Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 21:14:24 GMT -6
Scotland's territory and airspace (including its territorial sea) comprises nearly 40% of that of the UK, and its exclusive economic zone comprises more than 60% of that of the UK. Aerial and maritime surveillance and defense of this area would become the responsibility of a new State with only 8% of the population and GDP of the current UK. If current SNP policy were followed it seems likely that the NUK nuclear deterrent would have to leave Scotland, despite the fact that most Scots currently support the UK nuclear deterrent. The process would take years and would be costly, and the future of the NUK deterrent could be put in doubt. This could pose a threat to the credibility of NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which will lean heavily on the nuclear weapons capabilities of the UK and France in periods when an American President is in office who is a less determined supporter of European defense than is the Present President. The UK Government and Parliament should think again about how the independence issue should be handled.
They should start thinking about how to ensure – as far as it is possible to do so – that any future decision on Scottish independence would represent the settled and enduring will of the Scottish people, rather than a snapshot of public opinion on the day of the vote. They should also consider how the interests of the rest of the UK could be addressed and secured in the negotiations which would lead to independence, and whether any of those interests might be of such importance that their satisfactory protection would be essential if the UK were to recognize Scottish independence. The Phone Number List UK Government and Parliament might conclude that a condition for recognizing the independence of Scotland should be a majority vote in two referendums, both of which would require the approval of the UK Government. The idea of having two votes was advanced by former Prime Minister Sir John Major in a wide-ranging lecture entitled “The State we're in” delivered at the Middle Temple in November 2020. For an analysis of the advantages of double referendums by Professor Richard Rose see here.
The present writer would advocate that the two-vote scenario play out as follows. If the Scottish electorate voted “yes” in the first referendum, negotiations on issues such as trade and border arrangements, a defense pact, Faslane Naval Base (home of the UK's nuclear deterrent), division of the national debt and military and other assets, and currency arrangements, would begin (for the views of the present writer on how some of these issues might be resolved see here). Those negotiations might be lengthy. In due course there would be a transition to financial autonomy, in which UK central government financial support would be gradually withdrawn, and Scotland would fully fund its own expenditure. A second referendum would take place after agreement on all outstanding matters had been reached, and after a period of Scottish financial autonomy. At that stage the shape and feel of independence would have become clearer to the Scottish electorate. If there were a majority for independence in the second referendum, an Act of the UK Parliament would recognize the establishment of an independent Scotland, and the legal succession of the NUK to the UK. It would be understood from the outset that the UK would only recognize Scottish independence if the legitimate interests of the.
They should start thinking about how to ensure – as far as it is possible to do so – that any future decision on Scottish independence would represent the settled and enduring will of the Scottish people, rather than a snapshot of public opinion on the day of the vote. They should also consider how the interests of the rest of the UK could be addressed and secured in the negotiations which would lead to independence, and whether any of those interests might be of such importance that their satisfactory protection would be essential if the UK were to recognize Scottish independence. The Phone Number List UK Government and Parliament might conclude that a condition for recognizing the independence of Scotland should be a majority vote in two referendums, both of which would require the approval of the UK Government. The idea of having two votes was advanced by former Prime Minister Sir John Major in a wide-ranging lecture entitled “The State we're in” delivered at the Middle Temple in November 2020. For an analysis of the advantages of double referendums by Professor Richard Rose see here.
The present writer would advocate that the two-vote scenario play out as follows. If the Scottish electorate voted “yes” in the first referendum, negotiations on issues such as trade and border arrangements, a defense pact, Faslane Naval Base (home of the UK's nuclear deterrent), division of the national debt and military and other assets, and currency arrangements, would begin (for the views of the present writer on how some of these issues might be resolved see here). Those negotiations might be lengthy. In due course there would be a transition to financial autonomy, in which UK central government financial support would be gradually withdrawn, and Scotland would fully fund its own expenditure. A second referendum would take place after agreement on all outstanding matters had been reached, and after a period of Scottish financial autonomy. At that stage the shape and feel of independence would have become clearer to the Scottish electorate. If there were a majority for independence in the second referendum, an Act of the UK Parliament would recognize the establishment of an independent Scotland, and the legal succession of the NUK to the UK. It would be understood from the outset that the UK would only recognize Scottish independence if the legitimate interests of the.