The Secretary of State for Scotland - Michael Moore - is to clarify the legal position as regards a referendum on Scottish independence.
Since the power to change the constitutional status of Scotland is a retained power, the legal situation can only be changed by the parliament of the UK - i.e. the one at Westminster. Alex Salmond and his SNP cronies must know this. So why all of the bluster about Westminster interference?
I retain the view that the SNP and particularly the wily Alex, both want their cake and to eat it. They want 'devo max' where they get control of all matters of policy within Scotland while having no responsibility for paying for it. So they (or the Scottish Parliament) set a spending policy and the cost of this, short of any locally raised taxation, is borne by the UK government and taxpayer.
They want to have a power out of all proportion to their contribution to the UK economy and the UK population.
If they want to look at or have the Scottish electorate look at 'devo-max' then the rest of the UK must be consulted. How can they or any sane person think it is right for the Scots electorate to have the right to write a cheque for the rest of the UK economy and people, to pay?
Blogs and comment boards are buzzing since David Cameron's announcement. I will try and address the various themes here.
Who votes on the Union?
This falls into those that say, only Scotland should vote on the matter versus those that say since it affects the UK, both sides of the border should be consulted.
In some respects I suppose it depends on what is the question. If it is a simple In or Out then I can have some sympathy with just the Scots electorate being consulted for their advisory position.
If though, the question is wider and looks for greater powers for the Scottish executive, then both sides need to be consulted.
Assuming an In or Out question, whatever the response, the issue still rests with Westminster for action and not Edinburgh. Clearly that is the legal position.
Who votes?
This would be the relevant electorate according to the rules usually prevailing in the UK. If it is a referendum only in Scotland then those resident in Scottish constituencies and eligible to vote, would be entitled to vote - no expatriate Scots, no exclusion of non 'Scots' (whatever that means). Simple - if you are legally on the electoral register in a Scottish constituency, then you can vote. Same rules would apply for a UK-wide referendum.
Scottish economy 1
There has been much to and fro on the sustainability of an independent Scottish economy. I suspect that they would struggle and living standards would decline and both personal and corporate taxes would rise.
I am sure that much will be made of this during the referendum campaign and that we will all be confused and really none the wiser - those so called 'independent' economists will likely have an 'axe to grind' and their own agenda but I guess we may get a reasonable sense of how the Scottish economy might make out.
One point that I hope is addressed, is the relocation, if there is a vote for independence, of the UK government offices that are currently located in Scotland - the central tax offices etc.
Scottish Economy 2
The rules surrounding the UK oilfields are governed by International law and so they will need to be followed. How to apportion the relevant share of National Debt is somewhat more complex as I doubt this can easily be identified as being for Scottish purposes or for UK purposes. I would expect that this would need to be proportioned on relative shares of the national UK economy.
This would also need to apply to pension liabilities for civil servants employed in Scotland.
For shares in the nationalized banks, these would be shared on the same basis. I don't subscribe to the view that the UK should be compensated by an independent Scotland for the bail-out of RBS or HBOS. What happened when we were in the Union was for the benefit of all of us. We must start from a point in time and go forward, not go back over 300+ years of history.
Scotland and the EU
There seems to be an assumption that Scotland will, upon 'independence' automatically be a member of the EU. I would be interested to hear why people think this is so. I would suggest that if the independence vote succeeds, then the UK probably ceases to exist and both the UK rump (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and newly independent Scotland would need to apply for membership of the EU.
This would likely require that both adopt the Euro currency, assuming it still exists at that time. So in some ways, a referendum on Scottish independence might give all UK citizens the long-denied referendum on EU membership!
I would guess something similar for the UN and the UK's permanent seat on the Security Council would apply and indeed the Commonwealth.
Afterwards
What happens if Scotland is given a vote on a straight In or Out question and the answer is to stay In? I don't see this as the demise of the SNP but believe that you might see a re-alignment in Scotland with perhaps something less polarized along the left-socialist axis.
If the answer is No, I would hope that having had the referendum and had an answer, the issue could be put to bed for a reasonable period of time - 25-30 years as a minimum.
Comment
Feel free to comment - I will publish all, whether you agree with me or not, except those that are abusive or use foul language.
Since the power to change the constitutional status of Scotland is a retained power, the legal situation can only be changed by the parliament of the UK - i.e. the one at Westminster. Alex Salmond and his SNP cronies must know this. So why all of the bluster about Westminster interference?
I retain the view that the SNP and particularly the wily Alex, both want their cake and to eat it. They want 'devo max' where they get control of all matters of policy within Scotland while having no responsibility for paying for it. So they (or the Scottish Parliament) set a spending policy and the cost of this, short of any locally raised taxation, is borne by the UK government and taxpayer.
They want to have a power out of all proportion to their contribution to the UK economy and the UK population.
If they want to look at or have the Scottish electorate look at 'devo-max' then the rest of the UK must be consulted. How can they or any sane person think it is right for the Scots electorate to have the right to write a cheque for the rest of the UK economy and people, to pay?
Blogs and comment boards are buzzing since David Cameron's announcement. I will try and address the various themes here.
Who votes on the Union?
This falls into those that say, only Scotland should vote on the matter versus those that say since it affects the UK, both sides of the border should be consulted.
In some respects I suppose it depends on what is the question. If it is a simple In or Out then I can have some sympathy with just the Scots electorate being consulted for their advisory position.
If though, the question is wider and looks for greater powers for the Scottish executive, then both sides need to be consulted.
Assuming an In or Out question, whatever the response, the issue still rests with Westminster for action and not Edinburgh. Clearly that is the legal position.
Who votes?
This would be the relevant electorate according to the rules usually prevailing in the UK. If it is a referendum only in Scotland then those resident in Scottish constituencies and eligible to vote, would be entitled to vote - no expatriate Scots, no exclusion of non 'Scots' (whatever that means). Simple - if you are legally on the electoral register in a Scottish constituency, then you can vote. Same rules would apply for a UK-wide referendum.
Scottish economy 1
There has been much to and fro on the sustainability of an independent Scottish economy. I suspect that they would struggle and living standards would decline and both personal and corporate taxes would rise.
I am sure that much will be made of this during the referendum campaign and that we will all be confused and really none the wiser - those so called 'independent' economists will likely have an 'axe to grind' and their own agenda but I guess we may get a reasonable sense of how the Scottish economy might make out.
One point that I hope is addressed, is the relocation, if there is a vote for independence, of the UK government offices that are currently located in Scotland - the central tax offices etc.
Scottish Economy 2
The rules surrounding the UK oilfields are governed by International law and so they will need to be followed. How to apportion the relevant share of National Debt is somewhat more complex as I doubt this can easily be identified as being for Scottish purposes or for UK purposes. I would expect that this would need to be proportioned on relative shares of the national UK economy.
This would also need to apply to pension liabilities for civil servants employed in Scotland.
For shares in the nationalized banks, these would be shared on the same basis. I don't subscribe to the view that the UK should be compensated by an independent Scotland for the bail-out of RBS or HBOS. What happened when we were in the Union was for the benefit of all of us. We must start from a point in time and go forward, not go back over 300+ years of history.
Scotland and the EU
There seems to be an assumption that Scotland will, upon 'independence' automatically be a member of the EU. I would be interested to hear why people think this is so. I would suggest that if the independence vote succeeds, then the UK probably ceases to exist and both the UK rump (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and newly independent Scotland would need to apply for membership of the EU.
This would likely require that both adopt the Euro currency, assuming it still exists at that time. So in some ways, a referendum on Scottish independence might give all UK citizens the long-denied referendum on EU membership!
I would guess something similar for the UN and the UK's permanent seat on the Security Council would apply and indeed the Commonwealth.
Afterwards
What happens if Scotland is given a vote on a straight In or Out question and the answer is to stay In? I don't see this as the demise of the SNP but believe that you might see a re-alignment in Scotland with perhaps something less polarized along the left-socialist axis.
If the answer is No, I would hope that having had the referendum and had an answer, the issue could be put to bed for a reasonable period of time - 25-30 years as a minimum.
Comment
Feel free to comment - I will publish all, whether you agree with me or not, except those that are abusive or use foul language.
Any referendum would be purely advisory - however it would be a foolish government who were to ignore any outcome. As for a straight yes/no vote that could be an option, however there is a significant number of people in Scotland who whilst not being convinced of full independence would be in favour of further powers for Holyrood - why should this option not be available to them?
ReplyDeleteI think you've missed the point about devo max: this will only appear on the ballot paper if the unionist parties have something deliverable, i.e. already agreed by Westminster. The SNP do not want devo max - they want independance. You may not agree with it, but there are many people who think Scotland would be better off independant. I am always surprised to hear people assuming that the SNP want something else - why would they? They do actually think Scotland would be better off, and they would be quite likely to form the first post independance government. If you think they're only in it for the power trip, well maybe they are - but independance provides this, much more than devo max. The SNP and many Scots do want to be independant, and truly believe that they have good reasons to.
ReplyDelete