You lost that referendum. There is no mandate for independence, no grounds for calling another referendum, and no reason the UK would have to accept the result of one if it did happen.
It could, but I doubt that it would choose to place its own economy in the stress that such an opposed attempt at separation would entail. Sterling would go onto free fall and stocks would crash. You saw the beginnings last month of how little markets like uncertainty and that was in response to an orderly exit.
In 2016 Scotland will elect another government via the Scottish Parliament. The SNP has doubled its membership since the referendum and now has more members than the LibDems over the whole of Great Britain. If another government is elected on a platform of independence, then that will be the springboard for future action. It is difficult to oppose the settled will of the people in an election. It’s called Democracy.
I understand it fully. Those countries gained independence because of a combination of other countries recognising them, and the UK’s inability or unwillingness to do what was necessary to continue enforcing government over them.
Neither of which applies to Scotland now or in the foreseeable future.
The politics of the matter also support my view. There is no mandate for independence in Scotland, it was decisively rejected last week (despite your continued attempts to spin it otherwise), and several pretty important countries will not, under any circumstance, support your unilateral independence. Good luck doing so without the UK, the US, China, Russia, or the EU. I’m sure your trade agreements with Somaliland and Turkish Cyprus will make up for it.
Oh, and because no-one would recognise it, we could take our oil, and give you none of the proceeds. Be very careful what you wish for, because what you’re suggesting would lead to Scotland becoming at best a second world non-nation, scorned by the rest of the UK and ignored by most of the world.
Or, you could attempt to negotiate devolution and/or independence in such a way as benefits both Scotland and the UK. As I’ve been suggesting all along.
You lost. There is no will in Scotland for independence. There is no mandate for a party to call for it.
You lost. Scotland will not be independent, probably, in my lifetime, and I hope to live another few decades. Get over it.
YOU LOST.
Given that the people of Scotland just voted to remain part of the UK, I question the validity of this amazing statement.
As the example of Quebec rather vividly demonstrates, electing a separatist party into government does not necessarily mean the people wish to separate. Quebecois have voted a separatist party into power for half of the last 40 years, and voted a separatist party into the great majority of Quebec’s federal seats for six straight elections, but they have voted “no” both times the question of independence (even though the question was deliberately confusing and ambiguous and implied it wasn’t full independence they were voting on) came up. One simply can’t assume a Yes vote. You need to actually get it.
Scotland has a legal and moral basis to declare independence when its people clearly vote to do that. They had a chance last week and said they didn’t want independence. They had a clear, unambiguous chance, and they say “no.” I realize you’re disappointed in that, but you need to accept it.
The only way to create the moral and legal basis for independence is to get the people to vote “Yes” to the same question. And I’ve got news for you; it’s gonna be harder than you think.
And if in May 2016 another SNP government is elected on a clear program of independence because the Vow was not kept…
If that happens, Scotland remains part of the UK, as there’s no mandate nor desire for independence, as the referendum last week showed. Did you forget about that already?
There’s a reason both the SNP government in Scotland and the UK government agreed to a referendum, and that’s because they both accepted that a general election doesn’t provide that mandate.
Whether “the vow” is implemented is, fortunately for you, effectively in Scottish hands. All that needs to happen is for your MPs to stop voting on things that don’t concern you, and you’ll get whatever you want. That’s the political reality of the situation.
I don’t expect either to happen in the next 2 years, and I expect the marginal complaints from the SNP and plastic jocks like yourself to be ignored by the mainstream politicians, who will work towards lasting and effective devolved government for the whole UK.
In any game of International money market pressure I can almost guarantee England will come out of it better than an “independent Scotland”, particularly if the money markets assume neither Westminster or the international community will recognise an Independent Scotland. Lets see Scotland taking possession of all North Sea oil receipts or borrowing money in such circumstances.
There are set methods for deciding continental shelf issues under the Law of te Sea, the Treaty for which has been ratified by the UK.
It seems that Cameron, Miliband and Clegg disagree with you.
These politicians did not commit to very much. The vows were left sufficiently vague to allow them some latitude and scope for interpretation. Everyone knows there is a general election next May and they cannot tie the hands of a future government.
Until then they just have to produce some enabling legislation and leave it up whichever government is elected to decide on the detail and timetable. The Scottish Parliament did not happen overnight, it took a number of years of a deliberation to put all the machinery in place.
However, I think they all know that constitutional reform will form an important objective of the next government given the disaster that nearly befell the country.
Labours plan seems to be to turn the House of Lords into a 'Senate of the Nations and Regions.
It is an interesting idea, but they really need to get a cross party consensus to make progress.
I can’t help but wonder how many of the “yes” people didn’t think about what they were giving up. Independence is more than just having your own Eurovision song. It means fending for yourself.
Even Cameron has admitted that Devolution has been uncoupled from EVEL. The next likely government is either Labour or some form of coalition. Labour has already agreed to considerable further devolution as have the LibDems; the Tories are not far behind. Maybe we should just see what is agreed on the set dates.
Of course such natives cannot just decide rationally. So colonialistic.
Well, someone’s not very rational about this. That was not an observation about the people of Scotland. It was an observation about people.
You’re accusing No voters of being bribed. Why can’t they just have decided for themselves rationally?
You’re desperately and frantically scurrying about trying to rationalize some way Scotland can gain independence even though 55% of Scots voted no in an absolutely free and open election. Your side lost. That’s what happens in a democracy. Deal with it.
But of course they DID decide rationally - they voted no :).
Not really, no. Well, I rather hope Miliband does as he’s an utter tit, but that’s just on general principles.
What is going to happen over the end of this parliament and the start of the next is a series of negotiations about further devolution and an answer to the West Lothian question. They won’t be coupled together, but neither will significant further devolution happen without some movement on getting that answer.
“The Vow” is not some holy writ, binding on all who signed it lest they are consumed by the fires of a jealous, tartan-wearing deity. It’s a manifesto, no more, no less, and as binding as any other. Which means some of it will be implemented, some modified, and some ignored. Just like any other political promise. How much of which will be negotiated.
What I will say is that if the negotiators act like you, saying that either Scotland gets everything it want or they declare independence, then you’ll be laughed out of the negotiations and get nothing.
I think Pjen is continuing to block out the fact that his side lost, and that there’s no mandate or desire for independence in Scotland. And that there won’t be for the foreseeable future.