Of course. That’s why they’re having a national referendum that will show, beyond party lines, what percentage of the population shares that view. I don’t see your point.
So according to you national unions only last until they are no longer good for both nations? Well, then maybe we have reached that point, hence why we’re having a referendum.
Of course. That will be essential. So?
As I understand it, most important issues will be decided following the first general election of an independent Scotland. The SNP has obviously made the strongest proposal so far, but this may well change between the referendum and the (2016?) election.
The documents still exist, the population bring it up every so often, and they did consider making reunification an option on the islanders referendum. At the moment the number of islanders in favor of it is very small, but their independence movement have looked at various options previously.Something like Denmark has with the Færøes, or Finland with Åland.
The Åland islands (wonderful place, by the way) are historically, culturally and linguistically different from the country to which they belong. This fact has been recognised since the 1920s, when their population was allowed to decide whether to be Swedish or Finnish.
The Færøes are several thousand kilometres away from the Danish mainland, and have had active self-government movements for many decades.
I just don’t see similar factors - long distance from political centre, linguistic differences, long history of self-determination voices - in the Scottish islands. I personally wouldn’t see their separation from Scotland/UK as something legitimate
The statement “It will be inevitably difficult and may take many years” is supposition on your part. It may be difficult but I know of no such situation that has taken so long between vote and separation; Czechoslovakia 1992 springs to mind; this took less than a year. You may hope that it will be long drawn out and painful, but this is unlikely, especially given the UN Declaration on such matters.
Both the Westminster Government and the Holyrood Government have given undertakings to respect the result of the referendum. Certainly the SNP has a better electoral mandate than the Conservative Party, with the SNP nearing a majority of the Scottish people at the last election, and the Conservatives unlikely to get much more than a third at the next one in the UK!
Regarding the proposed Scottish Constitution, it will be decided by a Constitutional Convention, not by the SNP:
“The Scottish Government believes a constitutional convention should ensure a
participative and inclusive process where the people of Scotland, as well as politicians, civic society organisations, business interests, trade unions and others, will have a direct role in shaping the constitution. We therefore propose that international best practice and the practical experience of other countries and territories should be considered and taken Scotland’s Future: from the Referendum to Independence and a Written Constitution into account in advance of the determination of the process for the constitutional
convention. In the last decade, citizen-led assemblies and constitutional conventions have
been convened in British Columbia (2004), the Netherlands (2006), Ontario (2007) and Iceland (2010). In 2012, Ireland announced it will hold a citizen-led constitutional convention to review various constitutional issues. The Irish convention met for the first time in December 2012.”
Note “International Best Practice”. When was the last time the UK consulted the people about their (the government’s) constitution! Being a modern state will be one of the advantages of independence!
No party in Rump UK will have the ability to “shove(…) the majority of those expenses north of the border.” It will be done by negotiation between Holyrood and Westminster in line with international practice.
These particular islands have had their independence movents going for a long time, they are as close to Norway as Edinburgh, and had their own language through most of their time as Scottish. The islanders themselves do not refer to unification with Norway, but “Reunification with Norway”
I think the point is, a continous tradition of seeing themselves as norse rather than Scottish have survived.
Its unenforcable as long as the islanders does not want it enforced. The issue is entirely about whether an independent Scotland doing poorly may change that. A lot of UK law is ancient and based on older traditions still. That argument wouldn’t impress the magistrate
Any claim based on historic documents over-ridden by Modern Law of Nations will have little credence, save emotional.
I suspect there is a little Nationalism creeping in here- there is probably more ‘nationalist’ feeling in Cornwall, than the Northern Isles. There is a similar active claim from Cornish fantasists that the Stannary Laws would allow Cornwall to secede. It is about as realistic as the claims made by similar fantasists to not being bound by the laws of the state as they are ‘Free Men’.
It is another little negative jibe from the Worse Apart camp- no real standing in Law. I suspect that those English suggesting it would deny that Cornwall had a similar claim!
This puzzles me about the SNP platform. In general, they seem to favour significant increases in government spending, while at the same time reducing corporation tax to undercut the UK. Are they going to increase other taxes to make up the shortfall and be able to spend more than they do now?
Enough to counteract the loss of revenue, and to cover increased government spending?
A curiously conservative policy, anyway, for a left of centre party.
Ireland does, and using various tricks huge, vastly profitable corporations manage to pay far, far, less than our nominal low rates. Meanwhile, our public services wither on the vine.
The SNP is just another pro-corporate Third Wayer party, willing to whore itself to Big Business interests (along with dramatically reducing the chances for a Labour majority in the UK) if it means independence.
But that is more due to a little problem with the Euro rather than the level of Corporation Tax! Neither Luxembourg or Delaware who use the same strategy suffer similarly.
Its social policies have been far more leftist than Labour dares present to the electorate in the UK, and it has carried out most of those policies. The Scottish people are not required to give up their right to independence just becasue it would make the UK a Tory stronghold!
That’s the idea, that by increasing the volume of the taxable base, you get more taxes (and more jobswhich in turn get you more taxes, and more…) than by having a higher tax rate.
It’s the same as the choice between selling a few gizmos at a high price or many gizmos at a lower price.
Right, but most people would already say that the UK is far enough down that curve, and undercutting its corporation tax rate is unlikely to lead to a net gain in corporate tax revenue. So the additional revenue that the SNP’s plans would seem to need would have to come from somewhere else.
Ireland, Luxembourg, and I believe the Netherlands have corporate tax rates so low that they have attracted the ire of the EU. They are acting more like corporate tax havens than seriously thinking that they will reap more corporation tax overall. It’s not a policy that is in itself compatible with higher government spending, unless somebody else in the country pays higher tax. And I’m not sure that a new entrant to the EU like an independent Scotland would want to piss of the EU with competitive corporate rates.