ChatterBank5 mins ago
Reversible Devolution
The Westminster Parliament has already granted Scotland and Wales devolution through passing the relevant law. While Scotland and Wales remain within the United Kingdom and if a majority supports such a move, would it be correctly undestandood that the Westminster Parliament can at any time pass a law reversing devolution and take back all the powers from their Scottish and Welsh counterparts ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by KARL. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Yes I imagine it can. I wish it would as I view devolution as one of the most ridiculous (and unfair on the English) measures ever taken in consitutional matters. But no government ever would for fear of upsetting a few people.
The thing I find most puzzling about devolution (and indeed full independence as sought by Alex Salmond) is that nobody seems to consider what the English might think. England is by far the largest constituent part of the UK with more than five times the population of the other three constituents put together. Whatever the Scots may think, their independence will have a profound effect on the remainder of the United Kingdom. My own personal view (as an Englishman) is that I would be more than happy to see Scotland go its own way. But nobody thinks of asking my opinion and it's outrageous.
The thing I find most puzzling about devolution (and indeed full independence as sought by Alex Salmond) is that nobody seems to consider what the English might think. England is by far the largest constituent part of the UK with more than five times the population of the other three constituents put together. Whatever the Scots may think, their independence will have a profound effect on the remainder of the United Kingdom. My own personal view (as an Englishman) is that I would be more than happy to see Scotland go its own way. But nobody thinks of asking my opinion and it's outrageous.
If a wife decides to divorce her husband, NJ, nobody asks him or his family if they're prepared to allow her to do that. They may not like it, but they can't prevent it, generally speaking. Why, therefore, would one nation in a union feel any need to ask the inhabitants of the other if THEY approve of a move to independence?
Only those on the electoral rolls of Scotland - of whatever nationality they might be themselves - are the ones who will decide...and rightly so.
Only those on the electoral rolls of Scotland - of whatever nationality they might be themselves - are the ones who will decide...and rightly so.
The reason why, QM, is that Scotland is not an independent nation state and has no more right to demand independence than does Cornwall or Pimlico. Under the current law a wife is entitled to demand a divorce with or without her husband's consent so your analogy is inappropriate.
I appreciate that it would be impossible (and indeed undesirable) to compel the Scots to remain part of the UK if that was not their wish. However, the UK has a clue in the name - it is a United Kingdom of Great Britain (of which Scotland is a part) and Northern Ireland. It was a union into which Scotland freely entered and any decision regarding the future of that union should rightly be a matter for all the people of all the constituent parts. However, there is absoluitely no possibility of them being asked because I believe that a large majority of English people would not be sorry to see Scotland leave. And that's not what most politicians want.
I appreciate that it would be impossible (and indeed undesirable) to compel the Scots to remain part of the UK if that was not their wish. However, the UK has a clue in the name - it is a United Kingdom of Great Britain (of which Scotland is a part) and Northern Ireland. It was a union into which Scotland freely entered and any decision regarding the future of that union should rightly be a matter for all the people of all the constituent parts. However, there is absoluitely no possibility of them being asked because I believe that a large majority of English people would not be sorry to see Scotland leave. And that's not what most politicians want.
Scotland is totally different from Cornwall and Pimlico. Independence was ceded to the English parliament under the Treaty of Union in 1707. Abrogation of this treaty by either side would allow Scotland to be an Independent nation again.
As a Scot living in England I totally agree that there should be a vote to see if The people living in England want to keep Scotland attached.
As a Scot living in England I totally agree that there should be a vote to see if The people living in England want to keep Scotland attached.
"I appreciate that it would be impossible (and indeed undesirable) to compel the Scots to remain part of the UK if that was not their wish."
So, NJ, let's assume that the inhabitabts of Scotland DO vote for independence, an unlikely occurrence anyway, it seems. Your statement above - and particularly the word "impossible" - would seem to suggest that giving the inhabitants of England, Wales and Northern Ireland any say in the matter would be a waste of time.
It seems absurd to me that anyone might imagine the Scots would ask the English for "permission" to go their own way! What would be vastly more rational - and IT ain't going to happen either - would be for Scots furth of Scotland who still feel "Scottish" to have some say in the matter.
At any rate, the die is cast in the matter of who will vote, so debating it any further is a waste of time. (I don't know if you remember, but you and I have been exactly here before, so we might as well leave it at that.)
So, NJ, let's assume that the inhabitabts of Scotland DO vote for independence, an unlikely occurrence anyway, it seems. Your statement above - and particularly the word "impossible" - would seem to suggest that giving the inhabitants of England, Wales and Northern Ireland any say in the matter would be a waste of time.
It seems absurd to me that anyone might imagine the Scots would ask the English for "permission" to go their own way! What would be vastly more rational - and IT ain't going to happen either - would be for Scots furth of Scotland who still feel "Scottish" to have some say in the matter.
At any rate, the die is cast in the matter of who will vote, so debating it any further is a waste of time. (I don't know if you remember, but you and I have been exactly here before, so we might as well leave it at that.)
No that isn't my point, QM.
To use an analogy which may help, if a member [Scotland] of a private club [the United Kingdom] wants to leave, he simply does. He does not have to ask anybody. However in a private club not only does the individual have the right to leave, the club has the right to expel him. If the question of the individual's membership is under debate all the other members of the club [the electorate of England, Wales and Northern Ireland] should be asked their opinion. And they have not. It's not a question that English people should be in a position to prevent Scotland leaving (though as I explain below I believe, srictly speaking, that they are); it is more a question that they should be asked if they want Scotland to stay.
Your contention is not quite correct, hb. The Treaty of the Union cannot be dissolved unilaterally. Article One of the treaty:
"...that the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN."
Note "...and forever after". Not until one of them gets fed up with the idea. Note also that none of the other 24 Articles make any provision for the Treaty to be dissolved unilaterally. Note also Article 3 which provided for the creation of the one, unified, parliament of Great Britain and Article 25 which provided that all laws of either kingdom that may be inconsistent with the Articles in the Treaty are to be declared void.
All this indicates that the Treaty is permanent and whilst I repeat it would be undesireable for the UK Parliament to compel the Scots to remain in the Union against their wishes, the determination on that issue is a matter for Westminster alone.
To use an analogy which may help, if a member [Scotland] of a private club [the United Kingdom] wants to leave, he simply does. He does not have to ask anybody. However in a private club not only does the individual have the right to leave, the club has the right to expel him. If the question of the individual's membership is under debate all the other members of the club [the electorate of England, Wales and Northern Ireland] should be asked their opinion. And they have not. It's not a question that English people should be in a position to prevent Scotland leaving (though as I explain below I believe, srictly speaking, that they are); it is more a question that they should be asked if they want Scotland to stay.
Your contention is not quite correct, hb. The Treaty of the Union cannot be dissolved unilaterally. Article One of the treaty:
"...that the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN."
Note "...and forever after". Not until one of them gets fed up with the idea. Note also that none of the other 24 Articles make any provision for the Treaty to be dissolved unilaterally. Note also Article 3 which provided for the creation of the one, unified, parliament of Great Britain and Article 25 which provided that all laws of either kingdom that may be inconsistent with the Articles in the Treaty are to be declared void.
All this indicates that the Treaty is permanent and whilst I repeat it would be undesireable for the UK Parliament to compel the Scots to remain in the Union against their wishes, the determination on that issue is a matter for Westminster alone.
NJ, any club I have ever heard of that wishes to expel a member has to have grounds for doing so, generally his/her refusal to comply with that club's rules. Precisely which 'club rule' has Scotland broken?
As regard your "forever after" point, there are many legal situations where such an ancient proviso has been shown to be a nonsense in modern times. Our family home, for example, built in the 18th century, has a condition in the title deeds which permits the owner to take peat from Meg's Moss nearby "in perpetuity". The problem is that what was Meg's Moss is now the site of a rather upmarket housing estate! Are you suggesting that I still have a perfect right to go along there with barrow and shovel and dig up all the gardens or even start burrowing under the houses?
As I said earlier, "debating it any further is a waste of time." I shall simply be satisfied by the fact that both Westminster and Scottish parliaments believe the appropriate electorate for the independence vote is precisely the same electorate that I consider appropriate; namely, one that does NOT include any inhabitant of England, Wales or Northern Ireland !
As regard your "forever after" point, there are many legal situations where such an ancient proviso has been shown to be a nonsense in modern times. Our family home, for example, built in the 18th century, has a condition in the title deeds which permits the owner to take peat from Meg's Moss nearby "in perpetuity". The problem is that what was Meg's Moss is now the site of a rather upmarket housing estate! Are you suggesting that I still have a perfect right to go along there with barrow and shovel and dig up all the gardens or even start burrowing under the houses?
As I said earlier, "debating it any further is a waste of time." I shall simply be satisfied by the fact that both Westminster and Scottish parliaments believe the appropriate electorate for the independence vote is precisely the same electorate that I consider appropriate; namely, one that does NOT include any inhabitant of England, Wales or Northern Ireland !
I am Welsh and voted against devolution and have never changed my mind about it. It is just another level of bureaucracy. I would love Westminster to pass a law reversing devolution. As far as I can remember there were about 25% in favour of devolution but because of the number who didn't vote (couldn't be bothered or didn't care either way) the minority won.
Lawyers will be able to supply chapter and verse.... BUT
I think Karl's point is a good one - which is - can these things be reversed ?
Lord Denning in around 1973 discussed this - I think in the case where a member of the public tried to arrest Edward heath for treason -
and basically pondered whether if the Independence of India Act 1946,7 were repealed - and parliament can do anything as we know - would India become the Indian Empire again. He thought no
so then we are left with the idea that there are some things that Parliament can't undo.
In 1929 Newfoundland - then not part of Canada - as a result of a balance of payuments deficit ( = was gonna go bankrupt) renounced Dominion status and went back to whatever it was before - a Colony I think. No one said Oh they can't
Just thoughts - dont know what the answer is.
I think Karl's point is a good one - which is - can these things be reversed ?
Lord Denning in around 1973 discussed this - I think in the case where a member of the public tried to arrest Edward heath for treason -
and basically pondered whether if the Independence of India Act 1946,7 were repealed - and parliament can do anything as we know - would India become the Indian Empire again. He thought no
so then we are left with the idea that there are some things that Parliament can't undo.
In 1929 Newfoundland - then not part of Canada - as a result of a balance of payuments deficit ( = was gonna go bankrupt) renounced Dominion status and went back to whatever it was before - a Colony I think. No one said Oh they can't
Just thoughts - dont know what the answer is.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.