While this article about independence raises a lot of sensible questions, it completely fails to understand the function of the 'devo-max' option, in common with pretty much everything else written on the subject. Basically, Salmond has traded away the 'devo-max' option on the referendum in return for letting 16 and 17 year olds vote. This is called giving up something you never wanted in the first place but pretended that you did to get something you really want. Cameron has fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.
With a third devo-max option available on the referendum in addition to the basic stay or go options, wouldn't a sizeable percentage of the go vote who weren't blinded by emotion vote for devo-max as a way to get the best of both worlds? That option is gone now - chances are most of those votes will go to independence. And now we can add a demographic not known for caution and the ability to consider both sides of the question - 16 year olds. I bet most of those vote for independence.
One thing I don't understand though - why does Westminster have to pay any attention to a vote for independence? The Act of Union was agreed between 2 bodies - the Scottish and the English parliaments. Leaving aside the fact that an English parliament no longer exists, wouldn't both sides have to agree to a parting of the ways?
I'm not sure they'd dare - going by the people I know, there'd be a landslide in favour of devolution.
ReplyDeleteOr rather, complete independence (for England, that is).
ReplyDeleteThat wouldn't surprise me. But then you'd be left with a permanent Tory majority. Might as well appoint George Osbourne king.
ReplyDelete*shudders*
ReplyDeleteI never ever thought I'd miss Tony Blair.