You can’t claim to respect democratic choice, and then base your argument on “it seems”. You need to respect the actual vote, where the will of the Scottish people was clearly expressed as wanting to maintain the status quo - that is, government from Westminster, with some powers conditionally and indefinitely devolved.
Now, it’s clear that both the UK and Scottish parliaments want there to be further devolution, but that the SNP is ignoring the will of the people (just like you continue to do) by talking about independence. Barring exceptional circumstances (such as a UKIP victory, or the SNP refusing to negotiate at all), further devolution will happen, and some of the “vow” will be kept. However, what you keep ignoring, and should really start considering, is that how the UK parliament acts towards Scotland is the business of every voter in the UK, not just the Scottish ones, and we do have the power to reverse any or all decisions. That’s unlikely to happen any time soon, but if Scotland keeps claiming more than its share (as it does now) and simultaneously whinging about being mistreated, that may change.
There was no vote for the status quo- the Calman commission was on going and further devolution was planned anyway. Add to that the vow and the recent opinion polls on Devolution, Devomax and Home Rule, massive swelling of the SNP membership (now more than the LibDems in the whole UK) and it looks likely that we shall have a further Nationalist Parliament in 2016 committed to at least further devolution; of course if the Vow is kept they will be half way there.
I have not talked about independence as an immediate goal and Salmond has said in his resignation speech that Independence is not achievable in his generation.
Of course the UK Parliament can try to limit Scottish actions, but it always runs the risk of a massive swing to Independence- after all it was only necessary to change 200,000 votes to have achieved a YES vote. If there was a referendum for Devomax or Home Rule it would almost certainly pass.
It will be most interesting if SNP votes are needed to support a minority administration in May next year- current predictions are that the SNP will pick up several Labour and LibDem seats giving them a similar number of seats to the LibDems.
I really don’t know how you can say that, when you keep trying to ignore the result of the referendum by talking over and over about independence - something that, firstly, the Scottish voted against and, secondly, isn’t something that the Scots necessarily have a right to if the UK (including Scotland) votes against it.
Do you really not see that your attitude - and that of the SNP - is hugely counterproductive when it comes to getting the best for Scotland? Vast amounts of time and money are being wasted on petty arguments instead of actually making things better - both for Scotland and the Uk as a whole.
1/ Westminster has clearly stated that if Scotland wants independence it will not be stopped from doing that. It is impossible now politically and probably legally for Westminster to stop a valid process leading to independence at any time in the future having given this undertaking.
2/ Scotland does not want Independence currently as they voted against it when guaranteed considerable further devolution.
3/ Virtually no-one wants the status quo according to a reliable poll giving a majority of between 80/20 and 66/33 for various levels of devolution.
4/ Westminster now needs to agree with Holyrood the level of devolution acceptable to the people of Scotland. The Smith commission is to make recommendations after consulting with all parties concerned (virtually none of which support the status quo). This is likely to result in considerable further devolution being recommended on the timetable laid out by Gordon Brown- Commission within days, outline by St Andrews Day, White Paper or Cmnd document by Burns Night, legislation after the election.
5/ Reneging on this is likely to result in a renewed and increased demand for Independence, an SNP dominated Holyrood following the 2016 election and a renewed call for a referendum on Home Rule at least.
6/Other matters to do with UK governance will not be tied to this- Cameron has agreed that.
I would expect the UK would avoid that problem by setting out clearly whether and to what extent its Bill of Rights binds Scotland.
Anyway, I’m not suggesting it’s the *best *model, but it’s obviously a possible model.
Maybe this would persuade the Scots that remaining in the UK wasn’t in their best interests after all. Alternatively, maybe they would do what the US states do when the Supreme Court rules against them in cases concerning devolved matters, as it sometimes does.
Agreed. One of the changes in the British Constitution necessary over the next decade will be a recognition that UK wide decisions that impinge on devolved matters will require negotiation with the appropriate parliaments/assemblies. A simple majority in the Commons may not be sufficient for the validity of certain decisions- e.g. membership of the Council of Europe or the European Union.