Thanks, as ever, to everyone who took part in last week's Fun Online Poll:
Whom would you like to see as the Republican candidate for President?
Ron Paul - 85%
Newt Gingrich - 6%
Rick Sanatorium - 5%
Mitt Romney - 3%
Jon Hunstman - 1%
Rick Perry - 0%
If I'd known it was going to be that one-sided I'd have voted for somebody else, to be honest. Where's the fun in being a Ron Paul supporter if you're in the majority?
For the record, Gingrich and Sanatorium are Roman Catholics; Romney and Huntsman are Mormons; Perry is a fundamentalist Methodist and Paul has "five children who were baptized Episcopalian... Raised a Lutheran, Paul later became a church-going Baptist. Whatever that means.
--------------------------------------------
There was an infuriating letter in today's FT from an SNP MSP, in which he baldly stated:
"Having the referendum on Scotland's future decided by the 56m UK citizens elsewhere in the UK is as risible an idea as having the UK's membership of the EU being decided by all 500m of its citizens."
Well, exactly not.
i. It's like membership of a club: any individual member is free to leave and a majority of members are free to chuck out any individual member, but a majority of members cannot prevent an individual member from leaving.
ii. If Scottish people in Scotland are allowed to vote, why not Scottish people elsewhere in the UK or self-professed 'Ulster Scots' like Peter Robinson (crikey, I didn't know there was such a thing)? What about English, Welsh or Irish people who live in Scotland? And if we go that far, why not allow avowed non-Scots living elsewhere in the UK to vote on whether Scotland ought to be chucked out and/or whether they'd like England, Wales or Northern Ireland to secede from the UK (although logic says that non-Scots would not be allowed to keep Scotland in the UK against their will)? And so on.
So that's this week's Fun Online Poll, open to everybody regardless of race, creed or colour. If there is no clear majority in Round 1, the two most popular choices go through to Round 2.
Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.
Cycling Proficiency Test
5 hours ago
15 comments:
"Ulster Scots" = a way of calling yourself an Ulster Protestant without sounding like an orange-clad bible-thumper.
Also, worth noting the actual electorate for the Scottish referendum will be the same as in general elections in Scotland (ie UK and Commonwealth citizens who are resident in Scotland and who are listed on the electoral register), irrespective of birth or parentage.
JB, ta for clarifications.
Well the UK is not a club and Scotland is not an autonomous entity that can "leave". For example The devolution referendum was instigated by Westminster and Scotland has no powers in this area. Its all media fantasy politics.
The relationship is like a marriage. It takes two to agree to join, but only one to break it up. Unless you are prepared to use force to maintain the union, of course.
Den, you say "media fantasy politics" I say "Fun online poll". Don't take it all so seriously!
Anon 10.50, yes that is another good analogy.
One of the options in your "fun online poll" is for full Scottish independence outside the UK. That particular option shows the widespread misunderstanding that exists about the actual nature of the UK.
"Lane says, Scotland cannot break away like Ireland as it was 'one of the basic building blocks of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain"' (Lane 1991: 146). Without Scotland there is no 'Great Britain' and without Great Britain there is no 'United Kingdom'."
I invite you to read my blog "The 'Sanitization' of Scottish History" - http://follonblogs.blogspot.com - particularly the post "Understanding Scottish Independence".
MF, Great Britain is an island, not a political thing. And sure, the phrase "United Kingdom" itself becomes slightly otiose, but so what?
There are plenty of people who see England, Great Britain and United Kingdom as more or less interchangeable concepts (see also Russia, USSR, Warsaw Pact - and there was a difference between Baltic States that were more or less subsumed into Russia/USSR and let's say Poland or East Germany).
So if the new official name is "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" I don't think that anybody will be too fussed.
That is incorrect Mark. The correct Title of this country is The united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island. The Act of Union was in 1707 but it was not a union of States, it was the creation of a new State called Great Britain. That is why I said, above, the discussion as presented in the media is a Fantasy.
Den, wrong, Great Britain is the name of an island entirely independent of politics, it is not a country or a union of countries.
"UK" is short for "UK of GB and NI", simply because that is where the UK happens to be situated. There was NEVER a country or state or union of states referred to officially as "Great Britain".
Prior to Rep Ireland being established/breaking away, it was called "UK of GB and I". And before it joined, it was "UK of GB".
In political terms it is now "the UK of E&W, S & NI" but that is a bit of a mouthful. The name is entirely unimportant. People say "Germany" even though it is strictly speaking "FRG" (and before that it was split into "FRG" and "DRG" commonly referred to as West- and East Germany respectively) and they call The Netherlands "Holland" and they refer to the USA as "America" and so on.
And as I said before, no way will the Scots vote for full independence, ain't going to happen so what are you so worried about?
D, since you seem to be intent on picking nits, may I point out that the full name for the UK is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and it was Michael Follon who gave the incrrect name, not Mark. For a detailed political history of names see
http://www.johnband.org/blog/ where you will find that the Act of Union of 1707 was a union of the independent states of Scotland and England. It's not "all media fantasy politics". Certain people in Scotland want an independent Scotland. Whether it's a majority or not is unknown, but the fact remains that some Scottish politicians are intent on pushing this forward. It is not fantasy to say that it is possible that something may happen, even though it is probable that nothing may happen and if something happens there will be legislation passed at Westminster which will make the historic legislation you quote irrelevant. Such is the nature of legislation.
I am not worried about it. However you are completely and utterly wrong. I am suprised you did not do an ounce of research before posting. England and Scotland are not sperate political entities, the consequence is that Scotland cannot be re-created without the co-operation of Westminster.
Den: " I am suprised you did not do an ounce of research before posting"
Can you please remind me of actual factual or logical errors in the actual post, I'm always happy to correct errors.
" England and Scotland are not sperate political entities, the consequence is that Scotland cannot be re-created without the co-operation of Westminster."
Whether they are or not is a philosophical point. Would you agree, for example, that the London Borough of Walthamstow is a separate political entity to Leeds City Council?
And yes, of course the whole thing has to be negotiated between 'Scotland' and 'Westminster', where did I say otherwise? That's what the whole series of posts is about, what happens to oil revenues, RBS guarantees, national debt etc.
England and Scotland are not sperate political entities, the consequence is that Scotland cannot be re-created without the co-operation of Westminster
The first half is bollocks. England & Wales are, for most purposes, a single political entity. England & Scotland are not. That's why, for example, Scots law has always been sovereign in Scotland.
The second half is true, but solely because of the specific provisions of the various Acts of Union: legally speaking, the UK parliament would have to give its assent to Scottish independence (practically speaking, as Mark says, if the Scots want to go they're gone - I can't see any UK PM going all Abraham Lincoln here).
With regard to Scottish independence and the United Kingdom here are some pertinent and verifiable FACTS -
1. The Union of the Crowns (a misnomer) came about on the death of Queen Elizabeth Tudor. James VI of Scotland was the only living relative of Elizabeth who had named him as her heir.
'on 25 March 1603 James VI of Scotland became James I of England. It was a purely personal union. There were still two kingdoms, each with its own parliament, administration, church and legal system.'
SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p.46, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0.
2. There were two Acts of Union, one by the Scottish Parliament and one by the English Parliament. They were the ratifying instruments of the Treaty of Union in 1707.
'Article I
...That the Two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall...be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain;...
Article III
That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by One and the same Parliament, to be stiled, the Parliament of Great Britain.'
SOURCE: Treaty of Union, 1707
Throughout the Articles of the Treaty of Union in 1707 the phrase 'United Kingdom' is used numerous times.
3. Wales was annexed to the realm of England initially in 1284 and then more formally in 1536 by a statute of the Parliament of England.
4. In 1801 the Union with Ireland provided for the abolition of the Irish Parliament and for Irish MP's to sit in the Houses of Parliament in Westminster. This changed in 1922 with the creation of the Irish Free State with only the six counties of Northern Ireland remaining as part of the United Kingdom.
5. The last meeting of the pre-Union Scottish Parliament was on 25 March 1707 when it was adjourned. That Parliament was dissolved by proclamation on 25 April 1707 but it NEVER actually dissolved itself.
6. '...The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law...'
SOURCE: MacCormick v lord Advocate 1954 (1953 SC 396).
The sovereignty of parliament in England was decided in 1688. At no time since the Union in 1707 has the Westminster Parliament ever been deemed to be sovereign - it has only been assumed because of its location.
7. '...the residual traditions of Scottish constitutional law and practice which never accorded untrammelled sovereignty to Westminster.'
SOURCE: 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating, p.296, ISBN 0-7486-1699-3, (The Constitution Unit, University College London, 2002).
8. 'If the Scottish people expressed a desire for independence the stage would be set for a direct clash between what is the English doctrine of sovereignty and the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.'
SOURCE: 'The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy', Scottish Affairs Committee Secind Report of Session 1997-1998, HC 460-I, 2 December 1998.
MF, fascinating stuff, but we knew all this.
Post a Comment