Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Ulysses]

 

Yes. So long as you see the White Paper/Manifesto as being one side of the argument and not a neutral document anyway. Civil service resources were used for it.

 

Regardless of how you or I see it, the government and the FM regard it as a plank of the Yes platform, as does the No campaign in opposing and criticising it.

 

Governments have a duty to govern and administer on behalf of all their people, not just their supporters.

 

I didn't realise that the civil service was deployed in support of the Yes campaign. In that case, the same level of resources should be made available to a document setting out the counter arguments.

[Ulysses]

Are folk seriously suggesting that better together is the underdog in terms of resources? Wow, indeed.

 

The issue is not about "underdogs". It is about the democratic responsibility of governments to act fairly and even-handedly on behalf of all citizens.

[JamboX2]

Are folk seriously suggesting that better together is the underdog in terms of resources? Wow, indeed.

 

No. But the documents prepared at Westminster were Parliamentary and Government documents by committees and Departments. Not officially backed or paid for Better Together. Nor were they manifesto like promises from a single No party - like the WP and the SNP. Yes endorsed the White Paper and adopted it. Better Together hasnt done that adoption of the documents. Therefore if asked for their WP it should be with Civil Service assistance, no?

[TheMaganator]

Regardless of how you or I see it, the government and the FM regard it as a plank of the Yes platform, as does the No campaign in opposing and criticising it.

 

Governments have a duty to govern and administer on behalf of all their people, not just their supporters.

 

I didn't realise that the civil service was deployed in support of the Yes campaign. In that case, the same level of resources should be made available to a document setting out the counter arguments.

 

Its been said that the White Paper cost the taxpayer ?800k.

 

The civil service were used in its production.

 

The SNP has used taxpayers money to promote their own agenda (including billboards advertising it) and there is no chance that they will make any funds available for the other side.

[JamboX2]

 

 

The issue is not about "underdogs". It is about the democratic responsibility of governments to act fairly and even-handedly on behalf of all citizens.

 

Exactly. Government monies therefore needs spent in producing and spreading the opposing document.

[JamboX2]

 

 

The issue is not about "underdogs". It is about the democratic responsibility of governments to act fairly and even-handedly on behalf of all citizens.

 

Exactly. Government monies therefore needs spent in producing and spreading the opposing document.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

I reckon they have to or the polls will tighten. The Libs and Labs will be close on their proposals imo. Tories not far behind. It'll be discernable as to what you'd get. However, a joint platform commission here would've been able to rival the political and media impact of the white paper. However in the public it'd have been as effective as selling snow to eskimos, much like the white paper.

 

Will the polls tighten? The poll numbers haven't moved that much. The media repeatedly say that the race will tighten and will be close; but I'd put that down to the media creating and maintaining interest in the referendum and therefore revenue.

 

I haven't heard anything about new devolution proposals from any of Labour, Cons, or LDs. The last I heard was in fact the lecture I attended in March which Douglas Alexander announced that Labour would look into a 'Constitutional Convention'. I doubt there'll be serious movement on a further constitutional settlement until 2016 when the Scotland Act has been fully implemented.

 

But if No win convincingly, I doubt we'll hear anything of a 'Constitutional Convention' for a long, long time.

[Patrick Bateman]

Can someone give me an example of a government arguing against one of their flagship policies on some bizarre 'fairness' grounds? This is a really bizarre line of argument for folk to take. As I have said; this referendum is all about whether you want power to remain at Westminster or whether you want that power returned to Scotland. The responsibility to explain why which parliament is better placed to make these decisions lies between both of them. If better together took issue with this, why haven't they said so? Because it's frankly laughable that anyone should expect either Government to argue against its own interests.

[Patrick Bateman]

Exactly. Government monies therefore needs spent in producing and spreading the opposing document.

 

What part of 'This is Westminster's duty' do you not grasp? Better together had the option but have refused, nobody can seriously suggest that Yes Scotland should do better together's job for them.

 

This leads to another point; why are they so disengaged? Why do they shirk debates? Why don't they produce a paper explaining how great Westminster is and how Scotland can't be independent?

 

As for my point about the suffragette movement, which was apparently missed by some, was that the negative campaigning by better together has been adopted by those trying to cling onto the status quo for a century. Looking back, these documents are seen as ridiculous and irrational, much like those on the No campaign today. I'm sure in future years, some folk will look back on their attitude and behaviour with shame and embarrassment.

[djf]

 

 

This leads to another point; why are they so disengaged? Why do they shirk debates? Why don't they produce a paper explaining how great Westminster is and how Scotland can't be independent?

 

 

 

Because why would they? As long as the polls stay as they are then "Better Together" will play 10 men behind the ball and take the ball to the corner flag.

 

I agree with the second half of your post though. It's definitely interesting and probably worthwhile to look at how previous major societal changes were narratively framed and how this could apply to the referendum and what lessons can be learnt.

[JamboX2]

Will the polls tighten? The poll numbers haven't moved that much. The media repeatedly say that the race will tighten and will be close; but I'd put that down to the media creating and maintaining interest in the referendum and therefore revenue.

 

I haven't heard anything about new devolution proposals from any of Labour, Cons, or LDs. The last I heard was in fact the lecture I attended in March which Douglas Alexander announced that Labour would look into a 'Constitutional Convention'. I doubt there'll be serious movement on a further constitutional settlement until 2016 when the Scotland Act has been fully implemented.

 

But if No win convincingly, I doubt we'll hear anything of a 'Constitutional Convention' for a long, long time.

 

This is where I am. I am waiting to see the other side of the table before I take a punt on Yes. I reckon most folk are. So if proposals are too wishy-washy then I may move to a Yes vote.

 

I reckon should an alternative not be forthcoming then many others will move to Yes votes. That's when the polls will narrow. It's a self-defeating place for No to be where they are - don't propose change as that suggests the Union is flawed, but by not offering an alternative you look aloof and out of the fight.

[JamboX2]

What part of 'This is Westminster's duty' do you not grasp? Better together had the option but have refused, nobody can seriously suggest that Yes Scotland should do better together's job for them.

 

The Scottish Government is not a partner of Yes Scotland. The SNP are. The use of the independent governmental organisation - it's Civil Service workers - to create the Yes Document and the SNP 2016 pre-manifesto means that it should also be used to produce No literature. To have two government's - which for now are working for Scots - knocking seven bells out of each other politicises the independent civil service. In all honesty the politics of parties should never have entered this - but I'm not naieve enough to think that was ever going to be the case.

 

This leads to another point; why are they so disengaged? Why do they shirk debates? Why don't they produce a paper explaining how great Westminster is and how Scotland can't be independent?

 

I don't think they are disengaged. They are, in their view, refusing to be drawn onto Yes Scotland/SNP soil, much prefer hitting the Yes argument on their own ground. The last two points depends on what you mean - they agree on a need for debates, and politicians and spokesman on both sides have debated in public on tv and halls up and down Scotland. They merely don't want, for tactical reasons to have the PM debate. On the paper front, they'd argue many papers already exist and that you know what the UK is and how it is likely to work. So why bother doing it?

 

I don't necessarily agree with these positions - my posts will show that. However, that's their logic. And looking at the polls it appears to be working much to the annoyance of Yes Scotland, the SNP and others on that side.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

The starting point for any No campaign should be the reserved matters and the case for them being reserved. If they can't make a case then "offer" it as more devolution.

 

Mind you, devolving Scottish broadcasting isn't exactly going to set the heather on fire unless it makes it easier to sack Chick Dung!

[JamboX2]

The starting point for any No campaign should be the reserved matters and the case for them being reserved. If they can't make a case then "offer" it as more devolution.

 

Mind you, devolving Scottish broadcasting isn't exactly going to set the heather on fire unless it makes it easier to sack Chick Dung!

 

Wee men like him thrive in a Glasgow centric media. Independence wont dunt his career at the BBC or SBC.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

This is where I am. I am waiting to see the other side of the table before I take a punt on Yes. I reckon most folk are. So if proposals are too wishy-washy then I may move to a Yes vote.

 

I reckon should an alternative not be forthcoming then many others will move to Yes votes. That's when the polls will narrow. It's a self-defeating place for No to be where they are - don't propose change as that suggests the Union is flawed, but by not offering an alternative you look aloof and out of the fight.

 

This is the same as myself actually.

 

If devo-max was an option, I'd go for that. As it isn't (unfortunately), I'm plumping for Yes. I'd rather have independence than no constitutional change. Scotland should have taxation and welfare legislative power, and her elected politicians should be held to account for those powers.

[Ulysses]

Can someone give me an example of a government arguing against one of their flagship policies on some bizarre 'fairness' grounds?

 

Yes. It's been done here since 1995 for constitutional issues. In fact, it's a legal requirement. That does not prevent Government parties from campaigning for their policies, but the legal requirement is that the Government itself has a constitutional obligation not to spend taxpayers money to promote only one side of the argument in a constitutional referendum campaign. The constitutional concept behind this is that the Government in its capacity as a Government should not give preferential treatment to one group of voters over another group based on how they intend to vote.

 

This doesn't mean that the Government is required to campaign against its own proposals. But it does mean that the Government cannot spend taxpayers money on one side of the question without also spending it on the other. Also, a Referendum Commission is set up in advance of any referendum in Ireland. This is a statutory Government-funded body set up in advance of a referendum with the task of objectively and independently explaining the subject matter of the referendum, promoting awareness of it and encouraging people to vote.

 

 

Because it's frankly laughable that anyone should expect either Government to argue against its own interests.

 

No it isn't. It's logical in a liberal democracy. You are conflating the office holders with the offices they hold. Governments have a duty to treat all citizens fairly and even-handedly. For example, it would be considered wrong for civil servants in Edinburgh to campaign on behalf of the SNP, or for those in London to campaign for the Conservative party. The SNP has put its political organisation's objectives ahead of the constitution in Scotland and the people of Scotland, and used the resources of Government offices to promote the interests of one group of Scots in preference to another group. That is inappropriate and undemocratic. Governments are not in office to govern and administer on behalf of those who agree with them only; they are in office to govern and administer on behalf of all citizens.

[JamboX2]

Yes. It's been done here since 1995 for constitutional issues. In fact, it's a legal requirement. That does not prevent Government parties from campaigning for their policies, but the legal requirement is that the Government itself has a constitutional obligation not to spend taxpayers money to promote only one side of the argument in a constitutional referendum campaign. The constitutional concept behind this is that the Government in its capacity as a Government should not give preferential treatment to one group of voters over another group based on how they intend to vote.

 

This doesn't mean that the Government is required to campaign against its own proposals. But it does mean that the Government cannot spend taxpayers money on one side of the question without also spending it on the other. Also, a Referendum Commission is set up in advance of any referendum in Ireland. This is a statutory Government-funded body set up in advance of a referendum with the task of objectively and independently explaining the subject matter of the referendum, promoting awareness of it and encouraging people to vote.

 

 

 

 

No it isn't. It's logical in a liberal democracy. You are conflating the office holders with the offices they hold. Governments have a duty to treat all citizens fairly and even-handedly. For example, it would be considered wrong for civil servants in Edinburgh to campaign on behalf of the SNP, or for those in London to campaign for the Conservative party. The SNP has put its political organisation's objectives ahead of the constitution in Scotland and the people of Scotland, and used the resources of Government offices to promote the interests of one group of Scots in preference to another group. That is inappropriate and undemocratic. Governments are not in office to govern and administer on behalf of those who agree with them only; they are in office to govern and administer on behalf of all citizens.

 

This is exactly the point. Well made Uly.

 

This is the same as myself actually.

 

If devo-max was an option, I'd go for that. As it isn't (unfortunately), I'm plumping for Yes. I'd rather have independence than no constitutional change. Scotland should have taxation and welfare legislative power, and her elected politicians should be held to account for those powers.

 

I have a lot of problems with Yes Scotland, and with Better Together. I have a lot of issues with independence and remaining in the Union. I see a Union in need of reform and an unambitious Yes campaign. A close friend of mine is an internationalist, moved to the Netherlands to work for Amnesty, and I was shocked a year ago when he came out as a staunch Yes man. I have to say I now see his position. Patrick Harvie said today we want a better nation. So do I, but I am not yet prepared to go in for Yes as it stands. I disagree with the SNP vision. I think it a Scots face on the failed policies gone by. I still think devolution can provide us Scots the chance for diversity in the UK.

 

In effect both sides have not convinced me. I think we are a nation increasingly being treated like idiots by idiots because they think we can't cope with a big change either way. The Westminster parliament has good men and women in it of principle. Like Holyrood. And both don't. I don't by it a vote for corruption or a new dawn. To me both campaigns are offering different shades of the same thing. And that repulses me.

[Patrick Bateman]

 

No it isn't. It's logical in a liberal democracy. You are conflating the office holders with the offices they hold. Governments have a duty to treat all citizens fairly and even-handedly. For example, it would be considered wrong for civil servants in Edinburgh to campaign on behalf of the SNP, or for those in London to campaign for the Conservative party. The SNP has put its political organisation's objectives ahead of the constitution in Scotland and the people of Scotland, and used the resources of Government offices to promote the interests of one group of Scots in preference to another group. That is inappropriate and undemocratic. Governments are not in office to govern and administer on behalf of those who agree with them only; they are in office to govern and administer on behalf of all citizens.

 

There seems to be a supposition here that Holyrood is the only body involved in this debate. Westminster has a responsibility too, they agreed to participate in this debate in the Edinburgh Agreement. Nobody in the media or within better together has suggested that the Scottish Government should ever argue against independence, because that would be plain silly. This is a non-argument, a bit like those wanting to rehash the 'Scots living abroad can't vote' stuff.

 

If the Scottish Government is to explain the pitfalls or issues relating to independence, then surely Westminster should explain and clarify all the matters that they can? For example, nautical borders and a currency union. But no, they've said they wouldn't 'pre-negotiate' Scottish independence.

[Patrick Bateman]

The Westminster parliament has good men and women in it of principle. Like Holyrood. And both don't. I don't by it a vote for corruption or a new dawn. To me both campaigns are offering different shades of the same thing. And that repulses me.

 

You seriously think a Scottish government could get away with pursuing an austerity agenda that was driven by some twisted, Neo-Thatcherite ideology? There are other ways to tackle the deficit, ones that actually work.

[JamboX2]

There seems to be a supposition here that Holyrood is the only body involved in this debate. Westminster has a responsibility too, they agreed to participate in this debate in the Edinburgh Agreement. Nobody in the media or within better together has suggested that the Scottish Government should ever argue against independence, because that would be plain silly. This is a non-argument, a bit like those wanting to rehash the 'Scots living abroad can't vote' stuff.

 

If the Scottish Government is to explain the pitfalls or issues relating to independence, then surely Westminster should explain and clarify all the matters that they can? For example, nautical borders and a currency union. But no, they've said they wouldn't 'pre-negotiate' Scottish independence.

 

No it is not for "Westminster" to do this. It is for the Parties of government and opposition in Westminster to do this. It is not the duty of the Scottish Government to sell a Yes vote. It's the duty of the SNP and it's allies. You need to separate the politics from the adiministrations to see the point. Had the Westminster Government used the Civil Service to publish a comprehensive No document, would you have cried foul that the independent Civil aparatus of the British state had been used to do down the Yes arguement? Essentially Salmond has used tax payers money to offer his document for nothing to the public. Using the money of all to push the views of some. The position Uly outlines from Ireland I believe is shared in Australia and New Zealand - nations with a history of Referendums and in fact in the UK too at the AV vote. It's a sane and sensible position which separates the duty of government from the duty of democratic debate and fairness in electoral spending. Will the ?800k spent by the tax payer to publish this document be allocated as campaign money for auditing? (that last question is a serious one).

[JamboX2]

You seriously think a Scottish government could get away with pursuing an austerity agenda that was driven by some twisted, Neo-Thatcherite ideology? There are other ways to tackle the deficit, ones that actually work.

 

Yes. If elected to govern on a manifesto proposing cuts then yes it could. It should come as no surprise we have austerity of some shade. All main UK parties said cuts were coming. The SNP have even said we will see "fiscal retrenchment" after a Yes vote in Scotland due to our deficit. It disapoints me as much you, but Scotland is not imune from the global belt tightening being pushed by markets and the EU Commission.

[Patrick Bateman]

The debate isn't framed in this way, and some sort of full disclosure of weakness will not happen on either side. This particular debate, as I said, is utterly redundant; it simply won't happen.

 

What I'd like to see is Westminster offer guarantees following a Yes vote; concede that 90% of North Sea oil and gas belongs to Scotland, that it will accept a currency union, the division of military assets and perhaps propose a share of national debt or something like that. It won't happen though, because they don't want to weaken their position.

[Ulysses]

There seems to be a supposition here that Holyrood is the only body involved in this debate. Westminster has a responsibility too, they agreed to participate in this debate in the Edinburgh Agreement. Nobody in the media or within better together has suggested that the Scottish Government should ever argue against independence, because that would be plain silly. This is a non-argument, a bit like those wanting to rehash the 'Scots living abroad can't vote' stuff.

 

If the Scottish Government is to explain the pitfalls or issues relating to independence, then surely Westminster should explain and clarify all the matters that they can? For example, nautical borders and a currency union. But no, they've said they wouldn't 'pre-negotiate' Scottish independence.

 

This is not something that only applies to Holyrood, and your point about Westminster's involvement in the debate isn't actually relevant . This is a constitutional matter, and Governments in their capacity as Governments should not use taxpayers' money to favour one group of voters over another. That does not prevent the SNP or anyone else from campaigning for a Yes vote, but it does mean that public funds should not be unfairly spent on one side of the argument only. The SNP have done this, and in doing so are neglectful of their obligations as a Government - unless equivalent public resources are to be made available to the other side of the debate. They do not have to promote that side of the argument - that would not be logical - but in fairness they should make the resources available. If they do so in a fair and reasonable manner, and for whatever reason the other side don't avail of them, that is not the fault of the Government, and at that point any accusation of unfairness would no longer apply.

 

That obligation of fairness and even-handedness in a constitutional debate is not unique to the Scottish Government. Likewise, if the British Government uses public funds or resources to make an argument for one side of the referendum debate, they should make equivalent resources available to the other.

 

Finally, can you stop using pejorative terms like "frankly laughable" and "silly" when commenting on things you disagree with? The democratic concept I'm referring to is well-established in many political systems, and has such legal standing in Ireland that Parliament can't change it without a referendum of the people. We don't regard it as "frankly laughable" or "silly". In fact, we see it as a healthy part of our democratic system that ensures a balance between the rights of Government and citizens. If a person's arguments are strong and reasonable enough, they don't need petty, tetchy, and spiteful language to make their case.

[Patrick Bateman]

Finally, can you stop using pejorative terms like "frankly laughable" and "silly" when commenting on things you disagree with? The democratic concept I'm referring to is well-established in many political systems, and has such legal standing in Ireland that Parliament can't change it without a referendum of the people. We don't regard it as "frankly laughable" or "silly". In fact, we see it as a healthy part of our democratic system that ensures a balance between the rights of Government and citizens. If a person's arguments are strong and reasonable enough, they don't need petty, tetchy, and spiteful language to make their case.

 

Am I breaking the rules by using pejorative terms when commenting on things I disagree with?

[Ulysses]

Am I breaking the rules by using pejorative terms when commenting on things I disagree with?

 

I don't think so, but that's not the point I was making. The point I was making was that you should concentrate on your arguments, IMO. But if you want to carry on, that's a matter for yourself.

 

Anyway, it's unfortunate that the SNP have neglected a key element of their role as a Government, and it would be good if that were rectified.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Am I breaking the rules by using pejorative terms when commenting on things I disagree with?

 

So, out of interest, do you agree the civil service should be politicised in such matters? Because thats what has happened.

 

The Irish model sounds like something to be adopted whatever the result of this vote.

[Patrick Bateman]

So, out of interest, do you agree the civil service should be politicised in such matters? Because thats what has happened.

 

The Irish model sounds like something to be adopted whatever the result of this vote.

 

I'm pretty indifferent to the politicisation of the civil service with respect to this debate. As I've said, both sides are at it, but I take exception to the idea that the Scottish Government has somehow failed in its duties based on the disinterest and/or inability of better together to muster and publish its own arguments. They've had the means to do so, but have refused. They're the ones refusing to debate or explain what will happen following a No vote.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Patrick Bateman

[Guest GhostHunter]

Can ALL members stick to debating the issue at hand, and not the members making the posts.

 

Thanks in advance.

[southside1874]

Exactly. Government monies therefore needs spent in producing and spreading the opposing document.

 

The SNP got voted into power with Independence as part of it's manifesto. Should it not produce a paper informing the electorate of how it sees Scotlands future?

[Ulysses]

 

I'm pretty indifferent to the politicisation of the civil service with respect to this debate.

 

That's probably because the taxpayers' money that the SNP government used in an unfair manner was used to support your side of the argument. But the point about governments not allowing public resources to be hijacked in favour of one group of voters is relevant regardless of the issue being contended or the side of the debate one is on.

 

 

As I've said, both sides are at it, but I take exception to the idea that the Scottish Government has somehow failed in its duties.....

 

But it has. It has given a clear message that public money is to be used to favour one block of voters over another. Unless that is balanced by making available equivalent resources to the other side, that is a repudiation by the government of its duty to govern and administer on behalf of all citizens, not just the ones who agree with it.

[Pans Jambo]

Read all of this page and it seems to me to be a lot of words to say something fairly simplistic so I will have a wee go myself:

 

The SNP had independence referendum in its campaign documents when it asked the folks in Scotland to vote for them in the last general election. We (the people of Scotland) agreed with this by voting them into power.

 

The YES movement was created which includes the SNP, Greens and a few others. They created a white paper because every man and their dog wanted "answers". the government paid for it but folks above seem to be complaining about that.. Who should have paid for it? The tooth fairy?

 

The opposition (Better together) was formed which includes Labour, Tories, Lib Dems etc (the unionist parties).

 

The SNP (the Scottish Government) wants to leave the rest of the UK and become independent.

 

Why is is up to the Scots to argue about leaving the union but not for the Westminster government to convince us to stay?

Why does the PM not debate this with the FM but is happy to snipe about it on a Sunday TV show?

I don't understand why Westminster has not spelled out in the same terms as the white paper, what a future Scottish/UK partnership would look like in the event of a NO vote (perhaps it's because it's a lot more of the same or in fact, a further ?4 billion a year cut in the block grant when they scrap the Barnett formula).

 

It would seem to me that the better together campaigners and their supporters (after crying for "more information") now seem to be hypocritical in that they won't give the yes movement any "information" and won't even wheel out the "big guns" to debate the issues.

 

That being the case, Westminster led campaigns should shut up shop and stop interfering. Seems Ok for all and sundry from Westminster to pitch in with a comment on the national news or the New Years statement but they won't even discuss the matter with our elected first minister.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Does further devolution require a referendum? If not, surely further devolution is a party political issue?

[Boris]

Does further devolution require a referendum? If not, surely further devolution is a party political issue?

 

I think it does and that is why it should also have been on the referendum later this year.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

I think it does and that is why it should also have been on the referendum later this year.

Which is fair enough. To my mind then, a No vote at present is a vote for no change whatsoever. Therefore, if that's the case, there is no need for equal "access" to the civil service etc

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I think it does and that is why it should also have been on the referendum later this year.

Is that right? The Scotland Act was passed granting more powers (oft ignored by the media) with no referendum

[Arnold Rothstein]

I'm pretty indifferent to the politicisation of the civil service with respect to this debate. As I've said, both sides are at it, but I take exception to the idea that the Scottish Government has somehow failed in its duties based on the disinterest and/or inability of better together to muster and publish its own arguments. They've had the means to do so, but have refused. They're the ones refusing to debate or explain what will happen following a No vote.

 

You seem to be confusing the Scottish government with the Yes campaign. They are not the same thing.

[Boris]

Is that right? The Scotland Act was passed granting more powers (oft ignored by the media) with no referendum

 

I never said it was right, merely that in my opinion it should be offered to the people to ratify. Constitutional change should be legislated for AFTER the people have agreed to it.

[southside1874]

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-key-economic-facts-that-prove-scotland-will-be-a-wealthy-independent-nation/

 

Nothing much to argue with there. :-)

[TheMaganator]

I never said it was right, merely that in my opinion it should be offered to the people to ratify. Constitutional change should be legislated for AFTER the people have agreed to it.

If my comment sounded accusitory, is was not meant to - I apologise.

 

I don't think that the Scotland Act was ever voted for, other than in parliament. I could be wrong though.

 

Do you think, then, that there should be two votes in the event of a Yes vote - one to say Yes we want the negotiation to start and the second to vote on what they manage to negotiate with the rUK etc.

 

I am not saying that this could happen but say we vote Yes - and we cant agree a sterling zone, and we cant get into the EU - when Independence day comes what we could be presented with constitutionally could be at odds with what people want. Should there be a further vote?

[Boris]

If my comment sounded accusitory, is was not meant to - I apologise.

 

I don't think that the Scotland Act was ever voted for, other than in parliament. I could be wrong though.

 

Do you think, then, that there should be two votes in the event of a Yes vote - one to say Yes we want the negotiation to start and the second to vote on what they manage to negotiate with the rUK etc.

 

I am not saying that this could happen but say we vote Yes - and we cant agree a sterling zone, and we cant get into the EU - when Independence day comes what we could be presented with constitutionally could be at odds with what people want. Should there be a further vote?

 

Personally, if YES wins, then there should be a national coalition government with the heads of all represented parties negotiating for and on behalf of Scotland. Equal liability and equal kudos/blame once the settlement is reached.

 

I'm minded to allow the people to vote for EU, NATO membership as well as the currency union.

 

But even if at odds to what the people want, this can all change through election to the new parliament of people willing to make the right changes. If that makes sense!

[Ulysses]

Which is fair enough. To my mind then, a No vote at present is a vote for no change whatsoever. Therefore, if that's the case, there is no need for equal "access" to the civil service etc

 

Why? The institutions and resources of government should not favour changing constitutional arrangements over the retention of the status quo, nor vice versa.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Why? The institutions and resources of government should not favour changing constitutional arrangements over the retention of the status quo, nor vice versa.

So are you saying there should be a "status quo" document which says currently these powers are reserved to Westminster (list powers)?

[southside1874]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/07/scots-independence-union-english-better-together?CMP=twt_gu

 

Interesting piece from the Guardian.

[Ulysses]

So are you saying there should be a "status quo" document which says currently these powers are reserved to Westminster (list powers)?

 

No. I am saying that if public resources are used to fund a central document of the Yes campaign, equivalent public resources should be made available to the No campaign. If you go back to the example I gave about constitutional changes in Ireland, every referendum involves a proposal to change the constitution. If the proposal is defeated the status quo remains. Theoretically, you could argue that the public needs no explanation or argument about what would happen if things stay the same. But that is not the same as providing balance to the Yes and No sides, because it is also legitimate for the No side to argue why the voters should not vote for the change. Therefore, if public funds are used for arguments, documents and so on to support the change, equivalent funds must be made available for arguments, documents and so on to oppose the change. This is significant because proposals for constitutional change realistically can only be tabled for referendum with the support of the government of the day, therefore the law is intended to provide some measure of balance for opposition groups and citizens who invariably won't have pockets as deep as those of the government.

 

This approach does not prevent the government from campaigning; but unless it is prepared to give equivalent funding to opposition campaigns, members of the government can only rely on private or non-Exchequer funds when campaigning. It is related to the concept of equal air time.

 

It is also a relatively new concept, which may explain why it doesn't appear immediately obvious that it is a good idea if you've not experienced it before. But once you see it in operation you quickly come to accept that it is a fairer and more democratic way of doing business. In Ireland, this legal approach dates from a court interpretation of the Constitution given in 1995, but it also came about at a time when we implemented a lot of reforms to make government agencies and institutions more open, transparent and accountable to citizens.

[Ulysses]

http://www.theguardi...ther?CMP=twt_gu

 

Interesting piece from the Guardian.

 

It reads like a biased rant, which in fairness it pretty much was. It seems odd that Yes supporters need to keep repeating this mantra about the No side "growing desperate". Why would they be doing that when the polls are showing them miles ahead? If the No lead starts to narrow or shrink - which quite a lot of people seem to believe it will - they can get worried then, but they've no reason to be worried just now.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Uly, the point I'm making is that No have made no case for a No vote, they have simply attacked the Yes argument. If, for example, they said that the defence of the island required a united defence force, or that foreign affairs are better represented by one British force, that would be different. They haven't said anything like that as far as I can see.

[Ulysses]

Uly, the point I'm making is that No have made no case for a No vote, they have simply attacked the Yes argument. If, for example, they said that the defence of the island required a united defence force, or that foreign affairs are better represented by one British force, that would be different. They haven't said anything like that as far as I can see.

 

Your point is about the content of the campaigns. Mine is about the need for even-handed treatment of both campaigns by the institutions of the Scottish government. That should happen in a constitutional referendum irrespective of the subject matter and without constraint of what either side is allowed to or chooses to argue in support of its view. It has not happened in this instance. The resources of government have been made available to one side only to enable a document to be produced in support of its campaign. Until equivalent resources are made available to the other side, that amounts to institutional bias against that side. In turn, that means that there is institutional preference towards one group of the population (those who support Yes) and against another (those who support No).

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Your point is about the content of the campaigns. Mine is about the need for even-handed treatment of both campaigns by the institutions of the Scottish government. That should happen in a constitutional referendum irrespective of the subject matter and without constraint of what either side is allowed to or chooses to argue in support of its view. It has not happened in this instance. The resources of government have been made available to one side only to enable a document to be produced in support of its campaign. Until equivalent resources are made available to the other side, that amounts to institutional bias against that side. In turn, that means that there is institutional preference towards one group of the population (those who support Yes) and against another (those who support No).

 

I get what you are saying. All I'm saying is that it is a bit difficult to be neutral on the resource front when one side appears to have no use for them.

[southside1874]

It reads like a biased rant, which in fairness it pretty much was. It seems odd that Yes supporters need to keep repeating this mantra about the No side "growing desperate". Why would they be doing that when the polls are showing them miles ahead? If the No lead starts to narrow or shrink - which quite a lot of people seem to believe it will - they can get worried then, but they've no reason to be worried just now.

 

Well it was Mike Small who wrote it. Personally, I can't see the independence campaign getting enough votes to achieve their goal but the higher percentage of yes votes will give more backing to increased devolved power for Edinburgh.

[TheMaganator]

Uly, the point I'm making is that No have made no case for a No vote, they have simply attacked the Yes argument. If, for example, they said that the defence of the island required a united defence force, or that foreign affairs are better represented by one British force, that would be different. They haven't said anything like that as far as I can see.

I think they have tbf.

 

I'll look out some links when I'm not on my phone