By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hapimeses said:
Mr Khan said:
I think it's silly, honestly. Scotland's got the best of both worlds, a devolved parliament which decides on most things but war and how to manage the pound sterling, without having to fend for themselves.

Sometimes independence is the right choice, but not all the time, and really not here (the Scots'll learn that the hard way. Being an independent nation under the sterling, or joining the Eurozone, will be bad juju for them economically).

If that was the case, there would be far fewer people in Scotland looking to vote yes, and the leaders of the three primary parties would not be offering the Scottish parliament significantly more powers. As it stands, the devolved parliament holds much less power than you suggest, requires Westminster approval for any further powers, and can also be dissolved at the whim of Westminster without any legal argument against it. Yes, the current situation for Scotland does have some advantages, but it does not have the best of both worlds by some significant measure.

It *can* be dissolved by Westminster, just like Westminster *can* pass "Bills of Attainder" or *can* re-establish the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but it's not going to do any of those things.

Scotland now is a bit like Puerto Rico, except the Scots get full representation in Parliament as well as a wide range of self-rule options at home and the benefits of being integrated into a larger, more dynamic economy, with a strong currency which the country is in full control of.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.