I don't know how a referendum with three options is supposed to be counted. STV? You can't be serious.
But imagine that "further devolution" were on the ballot paper in the referendum on the continued existence of my country in which I, like eleven twelfths of the people in my country, am to have no vote, even though any EU citizen living in Scotland will have one.
And imagine that, by whatever means employed to count the votes, "further devolution" won. The Scotland Act would then have to be amended by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in order to give that decision any practical effect.
There was never any serious chance that the Parliament of the United Kingdom was ever going to legislate to that effect. The party that officially and at Holyrood advocates (but very rarely talks about) it is now consistently beaten hands down in every part of Scotland, whether in Holyrood or Westminster elections. In any case, the answer was going to be No while there was breath in the bodies of that party's own MPs at Westminster, never mind the Labour ones in general and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in particular. And the Tories? They are the Tories. Aren't they...?
This was the case even before the Lockerbie carry on. But add that to the Calman Report's opening up of the possibility that powers might actually return to Westminster, and "further devolution" is now as dead a cause as independence. Number one on the list of such powers to take back will be everything to do with prisoner release. And the dam will have been breached, the precedent set.
If an independence referendum must be held at all, whether in Scotland alone or throughout this single state, and at enormous cost in this period of enormous economic hardship, then the icing on the cake will be if Al-Megrahi is still alive at the time. In that event, there should be an option of returning to the pre-1999 situation and telling the likes of Kenny McAskill to try and get a job.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There was a multi-option referendum on the future in Newfoundland after World War II. With all your Empire worship I thought you would be aware of that.
ReplyDeleteOptions: Independence, return to colonial status, confederation with Canada - (not on table: union with USA).
Actually the Lockerbie situation seems not to have damaged devolution. Indeed in a survey it was found only a third of people wanted to MacAskill to resign over the decision despite a majority thinking it was the wrong decision.
We all know you hate devolution and will never accept it. Your views on the subject are as valid as people do not think women should have the vote (many living and breathing in parts of Switzerland).
More powers. Eventually. Eventually.
You keep ranting about the soveriegnty of the UK parliament. So what. It was once sovereign over even the Confederal Parliament of Canada. The Canadian Parliament till well into the last century could not amend its constitution without asking for an amendement to the BNA by Westminster.
But of course the BNA was rescinded thanks to Pierre Trudeau, a man whose memory no doubt you hate. That pirouet behind the Queen's back! And to double the insult, years later he did in front of her when she signed the act rescinded the BNA as an up yours!
http://pages.videotron.com/histoire/trd-elis-2.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/httpoldmaisonblogspotcom/2572342156/
Now you can have your two-minute hate.
"Actually the Lockerbie situation seems not to have damaged devolution"
ReplyDeleteIt has with the body that would have to legislate for further devolution, and with both of the notionally pro-devolution parties, of whose Scottish contingents in that body one has gone right off devolution and the other never went right on it. Even leaving aside a Tory General Election victory next year.
"More powers. Eventually. Eventually."
Don't hold your breath.
"an amendement to the BNA by Westminster"
The same Westminster that was never likely (to say the very least) to legislate for further devolution, and will be seizing the Calman opportunity to take powers back following the Lockerbie fiasco.
A situation in which someone not answerable to the Westminster Parliament could involve the United Kingdom in a war - and if you play about with America, never mind Libya, then that possibility certainly exists - cannot be permitted to go on. And it will not be permitted to go on.
If something similar happened in the USA then it would have been highly likely it have been dealt with at state level. The state governments are sovereign in their internal affairs. Only an interpretation of the constitution (approved by the Supreme Court) could undermine that.
ReplyDeleteWe all know you hate devolution. But your voice is outside Scotland and so is of very little relevance to our internal affairs.
But this is not the United States. This is the United Kingdom. One state, as you cannot deny, since wanting to change that situation is the basis of your own position.
ReplyDeleteIf he had been tried in America, then he would have been given the death penalty, the revolting cause of which, especially in America, has been done no end of good by the Lockerbie decision.
They are not your internal affairs. This is about the existence of our country the United Kingdom. Any change will require legislation at Westminster. There is nothing internally Scottish about it.
ReplyDeleteAnd while I suppose that there might be some sort of treaty arrangement on independence if it were ever to become a serious possibility (which it never will), I honestly cannot see how legislation for further devolution could even be introduced. By whom?
ReplyDeleteThe SNP would never get the parliamentary time. Nor would the Lib Dems, and anyway their Scottish MPs would never stand for it. A Private Member's Bill, were any SNP MP ever to be in a position to introduce one, would be voted down, or would simply go the way of most Private Member's Bills and run out of time.
Especially considering how many MPs would organise to talk it out.
ReplyDeleteWould any taking back of powers under Calman need another referendum?
"Especially considering how many MPs would organise to talk it out."
ReplyDeleteQuite. Ably assisted by the Government and Opposition Whips Offices, of course.
"Would any taking back of powers under Calman need another referendum?"
No, the only question was on whether there should be a Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act, with its array of specific powers, has never been put to a referendum.
Even in the referendum that there was, mind you, more people either voted No or abstained than voted Yes. If the question is to be independence, then there really does have to be a threshold of over fifty per cent of registered voters. And a restriction to the Westminster, not the Holyrood, electoral register.
Neither will happen. But then, nor will a Yes vote.