What amuses me about the whole affair as an outsider who has spent considerable time in the UK, is that it really depends on whats the question asked. You as a Scot if s/he wants independence and s/he will say “Aye” in a heartbeat. Ask if you want Scotland to leave the UK, the answer will be no in a heartbeat. So that really is the SNP’s challenge; try to find a way to obtain Independence and without leaving the UK.
Even though anyone who is neutral can see that it would be an utter disaster for Scotland. At least for the first few decades just like it was for the Republic of Ireland initially.
I’m not sure if that would be the case. Ireland suffered in its first decades of independence from the blight of emigration and wrongheaded educational and economic policies. It was also under-industrialised at the beginning. The most industrialised part of the island remained in the UK.
These problems aren’t necessarily the same ones that an independent Scotland might face. I’m not saying it’s a good idea they declare independence, just that I’m not sure how indicative an example Ireland is in this case.
Scotland already has a large degree of autonomy as it is, but perhaps something like the Austro-Hungrian Compromise of 1867 might happen. This was the template for Irish Home Rule in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.
True, but Ireland forms a precedent for a former part of the UK and is often pointed out by supporters of Scottish Independence or at least was until the fincancial crises.
The thing about Scottish Independence is that I feel its supporters seem to dig around for excuses and models. It used to be North Sea Oil. Then it was Salmonds “Arc of prosperity”. Now it seems to be… well what is it these days.
Why not go to a more federal model? The UK seems to be an obvious place for this, except for the whole written constitution thing, and the need for a second Parliament/Congress of some sort, to distinguish between the UK Parliament and the English Parliament.
Devolved Scotland seems to be halfway there already.
^
The UK has since the devolutions of the late 1990’s has become a Federal stste in all but name.
The problem is that federations don’t work very well if there is a single constituent state with the vast majority of the population and economic power. England has more than 50 million people, Scotland only five million. In a federal UK, the English government would be virtually indistinguishable from the UK government in terms of priorities, and the Scottish government would have almost no voice.
The alternative would be to split England in a certain number of countries (at least two) and use this as a basis for a federation. But I don’t know if this could be acceptable. I’ve heard of a Northern English devolution movement but I don’t know much about it.
Not much different than the US, with California, Texas, New York, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania having the lion’s share of the population and economic might relative to states like North Dakota, Kansas, Rhode Island, etc…
There are entire states with less population than the county that my city’s in.
That’s why we have the Connecticut Compromise, whereby we have a bicameral legislature, with equal representation by state in the Senate, and proportional representation by population in Congress.
Something similar could be done for the UK- maybe fill the House of Lords with the same number of members from each constituent state (you’d have to devolve power to Wales and N. Ireland for this to work well) and proportional representation by population in the rest of Parliament.
The main thing that would probably be needed would be a concise and clear written constitution; none of that EU constitution foolery with trying to guarantee everything to everyone; just define the government’s structure, the relations of each part to the rest, and guarantee some basic rights.
If the powers are devolved then you don’t have a federal system.
That’s the thing. You have several states which together have the lion’s share of the population and economic might, but which nevertheless have competing interests. Not a single state with 90%+ of the country’s population. The US federal government doesn’t have the same interests as the governments of California, Texas, New York, etc., despite these states being among the largest ones.
Splitting England in two might make it feasible to operate the UK as a federal country, despite the fact that Scotland would still be small compared to either English country. The natural competition between both English countries’ interests would ensure that none of them would control the UK federal government.
Yeah, a federal state whose members are England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland is little different from the current unitary state, and both are little different from “England plus a bit.” In fact, under the current system, the Scots have the opportunity to garner a level of disproportionately high political power, which they wouldn’t have under a federal system. Even with that disproportionately high political power, they’re still an appendage.
Makes sense. On the other side of the pond, if we suddenly allow States or Territories to secede, some friends of mine who have obtained their US Citizenship at great expense could suddenly be very pissed at the fact that they are now losing it because they chose to live in, say, Maryland rather than Virginia and now must be Citizens of the Republic of Maryland instead of the US and kick themselves every evening because they chose the house on the wrong side of the bridge that seemed such a trivial, and checkpoint free, line.
I have immediate and extended (e.g. aunts, uncles, 1st cousins) in at least 5 States. We don’t see any borders between us as the States are United and moving to another one does not constitute a transfer of loyalty.
I’ve thought about this in terms of the US Territories and how at least Puerto Rico has an independence movement. I’ve wondered what would happen if Puerto Rican independence happened when I happen to be visiting, or if I decided to live down there for a few years only to find that I can’t move back home because I’m now a Puerto Rican.
I’m not aware of any movement, but there was to be a series of referendums in northern English regions a few years ago, on the question of whether those regions would get their own assemblies. They held one referendum, in North East England, and it was overwhelmingly rejected. Other planned referendums were postponed indefinitely, and the whole idea of devolution for English regions was kicked far into the long grass where it sleeps peacefully to this day.
I voted in that referendum. And I voted no. People were interested in the idea and, as with the Scots, there is a strong feeling that we are neglected by the south. The main problem (at least to me) was whenever you asked “what powers will the assembly have?”, the replies were always along the lines of “drawing up plans”, “suggesting”, “formulating ideas”.
It really came across as a glorified talking shop. Just another place for party hacks to sit around milking the system.
As an aside: We had a second vote on that ballot for restructuring our council boundaries. Here in Northumberland there were 2 options given. The first was for a single council authority to control the whole of the county. The second was for 2 councils, one the the urban south east area and a second for the rural remainder.
This second proposal received the majority of votes so of course we were restructured in line with the first proposal.