Thursday, September 18, 2014

Random Thought

As the voters go to the polls in Scotland, I wonder why only the people of Scotland get to vote on the independence question.  Since a Yes vote would have an impact on the entire UK, why doesn’t everyone in the UK get to vote on the matter?

7 barks and woofs on “Random Thought

  1. Actually, that’s a good point. Here in the US, states can’t secede by themselves, Congress has to go along with secession.
    Now I think of it, I believe that Congress can kick a state out of the Union.. Maybe we can do that with underperforming red states.

  2. Scotland falls under a bunch of “special case” conditions: they’ve shared a monarch with England since 1603 but operated separately for another century after that, and joined the UK by consensus at that time. It’s a bit different from US states asserting nullification: the joining of Scotland to the UK was more treaty agreement than ratifying a joint constitution, so it’s more withdrawal from a treaty than dissolution of a larger nation. More powerful than, say, France leaving NATO, but more that than Texas insisting that it can break away from the US any time it wants.

        • I’ve often said that, while secession is explicitly denied by US Constitutional scholars, expulsion is both a valid alternate procedure and an action that would be useful in addressing secessionist agitation. The secessionists’ tone changes when this item comes up, and the change is very telling. They’re fine leaving the Union, but they absolutely hate being told to get out.

      • True, and I suspect the “unintended consequences” would be similar: for the US, expelling Texas along with most of the South would be a potential consequence, and for the UK I would expect the English would seriously consider dissolution – but with the dividing line somewhere south of Yorkshire.

Comments are closed.