Scottish Independence

[garbon]

If you demand a clear majority for independence, then surely you need a clear majority for the status quo as well.

Why? The status quo which won't be very costly and a bureaucratic headache doesn't seem like it'd need defending.

[Malthus]

If you demand a clear majority for independence, then surely you need a clear majority for the status quo as well.

What happens if there isn't a clear majority for either? 

[garbon]

If you demand a clear majority for independence, then surely you need a clear majority for the status quo as well.

What happens if there isn't a clear majority for either? 

Kill them all.

[Valmy]

The advantage to having a 50%+1 threshold, is that 49.9% then is not good enough.

If you demand a clear majority for independence, then surely you need a clear majority for the status quo as well.

Ok so if we decide to adopt an amendment to the Constitution but get only 55% of Congress to approve it we should...destroy the Constitution and start over?

[frunk]

The advantage to having a 50%+1 threshold, is that 49.9% then is not good enough.

If you demand a clear majority for independence, then surely you need a clear majority for the status quo as well.

I'm surprised a conservative would argue for such a thing.

[mongers]

I see no problem with retaining the name and the Union Jack.

My view being there has been so much mingle of blood down the centuries and massive immigration into England from Wales, Scotland and Ireland since the middle of the industrial revolution, that most English have some ancestors from the other nations.

And there's a not inconsiderable number of Scots, Welsh and Irish born people living and working in England, so the constituent parts of the Union Jack can be taken to represent them too.

[grumbler]

If the Scots vote for independence on Thursday, I guess the rest of the UK will walk away Scot free.

I guess the UK will fall prey to the No True Scottsman fallacy.

Can one be a true Scotsman and vote "No"? 

No true Scotsman would vote "no."

[Barrister]

If you demand a clear majority for independence, then surely you need a clear majority for the status quo as well.

What happens if there isn't a clear majority for either? 

Well that's precisely it.

My political idol Preston Manning, no friend of separatism, always advocated for a 50%+1 threshold.  It is simpler and clearer.  Once you get away from that threshold things get even murkier than they already are.  Plus it might encourage mischevious voting - voting "yes" out of sentiment, rather than a careful consideration of the situation.

[derspiess]

I don't know man.  I would prefer to see super majorities for a Constitutional shift of this magnitude.  I mean we require it simply to change the Constitution.  If there is indeed a justifiable reason for independence a 67% majority should be pretty easy to obtain.  If the colonies had voted 7-6 for Independence in 1776 instead of being unanimous I don't think we would have gone forward with it.  Besides this is not the sort of mistake one 'learns' from.  This is a once in a century unreversable political decision....if they vote yes anyway.

The colonies did not do a popular vote, though.  And how the Scottish thing irreversible?

[grumbler]

The advantage to having a 50%+1 threshold, is that 49.9% then is not good enough.

If you demand a clear majority for independence, then surely you need a clear majority for the status quo as well.

Why?  That surely doesn't follow from logic.  It would require having, every instant, a measure of the clear majority in favor of the status quo, and inflicting some change (determined how?) every instant that that clear majority failed.

[Malthus]

England should use history as its guide - and, if the Scots vote "yes", get them interested in a new Darien project. 

[grumbler]

England should use history as its guide - and, if the Scots vote "yes", get them interested in a new Darien project. 

[Malthus]

If the Scots vote for independence on Thursday, I guess the rest of the UK will walk away Scot free.

I guess the UK will fall prey to the No True Scottsman fallacy.

Can one be a true Scotsman and vote "No"? 

No true Scotsman would vote "no."

Sounds like a fallacy to me.

[Sheilbh]

Hey Brits - how seriously should "if Scotland goes, the Orkneys might try to stay in the UK" be taken?

Elsewhere I've seen it treated as "that would be negotiating in bad faith, and the foundation of the referendum is an agreement to negotiate in good faith, so it's basically off the table."

Does that sound right to you?

It's mad. Unless the Northern Isles were to negotiate with Norway (which they and Caithness certainly could based on their history).

We know what Scotland is, if they decide to leave then the borders are pretty well settled.

If you demand a clear majority for independence, then surely you need a clear majority for the status quo as well.

Yeah. For a start supermajorities are alien to our system. It'd be very weird to suddenly introduce one - though there was a kind of requirement in the 79 devolution vote which won a majority but had to win not just a majority but 40% of the registered electorate. In many ways that arguably poisoned the water which led from that vote being won by 52% to the 97 devolution vote which won 75% of the vote.

Our entire system is more or less based on simple majorities, from first past the post election to any constitutional meddling of any severity (say if we abolished the House of Lords, or the establishment of a Supreme Court or when we stayed in the EU). It'd be weird and wrong - as it was in 79 - to in effect say that's our system unless it's something we don't like and the people get a say. As the theory goes, if the government of the day decided to abolish habeas corpus or leave the EU all they need is a simple majority.

And of course the Act of Union was passed by both Parliaments on the basis of a simple majority.

Also my view is that if 51% isn't good enough for independence then 49% surely isn't good enough for coercion.

Ok so if we decide to adopt an amendment to the Constitution but get only 55% of Congress to approve it we should...destroy the Constitution and start over?

That's your tradition though. Which is fine, but us adopting a supermajority for this would be like you waving that amendment through, just this once.

In the past few days I've moved from blind panic to cautious pessimism and I'm currently guardedly optimistic. No doubt there'll be another poll prompting a breakdown tomorrow

[Barrister]

Hey Brits - how seriously should "if Scotland goes, the Orkneys might try to stay in the UK" be taken?

Elsewhere I've seen it treated as "that would be negotiating in bad faith, and the foundation of the referendum is an agreement to negotiate in good faith, so it's basically off the table."

Does that sound right to you?

It's mad. Unless the Northern Isles were to negotiate with Norway (which they and Caithness certainly could based on their history).

We know what Scotland is, if they decide to leave then the borders are pretty well settled.

Why?  Self-determination has little to do with history - it has to do with the desires of the population.  If Orcadians wish to remain as part of the UK, why shouldn't they?