The Scottish Question

[Bob]

I'm neither for or against the issue of whether Scotland should or shouldn't separate from the UK.  I've read some rather heated rhetoric on other sites about that issue and hope I'm not starting that here. What dumbfounds me, though, is that apparently this rather momentous issue can be decided by a majority vote and I'm wondering if those for or against the separation might comment on that issue alone.

 

Most of US law stems from our colonial masters and we generally cannot take many significant actions (ratification of a constitution which required a 2/3rd's vote, amendment to our constitution which requires approval by 3/4's of the states, overriding a presidential veto, etc.) without what I'll call super-majority approval.  The theory, I suppose, is one shouldn't make major changes that affect everybody without some level of overwhelming support.  Others argue that the higher vote levels somewhat protect the minority from what has been called the tyranny of the majority.

 

So the question:  Why is such an important change contingent on a simple majority vote and do you think that it's appropriate to handle it that way? 

[vinapu]

If people want to separate they will regardless of what constitution or majority says, only thing needed is willingness to go alone or raw force.

 

Nobody asked people of former Soviet Union if they want to start living in a separate countries   nor West Germans had much to say on swallowing their Eastern brothers  and vice versa.

 

I don't want to make fun of US Constitution but this is document under which slavery and racial segregation was permitted and it looks progressive ideas like gay marriage are covered by it as well  so in my opinion document is both updated and outdated and activist judges are making what they see fit of what constitution actually contains.

 

So bottom line will be if Scots want go alone they will regardless  of the size of majority but I hope reason prevails and they will stay  within UK. Keeping separate football national team should be enough to satisfy their sense of uniqueness IMHO 

[Bob]

Was really hoping you'd address the question.  Do you think it's wise to make such a major change if only 51 out of a 100 support it?

[vinapu]

.  Do you think it's wise to make such a major change if only 51 out of a 100 support it?

No I don't , it's why I said above " I hope reason prevails" and I truly do. 51 out of 100 borders on statistic deviation and in such a case I'd prefer something like 60% of qualified voters.

 

But in course of human history big changes were made either by  prevailing force  without voting  / uprising , revolution or war / or by motivated and determined minority - recent events Thailand being good example.

 

Scotish independence would only confirm that ugly nationalistic hydra is rising it's head in Europe which suffered enough from this type of lunacy in not so distant past.

[Alexx]

I'm not a fan of referendums myself and I tend to question the wisdom of asking the populace at large to vote on specific and often very complex issues, but I believe that wherever they happen to exist, the only way to go is to respect the wish of the (simple) majority of those of the electorate who choose to vote, under the one condition that a certain percentage of the electorate participates (this percentage can and should be set quite high, in my opinion). Since there's no layer of representation that allows for 'vote pooling' or 'backroom deals', there's no justification whatsoever for a higher threshold or super majority requirement.

 

As for Scotland, I'm all for them breaking away from the UK, because this will raise some very interesting questions and it will be exciting to watch (from a safe distance, LOL) how they will deal with them. Yes!

[forrestreid]

Let me reverse the question for you Bob.

 

Do you think it is wise to deny people a change the have voted on and supported by a majority vote?

 

Why should the current constitutional arrangements get precedence just because it is the status quo?

[Guest LoveThailand]

 

 

 

Nobody asked people of former Soviet Union if they want to start living in a separate countries   nor West Germans had much to say on swallowing their Eastern brothers  and vice versa.

 

A small correction, Vinapu.

At least in one of the former USSR countries a referendum on independence was hel with over 92% voting for it (1991).

[Guest abang1961]

This may be the start for further defragmentation of the United Kingdom.

I don't know much about European politics (or any international politics) but after the break-up of the former USSR, is life for the commoners any better?  The recent Ukraine fiasco speaks volume...

 

Another thing I dislike is majority wins... just 51%... and the rest is history?

[Bob]

Let me reverse the question for you Bob.

 

Do you think it is wise to deny people a change the have voted on and supported by a majority vote?

 

Why should the current constitutional arrangements get precedence just because it is the status quo?

 

Again, as I stated, I'm not taking sides on what Scotland should or shouldn't do.  Given I don't live there or elsewhere in the UK, I somewhat feel it's none of my business.

 

And I think majority rule is adequate for normal issues but I have a real problem thinking it's appropriate for 51% of the people to mandate that 100% of the people should do something this momentous; hence, my understanding/support for major issues (like amending a constitution or joining or leaving another country) being decided by a larger majority.  If I lived in Scotland, I might or might not support separation but I wouldn't want it decided by one vote.  Doesn't seem right to me.

 

Part of my thinking possibly surely could be influenced by my long-held view of the wisdom of certain safeguards that the US founding fathers provided  Sure, they supported democracy but they also recognized the problem of the possible tyranny of a simple majority.  That's why they included certain safeguards as noted above.  Come to think of there are other safeguards they provided too including that there would be two senators from each state regardless of the population of those states (without that provision 8 or so of our most populous states could rule the senate regardless of what the other 42 states thought). 

[Alexx]

This may be the start for further defragmentation of the United Kingdom.

Don't worry, there's not much more left to fragment. Once Wales and Northern Ireland are gone, too, we might as well just call "it" England.

[vinapu]

This may be the start for further defragmentation of the United Kingdom.

I don't know much about European politics (or any international politics) but after the break-up of the former USSR, is life for the commoners any better?  The recent Ukraine fiasco speaks volume...

 

Another thing I dislike is majority wins... just 51%... and the rest is history?

It can't be denied that Singapore did very well after breaking from Malaysia so sometimes breakups  works. 

[vinapu]

Nobody asked people of former Soviet Union if they want to start living in a separate countries   nor West Germans had much to say on swallowing their Eastern brothers  and vice versa.

 

A small correction, Vinapu.

At least in one of the former USSR countries a referendum on independence was hel with over 92% voting for it (1991).

I think you mean Estonia if I recall correctly. But bottom line of this is they did not separate because of referendum win but because decaying USSR made it possible. 

[vinapu]

 

 

  Sure, they supported democracy but they also recognized the problem of the possible tyranny of a simple majority.  That's why they included certain safeguards as noted above.  Come to think of there are other safeguards they provided too including that there would be two senators from each state regardless of the population of those states (without that provision 8 or so of our most populous states could rule the senate regardless of what the other 42 states thought). 

This was far sighting indeed. But tyranny of majority can be replaced by tyranny of minority and those 42 minnows can held majority of population hostage.

EU is good example when on may issues consensus of all member states is required thus  Malta with population of 300 000 can stop accession say 80 million strong  Turkey to EU.

[Bob]

"England, will you take us back?" 

http://us.cnn.com/2014/09/12/opinion/wheeler-scotland-referendum/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[Guest LoveThailand]

This may be the start for further defragmentation of the United Kingdom.

I don't know much about European politics (or any international politics) but after the break-up of the former USSR, is life for the commoners any better?  The recent Ukraine fiasco speaks volume...

 

Another thing I dislike is majority wins... just 51%... and the rest is history?

The recent Ukrainian fiasco is a function of Russian attempts to recreate the empire banking on the West's dependence on their energy supplies.

[forrestreid]

Bob, your point about the 51% victory is a valid one - I think it would be destabilising, and a far from ideal situation, but my point is denying the victors in a democratic referendum their choice would be even more destabilising.

Perhaps if they had some rule that a major constitutional change would have to be approved by a majority in two referendums at least three years apart?

I know that sounds a bit ridiculous, but the negotiations for Scottish independence are going to take years anyway – Alex Salmond has set a date of March 2016 for independence, but it probably won’t happen on schedule.

 

Also, it is worth pointing out that the English and rUK people have had a say in the referendum (by proxy at least).

David Cameron as AGREED to the referendum, on behalf of the British parliament and government. They couldn’t have held it without his agreement as PM of the UK.

 

Also, the SNP won a majority of the seats in a Scottish general election in 2011, with an explicit manifesto promise of seeking independence.

 

So that is two constitutional hurdles the independence vote crossed before the referendum date was set.

[vinapu]

Next round of dance will come when people of say , Hebrides or Shetlands decide they still want be part of UK , not an independent Scotland, see examples of Transnistria and Moldova or South Ossetia and Georgia in former USSR. 

 

those things tend to snowball and if somebody thinks this is possible only in wild east look no further than Northern Ireland.

 ( Hi Nirish ! )

[NIrishGuy]

The Government are welcome to hold an independence vote here in N.ireland ( if that's what you're getting at Vinapu) as right now theres absolutely no way N.Ireland would vote to leave the UK - and that even allows for Nationalists who would historically prefer to not be part of the UK perhaps as being blunt they know what side of their bread is buttered on as we say here and transferring power to Inpdepence or to Southern Ireland would make everyone ( except the rest of the UK strangely enough) much worse off financially and politically that's not a path ANYONE ( save the last remnants of republican terrorism) just now wants to take the Country down thankfully.

 

Now, as I've read the above and similar comments on a few other boards let me be clear thats my last comment on the subject as the last thing I come on to Thailand gay boards to talk about is Northern Ireland politics I assure you !