"...you cannot change the constitution of any organisation (golf club, drama group, whatever) without a solid majority in favour. A 51% vote in favour of change leaves just too many supporters of the status quo feeling denied and frustrated. You have to demonstrate a solid majority if you want to take everyone with you. Freqently in these cases a two-thirds majority is needed to bring about radical change...."Today the Herald publishes an article by arch-nationalist columnist Ian McWhirter in which he writes ....
"...Well, in Canada....the Supreme Court did indeed rule on the wording of the independence referendum in the French-speaking province of Quebec in 1998. ...in a landmark ruling now internationally recognised as a definitive statement on the rights of secession by disgruntled minorities, it ruled there was no right at all in international or domestic law for one part of a state to leave unilaterally. And even if independence were to be agreed by the other parts of the state, there would have to be absolute clarity over what the independence question meant, and a substantial majority in favour of independence, not just a simple majority..."Earlier this month the Scottish Football Association (SFA) changed its constitution to allow a different voting structure. The change required a 75% majority. The SFA is an important organisation in Scottish life, and many people have an interest in its effective operation, but its governance is far less important than the governance of the state itself or the country.It therefore seems unacceptable that the currently effective governance of the country could be overturned by a simple majority of Scots voting in a one-off referendum.
If the turnout at a referendum was at the same level as recent elections, a 51% vote in favour of independence would need the actual votes of less than a third, maybe even a quarter, of the electorate. This is no basis to create a new country. If the referendum is to go ahead there must be a threshold - two-thirds of votes cast or 45% of the electorate, or some similar substantial proportion – that would secure the acquiescence of the minority in the upheaval implied by breaking up the UK.
After all, if a majority threshold is a necessary requirement to change the constitution of the SFA, or your local golf club, it’s not a lot to ask in respect of radical changes to the governance of Scotland.
The EU standard - as it set for the recognition of Montenegran independence was 55% of the ballots cast.
ReplyDeleteBy the way did the referendum held by Gorby in 1991 on the continuance of the USSR - the population overwhelmingly supported retaining the union. Less than a year later-----
And all because some boneheaded unionists decided they did not like the devolution of more powers to the Republics as Gorby planned to settle nationalist grumblings.
Like Carson in Ireland. Like the powers that be in Vienna during the Habsburg period. Like Philip II towards the Netherlands ---- etc
Interesting, the point about bone-headed unionists opposing powers to ..whatever: the SNP opposed the Constitutional Convention, they opposed Devolution and the opposed Calman.
ReplyDeleteBone-headed or what?
55% of ballots cast seems low to me. on a 52% turnout (as at the latest election) that's still less than 30% of the population who suport your new country.... not a recipe for a happy state, IMO.
Maybe you don't care...?
If we went for independence on a 55% vote with a 52% turnout, that would give us 28.6% supporting the constitutional situation, 23.4% opposing it, and 48% not caring either way.
ReplyDeleteTrue, this would not be ideal. But the only other option - ignoring the result, as you recommend - would leave 28.6% opposing the situation and only 23.4% supporting it. You reckon that would be a better recipe for a happy state?
Not looking for "ideal" Colin. There is no such thing as an "ideal" country or state on this Earth.
ReplyDeleteIf you need further answer, look at what I said .."..a 51% vote in favour of independence would need the actual votes of less than a third, maybe even a quarter, of the electorate. This is no basis to create a new country. If the referendum is to go ahead there must be a threshold - two-thirds of votes cast or 45% of the electorate, or some similar substantial proportion – that would secure the acquiescence of the minority in the upheaval implied by breaking up the UK. "
You can't have a new country with the active support of less than a third of the voters...
Try to address that..please..
Out of interest Braveheart, what is your view on the relatively low turnout in the recent public sector ballots for strike action?
ReplyDelete61.1% of members voted in favour of strike action and 83.6% in favour of action short of strike, on a turnout of 32.4%.
Does that constitue a clear majority voting for strike action? as the Union leaders would have us believe?
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/id/82282757-8D2E-46CC-84513AA776A35D65
"arch-nationalist columnist Ian McWhirter"
ReplyDeleteLOL! Your statement of Iain Macwhirter's political position is about as accurate as your spelling of his name. But it's good to see Labour already panicking about losing the vote and demanding another fiddle like 1979 to try to thwart the democratic wishes of the Scottish people.
If Scotland votes 51%-49% for the Union we'll accept it. But wow, look how scared you are of Scotland's voice.
Non-voters are not voters, they have ceded their opportunity to affect the outcome. By the standard of needing a plurality of eligible voters assuming 52% turnout, then you'll need over 96% of the actual voters to prevail! It's actual voters that steer near every democracy, and should be the only consideration here too.
ReplyDeleteJim
ReplyDeleteI think that they are not votes to change the constitution of the union.
Popeetc.,
A substatial majority is a requirement of international law and democratic precedent. You might not like it and you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But your opinion does not have the force of international law or democratic precedent. Sorry.
Chris,
Non-voters are, by definition, not voters. That's obvious and a truism.
But it's not unreasonable, in law and in precedent, to expect the proponents of a major change to get a substantial proportion of the electorate to endorse that change.
I agree with the law and precedent, you apprently do not.
Which laws and precedents would these actually be?
ReplyDeleteBingo, read the post and Ian McWhirter's article....and then ask again if you don't understand.
ReplyDeleteSo you have no idea, then? (And clearly, STILL no idea how to spell "Iain Macwhirter", so clearly you can't have been reading his post too clearly.)
ReplyDeleteGreat Answer Braveheart!
ReplyDeleteA vote that you don't mind winning can have no constraints on the turnout.
A vote that you fear losing needs extra criterion.
Jim
ReplyDeleteIt's not personal, or about just my opinion. It's law and precedent.
You might not like the law. You might not like the precedent.
But don't blame me, and if you really want to advance the discussion, please address these points.
You haven't made any points about either. You've cited an irrelevant comparison to Quebec (a province, with no connection to the Scottish constitution) and a hilariously laughable one with the SFA, a commercial organisation.
ReplyDeleteNeither of these are law in Scotland (or the UK), and therefore neither sets any legal precedent. So if you'd like me to address issues of law and precedent, you're going to have to come up with some instead of this utterly pathetic effort.
I do wonder if you have any idea how desperate and scared you look. You've been telling us for decades that the Scottish people are overwhelmingly against independence, but now there's going to be a referendum you're panicking and trying to fiddle it, and the only conceivable reason for that is because you fear you might lose.
I've offered you a situation where 61% of voters on a 32.4% turnout ( < 20% of eligible voters in favour of strikes then) give an organisation carte blanche to inflict massive disruption to the lifes of thousands of ordinary people, trying to get by, not to mention the perceived cost to the economy.
ReplyDeleteThat would appear to be as relevant a precedent as any you have offered.
Jim
Jim
ReplyDeletethanks for the offer, but it's not me that says you need a "substantial majority" to change the constitution, it's international law and precedent.
why do you think internatinal law is wrong?
International law? Who agreed that then?
ReplyDeleteActually - International law??? You're just making stuff up now! What a hoot!
If it's such an important "International law" and precedent, why are the Union movement not subject to it? or is your International law not applicable to the 'Internationales'?
I'm most amused by the squirming that you 'Unionists', who are so sure that the majority of Scotland DO NOT want independence, are putting yourselves through on this subject though.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteit's in the post!!! have you read it?
to quote
"...Well, in Canada....the Supreme Court did indeed rule on the wording of the independence referendum in the French-speaking province of Quebec in 1998. ...in a landmark ruling now internationally recognised as a definitive statement on the rights of secession by disgruntled minorities, it ruled there was no right at all in international or domestic law for one part of a state to leave unilaterally. And even if independence were to be agreed by the other parts of the state, there would have to be absolute clarity over what the independence question meant, and a substantial majority in favour of independence, not just a simple majority..."
It's quite clear.
ReplyDeleteYou don't like it.
But it's quite clear...
Braveheart
ReplyDeleteI've never said I don't like anything here. I'm just hugely amused at the double standards in terms of what constitutes a 'clear majority' (< 20% of eligble voters actually voting according to the PCS).
Now your assertion that the Canadian Supreme court (wasn't Canada one of our colonies?) can make a ruling that becomes law in this country simply beggars belief.
'Internationally recognised' - ROTFLMFAO! What the hell does that mean? Everyone sat down and agreed to this did they? or do you mean that everyone who agrees with this, agrees with it and people who don't agree with it don't count.
Jim