However given that these promises whereMy point was not that the presence of 'independent academics' on the Yes or No side made their points more valid. Instead, it is when there is an absence of them that is notable, and where that was most obvious was on the future constitutional settlement part after a No vote. No academic would stand up and say that they believed the UK political establishment would fulfil all its promises and work together to form the best possible outcome even if it caused them electoral pain because a moderately-educated layman could look at the current situation and say that the parties were going to bungle the whole thing. The only people who said they believed that they would be able to fulfil these promises were the people making these promises.
A) inherantly political and as you have pointed out we all know that politicians are liable to make promises that they do not keep to and that applies to both sides . The constitutional settlement in the event of a No vote would have required negotiations on both sides . And any reasonably educated layman would also see that either westminister could backtrack on its promises or Holyrod could be unreasonably demanding in asking for another referendum sooner rather than later .
B)A lot of pledges where made late on in the campaign when the no campaign started to panic a bit because of a few ropey opinion polls . This didnt give academics a lot of time to formulate a proper opinion on them .
C)The consitutional settlement for scotland in the event of a No vote would have required a cross party consensus in Westminster and this is not something that can be counted on
D)The constitutional settlement for Scotland in the event of a No votes poses some important questions about the continuing UK constitution which constitutional Law experts have been arguing over for years . What suddenly makes you think a vote in a region of the Uk is going to settle those arguments .
I was not under any impression that sovereignty only be delivered when every single issue was resolved . Some issues would no doubt only arrise after Sovereignty or some years down the line .On one hand, as soon as there is a Yes vote there is a crisis of legitimacy for the UK government to continue legislating for Scotland. In the event of that vote, I would imagine they would seek legislative consent motions from Holyrood on any important matters during the negotiation period in order to put these decisions' legitimacy beyond doubt. On the other hand, there is that need for the negotiations not to be be rushed, but it would be possible to deliver sovereignty before dealing with all issues. Dealing with all issues would take decades, as you would have to work out such minutae as whether Scotland or the rUK owns a specific painting in the National Collection. That sort of thing can be dealt with later, once it is either crucial or there is nothing else to do.
I dont think in the event of A yes vote last month it could have been delivered in anywhere near 18 months . Lets not forget Westminster Parliament dissolves at the end of March for the general election , that would have left about 6 months to negotiate with the UK government , then depending on how or who the next government is formed of negotiations could start again in may . Personally I think negotiations would have taken something in the region of 2 years after the formation of the next government in may 2015, given that in that time both parliaments still also have their normal business to deliver as well as any other situations that arise .The Scottish Government believed that independence would take around 18 months to deliver. Some people did speculate that a very rough-and-ready solution could be done before the 2015 general election, in order to avoid the West-Lothian-Question-On-Steroids. Given that I argue things like EU membership would not be as difficult to agree as other people claim, I believe the 18 months is not implausible but obviously it would still leave some minor issues left unsettled until later.
Well there are no provisions under EU law to expel a member state . But then would it even automatically be a member state . We just dont know because there is no precedent for a member state splitting and the ongoing membership status of the remaining parts .The interesting problem here is that Scotland wants to have EU membership and people are saying that membership would be denied. If Scottish law said that it was a member of the EU, despite the EU not seeing Scotland as a member, what exactly happens? Such a thing has never happened before.
I suppose if a member state was not to ratify a treaty amendment allowing Scotland to be a member then whilst Scotland could adopt all directives and regulations of the EU in domestic law it would not be allowed to have a say on matters as it would not be represented in the parliament . And it could not refer matters to the European court of justice . This to me would not seem very democratic .
The point I was trying to make was that even if all countries ratified treaty Amendments allowing Scotland to be a member this process can still take time in some countries depending on the process that the treaty amendment has to go through to be ratified , some countries have readings in parliament as well as supreme court judgements on the matter . This inevitably will take time given that this will not be a priority matter to these countries and their parliaments and courts will also have the running of their own country to worry about . This certainly would not be something that could happen overnight even the ratification of treaties amongst all member states could take as long as a year to 18 months .However, the point I have been making (ad nauseum) is that the act of Scotland becoming an independent country within the EU does nothing for the other countries, other than setting a precedent for the situation after a legal referendum. If those countries' constitutions prohibit such a referendum, that precedent would never be able to be followed unless their constitution was amended to allow it. The Spanish constitutional court is not going to allow the Catalan referendum because Scotland voted Yes. Indeed, if any court were going to take notice this would already have happened given that the UK agreed to allow a referendum that would have resulted in Scotland legally becoming independent.
But the whole process of the independence being gained could give even more traction to campaigners within them countries . I get what you are saying , the precedent for a referendum already created the problems for these countries . However a referendum result for independence could put even more pressure on these countries governments to allow a referendum . It would only stoke up further tensions and excitement amongst those that wanted independence .
What would you as a yes voter think if voters in Catalonia had been given a referendum and had successfully become independent from Spain prior to the Scottish referendum being granted . It would certainly be difficult to ignore and would no doubt then be used as an argument that Scotland should also get its independence .
Another reason countries might veto Scottish membership is for economic reasons . Had a currency union not been agreed with the UK and Scotland was left with no option but to opt for the euro some powerful nations might have vetoed this depending on how sound the economic plans produced where . You have already seen how tensions amongst the more powerful EU nations have rose over EU bailouts for the likes of Greece . Would the Germans the French or the Italians want another weak economic country coming into the eurozone . This is another matter that would have taken a long time to negotiate over .