This is one of the various reasons I argue for progressive federalism for Great Britain, with all elections having a proportional representation voting system so as to avoid as much disenfranchisement as possible.
For England in particular, regional governments could be based on the former European Parliament constituencies, also with the former two tier local district (or met) councils and their respective county councils too.
... Therefore, the best thing in my opinion to do before even considering holding a referendum, is to see if all reasonable accommodations could be given before a referendum. In Britain and Spain, the answer is undoubtedly a federal philosophy based on the United States ...
... constitutional reform, cultural celebration or economic balancing are all effective solutions against Scottish independence. I’d say, until all possible and reasonable steps to accommodate the succeeding country have been exhausted and Nationalist sentiment still hasn’t subsided, then a referendum shouldn’t be considered. ...
The notion of a federal settlement for the UK is one I often see mentioned, and one that I previously supported. My enthusiasm has, however, waned considerably because I cannot see a satisfactory resolution to a number of points:
- A federal settlement would need a defined split of powers between the federal parliament and the party states. It will be necessary to agree on which powers and responsibilities are given to the states, noting that in all the federal systems I know off the top of my head the party states have powers far exceeding those currently available to Scotland, Wales, and NI.
- A federal settlement would also need to include compensatory mechanisms accounting for differences in population between party states. In the US, Canadian, and Australian systems (the latter two of which are most relevant, being Westminster-style parliaments) the primary adjustment is in the apportionment of the Senate. In the Australian system in particular (as it's the one with which I'm most familiar), each federal state elects 12 senators regardless of population, while the two autonomous internal territories each elect two senators. If you apply this model to the UK's current structure with the four home nations, you would have England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all elect the same number of senators - which would make an NI senate vote roughly five times more powerful than a Scottish senate vote, and the Scottish vote would itself be roughly ten times more powerful than one in England. Since this will almost certainly be viewed unfavourably in many quarters, the alternative is often given as establishment of a number of English federal regions - but if these regions receive the same number of senators as Scotland and the other nations do, it will be viewed as treating the other nations as though they too were nothing more than regions of England. Would it then be workable if the English regions received a smaller set of powers and a correspondingly-reduced quota of senators? Or is there another method of apportionment that would be generally acceptable?
- Assuming it's possible to find a generally-acceptable structure that manages to mostly resolve the prior two points, it's reasonable to assume that the structure will need to go to referendum in each of the current home nations before being enacted. What will be done if it is approved in some of the nations, but not all?
- If the structure is approved it will need to be drafted as a constitution bill to be passed by the UK Parliament - but the principle of parliamentary sovereignty prevents one parliament binding a future parliament, meaning that the constitution as enacted could be unilaterally amended whenever parliament so desires. How are the people to made to feel comfortable that this won't happen?
And with particular reference to the present circumstances in Scotland - when is any of this to happen? Are we to expect a massive change of heart from the current government? Or should we simply sit quietly and patiently being seen and not heard until some time in the future when a more-accommodating government is elected?
Referendum questions/topics that affect the whole of the UK should only be revisited after a minimum of 20 years has passed ("Once in a lifetime" as was the case for the Scottish independence referendum in 2014).
I don't consider it to be acceptable for those terms to be, in effect, dictated to voters in Scotland because it is an abridgement of the right to self-determination. If a Scottish government is validly elected with a manifesto commitment of offering another referendum I view it as having a legitimate mandate to do just that - and further I would suggest that if it becomes a majority sentiment in Scotland that further referendums are tiresome then parties offering to call them will cease to be elected.
I would note too that the only referendum topic to ever be given a statutory "no-return" period in the UK is that of Irish reunification; for which the no-return period is seven years.
The precedent set by other states, and by the progression to independence of the Dominions, is that the appropriate democratic mechanism would be a majority in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
As you yourself say - this is the progression to independence taken by the former Crown Dominions, and indeed also the various Crown Colonies and Dependent Territories. Is this the fullest extent of the status that Scotland is accorded in the union?
It's also interesting to note that previous governments were really quite generous in disposing of the various peripheral realms. Australia's path to independence was so effortless that it just kind of... happened... in the background, and so too was Canada's - to the extent that years later both countries had to ask Westminster to actually do the paperwork to make it all official (in 1986 and 1982, respectively).
On this point too I ask - when is any of this to happen for Scotland? If we're to wait until a future UK government decides it's time to get serious, it will in effect make Scottish self-determination entirely dependent on the whims of the English electorate.
Are they always voting SNP because they are pro-independence or voting SNP because they agree with their policies on day to day issues like taxation? Personally I think the SNP have better policies on taxation than the Conservatives in Westminster.
This is one of the issues when trying to extrapolate the results of Thursday's election and saying that it gives a mandate for independence.
There may be some people who voted SNP in the election who would vote No in an independence referendum, and likewise some people who voted Conservative/Labour/Liberal Democrat who would vote Yes in an independence referendum.
Yes, these are valid points - it is always difficult to make meaningful estimation of support for any one commitment picked out of a party's manifesto. Given, however, that the SNP have made no secret of the fact that another referendum would be sought I think it has to be read that every single SNP (and also Green) voter on Thursday is at the very least not opposed to the holding of another referendum, even if their intent is to vote against independence at that time.
