionist or Nationalist to run the vote would both draw risks of fraud. Too much is at stake to expect each side to play fair.

                                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In regards to the binding legality of the 1997 referendum, I think you're mistaken. The fact that the majority spoke on the issue, is the reason the cogs went into motion. To suggest that the parliament was a 'gift' would imply that it was given out of sheer goodness of ones heart. To hold a referendum is to create a binding contract, depending on the outcome/wording of the vote. Therefore, you could theoretically try and worm your way out of the situation, but if the majority swings - depending on the wording of the vote - you're legally bound to respect the outcome. Democracy and all that sorta thing. 

                                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" Furthermore, Alex Sammond is being rather...unrealistic and odd as a politician. He has been demanding 80% of the oil revenues, but only wants 9% of the national debt. This, combined with the fact that many analysts were finding his earlier campaigns questionable (the use of 'blood and soil' nationalism) and his association with some fairly absurd people within the European parliament, makes me think significantly less of him as a politician."

                                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To to put it simply. If the oil revenues are in Scots water, they belong to the Scottish parliament, and if we were to go independent, all of said revenues within Scots water would go along with us. If any of that 85% comes from English oil, by all means I agree that should remain with the rest of the UK. As for the piece of Salmond. Generally, I don't like the lad myself. He dodges questions, shifts the blame onto West Minster when it's the Scots parliament failing to act and chooses his battles. By all means, he's an odd ball. But he's a ruddy good player at that. By inciting the Tories from London to speak out, he'll reap the benefits - Scots generally being for anything the Tories aren't -.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

In regards to the binding legality of the 1997 referendum, I think you're mistaken. The fact that the majority spoke on the issue, is the reason the cogs went into motion. To suggest that the parliament was a 'gift' would imply that it was given out of sheer goodness of ones heart.

...

No, it is a gift, legally. Yes, the referendum did start things going, but check the law. There is NO reason legally, why the Westminster government had to listen to the result of the referendum. Sure, you might make moral arguments, but they arn't the same as legal ones. The referendum is not a legally binding agreement. It is an organised public consultation. That isn't the same thing as a legal agreement.

....

To to put it simply. If the oil revenues are in Scots water, they belong to the Scottish parliament, and if we were to go independent, all of said revenues within Scots water would go along with us.

...

Yes, but you can't have it both ways. You can't have the oil but not take more of the debt.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

". There is NO reason legally, why the Westminster government had to listen to the result of the referendum. "
                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Considering we're a democracy, where the voice of the people is what controls the West Minster government me thinks your point falls on hollow ground. By all means, WM could have ignored the vote out come. They could have forgot about it entirely. But then, they would lose credibility in regards to governing. Considering they were the ones hosting the referendum in the first place.

                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Yes, but you can't have it both ways. You can't have the oil but not take more of the debt."

                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If it's in Scottish waters, that belong to Scotland and is under Scottish jurisdiction, sure we can. As for debt. The Scottish parliament makes up a surplus of 3.5 billion, whilst WM manages to accumulate billion after billion bits of debt. By all means, why should we take on British debt, when we're managing our country perfectly fine? 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

If it's in Scottish waters, that belong to Scotland and is under Scottish jurisdiction, sure we can. As for debt. The Scottish parliament makes up a surplus of 3.5 billion, whilst WM manages to accumulate billion after billion bits of debt. By all means, why should we take on British debt, when we're managing our country perfectly fine?

Basic political logic. Why do you think that the Scottish Parliament is making a surplus? Because it doesn't have to do all the things that the Westminster Parliament has to do. The Scottish Parliament for example, doesn't have responsibility for welfare funding. It isn't only Scottish Taxpayers who are paying for Scottish Unemployment benefit. Similarly, it isn't only Scottish Taxpayers who are paying for Scottish universities. The Parliament there does not have that ability, hence they have to pay for less. If they had to pay for everything, they would be running a deficit too. A massive one.

If the oil is in Scottish waters, then yes. Fine.

Considering we're a democracy, where the voice of the people is what controls the West Minster government me thinks your point falls on hollow ground. By all means, WM could have ignored the vote out come. They could have forgot about it entirely. But then, they would lose credibility in regards to governing. Considering they were the ones hosting the referendum in the first place.

They wouldn't necessarily ignore it, but they may simply run the referendum again, as they have done in the past in other countries (see Ireland). But the point is that it is the government who commissioned it, and it the government's prerogative to listen or not. This is why, for instance, although there are government regulated opinion polls, the government does not necessarily respond to them. A referendum is nothing more than a well organized opinion poll.

[Ash Phillips]

Legally speaking,the facts are that the power comes from Westminster, and some of that power is given to the Scottish parliament.

The question of whether that's how it should work is bit more divisive. Personally, I'm an anarchist, so I don't think power should be exerted downwards in any area of life or society, but assuming the revolution doesn't come tomorrow, I identify with federalism in the sense that I think power should be given to Westminster by it's members, not the other way round, which would include a right to secede, like in the US. I also think England is deserving of it's own parliament personally, and councils need more power.

[Latch33570]

Holy Poop how do you all keep this straight? Having said that I hope it grows and encompasses the whole world. Good luck.