Scottish Independance

[catwhoorg]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

Except Scotland doesn't have much say in London and no say whatsoever in Brussels, despite being in the EU right now.

As I posted earlier, if we accept it's pretty much inevitable that some powers are going to shift 'upwards' from nation states to supra-national bodies then there's no inconsistency in wanting to shift other powers 'downwards' towards more local bodies.

warspite1

No this is not what I am saying [&:]

In terms of what Scotland can do now (which is not enough for the Yes voters) well this is what they will end up with - or less - when the European project gears up.

But as Judgedredd says, may be they will be consistent and vote to remove themselves from the EU at that time.

As for the Scotland doesn't have much say in London...

They are over represented per capita, not quite as badly as before devolution, where they had about 50% more MP's than they 'should' have on a per captia basis.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Texas v White (1869) SCOTUS held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

I doubt the British Crown was very receptive to the legality of the American Revolution, either.

Since they lost, it doesn't matter.

In order to decide the case that concerned TvW, first the constitutionality of being able to secede had to be decided.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Texas v White (1869) SCOTUS held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

Texas v White is an incredibly political decision though, there isn't any high order legal philosophy there (there is also a practical element, if they'd decided differently then the result would have been the Federal government funding the rebellion by one remove).

What politics? It was a matter of law.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Texas v White (1869) SCOTUS held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

I doubt the British Crown was very receptive to the legality of the American Revolution, either.

Since they lost, it doesn't matter.

In order to decide the case that concerned TvW, first the constitutionality of being able to secede had to be decided.

Wouldn't have mattered if they won, either.

[Fred98]

The solution is to give the Scots and all the people of the UK, proportional representation - then the Scots get more representation in Parliament.

In 1776 when the Americans said "no taxation without representation" they should have got representation. Today Wisconsen would be a province of the UK [8D]

.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




I doubt the British Crown was very receptive to the legality of the American Revolution, either.

Since they lost, it doesn't matter.

In order to decide the case that concerned TvW, first the constitutionality of being able to secede had to be decided.

Wouldn't have mattered if they won, either.

If it doesn't matter if they won, then the point of your initial statement is, what?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Aurelian




Since they lost, it doesn't matter.

In order to decide the case that concerned TvW, first the constitutionality of being able to secede had to be decided.

Wouldn't have mattered if they won, either.

If it doesn't matter if they won, then the point of your initial statement is, what?

That both cases are the same, and in neither one does the opinion of one-side's court matter.

If the revolution succeeds, the loser's courts have no jurisdiction on the newly independent country.

If it fails, then the rebellion has been crushed and any court opinion is again irrelevant. Of course the winners can dictate the illegality of the rebellion, but what does it matter at that point?

The issue was a military, not legal, matter.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

The solution is to give the Scots and all the people of the UK, proportional representation - then the Scots get more representation in Parliament.

warspite1

PR? No thanks...
...and see post 81.

[JudgeDredd]

Can I ask why, as a rebuttal to Joe 98's suggestion, that you refer to Post 81 (which suggests Scotland is over represented per capita), that you say no thanks to Proportional Representation? Wouldn't that likely solve Post 81's issue?

Also - A country may be over-represented per capita...and another country may be under-represented per capita...but that does not equate to being heard/being silenced respectively.

I thought the split was
1 Scottish MP per 98,000 people
1 English MP per 99,000 people
1 Welsh MP per 75,000 people

But I'm not sure discussing representation in Westminster is the right way to view independence anyway. As I said, representation does not necessarily mean you are heard. IT means you have a voice - but that's kind of a different thing.

The SNP and the people who want to vote for Independence are not doing so out of a dislike of the English or the UK as a whole. They are doing it so that they can take control of their fiscal policies and (hopefully) implement a structure in Scotland that better fits Scotlands requirements in order to encourage business growth, discourage certain other rather less desirable acts that seem prevelaint in the current and former establishments and to encourage something Scotland has been superb at for many, many years - the people.

There endeth my part political broadcast.

Oh - and I apologise for the Blair/Brown years. What can I say - I voted for them because I was fed up with how the Tories had treated my country (and at that time, mu country was the United Kingdom...so I'm talking about the whole of the UK). Little did I know how that was going to turn out.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Can I ask why, as a rebuttal to Joe 98's suggestion, that you refer to Post 81 (which suggests Scotland is over represented per capita), that you say no thanks to Proportional Representation? Wouldn't that likely solve Post 81's issue?

Also - A country may be over-represented per capita...and another country may be under-represented per capita...but that does not equate to being heard/being silenced respectively.

I thought the split was
1 Scottish MP per 98,000 people
1 English MP per 99,000 people
1 Welsh MP per 75,000 people

But I'm not sure discussing representation in Westminster is the right way to view independence anyway. As I said, representation does not necessarily mean you are heard. IT means you have a voice - but that's kind of a different thing.

The SNP and the people who want to vote for Independence are not doing so out of a dislike of the English or the UK as a whole. They are doing it so that they can take control of their fiscal policies and (hopefully) implement a structure in Scotland that better fits Scotlands requirements in order to encourage business growth, discourage certain other rather less desirable acts that seem prevelaint in the current and former establishments and to encourage something Scotland has been superb at for many, many years - the people.

There endeth my part political broadcast.

Oh - and I apologise for the Blair/Brown years. What can I say - I voted for them because I was fed up with how the Tories had treated my country (and at that time, mu country was the United Kingdom...so I'm talking about the whole of the UK). Little did I know how that was going to turn out.

warspite1

Sure.

My comment re PR has NOTHING to do with Scotland or Scottish independence. That reflects antipathy to that voting system generally.

Re Post 81 - I do not have a problem with this at all. I do not like the fact that people suggest Scotland is not fairly represented (because that is false), but I don't have a big issue with this over representation, therefore do not need PR or anything else to sort it.

Frankly I am more concerned with the English problem. If the same number of people in England vote Labour and Conservative, then Labour get a large majority. How the hell does that work, how the hell is that fair??

Apology re Blair/Brown - not accepted [;)][:D]

[IainMcNeil]

Being half English, half Scottish I am 100% against devolution. Scotland will be much much worse off and the rest of Britain will be slightly worse off. Everyone will suffer but Scotland the most. There are no real logical arguments for devolution, only emotional ones, which is why the SNP had the voting age lowered to 16 to capitalize on the younger patriotic voters. Hopefully common sense will prevail!

[JudgeDredd]

For the record Iain, Scotland currently has devolution. This discussion is about Independence [;)]

As for the 16 and over getting the vote...I agree that Salmond thought that would help his drive, but I also believe it should be the case anyway. 16-25s are some of the hardest hit in this country (look at the unemployment levels for young people). They need to vote on who is going to do something for them. Currently they have no voice. Also - kids are leaving school alot more savvy about politics than when I was a kid.

Besides - you'd think with less than half the country turning out to vote, MP's might be keen to push up the turnout [;)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

For the record Iain, Scotland currently has devolution. This discussion is about Independence [;)]

As for the 16 and over getting the vote...I agree that Salmond thought that would help his drive, but I also believe it should be the case anyway. 16-25s are some of the hardest hit in this country (look at the unemployment levels for young people). They need to vote on who is going to do something for them. Currently they have no voice. Also - kids are leaving school alot more savvy about politics than when I was a kid.

Besides - you'd think with less than half the country turning out to vote, MP's might be keen to push up the turnout [;)]

warspite1

I don't have too much problem with that decision, but that combined with not allowing Scots living elsewhere in the UK to vote, was pretty sneaky and says all you need to know about Salmond.

[JudgeDredd]

By the way - there is some evidence (in various polls) suggesting that the decision to give 16 year olds the vote may backfire.

[Orm]

I've always been against letting youngsters vote

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I don't have too much problem with that decision, but that combined with not allowing Scots living elsewhere in the UK to vote, was pretty sneaky and says all you need to know about Salmond.

There are many different ways of deciding who gets to vote but given there's no such thing as Scottish Nationality right now, 'anyone resident in the country' is probably the most sensible way of doing it. Defining Scottish citizenship before there's a Scottish state would be nonsensical and letting literally anyone in the world who self-defines as Scottish vote would be equally absurd. It's the middle ground solution that's practical and sensible.

If the UK didn't exist and we were making a state from scratch today, I don't see what criteria we could use to decide who got to vote other than 'the people living here now'.

e: in fact I think permanent residency should be the only criteria for voting. If most 16 year olds don't care enough to vote I don't see why that means the ones who do care enough to present themselves at a polling station shouldn't get their say.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I don't have too much problem with that decision, but that combined with not allowing Scots living elsewhere in the UK to vote, was pretty sneaky and says all you need to know about Salmond.

There are many different ways of deciding who gets to vote but given there's no such thing as Scottish Nationality right now 'anyone resident in the country' is probably the most sensible way of doing it.

Defining Scottish citizenship before there's a Scottish state would be nonsensical and letting literally anyone in the world who self-defines as Scottish vote would be equally absurd. It's the middle ground solution that's practical and sensible.

If the UK didn't exist and we were making a state from scratch today, I don't see what criteria we could use to decide who got to vote other than 'the people living here now'.

warspite1

Right so you are 40 years of age, born in Scotland, lived, educated and worked in Scotland until your job took you south of the border 5 years ago. You plan to go back as soon as possible - work permitting - and bring your children up in Scotland. But you get no say in the most monumental decision for your country? I don't think that's in any way, nor by any measure a fair one.

[Jevhaddah_Slitherine]

Just a couple of queries.

Do the People of non-Scottish Nationality (remember it was a union not a take over allegedly)who are registered to vote get a vote on the referendum?

Would that not go someway to redress the balance of Scots living abroad?

A vote for Independence is NOT a vote for Alec Salmond.

16 year old's in Scotland can get married and start families, so why not vote?

Like JD I am voting yes for pretty much the same reasons as him...

.... But If we do get independence and it does not work, it should at least put the matter to rest for another four hundred years.

Having served in the Royal Navy I have no hatred for any nationalities, but something has to change.

Cheers

Jev


Edited to fix various typos and punctuation, caused by the cat sitting on my knee. [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jevhaddah

Just a couple of queries.

Do the People of non-Scottish Nationality (remember it was a union not a take over allegedly)who are registered to vote get a vote on the referendum?

Would that not go someway to redress the balance of Scots living abroad?

A vote for Independence is NOT a vote for Alec Salmond.

16 year old's in Scotland can get married and start families, so why not vote.

Like JD I am voting yes for pretty much the same reason him...

.... But If we do get independence and it does not work, it will atleast put the matter to rest for another four hundred years.

Having served in the Royal Navy I have no hatred for any nationalities, but something has to change.

Cheers

Jev

warspite1

Yes other UK persons who happen to be living in Scotland get a vote.in my view, no that does not make up for it - it's all a bit arbitrary and it does not help the person in the example above. Why shouldn't he get a vote on something so important? Let no one be under any illusion as to how important this is for Scotland and the rest of the UK.

[JudgeDredd]

I think it's a wee bit strange you take that view...especially when you are hearing from a very staunch YES voter - who can't vote due to the rule.

In other words, I would love to vote and am gutted that I can't - but I totally understand why I can't and shouldn't.

I will be living down here and suffering the consequences of a yes vote with yourself, good and bad...but I do plan to move to Scotland when I retire - so I have as much interest in Scotland doing well as the guy popping down here for some work (something I did 31 years ago by the way [;)] ). There's no guarantee that guy moving down here for work isn't going to stay...thinks happen. Things change. As such, if he's not resident in the country he shouldn't get the vote.

I don't persist to change your mind - just put another pov forward...one from a YES voter who cannot do so and is not bitter about it, but understands why he shouldn't be allowed to determine the future of a country he does not live in.