Scots 'would vote against independence...

9 years. That's almost a generation in Glasgow. 

I think that in pretty much every country across the globe (probably all but there may be an exception or two out there) the power over the integrity of that country’s borders lies with the state. Whether that gets described as the People, the Parliament, the Party or whatever depends upon the country, but it all boils down to the same bottom line. 

In pretty much all of these countries, the default position of the state is to preserve its borders from both external and internal pressures. 

Is that reasonable? in the case of external pressures I don’t think that many people would suggest otherwise but in the case of internal pressures it is not so clear cut.

There are thousands of separatist movements across the globe, from fledgling “2 men and a dog” crank set-ups to genuinely distressing examples of oppressed and victimised peoples from sub-national territories who understandably want to free themselves from their current position of being systematically brutalised by their state mechanisms. Scotland lies somewhere in the middle of the range in so far as our independence movement is of a very significant scale and has to be taken seriously, but, despite the risible rhetoric of the Indy fanatics, it is not subjected to any oppression or victimisation, never mind systematic brutality, from the state. Indeed, arguably quite the reverse.

Is it reasonable for countries ( or states, if you prefer that term as some seem to) to protect the integrity of their borders from internal pressures? Yes, in my view it is, up to the stage where the scale and the intensity of belief in separation crosses over the critical tipping point, and then it becomes unreasonable. Changes of such magnitude should only happen when they represent the clear and sustained will of the people affected, not least because, while theoretically reversible at some later stage, in practice they are irreversible once implemented. Also, if states didn’t take the default status quo position, and acceded to every separatist movement within its borders, then not only would the state itself be in a constant state of destabilising flux, but the international community and global stability would be heavily impacted too. States arguably have a duty to their people and to the international community to act as a drag on separatism.

There are plenty of examples out there of where sub-national territories have crossed over the critical tipping point and separation/independence is still being denied the peoples of those independence seeking territories. Scotland has not reached that stage but, if and when it does, there is no reason to doubt, and (based upon its actions so far) every reason to anticipate that the UK Parliament will respond appropriately and engage in Scotland’s independence when/ if we ever reach that stage.

So, should the power lie with the UK Parliament? Up to a point, yes it should ... but the power to take it beyond that point and to deliver independence is in the hands of the Scottish people. We just don’t want it enough at the moment to seize that power.

Hi happyjack

A reasonable answer. Can't really quibble. It's time the independence supporting side acknowledged that the reason scotland isn't independent is because half the people don't want it. Not because scotland is oppressed. Then start winning folk over.

1. Yes we have, so you waste your time repeating things ad infinitum if you want, but I won’t.

2. I don’t know, and neither do you, but if that is true then presumably they did so to try to resolve differences quickly and acceptably, without recourse to the cost and the delay that taking the matter to the Supreme Court would result in?  Rather than explore the possibility of a mutually tolerable compromise, Sturgeon is choosing to delay things indefinitely and, at the end of the process, she may well lose the judgement, putting all of the provisions of the new GRA in doubt and really harming those she professes to be fighting for. Of course, maybe she is hoping for precisely that because that would heal the divisions between her and her party, and between her and the majority of the Scottish people, on this matter, without her losing face or being seen to be backing down. 

3. That’s just emotional claptrap. If Scotland was entitled to a solution that addressed the concerns of its people then why wasn’t England and its people entitled to the same consideration? Cameron’s mistake was one of timing (which was shocking) not of principle.

4. This is just the typical Indy fanatic childish response that we see from you and your ilk on a routine basis.  Of course Scottish people have democratic rights, just like their fellow countrymen throughout the country have.  However, this “Scottish Democracy” term has started popping up a lot recently and I would like to understand what those who use it mean by it. Presumably you don’t know or can’t define it, otherwise instead of deflecting you would just have produced that definition.

5. The myth and the emotion are intertwined and inseparable. The former feeds the latter and the latter, in turn, feeds the former.

6. That strikes me as another hollow gesture, doomed to further highlight the Indy movement’s impotence to change things, and dampen down or turn off many of the more reasonable YES voters’ enthusiasm for the cause. However, things are getting increasingly desperate in Indyland so perhaps we will see them attempt that one day. When we do, we will know that the game is nearly up, I reckon.

7. Unfortunately for the Indy movement, it is a Catch 22 situation. You might want to change the “lack of status” but you can’t because you lack the status do so.

8. The whole Indy argument, as far as I can see. It strikes me as being little more than a collective whinge and national self-pitying exercise.

9. I haven’t taken note of what you suggest but if there is a constitutional remedy then it is surprising that it hasn’t been tried by now, particularly as the Indy movement is resorting to increasingly desperate means to try to further its case. If you are talking about the initiative that you outline in point 6 above, then all that seems to do is  facilitate an early election but thereafter, irrespective of the result, I don’t see how it changes anything any more than the original, and  now apparently dumped, de facto election would have changed anything ie. not one bit. Just another desperate measure doomed to fail or to be ignored, as far as I can see.

16-18year olds can vote in Scottish elections - Holyrood & council. The National should have known better when setting the parameters.