|
|
Post by fluffgar on Oct 2, 2014 19:30:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Guillaume on Oct 3, 2014 4:38:43 GMT
Concerning the legal right to call a referendum whenever it chooses, Nicola Sturgeon stated (at least I'm pretty sure it was her) that should the "more powers" vow not be honoured, then she would call a snap referendum on independence. This would be legal so long as a majority of Scottish MPs support it, logically. Westminster would probably try to contest Holyrood's right to call such a referendum, but Scotland is legally in a far more favourable position than, for example, Catalonia on this point. At worst, Holyrood would be obliged to only hold a consultative (so non-binding) referendum, and on the back of that take the UDI route advocated by Jim Sillars, were the consultation to give a favourable result.
In short, I think that asking Westminster to "grant" such a right is basically declaring that we don't already have it, hence weakening our position needlessly.
Concerning Holyrood's permanence, that was one of the few things that were actually spelt out clearly, so if there's such bad faith at the Commission that even this isn't offered, then the SNP & Green representatives would have good cause (and be well-advised) to withdraw from the negociation table and call that snap referendum.
What concerns me is the ratio of representatives at the Commission: 2 for each of the 'main' parties, regardless of proportionality to Holyrood or a fair balance between unionist and pro-indy. There'll be 4 pro-indy to 6 unionists, and the Lib-Dems (whoever they are...^^) will have as many there as the SNP...something tells me they'll be listened to at least as much, too. Maybe they'll even make a pledge or two...
In my view, the most important thing that the SNP & Green representatives need to remember at the Commission, is that just because they're in a position where they have to show their good faith, doesn't mean they should tolerate their counterparts showing none. The Unionists are inflated by their "victory" and no doubt some think that the independence bluff has been called, and Holyrood is now just a toothless beggar. Yes & No voters alike would hate for that assumption to be proved right.
|
|
|
|
Post by David McNeill on Oct 3, 2014 6:25:21 GMT
Indeed Iain, I absolutely agree.
Weakening our, already on our knees, position would not be good.
One particular power I would like to see, is one that genuinely prevents experimental taxation of the Scottish people.
I think after the poll tax and now the bedroom tax, we've had more than enough of the excrement excreted by Westminster.
|
|
|
|
Post by fluffgar on Oct 3, 2014 11:09:04 GMT
Thank you for trying to explain it further to me, Iain. This is all quite new territory to me as I hadn't previously paid much attention to politics. Trying my best to get my head around things though.
|
|
|
|
Post by lilaengel on Oct 3, 2014 15:29:56 GMT
I would like to see total control of our own revenues (ok, go on, laugh!) purely because that is why they are so desperate to keep us. I would like to see us take what WE need from those revenues and return what is left to rUK. And no, I haven't been committed yet...
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Guillaume on Oct 4, 2014 5:48:39 GMT
It's true the only semblance of a fair deal, would involve Scotland getting to access its own resources. But that oil stuff's all messy and sticky, and really it's a burden more than anything else, the nice gentlemen in Westminster will know what to do with it :-)
|
|
how is everyone?