"Unless Gordon Brown wrongfoots him (Salmond)by addressing the English question and by holding a UK-wide referendum before he has the chance to build up a head of steam, then the break of Britain, and indeed of the Labour party, looks certain.
It is Westminster MPs, not the Scottish parliament, who must stage the referendum and decide on the key referendum issues because the future of the union is too important to the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to be determined by the Scots alone.
English voters should be given an equal say on whether the UK is to be broken up, and if so, on what terms. If a majority of people in the British Isles vote to maintain the union then the UK government should not enter into negotiations with the SNP to tear it up."
Frank Field
6 comments:
What a silly, and dangerous idea. That should a majority of Scots vote for the SNP to enter into negotiations with Westminster. That non-Scots elsewhere could somehow veto this.
Is it fair to sat that the argument for union is lost when this is the kind of drivel put up?
This sounds a bit soviet. What a ridiculous suggestion.
I can imagine Calton Hill like the Vilnius TV Tower. Shwoing those Lithuanians who was boss certainly kept that union together. Poster above entirely correct. If this is that standard of Unionist agrument then it is already curtains.
That should a majority of Scots vote for the SNP to enter into negotiations with Westminster. That non-Scots elsewhere could somehow veto this.
So...yes, when push comes to shove, it is only the Scots who should have the final say on their final destination- no one else has that right to make that decision for them.
And that's exactly the same argument I'd make with respect to Northern Ireland. It is only those who actually reside in Northern Ireland who have the right to determine its final destination.
What I originally thought Field was saying was 4 simultaneous referendums in the four constituent parts of the UK deciding on the future of ONLY their relevant part of the UK. Which I would agree with 100%.
As everyone, including O'neill, has said, an UK wide single refrendum would be a disaster. If Scotland voted yes to independence but the majority (i.e. England) voted no, the outcry from Scotland would be huge.
While I agree with what you say on Ni O'Neill, there's an obvious problem there. If Scotland bow out, it leaves Wales, England and NI. I see it as very likely (if not guaranteed) that such a triple-union would not last a decade (barring some Scottish disaster that convinces us all inependence means doom).
So if Wales or England then decided to bow out, it would leave just two countries left. Odds on if Scotland and Wales (or Scotland and England) have left the Union, the third country will be going just as fast, which means that NI would become independent through no decision of its own!
HF,
I think it's unlikely that we'll be getting any of the four countries voting to breakaway.
I think there is a miniscule prospect of NI (and incidently also Wales) voting themselves out, but (and it's a prospect completely ignored by N. Irish unionists) if England voted to leave the UK then, as it is by far the biggest part economically, the Union is over, finished. So, yes, we would be "independent" or much more likely looking for a new constitutional arrangement with either England, the remaining parts of the Uk or the ROI- or even a misture of two the above.
In the hypothetical case of Scotland separating, I think the three remaining countries could function quite well as a single constitutional entity. Also as you allude to, what happens to Scotland in the first ten years after separtion would have a very important determinant on what happens with the rest of us.
I can;t see Wales or Ni voting for independence from the four country union for a very long time.
But Scotland or England probably will, and once one of them go, I'd see Wales doing so very quickly (i.e. 10 years).
While England, Wales NI may work as a single entity, it would never survive. The Brit Nats would lose the whole "tradition, history, we're all the same" arguments while people would inivtibly start thinking "I want what they got".
Only a disasterous Scotland would keep the other nations together, and I very much doubt whether Scotland would, in the short term we're talking about, be that much worse (or better) than they are today.
Post a Comment