Scottish Discussions.

[f4f3]

I'll probably be talking quite a bit here about Scottish Independence. I'll warn you off with an appropriate subject line. This should be an interesting couple of years, politics wise, and despite my best intentions the Scottish Independence campaign is probably the issue that will concern me most.

I say despite my best intentions because I've always seen Independence as a bit of a side issue. A nice to have. My primary concern has always been that we have a society that attempts to serve its members in the fairest way possible. I'm much more concerned about the equitable division of resources than what box those resources come out of. 

That's meant that I've always thought Scotland should stay in the UK, and help make the whole of that political unit the best place it can be. You can imagine how that felt between 1979 and 1997, when Scotlan consistently voted for social democracy, and got Tory governments. 

However, there's a window of a couple of years now when the game can be changed. So this, for me, is a time for tactics, the tactics of Independence, as part of the strategy for a fairer society. I'll write, later, about what I'd imagine the Scottish political landscape would be post-Independence, but for now I'll be writing about the immediate tactics of setting up a referendum which isn't controlled by Westminster. 


I'm not sure how interested any of you will be in this. I've been struck, though, by how a lot of arguments I've considered settled are being raised in the English media (I use English here in a narrow sense, and with apologies to Welsh, Irish and indeed Scottish friends). I'd forgotten that a lot of issues we debated intensively in Scotland leading up to the Scottish Government election last year are new to a wider audience, so I'll be recapping some of that here. 

I'll use my Brave Cow icon (thanks Keef, thanks Frankie) for these posts. 

Comments

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Yes, that was Wallace's line. However, it was backed with a possibly overstated confidence that the opinion the Westminster Government gives of the law is the definitive one. Briefly, it turns on their interpretation of the clause in the Scotland Act which reserves powers to Westminster on constitutional matters. I think the opinion is pretty persuasive, but it's only an interpretation. The provision isn't completely clear, as Wallace mentioned himself, referring to some discussion on the point that was had in Parliament in 1998, when the Scotland Act was being drafted.

I really need to write the post on his lecture, don't I?

[jen-c-w.livejournal.com]

Tick tock.

I've got a load of notes on my netbook I can wing across to you if I remember. Or more pertinently if I get chance as at the moment I'm told I must be sorting shit out when I'm at home ahead of it going back in the FUCKING WARDROBES that have now been repaired.

Sorry. As previously discussed, it's always all about me ;)

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Sounds like it's all about the wardrobes...

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I see your post on his lecture - thanks for that.

I'd say I find Wallace's view persuasive but the fact that there is doubt is the most important thing. The last thing this process needs is for a it to end up in the courts for a few years.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Yes - I think he was not-so-subtly making that threat. To tie up the process, either directly or, much more likely, through a "concerned Scot" proxy. Much hilarity after the lecture conjecturing who that might be - Brian Soutar?

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Could be anyone -either a front man for an organised group or a genuine concerned citizen.

I'd bet on Rod Stewart or perhaps the chap who is offered up as the Rightful Stuart King of Scotland.