Cameron seeks independence referendum clarity for Scotland

[Guided Missile]

[TABLE=class: data-table]

[TR]

[TD=class: left]

October 2012

 

• Prime Minister David Cameron and First Minister Alex Salmond sign the referendum agreement
  
• A Section 30 order transferring the rights to hold a referendum to Holyrood
  
• The findings of the Scottish government's Your Scotland, Your Referendum consultation will be published
  

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: row2]

[TD=class: left]

Autumn/winter 2012

 

• Electoral Commission begins the practical preparations, including testing the fairness and clarity of the question
  

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: left]

February 2013

 

• The Section 30 Order will be agreed by the Privy Council
  

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: row2]

[TD=class: left]

Spring 2013

 

• The Referendum Bill comes before Holyrood
  

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: left]

October 2013

 

• MSPs take part in the crucial Stage 3 vote at the Scottish Parliament
  

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: row2]

[TD=class: left]

November 2013

 

• Royal Assent is given to the bill
  
• The Scottish government will publish a White Paper - what it calls its "prospectus for independence". Other parties will also put forward their vision for the future of Scotland.
  

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: left]

Summer 2014

 

• The pro-independence and anti-independence campaigns intensify
  

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: row2]

[TD=class: left]

Autumn 2014

 

• The Scottish independence referendum takes place
  

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Now all we need is a timetable for the referendum on leaving the EU and my day will be complete. A yes for an independent Scotland within the EU and a yes vote for an independent England outside the EU, with much ROFL all round...

[badgerx16]

 

Point is, I don't really see the benefits of independence for Scotland, especially if one of their first objectives is to surrender sovereignty to the EU.

 

The 'benefit' to Scotland of independence is that Alex Salmond and his band of minor political colleagues will construct themselves a power base and start to test their peurile policies in 'real life'. What happens if Scotland accidentally votes to secede but then subsequently fails to elect an SNP led Parliament ?

[CB Saint]

They missed one step

 

October 2014 - hand back the hbos and rbs debts

 

Bon appetit

[Thedelldays]

They will vote for independence and then immediately hand power to Brussels

 

 

Odd

[doddisalegend]

Whose to say that they belong to England in the first place and they are not Scottish? Lets ignore the fact that there will be some agreement on defence as it is mutually beneficial to both countries for a moment. You have made the assumption that anything good or useful must be by default English. Scottish tax payers money helped to pay for the equipment in these bases the same as English and Welsh tax payers did. Most of the UK's nuclear defence systems are 'probably' located in Scotland. Should these weapons be moved down to England after the split? After all they must be English? Maybe Scotland can sell them to England or England can pay an annual amount to Scotland for defence?

 

It is this type of typically arrogant thinking that annoys the other countries in the union. Not all of the successes of the British army in history have been down to the English, don't forgot who captured Napoleon's standard and where it is held.

 

[doddisalegend]

Well I can't speak for Chapel, but my point is/was that an independent Scotland wil not be able to afford to maintain a decent defence force. It's not a matter of who gets what at first, but what you can afford to 'run' long term.

 

How many Scots who are in the Royal Navy etc, do you think will want to move their career into any tiny new Scottish armed forces? Even the UK struggles to keep up with the big boys. Can't see Scotland affording any type 45's. The armed forces of an independent Scotland would be tiny. No future in being in the army or navy there, and as for the cost of an air force...

 

There are only about 5 million people in Scotland remember, as opposed to c 57 million in the rest of the UK. Even dividing up assets as simply in that ratio would show how sillly the idea was.

 

Oh and yes of course the Scots have made a major contribution as members of the UK's armed forces. No one is denying that.

 

In fairness do the Scots need a defence force apart from us who are they going to go to war with?

[Guided Missile]

It is this type of typically arrogant thinking that annoys the other countries in the union. Not all of the successes of the British army in history have been down to the English, don't forgot who captured Napoleon's standard and where it is held.

 

The first French Eagle to be captured by the British was taken by the 87th (Royal Irish Fusiliers) Regiment of Foot from the French 8e Ligne at the Battle of Barrosa on 5 March 1811.

The 87th was highly honoured for their success, being granted the honour of carrying the eagle as a motif on their Regimental Colours and through being granted the royal title 87th (Prince of Wales' Own) Irish Regiment.

 

The eagle was taken back to England and put on display in the Royal Hospital, Chelsea

 

The British took two Eagles at the Battle of Salamanca in 1812. Ensign John Pratt of the Light Company of the 30th Foot(later 1st Battalion, East Lancashire Regiment) captured the Eagle of 22nd Regiment de Ligne.It is displayed today in the Museum of The Queen's Lancashire Regiment in Preston, Lancashire. And the 2nd Battalion of the 44th Foot took the Eagle of the French 62e Ligne.

 

Two of the newer French regimental eagles were captured during the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. French I Corps under the command of Comte d'Erlon was charged by the British heavy cavalry, command by Earl of Uxbridge, the Royal Dragoons captured the Eagle of the 105e Ligne (now held at the National Army Museum, Chelsea) and the Scots Greys captured the Eagle of the 45e Ligne.

 

I make that the Irish 1, the Scots 1 and the English 3.

 

Who are ya, who are ya...?

[Ken Tone]

"It's also clear that, as things currently stand, an independent Scotland would continue to use the pound, at least initially, as its currency.

Mr Salmond would like to join the Euro, subject to a referendum and the right economic conditions - but that's not exactly an attractive prospect at the moment." BBC website

 

If the Scots continue to use the pound ,but as an independent country they will have no say whatsoever in the economic policies that determine the international value of that pound. That would be worse than now for them.

and why should we English agree to that anyway? Would we be expected to accept Scottish pounds as legal tender in England & Wales? If so, why? And if not, think of the extra expense to the Scots in dealing with the costs of exchange etc? What effect would that have on the economy of such a small country?

 

That's just one detail --- currency. Similar sorts of issues will arise over virtually every aspect of the life of a country, and the likely 'sod you then' backlash from the rest of Britain will not give them much slack.

Edited 15 October, 2012 by Ken Tone

[trousers]

I've probably posted this before but the one thing that narks me somewhat is that I, as a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, get no say on whether my country should be broken up or not. Why should one part of Britain get a say and not the others?

[Tokyo-Saint]

I make that the Irish 1, the Scots 1 and the English 3.

 

Who are ya, who are ya...?

 

Different Standard. You have confused the one captured by 87th (Royal Irish Fusiliers) Regiment of Foot and is now on display in Louvre des Antiquaires in Paris, with the one taken by Charles Ewart of The Royal North British Dragoons (more commonly known as the Scots Greys) and is on display in Edinburgh castle. This was the regimental eagle of the 45e Régiment de Ligne (45th Regiment of the Line-Napoleon's) and not The Aigle de drapeau which belonged to a baguette salesmen in Le Harve.

 

Easy mistake to make.

 

I am Tokyo-saint btw and most of what I say is in jest.

 

Who are ya?

Edited 15 October, 2012 by Tokyo-Saint

[doddisalegend]

I've probably posted this before but the one thing that narks me somewhat is that I, as a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, get no say on whether my country should be broken up or not. Why should one part of Britain get a say and not the others?

 

This totally ....I've always considered my self British first and English second why shouldn't I get a say on wheather my country is broken up?

[eurosaint]

I've probably posted this before but the one thing that narks me somewhat is that I, as a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, get no say on whether my country should be broken up or not. Why should one part of Britain get a say and not the others?

 

It narks me even more that, as I was born, bred and educated in Scotland, I am also not allowed a vote !

Your average Bulgarian, Pakistani, Zimbabwean etc.. who happens to be living there right now gets the right, but not you and me Trousers !

I would have voted a big NO anyway so I guess that the chancer (Mr Salmond) won't be in any way bothered about that !

[Thedelldays]

In fairness do the Scots need a defence force apart from us who are they going to go to war with?

 

It's not that... The MoD is the biggest employer in Scotland (if not, the 2nd biggest behind the NHS)... Where would thy stand with all of that... Surely our money should be going to jobs in England should they wish to go alone.

[doddisalegend]

It's not that... The MoD is the biggest employer in Scotland (if not, the 2nd biggest behind the NHS)... Where would thy stand with all of that... Surely our money should be going to jobs in England should they wish to go alone.

 

So their main reason for keeping a Scottish defence force would be to keep half of Scotland employed?

[Thedelldays]

So their main reason for keeping a Scottish defence force would be to keep half of Scotland employed?

 

Dunno

Just highlighting just one potential problem they will have with unemployment if the mod had to leave

 

 

I know king Alec wants Scotland as nuclear free... That would mean the end of the Clyde naval base... Which accounts for about £65m per year in the local economy of the area

Edited 15 October, 2012 by Thedelldays

[hypochondriac]

Originally Posted by trousers

 

I've probably posted this before but the one thing that narks me somewhat is that I, as a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, get no say on whether my country should be broken up or not. Why should one part of Britain get a say and not the others?

 

 

 

This totally ....I've always considered my self British first and English second why shouldn't I get a say on wheather my country is broken up?

You would still be british

[pap]

I've probably posted this before but the one thing that narks me somewhat is that I, as a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, get no say on whether my country should be broken up or not. Why should one part of Britain get a say and not the others?

 

This totally ....I've always considered my self British first and English second why shouldn't I get a say on wheather my country is broken up?

 

The people of Northern Ireland have the right to self-determination. Would you want a say on whether they leave the union or not? Should the Spanish have a say in whether Catalunya gets to leave Spain? In cases like these, the larger whole would often like to keep the entire country intact.

 

Self-determination is the guiding principles in cases like these. The whole point is that on questions of sovereignty, external influences are excluded. In the case of a group of people seeking independence from a larger nation, opinions of the larger nation don't come into it, and rightfully so. Should the smaller nations that popped out of Yugoslavia have sought Serbian approval to exist? Self-determination is the standard that we expect others to abide by; we can't credibly abandon it when it doesn't suit us.

[doddisalegend]

The people of Northern Ireland have the right to self-determination. Would you want a say on whether they leave the union or not? Should the Spanish have a say in whether Catalunya gets to leave Spain? In cases like these, the larger whole would often like to keep the entire country intact.

 

Self-determination is the guiding principles in cases like these. The whole point is that on questions of sovereignty, external influences are excluded. In the case of a group of people seeking independence from a larger nation, opinions of the larger nation don't come into it, and rightfully so. Should the smaller nations that popped out of Yugoslavia have sought Serbian approval to exist? Self-determination is the standard that we expect others to abide by; we can't credibly abandon it when it doesn't suit us.

 

Don't agree democracy should be about what the majority want not the minority. In this case we are all part of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and have been since 1707 (a rather long 305 years) so English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish should all get a say in whether this country splits up. There's a big difference between self determination for a short term country like Yugoslavia which lasted a mere 61 years (less if you take out 4 years of German occupation) were people could still remember being independent and the UK were no one alive for many(many) generations would remember any such thing. I might as well started lobbying for Wessex to leave the union.

 

Perversly the scots would probably get indepenence if the English were allowed to vote if the comments on the BBC website are anything to go by..............

[Ken Tone]

The people of Northern Ireland have the right to self-determination. Would you want a say on whether they leave the union or not? Should the Spanish have a say in whether Catalunya gets to leave Spain? In cases like these, the larger whole would often like to keep the entire country intact.

 

Self-determination is the guiding principles in cases like these. The whole point is that on questions of sovereignty, external influences are excluded. In the case of a group of people seeking independence from a larger nation, opinions of the larger nation don't come into it, and rightfully so. Should the smaller nations that popped out of Yugoslavia have sought Serbian approval to exist? Self-determination is the standard that we expect others to abide by; we can't credibly abandon it when it doesn't suit us.

 

All very true, but it begs the question of what is a nation? How big or small a unit are you giving the right to self-determine? Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland are all pretty clearly nations of some sort of other, but what about the residents of Cornwall for example? There are those who'd claim independence for Cornwall too. And you say " a group of people seeking independence from a larger nation". What about East Anglia? Wessex? Where do you draw the line? Individual counties, towns, villages? It is not simple.

[aintforever]

The people of Northern Ireland have the right to self-determination. Would you want a say on whether they leave the union or not? Should the Spanish have a say in whether Catalunya gets to leave Spain? In cases like these, the larger whole would often like to keep the entire country intact.

 

Self-determination is the guiding principles in cases like these. The whole point is that on questions of sovereignty, external influences are excluded. In the case of a group of people seeking independence from a larger nation, opinions of the larger nation don't come into it, and rightfully so. Should the smaller nations that popped out of Yugoslavia have sought Serbian approval to exist? Self-determination is the standard that we expect others to abide by; we can't credibly abandon it when it doesn't suit us.

 

I disagree. England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be able to decide if we want to be part of a Union that excludes Scotland.

 

That's just as much our right as Scotland's right IMO.

[buctootim]

All very true, but it begs the question of what is a nation? How big or small a unit are you giving the right to self-determine? Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland are all pretty clearly nations of some sort of other, but what about the residents of Cornwall for example? There are those who'd claim independence for Cornwall too. And you say " a group of people seeking independence from a larger nation". What about East Anglia? Wessex? Where do you draw the line? Individual counties, towns, villages? It is not simple.

 

When Britain was decolonising the rule of thumb for whether a territory was viable as an independent state was a population of c50,000 people - enough for its own foreign policy defence force etc. Hence why places like Belize (300,000) and Barbados (250,000) went idependent but places like the Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands and Falklands remain.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The Scottish people must have their referendum because the one sure way to guarantee the break up of the UK would be for the English to deny them one. What on earth they would have to gain from such lunacy is another question ...

 

If the Scots say 'no' however then that should be a end to the matter for generations to come, because we can't be doing this every few years until the Nationalists get the answer they want.

[trousers]

When interviewed yesterday, our Prime Minister said "This is as important for the UK as a whole as it is for Scotland" (I've paraphrased his actual words).

 

I agree with you Mr Cameron...the future of the United Kingdom matters as much to me as it does to someone from Scotland. I'm not saying that Scots should be denied a referendum on what they believe should happen to Scotland, I'm simply saying that there should be a parallel or pre-emptive referendum asking the rest of the UK what they would like to see happen to their country.

 

I actually think Cameron has missed a trick here.....as well as granting the Scots a referendum on separation in 2014 he should have set in motion a referendum for the UK as a whole for 2013 asking everyone (Scots included) whether they want to keep the Union or break it up.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

 

I actually think Cameron has missed a trick here.....as well as granting the Scots a referendum on separation in 2014 he should have set in motion a referendum for the UK as a whole for 2013 asking everyone (Scots included) whether they want to keep the Union or break it up.

 

The first thing he should do is set the wheels in motion for a vote on an English Parliament. It's a disgrace that the Jocks and Taffs get devolved powers that are denied the English. Scottish MP's could vote for increased perscription charges in England, knowing that their voters wont have to pay it. There are whole areas of life that Welsh and Scottish MP's can vote on free from the constraints of having it impact their voters, that's a funny sort of accounability. Labour thinking that they would always have a majority in Wales and Scotland, were quite happy to let them govern themselves. Not the English, god forbid, they might vote Tory.

 

Can you imagine the outcry from the sweaty's if Maggie had devolved powers to England and not Scotland during one of her landslide Parliaments? If Tory MP's sat in leafy Surrey could vote on Sweaty health care that didn't concern their voters? Yet us English just sit there and take it.

 

If Cameron was so concerned about the UK, so concerned with fairness, then he needs to adress the situation. Because the lack of fairness towards the people who sign the cheques will cause more tension in the Union that a rable of Bravehearts wanting to govern themselves.

[Thedelldays]

another perk the scottish get is a great deal of transport aid...for example, the scottish islands get their transport heavily subsidised..and tomorrow, the isles of scilly helicopter route will stop for the first time in 50 years....it was unable to secure aid to keep it running and keep the island connected with the mainland all year round

 

very disappointing