Scotland has always had its sovereignty in the people, rather than in the monarch, so would see its sovereignty returning to it as of right, not granted by Westminster.
I expect a Yes vote unless the Better Together Campaign actually comes alive- of which there is no sign up here.
Negotiations with the Rump UK may be hard ball, but Faslane is the deciding factor- the rump UK is over a barrel on that one- no other bargaining chip is as absolute as that and Salmond will make every use of the “nuclear option”! Nothing Rump UK can do could have as much effect on Scotland as being required to exit Faslane within a year!
Yes, Scotland - as in, the Scottish people - might see it that way. So will most democrats and republicans around the world, I dare say. But Westminster won’t see it that way - from Westminster’s perspective, sovereignty resides in the crown-in-parliament, not in the people - and SFAIK Scottish law currently takes the Westminster view of the matter. Which is why I say that the view that Scottish political institutions derive their validity and legitimacy from the will of the people, and not from a transfer or delegation from Westminster, is technically a revolutionary view. It asserts an alternative (and inconsistent) source of the legitimacy and authority of the state.
I hope your reading of the situation is more accurate than mine, so.
Depends. How happy are the Scots for the base as Faslane to remain? Is this something they’re willing to accept, in return for other concessions that are more important to them?
Also, expect the UK to try and turn this around. They won’t offer, e.g., currency union and support for EU membership in return for an agreement to keep Faslane; they’ll offer independence in return for an agreement to keep Faslane, and then try to take the position that, once that trade-off has been agreed, it’s a done deal and they don’t need to keep making further concessions to retain Faslane. Expect the words “Faslane” and “non-negotiable” to come up early, and often, in the independence talks!
What? Self determination is not the same as independence. Self determination is the right of a people to choose their own sovereignty and political status. Scotland clearly has self-determination within the UK. Nationalists muddying the waters by trying to conflate independence with self-determination doesn’t change that fact.
Say what you like about Westminster they seem to actually believe in the principle of self-determination.
Of course it won’t be sufficient to establish a Scottish state. What sort of stupid idea is that? A referendum is held and the next day independent Scotland comes into being, with things like the military, national debt, passports, driving licenses, currency and so on negotiated after the fact?
The fact of the matter is the referendum may not be enough to establish an independent Scottish state immediately, but it’s absolutely certain that after a successful referendum result for the “Yes” campaign and a period of negotiations between iScotland and rUK Scotland will become independent.
In as much as ultimate sovereignty lies with Westminster, yes. Politically, however, it’s pretty clear that any devolved region that elected a government with a mandate from that region to hold an independence referendum will be granted one.
Then why are we forced to have the bedroom tax, limits on immigration, no control over corporation tax, no control over drink drive limit and so on. Westminster still controls considerable amounts of Scottish day to day life.
You’re misunderstanding CRSP. Westminster does believe in self-determination: that is why the Scottish referendum will go ahead and its result will be accepted. It is acknowledged that Scotland is a political entity that has the right to decide which policy areas it can control.
The fact that Scotland is currently forced to implement policies drafted in London means nothing from a self-determination point of view. It simply means that, as of today, the political entity named Scotland has not decided to take care of those policies itself.
No. If Scotland votes “no” to independence, then she will have determined to remain part of the UK. Self-determination is not independence; it is choosing whether or not you want to be independent.
Even with independence Westminster will be controlling large amounts of Scottish day to day life. Immigration levels will be kept in line with the rUK as Scotland plans to enter the CTA. Monetary and fiscal policy in Scotland will be largely under control of Westminster due to being in a currency union with rUK. Independence isn’t a break from Westminster, at least not the independence that Salmond is selling.
How do you get to that conclusion? There is nothing in the CTA set up that stops Ireland having a somewhat different immigration policy to the UK- it does. There is a commitment to ensure that there is similarity, but no binding agreement to have identical policies. If Scotland wanted to repopulate by offering visas to particular groups of citizens, this is no different to the current differences between Irish and British rules on citizenship and residence that are broadly comparable but not in lock step.
What could become a problem is if rumpUK leaves the EU (as unlikely as this is).
Scotland may or may not be in a Currency Union- that is yet to be decided. Though Osbourne is campaigning for the Better Together scaremongers today in Parliament.
I nearly put a smiley on it. I should have put a smiley on it. But then I thought, “surely it’s too obviously stupid to be sincere, right?”. Like I’d never even *heard *of the internet.
Osborne is a loathsome clown who has badly mismanaged the recovery. But the basic points he’s making about currency union are hard to argue with:
[ul]
[li]Scotland would relinquish control over its currency[/li][li]England would have no particular incentive to make decisions based on Scotland’s interests[/li][li]Repudiation of Scotland’s debt to the UK would harm the new country’s reputation on the international markets[/li][/ul]
Scotland would be in no worse a position than it is today
England already makes its decisions on the South east and London and ignores Scotland
It is arguable that the debt is counteracted by the possession of the currency- if England takes the security of the currency, it needs to also take the debt that is associated with it.
I suppose it’s more accurate to say that Westminster was dragged, kicking and screaming, over the course of several decades, to a position where it grudgingly acknowledged that interference with Scottish self-determination was no longer politically tenable.
Or Westminster waited until the Scots voted en masse for the SNP. Its kinda difficult for Westminster be dragged kicking and screaming when Scots consistenly voted for a mostly status quo Labour Party.
Independence doesn’t mean that practical realities disappear. An independent, but small, country has to decide whether, e.g., to maintain its own currency, to link to the currency of another country, to enter a currency union, etc. Independence consists in the ability to make the choice between those options.
Plus, it’s a mistake to assume that, e.g., the maintenance of a common travel area only involves the Scots accepting restrictions on their immigration/border control policies. Something like a common travel area is agreed between the countries concerned. It’s only agreed if they both want it; they both want it only if it’s in both their interests; and if it’s in the interests of rump UK then that give the Scots (and the Irish) some bargaining power. The fact that rump UK will be much the bigger entity, and the one with the major transport hubs to the rest of the world give it more bargaining power, of course. But if rump UK actually wants a CTA with Scotland and Ireland, then it’s in rump UK’s interests to be willing to make concessions to achieve this, and Scotland and Ireland would be aware of this. Rump UK knows that large numbers of its citizens reside in Scotland and Ireland - and many of them will have votes in rump UK. As will their families and friends living in rump UK. The establishment of a common travel area can’t be reduced to a matter of Scotland and Ireland mindlessly implementing rump-UK immigration policies over which they have no influence.
The two options would seem to be (a) sterling, or (b) the euro, both of which are currency unions of one kind or another. Realistically, is an independent Scottish currency on the table at all?
Well, there was that whole 1979 referendum thing. That kinda…stung. It’s not as if the issue of Scottish self-determination sprung fully-formed last week from the loins of the SNP.
Sure, in Westminster elections Scots tend to vote Labour, because they see the alternative as worse. I don’t think you can assume, however, that this fact means that most Scots are opposed to independence or further devolution. We just vote Labour because it’s usually the best way to vote against the Tories.
