Scottish Independence

[Warspite]

You know what... This whole idea is a travesty.

A state is supposed to protect its citizens... If Yes wins by, say, 51%, it means that 49% of the population in Scotland will be British citizens who have a desire to remain as such, but in fact will find themselves shortly outside of British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

We keep debating yes and no consequences, but I think the mere fact that such a momentous decision so decisively affecting the lives of many of its citizens for generations to come could be put up to a simple 50% vote of present residents of Scotland is a shame for the UK as a whole.

But it works both ways; many Scots did not approve of the Act of Union in 1707, suddenly finding themselves within British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

A big part of living in a representative system is dealing with the fact that sometimes your preference will not be that of the majority.

I think the fact that this vote happens in a civilised manner and the result will be respected is a triumph, not a shame for the UK as a whole. Think how much less blood and treasure would have been squandered through history had more states dissolved like this.

[Martinus]

51% means it is a highly contested issue, not an expression of a national consensus. If the referendum comes down to "whoever can get the vote out better" then no, it's not really a manifestation of a national will in the case of an issue which when accomplished will be irreversible.

Given that we're talking about voter registration of around 95% and talk of turnout of over 75% up towards 80% (according to polls 95% of Scots are 'definitely' going to vote, though some of them are bound to be lying) I don't think that matters it just means it's a divisive issue. Which is fine, we shouldn't resile from allowing decisions on divisive issues by forcing the status quo on  people until they reach some arbitrary level of certainty - why two-thirds? Why not 60%? Or for that matter 75%? It's a big issue after all.

And precisely because it's a big issue I think we should follow the vote. 36% shouldn't enough to decide the matter.

As I say supermajorities are very alien to our system. So's national consensus for that matter.

I think a supermajority could be justified if there was low turnout - say under 60% - but given the figures that it's being suggested will vote I don't think it can be justified to deny people their choice (albeit a narrow one) and force them to stay in a country they want to leave.

I think in most of the Western world, major/constitutional decisions are expected to reach a qualified majority and not just a simple majority. Wasn't prop 8 declared unconstitutional also on the grounds that, for depriving a class of citizens of their rights, it only required a simple majority to pass (and surely, seceding from a country is a more important decision).

You may say you prefer it being done the way it is being done in Scotland, but I think you should recognise the fact that the UK is unique in this respect and it is by no means an established rule of democracy everywhere that major constitutional changes are decided by a 50%+1 vote.

[Martinus]

But it works both ways; many Scots did not approve of the Act of Union in 1707, suddenly finding themselves within British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

This is a really invalid argument - constitutional standards have changed immensely over the last three hundred years. For example, contrary to what Putin does, it is no longer considered acceptable to annex countries by military force - so the fact that it worked for someone in 1707 should not really have any bearing on modern politics.

[Sheilbh]

You may say you prefer it being done the way it is being done in Scotland, but I think you should recognise the fact that the UK is unique in this respect and it is by no means an established rule of democracy everywhere that major constitutional changes are decided by a 50%+1 vote.

I do. It's not an established rule of democracy, it's alien to our system. But vice versa I think most people come from systems with supermajorities, but that's not universal either and is unprecedented here (with the exception of the 79 referendum, perhaps). So it'd be more strange if we had a supermajority and it's not an established rule of democracy that you need one for constitutional change or what you're doing is somehow indecent.

Personally I disagree with supermajorities in general. Especially in the case when the issue is so vexed or difficult that the legislators have basically handed it over to the people, or decided that they should have the final say - as is the case here. In general I disagree with direct democracy but I think once the decision's been made to decide it by a referendum then I don't think you should hem that in. But I could see their use if you were expecting low turnout.

[Warspite]

But a change in sovereignty doesn't deprive people of their rights. I think an independence referendum is different to constitutional and rights issues because independence, narrowly defined, is about where power will ultimately reside, rather than how that power will be exercised and with what limits.

[Sheilbh]

This is a really invalid argument - constitutional standards have changed immensely over the last three hundred years. For example, contrary to what Putin does, it is no longer considered acceptable to annex countries by military force - so the fact that it worked for someone in 1707 should not really have any bearing on modern politics.

Sure. But it is still the same country kept together by the same 1707 Act of Union decided by both Parliaments with no major constitutional break in between (though, obviously, much evolution).

And isn't that more of an argument for a 50-50 vote? Why should a union decided by 18th century grandees be protected from a democratic referendum in 2014 except for its age.

[Warspite]

But it works both ways; many Scots did not approve of the Act of Union in 1707, suddenly finding themselves within British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

This is a really invalid argument - constitutional standards have changed immensely over the last three hundred years. For example, contrary to what Putin does, it is no longer considered acceptable to annex countries by military force - so the fact that it worked for someone in 1707 should not really have any bearing on modern politics.

It's not an invalid argument - my point is that the union was not a universally popular act, so the fact that independence might not be universally popular doesn't matter, based on Tamas's reasoning.

Besides, the correct course of action is follow existing, agreed constitutional procedures, which is what Britain is doing. To radically change this system at a whim would be arbitrary, whereas effective constitutions are supposed to provide predictability and a level playing field. You may not agree with it, but it's a system that's survived the last 300 years better than most others.

[Tamas]

You guys take this awfully lightly. 300 years old country destroyed (yes, destroyed) because people dislike the "bedroom tax"

Also, if based on this, City of London would decide that they'd rather suffocate in their piles of cash instead of financing the rest of the UK's existence and opted for independence or some sort of city state status, would that be also fine to decide on a 50% vote? Where does this thing stop?

[Tamas]

But it works both ways; many Scots did not approve of the Act of Union in 1707, suddenly finding themselves within British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

This is a really invalid argument - constitutional standards have changed immensely over the last three hundred years. For example, contrary to what Putin does, it is no longer considered acceptable to annex countries by military force - so the fact that it worked for someone in 1707 should not really have any bearing on modern politics.

It's not an invalid argument - my point is that the union was not a universally popular act, so the fact that independence might not be universally popular doesn't matter, based on Tamas's reasoning.

Besides, the correct course of action is follow existing, agreed constitutional procedures, which is what Britain is doing. To radically change this system at a whim would be arbitrary, whereas effective constitutions are supposed to provide predictability and a level playing field. You may not agree with it, but it's a system that's survived the last 300 years better than most others.

I thought the UK doesn't have a constitution.

[Warspite]

But it works both ways; many Scots did not approve of the Act of Union in 1707, suddenly finding themselves within British borders, because of their own state willingly "giving" them away.

This is a really invalid argument - constitutional standards have changed immensely over the last three hundred years. For example, contrary to what Putin does, it is no longer considered acceptable to annex countries by military force - so the fact that it worked for someone in 1707 should not really have any bearing on modern politics.

It's not an invalid argument - my point is that the union was not a universally popular act, so the fact that independence might not be universally popular doesn't matter, based on Tamas's reasoning.

Besides, the correct course of action is follow existing, agreed constitutional procedures, which is what Britain is doing. To radically change this system at a whim would be arbitrary, whereas effective constitutions are supposed to provide predictability and a level playing field. You may not agree with it, but it's a system that's survived the last 300 years better than most others.

I thought the UK doesn't have a constitution.

It has a constitution that exists in the statute books, but it is not codified in a single document.

[Warspite]

You guys take this awfully lightly. 300 years old country destroyed (yes, destroyed) because people dislike the "bedroom tax"

Also, if based on this, City of London would decide that they'd rather suffocate in their piles of cash instead of financing the rest of the UK's existence and opted for independence or some sort of city state status, would that be also fine to decide on a 50% vote? Where does this thing stop?

If it got to the point where Londoners had developed their own governing institutions, political boundaries and such a strong identity to the point where they felt it necessary to dissolve their bonds with the rest of England, then yes I don't see why not.

[The Brain]

Is it something in the tea?

[garbon]

But a change in sovereignty doesn't deprive people of their rights. I think an independence referendum is different to constitutional and rights issues because independence, narrowly defined, is about where power will ultimately reside, rather than how that power will be exercised and with what limits.

The 49% lose their rights as British citizens.

[garbon]

This is a really invalid argument - constitutional standards have changed immensely over the last three hundred years. For example, contrary to what Putin does, it is no longer considered acceptable to annex countries by military force - so the fact that it worked for someone in 1707 should not really have any bearing on modern politics.

Sure. But it is still the same country kept together by the same 1707 Act of Union decided by both Parliaments with no major constitutional break in between (though, obviously, much evolution).

And isn't that more of an argument for a 50-50 vote? Why should a union decided by 18th century grandees be protected from a democratic referendum in 2014 except for its age.

If the UK hasn't evolved away from just a union decided in the 18th century, then yes that is an argument in favor of a 50-50 vote.

[DGuller]

Personally I disagree with supermajorities in general. Especially in the case when the issue is so vexed or difficult that the legislators have basically handed it over to the people, or decided that they should have the final say - as is the case here. In general I disagree with direct democracy but I think once the decision's been made to decide it by a referendum then I don't think you should hem that in. But I could see their use if you were expecting low turnout.

Every governing system needs to strike a balance between representation and stability.  A simple majority is by definition not very stable, since a very small shift of sentiment can lead the country a whole other way.  Therefore, on important issues that represent a major departure from status quo, it's certainly reasonable to demand that there is a damn solid consensus that the change is needed.  Obviously you can go too far, and too much codified stability will lead to practical instability, as people start pushing for changes outside of the system, but 50% + 1 is not that point.