Not quite.
The agreement over the last referendum recognised Scotland’s right to secede.
http://www.gov.scot/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence
Note that it was an order in council made under royal prerogative.
All parties standing in Scotland save UKIP are revolutionist to some extent with the Greens, SSP and SNP at one extreme, followed by the LibDems, Labour and even the Scottish Conservatives. All devolutionists.
John Major panics about Scotland and in doing so increases the likelihood of separation:
The Labour leader, had to ‘summon the courage’ to rule out any post-election deals with the SNP to ensure that the party is not allowed ‘to prise the UK apart’, Sir John Major says…
“I do not wish to see this, and ask the people of the United Kingdom to remember the SNP speak only for the minority of Scots.”
That would be the SNP that speaks for 45% of Scots according to the latest polls rather than a Conservative party that represents 33% of UK voters.
Quite easily, I’d have thought. The only issue would arise when they wish to exercise the right to live and work within the EU, and only then if this represented some significant factor in host member states’ economic, social or political life (but it doesn’t seem that likely that France or Spain would a UKIP-style approach to the average British expat).
But one of the glaring weaknesses in the SNP’s arguments in the referendum campaign was their blithe insouciance in asserting that an independent Scotland would have an absolute right to full membership of the EU, inheriting all the opt-outs and concessions previously granted to the UK, or if not that, then at least that the acquiescence of all the other member states was a mere formality and foregone conclusion - which is not how EU politics works.
Being “grandfathered in” to the EEA, like Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, would be something different and not on the SNP’s agenda: since it means being bound by all the EU’s economic rules and regulations with no representation in any of its decision-making institutions, which would make a nonsense of their arguments for leaving the UK, where Scotland is represented.
A thought provoking article about the need for statesmanship and compromise if the Union is to be maintained
You misunderstand. Every British person currently resident in Scotland is eligible for a British Passport carrying with it British citizenship and European Citizenship. No group of people possessing Full British Nationality has ever been denied that full citizenship in their or their children’s lifetime. Ten per cent of Scots, like me and my children, are English born!
Even Irish people born in Ireland before separation in 1948 are eligible for a British Passport (see Terry Wigan and his knighthood!)
It would be two full generations before a majority of Scots would be denied full British citizenship or full European Citizenship.
Regarding the long and short term position of Scotland as a nation within the EU, in the short term an EFTA successor status would give access to the single market, and in the long term it is unthinkable that a relatively wealthy and advanced European nation would be denied eventual EU full membership.
The SNP is not pro-EU for ideological reasons, but for practical economic ones, needing to be part of a large trading group and to have access to the internal market. Having no representation at the top table would make little difference in the short term.
What everyone but you and the SNP has been saying all along is that there is need for statesmanship and compromise, unfortunately neither you nor the SNP are willing to do that.
Ditch the threats to destroy the Union and then there’s a real chance for the level of devolution that many Scots want. Keep threatening and the only responsible thing the UK can do is to ignore it.
And really, saying we need a Lincoln? You want someone who would start a war to keep Scotland in the Union? Not sure you’ve thought that one through…
My concern about the SNP being in Government/supporting Government in Westminster is that I don’t trust them to work in good faith. Their raison d’etre is to destroy the UK, not to help Westminster function. I fear they’ll extract whatever they can get, without concern for the antagonisms they generate for the English or the Scots, then quit when they’ve got what they wanted, and rub their hands watching the chaos. They’ll want to take credit for the good and blame Westminster for the bad.
(My bolding)
Those demands on Trident seem to be negotiable, according to Nicola Sturgeon:
So in fact there could be a Labour government supported by the SNP on many issues - Trident wouldn’t be one of them, but nor would support on those other issues be dependent on scrapping Trident. Which seems like the kind of statesmanship and compromise that could save the Union. I find I’ve got a lot of time for Nicola Sturgeon as she seems to understand what the Scottish people want:
This seems a much more democratic and reasonable approach than refusing a deal with Labour and thus letting the Tories rule Scotland.
Then it will take statesmanship to handle the situation.
The situation will be damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Either the SNP are admitted to the process of the governance of the UK, for which there will be a political cost of meeting at least some of the SNP’s demands, or they will be excluded which will result in increased demands for separation in Scotland.
What will do the most damage is stubborn resistance to any moves for further Scottish devolution.
Now, I and probably the majority of Scots, would be happy with home rule. There is no majority for either the status quo or the Smith Commission proposals. There is a current mild reluctance to plump for independence, but this could easily become the majority view if the Unionists misplay their hand in the next six months.
What is needed to settle the matter is a full Royal Commission on the Constitution for the whole of the UK. This would consider the powers devolved to national or sub national entities and the federal structure necessary to maintain this.
A system similar to the German Lander system or US States in the nineteenth century would IMHO be ideal. Regional Parliaments in England, National Parliaments in the rest. Federal Parliament with defined powers limited to those necessary at that level. With PR of some sort and qualified majority voting in the Federal Parliament we might gain some stability.
Federal powers would be International relations and regulation of relationships between assembly areas. Richer areas such as Scotland (when the oil price is high) and Southern England would need to subsidise the budgets of those regions with shortfalls.
I suspect that Labour in alliance of some sort with the SNP and Greens and LibDems might plump for maintaining but not upgrading Trident. That would be a more likely red line than disarmament.
As usual, your knowledge lets you down. Lincoln always wanted to avoid conflict and made every possible accommodation to try to keep the seceding states in line.
You will find that the war started only when southern militia attacked a federal outpost in the South, forcing the North to defend the lives and safety of Federal troops and officers in the South.
What Unionists need to do is to act to maintain the Union by reaching a compromise with Scotland. If they fail to do this the pressure for independence will increase to the point that separation will be inevitable even though the majority of Scots would be happy with Home Rule.
Unlike the USA in the mid nineteenth century, there is no elephant in the room (Agricultural slavery) only the problems of devolved democracy in a modern state. The only thing driving Scottish independence is the perception that too much power is retained in Westminster.
Scotland paying its way rather than taking from the rest of the Union would be enough to get me to agree to this. The Southeast already does subsidise much of the rest, the rest of the South isn’t particularly wealthy.
But in the same way that the City of London and the concentration of capital in the South East is part of the wealth of the South East to be shared, so is the oil and gas wealth of Scotland part of its wealth to be shared.
Currently Scotland does share its oil and gas wealth with the rest of the UK as it has done for the last fifty years.
Lincoln refused to accept the southern States leaving under any circumstances. Even I’ve not claimed that I support that view - in fact, I’ve actively criticised Lincoln for choosing war on this board, and elsewhere. If Scotland is determined to leave no matter what, then I say let them, and let them be damned.
So, let’s take your scenario. Would you be fine with the UK refusing to accept Scottish independence under any circumstances, and using force to defend military bases north of the border? Because that’s what Lincoln did, and in another thread you directly said I was wrong when I commented that your support for American values included supporting the view that the Union should never be broken. And yet, here you are supporting the leading example of that exact view.
Perhaps you should focus on what you actually believe, and the consequences thereof, rather than reflexively and unthinkingly disagreeing with me on every issue. I know that will be almost impossible for a Scot to do to a Tory, but give it a try. You might learn something.
No it doesn’t, the Barnett Formula specifically gives Scotland more than it’s share because of oil revenue.
The UK will not refuse Scottish Independence should it be demanded. That was agreed by the Edinburgh agreement that admitted that sovereignty over separation was a matter for the Scottish people and parliament subject to a referendum.
I am quite clear about my aims- maximum devolution to the point of Home Rule to avoid independence. That in my view would give us a settlement that would last for generations. My fear is that angry unionists will drive the Scots to independence by their actions and attitudes.
This does not worry me as I am quite willing to give independence a try if the Scottish people are driven to it. Of course I have an exit route if necessary as I am English!
I never agreed that Unions could not be broken. I hold exactly the opposite view.
Again your knowledge lets you down. The Barnett Formula predates the Scottish oil fields and does not consider income at all, only tying expenditure in England to that in Wales and Scotland. This was based on the previous Goshen Formula for Ireland.
You will find the facts here:
So, the Barnett Formula applies only to expenditure. Scotland does have higher than average per capita expenditure under the Barnett Formula.
The Barnett Formula does not address is contribution to National Income. The contribution from Scottish oil fields over the last fifty years has more than balanced in transfer from a nominal Scottish economy to a nominal UK economy the excess expenditure on the Barnett settlement.
Let’s do some fact checking.
Lincoln was not President at the declaration of secession by the Confederacy. His predecessor James Buchanan, who also opposed secession, was still in office.
Lincoln’s inaugural address was an appeal to the South to avoid war and a statement that he would never be the first to attack. He declared that he would peacefully maintain the Federal garrisons in the south.
“I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
The Confederacy attacked one of these garrisons a month after the above address.
Apart from those facts your characterisation of Abraham Lincoln as a rabid war hawk is entirely accurate . 