The votes are coming in and leaning NO for an Independent Scotland. Public radio has carried thoughtful discussions about the decision for Scottish citizens and the pros/cons for an independent country.
What is remarkable to me……one who has “Big V envy” are the reports that voter turnout is “Stirling” with 90% of electorate casting a ballot. Higher in the rural communities and as low as 75% in the larger cities. Imagine 75% turnout and engagement in the Commonwealth!
How can we get there from here?
http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/live
Please share widely!
Good news for the UK is that the state survived as is.
Bad news is that they just entered constitutional hell. The newcasters talking about a six-month timetable to enact the necessary changes are adorable. Poor people don’t know what’s coming.
I haven’t been following this as closely as I would have liked. If the UK remains intact what is the “constitutional hell” and “necessary changes”? I’d expect that if secession went through, but if not why doesn’t British political life carry on as before?
Scotland has been promised increased devolved powers. This raises again the so-called “West Lothian Question”—should Scottish MPs in Westminster have the right (as they now do) to vote on legislation that affects only England and Wales,while English MPs have no right to vote on legislation that affects only Scotland?
Westminister Parliament should only consider legislation that affects the whole of the realm, IMO. Otherwise, rules should be adopted for separate sessions for UK vs. Britain legislation with the requirement that even if the membership for Britain is the same as in the full Parliament a different First Minister should set the agenda and a different Speaker should preside.
Or should each individual shire be its own localized power?
…England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland should have their legislatures like states do here and Westminster would be the national legislature. They can in turn decide what powers shires and communities have again like states do here.
The Welsh one is not nearly as powerful as Holyrood, while Stormont has more than Wales but less than Holyrood. But the ‘devo max’ option is fairly close to what the BC wanted in Quebec, independence in all respects save for security and foreign relations. Ironically, it’s awfully close to what Salmond initially proposed and what Cameron was trying to avert with the referendum.
This will have profound changes on UK politics, UKIP will likely continue to gain in the polls and also make a ‘devo max’ option for England part of it’s platform.
I’m basically advocating a federal system similar to ours, preferably with powers of devolved parliaments standard and inherent rather than by ad hoc gift from Westminster.
They have a common currency, economy, foreign policy, and legal system.
Texas used to be a separate republic, but no one — well no one sane — thinks of it as a separate nation state tucked into the U.S.
I don’t think I said anything that contradicts the above comment. Yes, all of our states have a common currency, economy, foreign policy, and legal system, and no I don’t believe Texas to be separate from that. That’s exactly how I am suggesting the UK be structured.
First, England doesn’t really have a Constitution, in that nothing is written. The whole state is based on a verbal agreement that Parliament could scramble tomorrow. Parliament could close down the Scottish Parliament in a heartbeat. So it’s tough to change something that doesn’t really exist, and there really is no procedure to do so.
Worse still, once you “open up” any such changes, things go haywire. As tedf mentions, England will wonder what about its issues — and this at a time when the only growing party in the country is the rightist, pro-English, nativist UKIP. Isle of Man may have some questions, too. Once you agree to a significant change, it’s a chance for everyone to have their share. When Canada tried to change its constitution to satisfy Quebec, the West and Native American groups eventually torpedoed the process by piling on. The failure to deliver led to a much worse confrontation between Quebec and the rest of Canada that only has healed in the past five years.
Changing a Constitution is hell.
…but the UK should IMO have a written constitution like just about every other country does, including those that are part of the Commonwealth and use the Westminster system.
Unwritten constitutions allow too much room for mischief. But then you enter into tricky territory vis-a-vis royal privilege, etc.
The other constitutional monarchies of Europe really do have constitutions which spell out the prerogatives of the monarchy and the limitations thereon. Because I’m a nerd like this I drafted a possible UK constitution for my own entertainment a few years ago. It kept the monarchy intact with a balance between stripping the monarch of prerogatives that are in reality exercised by the government while fully expecting that the monarch actually exercise the remaining ones herself.
…which hammers home the idea that voting is a citizen’s JOB – period! I go into this more in my recent diary “Voters Need to Step Up; State needs to help”.
DANIEL WEBSTER, on the eve of our own Civil War.
The 85% voter turnout was 55% for Union and 45% for Independence.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed to Scotland’s demands for greater autonomy in determining
domestic policy including taxation, welfare etc. Downing Street’s austerity program was reviled in Scotland.
President Obama weighed in for Union.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I want 100% voter turnout but it does help when the future of your country is quite literally on the line.