It's official. The date for an independent Scotland will be...

kabayiri

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Apparently, a "Yes" vote would guarantee a Conservative majority forever in what's left of UK. But the Scots know which side of their bread is buttered and will not go for it.
...

An interesting thought.

Imagine how a "No" vote will be spun by the political establishment back in Westminster though.

It would be interpreted as a vindication of current policies. ("The Scots are clearly happy with the economic balance within the Union" etc...).

This could work to their disadvantage ultimately. What if a future government were to reduce the Scottish subsidy? It would be unlikely they get another referendum option in the mid-term. After all, they would be shown to be a group happy to settle for the status quo!

It might be one big spin of the dice for Salmond, and an election boost for Cameron should Salmond lose.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

First I wish the English got a vote.

Second what happens in England, Wales and NI when the loss of Scottish MPs removes the Labour coalition majority?

Interesting question.

There are fixed term Parliaments now I think I'm right in saying. So what happens if the Government lose their majority and can't get a budget through or lose a No Confidence vote?

If you really can't have a fresh election, which would be a ludicrous situation, then a sensible PM would create a National Government and pretty much pass legislation at the behest of the majority party until a new Government could be formed. What happens if there's some crazy ideologue at the helm? I couldn't imagine Benn or Foot for example passing Tory legislation just to allow the hospitals and schools to stay open.

Generali

PS This is the date for an independent Scotland:

Generali

Ah, I answered my own question.

A Motion of No Confidence causes a General Election as does 2/3rds of MPs voting for a General Election. Presumably, a Government could vote that it had no confidence in itself to get an early election.

I don't really get why fixed term Parliaments are a good idea TBH.

michaels

I thought it was ostensibly brought in to prevent a govt 'cutting and running' when they thought their chances would get worse down the line but in reality the 2/3rds thing was to stop the lib dems holding a gun to the head of the Tories....

IronWolf

Generali wrote: »

Ah, I answered my own question.

A Motion of No Confidence causes a General Election as does 2/3rds of MPs voting for a General Election. Presumably, a Government could vote that it had no confidence in itself to get an early election.

I don't really get why fixed term Parliaments are a good idea TBH.

Because otherwise you get a government, like the last Labour govnt, that cherry pick opportune times to have an election when their popularity is high.

Loughton_Monkey

antrobus wrote: »

It is one thing to vote for independence, it is another thing to actually be independent. Achieving Scottish independence will require some considerable negotiations over well, practically everything; ........

And above all, is the drawing up of a "Constitution".

Much of the British Constitution is unwritten, and instead relies on the concept of Royal prerogative and precedence, all of which would be lost.

Australia had (has) the same problem every time it tries to pull away from UK monarchy.

You cannot simply take the British Constitution (such as it is) and do a "find & replace" to substitute the word "Monarch" with "President" because (a) that's impossible, and (b) no nation on this earth would vest the same 'power' in a President as we do in our own Monarch.

The first 5 years of independence would suck up untenable amounts of time trying to draft an acceptable consitution, which would then be superceeded by another 50 years of constant legal action as each part of it were contested and tested in court.......

Our Queen retains the right to refuse to allow a democratically elected Miliband (or Cameron) to run her government, and could, if she wished, refuse to sign any piece of legislation taken to her, and thus strangle due process. We rely on the unwritten belief that she never would [although the thought of her locking up Miliband for life in the Tower of London does have more than passing attraction.....]

I am not sure the Scots would be so comfortable that "Lord High President Alex Salmon" would similarly agree not to interfere......

The other alternative of appointing the Sturgeon woman as "Queen" might also introduce more than the odd objection.

kelpie35

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I'd like to see the betting on the boy Salmon staying in office when they vote No. Personally, I'd like to see him do the honourable thing and walk off into the sunset - with his fishy friend that ghastly Sturgeon women with her vile machine gun accent - and live in exile on some uninhabited Orkney island.

People in Scotland (like Hamish) need a good Conservative government, now, to whip them back into shape.....

Incidently, so do we in England, but we don't have one either.

I am scottish through and through but agree with you 100%

Have decided if this should go ahead and he wins I will move out of scotland, to where, not too sure, but know I could not live with him or his cronies being in charge :eek:

N1AK

kabayiri wrote: »

This could work to their disadvantage ultimately. What if a future government were to reduce the Scottish subsidy? It would be unlikely they get another referendum option in the mid-term. After all, they would be shown to be a group happy to settle for the status quo!

I'm sure the fact that a majority wanting to leave is unlikely is part of the reason that the government didn't fight harder to avoid a referendum. That said if Scotland ever reached the point where 55%+ were consistently saying they want independence in opinion polls I think we'd see another referendum no matter how badly they lost this one.

A large proportion of the anti-independence Scots are pro-union and pro-autonomy. They want to be part of the UK and they want to be able to control as much of their own affairs as possible.

kabayiri

kelpie35 wrote: »

I am scottish through and through but agree with you 100%

Have decided if this should go ahead and he wins I will move out of scotland, to where, not too sure, but know I could not live with him or his cronies being in charge :eek:

In a way, it's a shame that a decision taken with potentially long lasting implications is impacted by the dislike of a very short term politician (relatively speaking).