Does This Place Not Allow Different Opinions?

[BigBearScot]

No not like Devo. Federal uk means a written constitution and then Indy becomes v hard if not impossible. So v different to Devo.

A Federal UK and written Constitution is never going to happen, would require a total mindset change from Westminister.

Hypothetically speaking, if a written Constitution didn't allow a mechanism for a Country(Region) to secede democratically from the Federation then I would say that it isn't very democratic and goes against many principles that a written Constitution is meant to protect(the right to self determination for one).

[DonnyTJS]

A Federal UK and written Constitution is never going to happen, would require a total mindset change from Westminister.

Hypothetically speaking, if a written Constitution didn't allow a mechanism for a Country(Region) to secede democratically from the Federation then I would say that it isn't very democratic and goes against many principles that a written Constitution is meant to protect(the right to self determination for one).

I think there's every chance of a written constitution, framing some form of botched-up 'federal-ish' settlement (presumably based in part on English regional assemblies). The argument would be that it would protect the rights of the constitutent entities from domination by any of the others, in practice it would make secession a huge constitutional hurdle.

Your suggestion that such a contitution isn't very democratic is really just a problem with democracy and its various interpretations. The "right to self-determination" would be enshrined within the constitution, but it would be the right of the majority within the nation state so-constituted (the UK) to determine its future. The most successful (in terms of long-lasting) written national constitution is that of the USA. To secede, a member state would have to gather sufficient support from legislators representing other states to amend the constitution - highly unlikey to happen. Even if a number of states wished to secede, it's almost impossible to do it constitutionally - it was tried, it ended in the Civil War.

[Hessen]

I do get where Wee Barry's coming from. Of course you are allowed different opinions down the years we've had English trolls etc. but there is a tacit understanding that if you are not a Nat then you are an outsider. I've been a member of this forum for 8 years now on and off. When I first came on I got involved in a political topic and was called a "troll" for being unionist. Even though I'm a Scotland fan on a Scotland fan's board. Go figure?

The problem I have with this argument is that we are seeing true blue unionists on here who say they are Scotland fans. They don't believe at all in an independent Scotland but support it's team. They seem to want a collective hug and be told everything is going to be okay, and they can still come to watch Scotland.

Is this because it is just good fun, and the alternatives for a unionist are the Aberdeen Women's Institute, the Kelso Lawn Bowls Club, or supporting Team GB at dressage? If this is the case maybe you should consider coming over from the not-very-fun dark blue side and embrace your Scottish roots.

I use the word 'unionist' as that is how you described yourself, or were described by others.

[BigBearScot]

I think there's every chance of a written constitution, framing some form of botched-up 'federal-ish' settlement (presumably based in part on English regional assemblies). The argument would be that it would protect the rights of the constitutent entities from domination by any of the others, in practice it would make secession a huge constitutional hurdle.

I personally don't believe there is an appetite for a written constitution, it is only really the Lib Dem and Greens who support the idea. A lot of people in the body political believe that the current unwritten constitution is a lot more elegant and unwieldy than a written one.

Even if a number of states wished to secede, it's almost impossible to do it constitutionally - it was tried, it ended in the Civil War.

Indeed and that is my big worry if a written Constitution comes into force with no really way for States secede, it might not lead to a Civil War but you would certainly have a fair bit of Civil Disobedience.

[EvilScotsman]

Austerity measures will continue, yes.

As I said, the NHS is a debatable subject. Many healthcare professionals suggested it was safer in the Union, others disagreed.

I'd wager that wouldn't be the case at all.

Nobody knows what would've happened. It's as simple as that.

There's insufficient evidence to suggest poverty levels would improve in an Independent Scotland.

Getting back to my original point, to suggest No-voters were just in it for themselves and don't care about those in poverty is a completely unfair assumption.

Yes, after the initial name-calling and pettiness, things settled down a bit.

Are you suggesting that free at the point of delivery healthcare was not in the interim constitution? Even the Labour party are saying the NHS is f*cked (when they're south of the border - as soon as they get North of Berwick everything is rosy in the NHS garden).

I've never said anything WOULD be better in an independent Scotland, merely that it's guaranteed that austerity and neoliberal economic policies will continue with a 'No' vote.

Of course there would be risks in an indy Scotland. However, there would at least be the potential for change for the better, which ain't gonna come through Westminster and its interchangeable Red and Blue Tory bastards.

I don't think I can make this any simpler and I'm fed up of repeating myself. You're either being wilfully disingenuous or not following my logic. Either way I'm out.