General Election 2015

[AberdeenBud]

History will judge Cameron as being completely unhinged in the latter stages of this campaign.

Seems to be going that way, doesn't he?

I've always thought he's a relatively accomplished politician, but several "head's gone" moments already. It will get worse as well if Lynton Crosby's late poll break continues not to materialise.

[Mr Heliums]

But to be absolutely clear, throughout history a unilateral decleration of anything has always required the other interested party's aquiescence to that decleration, otherwise you have a bit of an impasse.....

The glorious irony of this fantastical situation is that we'd probably get Russian support. And all the Trident hand-wringers would think: "This Russian threat illustrates exactly why we need our nuclear deterrent. Now, where did we put Trident?"

[Baxter Parp]

no, UDI, were it so enacted from Holyrood would not directly lead to Scottish independence unless Westminster decided to aquiensce. Alternatively you could try and get other countries to recognise your seperation but ultimately the only way UDI works is if Westminster decides it's not worth the hassle trying to hang on. Now, back in the old days, pre-devo, when the SNP winning a majority of Scottish seats could reaosnably be seen as a change in public perception towards Indy then there is a clear route via UDI. Now, there is not that same link, obviously and particularly post indyref1.

But to be absolutely clear, throughout history a unilateral decleration of anything has always required the other interested party's aquiescence to that decleration, otherwise you have a bit of an impasse.....

Pish.

A unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) is a formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by a subnational entity which declares itself independent and sovereign without a formal agreement with the national state from which it is seceding. The term was first used when Rhodesia declared independence in 1965 from the United Kingdom (UK) without an agreement with the UK.^[1]

[welshbairn]

Pish.

A unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) is a formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by a subnational entity which declares itself independent and sovereign without a formal agreement with the national state from which it is seceding. The term was first used when Rhodesia declared independence in 1965 from the United Kingdom (UK) without an agreement with the UK.^[1]

That went well.

[strichener]

no, UDI, were it so enacted from Holyrood would not directly lead to Scottish independence unless Westminster decided to aquiensce. Alternatively you could try and get other countries to recognise your seperation but ultimately the only way UDI works is if Westminster decides it's not worth the hassle trying to hang on. Now, back in the old days, pre-devo, when the SNP winning a majority of Scottish seats could reaosnably be seen as a change in public perception towards Indy then there is a clear route via UDI. Now, there is not that same link, obviously and particularly post indyref1.

But to be absolutely clear, throughout history a unilateral decleration of anything has always required the other interested party's aquiescence to that decleration, otherwise you have a bit of an impasse.....

The process of UDI is, by definition, declaring independence without the agreement of the nation state. Therefore if westminster agreed it would not be UDI. What happens after UDI is declared is secondary to the declaration.

[HomelandsOur]

That went well.

The original UDI was the declaration of Arbroath, that did go well.

[renton]

Pish.

A unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) is a formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by a subnational entity which declares itself independent and sovereign without a formal agreement with the national state from which it is seceding. The term was first used when Rhodesia declared independence in 1965 from the United Kingdom (UK) without an agreement with the UK.^[1]

The point here is that the UK had the ability to oppose that UDI if it so wished. The aquiesence in this case is implicit. A UDI is unilateral, however the actual act of becoming independent must me multilateral. You are getting swept up in the notion that declaring independence makes it so - it doesn't. Another example might be the colonies in 1776 who took unilateral action and were met by resistance from Britain. A refusal by Westminster to recognise that act would effectively leave us in an impasse at best.

Let me reiterate, in the bad old days pre devo, a UDI on the basis of a majority SNP MPs had some traction as a route to independence. Now, it does not. Simple as that, and it's massively unlikely that Westminster would see it as such, at which point, what are you gonna do? The only way to get the kind of multilateral agreement to that point is via a popular vote on that single issue. Now, I've argued previously that even a consultative referendum on the issue (i.e. not one endorsed by Westminster) would be enough to demonstrate a popular opinion tha tthey could not ignore - but a UDI on the basis of the FPTP electoral system just does not come close.

[renton]

The process of UDI is, by definition, declaring independence without the agreement of the nation state. Therefore if westminster agreed it would not be UDI. What happens after UDI is declared is secondary to the declaration.

We are arguing at cross purposes here. A unilateral decleration is of course, unilateral - it still requires the other party to agree to that decleration after the fact though.

[Fide]

Well, this is all rather dull chat.

[FuzzyAffro]

Cameron tweeting a video of Salmond joking about writing Milibands speech. Must be getting desperate

Just so you know, Cameron won't make his own tweets. The party do that for him, and he almost certainly has never even logged onto Twitter and won't know how to.

[Granny Danger]

I think the whole UDI debate is a bit of a red herring. That said I think we are in constitutional unchartered waters.

When the Westminster parliament agreed to a referendum they did so at a time the polls showed that the result was a foregone conclusion. Would they have done so if they knew just how close the result would be and what the impact on the wider political awakening of the Scottish electorate?

Had they not agreed we would have had an issue at that time; however that is history.

If in 2016 or 2021 a Scottish Parliament is elected with the majority of MSPs belonging to parties that have promised a further referendum what will the Westminster politicians do? Theoretically they can refuse this, but the implications would be serious and long term. With the precedent being set I think there would be no option but to hold a further vote on independence.

[oddly optomistic]

Just so you know, Cameron won't make his own tweets. The party do that for him, and he almost certainly has never even logged onto Twitter and won't know how to.

Either way, it's pretty pathetic

[Mr Rational]

Fairly sure I've seen that guy in the Arches.

As posted before.

[Mr Rational]

[renton]

I think the whole UDI debate is a bit of a red herring. That said I think we are in constitutional unchartered waters.

When the Westminster parliament agreed to a referendum they did so at a time the polls showed that the result was a foregone conclusion. Would they have done so if they knew just how close the result would be and what the impact on the wider political awakening of the Scottish electorate?

Had they not agreed we would have had an issue at that time; however that is history.

If in 2016 or 2021 a Scottish Parliament is elected with the majority of MSPs belonging to parties that have promised a further referendum what will the Westminster politicians do? Theoretically they can refuse this, but the implications would be serious and long term. With the precedent being set I think there would be no option but to hold a further vote on independence.

Well aye, as I said even a consultative referendum yes vote held without implicit agreement of westminster would probably demonstrate enough of a popular sentiment that Westminster could not ignore it. Declaring indy on the back fo a majority SNP MPs in the 59 seats is no where near the same legitimacy - not in the modern age where the SNP is far more than a single issue party (albeit still their raison d'etre).

The simple fact is that a unilateral declaration has no special force in any law anywhere, and the westminster establishment would be well within it's rights to resist such a thing - certainly on the basis of the 30/59 SNP MPs - unless you could demonstrate a clear popular mandate for it. Hence why I keep saying a unilateral action by one party still requires the mutual agreement of all interested parties after the fact.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Well, this is all rather dull chat.

The only practical purpose to it would be to decide on what anniversary to observe Independence Day.

The UDI?

Recognition by Westminster?

Recognition by Brussels?

Recognition by the UN

Royal Assent?

Assuming that we can't have a day off for each of them I'd choose whichever gave us the best weather.

[FuzzyAffro]

Either way, it's pretty pathetic

It is, and is even worse than if it was just Cameron. That's party strategists paid to consider the climate and respond accordingly and that's what they considered appropriate.

[BerwickMad]

The Tories tactics seem to have gone from bullying Miliband, realising it was backfiring, to a total frenzy. They seem to be desperately throwing Boris Johnson around to comment on anything these last few days.

[orlandoblue]

Regardless of your political persuasion is Nicola Sturgeon's boast of locking the Tories out of Downing Street even if they are the largest party bitter and undemocratic it is it perfect democracy in action ?

[doulikefish]

Regardless of your political persuasion is Nicola Sturgeon's boast of locking the Tories out of Downing Street even if they are the largest party bitter and undemocratic it is it perfect democracy in action ?

Its beautiful democracy in action