open Democracy News Analysis - The hare of of the Union, - Comments

let-em have it longshanks. on "The hare of of the Union"

let-em have it longshanks. — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:30:52 +0000

It's about time these Scots were put in their place. England is the most powerfull country in this union and we should make sure they know it!

seo çalışması on "The hare of of the Union"

seo çalışması — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:08:52 +0000

My dream world is very rich; I tend to have long, complicated dreams that, if I take the time to write them down, fill pages. Thank goodness I don't always remember the entire dreams or I'd spend my mornings distracted by the plots. As it is, I usually remember just portions, knowing that they are part of a much larger whole.

The other day, I awakened from one of those lengthy, twisty dreams to remember one distinctive highlight: I married Johnny Depp.

Johnny Depp Yep, I married The Man. Little ole me. But don't ask me about our heart-pounding first meeting, our crazy international courtship, or what kind of sun-spattered, bohemian wedding we had, because I don't know. I mostly remember this: after I married him, I divorced him.

Ray Bell on "The hare of of the Union"

Ray Bell — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:40:04 +0000

"Scotland votes for union, but the rest vote to push Scotland out … that would leave a lot of people embarrassed and confused."

Actually it would leave many Scots happy - especially me. And the rest will probably grow into it.

Alasdair on "The hare of of the Union"

Alasdair — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:42:46 +0000

Garith,

Absolutely, I'm all for ending the union of parliaments between Scotland and England. But if scotland leaves 'the union', won't England, Wales and Northern Ireland remain united in whatever is left? One might say that that would also be a 'union'.

If England left 'the union' then Scotland, Wales and Ireland would surely remain in 'the union'.

Gareth Young (Brighton) on "The hare of of the Union"

Gareth Young (Brighton) — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:44:16 +0000

Alisdair, it's not a matter of 'leaving the union' or kicking anyone out of the union.

If either Scotland or England choose independence they end the union.

Alasdair on "The hare of of the Union"

Alasdair — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:14:20 +0000

"by a strong majority" ... a strong majority is 1%.

That aside, the notion that any single nation within the UK could be held within the union against it's will because the other nations disagreed is a nonsense!

I can't imagine a situation where Scotland (or England even) voted for independence from the Union and could be held within it because one of the other countries thought otherwise! Such an outcome could potentially end in civil war, I don't think that would be in anyone's interests.

It's interesting though that there is talk of England kicking Scotland out of the Union ... presumabely Scotland could do the same to England if she so chose?

Gareth Young (Brighton) on "The hare of of the Union"

Gareth Young (Brighton) — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:26:30 +0000

It is when only one nation of the UK is deemed to be a sovereign nation by the gaggle of Scots that run this dump.

Mike Small on "The hare of of the Union"

Mike Small — Thu, 08 May 2008 06:09:26 +0000

National sovereignty is not a special constitutional privilege.

David on "The hare of of the Union"

David — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:25:54 +0000

I think Tim Luckhurst's idea of a three-question referendum (return to a completely unitary state, devolution or dissolution) is ridiculous. What happens if you get a minority for each option, which would be quite plausible? Plus it leaves out the most realistic chance that some form of Union can be preserved in the longer term: federation. If you then registered the results separately in each nation, you could get a completely contradictory set of results. And I won't even go into the question-begging and circular aspects of TL's arguments: 'Britain' being a nation state (no, the UK is the state; Britain is not a nation) and devolution (for which part(s) of 'Britain'?)

If you're going to have a single referendum for the whole of the UK, then it's just got to ask a single clear question, e.g.: "Do you think that the present constitutional arrangements governing the relationships between the four constituent countries of the UK [sorry, Cornwall; but we can ask the Cornish question when we get round to determining what a federal UK or independent England looks like] need to be changed?' Yes or no answer.

Then, assuming a yes vote UK-wide, it seems to me there would need to be some form of UK constitutional convention, combined with separate 'national conversations' in each of the four (five, including Cornwall) countries, to put together a sensible set of options for each of the countries to consider. Then a series of mutually consistent and logically interdependent referendums asking single clear questions could be held. So, for instance, the first such referendum could ask, for each of the countries (including Cornwall), "Do you think [name of country] should be an independent nation, separate from the other countries of the UK?" If any of the countries voted for independence (by a strong majority - 55% / 60% or more? not just 50.001%), then it should be considered their sovereign right to obtain it. If you accept the principle of sovereign right for all the UK nations (and asking a referendum question about independence presupposes that sovereign right), there's no point in any of those nations voting on independence for any other nation (e.g. the rest of the UK voting on Scottish independence); because if you get a no vote in the rest of the UK, this is of no account if you get a yes in Scotland. So the question has to be of the same sort / at the same level in each country.

If there a no vote to independence in all four / five countries, you could then proceed to a vote on a federal UK (a federation of nations not of 'nations and regions' - same principal of asking the same level of question to all) in the same manner. A process of proceding by elimination. If, however, you got a yes vote for independence for Scotland or even for England, then the negotiations begin for a new constitutional settlement for the whole of the UK (as all are affected). If it were English indpendence, that would almost certainly invalidate any idea of a federal union between the other nations, leading to four / five independent states. If it were Scottish independence only, there might be a continuing (federal) UK of three / four nations. This latter option would then of course need to be submitted to a single-option referendum to all three / four (inc. Cornwall) nations affected, and so on.

David, aka Britology Watch

Michael Langstrom on "The hare of of the Union"

Michael Langstrom — Thu, 08 May 2008 02:52:45 +0000

Wouldn't this be awkward:

"I think there might be more English people that want to kick Scotland out of the union than Scots that want to leave the union"

That if there were an all-UK referendum on whether to keep Scotland in the union and sever ties, and Scotland votes for union, but the rest vote to push Scotland out ... that would leave a lot of people embarrassed and confused. I would hate to be one of the people to clean up that mess. Maybe it ought to be settled with a friendly rugby match. If Scotland wins, it stays in, if it loses, it goes (of course there could be players throwing the game on purpose ....)

Ray Bell on "The hare of of the Union"

Ray Bell — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:53:13 +0000

"any referendum on whether Scotland should leave the Union impacts on everyone in the Union and therefore everyone in the UK should have a vote"

Funny, I don't recall being asked a say in the London Assembly, and nor do I want on. Or the referendum in Gibraltar.

This is a stupid and futile argument coming from last ditch defence of the Union.

They should probably wake up to the fact that the UK has never been a nation. However, it seems willing to pretend NI is one, and Cornwall isn't - despite the latter having ten times as much historical precedent as the other.

By the way, why are these arguments usually so anglocentric? There are millions of people in the UK who are neither English nor Scots.

Gareth Young on "The hare of of the Union"

Gareth Young — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:23:31 +0000

Bellacaledonia,

When i say it's not acceptable for Scotland to decide alone on this, I'm not arguing a legal standpoint, but a moral one. Obviously England and Scotland should both have the sovereign right to end a political union of which they no longer want to be part. The moral standpoint is that the union government extends to them the same right to be consulted, and to vote - the future of the union is not solely a decision for a privileged 10% in North Britain.

I don''t think that Scotland would vote to end the union (not yet anyway) but even if the union is endorsed by the people of Scotland it will be a pretty hollow endorsement if England (and Wales and NI) are just sleeping constitutional partners.

A referendum of this type in Scotland is bound to create one hell of a debate in the rest of the UK. It would not only be immoral to single Scotland out for special constitutional privileges (national sovereignty) but it would also be completely impractical because of the political heat it would generate. I would suggest that the eventual outcome, whatever it might be, would be more stable one if the whole UK voted together.

bellacaledonia on "The hare of of the Union"

bellacaledonia — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:41:08 +0000

Gareth - just as a matter of fact, this is not valid.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1 states as a moral and legal right, that: “all peoples have the right [to] freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

It’s routinely expressed as (Nick has above) that ‘English people want to kick Scotland out of the union’ often based on spurious accepted common culture myths about our economic relationship. Stemming from this comes a secondary assumption that the mass of votes in England would be to dissolve the Union.

However it is not valid what Tim Luckhurst suggests because should, as I suggest is more likely there be a vote against dissolution - you can’t hold the thing together against one parties will.

Matt Wardman on "The hare of of the Union"

Matt Wardman — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:12:05 +0000

Stirring slightly (as a thoroughgoing supporter of the UK).

* I'm not sure about the divorce analogy; I wonder if a brother/sister one is more appropriate in some aspects.

* Perhaps the English should have a referendum on Scottish Independence first.

* What are the implications for EU membership?

* I thought we didn't do referendums for Constutional changes any more?

I am now returning to my day...

Nick on "The hare of of the Union"

Nick — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:18:59 +0000

I think there might be more English people that want to kick Scotland out of the union than Scots that want to leave the union:)

The hare of of the Union,

OurKingdom — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:25:11 +0000

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): This argument by Tim Luckhurst in the Times is a hare that is going to run: any referendum on whether Scotland should leave the Union impacts on everyone in the Union and therefore everyone in the UK should have a vote, that's self-determination for you! It's a "We can't divorce unless we both agree" argument. You used to find this approach it in religious courts that gave men the power the decide if their wives were divorced whatever the civil courts might say. Despite himself Luckhurst flashes the primitivism that lies within his apparent reasonableness:

The people of this nation state, who stood united against Nazism, are entitled to know what will be lost if Britain is obliterated.

Of course a UK wide referendum that included the question, should England have its own parliament so that we become a democratic federation, would be a different matter.