Scottish Clarity?
David Cameron is to take a high-stakes gamble with the union this week by telling the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, he can have a binding referendum on Scottish independence – but only in the next 18 months, after which any referendum can be no more than advisory.
He is also likely to tell Salmond he will be forbidden from asking a third question on the ballot paper, over a form of devolution stopping short of independence.
Cameron will publish a consultation paper, probably this week, revealing clear legal advice that the independence referendum will be binding under the Scotland Act only if both parliaments agree to its going ahead. He will say the uncertainty created by the prospect of independence is harming the Scottish and UK economies, and a delay until 2014 is not possible. …
The prime minister said that the uncertainty surrounding Scotland’s future was “very damaging” for businesses. Speaking to Sky News on Monday, Cameron said: “If Alex Salmond wants a referendum on independence, why do we wait until 2014?
“It is at least rational to put to the Scottish people: would it be better to have a more fair and decisive question put earlier?”
Interesting play.
Damn. That Scotland’s desire for independence is bad for business is that killer argument that we of the tartaned way just never thought about. Brilliant. Thanks for clearing that up, England.
LOL.
But isn’t it interesting, watching it play out across the pond?
Yes! I wonder if there is an equivalent of the division of powers other than in the Act of Union from, what, 1706-07. There is plenty of autonomy in that document for Scotland – separate criminal law, etc.
I doubt it, because the point of it was to rule both kingdoms from London. The act which set up the Scottish Parliament in… what was it, 1999? … must be what sets out what the new parliament can do.
I’m not sure I’m all that opposed to Scottish independence, if I’m English.
Only the Parliaments united in the 1700s. Plenty of autonomy was provided under the deal that was only enhanced in 1999. Certain areas of constitutional life was always retained. It was no Isle of Man but the governances structure of the British Isles is a lot about asymmetry.
Sure, there were always separate Scottish institutions and systems — but they all were set by Westminster.
But yes, I’m a fan of the old British constitution… (pre-1920s)
It’s a little more weird and interesting than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law#Common_law