Will RoUK really give up some of its financial freedom to the independant Scots?

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I think the rot set in when they allowed women the vote. They can't make their minds up can they?

That Pankhurst woman has a lot to answer for......

It goes back further than that. Oliver Cromwell ruined the place. Bring back the Devine Right.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

This is precisely what was wrong with the last home rule referendum. By putting a threshold in, even dead voters counted as No. Disgraceful.

Non-voters in a yes-no referendum should count as nothing. Not yes not no. The world belongs to the people who turn up and take part in it. Everybody else has registered their indifference and stepped aside from the decision. So be it- if they don't speak up during the decision, they'll put up with what they get.

It is pretty normal to have a higher threshold than a simple majority to amend a constitution. As you say, dead people counting as 'no' (or 'yes') is clearly ridiculous but it's normal to have to win a constitutional vote 2:1 or 60:40.

Perhaps a monumental and irrevocable change such as this should need more than 50%+1.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

It is pretty normal to have a higher threshold than a simple majority to amend a constitution. As you say, dead people counting as 'no' (or 'yes') is clearly ridiculous but it's normal to have to win a constitutional vote 2:1 or 60:40.

Perhaps a monumental and irrevocable change such as this should need more than 50%+1.

Perhaps it should and perhaps it shouldn't. The European norm appears to be that binational and multinational states have split with no referenda whatsoever, let alone ones with threshholds. Every single constituent republic of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia now in the EU split without a plebiscite of any kind.

And is it irrevocable? Ask the East Germans, after 40 years of seriously heavy-duty armed standoff. Reabsorbed in a flash it would seem. Or a gulp, some might say.

Putting a threshhold in, regardless of the democratic one-sidedness it implies, doesn't address the question I raised about why people who don't care enough to vote should be assumed to have a particular decision made for them by random assumption it's a no rather than a yes, instead of splitting them the way the actual real voters have expressed democratically.

vivatifosi

zagubov wrote: »

Perhaps it should and perhaps it shouldn't. The European norm appears to be that binational and multinational states have split with no referenda whatsoever, let alone ones with threshholds. Every single constituent republic of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia now in the EU split without a plebiscite of any kind.

And is it irrevocable? Ask the East Germans, after 40 years of seriously heavy-duty armed standoff. Reabsorbed in a flash it would seem. Or a gulp, some might say.

Putting a threshhold in, regardless of the democratic one-sidedness it implies, doesn't address the question I raised about why people who don't care enough to vote should be assumed to have a particular decision made for them by random assumption it's a no rather than a yes, instead of splitting them the way the actual real voters have expressed democratically.

I agree with you zag re the vote counting irrespective of the amount of complacency/non-voting. Given that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, it is very important.

I disagree with you though in that I also see it as irrevocable. Look at it from a non-Scots point of view. If Scotland chooses to go its own way (its choice) and then it doesn't work out, why should England/Wales/NI welcome Scotland back? Yes, we have a shared history, but ultimately Scotland is Scotland, not part of England, or Wales, or Northern Ireland. It's division would have been the result of democratic choice, not force or armed struggle. There won't be the emotion that there was over a divided Ireland or Germany.

There would have to be something in it for us, the English (and Welsh/NI) voters, to welcome a failed independent Scotland back. And if an independent Scotland had failed, why would rUK want to incur the cost of that, given that our budgets are already screwed and there will have been a cost involved in the split?

zagubov

vivatifosi wrote: »

I agree with you zag re the vote counting irrespective of the amount of complacency/non-voting. Given that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, it is very important.

I disagree with you though in that I also see it as irrevocable. Look at it from a non-Scots point of view. If Scotland chooses to go its own way (its choice) and then it doesn't work out, why should England/Wales/NI welcome Scotland back? Yes, we have a shared history, but ultimately Scotland is Scotland, not part of England, or Wales, or Northern Ireland. It's division would have been the result of democratic choice, not force or armed struggle. There won't be the emotion that there was over a divided Ireland or Germany.

There would have to be something in it for us, the English (and Welsh/NI) voters, to welcome a failed independent Scotland back. And if an independent Scotland had failed, why would rUK want to incur the cost of that, given that our budges are already screwed and there will have been a cost involved in the split?

You've made a good point. I don't know of many other examples of split countries trying to reunite.

But I also think that no-one's likely to feel a need, judging by the way the Scandinavian countries split from each other. They've set a great example of how to handle independence and later cooperation, but their Benelux-style customs unions, shared airlines, shared travel areas etc. show the benefits that indpendent states can gain by voluntary associations short of total political union.

vivatifosi

zagubov wrote: »

You've made a good point. I don't know of many other examples of split countries trying to reunite.

But I also think that no-one's likely to feel a need, judging by the way the Scandinavian countries split from each other. They've set a great example of how to handle independence and later cooperation, but their Benelux-style customs unions, shared airlines, shared travel areas etc. show the benefits that indpendent states can gain by voluntary associations short of total political union.

I don't think we would be very divided if there was a split. For example, we'd both be members of the Commonwealth and EU (presumably). However I can also see a situation where there is a closer relationship, as there is between the UK and Ireland.

John_Pierpoint

Does anyone want bankrupt Ireland back?
[How are they getting on looking for offshore oil?]

Loughton_Monkey

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Does anyone want bankrupt Ireland back?
[How are they getting on looking for offshore oil?]

Apparently the Irish do!