Discussion:
Is Devo max a third option for Scotland?
(too old to reply)
HardySpicer
2011-10-23 07:12:55 UTC
Permalink
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/salmond-opens-door-for-third-way-to-keep-independent-scotland-within-uk-2374678.html


Westminster politicians were warned yesterday to stay out of the
argument over Scotland's future, as the SNP leader, Alex Salmond,
pledged that only Scottish voters had the right to decide whether the
nation stays in the United Kingdom.

Mr Salmond told party members at their conference that he would
campaign "four-square" for independence at a referendum on the subject
expected within three years.

But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.

Faced with claims that Westminster was planning to take control of the
referendum preparations, Mr Salmond made it clear he planned to fight
the campaign on his own terms. Conservative and Liberal Democrat
ministers believe that imposing a simple "yes/no" choice on the
referendum would make a vote for independence less likely.

But Mr Salmond, who quoted the Irish nationalist Charles Stewart
Parnell to underline Scotland's "claim of right", told the SNP
audience in Inverness: "No politician, certainly no London politician,
will determine the future of the Scottish nation.

"The Prime Minister should hear this loud and clear: the people of
Scotland are now in the driving seat. The days of Westminster
politicians telling Scotland what to do and what to think are over."

The Scottish government will stage an independence referendum towards
the end of the current five-year parliament. Mr Salmond, trying to
drive home his advantage in his first conference as the leader of a
majority administration in Scotland, said the move would help Scotland
"flourish like never before".

The Holyrood government has come under fire from opponents, who say
the party is delaying the referendum because it is scared of losing.
They also say the SNP's tacit support for full fiscal responsibility
under "Devo Max" is a "failsafe option" for the party, which would
deliver more powers for Scotland even if voters rejected full
independence. Observers claimed Mr Salmond was making a political move
to ensure he was not outflanked by his opponents.
RH
2011-10-23 07:40:25 UTC
Permalink
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/salmond-opens-door-for-...
Westminster politicians were warned yesterday to stay out of the
argument over Scotland's future, as the SNP leader, Alex Salmond,
pledged that only Scottish voters had the right to decide whether the
nation stays in the United Kingdom.
Mr Salmond told party members at their conference that he would
campaign "four-square" for independence at a referendum on the subject
expected within three years.
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
Faced with claims that Westminster was planning to take control of the
referendum preparations, Mr Salmond made it clear he planned to fight
the campaign on his own terms. Conservative and Liberal Democrat
ministers believe that imposing a simple "yes/no" choice on the
referendum would make a vote for independence less likely.
But Mr Salmond, who quoted the Irish nationalist Charles Stewart
Parnell to underline Scotland's "claim of right", told the SNP
audience in Inverness: "No politician, certainly no London politician,
will determine the future of the Scottish nation.
"The Prime Minister should hear this loud and clear: the people of
Scotland are now in the driving seat. The days of Westminster
politicians telling Scotland what to do and what to think are over."
The Scottish government will stage an independence referendum towards
the end of the current five-year parliament. Mr Salmond, trying to
drive home his advantage in his first conference as the leader of a
majority administration in Scotland, said the move would help Scotland
"flourish like never before".
The Holyrood government has come under fire from opponents, who say
the party is delaying the referendum because it is scared of losing.
They also say the SNP's tacit support for full fiscal responsibility
under "Devo Max" is a "failsafe option" for the party, which would
deliver more powers for Scotland even if voters rejected full
independence. Observers claimed Mr Salmond was making a political move
to ensure he was not outflanked by his opponents.
The reason the Wee Yuk wants to have it on the ballot paper is that he
wets himself every time he thinks of what independence would mean.Of
course, if there was devolution max it would cause the English to
demand that the Scotch were expelled from the Union. RH
GM
2011-10-23 09:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/salmond-opens-door-for-...
Westminster politicians were warned yesterday to stay out of the
argument over Scotland's future, as the SNP leader, Alex Salmond,
pledged that only Scottish voters had the right to decide whether the
nation stays in the United Kingdom.
Mr Salmond told party members at their conference that he would
campaign "four-square" for independence at a referendum on the subject
expected within three years.
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
Faced with claims that Westminster was planning to take control of the
referendum preparations, Mr Salmond made it clear he planned to fight
the campaign on his own terms. Conservative and Liberal Democrat
ministers believe that imposing a simple "yes/no" choice on the
referendum would make a vote for independence less likely.
But Mr Salmond, who quoted the Irish nationalist Charles Stewart
Parnell to underline Scotland's "claim of right", told the SNP
audience in Inverness: "No politician, certainly no London politician,
will determine the future of the Scottish nation.
"The Prime Minister should hear this loud and clear: the people of
Scotland are now in the driving seat. The days of Westminster
politicians telling Scotland what to do and what to think are over."
The Scottish government will stage an independence referendum towards
the end of the current five-year parliament. Mr Salmond, trying to
drive home his advantage in his first conference as the leader of a
majority administration in Scotland, said the move would help Scotland
"flourish like never before".
The Holyrood government has come under fire from opponents, who say
the party is delaying the referendum because it is scared of losing.
They also say the SNP's tacit support for full fiscal responsibility
under "Devo Max" is a "failsafe option" for the party, which would
deliver more powers for Scotland even if voters rejected full
independence. Observers claimed Mr Salmond was making a political move
to ensure he was not outflanked by his opponents.
The reason the Wee Yuk wants to have it on the ballot paper is that he
wets himself every time he thinks of what independence would mean.Of
course, if there was devolution max it would cause the English to
demand that the Scotch were expelled from the Union. RH
How could they stop whisky being sold in the the UK? Or is 'The
Union' your local boozer?

GMc
Mel Rowing
2011-10-23 10:23:52 UTC
Permalink
How could they stop whisky being sold in the the UK?  Or is 'The
Union' your local boozer?
"They" would not stop Scotch Whisky being sold in the UK any more
than they would stop French brandy being sold in the UK.

However, don't run away with the idea that duties raised on such
whisky sales would somehow find their way to Scotland any more than
duties paid on French brandy, find their way to France.
GM
2011-10-23 14:18:52 UTC
Permalink
How could they stop whisky being sold in the the UK?  Or is 'The
Union' your local boozer?
"They"  would not stop Scotch Whisky being sold in the UK any more
than they would stop French brandy being sold in the UK.
However, don't run away with the idea that duties raised on such
whisky sales would somehow find their way to Scotland any more than
duties paid on French brandy, find their way to France.
Yup

The customs value of whisky would remain in Scotland (3.1bn)- sales
tax in rump uk (600m) - but much of that would be converted to customs
as the product crossed the border. The French can keep their brandy
receipts - whatever that had to do with it.
(see - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtreasy/memo/taxpolicy/m7.htm)

GMc
Malcolm
2011-10-23 11:20:10 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by RH
The reason the Wee Yuk wants to have it on the ballot paper is that he
wets himself every time he thinks of what independence would mean.Of
course, if there was devolution max it would cause the English to
demand that the Scotch were expelled from the Union. RH
A typically ill-thought out and ill-written piece from Robert.
--
Malcolm
DVH
2011-10-23 07:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by HardySpicer
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
LOL. Yes, of course it's a third option, and a very attractive one.
Coincidentally, it would save money and political capital!

By devolving defence and foreign affairs to Westminster, Salmon will ensure
that Scotland doesn't have to take any risks in the unpredictable area of
world affairs.

Scotland will remain squeaky clean and avoid any future Lockerbie-style
unpleasantness while retaining the luxury of sniping at central government.

And he wants full fiscal responsibility while sheltering under Britain's and
NATO's umbrella! Does he think these things are free?

In broader terms, do the people of Scotland really believe the wild promises
he's making? He's promising independence, but he wants to keep sterling as
his currency!?

He's going to come to a sticky end when Scots wake up the morning after the
referendum.
HardySpicer
2011-10-23 08:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
Post by HardySpicer
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
LOL. Yes, of course it's a third option, and a very attractive one.
Coincidentally, it would save money and political capital!
By devolving defence and foreign affairs to Westminster, Salmon will ensure
that Scotland doesn't have to take any risks in the unpredictable area of
world affairs.
Scotland will remain squeaky clean and avoid any future Lockerbie-style
unpleasantness while retaining the luxury of sniping at central government.
And he wants full fiscal responsibility while sheltering under Britain's and
NATO's umbrella! Does he think these things are free?
Who says that the SNP will be in power after independence? The SNP are
a pressure party, once they achieve their aims they will most likely
split up.
Anyway, it's not up to him, it's for the people of Scotland to decide
what they want.

Hardy
abelard
2011-10-23 11:30:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:38:51 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
Post by HardySpicer
Post by DVH
Post by HardySpicer
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
LOL. Yes, of course it's a third option, and a very attractive one.
Coincidentally, it would save money and political capital!
By devolving defence and foreign affairs to Westminster, Salmon will ensure
that Scotland doesn't have to take any risks in the unpredictable area of
world affairs.
Scotland will remain squeaky clean and avoid any future Lockerbie-style
unpleasantness while retaining the luxury of sniping at central government.
And he wants full fiscal responsibility while sheltering under Britain's and
NATO's umbrella! Does he think these things are free?
Who says that the SNP will be in power after independence? The SNP are
a pressure party, once they achieve their aims they will most likely
split up.
Anyway, it's not up to him, it's for the people of Scotland to decide
what they want.
'the people of scotchland' is about as meaningful as 'the people
of surbiton'
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
soupdragon
2011-10-23 12:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:38:51 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
Post by HardySpicer
Who says that the SNP will be in power after independence? The SNP are
a pressure party, once they achieve their aims they will most likely
split up.
Anyway, it's not up to him, it's for the people of Scotland to decide
what they want.
'the people of scotchland' is about as meaningful as 'the people
of surbiton'
That's right. Thank you for stating the obvious.
Malcolm
2011-10-23 14:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:38:51 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
Post by HardySpicer
Post by DVH
Post by HardySpicer
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
LOL. Yes, of course it's a third option, and a very attractive one.
Coincidentally, it would save money and political capital!
By devolving defence and foreign affairs to Westminster, Salmon will ensure
that Scotland doesn't have to take any risks in the unpredictable area of
world affairs.
Scotland will remain squeaky clean and avoid any future Lockerbie-style
unpleasantness while retaining the luxury of sniping at central government.
And he wants full fiscal responsibility while sheltering under Britain's and
NATO's umbrella! Does he think these things are free?
Who says that the SNP will be in power after independence? The SNP are
a pressure party, once they achieve their aims they will most likely
split up.
Anyway, it's not up to him, it's for the people of Scotland to decide
what they want.
'the people of scotchland' is about as meaningful as 'the people
of surbiton'
Converting the word "Scotland" to "scotchland" while keeping the phrase
in quotes demonstrates a mind that, like Robert's, has never risen above
the petty and stupid.
--
Malcolm
abelard
2011-10-23 14:46:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:38:41 +0100, Malcolm
Post by Malcolm
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:38:51 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
Post by HardySpicer
Post by DVH
Post by HardySpicer
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
LOL. Yes, of course it's a third option, and a very attractive one.
Coincidentally, it would save money and political capital!
By devolving defence and foreign affairs to Westminster, Salmon will ensure
that Scotland doesn't have to take any risks in the unpredictable area of
world affairs.
Scotland will remain squeaky clean and avoid any future Lockerbie-style
unpleasantness while retaining the luxury of sniping at central government.
And he wants full fiscal responsibility while sheltering under Britain's and
NATO's umbrella! Does he think these things are free?
Who says that the SNP will be in power after independence? The SNP are
a pressure party, once they achieve their aims they will most likely
split up.
Anyway, it's not up to him, it's for the people of Scotland to decide
what they want.
'the people of scotchland' is about as meaningful as 'the people
of surbiton'
Converting the word "Scotland" to "scotchland" while keeping the phrase
in quotes demonstrates a mind that, like Robert's, has never risen above
the petty and stupid.
avoiding the issue, while concentrating on trivia, is a demonstration
of an unimaginative 'mind' that cannot cope with reality
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm
2011-10-23 15:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:38:41 +0100, Malcolm
Post by Malcolm
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:38:51 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
Post by HardySpicer
Post by DVH
Post by HardySpicer
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
LOL. Yes, of course it's a third option, and a very attractive one.
Coincidentally, it would save money and political capital!
By devolving defence and foreign affairs to Westminster, Salmon will ensure
that Scotland doesn't have to take any risks in the unpredictable area of
world affairs.
Scotland will remain squeaky clean and avoid any future Lockerbie-style
unpleasantness while retaining the luxury of sniping at central government.
And he wants full fiscal responsibility while sheltering under Britain's and
NATO's umbrella! Does he think these things are free?
Who says that the SNP will be in power after independence? The SNP are
a pressure party, once they achieve their aims they will most likely
split up.
Anyway, it's not up to him, it's for the people of Scotland to decide
what they want.
'the people of scotchland' is about as meaningful as 'the people
of surbiton'
Converting the word "Scotland" to "scotchland" while keeping the phrase
in quotes demonstrates a mind that, like Robert's, has never risen above
the petty and stupid.
avoiding the issue, while concentrating on trivia, is a demonstration
of an unimaginative 'mind' that cannot cope with reality
Except that your assumption that I am "avoiding the issue" is just that,
an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever. But then that's your
M.O., isn't it?
--
Malcolm
abelard
2011-10-23 15:16:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:10:11 +0100, Malcolm
Post by Malcolm
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:38:41 +0100, Malcolm
Post by Malcolm
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:38:51 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
Post by HardySpicer
Post by DVH
Post by HardySpicer
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
LOL. Yes, of course it's a third option, and a very attractive one.
Coincidentally, it would save money and political capital!
By devolving defence and foreign affairs to Westminster, Salmon will ensure
that Scotland doesn't have to take any risks in the unpredictable area of
world affairs.
Scotland will remain squeaky clean and avoid any future Lockerbie-style
unpleasantness while retaining the luxury of sniping at central government.
And he wants full fiscal responsibility while sheltering under Britain's and
NATO's umbrella! Does he think these things are free?
Who says that the SNP will be in power after independence? The SNP are
a pressure party, once they achieve their aims they will most likely
split up.
Anyway, it's not up to him, it's for the people of Scotland to decide
what they want.
'the people of scotchland' is about as meaningful as 'the people
of surbiton'
Converting the word "Scotland" to "scotchland" while keeping the phrase
in quotes demonstrates a mind that, like Robert's, has never risen above
the petty and stupid.
avoiding the issue, while concentrating on trivia, is a demonstration
of an unimaginative 'mind' that cannot cope with reality
Except that your assumption that I am "avoiding the issue" is just that,
an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever. But then that's your
M.O., isn't it?
no, it is a statement of observable fact...
you've now done it again
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm
2011-10-23 15:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:10:11 +0100, Malcolm
Post by Malcolm
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:38:41 +0100, Malcolm
Post by Malcolm
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:38:51 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
Post by HardySpicer
Post by DVH
Post by HardySpicer
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
LOL. Yes, of course it's a third option, and a very attractive one.
Coincidentally, it would save money and political capital!
By devolving defence and foreign affairs to Westminster, Salmon will ensure
that Scotland doesn't have to take any risks in the
unpredictable area of
world affairs.
Scotland will remain squeaky clean and avoid any future Lockerbie-style
unpleasantness while retaining the luxury of sniping at central government.
And he wants full fiscal responsibility while sheltering under Britain's and
NATO's umbrella! Does he think these things are free?
Who says that the SNP will be in power after independence? The SNP are
a pressure party, once they achieve their aims they will most likely
split up.
Anyway, it's not up to him, it's for the people of Scotland to decide
what they want.
'the people of scotchland' is about as meaningful as 'the people
of surbiton'
Converting the word "Scotland" to "scotchland" while keeping the phrase
in quotes demonstrates a mind that, like Robert's, has never risen above
the petty and stupid.
avoiding the issue, while concentrating on trivia, is a demonstration
of an unimaginative 'mind' that cannot cope with reality
Except that your assumption that I am "avoiding the issue" is just that,
an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever. But then that's your
M.O., isn't it?
no, it is a statement of observable fact...
you've now done it again
It is clear, as has always been the case, that your intelligence (sic)
isn't up to carrying on a meaningful exchange.
--
Malcolm
abelard
2011-10-23 15:44:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:34:23 +0100, Malcolm
Post by Malcolm
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:10:11 +0100, Malcolm
Post by Malcolm
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:38:41 +0100, Malcolm
Post by Malcolm
Post by abelard
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:38:51 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
Post by HardySpicer
Post by DVH
Post by HardySpicer
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
LOL. Yes, of course it's a third option, and a very attractive one.
Coincidentally, it would save money and political capital!
By devolving defence and foreign affairs to Westminster, Salmon will ensure
that Scotland doesn't have to take any risks in the
unpredictable area of
world affairs.
Scotland will remain squeaky clean and avoid any future Lockerbie-style
unpleasantness while retaining the luxury of sniping at central government.
And he wants full fiscal responsibility while sheltering under Britain's and
NATO's umbrella! Does he think these things are free?
Who says that the SNP will be in power after independence? The SNP are
a pressure party, once they achieve their aims they will most likely
split up.
Anyway, it's not up to him, it's for the people of Scotland to decide
what they want.
'the people of scotchland' is about as meaningful as 'the people
of surbiton'
Converting the word "Scotland" to "scotchland" while keeping the phrase
in quotes demonstrates a mind that, like Robert's, has never risen above
the petty and stupid.
avoiding the issue, while concentrating on trivia, is a demonstration
of an unimaginative 'mind' that cannot cope with reality
Except that your assumption that I am "avoiding the issue" is just that,
an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever. But then that's your
M.O., isn't it?
no, it is a statement of observable fact...
you've now done it again
It is clear, as has always been the case, that your intelligence (sic)
isn't up to carrying on a meaningful exchange.
that's three times you've dodged...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Rowing
2011-10-23 08:53:08 UTC
Permalink
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/salmond-opens-door-for-...
Westminster politicians were warned yesterday to stay out of the
argument over Scotland's future, as the SNP leader, Alex Salmond,
pledged that only Scottish voters had the right to decide whether the
nation stays in the United Kingdom.
Mr Salmond told party members at their conference that he would
campaign "four-square" for independence at a referendum on the subject
expected within three years.
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
The purpose of dev max is transparent. It splits the anti independence
vote and provides a back stop position upon which a future full
independence campaign could be launched.

The Scottish Government , as it likes to call itself, has no more
right to call a referendum on the independence of Scotland than it as
to call a referendum over the independence of Yorkshire.

The independence of Scotland is clearly a constitutional and so rests
outside the remit of the Scottish Parliament. Salmond and all his
clique should be told and told now that the block grant received by
the Scottish executive is intended only to provide provision of
devolved services and that no public money will be spent on any
referendum in Scotland. If the SNP want it then the SNP can pay for
it.


Instead the Scots should be told that there will be a referendum but
the timing will be of the choosing of the UK Parliament as is within
their remit. Further since the issue involves the future of the United
Kingdom the said referendum will be held over the whole of it. The
question will be and straight forward one. " Do you wish the United
Kingdom to continue in its present form?" If the answer is "yes" then
the issue is closed for the next 25 years. If the answer is "No" it
is then the time to decide what arrangements the various regions of
the UK might wish to make over say the next 2 to 5 years. Some might
wish to form a new union(s) some may want to go it alone, some might
wish some kind of "half way house".

Whatever they decide, that decision should be irrevocable for the next
100 years and enshrined in treaty.
soupdragon
2011-10-23 11:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/salmond-opens-door-
for-...
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by HardySpicer
Westminster politicians were warned yesterday to stay out of the
argument over Scotland's future, as the SNP leader, Alex Salmond,
pledged that only Scottish voters had the right to decide whether the
nation stays in the United Kingdom.
Mr Salmond told party members at their conference that he would
campaign "four-square" for independence at a referendum on the subject
expected within three years.
But in a significant concession, made publicly for the first time, he
said Scots could be given a third option of "Devolution Max", offering
Scotland greater powers over their own government and economy, while
remaining in the UK.
The purpose of dev max is transparent. It splits the anti independence
vote and provides a back stop position upon which a future full
independence campaign could be launched.
How does it split the 'anti-independance' vote?
Post by Mel Rowing
The Scottish Government , as it likes to call itself, has no more
right to call a referendum on the independence of Scotland than it as
to call a referendum over the independence of Yorkshire.
Except it has a mandate from the Scottish electorate to call one. It
doesn't have a mandate from the Yorkshire electorate to call one in
Yorkshire.
Post by Mel Rowing
The independence of Scotland is clearly a constitutional and so rests
outside the remit of the Scottish Parliament.
That's right. It rests with the Scottish people - as Salmond made clear
in his speech. He also vehemently opposed the devolution Max option
pointing out the flaws, not least that nuclear weapons would still
be based in Scotland - something the SNP are strongly against. Strangely,
this part of Salmond's speech was cut by the UK media including BBC
News at 10, although BBC Scotland did contain that section in it's
report. As we've already established, nuclear weapons in Scotland
contributes little and the loss of Faslane etc would open up the
area to tourism.
Post by Mel Rowing
Instead the Scots should be told that there will be a referendum but
the timing will be of the choosing of the UK Parliament as is within
their remit.
No thanks. Our future, we decide.
Post by Mel Rowing
Further since the issue involves the future of the United
Kingdom the said referendum will be held over the whole of it.
Absolutely not. International legal precedent has already been set
with the demise of Czechoslovakia. If you have a mandate, there is
no need to consult the other party.
Post by Mel Rowing
The
question will be and straight forward one. " Do you wish the United
Kingdom to continue in its present form?" If the answer is "yes" then
the issue is closed for the next 25 years. If the answer is "No" it
is then the time to decide what arrangements the various regions of
the UK might wish to make over say the next 2 to 5 years. Some might
wish to form a new union(s) some may want to go it alone, some might
wish some kind of "half way house".
Whatever they decide, that decision should be irrevocable for the next
100 years and enshrined in treaty.
Wishful thinking. It won't happen.
Mel Rowing
2011-10-23 13:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by soupdragon
The purpose of devolution max is transparent. It splits the anti independence
vote and provides a back stop position upon which a future full
independence campaign could be launched.
How does it split the 'anti-independance' vote?
There are some probably most in Scotland who favour devolution but
would not wish to go as far as full independence. This is a honey
trap for them! Their will also be the fence sitters who can't make up
their minds. There will still be those who want their cake and eat it.

However once le fait est accompli it will not end there. The
nationalists will immediately see this as a mere step along the road
to the "inevitable" self determination.

For me, as much as I count! "No deal!" If you are going to be
independent then be independent. Have your own currency, have your own
armed services, Your own diplomatic service. Your own revenue
collecting agencies and so on. There is no such thing as semi
independence.
Post by soupdragon
The Scottish Government , as it likes to call itself, has no more
right to call a referendum on the independence of Scotland than it as
to call a referendum over the independence of Yorkshire.
Except it has a mandate from the Scottish electorate to call one. It
doesn't have a mandate from the Yorkshire electorate to call one in
Yorkshire.
It can't have a mandate to do that which it it is not empowered to do.
It can't declare war on Iceland or the Faeroes either. In the same way
the various councils of Yorkshire cannot call and certainly cannot use
public money to hold a referendum on the independence of Yorkshire
despite any mandate they may claim.
Post by soupdragon
The independence of Scotland is clearly a constitutional and so rests
outside the remit of the Scottish Parliament.
That's right. It rests with the Scottish people
Do I need to repeat myself?

"outside the remit of the Scottish Parliament."

No it doesn't The "Scottish people" ( or most of them) are UK citizens
born in Scotland. I am a UK citizen born in England that does not make
me any less a UK citizen than you are. Matters surrounding the
continuance of the UK are just as much my business as yours.
Post by soupdragon
as Salmond made clear
in his speech. He also vehemently opposed the devolution Max option
pointing out the flaws, not least that nuclear weapons would still
be based in Scotland - something the SNP are strongly against. Strangely,
this part of Salmond's speech was cut by the UK media including BBC
News at 10, although BBC Scotland did contain that section in it's
report. As we've already established, nuclear weapons in Scotland
contributes little and the loss of Faslane etc would open up the
area to tourism.
He can have all that as far as I'm concerned. What he can't have is
interference in UK affairs under the guise of "shared resources"
Post by soupdragon
Instead the Scots should be told that there will be a referendum but
the timing will be of the choosing of the UK Parliament as is within
their remit.
No thanks. Our future, we decide.
It's or future too. We also are citizens of the UK! The UK was
originally formed through the merging of two kingdoms not one. If it
is to be broken up then I want a say. I am more interested in
advantage rather than harmony. I would not wish a new Scotland well or
ill. I would not care less but would expect my interests to be
defended.
Post by soupdragon
Further since the issue involves the future of the United
Kingdom the said referendum will be held over the whole of it.
Absolutely not. International legal precedent has already been set
with the demise of Czechoslovakia. If you have a mandate, there is
no need to consult the other party.
There is and can't be any mandate the Act of Devolution covers that.
Under that Act powers are reserved by the UK Parliament in which
Scotland is proportionately represented. Any proposed break up of the
UK is one of them. "International precedent" does not come into it.
The UK is a sovereign nation.
Post by soupdragon
The
question will be and straight forward one. " Do you wish the United
Kingdom to continue in its present form?" If the answer is "yes" then
the issue is closed for the next 25 years. If the answer is "No"  it
is then the time to decide what arrangements the various regions of
the UK might wish to make over say the next 2 to 5 years. Some might
wish to form a new union(s) some may want to go it alone, some might
wish some kind of "half way house".
Whatever they decide, that decision should be irrevocable for the next
100 years and enshrined in treaty.
Wishful thinking. It won't happen.
No I don't think it will happen either. Long before we come anywhere
near that there will be more placation of the Scots by English
politicians in the hope that somehow they'll retain a smidgeon of
influence up in Scotland. Who cares so long as we unload them?

People like you should welcome people like me because if it came to
it, under the present situation, I would vote for a break up of the
UK. However, in my world there would be terms. So beware that which
you wish!
soupdragon
2011-10-23 17:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by HardySpicer
Post by soupdragon
The purpose of devolution max is transparent. It splits the anti
indepe
ndence
Post by soupdragon
vote and provides a back stop position upon which a future full
independence campaign could be launched.
How does it split the 'anti-independance' vote?
There are some probably most in Scotland who favour devolution but
would not wish to go as far as full independence. This is a honey
trap for them! Their will also be the fence sitters who can't make up
their minds. There will still be those who want their cake and eat it.
And this is what the referendum will show - who favours independance
and who favours something else.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by soupdragon
right to call a referendum on the independence of Scotland than it
as to call a referendum over the independence of Yorkshire.
Except it has a mandate from the Scottish electorate to call one. It
doesn't have a mandate from the Yorkshire electorate to call one in
Yorkshire.
It can't have a mandate to do that which it it is not empowered to do.
If you have a mandate from the people, you may do it, no matter what
those on the outside think or want.
Post by HardySpicer
It can't declare war on Iceland or the Faeroes either.
Of course not. It hasn't asked the people.
Post by HardySpicer
In the same way
the various councils of Yorkshire cannot call and certainly cannot use
public money to hold a referendum on the independence of Yorkshire
despite any mandate they may claim.
Well that's their problem, but the glaring difference is that counties
and countries are not the same thing.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by soupdragon
The independence of Scotland is clearly a constitutional and so
rests outside the remit of the Scottish Parliament.
That's right. It rests with the Scottish people
Do I need to repeat myself?
"outside the remit of the Scottish Parliament."
Do I need to repeat myself? That's right - it rests with the people.
Post by HardySpicer
No it doesn't The "Scottish people" ( or most of them) are UK citizens
born in Scotland.
..born in the _country_ of Scotland. An important distinction.
Post by HardySpicer
I am a UK citizen born in England that does not make
me any less a UK citizen than you are. Matters surrounding the
continuance of the UK are just as much my business as yours.
.. but not who's coat tails you can cling onto.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by soupdragon
as Salmond made clear
in his speech. He also vehemently opposed the devolution Max option
pointing out the flaws, not least that nuclear weapons would still
be based in Scotland - something the SNP are strongly against.
Strangely, this part of Salmond's speech was cut by the UK media
including BBC News at 10, although BBC Scotland did contain that
section in it's report. As we've already established, nuclear weapons
in Scotland contributes little and the loss of Faslane etc would open
up the area to tourism.
He can have all that as far as I'm concerned. What he can't have is
interference in UK affairs under the guise of "shared resources"
He's not asking for 'shared resources'. He wants full independance.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by soupdragon
Instead the Scots should be told that there will be a referendum
but the timing will be of the choosing of the UK Parliament as is
within their remit.
No thanks. Our future, we decide.
It's or future too. We also are citizens of the UK!
.. an amalgamation of mutiple countries. Now one may want to go its own
way. The rest will just have to get used to it if they decide to leave.
Post by HardySpicer
The UK was
originally formed through the merging of two kingdoms not one. If it
is to be broken up then I want a say.
That's ok. You can have your say. What you can't do is invoke a
majority tyrrany to deny the will of another country.
Post by HardySpicer
I am more interested in
advantage rather than harmony.
As are most Scots. Obviously a negotiated departure would be best for
all if that's the way the referendum goes.
Post by HardySpicer
Post by soupdragon
Further since the issue involves the future of the United
Kingdom the said referendum will be held over the whole of it.
Absolutely not. International legal precedent has already been set
with the demise of Czechoslovakia. If you have a mandate, there is
no need to consult the other party.
There is and can't be any mandate the Act of Devolution covers that.
If it doesn't specifically exclude it, then the mandate of the people
is sufficient. This is exactly the same as has been invoked for NI
should it decide it's time to go.
Post by HardySpicer
UK is one of them. "International precedent" does not come into it.
Oh but it does, particularly when it involves two historically seperate
countries who may at one time have come together for some reason.
Post by HardySpicer
The UK is a sovereign nation.
So? Scotland is a seperate sporting country, as well as legal, education,
etc.
Post by HardySpicer
People like you should welcome people like me because if it came to
it, under the present situation, I would vote for a break up of the
UK. However, in my world there would be terms. So beware that which
you wish!
That's ok. You can try and enforce terms, but that's likely to be counter
productive. Negotiation is the only way.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...